MINUTES PAGE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION March 25, 2025 Members Present Catherine Grech, Secretary, District 1 Jared Burner, Chairman, District 3 William Turner, Vice Chairman, District 5 Chris Adams, District 2 Staff] Present Josh Hahn Tracy Clatterbuck Cassie Richards James Campbell Call to Order Chairman Burner called the March 25, 2025 Page County Planning Commission Work Session to order in the Board of Supervisors (BOS) Room located at the Page County Government Center, 103 S Court Street, Luray, Virginia at 7:00 p.m. The call to order was followed by The Pledge of Allegiance and a Moment of Silence. Chairman Burner reminded all commissioners and speakers to please turn on and/or speak into the microphones. Mr. Hahn conducted an attendance roll call. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Turner made the motion to adopt the agenda, as presented, and Ms. Grech seconded the motion. Chairman Burner asked all thosein favor to signify by saying "aye, " and there were audible "ayes." He asked all those opposed to signify like sign, and there was no opposition voiced. Chairman Burner stated the minutes were adopted as presented. New Business A. Adoption of Minutes- March 11, 2025 Chairman Burner allowed some time for any necessary changes to be noted. Mr, Hahn noted that in the Call to Order section the year should be 2025 instead of 2024. Mr. Adams noted in Adoption of Agenda; Mr. Turner should be the person who seconded motion, as Mr. Adams was absent. Mr. Turner made a motion to adopt the minutes, as amended, and Ms. Grech seconded the motion. Chairman Burner asked all those in favorto signify by saying "aye,' " and there were audible "ayes. " He asked all those opposed to signify like sign, and there was no opposition voiced. Chairman Burner stated the minutes were adopted as amended. Unfinished Business A. Daniel Housden- Special Use Permit for Commercial Workshop Ms. Clatterbuck noted she had followed up with Building Official James Campbell to address Ms. Grech's concerns for fire safety. Ms. Clatterbuck referenced a memo to the Commissioners. Mr. Campbell and the applicant had met onsite and discussed this matter. Ms. Clatterbuck stated the applicant would like to increase the workspace to a 24' X 60' area. Ms. Clatterbuck proposed referencing the use of the whole building in the conditions. There was discussion over conditions and duration of special use permits. Chairman Burner asked ifthere were anymore changes to the conditions, and there were none. The public hearing is scheduled for April 8, 2025. Planning Commission Minutes- March 25, 2025 B. Subdivision of Land Ordinance Amendment Mr. Hahn had a brief introduction, noting that Tyler Racey from Racey Engineering was present. He had served on the Subdivision Subcommittee and was particularly helpful in synthesizing VDOT entrance requirements, which is a topic for tonight. He noted Mr. Helm was also present, more for the next item on the agenda, but he might also be able to speak to this topic. Chairman Weakley was unable to be in attendance, but he understands that Chairman Weakley was able to recently speak with Chairman Burner. Chairman Burner stated the gist of the conversation was him explaining the Planning Commission's position, and Chairman Weakley explaining the Board's position. Mr. Weakley explained his concept of a functional right-of-way. There are certain instançes, ifyou look at the broader picture, where for sliding-scale rules, functional rights-of-way may be an option. What he had tried to relay to Chairman Weakley was that the whole point of the 50' right-of- way was of one person only wants one division for two houses, but someone later wants more divisions ifthey didn'tdo their homework up front, it is going to be difficult to move forward. It all boils down to planning. Chairman Weakley seemed to understand that. There could potentially be a scenario, such as sliding scale, and you're limited to the number of lots you can have, such as a 6-acre lot is a 50' right-of-way really necessary? That's where the functional right-of-way could be an option, if property owners wanted to spend money on an engineering study to determine a smaller width was necessary. Chairman Weakley didn't want to eliminate that option. Chairman Burner stated he could see that for smaller lots, but once you get up to a certain size, he thinks you're pretty much going to need the 50' right-of-way. He invited Mr. Austin to speak. Mr. Hahn referençed an item in the packet provided by Mr. Austin for the Subdivision Subcommittee and also items provided by VDOT on entrance categories, as well as their original letter. He noted that the biggest thing the amendment proposal does is require VDOT entrance approval for divisions, though there is the new requirement of a 50' right-of-way for 25-acre divisions. Non-family divisions already require a 50 right-of-way. He asked Chairman Burner if Chairman Weakley had any concerns regarding VDOT approval of entrances. Chairman Burner stated that once