UPCOMING: - Wednesday, June 1st - RURAL NELSON MEETING 7:30pm at the office (622 Front Street). Speaker: Ridge Schuyler, The Nature Conservancy - Thursday, June 2nd - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 3:00pm The Nelson Center ------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUNTEERS NEEDED: - Saturday, June 25th and Sunday, June 26th to work the gate for Rural Nelson at the Summer Festival. Workers needed 10am-1pm (Sunday only); 11:30am-2:30pm (both days) and 2pm-4pm (both days). ------------------------------------------------------------------------- PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, May 25, 2005 All Commissioners present. REGIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN - Mr. Bill Wanner with Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission presented the plan, noting that the intention is to meet FEMA's new planning requirements. The plan assesses the county's possible scenarios for natural disasters and the county's ability to deal with those disasters. With no public comment, Commissioners voted 5-0 (Mr. Bruguiere absent for this vote) to recommend approval of the plan. (NOTE: Copies of the plan are available in the Planning Department, the Nelson Library and on the county's website.) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/JOHN C. HOLLAND, JR. - Ms. Heather Goodwin, representing Mr. Holland, submitted an application for a permit pursuant to Section 12-5, Uses Not Provided For, to construct an addition to the existing carriage house at 2387 Oak Ridge Road (Rt. 650). The structure is to be used for recreational, social and educational meeting space and hold 300+ people. The property is zoned Agricultural (A-1). Mr. Boger noted that the proposed use, Banquet Hall/Meeting Facility, is not listed in the current zoning ordinance and that the use would, subsequent to approval of the permit, have to be defined and the ordinance amended to include that use. Ms. Goodwin explained that the original application was for a permit for a Community Center but that county staff had determined that the proposed use would not fit that category. She noted that the addition would be designed using many of the architectural features of the existing carriage house and incorporate a warming kitchen with meals prepared off-site. During Public Comment, Mr. Bill Reilly of Nellysford expressed support for the project. Ms. Russell, noting her support for this specific project, expressed concern about approving something that has not yet been defined but that would be allowed by permit in all A-1 areas of the county. Mr. Boger said that the definition follows approval according to Section 12-5 of the zoning ordinance. He said that the proposed use if a banquet hall/meeting facility, which will become a use once the zoning ordinance is amended. Ms. Russell said that no one on the Commission seemed to have an issue with the specific project, but concern that a similar use could go into a much denser A-1 area. Mr. Boger noted that any other applications would be done by Conditional Use Permit to allow the county to review the individual application. Dr. Walker said that the process does need to be administratively correct so the county does not end up with a situation with another group wanting to do something similar. Ms. Rhonda Holland said that the application is based on meetings with county staff but that Oak Ridge is willing to work with whatever the county wants to call the use. She noted that they do, however, want to start on the project as soon as possible. Ms. Proulx said that she believes the intent of the applicant is clear but that the application is not. Commissioners voted 5-1 (Ms. Russell voting no) to recommend approval. SPECIAL PERMIT/HIGH COUNTRY ASSOCIATES, LLC (HCA) - Mr. Boger reported that the applicant has applied for a permit to reallocate 150 development rights from Single Family to Mixed Use in the Valley Village area located west of Monocan Drive in the general area of the Tuckahoe School and behind Valley Green Shopping Center. He noted that the Master Plan for Stoney Creek allocated 1025 units with 859 of those development rights assigned, leaving a balance of 166 development rights. The application noted that the 16 remaining development rights would be allocated to the 25-acre parcel owned by Wintergreen Nature Foundation and located adjacent to Rodes Valley II. Mr. Boger reported that HCA is the owner and holds the deed to the property in question. Ms. Russell clarified that the applicant is requesting a transfer of single-family development rights for use in a higher density multi-family area. Mr. Boger said that the development rights could still be used for single-family, which is allowed in Mixed Use. Mr. Stuart Sadler, representing HCA, said that the proposal reduces the single-family rights and adds those to the Mixed Use area. He said that the effect of an approval would be to downzone the area in question. He noted that the approximately 2.5 acres at the entrance to Stoney Creek is not