BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' ZONING WORK SESSION Tuesday, April 13, 2004 All Supervisors present. Prior to discussion of the draft Zoning Ordinance, Supervisors voted 4-0 (Ms. Brennan absent for this vote) to authorize staff to begin negotiations with the firm of Wiley Wilson for architectural services for the courthouse project. Mr. Frank Cox began by reviewing the primary goals identified in the Comp Plan - to protect rural areas from sprawl and subdivisions; provide for low density residential around the rural villages; protect farming; maintain the county's quality of life. He also noted that the current ordinance allows one-acre lots in Agricultural Districts and two-acre lots in Conservation Districts. Mr. Cox explained that the current draft had been developed by examining the current zoning districts to try to pull together the concepts and then determining the tools to implement the goals of the Comp Plan. He noted that there are several things included in the draft ordinance that could be controversial and potentially difficult. He said that given the present zoning the county, if all parcels were subdivided in one- and two-acre lots, would have enough building lots until the year 3000. Mr. Cox said that there are ways to preserve open space while allowing for some kind of development. He said that the county could create initiatives to encourage developers to create cluster developments. Mr. Cox stated that the problem comes down to the fact that implementing change in zoning districts is a downzoning and would reduce the number of property rights. Note: The proposed draft allows for the following: RURAL & FARMING DISTRICT (which would encompass our current Agricultural and Conservation Districts) Minimum Lot Size (Conventional) - 20 acres Minimum Lot Size (Cluster) - 1.5 acres Max # Lots By-Right (Conventional) - 5 Max # Lots By-Right (Cluster) - 5 Rural Open Space Parcel - 75% Waivers - Family Subdivision Lot Size Special Permit required to increase number of lots RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Minimum Lot Size (Conventional) - 5 acres Minimum Lot Size (Cluster) - 60,000 SF Max # Lots By-Right (Conventional) - 10 Max # Lots By-Right (Cluster) - 10 Rural Open Space Parcel - 1 acre per 1 acre of lot Waivers - Family Subdivision lot size Special Permit required to increase number of lots Mr. Cox said that there is no doubt that Nelson County will be a desirable place to live and that the county may want to preserve some of the land in agricultural and forestal. He said that if developed in clusters in areas where the county may someday want infrastructure, the county could then accommodate growth over the next 30-40 years. He noted that if the county wants to preserve open space, it would take a little more effort on the part of the developer and the county to best site the development taking into consideration the features of the land. Mr. Cox said that the conventional-type development has already consumed much of the road frontage in the county where it's easy to do that type of development. Mr. Bruguiere said that the 20-acre minimum lot size would fly with the general public of Nelson County. Mr. Wood pointed out that the developer could do 1.5- to 2.5-acre lots in a cluster development instead or ask for a permit for more lots. Mr. Harris said that 20-acre minimum lot size might work on part of the land with more areas being identified for Rural Residential at 5-acre minimum lot size. He said that if the county were planning to get rid of the attitude that rezoning is a bad thing, the proposal could work. Mr. Wood agreed saying that a developer with a master plan for a development on a large parcel should apply for a rezoning rather than having many divisions by-right. He said that such developments should be encouraged in areas where the county might be planning for infrastructure. Mr. Cox said that the normal process includes identifying those parcels most vulnerable and creating districts in other areas for higher density development, allowing for development in areas where it will not break the county in services and infrastructure. He noted that the proposed densities in Rural & Farming are about as high a density as can be developed while conforming to the Comp Plan. He said that to lower that density would create a situation where no one would ever want to develop in designated growth areas, as it would be too easy to chop up the rural areas at 2-5 acres. Following questions about the use of the reserved open space, Mr. Cox said that the open space tract could be sold to or maintained by one owner. He said that the county could add one by-right residence on that tract to allow one person to own, maintain or farm that parcel. Mr. Bruguiere said that no one would be able to afford to buy the lots and that he had no problem with conventional development. Mr. Cox noted that the Comp Plan identifies preserving open space and protecting farming as goals. Mr. Bruguiere said that there is no profitable farming. Mr. Wood said that the county could just end farming and become one big subdivision. Mr. Harris said that he was concerned about people being able to afford 20-acre lots. Ms. Brennan