Planning: November 17, 2004

November 17, 2004

NELSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 17, 2004

Present: Mr. Thomas Bruguiere, Mr. Michael Harman, Ms. Emily Hunt, Mrs. Philippa Proulx ö Chair, Ms. Linda Russell, Dr. Valdrie Walker

Staff Present: Mr. Fred Boger and Mrs. Betty Fortune

Call to Order: Chair Proulx called the meeting to order at 7:30 P. M. She announced sign-up procedures to the audience.

Approval of Minutes: The minutes from October 27, 2004 were reviewed. No corrections were made. Ms. Russell made a motion to accept the minutes and Ms. Hunt provided the second. Motion carried 4-0. (Mr. Bruguiere and Dr. Walker were out of the room at the time.)

Conditional Use Permit #2004-005 ö Ashleyâs Market, Afton, Virginia
Mr. Boger reported that several months ago the owners of Ashleyâs Market, Barry and Steven Patrick, were granted a Special Use Permit to renovate their store. They are requesting the Conditional Use Permit to allow use of the attic level for office space. It will be approximately 1,484 sq. ft. in size and five additional off-street parking spaces will be needed. The septic system must be approved by the Health Department. The entrances comply with VDOTâs requirements. Mr. Boger stated he had no problem approving the permit. The applicants were present, but added no comments.

Mrs. Proulx opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Public hearing was closed.

Mrs. Russell made a motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit #2004-005 for Ashleyâs Market to add office space to the attic level of their store. Mr. Bruguiere provided the second. Motion passed 6-0. This item will be considered by the Board of Supervisors on December 14, 2004.

Preliminary Subdivision Plat ö ãDutch Creekä
Mr. Boger stated that Home Run, L.L.C., represented by Mr. Ray M. Pennington, III submitted a preliminary plat to divide approximately 216 acres of land into 86 lots. The property is located on Laurel Road, Route 639, North of Elma, Tax Map #60-A-28.

Following are items discussed during the Site Plan Review meeting and contained in Mr. Bogerâs report to the Planning Commission:

Topographic Map. Data shown is misleading to anyone who has not been on the site. In order to see the impact the existing conditions will have on this plan, better topographic data is required. There are significant slopes on this property which will determine if a structure can be built on the lots.

100 Year Floodplain. The area shown on the plat as Dutch Creek may not be Dutch Creek, but a tributary.

Approximate Total Acreage, Lot Numbers, Size, Dimensions, Etc. Plat shows 86 lots with acreage, but there are actually 87 lots in the subdivision. Lot 87 is across the abandoned railroad line.

Approximate Location of Streets, Railroad, Watercourses, Buildings, Etc. The plat shows the approximate location of the proposed roads. The names of the roads must be approved by the County. The plat does not show the existing dwelling and the ruins of two other collapsed dwellings on the site. The plat does not show all of the existing streams on the property. A 50 ft. setback is required from both sides of all streams, which indicates that a number of the lots may not be developable. The roads in this subdivision must be paved since they will be designated as Class II roads, according to the Subdivision Ordinance, since lots are less than 5 acres each. A VDOT representative stated that the two entrances may not meet sight distance requirements. VDOT approval is the only State agency whose approval must be obtained with the preliminary plat.

Location of Open Space and Common Use Property, Etc. Considering the density, open space and recreation areas should be provided for residents.

Title of Subdivision, Names and Addresses of the Owner, Developer/Subdivider, Individual who Prepared Plat, Date of Drawing, Scale, North Point, Number of Sheets. All owners are not shown on the plat. There is a boundary dispute between the former owners and at least one adjacent property owner.

Vicinity Map. Meets requirements.

Provision of all Utilities. Each lot will be served by individual wells and septic systems. The Planning Commission cannot address this at this time, but it is a concern. With septic fields on hills and wells down below, contamination is a good possibility. The County will not assume any responsibility for correcting this problem in the future. The plat must reflect this fact.

Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. E & S Plan will be required. It will be difficult to comply with the Stateâs MS-19 requirements due to the existing site conditions and streams on the property. A permit is also required from DEQ and approval from the State Water Control Board.

Wetlands. There may be wetlands on the property. The Army Corp of Engineers should investigate this. If they exist, their location needs to be shown on the plat.

Dry Fire Hydrant. Because of the density, a minimum of 2 dry fire hydrants may be required.

