HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP202000009 Staff Report 2020-07-07COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia22902-4579
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
ELECTRONIC MEETING
AGENDA
TUESDAY, JULY 7, 2020 at 2:00 P.M.
Call to Order
2. Establish a Quorum
3. Public Hearing:
A. Project Number: SP202000009 North Pointe Middle Entrance Sign
Property Owner/Applicant: CWH Properties Limited Partnership
TM P: 03200-00-00-02000
Staff: Bart Svoboda
4. Approval of Minutes
A. June 2. 2020
5. Old Business
6. New Business
7. Adjournment
This meeting is being held pursuant to Ordinance No. 20-A(8): An Ordinance to Ensure the
Continuity of Government During the Covid-19 Disaster. Opportunities for the public to
access and participate in this electronic meeting are (or will be) provided at
http://www.albemarle.org/department.asp?department=cdd&relpage=24716.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ELECTRONIC MEETING GUIDELINES
Thank you for attending the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) electronic meeting. The following information is
provided to help ensure the meeting proceeds as efficiently and effectively as possible. As a courtesy to
others, please turn off all unused cell phones during the meeting.
General Information:
This meeting is recorded and later transcribed into minutes approved at a later meeting date.
Each item set for public hearing will begin with a presentation of the staff report. Next, the applicant or
appellant for that item will be invited to speak. During the course of the process, the Chairman will open the
public hearing to comments from the public. At the end of these proceedings the Chairman will announce that
the public hearing is closed. Once the public hearing is closed, no further public comments will be allowed
unless the Board asks for additional information from the applicant or appellant. For staff and applicants, there
is a 15 minute time limit for presentations and a 5 minute time limit for rebuttal comments.
The BZA reserves the right to digress from these guidelines in any particular case.
To Members of the Public:
If you wish to address the BZA during the public hearing, please follow the instructions below:
- Log in/call in early.
- Via Web: Use the "Raise Hand" icon to notify the BZA Clerk that you would like to sign up to address a public
hearing item. The Clerk will acknowledge you and list your name on the sign-up sheet for the specific
public hearing item. When the public hearing is opened, the Clerk will introduce each speaker for
comment.
- Via Phone: Press '9 to notify the BZA Clerk that you would like to sign up to address a public hearing item.
The Clerk will acknowledge you and list your name on the sign-up sheet for the specific public hearing
item. When the public hearing is opened, the Clerk will introduce each speaker for comment.
If you do not sign up to speak prior to the meeting, an opportunity to sign up will be given prior to the close of
the public hearing. When this opportunity is announced, follow the directions above to notify the BZA Clerk
that you would like to provide comment on a public hearing item.
Time keeping is conducted through a timer. Each speaker is allotted three (3) minutes to comment. The timer
will commence when you begin speaking; you will be notified when three minutes has ended, and you are
requested to bring your comments to a close as your microphone will be muted after several seconds.
In order to give all speakers equal treatment and courtesy, the BZA requests that speakers adhere to the
following guidelines:
• When called to address the BZA, please state your name. For uncommon spellings, please spell your name
for the record.
• Address comments directly to the BZA as a whole - open public debate is prohibited.
• You may email written statements and other relevant material to Board ofZoningAppealsCa albemarle.org
to be included in the record.
• If you represent a group or organization, you may identify the group to be recognized.
• If you exceed your allotted time, you will be asked to end your comments and the microphone will be muted.
• If a speaker does not use all allocated time, the unused time may not be shared with another speaker.
• Speakers are permitted one opportunity to comment during each of the public comment periods per meeting.
Additional Guidelines for Applicants and Appellants addressing the Board:
Understand that the Board of Zoning Appeals cannot change County ordinances.
The BZA reserves the right to place additional time limitations on speakers, as necessary.
STAFF: Bart Svoboda
PUBLIC HEARING: July 7, 2020
STAFF REPORT: SP2020-00009 North Pointe Middle Entrance Sign in a Public
Right-of-way
PETITION: David Mitchell (Applicant) is petitioning the Board of Zoning Appeals for a
special use permit for a sign to be located in a proposed public right-of-way at the
middle entrance to the approved planned development known as North Pointe along
Seminole Trail (Rt. 29N), per Section 4.15.7(c) of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The Applicant proposes to erect a sign 10.5 ft x 3.0 ft. in
size (31.5 square feet) at the entrance to the North Pointe Development currently under
construction (Attachments A and B). The proposed sign will comply with the sign
regulations in terms of size and height.
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY: The subject property (Parcel
ID 03200-00-00-020000) is located along the northbound lane of Seminole Trail (Rt.
29N) about .75 miles north of the intersection of Seminole Trail (Route 29N) and Proffit
Road (Route 649). The North Point Development is designed to have three entrances
from Seminole Trail. The applicant is proposing the sign with this proposal to be
installed in the median of the middle entrance. The property is zoned Planned
Development Mixed Commercial and is also located in an Entrance Corridor Overlay
(Attachment C).
CHARACTER OF THE AREA: The subject property is zoned Planned Development
Mixed Commercial (PD-MC). Various site plan and subdivision applications have been
reviewed or are currently being reviewed for compliance with the approved zoning and
all applicable ordinances. The properties surrounding the subject property are zoned
Rural Areas (RA), and Residential (R15) as well as Heavy Industrial (HI), and
Residential (R1) across Seminole Trail. The sign is proposed to be at the middle
entrance, and that entrance aligns with the Northside Drive entrance on the southbound
land of Seminole Trail. This property is located within the Places 29 Master Plan
Comprehensive Plan Area (Attachment C).
REASON FOR REVIEW (Attachment F): County Code §18-4.15.7 permits signs in a
public right-of-way only by special use permit.
A sign in a public right-of-way shall satisfy the following
The sign:
(i) shall be either a subdivision sign or a sign at an entrance to a planned
development authorized by sections 19, 20, 25, 25A, and 29;
The sign is proposed to be located at the middle entrance of the
development zoned PD-MC.
(ii) the subdivision or planned development shall abut the public right-of-way in
which the sign will be located;
The development abuts Seminole Trail (Route 29N), a public right-of-
way and the sign will be within the public right-of-way of the
proposed road that is identified as the middle entrance to the
development.