included in the proposal and that the use for that parcel has not yet been determined. Mr. Sadler said that the planned senior housing area will utilize 120 development rights of the 175 allocated in 2004 and be located on the 12-acre parcel beside Tuckahoe School. Mr. Bruguiere asked whether HCA is still the developer of record given changes made January, 2005. Mr. Sadler explained that the only issue that changed in 2005, is that Wintergreen Property Owners Association (WPOA) has to concur with the addition of any property. Mr. Sadler then read a long list of commercial uses allowed under Mixed Use and noted that HCA wants to use the 150 development rights for residential instead of the commercial allowed by Mixed Use. Ms. Proulx asked about the 175 units that were allocated in 2004 specifically for senior living. Mr. Sadler said that the original plan called for senior living on both properties and that some of the remaining development rights would be used to complete that senior housing. He noted that Ms. Taboub, the senior housing developer, is now planning to use only the one 12-acre parcel and 120 development rights for that project so HCA would like to use the remaining development rights for residential housing rather than commercial development on the remaining parcel. During Public Comment, MS. JAN BURLAND (Rodes Farm Drive) said that she has a very different interpretation of who is control after January 2005 according to the covenants, noting that HCA has no standing to make a request to amend the Master Plan. She said that HCA is no longer Wintergreen's developer. Ms. Burland noted that Section 7-3 of the county's zoning ordinance requires submission of a "Final Plan" to include, by metes and bounds, the location of all buildings and improvements (other than single-family dwellings), parking, intentions for water & sewer, etc. She said that the developer had suggested that development rights can be moved from one area to another but that she sees no legal basis for that, rather it was stated that that is "the way things have been in the past." Ms. Burland said that the 13 acres considered for senior housing leaves 150 additional units on 19 acres which is a level of density well beyond the existing density. She also noted that the property in question is currently involved in litigation. MR. CRAIG COOPER (Rodes Valley Drive) expressed concern that a Special Permit could have an adverse impact on planning for Nellysford. He noted that Section 12-3-6 requires that use by Special Permit be in harmony with the uses permitted by right and the uses shall not adversely affect the use of the neighboring property. He said that HCA has not specified the uses planned or how such uses will be compatible with and in harmony with the neighboring property. Mr. Cooper said that granting advance approval of 150 new residential development rights in an area that currently has 0 such rights, the HCA Special Permit will undermine the county's planning process for if and how Nellysford will develop. Mr. Cooper also noted significant questions about the adequacy of water and sewer to support new development. He said that HCA has not addressed the issue and that needs for water and sewer are cumulative, noting four new projects that must be considered: HCA's High Meadows (175 units); Rosewood Village's proposed senior housing (120 units); the new hotel and expansion of Wintergreen Resort facilities on the mountain (size TBD); and HCA's Summit House proposal for two 6-story condominiums on the mountain (47 units). Mr. Cooper noted evidence that the existing Stoney Creek water and sewer systems are close to design capacity and unlikely to support future development of Stoney Creek and Nellysford. He said all new projects should be put on hold until the water and sewer issues have been resolved. MR. DAVE JUERGENS (Deer Run) noted that, with limited exceptions, Stoney Creek has a density of one dwelling unit per two acres. He said that the original vision was for sparse, non-intrusive development but that HCA is in the process of changing that vision. Mr. Juergens said that Virginia courts have stated that aesthetics is a legitimate governmental concern in land use. He said that Nellysford residents would not want apartments, condos and cookie-cutter designed buildings and that the proposed development will completely alter Stoney Creek's gateway and drastically impact Nellysford. MR. DON BURLAND (Rodes Farm Drive) noted that there is no final plan showing exactly what development is planned. He said that, at present, Stoney Creek includes 87% single-family housing and 13% multi-family. He noted that, if approved, the HCA approval would create 58% single-family and 42% multi-family housing - almost half condominiums and timeshare units. Mr. Burland said that the current Master Plan has a density of one unit per 2 acres with most of Stoney Creek built to that density. He said that HCA's proposed density is 20 times that. He said that the standards for the Special Permit require that the use not