Planning: May 25, 2005

May 25, 2005

NELSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
May 25, 2005

Present: Mr. Thomas Bruguiere, Mr. Michael Harman, Ms. Emily Hunt, Mrs. Philippa Proulx – 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 7:00 P. M.

Approval of Minutes:
No changes were made to the minutes of April 27, 2005. Dr. Walker made the motion to approve, Ms. Hunt provided the second, and motion passed 6-0.

Hazard Mitigation Plan – Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPCD)
Mr. Bill Wanner of TJPDC presented the Nelson County portion of the regional Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) which is required documentation for funding of pre- and post-disaster relief. The bulk of the plan describes mitigation actions, and on the suggestion of the Planning Commissioners in April, additional consideration has been given to disaster preparedness for children in the school system. Ms. Proulx stated that the HMP has been available to the public via the Web and in the Planning and Zoning office.

The public hearing was opened. No comments were made, and public hearing was closed.

Ms. Hunt made a motion to recommend approval of the HMP to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Harman provided the second. Motion passed 6-0.

Conditional Use Permit #2005-003 – John C. Holland, Jr.
Mr. Boger reported that Mr. John C. Holland, Jr. has submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12-5, Uses not provided for, to construct an addition to the existing carriage house located adjacent to 2387 Oak Ridge Road (Route 650). The purpose of the addition will be to provide recreational, social and educational meeting space for the Oak Ridge Historical Society and other interested parties. The 8,755 sq. ft. addition will be constructed on the rear of the building. The property is zoned Agricultural, A-1, and there are no provisions in this zone for this use.

The facility will be used for large wedding receptions and other gatherings requiring space for up to 300 people. Weddings are currently conducted at Oak Ridge, but there is no facility large enough on this side of the County for a large reception following a wedding ceremony. Staff is currently working on a definition for this type of facility in order to amend the zoning ordinance and include it in the A-1 District ordinance as by right or Special Use Permit.

Staff had the following comments regarding the site plan: (1) The Health Department has approved the sanitary system for the proposed addition and use; (2) The E&S control plan must be approved by the TJSWCD office in Charlottesville; (3) Electric service is available for the facility; and (4) VDOT has been contacted and the entrance must be brought up to current requirements, as well as the reduction of a bank from the old road bed to improve sight distance. Based on the information provided, Staff feels the proposed meeting facility will have a positive impact on the historical nature of Oak Ridge and the community in general. The proposed uses are generally what Oak Ridge permits now but will allow them to accommodate larger events on site. Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit, subject to the conditions for this type of facility being approved by the County and incorporated into the zoning ordinance at a later date. The Hollands have been waiting for the new zoning ordinance to be adopted, but work needs to start now.

Dr. Walker asked if the primary user of the building would be the Oak Ridge Historical Society. Mr. Boger said that the ORHS will lease the building and other Oak Ridge events will also be held there.

Heather Goodwin, representing John Holland, showed drawings of architectural details and stated that the addition is to the rear of the current building so as not to alter the appearance of the original building. It will allow for 362 individual seats and will be the largest such facility in the County outside of Wintergreen. Oak Ridge owners will construct the building and lease it to the ORHS. It will have a warming kitchen rather than a cooking kitchen. There will be an oven for reheating, sinks, counter tops, etc.

The public hearing was opened.

Mr. Bill Reilly of Rodes Valley Drive spoke in support of the facility.

The public hearing was closed.

Ms. Russell stated her support for the facility, but is concerned about approving something for which there is no appropriate definition in the zoning ordinance. She would like to see a definition of what a similar facility would be in A-1 district. Mr. Boger said that the site plan is complete and the definition can be added later. The ordinance must be changed after the BOS approves the site plan. Ms. Russell is concerned that this type of facility could be put in a place much more dense than Oak Ridge. Dr. Walker agreed that the facility is needed and that the process must be done correctly as it affects all A-1 districts in the County.

