ZONING WORK SESSION Wednesday, September 24, 2003 Present: Ms. Proulx, Dr. Walker, Ms. Russell, Ms. Hunt, Mr. Hoffman, Mr. Bruguiere (Staff: Mr. Boger, Mr. Bill Wanner with Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission) Absent: Mr. Brush, Mr. Giles Mr. Wanner presented a proposed formula for the Rural Residential District and for the Rural & Farming District. RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT - previously identified as a residential area outside a village. The proposal would calculate the gross density for development at 5 acres/dwelling unit but configure the development on 2-acre lots with the remainder of the parcel undeveloped. The development would require a vegetative buffer between the existing road and development and a buffer/transitional area between the development and the rural areas. Mr. Wanner gave the example that a 100-acre parcel would yield 20 lots at a gross density of 5 acres/dwelling unit (i.e. 100 acres divided by 5 acres/dwelling unit = 20 lots). Developed on 2-acre lots, the development equals 40 acres with 60 acres reserved for roadway buffer and transitional area. RURAL & FARMING DISTRICT - previously identified as an area of low-density housing and agricultural operations. The proposal would calculate the gross density at 20 acres/dwelling unit but configure the development on 5-acre lots in two possible ways: 1) 5 residences, each on 5-acre parcels permitted by right; 2) on the remaining acreage, adjoining lots of 5 acres each (according to the number of lots permitted by the calculation at the 20-acre gross density/dwelling unit) developed as a conservation subdivision with the remaining acreage reserved as a Rural & Farming Preservation Tract. The minimum parcel size of 100 acres is required for developing the 5 residences by right. For parcels under 100 acres, a residence is allowed for each 20 acres. Mr. Wanner gave the example that a 200-acre parcel yields five 5-acre lots by right with the remaining 175 acres allowing an additional 9 lots (i.e. 175 acres divided by 20 acres/dwelling unit = 9 lots) with each dwelling developed on 5-acre lots for a total of 45 additional developed acres. A total of 70 acres are developed with the remaining 130 acres protected as a Rural & Farming Preservation Tract. DEFINITIONS - Conservation Subdivision - a subdivision of land into individual 5-acre parcels and a Rural & Farming Preservation Tract. The development parcels are to be accessed by one internal road, buffered from the State roadway by a vegetative buffer. Rural & Farming Preservation Tract - a lot that is restricted and protected by a legal arrangement to preserve those rural features as described in the Comp Plan. These features include historic sites and farmhouses, outbuildings and barns, prime agricultural land, critical slopes (greater than 25%), scenic vistas, river and stream corridors, especially floodplains and wetlands. Mr. Boger said that, under the two proposals, the property owner is not losing the right to develop the property. He said that the landowner would have the same divisions but on smaller lots and in a smaller area. Mr. Wanner agreed saying that the proposal provides a density that is marketable and still keeps the bulk of the land undeveloped. Mr. Boger said that the county could also use an incentive of a 10 - 20% increase in density if the development were done in a conservation subdivision. Mr. Bruguiere said that the Rural & Farming District would "never fly" with the people of Nelson. He said that he could swallow the Rural Residential at 5 acres but did not agree with clustering development. Mr. Bruguiere said that people are selling land to get rid of it, not to farm. He said that people are not buying land to be clustered. Noting the example of the 130-acre Rural & Farming Preservation Tract, he said that that would be 130 acres going to waste that could be used. Mr. Bruguiere said that open space should be the unbuildable land and that anyone buying a lot in a cluster development would also be paying for the undevelopable land. He said that the proposal would be taking away the right for the landowner to get the maximum profit from his land and would be changing the entire zoning map. He also said that those living in Nelson would not be able to afford the land. Ms. Proulx said that the Commissioners did not want to set up a situation that would not allow or support those who want to farm. She noted that the Comp Plan looked at the existing land use and built the designations on that, on existing patterns. She also noted that the landowner cannot realize maximum profits and still have cheap land for those living here. Mr. Bruguiere said that he would never vote for the 20-acre number and said that open space should be developed. Ms. Russell asked why land would be wasted if there was not a house on it. Mr. Bruguiere said that it would not be utilized if not developed. Dr. Walker said that there are other uses for land besides building a house. Mr. Bruguiere said that he would not be able to get the full value for his land with the proposed calculations. Mr. Hoffman agreed, saying that a landowner could not realize all his money with this plan. Ms. Russell said that there are many people coming to Nelson and that the county cannot support all of the additional homes. Dr. Walker said that she understood the landowner's need to maximize the value of the land and that she understood the need for locals to have affordable land, but said that after a recent case before the Commissioners, some controls are needed. She said that the county needs to do something and that the proposal would get the county closer to where it needed to be. Mr. Wanner said that he believed the Village and Rural Residential models were trying to recapture the historic rural community. He said that the Rural & Farming proposal was intended to minimize the destruction of a rural area by eliminating too many curb cuts, ruining scenic vistas, etc. He also pointed out that the term "clustering" is a misnomer in the two districts discussed, as the homes would actually be on 5-acre lots. Mr. Bruguiere said that you can do anything on 5-acre lots - privacy for those coming here without taking away so much land for open space. Ms. Proulx suggested that as a majority of the Commissioners were comfortable with the two proposals, Mr. Cox could rewrite the sections and the Commissioners would wait to actually hear public comment. Mr. Wanner said that he felt the proposals were a happy medium. He said that the proposals would not unfairly burden the large property owner as the market is there for the concept and yet the proposals are creative in preserving open space. He said that the only tool to address Mr. Hoffman's and Mr. Bruguiere's concerns is currently not allowed in Virginia - the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR). Dr. Walker said that she believed the proposals were as close to a compromise as the Commissioners could get. She said that what we have right now is creating even more problems and the county needed to move forward. OTHER BUSINESS - Ms. Proulx asked that in the future all landowners be listed on applications for subdivision of property. Mr. Boger said that a form could be created like that used for rezoning requests. Commissioners set Zoning Work Sessions for Wednesday, October 8 at 7pm; Wednesday, October 22 following the regular Planning Commission meeting at 7:30pm; and Wednesday, October 29 at 7:00pm. Meeting adjourned. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ OF INTEREST: - LAYING THE FOUNDATION FOR A MUSEUM OF RURAL LIFE - Friday & Saturday, October 24 & 25. Advance registration required - register by October 17 - Conference is free; fee for meals only. The conference is an opportunity for citizens to take part in the development of the museum. For information or registration materials, contact ncmrh@ceva.net or call 263.5940. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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