HomeMy WebLinkAboutZTA201200005 Minutes Zoning Text Amendment 2012-04-24Albemarle County Planning Commission
April 24, 2012
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, April 24, 2012, at 6:00 p.m., at
the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Ed Smith, Thomas Loach, Richard Randolph, Don Franco, Calvin Morris, Chairman and
Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Vice Chair. Members absent was Bruce Dotson. Julia Monteith, iMCP, Senior Land Use
Planner for the University of Virginia was present.
Staff present was Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; David Benish, Chief of Planning; Sarah Baldwin, Senior
Planner; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning, Amelia McCulley, Director of Zoning.;/Zoning Administrator;
Francis MacCall, Senior Planner; Ron Higgins, Chief of Zoning; Andy Sorrell, Senior Planner; and Greg
Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Morris called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public:
Mr. Morris invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda.
Nancy Carpenter, resident of the southern Urban Neighborhoods, spoke regarding the need for a real change in
the way communities are developed in the years ahead to remain sustainable. She spoke to the need to address
the many challenges created with aging baby boomers through community connections which are both
intergenerational and age specific.
Wendell Wood requested the Commission re -consider including the property on Route 20 south known as
Somerset Farm in the Development Area. He noted advantages for this property such as infrastructure, public
water and sewer, schools nearby, outside watershed, etc.
Christian Breeden, one of seven of the Breedens who owned Biscuit Run and retained 36 acres that is now in the
center of the potential state park, said he represents some of the family shareholders who are not as interested in
developing as exploring the recreational services related to this state park. He wanted to keep this concept open
for consideration.
There being no further comments, the meeting moved to the next item.
Review of Board of Supervisors Meeting — April 4, 2012 and April 11, 2012.
Mr. Cilimberg reviewed the Board actions taken on April 4, 2012 and April 11, 2012.
Consent Agenda. -
Approval of Minutes: August 23, 2011, September 13, 2011, February 28, 2012 and March 6, 2012
HO-2011-00152 Stanley Chanq
PROPOSAL: Request for a modification to Home Occupation Class A to allow six appointments per day, Monday
through Friday, not to exceed 30 trips per week.
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density Residential (6-34 units/acre).
LOCATION: The property is located at 1100 Pen Park Lane, in the northeast corner of the Rio Road -Pen Park
Lane intersection.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES — April 24, 2012 — ZTA-2012-00005 Bed and Breakfast/Tourist Lodging,
SP-2012-00005 Verizon Wireless 1-64 East" Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility, and
SP-2012-00006 Verizon Wireless "Yancey Mills" Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility
SUBMITTED TO BOS JUNE 6T" MTG
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061AO-00-00-01400
(David Benish)
Mr. Morris asked if any Commissioner would like to pull an item from the consent agenda. There being none, he
asked for a motion.
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Loach seconded for approval of the consent agenda items.
The motion was approved by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Morris noted the consent agenda was approved with the following recommendation to be forwarded to the
Board of Supervisors for HO-2011-000152.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of HO-2011-00152 Stanley Chang modification for the number
of vehicle trips generated from the Home Occupation Class A with staff's recommended condition, as follows.
1. No more than 30 clients per week and no more than 6 clients per day (Monday through Friday).
Public Hearing Item:
SP-2012-00005 Verizon Wireless 1-64 East" Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility
PROPOSED: Request for installation of a three new flush -mounted antennas. This is an amendment of SP 2000-
31 #4a, which limits the structure to what is shown on the approved plans.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA, Rural Areas- agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential
density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots)
SECTION: 10.2.2 (48) which allows for Tier III personal wireless facilities in the RA Zoning District
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas in Rural Area 3 -preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre in development lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: YES
LOCATION: 123 Dry Bridge Road
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07300-00-00-031 DO
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller
(Sarah Baldwin)
Sarah Baldwin presented a Power -Point presentation and summarized the proposal.
This is a request to install a second flush mounted antenna array on an existing Tier III Personal Wireless Service
Facility. This request will amend condition 4A of SP-2000-31 to allow more than one antenna array.
As reiterated in the staff report this is a tower that was approved prior to the current regulations for a personal
wireless service facility. Therefore, it is subject to a special use permit. At this time the applicant has elected to
amend the special use permit.
The changes to the tower will include additional antenna array and new associated ground equipment. The
applicant has submitted plans and photo simulations to show the proposed changes. The existing tower is
located at 91' AGL. The new antennas will be located at 83' and 89'.
Based upon the existing factors and proposed changes and the analysis of the requirements of the ordinance
staff found the following factors favorable and unfavorable to this application
Favorable Factors:
1. The proposal is on an existing facility and the additional antenna will not increase or cause any new
impacts to adjacent properties or important resources.
