Updating the rule book

Goochland County has been working on a rewrite of its zoning ordinance for a couple of years. The current ordinance, some parts decades old, is cumbersome, sometimes confusing, and out of sync with the county’s comprehensive land use plan.

Developers and landowners often scratch their heads trying to comply with applicable rules whose provision may be scattered among several sections.

The new ordinances, according to Director of Community Development Jo Ann Hunter, will be easier to decipher and streamline land the process.

The zoning ordinance is law. Changes require community meetings, and public hearings before both the planning commission and supervisors, who vote to implement the update. Several workshops, open to the public, were held earlier this year to explain and discuss sections of the proposed updated ordinance. The supervisors held workshops on the matter in May, June, and July. On August 26, a joint work session between the supervisors and planning commissioners was held to discuss the proposed final product. Hunter has also met with various engaged community groups to share information and obtain citizen input on the proposed changes.

On September 19, the planning commission will hold a public hearing on the proposed zoning ordinance rewrite, which could lead to the supervisors holding their public hearing and vote in October. The goal is to have the rewrite adopted by the end of 2019 with an effective date of January 1, 2020.

The stated purpose of the zoning ordinance is to provide for: “the efficient process of development; preservation of agricultural lands; appropriate use and occupancy of buildings for protection against land overcrowding and undue population density in relation to the community facilities; the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community; economic development activities that provide desirable employment and enlarge the tax base; and  good, harmonious civic design.”

Behind wise use of tax dollars, land use is the most important, and most complicated issue facing supervisors. Only two candidates, Neil Spoonhower and Wendy Hobbs, both seeking the vacant District 2 seat, bothered to attend the August 26 session. Hobbs left before the meeting ended.

The August 26 session dealt with a myriad of topics.  During the past year, accessory apartments, “mother-in-law” quarters, currently requiring a conditional use permit (CUP), were often on the agendas of both the supervisors and planning commission. None were denied. Hunter suggested that this use could be treated like short term rentals located inside a home, by right with development standards and limited to occupancy by family members. This would also require notification of the county upon the sale of the property.

District 5 Supervisor Ken Peterson asked if the return for the county and property owners on the time and effort is expended is justified. If not, is there a way to simplify things without having a backup safeguard to prevent abuse? Board of Supervisors’ Chair Manuel Alvarez, Jr., District 2 and Board Vice Chair Susan Lascolette, District 1 have received negative feedback about the CUP requirement and supported limiting supplemental dwellings to one per lot.

County Attorney Tara McGee, who is involved in the ordinance rewrite, said if the neighbors of a home with one of these arrangements are not troubled by it, should the county care?  If there is a problem, the neighbors will complain. Zoning enforcement is complaint driven.

A useful addition to the proposed ordinance is a rules of measurement section with graphic representations of subjects including: setbacks, height ratios; types of signs and how they may be used; floor area ratios; calculation open space; sight distance at intersections; building projections; lot types and yards;  and examples of acceptable dark sky light fixtures. This will complement written requirements for greater clarity. (See the proposed ordinance for complete details.)

In the past, Hunter explained, proposed land uses not specified in the zoning ordinance were approved as “special exception” CUPs for expediency. This, she contended, is not good land use practice and recommended that in the future, ordinance amendments be crafted to address the specific use and go through the entire process with community meetings and public hearings. She cited solar farms—there is one near Hadensville—and brew pubs as examples where CUPs were granted instead of creating an appropriate zoning use.

Some existing definitions were expanded in the rewrite, others were deleted. The forestal zoning district, for instance, which was never used, is gone.

As both the supervisors and commissioners have been kept up to speed on the various revisions, there was not a lot of discussion on most of the items.

The topic that generated the most discussion was electronic message board signs.  People like them, Hunter said, because it is easier to change the message. Hunter received concurrence to allow gas stations to use electronic signs—most already have them—to display price only.

Other electronic signs are not currently allowed in Goochland. The exception are two electronic message boards with scrolling text at the entrances to the Goochland campus of Reynolds Community College.  These signs are on state property, which is exempt from local zoning rules.

This scrolling message board is on state property and exempt from local zoning regulations.

Hunter “benchmarked” standards applied by surrounding jurisdictions for the use of the electronic signs. Albemarle does not permit LED signs by right in any area but requires a special use permit. Only Goochland does not allow them.  Some people feel that they are too intrusive, do not fit in with rural character, and can lead to driver distraction. Board of Supervisors’ Chair Manuel Alvarez, Jr. observed that electronic signs with changing messages seem to erode the county’s rural character but perhaps could be limited by requiring a CUP.

Hunter recommended allowing electronic message boards by right with development standards in agricultural, business and industrial districts only. Churches, fire-rescue stations, and schools, which tend to be in agricultural districts, want to use the signs.

Changing the message on signs like this is labor intensive and sometimes the letters fall off

 Alvarez said Fire-Rescue Company 5 wants one of these signs because the little plastic letters on its existing message board often blow away.

Hunter recommended restricting brightness of any permitted signs to one half foot candle at property lines. Currently, dimming signs after a certain time is part of the Centerville overlay district. No scrolling, animation or video would be permitted, only text that cannot change more often than once per minute.

Lascolette said that if these signs are permitted by right, you cannot walk it back. Planning Commission Chair Matt Brewer, District 2 argued that a property owner should have input if a neighbor intends to deploy an electronic sign. Concerns were raised about placing electronic signs on venues located in residential areas including Dover Hall and the Deep Run Hunt Club on Manakin Road.

District 3 supervisors, John Lumpkins, Jr.  contended that the supervisors should not get deeply involved in the CUP process with signs. Major issues should be addressed with design standards. Sign content may not be addressed, he said.

 Peterson pointed out that electronic signs are permitted by right in West Creek but said he is not comfortable removing public input into policy allowing their deployment elsewhere.

Curt Pituck, District 4 planning commissioner said that electronic signs are expensive, he estimated in the $30 k range, making the issue self-regulatory.

District 4 Supervisor Bob Minnick argued that the supervisors have many more pressing issues before them. Their overarching responsibility is to set policy and design standards and they should not become the sign police. “The Board can say no signs, or signs in certain areas. Anything else would be a waste of executive and staff time,” Minnick said. Alvarez concurred and cautioned against overregulation.

Peterson agreed that micromanaging is a bad idea, but so is removing public input. He suggested incorporation public input and comment into creating the policy, which would govern approval of future electronic signs.

Lumpkins concurred. “We need to set design standards and then get out of the business of approving each one.” He supported allowing the signs by right in commercial and industrial areas and requiring a CUP everywhere else until the board is comfortable with the results. A majority of planning commissioners and supervisors agreed with this approach to the issue.

The county, said Lascolette, has survived without electronic signs, “do we really need them?” District 5 Planning Commissioner Tom Rockecharlie said that he believes the signs do not reflect the county’s rural character.

A great deal of time and effort has gone into the zoning ordinance rewrite. The subject is important for every property owner in the county. Please take a look at the proposed ordinance.

(If you would like to provide comments or have questions, please email jhunter@co.goochland.va.us or call (804) 657-2006. For additional information please go to www.goochlandva.us  The entire proposed ordinance is available under the planning and zoning tab.)