JUNE 27, 2002

The Fauquier County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Thursday, June 27, 2002, beginning at 3:00 P.M. in the Meeting Room of the Warren Green Building, 10 Hotel Street, Warrenton, Virginia.  Those members present were Mr. Richard Robison, Chairman; Mrs. Ann McCarty, Vice Chairman; Mr. Serf Guerra, Secretary; Mr. Bob Sinclair and Mr. Jim Stone.  Also present at the meeting were Mrs. Elizabeth Cook, Mrs. Carolyn Bowen, Ms. Deirdre Clark and Mrs. P.J. Gallagher, Clerk.



a.         Subdivision Ordinance Text Amendment to Section 3-2(A)2, regarding Administrative Subdivisions, in order to reduce the number of administrative cuts from three to two, including the residue lot.

Mrs. Cook reviewed the staff report, a copy of which is attached to and made a part of these official minutes.

Mr. Robison opened the public hearing.

Mrs. Mimi Moore, Marshall District, speaking on behalf of Citizens for Fauquier County, stated that this proposed amendment will be good for Fauquier County, and that it provides for stricter standards.

Mr. David DeGive, Marshall District,, stated that he is in favor of this proposed amendment, and that it would be good for the County.

Mrs. Myra Seaforest, Lee District, stated the proposed change was in keeping with the spirit of our County planning efforts.

Mr. Merle Fallon, Cedar Run District, stated that we need to leave the existing standards alone.  He asked that if this is approved that grandfathering be considered for all application filed prior to approval of this amendment.  He stated that currently under the administrative process that stormwater management is not required, but if this is amended it will be a requirement.  He also asked that this be approved only in the Rural Agriculture (RA) districts, not countywide.  He indicated that there needs to be a calculation of lots in the RA zone that will be affected by this.  He also stated that this will compound the burden on staff.

Mr. Roger Blackburn, Marshall Districts, stated that applications already on file should be grandfathered.

Mr. Carl Faller, Lee District, asked that this be postponed for 60 days for further review.  He stated that there have been a lot of questions raised that need to be answered so that citizens can have a full and complete understanding of this proposed amendment.  He further stated that there are 1328 parcels in Cedar Run and Lee Districts that this will affect, especially farmers.  He presented the list of properties to Mr. Guerra.

Mr. Dean Wood, Cedar Run District, stated that he supports Mr. Fallon's position.  He stated that he is working on an administrative division, but the paperwork is still in the process.  He stated that this proposed amendment does not give long-term and short-term opportunities, and that more time is needed to work on this amendment.  He stated that he does not want to see large growth in the County, but asked that we not take away the rights of property owners.

Mr. Mark Rohrbaugh, Cedar Run District, asked that this request be postponed in order for citizens to look at it further.  He further stated that this should be only for RA and RC districts.

Mrs. Cook stated that the first option is for all districts and the second is for RA and RC districts.

Mr. Rohrbaugh stated that we should not make it harder for people to do anything in the service districts.

Mr. Owen Bludau stated that he supports grandfathering existing applications and that the administrative subdivision role in economic development should be considered.  He stated that the administrative process is a good way to divide small lots and that this should be done only in the RA and RC districts.

Ms. Kitty Smith, Marshall District, stated that she is opposed to this being only in the RA and RC districts, and that it should be applied across the board in all zoning districts.  She stated that road requirements should be looked at further.

In that no one else appeared to speak for or against the request, Mr. Robison closed the public hearing.

Mr. Guerra stated there have been considerable concerns raised, and that action on this amendment should be postponed for thirty (30) days.

On motion made by Mr. Guerra and seconded by Mr. Sinclair, it was moved to postpone the request until the June meeting for further review. 

Mr. Sinclair stated that he is voting for the motion, since there have been obvious concerns raised by citizens.

Mr. Robison stated that it is important to move this on to the Board of Supervisors and that he is going to vote against the motion.

Mr. Stone stated that he agrees with Mr. Robison, that all areas should be incorporated and there is no reason to delay the proposed amendment regarding administrative subdivisions.

Mrs. McCarty stated that she agrees with Mr. Robison and Mr. Stone and that we should go with Option #1, which includes administrative divisions for all zoning districts.

Mr. Sinclair asked Mrs. McCarty what was Mr. Atherton's intent with this proposed amendment, and Mrs. McCarty stated that she is not sure what his intent is.

Mr. Guerra stated that he is not sure he understands what he is hearing.  He stated that citizens have expressed great concern and we are saying that because the Board of Supervisors wants this amendment we need to approve it and send it to them.

The motion failed 2 to 3 with Mr. Robison, Mr. Stone, and Mrs. McCarty voting against the motion.

On motion made by Mr. Robison and seconded by Mrs. McCarty, it was moved to recommend approval of Option 1, and that the citizensí comments be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors.

Mr. Sinclair stated that he will vote for this motion, but that it is the duty of the Planning Commission to deliberate cases and consider citizen concerns very carefully.  He stated that he feels that we may be relinquishing our responsibilities by sending this forward at this time.

Mr. Guerra stated that he agrees with Mr. Sinclair about our responsibilities, in that we are approving this without finding out more information and possibly opening Pandora's Box. 

The motion carried 4 to 1 with Mr. Guerra voting against the motion.