MEETING MINUTES TOWN OF PURCELLVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING TURSDAY,UIY3N2UA TOWN HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS  Video Link: tps/purcelMvilevagranciscompaveerclp226/vew. id-l@redirect-true  COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Nan Forbes, Chair  Ed Neham, Vice chair (present remotely) Chris Bertaut, Town Council Liaison Troy Brown, Commissioner Brian Green, Commissioner Nedim Ogelman, Commissioner Ron Rise Sr., Commissioner COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:  None  STAFF PRESENT:Summer Wilkes, Director of Planning and Community Development; Andrea Broshkevitch, Director of Engineering and Capital Projects; Gifford Hampshire, Town Attorney Representative; Boyd Lawrence, Planning Manager; Jordan Andrews, Planner; Kendall  Wisniewski, Planning Operations Coordinator  CALLTOORDER:  Chair Forbes called the meeting to order at 6:30pm. The Pledge of Allegiance followed. Vice Chair Neham requested the insertion of discussion item 6.a to discuss Director Wilkes's staff report addressing citizen comments from the 7/25 public hearing for the proposed Zoning  AGENDA AMENDMENTS:  Ordinance.  COMMISSIONER DISCLOSURES:  Pursuant to Code of Virginia 2.2-3708.3 and Town of] Purcellville Resolution 21-06-06, Mr. Neham has requested toj participate in this meeting by electronic communication from a remote location that is not open to the public. Due to a medical condition, Mr. Neham will be participating in this meeting remotely from his home. As required by law, aj physical quorum of thel Planning Commission is present int the Council Chambers, and Town Staffhave arranged for the voice ofMr. Neham to be heard by all persons in the Council Chambers. Mr. Neham made the request within the timeframe required by policy and the Town Attorney has determined that his request meets the requirements for remote participation. The Planning Commission will record ini its minutes the reason for Mr. Neham'sremote participation and the location from  which he participated.  1Page    CITIZEN COMMENTS:  William Hombach, 200 S. 20th St., recently had his property rezoned to R-3A and wants the Donnie Ringeisen, 17197 Pickwick Dr., wants language added to the draft to ensure that his lot is Mark Broshkevitch, 17177 Pickwick Dr., questioned the urgency for pushing forward a document that has not been updated since the 7/25 public hearing and asked what the driving force is for amending the Zoning Ordinance to make hundreds of lots nonconforming. Eileen Boeing, 17181 Pickwick Dr., wants to see1 the changes discussed at the 7/25 public hearing within the document before the Commission makes a vote and requested for the voting process to slow down to consider the residents property rights and their issues with the proposed Margaret McDyre, 37757 Drawbridge Way, Chair Forbes read aloud the comment submitted by email requesting for the proposed draft and resolution to include either legacy or grandfathered Kwasi Fraser, 724 Sunflower Court, Chair Forbes read aloud the comment submitted by email sharing his support oft the proposed Zoning Ordinance as it aligns with the Comprehensive Plan Teah and Dustin Beazer, 17169 Pickwick Dr., Chair Forbes read aloud the comment submitted by email requesting for the proposed resolution to include grandfathered cluster subdivision  current R3A zoning district added as al legacy to the proposed draft.  conforming.  regulations.  cluster subdivision regulations.  and shared his gratitude to the Planning Commission for their dedication.  regulations. DISCUSSION ITEMS:  6.a Staff Report Following the 7/25 Public Hearing  Director Wilkes introduced the staff report addressing several oft the citizen comments from the Public Hearing for the proposed Zoning Ordinance draft. The staff report is attached. The  Commission addressed the topics outlined ini the report:  The Commission discussed their decision to remove duplex as aj permitted use in R-3. Commissioner Brown made ai motion to add the language from the existing Zoning Ordinance into the proposed draft to allow for duplex to be aj permitted use inl R-3. The Commission discussed their decision to remove the R-3A zoning district. Town Council Liaison Bertaut made the following motion:  There was no second.  2IPage    "Imove that the R-3A. zoning be moved to al legacy status within a separate appendix to the Zoning Ordinance that includes all oft the existing setbacks and other attributes ofthe zoning in order to memorialize the status of] R-3A zoning as a legacy district."  Commissioner Rise seconded the motion.  