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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPCOMING: - Thursday, January 26th - BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' WORK SESSION 6:00pm at the Courthouse - Thursday, February 2nd - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - 3:00pm at The Nelson Center ------------------------------------------------------------------------- PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, January 25, 2006 Present: Ms. Philippa Proulx, Mr. Mike Harman, Mr. Tommy Bruguiere, Ms. Linda Russell, Ms. Delores Truesdale, Ms. Emily Hunt ELECTION OF 2006 OFFICERS - Commissioners unanimously elected the following officers: Chair - Ms. Proulx Vice Chair - Ms. Hunt Secretary - Ms. Betty Fortune (Staff) FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT/CRABAPPLE ESTATES - The applicant, Mountain View III, Inc., has submitted a final plat to divide 29.584 acres into 23 lots ranging in size from 1 acre to 2.470 acres located on Jenny's Creek Road (Rt. 674) in Piney River. The applicant, represented by Mr. Tommy Brooks, requested a deferral to the February Planning Commission meeting (2/22/06). Commissioners voted 6-0 to defer the application until their February meeting at the request of the applicant and reserving the right to the 60-day review period from that date. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/ST. MARY CATHOLIC CHURCH - The applicant, The Catholic Diocese of Richmond, has requested a permit, pursuant to Section 12-5 "Uses Not Provided For", to allow the former St. Mary Catholic Church located at 632 Front Street to be used for a residence as well as a business. The property is zoned Business (B-1) and residential uses are not permitted in that zoning district. Mr. Boger stated that the proposed use would comply with the Comp Plan's designation of Lovingston as a Town Center, designed to encourage a mixture of commercial and residential uses. Ms. Russell noted that, if approved, the use would apply to all B-1 Districts in the county and said that she would like to know what that impact would be. Mr. Boger said that he does not see a major impact and noted that the proposed new zoning ordinance encourages a mix of residential and business uses in the business districts. He reminded the Commissioners that consideration of granting a permit requires that the county consider the following guidelines: 12-3-6 a) The use shall not tend to change the character and established pattern of development of the area or community in which it proposes to locate; and b) The use shall be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the zoning district and shall not affect adversely the use of neighboring property. Ms. Gwen Casale, representing the applicant, said that the Diocese has received inquiries about the purchase of the building, most wanting to use the building for a residence. She said that several want to use the building as a business and residence. During Public Comment, Mr. Mike Tapager said that he owns the building next door, which is zoned Business. He noted that the building is used for a business with the residential use grandfathered. He said that he is also involved with the Lovingston Revitalization Committee and that one of the problems with revitalizing Lovingston is the Building Inspections Department. He asked that the Commissioners consider how to handle the request before taking action, suggesting that a separate designation could be used for Lovingston to allow the mixed use without impacting the rest of the B-1 areas in the county. He noted that most of the village of Lovingston is currently used for residential purposes which could cause some conflict when businesses are added. Mr. Tapager said that he is not opposed to the proposal, but asking that the county consider how to best deal with it. Ms. Proulx said that she always has a problem dealing with applications under "Uses Not Provided For". Mr. Bruguiere (Mr. Harman second) moved to recommend approval contingent on the applicant's compliance with all state and local building codes. Ms. Hunt said that she would like more information on the impact on other B-1 areas and time to consider how the Commission could proceed with a designation just for the Lovingston area. Ms. Russell said that she likes the idea of the mixed use that could lead to a greater vitality in Lovingston, but said that she would like to consider the impact of allowing mixed use in the village. She noted that the applicant has submitted a speculative application with no specific use plan and said that more research is needed for approval. Commissioners voted 3-3 (Ms. Proulx, Mr. Bruguiere, Mr. Harman voting yes; Ms. Hunt, Ms. Truesdale and Ms. Russell voting no). Commissioners will report to the Supervisors that a motion to recommend approval failed. FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT/STONE ORCHARD/VALLEY SUBDIVISION 3-V AT STONEY CREEK - The applicant, High Country Associates, has submitted a final plat dividing approximately 18 acres into 50 lots ranging in size from 4.355 s.f. to 17,667 s.f. and requesting an exception to Subdivision Ordinance Section 4-6 "Streets" to permit construction of new roads within a 40-foot right-of-way instead of the required 50 feet and to Section 4-2-B "Improvements - General Requirements, Bonding requirements" to waive the required bond for construction of new streets. Mr. Boger noted that the development will involve construction of several new roads, which will be built to the same standards used for all roads in the Wintergreen development which exceed county standards. He noted that the exception to the bonding requirements has been granted in the past as the developer is required by HUD to construct the streets to comply with their standards. Mr. George Nicklas, representing the applicant, noted that the proposal is for a 50-lot subdivision with single-family and carriage or townhouse home sites adjacent to the 9th hole of the Tuckahoe golf course. He noted that the infrastructure for this subdivision is being developed in conjunction with the infrastructure needed for the senior living development and that the third of five available wells will be activated to accommodate the two developments. Mr. Nicklas noted that one of the concerns expressed during the site review meeting was potential use of two other access points rather than the planned access via Monocan Drive. He said that the developer will install berms and landscaping to eliminate those access points. During Public Comment, Ms. Jan Burland of Nellysford said that additional traffic on Rt. 151 is a major concern, noting that Rt. 151 is the major corridor through the Rockfish Valley and is the most stressed road in the county when daily traffic counts are compared to the volume for which the road was designed according to the County's Comp Plan. She noted that since 2004, Nelson County has approved 400 new dwelling units in the Nellysford area which almost doubles the population and will generate approximately 1,600 additional daily automobile trips by conservative