Planning: December 29, 2004

December 29, 2004

NELSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
December 29, 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 November 17, 2004 were reviewed. No corrections were made. Ms. Hunt made a motion to accept the minutes and Dr. Walker provided the second. Motion carried 6-0. Minutes from November 29 and 30 and December 1 and 2, 2004 were also reviewed and no corrections were made. Mr. Bruguiere made a motion to approve the minutes and Ms. Russell provided the second. Motion carried 6-0.

Mrs. Proulx stated that 2 items had been withdrawn from the agenda: Final Subdivision Plat ö Mountain Ridge and Final Subdivision Plat ö Edgewood Park, Lot 5, James Koschara.

Site Plan #2004-014ö Orion Corporate Training Facility
Mr. Boger reported that James D. Slaughter has submitted a site plan for the Orion Corporate Training Facility to be located at 11801 Norwood Road, Wingina. The site plan shows both the existing and proposed facilities for the center with uses being listed in the right margin of the site plan. The Board of Supervisors (BOS) met on February 4 and 10, 2004 and approved the Conditional Use Permit for the training facility, with conditions stated below, and the uses listed on the plans are ones accepted by the Board.
1)   The maximum number of rooms allocated to lodging for those in attendance shall not exceed fifteen.
2)   The permit shall not be effective unless and until the Zoning Ordinance is amended pursuant to Section 12-5.
3)   Hunting shall be conducted in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
4)   Accessory uses and structures are limited to those shown or described on the Site Plan approved herewith.
5)   Except in the event of an emergency, the helipad shall not be operated between the hours of 10:00 p. m. and 7:00 a.m.
6)   Should a court of competent jurisdiction declare invalid any condition herein, then this permit shall be void.
7)   A final site plan must be submitted to the County for review and approval before permit is valid.

Staff has reviewed the site plan and found it to be in compliance, with the following exceptions.
1)   The vicinity map scale does not meet the Countyâs requirement of 2ä = 1 mile. This is a minor issue because the map used clearly identifies the location of the site.
2)   The required Erosion & Sediment Plan has not been approved by the Countyâs Plan Approving Authority. Orionâs Engineer has been dealing with a family medical emergency for the past month and has not been able to complete the work as of this date. No permits can be issued until the E & S Plan is approved. Alyson Sappington of Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water Conservation District does not anticipate any problem with the plan. VDOT has approved the location of the entrance to Orion.

Mr. Boger recommends approval of the site plan at this time with the contingency that the E & S Plan is approved by the Countyâs Plan Approving Authority, with authorization given to Staff to sign the site plan and release it once the approval has been received.

Ms. Russell asked if the sign plan has been submitted. Mr. Boger said it hasnât been submitted as of this time.

Mr. Slaughter answered several questions (answers shown in italics):
   1) Are there any new structures south of the main road? (No others than those existing.)
   2) Will buildings shown on Sheet 5 be removed?(Buildings on Sheet 2 designated by dark crosshatching and marked 925 sq. ft. and 1100 sq. ft. have been removed.)
   3) What is the special events area? (This area is for vendors, rock climbing wall, outdoor entertainment, etc.)
   4) Is the lighting shown on Sheet 6 of the plan boxed lamp diffusion? Is it a single light on a single pole? (Yes.) How many poles? (There are three in the upper parking lot; 2 in the lower parking lot. The lights point down so you see the effect, but not the bulb.)
   5) Are lights on a timer? (Yes ö dusk to dawn; safety lights, not crime lights.)
   6) Will the signage have lighting? The Planning Commission needs to see the proposed sign before itâs installed. (It will also be a ãdownä light ö no flashing neon.)
   7) Sheet 5 appears to show two rows of lights along the special events area. Is that correct? (These actually are existing fences.)

Mr. Boger stated that the Site Plan should not have been a public hearing item. Mrs. Proulx stated that since it was published in the newspaper, public comment would be accepted and opened the public hearing.

1)   Jane Raup

2)   Lucille Robertson, speaking on behalf of her family. Sheâs upset by the nuisance of Orion and concerned about safety of children in the neighborhood. On October 23 from 6 ö 6:30, there was repeated shooting. The children were scared and didnât want to go outside. As citizens, they canât use their property as they want to and would like some respect from Orion.