Chairman Weakley understood that this requirement is pretty much the same in every other locality, he was completely understanding. His thing was that he thought this would be a hindrance compared to other localities. We're not putting ourselves at a disadvantage; we're just becoming level with everybody else. Part ofthis is public safety. We need to make sure the entrance is at a safe place for people to enter in. We don't want to be dividing up land, and then down the road, you can't get an entrance in because it's not a safe spot. What was the point of the division in the first place? It boils down to more accurate planning. Mr. Hahn added that we had it in our ordinance, but the wording was challenged four or five years ago, because it required VDOT approval when the right of way was established. Because they weren't constructing the entrance, yet, it was argued the division didn't require VDOT approval. All we are doing is trying to go back to what we thought we already had. Mr. Austin stated that what he had presented was what VDOT's subdivision street standards require. Unless there is specifically a one-lane, 16-foot wide driveway. .anything else, for a two-lane road, we're at 46 feet. And that is a best-case scenario, flat piece of land, pitch and grade. In our terrain, you're pretty much going to use that full 50'. That would be the only case, in his opinion, for one or two lots. But what always happens is those one or two lots turns into six or seven, and now you have a right-of-way that could meet VDOT standards. Page 2 of 6 Planning Commission Minutes- March 25, 2025 Ms. Grech wanted to put this into context. There has been a tendency in past years, and it's accelerating, where we see developers acquiring large tracks of land, and dividing them and dividing them. The 25-acre rule accelerates this. She referenced the VDOT document = these are the current requirements. How do we plan for the future? She is getting tired of seeing attempts to circumvent ordinances, and she thinks it is hypocrisy. Mr. Austin suggested that a 50' right-of-way requirement with VDOT entrance approval addresses concerns. There was further discussion about how the 25-acre rule, and how it is currently used mostly to cut up land faster. Mr. Austin reiterated that the problem isn't the two or three lots; it's later on when people want to add two or three more. He thinks sliding-scale will help a lot. It's already 50', why are we going away from that? This way they might be able to turn it over to VDOT, SO it's not a private subdivision street that never gets maintained, HOA dissolves, and it's never maintained. Chairman Burner asked if he was correct that if VDOT is not involved with the procedure to begin with, and down the road they want to bring it up to VDOT standards, it's very difficult. Mr. Austin agreed. VDOT will need to see how it was installed. It's problematic ifit's not even a 50' right-of-way. Ms. Grech noted that as the Chairperson of the Comprehensive Plan Subcommittee, the Comprehensive Plan is mandated to address transportation. The main issues for transportation in Page County are VDOT/road issues. So how can we have a document like the Comprehensive Plan, which mandates that we plan for 20 or 25 years, and then not have a Zoning Ordinance we don't want to look further than the tip of our nose? This is essential for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, in her opinion. Mr. Hahn asked ift the Planning Commission wanted to address functional rights-of way in the current draft. He noted that VDOT doesn't approve the right-of-way. They are approving the entrance. But they aren't going to sign off on a [private] 50' right-of-way - that is the duty of the Clerk ofthe Commission. Chairman Burner asked how an engineering study would be done for a functional right-of-way. Mr. Austin stated that it was mostly grade. They will take whatever the county says that they have to have, and he summarized this. Chairman Burner stated that it sounds like 99% of the time, it would still be a 50' right-of-way. Mr. Hahn stated it sounded like the Planning Commission preferred to consider functional rights-of-way more in conjunction with sliding scale. Ms. Grech asked Mr. Austin if the 50' right-of-way was directly related to safety. Mr. Austin stated that this was more about being in line with VDOT standards. Ms. Grech asked ifthese standards are related to safety, and Mr. Austin stated that a lot of it was drainage, as well. You have to have a way to convey water from the centerline of the road. The speed limit for subdivisions is generally 25 mph, sO safety isn't as much of an issue. Chairman Burner asked if utility easements are typically within the right-of-way, and Mr. Austin stated that they are typically within, and that's part ofit. It takes room to take this in, including for power poles. He doesn't think requiring 50' is a big deal. Maybe with sliding-scale, where there is a limitation on total number of divisions, 40' might make sense. VDOT has a tried and true system. The