Commissioner Ogelman recommended a friendly amendment to the motion "to make sure that the language in the legacy districts not only refer to ai restriction on the expansion ofe existing districts, but on the creation of new districts". The Commission and Town Attorney Hampshire further discussed the definition ofal legacy district. Chair Forbes asked Council Liaison Bertaut ifhe accepts the friendly amendment to include the definition of legacy in the appendix which will define a legacy district as described by the Town Attorney in this meeting. Council Liaison Bertaut accepted the amendment with the addition to include al brief description of rights retained in the definition. Chair Forbes added that no new land can be designated as a zoning district that  isal legacy. Council Liaison Bertaut accepted the amendments.  Commissioner Green seconded the motion.  (Carried 7-0, Neham: Aye, Bertaut: Aye, Brown: Aye, Green: Aye, Forbes: Aye, The Commission discussed their decision for PDH legacy districts. Commissioner Green made the following motion:  Ogelman: Aye, Rise: Aye)  "T'mj proposing that for PDH legacy that the language stating the various PDH's (5,8, etc.) using the language that they will be legacied and also that they will not be used in expansion for other or new PDH's and new. PDH districts, and also remove any other references to PDH's, whether they havel been used or not (PDH 1,2, etc.), from the  Zoning Ordinance draft."  Council Liaison Bertaut seconded the motion.  (Carried 7-0, Neham: Aye, Bertaut: Aye, Brown: Aye, Green: Aye, Forbes: Aye, The Commission discussed their decision to remove the cluster subdivision option. The Commission asked Town Attorney Hampshire to draft language for ai motion to  Ogelman: Aye, Rise: Aye)  grandfather cluster subdivision regulations. Commissioner Ogelman made the following motion:  Imove that we propose to the Town Council that they replace the existing language in Section 5 with ai recommendation that existing cluster subdivisions be conferred in grandfather status in any adoption oft the new Zoning Ordinance. Meaning that those  3Page    properties need only conform with the existing zoning standards under which those  subdivisions were approved.  Council Liaison Bertaut seconded the motion.  (Carried 7-0, Neham: Aye, Bertaut: Aye, Brown: Aye, Green: Aye, Forbes: Aye, The Commission discussed their decision to include the! Historic Properties Overlay The Commission discussed the individual request for a zoning classification. Mrs. Kipfer does not want her property zoned as Agricultural Commercial Tourism as outlined ini the Planning Commission's? Zoning Ordinance draft. The Commission decided to make: no The Commission then reviewed Commissioner Rise's edits to the Use Table in the draft and Commissioner Ogelman made the following motion: I move that farm equipment and supply sales and services be reintroduced into the AC district Use Table as a SUP.  Ogelman: Aye, Rise: Aye)  District. The Commission decided to make no change.  change.  made the following changes:  Commissioner Green seconded the motion.  (Carried 7-0, Neham: Aye, Bertaut: Aye, Brown: Aye, Green: Aye, Forbes: Aye, Ogelman: Commissioner Rise made the following motion: I motion that fueling station int the proposed Zoning Ordinance on page 62 for IB be changed from Permitted to Special Use Permit. (Carried 7-0, Neham: Aye, Bertaut: Aye, Brown: Aye, Green: Aye, Forbes: Aye, Ogelman: Commissioner Rise made the following motion: Imotion that nature preserve uses be  Aye, Rise: Aye)  Commissioner Ogelman seconded the motion.  Aye, Rise: Aye)  expanded tol R2, R3, and IP districts as a Permitted use. Commissioner Ogelman seconded the motion.  (Carried 7-0, Neham: Aye, Bertaut: Aye, Brown: Aye, Green: Aye, Forbes: Aye, Ogelman: Commissioner Rise made the following motion: Motion for petroleum, propane, and other flammable liquids, storage, distribution, and sales be changed from a Permitted use to a Special  Aye, Rise: Aye)  Use Permit under IB.  Commissioner Green seconded the motion.  (Carried 7-0, Neham:. Aye, Bertaut: Aye, Brown: Aye, Green: Aye, Forbes: Aye, Ogelman:  Aye, Rise:. Aye)  4/Page    Commissioner Rise made the following motion: that the playground use in IB district be changed from Permitted tol Not Permitted, and changed in RT district from not Permitted tol Permitted. (Carried 7-0, Neham: Aye, Bertaut: Aye, Brown: Aye, Green: Aye, Forbes: Aye, Ogelman: Commissioner Rise made the following motion: Motion to add Permitted Use for temporary  Council Liaison Bertaut seconded thei motion.  Aye, Rise: Aye) stand in IB district.  Commissioner Green seconded the motion.  (Carried 7-0, Neham: Aye, Bertaut: Aye, Brown: Aye, Green: Aye, Forbes: Aye, Ogelman:  Aye, Rise: Aye)  Vice Chair Neham made the following motion:  Imove that we change the content of Subsection 10.1.2 Board of Zoning Appeals to: The Board ofZoning Appeals (BZA)is a five-member quasi-judicial board, appointed by the Town Council, that meets as cases arise. The BZA is responsible for hearing and deciding on requests for variances from the Town's zoning regulations, hearing and deciding appeals of administrative determinations made by town officials, hearing and deciding appeals ofthe zoning administrator's decisions, and hearing and deciding on interpretations of district boundaries. Its  powers are as set forth in Subsection 10.3.5. Commissioner Rise seconded the motion.  (Carried 7-0, Neham: Aye, Bertaut: Aye, Brown: Aye, Green: Aye, Forbes: Aye, Ogelman:  Aye, Rise: Aye) ACTION) ITEMS:  7.a Zoning Ordinance Revision  The Commission agreed that they have no more changes to add to the Zoning Ordinance draft and reviewed draft Resolution 24-07-03 recommending the Zoning Ordinance to the Town Council found in the agenda packet. Vice Chair Neham suggested to insert "(2) and the addendum of changes approved at the meeting of. July 31, 2024" into the Now, Therefore, Be It Council Liaison Bertaut made the following motion: I move that we adopt Resolution 24-07-03  Resolved section of the proposed resolution. asj just amended by Commissioner Neham. Commissioner Ogelman seconded the motion.  (Carried 7-0, Neham: Aye, Bertaut: Aye, Brown: Aye, Green: Aye, Forbes: Aye, Ogelman:  Aye, Rise: Aye) ADJOURNMENT:  5Page    Commissioner Rise thanked Chair Forbes, Vice Chair Neham, and Commissioner Ogelman for With no further business, Commissioner Green motioned to adjourn at 9:27 pm.  their intellect and service.  Chair, Planning Commission  as of09/19/2024  Lindall U  Kendall Wisniewski, Planning Operations Coordinator  6IPage    MEMOTO: Planning Commission  FROM: RE:  Summer Wilkes, Director ofPlanning and Community Development/Zoning: Staff Report following the 7/25/24 Public Hearing on the Zoning Ordinance  Administrator  This staff reports summarizes the issues raised during thej public hearing on July 25, 2024, as well as public comments received through email and in-person meetings with staff. The list of  issues are as follows:  1) Removal of duplex from R-3 2) Removal of R-3A zoning district 4) PDH "legacy" districts  3) Addition oft the Historic Properties Overlay District  5) Other written requests fori individual zoning classification changes a. Mrs. DiPalma-Kipfer, proposed ACI District 6) Removal of Cluster subdivision option from RR-R-R-S/rauting in  nonconformities  Removal of duplex from R-3  All comments regarding duplexes were: ini favor of keeping them and not rendering them nonconforming. Why should they not be included in "areas to sustain" since they are long- Staffstill recommends to. keep duplex as aj permitted use. Iti is not an issue in the single- family suburban R-3 neighborhoods, as HOA restrictions would not permit duplexes anyway. Int the "town" areas where the R-3 district is designated, it is an appropriate density, as well asal means for affordable housing and aj possible desired use tol help property owners to maintain historic homes. Staffrecognizes that the future land use: map in the Comprehensive Plan is labeled "single family detached traditional" in current R-3 traditional areas. But the language regarding housing affordability on pages 23-25 oft the Comprehensive Plan is strong support for maintaining the affordable and well-kept units that exist. Towns and cities have historically supported a diversity of housing options forj persons who do not want or cannot afford a single family detached home. Well-designed duplexes that match the existing character are preferred (page 32, "Scale" oft the Comp Plan) to more multi-family apartment  standing uses?  building developments. 2) Removal of R-3A zoning district  Two citizens spoke in favor of keeping the R-3A zoning district, including Mr. Hombach whose property was recently rezoned to R-3A to establish a B&B. Siaffrecommends keeping R-3A. There is no strongjustification to terminate it.  1    3) Addition of the Historic Properties Overlay District  Several citizens made comments about this proposed district. Most were opposed, but two residents spoke in favor and one: resident was neutral with a concern to "do it well."  Staff still recommends to not adopt the district at this time. Language from Mr. Neham suggested via email:  4) PDH "legacy" districts  The PDH-2, PDH-5, and PDH-8 Zoning Districts permit the continued existence ofe established PDH- 2, PDH-5, and PDH-8 developments. However, neither the expansion oft the existing PDH-2, PDH- 5 or PDH-8 Zoning Districts nor the creation ofr new PDH districts arej permitted after December 31,  2024. Staffrecommends:  The PDH-2, PDH-5, and PDH-8 Zoning Districts permit the continued existence of established PDH- 2, PDH-5, and PDH-8 developments. Heweverymeither The expansion oft the existing PDH-2, PDH-5 and eF PDH-8 Zoning Districts OFheRateeFRee-PPHdlseAre is not permitted The language recommended by Staff follows the language used by Loudoun County in their  after December 31, 2024.  