2. The proposal meets most of the requirements of 5.1.40 except for the current SP conditions which limit
the number of antenna arrays to what is shown on the plan.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — 2
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES — April 24, 2012 — ZTA-2012-00005 Bed and Breakfast/Tourist Lodging,
SP-2012-00005 Verizon Wireless 1-64 East" Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility, and
SP-2012-00006 Verizon Wireless "Yancey Mills" Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility
SUBMITTED TO BOS JUNE 6T" MTG
Unfavorable Factors - None identified
Recommendation:
• Staff recommends approval of the additional antenna array with associated ground equipment and
modifications provided herein with the conditions outlined in the staff report.
There being no questions for staff, Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the
Commission.
Laurie Schweller, attorney with LeClair Ryan, represented Verizon Wireless. The proposal is to replace the
existing antennas add another set of antennas right below them for LTE service. The applicant's position has
been that this should be allowed by right because the current ordinance does permit up to three arrays on a
personal wireless service facility by right. She wanted to mention that because what they are getting tonight is
one more array. So if they need a third array under the County's view of this application they will need to come to
the Commission again for another special use permit amendment. Our argument has been that the by right
provisions in the Personal Wireless Service Communications Ordinance would trump any special use permit that
was approved prior to the ordinance's adoption. Just to be clear this was a facility that was approved in the year
2000 and the current ordinance for wireless facilities was adopted in 2004. So it is not a tiered facility per say. It
is only subject to a special use permit. Their argument is that since three antennas are allowed by right then they
should be allowed to add it by right. They would like to have approved in this case to have two additional antenna
arrays on this facility if that is possible without further advertisement. She would be happy to answer any
questions.
There being no questions for the applicant, Mr. Morris invited public comment. There being no public comment,
the public hearing was closed and the matter before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Franco asked if staff has a comment regarding the applicant's request for the third array.
Mr. Kamptner replied that looking at the county's wireless regulations there is a distinction between the projects
that qualify for a Tier I application and other types of applications. The intent for Tier I Facilities was not to allow
the expansion to the third array of towers to existing wireless facilities. Those that were processed after the new
wireless regulations kicked in would be processed as a Tier II application. The Tier I types of structures to which
antenna arrays can be added with just a building permit were existing structures other than wireless facilities such
as buildings. There is a subtle distinction in the regulations that make that difference. Because this particular
application did not qualify as either a Tier I or Tier 11 it is processed as essentially a Tier III, a special use permit
application.
Mr. Cilimberg noted the legal advertisement that ran was for three new flush mounted antennas. Therefore, that
is what can be acted on and nothing more than that as he understands it requires a special use permit.
Mr. Kamptner asked if he was talking about taking a different action than what was advertised.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that was what the applicant was requesting.
Mr. Kamptner agreed with Mr. Cilimberg that staff's recommendation would be to simply act on the application as
advertised. He noted that staff is working with the wireless industry towards amending the regulations.
Motion. Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded based on the findings in the staff report to recommend
approval to the Board of Supervisors of SP-2012-00005 Verizon Wireless 1-64 East" Tier III Personal Wireless
Service Facility with the modifications and conditions provided in the staff report.
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with what is described in the applicant's request and site
plans, entitled 1-64 East LTE 4G Upgrade", with a final zoning drawing submittal date of 4/13/12 (hereafter
"Conceptual Plan"), as determined by the Director of Planning and Zoning Administrator. To be in accord
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — 3
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES — April 24, 2012 — ZTA-2012-00005 Bed and Breakfast/Tourist Lodging,
SP-2012-00005 Verizon Wireless 1-64 East" Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility, and
SP-2012-00006 Verizon Wireless "Yancey Mills" Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility
SUBMITTED TO BOS JUNE 6T" MTG
with the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the following major elements within the
development essential to the design of the development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan:
a. Height
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
MODIFICATIONS
• Zoning Ordinance Modifications:
— Section 5.1.40 (a)(4e)- topography.
— Section 5.1.40 (a)(4)(f)- height, caliper and tree species
— Section 5.1.40(a)(4g)- setbacks, parking and landscaping
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Morris noted that SP-2012-00005 Verizon Wireless 1-64 East" Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility
and the modifications will go to the Board of Supervisors on a date to be determined with a recommendation for
approval.
SP-2012-00006 Verizon Wireless "Yancey Mills" Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility
PROPOSED: Request for installation of a three new flush -mounted antennas. This is an amendment of SP 2000-
27 #4a, which limits the structure to what is shown on the approved plans.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA, Rural Areas- agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential
density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots)
SECTION: 10.2.2 (48) which allows for Tier III personal wireless facilities in the RA Zoning District
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas in Rural Area 3 -preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre in development lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: YES
LOCATION: 207 Patterson Mill Lane
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07100-00-00-037JO
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller
(Sarah Baldwin)
Sarah Baldwin presented a Power -Point presentation and summarized the proposal.
This request is very similar to the prior one. It is an amendment to the existing special use permit for a Tier III
tower in Yancey Mills as described above. It is located in the rural areas and Entrance Corridor. It is wooded
area.