(iii)the regulations applicable to freestanding signs for the subdivision or planned
development, except for setback regulations, shall apply unless the Virginia
Department of Transportation imposes more restrictive standards; and
The sign will meet all the applicable regulations for a freestanding
sign except the setback as the sign is proposed to be within a
public right-of-way and not setback from it. No additional
requirements have been imposed by VDOT.
(iv)the applicant submits a written statement from the Virginia Department of
Transportation, stating that it will permit the sign to be located in the public
right-of-way.
The Virginia Department of Transportation has provided a written
statement that will permit the sign to be located in the public right-
of-way.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY: ZMA 2000-00009 approved the North Pointe
planned development in 2006.
The Architectural Review Board (ARB) provided conditional approval of application ARB
2020-28 on June 15, 2020 (Attachment D).
ARB REVIEW: This property is located on Seminole Trail (Route 29N), which is an
entrance corridor (EC). Because the proposed sign would be visible from the EC, it is
subject to ARB approval of a certificate of appropriateness. The ARB, by a vote 5:0,
approved the Certificate of Appropriateness (ARB2020-28) on June 15, 2020.
The ARB conditional approval criteria address such factors as sign base design, lighting
and landscaping. These design criteria support the purposes of the sign regulations in
terms of the general welfare, appearance of streets, and enhancement of the County's
attractiveness for economic development.
STAFF COMMENT:
Under County Code § 18-34.5(i), The board shall reasonably consider the following
factors when it is reviewing and acting on a special use permit: (underline emphasis
added):
No substantial detriment. The proposed special use will not be a substantial
detriment to adjacent lots.
The proposed sign would be perpendicular to the road and meets all
applicable regulations for freestanding signs within the PD-MC
zoning district. With the sign as proposed and subject to the
applicable ARB design criteria, staff believes that there will be no
substantial detriment to adjacent lots and roadways, or the purpose
and intent of the Entrance Corridor overlay district.
2. Character of the nearby area is unchanged. The character of the district will not
be changed by the proposed special use.
With the sign as proposed and subject to the applicable ARB design
criteria, staff believes that there will be no change to the character of
the district.
Harmony. The proposed special use will be in harmony with the purpose and
intent of this chapter, with the uses permitted by right in the district, with the
regulations provided in sections 4 and 5, as applicable, and with the public
health, safety, and welfare.
As previously noted, this proposal is in harmony with applicable
Zoning Ordinance regulations, and there are no applicable
regulations in Section 5 for signs.
4. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed special use will be
consistent with the comprehensive plan.
The subject property is within the Places 29 Master Plan
Comprehensive Plan Area. The Comprehensive Plan does not
directly address uses such as this. However, if the sign meets the
ARB design criteria, it would be consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. (Attachment E for the Comprehensive Plan Map.)
Staff believes that this proposal satisfies the goals of the sign regulations and the
criteria for issuance of a special use permit subject to the proposed conditions. Though
staff does not typically attach conditions of approval that are already requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance, compliance with the ARB design criteria is critical to this sign
satisfying the criteria for issuance of a special use permit. Therefore, staff has included
a condition referring to the certificate of appropriateness, in order to incorporate the
ARB's design criteria.
SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval of this request, with the following conditions:
1. Provide authorization from the Virginia Department of Transportation for the
final location of the sign.
2. The sign shall comply with the conditions outlined for the certificate of
appropriateness as approved by the Architectural Review Board, Attachment D
of the report.
Attachment A - Proposed Sign Design
Attachment B - Sign Location Aerial Photo
Attachment C - Zoning Map and Entrance Corridor Overlay
Attachment D - ARB conditional approval
Attachment E - Comprehensive Plan Map
Attachment F - Albemarle County Ordinance References
ATTACHMENT A
r -"',,,32 -19B
32
32-19BB
J2-9C
7e� 32-901 32-6RA32I'1 ,�J"A_ 3? 9
32-17B
o is
32-17
32-18
W
h
W
32-17135 *
L
AD [J O M
32-17A1 p
R
h
hrA
p
32-41 D2
i�
32B-A
32E
4e
7�&,2-221
32-2
� c
32-67
Ov - 32-22J
bn'
32-22C1
\
32: 22F
h hti h�
Nbtthside'DF 32-74
! 32-22E
f
3T-22K
32-23E b
32-23F
32 -22M 32-23 may,
c
q 32-23H
N
NORTH POINTE 3223HE
O Yti: 32-
32 -2 2 N PROPOSED SIGN "?
„p v
3a. ,. LOCATION
32-244 ay.
-21 A @ @
21-li0 _
32-24U1
� v
y TMP 32-20 32-23J
/ (PORTION) 32-24C
32-291
32 20 32-24X
32-20A I'
32-24Z
32-2 GA 32-29J 32-24
32-20AT
f 32-29A
!'-.- 32-29B1
32-20A3
33 33-17B
,> 37-17
C7 33-18
33-17A1
33-17Ct 33-168
e 1:
IS AA 7A w
'' ". 33-i8E
IC @ 33-18 13-18C
33-19E '
O ' 33-19F
ti
G4� 33-19D
�r
33-19G
31-19A
19B 33-19
7 32.24J •Try- T j y�i
d3 32-241
TC2 32-24H 32-24V /
'off tF pt-pB-3fi
-24P 32 -24G1� 3TFr OS-OB-Z 'viZ�i3�F Ot-OB- w
waterstreetstudio NORTH POINTE: MIDDLE ENTRANCE SIGN
landscape architects 1 planners 1 engineers ALBEMARLE COUNTY, SPECIAL USE PERMIT PLAN, MAY 4, 2020
N
0 500' 1000' 2000'
3-19C1
33.20
1-. 21
VICINITY MAP
L 1.00
ATTACHMENT)
Field stone w s �i h pillc
North Pointe cunity.
flanking the entry ce. Si
entrance. A verti al alu
and perpendicular o Rte
field stone walls and' ills
Virginia whil luny r"
visual interes
gWage frame the northern entrance o
ry is mounted to the field stone pillars
came the pillars on either side of the
i is situated on the median* the entran e
rk the entrance and optimize visibility. T e
the built landscape ve ar e#-centr I
tlo Took Pike torten ds beauty d
ih
❑ -b °
L NDSCAPE L GHT 40'-0
69'-0" 7-011 do
0
SIGN
E—LI
U--LA DSCAPF LIGHT
-0" 127'-0"
0
S,;LETBA LIN `r'
. o
N rri �,C?