recently adopted ordinance, which has been legally proofed. 5) Individual requests for zoning classification  a. Mrs. Kipfer,  i. Mrs. Kipfer has had al long-standing protest (since 2008) with the Town to not zone her property as agricultural commercial tourism. Assigning this zone does follow the Comprehensive Plan, with which she also disagreed. One possible solution at this juncture is to leave it alone as the current zoning of"x transitional" until the matter can be examined further.  6) Removal of Cluster subdivision option from R-2/R-3/R-S/R-15, resulting in  nonconformities Staffprovides the following report:  Summary:  An issue has resurfaçed within the past month about aj potential problem with the proposed changes to the R-2 and R-3 zoning districts. The removal of the provision for cluster subdivisions in current Article 6, Section 5 has triggered a nonconforming status for dozens (potentially 100-+) approved lots in] R-2 and R-3 subdivisions, since many oft these subdivisions were designed using the cluster provision. During the Commission deliberations in the past two years, this consequence went undetected by Planning Staff and Commission members until it was noticed by Andrea Broshkevitch, Director of] Engineering for the Town, and reported to  2    Planning Staff about ai month ago. Thej provision for cluster subdivisions is also in the R-8 and CAVEAT: Ih have not documented every conversation and nuance for this issue. Ic don't have the time to review all the videos for past meetings and provide every: reference. I welcome all feedback and corrections as we dialogue about the issue. Iwill also say that the staff discussed whether or not we should bring upi the issue at this "11th hour," or wait until the first September meeting to be able to fully research and present our findings, but Ib believe that we can resolve  R-15 districts, sO those will also be discussed here.  this issue in ai timely manner to address citizen conçerns.  Details:  Int their May 31, 2023 memo, the ZoneCo consultants noted that "references to cluster subdivisions were removed from alll base districts" and their draft ordinance dated 5/31/23 did not contain the cluster provision. It appears that the Planning Commission asked for the removal -Ican find no evidence that it was a ZoneCo recommendation. What was the rationale for removing them from all districts? (Again, please contribute your understanding to the  discussion).  There was al PC work session ini the Heritage Room in March of2023, where cluster subdivisions were discussed. Martha Semmes (interim zoning administrator): made the statement "well, you could just get rid oft them." The word "could" implies a suggestion to me, not ai recommendation. It was at theoretical statement, or an option to consider. It appears that no one on staff (Martha, Boyd, or. Jordan) or on the PC looked at the actual ramifications oftaking this clause out. Idid not think to investigate it either, assuming it was a settled issue. [Another, point of note is that the R-2 and R-3. subdivisions don' 't look like cluster subdivisions, sO it is not obvious; they really aren' 't true clusters, even though theyf follow the rules in our ordinance, which are not well- written). It's not until you dig into thej plats that you see that the subdivisions used the cluster option. It was only when Andrea approached: me and Jordan about a month ago that I realized the nature oft the situation. Andrea lives in an R-3 area and her own home would be affected by this change, but this issue was also a problem she had dealt with before inj reviewing subdivision This is some information that Ed sent also (from Ed's email - 7/25/24), showing some PC  plats. feedback:  ZONING ORDINANCEARTICDSTHROUCHYCOMMENTS Item Reviewer Comment Date Document Document Page-No. Document  Date: June 12,2 2023 Name (mm/dd/ywy) Forbes  Revlewer Request SUBDIVISIONS Theya arei intendedtop preserve open space.1 Theya are usedb byd developers tol increaset thec densityo onas site- to put" "badla land"a asidea as" "open"a and pilen mores structurese on" "good! land", Perhapsk havet thed densityof developablel landd determined and then doc clusteringf fromt that- not includet then nondevelopable! land.  Comp Change Priority Planning Commission Plan Type (High, Response  VersionDate (mm/dd/ywy)  Section  Reference  110 Nan 03/12/2023 Articles4-9 02/21/2023 201 6.24CLUSTER Dow wev wanto dusters subdivisions? N/A Substantial  REMOVE THIS- WE DON WISH1 TO HAVE CLUSTER SUBDIVISIONS.  