Planning: February 2, 2005

February 2, 2005

NELSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
ZONING ORDINANCE PUBLIC HEARING
FEBRUARY 2, 2005 ö 7:00 P. M.

Present: Tom Bruguiere, Michael Harman, Emily Hunt, Philippa Proulx ö Chair, Linda Russell, Valdrie Walker

Staff Present: Fred Boger, Planning Director, and Betty Fortune, Secretary

Call to order: Mrs. Proulx called the meeting to order at 7:00 P. M. and thanked the public for attending.   In response to questions and concerns about the progression of the zoning ordinance, she stated that in 2002 the Board of Supervisors (BOS) hired a consultant, Frank Cox Company, to write an ordinance to replace the current ordinance. This followed the adoption of a new Comprehensive Plan which had involved a great deal of community input. Public meetings were held around the County and a survey was sent to all property owners. After adoption of the Comprehensive plan, the BOS hired a consultant to write a draft of the zoning ordinance. The BOS, Planning Commission (PC) and the consultant met jointly and the BOS asked the PC to take the draft, edit it, and adapt it to Nelson County, which was done. Unfortunately, the original draft was put forward, not the one we had been working on. There were errors which were corrected. In September 2004 the BOS and PC held a public hearing to hear comments from the public. Since then many comments and recommendations have been received and considered. Another public meeting was held in December.

It is recognized that the document will never make everyone happy, but the PC has attempted to achieve a balance in the components of: orderly growth, the right to use your land as you wish, your neighborsâ right to peaceful enjoyment of their land, encourage businesses in the County, and preservation of Nelson Countyâs character.
Mrs. Proulx also listed the following changes to the proposed ordinance:
ð   Rural & Farming District additional options have been added for dividing land. The family divisions are by right with a two acre minimum. In addition, 5 lots with minimum of 5 acres per lot, 5 lots with minimum of 10 acres per lot, and unlimited number of 20 acre lots. There are also options for more concentrated density and open space.
ð   Setback requirements are still being addressed regarding smaller lots already on record.
ð   Landscaping requirements do not apply to private homes. Those are for commercial uses.
ð   The Corridor Overlay designations on the Zoning Map have been removed. They can be put back in by the BOS after public hearings, if they so desire.
ð   If smaller lots are owned than are required by the ordinance, owners can sell and build if setbacks are met, Health Department approvals are received, etc.
ð   Home occupations are by right in R-F and R-R districts. There is confusion over the wording, which is designed to make sure a home occupation meets requirements. The PC is supportive of business from home!
ð   The Planning Commission Chapter 14 was omitted since those regulations are documented in the Code of Nelson.

Mrs. Proulx stated that following tonightâs meeting, the PC will make a recommendation to the BOS who will determine the next step for the ordinance. Another public hearing will be held before final action is taken on the ordinance. Final action is taken by the Board of Supervisors.

She reviewed the process for signing up to speak and the guidelines to be followed.   A member of the BOS has requested that speakers state the amount of property they own in the County. Speakers may do so if they choose. A handout titled ãHighlights of Nelson Countyâs Proposed Zoning Ordinanceä was also available to attendees.   The public hearing was opened.

Speaker #1 ö Robert Barton ö Shipman. Mr. Barton recognizes that the issue is a difficult one which he sees as an issue between those who want to stay and those who want to sell. If there is development in the County, taxes will go up. It costs more to give services to residences. When taxes go up, the cost of living goes up and itâs difficult for people to live on present salaries and some will be forced to sell property. He wishes to keep taxes as low as possible. People need to work together to keep taxes and development down. On a personal note, he was present at a court hearing where lawyers said you canât make rules after the fact. The PC or BOS canât decide who makes money and who doesnât. Laws and rules have to be in place. People have to work together to make reasonable rules so the County isnât sold. People will come to Nelson County and sell whatâs not theirs. Citizens have the right to protect what they have.

Speaker #2 ö Gordon Koerner ö (Statement is attached. )
Speaker #3 ö Fred Clarkson ö Arrington. Opposes the new ordinance.
Speaker #4 ö Dee Davis-Wells ö Schuyler. She is opposed to a majority of the regulations. Itâs too restrictive in almost every district and chapter and gives too much power to the Planning Director. Itâs burdensome to property owners. It will require an increase in County Staff which will be passed on to citizens. The PC can achieve the original objective ö controlling growth ö without all the proposed regulations in this document. One positive thing has come out of this ö citizens have taken a more active interest in County government.

