-
Draft: 10/28/2020 Final: 11/18/2020
NELSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
October 28, 2020
Present: Chair Mark Stapleton and Commissioners Mary Kathryn
Allen, Chuck Amante, Ernie Reed, and Phil Proulx. Absent: Mike
Harman
Staff Present: Dylan Bishop, Director and Emily Hjulstrom,
Secretary
Call to Order: Chair Stapleton called the meeting to order at
7:00 P. M. in the General District Courtroom, County Courthouse,
Lovingston.
Review of the minutes August 26th, 2020
Ms. Proulx made a motion to approve the minutes from August
26th. Mr. Reed seconded the motion. The motion passed with a vote
of 3-0 with two abstaining.
Yes:
Mark Stapleton
Phil Proulx
Ernie Reed
Abstain:
Charles Amante
Mary Kathryn Allen
Ms. Bishop asked the Planning Commission if they would change
the agenda in order to go over the Nonconforming Ordinance first
and then the Solar Ordinance. The Planning Commission agreed.
Public Hearings
SUP 2020-06 Office
-
Draft: 10/28/2020 Final: 11/18/2020
Ms. Bishop presented the following information:
-
Draft: 10/28/2020 Final: 11/18/2020
-
Draft: 10/28/2020 Final: 11/18/2020
-
Draft: 10/28/2020 Final: 11/18/2020
-
Draft: 10/28/2020 Final: 11/18/2020
Ms. Bishop showed the following correction of the GIS
discrepancy for this parcel:
She also showed a new layer on the GIS that shows if a parcel
has ever had a Special Use Permit.
-
Draft: 10/28/2020 Final: 11/18/2020
Geoff Truslow is renting 910 Beech Grove Rd for an office space.
He explained that it will be an office space for himself and one
other coworker. He explained that they will be managing condominium
associations in Wintergreen and in Stoney Creek. He explained that
it is an administrative office and most of their work is in
Wintergreen with contractors. Mr. Reed asked if the applicant had
been using this place since September 1st. Mr. Truslow noted that
they had and didn’t realize until one month later when they went to
get a sign permit that they needed to get a Special Use Permit.
Chair Stapleton opened the public hearing at 7:11 PM Chair
Stapleton closed the public hearing at 7:11 PM Ms. Allen made a
motion to recommend approval of SUP 2020-06 Office to the Board of
Supervisors. Mr. Amante seconded the motion. The motion passed with
a vote of 5-0.
Yes:
Mark Stapleton
Ernie Reed
Mary Kathryn Allen
Chuck Amante
Phil Proulx
Other Business
Nonconforming Ordinance:
Ms. Bishop reviewed the following information from when the
Planning Commission had been reviewing the Nonconforming Ordinance
in January:
-
Draft: 10/28/2020 Final: 11/18/2020
-
Draft: 10/28/2020 Final: 11/18/2020
-
Draft: 10/28/2020 Final: 11/18/2020
Ms. Allen noted that she was worried about the left lane option
because it would hurt a lot of home owners.
Mr. Reed asked Ms. Bishop to explain the process of getting a
variance to come into compliance. Ms. Bishop explained that an
owner would have to apply for a variance and indicate a hardship
that the land could not be used at all without the variance. Also,
they would need to show they acquired the property in good faith.
She noted that the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) is a
quasi-judicial board and the burden of proof is entirely on the
applicant. The BZA has the final decision on whether or not to
grant the variance but a variance can only be granted for things
relating to the character, shape, topography, setbacks, etc. of the
lot. She then explained that the BZA’s final decision can be
appealed within 30 days and that would be tried by the circuit
court. Mr. Reed asked if the variance stayed with the owner or with
the land. Ms. Bishop explained that it would stay with the land so
that the variance would hold even if the ownership changed. Mr.
Reed asked what would happen with land that was granted a variance
but then was determined nonconforming later on without there being
a hardship. Ms. Bishop explained that the hardship is the fact that
it is nonconforming. Ms. Allen noted that a financial hardship on
the owner would not get a variance. Ms. Bishop added that accessory
structures cannot get a variance.
Mr. Reed asked about “acts of god” and asked if the language
should be made more specific by adding more examples like land
slippage. Ms. Proulx noted that tidal wave could be removed. Mr.
Amante noted that they could remove the specifics and just say
“acts of god”. Ms. Proulx noted that it could be changed to say
“including but not limited to”. Ms. Allen noted that she thinks
they should wait a month before moving the Nonconforming Ordinance
to public hearing so that they can review the draft and so that Ms.
Bishop can consult with the County Attorney about the language.
Solar Ordinance:
Ms. Hjulstrom reviewed the following draft Solar Ordinance:
-
Draft: 10/28/2020 Final: 11/18/2020
-
Draft: 10/28/2020 Final: 11/18/2020
-
Draft: 10/28/2020 Final: 11/18/2020
-
Draft: 10/28/2020 Final: 11/18/2020
-
Draft: 10/28/2020 Final: 11/18/2020
-
Draft: 10/28/2020 Final: 11/18/2020
-
Draft: 10/28/2020 Final: 11/18/2020
-
Draft: 10/28/2020 Final: 11/18/2020
-
Draft: 10/28/2020 Final: 11/18/2020
-
Draft: 10/28/2020 Final: 11/18/2020
Ms. Hjulstrom explained that she looked at several other
ordinances when putting the draft together and that it borrowed
heavily from the Solar Ordinance in Augusta County. She also
reviewed the following proposed additions that she borrowed from
the recently adopted Solar Ordinance in Amherst County:
Mr. Amante noted that as technology improves they will be able
to get more kilowatts out of the same area. He questioned whether
or not that would cause further impact. Ms. Hjulstrom noted that
regulating it by the size of the system made more sense to her
because the land area of the system would make more of an
impact.
