BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

2:00/7:30pm

 

All Supervisors present.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT – Mr. Gordon Koerner, Shipman, said that the EDA had, during the recent budget meetings, requested funding of $9,000 which the Supervisors rejected.  He noted that the EDA is now planning to charge the county 1/8 of 1%, or $19,237 for the first year, to do the bond financing on the courthouse project.  Mr. Koerner suggested that the Board compromise and provide the $9,000 requested in the budget.  He also said that doing other county business during zoning work sessions might be legal but he asked whether it was ethical.

 

Mr. Mike McCarthy, representing Roseland Rescue Squad, asked the county to consider providing $19,000 in funding to allow the squad to purchase an oxygen regeneration system.  He said that the current oxygen supplier system creates expense ($2,400-$2,500 per year for oxygen) and safety issues related to the storage and filling of oxygen tanks.  Supervisors requested that Mr. McCarthy take the request to the Emergency Services Council and directed staff to look at funding option, including grant funding, for systems for all county rescue agencies.

 

Dr. Roger Collins, Superintendent of Nelson Schools, reported that preliminary results indicate that all Nelson schools will achieve accreditation this year.  He also reported on the various new initiatives being implemented in the schools and thanked the Supervisors for their support during the budget process.

 

Mr. Ronnie Wood asked that the Board add B&W Lane (Rt. 698) to the Rural Rustic Roads program for paving.

 

VDOT REPORT – Mr. Mike McCormack noted that the increased speed limit on Rt. 29 (55 mph to 60 mph) has been a concern for the Supervisors and said that they are working to set a date for discussions on the issue.

 

LOVINGSTON REVITALIZATION PROJECT – Mr. Harrison Rue, Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, reviewed the Transportation Safety Study connected with the project, noting the goals and issues identified as:

 

-         creating safe intersections (especially the Food Lion/Front Street intersection);

-         extending turn lanes and deceleration lanes on Rt. 29 while improving pedestrian crossings;

-         improving the connection between the east and west sides of Rt. 29; and

-         implementing bike routes and a pedestrian network.

 

He identified five areas of focus – the Courthouse area; a proposed extension of Rt. 56 west to Rt. 29; historic Front Street; Rt.29 and the proposed Lovingston Boulevard (planned to run parallel to the west side of Rt. 29 and extend the grid street pattern of Lovingston to the west side of Rt. 29); and the Front Street corridor (Front Street north from the Rt. 56 interchange.  Mr. Rue said that the next step will involve putting cost estimates to the short-term traffic improvements to allow the county to look at funding options.  He suggested that the county consider some kind of district with guidelines for the Lovingston area to guide future development, possibly a Corridor Overlay District.

 

Mr. Bill Mechnick, Land Planning & Design Associates, reviewed the revitalization component of the project including:

 

-         keeping and enhancing the courthouse as a central feature for the village;

-         restoring and renovating key historic buildings;

-         increasing the diversity of activity in the village;

-         creating livable streets with pedestrian amenities and reducing traffic speed in the core area; and

-         creating park and recreation opportunities.

 

Mr. Bruguiere said that the Rt. 56 extension is key to the project but that nothing would happen without a firm commitment from VDOT.  Mr. Rue said that once a plan is adopted in principle, the work with VDOT could begin.  Ms. Brennan said that the plan gives the county something to work with and Mr. Harris said that he believes the project can happen.  Mr. Boger suggested that the study, when finished, be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan.

 

PROPOSED CONSUMER UTILITY, TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICE AND TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX INCREASES – Mr. Carter summarized the proposed increases, noting that the Consumer Utility and Telecommunication Service tax increases would be utilized for the Paid EMS program.  He said that the Paid EMS program would probably not be in place until January or February with the planned revenue recovery component expected to take 6-9 months to generate revenue for the program.  Mr. Carter noted that the proposed taxes are fairly applied to all and that the required public hearings have been held.

