Planning: February 9, 2005

February 9, 2005

NELSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
February 9, 2005

Present: Mr. Thomas Bruguiere, Mr. Michael Harman, 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. This is a continuation of the February 2, 2005 meeting.

Community Center Definition Discussion
Mr. Boger handed out the following definition for ãCommunity Center:

Community Center: A building and grounds used for recreational, social, educational and cultural activities open to the public or a portion of the public, owned and operated by a public or private non-profit group or agency. The activities may involve leasing of space within the building for the sale of limited goods and services, offices subject to minor site plan approval by the County, and any additional conditions that may be    imposed to such sales of goods and services by the Planning Director.     The sale of goods and services may be carried out on a profit basis or for charitable non-profit purposes by the owner or the ownerâs approved    lessee or licensee, provided that the relationship of the lessee or licensee to the owner serves to promulgate the mission of the community center.     Also, there can be no exterior indication of commercial activities at the    center such as outside storage, sales area and signage, except for a principal sign identifying the center with a listing of its tenants.

Mr. Boger reminded the Commissioners that when this definition is approved, it also will need to be changed in the current and proposed zoning ordinances.

Ms. Russell suggested limiting the amount of rental space as a percentage of total finished space. Mr. Boger said this would be very difficult since each building is different. He went on to say that the center could rent out 90% of the space. Ms. Russell has concerns about competition with other business concerns who pay the going rate for rental space. Mrs. Proulx questioned the need for a site plan since all activities would be inside the building. Mr. Boger explained that parking, drainage, etc. should be addressed on the site plan. It was decided that the Planning Commission rather than the Planning Director would approve the site plans.

The words älimitedä as applied to goods and services and ãminorä as applied to site plans were removed at the suggestion of Mrs. Proulx.

The ãany additional conditionsä clause was discussed. For example, if the center rents to a concern with limited hours at the beginning and then changes to be open 24 hours a day, those hours would not be appropriate for a residential or agricultural area. There is presently no stipulation for hours of operation. A scenario could be a neighborhood store that stays open from 7 am to 7 pm; hours are extended to 7 am ö 1 am, and then 24 hours a day. In those cases, a Conditional Use Permit may be appropriate.
Community centers need to make money to pay the bills. Itâs difficult to determine what the actual uses will be until theyâre requested. Mr. Bruguiere suggested that the ãany additional conditionsä clause be left in, tested for a reasonable amount of time, and then changed, if necessary. It is anticipated that the public hearing will bring out some concerns. Mr. Harman asked about the basis for turning down uses once a minor site plan is approved. Mr. Boger said that a Special Use Permit might then be needed. Mrs. Proulx had no objection to the basic concept, but is concerned about how restrictions will be enforced once a business goes in and wants to expand. Mr. Boger feels the burden is on the community center to prove that uses are appropriate. Appeals of all decisions may be made to the Board of Zoning Appeals.

The next step will be the public hearing.

After discussion, the definition was amended to read:
Community Center: A building and grounds used for recreational, social,    educational, health, and cultural activities open to the public or a portion of the public, owned and operated by a public or private non-profit group or agency. The activities may involve leasing of space within the building for the sale of goods and services, offices subject to site plan approval, and any additional conditions that may be imposed to such sales of goods and services by the Planning Commission. The sale of goods and services may be carried out on a profit basis or for charitable non-profit purposes by the owner or the ownerâs approved lessee or licensee.   There can be no exterior indication of commercial activities at the center such as outside storage, sales area and signage, except for a principal sign identifying the center with a listing of its tenants.

Mr. Bruguiere made a motion to advertise the amendment to the current zoning ordinance for the March Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Russell seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0.

Proposed Zoning Ordinance
Commissioners made the following changes to the proposed zoning ordinance:

1.   Home Occupation. The notation ãRefer to Chapter 2, Section Sä was added on the following pages and items noted: Page 34, item B.16; Page 47, item B.11; Page 58, item B.4; and Page 66, item C.9. Home occupation of logging was discussed and it was agreed that it was covered on Page 34, item B.20. Further discussion revealed some problems currently experienced with expansion of home occupations which are detrimental to neighbors in a residential area. Some restrictions need to be in place for the protection of the home occupation operator, as well as those close by. People live in an agricultural district because they want to do agricultural-type things with the land. The concern is when the small home occupation becomes large. Many do not follow any regulations. The definition of ãhome occupationä on page 347 could be changed to solve the problems just discussed.

Dr. Walker stated that many people in Nelson County make a living with small home businesses and they feel theyâll be left out in the cold with the new ordinance. Other items were changed to eliminate some of this concern. Page 19, item S.15, was completely removed from the ordinance. Also on this page, conditions were removed from item 14.d (Home care provider), item 14.g (Tutoring), and item 14.j (Music teacher), which limited the number of participants.