Staff recommends waiting for a report from VDOT. Forty-five (45) days are allowed for the Planning Commission to make a decision. According to plats recorded in the Clerkâs office, a clear boundary has not been established between the Home Run property and two adjoining properties. The plat cannot be approved when a clear boundary dispute exists.

Mr. Ray M. Pennington, III, of Front Royal, owner, represented himself and the other two owners, Stephen and Vick Saunders of Harrisonburg, who were also present. Mr. Pennington stated there is a question on a small area that will be worked out with neighbors. The situation can be resolved. VDOT requirements must be considered. The only comments they had received prior to submitting the plan were on open space, lower density, and walking paths. The plat was rushed along because of the impending zoning ordinance change. Mr. Pennington clarified with the Commission and Mr. Boger that the main items needed to qualify this plat was VDOT requirements that must be met and boundary line questions that must be cleared up.   Mr. Pennington stated that there are two streams on the property ö Dutch Creek and a Dutch Creek tributary. There is a very small watershed ö approximately 30 acres. A pipe that would connect Loblolly with Saunders Street and would only require a 30ä pipe for the 100 year floodplain.   He would like to meet with the Planning Commission to work out locations for some open space. The 22 acres Mr. Boger questioned are across from the subdivision, separated by the railroad, and are not connected to this subdivision.

Mr. Pennington said that VDOT will probably require realignment of the intersections of 642 and 645. There is a gravel bed road, clearing would be needed along the right-of-way, entrances widened and sight distance improved. Mr. Pennington is open to suggestions for improvement, i.e., reduction in density, etc. Water and sewer is under the jurisdiction of the Health Department. E&S will have to be approved by Thomas Jefferson Soil & Conservation. There are no wetlands on the property and DEQ will not need to be involved, according to the applicant.

Mr. Bruguiere asked about the location of dry hydrants. Mr. Pennington wasnât aware of the requirement, but said they would be centrally accessible to the lots ö probably Ebenezer Court and Lobolly and down on Willoughby Court. They may want to use a central water system. Mr. Bruguiere said they would need a significant water source. Mr. Pennington asked if this was part of the zoning ordinance and was informed that it was addressed in the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Boger said that any lot containing 15 or more lots, any one of which is 5 acres or less, would require a dry hydrant. Mr. Pennington said the need would be determined and they would be added and that VDOT may eliminate one of the proposed entrances.

Ms. Russell commented that many things are not required on the preliminary plat, but they affect the number of lots: fire hydrants, E&S Plan, drainage, water courses. The plat is incomplete and there are not enough requirements met to consider it at this time.

Mr. Pennington asked if he could withdraw, meet with the PC and Mr. Boger, and then come back to the Planning Commission. Even though it is not the Planning Commissionâs responsibility to lay out the subdivision, Staff can help. Mr. Pennington chose to wait until after the public hearing to decide whether to withdraw.

The public hearing was opened by Chair Proulx.

Andy Wright ö Comments are attached.

Robert McSwain ö Comments are attached.

Chapin Wilson ö Comments are attached. Further, he stated that soil surveys by USDA states that the soil is steep with rock overlay and it doesnât perk. There is more about sanitation than meets the eye. (See file for USDA results.) VDOT will need to make major changes in these roads and there is no money allotted to this area in the 6-year Transportation Plan. The dramatic curve on October Lane probably canât be corrected.

Mr. Bruguiere asked if the boundary line dispute was with Jerry (now deceased) and Nancy Saunders. Mr. Wilson said it was and that they had failed to respond to his attempts to settle the matter.

Janet Cabrera ö Moved to Laurel Road three months ago. Their boundary is also part of the boundary dispute and their name is not shown on the site plan. She is concerned about the water source with the proposed density. There are sufficient reasons to deny the plat and urges the Commission to reject it.