said that the development could be clustered on smaller lots. Mr. Harvey said that the Board could not dictate the value and worth of land. Mr. Wood said that the Board did just that when they first put in zoning. He said that he realizes that zoning affects the value of land. He said that making all of the land affordable in one-acre lots would certainly attract those from all over who want affordable land. Mr. Harvey said that there would have to be some happy medium. Mr. Harris said that he did not think the county wanted that kind of growth everywhere. He said that there are areas of the county that are not developable and that would be appropriate for open space. Mr. Bruguiere said he did not think there were too many developers willing to put in development in villages. Mr. Wood noted that there are lots of developers willing to put in lots of 2-acre lots on dirt roads with blind entrances though. Mr. Harris said that if the county is willing to shed the attitude that rezoning is a bad thing, he could agree to leave the Land Use map alone. Mr. Wood said that he had no problem with that, but noted that applying for a rezoning is not a blank check. He suggested making all of the current agricultural areas Rural & Farming and having applicants come in to apply for a higher density. Mr. Bruguiere said that a developer is not going to come in to set up infrastructure. Mr. Harvey said that he did not care about the developer, but did care about the landowners. Mr. Cox said that the county has the right to be proactive in encouraging development closer to villages and existing community growth areas. He said that unless the county recognizes zoning as a tool, the plan could be a disaster with a failed plan, lawsuits or with the county extending water and sewer lines to areas not planned for infrastructure. Mr. Harris said that he does not want to see the only choice for young families be cluster subdivisions, an apartment or a duplex. Mr. Wood said that he did not think anyone should be able to go anywhere in the county and get a one-acre lot. He said that he thought it would be better to leave the land in Rural & Farming and let the applicant ask for a rezoning. Mr. Cox said that there would be nothing wrong with thinking in terms of districts and where higher density development should go. Mr. Boger said that the county has not had the mindset against rezoning, but that a good project had not come in for rezoning. Mr. Cox said that the county had had every right to resist rezoning given that there is nothing in the existing ordinance to provide any controls. He said that the goal is to do everything possible to protect the landowners while recognizing that the county would have to defend against outsiders coming in to develop. He said that the proposed language of the ordinance would allow the county to cut existing property owners a break but would require a Walmart to meet stringent requirements. Mr. Harvey asked if there is anything the county can do right now to the existing ordinance to halt the run prior to adoption of the new ordinance. Mr. Cox suggested creating the largest lot size, adopting that and then come back to adopt the other districts. He noted though that it would be better to figure out how all the pieces fit together. Mr. Harris asked whether it would work to adopt the ordinance as is and then come back to amend as needed. Mr. Bruguiere said that you have to have a saleable piece of land and that you would not be able to get a developer to come in to develop a piece of land under the proposed ordinance. Mr. Harvey said that the door is wide open. He suggested closing the door and then work on amending the ordinance as needed. Supervisors tabled a decision until the regular afternoon session pending additional information from Mr. Cox, Mr. Boger and Mr. Carter. MASONIC LODGE - Supervisors voted 5-0 to authorize Mr. Carter to grant a right-of-way across county property behind the Library for the Masonic Lodge. Meeting adjourned. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ OF INTEREST: - "What Price Growth" - WHTJ Charlottesville PBS will explore the issue of growth in Central Virginia and its impact on transportation, housing, the environment and more with Harrison Rue (Exec Dir of TJPDC), Jack Marshall (Pres of Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle Population - ASAP) and Neil Williamson (Exec Dir of the Free Enterprise Forum). Wednesday, April 14 at 6:30pm at the Abbott Center Auditorium - Darden Graduate School of Business Administration at the University of Virginia - Rural Health Outreach Fundraiser - Friday, April 16 from 6:30-9:30pm at Spruce Creek Gallery on Rt. 151. Music by Tiger Lily, featuring food from local restaurants, wine from local wineries and a silent auction of local art. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This report, sent to over 550 Nelson County citizens, was made possible by the generous donations of Rural Nelson members and supporters. We need your help to continue this service. Please consider donating. Kim T. Cash Field Officer Rural Nelson, Inc. P. O. Box 401 (622 Front Street) Lovingston, VA 22949 434.263.5000 Email: info@ruralnelson.org www.ruralnelson.org