 

Mr. Bruguiere said that an increase from $2 to $10 for each business line is a large increase, especially for smaller businesses.  Mr. Harvey agreed.  Mr. Bruguiere said that he has no problem with raising the lodging tax from 2% to 5% as that is a user tax and would not tax our local citizens.  Mr. Wood said that he and Ms. Brennan had met with Wintergreen regarding the proposed mountain project and that their figures show that a 1% increase (2 to 3%) that included the additional 1% on the condos at Wintergreen (currently the county is prohibited from taxing the condos at more than 2% by the General Assembly) would generate more revenue that the proposed 5% tax that would not include the condos.  Mr. Wood reported that Wintergreen would be willing to support the county’s request to the General Assembly to increase the tax 1% on the condos.  Ms. Brennan noted that with the proposed project on the mountain, the county stands to gain a lot more in the long run with the 1% increase that includes the condos and that she would be inclined to work with Wintergreen to see the project go forward.  Mr. Harris expressed concern with whether the Paid EMS program could go forward with a delay in the Transient Occupancy tax increase.  Mr. Carter noted that the revenues from the Consumer Utility and Telecommunications tax increases would be used to start the EMS program with the Transient Lodging tax increase earmarked for tourism. 

 

Supervisors voted 5-0 to adopt a resolution to increase Telecommunications tax from $2.00 to $3.00 on residential; $2.00 to $10.00 on commercial and industrial; and $0 to $3.00 on mobile/cellular phones.

 

Supervisors voted 5-0 to adopt a resolution to increase the Consumer Utility tax from a max of $2.00 to $3.00 on residential electric and $2.00 max to $10.00 max on commercial and industrial electric.

 

Supervisors voted 5-0 to adopt a resolution to increase the Transient Occupancy tax (Lodging tax) from 2% to 3% effective August 1, 2005.

 

Supervisors voted 5-0 to authorize staff to set the tax increase effective dates on the Telecommunications and Consumer Utility taxes as needed to give proper notification.

 

GIS PROGRAM – (Note: Supervisors approved $115,000 in the FY 05-06 budget for a GIS system).  Ms. Susan Rorrer, E-911 and Mapping Coordinator, gave an overview of the GIS system and what informational layers can be added.  She noted the benefits as:

 

-         provide a means to accomplish detailed analysis of county property information;

-         provide an accurate interpretation of the county zoning ordinance;

-         provide for management and dissemination of data for tax parcel mapping, E-911 Center mapping and county zoning maps;

-         provide for cross referencing of address and tax parcel numbers (currently done by manual comparison);

-         provide better access to information for both staff and citizens; and

-         decrease the demand on staff time to respond to inquiries for parcel and address information.

 

Ms. Rorrer suggested that Supervisors visit www.onlineGIS.net to see what the possibilities are for online information accessible to citizens.  Mr. Wood said that he is not sure how much money the county should take from the citizens to help real estate developers sell land.  Mr. Bruguiere agreed but said that if the system makes staff work easier, it could save the county from having to hire more staff.  Mr. Wood said that he is also concerned with security issues, noting that having the system internally makes sense but that once the information is available on the web, it is available to anyone.  Ms. Rorrer said that the county would have to make many decisions about which layers of information to make available to the public.  Mr. Carter noted that a Request for Proposals would go out by the end of the month to begin the vendor selection process.

 

VA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY/REFUND OF BOND OBLIGATIONS – Mr. Carter reported VPSA refunding of $286,255.34 to Nelson, which must be used to pay for the cost of public school capital projects.  Supervisors voted 5-0 to adopt a resolution to complete the requirements necessary to receive the fund.

 

STAFF UPDATES –

 

-         Courthouse Project – the Committee established by the Board will meet on Friday to consider additional concepts;

-         Ryan School Project – moving forward and scheduled for completion by the end of the year;

-         Piney River III – 142 surveys sent out with approximately 60% returned to date.  Over 60% of those returned indicated that they want water & sewer with 13 wanting sewer only, water only or no service at all.  Mr. Carter said that staff will begin calling non-respondents the first of August; and

-         Solid Waste Program – Mr. Carter reported that Mr. Saunders has talked with the landowners adjacent to the Shipman VDOT site and is waiting for responses.  In additional, he has visited several sites in Faber and Piney River to identify possible convenience sites in those areas.

 

APPOINTMENTS – Supervisors voted 5-0 to appoint Mr. Ed Rothgeb to the Service Authority board.  In addition, Supervisors voted 5-0 to appoint Mr. James Hall to the Thomas Jefferson Area Community Criminal Justice Board.  Staff was directed to advertise the opening for a South District representative on the Economic Development Authority.

 

FINAL SUBDIVISION/MR. WILLIAM WHITEHURST – With no public comment, Supervisors voted 5-0 to approve the final plat to divide 195.291 acres into 7 lots ranging in size from 9.9 to 80.5 acres.  The property is located on Carter Road in Schuyler.

