|
Adjourned Meeting
June 12, 2001
6:00 p.m.
Meeting Convened. An Adjourned Meeting of the York County Board
of Supervisors was called to order at 6:00 p.m., Tuesday, June 12, 2001,
in the East Room, York Hall, by Chairman James S. Burgett.
Attendance. The following members of the Board of
Supervisors were present: Walter C. Zaremba, Sheila S. Noll, Donald E.
Wiggins, and James S. Burgett.
H. R. Ashe was absent.
Also in attendance were James O. McReynolds, County Administrator;
and James E. Barnett, County Attorney.
WORK SESSION
TEXT AMENDMENT TO YORK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE: MARINAS
Mr. McReynolds reviewed the meetings held by the Planning
Commission and a citizens' committee leading up to tonight's work
session and the draft materials forwarded to the Board of Supervisors.
He indicated staff was recommending only one change to the Planning
Commission recommendation which was to allow only three restaurant seats
per slip instead of the recommended four.
Mr. Ashe arrived at 6:03 p.m.
Mr. J. Mark Carter, Planning and Zoning Manager, reviewed proposed
Ordinance No. 01-10 to amend the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to marinas.
He indicated that amendments to Section 24.1-104, Definitions, cleaned
up the language by expanding on the definition of a marina. He noted the
significant changes were contained in Sections 24.1-462 and 24.1-463
that establish certain performance standards applicable to the
establishment of commercial or private/club marinas.
Mr. Ashe stated it came to his attention that he owned a piece of
property with WC-I zoning on it, and he wanted to make the public and
the Board aware of that information. He stated he felt the utilities
were so far away from being established for that property that it could
be 20 years before it could be developed. Mr. Ashe stated because of
that he felt he could objectively proceed with acting on this
application.
Mr. Barnett stated it was his opinion that Mr. Ashe could continue
with consideration of this application, and that there was no conflict
of interest.
Mr. Wiggins stated one of his concerns was that a restaurant has
not been allowed in the WC-I district. He asked if the committee had
never been formed, and the Zoning Administrator had never had any of
these questions come before him, would his recommendation have been in
keeping with the existing regulations or would he have allowed
restaurants in the WC-I zoning.
Mr. Carter stated he had interpreted the current ordinance to
allow eating facilities as accessory uses to a marina based on existing
language in the ordinance. He stated an eating facility is essentially a
restaurant.
Discussion followed concerning the minimum square footage to be
allowed per person in a restaurant facility that is an accessory use to
a marina.
Mrs. Noll indicated the operative wording is that in no case will
the County allow a more than a 150-seat facility.
Chairman Burgett indicated the only place his opinion differed was
that he felt the Board needed to consider where the business was going
to be placed. He stated he felt it was not the same as putting it in a
general business zone. These facilities will be in residential areas;
and out of all the houses in that area, only three have been built since
the Dare Marina was built. Most of the marinas are located in
residential areas.
Mr. Ashe expressed his concern about the adjacent neighbors, but
stated he felt this was where the performance standards would come in to
protect them.
Mr. Zaremba stated the County currently has an ordinance that
addresses eating facilities that the Zoning Administrator has
interpreted to mean restaurants. He noted that Dare Marina has submitted
a site plan under the existing ordinance and is under some phase of
approval.
Mr. Carter indicated the Phase 1 proposal has been given
preliminary approval and that contains a 100-seat restaurant.
Mr. Zaremba stated he felt the Board was meeting tonight because
the Board feels the existing ordinance is ambiguous and unsatisfactory.
He asked if he would be grandfathered if he was one of the current
marina owners.
Mr. Carter stated submission of a plan is not the key determinant;
preliminary approval is.
Discussion followed on the enforceability of the performance
standards proposed in Section 24.1-462(d)(2).
Chairman Burgett noted the Board was considering the allowance of
a use that is not water-oriented to be implemented in the WC-I district.
