The Winchester-Frederick County Virginia Consolidation Project
Planning/Zoning Unification Sub-committee
Jim Golladay, Chairman
Executive summary of proposal for the unification of the Planning and Zoning Departments
of the City of Winchester and the County of Frederick
Draft #1 -- as of January 7, 2006
MEMORANDUM
TO: Consolidation Steering Committee
FROM: James W. Golladay, Jr., Chairman, Planning and Zoning Committee
SUBJECT: Report and Recommendations
Planning and Zoning Committee
DATE: September 28, 2005
The Planning and Zoning Committee (PZC) of the Consolidation Steering Committee
(CSC) have completed discussions regarding the unification of the County and City
Planning and Zoning responsibilities. The PZC has reviewed the various documents, as
directed by the CSC, as well as discussed how the departments could operate as the result
of consolidation. The PZC is now prepared to forward a recommendation to the CSC
regarding the unification, and also offers a list of the issues that would warrant further
consideration.
The PZC studied and evaluated the potential benefits and challenges of unifying the
planning and zoning responsibilities of the two jurisdictions. The PZC reviewed existing
budgets, organizational charts, work programs and respective department responsibilities,
and development review processes. The political structure of each jurisdiction was also
considered. Based on direction from the CSC, the PZC did not include the
responsibilities of the departments of Information Technology, Geographic Information
Systems, and Community Development Block Grants within the realm of this unification
report.
It is the belief of the PZC that some of the perceived financial savings associated with a
unified Planning and Zoning Department may not materialize in the short term, but could
possibly be realized in future years. The benefits of unifying the planning and zoning
responsibilities could result in well planned and coordinated development, enhancing the
growth management program in the Winchester-Frederick County community. Some
areas of planning, such as transportation planning through the recently mandated MPO
structure, have already moved the two jurisdictions in the direction of a unified approach.
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 unification
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
unification includes additional staff positions to more effectively accomplish the ever
increasing workload. It has been suggested that some of these additional staff positions
be funded by the absorption of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
management responsibilities, and it’s associated funding.
Attached is a proposed department organizational chart and budget to implement the
unified department (using FY06 cost estimates). While the transition process has not been
detailed, a number of issues associated with transitioning to a unified planning and
zoning department are identified in the pages to follow. It is important to consider all
impacts (both positive and negative) associated with unification; such impacts may
warrant additional discussion and consideration.
Support information is available should you be interested.
Thank you.
Attachments: Proposed Organizational Chart -- Department of Planning and Zoning
Proposed Budget -- Department of Planning and Zoning
Planning and Zoning Committee (PZC) of the
Consolidation Steering Committee
Subject: Unification of Planning and Zoning Responsibilities
Potential Benefits of Unification
- 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 which was
applicable to the entire community
- Transportation planning should be seamless between jurisdictions – 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 would cross jurisdictional boundaries
- Pedestrian trail systems would cross jurisdictional boundaries
- Greater knowledge base (staff skills) from which to draw expertise
Potential Challenges of Unification of Responsibilities
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 unification 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 pressures suggest that existing zoning ordinances and
zoning districts should initially be preserved. Both jurisdictions have ordinances
clearly applicable to suburban development. The County has extensive provisions
for rural areas while the City has numerous provisions for urban areas.
Current transportation planning is different based on jurisdiction. The City
utilizes a micro approach in its urban transportation planning -- strong emphasis
on turn lanes, driveway locations, sidewalks and pedestrian linkages, and their
design detail. The County utilizes a wider macro approach -- strong emphasis on
major road systems to more efficiently move a greater volume of vehicles. Also,
VDOT conducts the review of roadway improvements in the County whereas the
City conducts its review internally since the City owns and maintains the public
streets within the City limits.
Development review process structure.
- City uses Planning Commission, subcommittee, then the Council
- City planning provides staff support to various committees throughout the
development review process (Planning and Development Committee,
Utilities and Engineering Committee, Community Safety and Services,
Board of Architectural Review, Board of Zoning Appeals),
- County uses subcommittee, Planning Commission, and then Board
- County planning provides staff support to various subcommittees
(Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee; Development Plans
and Programs Subcommittee; Transportation Committee; Agricultural
District Advisory Committee; Conservation Easement Authority, Historic
Resources Advisory Board)
- In the County, site plans and subdivisions are generally reviewed
administratively by staff -- no subcommittee, PC or Board involvement
- In the City, site plans are generally presented to the Planning Commission
which then decides which ones should be authorized for administrative
(e.g. staff) approval.
Issues that Require Clarification
- Political leadership. It would be vital to clarify political/legislative leadership to
determine to whom the unified department would respond. A unified Planning
Department would operate most effectively and efficiently with a clarified
legislative leadership. Without the clarified leadership structure, the Council and
Board may, through their administrative leadership, offer conflicting directives to
the planning staff.
- Office location. A unified department would require additional office space;
neither the City’s nor County’s current planning offices have adequate space to
accommodate the consolidated staff. This new office location may require
relocation of existing City and County relocations, and additional set-up funds to
prepare the office space for operation.
- As other development related services (planning, public works, building
inspections departments) are unified, it may be appropriate to establish a one-stop
shop counter to offer improved customer service to the public. This one-stop
shop location would need to be identified and funded.
- County’s vision for management responsibilities of technology (GIS and
Information Technology) and community development (CDBG and VDOT
revenue sharing program). Presently, the County’s planning and Development
Department maintains its computer network, has a GIS analyst, and administers
various grants and revenue sharing programs. Similar responsibilities in the City
are administered outside of the planning and zoning departments.
Department of Planning and Zoning
Consolidated Department of Planning and Zoning
Proposed Consolidated Department Budget
FY 2006/2007
|
Personnel Services (salaries, benefits) | $ 1,262,062 |
Professional Services (contracts, printing,
postage, legal advertising, telephones) | $ 112,360 |
|
Materials and supplies | $ 50,000 |
|
Transportation and education | $ 21,000 |
|
Capital costs (vehicles, copiers, computers) | $ 59,000 |
|
Total | $ 1,504,422 |
Submit your comments, questions, or suggestions
This page last updated 03/14/06 by RWK - Webmaster
|