change the character and established patter of development and shall not adversely affect the use of neighboring property, but that this proposal would drastically change the area. MR. RUSSELL OTIS (Director of WPOA) - said that there are a number of questions to be answered about the proposal. He said that the county is in custodial charge of the Wintergreen Master Plan and it is therefore incumbent on the county to determine the actual number of development rights remaining. Mr. Otis also said that there is some question as to whether the application is a Special Permit or an amendment to the Master Plan and that that must be determined before consideration of the application. He noted that the county is down to the end of the process of Wintergreen development and the Commission should have all of the information to make an informed recommendation to the full Board of Supervisors. MR. GEORGE MCKINNEY (Stoney Creek East) said that there are sufficient development rights to complete the senior housing and that 150 more development rights is denser and overkill, not in keeping with the area. MR. BILL REILLY (Rodes Valley Drive) said that he has been trying to understand HCA's proposals since last October but that there do not seem to be answers to the questions. He said that the new proposed development will be much denser than the other units in Stoney Creek. MR. CHAPIN WILSON (Shipman) said that there was a disturbing discussion between the Board of Supervisors and Service Authority about development in the Rockfish Valley and issues with sewage surfacing and other concerns. He said that those downstream know the implications of those problems and that there will be a time that the Rockfish Valley is built out. He said that the county needs to know the answers to water and sewer questions before further applications are approved. MR. JOE STEELE (Sawmill Creek Drive) said that he is the chair of the senior issues group and that he is now hearing that no one wants the Rosewood group to have the development rights to build the senior housing. He said that he does not understand why people are so concerned with the potential apartments when they expressed support for the recent Gaia Homes project. He said that he supports residential instead of commercial development on the parcel. MS. JUDY JUERGENS (Deer Run) said that she is very much in favor of the senior housing but concerned the 2004 agreement that the 175 development rights approved were to be used only for senior housing. She asked what would happen if litigation allows those rights to be used for something other than senior housing after the county approves the newly requested 150 rights. She also noted that there is no plan for where this housing will go on the property in question. Following the public hearing, Mr. Sadler said that there are a series of WPOA covenants with most applying to the administration of WPOA and open space. He said that the general covenants provide that HCA has specific rights passed down from previous developers. He said that final plans are not appropriate for single-family development which is what HCA is talking about except for the 2.5 acres at the entrance to Stoney Creek. He said that the current application is not anything that was not considered in the Master Plan 20 years ago. Mr. Sadler noted that the county's Service Authority has stated that there is adequate water and sewer capacity with the system currently only using 20% capacity. He said that meetings with county staff had led to the determination that a Special Permit is the way to go to use residential development rights on the property in question. Mr. Sadler said that the 175 units approved in 2004 are in litigation and HCA is working as quickly as possible to remedy that for the 120 needed for senior housing. Mr. Bruguiere asked whether senior housing could be built during the litigation. Mr. Sadler said that HCA is not planning to develop the 150 currently requested units right away and could proffer some of those to get the senior housing under way. Ms. Proulx suggested that the Commissioners identify their questions for submission to the county attorney and Mr. Sadler with responses to those questions to be available for the June 22nd Planning Commission meeting. She suggested that the residents also have the ability to submit questions through Mr. Boger's office. Mr. Boger noted that he would require a deadline for those submissions of Friday, May 27th to allow time for staff to develop responses. Commissioners listed the following questions: 1. How do changes effective January 1, 2005 affect this application? Can the covenants, as they relate to land use, be clarified? 2. How much of a "Final Plan" is required under the county's ordinance? 3. What effect, if any, does the pending litigation have on the current proposal? 