estimates. Ms. Burland asked that the Commissioners consider that the access road for the development will be within a half block of the Wintergreen emergency services building which could cause conflict. She noted that the proposed Stone Orchard will be built right next to the 120-unit senior village and that the developer has not shown how traffic for 170 new units will be coordinated. She asked that the Commissioners deny the application and request that HCA produce a legally sufficient traffic impact report before subdivision approval is granted. Ms. Burland suggested that HCA should work with the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission to develop an adequate traffic impact statement as part of the Nellysford Master Plan. Ms. Proulx said that she wishes that the county had the authority to require traffic studies but that the Commission is limited by state and county laws. She said that she does not negate the concerns about traffic, but that county roads are not something the Commission can do anything about. Mr. Nicklas noted that the proposed development is part of a planned community with an anticipated volume of traffic. Ms. Russell said that she concurs that, according to legal advice, a decision cannot be based on traffic impacts. She noted, however, that it would behoove the Supervisors to look at the future of the Rt. 151 corridor. Commissioners voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the final plat contingent on there being no future access other than by Monocan Drive without county and VDOT approval. Commissioners voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the above noted exceptions to the Subdivision Ordinance. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT/BEVERLY D. & JEAN G. HARNER - Mr. Massie Saunders, representing the applicants, has submitted a plat dividing 93.993 acres into 13 lots ranging in size from 4.3 acres to 12.3 acres on Mill Pond Road in Faber. Mr. Boger noted that the proposed subdivision will involve the construction of a new road with a cul-de-sac at the end. Mr. Saunders said that the applicants are planning to do the development in two phases with 9 or 10 of the lots in Phase I. He noted that the 4 or 5 lots in Phase II could be changed to two very large lots instead of the proposed smaller lots. During Public Comment, MS. DENISE LAIR, an adjoining landowner, expressed a love for the land in question and noted concerns about the potential problems with the proposed development. She said that Rt. 632 is a one-lane dirt road with three dangerous curves in less than a mile. Ms. Lair said that there is marsh land on the property and that Cove Creek can become a raging river in periods of heavy rain, eroding sections of Rt. 632. Ms. Lair said that four households now use Rt. 632 daily with a ten-fold increase in traffic if the development is approved. She asked who will pay for the road improvements that will be needed - the one who will benefit financially from the development or the rest of the taxpayers. She noted that the plat shows several driveways crossing a stream and asked whether there will be an impact study on the streams and creeks involved. MR. TODD TWEEDY, who lives on an adjacent property, said that infrastructure for the development is a concern, especially getting emergency vehicles in and out. He said that the subdivision is proposed on a one-lane dirt road with a dangerous railroad bridge, not a good location for a subdivision. He asked that the subdivision be denied. MR. TOM HINDS expressed concern with the condition of Rt. 632 for a subdivision and said that he is opposed to the proposal. MS. DEB BRENT said that she is concerned about frequent flooding in the area, noting that some of the proposed lots are so low-lying that she is surprised they are not in the flood plain. She said that the plan is not well thought out and asked that it not be approved. Mr. Harman asked whether there is any VDOT plan to improve Rt. 632. Mr. Boger said that there is not at this time. He noted that the Commission does not have the ability to deny the subdivision because of the road. Ms. Russell said that the Commission is further hampered by the standard that if a subdivision is allowed by right and the plat meets the requirements of the ordinance, it cannot be denied. Ms. Proulx noted that the Commission is considering a preliminary plat so the applicant will, presumably, be returning with a final plan. Commissioners voted 6-0 to approve the preliminary plat. FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL/MR. CARL EVANS - The applicant has submitted a final plat dividing 2 acres from an existing 10-acre parcel located on Glade Road (Rt. 722) in Schuyler and is part of Glades Subdivision. With no public comment, Commissioners voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the final plat. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' LIAISON REPORT - Mr. Bruguiere reviewed the Supervisors' recent decisions on the two permits for waste wood management operations. He noted that one of the misconceptions about those decisions was that the decisions and the conditions were predetermined which was not true. He said that the county attorney had developed a proposed definition of a waste wood management operation and possible conditions the Supervisors could consider if approval were granted. Ms. Proulx said that the lesson for both the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors is that appearance is important and a better job of explaining the process would alleviate some of the misconceptions and concerns for the public. Meeting adjourned. Copyright 2000-2006 by Rural Nelson, Inc. All rights reserved. Reports may be reprinted or excerpted with attribution. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- OF INTEREST: - Tuesday, January 31st at 7:30pm - Public Hearing on Community Development Block Grant Program re the Lovingston Revitalization Project in the Board of Supervisors' Room at the Courthouse - March on Nelson - March & April 2006: VDOT and Keep Nelson Beautiful will co-sponsor a county-wide litter pickup event this spring. Any group or individual can participate. VDOT will issue temporary adoptions for this single event. There is no obligation for future pickups. VDOT will provide the necessary safety equipment and bags. This temporary adoption is only available during the months of March and April 2006. Adopt-A-Highway (AAH) sponsors are our inspiration, but if you cannot permanently adopt, this is the perfect opportunity to participate without future commitments. AAH sponsors are encouraged to participate during the same time frame. March on Nelson will be registered with the State Department of Conservation & Recreation as a Stewardship event for 2006. Additional information is available by calling KNB representatives at (434) 263-6915 or (540) 377-5754 or VDOT representative at (434)263-2159. Application form is available online at www.nelsoncounty.com/keepnelsonbeautiful ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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