ROUTE 29
OVERALL PLAN
SCALE : 1:30
OVERALL FRONT ELEVATION
waterstreetstudio NORTH POINTE: MIDDLE ENTRANCE SIGN 0 is 30 60
landscape architects I planners I engineers ALBEMARLE COUNTY, SPECIAL USE PERMIT PLAN, MAY 4, 2020
OVERALL PLANS
L 1 00 1
ATTACHMENT
—
V
+ 4!
(5)SMALL FLOWERING TREES
0
OVERALL PLANTING PLAN
SCALE: 1 AU
fit*
L
(8)LARGE SHADE TREES
(10)SMALL FLOWERING TREES
LIMIT OF WORK
waterstreetstudio NORTH POINTE: MIDDLE ENTRANCE SIGN 0 20 40 80
landscape architects I planners I engineers ALBEMARLE COUNTY, SPECIAL USE PERMIT PLAN, MAY 4, 2020
SHADE TREES
HEDGE
��SE6
0
PLANTING PLAN
zfl L 1.02
ATTACHMENT A
4
Zo
J
PLAN
SCALE : 1 :2
2'-104„
FRONT ELEVATION
WIN
SIGN
32 SF MAXIMUM
SIDE ELEVATION (WIDEST SIDE OF SIGN)
J)UALt : 1 :1
ENTRY SIGN
Ovate rstreetstu d i o NORTH POINTE: MIDDLE ENTRANCE SIGN o 1 2 a I1DIMENSIONS
landscape architects I planners I engineers ALBEMARLE COUNTY, SPECIAL USE PERMIT PLAN, MAY 4, 2020 L Z� I *03
ATTACHMENT A
-
��PLAN
�! SCALE : 1:2
wate rstreetstu d i o
landscape architects I planners I engineers
SIGN BASE (STEEL)
VERTICAL SUPPORT
(STEEL)
SIGN
SIGN PEDESTAL
(NATURAL
STONE VENEER)
111
M
FRONT ELEVATION
LE: 1:2
SIGN (ALUMINUM PAINTED
TO LOOK LIKE CORTEN STEEL)
VERTICAL SUPPORT
(STEEL)
SIGN BASE
(NATURAL STONE VENEER)
SHIELDED LANDSCAPE LIGHT
SEE CUTSHEET ON L 1.09 —
CURB FOR MEDIAN
C�
9.7
SIGN (ALUMINUM
PAINTED TO LOOK LIKE
CORTEN STEEL)
32 SF MAXIMUM
PIN -SET LETTERS,
POLYCARBONATE
OR
SIMILAR MATERIAL,
BACK -LIT WITH
TRANSLUCENT FACE
AND OPAQUE
CHANNEL RETURNS,
MAXIMUM SIZE:
V-3' X 1'-0"
TYPEFACE: T.B.D.
VERTICAL SUPPORT
(STEEL)
SIGN BASE,
(NATURAL STONE
VENEER)
SHIELDED LANDSCAPE
SEE CUTSHEET ON L 1.09
SIDE ELEVATION (WIDEST SIDE OF SIGN
SCALE: 1:2
NORTH POINTE: MIDDLE ENTRANCE SIGN 0 1 2 4
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, SPECIAL USE PERMIT PLAN, MAY 4, 2020
z e
ENTRY SIGN
MATERIALS
L 1.04
N
l O P _-
RO
TI
HN
FS, �,�u..r�AjitrllYd.dr
N
OP
RO
TI
HN
E
■ m i
I'm
Aj o P
RO
TI
HN
T
t, E
My determination atopngraptiy or contends, or any deplNtn aphysical Improvements, property lines ca boundaries Is Mr general Ipromotion only and shall W be used for the design, mMlPcallon, or combustion no Improvements to real proper, or for loW plain determination. June 1, 3020
Map elements may scale larger Nan GIG dale maesure0ln Ma ads, or as pmvided on the one dmxiaad page due M Me proleNon used. Map Projection: K3580 NM1L Mercator (rWtllNry SpMre) (EPSG 3857)
Attachment C ZONING MAP
32-22 C 3
'�° ^^ 32-72 32-22C4 32-22F
Legend
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIr'>ry ^dry32-73
32-22C5 \HO 32-74 4 32-22E
r.thsideep�\ �lfp...
=
M
More. sane, Items on map may not appear In legend)
Parcel Into
❑Parcels
N
Zoninglogo
32-$2M
Zoning
.Y Zoning Entrance Cortitlors
ZMA-2010-00009
p=j
Im Proffers,
8 Natural Resource xlraclion overlay
EZoning
32y°v22NORTH POINTE
N
Classifications
fI `PROPOSED SIGN
r `
a+l
Rural Ames
Village Residential
R1 Resitlential
,LOCATION -• `
.����.�.,�•� � �
N ry i
a
07 O 32.22N ZMA-20 0�00009
-..,y�4..WA
ZMA-2013-00007
4
■ R2 Resitlential
R4 Resitlential
■ R1 Residents
■ R15 Residential
■ R15 Residential
Plannetl Res Development
Development
■ Plannetl hood Model
■ Neighborhood Model District
■ Monticello Historic District
QNe
N
ry M
32A-01-08-14 `
C1 Commercial
■ Commercial Office
■ Hghoay Commercial
■ Planned Development Shopping Ch.
