PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, August 27, 2003 Present: Mr. Brush, Ms. Proulx, Mr. Bruguiere, Mr. Hoffman, Ms. Russell, Dr. Walker, Ms. Hunt Absent: Mr. Giles FINAL SUBDIVISION REVIEW/DENLINGER - With no public comment, Commissioners voted 7-0 to recommend approval of a plat to divide property on Dickie Road into two parcels each approximately 4.5 acres. FINAL SUBDIVISION REVIEW/DONOVAN - With no public comment, Commissioners voted 7-0 to recommend approval of a plat to divide their property on Blundell Hollow Road and Rt. 151 into six parcels, five residential lots and the residue of the property. DUTCH CREEK AGRICULTURAL/FORESTAL DISTRICT - The proposed district is located in the Dutch Creek/Elma area and would include 2,484 acres. The Agricultural Advisory Committee recommended approval of the District at their July 10 meeting. During the Public Hearing, Ms. Wisteria Johnson said that she is a native of Nelson and that her family has lived in that area for over 100 years. She said that she is proud that the neighbors in the proposed District are working to keep the area as it has always been. An attorney representing a Ms. Kiser, neighboring landowner, said that there is nothing wrong with preserving land, but that the District would affect adjoining landowners. He said that the restrictions of the District would amount to a taking and that Ms. Kiser's property would be affected as she would no longer be able to parcel out a piece of land. Mr. Brush said that the ordinance was written according to State code and would further the goals of the Comp Plan. He also pointed out that any landuse issues that came before the county always included consideration of adjoining landuse. Ms. Proulx explained that the restrictions on development would apply only to those parcels within the District and that the District is voluntary. She noted that the District would be reviewed every five years and that the landowners do not intend to force their will on the adjoining landowners. Mr. Brush said that the District would provide a good guarantee of what that area would look like for a number of years. He commended the applicants for their hard work on the ordinance and the District and said that it was a creative step for preserving land. Commissioners voted 7-0 to recommend approval. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT/MONTVUE - The property is located on Findlay Mountain Road near Shipman. The plat shows 15 lots with 4 lots having already been approved administratively. The lots range in size from 2.5 acres to 6.3 areas. Mr. Boger reviewed the information received and noted a staff recommendation to approve. Mr. Boger also reviewed the requirements for denying approval noting Section 3-10 of the Nelson County Subdivision Ordinance which states: "If at any stage of the approval process it is determined that a proposed subdivision would constitute a nuisance, a danger to public health, safety or general welfare or conflicts with the general purpose or intent of the Comprehensive Plan, approval may be denied." Mr. Morris Foster, representing the applicant, said that the there is presently a driveway from the existing house on Lot 1 and that there would be only two additional driveways added onto Findlay Mountain Road. He noted that there could have been more entrances onto the main road and that the land could have been divided into 25 or 26 lots instead of 15. He said that the applicant did not have to make those changes and Mr. Brush said that the Commissioners did not have to approve the plan. During the Public Hearing, Ms. Jeanne Scott expressed concerns with traffic on the road, noting that the road was last widened in 1955 and three accidents in the past 3 years in the section of road near the proposed subdivision. She pointed out that the main access road to the subdivision would be centered between a neighbor's two driveways, where farm machinery is moved in and out. Ms. Scott also said that in her conversations with the VDOT office, representatives had clearly stated that it is up to the county to protect the general welfare of the citizens and that that is not a VDOT decision. Mr. Mike Tapager said that this particular proposal highlights the need for a strong Zoning Ordinance and the importance of the ongoing rewrite. He suggested a parallel service-type road for the subdivision to eliminate the number of driveways entering directly onto Findlay Mountain Road. Mr. Tapager said that the developer, in presenting his proposal would be certifying that he is acting in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and making an effort to limit access points on rural roadways, develop moderate density residential areas on the periphery of development areas and cluster new development of areas, among other things. He noted that the Board of Supervisors has listed the Findlay Mountain Road/Rt. 56 intersection as the second highest priority (second only to Food Lion) in its request for help to the Commonwealth Transportation Board. Mr. Tapager asked that the Commissioners apply the current Subdivision Ordinance to mitigate the impact of the project, noting that the project is a threat to public safety and welfare. Mr. Clarence Craig expressed concern with 14 additional wells in an area where it is already difficult to get water. Ms. Julie Hilton presented Commissioners with photographs showing the many sharp curves and the limited sight distances in the area of the proposed subdivision. Ms. Susan