Also, on Page 18, items S.1, 12, and 13, the word ãpermitä was replaced with ãCertificate of Zoning Compliance.ä The Planning Director has the authority to revoke any license

2.   R-F Permitted Uses. Page 33, item B.8, was revised to read: Accessory use to a residential structure, such as, but not limited to, workshop, detached carport and garage, tool shed, childrenâs playhouse and play structure, and doghouse.

3.   Mr. Boger presented a proposed revision of the bulk regulations in R-F and R-R Districts to Pages 38, 39, 51 and 52 . Commissioners agreed this was needed and that it should be added to the proposed ordinance, with a few minor changes.

Landscaping was discussed with the following points being made: In R-R there is a buffer between those areas and other districts, mailboxes are not signs, and signage regulations are an attempt to make the Countyâs travelways attractive. They are liberal compared to other counties.

Mr. Boger stated that the BOS would like to see 2-acre lots in R-F. Mr. Bruguiere agreed because itâs difficult for some people to buy more than 2 acres. A farmer with 10 acres should be able to sell five 2-acre lots to someone other than family. Mrs. Proulx suggested that if the BOS wants to add 2-acre lots, they will have that option when the proposed ordinance goes to them for consideration. In her opinion, the 2-acre lot would defeat the purpose of the R-F District, which is low density.

In a discussion of lot slopes, Mr. Boger said the surveyor will determine slope or topographical maps will be used to make this determination.

Ms. Russell read a Resolution to recommend to the BOS adoption of the proposed zoning ordinance, and made a motion that it be forwarded to the BOS. Dr. Walker seconded the motion.

Further discussion included the concern that some things still need to be corrected. Before and after the public hearing, Commissioners may make further recommendations to the BOS. Mr. Bruguiere stated that there has been more public comment on this ordinance than ever before, appearing to be 2-1 against it. He went on record as saying he wasnât in favor of a new ordinance and did not expect to get this type of document from the consultant. Some things need to be addressed further, though many important things have been addressed. Dr. Walker stated they will trust the BOS to look at it carefully and consider the needs of the County before making a decision. The ordinance is a collective effort on the part of all members on the Planning Commission and no one would have deliberately made people upset. Mr. Harman agreed that specific, major items have been fixed and encouraged work on the small items. Ms. Russell reiterated that the proposed zoning ordinance is designed to support the Comprehensive Plan. The current ordinance does not. One issue people are upset about is business and that if they currently have a business, the rules and regulations will change. She added that if you currently have a business that is legal and pre-existed January, 1977, you may continue your business under the new ordinance. She went on to say that Frank Cox (consultant for the ordinance) said he admired the Countyâs proactive handling of growth issues and that the BOS and PC should be proud of doing something before the County falls apart.

With no further discussion, the vote was taken with Dr. Walker, Ms. Russell, Mr. Harman, and Ms. Proulx voting ãyesä and Mr. Bruguiere voting ãno.ä Ms. Hunt was absent from the meeting.

Other items:
Ms. Russell distributed a map on which she has placed indicators of division of land activity in the County, based on records of approval provided by the Planning Office.

Minutes for the February 2 public hearing were distributed for review before the February 23 Planning Commission meeting.

A notebook prepared by Gaia Homes was distributed. This will also be discussed at the February 23 meeting.

At 10:10 P. M., Ms. Russell made a motion to adjourn, Dr. Walker seconded the motion, and motion passed 5-0.

Respectfully submitted,

Betty Fortune
Secretary

Rural & Farming Pages 38-39                       Amendment 1

F.   Bulk Regulations:

1.   Height

a.   Residential building height: 45 feet
b.   Public or semi-public building: 45 feet, provided that required front, rear and side yards shall be increased by 2 feet for each foot of height over thirty-five feet.
c.   Cupolas, spires and steeples: 75 feet by special permit
d.   Accessory and farm buildings: 50 feet

2.   Minimum yard requirements for conventional lots Recorded after January 1, 2005:

a.   Front yard: 120 feet
b.   Side yard: 60 feet
c.   Rear yard: 60 feet; 30 feet (accessory structure and uses)
d.   In addition to the above regulations, the yard requirements for uses and structures other than residential dwellings and residential accessory uses shall be further regulated by floor area ratio and lot coverage ratios. A maximum floor area ratio equal to 0.20 shall apply to such uses and structures, with a maximum percentage of lot coverage equal to 15%. The location of all such uses shall be subject to site plan approval.

5. Family Subdivision lot:

a.   Front yard:   75 feet
b.   Side yard:   25 feet each side
c.   Rear yard:   50 feet
d.   Minimum lot width:   200 125 feet
e.   Minimum lot depth:   None, must comply with all setback requirements.

3. Minimum yard requirements for conventional lots Recordered prior to January 1, 2005:

a.   Front yard: 35 feet or more from any street of highway highway righ-of-way which is 50 feet or greater in width, or 55 feet or more from the centerline of any street or highway right-of-way less than 50 feet.
b.   Side yard: The Minimum side yard shall be 10 feet from the property line and the total width of the 2 required side yards shall be 25 feet or more.
c.    Rear yard: 25 feet or more.
d.   Minimum lot width:   125 feet
e.   Minimum lot depth: None, must comply with all setback requirements.

