RURAL NELSON MINUTES JUNE 4TH, 2003 RURAL NELSON OFFICE NEXT MEETING: PICNIC AT SPRUCE CREEK PARK, JUNE 2ND, 2003 Conny Roussos opened the meeting, welcoming the large group present. He began by noting that Al Weed was responsible for starting Rural Nelson and for keeping it going once started, and announced that the Rural Nelson Board had made him an honorary board member. Conny presented Al with a certificate to that effect. Conny then introduced Frank Cox of The Cox Company and an architect of zoning ordinances who was hired by the county to create a zoning ordinance that reflects the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Fred Boger, Director of Planning and Zoning for Nelson County, was also present and contributed to the evening's discussion. Frank Cox pointed out that his role in Nelson is little different from the role he has played in many other counties. His firm has been around since 1976, is located in Charlottesville, and works with both private and public entities on the Eastern seaboard. He has worked with many counties on Comprehensive Plans. He stated that you don't read Comp Plans for fun - you only read them if your own property is involved. He made an analogy to a battlefield when Comp Plans are in the process of being hammered out. Nelson County has had the growing pains that are usual at this stage of the process. He urged Nelson citizens and RN members to make sure their representatives know their feelings on the subject. Cox stated that the Comp Plan was adopted approximately 9 months ago and that it was a work of true wisdom, acknowledging growth pressures from the north and south. He noted that you cannot stop growth but could plan for it using development models to channel that growth into the appropriate areas. He also said that he thought that our attempts to conserve our rural land were well thought out. In his job in Nelson County, part of his work was engaged in rewriting zoning districts. In this county the existing zoning did not respond in the least to aims set forth in our new Comp Plan or provide any mechanism for preserving rural areas. His company has presented a new full-draft to the county, and was actively engaged last fall in moving this zoning ordinance forward. His firm's analysis is that in fifteen to twenty years Nelson will feel the population pressure that counties like Stafford are feeling now. The good news is that Nelson has the breathing space to deal with the issues that would make this future growth manageable. Nelson County's existing ordinances have rural area zoning that opens Pandora's box, since anyone can do almost anything on their rural land. If we had wanted to keep that freedom, he stated, then the county has wasted their time developing the Comprehensive Plan. Growth occurs in concentric circles. Europeans, having a more socialist bent, throw restrictions at the problem. We can't do that. But those communities that demand managed growth usually see land evaluations go up as a result. He has never seen an approach that translates into large lots in rural areas in combination with sensible provisions for growth areas, ever lose money in future land evaluations. Communities that don't do well are still using zoning models dating from the 40's and 50's. Those communities that do well are those with well-constructed, well-managed community planning. In Nelson County the process has bogged down. There are those who are worried by any change and those on the other side who have lived in other communities that have failed to address growth issues to their detriment. The short-term view of some property owners will be that sale of their land is a one-time event and they would like the ordinance to stay the same. The fact that the long-term result will be greater land evaluations, they don't feel is pertinent to them. He pointed out that the new ordinance is such a large proposition that it may be that its provisions have to be phased in. He suggested, however, that biting the bullet is the best way - voting the proposition in as a whole. QUESTIONS A family with an inherited farm will face tightened restrictions in dealing with what can be done with that land. Cox noted that his father had left him a farm, and that he would revolt if told he could not divide it for his children. However he would be able to deal with restrictions that took into consideration flood plains, roads, etc. He said that the proposed ordinance would not confiscate the owner's land rights, but ensure that the plan fit the lot. It was noted that state law protects the right for a family subdivision and that the proposed zoning ordinance protects that right. He was asked how the process had come to a halt. Fred Boger pointed out that the Planning Commissioners are working at it still, but not at the pace originally hoped for. Boger said he would like to see it done by the end of the year. It was asked if the issue was a matter of the Board arguing over details of the plan, or if the problem was the larger issue of property rights. Connie Brennan, Central District Supervisor, pointed out that at one point all the Supervisors and all the Planning Commission members were working together, trying to hash the details out. In doing this with Cox present, they became worried that they would use up Cox's contract time before they got to the parts where he was really needed. She said that they need to have conversations about how they can serve the community while finding their way to an acceptable concept of land management. There is a need for public information forums. The process has not stopped and Ms. Brennan hopes, with Boger, that it will be finished by the end of the year. Cox stated that he hoped the big issues would come out on the table. Nelson may need to go back to the Comp Plan - which is very clear that Nelson residents want open land preserved and want to concentrate growth. This may be, politically, more than we can pull off. If so, the Comp Plan should be rewritten to reflect it or the county would be open to lawsuits that question zoning that does not reflect the Comp Plan. He said that you need public hearings that are general information meetings, where the Board of Supervisors can get a feel for whether the county is supportive of the new ordinances. These are not usually well-attended until the last minute when someone who wants to subvert the aims of the ordinance weighs in. Others will weigh in that it's time for change. Clustering is taking a lot of heat from those who don't understand the concept. What are the restrictions it involves for landowners? A cluster development is where you organize buildings in a way that is sensitive to the land and still leave a critical mass of open land, (versus two-acre units that all open onto the public road). There is a different way to macro-cluster. Ways to put villages where they should be, near public utilities. The sacrifice is in reducing the by-right plots for the individual owner. The county wins by not having to run infrastructure all over the place. He said that the issue would be a healthy point for argument if done well, between those who look at what's best for me today vs. those who look at what's best for the county in the long term. Cox was asked whether the proposed draft was written specifically for Nelson. He said that certain sections of the ordinance are common to most zoning ordinances, some are unique to Nelson. The proposed ordinance fits very well with the Comp Plan. Asked about the large lot zoning, Cox said that the draft recommends a shift from two-acre lots to twenty-five-acre lots. It is called a down-zoning; courts call it a comprehensive rezoning. He pointed out that in the short-run, a landowner could lose in the evaluation of their land. In the long-term however, the value of their land would go up in the long run because the land is not surrounded by two-acre lots. The issue of unintended consequences came up. At Lake Albemarle, which required twenty-acre parcels, one of the consequences that was not intended was that the taxes go up for the owner of a farm of one hundred acres while the value of the twenty-five acre parcels was going up so there were increasing incentive to sell five twenty-acre lots. Cox said it was a matter of whether county residents want to just think about preserving the land for aesthetic reasons, or whether they want to think about the economic reasons for preserving land. Cox was asked if he had found a model that mediates between the property rights groups and the managed land use groups. His answer was no, it is up to county leadership to make a courageous stand. The charge of supervisors, as leaders in a representative democracy, is to do what they think is best for the county. Cox urged everyone to make their views known to the Supervisors and Commissioners. He acknowledged that it is hard for supervisors to experience the pain (of population pressure) before it hits them. Respectfully Submitted, Mary Buford Hitz Secretary ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Other Announcements - - The next Rural Nelson meeting will be a potluck picnic on Wednesday, July 2 at 6:00pm at Spruce Creek Park on Rt. 151. Bring a dish to share, lawnchairs and invite a friend. - Wintergreen Student Music Academy Fellows will present a program for the entire family Sunday, July 20 3:00-4:30pm at Tye River Elementary School. For other concerts of the Wintergreen Summer Music Festival July 10-27 at various venues throughout the county, visit www.wintergreenmusic.org. - UnJam 2025 Rural Round 2 Meeting (United Jefferson Area Mobility Plan) will be held on Monday, June 23 at the Lovingston Fire Department. For more information, go to www.tjpdc.org. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rural Nelson, Inc. P. O. Box 401 (622 Front Street) Lovingston, VA 22949 434.263.5000 Email: info@ruralnelson.org www.ruralnelson.org