3    Back in 2021, Andrea had two Patrick Henry interns look at all the existing subdivisions and she created a chart of all their approved parameters. All existing R-2 and R-3 subdivisions on this chart, except for Catoctin Meadows, are cluster subdivisions. (Section 1 ofC Catoctin Meadows was R-1 when approved; Sections 1-4 ofLocust Grove were R-1 as well, which means that they Ihave attached the chart she created. Ihave also attached some sample plats - on the first page ofthese documents, you can see the parameters that were approved for them. As you will notice on the chart, there is variation among the subdivisions. I did not see her chart until a few weeks ago. ButIdid assume this variation ini my "town and suburb" concept that Ij presented a few months ago. My idea for sustaining the suburban neighborhoods into "Neighborhood Preservation Zones" was to simply "freeze" them according to their approved parameters - theyjust continue to obey the rules approved for them. There is no need tol have another set of development standards because "no one size fits all" with these subdivisions. Aj particular problem with the proposed ordinance for some of these subdivisions is the side yard setback of 10 feet. For example, in the Villages of] Purcellville, the R-3 part of! Mayfair and in Old Dominion Valley, the approved setbacks are 5 feet. This setback provision alone would render them nonconforming under thei new. R-3 rules. The nonconforming status would affect the building of decks and additions to these homes (triggering the need for variances, which can Some R-2 subdivisions are affected by the minimum lot width as well. For instance, Hirst Farm isa an R-2 cluster subdivision that has an approved 75 foot min lot width - lots here would be Regarding the R-8 and R-15 districts, there were no reductions specified for R-8 and R-15 ini the current. Article 6, Section 5. These denser areas have lot sizes that are well below the cluster option of 7000 square feet for R-2 and R-3 even if applied by inference, SO it'sai moot point.  meet the now R-2 standards).  needlessly add to the cost of construction).  nonconforming without the cluster provision (see plat attachment).  These districts should be analyzed further.  FOR REFERENCE: Min. lot size: 15,000sf Min. lot width: 100: feet Min. lot depth: 100 feet  Existing R-2 and Proposed R-2 (with assumption of public water and sewer):  Min. front yard setback: 25 feet Min. side yard setback: 10 feet/25 feet total Min. rearyard setback: 25 feet  Existing R-3 and Proposed R-3 (with assumption of public water and sewer):  Min. lot size: 10,000sf Min. lot width: 75ft Min. lot depth: 100ft  Min. front yard setback:25ft Min. rear.yard setback: 25ft  Min. side yard setback: 101 ft/25) feet total (old  R-3)  4    The regulations for cluster subdivisions are found in Article 6 Section. 5: Toavoidi making many lots nonconforming, here are some potential solutions:  and are attached for reference.  Clusters subdivisions  Option 1:  Restore the cluster subdivision provision to R-2 and R-3, with an additional statement could be re-inserted into the language ofR-2 as Subsection 2.6.4 clustering provision, it  regarding legacy status for approved subdivisions. Ifretaining the  2.6.3.b (add to "Generally Applicable Subsection 2.7.4 or 2.7.3.b.  (new subsection) or into R-3as  Regulations" as second item) and  Option 2:  Change the minimum development parameters in R-2 and R-3 to the lowest denominators to make sure all are conforming, for existing and future ofthese developments are cluster subdivisions (except for Catoctin development. All neighborhoods are "areas to sustain," and therefore desirable, what is Meadows) the  common - ifthese justification for  future developments tol be different?  Option 3:  Adopt the Neighborhood Preservation Zone" for R-2 and R-3 suburban subdivisions The NP Zone is a form of legacy - neighborhoods simply conform to their No other parameters are necessary; attach at table or provide a hyper link with rules for approved subdivisions or state that the table is available at the  with link to approved plats  approved rules existing Planning  Department.  N.B. Iwould like to add a separate but related statement. If this logic ofr lots in R-3 and the suburban areas of R-2, then it most definitely "town" areas with single family traditional detached the various minimum standards. The same- - meaning that the nonconformities exist now in the traditional have asserted that the R-2 district does not function suburban in nature and should  nonconformity applies to applies to many lots in the R-2 regulations are the town areas. This is whyI  homes. There are many lots that are below as well as it should, that its standards are  current regulations and thej proposed not be applied to the traditional areas oftown.  5