RURAL NELSON MEETING MINUTES

Tuesday, September 03, 2002

 

Al Weed opened the meeting with attendees introducing themselves.  He then suggested a discussion to develop an understanding of the elements that are likely to be a part of any property rights conversations.  Al said that we should have a good grasp of the wide range of the concepts that might arise from such a discussion and said that we cannot afford to have the debate shortcut by emotional response.  He suggested that we could get beyond that and have a real discussion.  Al gave an example as the forest fire issue in the wilderness debate noting that the first time, some were worried about fires and the Board voted against wilderness.  The second time, there was a better effort made to deal with the issue and to deal with it in a factual way.  Conny Roussos suggested that the open debate at Fleetwood and getting the issues out on the table up front had helped.  Al said that people are going to come to the zoning rewrite meetings with very clear ideas about the property rights issue and we want to be able to live together and talk to our neighbors as this goes on into the future. 

 

Al said that we are almost through Comp Plan process with a strong vision about rural nature of Nelson County, with goals and procedures laid out to preserve rural character of the county.  The healthy part of the development of the Comp Plan has been an understanding throughout that the Plan is only the start, that the zoning would have to fit the Plan.  Al noted that the County has hired Cox Associates to rewrite zoning ordinance and they will want to start with the Comp Plan to see where to go.  Mr. Cox had a joint meeting with the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission as an introduction and to see where they wanted to start.  Al reported that Mr. Cox had indicated that the Comp Plan may, in areas, be too vague and we may have to come back to strengthen those parts.  He also said that Mr. Cox had said that Nelson County’s Comp Plan is the only one Mr. Cox is aware of where we began working on sprawl and growth before it became an issue and we had to play catch-up.  We seem to be ahead of that perception curve so we can do something now without causing too much heartache.  Al reported Mr. Cox’s statement that the zoning ordinance, as it exists, allowing a house on 40,000 sq ft has given people an expectation of the density of their particular piece of land and by extrapolation, an unreal sense of value.  Hence, when the county does something with the zoning, it will give the perception that they have lost something.

 

Al noted a buildout analysis done by the Planning District that projected that, at 2.38 people per home, we could have a buildout of 285,000 people under current zoning.  Al said that that might not be a realistic number, but that something under that could be easily done.  He noted the county’s growth in the last 10 years at roughly 2,000 people and said that Nelson was one of the slower growing in the region.  He also said that the census numbers do not necessarily reflect accurate numbers, citing that the second homes in the county are not always counted into the county population figures.  As neighboring counties try to control their own population and development, folks kind of leap over those regulations but so far we’ve been spared. 

 

Al noted that if the Board of Supervisors says that we want to limit growth, there are not too many tools to do that besides rezoning.  The question becomes what is a reasonable population for us in 20 years?  At present, we have one high school, one middle school and 2 elementary schools.  Al suggested that if we doubled our population, we would probably have to double those numbers.  The other trend hitting us is that since September 11, people want out of cities and are searching for a more secure lifestyle.  Al suggested that the breathing spell we’ve had since the 80’s is about to go away.  If in the next 50 years we want to have an affordable/absorbable population growth, say 30,000 just for a number, there aren’t many tools available outside zoning.  If we rezone and a farmer with 100 acres expects to have 100 divisions and he now has 10, he’s going to feel he’s lost – and rightfully so.  Al noted that the average age of farmers is going up and many are looking at how to transition out of the farm. 

 

The group then spent time listing the issues and concerns that could come up during a rezoning discussion.  The following were identified:

 

*FARMERS’ EQUITY -studies done in county after county show that farm land costs the county less than residential (about .26 vs 1.25).  The farmer’s equity is a real equity.

*COMPENSATION FOR DOWNZONING – “takings”

*GOOD FAITH INVESTMENTS – (clarified as someone who purchases land as an investment based on the existing property rights)

*POTENTIAL LOSS OF WATER/DARK SKIES/QUIETUDE DUE TO DEVELOPMENT

*LOSS OF VIEWSHEDS/RIDGETOPS

*FAMILY SUBDIVISION RIGHTS

*OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION/LOSS

*TAX RIGHTS/COST OF SERVICES -with rapid growth, tax bill for services goes up

*SERVICE RIGHTS – example: expectation that children will be educated in schools without overcrowded classrooms.  Growth usually forces a decline in public services.

*PRIVATE AMENITIES – growth may provide the basic number of people to allow Company X to locate in the county

*HUNTING RIGHTS

*ISSUES OF LIGHTING/DESIGN/SIGNAGE/WATER/NOISE LEVELS

*AFFORDABLE LAND FOR HOUSING

 

