Ed. Note: The Steering Committee for the Unification Study for Winchester and Frederick County received a report from the Planning and Zoning Subcommittee in October, 2005. The Steering Committee has not discussed or adopted the report as final and will not do so until later in the year after all of the initial subcommittee reports have been received and the public information sessions have been held in March. This Open Forum by Planning and Zoning Subcommittee Chairman James Golladay outlines the procedures used by the subcommittee and gives an overview of their findings and recommendation to the Steering Committee but should not be interpreted as to the final recommendation for the Planning and Zoning functions in the community.

The Planning and Zoning Sub-committee (PZC) of the Steering Committee for the Unification Study for Winchester and Frederick County has completed discussions regarding the consolidation of the county and city planning and zoning responsibilities. The PZC has reviewed the various documents, as directed by the Steering Committee, as well as discussed how the departments could operate as the results of consolidation.

The PZC is not prepared to forward a recommendation to the Steering Committee regarding the consolidation, and also offers a list of the issues that would warrant further consideration.

It is the belief of the PZC that some of the perceived financial savings associated with a consolidated Planning and Zoning Department may not materialize in the short term, but could possibly be realized in future years. The benefits of consolidating the planning and zoning responsibilities could result in well-planned and coordinated development, enhancing the growth management program in the Winchester-Frederick County community.

As we have learned, each existing department presently operates at a staff level that is inadequate to maintain each jurisdiction's annual work program. Therefore, a consolidation of planning departments would offer an enhanced resource knowledge base, but may not necessarily enable increased productivity as personnel and available resources are already stressed - too many projects, not enough staff member time.

As such, the proposed consolidation includes additional staff positions to more effectively accomplish the ever-increasing workload. It has been suggested that these additional staff positions be funded by the absorption of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) management responsibilities and its associated funding.

While the transition process has not been detailed, a number of issues associated with transitioning to a consolidated planning and zoning department are identified in the paragraphs to follow. It is important to consider all impacts (both positive and negative) associated with a consolidation; such impacts may warrant additional discussion and consideration.

Potential Benefits

• Single point of contact for citizens when seeking planning and zoning assistance.
• Planning for the entire community (removing political boundaries) could benefit from a division dedicated to long-term "Visioning", and a division dedicated to current planning (development review and ordinance enforcement).
• The community could benefit from a Comprehensive Policy Plan that was applicable to the entire community.
• Transportation planning should be seamless between jurisdiction - WATS and MPO - are good efforts/examples to integrate the community's transit planning efforts. Land-use planning should also be seamless between the jurisdictions.
• Combined planning responsibilities could lead to dedicated transit planning efforts.
• Improved transportation planning (MPO linked benefits):
  • City and county major road systems could cross jurisdictional boundaries.
  • Pedestrian trail systems could cross jurisdictional boundaries.
• Greater knowledge base (staff skills) from which to draw expertise.

Potential Challenges:

• Each jurisdiction currently has its own ordinances. The ordinances apply to urban, suburban, and rural areas -- three distinctively different areas of our community that have different needs and expectations. Would the ordinances be rewritten as part of the consolidation effort, or would the ordinances/zoning district classifications remain as each jurisdiction has already adopted?
• Existing ordinance differences: Residential, commercial, and industrial districts and their respective permitted uses; code enforcement philosophies (proactive vs. reactive); development proposal review and approval process (public hearings, public meetings, and administrative approval process).
• Political Responsibilities: If the elected bodies of each jurisdiction are not consolidated, conflicting views and direction may be given to the department staff.
• Differing jurisdictional process pressures suggest that existing zoning ordinances and zoning districts should initially be preserved. Jurisdictions each have ordinances clearly applicable to urban, suburban, and rural development.
• current transportation planning is different based on jurisdiction. The city utilizes a micro approach in its urban transportation planning - strong emphasis on sidewalks and pedestrian linkages, and their design detail. The county utilizes a wider macro approach - strong emphasis on major road systems to more effectively move volume of vehicles.
• Development review process structure.
  • City uses Planning Commission, subcommittee, and then City Council.
  • County uses subcommittee, Planning Commission, and then the Board of Supervisors.
  • In the county, site plans and subdivisions are generally reviewed administratively by staff - not subcommittee, Planning Commission or board involvement.