 

SPECIAL USE PERMIT/MR. CLAYTON DALE EVANS – The applicant requested a permit to place a doublewide manufactured home on 1.29 acres located on Lonesome Pine Road (Rt. 649) in Shipman.  The property is zoned Residential (R-1) which requires a permit for placement of a manufactured home.  Mr. Boger noted that there are a number of manufactured homes in that area so the character of the neighborhood would not be changed by granting this permit.  With no public comment, Supervisors voted 5-0 to approve the permit.

 

SPECIAL USE PERMIT/HIGH COUNTRY ASSOCIATES (HCA) – Mr. Harvey stated that he had received a ruling from the state Attorney General stated that he does not have a conflict of interest in this issue.  The applicant has applied for a permit to reallocate 150 development rights from Single-family and Multifamily to Mixed Use in the Valley Village area located west of Monocan Drive in the general area of the Tuckahoe School and behind Valley Green Shopping Center.  The proposal does not include the approximately 3 acres at the entrance to Stoney Creek and the use for that property has not yet been determined.  Mr. Boger noted that in December, 2004, the Master Plan was amended as part of a rezoning to assign 175 residential units to the subject property exclusively for the development of senior housing, with the applicant proffering that one unit would be added to the Master Plan for each senior housing unit developed.  The 2004 amendment and rezoning are now in litigation.  Mr. Boger pointed out that if this permit is approved and the litigation is settled in favor of the applicant, there would be a total of 325 residential units available for the area in question.  He also noted that the developer of the senior housing has indicated that she will need approximately 120 units for that project.  Mr. Boger reported that the Planning Commission had voted to deny the request based on the following:

 

1. Lack of clear enough schematic for Planning Commission to make a conscientious decision;

2. The difference in number of development units – 150 or 175;

3.  The potential for abandoning the original approval which includes plans for assisted living; and

4. Lack of a schematic or preliminary plan with the application, as required by Article 14 of the zoning ordinance.  The schematic in hand does not represent what is now planned.

 

Mr. Stuart Sadler, representing HCA, said that the area in question is approximately 35 acres on either side of the 27th hole of the Stoney Creek golf course, and that that area has no residential development rights now except the 175 dedicated to senior housing.  He said that the original application was for 240 on either side but that only 120 on one side are now needed for senior housing with the 18-acre parcel having no residential development rights.  Mr. Sadler noted 166 Stoney Creek residential development rights unallocated.  He said that the alternative to the current proposal is commercial development which is allowed by right in Mixed Use.  Mr. Sadler said that the plan is to do smaller, clustered homes on the 18-acre parcel.  HCA would dedicate 75 of the rights to get the senior housing started with the remaining 75 going to the 18-acre parcel, allowing both projects to begin pending the outcome of the litigation.  He noted three benefits to approval – moves the senior housing project forward quickly; has the effect of downzoning the Mixed Use area; and continues the type of development that has been successful in Stoney Creek.  Mr. Sadler said that realistically, he expects 120 units to be developed for senior housing with 50-75 residential units developed on the 18-acre parcel (3-4 units/acre).

 

Ms. Brennan asked who has architectural review of the plan.  Mr. Sadler said that the development of the resort is governed under the General Covenants rather than the WPOA covenants so the developer has control.  Mr. Bruguiere said that the county would benefit from the increased tax base and HCA would profit.  He asked whether there would be a benefit for the Stoney Creek property owners.  Mr. Sadler said that each property developed contributes a one-time and annual fee to WPOA.  Mr. Wood said that the schematic submitted shows senior housing but that the plan has changed greatly since December.  Mr. Sadler said that the plan has changed and that the developer does not actually have a definite plan but does have a concept of what they want to do.  He said that there would not be a solid plan until they know what the market wants.  Mr. Wood said that clarification is needed on whether the 75 senior housing units in this application would go away if the lawsuit were decided to allow the original 175 units.  Ms. Brennan asked, if the current 150 units were approved, whether the applicant could have 150 plus the previously-approved 175 units in litigation.  Mr. Boger said that they could if the litigation were decided to allow the 175.  Supervisors then opened the Public Hearing:

 

MS. JAN BURLAND said that the requested 150 units is a net increase to the Master Plan as there is no such thing as moving development rights from one place to another without a net increase.  She said that the drawing submitted with this applicant was drawn by Virginia Taboub and her architect for 240 units for senior housing, and that Ms. Taboub has since redone her plan so the drawing is no longer valid for anything HCA might be planning.  She questioned whether HCA has met the requirements of Article 7, which requires that where a section of the Master Plan is brought to fruition, the developer must submit a final plan.  She said that the application is not detailed and asked the Board to not confuse Ms. Taboub’s drawing with what HCA is actually planning.  Ms. Burland suggested that the Board allow the lawsuit to be completed, let Ms. Taboub give her plan and then let HCA come back and tell the county exactly what they plan to do.