3)   Digna (Deenya) Gantt, Wingina, one mile downstream and downwind from Orion. Shots are loud and intrusive. She hopes the final site plan will be rejected and states there is a danger that shotgun center activity will creep in under the guise of Corporate Training activities.

4)   Andrew Gantt, Wingina. There are black and white lines on the plan, clear structures with nothing left to chance. He urged Commissioners to look at Orionâs website. The site plan is built on 20% slope. Itâs going to slip and slide until all thatâs left is a shotgun sports center.

5)   Jim Raup

6)   John Heilmann, owns property within 2 miles of Orion. Regardless of what is told in terms of sound effects, the noise from Orion is a breach of peace. Mr. Heilmann asked the following questions of the Commission: 1. Has anyone received a clear definition of ãCorporate Training Facilityä? 2. Why are we here tonight? If the understanding is that the site plan has already been approved by the BOS, why is it coming before the Planning Commission? Have things gotten reversed? Mr. Heilmann stated that he joins others from the area in Nelson County that feel the commercial activities as described tonight and at previous meetings do not fall within the current zoning laws of the County. 3. If the site plan has been approved, what criteria was used? 4. Is this hearing a formality so that the application can proceed, more or less, in compliance with the law? This is not what he calls democratic government.

7)   Steve Raynor, attorney for Orion, stated that Orionâs plans are listed on the site plan, in accordance with BOS approval. The legal effect of advertising was questioned. For example, in a Nelson County brochure, Orion is advertised as being located at Oak Ridge. Thousands were still printed and are still in circulation and can be corrected in future brochures. The website advertising does not have any affect on approval of the site plan. Orion is trying, legally, to get approval for the activities. The only question should be whether the site plan complies with approval of the Conditional Use Permit by the BOS.

8)   Jim Imbur, Norwood Rd. Agreed that advertising that changes sometimes has to be lived with, but in the case of a website, it can be changed. The website shows the true intent of Orion. He asked that the Commission not be fooled by smoke and mirrors.

Mr. Gantt asked if the site plan leads in the direction Orion really plans to go. If so, why would the Commission approve it?

With no further comment, the public hearing was closed.

Mrs. Proulx reviewed the process thus far. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit for Orion in January, 2004. In February 2004 the BOS approved the Conditional Use Permit. A definition for ãCorporate Training Facilityä was adopted by the BOS and added to the zoning ordinance. The Planning Commission is responsible to see if the site plan meets the conditions and terms of the Conditional Use Permit. She stated her appreciation for the citizensâ concerns; the PC can only address the site plan issue at this time.

Ms. Russell stated that the shotgun facility is still in the courts. Any gun activity is governed by the State of Virginia Game and Inland Fisheries.

Dr. Walker stated that the list of site plan uses has been approved by the BOS, but they are still unclear. For example, under the title ãActivity Base,ä there is Client Entertainment and Performance Incentive Travel. What does that mean? Under the title ãSupport/Apparatus & Equipment,ä Zip Lines and Alpine Tower are shown. Where will they be located? Under the title ãAdventure Based Corporate Recreation,ä Hunting is shown. Thatâs covered by State law. Why is it shown? Powered Parachute Flying and Outdoor Adventure Multi-Sport Challenge are also shown. If the list is not clear, sheâs uncomfortable with granting approval. What is the geographic location of these activities and the overall impact? What about expansion? What about noise?

Mr. Boger reiterated that the list was submitted to the BOS and PC and approved. Itâs beyond changing at this point. All requirements for the site plan have been met.

Dr. Walker expressed concern that if this site plan is approved while questions still linger, the PC sets a precedent. Mr. Bruguiere stated the purpose of the site plan is to show location of buildings, and that the uses have been approved previously. He agrees some things are vague, such as ãClient Entertainment.ä

Mr. Raynor stated that the time for this explanation was at the two meetings of the PC and BOS where approvals were given. The question is: Does the final site plan meet the requirements of a final site plan and the approval granted by the BOS? The questions being asked are not relevant to tonightâs determination. He and Mr. Slaughter will share information with the condition that it will not affect the site plan.

Mrs. Proulx expressed her feeling that it wasnât appropriate at this time to ask for additional information regarding activities.