As previously stated this was approved prior to the current regulations for a personal wireless service facility.
Therefore, it is subject to a special use permit. At this time the applicant has elected to amend the special use
permit in this case. This is a request to install a second flush mounted antenna array on an existing PWSF.
This request will amend condition 4A of SP2000-27 to allow more than one antenna array. Many of the conditions
in the current special use permit can be eliminated since they are now required regulations in the ordinance.
The changes to the tower will include additional antenna array, a minor expansion of a fenced area, and
associated ground equipment. The applicant has submitted plans and photo simulations to show the proposed
changes. The existing tower is located at 90' AGL. The new antenna array will be located at 82' AGL.
Based upon the existing factors and proposed changes and the analysis of the requirements of the ordinance
staff found the following factors favorable and unfavorable to this application
Favorable Factors
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — 4
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES — April 24, 2012 — ZTA-2012-00005 Bed and Breakfast/Tourist Lodging,
SP-2012-00005 Verizon Wireless " I-64 East" Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility, and
SP-2012-00006 Verizon Wireless "Yancey Mills" Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility
SUBMITTED TO BOS JUNE 6T" MTG
1. The proposal is on an existing facility and the additional antenna will not increase or cause any new
impacts to adjacent properties or important resources.
2. The proposal meets most of the requirements of 5.1,40 except for the current SP conditions which limit
the number of antenna arrays to what is shown on the plan.
Unfavorable Factors - None identified.
Recommendation:
• Staff recommends approval of the additional antenna array with associated ground equipment and
modifications provided herein with the conditions outlined in the staff report.
There being no questions for staff, Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the
Commission.
Laurie Schweller, attorney with LeClair Ryan representing Verizon Wireless, said her comments about this
application are exactly the same as the previous comments. They are proposing a very similar change to this
facility and again they see this change as a Tier I co -location that should be approved by right with a building
permit. She would be happy to answer any questions.
There being no questions for the applicant, Mr. Morris invited public comment. There being no public comment,
the public hearing was closed and the matter before the Planning Commission.
Motion. Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded based on the findings in the staff report to recommend
approval to the Board of Supervisors of SP-2012-00006 Verizon Wireless "Yancey Mills" Tier III Personal
Wireless Service Facility with the modifications and conditions provided in the staff report.
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with what is described in the applicant's request and site
plans, entitled "Yancey Mills LTE 4G Upgrade", with a final zoning drawing submittal date of 4/13/12 (hereafter
"Conceptual Plan"), as determined by the Director of Planning and Zoning Administrator. To be in accord
with the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the following major elements within the
development essential to the design of the development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan:
a. Height
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
MODIFICATIONS. -
Zoning Ordinance Modifications:
— Section 5.1.40(a)(4e)- topography.
— Section 5.1.40(a)(4)(f)- height, caliper and tree species
— Section 5.1.40(a)(4)(g)- setbacks, parking and landscaping
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Morris noted that SP-2012-00006 Verizon Wireless "Yancey Mills" Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility
and the modifications will go to the Board of Supervisors on a date to be determined with a recommendation for
approval.
ZTA-2012-00005 Bed and Breakfast/Tourist Lodging
Amend Secs. 3.1, Definitions, 4.12.6, Minimum number of required parking spaces for scheduled uses, 5.1.17,
Tourist lodging, and 10.2.1, By right, and add Sec. 5.1.48, Bed and breakfast, to Chapter 18, Zoning, of the
Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend the regulations pertaining to transient lodging by amending
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES — April 24, 2012 — ZTA-2012-00005 Bed and Breakfast/Tourist Lodging,
SP-2012-00005 Verizon Wireless 1-64 East" Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility, and
SP-2012-00006 Verizon Wireless "Yancey Mills" Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility
SUBMITTED TO BOS JUNE 6T" MTG
the definitions of "tourist lodging," "boarding house" and "hotel," and adding definitions of "bed and breakfast" and
"transient lodging" (3.1), clarifying that the minimum off-street parking requirements for transient lodging and
hotels is based on the number of "guest rooms" rather than "units" and adding such regulations for the bed and
breakfast use (4.12.6), amending the supplementary regulations for tourist lodging (5.1.17) and adding
supplementary regulations for the bed and breakfast use including, but not limited to, requiring landowner or
manager residency, limiting the number bed and breakfast uses permitted on a parcel, and establishing minimum
yard and parking requirements and minimum approval requirements (5.1.48), and replacing "tourist lodging" with
the "bed and breakfast" use classification in the Rural Areas zoning district (10.2.1). A copy of the full text of the
ordinance is on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and in the Department of Community
Development, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. (Amelia McCulley)
Ms. McCulley passed out the following information:
A. An email received this afternoon from Ms. Sommers.
B. A copy of the one slide that has a previously identified focus issue discussion. However, there are a
couple of other public input points that they have received along the way. Staff will go over that in an
appropriate point in the report.
She presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report on ZTA-2012-00005 Bed and
Breakfast/Tourist Lodging,
ZTA-2012-005 Rural Areas District Transient Lodging (Bed and Breakfast Use)
Albemarle County Planning Commission
Public Hearing
April 24, 2012
History
Comments received in Comprehensive Plan review, including the Agricultural Economy Roundtable (11-
1-11) - current Albemarle regulations don't provide the flexibility needed to support agribusiness and
tourism in the Rural Areas.
Planning Commission resolution of intent adopted March 20th.
Background Information
• Tourist lodging is permitted by -right in every residential zoning district as accessory to single-family
dwelling.
• Must be within a single-family dwelling in which someone resides.
• Maximum of five (5) rooms for transient lodging.
Comparison — Existing and Proposed
Existing Regulations
Proposed Regulations
Tourist LodWn-g
Bed and Breakfast
# Rooms Allowed
5
5
Occupancy of structures used
Must be within single-family structure
Owner or manager shall reside on
that is used as someone's (owner's or
the parcel
manager's) residence
Structures for transient lodging
Must be within a single-family structure
May be within any approved"
structure for the use
`(Building Code, Fire Code and Health
De artment a provals apply)
Focused Discussion
Proposed ordinance requires at least one (1) of the five (5) guest rooms to be located within a single-family (sf)
dwelling. Is this important, or can all 5 rooms be outside a sf dwelling?
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES — April 24, 2012 — ZTA-2012-00005 Bed and Breakfast/Tourist Lodging,
SP-2012-00005 Verizon Wireless 1-64 East" Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility, and
SP-2012-00006 Verizon Wireless "Yancey Mills" Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility
SUBMITTED TO BOS JUNE 6T" MTG
• Pros: The intensity of the use and therefore the land use impact (ex. traffic, water use and wastewater
disposal) are not changed by whether all guest rooms are within a sf dwelling or not.
• Cons: Allowing new construction of structures only for bed and breakfast use (as compared to at least
one that is a single-family structure) intensifies development of the parcel and can create pressure for
lawful conversion use if the bed and breakfast use does not continue. (Keep in mind that the proposed
definition can be met with only one room in the sf dwelling and up to four (4) in other non-residential
structures.
Ms. McCulley noted if a structure is built as a guest room for a bed and breakfast and later that bed and breakfast
discontinues that structure would need to become a lawful use by right. So it would have to find some agricultural
use, which she would offer as less likely or some kind of accessory residential use, which is much more likely.
Accessory residential uses can range from game rooms, workshops and all kinds of spaces. The con in this whole
issue if they are not requiring at least one guestroom be within a single-family dwelling, then there will be more
structures that could be devoted purely to B & B use and not residential use initially. She asked if the
Commission wants to talk about that right now or after the presentation.
Mr. Lafferty asked if they require it to be in the house and they discontinue their B & B efforts and they have four
other facilities outside the same problem exists.
Ms. McCulley agreed.
Mr. Lafferty said being in the house or out of the house really is just the construction of one other unit.
Ms. McCulley agreed since that sums it up. They are dealing with potentially one guest room unit.
There being no further questions, Mr. Morris said the Commission can come back and revisit this issue.
Ms. McCulley noted there were a couple of other points that have come up. Again, to keep in mind since there is
some concern based on what she was reading and some of the public input that structures that could be used for
a B & B use could be less safe or potentially be exempt just as farm winery and agricultural structures are exempt
from the Building Code. Under the second bullet, as a reminder that any structure that would be used for a
guestroom that is not already a residential use would have to go through a building permit and meet Building
Code, Fire Code, and health department approvals.
Points to Keep in Mind
• Any structure that meets the definition of a dwelling unit requires compliance with zoning regulations for
such (density, development rights, setbacks, site plan, etc.).
• Any structure in which guest rooms will be located (whether a sf dwelling or a non-residential existing or
proposed) shall require approval from the Fire Official, the Building Official and the Health Department (as
applicable).
This is all to say that the current regulations still cover the construction or retrofitting of a building that is a
dwelling. She thinks there was some concern about that.
Mr. Morris asked with this new proposal can a Bed and Breakfast be part and parcel of a business concern such
as a winery. The reason he asks is that a winery cannot have kitchen facilities as he recalls. It has to be catered
in. However, a Bed and Breakfast needs a kitchen facility to provide breakfast.
