Planning: August 2004

August 2004

NELSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
August 25, 2004

Members Present: Mr. Thomas Bruguiere, Mr. Michael Harman, Mr. Walter Hoffman, Ms. Emily Hunt, Mrs. Philippa Proulx, Ms. Linda Russell, Ms. Valdrie Walker

Also Present: Mr. Fred Boger, Planning Director, Mrs. Betty Fortune, Planning Secretary

Call to Order: The meeting convened at 7:30 P. M. on August 25, 2004, in the Board of Supervisors conference room at the County Courthouse, Lovingston, Virginia. Mrs. Philippa Proulx presided. She explained guidelines for the public hearing: speakers were asked to sign in, to limit their remarks to 3 minutes, and they would be called in the order in which they signed in. Speakers could ask for additional time, if needed, after all other speakers had been heard.

Minutes from July 28, 2004 Meeting: Minutes were reviewed and no corrections were made. Mr. Bruguiere made a motion to accept the draft minutes and Ms. Hunt provided the second. Motion carried 7-0.

Item #1 ö Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Plat ö Jerrys Way, Colleen Village, Arrington, Virginia

In 1991, the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission approved a final subdivision plat for the Saunders Land Subdivision (Tax Map 76-A-67). The project consisted of subdividing 13.331 acres into 12 lots. The size of the lots ranged from 40,107 to 70,152 sq. ft.

The developer did not record the final subdivision plat and it has exceeded the period to record the final subdivision plat.

Since 1991, the County has adopted a new subdivision ordinance and a new erosion and sedimentation ordinance which has some impact on the proposed subdivision. The problem areas Staff has identified are:
1.   The subdivision will need to be connected to the County water and sewer located along Thomas Nelson Highway. This may be a problem if the lines must come up the main road and the road surface has to be disturbed.
2.   The subdivision plat should show all utility easements.
3.   A new erosion and sedimentation control plan will be required and it must address onsite drainage retention. (Alyson Sappington with Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water Conservation District has reviewed the original E & S plan and feels it may not need to be redone.)
4.   The road at the rear of the property has an 11 ft. gravel surface area which will need to be brought up to current design standards because it will serve more than 2 lots (see Section 4-6-C, Class 1 roads.)
5.   At least one fire hydrant is needed along the main road to provide a source of water in case of an emergency.
6.   Lots 1 & 2 are zoned Business (B-1) and will need to be rezoned under the Countyâs current zoning ordinance. This should not be a problem if the new zoning map is adopted because this area would be designated Neighborhood Residential.
7.   If there is a stream on the property, a 50 ft. buffer zone would be needed.
8.
Mr. Massie Saunders represented the applicant, Mrs. Nancy U. Saunders. He stated that Mr. Tim Castillo (Nelson County Service Authority) had been consulted about the water issue and the system is already in place; consequently, a fire hydrant would not be needed. The erosion and sedimentation review shows that the road and ditches have been stable for 10 years. Storm water generation from each lot may need to be looked at. Regarding utility easements, electric is already in place as well as the service drop. There is a service drop for water coming into a meter at the edge of Blue Ridge Medical Center (BRMC) property, but itâs unknown how far it goes. The 50 ft. setback on the stream bed needs to be addressed.

The 2 lots zoned as business were approved in 1991 and the zoning hasnât changed since then.   It could be approved as it is with these 2 lots being for business uses. Mr. Saunders stated that BRMC is looking at one of the lots at this time for possible purchase. The developer will need to collect sewage and put in a grinder pump.

Mrs. Proulx opened the public hearing.
Mr. Joe Dan Johnson, 91 Rainbow Drive, asked how much smaller than 1 acre the lots would be and whether they would be single family homes. He feels this affects property values.

No other comments were received. The public hearing was closed.

Mr. Saunders stated the lots ranged from 9/10ths of an acre to a little over 1 acre. There would be single family residences. This was confirmed with Lester Saunders, son of Nancy Saunders.