Mrs. Proulx stated that the application doesn’t clearly identify the proposed use. Mr. Boger said the PC can make a decision and then send it to the BOS. The zoning ordinance must be amended at a later date. Mrs. Proulx has no problem with the proposal, but a definition is needed before approval.

Mrs. Rhonda Holland said they had the same question about how it fit into the Community Center definition. They met with Mr. Boger, Mr. Carter, and Mr. Payne and determined it did not exactly fit the CC definition. They are willing to work with the County in any way, but work needs to start as soon as possible.

Mr. Boger handed out a proposed definition for a banquet facility and stated that the Hollands are following the rules. The definition has to be approved after the Conditional Use Permit, and it cannot be advertised the same night the CUP is approved. Section 12-5 is presently in the zoning ordinance for situations such as this.

Dr. Walker made a motion to approve CUP #2005-003 requesting to add an addition to the existing carriage house structure for the purpose of providing recreational, social and educational meeting space. Mr. Harman provided the second, and the motion passed 5-1, with Ms. Russell voting no.

Special Permit #2005-001 – High Country Associates, L.L.C.
Mr. Boger reported that High Country Associates (HCA), L.L.C. is requesting a Special Permit to move 150 development rights from Single Family to Mixed Use in the Valley Village area designated on the Wintergreen Master Plan. The property is identified on the application as Tax Map 22-A, Parcel 9, and is located west of Monocan Drive in the general area of the Tuckahoe School and behind the Valley Green Shopping Center. On December 14, 2004 the Master Plan was amended as part of a rezoning petition to assign 175 residential units to a part of the subject property exclusively for the development of a senior residential care facility. The applicant further proffered that the 175 units assigned to the development of senior housing shall be added on the basis of one additional unit added to the Master Plan for each addition senior unit developed, up to a total addition to the Master Plan of 175 units for the senior area.

At the present time Staff is aware of only one developer who is interested in developing a senior housing project and that is Virginia Taboub. She has indicated that she would need only 128 units. The remaining units could be used by another developer for senior housing and some high density housing.

Staff feels that at this time there are sufficient units available to accommodate the developer presently interested in developing a senior housing project and no more units should be assigned to the Valley Mixed Use category until a project is developed and presented to the County for approval. The previous request was for 175 units for assisted living, which the BOS approved. The request is now for an additional 150 units. There have been many questions from many sources. This application is being treated as a Special Use Permit, not a Special Permit, and conditions can be attached. The project appears to be good. It is unknown, however, exactly what they plan to do. The Planning Commission may want to define exactly what they need to know so that research can be done. At the present time there is not enough information provided to receive approval.

Ms. Russell asked for clarification on which property this actually is. Mr. Boger said it adjoins the 7th hole on Tuckahoe School on both sides of the road. HCA owns the property, as evidenced by deed and plat. The question is how to deal with the zoning ordinance. Normally the County doesn’t get involved with covenants.

Ms. Russell asked if HCA was asking to transfer single family development rights to an area which allows higher density multi-family use. Mr. Boger said they can still be used for single family in Mixed Use district.

Mr. Sadler, representing HCA, LLC, presented a statement titled “Reallocation of 150 Residential Rights in Stoney Creek Portion of Wintergreen Master Plan.” The purpose of the application is to “reduce the number of development units in Stoney Creek in the single family and multifamily designations by 150 and to add the same number of residential development rights to the mixed use property owned by HCA in Tax Map Parcel 22-9 (Crawford Farm.)”

Mr. Bruguiere stated that since January 1, 2005, HCA is no longer the developer. Mr. Sadler stated that after January 1, 2005, WPOA has to concur with the addition of any property. He said that the BOS gets to choose whether the development rights belong to HCA. The Master Plan for the Village Center mixed use zone was approved with no residential units allocated. They have 33 acres of multi-use property and they want to use it. The BOS has the authority to move development rights, not HCA. In the Wintergreen “pool,” there are a number of development rights. Over 166 units are left. This is a reasonable way to develop residential property rather than commercial.