ultimate goal is one ofthese days that VDOT takes thei right-of-way in sO that they maintain the road for the citizens. A lot of times, developers just want to get in and get out. You want to have the ability to turn it over to VDOT. Mr. Hahn referenced recent discussions in the Comprehensive Plan Subcommittee that one thing we may need to do better is encourage Page 3 of 6 Planning Commission Minutes- March 25, 2025 residential development in towns where this infrastructure already exists, rather than in rural areas. He thinks it may be significantly cheaper to build in rural areas. Chairman Burner expressed agreement, adding that this has been a common understanding in planning meetings in past years. Spreading residential development isn't cost-effective. Ms. Grech stated we have become complacent when developers say that Class A/Class B Subdivisions are too expensive. She thinks it's probably no more expensive than other places, but people are. just used to Page County having lower standards. That's not right we need to stop selling ourselves short. She stated she would like it to be noted in the minutes that what is proposed here can be called a "band-aide" amendment. We'rejust improve a very badly written ordinance. You should never have an ordinance with most of the ordinance body written under the definition of a verb, "SUBDIVIDE.: > She noted Mr. Helm was expressing agreement. This is a badly written ordinance. She noted that 2(a) states that the proposed division is not in conflict with the general meaning of the chapter. She reads this to mean that you can't circumvent the contents ofthis ordinance, yet we see it happen all the time. We need to do much more than just the redlines that we have, here. She knows that this is happening in the Subdivision Subcommittee. Meanwhile, we're losing acreage at a rate in Page County that she thinks is 3 times faster than the average rate in Virginia. Maybe it's due to this? She doesn't know anyone else who has a 25-acre rule. Chairman Burner stated he thinks the general consensus is to send it back the way it is. There was further discussion on how to relay these thoughts to the Board of Supervisors, and whether to include possible language regarding a functional rights-of-way. Mr. Helm noted his concern that they're going to need a lot more: regulations and definitions to really spell all of it out, not just a quick definition to show an idea. His concern is that this would give far too much for the Board to try and work through in an active meeting, versus really setting all these regulations out. Ms. Clatterbuck suggested that the consensus letter could establish that functional rights- of-way were considered, but that it may be easier to implement using sliding scale. Ms. Austin noted that he sees 25-acre division requests every day in his office. Most people are not going to spend the money for him to design a 40' road with topo and to figure out if they can make that fit. That is an insane expense. Ms. Grech stated that there's going to be a limited amount oftime between this band-aide amendment and the consolidated ordinance, so it might be better to make this simple change and move on. Mr. Hahn stated this was a great point. What we don't want to be doing in five years is trying to determine what months in 2025 did we allow functional rights-of-way without sliding scale. Ultimately there was consensus for staffto draft a consensus letter for the Planning Commission to review and the Chairman sign, and send it back to thel Board of Supervisors. There was discussion about what to include in the letter. Mr. Hahn stated he would work on this for the next meeting. Chairman Burner noted that he expressed to Chairman Weakley that he would be in attendance when this topic comes to the Board, and Chairman Weakly thought that was a good idea. C. Zoning Ordinance Amendments: Banquet/Event Facilities Mr. Hahn noted that Mr. Helm was present for this topic as well as well as thel Building Official, James Campbell. He summarized the history ofthe proposed ordinance amendments, including what had taken place at recent Board of Supervisors meetings regarding this proposal. as well as recent actions regarding the Festivals Ordinance. Mr. Hahn's biggest question was: Is Page County compelled to allow and regulate outdoor events? The Festivals Ordinance allows outdoor events for if 100 attendees are anticipated. What do we say to people who want an Page 4 of 6 Planning Commission Minutes- March 25, 2025 outdoor events for fewer than 100 attendees? Are they a festival that just doesn'thave to submit a festival permit application? The second issue is that when the Comprehensive Plan refers to preserving rural character, he and the Zoning Administrators talk to a lot of prospective applicants who want to preserve the rural character. They want to have these kinds of outdoor events, but they want to do it the right way. Some ofthis may overlap with discussion regarding agritourism. He referenced material included in the packets for Warren