MR. STUART HARVEY, Wintergreen, suggested allowing WPOA to make its own decision as to who owns the remaining development rights before the county allocates something that the developer does not own.  He said that the developer is asking for 150 rights on a handshake that they are not going to use them all.

MS. VIRGINIA TABOUB said that she cannot develop the senior housing without 120 residential development rights and that she cannot achieve financing without those 120 rights.  She said that she hopes 120 rights can end up dedicated to senior housing.

MR. CRAIG COOPER said that the issue is confusing as it changes each time it is presented.  He said that the county deserves a plan and an accurate sketch with the clearest course of action to accept the Planning Commission’s recommendation to deny.  He said that HCA can submit something new and that there are so many questions because the developer has not been forthcoming.

MR. STEVE RAYNOR, attorney speaking on behalf of WPOA, said that HCA no longer has the authority to submit an application to amend the Master Plan with the new covenants filed by HCA in 2000 including a time period for the end of development designated as January 1, 2005.  He said that there are three entities now in control of the development rights – WPOA, WPI and HCA – and that there is no “developer”.  Mr. Raynor said that WPOA supports the development of senior housing but opposes the additional 205 dwelling units on 18 acres if HCA prevails in current litigation.  He said that HCA is not applying with drawings but with verbal plans that keep changing.  Mr. Raynor asked that the residents’ views being taken into account and the application denied.  He said that HCA can submit an actual plan.

MR. DON BURLAND said that HCA is asking for 325 units saying that they will not use them all but that there is reason for worry.  He said that approval of the permit would change the character of Stoney Creek from 87% single-family/13% multifamily to 58% single-family/42% multifamily, with any increased tax revenue offset by a substantial decline in the property values of more than 1,000 homes in a transformed Stoney Creek.  He suggested that the Board ask HCA to come back with a plan for what they want to do.

MR. DAVE JUERGENS said that the county has approved the plan for a study on the future of Nellysford and the 151 corridor.  He asked that Board deny HCA’s application pending the completion of that study.

MR. JOE STEELE, Chair of the ad hoc senior issues group, said that Mr. Boger has stated that a concept plan is all that is needed at this time and that the county will have an opportunity to see a final plan.  He said that HCA is not developing the senior housing which will be done by Ms. Taboub.  Mr. Steele said that there is a disconnect between HCA offering 75 units and the 120 units that are needed for senior housing and that he hopes that issue can be worked out.

 

Following the Public Hearing, Mr. Sadler said that the zoning ordinance does not require a final plan at this time, with the whole idea of the Residential Planning Community being to give the developer flexibility in development.  He said that Mr. Raynor simply misunderstands the facts of life and that HCA did not write amendments to the WPOA covenants.  Mr. Sadler said that the Master Plan is part of the Nelson County Zoning Map and WPOA has no authority to control or change that Master Plan.  He said that he believes, according to Section 7-5-1, the special permit is the appropriate way to amend the Master Plan and that approval would not result in a net increase of development rights. 

 

Mr. Wood suggested tabling the issue to allow the County Attorney and staff time to develop their comments and recommendations.  Mr. Payne agreed, noting that more information and suggestions by the applicant have been submitted requiring additional time before recommendations can be made.  Mr. Carter noted that Mr. Payne would need to advise on staff’s determination that a schematic plan is required and whether this permit can carry conditions.  Ms. Brennan said that she would be in favor of delaying a decision to allow time for the County Attorney to review the questions and information.  Mr. Bruguiere said that it is too bad the senior hosing is tied up in a lawsuit as it is a good project.  Mr. Wood said that he would like to see if there is a way to commit 120 rights to senior housing.  Mr. Payne noted that a preliminary schematic plan is needed in order for the Board to act on the application.  Supervisors tabled further discussion for more information until their August 9 regular meeting.