Speaker #5 ö Barbara Barton. She supports the ordinance because it will help keep taxes from going up. Communities pay $1.30 - $1.40 in services for every dollar collected in taxes. Open space requires only $.36, it keeps taxes down, and requires no costs in roads, waste disposal, education, water and sewer, fire protection, etc. The current zoning ordinance allows outsiders to develop land, make money, and leave the cost to the taxpayers of the County. Taxes will be lower if development is kept within bounds with the proposed zoning ordinance.

Speaker #6 ö David S. Hight ö Massies Mill. Owns 2 tracts of land totaling 170 acres. Heâs opposed to the ordinance. Two weeks ago President Bush, in his inaugural address, talked about freedom worldwide. Heâs here tonight feeling the need to fight the loss of freedom of their rights which are being stolen. The requirements are not understood. The present ordinance is more in line with current County citizens. Currently proposals for new services are being discussed such as paid rescue personnel that may require increased personal property taxes while our rights are being reduced. This nation was built on economic principle of free enterprise. No government entity should be more knowledgeable about the size of a building structure than the owners. Proposed zoning ordinance is not good for businesses and not in line with citizens of County.

Speaker #7 ö Wayne Reynolds, Lovingston. Heâs opposed to the ordinance. Itâs the biggest land grab since Castro took over Cuba. It took Mr. Reynolds 30 years to pay for his land and he doesnât want to hear how long it took the PC to decide how heâs going to use it. America is one country where people can own land. ãIf you ainât got land, you ainât nothing.ä Everyone should be able to own a house because thatâs the American dream. Thereâs no reason for the PC to worry about overpopulation. It wonât happen any time soon. The best thing to do is gather up all the old books, throw them in the dumpster and to home and take care of their own business. Let the people of Nelson County enjoy the freedoms they have worked for and fought for.

Speaker #8 ö Arleen Fletcher. Owns 160 acres in Faber. Opposed to zoning ordinance. No one should tell you what to do with land. She pays her taxes and thatâs her right to do what she pleases with the land.

Speaker #9 ö Paul Carter ö James River Road. Opposed to ordinance ö too restrictive.
Speaker #10 ö Chapin Wilson ö Laurel Road. 58 acres. Rampant growth is going to come to Nelson County. Ask residents of Stafford, Fauquier and Orange Counties where land is going for $50-60,000 an acre. We need to be careful. Freedoms people need to protect are clean air, open space, clean running water, etc.   Heâs ãforä the ordinance ö everybody can find some fault with it, but itâs time to move along. We need the ordinance now and itâs reasonable.

Speaker #11 ö William B. Robertson. Owns 43.55 acres on Rt. 639 & 643. Property has been in his family for over 100 years. Heâs in favor of the ordinance. Itâs not perfect, but is necessary to keep land from becoming less valuable. He agrees with the ãgrandfatherä clause which allows existing family property to be subdivided with many less restrictions.

Speaker #12 ö Carlton Ballowe. Owns 103 acres in Faber and 7 off Rt. 639 in Faber. (Statement attached. )

Speaker #13 ö Warren Wells. Opposed to the ordinance.

Speaker #14 ö Steve Kendall. Heâs against the ordinance, but not against zoning. The document is flawed. When it takes 2 hours to decide how many people can come to a recital in a residence, itâs time to quit.   He doesnât want Nelson County to take a chance on what isnât discovered tonight. What about the unknown? He suggests the citizens be allowed to write the new ordinance from the present one. A strong subdivision ordinance needs to be written to take care of outside developers who may want to destroy the County. Someone said the money has already been spent and we must preserve this document. No! Keeping this ordinance will be a big mistake. The cost of implementing it will be much more than the original ordinance costs. Mr. Kendall asked Mrs. Proulx if she would enter the names of speakers for December 22 in the records for tonight. Mrs. Proulx replied that there is a record of all those speakers. Mr. Kendall asked that all people stand who were in attendance opposing the ordinance. Mrs. Proulx declared this action was out of order.

Speaker #15 ö Mitch Robertson. Opposed to ordinance. His wife Vickie also opposes it.

Speaker #16 ö Arthur Wilson. Heâs a property owner in Nelson County. Hates to come up always saying heâs opposed, but he is. What happens after tonightâs public hearing? Will BOS vote on this? Is there a schedule or established time line? Is there a method for allowing a vote on the new ordinance or does the BOS need to do this because they lack the trust and confidence in the citizens to do the right thing? This matter is so controversial and important that it needs to be acted on by the citizens of Nelson County.