Ms. McCulley replied that a B & B can be on a property that is licensed as a farm winery. A farm winery actually
can have a kitchen as long as they meet all of the health department requirements and any applicable state
„requirements for that kitchen. They actually allow farm wineries to serve food to pare with the wine for tastings
and they can serve full meals for farm winery events. In answer to the question, yes they can have a use on a
farm winery property. However, there is not the same exemption of local zoning requirements or building
requirements that extends to a B & B use that a farm winery enjoys under the State Code. They are treated
differently in terms of regulations. For Building Code purposes provided that they don't have more than the five
rooms under our current regulations they are treated as residential and have to met residential requirements.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — 7
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES — April 24, 2012 — ZTA-2012-00005 Bed and Breakfast/Tourist Lodging,
SP-2012-00005 Verizon Wireless 1-64 East" Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility, and
SP-2012-00006 Verizon Wireless "Yancey Mills" Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility
SUBMITTED TO BOS JUNE 6T" MTG
There are slightly higher requirements in terms of things like egress. But, it is treated as a residential use with a
max of five rooms.
Mr. Cilimberg asked to keep in mind while at a farm winery the Bed and Breakfast has to be associated with a
single family dwelling. Most farm wineries have a single family dwelling on their property. It is actually something
they can have independent of a single family dwelling at a farm winery. But, they still need to have that dwelling
there to have the Bed and Breakfast.
Ms. McCulley noted that after the ordinance was attached to the report and received was the Building Official
suggestion that they repeat the reference to the Building Official in the intro language under the supplemental
regulations. If the Planning Commission recommends approval tonight she asked that they consider
recommending approval with this revision.
Minor Revision
• Insert reference to Building Official in 5.1.17 intro:
Sec. 5.1.17 Tourist lodging
The zoning administrator shall issue a zoning compliance clearance fortourist lodging provided that the Albemarle
County fire official and the Virginia Department of Health issue their approvals for the use, and all other applicable
requirements of this chapter are satisfied. Before the z_onina administrator agnroves a zonino clearance for a
tourist lodoina use under section_1.5 , th_e owner of�he parcel shall obtain approvals of the use from the building
official,_�_visl n of fire_re�cue an�._the _Virginia__De artment_of Health, and shall satisf other ap lip cable
reauirements ofhis chapter (Amended 10-3-01)
-- --
Ms. McCulley asked to talk about some of the public input. Staff received a couple emails and letters. Last week
an email was received from Peter Hallock who is recommending if they allow this use that they restrict
development rights on the property. It is her understanding that for a by -right use they do not have the legal
authority to restrict development rights. Mr. Kamptner can confirm or deny that. It is a ministerial act and a by
right use.
Mr. Kamptner agreed that was correct.
Ms. McCulley noted that a letter of support from the Free Enterprise Forum from Neil Williamson, President, had
been distributed. For several reasons they were suggesting that the Commission recommend approval of this
ordinance. Another email received late this afternoon was from Ms. Sommers who is present tonight.
Ms. McCulley said she has talked about a couple of things.
• One is that not" all striirtimms ran hp rnnuar#ar1
• Another question is does each parcel require its own parcel manager for a B & B use. The answer is yes.
The owner or the manager must reside on the property.
• What if a winery with 5 parcels wants to aggregate 5 room structures into one-25 room structure? Does
this proposal mean that they would end up with the equivalent of a Comfort Inn on land zoned rural areas.
The answer is no that would not be permitted. Once they have a structure with more than 5 guest rooms
by definition it is not a B & B. It is a hotel or an inn. An inn is only currently allowed by special use permit
and they are looking at that under the Comprehensive Plan.
• One other comment was a question of whether the expansion of administration of this regulation can be
handled by existing staff resources. By way of response she noted that under the current regulations
county wide they are allowed in residential districts, rural areas and village residential for tourist lodging.
The county receives one to two requests for tourist lodging a year. On a busy year they receive three to
four tourist lodging applications. So even if it increased greatly, staff can handle with our routine business
and existing staff that number of applications. They may get a rush initially, but she did not anticipate that
it would continue.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — g
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES —April 24, 2012 — ZTA-2012-00005 Bed and Breakfast/Tourist Lodging,
SP-2012-00005 Verizon Wireless 1-64 East" Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility, and
SP-2012-00006 Verizon Wireless "Yancey Mills" Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility
SUBMITTED TO BOS JUNE 6T" MTG
Summary
• Staff recommends approval of this ordinance amendment because it will better meet the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan and the Strategic Plan. Recommend insertion of "building official" into approvals
listed in Section 5.1.17, in staff's handout.
• Motion to recommend approval to the Board of Attachment A, proposed ordinance for transient lodging in
the Rural Areas.
• Public hearing with the BOS on June 6, 2012.
Definitions
• Bed and Breakfast A use composed of transient lodaina provided within a sinale family dwelling and one
or more structures that are accessory to the single family dwelling having not m re than five (5) guest
rooms_in_the agar ate _which also may include rooms for dining for overniaht guests or other
transient guests and for meetings for private parties that are accessory to the bed and breakfast use.
