UPCOMING:

  - Thursday, February 3rd - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 2:00pm
Courthouse
  - Tuesday, February 8th - BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 2:00/7:30pm Courthouse
  - Wednesday, February 9th - PLANNING COMMISSION ZONING WORK SESSION -
7:30pm Courthouse (snow date February 16th)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE
Wednesday, February 02, 2005

All Commissioners present.

Ms. Proulx gave a brief history of the development of the current draft
noting that the county had hired a consultant in 2002 to draft an
ordinance based on the Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted after
several years of public meetings and the completion of a citizen survey.
 She said that unfortunately, the draft that first went to public
hearing was not the draft that the Planning Commission had worked on.
Ms. Proulx said that the ordinance is never going to make everyone
happy, but that the Commissioners had worked to make it as balanced as
possible.

Ms. Proulx noted some changes to the draft from the December public
hearing and some items that still need further review.  She gave the
allowed Rural & Farming lots sizes as 2 acres for Family Subdivisions,
noting that it is difficult to build on less that 2 acres given current
Health Department requirements for well & septic fields; five 5-acre
lots; five 10-acre lots; and unlimited 20-acre lots.  She said that
setback requirements still need review on the lot sizes given above and
said that the Corridor Overlay designations had been removed from the
zoning map and would only be added back in after and if the Board of
Supervisors established the guidelines for the Corridor Overlay
designations.  She said that the Planning Commission does support
business development and wants to make it easier for home occupations to
exist in the county. 

Ms. Proulx explained that the Planning Commission, following the public
hearing, would meet to further review comments received and make an
official recommendation on a draft ordinance to the Board of
Supervisors.  She said that the Supervisors would set their own schedule
for discussion of the ordinance but would hold a public hearing prior to
taking any final action.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