Speaker #17 ö Dorothy Seaman ö Roseland. Is still opposed to much of the ordinance. Other counties in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Oregon are wrestling with preserving the pastoral nature of the land. Programs have been implemented to monetarily compensate the landowners, with the fair price offered. Maybe Nelson should pursue this rather than taking land. What happened to the town meeting concept? Weâre drowning in a sea of poor communication. Question and answer sessions would have been a huge help in mutual understanding.

Speaker #18 ö George Cheape ö Arrington. Ordinance says that home occupations are by right. Technically this is correct, but in practice this is not correct. You should only have to get a business license. Heâs opposed to the ordinance, but not to regulation. Home occupations have to be approved by Mr. Boger which is giving power to the government. How about existing home occupations? Any excessive use which produces traffic is also a problem. How about a beauty shop in the home? This is more traffic than residential use. The ordinance is a burden to the Planning Director and a burden to citizens. Please scrap this ö rework the old ordinance ö redo the subdivision ordinance. Make developers pay for all improvements, i.e., roads, etc.. Encourage business. Put the ordinance on a referendum.

Speaker #19 - Larry Whitaker ö Lovingston Manufacturing Plant. He has been trying to open a business since July. Unfortunately, the County talks the talk but doesnât walk the walk. You donât need to worry about businesses getting here. It takes too long to get anything done. He wants to open a saddle and harness shop, etc. Heâs familiar with growth. Has family has interests here in Wintergreen and wants to live here. Everyoneâs been helpful, but he just canât get anything done. Needs help to get his business running.

Speaker #20 ö Bill Flippin ö Tyro. Encouraged PC to continue working to modify the old ordinance. The verbiage of the new is hard to understand. Use common sense approach.

Speaker #21 ö Rob Rutherford. This is the third time coming to hearings and heâs still opposed. Itâs a stumbling block for prosperity of this County. Starting his business here was difficult. We need to make the place more user-friendly. Young people need places to live and they need jobs.    Help the people of Nelson County to generate jobs. Heâs much opposed. It will hinder the people of Nelson ö taxes, size of lot, too costly. Heâs opposed. Go back to original. Take the new site plan and landscaping chapters and add them to the old ordinance.

Speaker #22 ö Sidney Woodson ö Faber. Owns 300 acres. Heâs done well with every other ordinance inregulating land. Very much opposed to ordinance.

Speaker #23 ö Cathy Miller ö Massies Mill. Owns 130 acres. Definitely against the zoning ordinance. She has been in real estate and land development for over 20 minor and major subdivisions. This ordinance is not trying to deal with just subdivisions. The PC is asking for blanket restrictions on the entire County. Who is going to enforce these rules and regulations? Where is the money coming from to pay them?    She can understand why no businesses are moving here. Contractors do not like to work in this County. There is no problem with other counties - not like here in Nelson. She believes the ordinance is illegal. Real people are against it and will fight it every inch of the way.

Speaker #24 ö David McGann. Opposed to the ordinance because he runs a business out of house and it will be too regulated. At the 1st meeting 200 people were against the ordinance. The PC is wearing people out coming to meetings. Urges them to listen to people whoâre telling them what they want. Put the ordinance to a majority vote.

Speaker #25 ö Conny Roussos. Stated that itâs unfortunate that this issue has become emotional and personal. There are two types of objections here tonight: Those with specific complaints and those who think the entire document should be killed. Those people would oppose any ordinance. A lot of false information has gotten out about hunting rights, family divisions, home businesses, All this is false. Ten Commandments say you shall not kill or steal. The zoning ordinance says you should not diminish value of neighborâs property for personal gain. Restrictions are a part of life. Everyone had an opportunity to comment on the Comprehensive Plan. Anyone can submit a line-by-line revision to the PC if they wish. Rejecting the zoning ordinance is not optional.

Speaker #26 ö Tom Eich ö Roseland. Speaks for family who moved down here from Maryland. They have a love for beauty and donât want the area to become like what they left in Maryland. The PC is doing a good job. Itâs stressful to be talking against each other as neighbors. The original was much more protective of the land. Compromises were made. A balance is being struck and he urges keeping the plan as it is. The ordinance is not designed to control local people, but development that will come down the pike from Interstates 81 and 64 and Rt. 29. The County needs more rules to control all aspects of development than the average person can understand. This is difficult to work through, but urges PC not to give up on this plan.