32-21 C
�'
■ Planned Development d Comm. ■ Dovmtovm Crozet District
32-21A
32A-01-OB-15 32-21E 32-?2�2-24W1
17
4 N
Light Industry
■ Heavy Industry
■ Planned Development Industrial Par
0 Tovmol'Swtlsville
0 t3�-21B�
0 3?�
ol
01,0
24C
^�P 32-2013�� 3D20 291
?�F`
32-24X
32-29J 32-24Z
ry
r/
'\\�2720A -
332A-01-OAS,
32-29A 32-24
07-0'4�4 32-29B1
3
�3zq`01 �7`0 r�
Oq'7
32A,07 O 32-29B
32A-02--4
GIs -wen
Geographic Data Serviced
600 ft_` 32-29H
32-24Kd`4p4
/ 32-29H1\2-24J ?QK7
gh
`h h�'
32A-,12 1C
32-29P
(4x)2el2
My Jete parmon oftopagraphy m mnmurs. or any depiction or physical Improvementsproperty lines or boundaries Is for general oformation orly and snail not ce used for this design, mMmtanm, or cornWNon of Improvements to real pmlrerty orror loW plain determination. June, t, 2M
Map elements may stale larger man GIS data measured In the map or as provided on the data crayoned page due to Me population used. Map Partial vi Nan MCptw QWtlYary aproved (EPSG 3857)
y or ntaFa
m
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Phone (434) 296-5832
June 16, 2020
David Mitchell
Great Eastern Management Company
2619 Hydraulic Road
Charlottesville, VA 22906
Fax (434) 972-4126
ARB-2020-28: North Point Community Entrance Sign (TMP 03200-00-00-02000)
Dear Mr. Mitchell,
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board reviewed the above noted item at its meeting on
Monday, June 15, 2020. The Board unanimously approved the request, pending staff administrative
approval of the following conditions:
1. Add a note to the drawings stating that the stone for the sign and sculpture bases
will match the stone approved for the walls along Rt. 29.
2. Limit lighting to external fixtures that illuminate the entire sign or provide external
illumination combined with halo lighting of the letters.
3. Add a note to the sign drawings stating that the ground mounted fixtures will be
aimed to illuminate only the sign.
4. Revise the planting plan to show low landscaping at the base of the sign,
coordinated with other nearby planting.
5. Note that the ARB has no objection to the proposed location in the median.
Please provide:
1. A full set of revised drawings, in both paper and PDF format, addressing each of these
conditions. Include updated revision dates on each drawing.
2. A memo including detailed responses indicating how each condition has been satisfied. If
changes other than those requested have been made, identify those changes in the memo
also. Highlighting the changes in the drawing with "clouding" or by other means will facilitate
review and approval.
3. The attached 'Revised Application Submittal' form. This form must be returned with your
revisions to ensure proper tracking and distribution.
When staffs review of this information indicates that all conditions of approval have been met, a
Certificate of Appropriateness may be issued.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
-1 Y 6 Sincerely,
Margaret Maliszewski
Chief of Planning/Resource Management
434-296-5832 x3276
mmaliszewski@albemarle.org
cc: CWH Properties Limited Partnership
P.O. Box 5526
Charlottesville, VA 22905
File
Attachment E
,n
32-72
"''Horn
32-22C4
32-73
32-2.2F
-,�
Legend
(Note:some Hens on map may not appear In legend)
32-22C5
, 32-74
�r
32-22E
M
Parcel Into
32-22M
I"
N
M
❑ Parcels
Comp Plan Land Use Info
Place ll Master Plan Land Use
=
Airport District
32-22
N
$mall Area Plan
❑ Urban Mixed Use (in Centers)
N
^�
Urban Mixed Use (amuntl Centers)
■ Commercial Mixed Use
■ Urban Density Residential
Neighborhood Density Residential
■ Office/R&D/Flex/ Light Industrial
N
^M
Light ndustrial
■ Heavy Industrial
Ib �•
0�0
32-22N
32-23
/
■ Institutional
■ Public Open Space
■ Private Open Space
i
o O
Q Q
N
rye'
1= 32A-01-0B-14
32-21C
32-21A
,¢ 32A-01-OB-15 32-21E
3
P,m
?7p
3?q
07 0
@, 70
32-21 B
32 23J
32-21,
32,4_0
,
1�@'1•Z
324*0 ?w
1-
32A--01-0 B-18
32-20
32-291
32-20B
I h ti
32-24X
a m o
0 0
32-20A
o�
0
32-24Z
32-29J
N\,y^/� ryQ ryQ
n ^3 ^a
ao��
32-20A1
32A-01-OA-5
J
32-20A2
0 3?A.01_p
32-29A
32-24
/
a\ A;9
32-29B1
� 3?q-077-
'07,
J _�
32-29B
-20A3
600 ft
32A-02--4 32-29H
32-24K�,
3?_?4/(1
GIS
$'2 o-7gtp Geographic Game Servloas
h0
?:?
9P 32-24J
h, evemalbemade.crgtgla
-heexr�. 93a7 zgIF5s3z
32A-02--1C 32A-02--1D
32A-03-OB-6
_ ,/
My defotmin&Ion &top graphy or mMours, or any depiction of physical Improvements, property lines m NUMarKs a for general normiallrn only add snail not be used for the design, mMlPfallon, or commerce M Improvements to real property orfor floM plain deteramm Ion. June 1, 2M
Map elements may stale larger man GIS data measured in the map or as provided on the data Jmxiaa! page due to Me proierrn use. Map Pto(ecnon: VuG$BO Vhb Maramw (Wtlllsry SpMre) Frii 385/)
Attachment F
Sec. 4.15.11 - Maximum sign number, area, and height, and minimum sign setback in the C-1,
CO, HC, PD-SC, PD-MC, HI, LI, and PD-IP zoning districts.
The maximum number of signs permitted, sign area, and sign height, and the minimum sign setback are as
follows for each sign for each sign within the Commercial (C-1), Commercial Office (CO), Highway Commercial
(HC), Planned Development -Shopping Center (PD-SC) and Planned Development -Mixed Commercial (PD-MC)
Heavy Industry (HI), Light Industry (LI) and Planned Development -Industrial Park (PD-IP) districts:
1 per street frontage, or
2 per entrance, per lot
32 square feet, plus
with 100 or more feet of
bonus tenant panels; if
continuous street
more than 1 sign
In the C-1 and HC
Freestanding 23
frontage plus 1 per lot if
entrance, no single sign
e
districts, 12 feet; 16 feet
5 feet
the lot is greater than 4
shall exceed 16 square
in all other districts
acres and has more than
feet
1 approved entrance on
its frontage
3. Freestanding signs; bundle signs; electric message signs. The freestanding signage permitted may include one
off -site bundle sign allowed by special use permit under section 4.15.7(b) and one electric message sign allowed
by special use permit under section 4.15.7(d). An off -site bundle sign shall count as a freestanding sign on the lot
on which the sign is located.