MR. ROBERT BARTON - Shipman - said that the issue is not between
newcomer and oldtimer but rather between those who want to stay and
those who want to sell.  He said that the tax rate and the cost of
living will go up with new residential growth and that those who want to
stay have an interest in keeping our taxes and development low.  He said
that we cannot make the rules after the fact, that we need reasonable
rules in place with everyone working together to make sure Nelson County
is not sold.  Mr. Barton said that people will come to Nelson and sell
our community.
MR. GORDON KOERNER - Shipman - said that he is opposed to ordinance as
written, noting that he is still unclear on the grandfather clause
allowing a property owner to build on a nonconforming lot as long as the
setback requirements are met.  He said that the required setbacks make
no sense and the ordinance needs a clause to protect existing residents.
MR. FRED CLARKSON - Arrington - opposed.
MS. DEE DAVIS WELLS - Schuyler - said that she is opposed to many of the
regulations as too restrictive in every district and chapter.  She said
that the ordinance would give the Planning Director too much power and
said that the Planning Commission can achieve the stated objective of
controlling growth without all the regulations.
MS. BARBARA BARTON - Shipman - noted the 2002 Community Services Study
that found that residential growth costs localities $1.30-1.40 in
services for each dollar collected in taxes while the American Farmland
Trust study found that farmland/open space costs only $.36 in services
for each dollar collected in taxes.  She said that open space does not
require services for education, trash collection, fire protection or
police protection.  Ms. Barton said that the present ordinance allows
outside developers to profit while leaving the county citizens to pay
the costs.
MR. DAVID HIGHT - Massies Mill - opposes the ordinance.  He said that we
need to fight to protect property rights and that precise improvement to
the existing ordinance would make sense.  He said that the new ordinance
would limit free enterprise and business.
MR. WAYNE REYNOLDS - Lovingston - said that he opposes the ordinance and
called it a "land grab".
MS. ARLENE FLETCHER - Faber - opposed.
MR. PAUL CARTER - James River Road - opposed.
MR. CHAPIN WILSON - Laurel Road - said that he has been in Nelson for 43
years but has seen rampant growth in other places.  He said that the
county needs to be careful and that the freedoms often discussed also
include the right to clean water, clear air - rights to which all are
entitled.
MR. BILL ROBERTSON - Laurel Road - said that his 43.55 acres has been in
his family for over 100 years and that he is in favor of the new
ordinance.  He said that the ordinance may not be perfect, but that it
can protect all from property becoming less valuable.
MR. CARLTON BALLOWE - Representing Real Nelson - opposes the ordinance
saying that opposition is not the result of misunderstanding or
stupidity.  He said that citizens have been told that there is a legal
requirement to adopt an ordinance that matches the Comp Plan but said
that it has been two years without any legal consequences.  He said that
the ordinance should not be rushed.  He said that opponents of the
ordinance also want to preserve open space and large tracts of land.
Mr. Ballowe said that the county has spent 30 years working the bugs out
of the existing ordinance and should work with that.
MR. ORIN WELLS - opposed.
MR. STEVE KENDALL - said that he opposes the new ordinance as the
document is flawed and what is hidden in the document is scary.  He said
the county should formulate a strong subdivision ordinance to deal with
outside developers.  He said that this ordinance will cost us and we
cannot afford the ordinance.
MR. MITCH ROBERTSON - opposed.
MR. ARTHUR WILSON - Arrington - said that he opposes the ordinance and
that citizens should vote on it rather than the Supervisors.
MS. DOROTHY SEAMAN - Roseland - said that she opposes the ordinance.
She said that many localities are struggling with ways to preserve land
with many purchasing development rights rather than a taking.
MR. GEORGE CHEAPE - Arrington - said that he opposes the ordinance and
is in favor of personal property rights.  He said that giving too much
power to the Planning Director is not a good idea.  He expressed concern
that the Home Occupation section is too restrictive, specifically noting
the items on traffic and the use of equipment in residential areas.  He
said that the county should go back to the old ordinance, rewrite the
subdivision ordinance to make the developer pay and hold a referendum.
MR. LARRY WHITAKER - Lovingston - said that he opposes the ordinance but
does not want to see over-growth happen here.
MR. BILL FLIPPIN - Tyro - encouraged continued work and suggested
modifying the old ordinance using the new ordinance as a guide.
MR. ROB RUTHERFORD - said that he is still opposed and that the
ordinance would be a stumbling block to prosperity in this county.  He
said that the county needs to be user-friendly, needs to build places
for young people to live and provide jobs for people to work.  He said
the county should go back to the old ordinance.
MR. SIDNEY WOODSON - Faber - opposed.
MS. KATHY MILLER - Massies Mill - said that she is opposed to the
ordinance.  She said that she had spend 20 years in real estate and land
development and that the problem with the ordinance is that it puts a
blanket of restrictions on all landowners - not just on subdivisions.
MR. DAVID MCGANN - opposed.
DR. CONNY ROUSSOS - said that it is unfortunate that the issue has
become so emotional.  He said that some point to specific items and that
that is good and a part of the process.  He said that some simply want
the entire ordinance thrown out.  He noted that a zoning ordinance
should not diminish a neighbor's property value for your own short-term
profit.  Dr. Roussos said that we have collectively created this
imperfect ordinance but that he cannot see throwing it out.
MR. TOM EICK - Roseland - said that his family moved here for the beauty
and that he does not want the county to become like the area he left.
He said that the proposed ordinance is an incredible compromise based on
public input at the hearings and is a balance between those who want
more zoning and those who want none.  He said that there will be growth
and subdivisions with sophisticated developers and lawyers coming to
make money here.
MR. LYN WRIGHT - Roseland - opposed.