Speaker #27 ö Lyn Wright ö Roseland. Has been a Nelsonian since 1930. Is opposed to the ordinance. ãIf it is not broken, donât try to fix it.ä

Speaker #28 ö Joyce Burton. Shares 520 acres with 60 other members of a community which has chosen the cluster development model to preserve urban open spaces. She encourages the adoption of the ordinance and appreciates the work of the PC. Between 1970 and 1980, population rose 4.2%; between 1980 and 1990, 4.7%; and between 1990 and 2000, 13%. In 2000 the household size in Nelson County was 4.2 people.   Census data was based on 2000 with smaller homes. The impact of growing is enormous. Charlottesville has been chosen best place in the U. S. to live. That will affect Nelson. Stick to the original goals of the ordinance. Compromise on the little things, such as setbacks. Open spaces must not be squandered.

Speaker #29 ö Sandra Lunsford ö Roseland. Owns 100+ acres. Is concerned and is against the ordinance unless compromises are made. She doesnât want people to tell them how to use their land.

Speaker #30 ö George Lunsford ö Roseland. Owns 100+ acres. Proposed ordinance does not serve the best interest of the people of Nelson County. Heâs opposed to it as presented. The County is on the right track with schools, roads, taxes, etc.   The Commission is on the wrong track. Go back and come up with a better deal to serve Nelson County.

Speaker #31 ö Toni Ranieri. Owns 25 acres on Rt. 709 and has small business. The wording on the card made her nervous. Sheâs not sure how the ordinance will affect her property. Thanked the PC for seeing to it that there will be an ordinance that supports the Comprehensive Plan.

Speaker #32 ö Nancy Fletcher ö Faber. Opposed to ordinance. Her husband, who wants to operate a welding shop will be prohibited from doing so, according to Section S ö Home Occupations, Article 15.   Heâs contributing to the economy of the County through taxes and wants to be able to continue their way of life in Nelson County.

Speaker #32 ö Harry Powell. The PC does not consider this the forum to address constitutional rights, civil rights, the right to own property, etc. He has the right to own property and enjoy property. There is no constitutional right to enjoy property. Parts of the ordinance in question are accessory buildings in the back yard. What if the road comes in? What if thereâs an L-shaped back yard? Who decides? Why is it anyoneâs business but his?    No one has the right to deprive us of property rights. He asked that PC scrap the ordinance and start over.

Speaker #33 ö Lisa Lefferts ö Horizon Village. Owns 7-8 acres. Appreciates all thatâs been done on the ordinance. Itâs a hard job and balance has been achieved. When balloted, the survey showed citizens wanted to retain ãnatural rural beauty and ecology of the land.ä Keep that in mind as this ordinance is considered. Good changes are hard to make, but the ordinance is 30 years old and needs to be changed! There are unscrupulous developers out there. We must retain clean air, clean water, open space, farm land, home businesses. We must agree on some level about what the goal is. If weâre going to keep the land beautiful, that means change and change is hard. We need more information and education about conservation easements. Thanked the PC for their efforts.

Speaker #34 ö Virginia Harvey ö Lovingston. Is totally opposed.

Speaker #35 ö Alan Adams - Nellysford. Completely opposed to the new zoning ordinance.

Speaker #36 ö Darlene Aldridge ö Nellysford. Has 200+ acres in family. Wants to preserve natural beauty and heritage, but opposes passing of the zoning ordinance as it stands right now.

Speaker #37 ö Franklin Harvey ö Lovingston. Has been in logging business for 35 years. Has a shop in the County with five families working for him, and it sounds like he wonât be able to enlarge his shop or do anything with it. If he canât work on his equipment, he canât provide jobs.   Heâs opposed to the ordinance as it is.

Speaker #38 ö Doug Long ö Lovingston. Owns 40 acres. Despite efforts of the PC and BOS, the zoning ordinance and Comprehensive Plan are still intrusive and unrealistic. They donât represent the citizens of Nelson County. By right uses are Light-Industrial are commercial, not industrial. The size of a business lot size, 40,000 sq. ft., should be decided by the person starting the business. The ordinance is not compatible to attracting business to the area. Heâs opposed to the ordinance.

Speaker #39 ö Geoff Truslow. Owns 200 acres.Is opposed to ordinance.

Speaker #40 ö Andy Wright - Elma. Owns 185 acres of land in the Dutch Creek agricultural/forestal district. Some areas donât need to be concerned about growth because it wonât happen there. There are currently two large subdivisions before the PC on Rt. 639. The original plans have changed ö the number of lots has been scaled back. Cattle farmers are being crowded out of Amherst and would like to relocated in Nelson County and the by-pass isnât even completed! A notice on the courthouse wall offers a $300 bounty for leads on parcels of land that can be bought within an hour of Charlottesville. There are signs of growth pressure. Some are unconcerned about the carving up of open space. The ordinance is needed.