Ms. Russell said that the tax map shows the entrance is Parcel 8. Mr. Sadler said that it’s on parcel 9.

The public hearing was opened.

Jan Burland – Rodes Farm Drive. (Statement is attached.) Ms. Burland stated she was glad to hear there is a deed and plat and they should be located in the Planning Commission’s files. Ownership is subject to investigation at a later time. The 2000 covenants are about homeowner control, not developer control. Mr. Sadler’s statement that HCA is no longer a developer is incorrect. The Board of Directors of WPOA is charged with interpreting convenants. HCA is asking the PC to make an amendment to the Wintergreen Master Plan, for which it no longer has the authority to do. Parts of Article 7 – Final plan – after Master Plan – pieces of the puzzle are put in. Specifications require that when another piece is put in, metes and bounds survey, sewer, etc. have to be submitted. Unless something new has come in, she doesn’t see how the PC can act. Ms. Burland questioned whether development rights can be placed in a “bank/pool” and used for some other parcel. The number of alleged units are a challenge to figure out mathematically. She stated that Ms. Taboub is interested in 13 acres of parcel 9. If all goes well, she plans to develop 125 units on 13 acres which leaves 12 acres. The PC has control to delineate uses if they do not conform and also has the right to say “no.” The corner of Monocan Drive (2 ½ acres of parcel 9) is in litigation. Nothing can happen to that property. The entire 32 acres is in litigation due to the 2004 action by the BOS.

Craig Cooper. (Statement is attached.) Mr. Cooper addressed points a. and c. of his statement and stated that he was glad to see that the plan was for residential units. He is concerned that the approval of this addition would skew the results of the study being done on the growth and development of Nellysford and Rt. 151. He recommended that HCA’s request be denied.

Dave Juergens. (Statement is attached.) He asked that the PC deny the application.

Don Burland. (Statement is attached.) He asked that the PC decline the application.

Russell Otis – WPOA.   Mr. Otis stated that Wintergreen Master Plan is in the custodial care of the County, who should determine the number of development rights. It is important to determine if this is a Special Permit, a Special Use Permit, or an amendment to the Master Plan. If the Master Plan is to be amended, additional information is needed. Whether the developers have done a good or bad job should be the determination of the PC who must make a full report to the BOS. He can’t imagine processing this without answers.

George McKinney – 327 Stoney Creek East, Nellysford. There seems to be sufficient rights to proceed with the senior center on 13 acres. 150+ development rights on 18 acres seems too dense. This is overkill and not in keeping with the character of the community.

Bill Reilly – Rodes Valley Drive. He stated that he’s having difficulty getting a handle on the facts. As he understands it, of 150 units, 55 are coming from the senior area, an area they can’t build on and 140 are coming from somewhere else. This is not like the 900+ other developments in Stoney Creek which is basically 1 unit per acre. He suggested taking the whole portion as residential and leaving the other as mixed use. In conversations with Mrs. Taboub, no building will start until there are 100 pre-sales. No financing is available until that happens.

Chapin Wilson – 6448 Laurel Road. In discussions by BOS and Service Authority on development of the Rockfish Valley, there were issues about sewage surfacing, etc. He suggests proceeding carefully. The Valley will be built out in terms of carrying capacity.

Joe Steele – 350 Sawmill Creek Drive – chairman of the senior issues group. 130+ people attended a meeting last night to discuss senior housing at Rosewood. He’s hearing objections to this happening and doesn’t understand why this property can’t be used for senior housing. He doesn’t understand why those speaking in opposition tonight approved of GAIA Homes’ recent rezoning.

Judy Juergens. She is in favor of senior housing, but is concerned about the 175 development rights currently in litigation, which were to be used for senior housing. She wants to know how many units they’re dealing with and whether they can be used for something other than senior housing. She feels a clearer plan is needed.