Ms. Allen asked how long of an extension the Board of
Supervisors would be able to give for Solar farm decommissioning.
Ms. Hjulstrom noted that this ordinance does not specify so it
would be up to the discretion of the Board of Supervisors on a case
to case basis. Ms. Allen recommended changing the language in the
ordinance to define a limit to the extension.
Ms. Hjulstrom then went over the two-year limit after approval
for the solar farm to be installed. She explained that this was
longer than the usual one-year limit for other projects because it
can be a longer process with other agencies. Ms. Bishop added that
it also reflects the state code requirement that towers be given
two years and that they would need to update the County Zoning
Ordinance to reflect this as well.
-
Draft: 10/28/2020 Final: 11/18/2020
Mr. Amante asked if the setback would be to the boundary of the
solar farm or to the panel. Ms. Hjulstrom noted that fences would
be able to be in the setback and the setback would be to the
nearest corner of the panels. She further explained that all
structures and parking lots would need to be kept out of the
setbacks.
Ms. Proulx asked the language in the bond section and noted that
she thinks the language of “the estimate plus 25% of the bond”
should be added into the language under section 2 to clarify
it.
Ms. Proulx noted that a minimum setback should be added for
small solar farms in the B-1 and B-2 zones.
Ms. Proulx noted that the language referencing Article 13: Site
Plan Development should be changed to specifically say that it
needs to comply to the standards of a Major Site Plan.
Mr. Stapleton asked if the applicants would be able to leave the
land in a stripped condition when they decommission the solar
panels. Ms. Hjulstrom noted that there is language in the ordinance
stating “Restoration of the topography of the project site to its
pre-existing condition, except that any landscaping or grading may
remain in the after-condition if a written request is submitted by
the landowner and a waiver is granted by the Board of Supervisors.”
Ms. Hjulstrom added that she would like to add that any replanting
after decommissioning need to be wildlife friendly and
noninvasive.
Ms. Proulx noted that the buffer language in this draft should
be added to other locations in the ordinance where buffers are not
defined.
Mr. Amante noted that invasive species would grow wild naturally
even if other things were planted. Ms. Hjulstrom noted that the
intention is so that the solar company will only be able to plant
wildlife friendly and non-invasive species. She explained that they
would not be responsible for things that grow naturally after they
leave the land.
Mr. Reed asked if the state allowed shared systems for
residences or developments. Ms. Hjulstrom noted that she would need
to look at the Virginia State Code to see if it could be
allowed.
Mr. Stapleton asked if there would be any protection for
neighbors that aren’t immediately adjoining. Ms. Hjulstrom stated
that they could look at changing the language to protect for glare
on other properties. Mr. Stapleton also asked if fencing should be
required. Ms. Hjulstrom noted that she considered it but that most
solar farms would want to put up a fence anyway. Ms. Allen noted
that it would be up to them whether or not they wanted to protect
their property. Ms. Bishop noted that the County Attorney was
concerned about the county requiring expensive fencing.
Mr. Stapleton asked about the ocular impact study required by
the FAA. Ms. Bishop explained that there is likely size or capacity
at which this is required. Ms. Hjulstrom noted that the ocular
impact study section can be moved under general and it could apply
to any system that the FAA would require it on.
-
Draft: 10/28/2020 Final: 11/18/2020
Mr. Stapleton was concerned that panels on a hillside could
impact parcels far away with glare. Ms. Hjulstrom noted that she
worried that it would be too restrictive to require glare
protection in a one-mile radius. Ms. Bishop explained that Nelson
County is unique in that it doesn’t have much flat land. She didn’t
think that other counties would address that in their ordinance.
Ms. Hjulstrom noted that she would see if any other county has a
similar restriction in their ordinance.
Mr. Amante noted that he is worried about the panels getting too
hot and scorching the land. Ms. Hjulstrom stated that solar panels
are creating electricity as a product and that it is transferred to
the electric company. Mr. Reed noted that the engineers are trying
to maximize efficiency.
Mr. Amante noted that solar farms wouldn’t bring any benefit to
the county. Ms. Hjulstrom stated that it would provide a renewable
resource. Ms. Bishop noted that there are some tax benefits
involved for solar farms as well.
Board of Supervisors Report:
Mr. Reed noted that the BOS reviewed Rezoning 2020-01 and that
they were afraid there would be the issue of farm breweries finding
loopholes to exist as traditional breweries. He noted that Mr.
Harvey wants the County Attorney to find out how the State might be
able to trump proffers that the County approves. Ms. Proulx added
that the members of the church showed up at the BOS meeting to
present their concerns of more activity in that location. Mr. Reed
noted that they have deferred the request. Ms. Bishop noted that
she has not heard back from the County Attorney and added that the
proffer restricting the size of the brewery is what’s especially in
question.
Ms. Hjulstrom noted that she would provide an updated draft of
the solar ordinance in the next meeting.
Ms. Bishop briefly went over the following potential zoning
ordinance updates:
-
Draft: 10/28/2020 Final: 11/18/2020
-
Draft: 10/28/2020 Final: 11/18/2020
Adjournment:
Ms. Proulx made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:13 pm. Mr.
Amante seconded the motion. The motion was passed with a vote of
5-0.
Yes:
Mark Stapleton
Phil Proulx
Mary Kathryn Allen
Chuck Amante
Ernie Reed
Respectfully submitted,
Emily Hjulstrom
Secretary, Planning & Zoning