Speaker #41 ö Mark Heinicke ö Nellysford. Talked of whatâs happening in Crozet. He favors the ordinance as written. There may be some excessive burden on some individuals- setbacks, small business owners, etc.

Speaker #42 ö Glenn Simpson ö 550 acres and 9 houses are owned by 2 people.    He talked with County lawyers and sees some problems in the County and he knows an ordinance is needed. Five/ten acre lots were a compromise. The ordinance is taking away rights. Will have to hire other people in order to administer this ordinance. There is not enough Staff and too much pressure on a small group. Home businesses part of the ordinance needs to be completely redone. Page 21 under ãGeneral Regulationsä states that chimneys, ãmay not extend more than 36ä into the yard.ä If someone has solar energy, thereâs no way this can work. Some parts of the ordinance are just not feasible. Heâs in favor of some of it, some of it heâs not and thanked the PC for what theyâre doing.

Speaker #43 ö Janice Jackson ö Laurel Road. The tourist brochure for Nelson County says, ãYouâre invited to experience adventure in our 475 mile playground of unspoiled beauty.ä On Laurel Road some beauty has been lost. Talk says that people who support the ordinance are a small group of people. But this group has seen the loss of miles and acres of wooded forest and another large subdivision is trying to get in before the ordinance is approved. It doesnât matter that the developer was forced to withdraw the proposal.    What matters is whether it can happen anywhere in the County. It can! The existing ordinance is allowing all of this.   She appreciates what the PC has done and the changes already made and urges them to move forward.

Speaker #44 ö Jim Troy ö Dutch Creek Lane. Growth is coming very soon. The present ordinance is not adequate to control growth. Property would be protected better with the new ordinance. If this protection is not provided, in years to come people will ask, ãWhy didnât we do it?ä

Speaker #45 ö Bill Goodwin - Afton. He has seen developers lie to landowners, communities, the PCs, to BOS and seen the destruction they can do. We have compromised in order to maximize the general good and to guarantee more public order and safety and move away from the most powerful and richest. Responsibility extends to anticipating what is to come as well as protecting each other from exploits of others who have no vested interest in the County. There is no way to deal with zoning issues other than to make a start. Urges the PC to start now and work together.

Speaker #46 ö Tim Geelan ö Findlay Mountain Road. Owns 88 acres. Heâs in favor of the ordinance. Itâs not perfect, but it reflects the zoning needs of 2005, not 30 years ago. Growth is coming fast! Area will grow! Baby-boomers retiring will look at Nelson County for retirement homes. At this time there are 12 homes on a 2- mile stretch of Findlay Mountain Road. Thatâs considerable growth for such a small community. The zoning ordinance must address the needs of the County. He has watched this process since the beginning and appreciates the long hours the PC has put in.

Speaker #47 ö Nancy Maxson ö Nellysford. She supports the ordinance and admires the PC for the long hours theyâve put in. Thanked the PC for helping shape the future of the County in a safe and environmentally appropriate way.

Speaker #48 ö Phillip Fitzgerald ö Tye River Road. Is very much against the ordinance.
Speaker #49 ö Logan Fitzgerald. Is a senior at NCHS who opposes the ordinance. Doesnât want to see Nelson County become overly developed. At the same time, opposes the overly restrictive regulations on personal property. Differences can be solved by compromise.

Speaker #50 ö Donna Rutherford. The old ordinance doesnât need changing ö itâs just fine.

Speaker #51 ö Tom Proulx. Runs home-based business in Nellysford. Over the last years the PC has dealt with more and more subdivisions in the County and spent more and more time than in the past due to opposition by neighbors to these subdivisions. People are not liking whatâs happening in their neighborhoods. Years ago, very little time was spent in PC meetings. Today longer hours are required and the threat of lawsuits is ever-present. The new ordinance is designed to alleviate some of the contradictory language of the present ordinance. If it wasnât broken, we wouldnât need to fix it and we would not be losing in court so often. People also say the County is telling you what to do with your land. The present ordinance is confusing and restrictive. The new ordinance will let people know whatâs being done and why. Heâs happy with the R-F district of 2 acre, 5 acre, 10 & 20 acre lot sizes.

