Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Industrial Zoning Update topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Walkersville staff proposes overhaul of industrial zoning, adds agribusiness uses and considers taller heights
Summary
Planning staff proposed reorganizing industrial districts into light and general industrial categories, removing the limited industrial park category, and adding agribusiness-related uses; commissioners asked staff to add an amendment to permit heights up to 100 feet and discussed whether data centers should be addressed.
Planning staff presented proposed text amendments Sept. 23 to reorganize Walkersville's industrial zoning and clarify permitted uses, Susan said.
Susan said the intent is to simplify an existing catch-all industrial section and create two clearer districts: a lighter manufacturing-oriented light industrial district and a heavier general industrial district. "We also added some uses that we didn't have in our code, things like agribusiness and agricultural products processing, agritourism, farm brewery, farm distillery, farm winery," she said, noting the revisions include new definitions and a plan to remove the limited industrial park category.
A commissioner asked whether accessory heights in the light industrial district had been updated following a presentation from Lonza; Susan acknowledged staff had not yet incorporated a provision and said an amendment would be required to allow heights up to 100 feet where appropriate. "We did write the section to allow the height to go up to a 100 feet," she said, adding that the language will be added by amendment.
Commissioners asked whether the draft addresses data centers. Susan said staff had not explicitly added language on data centers and noted the code contains a catch-all provision for unlisted uses that could be reviewed by the Board of Appeals; she suggested staff could consult the county's mapping and work group on data centers to determine whether town-specific language is needed.
Commissioners also raised a code clarity point about noise standards: a possible typo in Section 88.54(c) and whether a numeric decibel threshold should be referenced. Susan said a numeric dB limit exists elsewhere in the town code for noise and she would confirm the location and correct the draft text.
No formal vote on the industrial text amendments occurred at the hearing; staff will update the draft language and return it for further review and public comment.
