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