Speaker #52 ö Jane Bibb ö Arrington. Went back to the beginning when the BOS hired a concern out of Charlottesville to draw up the ordinance. It was strange reading through it ö there was a referral to the Dan River and reflections to other areas around the state. The writers did not take Nelson County to heart. They took part from Louisa, part from Northern Virginia, etc. and put it together and presented it to the County. Neither ordinance works. The new should be taken line by line, new and old, and merged together. No amount of meetings is going to make a difference. Bite the bullet and get it revamped. The grandfather clause leaves judgment of what is grandfathered up to an official. It needs to be more specific. You canât ãgrandfatherä and then restrict. Also, setbacks are too restrictive, the historical and industrial districts are vast. Industry is needed in the County. The entire document leaves judgment to a certain group of people. Thereâs good in both ö merge the two.

Speaker #53 ö Bernard Bibb ö Arrington. Owns 69 acres. Last year they paid $7000 in taxes. The PC canât stop the government from taking his money, but he can stop the PC from taking his land. At some point there has to be a determining factor. Itâs who owns the land. You own land and should be able to do what you want to do. Look at the PC who originally worked on this ordinance. They are not representative of the people of Nelson County. ãYou will NOT tell me what Iâm going to do on my land!ä

Speaker #54 ö Claude Dodd - Nellysford. Opposes the ordinance as it is.

Speaker #55 ö Marian Dixon - Shipman. Owns less than 3 acres which is a completely non-conforming lot. If their house burns down, they couldnât meet the standards of the ordinance to replace it. There are large oaks owned by people around them. She enjoys looking at them, but should they decide to cut them down, she doesnât feel she can dictate to others what they do with their property.

Speaker #56 ö Andrew Gantt ö Wingina. Owns 970 acres.   The County is stealing property rights without compensation. The ordinance is enormously restrictive of personal rights. On page 237, Sign Regulations Chapter, it reads: Landscaping: A landscaped planning area shall be provided around the base of any freestanding or detached sign. ·be landscaped with a combination of low-growing shrubs and ground covers, including at least 4 shrubs. Who is counting shrubs? Philippa? Fred? Frank Cox? What we need is the old ordinance, and probably a new government.

Speaker #57 ö Digna Gantt. Opposes the zoning ordinance. The County is trying to micro-manage the lives of Nelsonians and leaves them very decisions on what they can and canât do with their property.

Speaker #58 ö Lorna Ballowe - Faber. Owns 110 acres. Is opposed to the ordinance.

Speaker #59 ö Bob Robinson. Owns 47 acres off Rt. 639 in Elma Heâs in favor of property regulation because of the R-F district aspect. We need to protect against urban sprawl. The problemâs not just in this County ö itâs everywhere. He likes the 2 acres for family division. People donât want any regulation; thatâs not feasible. Please address specific changes, but please donât vote against the entire proposal.

Speaker #60 ö John E. Purvis ö Shipman. Owns 400 acres. The new ordinance is too restrictive, too confusing. Would like the PC to address the old ordinance with more input from citizens.

Speaker #61 ö William Foster. Owns 3 acres. He understands he canât have a house built unless he has 2 acres of land. He has lived here for 74 years ö nothing like this has ever happened before. People are telling you what to do with your property. He has 3.3 acres ö needs 2 houses on that property. If he canât, and Habitat for Humanity can, thatâs discriminating. When we get to the place where people are told what they can and canât do with land they pay taxes for, thatâs too far. His 2 sons want to come back to Nelson County. No one is going to tell him he canât put their houses on his land.
Speaker #62 ö R. C. Bell ö Shipman. Owns 4 acres. Heâs opposed to the ordinance. Wants to go back to what we have.   You canât stop growth, but you donât need a high-powered ordinance. Regulations on back yards are restrictive. Heâs an antique car collector, builder and seller. Under this ordinance, he canât do that. We need a zoning ordinance, but not all at one time.

Speaker #63 ö Brenda Falls ö Roseland. She inherited land and plans to pass it to her children. Sheâs totally opposed to the ordinance as written. She has lived with changes and restrictions in the past. This is too much restriction on people that already have land in Nelson. Subdivisions can be a problem, but not for people who live in Nelson County.

Speaker #64 ö Janet Hunter ö Schuyler. A lot has been said tonight, but not mentioned were the statistics of build-out with the existing ordinance. If land had been built-out at the extent it would have been legal, the population of Nelson County would have been several times that of Albemarle County. We need an ordinance.