The 11 ft. was discussed. The applicant can apply for an exception by the Board of Supervisors or bring it up to standard. There are currently 2 houses on the 11 ft. road. The subdivision may also need to be replatted to show setbacks, buffer zone for the stream and utility easements.   Mr. Saunders stated that many old plats are recorded with much less information. Mr. Boger suggested that it be treated as a preliminary plat, submit a request to the BOS for exceptions in the road situation, and then bring it back as a final subdivision plat. The original surveyor, Mr. Shumate, would have to revise the plat. Mrs. Proulx stated that she feels the preliminary plat should meet the standards of the current subdivision ordinance and Ms. Russell agreed.

Mr. Bruguiere made a motion to approve the preliminary plat as it stands. Mr. Hoffman gave a second to the motion. Mr. Bruguiere later withdrew his motion so that it could be restated as follows: ãI make a motion to approve the preliminary plat, with the understanding that the final plat reflect current subdivision standards unless exceptions are granted by the Board of Supervisors.ä Dr. Walker provided the second. Motion passed 7-0.

Item #2 ö Renewal of Application for High Country Associates (HCA)

Mr. R. C. Carroll, Managing Member representing HCA, has submitted an application to rezone approximately 30 acres of land from Agricultural (A-1) and Residential (R-1) to Residential Planned Community (RPC) with Proffers submitted as part of the application (see file) and designate the area as Multiple Use and incorporate it into the Master Plan for Wintergreen. Mr. Bogerâs Staff Report (see file) was based on information he had available, which was supplemented by Mr. Carroll. A major concern was open space and trails. There is now space provided that will separate the two projects. With this open space, only a small area will touch the Stoney Creek community.

Another concern was Allenâs Creek and the storm water. To control this, a pond or lake is planned. Tonight is a preliminary plan ö HCA will come back for final approval. In the past, the Master Plan was amended and thatâs all. At this time HCA is not sure of the exact configuration; no marketing study has been done. There is much opposition from the citizens of Wintergreen/Stoney Creek. Based on the information present today, Mr. Boger doesnât have any major objections to the request. In order to incorporate these areas into the Master Plan, a final plan must be submitted (see Section 7.3). The only basis for turning down the final plat would be if it doesnât agree with the Master Plan.

On the assisted living area zoned Mixed Use, concentration is split. A majority of the units will be patio homes and single family attached homes. Staff is in support of assisted living in this area.

The applicants, R. C. Carroll and Tim Hess, spoke about the application. The major points Mr. Carroll made were:
1)   The purpose of the application is to add 30 acres to the Master Plan, increase the development rights by 350 units ö approximately175 to provide assisted living/congregate care and the other 175 to develop the 29 acres being discussed. Due to the severe shortage of condos at Wintergreen, inventory is needed. The proposed area is adjacent to central water and sewer systems. There is sufficient capacity. High density is possible because of the central water and sewer. Section 7.4 of the Nelson County ordinance shows that this is consistent with the articles of the covenant of Wintergreen Property Owners Association (WPOA).
2)   This change is good for Nelson County because the sale of luxury condos would be in the $300,000 which will increase revenue. The owners of these condos will pose no burden on the schools and will add approximately $1 million to the tax base of Nelson County. He hears the County needs a new courthouse and other projects. Rather than increase taxes for everyone, these tax dollars would come quicker into the tax base. It will also raise the revenue for WPOA.   HCA wants to increase density because they want to develop the property. They need to be able to market the concept and the product.

