Planning Commission recommends approval of broad zoning ordinance amendments after public hearing

The Charlotte County Planning Commission on March 28 recommended approval of a package of zoning ordinance amendments after a public hearing.

The commission considered a set of changes proposed by staff, including adding ‘Residential Facilities’ to Article 9 (Use Matrix) and Article 12 (Definitions) with authority cited to Virginia Code §15.2-2291.B; adding civil penalties for zoning violations in Article 2 (Administration); clarifying the ability of landowners and the Planning Commission to initiate zoning amendments and the zoning administrator’s role in reviewing amendment applications (revisions to §2-8-6.3 and §2-8-6.7); and revising conditional-use permit review timelines in §2-8-7.4 and §2-8-7.5 to provide six-month review periods with majority-vote authority to extend each period by up to six months.

Staff also presented ordinance changes to reclassify motor vehicle leasing/rental/sales as a conditional use in the General Agricultural, Village Center and General Industrial districts and to add a definition for the use; to designate livestock markets as a conditional use in General Agricultural and Intensive Agricultural districts; to renumber §10-11-7 (Sawmills) and §10-22 (Site Plan Standards) for clarity; to update the VA Code cross-reference in §10-6-7 (Prohibited Signs) from §33.2-1200 to §33.2-1234; and to delete Telecommunication Tower §10-9-2.2 (Inventory of Existing Sites) and remove the phrase “radio frequency coverage” from §10-9-5 (Information Required).

There were no questions from the public during the hearing. Following staff’s presentation, Commissioner Cornell Goldman moved to recommend approval of the proposed zoning amendments as presented; Commissioner David Watkins seconded the motion, which the minutes record as carried with all members present voting yes. The recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for further action.

The hearing record cites the Virginia Code references noted above as the legal basis for some changes; staff also proposed purely administrative edits (renumbering and cross-reference updates) and use reclassifications intended to align the ordinance with current county policy objectives.

The commission’s recommendation does not itself adopt the ordinance changes; final approval rests with the Board of Supervisors.