4.15.7 - Signs authorized by special use permit; off -site directional signs, off -site bundle signs,
signs in a public right-of-way, electric message signs.
The following signs are authorized by a special use permit granted by the board of zoning appeals under section
34.5, provided that a sign permit required by section 4.15.5 is also obtained for the sign, the sign complies with all
applicable requirements of this section 4.15, and the following:
c. Signs in a public right-of-way. A proposed sign in a public right-of-way shall satisfy the following:
1. Eligibility. The sign: (i) shall be a either a subdivision sign or a sign at an entrance to a planned development
authorized by sections 19, 20, 25, 25A, and 29; (ii) the subdivision or planned development shall abut the public
right-of-way in which the sign will be located; (iii) the regulations applicable to freestanding signs for the
subdivision or planned development, except for setback regulations, shall apply unless the Virginia
Department of Transportation imposes more restrictive standards; and (iv) the applicant submits a written
statement from the Virginia Department of Transportation stating that it will permit the sign to be located in the
public right-of-way.
2. Authorized locations. The sign shall be located only where the Virginia Department of Transportation
authorizes it to be located.
Application for
Special Use Permit
M
IMPORTANT: Your application will be considered INCOMPLETE until all of the required attachments listed on page 2
have been submitted with the appropriate signature on page 3. Also, please see the list on page 4 for the appropriate fee(s)
related to your application.
PROJECT NAME: (how should we refer to this application?) North Pointe Middle Entrance
PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Middle Entrance Sign
ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION(S): Sec. 4.15 - Signs
EXISTING COMP PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Hollymead / Places 29, Urban Mixed Use (In Centers)
LOCATION/ADDRESS OF PROPERTY FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT:
US 29 North
TAX MAP PARCEL(s): TM 32, P 20
ZONING DISTRICT: Planned Development Mixed Commercial
# OF ACRES TO BE COVERED BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT if a portion, it must be delineated on a plat):
Is this an amendment to an existing Special Use Permit? If Yes provide that SP Number. SP-
❑ YES 0 NO
Are you submitting a preliminary site plan with this application?
0 YES ❑ NO
Contact Person (Who should we call/write concerning this project?): Rebecca Costanzo (use cell # during COVID: 804-380-9953)
Address 418 E Main Street City Charlottesville State VA zip 22902
Daytime Phone ( 434) 295-8177 Fax # C__) E-mail rostanzo@waterstreetstudio.net
Owner of Record David G. Mitchell
Address 2619 Hydraulic Road City Charlottesville State VA zip 22906
Daytime Phone (_434) 296-4141 Fax # O E-mail david@southern-classic.com
Applicant (Who is the Contact person representing?): David G. Mitchell
Address 2619 Hydraulic Road
Daytime Phone C29q) 296-4141 Fax # (__)
City Charlottesville
State VA zip 22906
E-mail david@southern-classic.com
Does the owner of this property own (or have any ownership interest in) any abutting property? If yes, please list those tax map and parcel numbers:
TM 32, P 20-20A3, 23-23J, 291
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP # SIGN #
Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? Receipt # Ck# By:
ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION
Concurrent review of Site Development Plan? YES_ NO
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126
Special Use Permit Application Revised 2/28/2019 Page I of 5
& OTHER INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED for THE APPLICATION TO BE
OFFICIALLY SUBMITTED & DEEMED COMPLETE
0 Application Signature Page
0 One (1) completed & signed copy of the Checklist for a Special Use Permit.
❑ One (1) copy of the Pre -application Comment Form received from county staff
0 One (1) copy of any special studies or documentation as specified in the Pre -application Comment Form,
® Seventeen (17) folded copies of a Conceptual Plan.
® Seventeen (17) copies of a written narrative
The narrative must be laid out to identify each of the bulleted TITLES as follows:
PROJECT PROPOSAL
The project proposal, including
• its public need or benefit;
• how the special use will not be a substantial detriment to adjacent lots,
• how the character of the zoning district will not be changed by the proposed special use, and
• how the special use will be in harmony with the following;
o the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance,
o the uses permitted by right in the zoning district,
o the regulations provided in Section 5 of the Zoning Ordinance as applicable, and
o the public health, safety and general welfare.
(be as descriptive as possible, including details such as but not limited to the number of persons involved in
the use, operating hours, and any unique features of the use)
the land use plan and the master
plan for the applicable development area;
IMPACTS ON PUBLIC FACILITIES & PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE
The proposed project's impacts on public facilities and public infrastructure.
IMPACTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES
The proposed project's impacts on environmental features.
0 One (1) copy of the most recent recorded plat, that shows the Deed Book/Page Number, of the parcel(s)
composing the proposed project, or a boundary survey if a portion of one or more parcels compose the proposed
project, both of which shall include a metes and bounds description of the boundaries.
0 Taxes, charges, fees, liens owed to the County of Albemarle
As the owner/agent I certify that any delinquent real estate taxes, nuisance charges, stormwater management utility
fees, and any other charges that constitute a lien on the subject property, which are owed to the County of Albemarle
and have been properly assessed against the subject property, have been paid.
PLEASE CONSULT THE LIST OF ITEMS WHICH WILL BE REVIEWED BY STAFF
Special Use Permit Application Revised 2/28/2019 Page 2 of 5
APPLICATION SIGNATURE PAGE
If the person signing the application is someone other than the owner of record, then a signed copy of the
"CERTIFICATION THAT NOTICE OF THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE
LANDOWNER" form must be provided in addition to the signing the application below. (page 5)
Owner/Applicant Must Read and Sign
By signing this application, I hereby certify that I own the subject property, or have the legal power to act on behalf of
the owner of the subject parcel(s) listed in County Records. I also certify that the information provided on this
application and accompanying information is accurate, true, and correct to the best of my knowledge. By signing this
application, I am consenting to written comments, letters and or notifications regarding this application being provided to me
or my designated contact via fax and or email. This consent does not preclude such written communication from also being
Z
rst class mail.