4. How many development rights remain? What happens to development rights when two lots merge? Does the second development right go to the developer or remain with the land? 5. Is this proposal an amendment to the Master Plan or a Special Permit? Ms. Russell asked whether the county attorney has determined that the transfer of development rights can be done under a Special Use Permit and whether, under a Special Use Permit, the Commission can put conditions on the transfer. Mr. Boger said that that is the determination of the county attorney. Ms. Russell said that Mr. Sadler's presentation was not what she had understood the proposal to be, noting that she did not realize the development would only be single-family units. She said that she would like the Commissioners to consider a condition that the development only be single-family homes. Commissioners voted 6-0 to defer a decision to the June meeting for additional information as requested above. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/MR. BARRY WOOD - Mr. Wood has requested an amendment to a previously approved (2002) permit which allowed an east/west landing strip for his private plane on his property (176 acres) located on Old Ridge Road (Rt. 742). The applicant currently has a grass landing strip allowing an east/west landing and would like to develop a north/south landing strip. With no public comment, Commissioners voted 6-0 to approve the amendment. REZONING/MR. CURTIS BRUGUIERE - Mr. Bruguiere, owners of Anderson's Grocery on Avon Road in Afton, has requested a rezoning of 1.88 acres from Residential (R-1) to Business (B-1) Conditional to allow the use of the space attached to the building as a real estate office and to bring Anderson's Grocery into compliance. Mr. Boger noted that since the applicant was filed, the applicant has submitted a proffer to limit the uses to neighborhood convenience store and real estate office. The proffer includes that the residence on the property will be used only as a single-family residence. Ms. Hunt asked whether, if the property were to change ownership, the conditions would remain. Mr. Boger said that they would as the request is for a conditional rezoning. During Public Comment, MS. TRESSIE BOYD (Avon Road) said that the rezoning would affect surrounding properties and expressed opposition. MR. LYNWOOD LOCKETT (adjoining landowner) said that rezoning to get one office space did not make sense. He said that the area is a residential neighborhood and traffic is already a problem. Mr. Lockett said that one adjacent property owner has been approached to sell his property and that perhaps the real reason for the rezoning request is to break up the community. MS. FLORRIE CERPHY (Avon Road) expressed concerns about the number of traffic accidents and that property taxes might go up. MR. ROY WHITE said that a Conditional Use Permit would be a more appropriate way to deal with the proposal. He said that traffic and parking are concerns and that this might be a precursor to rezoning the entire community. MS. RITA HELMS said that has leased Anderson's Grocery from Mr. Bruguiere since November 2004. She said that contrary to what Mr. Bruguiere stated, business at the store has increased and that adding an office with additional traffic and parking requirements would hurt business for the store as there is currently no parking except right in front of the store. She noted multiple problems with the lease agreement and whether Mr. Bruguiere has the right to use any portion of the building for a real estate office. Following the public comment, Mr. Bruguiere said that any issues with Ms. Helms are a civil matter and not relevant to a rezoning request. He said the rest of the community is misinformed as he is only applying for a real estate office rather than the many uses allowed under B-1 zoning. He said that the store has been there since 1918, before the residential area existed and that taxes for the neighbors would not go up as a result of the rezoning. Mr. Bruguiere said that traffic would not increase because of the real estate office, that there is enough parking for that side of the building and that there is a need for a real estate office in that area. He said that he could tear down the house on the property and add gas pumps if he wanted. Dr. Walker said that the property is currently zoned residential but that the use of the existing building has been as a neighborhood convenience store. She said that the Commission is now being asked to expand it to open a new business in addition to the store which is spot zoning and creates new problems for the neighborhood. Dr. Walker that additional parking would be needed for the second business and that could not be ignored as an issue. Mr. Boger said that the area is zoned residential and that the applicant could have the real estate office in his home. Ms. Russell said that the Comp Plan does not designate that corner for business development. Commissioners voted 5-0-1 (Mr. Tommy Bruguiere abstaining) to recommend denial as approval would be spot zoning, the proposal does not comply with the Comp Plan and based on the impact on the neighborhood. FINAL PLAN/SUMMIT HOUSE ASSOCIATES, LLC - Mr. Stuart Sadler, representing the applicant, has