Mr. Tim Hess also spoke. He stated that over the last few weeks much inaccurate information had been passed around in the neighborhood. His purpose for being there was to answer questions and clear the air of some misconceptions. (Responses in italics.)
1)   The development of this property would destroy the pristine approach to Stoney Creek. (Not so. It will be an improvement over what it was before.)
2)   The development is much closer to Stoney Creek than anything done before. (In the plan, there is only about 40â touching Stoney Creek.)
3)   The development would turn Allenâs Creek into an open sewer. (There is plenty of capacity for sewer. It falls under the Department of Environmental Quality [DEQ] and there is daily reporting of findings.)
4)   The development is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. (The new residents will support County costs. It does not put stress on the Countyâs budget.)
Mr. Hess then gave some history from his 1975 arrival in the County and how it had progressed to today. He presented a drawing titled Development Concept Plan ö The Highmeadow @ Stoney Creek (see file). He called attention to the green space, the entry, the natural water stream, storm water issues and firefighting assistance. The cabins would be rustic guest cottages, either 4-plex or 2-plex ö possibly condos with 6 units per building. There are open meadows, plenty of water, open space, waste treatment plant, and it touches Wintergreen residents in only one place. Some of the lots will be given to the Wintergreen Nature Foundation. There are bike trails and walking paths to the park with no driving access into Wintergreen land. All access will be from Rt. 151.

Mr. Carroll showed a rendering from the perspective of Mr. Kiddâs property. The type of housing is a major concern. Mr. Hess had mentioned 2-plexes, 4-plexes, and multi-stories. It is felt that 4 stories would be invasive. Mr. Carroll proffered 3 story, 52 ft. in height, but they may not build 3 stories high. When asked how the 52 ft. would be measured, Mr. Carroll said that if the building is on a hillside, they would go to the lowest point and measure up 52 ft.

There was discussion about Mr. Carrollâs comment that there was a shortage of condos. Ms. Russellâs understanding is that there are lots available for sale. She envisions a resort with higher traffic, temporary living, etc. Since facilities for vacationers are available on the mountain, they are not needed on Stoney Creek. Mr. Carroll feels there is a market for people to come to Stoney Creek to enjoy many things. As the Valley grows, this seems to be a logical progression. Ms. Russell made the point that people came to Stoney Creek to live for the very reason of peace and quiet. Whether weâre ready or not, Mr. Carroll pointed out, change will happen. We should not limit access to others.

Many residents of Wintergreen would like to see the Architectural Review Board (ARB) consulted about the proposal. Mr. Carroll said that all designs are submitted to the ARB for information purposes. ARB approval is not required under the covenants. From beginning of design work to market is between $600,000 and $800,000. Thatâs why complete plans are not available at this time. He said HCA would do a good job and not do anything detrimental.

Ms. Russell suggested that HCA talk with the ARB and Mr. Carroll felt that trying to get consensus would be difficult.

Mr. Carroll was asked to explain the Proffer relating to senior living. They need 175 units, but will only take 1 for each unit developed. (He restated the first sentence of the Proffer.) He further explained that the commercial property would be for a real estate office, ãconditionedä space, and 1000 sq. ft. for storage, linens, etc. The recreational facilities have not been defined at this time. There was a rumor that HCA had compared the sales and rental facility to Black Rock Market. Mr. Carroll said it was not being built for the public. There was no plan for a gas station.

Ms. Russell would prefer that the Planning Commission look at it after marketing study has been done since itâs an entirely different vision from the Master Plan. HCA needs to be more specific about their plans. Mr. Carroll feels the marketing study will dictate the plan. There are high costs involved and even then it may not suit the Commission.

The applicant will need to bring a site plan for final review. At that point it will be accepted or rejected. If the rezoning is approved and the plan comes back, there would be very little basis on which to turn it down.

The revised plan for senior living has not been submitted ö only the plan for patio homes. According to Mr. Carroll, thatâs what the developer wants. The units are to be developed so she can sell those cottages. The Proffer says one developed unit for each senior unit. If the first 13 acres are not successful enough to expand, what happens to the rest of the land? Mr. Carroll stated that ãsheä doesnât have them, and HCA doesnât have them either.

