Planning manager briefs Staunton City Council on land‑use procedures and common applications

Planning Manager Tim Hartless told Staunton City Council on May 8 that the most frequent land‑use items the council will see are special use permits and rezonings, and that other matters such as final plats, master plans and planned residential developments (PRDs) also come before the body.

Hartless said a special use permit is “a special approval given by city council for a specific use on a specific property,” and noted that the city’s zoning code lists by‑right uses and “uses permitted on review,” the latter being those that require council action. He told council that “within the special use permit, you have the ability … to create just about any reasonable condition … in order for that use to be compatible with the surrounding area.”

He described two types of rezonings: standard rezonings that change a parcel’s base district and conditional rezonings in which an applicant voluntarily “proffers” limits on uses for the property. Hartless said conditional rezonings appear on the zoning map with a “C” (for example “R‑3C”) and “each one of those conditional zonings has its own specific ordinance with its own specific regulations.”

Hartless reviewed plats and the review pathway: minor subdivision plats are handled administratively, preliminary plats are reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission, and final plats return for council consideration after commission recommendation. He said master plans typically accompany planned residential developments and are required when a development will create multiple lots or mixed uses.

On PRDs, Hartless said they are approved by special use permit, require a master plan and typically include minimum lot sizes, setbacks, open space and amenities; in exchange, PRDs may cluster density to accommodate difficult topography or provide public‑benefit amenities. He noted PRDs require homeowner associations to maintain common areas and that the review process is more time intensive because of site‑specific standards.

Hartless also described infrequent items council might see: variances to subdivision standards (for example narrower street widths or sidewalk waivers), appeals of Historic Preservation Commission decisions on certificates of appropriateness, and appeals of Planning Commission decisions under the city’s entrance‑corridor regulations. He advised council to defer overturning commission decisions unless there is “a compelling reason” or additional information not before the commission.

Hartless concluded by offering to return for deeper briefings on any of the topics if council wanted more detail.