Residents urge Nelson County supervisors to protect Montebello, define "by right" uses during 2042 plan hearing

Lovingston, Va. — Residents pressed the Nelson County Board of Supervisors on March 20 to shield Montebello from large-scale development and to explicitly define what counts as a "by right" use in the county's draft 2042 Comprehensive Plan.

Catherine Redfearn of the Berkley Group opened the public hearing with a presentation of the draft plan, which she described as a nonregulatory policy guide informed by two years of public engagement. Redfearn reviewed chapters addressing future land use, transportation, housing, natural and historical resources, the local economy, public facilities and an implementation matrix intended to track progress toward the county's vision through 2042.

Sherri Smith, speaking for the Keep Montebello Rural Coalition (KMRC), thanked the board and the Planning Commission for recent revisions but asked that Montebello "not be referred to as a gateway or a basecamp" and instead be treated as a destination to protect. Smith urged the board to adopt a strict, written county definition of "by right" uses, saying the current absence of a definition could allow developers latitude other counties do not permit and that the county should clarify both what "by right" is and what it is not.

Smith also asked that the county pause implementation of major site plans and special-use permits in the Montebello area until anticipated zoning revisions are complete. She argued that clusters of small cabins and dwellings are frequently deployed as commercial short-term rentals and said the county should treat such development as potentially commercial in intent; she urged consideration of DEQ monitoring of wastewater discharges from those developments and suggested that cabins be evaluated under C-1 or A-1 zoning intent to trigger more thorough review.

"By right" and glossary requests also came from Nellysford residents. Stephen Bayne read language from the plan's executive summary and said that while the plan finds "Nellysford is at capacity," other passages encouraging mixed uses and a "variety of housing types" could be read as conflicting with that finding. Bayne urged the board to define "Traditional Village Development Pattern" and to revise the draft glossary and Appendix B to clarify terms such as "Small-Scale Multi-Family Residential."

Several residents highlighted public-safety and resource concerns tied to growth along Route 151. Stanley Milesky described the corridor as a 14.1-mile stretch with a mix of local and through traffic and an average speed of about 55 mph, creating daily safety conflicts. He said about 20 agritourism businesses already operate on or near Route 151 and recommended that developers be required to provide updated Special Use Permits that include traffic and aquifer-impact analyses and share in mitigation costs rather than leaving taxpayers to pay for improvements.

Other public commenters echoed calls to preserve Montebello's rural character and to ensure that the plan's language cannot be used to justify unwanted development. Susan McSwain praised the draft as comprehensive and suggested editing or filling Appendix D; she thanked staff and consultants for compiling community input.

Chair J. David Parr closed the hearing at 7:43 p.m. At 7:44 p.m. Vice Chair Ernie Q. Reed moved to adjourn and continue to a budget work session on March 22, 2024, at 9:30 a.m.; Dr. Jessica L. Ligon seconded and the motion was approved by acclamation. The board did not take a vote on the Comprehensive Plan at the March 20 meeting.