Mr. Slaughter agreed to answer basic questions. For example, client entertainment can be indoor or outdoor and can be one of many activities ranging from a leather goods show to off-road and Land-Rover activities to jewelry manufacturer, etc. A client network base has been set up with Wintergreen, for example. Clients can visit other sites for golf, spa, etc. He reiterated that the BOS had asked them to list activities that could/would take place on the property, and they have complied with the request.

Dr. Walker stated that this list was not exclusive ö Items 24-41 were basics which allow the facility to go broad so complaints canât be made by the neighbors. Mr. Bruguiere said that whatever activities occur indoors wouldnât affect others, and nothing other than whatâs listed can take place. Dr. Walker feels the neighborhood has already been impacted by the increased traffic. She asked about placement of the Support/Apparatus & Equipment. Mr. Slaughter said that all these items are moveable, not permanent. The Alpine Tower could be 20â ö 60â high, depending on the terrain. It is located on trailers and can be moved to different locations. It is not designed to be stationary.

In response to Dr. Walkerâs concerns about noise and sight of these activities, Mr. Slaughter said that all activities are within the County code, as is the site plan. Dr. Walker doesnât want the neighborhood impacted any more than it already is and that there doesnât seem to be a desire on the part of Orion to work with the neighborhood. Mr. Slaughter responded, ãI heard that.ä

Ms. Russell said it seems the site plan meets the requirements of the BOS Resolution and the zoning ordinance of the County. She would like to be able to make changes and be more restrictive, and possibly the new zoning ordinance may do that. In the meantime, the PC and applicant must comply with the existing zoning ordinance. She has no problem approving the site plan.

Dr. Walker stated that she had to do what she feels is morally right. Sheâs not opposed to the site plan, but opposed to its vagueness. They made this mistake once, and now itâs the same one again.

Mr. Bruguiere said that Orion has done everything required by the County and the ordinance. The big thing, shotgun shooting range, is not approved and is still in litigation. The other activities are ones anyone can do on the property. The E & S Plan is a contingency. Legally, they have met requirements. Mrs. Proulx agreed.

Ms. Russell made a motion to approve Site Plan #2004-014 for Orion Corporate Training Facility, dated December 4, 2004, Sheets 1A, 1B, 1C, 2 ö 6, subject to final E & S plan and approval by Planning Commission of signage. Mr. Bruguiere provided the second. Commissioners Bruguiere, Harman, Hunt, Proulx and Russell voted ãYesä and Dr. Walker voted ãNo.ä

Mrs. Proulx stated that according to the zoning ordinance, Section 13-5-5, any person aggrieved by any decision of the PC may demand a review of the application by the governing body. The request must be filed in writing with the PC within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the decision.

Conditional Use Permit #2004-006 ö David Warner, Jr.
Mr. Boger reported that Mr. Warner is requesting this CUP to place a second manufactured home on his property located at 625 Browningâs Creek Road (correct street name is Browningâs Cove), Shipman. Placing a second manufactured home on the same lot, unless one of the units is a modular home, is considered a mobile home park by our current Zoning Ordinance, which requires a CUP from the County. If approved, the second manufactured home will be the third dwelling on the property, which requires a site plan.

Mr. Warnerâs property is approximately 43.710 acres in size and zoned Agricultural, A-1, which is appropriate for an additional manufactured home to be placed there and the minimum square footage required for three dwelling units is 120,000 sq. ft. (approximately 3 acres). The septic system has been approved by the Health Department. Mr. Warner has chosen this method of providing a place for family homes rather than doing a family subdivision of the property.

Two neighbors have contacted Staff in opposition of this CUP. One was concerned about the condition of the road, and the other is also concerned with the road condition and that this placement will be detrimental to her property value. (See file for letter.)

If a fourth building is requested by Mr. Warner, approval will be needed by the PC also. At this point, the placement of the new home meets setback requirements. All roads to the property are private roads with 300â of the road being shared with a neighbor (per Mr. Warner). Requirements of the Health Department have been met.

Mr. Warner said that he has maintained the road from the highway past his property. The first 300â are part of the Johnson estate through which hehas right-of-way. He puts gravel on the road at least every 3 years. This will be the last trailer on the property. He wants to leave a family estate which cannot be sold to others. His son lives in the present trailer which is about 100â from the proposed one. The two trailers will share the 2000 gallon septic tank which is already in place. There is also a cemetery shown on the plan which is a family cemetery Mr. Warner recently started.