He stated he did not feel a restaurant was water-dependent or an
integral part of a marina, and he did not agree with the elimination of
the wording that indicated a restaurant would be only for boat crew
members, owners, and guests. Mr. Burgett then referred to the alternate
draft of May 30, stating he felt the wording should state "Marinas
must include in-water berths/slips that are covered or uncovered. .
."
Mrs. Noll stated the current language provides flexibility.
Chairman Burgett stated he felt that in order for there to be a
restaurant at a marina, there must be a real marina established first.
Mr. Zaremba indicated that as he read the definition, if he had a
facility on the water in York County and provided any one of those
services, the facility could be called a marina and have a restaurant.
Mr. McReynolds stated the marina would have to have at least 20
wet slips that could accommodate boats of at least 16 feet in length in
order to qualify for having a restaurant facility as an accessory use.
Chairman Burgett asked if it would be fair to say that if a
restaurant is an accessory use that the prime source of income would be
the marina.
Mr. Barnett indicated he would not say that the Board couldn't
propose that, but he did not feel it would be something the Board would
want to do.
Chairman Burgett stated he just did not want a lot of restaurants
established as accessory uses to a facility that was not truly a marina.
Mr. Zaremba stated there was ambiguity in the definition of a
marina, and the Board needed to come to an agreement as to what a marina
is.
Mrs. Noll stated she felt it was all-inclusive and not ambiguous.
Mr. Wiggins indicated the ordinance was stating a marina could
include all of these things; but before it could have a restaurant, it
has to have 20 wet slips that accommodate boats that are a minimum of 16
feet.
Discussion followed on the demand for marinas in the County and
Chairman Burgett's concern that the use of a business in a residential
area was being intensified by the addition of restaurants.
Mrs. Noll suggested that the word "accessory" be used
rather than "integral."
Chairman Burgett stated he felt that would be a good compromise.
Mr. Barnett explained that the term "accessory" was not
clearly defined and would be hard to enforce in court. It has no
universal meaning.
Chairman Burgett asked if wording such as "for owners,
members, crews, and guests" could be added limiting the clientele.
Mr. Barnett stated the problem there was that there was no way to
measure it. The idea of limiting the clientele to a restaurant might not
be possible.
Chairman Burgett then addressed the timeframe in which trash
pickup could take place, stating he felt 8:00 p.m. was too late in the
evening for trash pickup.
Mrs. Noll suggested that the hours when trash pickup could not
take place be changed to 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
Chairman Burgett referred to the paragraph concerning the
prohibition of specially designed dance floors, and he asked if the
wording could be changed to just prohibit all "dance floors."
Mr. Carter indicated that in discussing this issue, the committee
did not want the restaurant operated as a nightclub. They did mention
that on occasion these restaurant facilities could be used for special
functions where there might be dancing associated with it. He stated
there was nothing in the ordinance to prohibit someone from renting the
facility for a special occasion.
Mr. Ashe stated if the use is inside the facility and the
performance standards are met, he felt the Board should not try to
prohibit the activity taking place.
Mr. Wiggins stated he also would like to make sure that what the
Board does with regard to the citizens and the marina be above-board and
legal for all.
Mr. Ashe indicated that performance standards are key to the
success of this ordinance. As long as they are reasonable and
enforceable, then what goes on in the restaurant should be allowed as
long as the standards are being met. Mr. Ashe then addressed the issue
of the number of seats allowable in a marina restaurant facility,
stating he did not see where 3 or 4 seats per slip would make any
difference as long as the performance standards were met. He stated he
believed that 15 square feet should be a minimum and not a maximum and
let the market decide the number as long as it doesn't exceed 150
persons.
Mr. Carter stated the 15 square feet per seat is a given because
it is the minimum in the building code. By using the proposed language,
staff was trying to devise a way for reasonable long-term enforcement to
be possible by limiting the dining area to a certain size.
After further discussion, the Board by consensus agreed that the
maximum floor area of the dining space would be 30 square feet per
authorized seat.
Mr. Ashe asked, regarding the paragraph concerning design
standards, for a definition of the word "character."