The public hearing was closed.

In response to public comments, Mr. Sadler stated that Ms. Burland is mistaken about covenants. There is a series of covenants that apply to administration of WPOA and administration of open space. There are no constructional and environmental covenants. The general covenant did not change in 2000. Rights have been appropriately assigned from Wintergreen of Virginia Limited Partnership to Melba to Wintergreen Developers to HCA. The issue about HCA not being the developer is incorrect. A final plan is not appropriate for single family dwellings, with the exception of 2 ½ acres at the entrance.   HCA is not trying to juggle rights. The application was written following a meeting with County Staff. The issues regarding planning in Nellysford for water and sewer were all approved in the Master Plan 20 years ago. There should be no shortage of water and sewer. Water quality from the sewage treatment plant is the same as stream water. He’s not talking about 6-story high density buildings, but single family dwellings. Regarding the appropriateness of the SP, he was told by County Staff that the Special Permit was appropriate. Build-out is not a problem and water and sewer are not a problem.

Mr. Bruguiere asked assisted living units can be built now, in light of the litigation in progress for the 29 acres. Mr. Sadler said if he had 150 units available, he would not develop them at this time. Some units could be assigned to Mrs. Taboub for use without affecting litigation.

Mrs. Proulx suggested that the County Attorney be given a list of questions and positions prepared by Mr. Payne and Mr. Sadler. The public may submit questions directly to Mr. Boger. The PC would like to know: 1) How much impact does the January 1, 2005 changes have on what the developer can and cannot do? (2) Advice on how to distinguish between covenant issues and land use issues? (3) How much of a plan is required at this point? (4) Does the present litigation impact what the PC can and cannot do? (5) How many remaining rights are there and how are they defined? (6) Is this an amendment to the Master Plan?

Ms. Russell said that her understanding is that the County Attorney has determined that transfer of development rights between zones can be done via SUP, under which conditions can be placed. Mr. Boger agreed. Ms. Russell stated that Mr. Sadler’s description of the development of this property as single family units is not exactly as she had thought. Possibly conditions should be placed on the SUP for development of single-family homes only.

Mr. Bruguiere felt it was prudent to defer this matter to next month in order to go into executive session with the County Attorney. Mrs. Proulx doesn’t feel executive session is appropriate, but agreed that more research is needed. Mr. Boger stated that the submission of a plan for single family residential has never been done before. The Commission can submit a list of questions within the next 2 weeks and continue at the next meeting. A decision must be made at the June meeting.

Ms. Russell made a motion to defer a decision on the application until the next meeting, at which time all questions will have been submitted and answered. Ms. Walker provided the second and motion passed 6-0.

Other questions raised were: What happens to development rights when lots merge? Does the second development right go back to the developer or remain with the land?

Conditional Use Permit #2002-1 Amendment – Barry Wood
Mr. Boger reported that Mr. Wood is requesting an amendment to CUP #2002-1 which was approved by the County on February 12, 2002 to permit a private airstrip on his property at 151 Old Ridge Road. The original CUP was for a single east-to-west landing field. Mr. Wood would like to develop his property for a north-to-south landing field which can be used when the wind direction is favorable to land and take off in that direction. Construction of the landing is basically keeping the grasses cut in the north-to-south direction as he does for the east-to-west landing strip. No comments/complaints have been received from neighbors regarding this change.

The public hearing was opened. No comments were made, and public hearing was closed.

Mr. Harman made a motion that amendment to Conditional Use Permit #2002-1 be approved for the north-to-south landing field. Mr. Bruguiere provided the second, and motion passed 6-0.

