Board of Supervisors: October 3, 2006

October 3, 2006

Virginia:

AT A CONTINUED MEETING of the Nelson County Board of Supervisors at 6:30 P. M. in the Board of Supervisors Meeting Room located in the Nelson County Courthouse.

Present:     Harry S. Harris, Chair
       Thomas H. Bruguiere, Jr., West District Supervisor
       Constance Brennan, Central District Supervisor
       Allen M. Hale, East District Supervisor
       Thomas D. Harvey, North District Supervisor
       Stephen A. Carter, County Administrator
       Fred M. Boger, Planning Director
       Philip D. Payne, IV, County Attorney
       Betty M. Fortune, Planning Secretary

I.   Call to Order

Mr. Harris, Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:35 P. M. with five members present to establish a quorum.

II.   Consider Zoning Ordinance

Mr. Boger previously presented to the Board amendments to the zoning ordinance that are required due to legislative changes and previous actions taken by the Board in regard to Conditional/Special Use Permits, definitions, etc.

Ms. Brennan suggested sending the proposed ordinance amendments to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendations. County Attorney Payne said the Board has two options at this point: 1) Amend the existing ordinance, refer it to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation, and hold public hearing within 60 days of their next meeting. In addition, refer any administrative changes the Board wishes to make such as site plans, etc. to be included in the public hearing. The Board would then hold a public hearing and act. Any change of density requires extensive notice to landowners. 2) Incorporate clustering into the proposed ordinance and hold public hearing. Landowner notice would be required.

The Board needs to make a decision on which route to take. Mr. Harris asked for a consensus of the Board. There was much discussion, but no clear consensus was stated.

Mr. Carter reiterated that if the proposed ordinance incorporates the necessary changes, it would not have to be referred back to the Planning Commission. If the existing ordinance is revised, it would be referred to the Planning Commission, landowners would be notified, and public hearings would be held by both the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Bruguiere stated that some of these amendments need to go into the existing ordinance now and others could be added later. A public hearing is required to notify landowners of the proposed A-1 division rights amendment, as shown below.

No. of Acres
No. of Lots Allowed
0-5
2
>5-10
3
>10-15
4
>15-20
5
>20-25
6
>25-35
7
>35-45
8
>45-55
9
>55-65
10
>65-75
11
>75
Unlimited 20-acre lots
(>greater than)

Mr. Hale objected to the State’s imposition of land use regulation on localities (clustering) and is in agreement with the resolution passed by Orange County’s Board of Supervisors to this affect. Mr. Bruguiere agreed, stating that the proposed division rights seem to be very similar to clustering, as mandated by the State. Mr. Payne said they are very close in concept, and if the County doesn’t establish clustering as a landowner option and someone wishes to cluster their property, the Board could be forced to adopt it at that time.

Ms. Brennan again recommended that the proposed amendments be sent to the Planning Commission. After their review, the Board may change language or make deletions; however, additions would go back to the Planning Commission for its agreement.

Mr. Harris requested that Mr. Boger send a revised copy of the proposed amendments to the Board and also refer them to the Planning Commission.

Mr. Hale made a motion to adopt the following resolution:

   WHEREAS, public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice requires consideration of amendments to the Zoning Ordinance; and
   RESOLVED, that the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, a copy of which I am handing the clerk for the minutes, with the addition of definitions for Vegetative Rubbish Recycling Facility and Corporate Training Facility, be referred to the Planning Commission for its recommendations;
   FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission shall make its recommendations to this Board within sixty days of its next meeting following this referral; and, the failure to so report shall be deemed approved.

Mr. Harvey provided a second to the motion.

After discussion, Mr. Hale amended the motion to allow the Planning Commission a “reasonable time period” to make recommendations. After further discussion, Mr. Hale amended the motion to again state sixty days for Planning Commission recommendations. Mr. Harvey provided a second to this addition, and Supervisors agreed unanimously by roll call (5-0) to adopt this resolution.

III.   Consider Subdivision Ordinance Amendments

Mr. Hale made a motion to adopt the following resolution:

   WHEREAS, it is necessary to consider amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance;
   RESOLVED, that the proposed amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance, a copy of which I am handing the clerk for the minutes, be referred to the Planning Commission for its recommendations;
   FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission shall make its recommendations, if any, to the Board within sixty days of its next meeting following this referral; and, the failure to so report shall be deemed approved.

Ms. Brennan provided the second.

Mr. Carter asked whether the Board would like to request that the Planning Commission consider amending the Subdivision Ordinance to eliminate review of final subdivision plats by the Board, realizing that all requirements must be met prior to Commission approval. This would eliminate a further delay in approval for the property owner and reduce their cost.

Supervisors agreed unanimously by roll call (5-0) to adopt the resolution to pass the Subdivision Ordinance to the Planning Commission for review and recommendations.

Mr. Hale then made a motion to adopt a resolution similar to the one adopted by Orange County, to be sent to the Governor and General Assembly.

