ZONING WORK SESSION Wednesday, June 11, 2003 Present: Mr. Brush, Ms. Proulx, Dr. Walker, Ms. Russell, Mr. Bruguiere Absent: Mr. Hoffman, Mr. Giles, Ms. Hunt Rural Residential Village District - The District, as proposed, is intended to accommodate modest levels of residential development in outlying areas, which are located outside the designated growth areas and where public infrastructure and facilities are not planned. The goal is to have well organized, low-density residential and non-residential uses within carefully selected locations in the rural areas and is intended for residential land uses that may not be directly supportive of active agricultural and forestry activities. The District residential subdivisions must be sensitive to the physical scale and attributes of the surrounding rural areas. Cluster residential development is recognized as the preferred form of parcel subdivision and is strongly encouraged as a by-right use within the District. The draft ordinance would require a minimum District of 100 acres and allow a maximum of five residential development rights by-right for a conventional subdivision and ten for cluster subdivisions regardless of the property acreage. Additional residential development rights would require a special use permit. Each District would require an "open space" parcel for a bona fide recreational, agricultural, forestry or open space purpose. Commissioners first agreed to delete the word "village" from the name of the District. Mr. Bruguiere then asked where the Rural Residential areas would be and whether they would be rezoned in order to create the district. He asked if they would be on the fringes of the villages. Mr. Boger said that they could be on the fringes of the villages or they could be where a subdivision was located. He suggested having Mr. Cox attend to explain his reasons for drafting the District as he had. Mr. Bruguiere suggested that it would be better to simply set a minimum lot size rather than to limit the number of lots, noting the costs to the developer to create the infrastructure. Ms. Proulx pointed out that the District would be in areas without public infrastructure and that it would be less expensive to develop a cluster subdivision with wells and septic and fewer roads. Mr. Boger noted that the concept was to try to discourage pockets of development from springing up all over the county. Ms. Proulx said that she liked the concept of concentric circles of development from higher to lower density so that the whole county does not end up as a suburb. Mr. Bruguiere said that the land would be so pricey that the average citizen could not afford it. He said that the open space requirement would mean that the developer could not use all of the land. Mr. Boger said that the open space becomes a part of the development and is owned by the property owners or the farmer could sell part of the land and keep the rest to continue farming. Mr. Boger suggested changing the term "cluster development" to "conservation subdivision" and presented graphics showing an example. Commissioners agreed to the conservation subdivision term. He then presented the option of permitting the five residential development rights by-right with any further division requiring the implementation of the conservation subdivision guidelines. Mr. Bruguiere said that he did not think the District was needed in the ordinance. Mr. Boger pointed out that rural residential is exactly where the county is getting hit right now. Mr. Bruguiere said that in this county, people buy in large lot subdivisions. Ms. Proulx pointed out that, at present that is the only option. She also noted that the District allows for conventional subdivisions but with fewer divisions. After reviewing individual uses permitted by-right and those requiring a permit, Ms. Proulx suggested that clarification was needed as to those uses allowed in a conservation subdivision and those allowed in a conventional subdivision. Dr. Walker also expressed concern about allowing too many uses in the district and said that the open space should be kept open. Mr. Brush said that the concept might work in an intentional community, but not within the District proposed. Mr. Boger said that he would talk with Mr. Cox to get the section reworked. Mr. Bruguiere suggested setting a minimum lot size and allowing only residential development in the District with larger lots or cluster development. He said that the Rural Residential and Rural & Farming should be kept separate. Ms. Proulx, noting that on larger lots, people want to keep animals, asked whether the District would be treated as strictly residential. Mr. Bruguiere said that under his proposal it would be a true residential area. Ms. Proulx asked if that would create a suburb. Mr. Bruguiere said that the District should create lots of 5, 10 or 20 acres, allow for cluster development with the rest in open space with the developer having the right to decide between cluster or conventional. He noted that larger lots could be a buffer to the true agricultural zones. Ms. Proulx then asked what would be allowed in the agricultural zone under Mr. Bruguiere's proposal. Mr. Bruguiere said that there should be a minimum lot size. Ms. Proulx asked what that lot size would be and Mr. Bruguiere said five acres. He said that that lot size would provide for those who wanted to be away from everyone else. Ms. Proulx pointed out that you would not be away from everyone else with five-acre lots and noted that the proposal would then allow the land to be chopped up just like in the denser development areas. Mr. Bruguiere said that you would then be telling people they could not sell their land for the highest use and Ms. Proulx said that she would actually prefer to minimize the division rights. Mr. Bruguiere said that he had not actually looked at that method. Ms. Proulx said that part of the goal was to protect agricultural operations. Ms. Russell agreed, saying that the point was to avoid chopping up the land where you can. Ms. Proulx said that it was a mistake to think that the only agriculture that counts is cattle farming. Mr. Bruguiere said that with land prices today, it would be a challenge for anyone to farm. Ms. Proulx noted numerous smaller ag businesses starting up without buying 500 acres and running cattle. She said that she was concerned with Mr. Bruguiere's proposal to chop up the ag areas and said that the draft ordinance was trying to follow the Comp Plan to protect areas for potential farming. Mr. Bruguiere said that you might be able to protect it, but that you should not prohibit the sale. He reminded the Commissioners of the Farm Bureau's comments at the last work session. Ms. Proulx said that the Farm Bureau might not speak for all farmers. Mr. Boger said that the process includes development of the draft ordinance followed by a series of meetings around the county to develop some consensus. Mr. Boger then suggested that the Commissioners might consider having someone speak about other kinds of farming in the county. With the Commissioners' agreement, Ms. Kim Cash, speaking as a small grower, gave an overview of the growing number of specialty farms in the county. She noted the specialty produce, cut flower, organic, culinary herb, and shiitake mushroom growers, in addition to the increasing number of vineyards, who are all growing for and selling to specialty markets. Ms. Cash said that most of these growers are producing on a smaller scale than the commodity growers and finding the market for specialty crops to be a viable economic option. She emphasized that these growers consider themselves a part of the agricultural industry in the county and suggested that more than commodity farming be considered in any discussion of agriculture. Ms. Proulx pointed out that small businesses and growers are a desired method of economic development in the county and should be encouraged. Meeting adjourned. The next Zoning Work Session will be Wednesday, July 9 at 7:00pm at the Courthouse. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This report, sent to over 550 Nelson County citizens, was made possible by the generous donations of Rural Nelson members and supporters. 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