3. 4.   Minimum yard requirements (rural cluster residential lots):

a.   Front yard (served by a new internal street or a 50 feet private access easement or street): 35 feet
Front yard (adjacent to an existing public street): 100 feet
b.   Side yard: 30 feet
Side yard (adjacent to an existing public street): 100 feet
c.   Rear yard: 40 feet; 15 feet (accessory structure and uses)
d.   Corner lots shall meet front yard requirements.
Rural Residential Pages 51 & 52
F.   Bulk Regulations

1. Height

   a. Residential building height: 45 feet
   b. Public or semi-public building: 60 feet,
   c. Non-residential building height 45 feet
   d. Cupolas, spires and steeples: 75 feet
   e. Accessory and farm buildings: 35 feet

2. Minimum yard requirements (conventional lots):

   a. Front yard (served by a new private or public street): 60 feet
       Front yard (served by an existing public street): 100 feet
   b. Side yard: 50 feet
   c. Rear yard: 50 feet
   d. Accessory structure and uses: 30 feet
   e. In addition to the above regulations, the yard requirements for uses and structures other than residential dwellings and residential accessory uses shall be further regulated by floor area ratio and lot coverage ratios. A maximum floor area ratio equal to 0.20 shall apply to such uses and structures, with a maximum percentage of lot coverage equal to 15%. The location of all such uses shall be subject to site plan approval.

5. Family Subdivision lot and conventional 3 acre lot:

a.   Front yard:   75 feet
b.   Side yard:   25 feet each side
c.   Rear yard:   50 feet
d.   Minimum lot width:   200 125 feet
e.   Minimum lot depth:   None. Must comply with all setback requirements.

3.    Minimum yard requirements for conventional lots Recordered prior to January 1, 2005:
a.   Front yard: 35 feet or more from any street of highway highway righ-of-way which is 50 feet or greater in width, or 55 feet or more from the centerline of any street or highway right-of-way less than 50 feet.
b.   Side yard: The Minimum side yard shall be 10 feet from the property line and the total width of the 2 required side yards shall be 25 feet or more.
c.    Rear yard: 25 feet or more.
d.   Minimum lot width:   125 feet
e.   Minimum lot depth: None, except must comply with all setback requirements.


3. 4. Minimum yard requirements (cluster residential lots):

   a. Front yard (served by a new internal street): 35 feet
       Front yard (served by an existing public street): 60 feet by special use permit.
   b. Side yard: 25 feet
   c. Rear yard: 40 feet
   d. Accessory structure and uses: 15 feet
   e. Non-residential use yard requirements to be established by Special Use Permit
   f. In addition to the above regulations, the yard requirements for uses and structures other than residential dwellings and residential accessory uses shall be further regulated by floor area ratio, lot coverage ratios and minimum on-site parking requirements. A maximum floor area ratio equal to 0.25 shall apply to such uses and structures, with a maximum percentage of lot coverage equal to 20%. The location of all such uses shall be subject to special use permit and site plan approval.

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, The Nelson County Planning Commission has completed work on reviewing and making appropriate changes to a new zoning ordinance and zoning map for Nelson County, dated February 2, 2005;

WHEREAS, Pursuant to Section 15.2-2204, Advertisement of plans, ordinances, etc.; joint public hearings; written notice of certain amendments, and Section 15.2-2205, Additional notice of planning or zoning matters, of the Code of Virginia, 1950, Volume #A, Titled 15.2 , Counties, Cities and Towns, notifications were completed as required by these sections;

WHEREAS, On February 2, 2005, the Nelson County Planning Commission held a public hearing on the new zoning ordinance and map to allow citizens to comment on the new ordinance and map;

WHEREAS, after considering both written and public comments and making appropriate changes to the new zoning ordinance and map;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, On this date, February 9, 2005 the Nelson County Planning Commission presents to the Nelson County Board of Supervisors the proposed zoning ordinance, with various pages labeled Public Hearing Draft: December 22, 2004 and Public Hearing Draft: February 2, 2005, and pages amended by hand on February 9, 2005 (pp. 18-20, 33-34, 36, 38-39, 47, 51-52, 58, 66), and the new zoning map dated December 29, 2004, copies of which are attached to and made a part of this Resolution, for your consideration, with the recommendation that they be adopted.

Motion made by:    Linda Russell
Seconded by:          Valdrie Walker

Motion approved by the following vote of the Commissioners present:
   Commissioner Linda Russell               Yes
   Commissioner Valdrie N. Walker       Yes
   Commissioner Michael Harman           Yes
   Commissioner Emily Hunt                    Absent
   Commissioner Thomas H. Bruguiere, Jr.       No
   Commissioner Philippa Proulx           Yes

Date:   February 9, 2005       ______________________, Chair