 

REZONING REQUEST/MR. CURTIS BRUGUIERE – Mr. Tommy Bruguiere stated that there is a perception of a conflict of interest so he would abstain from voting and would not participate in the discussion of this issue.  Mr. Curtis Bruguiere, owner of Anderson’s Grocery on Avon Road in Afton, has requested a rezoning of 1.88 acres from Residential (R-1) to Business (B-1) Conditional to allow the use of the space attached to the building for a real estate office and to bring Anderson’s Grocery into compliance.  The application includes a proffer from the applicant to limit the uses to neighborhood convenience store and real estate office with the residence on the property to be used only as a single-family residence.  Mr. Boger reported that the business is presently considered to be a nonconforming use and can continue indefinitely as long as it does not cease operation for two consecutive years.  He noted the May Planning Commission vote to deny the rezoning for the following reasons:

 

1. Approval would be “spot zoning” which is not “good planning”;

2. Rezoning of the property does not comply with the County’s Comprehensive Plan; and

3. Rezoning the property would have a negative impact on this residential community.  The integrity of the current zoning ordinance would be breeched.

 

Mr. Harvey asked whether rezoning the property would require the applicant to meet all B-1 standards.  He said that he does not want to rezone and then have a business eliminated because it cannot meet the requirements, noting that changing the use kicks in all the current requirements.  Mr. Boger said that he believes that a rezoning would require compliance with current requirements but that the County Attorney should be consulted on this issue. 

 

Mr. Bruguiere said that there is ample room on the 1.88-acre lot to add additional parking.  He said that he has accident reports from VDOT since residents are concerned about traffic problems at the intersection of Avon Road and Rt. 151.  He noted 10 accidents between 1/99 and 6/01 (a 30-month period).  He noted 10 accidents during the 40-month period he has owned the store between 6/01 and 12/04.  He said that he does not feel, therefore, that traffic is an issue and that VDOT has established that there is adequate sight distance for the business.  Mr. Bruguiere said that the real estate office would be 13x15 and a place to meet people, sign contracts, etc and that there would not be agents there.  He said that the office would not generate a lot of people or traffic.  He said that taxes would not go up on surrounding residential properties because of his business and that if there is another way to allow the office without a rezoning, he would like to know about that option. 

 

During Public Comment,

 

MS. FLORRIE CERPHY, Avon Road, said that she is concerned about the extra traffic as the location is not a safe one for a real estate office.  She presented a petition with 25 signatures of those in opposition.

MR. ROY WHITE, Avon Road, said that he is concerned that the rezoning will set a precedent for other businesses to come there.  He noted concerns with inadequate parking for two businesses and safety concerns with traffic.  He asked the Board to deny the rezoning as the Planning Commission did.

MR. LYNWOOD LOCKETT, adjoining property owner, said that the only thing that separates his property from the business is a driveway and he expressed concern that other businesses would follow this rezoning.  He said that there is not a need for a real estate office in the neighborhood.

MS. RITA HELMS said that she and her husband have a 3-year lease on the store with two 5-year options.  She said that if Mr. Bruguiere is allowed to rezone the building, it would violate their contract lease of the building and business.  She said that she has already lost the use of that area of the building and that there is not enough parking for two businesses. 

MR. CARLTON BALLOWE, Faber, said that it is ironic that Mr. Bruguiere owns a business but cannot have his business in it.  He said that he would like to see the applicant get his office.

MR. HARRY BAUM, Tanbark Drive, said that the building has been there for 100 years and the state built the road right in front of it, which should be taken into account.  He said that there is industrial just across the road so the area is not just residential.

 

Following the Public Hearing, Mr. Bruguiere said that Ms. Helm’s lease is for the space occupied by the store only, without the use of the office space.  He said that approval of the rezoning would not set a precedent for new businesses in the neighborhood.

 

Mr. Wood said that he would like answers as to whether a rezoning would require bringing the property into compliance.  Mr. Harvey said that he does not consider the rezoning “spot zoning” and that he would like to find a way for the applicant to have his office.  Mr. Harvey noted that the rezoning would be a drastic change to the neighborhood however, and that the adjoining landowner does have a legitimate complaint because the rezoning would remain for any new owner.  Mr. Harris said that he would like to know what the impact of the rezoning would be on requirements for parking, setbacks, etc.  He said that rezoning one business would not be rezoning the neighborhood but that parking appears to be a major problem.  Mr. Boger said that the Comp Plan does not identify that intersection for development due to the safety concerns. 

 

When asked about how his business operates, Mr. Bruguiere said that he and his wife operate two businesses – real estate and building.  Mr. Boger said that the two businesses might be a problem as the application is for a real estate office.  He said that staff would consult with the County Attorney.  Supervisors agreed by consensus to table further discussion for more information until their August meeting.

 

Meeting continued to Wednesday, August 3rd at 6:00pm for a Zoning Work Session.