Ordinance is too open-ended
Printer-Friendly
Email this Letter
Post a Comment (0)
This week, the board of supervisors will consider whether to create a new mixed-use special district under our county’s zoning ordinance.
As currently drafted and without amendments to include detailed restrictive covenants in the ordinance, the mixed-use special district has the potential to dramatically change the current character of our county.
The mixed-use special district is intended to focus residential, commercial, public, civic, institutional and utility development in a compact form within the service districts. The mixed-use ordinance specifically identifies a broad range of potential uses, such as hotels, colleges, hospitals, townhouses, triplexes, quadriplexes and multi-family residential units.
The draft ordinance also affords a great deal of discretion to expand this list of potential uses, affording applicants the opportunity to petition for other uses not currently known or identified.
The draft ordinance does not contain sufficient restrictive covenants to ensure that our service districts will continue to be developed according to the vision established by Fauquier County’s citizens.
The vision for the future development of our service districts is outlined in the comprehensive plan for each of the nine service districts. Each district’s plan is tailored to accommodate appropriate commercial and residential growth based upon that service district’s particular location, population, transportation, and utility needs and capacity.
Although the draft of the-mixed-use special district ordinance includes language requiring the proposed mixed-use development to be consistent with the county’s comprehensive plan, the board of supervisors and Fauquier County have interpreted such zoning ordinance provisions to be merely discretionary.
In example, the former board of supervisors’ approval of Costco in New Baltimore and the current board of supervisors’ position in the ongoing lawsuit filed in objection to that decision clearly shows that the citizens cannot always rely on the supervisors to honor the vision of our comprehensive plan, even when our zoning ordinances require such action.
In that case, the board of supervisors voted in direct contradiction to the comprehensive plan of New Baltimore despite the zoning ordinance requirement that the special-exception use be in accordance with the comprehensive plan.
Consequently, any provision intended to protect the type of development allowed under the mixed-use special district by requiring compliance with the comprehensive plan is meaningless if our supervisors do not consistently apply the zoning ordinances.
Given the current language of the draft ordinance and this precedent, the mixed-use special district may be an impractical vehicle for advancing the type of growth that also maintains the citizen’s sense of place and quality of life in our communities.
Amy Trotto
Citizens for Accountable Government, Inc.
Broad Run
You must be logged in to post a comment.