May 4, 2020
Signature of Owner / Agent / Contract Purchaser Date
David G. Mitchell (434) 296-4141
Print Name Daytime phone number of Signatory
Special Use Permit Application Revised 2/28/2019 Page 3 of 5
Required FEES to be paid once the application is deemed complete:
What type of Special Use Permit are you applying for?
Staff will contact you regarding the fee once the application is deemed complete
❑
New Special Use Permit
$2,150
❑
Additional lots under section 10.5.2.1
$1,075
❑
Public utilities
$1,075
❑
Day care center
$1,075
❑
Home Occupation Class B
$1,075
❑
To amend existing special use permit
$1,075
❑
To extend existing special use permit
$1,075
❑
Farmer's markets without an existing commercial entrance approved by the VDOT or without existing and adequate puking
$527
❑
Farmer's markets with an existing commercial entrance approved by the VDOT and with existing and adequate puking
$118
ADDITIONAL FEES
❑
Initial notice fee provided in conjunction with an application, for preparing and mailing notices and published notice
$435
❑
ALL SPECIAL USE PERMITS - FIRE RESCUE REVIEW FEE
1 $50
Id
Signs under section 4.15.5 and 4.15.5A (filed for review by the Board of Zoning Appeals under the Variance Schedule)
$538
Other FEES that may apply:
Fees for re -advertisement and notification of public hearing
after advertisement of a public hearing and
a deferral is made at the applicant's reauest
➢
Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices
$215 + actual cost of first-class postage
➢
Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50)
$1.08 for each additional notice + actual
cost of first-class postage
Actual cost based on a cost quote from
➢
Published notice (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing)
the publisher
(averages between $150 and $250)
➢
Application for uses under sections 5.1.47 or 5.2A
NO FEE
➢
Special Exception —provide written justification with application
$457
Resubmittal fees for original Special Use Permit fee of $2,150
➢
First resubmission
FREE
➢
Each additional resubmission (TO BE PAID WHEN THE RESUBMISSION IS MADE TO INTAKE STAFF)
$1,075
Resubmittal fees for original Special Use Permit fee of $1,075
➢
First resubmission
FREE
➢
Each additional resubmission (TO BE PAID WHEN THE RESUBMISSION IS MADE TO INTAKE STAFF)
$538
The full list of fees can be found in Section 35 of the Albemarle County Zonin-a Ordinance.
Special Use Permit Application Revised 2/28/2019 Page 4 of 5
CERTIFICATION THAT NOTICE OF THE
APPLICATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE LANDOWNER
This form must accompany this zoning application if the application is not signed by the owner of the property.
I certify that notice of the application for,
[Name of the application type & if known the assigned application #]
was provided to
[Name(s) of the record owners of the parcel]
the owner of record of Tax Map and Parcel Number
by delivering a copy of the application in the manner identified below:
Q Hand delivery of a copy of the application to G
[Name of the rec f the record owner is a
person; if thRS
cord is an entity, identify the
recipient ofand the recipient's title or office
for that e*W
on
Date
Q Mailing a copy of the application to
on
Date
Q�
to foliowlhg address
t
O
owner it the record owner is a
person; if the owner of record is an entity, identify the
recipient of the record and the recipient's title or office
for that entity]
[Address; written notice mailed to the owner at the last
known address of the owner as shown on the current
real estate tax assessment books or current real estate
tax assessment records satisfies this requirement].
Signature of Applicant
Print Applicant Name
Date
Special Use Permit Application Revised 2/28/2019 Page 5 of 5
SPECIAL USE PERMIT CHECKLIST for
North Pointe Middle Entrance, Middle Entrance Sign / TM 32, P 20
Project Name / Tax Map Parcel Number
After the mandatory pre -application meeting, county staff will mark this checklist appropriately
so that it is clear to the applicant the information from Section 33.4 (c) that must be submitted
with the official application
Name or initials of
staff filling out form
Required for
Provided with
application?
Staff)
application
SECTION 33.4(c)
(County
(Applicant)
X
X
YES
NO
XA
narrative of the project proposal, including its public need or benefit;
A narrative of the proposed project's consistency with the comprehensive plan,
Xincluding
the land use plan and the master plan for the applicable development area;
A narrative of the proposed project's impacts on public facilities and public
X
infrastructure.
XA
narrative of the proposed project's impacts on environmental features.
A narrative of the proffers proposed to address impacts from the proposed project.
One or more maps showing the proposed project's regional context and existing natural
and manmade physical conditions;
A conceptual plan showing, as applicable:
1) the street network, including circulation within the project and connections to
Xexisting
and proposed or planned streets within and outside of the project;
2) typical cross -sections to show proportions, scale and streetscape/cross-
Xsections/circulation;
3) the general location of pedestrian and bicycle facilities;
4) building envelopes;
5) parking envelopes;
SPECIAL USE PERMIT CHECKLIST 04/2013 Page 1 of 2
6) public spaces and amenities;
7) areas to be designated as conservation and/or preservation areas;
8) conceptual stormwater detention facility locations;
X9)
conceptual grading;
X
Other special studies or documentation, if applicable, and any other information
identified as necessary by the county on the pre -application comment form.
Please note: There are additional submittal requirements outlined on the official application for a Special Use Permit.
61t"_� Q6�F7-
Signature of person completing this checklist Read and Sign
May 4, 2020
Date
I hereby state that, to the best of my knowledge, the official application submitted contains all information marked
on this checklist as required for application.
Rebecca Costanzo
Print Name
office: 434.295.8177
cell(use during COVID: 804-380-9953
Daytime phone number of Signatory
SPECIAL USE PERMIT CHECKLIST 04/2013 Page 2 of 2
Ines.
/V
9 UYIER
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mlles
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 Kilometers
Prepared by: Department of Community Development
Mce of Geographic Data Services
This Map is for Display Purposes Only.