The public hearing was opened by Mrs. Proulx.

Charles ãCharlieä Grant ö adjacent property owner. Mr. Grant is concerned about the area turning into a mobile home park since Mr. Warner currently has a house, a mobile home, and a double-wide home which is clearly visible from Mr. Grantâs property. If Mr. Warnerâs children decide to move, will others keep the place clean? He objects wholeheartedly. Ms. Elsie Page, who is elderly, lives on that road, and the day the trailer was brought in, the road was blocked for a whole day which would have prevented emergency vehicles from coming through. Mr. Grant urged the Commissioners not to allow another trailer to be put on Mr. Warnerâs property.

John Mayo ö Brownings Cove. When he moved there, there was a dirt and gravel road. His house is 120â back from the right-of-way. There is a house on Mr. Warnerâs property, a trailer and now another trailer. Mr. Mayo described the history of the surrounding homes and road from 1997 to the present. The road is a major point of contention. Mr. Warner placed gravel on the road and then asked for payment from other property owners. Mr. Mayo was asked for $50 per year to use for maintenance and $235 for gravel that had previously been placed on the road. Mr. Mayoâs contention is that no single individual has the right to do as they wish and charge others. Personally, he has lost what he came to Nelson County for: peace and tranquility and sense of community. Instead, traffic has increased, speed on the road has increased making it dangerous for pedestrians, and noise from wood-splitting business which is also on Mr. Warnerâs property. Mr. Warnerâs request does meet the requirements for space, but the population density has increased greatly. Mr. Mayo opposes anything that turns the area into a trailer park.

Elsie Page ö Brownings Cove. She is opposed to having any more homes closer than they are already. There are too many in one place. They cross her driveway and sheâd opposed to it.

Gordon Koerner ö Brownings Cove. He is neither for or against this request. His concern is for Brownings Cove. If there are 5 houses now and more later, taxes from everyone must pay for paving the road if the County takes it over.

With no further comments, the public hearing closed.

Mr. Warner stated that he owns Mrs. Pageâs property ö she doesnât pay anything to live there. Looking from the back of the property, someone elseâs junk cars are in plain view. He plans to plant trees on his property to block the view. The first trailer was for his son ö the second trailer will be for his daughter and her 2 children.

Mrs. Proulx acknowledged the right-of-way issues, but stated that these issues are not within the scope of the PCâs consideration.

Mr. Bruguiere addressed the difference between obtaining a Conditional Use Permit to place the home and subdividing the property. By not subdividing, Mr. Warner has more control over who lives there. If the land is subdivided between children, each could put a trailer there and then sell to whomever they wished. Mrs. Proulx said a limit should be placed on the number of trailers permitted on this property. Mr. Boger said a site plan would be needed if placement of more trailers is requested.

Mr. Bruguiere stated the road issue is a problem. Something should be worked out between neighbors and upgrading would be beneficial. Mr. Warner said he will maintain the road, regardless. Dr. Walker asked if septic was put in with the thought of two trailers. Mr. Warner stated that the Health Department issued the permit for two trailers.

Mr. Bruguiere made a motion to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #2004-006 to place a second manufactured home on Mr. Warnerâs property, with a limit of two mobile homes on the property at this time. Mr. Harman provided the second and motion passed 6-0.

Special Use Permit #2004-006 ö Al E. Valencia
Mr. Valencia is requesting a Special Use Permit to use part of the vacant cold storage building at 2731 Arrington Road to operate a trucking company with truck and auto repair and sales in a Limited Industrial District, M-1.

It does not appear this use is permitted in the M-1 District, whose purpose is to provide for and encourage limited industries to locate and/or expand in order to foster development of the local economy. These industries are generally light industrial which are office oriented or oriented toward the manufacturing, processing, assembly, warehousing and/or distributing of goods and materials which are dependent upon previously prepared raw materials refined or processed elsewhere .It is expected that uses in this District would be operated within a building. The proposed use is not a manufacturing operation and there doesnât appear to be a category of uses that it would fit into. The closest land use category would be automobile service station which is allowed in B-1 District.