submitted a final plan for two 6-story condominiums with a total of 47 units plus one commercial unit to be located north of Wintergarden at Wintergreen. Mr. Boger noted that, per Section 7-3, Residential Planned Community District (RPC), the Final Plan has been submitted showing the location of the two condominium buildings and that there are more than enough development rights in the Master Plan for the project. He said that the project meets the technical requirements of Article 7 of the county's zoning ordinance. Mr. Sadler said that these will be the most luxurious units at Wintergreen and he anticipates them being second homes for wealthy purchasers. Mr. Sadler said that water and sewer is already available to the project. He noted that there are no height restrictions in the RPC district and that the enabling legislation regarding ridge law only applies if an ordinance has been adopted by the county. Ms. Russell asked how high the buildings will be and Mr. Sadler said approximately 75'. Mr. Bruguiere asked whether this is an approved use and Mr. Sadler said that it is and that the height and views are needed to attract the market. Mr. Bruguiere said that obviously somebody likes the ridge-line condos as they were all sold. Ms. Proulx noted that the Commission's only issue is whether the application meets the technical requirements. During Public Comment, MR. EARL HOLLIDAY said that the legal status of ridge-top construction in the Blue Ridge is being considered in the state. He said that in 1995, when Summit House was first proposed, it generated the most heated discussion in 29 years of Annual Meetings at Wintergreen with massive opposition. He asked the Commission to table the proposal to allow the Board of Supervisors time to consider adoption of an ordinance on ridge protection. MR. STUART HARVEY (Wintergreen and President of the Mountain Homesteaders) said that the community does not want 75' condominiums on the mountain. MS. SUSAN MCSWAIN (Dutch Creek) said that county residents will definitely be able to see the condominiums on the ridge and that the proposal is a terrible plan. She said that the people in the proposed condos will have a great view with the rest of the county having a terrible view. She said that she does not want to see the Blue Ridge ruined in Nelson County. MR. RUSSELL OTIS (Director, WPOA) said that he is concerned that the proposed construction and the proposed hotel will create a need for a $650,000 to $700,000 ladder truck for Wintergreen's Fire Department. He said that any approval should include a provision for financial support for the fire department to deal with the issue. Following public comment, Mr. Boger noted that the Board has discussed a ridge-top ordinance but that there has been no action. Mr. Bruguiere said that it is a property rights issue so it should not be in the ordinance. Following a motion to recommend approval, Ms. Russell expressed her disappointment that the proposal is for 6-story buildings. She said that the county depends on tourism and that this construction would not help that industry. She said that the project is not going to help Wintergreen's reputation which prides itself on being environmentally friendly. She asked that the developer reconsider the height of the buildings but said that, as the project meets the technical requirements, she would vote for it. Ms. Proulx agreed. Dr. Walker said that it would be embarrassing to vote yes on the project given everything that has been done here to protect the beauty of the county. She said that the average citizen will not benefit, only the wealthy from DC will benefit from the project. She said that she wants the public to understand that, while she does not like the project, she has no basis to deny the application. Mr. Bruguiere said that Wintergreen does a lot to generate revenue for the county and that the more buildings, the more revenue. Dr. Walker said that we are blighting the very thing people come here for. Ms. Hunt agreed, saying that she feels like she will being forced in her vote. Commissioners voted 5-1 (Mr. Harman voting no) to recommend approval. Meeting adjouned. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- OF INTEREST: - Tuesday, May 31st Lovingston Revitalization Project Public Input Sessions - 6:30pm at The Nelson Center. Create designs and set action for business development, beautification, parks & green space, parking, pedestrian & traffic safety, infrastructure, funding and construction. RSVP 263.7015 if you plan to attend. If you cannot make the public meeting, stop by the Courtroom on Tuesday, May 31st 1-5pm or Wednesday, June 1st 10am-1pm. - Sunday, June 5th Friends of the Rockfish Watershed Annual Meeting at The Meander Inn. - Volunteers needed June 10th to pour beer for Fridays After Five in Charlottesville for Voices for Animals. Contact wildwood56@hotmail.com for info or to volunteer. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- This report, sent to over 600 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