Upcoming: - Wednesday, October 27 PLANNING COMMISSION 7:30pm Courthouse - Wednesday, November 3 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS - 6:00pm Work Session and 7:30pm Public Hearing on VDOT Six-Year Plan - Thursday, November 4 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - 4:00pm Courthouse ------------------------------------------------------------------------- BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SPECIAL MEETING PUBLIC HEARING ON HIGH COUNTRY ASSOCIATES' PROPOSAL Wednesday, October 20, 2004 Present: Ms. Brennan, Mr. Wood, Mr. Harris, Mr. Bruguiere Absent: Mr. Harvey Proposal by High Country Associates, LLC (HCA) to rezone approximately 30 acres of land from Agricultural (A-1) and Residential (R-1) to Residential Planned Community (Conditional), designate the area as Multiple Use and incorporate the area into the Wintergreen Master Plan. The property is located on the west side of Rt. 151 at the intersection with Rt. 612 and known as Haymeadow at Stoney Creek. The application also requests a total of 350 additional residential units be added to the Master Plan, with approximately 175 of those units to be developed as Senior Housing in the area to adjoin two sides of the 27th hole of the Stoney Creek Golf Course. See previous reports for a list of the applicant's proffers. Ms. Brennan read a statement offered by Mr. Harvey disqualifying him from voting on this application, noting the following reasons: 1. his wife has a business relationship with Wintergreen Real Estate which is affiliated with HCA; and 2. relatives, although not immediate family, are adjoining landowners to the 30-acre property. Mr. Dick Carroll, representing HCA, said that the land that is now Wintergreen was worth about $200,000 thirty years ago but worth a half billion now, without much call for services from the county. He said that Wintergreen has been a major driving force for the county, adding to the school system without adding many children to that system. He said that the proposal for luxury villas would be good for the county, adding $100 million to the tax base of Nelson or $700,000-$750,000 per year, with no additional children in the schools or services from the county. He said that the additional development units were needed to allow for the development of the 30-acre parcel and to allow for the development of the Assisted Living Facility. Mr. Carroll, addressing some of the Stoney Creek residents' previously stated concerns, said that the water and sewer capacity is available and well below capacity, with the utility running at only 10-15% of capacity now. He said that the water and sewer utility needs to expand its user base, noting that the congregate care and expanded residential would provide economies of scale, allowing the utility to make a profit. Mr. Carroll said that the utility needs to make a profit so water and sewer could be expanded into Nellysford. He noted a study by Draper Aden, commissioned by the county and the Nelson County Service Authority, reporting 1 to 1.5 million gallons of groundwater available per day. As to density concerns, Mr. Carroll said that the proposed density on the 30-acre parcel is less than that proposed for the congregate care facility, which most residents do not oppose. He said that not all of the buildings on the 30-acre parcel would be 52' high. Noting concerns that the plans have not been available, Mr. Carroll said that the plans have been published in the newspaper many times more than required by law and have been before the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors five times. He said that there have been many opportunities for review. Mr. Carroll said that one of the purposes of amending the Master Plan is to allow the developer the freedom to move with the market, one of the reasons Wintergreen has been so successful. He said that over the last 30 years, Wintergreen and Nelson County have followed a plan of responsible growth. He noted that both are now at a crossroads of no growth or planned growth and asked for approval of the application. Mr. Bruguiere said that one of the concerns he had heard was that the whole idea of a limited number of development rights in the Master Plan was to keep the value of property at a high level. He asked whether adding additional development rights would devalue the existing property. Mr. Carroll said that it was not logical to say that more people could not come to Wintergreen. He said that in 1974, the original Master Plan was approved at 5,200 development units but that even with the proposed new development, the total today would be 4,960. Ms. Brennan, noting that the congregate care area would be developed by someone else, asked whether once the land were sold for the congregate care facility the developer could then build something else. Mr. Carroll said that the contract negotiations were not yet complete but that HCA would continue to be involved in that project, at least in the area of architectural planning. Ms. Brennan then asked about who would pay for the new roads needed and Mr. Carroll said that each development would generate funds to pay for the necessary roads in that development. Public Hearing Comments - Mr. Wayne Fortune, adjoining landowner, opposed the proposal, noting the destruction of his view and concerns with increased traffic, noise, light pollution. Mr. Stuart Edwards, adjoining landowner, said that he knew there was the possibility of additional development when he bought his land, but never thought there might be a row of tall condos right in front of him. He said that the project would degrade quality of life for the area and create problems for existing residents. He suggested that the addition of single family homes would be a better option for the 30 acres. Mr. Russell Otis, speaking on behalf of the Board of Directors of Wintergreen Property Owners Association, said that it is the opinion of the