ZONING WORK SESSION Wednesday, July 23, 2003 Present: Ms. Proulx, Ms. Russell, Ms. Hunt, Mr. Bruguiere, Mr. Hoffman, Dr. Walker (Staff: Mr. Boger, Mr. Carter, Mr. Bill Wanner - Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission) (Board of Supervisors: Ms. Brennan) Absent: Mr. Brush, Mr. Giles Mr. Wanner began by distributing copies of the pertinent pages from the Comp Plan regarding both the Rural Residential and Rural & Farming Districts. He also provided information on PDR (Purchase of Development Rights) and TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) programs as requested at the last zoning work session. Mr. Boger and Mr. Wanner distributed examples of conservation and cluster development models for review. Mr. Wanner identified the goal of developing consensus as to what the two districts are and what the fundamental intentions were for the districts. He said that the language of the ordinance would then follow. He then asked each Commissioner to begin defining Rural Residential. Ms. Proulx said that she agreed with the Comp Plan definition of a low-density residential and compatible non-residential use that would serve as a transition area from the higher density areas so as to not negatively impact the Rural & Farming areas. Dr. Walker said that she envisioned a low-density residential area with clustering of homes. Mr. Hoffman said that people moved here to have random housing rather than a traditional subdivision. He said that the district was not in character with Nelson County. Mr. Bruguiere said that Rural Residential development should be large lot rural subdivisions and suggested 5-acre lots. He said that size lot would offer plenty of privacy. He said that 20-acre lots would do more to chop up farmland. Mr. Bruguiere said that he could not support clustering due to environmental problems, specifically soil types due to potential septic failures on 1 ½-acre lots. He said that people are coming to Nelson for larger lots and that he did not believe commercial farming should be allowed in Rural Residential. Ms. Hunt said that she pictured larger lots, but said that affordable housing could not always be obtained with larger lot sizes. Mr. Wanner suggested that there could also be some creative ways to look at variations within the district. He also suggested that the county could consider applying a density bonus for a percentage of the development devoted to affordable housing. Ms. Russell said that she remembered the Comp Plan discussions on Rural Residential as it being a buffer area of residential without water and sewer and on 5-acre minimum lot size rather than 1 ½-acre lots. She remembered the Rural & Farming District as larger lot sizes. Ms. Proulx said that she would like to revisit the agricultural uses allowed in the district at a future meeting. She suggested that the ordinance address the number of entrances onto a road and Mr. Boger suggested it provide for future connectivity with other residential development and take into account any unique features of the land. Mr. Wanner suggested the definition of the Rural Residential District as: "Provide a low density residential district near an existing village or crossroads offering primarily large (5-acre) lots which can act as a buffer between development and agricultural uses with a minimum of agricultural uses within the district." Mr. Wanner and Mr. Boger will put the above into a proposal for the Commissioners' consideration. Commissioners agreed by consensus that the name, Rural Residential, should stay the same as it accurately reflected the intent of the district. Mr. Wanner then asked Commissioners to comment on the Rural & Farming District, noting that it applies to approximately 90% of the county on the Land Use Map. Ms. Proulx said that she would agree with the Comp Plan description ("would promote agricultural uses and compatible open space uses but discourage large scale residential development and commercial development that would conflict with agricultural uses. The Rural and Farming District would permit small scale industrial and service uses that complement agriculture. Protection of usable farmland should be encouraged. Clustering of any new development in areas of a site without prime or productive soils will enhance the protection of prime or productive soils for future agricultural uses."). She said that she did not personally want to see subdivisions in the district. She said that if the county were to look at a Purchase of Development Rights program, rights would have to be assigned and that that might not be a bad approach. Mr. Wanner suggested that the number of lots could be tied to the acreage and the amount of open space preserved. Ms. Russell said that she was concerned with breaking up the existing large farms and questioned whether there would still be a demand for large farms 10 years down the road, or whether specialty farms would continue to grow in number. She pointed out that the Comp Plan states that the district would "discourage large scale development" but asked what would be considered large scale. She said that ideally, she would like to see large farms stay and no large subdivisions in the district. Ms. Hunt said that not all of the area identified as Rural & Farming is viable farmland and suggested that the county may need to identify prime ag lands and those suitable for development. Ms. Proulx said that not all farm operations in Nelson are on prime farmland, noting that the growing number of vineyards is an example of that. Mr. Bruguiere said that the county needs to be careful about restricting people's property rights and said that the only thing that is going to protect farmland is to make commercial farming profitable. Mr. Carter pointed out that the ordinance, by allowing fewer lots, would make those lots worth a lot more based on today's market. Mr. Hoffman said that the idea of keeping farmland is not 100% viable. Dr. Walker said that she had questions about who is buying large parcels of land - whether county residents, people coming into the county, young people. She also questioned the future of agriculture in Nelson. Dr. Walker said that the Rural & Farming District is concerning as it IS the county and that if that part of the ordinance does not work, the rest would not work. Mr. Carter said that if the Comp Plan says that the county wants to cluster development around the urban areas with focused growth in there and larger lots further out, he would question how young people would afford the 5- and 20-acre lots. He said that they might need to move into the more urban areas to start off. Dr. Walker said that the issue for her was whether the proposed ordinance would do something that would create the need for affordable housing. Mr. Boger noted that the ordinance could allow enough smaller lots and that family subdivisions were allowed by law in rural areas, but that there were no guarantees about affordability. Meeting adjourned. The next Zoning Work Session will be on Wednesday, August 20 at 7:00pm with Mr. Wanner. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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