Work Session 6 Minutes


Protection and Progress in the Dragon Run

coordinating land use policies and practices


June 28, 2005Saluda, Virginia




Fred Hutson (Essex); Anne Ducey-Ortiz (Gloucester); Kempton Shields (King and Queen); David Fuss (MPPDC); Vlad Gavrilovic (Paradigm Design)


Project Schedule Recap


Vlad Gavrilovic began by reviewing the project schedule. The Task Force is not far off its original June schedule. Work with individual counties (Phase II) will begin after the Dragon Run Steering Committee’s August 10th meeting, where a presentation from the Task Force will be given.  Upcoming deliverables for Phase I are a technical memorandum for each county and a public presentation that includes an overview of the rationale and recommendations of the Task Force’s work.


Presentation of Draft Recommendations


Vlad provided a presentation covering the key points of the combined model comprehensive plan and zoning recommendations. This included changes since the last draft and an overview of the recommendations (as a preview for the Steering Committee presentation in August). Vlad also asked the Task Force to consider its ongoing role in the process.


Evaluation and Feedback


The Task Force had the following discussions:

  • Mr. Hutson indicated a need to clarify that the intent in the presentation is a summary and not the full text of the intent in the proposed amendment
  • David indicated a need to clarify that the differences between the what the counties do is only for implementation and not for the policies themselves - Vlad suggested putting point #5 in front of point #4 in the presentation to address this
  • Ms. Ducey-Ortiz suggested that the note about the prohibited and special exception uses should go before the list of uses and then use some uses as examples
  • Mr. Hutson said that he thought all of the explanatory notes should be highlighted (e.g. bold)
  • Ms. Ducey-Ortiz suggested making the list of uses more generalized and then use such as… to list examples; each county may define specific uses a little differently
  • Mr. Shields agreed and offered the use of categories and terms like intensive, industrial, stockpiling
  • Mr. Hutson indicated a need for an introductory leader into the lists of uses on pp 13-14, using generalities and then saying the following things might be considered
  • Mr. Shields said that each use is not bad by itself, but that it is the intensity or density regardless of use that is the real issue re: rural character
  • Ms. Ducey-Ortiz suggested adding the term ‘low-intensity’ to the permitted uses for any category
  • Mr. Hutson suggested adding a general phrase for prohibited uses such as ‘any uses that can cause heavy runoff or has a high pollution potential (e.g. auto junkyards)’
  • Mr. Shields requested that #6 on p 15 be omitted as not relevant or appropriate
  • Ms. Ducey-Ortiz suggested substituting ‘low-intensity’ for ‘small scale’ on p 15 #3; she also questioned the source of #9 on p 14 because the Division of Mines and Minerals has jurisdiction over mining operations
  • Mr. Shields said that he thought most of the special exception criteria could be eliminated because it is too specific and should be dealt with at each individual county
  • Mr. Hutson argued that #1-4 of those criteria were good as examples
  • Vlad expressed concern about the specificity in the Conservation Subdivision Option in light of the switch to more generalized language in the zoning framework – the Task Force thought that making the notations explaining the option in bold would solve that problem and also that specificity might help to define an option that would be new for most of the counties
  • Mr. Shields thinks that there is an inherent conflict between the goal of preserving the Dragon Run’s ecology and preserving farming which has a high pollution potential; he suggest substituting ‘small businesses such as farming and forestry’ for ‘traditional industries’ because the pollution potential of those activities are high when the scale becomes large (e.g. industrial scale)
  • Ms. Ducey-Ortiz suggested using wording like ‘support the rural economy like small business, farming, etc.’
  • Mr. Shields indicated that he interprets ‘traditional’ to be ‘family-owned’
  • Vlad suggested the possibility of using the term ‘compatible’
  • Ms. Ducey-Ortiz brought up questions about the conservation subdivision option:
    • In the conservancy lot, it indicates no additional development will be allowed beyond the home site, but does this prevent accessory buildings or additions at a later time?
    • On p 21, 3b there should be clarification because the use of both caliper and drip line is confusing
    • On p 21, 2f and 2g, will it be a requirement to perform an archaeological assessment for single family homes? It might be best to use ‘known’ archaeological sites
  • On p 21, 2d David wondered if there could be a size limit for >25% slopes because they may already fall under the RPA heading with no size limit
  • David also asked the Task Force whether 200 feet was an appropriate distance for the stream buffer zone – everyone said that it was reasonable as a starting point, but that there may be some variation from county to county


Next Steps


The Task Force will meet jointly with the Dragon Run Steering Committee at its August 10th picnic meeting and the Task Force’s work will be presented.


Vlad indicated that he would send out a revised version via email before the meeting.


Vlad asked the Task Force to think about its ongoing role.

  • Mr. Hutson thought it would be a good idea to share experiences between the counties, as they may exchange helpful ideas and information
  • Mr. Shields suggested reconvening the Task Force in October or November to compare notes on progress in each county


Mr. Shields asked for David to send out a list of people on the Steering Committee and their affiliations, so that the Task Force would know who was in attendance.


NEXT MEETING IS A JOINT MEETING with the DRAGON RUN STEERING COMMITTEE on Wednesday, August 10 at 6:00 at a location TBA