12:00 – 1:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Edgerton, Marilyn Gale, Katie Hobbs, Will Rieley, Ivo Romenesko, Steve Runkle, Steve Von Storch, and Jeff Werner.
STAFF: Margaret Doherty, Mark Graham, Wayne Cilimberg, and Elaine Echols
VISITORS: Neil Williamson
1. Call to Order – The Chair called the meeting to order at 12:15 p.m.
2. Subdivision Text Amendment Discussion -- Interconnections
Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, provided background information regarding the reason for the meeting. He said that the Board of Supervisors had invited several groups to make comment on the proposed Subdivision Text Amendment on June 2. The Subdivision Text Amendment was developed, in large part, to implement the Neighborhood Model. He said that there are four areas in which there was major disagreement with the development community. The four areas were noted as “interconnections”, “curb/gutter and sidewalks,” “overlot grading”, and “private streets”. The subject of the Board’s meeting on June 2 is “interconnections”, Mr. Graham said. He told DISC II that the Board wanted input on what changes, if any, might be beneficial to the ordinance.
Elaine Echols then distributed a copy of the recommendations from Volume II of Neighborhood Model relating to the subdivision ordinance. Briefly, she went over the relevant sections with DISC II.
Margaret Doherty reviewed the relevant sections of proposed ordinance language. She said that although the Comprehensive Plan and County policy support interconnections, we can’t require them because the language is currently too restrictive. She noted that the proposed ordinance would require that interconnections be built to adjoining properties, but there are administrative waivers built into the process.
Steve Runkle opened the discussion and identified the following items as the issues he sees.
1. What happens if VDOT requires an oversized street to serve a much larger adjacent parcel? How can the requirement for an interconnection be made equitable?
2. What if the interconnection substantially diminishes the ability of a developer to develop his/her property, especially if the proposed development contains a design in keeping with the Neighborhood Model?
3. What if the distance of the road required for the connection would result in a major cost that could not be born by the development?
The group discussed these issues and agreed that requiring interconnections is appropriate in most cases and especially in the areas where a master plan has been completed. The administrative waivers section should be expanded, though, to better describe the circumstances under which a waiver could be granted. Criteria should be added that relate to the costs of infrastructure relative to the scale of the development and/or how well the project is meeting the other principles of the Neighborhood Model.
3. Next Meeting – The group decided to meet weekly to develop positions on the remaining three items. The next topic will be “private streets”.
4. Adjournment – The meeting adjourned at 1:45.
Go to June 1, 2004 minutes