If the applicant disagrees with this interpretation, he has the right to appeal this interpretation to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Should the Commission find that this use is permitted, a new site plan will be required to show that the use would be conducted behind a screened area and not visible from adjoining properties and the road. It must be totally enclosed. Based on these comments, Staff cannot support this request until all of the issues have been satisfactorily resolved.

Vance Wilkins, Jr. owns the property. It was difficult to determine the zoning, but it appears to be M-1, not M-2. The building next to it is used for storage. The back of the building is closed in and Mr. Bruguiere indicated it would be a good place for truck repair. Auto repair, however, is not an M-1 permitted use. Mr. Boger said that under the proposed zoning ordinance, it could be allowed by SUP. Auto service station must be in enclosed area and no storage should be done on the ãdog-legä area (the old train station).

Mr. Valencia said that 90% of the business would be in the building. His tractor trailer would be parked outside. He will operate the business himself. The building is 6000 sq. ft. and is empty at this time. Everything is done on the inside and cannot be seen from the road.

Dr. Walker asked if auto sales were anticipated. Mr. Valencia replied that wholesale only ö no advertising. His tractor trailer only would be outside. He has lease operators. It would be rare for more than one tractor trailer to be parked outside.

Mr. Bruguiere asked Mr. Boger if sales can be done in M-1 in an enclosed building, and Mr. Boger said they could be. Dr. Walker asked about the adequacy of the road, especially the sharp bend. Mr. Valencia said that many types of trucks operate in the area ö gravel, cement, etc.

Ms. Russell quoted Section 18-1-2 of the Zoning Ordinance:   ãManufacturing, assembly, data processing, computing, warehousing, research and development, wholesaling, telemarketing and similar industrial uses provided there is no air discharge requiring smoke stack approval and the use complies with Section 18.4. Section 18-4-2 reads: ãNo use shall be permitted which produces noise, smoke, unshielded lights, smell, dust or other airborne nuisance, which is perceptible beyond the building.ä Section 18-4-4 reads: ãParking and/or support facilities shall be screened from any adjacent residential use or district.ä She also asked about weekend use and Mr. Valencia replied that his is a one-man operation. Heâs on the road during most weeks. Heâs trying to comply with County and Virginia rules. Mr. Boger added that he will need to comply with building code requirements which are not under Planning Commission jurisdiction.

The public hearing was opened by Mrs. Proulx.

ãBoä Delk ö Lovingston. Heâs become a student of the new zoning code and believes this property is M-2. In 1973 there were 3 cold storages ö Arrington and Shipman ö which were zoned M-2. Itâs difficult to determine from the present markings in the Tax Map book. He stated that there are not many places available to do this type of work and he feels it would be an asset rather than the building just sitting and not being used.

With no further comments, the public hearing was closed.

Mr. Bruguiere also feels the zoning is M-2; however, Mr. Boger said that the property owner agreed it was M-1 District based on research done previously. BZA can address zoning of the property. Mr. Harman said that it seems ãwholesaleä applies and Mr. Bruguiere asked what would need to be done if this turns into a 5-day operation with additional employees. Ms. Russell questioned whether the CUP could be approved for auto repair with a condition on the number of employees and its being an enclosed building operation with part-time status. Mrs. Proulx replied that anything thatâs by right in M-1 can be done automatically. Mr. Bruguiere stated he feels it should be allowed, with no permit needed. Itâs an excellent use of the building. Mr. Harman agreed.

Mr. Valencia will be repairing his own truck. Mr. Valencia said the area will not be open to the public. Itâs for repair of vehicles he owns which he plans to wholesale.

Mr. Harman stated that based upon information provided, he makes a motion that a Special Use Permit is not required due to ãwholesaleä being a by right use. Mr. Bruguiere provided the second. Ms. Russell restated that the business is to be operated inside and if this expands (either increasing employees or number of days of operation), Mr. Valencia will need to apply for a Special or Conditional Use Permit. Motion passed 6-0. Mr. Valencia asked for clarification that he could keep his tractor trailer unit outside and was advised, ãYes.ä

Preliminary Subdivision ö Paul & Bonny Musgrave
Mr. Musgrave has submitted a preliminary subdivision plat dividing approximately 41.698 acres into three parcels of land. The property is zoned A-1 and the proposed lot sizes are 9.6 acres, 10.3 acres, and 21.8 acres. Staff has reviewed the plat and finds no major problems with it.   The only minor omission was that the lots were not numbered. The final plat will also need to show the location of utility easements for each lot and any necessary drainage easements. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary subdivision plat.