The public hearing was opened. Comments, in brief, are listed below.
Dan Butterfield ö Engineer and Educator. After all thatâs been heard from HCA, much is still unknown. They canât seem to get information. Citizens have not been told what they need to know.    The USGA study will show the basic water flow.
Chris Still ö Stoney Creek resident, retired art teacher. She came to Stoney Creek to get away from traffic, smog, and hubbub of large city. Suffering from asthma, she has found Stoney Creek is good for her health. The building of duplexes is not in keeping with Stoney Creek. Property value will go down. The commercial area will bring more traffic with personnel, visitors, etc.
Susan Haynesworth ö retired flight attendant. She loves the picturesque beauty of the area and wonders why things have to change when theyâre already perfect.
Elaine Weems ö Stoney Creek resident. Wonders why everyone in the country has to get approval to develop except HCA.   What use could be made of the land now?
Gwylan ãLynnä Carson ö owns property on Lodebar Estates and Berry Hill Road.   The traffic on the 2-lane road (Rt. 151) is fast and thereâs a curve at the entrance. Sheâs in favor of assisted living but wonders who could afford to live there. Feels that if the zoning change is approved it gives them (HCA) freedom to do whatever they want and not be answerable to the County.
Judy Juergens ö Resists time-sharing and had asked HCA if they would proffer not to have time-shares. HCA declined. She questioned the business use of the property ö whether it would be like Black Rock Mountain store. The real estate office is not needed. One unit can be used for a model and one to write contracts. Sheâs very opposed to any business use of the property.
Dave Juergens ö 134 Deer Run, close to The Meadows. If he were the developer, he would look to the residents for help so it could be developed as neighbors and grow with the Master Plan. Heâs concerned about the commercial use of the property. Board of Supervisors should take into account the new zoning changes. Has water supply concerns (wells are approved, but capacity is unknown), additional traffic, noise, pollution, the absence of a definite plan. He asked that the Commission deny the request until definite plans are in place.
George McKinney ö 11 year resident. Feels proposal is not in keeping with the area and is an attempt to increase land value of this small parcel. Itâs more appropriate to wait for new zoning ordinance. The income to the County is greatly exaggerated. Plans are vague and inappropriate.
Jan Burland ö moving into new home. She quoted the Comprehensive Plan clause regarding protection and preservation of the historic character and features of Nelson County. High density is urban, not rural.
Mike Crowe -read letter he had sent to Commissioners. Mentioned the covenants that are in place with the WPOA and whether they were worthwhile. This issue affects the entire County ö other developers.
Craig Cooper ö lives across the street from property being discussed. Concerned about noise and light, high density condos, lack of final information, parking (300-475 spaces could be needed), 6 units/acre (much higher density than Rodes Valley or Stoney Creek). He fears a ãResidential Wal-Martä and implores the Commission to preserve this beautiful County.
DâArcy Brent ö resident of Stoney Creek. Stated that the County has to make a profit and HCA has to also. She does not want the rezoning of 30 acres to be added to the Master Plan and feels no responsibility for their (HCA) fiscal success.
Ken Frederick. HCA introduced him to this area, but he strongly opposes this plan because of the negative effect it will have. In particular, water resource issues which became critical 2 summers ago. He feels HCAâs claim for sewage pumping is not backed up by facts. The impact on the watershed is uncertain. Annual run-off will increase drought possibilities. HCA should be required to provide specific information on the water issue.
C. W. Waskey. Residents are being ãsnookeredä by HCA. Salesmanship sounds good, but whatâs in it for Nellysford and Stoney Creek residents?
David McGann ö Concerned about waste water in the area, and is against anything that pumps sewage back into water streams. Feels Mr. Carroll should develop the 30 acres for himself rather than involving the citizens. He is also concerned about road maintenance and availability of water, which the County will have to provide. These 30 acres are being pressed on people who donât want it.
J. N. Longton ö He sees a whole lot of land with little electric boxes with no houses built. When theyâre built out, there will be a lot more traffic. If the 30 acres to be developed follow the guidelines of the County, they shouldnât be annexed. Prospect of tax money is seductive. If there is a demand for housing, there are other places to develop. If itâs developed, many will be unhappy and new people wonât want to move there.
Mitchell Fleisher ö lived in area for 12 years. He gave reasons for moving here. Says HCA should consider overburdening the water supply, sewage, light and noise pollution, transients (crime increases). Wants to keep Nelson County beautiful, and all should have a right to decide what happens there. Asks Commission to deny and allow the people to speak.
Bob Keenan ö Stoney Creek. Is in opposition. Concerns are: (1) potential increase in traffic on Rt. 151 ö may have to widen the road; (2) residents having no vote on HCA rezoning; having to rely on the Planning Commission which should have input from the community. He asks that they wait until January.
Bill Smith ö adjoining property owner. Said he didnât know a lot more than at the first, but is concerned about depreciation of the property. He likes Nellysford as it is. Reminded Mr. Carroll that the pond shown on the drawing is on his right of way.
Hank Gibb - adjoining property owner. Does not support this develop-ment because he just doesnât know what it will be. The applicant hasnât presented a complete plan and what has been presented keeps changing. Heâs concerned about the 52 ft. height of the buildings and that the initial proposal for the elder care units was for 90, now it seems to be for 175.
Peter Agelasto ö speaking for Friends of Rockfish (FOR) Watershed. Asked why the need to rush to judgment. There is no current information on the water supply, so studies are needed. Heâs concerned about the impact of construction, and on the residents of Nellysford and Stoney Creek. The County is on the verge of adopting a new zoning ordinance; HCA is rushing to get this passed before that ordinance.
Peter Agelasto ö speaking as a citizen. Concerned about 52 ft. height of buildings, the impact on schools, and the need for a water study. At this time HCA controls water and sewer.
Hazel Griffith ö resident. Wants to know who the developer is; HCA is made up of real estate salesmen ö none live at Wintergreen and are not concerned about future of the area. The planned buildings without architectural review could be shacks in a few years.
Otto Ritter ö resident. Whether the County approves or not, rezoning should be decided by the residents. ARB would not have approved many of the projects that are in Stoney Creek right now, and they wouldnât approve this either. Itâs a project without merit and without regard for the citizens of Nellysford.
Joe Steele ö resident. The assisted living proposes is not for the very wealthy. He would be opposed to time-sharing. The property will still be developed, regardless of the outcome of this process.