McSwain said that the plan looks like a suburb and said that there are always safety issues when you put a suburb in the middle of a rural farming area. She noted Mr. Bruguiere's recent comment during a Zoning Work Session that high-density residential does not fit with uses in an agricultural area. Ms. Bonnie Burnley said that she still lives on her family's home place and does not want a large subdivision next door. She noted the dangerous road and that it would cause problems for the residents in the long run. She asked Commissioners to consider the human aspect of the issue. Mr. Chapin Wilson said that the developer had suggested that the county could put up matching funds to improve the Findlay Mountain Road/Rt. 56 intersection and noted that the developer would be the one to benefit from that. He suggested that approval of the project would set a precedent that would allow additional future subdivisions in that area. Ms. Anna Craig said her property is directly across the road from the proposed subdivision and that she is now retired. She said that it would not be a peaceful retirement if the plan is approved and asked that it be a smaller subdivision if there has to be one on the property. Following the Public Hearing, Mr. Brush said that he did not see any way he could vote to approve the plat given the tremendous safety issues with the road. He also noted no consideration for the Comp Plan's intention to protect usable farmland and keeping the residential growth medium density. Mr. Brush said that the project would change the character of the area. Dr. Walker noted that the project would not be compatible with the area and said that the infrastructure could not support this kind of build up. She said that it makes no sense to put the subdivision in and then let the development drive the infrastructure. Dr. Walker said that it is very clear that the Commissioners have a responsibility to look at the general welfare of those currently living in the area rather than those who are coming here. She noted repeated examples of the ongoing safety issues, including too much traffic and an additional 150 trips on an already inferior road. Dr. Walker said that the subdivision would be a nuisance in terms of its lack of compatibility with farming that is already in existence in the area. Ms. Proulx said that the project is totally inconsistent with the current Comp Plan. She noted the Statement of Intent at the beginning of the Agricultural District (A-1) in our current Zoning Ordinance, which states, "This district is designed to accommodate farming, forestry and limited residential use. While it is recognized that certain desirable rural areas may logically be expected to develop residentially, it is the intent, however, to discourage the random scattering of residential, commercial or industrial uses in this district." She said that it would be random to dump 15 houses on the parcel in that area. She said that she is also very concerned with setting a precedent and feels fully justified in turning down the proposal. Ms. Russell said that the current Comp Plan is not complete without a complimentary Zoning Ordinance and said that there is a conflict there. She noted the many concerns about safety but said that she would like to have more information from VDOT on the safety of the road and what level of traffic it would accommodate. Mr. Bruguiere compared the proposed subdivision to others in the county that were worse and said that until the new Zoning Ordinance was written, the applicant was well within his legal rights to subdivide. He said that he would vote with the applicant. Mr. Boger reviewed the denial process, which requires a resolution to deny. He said that the Commissioners would need to be very specific about how the applicant could revise the plat and return for approval. Mr. Boger also said that the process, if Commissioners denied approval, would allow the applicant to revise and return or go straight to the Circuit Court. Commissioners voted 4-3 (Ms. Russell, Mr. Hoffman, Mr. Bruguiere voting no) to deny approval of the preliminary plat noting that in order to be in compliance, the density would have to be significantly reduced. ZONING WORK SESSION - The next Work Session will be on Wednesday, September 24 at 7:00pm at the Courthouse. (NOTE: The September 10 Work Session has been cancelled.) Mr. Bruguiere asked if the Commissioners wanted to set a date to have representatives from the Farm Bureau come to discuss the draft ordinance. Ms. Russell said that the Farm Bureau had already sent a letter with their thoughts and that there are many others who do not necessarily agree with the Farm Bureau's position. Mr. Brush suggested the Farm Bureau could speak at the Public Hearing or the Commissioners could consider holding a work session prior to the Public Hearing to allow any citizen to speak about the draft. Meeting adjourned. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ OF INTEREST: - VDOT needs to hear from those of us who already recognize walking and biking as transportation alternatives. If you have not done so already, please go to http://www.virginiadot.org/infoservice/bk-survey.asp and complete the VDOT Citizen Survey today. It won't take but a minute, and your participation will assist ongoing efforts to promote pedestrian and bike paths. Please note that the deadline is August 31. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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