County, Shenandoah County, and Rockingham County, with regards to rural event centers. He thanks Ms. Richards for preparing this. He referenced different levels of mitigation based on acreage and number of people. The argument is that certain levels of use require considerations to safety and wellness. What they have in common is that they allow outdoor events. Ifyou don'tallow outdoor events [as a use], you may miss out on the opportunity to regulate them when they do actually occur. Ms. Grech stated she wanted to put this into context. Her understanding is that we are getting more and more interest from developers, and staff is getting more questions, about multiple uses on a property, such as a short-term rental and an event venue, or an event venue and a campground. We're getting a hybrid, and it's usually in the crossover where we see the problem. Ifit's a pure winery, it's not an issue. Ifit's a pure campground, it's not an issue. Mr. Hahn noted that this was fair. Ms. Grech noted that there are a lot of wedding venues in Page County. Ifshe were looking to start a wedding venue, she'd look at how many we already have. That is the issue with short-term rentals. She referenced the recent Tourism presentation in Stanley. Nina [Fox] mentioned that we have 700 or 800 short-term rentals. We have just above 23,000 inhabitants in Page County. That's one short-term rental per 30 inhabitants. She appreciates staff looking at surrounding counties, but they don't have the amount of tourism that we have. They don't have the number of short-term rentals. We are the cabin capital of Virginia. Therefore they may not have as many potential problems as we may have when we have an overlap with those categories. Mr. Hahn stated that he thinks this is more of an argument to make sure we're regulating them. Ms. Grech agreed. Mr. Hahn added that if we don't allow it as a use, potentially anything under 100 they may try to operate as a festival without needing a permit. He noted that the current draft consolidates banquet and event facilities and requires a structure with a permanent wall and a roof, sO there can't! be an outdoor event use. Ms. Grech noted this doesn't preclude outdoor use, it just means you have to have a shelter, such as at Lake Arrowhead. You're not precluding outdoor use, you're just making it safer with a solid structure. She takes exception to the statement that we wouldn't be allowing outdoor use. Mr. Hahn stated that [the amendments would not allow strictly outdoor use of a property. When properties don't have a building and have less than 100 people might not be regulated, because they might claim they don't need a festival permit. Ms. Grech noted that this is why some of the Commission requested that the Festivals Ordinance be considered in conjunction with these amendments. Mr. Hahn noted that this is what we are doing. Ms. Grech stated we are doing it belatedly. Mr. Hahn stated that the group that worked on the Festivals Ordinance in 2024, they discussed options and determined that this couldn't be fixed in that ordinance, which makes to state code language referencing 100 people. That is why the Board sent it back to the Planning Commission. There was further discussion about the Festivals Ordinance. Mr. Helm stated that what they were trying to do is regulate event venues, which is fine. But what they are not doing is actually addressing events in and of themselves and how and when events are subject to certain regulations, and that is where this is falling short. We are Page 5 of 6 Planning Commission Minutes- March 25, 2025 addressing the structure itself, but not the event. There are different types of events. We need to address when different zoning requirements kick in, There needs to be a more comprehensive approach to festivals, events, and event venues. We need to define events, itself. There was lengthy discussion on this topic. Ultimately, there was general consensus for staff will work on a definition for "event, > which may potentially encompass outdoor events, as well as additional supplemental regulations that would then be required, which the Planning Commission would discuss at a future meeting. Mr. Hahn asked that Commissioners send any questions to staff/legal to consider. D f. Zoning Subcommittee Report Ms. Grech provided an update on the Zoning Subcommittee. They are currently working on the Use Matrix, Definitions, and supplementary regulations for the Industrial use category. The next meeting is April 1, 2025 at 4 p.m. € p. Comprehensive Plan Subcommittee Report Ms. Grech provided an update on the Comprehensive Plan Subcommittee. They met on March 13 to discuss goals and policies for transportation and agriculture. The next meeting is April3, 2025 at 61 p.m. At this meeting we will be discussing education, history, culture, as well as goals and policies on CSAs. Adjourn Mr. Turner made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Adams seconded the motion. Chairman Burner adjourned the meeting at 8:31 p.m. hG bueue Jared Burner, Chairman Page 6 of 6