   WHEREAS, modifications to Section 15.2-2286 of the Code of Virginia enacted by Senate Bill 374 relevant to clustering of single family dwellings imposes unreasonable State regulations on the County’s authority to regulate land-use which causes substantial injustice and hardship to localities; and,
   WHEREAS, the new Code section 15.2-2286.1 B. that requires each locality to designate 40 percent of unimproved residential and agriculturally zoned land as eligible for by-right cluster development is arbitrary and capricious and encourages unwanted residential growth in localities trying to manage and control growth; and,
   WHEREAS the new Code section 15.2-2286.1 A. requires all localities with a growth rate of more than one percent per year to have clustering provisions in their local land use regulations as opposed to being optional under 15.2-2286 A. 12 a.
   NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of Nelson County, Virginia that the Governor and General Assembly of the State of Virginia are strongly urged to:
1. Make cluster development an optional land use tool for local governments.
2. Allow for the approval of cluster developments through a special use, special exemption or conditional use process.
3. Eliminate any reference to what type or how much land in a locality should be made available for cluster development.
   BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be sent to the Governor, the County’s General Assembly delegation and to the Virginia Association of Counties.
   BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be sent to all counties in the Commonwealth urging them to adopt a similar resolution in support of this matter.
Mr. Harvey provided the second to this motion, and Supervisors agreed unanimously by roll call (5-0) to adopt the resolution. Ms. Brennan said she would discuss this with the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission at the next meeting.

IV.   Consider Amendment of Local License Fee (Motor Vehicle)

Mr. Harvey (referring to the discussion held on September 19, 2006 regarding retention of County automobile decals) said that after discussion with the County Treasurer, he had no problem doing away with County automobile decals. Ms. Brennan agreed. Mr. Payne verified that the revised ordinance should be advertised showing existing fees (no increase).

Ms. Brennan made a motion to advertise for public hearing on the local license fee, doing away with the County automobile decals. Mr. Harvey provided the second, and Supervisors voted 4-1 (Mr. Hale voting no) to approve the motion. Mr. Hale stated that he feels strongly there should be some means of identifying County residents at waste collection sites.

V.   Consider Inoperable Motor Vehicle Ordinance
Mr. Payne distributed to the Board an ordinance amendment (Chapter 7 of the Code of the County of Nelson, Virginia, Article 7.1) pertaining to inoperative motor vehicles without valid license plates and County stickers. The ordinance addressed a definition of “inoperative motor vehicle,” operation of an inoperative motor vehicle, allowable exemptions from the ordinance, authorization of the director of planning to enforce the ordinance, and violation penalties.

Mr. Hale made a motion to amend and reordain Chapter 7 of the ordinance and advertise for public hearing. Ms. Brennan provided the second, and Supervisors voted unanimously by roll call (5-0) to approve the motion.

VI.   Consider Draft Ordinance – Purchase of Development Rights Program

The Board has reviewed the report provided by Mr. Boger previously regarding a Purchase of Development Rights Program which is designed, in part, to: 1) enable counties to acquire easements voluntarily offered by owners as a means of assuring that Nelson County’s resources are protected and efficiently used; 2) establish and preserve open-space and the rural character of the County; 3) preserve farm and forest land; and 4) conserve and protect water resources. Ms. Brennan said that the idea of the ordinance is to have the program in place so that funds from the State, grants, private endowments, etc. can be utilized, if presented. The County is not obligated to fund the program, which was a concern expressed by Mr. Harris.

Ms. Brennan made a motion to advertise the Purchase of Development Rights Program for public hearing. Mr. Hale provided the second. Supervisors voted 4-1 (Mr. Bruguiere voting no) to advertise the PDR program ordinance for public hearing.

VII.   Other Business (As May Be Introduced)

Mr. Harvey suggested that the noise ordinance be amended to make it more reasonable and consistent with other localities. He requested that Staff poll other localities to determine their acceptable daytime decibel level. If the ordinance is changed, a public hearing will be required.

Ms. Brennan asked Mr. Bruguiere how the Hepatitis B vaccination effort for our volunteer fire and rescue people was going. She distributed materials which can be used for evaluation of the County Administrator position. Ms. Brennan asked Mr. Carter for an update on the state-wide Health Department event on October 24. Mr. Carter said the County would be participating via conference call. There has been a recent outbreak of mumps at UVa in Charlottesville and she is concerned that preparations be made for dealing with epidemics such as the pandemic flu. Ms. Brennan expressed thanks to Candy McGarry for a job well done with the dental program information report.

Mr. Bruguiere reported that a resident on Rt. 151, Piney River, wishes to be included in the free hook-up for Piney River Phase II. He has a garage, but no firm date for building the residence. He is waiting until the services are available before building. Mr. Carter will follow up with this citizen and get an update on building plans.

Mr. Harris asked if the Piedmont Housing Alliance has submitted a copy of the by laws as requested some time ago which would clarify the Board’s responsibility in appointing members to the PHA. Mr. Stuart Armstrong notified Mr. Carter that the Board of Supervisors can endorse a candidate, but the appointment is made by the PHA board. A letter of explanation has been sent to Mr. Rutherford and Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Enders will continue to serve until January, 2007.

VIII.   Adjournment

On a motion by Mr. Bruguiere at 8:05 P. M., seconded by Mr. Harvey, Supervisors voted unanimously by roll call (5-0) to adjourn this meeting of the Nelson County Board of Supervisors.

__________________________, Clerk