Mr. Massie Saunders, representing the applicant, said this is a by right subdivision since each lot has 250â frontage. It was submitted in anticipation of the new zoning ordinance; otherwise, it could have been approved administratively.

Mr. Bruguiere asked which road the 21-acre would use for access. Mr. Saunders said there is access from both roads, but probably Zinkâs Mill would be used.

The public hearing was opened, there were no comments, and hearing was closed.

Mr. Bruguiere made a motion to approve the preliminary plat for Paul and Bonny Musgrave and to give Mr. Boger the authority to approve the final plat. Mr. Harman provided the second, and motion passed 6-0.

Preliminary Subdivision ö Wayne and Sandra Orme
Mr. Wayne Orme has submitted a plat for a family division of lot number 59 in the Highland on the James Subdivision located on Cabell Road, Route 626. Normally a family subdivision can be approved administratively; however, lot 59 is located in a subdivision with a recorded plat which requires either the Board of Supervisorsâ approval or approval from all property owners of parcels on the recorded plat. In this case, a public hearing is preferable. The property is zoned A-1 and the County is required by State regulations to approve the family division.

Staff has reviewed the plat and recommends approval since it exceeds the minimum survey standards for platting lots.

Mr. Massie Saunders represented the Ormes.

The public hearing was opened, there were no comments, and hearing was closed.

Mr. Saunders stated there is no house on the property. Soils work has been done and the drain field has been located on both lots. The Ormes own a house on another lot. This lot will go to a son and daughter.

Mr. Bruguiere made a motion to approve the family subdivision plat. Dr. Walker provided the second. Motion passed 6-0.

Preliminary Subdivision ö Paul and Sharon Buterbaugh
Mr. and Mrs. Buterbaugh have submitted a subdivision plat dividing 12.267 acres into two parcels of land. The property is identified as Tax Map #6-A-9A and is located on Lobbans Lane (Rt. 840).

Since 2000 there have been five divisions and boundary line adjustments associated with this property (see Staff report on file). Staff has reviewed the plat. The ownerâs address was missing and the vicinity map was not drawn to proper scale.

Mr. Massie Saunders, representing the Buterbaughs, said there is an existing residence on one portion of the property. Any parcel submitted after 1997 must come before PC before it can be subdivided again. The owner used an exemption to cut off one portion of the property. There are no new division rights for this tract.

Mr. Bruguiere asked for confirmation that the 5 acres canât have another division. Mr. Boger said that one exemption can be used. Any subsequent divisions must come to the PC.

The public hearing was opened, there were no comments, and public hearing was closed.

Mr. Harman made a motion to approve the preliminary subdivision plat for Paul and Sharon Buterbaugh. Mr. Bruguiere provided the second. Motion passed 6-0.

Mr. Saunders asked if Mr. Boger can sign off on the final and was told that the final must also come before the Commission.

Other Business:
Mr. Boger distributed the Resolution issued by the Board of Supervisors concerning the definition of ãCommunity Center.ä There are two centers in the County, Rockfish and Heritage, where it would be beneficial to have office space, retail sales, etc. to bring in outside income. The definition needs to be adopted as soon as possible. Mr. Bruguiere asked if it could be advertised for the January meeting. Ms. Russell said the need was there over a year ago when the Rockfish Community Center wanted to provide space for a caterer. She opposes making a hasty decision regarding the definition. Mr. Bruguiere suggested that Mr. Boger work on the definition and have it available for the January meeting.

Mr. Boger said that County Attorney Phil Payne feels another public hearing should be held on the zoning ordinance.

In order to review the proposed zoning ordinance for changes, tonightâs PC meeting will be continued on January 5 at 7:00, Board of Supervisors Meeting Room. Mr. Boger will provide a ãcommunity centerä definition for consideration at that time.

The next public hearing was set for February 2, 2005 at 7:00 at Nelson County High/Middle School auditorium.

At 10:30 Dr. Walker made a motion to continue the meeting on January 5, Ms. Russell provided the second, and motion passed 6-0.

Respectfully submitted,

Betty Fortune, Secretary