The devil is in the details

Grayson County Planning Commission zoning draft review 3.25.2014

By Amy Boucher

 

INDEPENDENCE – While the Grayson County Planning Commission is attempting to simplify the county zoning ordinance and cut down on paperwork and procedures, members are finding that it’s not that easy. Case in point: Signs.

After reviewing Zoning Administrator Elaine Holeton’s draft language covering signs Tuesday night, commission members had differing views on what should be allowed, including anything at all as long as it is 40 feet from the centerline of a roadway.

Holeton was concerned about the amount of time the commission devoted to the discussion and said she had only dealt with four zoning permits for signs during her time in the job.

Commission members ultimately agreed that the draft ordinance, which will go before the county Board of Supervisors on May 8 for adoption after an April 15 public hearing, should require that any proposed sign that does not meet the parameters Holeton had set out should be considered through the special use permit process. That means two public hearings, a recommendation for or against approval by the planning commission, and a final decision by the county Board of Supervisors.

“A special use permit is what needs to be done here,” said Commission Member Larry Bartlett, “and it causes a lot of work.”

The planning commission is revising the zoning ordinance to make it more “user-friendly” at the direction of county supervisors, who threatened in January to repeal it altogether. Supervisors’ Chairman John Brewer also serves on the planning commission.

Commission members have struggled to reach agreement on many details of the revision. For example, Tuesday night a meeting attendee suggested that a business run out of a home with 10 employees might be inappropriate in the Rural Residential District, the only zoning designation that is dedicated to protecting homes from undesirable neighboring development: “to create residential communities and to  maintain the character of those communities by allowing uses with minimal nuisance qualities…The general nature is residential with limits on commercial activity,” according to the ordinance.

Members decided the previous week that home occupations could employ up to 10 people; which, in Rural Residential, would have “a lot of impact on neighbors,” in Bartlett’s words.

Holeton suggested three employees; Member Brian Walls wanted five.

Another audience member suggested that a pine roping business might operate out of a Rural Residential subdivision and the commission agreed to allow up to five employees in a Rural Residential home business.

As for the signs, the draft allows any sign, no permit needed, that is 35 feet from the centerline of the road, 24 square feet or less in size and is unlighted. Holeton showed a photo of a sign for Ward Manor Bed and Breakfast as a typical sign that would not need a permit.

Larger signs that could pose visibility problems for motorists due to size, position or lighting would need a zoning permit. All must be at least 25 feet from the centerline of the roadway, except in Commercial and Industrial zones, where they must only be outside the Virginia Department of Transportation right of way. In Rural Farm and Rural Residential districts, they could not be higher than 10 feet.

Rural Farm signs could be a maximum of 32 square feet; Rural Residential and Shoreline Recreation signs a maximum of 24 square feet.

 

Commercial and Industrial district signs could be a maximum of 35 feet high and 100 square feet in size.

Billboards (defined as signs bigger than 32 square feet and not on the premises of the business being advertised) would not be allowed anywhere.

Damaged and derelict signs would have to be removed by landowners.

Commission Member Don Dudley asked who decides when a sign must be removed. The zoning administrator, Holeton said.

Walls was concerned about specifying that signs could not block motorists’ view, but Holeton said the commission is trying to avoid subjective language. He also was concerned that 25 feet from the centerline of the road would not be far enough on Grayson’s four-lane section of U.S. 58, and Holeton agreed to add that signs must also meet Virginia Department of Transportation setback requirements.

Chairman Lindsey Carico asked why people would need to get permits for signs if the ordinance sets out such specific criteria.

It gives the county oversight on the safety of the sign, Holeton said.

“I’ve got to have a permit to put a Texaco sign on the side of my barn if it’s over 32 square feet,” Carico said, clearly disagreeing with the restriction. She said that if a location is far enough from a road, “I don’t care. You can do anything you want to, even if it’s a billboard.”

Holeton offered to let the commission members try rewriting the sign requirements.

Bartlett echoed Carico’s sentiments. “If they want to go 100 feet off the road, they can do anything they want to.”

“Anything past a certain distance, do what you want to,” Carico said.

Commission Member Larry Brannock cautioned that he would rather preserve the scenic beauty of the county.

Holeton said Grayson only has a handful of billboards, which pre-date the 1998 ordinance and thus are “grandfathered.” These are located in Long’s Gap, Mouth of Wilson and on Virginia 89 south of Galax.

Walls suggested changing the draft to read that anything that does not fit the parameters Holeton outlined “must be approved.”

“You’d hate to have rows of billboards,” Brewer said.

“I don’t think we’re going to have to deal with a lot of signs,” said Holeton, who was anxious to move forward to other parts of the zoning ordinance.

The commission will meet at 6 p.m. April 8 in the board room of the Grayson Courthouse to continue its zoning ordinance revision work. Among the items to be considered are junk cars and Shoreline Recreation District regulations. The commission will also review the portion of the ordinance dealing with signs again, to consider the alterations.