Mr. Carter stated the paragraph contained language that states a
guiding intent. The County does not have the authority under standard
zoning to get into architectural control. The language was taken from
the existing Zoning Ordinance performance standards for all retail and
commercial uses. Mr. Carter indicated it was merely a statement of
philosophy and a worthy objective.
Mr. Ashe then addressed the last sentence of the same paragraph,
stating some footage needed to be added.
Mr. Carter indicated the intent of the sentence was to address the
performance standards that followed. He recommended that the sentence be
changed to read "For the purposes of the following performance
standards, the term 'adjacent' shall be deemed to include properties
located across a body of water."
Mr. Ashe next addressed the first performance standard regarding
entrance distances, stating the main living structure should be the
measuring point to the restaurant entrance.
Mr. Carter noted he felt the performance standards were all very
workable with the existing marinas in the County. He stated there was
always the use permit outlet, noting there could be sites that are too
small to make it possible to fit the ordinance as written. He indicated
the marina trade association has recommended that there should be a
50-foot distance between the restaurant and the nearest residence, but
the committee felt that 100 feet was more appropriate.
Mr. Ashe then stated he felt strongly that the parking lot buffer
should be a fence rather than landscaping. He stated he also felt that
garbage should be dumped regularly and the receptacle sanitized. He
asked how outdoor dining area would be calculated.
Mr. Carter noted that indoors and outdoors there could be no more
than 150 seats total.
Chairman Burgett indicated he did not feel outdoor dining should
be allowed until 10:00 p.m. He suggested that it be closed at 9:00 p.m.
Discussion followed concerning the required traffic impact study.
Mr. Zaremba asked for the rationale behind using 3 or 4 seats per
wet slip to come up with the number of restaurant seats.
Mr. Carter stated that initially staff proposed three seats per
wet slip after hearing all the committee discussion and presentation to
the Planning Commission. The Virginia Outdoors Plan states than when
planning water-oriented recreational facilities, a factor of 3 persons
per boat occupancy load is the recommended standard. The Planning
Commission heard testimony at the public hearing that indicated 4 was
more likely the norm, and they recommended it.
Mr. Zaremba asked what assurances were present that indicated the
County does not have any existing ordinance that would decrease the
100-foot distance between the entrances to the restaurant from
residential structures.
Mr. Carter stated there are provisions in the current Zoning
Ordinance that would allow less than 100 feet, but this ordinance
proposes to establish an additional performance standard that goes above
and beyond those already set out. It does not say the setback has to be
100 feet from the building, but that the main entrance and service
entrance has to be. Mr. Carter stated there were no provisions currently
that would require 100 or 200 feet.
Mr. Zaremba asked if there was anything in existing ordinances
that allowed, under the same set of circumstances, a separation distance
of less than 100 feet.
Mr. Carter stated there was for restaurants on Route 17, but not
at marinas.
Discussion followed regarding the proposed operating hours of 6:00
a.m. to 10:00 p.m. for the restaurant.
Chairman Burgett noted he would also be interested in capping the
hours of operation for the bar.
SIX-YEAR ROAD PRIORITY LISTING (Not on Agenda)
Mr. Carter briefly reviewed Resolution R01-113(R) that was adopted
on June 5 clarifying language concerning the interstate system since the
Board had given him the leeway to provide the appropriate language prior
to adoption of the minutes. He also noted that at that time he was
mistaken when he asked the Board to change Item No. 2 in the resolution
to show the widening of Route 171 to be 6 lanes. He stated the
resolution was correct citing 4 lanes, and noted the unapproved minutes
would reflect such.
The Board then discussed the importance of a Board member being
present at the upcoming July 12 VDOT public hearing.
Meeting Adjourned. At 8:30 p.m. Chairman Burgett declared the
meeting adjourned sine die.
_____________________________
_______________________________
James O. McReynolds, Clerk
James S. Burgett, Chairman
York County Board of Supervisors
York County Board of Supervisors
Back to Index
|