Rezoning #2005-002 – Curtis Bruguiere
Mr. Boger reported that Mr. Bruguiere is requesting rezoning of approximately 1.88 acres of land located at 1897 and 1889 Avon Road from Residential, R-1, to Business, B-1 (Conditional) to permit use of a small area for his real estate office. His original proffer was too broad, and he amended it as follows:
   We hereby voluntarily proffer that the use of the subject property of this
   application shall be in strict accordance with the following conditions as
   set forth below:
1.   The use of the existing building at 1897 Avon Road commonly referred
to as Anderson’s Grocery shall be used as a neighborhood convenience store
and a real estate office.
2.   The existing detached single family dwelling at 1889 Avon Road located
on the same parcel as Anderson’s Grocery will be used as a single family
residence.

Mr. Boger has talked with VDOT and there is no room for gas pumps and the entrance can’t be improved. Ms. Hunt asked if the conditional rezoning would still apply if the property is transferred to another owner and Mr. Boger said it would. Mr. Thomas Bruguiere abstained from the discussion.

Mr. Curtis Bruguiere stated that the primary use for the space is a part-time real estate office. There would not be a lot of traffic. Traffic has gone down since the store has been leased. There would be no adverse affect to the community. Usually there would be no more than two people in the office. He feels he can offer a business service to the community and this location cuts down on client travel.

The public hearing was opened.

Tressie Boyd – 1861 Avon Road next to 1897 Avon Road. This rezoning will affect the property of 1897 and around the area. She’s very much opposed to the rezoning.

Linwood Lockett – 1867 Avon Road next door to 1897 Avon Road. This is the second time this rezoning has been requested and he’s still opposed to it. Traffic will not change regardless of whether it’s a store or real estate. Why change the zoning for one person/purpose?

Florine Cerphy presented a petition with names of persons opposing the rezoning. She feels taxes could increase as a result of the rezoning.

Roy White. Strongly opposes the rezoning. Traffic and parking are a problem and would be more so with two businesses. Eventually the entire community would be rezoned, and he wishes it to remain as it is.

Rita Helms – lessee of Anderson’s Store. She and her husband Paul have had several grievances with Mr. Bruguiere and most have been settled. They leased the business in November, 2004, and the business has grown substantially. Parking is sometimes a problem. Mr. Bruguiere was operating a real estate business in the building but they didn’t know it when they leased what they thought was the entire business. In December of 2004 they discovered lights being left on, the attic being used for storage and an office being set up in the area they had planned for an office. Locks were placed on the door on both sides, so they were locked out from using this portion of the building. The store has been in business since 1918. It is not a convenience store, but a general store. The community is wonderful. The only problem is Mr. Bruguiere’s insistence that he will operate his business there. Their contract states that the entire building was leased, not a portion of it. No porch or entrance is evident for the side Mr. Bruguiere uses. Parking for Mr. Bruguiere’s clients would impede on their business. She requests that the PC not approve the rezoning, based on the fact that their contract clearly states they are renting the entire building.

Public hearing was closed.

Mr. Curtis Bruguiere responded that the community was misinformed. This property has been used as a business for many years and at this time he wants only a real estate office and a store. It will not result in rezoning of the entire community and taxes won’t change. Traffic would not change. Parking is sufficient and he would be providing a business service for the area.

Dr. Walker verified with Mr. Boger that the existing store is “grandfathered,” but not the addition of another business. She feels parking and traffic would be affected with two businesses being operated from that location.

Ms. Russell stated that the Comprehensive Plan does not allow for a business use, as this would be.

Dr. Walker made a motion to deny request #2005-002 for Curtis Bruguiere to rezone 1.88 acres on 1897 & 1898 Avon Road from R-1 to B-1 Conditional due to the fact that “spot zoning” is not compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and also the impact this rezoning would have on the neighborhood. Ms. Russell provided the second. Motion passed 5-0 with Mr. Thomas Bruguiere abstaining.