MS. JOYCE BURTON - Afton - said that she lives with other landowners on
a 520-acre parcel built on the cluster model.  She said that she would
have preferred the earlier version of the ordinance, but that this
version is a compromise.  She said that she is concerned with the impact
that increasing population will have on the land.  Ms. Burton said that
she drives Rt. 151 and the changes in the past 10 years have been
enormous.  She asked the Commission to stick to the original goals based
on the county-wide citizen survey.
MS. SANDRA LUNSFORD - Roseland - opposed.
MR. GEORGE LUNSFORD - Roseland - said that the ordinance does not serve
the best interests of Nelson County as a whole.  He said that the
current taxes are in line with the lifestyle we have.  He said that the
existing ordinance needs a few corrections but that the county is on the
wrong track with the new ordinance.
MS. TONI RANIERI - said that it is difficult to think that she might
have to put the county's needs before her own but that she is grateful
that the ordinance would enact the Comp Plan.
MS. NANCY FLETCHER - Faber - said that she is opposed, noting that her
husband has owned a small agricultural business for 10 years but that
business would be prohibited under the new ordinance.
MR. HARRY POWELL - said that the new ordinance violates the basic
constitutional right to own private property and that he does not
believe a government agency has the right to tell him what to do on his
property.  He said the ordinance should be scrapped.
MS. LISA LEFFERTS - said that the county has worked hard to find a
balance in the ordinance.  She noted the initial county survey that
showed natural beauty as the #1 priority of residents.  She said that
change is hard, even good change, but that the existing ordinance is 30
years old.  She said that there are unscrupulous developers and that we
need some restrictions.  She said that she cares about support for
farmers and home businesses.
MS. VIRGINIA HARVEY - Lovingston - opposed.
MR. ALLEN ADAMS - Nellysford - opposed.
MS. DARLENE ALDRIDGE - Nellysford - said that she wants to preserve the
character of the county but opposes the ordinance.
MR. FRANKLIN HARVEY - Lovingston - said that he is a logger and
concerned that he will not be able to expand his business.  He said that
he opposes the ordinance.
MR. DOUG LONG - Lovingston - said that the ordinance and Comp Plan are
much too unrealistic and obtrusive.  He said that the Light Industrial
District lists commercial rather than industrial uses and that lot size
in industrial areas should be determined by the business owner rather
than the ordinance.
MR. JEFF TRUSLOW - opposed.
MR. ANDY WRIGHT - Elma - Representing the Dutch Creek Ag/Forestal
District of 2,400+ acres - said that he does not agree with the entire
ordinance but is willing to accept the ordinance to address the bigger
problems.  He said that the Planning Commission is currently looking at
three subdivisions along a 2-mile stretch of Rt. 639, all of which will
use county services.  He said there are already many signs of growth in
the county if you look for them.  Mr. Wright said that he finds it
interesting that a county of hunters, loggers and farmers are so
unconcerned about carving up open space.
MR. GLENN SIMPSON - said that he owns 550+ acres and 9 homes in the
county and that he will develop some of that land.  He said that the
county does need an ordinance and that he sees some of the problems with
the existing ordinance.  He said that 5- and 10-acre lots are probably a
good compromise.  He said that the problem is that the ordinance will
take away his rights and put too much pressure on the people.
MS. JANICE JACKSON - Laurel Road - quoted the Nelson County tourism
brochure claim of, "a 471 square mile playground of unspoiled beauty".
She said that she got involved in tracking the zoning ordinance process
after watching development happen in her area.  She said that the
existing ordinance is not adequate because it allows these developments
on small country roads.  She asked that the Commissioners move the
ordinance to the next step.
MR. JIM TROY - Dutch Creek Lane - said that he believes growth is coming
very soon and that the present ordinance is not adequate to deal with
that growth.  He said that the new ordinance, while not perfect, will
help to protect us.
MR. BILL GOODWIN - Afton - said that he has worked with developers, seen
the destruction and heard the lies.  He said that we have to compromise
some of our potential profits to maximize the public good.  Mr. Goodwin
said that while none of us love rules, we have reached this ordinance by
compromise.  He said that we do have rights but that we also have
responsibilities and need to protect each other from those who have no
vested interest in the county.
MR. TIM GEELAN - Shipman - said that he is in favor of the new
ordinance.  He said that it may not be perfect, but that we need zoning
to reflect the needs of 2005 and the future.  He said that this area
will grow as long as Central Virginia is seen as a desirable place to
live.  Mr. Geelan noted 12 new homes on a 2-mile stretch of Findlay
Mountain Road with more yet to come.  He said that that growth is
considerable for a small country road.
MS. NANCY MAXSON - Horizons Village - said that she supports the
ordinance, noting that there is still work to be done but that the
ordinance looks to the future.
MR. PHILLIP FITZGERALD - opposed.
MR. LOGAN FITZGERALD - said that the does not want the county to be
overdeveloped or overrestricted.
MS. DONNA RUTHERFORD - said that she opposes the new ordinance.  She
said that the old ordinance is fine but does need revamping.
MR. TOM PROULX - said that over the past few years of Planning
Commission meetings, more and more subdivisions are being platted than
ever before.  He said that large subdivisions are changing the character
of county neighborhoods.  He said that the county is seeing more
lawsuits because the old ordinance has been much amended and is
confusing and internally contradictory.  He said that the new ordinance
will deal with those problems and allow residents to say what they want
here.
MS. JANE BIBB - Arrington - said that the consultant who wrote the
ordinance did not know Nelson County.  She said that we should accept
that neither ordinance works and mesh the two together to make it work.
 She said that the grandfather clause is too open and that the
industrial and economic limits are too restrictive.
MR. BERNARD BIBB - Arrington - said that people who have his views are