board that the proposal constitutes a significant departure from the traditional development of Rodes Farm and Stoney Creek. He said that time share units are an issue of great concern to the board, noting that HCA should have an obligation to honor the agreement with their predecessor for no time share units. Mr. Otis suggested that if, as HCA has claimed, the products developed will be perfectly acceptable to the community, review of the project by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) would go a long way to ending any questions. He said that the WPOA Board generally supports the assisted living facility proposal, noting that the proffers for that project are reasonable and acceptable. He said that potential financial benefits for WPOA from both projects are legitimate, therefore the WPOA did not take their position on the development lightly knowing that it could mean lost revenue. He asked that the Supervisors consider the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial when making their decision. Mr. Craig Cooper, Stoney Creek, expressed concern with three items - 1) estimated tax revenues to the county unsupported and possibly overstated; 2) high-density development incompatible with the surrounding area; and 3) approval would constitute spot zoning and be inconsistent with the county's adopted Comp Plan. He said that HCA would benefit without benefit to the county. Mr. Peter Agelasto, representing Friends of the Rockfish Watershed, said that FORW supports planning and information. He said that Mr. Carroll had clearly stated that he is not asking for approval of a plan. Mr. Agelasto agreed, noting that the county is being asked for two things, but not to approve a plan. He suggested time for more studies on the issues, including water, and more planning before approval. He said that the Supervisors have a proposal that would have a huge impact on the community and would need a clear plan. Ms. Jan Burland, representing Friends of Stoney Creek, said that HCA is requesting that the county rezone a parcel of land. She reminded the Board that that is the most important thing that a local government can do and should not be taken lightly. She said that the Comp Plan speaks to preserving agricultural land and the rural character of Nelson and that she would argue that a 29-acre development with 175 units and 52' buildings would be grossly incompatible with the Comp Plan. Ms. Burland noted three specific areas of concern - 1) whether HCA actually owns the land; 2) whether the water and sewer system is really adequate when considering not the 350 unit number given by the developer, but rather at least double that for human numbers plus a large number of support people for the assisted living facility; and 3) that the county has the right to ask for any information, blueprints, profiles, etc to assist them in making decisions but is actually operating on the basis of nothing more than proffers for this application. Ms. Burland noted that the county's attorney had said that HCA does not have the development rights assigned to the area designated for the assisted care facility and that it was unclear as to whether they would apply for the permit needed. She asked that the Supervisors consider the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial when making their decision. Mr. Ron Duddleston, Stoney Creek, said that each individual landowner had put up money to purchase land at Wintergreen to prevent time share units. He said that HCA being unwilling to proffer away time shares is unconscionable. He said that HCA's unwillingness to go before the ARB with plans, indicates that they want the freedom to do whatever they choose. Mr. Earl Bloom, representing the Board of Directors of Wintergreen Partners, Inc, said that that board supports controlled growth at Wintergreen. He said that while the board had no information on which to formulate an opinion of HCA's proposal, they would suggest a delay to allow property owners to fully review plans, alleviating concerns and resulting in a positive action on behalf of the county. Mr. George KcKinney, Stoney Creek, said that HCA should assume the obligations and commitments made to the residents by the previous develop regarding consistent development and no time shares. He said that with 100 new homes under construction, WPI raising $20million for a new hotel on the mountain and the concept of land preservation and the Wintergreen Nature Foundation, the architectural review process is part of the reason people continue to move to Wintergreen at an increasing rate. Mr. David Juergens, Stoney Creek, said that it was promised that there would be no time shares at Wintergreen or increase of land that would affect values. He said that in 1989, Tim Hess and Dick Carroll had promised to be good development neighbors but they refuse to submit plans to the ARB. He said that property owners have a right and a responsibility to review all proposed changes that affect the community. Mr. Stuart Harvey, Wintergreen, reminded the Supervisors that the residents present had been there four or five times in opposition to the proposed project as inappropriate for the neighborhood. He said that the tax revenue numbers for the county were misleading as there would be just as much tax income from building half million dollar houses on the parcel. He noted that Wintergreen residents had been under use restrictions during the drought two years ago and that water availability is still an issue. Ms. Darlene Smith, adjoining landowner, said that the development would decrease her property values and opposed the project. She said that the assisted living facility proposal should be separate from the annexation proposal. Ms. Chris Still, Stoney Creek, said that HCA's high-density development, if approved, on the 29-acre parcel, would cause drastic negative changes. She expressed three specific concerns - 1) environmental including