Site Plan #2005-003 – Summit House Associates, LLC
Mr. Boger reported that Section 7-3, Residential Planned Community District, requires the submission of a final plat showing the location of all buildings other than single-family dwellings. The plan submitted shows the location of two proposed condominium buildings, six stories in height, with a total of 47 units and one commercial unit to be located on property north of Wintergarden (Tax Map #11E-W). According to the Wintergreen Master Plan, 710 units were designated for the Village Center (Mixed Use) sector of Mountain Village Area. Information provided by Mr. Stuart Sadler indicates there are more than enough units available (290) in the Mixed Use Sector for this development. A similar proposal was approved several years ago but was not constructed at that time due to low market demand. The E & S control plan must be approved by the County, the final plat must show location of utilities, and public water and sanitary services are available for this project.

Mr. Sadler, representing Summit House Associates, LLC, said SHA is interested in developing luxury condominiums. There was a similar project in 1995 which was approved but not constructed due to high building costs. Water and sewer is already there and can be confirmed with the Service Authority. An additional booster pump may be required. There is also sewer along Blue Ridge Drive. There are no height restrictions. Code of Virginia Section 15.2.-2295.1 would apply if a ridge law had been adopted by Nelson County. The value of the resale of these units will be $50,000,000 and will provide a second home for wealthy individuals. It is in Mixed Use district and will be approximately 75 feet in height. Ms. Hunt asked if there are other 6-story buildings in Wintergreen and Mr. Sadler replied that the highest building is 90 feet. It is an approved use and pre-sale will be required. Mr. Boger stated that according to Section 7.3.1, the site plan meets the requirements for a final plan. Ms. Russell asked if this falls under the jurisdiction of the Blue Ridge Parkway and Mr. Sadler replied no.

This was not a public hearing item, but the Chair recognized citizen comments by the following people:
   Earle Holliday. His house was the first built on the mountain in 1975. He cited North
   Carolina legislation regarding height of high-rise buildings and said that in 2000 enabling
   Legislature passed in Virginia, but it had to be adopted by individual localities. Nelson
   County’s position is unknown. The general public’s reaction to building high-rise condos
   in 1995 was heated opposition, and he suggested tabling this until an ordinance for ridge-
   top protection can be adopted.

   Stuart Harvey. He enjoys his view of the Blue Ridge Mountains. He represents
   the community (President of Homesteaders Association) which does not want a 75’ high
   condo.

   Susan McSwain. She expressed her feeling for the plan for high-rise as “terrible.”
   The view for the condo residents would be great – the view for the people in the valley
   would be awful. She doesn’t want the Blue Ridge ruined.

   Russell Otis, Director of WPOA. His is a practical concern – the type of construction
   as well as the proposed hotel. It’s the building official’s call as far as safety and fire
   protection goes, but any approval would put a strain on emergency services and    additional
   financial support to the fire department would be needed.

Mr. Bruguiere stated that the ridge protection issue was brought up with the Comprehensive Plan and the County decided not to act on it.   Mr. Bruguiere then made a motion to approval the site plan #2005-003 for Summit House Associates, LLC, for 2 condominium buildings. Ms. Russell provided the second. She stated her disappointment that this has been presented as a 6-story building. It will not help the image of Wintergreen and encourages SHA to go back and try to reduce the height. The plan does, however, meet all the technical requirements. Dr. Walker stated that she felt this is an abomination for the County, but has to vote for it because the technical requirements have been met. She hopes the community understands there is no basis to deny it, regardless of her personal feeling. Ms. Hunt also stated she felt forced to approve it. Mr. Bruguiere added that the project will add to the tax base of the County. Motion passed 5-1 with Mr. Harman voting “no.”

Other Business:

Planning Commission Bylaws have been reviewed by the County Attorney and amendments have been made. They will be voted upon in the next meeting.

Adjournment:

At 11:10 P. M. Ms. Russell made a motion to adjourn, Ms. Hunt provided the second, and motion passed 6-0.

Next Meeting:
June 22, 2005

Respectfully submitted,

Betty Fortune, Planning Secretary