PURCELLVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
August 18, 2005
The Regular Session of the Purcellville Planning Commission
convened at 7:00 p.m. and the following attended:
Mike Reles, Planning Commissioner
Tom Priscilla, Planning
STAFF: Wayne Lee, Senior Planner
Tucker Keller, Planning Technician
Maureen Gilmore, Town Attorney
CALL TO ORDER:
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to
order at 7:03 p.m.
Zoning Ordinance Amendment re: Historic
Corridor Overlay District. The Commission will hear comments on this
amendment initiated by the Town Council to add a historic corridor overlay
district to the zoning ordinance.
Tucker Keller read the following into the
record for Martha Semmes. “I Martha
Mason Semmes, Purcellville Director of Planning and Zoning do hereby attest and
affirm that on August 11, 2005 I sent written notices by first-class mail to
the last known address of all affected property owners and/or home owner
associations or owner’s agents concerning a Public Hearing by the Purcellville
Planning Commission to be held on August 18, 2005 at 7pm in the Town Office,
130 E. Main Street, Purcellville, Virginia regarding a zoning ordinance text
and zoning map amendment to create the Historic Corridor Overlay District in
accordance with title 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia as amended. A list of whom is attached hereto along with
the sample of the letter so sent. This
affidavit and list shall be included in the file for this zoning text and map amendment. Martha Mason Semmes”.
Bob Lazaro, 725 Sunflower Court, Purcellville,
Mr. Lazaro is representing himself as a
resident of the Town. He is in favor of
Corridor Overlay District ordinance as submitted to the Commission. It’s consistent with the Town’s award
winning Comprehensive Plan which was adopted in 1998. Purcellville is rich in history and culture and this he believes
is the first step in ensuring that future generations of residents and visitors
to Purcellville will enjoy for many years to come. He would like this ordinance passed to preserve the history of
Charles King, American Legion Post 293,
The Legion understands that the Town needs to
upgrade but they have a problem with the Town being able to dictate to them
what size signs are allowed and what color they’d have to paint their building. He believes this would take away their freedom
Mary Moorcones, 101 N. 28th Street
She grew up in Purcellville and appreciates
the preservation and the revitalization however, this particular document is
fraught with controversy and could be interpreted by anyone any way they wanted
to do so. Even in the intent there are two
conflicting ideas – 1) historic preservation 2) revitalization and when you go
further into the application, it pretty much restricts you from doing
anything. She agrees with the gentlemen
when he said you are taking away choice.
When she reads the document it seems to say that if a family with young
children moved into a house on Main Street with no fence then they couldn’t
construct a fence, or change a fence in order to protect their children. She reviewed the wording in the ordinance and
said she feels the wording is conflictive.
She feels the Town will be policing all homes who want to possibly add
an addition in this district. She feels
that the Town is trying to turn Main Street into a home owner’s association
like the new developments. She believes
that some of the businesses in the district area could use some design changes
and update them. Having worked in a
federal agency and worked on regulations, this doesn’t pass the plain English
muster for readability.
Susie Windham, 410 W. Main Street,
She congratulated the Town Council for their
July 19 action for sending this resolution to the Planning Commission and
congratulations to the Planning Commission for putting this on tonight’s
agenda. Both Ms. Windham and her
husband Roy support this proposed action.
This is one of the examples of what she has heard for three years from
the people which was generated in workshops in the Comprehensive Plan and in two
or three Charrettes that involved some of the people that are at tonight’s
meeting. It is the beginning of
establishing a positive identity for the Town of Purcellville. We are no longer a small rural town and we
need to keep the identity of that group by trying to keep the structures here
in Town. She thinks it’s a fantastic
idea to put guidelines on certain streets.
There are safety valves, nothing is set in stone, and residents can come
in front of the different committees to voice their opinion. We have valuable businesses in Town and they
are only going to benefit because when you have the title of something Historic
attached to your Town, people will flock here to drive around the streets and
shop in Purcellville. The home owners
have done their best to make their homes nice.
This will mean that the Town cared so much about preservation and
beautification that the Town took legislative action to make it come true.