There was one additional public comment not responded to, which was:Art Bettrone's letter. Mr. Beltrone was not
able to be present tonight. He made several good points that she has spoken with Mr. Kamptner about. His first
concern relates to the existing language that seems to imply that they could essentially expand the use to provide
flood service to the extent of a restaurant on the property because there is reference to dining, private parties, and
so forth. That is not the intent.; The intent is only to provide food for those guests lodging as guests of the B & R
They may want to tighten up that language to clarify that they are not expanding the use to a restaurant. The
second is a question about noise enforcement particularly as it relates to B & B on farm winery property. Under
state law farm winery events the noise regulations from farm winery events is limited to limited to outdoor
amplified music. The concern is whether this is going to set up a double standard because noise from a B & B
use is subject to decibel level standards whether it is outside or inside there is a noise standard. She appreciates
the concern. She thought they were hearing some of these kind of double standard concerns about farm winery
uses and other rural area uses as they have been receiving public input with the rural area Comp Plan work.
There is a noise regulation that applies to B & B uses.
To go back to the focused discussion it was summed up pretty well that they are really just talking about one
guest room. It boils down to one guest room and whether it was critical to keep one of the rooms in the dwelling.
Does it make that much difference in the scheme of things.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Randolph said that Mr. Williamson says in his letter that he supports the proposed changes because it will
provide adaptive reuse of structures that may have exhausted their original architectural intent. He thought Mr.
Williamson's wording was excellent there about one of the rationales behind this. As written right now someone
could come to the county with a one bedroom house and say they wanted to open a B & B. They would get the
permit to do it and then could add an additional structure that would have up to 4 bedrooms in it to operate a B &
B. That does not do anything to their objective to meet the needs of these larger structures that are out there
which are associated with historical farms that have thousands of acres. Because of the challenges of agriculture
many large farms are no longer viable working farms. They are looking for an adaptive reuse for the larger
historical farms. He suggested a need to try to find a middle ground between the B & B, which is 5 bedrooms,
and the use of an historical structure with more bedrooms that now would be labeled an inn/hotel. What can they
do for that person.
Mr. Cilimberg noted they have an allowance in the ordinance that they really did not address with this because
historic landmark structures through special use permit can be used for inns. It can be used for more than 5
guestrooms. That allowance exists to speak to the more specific point of an historic house or an estate, which is
something that can be obtained through special use permit. Beyond that and what they see tonight the other
potential accommodations for more than five that the Commission agree that they should be looking at as part of
the Comprehensive Plan work. They would be looking not only what would be appropriate numbers but where
those locations might be. That is something they are still reviewing and would be bringing back to the Commission
with the Comprehensive Plan. This is a small part of a larger potential set of changes that could occur. Staff did
not want the Commission to lose sight of the fact that they do actually have in the ordinance already an
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — g
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES — April 24, 2012 — ZTA-2012-00005 Bed and BreakfasUTourist Lodging,
SP-2012-00005 Verizon Wireless 1-64 East" Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility, and
SP-2012-00006 Verizon Wireless "Yancey Mills" Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility
SUBMITTED TO BOS JUNE 6T" MTG
accommodation for historic landmark homes to be something different than a bed and breakfast if they want to be
through special use permit.
Mr. Randolph asked if the historical designation would have to be a minimum of 50 years old for the structure.
Mr. Cilimberg replied it was whatever qualifies it as a property on the list recognizes a state or national register
property.
Mr. Kamptner noted the rural areas regulations tie it to a historic landmark as designated in the Comprehensive
Plan, which he think in turn refers to the state or national designations.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited public comment.
Ms. Judith Sommers, resident of Keswick, said she lived on a farm next door to Castle Hill, Castle Hill Cider and
about a mile from Keswick Winery. The made the following comments:
• This is in large part a winery issue because she sees the burden of this kind of development putting an
additional burden on the people who already are neighbors of wineries. She sees it as extending the
party to go all night. They breathe relief when the music goes off and the people go away.
• Many large properties are comprised of more than one parcel. If they can build a 5 room structure on
each parcel who knows how many guests they could accommodate. The existing regulation regarding
tourist lodging protects rural residents because an on -site owner or resident manager can keep the lid on
the number of people using the five rental rooms in a single-family structure and presumably can control
the noise level of late -hour activities. Imagine the impact on neighbors if a few 20-somethings rent a
separate five -room structure and the whole fraternity spends the night there partying. Also, remember the
tragedy at Clifton Inn when the property was left unattended by management.
• Many rural properties consist of multiple parcels and Ms. McCulley said that each B & B on a parcel
would have its own manager. She can still see five one -room structures close to each other even though
not attached. However, they could still be close enough to have a large number of people together to
have a big noisy party until 3 a.m. Staff time does not have enough time to go investigate noise
complaints, but staff says they can handle all of these most likely new applications for B & B's. The
wineries would have you believe that no one under 65 will rent the rooms and that renters will be quiet
and respectful of the neighbors late at night and that nothing but good will come from pursuing their own
financial self interest. She for one does not really believe that.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Morris closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Cilimberg asked to make a point of clarification in answering the question regarding the historic designated
homes. One thing he did not note is that those structures or homes are one point would have needed to be a
restaurant, tavern, or inn. So that is a little higher bar. That is one of the things they will look at actually during
the Comp Plan work whether that is still is necessary in trying to establish where inns could be in the rural area.
