PLANNING COMMISSION COMP PLAN WORKSHOP

Wednesday, December 19, 2001

Absent: Mr. Drumheller and Mr. Harvey

NOTE: The following text changes to the Comp Plan convey the intentions of the Commissioners but not necessarily the exact text as it will appear in the final plan. The Thomas Jefferson Planning Commission will take the edits from this Workshop and develop the final language.

Mr. Boger noted that in addition to written comments, Mr. Bo Delk had commented that there was no area identified in the Plan for intensive manufacturing. Mr. Boger also noted a letter received from Timmons, a firm working with the county to develop a Stormwater Management Plan stating “We did not find any elements of the comprehensive plan that inhibit the practices we have discussed and summarize the draft plan as very conducive to the introduction of stormwater guidelines within a revised zoning ordinance.”

- Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan – Commissioners added “The Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan is included in the Comp Plan to enable the county to consider support for the plan. The plan relies on agreement with landowners before trails would cross private property.”

- Greenways Plan – Added “The Greenways Plan is included in the Comp Plan to enable the county to consider support for the plan. The plan relies on agreement with landowners before trails would cross private property.”

- Education – Added the following Goals and Principles:

Goal – support the educational needs of all Nelson’s citizens as a means of preparing for their roles as workers, citizens and parents.

Principle – encourage improved school buildings and public education generally.

Principle – support educational programs through the county schools, community based organizations, and community colleges that provide a trained workforce for local industries.

Principle – ensure that the county library system meets the needs of a growing population.

Principle – ensure adequate adult education to help adults fulfill their roles as workers, citizens and parents.

Principle – promote the year-round use of school buildings as community and multi-use facilities.

- Public and Human Services – Added “Planning should include a rational, cost-effective, environmentally sound approach for handling waste and recycling material. Sensitivity to our natural environment as well as economics should guide us as we look for, find and incorporate new ways to solve old problems.”

- Natural, Scenic and Historic Resources – Added “Recognize the importance of groundwater and surface water to the county by supporting the guidelines for the protection of these resources.” Added “Conduct water resource inventories as needed.”

- Rural and Farming District – Considered a change to “Division of property should discourage depletion of usable farmland, but clustering of any new development in areas of the site without prime or productive soils will further help preserve these areas for future agricultural uses.” Mr. Hughes Swain, President of the Nelson County Farm Bureau, expressed concern with even the mention of the division of farmland noting that farmers should be able to divide their land for family members or to downsize their farms. Ms. Proulx stated that the division of all land is regulated and that farming was not being singled out. Mr. Brush noted that the Commissioners were trying to discourage the division of farmable land and that state law protects the division of land for family. Commissioners decided to change to “Protection of usable farmland should be encouraged. Clustering of any new development in areas of the site without prime or productive soils will enhance the protection of prime or productive soils for future agricultural uses.” Mr. Andrew Gantt stated that the Plan would take away property values of people who own land in the county and that the impact on county revenues would be devastating. Mr. Al Weed asked that the Commissioners reconsider deleting the sentence “The specific regulation of industry and intensive farming in this district will be addressed in the Zoning Ordinance,” noting that citizens had expressed a desire to consider regulations. The Commissioners did agree to leave the sentence in the Plan.

- Mr. Boger suggested including a Rural Village designation for Afton – generally describing the area as being from near the top of Afton Mountain to the post office in Afton. He noted the regional work under way to develop the Claudius Crozet tunnel and the growth in the area. Ms. Proulx said that the area in question was much larger than the models for growth in the Plan and that she objected to it coming in at this stage in the process. She said that the area did not fit the Rural Village model. Ms. Proulx also said that adding the designation at this point would be adding a major feature without public comment. Mr. Boger stated that the possibilities had just recently come up in regional meetings and that the designation would give the county some guidelines for growth. Ms. Russell stated that the area did not fit the Rural Village model noting that if the pressure was for a tourism attraction, the Comp Plan could certainly be revised at a later date. She said that the Zoning Ordinance could allow some types of commercial in the area. Ms. Proulx said that she was very hesitant to designate the area without public input and was uncomfortable with adding it at this point in the process. Ms. Russell suggested, and the Commissioners agreed, to consider the Plan as presented since there is a mechanism for adding a designation to the Plan later.

- Commissioners changed the language in the description of three of the Models (Rural Small Town, Rural Village and Neighborhood Mixed Use) from “Building Sizes – Small to medium” to “Building Sizes – Scale should be compatible with existing buildings.”

- Rural Residential District – Changed language to “would allow low density residential and compatible non-residential uses in rural areas where agriculture is not the predominant use” – deleting the phrase “near designated development areas”.

- At Ms. Russell’s suggestion, the Commissioners clarified the descriptions of the designated areas on the Future Land Use map and added numbers to make identification simpler. Commissioners agreed to the realignment of one Rural Residential area designation around the Rockfish School and changed the Note on the map to read “Designated future land use areas are not shown to scale.”

- Land Use Plan for Rural Conservation Areas – agreed to change language from “Steep, mountainous slopes should not be developed” to “Limit development on critical slopes in order to maintain the balance between slope, soils, geology and vegetation.” Commissioners agreed to remove the sentence “Mature woodlands and wildlife habitats should not be developed” noting that both mature woodlands and wildlife habitats are vague terms and not defined in the Plan.

- Appendices-Growth Management and Planning Implementation Tools – Agreed to remove the “Herbicide-Pesticide-Nitrate Management” pages.

Mr. Hoffman commented that he objected to cluster development and moving everyone into one little spot noting that people come to Nelson because they want to live in the scenic areas. He objected to “regimenting them” after they move here. Ms. Proulx noted that the concept of “moving” anyone was not a part of the plan but rather that future growth would be encouraged and directed to identified growth areas. Mr. Andrew Gantt stated that what he likes about Nelson is not the vistas, which could be found all over the world, but the interaction in the neighborhoods. He said that people should be able to disperse throughout the county. Mr. Brush responded that there was nothing in the Plan to prevent anyone from buying land and living where they want to live. He noted that the Commissioners had given due consideration to everyone’s comments but were not willing to make wholesale changes to the Plan. Ms. Mary Jane Dull asked why Rt. 151/Rt. 664 did not have a growth designation and Ms. Russell responded that the Commissioners did not see that as an area in which to encourage future development. With agreement that Ms. Russell and Mr. Brush would proofread the edits, Commissioners voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the amended Plan to the Board of Supervisors.