Tom Rust, 1779 Roxbury Hall Road, Leesburg
Although he lives in Leesburg, he spends most
of his time in Purcellville. He
operates Loudoun Truck Center and Loudoun Milk Transportation at 631 W. Main
Street. He supports the general gist of
the legislation and its intent but is disturbed with the lack of conciseness in
the language. He doesn’t think it’s
exacting enough to be informative about what a historical structure is and
protects the tax base. He would like
them to take a look at what you can do to be a little more concise with the
wording and make it more exact and better defined.
He gave an example of how confusing
regulations can be by reading a regulation by the Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services and the Commonwealth of Virginia. He read from VAC 5-501 Regulations Governing the Cooling, Storing
and Sampling, and Transportation of Milk.
This regulations wording is exacting and might be useful to the exact
wording of a “historical structure”. He
would like firm guidelines as to what he can do with signs and buildings.
Philip Forbes, Purcellville
His family has lived in Purcellville for over
100 years, his house has been here for 94 years and he applauds their
efforts. In 1982 he attended a Planning
session and found out that Main Street was zoned commercial. It took 8 years to get Main Street rezoned
to residential. The first meeting of
the PBA was held in his living room.
There were 7 attendees and 4 of them are here tonight. This legislation has been a long time coming. Save it now, you won’t be able to save it
later. God Bless You, Semper Fi.
David Eno, 351 E. Main Street
He believes the ordinance goes too far with
restrictions. He doesn’t think most
people realize what is in the document.
He believes the restriction for road frontage is too much – he only has
300 feet. He believes the houses on
Main Street are now in great shape after new owners have put paint and elbow
grease on the homes. Neighbors helped
neighbors accomplish this task. No one
he knows anything about this new plan.
The Charrette was during working hours when most people were working and
couldn’t attend. There is a need to
have our hearings when people are available.
He offered his home for a community meeting without having to deal with
the legal terms that are in this document.
It sounds to him like a lot of boiler plate that has ended up on our
Town’s Planning book which has come from Fairfax County. He’s compared our Planning’s documents to
Fairfax’s documents and they are very similar.
The proposal needs more work – there is a lot left open to
Donald Berry, 331 W. Main Street
He and his wife support this initiative. They have lived here for 30 years and is a
member of the PPA. He is encouraged
with the document and hopes it can move forward, although it sounds like some
details have to be worked out.
a) TP05-09 – Wright
Farm Phase 5 Record Plat – This is
the phase of Wright Farm to
the west of Berlin Turnpike for which we recently have received several
in order for the plat to be revised to address Town staff and review
agency comments. Action on this plat
is now required.
Mr. Lee gave a status report on this project. Staff recommends approval of this plat with certain
conditions. Ms. Gilmore discussed the
different legal issues of the plat – including dedicating the street to the
Town, which the Board of Supervisors would have to approve. Commissioner Seigfried informed the
Commission that the Board of Supervisors will include this in their meeting
scheduled for September 6.
Ms. Hommel, Wright Farm, LLC reviewed what changes have been made to this
plat. She further reviewed the plat,
the lots, parcels, and streets that would be involved as well as the approval
process. She also reviewed the County’s
requested changes and what language would have to be changed on the plat.
Commissioner Priscilla questioned the reservation (lot 98) near the
church and how it’s been split for Phase 5.
They don’t have the reservation from the church to date. He also questioned a future bridge structure
and if the reservation is adequate for this possible future project.
Commissioner Seigfried is concerned with the dedication of the road and
whether it should go to the Town of Purcellville or to Loudoun County. Ms. Hommel and Ms. Gilmore answered
questions pertaining to this issue.
Motion by Commissioner Stewart to move
approval of TP05-09 – Wright Farm Phase 5 Record Plat an application for record
plat approval for a 22 lot subdivision on a 124.85 acre portion of the
properties identified with Pins 452-46-5048 and 487-30-6183 subject to the
execution of a state maintained roads agreement and performance bond and
appropriate amount in acceptance of these two documents by the Loudoun County
Board of Supervisors and to consider adding wording to the deed that would
include the Town as a grantee on the reservation for the northern collector
Motion by: Commissioner Stewart
Seconded: Commissioner Seigfried
to motion by adding signing of the deed by the Board of Supervisors.
