UPCOMING: - Tuesday, February 22nd - BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' ZONING WORK SESSION 7:00pm Courthouse - Wednesday, February 23rd - PLANNING COMMISSION 7:30pm Courthouse ------------------------------------------------------------------------ PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION Wednesday, February 9, 2005 Present: Ms. Proulx, Dr. Walker, Ms. Russell, Mr. Bruguiere, Mr. Harman Absent: Ms. Hunt COMMUNITY CENTER DEFINITION - In January, the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution referring a draft definition to the Planning Commission for review and public hearing to amend the zoning ordinance to define and allow community centers to rent space in order to raise funds for operations. The draft reads: "Community Center: A building and grounds used for recreational, social, educational and cultural activities open to the public or a portion of the public, owned and operated by a public or private non-profit group or agency. The activities may involve leasing of space within the building for the sale of limited goods, services and offices subject to minor site plan approval by the County and any additional conditions that may be imposed to such sales of goods and services by the Planning Director. The sale of goods and services may be carried out on a for-profit basis or for charitable non-profit purposes by the owner or the owner's approved lessee or licensee, provided that the relationship of the lessee or licensee to the owner serves to promulgate the mission of the community center. Also, there can be no exterior indication of commercial activities at the center such as outside storage, sales area and signage, except for a principal sign identifying the center with a listing of its tenants." Ms. Russell suggested that health-related activities, such as physical therapy, be added to the definition. Ms. Proulx suggested deleting the phrase, "?provided that the relationship of the lessee or licensee to the owner serves to promulgate the mission of the community center." Ms. Russell said that she would like to see a provision to indicate what percentage of the total finished floor space could be leased. Mr. Boger said that that would be impossible to do given the varying sizes of the existing community centers. Ms. Russell said that a center could then rent out 90% of its space, noting that that could be competing with area businesses. Mr. Bruguiere said that community centers would not rent so much space that they could not hold their community center functions. Ms. Proulx suggested deleting the word "limited" in the phrase, "?for the sale of limited goods?" and the word "minor" in the phrase, "subject to minor site plan approval?" Ms. Proulx questioned the phrase, "?and any additional conditions that may be imposed to such sales of goods and services by the Planning Director." She said that the phrase sounds arbitrary and gives no indication what those conditions might be. Mr. Boger said that the county would need to know what businesses would be in the building, noting that some businesses like retail would require a certain number of parking spaces. Ms. Proulx said that she would prefer to delete the phrase. Mr. Boger gave the example of a community center in a residential area that wanted to put in a 24-hour business. He asked who would put conditions on that business. Ms. Proulx asked what would happen if a Planning Director, whoever that might be, did not like a particular kind of business. She said that there is no indication what the conditions might be. She said that while there is agreement to allow some commercial uses, there could be some problems with commercial uses. Dr. Walker suggested that although the definition is flawed, it could be adopted and tested for a year. Mr. Bruguiere agreed noting that a community center will know best if a particular business is working for them. Ms. Proulx agreed but said that there are also residents to consider. She said that she would be happier if the conditions were defined and noted that the approval process allows no opportunity for public input. She said that the proposed definition does, however, have to go to public hearing and additional changes could be made based on citizen input. Mr. Boger suggested changing the word "county" to "Planning Commission" in the phrase, "...subject to site plan approval by the county?" Commissioners directed staff to advertise the proposed definition for public hearing at the March 23rd Planning Commission meeting. ZONING WORK SESSION - After receiving public comment at the February 2nd hearing, Commissioners made the following changes to the proposed ordinance (based on the 2/2/05 draft): 1) Pages 34, 47, 58, 66 - to reduce public confusion, added "refer to Chapter 2, Section S" to each district allowing Home Occupations; 2) Page 33 (Rural & Farming District) to accommodate those who do various types of work for themselves (example - a logger who wants a shop for his own use) #8 "Accessory use to a residential structure, limited to detached carport and garages, tool sheds, children's playhouses and play structures and doghouses" - added "such as but not limited to workshops." 3) Page 34 C (Rural & Farming District) Uses Allowed by Special Use Permit - added "auto repair or auto paint shop, small machinery repair shop, wrecking & towing service". 4) Page 19 (Home Occupations) #15 Deleted section that begins: "Specifically prohibited home occupation uses include, but are not limited to, the following..." 5) Page 19 (Home Occupations) "d. Home care provider (baby-sitting for not more than 5 non-related children)." - deleted limit on the number of children. "g. Tutoring, limited to five (5) students at any one time." - deleted limit on the number of students. "j. Music teacher, limited to five (5) students at any one time." - deleted limit on the number of students. 