Upcoming: - Wednesday, November 17 PLANNING COMMISSION 7:30pm Courthouse - Wednesday, December 1 RURAL NELSON MEETING 7:30pm at the office at 622 Front Street, Lovingston. Program: "Protecting Gateway Communities". ------------------------------------------------------------------------- BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' 10 AM WORK SESSION Tuesday, November 16, 2004 All Supervisors present. VDOT SIX-YEAR PLAN - Mr. Kevin Wright and Mr. Ronnie Brown (VDOT) presented last year's plan, noting that a lack of funding for new projects. Mr. Wright said that the last 14 priority roads on the list did have yet have ad dates as they were added based on last year's funding. (See full list from last year in Rural Nelson's November 3, 2004 report at www.ruralnelson.org). Mr. Wright noted one priority change to move switch Rt. 612 (Virginia Lane) from Priority 6 to 11 as there are additional right-of-way issues to be settled. Rt. 620 was moved from Priority 11 to 6. Supervisors agreed to move Rt. 709 (Chapel Hollow Lane) from Priority 22 to 16. Ennis Mountain Road (Rt. 611) was moved from Priority 16 to 22 and changed from paving .36 miles at Rt. 635 to paving the entire road. Supervisors also agreed to switch Priority 13, Wilson Road (Rt. 653) from Priority 13 to 19 and switch High Peak Lane (Rt. 650) from Priority 19 to 13. Supervisors added Cub Creek Road (Rt. 680) as Priority 37. CLOSED SESSION - To consult with counsel on legal issues. ZONING ORDINANCE - Following the Closed Session, Supervisors made the following comments: Mr. Wood said that from comments received at the September public hearing and other contacts, there are several significant issues to be addressed to get the zoning ordinance to a point where it will give us some of the protections needed and address concerns. He noted the concerns with the minimum lot size, family subdivisions and small details that the Planning Commission had already removed from the ordinance. Mr. Wood said that the point was to protect the county from having developers that leave the burden of cost on the rest of the taxpayers and that he would like to move quickly to address the big issues. Mr. Harris also noted concerns with the minimum lot size and the number of division rights. He questioned whether a limit to division rights would be needed if the ordinance required large lot sizes. Mr. Harris also noted concerns with the Net Developable Acres language, saying that steep slopes and wetlands are already regulated by the appropriate agencies. He suggested simplifying or eliminating the NDA section. He suggested that the little details - parking, landscaping, etc - related to subdivisions did not necessarily have to be in the zoning ordinance but could be addressed by home owners' associations. He said that he agrees with regulations for health and safety reasons and for control of by-right uses in agricultural areas. Mr. Bruguiere said that residential development should not be discouraged in Rural & Farming districts, although the existing 40,000 square foot lots would not work and even 2 acre lots might not be enough. He said that the 20-acre minimum lot size constitutes a taking. He suggested 2-acre lots for the first 5 lots and 5-acre lots for additional divisions to allow a farmer to sell a few acres that are not that valuable to him. He suggested throwing out the Rural Residential district and said that if a buffer is needed, a 50 or 100-foot buffer could be required in the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Bruguiere said that roads for subdivisions in Rural & Farming should be addressed in the Subdivision Ordinance and roads should be required to be built to state standards for subdivisions with 10 or more lots. He said that the ordinance needs a true business district. Mr. Bruguiere said that the Planning Commission did take out a lot of the general requirements that many had expressed concern about. He also said that the Commission should be able to get the revisions done in a matter of weeks. Mr. Harvey said that the Net Developable Acres section should be removed altogether and that the limit of 5 division rights is not fair to large landowners. He said that he would be interested in looking at sliding scale zoning. He said that the 20-acre minimum lot size would not work but that 5 acres would not work either. Referring to new development, Mr. Harvey said that new water & sewer customers should carry the burden rather than existing customers and taxpayers bearing the costs. He said that we have to look at the net effect on schools and that the big bad wolf is here. Mr. Harvey said that we have to get an ordinance together to protect all of the citizens of the county. He suggested that the biggest thing the county could do to protect hunting rights is to limit some of the subdivisions. He said that the ordinance does need a distinct business district. Mr. Harvey said that with a little tweaking, we are not that far apart in agreement on an ordinance. Ms. Brennan said that the biggest issue of concern is the minimum lot size. She noted that 20 acres is not the minimum lot size - only the by-right lot size, with a smaller lot size allowed by permit. She noted that the second issue of concern is the number of development rights and suggested looking at sliding scale zoning. She said that she would like to see more development rights that currently proposed for cluster developments and more rights if a developer were using low-impact and green building techniques. Ms. Brennan agreed that she would like to see property owners able to sell off a small piece of property if they wished. She agreed that the Net Developable Acres calculations are a complicated scenario that could be made simpler. She said that the Planned Unit Development section still bothers her and that she would like to consider taking it out. Mr. Brennan said that roads should be built to state standards where possible. She said that the Board needs to hear what people do want and like in Nelson. She said that the Supervisors would be interested in hearing suggestions. Ms. Brennan said that the costs of development should go to the developers, not to the taxpayers. She said that with rapid growth, the real estate taxes would go up drastically. She agreed that hunters need places to hunt and suggested that all work together to compromise and protect the county. Ms. Brennan suggested using the existing Service Enterprise district as the business district for the new ordinance. Mr. Harris suggested that an Executive Summary of the final edited draft would be needed to help everyone understand the ordinance without having to plow through the entire thing. Mr. Boger presented Supervisors with a copy of the ordinance with existing Planning Commission edits and said that he had been working on the ordinance. He said that he had eliminated the Net Developable Acres calculations and proposed a 3-acre family subdivision lot size. Supervisors said that they would not be happy with a 3-acre lot size. Mr. Harvey said he would prefer a 1-acre lot size for family subdivisions. 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