Motion by: Commissioner Stewart
Seconded: Commissioner Seigfried
Passed: 5-1 (Priscilla)
a) Draft Zoning Ordinance
Amendment re: Historic Corridor Overlay
Town Council has scheduled a Public Hearing on these amendments for
13, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. The Commission is discussing the public
hearing and the
proposed amendments for the
purposes of improving the draft and preparing to make
a recommendation to Town Council on the draft.
Mr. Lee reviewed this plan, its wording, the exemptions, and its intent. Mr. Lee also discussed what changes are
being made to structures by the Board of Architectural Review.
Commissioner Stewart believes adding a definition page to this document
would be advantageous for clarity.
Commissioner Seigfried asked different questions pertaining to ownership
of residential and commercial properties for clarification. He further asked for clarification of the
wording in 2.2.1.
Chairman Beese has concern with the use of the word “substantial”. He is concerned over the restrictions and bureaucracy
and doesn’t believe it’s going to benefit the residential property owners. The economic gain would be useful if the
residence was on the State Historic Board and Trust for tax advantages and
possible grants. If you’re not on the
list but in this zoning district, it could be a detriment and could hurt the
value of your property.
Mr. Lee read the following into record:
Uses permitted by special use permit or commission permit.
The following uses may be permitted by special use permit approved by the
Town Council following report by the Planning Commission in accordance with the
procedures, guides and standards of Article 8:
homes, rest homes, nursing homes, or homes for the aged.
homes or foster homes.
clinic for humans.
schools, kindergartens, child care centers, day nursery, or day care centers
subject to Article 6, care or home child care, nursery schools, kindergartens,
child care centers, day nursery or day care centers.
schools, colleges, or universities subject to the standards contained in
Article 6, Section 7.3.
television transmission or receiving tower not more than 50 feet in height.
uses or facilities for a private membership, such as clubs and lodges, golf
courses, game courts, swimming pools, archery range, fishing or boating lakes,
picnic grounds, or similar activities, and accessory facilities, including sale
of food, beverages, incidentals, supplies and equipment.
other places of worship, and their accessory uses associated therewith. Accessory uses may include daycare, “soup
kitchens,” temporary shelters, special camps and other services provided by the
congregation but which are considered by this ordinance to be secondary to the
primary function of the church for religious services.
When filing an application for
a special use permit for a church, the applicant must list each accessory use it intends to operate. Permits for churches may be approved without all the proposed
accessory uses. After the approval of
the initial use permit for a church,
subsequent applications must be made for any new accessory use or change in an existing accessory use.
When considering a request for
a special use permit for a church and any accessory
uses, the Planning Commission and Council may consider the following and impose those conditions
necessary to mitigate impacts: traffic;
parking; hours of operation; impact
on adjacent neighborhoods; types of special events;
time limitations for accessory uses such as for shelters; number of students in church schools and daycare; number of
inhabitants for shelters.
Section 6. Site plan review
required for certain uses.
purposes of assuring careful use of difficult topography and good arrangement,
appearance, function, and harmony with surroundings and adjacent uses and the
objectives of the comprehensive plan, and compliance with the requirements of
these regulations, site plans for the following major uses shall be submitted
and reviewed in accordance with the requirements and procedures of Article 11:
by approval by special use permit.
subdivisions or subdivisions which average lot area.
parks or subdivisions
temples and synagogues
or motor lodges
buildings, office buildings, commercial buildings, or industrial buildings, if
such buildings are to contain more than 5,000 square feet of floor area.
Any parking lot
or parking facility which is to contain more than five spaces.
All uses which
utilize common facilities such as entrances and exits, parking and loading
Any use noted
as subject to site plan review.
None – there wasn’t
an August, 2005 meeting. Commissioner
Priscilla questioned when the PUGAMP’s catch all meeting would be scheduled.
apologized for missing the last PUGAMP meeting and stated that he may miss the
Changes to be made to July 21, 2005:
Second page (30) under Chairman and Commissioner
Comments – where it states, “Commissioner
Seigfried stated that the Board of Supervisors voted to put the schools our –
“our” should be “out”.
Correct the header for the July 21, 2005 meeting.
The items from July 21 and August 4 are the same minutes.
Commissioner Seigfried made a motion to defer the approval
of these minutes until the next scheduled meeting in order to correct the
Motion: Commissioner Seigfried
There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 9:17 PM.
Dennis Beese, Chairman