pollution, threats to the water supply and crime; 2) community development, noting that HCA had repeatedly said that Nellysford should develop like Waynesboro with its congestion and shopping centers everywhere; and 3) time shares are bad news. She said that greed and control are driving HCA and asked the Supervisors to vote for the residents. Ms. Kyra Ritter, Stoney Creek, pointed out that HCA and Wintergreen Real Estate is not Wintergreen. She said that HCA is trying to annex the property to line their pockets with the costs being borne by the residents. She said that HCA is using rhetoric to drive their proposal and has not actually defined the proposal. Mr. Dan Butterfield, Stoney Creek, asked for studies on water to determine whether there is enough water now and for the future and to determine the actual health of the aquifer. Ms. Mary Wolfe, part-time Stoney Creek resident, said that she purchased land at Wintergreen and planned to eventually live there fulltime to get away from northern Virginia's traffic and sprawl. She said that she believed in the community and had asked many questions before buying land here. She said that she specifically asked about this kind of development and was told that it would never happen. She suggested that the county would start losing tax base if landowners decided not to build their dream homes. Ms. Wolfe also expressed security concerns with time share units. Mr. Bill Reilly, Rodes Valley, said that this proposal flunks the business "smell" test. He suggested that the Supervisors step back and look at the details and they would agree. Mr. Craig Cooper, Stoney Creek, noted that the previously mentioned Draper Aden study on water and sewer was based on a certain density with no calculations for the high-density development being proposed. Following the Public Hearing, Mr. Wood asked Mr. Boger for clarification on three issues - 1) whether the proposal before the county is the final review (Mr. Boger said that HCA would have to submit a final site plan); 2) whether an additional permit would be needed for residential development for the assisted living facility (Mr. Boger said that none of the remaining 162 development units were assigned to residential in that area so a special permit would be needed to transfer units); and 3) whether the Comp Plan would have to be amended to allow the commercial facility in Haymeadow (Mr. Boger said that it would not have to be amended as the commercial is planned as an accessory to the Residential Planned Community). Mr. Bruguiere asked what could potentially be developed under the current plan in the area of the proposed assisted living facility. Mr. Carroll said that a new shopping center could go there, but there were no residential development rights in that area. Mr. Harris asked about the concerns expressed that the proposal does not have to go through ARB review. Mr. Carroll said that HCA does not have to take projects before the ARB, but that they have, over the years, shown them what they are planning to do. Ms. Brennan recommended that the Board delay a vote in order to have time to review all submitted documents and comments on the proposal. Supervisors agreed by consensus to delay the vote until their November 16th regular meeting. Supervisors made the following comments on the proposal: Mr. Wood said that traffic is a concern but that the Board relies on VDOT, who has approved the entrance and traffic impact, as their expert. He said that he is comfortable with the results of the Draper Aden study on capacity for water and sewer. He pointed out that the Board could not consider the time share issue as state law does not permit a locality to turn down a proposal because of time shares. He said that the ARB issue is not a part of the county process. Mr. Wood said that while there are always concerns with new growth, his reading of the Comp Plan is that the county will direct growth to areas that can best support that growth with infrastructure. He said that while the proposal is for high-density development, that kind of development actually eats up less farmland than spreading the same number of units across more land. Mr. Wood said that although he understands the concerns expressed, he would have a difficult time saying that the proposal does not meet his interpretation of development outlined in the Comp Plan. He said that he wished there was a way to have agreement regarding the ARB, but that the county has no authority to direct the developer to do so. Mr. Wood said that it would be tough for him to say no to the application. Mr. Bruguiere said that the 29-acre parcel could be developed without adding it into Wintergreen, but that it would be much nicer if it were. He said that the proposed development would be away from the entrance to Stoney Creek and the residents of Stoney Creek. Mr. Bruguiere said that he had initially voted (on the Planning Commission) against the proposal, but after going to the property and studying the issues, had changed his vote. He said that at this time, he would be included to vote for the project. Mr. Harris said that given recent legal problems with landuse decisions by the county, he would now base all of his decisions on whether or not each proposal violated the county's ordinances. He said that this proposal does not violate any ordinances, so he would vote for the project. Ms. Brennan said that water is always a high-priority issue for her and a concern. She noted traffic as a concern. She said that development and growth will happen in Nelson and that the county cannot stop it. She said that the county is trying to develop a new zoning ordinance to manage that growth and said that rather than have large parcels cut up, the compromise is to have managed growth in small areas. Meeting adjourned. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This report, sent to over 580 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