Speaker #65 ö Larry Bethea. Concerned about personal property rights and controlling subdivision growth. Suggests separating these issues and finding a compromise.. His wife works for lawyers and questions the ãSeverabilityä clause: ãShould any article, section or any provision of this ordinance be decided by the courts to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the ordinance as a whole, or any part thereof, other that the part so held to be unconstitutional or invalid.   She has never seen this statement before in any ordinance. This statement is a ãCYA.ä

Speaker #66 ö Mary Reinman. Asked how many Virginian it takes to change a light bulb. Answer: Four. One to change and three to talk about how nice the old one was. That applies to this ordinance.   But unless the light bulb changes, youâre in the dark. This ordinance has been an enormous task. Residents of Nelson gave input into the Comprehensive Plan and it came out looking like we thought it should. This group (PC) has taken personal attacks when all youâre trying to do is bring us to the light and protect what we love. She appreciates the process, likes the zoning ordinance as it is. It protects against builders and protects what we love. Itâs a win-win situation which protects land value. She supports the ordinance.   Itâs a good proposal to pass. Thanked PC for effort and again stated her support.

Speaker #67 ö Alfred Weaver. Is against the proposal.

Speaker #68 ö Tara Wilson. Spoke for her mother and grandmother. ãYou say we need a zoning ordinance to control growth in beloved Nelson County. Thatâs all well and good, but communism is not the way to solve the problem.ä Look at Charlottesville, Fairfax, and Northern Virginia. They all have zoning ordinances identical to the one you want here. Where is all the beautiful land? Itâs all chopped up with cookie-cutter subdivisions which we say we donât want. This ordinance will destroy the County and in the end, place demand that only communism and dictatorship would place. For example, satellite dishes in the front yard, where to park a car, etc. It violates rights as an American citizen and as a human.
Speaker #69 ö Harry Baum ö Afton. Owns 50 acres which were bought as an investment. He intends to farm the land and doesnât want his options limited by the controls of this ordinance. The ordinance has removed specifications for slope, but still requires slope specifications be calculated. There are no guidelines to calculate slope. What are they? Who will calculate? Will this require a surveyor? Will enforcement be done by the Planning office? Guidelines must be given so that enforcement doesnât become a political issue. It must be enforced equally.

Speaker #70 ö Clemon Lawhorne ö Crabtree Falls Highway. Owns 160 acres. He doesnât need restrictions placed on his property. Is opposed to the ordinance.

Speaker #71 ö Ridgely Harrison ö Shipman. Owns 8 and 6 acre lots and is a dairy goat farmer. She hopes people have the opportunity to develop land like she has. Senior citizens and other groups come to her farm and enjoy themselves. Sheâs opposed to the restrictions in the ordinance regarding home occupation traffic restrictions. There are a lot of regulations on tree sizes, signs, lights, etc. Sheâs opposed to the ordinance.

Speaker #72 ö Morris Barrett ö Shipman. Is opposed to the ordinance.

Speaker #73 ö Theresa Frazier ö Shipman. Is against the ordinance.

Speaker #74 ö Joe Lee McClellan ö Lovingston. Thanked the PC for their hard work even though heâs opposed to the ordinance in its present form. Gave history of his business since the 50âs. Today he has 20 full time employees. That couldnât happen under the present ordinance restrictions. He commented on sign restrictions.

Speaker #75 ö Jason Neese ö Afton. Heâs opposed to the ordinance. ãIf the PC did the best job they could, they should quit and let us reappoint a new outfit.ä

Speaker #76 ö Robert McSwain ö Dutch Creek Lane. Owns 100 acres. Heâs ãforä the ordinance. The present ordinance is inadequate and ambiguous and doesnât address current needs. If development continues, demands on County services will go up ö law enforcement, schools, etc. Paid volunteer services are now being considered, which is another indicator that volunteers are hard to find and services arenât ãfree.ä He urges the PC to pass the ordinance.

Speaker #77 ö Susan McSwain ö Dutch Creek Lane. Has 198 acres with 99 development rights under the current ordinance. There have been 29 ordinance-related meetings since October 23, 2002 where the public was invited to attend. It began with an overview of the Comprehensive Plan and she learned a lot about the issues. Some changes were made. She agrees with the zoning ordinance. The present one is ambiguous and she only knows about it because of attending the meetings and witnessing the Countyâs business being taken care of. She thanked the PC for their service to the community and their work on the ordinance.