not represented on the Planning Commission and that the county cannot
tell him what he can do on his land.
MR. CLAUDE DODD - Nellysford - opposed.
MS. MARIAN DIXON - said that she would not tell her neighbor what to do
with his land.
DR. ANDREW GANTT - Wingina - said that the people who are recommending
supporting this ordinance are recommending stealing property development
rights.  He said that the ordinance is restrictive of personal rights
and strives to make each citizen live under new restrictions when Nelson
has always been known for its diversity.
MS. DIGNA GANTT - Wingina - said that she opposes the ordinance as it
micromanages the lives of Nelson County citizens.
MS. LORNA BALLOWE - Faber - opposed.
MR. BOB ROBINSON - Elma - said that he is in favor of the ordinance,
noting that the Rural & Farming District is needed to protect the county
against urban sprawl.  He said that we need protection from developers
and said that he likes the 2-acre lot size for family subdivisions.  He
said that having no regulations is not feasible.  He suggested that the
county address some specifics, but that they not throw out the whole
ordinance.
MR. JOHN PURVIS - Shipman - said that the new ordinance is too
restrictive and confusing and that the county should build on the old
ordinance.
MR. WILLIAM FOSTER - opposed.
MR. NELSON BELL - Shipman - opposed.
MS. BRENDA FALLS - Roseland - said that she opposes the ordinance as
written as too restrictive on people who already have land in Nelson.
She said that subdivisions are going to be a problem though.
MS. JANET HUNTER - Schuyler - said that the population projection at
build-out under the existing ordinance would give Nelson a population
several times that of Albemarle County.  She said that we need a new
ordinance.
MR. LARRY BETHEA - said that personal property rights and managing
subdivisions seem to be the two main issues and that those should be
broken down to reach consensus.
MS. MARY RYMAN - said that there have been many meetings on the zoning
ordinance with input welcomed throughout the process.  She said that she
supports the ordinance to protect what we have.  She noted that the
Afton area has already seen incredible growth.
MR. ALFRED WEAVER - Arrington - opposed.
MS. TERRA WILSON - said that communism is not the way to solve the
problem of growth.  She said that she does not want land chopped up but
that the ordinance puts too many restrictions on property owners.
MR. HARRY BALM - Tanbark Drive - said that he bought his 50 acres as an
investment and does not want his options limited by this ordinance.
MR. CLEMENT LAWHORNE - Tyro - opposed.
MS. RIDGELY HARRISON - Shipman - said that she is opposed to the Home
Occupation, Sign and Landscaping restrictions.
MR. MORRIS BARRETT - Shipman - opposed.
MS. TERESA FRAZIER - Shipman - opposed.
MR. JOE LEE MCCLELLAN - Lovingston - opposed.
MR. JASON NEESE - Afton - said that the old ordinance needs help but
that the new ordinance will not work.
MR. ROBERT MCSWAIN - Dutch Creek Lane - said that the old ordinance is
ambiguous and does not address future growth.  He said that demands on
services will explode if we become a bedroom community for
Charlottesville.  He said that he supports the new ordinance.
MS. SUSAN MCSWAIN - Dutch Creek Lane - said that the county first began
meeting on the proposed ordinance on October 29, 2002 and had held 29
work sessions since that first meeting.  She said that the Commissioners
have made a lot of changes to the original document, which was their
job.  She said that the existing ordinance is ambiguous and
contradictory and that she supports the new ordinance.
MS. KIMBERLY DOOLEY - Tye River Road - said that she is opposed to the
ordinance.  She said that we need restrictions on subdivisions but
restrictions do not have to be applied to all landowners.  She said that
the old ordinance is not perfect but could be fixed.
MS. PAMELA DOOLEY - Tye River Road - said that the old ordinance does
need to be corrected but that we do not need restrictions.  She said
that we do need something to deal with subdivisions.
MR. BOB DOOLEY - Tye River Road - opposed.
MS. WISTERIA JOHNSON - Shipman - said that she supports the new
ordinance although it is not perfect.  She said that she has sat through
several recent Planning Commission meetings and heard the attitude of
our future planners - also known as developers.  She said that change is
difficult and suggested making a taxpayer investment by hiring a
planning professional to deal with future growth, noting that the
current Planning Office is overloaded and shorthanded.
MR. PHILIP PURVIS - said that he is opposed to the ordinance for many
reasons, noting that those who have been here the longest will be most
affected.  He said that we do need restrictions on developers but that
landowners should be left alone.
MR. GORDON KOERNER - said that the ordinance does not affect his 2 1/3
acres but that he attended the meeting for his neighbors.  He accused
the Commissioners of stalling the ordinance because they do not want to
send the document to the Supervisors.
MS. GAIL TROY - Elma - said that she has been in Nelson for 33 years but
that some say she is a newcomer and should not have anything to say,
which is hard to take.  She said that the public hearing format does
make it difficult as people can say anything they want without the
Commissioners being able to correct misinformation.  She asked that the
county adopt the ordinance although it is not perfect.
MR. GLENN SIMPSON - said that all of the support for the ordinance is
from newcomers only and that the new ordinance is not going to work.
MS. PEGGY LAWHORNE - Tyro - opposed.
MR. ROBERT STRATTON - Albemarle County - said that he grew up on Laurel
Road and still owns 3 ½ acres in Nelson where he plans to retire soon.
He said that we do need an ordinance to control growth but that if
growth continues the way it is going, he might as well stay in Albemarle
County.  He said that he is concerned with Home Occupation restrictions
and the setbacks for existing smaller parcels of land.

After closing the public hearing, Commissioners voted 6-0 to continue
the meeting to Wednesday, February 9th at 7:30pm at the Courthouse (snow
date February 16th).  On the 9th, Commissioners will discuss comments
received and sections of the ordinance identified for further review.
The meeting will not be a public hearing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This report, sent to over 580 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