BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' ZONING WORK SESSION Tuesday, March 09, 2004 Present: Ms. Brennan, Mr. Wood, Mr. Bruguiere, Mr. Harris (Mr. Frank Cox, Consultant) Absent: Mr. Harvey Mr. Cox presented the status of the Zoning and Subdivision review process as: - the Zoning Ordinance draft is 95% complete; - the staff review of the draft is 90% complete; - the Planning Commission review of the Zoning Ordinance draft is 75% complete; and - the first draft of the Subdivision Ordinance has been completed with staff review to be followed by a Planning Commission review. Mr. Cox suggested the following goals for the Board's review of the draft: - establishment of a schedule for review with a tentative goal of completion by December, 2004; - set priorities for the review; - establish a process for public participation; - set a schedule for public hearings - required for both the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors; - in order to implement the new Zoning Ordinance, prepare a new Zoning map (Mr. Cox noted that that does not mean that the county would need to rezone the entire county); and - determine subsequent steps for the next 5, 10 or 15 years, i.e. Capital Improvement Plan, cash proffer study, village master plan, etc. Mr. Cox then reviewed the primary goals identified in the Comp Plan: - protect rural areas from sprawl and subdivisions; - provide for low density residential around the rural villages; - promote economic development at suitable locations; - channel new development into designated development areas; - encourage cluster development and creative land use guidelines; - improve the quality of development along highway corridors; - discourage building on steep slopes and in sensitive areas; - increase the requirements for open space; - implement enhanced conservation practices along the James River; - protect the county's roads: capacity and visual impact; and - maintain the county's quality of life. Mr. Cox noted that enacting zoning to achieve some of those goals would be "hot potatoes" and suggested that the Board would need to review each of the goals to determine whether there was political will to enact the tools needed. He suggested that the Board consider whether each of the following goals was still valid: 1. Protect the natural environment - limit development on critical slopes, wetlands, poor soils and geology and sensitive natural resources. Tools available - districts that require a percentage of open space and environmental standards that reflect the "lay of the land"; site development regulations and net developable area principles for new development. 2. Preserve and protect the county's highway corridors and adjacent land from unseemly development. Mr. Cox noted that recent and ongoing regional transportation issues would affect Nelson's highway corridors and should be considered in any planning. Tools available - Corridor Overlay Districts to provide design review and guidelines for new development; new Site Development Regulations (similar to historic district review boards); designate important corridors. 3. Protect and preserve rural areas, rural quality of life and the historic character of the county. Eliminate sprawl in rural areas. Tools available - the Rural & Farming District that discourages subdivisions, inappropriate rural uses and small acreage lots in rural areas; development of cluster standards; establishing minimum lot size requirements. 4. Promote low-density residential and related uses in areas where agriculture is not the predominate use. Tools available - Rural Residential Village District and Neighborhood Business District; rezone areas to support small, village-scaled land use; selectively amend zoning map at appropriate locations and prepare village land use plans. 5. Large-scale subdivisions and planned communities are inappropriate for rural areas. Tools available - zoning ordinance districts that provide the Board with the ability to selectively consider large development proposals in remote areas; adopt Planned Community Overlay District; adopt cash proffers. 6. Channel development and residential growth into designated development areas and provide the necessary infrastructure and services. Tools available - new residential, commercial and industrial districts to provide for increased land use densities and quality of site development; identify new development areas; prepare land use and infrastructure plans for development areas. 7. Prevent strip commercial development along major county roads; discourage sprawl and unorganized retail and business development patterns. Mr. Cox noted that retail center demands are expected to double over the next 10-12 years and that they should be planned for. Tools available - implement planned shopping and commercial districts; rezone prime properties according to the county's planning objectives. 8. Protect the county's rural roads and create appropriate development standards for landscaping, set backs and buffers for new land uses. Tools available - new site plan and subdivision standards; cluster development standards. 9. Encourage new economic development appropriate to the county; protect the existing agricultural economy; promote tourism. Tools available - new industrial zoning district that better reflects the uses desired by the county; eliminate conflicting uses from rural areas; rezone land in appropriate places for industry. 10. Ensure new development does not exceed the county's ability to provide infrastructure and services. Tools available - Rural & Farming district to eliminate sprawl; master plan for density where services can be provided; cash proffers. Mr. Cox suggested that the Board would face a three-fold challenge - to protect rural areas while promoting development areas and reducing sprawl = reducing the rural area subdivision density and increasing the town and village subdivision density. He suggested the following densities: Farm subdivision density - 1 residence/20 acres Rural Village subdivision density - 1 residence/5 acres Suburban subdivision density - 3-4 residences/acre Townhouse subdivision density - 8 residences/acre Multi-family subdivision density - 12-16 residences/acre. Board Discussion - Mr. Harris said that he is anxious to determine whether the identified goals are still realistic and suggested that the Board follow Mr. Cox's suggested guidelines to begin the process. Mr. Boger suggested that the Rural & Farming and Rural Residential are the most difficult and that if those two were nailed down, the rest would go smoothly. Mr. Bruguiere said that the public is not going to stand for 20-acre lot and 75% open space requirements. Mr. Wood suggested that the public might prefer to pay for the infrastructure and services for all the 2-acre lots. Mr. Bruguiere said that lot size should be market driven rather than required. He said that the public does not want the lot size requirement. Mr. Wood noted that there has been a lot of public input supporting the Comp Plan but that there weren't many who showed up to say they didn't want it. Mr. Bruguiere said that there is a big question as to whether the Comp Plan principles are still valid. Ms. Brennan said that there have already been several instances where having a Comp Plan without Zoning that fit has gotten the county into trouble. She said that Nelson's Comp Plan is an excellent document and a model for other areas. Mr. Wood pointed out that, at present, what the county thought it could do to limit development, it could not do. He said that the county is zoned all over for one- and two-acre lots. Mr. Harris said that he is ready to move forward and get the Zoning Ordinance done. He suggested establishing guidelines and a diagram of how to proceed with the process. Ms. Brennan asked whether a zoning map is required after adoption of a new ordinance. Mr. Cox said that the map is a key principle of state law. He said that the map would reflect the new districts, but said that many localities keep lower density zoning in place and encourage developers to come in for a rezoning. He said that if the county were going to encourage appropriate industry, it would be good to have land already zoned for that use. Mr. Bruguiere asked where, given Nelson land prices, young people are going to buy land. Mr. Wood said that that is the discussion, but said that if we leave it at 2 acres, we can just let them build anywhere and we would build the schools and put in water. Mr. Bruguiere said that you couldn't step on property rights. Mr. Wood said that that would be everyone's property rights - the person that owns it and everyone else who has to pay for that development. Supervisors set a Zoning Work Session for Tuesday, March 23 following a 5:00pm Work Session with VDOT on the 6-Year Plan. The Board directed staff to invite the Planning Commission and Mr. Cox. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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