Mrs. Proulx expressed her appreciation to the audience for their attendance. The public hearing was closed when all speakers had been called.

In response to public comment, Mrs. Proulx explained that VDOTâs preliminary examination of the entrance off 151 has not raised any concerns. Sewage into the stream will be covered by the Health Department and DEQ. Mr. Boger said the ordinance defines ãby rightä if there is water and sewer ö 30 lots (40,000 sq. ft. ea.); 15 lots if there is no water and sewer (2 acres ea.).

In response to Ms. Griffithâs question, Mr. Carroll named the developers as Peter Foley, Kyle Lynn, Tim Hess and himself.

Mr. Carroll stated that revenue for roads comes from the State and Federal government. HCA is asking to rezone, annex, and amend the Master Plan. The Board cannot waive requirements for the plat to come before the Board of Supervisors. The Master Plan has been amended several times.

Ms. Russell commented that one hundred sixty-two (162) development units remain the Stoney Creek that are not in Mixed Use and cannot be used for the purposes asked for. The developer alone has the right until 1/1/2005 to petition the County for the addition of land and development rights. After that date, the property owners must be consulted through the Wintergreen Property Owners Association.

Mr. Carroll spoke again to make the following points: 1) Water and sewer is adequate; 2) Roads will be the responsibility of the association developing ö not WPOA; 3) HCA is not in financial difficulty; 4) Stoney Creek residents are not the ãnormä financially; 5) Wintergreen provides about 20% of the Countyâs revenues; 6) Change is not easy ö HCA would like to help; 7) Everyone has the right to build whatever they want on land they already have; 8) The search has started on the congregate care issue; 9) There is a need to satisfy market and growth needs for Nelson County; 10) Congregate care will take up all the property available to develop; and 11) Complete information hasnât been available because rezoning has not yet been approved. If approved, HCA will spend the dollars.