Speaker #78 ö Kimberlynn Duty ö Tye River Road. Sheâs greatly opposed to the ordinance. Restrictions need to be placed on subdivisions, not applied to the entire County. Our country fought for property right freedoms. Itâs not right to take away rights. Weâve had an ordinance for 30 years thatâs not perfect, but it can be fixed. The ordinance youâre working on now doesnât suit the needs of the County. Give us protection from developers and donât act like we donât have the brains to protect ourselves from those developers.

Speaker #79 ö Pamela Duty ö Tye Rivr Road. Owns 45 acres. When she moved here, no one helped her, paid for her land, etc.   Itâs not right ö she pays taxes. Itâs her land, bought and paid for, and doesnât want anyone telling her what she can do on this land. Some parts of the ordinance are good, some are not. She opposes it wholeheartedly. We donât need it here and itâs not fair to the people in the County. Itâs a scare tactic. The old ordinance was good. Add or take away from it, but keep it.

Speaker #80 ö Bob Duty ö Tye River Road. Thanked the PC for what itâs doing. He doesnât like the ordinance telling him what kind of business he can have in his home. The restrictions of the location of buildings on property are ridiculous. Rules and regulations are needed, but he doesnât need anyone telling him how to run his property. The present ordinance needs to be fixed.

Speaker #81 ö Wisteria Johnson ö Shipman. Is in favor of the zoning ordinance. She has attended the PC meetings. Those who have witnessed this know that time is of the essence and change is difficult. The Planning office is understaffed. She supports the hiring of a planning person to deal solely with the regulations of the ordinance.

Speaker #82 ö Philip Purvis. Is opposed to the ordinance. He attended 3 or 4 meetings and found that most of the people in favor of the ordinance are people who moved here. Those affected most are those who have lived here all their lives and are being discriminated against. He does believe developers are going to come in. Suggested the PC address developers and leave property owners alone. The cost of survey to subdivide a piece of land is expensive and takes away from the price a person can get for their land. Very much opposed to the ordinance.

Speaker #83 ö Gordon Koerner ö Brownings Cove. Has 30 acres. Heâs here for his neighbors. Mrs. Proulxâs opening statement was: ã·take all the information, give it to the BOS, and they will act on it.ä It was first given to the BOS and the BOS gave the PC 60 days to act. His understanding is that the PC is supposed to correct the ordinance with what citizens have told them. Why is the PC stalling? Your responsibility is to correct it now before it goes to the BOS. People ãforä the ordinance have gotten less; people ãagainstä have gotten more. Why not fix it with the suggestions made?

Speaker #84 ö Gail Troy ö Elma. Sheâs been in Nelson 30 years and some people feel sheâs a ãnewcomer.ä Itâs very frustrating. There are comments coming from people who mean well but their comprehension is less. People can say anything they want, but the PC canât respond. It would be helpful to hear answers, not just the possible problems. The old ordinance didnât work. Itâs not perfect, but please adopt the new one. She supports the ordinance and wishes others had gone to the meetings.
Speaker #85 ö Glenn Simpson. There are many newcomers to the County. He doesnât disagree with them moving here, but this ordinance is not going to work. Some people canât come to meetings ö theyâre working. This ordinance is going to affect everyone. The document is not going to work. We need an ordinance, but not this one. ãIn the opinion of the Planning Directorä ö what does that mean? We canât have a document like this. We need a good common sense document. If this is passed, it may cause a riot.

Speaker #86 ö Peggy Lawhorne. Opposes the ordinance and doesnât like the feeling that someone can take away her rights. Let the ordinance apply to those who favor it and leave the others alone.

Speaker #87 ö Robert Stratton. Owns 3 ¸ acres on Laurel Road. We need restriction and regulation against development in Nelson County. He plans to retire in 2 years. If growth continues, heâs not going to stay in Albemarle County. Part of the ordinance regarding home businesses is too restrictive. Setbacks canât be met. Heâs fortunate that he has options from his fatherâs property.   Should take the present ordinance and work with it. Keep people happy.

With no other speakers signed up, the public hearing was closed.

Mrs. Proulx announced that the PC will meet again to discuss tonightâs comments. Setbacks need to be addressed, as well as home occupations. We will continue the meeting to a later date when weâll discuss whatâs been heard and made recommendations to the BOS. Detailed comments in written form are welcomed. She appreciates the constructive comments.

At 9:50 P. M. Ms. Russell made a motion to continue the meeting on February 9 at 7:30 P. M. in the BOS meeting room when the PC will discuss the status of the ordinance. (Snow date will be February 16.) Dr. Walker provided the second. Motion carried 6 ö 0.

Respectfully submitted,

Betty Fortune
Secretary