Sue Selden, formerly Sue Casteen, lives at the corner of Ball Mountain and Laurel Road, directly across from the property being discussed. If she were offered 10 times the value of her land, she would reject the offer. She has concerns about family rights and:
ð   private or county roads. The Post Office canât deliver mail on private roads.
ð   Transportation. Nelson County doesnât have insurance coverage for school buses to go on private roads. Families will be working away from home and there is concern about children getting to buses and to their homes in the dark.
ð   Separate wells. If the soil wonât perk and thereâs no water and lots are sold, there will be angry citizens.
ð   Safety concerns for children. Many parents canât be there to get their children home safely.
This subdivision is not what the County needs. A recent Daily Progress article stated that Nelson County wants to develop in high density areas. Dutch Creek is not a high density area.   Approvals for septic systems will be difficult. Itâs a ãbad plan.ä

Grover Wade ö Laurel Road. Sent a letter to Planning Commissioners. He owns the lot across from the development. Heâs opposed to it. Home Run is trying to get around the zoning ordinance which is being considered. (He urges everyone to go along with the proposed ordinance ö itâs a good plan for the County.) Even if the preliminary plan is revised, itâs still ill-conceived.

Janet Hunter ö Rockfish River Road. She lives ¸ mile downstream from where Dutch Creek comes into the Rockfish River and likes to swim in the river. Her concerns are:
1)   Comprehensive Plan is not being followed. Placing the densest subdivision in the County where this is proposed is not appropriate.
2)   Impact on the Rockfish River. By her estimation, this subdivision will result in pavement equal to a 4 ¹ acre parking lot right beside the Rockfish River. There will be storm water runoff from about 2 acres of yards. The Rockfish River will flood. She doesnât want this subdivision in her back yard.

Gordon Koerner ö Comments are attached.

Phyllis Ammons ö Laurel Road. She moved here 30 years ago from Richmond and loves the land sheâs on. It is not realistic to expect there will be no growth, but it must be respectful growth. ãPlease deny.ä

Mike Craig ö Wheelers Cove Road. ãPlease turn it down.ä

Debbie Simpson ö October Lane. She needed a 4-wheel drive to get out of her drive in bad weather. Additional cars on this road will be a disaster.
Theyâve leased their land for hunting. The property floods. Maybe 10-20 houses would be OK, but not 86.

Robert Stratton ö Owns property on Laurel Road, lives in Albemarle County. ãI donât oppose this subdivision, but the Planning Commission should rethink this one. Eighty-six houses, wells and septic systems are not sufficient.ä He has a 3-acre piece of land, and if asked if he would come back home to Nelson, the answer would be ãNoä if this subdivision passes.

Richard Lynch ö Property joins the proposed subdivision. He came to Nelson because of it being country, the scenic views, and the fact that it was not crowded. Heâs not ãanti-developmentä, but feels this subdivision would be better in Lovingston or on Rt. 29. The land will not perk and the water quality will be poor. He hopes the PC rejects the plan and suggests larger lot sizes.

Janice Jackson ö Speaking for other residents also. The Robertsons are the largest land-owners in this area. Sheâs speaking on their behalf, as well as Isabel Stevens, Bob and Sherry Robertson. Their concerns are traffic and water quality. She asks that the proposal be denied.

Susan McSwain ö Dutch Creek Lane. This is the 1st large subdivision application to be submitted since the public hearing on the new zoning ordinance. The Comprehensive Plan supports: Agricultural/Forestal Districts, PDRs, Conservation Easements and Land Use Taxation. None of those will be adequate when the zoning ordinance allows dense subdividing. She loves the land, and told of the rufous hummingbird which has taken shelter in the Dutch Creek area. Itâs very rare to see it on the East Coast and it needs to be protected.   The goal should not be to carve out, but to conserve through conservation easements. The land is special enough for the rufous hummingbird and should be special to them.

Wisteria Johnson ö Elma. She thanked the Planning Commission for serving. This subdivision is like a growing cancerous cell. Sheâs not opposed to planned development, but is opposed to the following:
1)   It doesnât appear to be a planned community.
2)   The main entrance is across from a family graveyard.
3)   The roads have been the same for years; dependent on the judgment of other drivers. What will 80 other families do to the road conditions?
4)   Water ö her well went dry 2 years ago, along with many others in the area.
5)   Quality of daily life. If planning is not appropriate, what kind of people will this development bring in? Haphazard planning results in exploitation.
6)   Value of property. What about the investment people have made in their property?
She urged the PC to reject the plan, save the County, and ãGod bless Nelson.ä

George ãBoä Delk ö Court Street, Lovingston. Mr. Delk addressed the dry hydrant situation. It would be easy to put 87 dry hydrants in. A dry hydrant is just a plastic pipe put in a box that fills with water from which the fire department can pump.    But·you must have a source of water! A few subdivisions put in dry hydrants and they didnât work. Forestry homeland wildfire requirements are a minimum of 1000 gallons of water for 2 hourâ pumping. Thatâs a lot of water! Developers need to remember that a source of water is needed. If they dam up Dutch Creek, that presents other problems. A better solution would be a 2000â septic tank at each house so that rain water coming off the room could be collected. Handled appropriately, the developers could do something with this property.