That is one of several issues they will need to look at.
Mr. Morris invited discussion.
Mr. Randolph said he was struck that they have a definitional distinction issue here. He did not see any problem
with B & B's going into the rural area as a B & B in its own right. However, when a B & B gets attached to a
winery there clearly are issues. The amount of feedback and emails he has received, two of which came from
Keswick, were about B & B's and wineries.. He would like the Commission try to find a way to get a legal
distinction between B & B's in the rural area and B & B's in a winery. He thinks issues of noise, traffic and safety
violations, etc. are very different. Mr. Williamson's letter was about trying to ensure that. they have adaptive use
of historic structures that have lost those economic advantages in the current day and age. He also in remarks he
made to the Chamber that got circulated says he is looking for a rising tide in empowering opportunity. He thinks
they are all in favor of a rising tide and empowering opportunity in the rural area, but he wanted significant credit
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — 10
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES — April 24, 2012 — ZTA-2012-00005 Bed and Breakfast/Tourist Lodging,
SP-2012-00005 Verizon Wireless 1-64 East" Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility, and
SP-2012-00006 Verizon Wireless "Yancey Mills" Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility
SUBMITTED TO BOS JUNE 6T" MTG
for the economic impact of the proposal. However, clearly what is being surfaced here today are some negatives
of the economic impact of a proposal when they put a B & B together with a winery. The problem comes up with
a B & B with a winery in a rural area. There seems to be another whole set of issues that the current language he
was not really confident addresses.
Mr. Morris said he had gotten the same input from constituents that are very concerned about the B &
B/Inn/Winery. He would like to see that looked at.
Mr. Cilimberg said in actuality right now any winery can have a tourist lodging, which they are calling B & B, but it
would just have to be within the single-family dwelling. He did not know if the change is made for rural area use
to allow by right a tourist lodging now called B & B under the proposed regulations that they could separate a farm
winery. They are considered to be a by right use in the rural area that is associated with the normal activities that
would be anticipated on agricultural property. He was not sure statutory they could make that distinction.
Mr. Morris said he understands, but that this is a concern for a lot of people that the Commissioners are hearing
from.
Mr. Franco said if he heard right, ultimately if he had a winery and it caters to a wedding and they have a concern
about the noise, and the party wants to continue at the B & B, it is subject to a different set of standards which is
the rural area noise standards. Therefore, it would be subject to the same standards the B & B would be subject
to on a separate parcel from the winery. It does not give it a license to continue a loud party or noise above and
beyond what is allowed simply because it is on a winery property.
Mr. Morris said if the party continues at to a B & B from the winery the people responsible for responding to that
would be the police and not the zoning department. He asked if that was correct.
Mr. Kamptner replied that where the farm winery use ends and where the B&B use begins as far as noise he
thinks he would look to where it is occurring. If it is at the B&B it would be enforced under the zoning regulations.
The way the entire zoning ordinance is set up is that they have a number of uses allowed by right in each district
and by special use permit. If the area and bulk, etc. requirements can be satisfied a particular parcel can hold
multiple primary uses. Those would be the uses allowed within the particular district. When they are looking at
the distinction between the impacts from a farm winery as a by right use and tourist lodging, which is the use
currently allowed or bed and breakfast — as long as the area and bulk and the other requirements can be satisfied
they are allowed by right. Our regulations really don't make a distinction as to how many of those permitted uses
a particular parcel is allowed to have. So a farm winery could have an agricultural processing facility, a farm
winery, and tourist lodging all on the same parcel right now provided that those area and bulk regulations are
satisfied. They also have to be mindful of the uniformity requirement under the state law. The U.S. and the State
Constitutions requires that land that is similarly situated is supposed to be treated similarly. Generally the uses
that are allowed within the district need to be available to all of the parcels._ Lona story short -At is aoina to be
Mr. Randolph said what he was trying to look for is some way that they provide a reasonable level of protection
for residents around these increasingly Disneyland type farm wineries that have multiple areas of activity going on
— entertainment as well as agricultural productivity. The residents should not have to suffer for the fact that their
neighbor has now taken on farm winey activities, some of which are extremely noisy at night because do they
have the regulatory muscle currently in terms of police functioning and staff to be able to be intermediately
responsive to come out with a noise meter. If there are no meaningful teeth there, then the party may go on.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that could happen right now. This is not changing any circumstance other than the allowance
for the room for that bed & breakfast to be in a separate structure associated with the single-family dwelling on the
property whether there is a farm winery there or not. The numbers are not increasing. In fact, what they realized
today in talking about these provisions is currently if they have 5 single family dwellings on a parcel they can have
5 separate bed & breakfasts in the house. This will limit that property to only two. So there is a part of this that is
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — 11
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES — April 24, 2012 — ZTA-2012-00005 Bed and Breakfast/Tourist Lodging,
SP-2012-00005 Verizon Wireless 1-64 East" Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility, and
SP-2012-00006 Verizon Wireless "Yancey Mills" Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility
SUBMITTED TO BOS JUNE 6T" MTG
scaling back what theoretically could occur. The reality is that is not occurring to his knowledge. However, it
could under the current ordinance provisions.