6) Pages 18-19 (Home Occupations) - "1. A home occupation permit shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to commencement of business operations." - changed to "1. A certificate of zoning compliance shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to commencement of business operations." Numbers 12. and 13. changed from "home occupation permit" to "certificate of zoning compliance". 7) Pages 38 & 39 (Rural & Farming District) F. Bulk Regulations - changed to allow lots recorded prior to January 1, 2005 to meet the setbacks and yard requirements of the existing ordinance with lots recorded after January 1, 2005 required to meet the requirements of the proposed ordinance. In addition, Commissioners changed the minimum lot width on a Family Subdivision lot from 200 feet to 125 feet and set the front yard requirement (served by a new internal street or a 50-feet private access easement or street) at 35 feet. 8) Pages 51 & 52 (Rural Residential District) F. Bulk Regulations - changed the minimum yard requirements for conventional lots recorded prior to January 1, 2005 to those in the existing ordinance with lots recorded after January 1, 2005 required to meet the requirements of the proposed ordinance. In addition, Commissioners changed the minimum lot width on a Family Subdivision lot and a conventional 3-acre lot from 200 feet to 125 feet. Noting other comments from the February 2nd public hearing, Mr. Boger clarified that agricultural and residential uses in the Rural Residential District do not have to meet landscaping requirements, but non-agricultural and non-residential uses will. Ms. Proulx clarified that there are no regulations regarding residential mailbox flags. Dr. Walker asked about the requirement for 4 shrubs planted around signs. Ms. Proulx said that she did not care what number of shrubs was required as long as there is a minimum number. Mr. Boger said that some of the Supervisors would like to see some 2-acre lots in the Rural & Farming District. Mr. Bruguiere agreed saying that kids cannot afford 5-acre lots and he suggested allowing five 2-acre lots by right. Ms. Proulx said that if the Board of Supervisors wants to add some 2-acre lot options, they could do so. Mr. Bruguiere said that 2-acre lots should not be allowed along Rt. 151 but would be fine along the back roads of the county. Ms. Proulx said that the county cannot enact rules to allow them along back roads but then prohibit them along major roads. She said that she was inclined to hand the draft over to the Supervisors for their consideration. Ms. Russell said that purpose of the two districts (Rural & Farming and Rural Residential) was very low density and that allowing 2-acre lots would defeat that purpose. She noted that there is an option for clustering the lots to get more and smaller lots. Ms. Proulx said that the lot sizes had covered quite a range of sizes and that she does not believe everyone is totally happy. She also said that people without a lot of money cannot live anywhere they want to live now and that the county cannot say that only Nelson residents can buy the smaller lots, that they can be purchased from anyone. Ms. Proulx said that there are already a lot of parcels platted in small lots around the county. Mr. Bruguiere said that he does not care who buys the smaller lots. Ms. Proulx asked whether the point was to provide affordable smaller lots or to sell for the highest profit. Mr. Harman said that the draft is a compromise from the 20-acre lot size. Ms. Russell made a motion (Dr. Walker seconded) to adopt a resolution noting that the Planning Commission has completed the work on reviewing and making appropriate changes to a new zoning ordinance and zoning map; held a public hearing on February 2, 2005 and considered both written and public comments on the new zoning ordinance and map. The resolution also included the detailed changes made during this work session (2/09/05) and a recommendation for adoption of the ordinance. During discussion of the motion, Mr. Harman said that there are still things not fixed but that he could not name what they are. He said that the ordinance can be amended as we go along. Ms. Russell said that the Board of Supervisors will continue working on the ordinance and that changes can be made as they consider the ordinance. Mr. Bruguiere said that there has been more public comment than he has seen on any issue. He said that he normally does not listen to public input and only considers issues with his own education, but that he would have to vote no on this point given the public comment and the number in opposition at the public hearings. Ms. Proulx said that there has been a great deal of input that was not given during the public hearings and that the Commission has addressed a great many of the specific concerns. Dr. Walker said that the Commission is making a recommendation to the Supervisors and that an ordinance is needed. She said that many of the comments have been based on misinformation, primarily from not having read the document. Dr. Walker said that the length of the document is a problem that we cannot get around and is based on what the Commission has seen come before them. She said that she would trust the Supervisors to do what is best for the county. Ms. Russell said that the county has been dealing with a Board of Supervisors' approved Comp Plan and a Zoning Ordinance that does not agree with that Comp Plan. She said that a new Zoning Ordinance that does agree with the Comp Plan is needed and that she believes that this proposed ordinance does that. She said that one of the issues expressed has been regarding existing businesses. She said that the proposed ordinance will not change the right to operate existing businesses and will only address new businesses. Ms. Russell said that the Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors and people of the community should pat themselves on the back for doing something before the county falls apart - for being proactive. Commissioners voted 4-1 (Mr. Bruguiere voting no). Meeting adjourned. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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