WPCREATED'. 9111=9
aUCKINGI COUNTY
Albemarle
V4
z
Entrance Corridors
last undak4 on November 28. 2005
• U.S. Route 250 East
• U.S. Roble 29 North
• U.S. Route 29 South
• Virginia Route 20 South
• Virginia Route 631
south from Charlottesville
City limits to Route 708, and
south from U.S. Route 29
North east to Me Norfolk
Southem Railway tracks
(Rio Road East), and
from U.S. Route 29 North
.at to Route 743 (Rio Road West)
• U.S. Route 250 West
• Virginia Route
• Virginia Route 151
O Entrance Corridors
Major Roads
Tk Railroads
Streams
— - — - — - County Boundary
r i Incorporated Town or
L-� City Boundary
Virginia
• Interstate Route 64
• Virginia Route 20 North
• Virginia Route 22
• Virginia Route 53
• Virginia Route 231
• Virginia Route 240
• U.S. Route 29 Business
• U.S. Route 29/250 Bypass
• Virginia Route 654
• Virginia Route 742
• Virginia Route 649 from U.S.
Route 29 North to Virginia
Route 606
• Virginia Route 743 from U.S.
Route 29 North to Virginia
Route 676
Interstate Highway
29
US Highway
E
VA Primary Highway
®
VA Secondary Highway
on
E XH 2 B 2 T C
CL•OS2NG TO
HURT /H E = N ER STATEMENT
EasYnen is TR`a'NSACT20NS
Ho 1 1 n d/ o r D e d i c a t i o n s
Ymead North
January 31, 1997
Page 2 of 3
PORTION OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY TAX MAP 32
Of
Seethehatched he eOOf this n' an enlarged topographical map
anticipated easements and for approximate locations of
or
roads, utilities and drainage on orlcations across for public
F, G, H, J, K and P, Albemarle County tax maprcel32. 22E,
a
114
.x2u 1::
22
221/
Vzz"
xa •' u• �� 6� �aa'b
1
- \
WHITE HXLL 81
RIVANNA DISTRICTS
4
tM
2
k„
C SON 124 !
C
:"
SECTION 32
33
North Pointe Middle Entrance, Middle Entrance Sign
SUP
Narrative
• Project Proposal
The proposed entrance at North Pointe Community embodies the vernacular tradition and natural
beauty of Albemarle's Entrance Corridors with its use of stone pillars and walls and beautiful
native plantings, while creating a distinctive brand and sense of place that attracts residents and
tourists with its distinctive painted aluminum sign and armillary accents.
Preserve the rights of free speech and expression;
Design is a subjective matter, but we believe that the variety created from the unique visions of the
many developers and other property along Rte. 29 gives the Entrance Corridor visual interest.
2. Promote the general health, safety and welfare, including the creation of an attractive and harmonious
environment;
With regards to public health, safety, and general welfare, per the discussion between the owner and
VDors Adam J. Moore on January 31, 2020, the sign's location in the future right-of-way is
anticipated to be approved through VDoT's Land Use Permit process. The sign is outside of the safety
clear zone.
The entrance sign is designed for safe and easy wayfinding for motorists. Its V-shape is thoughtfully
angled towards both Northbound and Southbound lanes, so that drivers can read the sign without
having to turn their heads. The clarity of the large sans serif typeface makes for easy reading, and the
subtle illumination of the sign letters, the pillars, and armillary at night make identification clearer.
3. Protect the public investment in the creation, maintenance, safety, and appearance of its streets,
highways, and other areas open to the public;
The Rte. 29 Entrance Corridor is an important thoroughfare for tourists as well as current and future
residents. We have carefully considered maintaining the unique character of our region, through the
design and use of local materials.
4. Improve vehicular and pedestrian safety by avoiding saturation and confusion in the field of vision and
by directing and controlling vehicular traffic and pedestrians;
As mentioned above, the design of the sign is intended to promote safe and easy wayfinding. There are
dedicated sidewalks that are setback from the curb to encourage pedestrian movement in a safe zone.
5. Protect and enhance the county's attractiveness to tourists and other visitors as sources of economic
development; and protect property values.
The stone walls with plantings and meadow species serve to frame the entrance, but also further screen
the sunken parking lots. The owner is investing in high -quality materials to promote the aesthetic
beauty of Albemarle County.
• Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
The proposed project's consistency with the comprehensive plan, including the land use plan
and the master plan for the applicable development area;
In general, the entrance walls and sign help create an identity and sense of place for the North Pointe
Community, which attracts residents to these denser communities, and allows the rest of the county to
preserve its rural character. Our Entrance Corridor Frontage is designated by the Comprehensive Plan
as "Landscaped Development Frontage." To achieve the goals of the county's plan, the walls, entrance
sign, and planting create an attractive buffer between Rte. 29 and its sidewalks, screening the parking
lots. The alternating pattern of the groundcover in the planting strip creates additional visual interest.
The use of aluminum painted to look like corten steel in the sign gives the sign an industrial feel,
inviting people to enjoy the mix of uses that are promoted by the Comprehensive Plan.
• Impacts on Public Facilities and Public Infrastructure
Refer to the owner's conversation with VDoT's Adam J. Moore, and forthcoming Land Use Permit
through VDoT.
• Impacts on Environmental Features
The thoughtful use of a mostly native plant palette at the entrance (and throughout) North Pointe
Community creates habitat for pollinators and other fauna, reduces heat island effect and mitigates
stormwater loads.
32 -1989 32
15 \ 32-19B6
32-9C�
32-170
32-67
C
tiry 32-22C1
� o
5ry M1 ^ry
32-6R 32-22C5 "' •y`4/ '��'
M1
Nbrfhslae-Ur 3
a
c id
W
32-17
32-18
M1 tV
W
F
32-17B5 h �
" c
� IC0
,m r
p
32 -17A1
C
32 C-1
j
_' _-: 7 !
