Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Ordinance Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Charlotte County planning commission asks staff to review multiple zoning ordinance provisions
Summary
The Planning Commission reviewed a list of potential zoning ordinance amendments on Sept. 27 and asked staff to research other localities and return recommendations in October; topics include residential care-home standards, Planning Commission initiation authority, CUP review timelines, sawmill rules, car dealerships and livestock markets.
The Charlotte County Planning Commission on Sept. 27 reviewed a staff list of potential zoning ordinance amendments and directed staff to research comparable policies in other localities and return recommendations at the Commission’s October meeting.
Staff identified a set of specific items for review, including local regulations governing residential homes for the aged, infirm or disabled and whether those provisions align with the cited Virginia code sections (staff referenced VA Code 15.2-2291.B and local sections 2-8-6.2 and 2-8-6.7). The commission was asked to consider updates to ensure state-code compliance.
Commissioners also reviewed inconsistent language in the ordinance about when the Planning Commission may initiate zoning amendment reviews. Staff highlighted that one section requires referral by the Board of Supervisors while another permits the Planning Commission to initiate an amendment; staff asked the commission to recommend consistent wording (sections 2-8-6.7 and 2-8-7 were cited).
The commission discussed the processing timeline for conditional-use permits (CUPs), including whether to increase the current 100-day review period or to add an additional review period when a related 2232 review is required (section 2-8-7.5 was referenced). Members asked staff to analyze how timeline changes would affect applicants and county review resources.
Staff also recommended renumbering and relocating sawmill supplementary regulations into the general supplementary-regulations article (Article 9) and updating numerous state-code references throughout the ordinance.
Finally, commissioners considered whether certain uses—specifically car dealerships and livestock markets—should remain allowed by-right in the General Agricultural district or be reclassified as conditional uses. Commissioners requested that staff research how other jurisdictions handle livestock markets and car dealerships and report findings to the commission in October.
The commission did not take any final votes on ordinance amendments at the Sept. 27 meeting; staff will prepare recommended language and comparative research for future action.