Tom Eick ö resident of Roseland, employee of Health Department. When a subdivision is planned, a private consultant comes in and looks at the drain field. Sewage handling regulations must be followed. A 50â setback from water courses would be needed. If water in the area is not accounted for, it will affect the drain field. Site setting and topography is important. State regulations must be considered but they are not always adequate. Problems can occur even when State rules are followed. This type of subdivision should have a community water system. With 2 acre lots, there is no spare room for well and septic systems.

Nancy Boone ö Laurel Road. Water is a major concern. Manpower and equipment for volunteer emergency services are also concerns.

Anne Buteau ö James River Road. Sheâs opposed to the proposed subdivision. There would be a lot of movement of equipment and erosion control will be critical. Contractors cause a lot of dirt to go in the river. This subdivision is not well planned and shouldnât be happening here.

With no further comment, the public hearing was closed.

Following public comment, Mr. Pennington stated he would take the comments under consideration and will take care of the boundary line situation. He requests to withdraw the plat until a compromise plan can be developed.

There was no further discussion with the Planning Commission.

Payneâs Garage ö Site Plan #2004-012
Mr. Boger reported that last month when the Planning Commission reviewed the site plan there were concerns about VDOT requirements for the entrance to the garage. Since that time, nothing further has been received from VDOT. He recommended approval of the plan. Mr. Boger said that action must be taken by the PC within 60 days from the date the application is submitted, so action must be taken tonight. Mr. Bruguiere suggested that it be approved contingent upon VDOT approval. Engineers are working on the drawings now. The building has been there for three generations and Mr. Payne may lose his business if VDOT requirements are too stringent.

Mr. Harman made a motion to approve the site plan based on the contingency that VDOT requirements are met. Mr. Bruguiere provided the second. Motion passed 6 ö 0.

Other Business ö Zoning Ordinance
Mr. Boger distributed the Resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors which gives the PC 60 days from tonight to review and make recommendations on the new zoning ordinance. This is a short time in which to respond. A public hearing date must also be set, 14,000 notices mailed, and the document must be ready within 60 days.

Mrs. Proulx proposed that Commissioners take the ordinance home to begin review and then a meeting be scheduled shortly after Thanksgiving.

Dr. Walker asked which sections need priority and Mr. Bruguiere responded that Rural and Farming District and Business District would be a good place to start.

November 29 and 30 (7:30 P. M.) were set for work sessions and December 22 (7:30 P. M.) for the public hearing. Subsequently, a recommendation will be made to the Board of Supervisors.

Mr. Boger would like to publish comments from the September joint Public Hearing on the Nelson County website as well as the ãwork-in-progressä zoning ordinance.

The date of the scheduled PC meeting was changed from December 15 to December 29. At that time a recommendation to the BOS on the draft zoning ordinance will be considered, along with other agenda items. Ms. Russell made a motion to change this date, Mr. Harman provided the second, and motion passed 6-0.

Other ö Planning Commission Bylaws
Revised Bylaws were reviewed and the following changes recommended:
1)   Change Chairman to Chair throughout the document.
2)   Article III.B.2.(c) ö Change to read: The Chair may speak and vote on all questions. (Removed ãmake motions.ä)
3)   Article V.I. ö Change to read: Annually, the Commission may recommend to the Board a work program of major projects (i.e., plan amendments and major ordinance amendments) having priorities for the ensuing year.
4)   Article VI, paragraph 2 ö Change to read: These Bylaws may be amended by a majority vote at any meeting of the Commission after not less than 7 days notice has been given to all members of the Commission and a copy of the proposed amendment sent with the notice.
Ms. Russell made a motion to adopt these changes, Mr. Harman provided the second and motion passed 6-0.

Adjournment
Mr. Bruguiere made a motion at 9:50 P. M. to continue this meeting on November 29 at 7:30. Ms. Russell provided the second and motion passed
6-0.

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Fortune
Planning Secretary