Hughes Swain, President of the Nelson Farm Bureau, said that once you embark on a zoning ordinance, you must adopt the concept that your property rights will be affected.  Noting that we’ve been talking about this issue since 1971, he said that once the Board of Supervisors adopts an ordinance the people who own that land are affected from day one.  He said that if you feel zoning is better than not zoning, you have to expect your rights to be affected.  Hughes noted that the Comp Plan is merely a guide to what we’d like to see down the road, but that we have to accept the fact that sometimes the zoning ordinance and property rights are going to go against you.  He said that sometimes people want to use the zoning ordinance to protect themselves and then do away with zoning when it has a negative effect on what they want to do with their land.  It’s difficult to have all of these people come together and be open-minded.  Hughes said that we haven’t discussed taxes and our tax base noting that the state agricultural land use guideline for 2003 suggests that Class 3 land (the typical Nelson agricultural land classification) be valued at $70/acre.  Hughes said that that valuation would not give us the tax money needed to run this county.  He said that the valuation was so low because of the productivity over the last several years due to drought, abandoned or non-producing agricultural land.  Land use taxation is one of the things that help to keep land in agriculture, and land has been valued at up to $230/acre in the past.  Al noted that this is how the system is supposed to work – that there will be up years and down years.  He suggested that we need to be sure that the people who are benefiting from land use taxation are actually farming vs someone holding land simply for speculation.  Hughes clarified that the landowner has to show some farming pursuit on the land to get land use.  He stated that Virginia farmers’ are 56 years old on average and said that if you take the orchardists out, there are very few people in the county making a living in farming now.  Conny Roussos pointed out that some of the new farmers are making it with small, sustainable farms. 

 

Joyce Burton said that the county has only had a zoning ordinance since 1971, so some feel we’re changing the rules midstream.  She asked Hughes whether there were lessons we could learn from what happened then.

 

Hughes explained that a judge had appointed a Planning Commission in 1966 in order to legitimize a water & sewer study, which was completed and then filed away.  The county had then applied to the state Department of Planning and Urban Affairs for assistance with comprehensive planning and was ranked as 19th on the list for assistance.  Hughes said that when Camille hit, the governor bumped the county’s priority up to #1.  He said that the group came here in 1970 and began to help with a Comp Plan and zoning ordinance, which was basically a fill-in-the-blanks.  Joyce asked how folks reacted and Hughes said that meetings were conducted throughout county with the primary concern that the development of Rt. 29, I-64 and I-81 would open Nelson County.  He said that the county found out at the same time that there was an interest in a second home community, which became Wintergreen.  Hughes said that when he came to Nelson in 1956 as the Extension Agent, there were 14,700 people.  He said that we have lost people and that our gain has been so slow, but that he doesn’t think that gain will ever be that slow again.  He said that he does think it will be 50 years before we actually double our population.  Mike Tapager asked what the community meetings were like in 1970 and Hughes said that they tried to show people the need.  Their response was that they didn’t think it would make much difference.  Hughes noted that there weren’t any subdivisions in Nelson at that time.   He said that one of the biggest hurdles then was lot size, noting that many thought a 40,000 sq ft was too large a lot for a home.  Hughes said that he doesn’t see that redoing the ordinance this time would be that different unless there are radical changes. 

 

During the Business Meeting, Joyce Burton reported a total income (donations and grants) of $12,080.01 through 9/1/02.  She reported total expenses of $14,873.60 with a net loss of $2,793.59.  The current book balance is $8,019.66.

 

Al report that Fund Raising is still ongoing and that donations are necessary to keep the organization going.  He said that he would be happy to approach potential donors if members had suggestions for who might be supportive.  Al said that letters are still going out to annual donors.  Joyce said that she has found that it works to talk one on one to friends and neighbors.

 

During Member Announcements, the following were discussed:

1.      Al said that the East District Planning Commission member has resigned creating a vacancy.  Anyone in the East District who might be interested could contact Al (alweed@ruralnelson.org or 263-5000) for information on the process to apply for appointment.

2.      Al noted his involvement with the group ASAP, Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle Population and announced their conference on September 28 from 9am-1pm at the Albemarle County Office Building.  He said the conference would focus on the ethics and legality of limiting population growth in an American Community, noting that growth in other counties affects Nelson.  For more information, contact alweed@ruralnelson.org.

3.      Uri Levi announced that the Farm Service Agency (FSA) is seeking nominees for the local committees.  The FSA local committees determine the allocation of available federal monies for farm loan programs and influence the allocations to each locality.  More information can be found at ftp://ftp.fsa.usda.gov/public/notices/AO_1266.PDF

 4.   Kim noted that Rural Nelson had received notice of the 9th Annual Virginia Watershed Conference September 25-27 at The Hotel Roanoke.  More information is available at www.dcr.state.va.us/watershed

5.   Al said that he plans to attend the Piedmont Environmental Council Annual Meeting next weekend in Keswick and invited others to attend with him.  For information, contact Al at alweed@ruralnelson.org.

 

Al announced the next Design Ordinance Meeting on Wednesday, September 18 at 7:00pm at the office.  He said that the group had accomplished a lot at the last meeting and was hoping to continue that progress with the goal of presenting the possibilities to the Planning Commission.

 

Purchase of Development Rights & Ag/Forestal Task Force – Please notify Rural Nelson at info@ruralnelson.org if you are interested in working with this group.  Al noted that several landowners are interested in establishing Ag/Forestal Districts and are hoping to encourage the county to establish an ordinance. 

 

Connie Brennan, Central District Supervisor, said that she supports the development of a plan to assess groundwater in the county and plans to ask fellow Supervisors to add that goal to the Comp Plan.  She thanked everyone for coming to Board’s Comp Plan meeting and urged anyone with comments on the Plan to call their Supervisor and Planning Commissioner to talk with them. 

 

Kim reminded the group that the county is beginning the meeting process to rewrite the zoning ordinance and said that it would be imperative that citizens attend the work sessions, both to help us understand the process and to support the county officials who will be making to tough decisions.   Meeting dates will be announced as the county establishes them.