Mr. Bruguiere made comments regarding: 1) Water and sewer ö Tim Castillo has said that the area can support 350 units, there is room for expansion, 5 wells are available with 3 being used currently, there is plenty of water; 2) His visit to the site with Mr. Carroll. He had thought houses could be seen, but the only one visible is the Smith house; and 3) His personal feeling is that heâs still on the fence ö the drawings make it clearer. His view has changed somewhat and he would like for the Commissioners to go to the property to see for themselves.

Mr. Bruguiere made a motion to defer this for one month until everyone (Commissioners) has an opportunity to see the property. Ms. Russell provided the second. Motion passed 7-0.

In further discussion, Mrs. Proulx sees this as HCAâs desire to benefit from affiliation with Wintergreen, but is unwilling to accept restrictions.

Dr. Walker asked that arrangements be made for a walk-through of the property. Mr. Carroll will arrange that.

Mrs. Russell is concerned about commercial use - feels none should be added above what already exists ö and height of buildings.

Other Business:
1. Discussion of project for Glen Mary by Steve Crandall

Mr. Crandallâs development of Glen Mary (Verdtogo, L.L.C. ö ãgreenä in Latin) has the goal of being a model community: low density, mixed-use, solar energy uses. It consists of 95 acres. The plan is to mimic the appearance of the surrounding area. There will be 12 house sites ö 4-6 acres each ö and some commercial. Ski Barn is there now. Access points would be on Rt. 151 and 664. Subdivision would be surrounded by open space with possibly a bridle/hiking trail. A micro-brewery (Mr. Crandallâs first dream) would be developed with a western fa�ade. A courtyard would be in the middle. The floodplain will be checked out.

The Comprehensive Plan calls for commercial uses not to be scattered up Rt. 664. The commercial uses planned by Mr. Crandall include a coffee shop, grocery, restaurant/micro-brewery, etc. Mr. Bruguiere suggests that more specifics are needed for the commercial uses. Ms. Russell is concerned about the floodplain and the water situation. Dr. Walker asked about the concept of green space and Mr. Crandall stated that at the present time the land is covered with dead trees and vegetation. Mrs. Russell confirmed with Mr. Crandall that 2 commercial areas are planned.

Commissioners had no further comments regarding the project.

Other Business:
2. Review of proposed subdivision by Daryl Morse (4.83 acres)
Mr. Morse purchased this lot in 1989. Itâs located on Phoenix Road in Arrizona Subdivision. He wants to divide Lot 5 into 2 lots. Before doing a survey, he wants to know if the Planning Commission would approve it. Mr. Boger has no problem with it. There is a common driveway between the two lots and a manufactured home will probably be placed there. The Commissioners have no problem with it at this time, but issues no guarantees.

Other Business:
3. Proposed Zoning Ordinance

Copies of the Zoning Ordinance and maps were given to the Commissioners. It was agreed that a meeting should be held before the September 21 public hearing. Wednesday, September 15, 7:30 P. M. was set aside for this purpose. Location will be Board of Supervisors meeting room.

Other Business:
4. Planning Commission By Laws

The Commission operates under 1975 by laws which need to be reviewed and updated. Ms. Hunt and Mr. Harman agreed to serve on a sub-committee to do this. Dr. Walker will edit. A draft is to be presented at the October Planning Commission meeting.

Adjournment:

At 11:30 P. M. Ms. Russell made a motion to continue the Planning Commission meeting to September 15. Ms. Hunt provided the second. Motion carried 7-0.

Next Planning Commission Meeting (with Board of Supervisors): September 21, 2004, 7:00 P. M.
Next Regularly Scheduled Planning Commission Meeting: September 22, 2004, 7:30 P. M.