Mr. Smith asked if they are treating a dirt farmer or a livestock producer any differently from the way they are
conducting a business affecting a winery.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that as long as they are a by right use it is all the same.
Mr. Loach said if in fact the winery has a bed and breakfast the regulation is they still need to have a resident
manager on site. Essentially there would be a point of contact should there be noise. Hopefully it would be
published somewhere that they would be available and if someone called the police there is a point of contact.
Mr. Kamptner asked if they got closure about the room within the single-family dwelling issue.
Ms. McCulley replied no she did not really hear consensus. What she thought she saw in their response was that
it does not make a difference and they should not have to be within.
Mr. Morris agreed.
Ms. McCulley said in response to the comments that Mr. Beltrone made about making sure they don't tip the
scale to allowing a restaurant by some of the language. Staff is going to tighten that up because they intend to do
that.
Mr. Kamptner added that the proposed supplemental regulations in 5.1.48 expressly prohibit a restaurant. Staff
will tighten up the definition of bed and breakfast so that the dining is limited to the transient guests. They will find
the right terminology. Also, that the meetings for private parties are tied to the transient guests as well. They will
tighten up the definitions to address those issues.
Mr. Lafferty said it would be so it would not be used for a restaurant.
Mr. Kamptner agreed.
Mr. Morris asked staff what action would staff like the Planning Commission to take. He asked if it was the
adoption of the draft ordinance.
Ms. McCulley replied that the Commission would recommend approval of this ordinance to the Board and it was
scheduled for them to hear in public hearing on June 6.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out it was with the recommended changes to be finalized to the definition of bed and
breakfast and to the language in Section 5.1.17 to include the building official as one of those who need to
approve dwellings used for tourist lodging.
Mr. Lafferty said the definition does not require that it be one of them being in the residence. He asked if that is
what they are saying.
Mr. Morris replied that was correct.
Mr. Kamptner replied yes, staff would make that correction.
Ms. McCulley agreed they wanted to make it crystal clear so there is no wiggle room related to dining in the
definition since they did not intend to open up dining to those who were not lodging in the bed and breakfast.
Mr. Franco asked for clarification if the motion was to allow all five rooms to be in a separate structure.
Mr. Lafferty replied that was correct.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — 12
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES — April 24, 2012 — ZTA-2012-00005 Bed and Breakfast/Tourist Lodging,
SP-2012-00005 Verizon Wireless 1-64 East" Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility, and
SP-2012-00006 Verizon Wireless "Yancey Mills" Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility
SUBMITTED TO BOS JUNE 6T" MTG
Motion: Mr. Lafferty moved and Mr. Franco seconded to recommend approval of ZTA-2012-00005 Bed and
Breakfast/Tourist Lodging with staff's proposed ordinance language in Attachment A with the recommended
changes to be finalized to the definition of bed and breakfast and to the language in Section 5.1.17 to include the
building official as one of those who need to approve dwellings used for tourist lodging. The motion was to allow
all five rooms to be in a separate structure.
The motion passed by a vote of 4:2. (Smith and Randolph voted nay)
Mr. Morris noted that ZTA-2012-00005 Bed and Breakfast/Tourist Lodging would be forwarded to the Board of
Supervisors with a recommendation for approval to be heard on June 6.
In summary, the Planning Commission recommended approval, by a vote of 4:2, (Smith, Randolph voted
nay) of ZTA-2012-00005 inclusive of staff's proposed ordinance language with the three recommended changes
that will be made to the Bed and Breakfast/Tourist Lodging ZTA:
1. The definition of "bed and breakfast" will be clarified to assure that the rooms for dining and for meetings
are for guests of the bed and breakfast.
2. The definition of "bed and breakfast" will be clarified to allow the guest rooms to be in a structure other
than the single family dwelling (i.e., eliminating the requirement that at least guest room be in the single
family dwelling).
3. Section 5.1.17 will be revised to add "building official" to the class of officials from whom approvals are
required for tourist lodging.
The Planning Commission took a break at 7:09 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:15 p.m.
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — 13
PARTIAL DRAFT MINUTES — April 24, 2012 — ZTA-2012-00005 Bed and Breakfast/Tourist Lodging,
SP-2012-00005 Verizon Wireless 1-64 East" Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility, and
SP-2012-00006 Verizon Wireless "Yancey Mills" Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility
SUBMITTED TO BOS JUNE 6T" MTG