19.E y 32
32-41 D2 7
7 9' Dt
17cp�32{37,g� V- �,3*2
7�> pF•lp C jq 32-41M1 32 41B 32-40
328-AE C R 32-41A2.
ggam�??' N ti
32801 AL?{,gj�8 2'b1P 32-41H1 'n
3�. \3-i7B
Jj 33-17
C2 33-18
33-17A1 33-17C1 33-188
9 33-18A✓ .4
Is 3-17A w
33-18E
33-18 33-IBC 'm
32-23C
�1 33-19E
a
O 33-19F
Ct� 33-S9D
2 �cr
32 -22M 32-23 ? Q�
dC 33-19G
32-22 32-23H
ry 33-19A
�414 NORTH POINTE 3223H1
O 32-24y
32-22H �j" PROPOSED SIGN "?
LOCATION �P
2A-01 DB- a 3?-1j
i C `Ong 32-24U v '�
32 21A F
e
22e /� 32-23J 1� 32-24Ut
32-21 TMP 32-20 aa�
0e-r7 (PORTION) 32-24C
/32-20B 32-291
N M1 12.2G
m m 33z-zax
2-20A
oho
o 0 32-24Z\
nP rvQ 32-2 CA }2-29J \ 32-24
4�71
32-2 CA
2 T-OA � 32-29A
Ieq 32 -2981
Y9 \
04
V �r
Itd 32-29B W
p04.1 (f`/f/p
L f! 32-29H
32-20A3 32A-02-4 J.'2yH 32-2gk1 32 -24K
1 o J /wuy
'.A-02--1C aw0 J29 NQ Ftik'oodS Rd kq'0 z9P 32-24J
�~ B• J�9. �`pe% �24.e3.
-2 .xv`'i�P,. aJe7 32A-02Jz---2 z4OJ scCa`rnJ2,A,-=n0B,aj 0(32A ?OOQrr q 32-2 1
iA3 J� 32-24v,�1•FoK-01^-0mee8'�y.,
1-�
6y2-24PS2F�01-OB-2JO g32-24G401,OB
D, 1
C
32-22J
32-22F
32-22E
waterstreetstudio NORTH POINTE: MIDDLE ENTRANCE SIGN
landscape architects 1 planners 1 engineers ALBEMARLE COUNTY, SPECIAL USE PERMIT PLAN, MAY 4, 2020
32-22K
N
0 500' 1000' 2000' (�j
i
33-20
33-21
VICINITY MAP
L 1000
Field stone walls with pil a s, rt �nd nage frame the northern entrance o�
North Pointe corri ar ill ry is mounted to the field stone pillars
flanking the entra e. St n walls rame the pillars on either side of the �
entrance. A verti I alu umisig is situated on the median in the entran e
and perpendicular Rt tom rk the entrance and optimize visibility. T e
field stone walls an lla f wi hin the built landscape ve nacular
Virginia whil fh l i ai e o 0000k iiike cor�enePadds be all
interes /
9' —
V L NDSCAPE LIGHT 40'-0
69'-0" 7'-0„ do
SIGN
LI&W
OVERALL PLAN
JCALE : 1:3U
OVERALL FRONT ELEVATION
Lim
A�NDSCAF`r LIGHT 0„ / o
ET LINE `e)
� J
H W
N 0OQz
ROUTE 29
Ovate rstreetstu d i o NORTH POINTE: MIDDLE ENTRANCE SIGN 0 15 30 60
landscape architects I planners I engineers ALBEMARLE COUNTY, SPECIAL USE PERMIT PLAN, MAY 4, 2020
e
OVERALL PLANS
L 1 00 1
+
i
(5)SMALL FLOWERING TREES
U }
c
OVERALL PLANTING PLAN
SUALL : 1:4U
+
I(8) LARGE SHADE TREES
�o
i
01
'Co
1201
0
00
00
0
J®�
(10)SMALL FLOWERING TREES
LIMIT OF WORK /
waterstreetstudio NORTH POINTE: MIDDLE ENTRANCE SIGN 0 20 40 80
landscape architects I planners I engineers ALBEMARLE COUNTY, SPECIAL USE PERMIT PLAN, MAY 4, 2020
SHADE TREES
U /
HEDGE
+ +U
1wemi
PLANTING PLAN
L 1.02
O
Lo
L- —
6101
PLAN
� SCALE : 1:2
waterstreetstudio
landscape architects I planners I engineers
2'-104"
FRONT ELEVATION
SCALE : 1:2
3'-0"
SIDE ELEVATION
SCALE : 1:2
NORTH POINTE: MIDDLE ENTRANCE SIGN 0 1 2 4
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, SPECIAL USE PERMIT PLAN, MAY 4, 2020
SIGN
32 SF MAXIMUM
WIDEST SIDE OF SIGN)
\ i
ENTRY SIGN
DIMENSIONS
L 1.03
-
��PLAN
�! SCALE : 1:2
wate rstreetstu d i o
landscape architects I planners I engineers
SIGN BASE (STEEL)
VERTICAL SUPPORT
(STEEL)
SIGN
SIGN PEDESTAL
(NATURAL
STONE VENEER)
111
M
FRONT ELEVATION
LE : 1:2
SIGN (ALUMINUM PAINTED
TO LOOK LIKE CORTEN STEEL)
VERTICAL SUPPORT
(STEEL)
SIGN BASE
(NATURAL STONE VENEER)
SHIELDED LANDSCAPE LIGHT
SEE CUTSHEET ON L 1.09 —
CURB FOR MEDIAN
C�
9.7
SIGN (ALUMINUM
PAINTED TO LOOK LIKE
CORTEN STEEL)
32 SF MAXIMUM
PIN -SET LETTERS,
POLYCARBONATE
OR
SIMILAR MATERIAL,
BACK -LIT WITH
TRANSLUCENT FACE
AND OPAQUE
CHANNEL RETURNS,
MAXIMUM SIZE:
V-3' X 1'-0"
TYPEFACE: T.B.D.
VERTICAL SUPPORT
(STEEL)
SIGN BASE,
(NATURAL STONE
VENEER)
SHIELDED LANDSCAPE
SEE CUTSHEET ON L 1.09
SIDE ELEVATION (WIDEST SIDE OF SIGN
SCALE: 1:2
NORTH POINTE: MIDDLE ENTRANCE SIGN 0 1 2 4
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, SPECIAL USE PERMIT PLAN, MAY 4, 2020
z e
ENTRY SIGN
MATERIALS
L 1.04
NOTES:
1) TOP OF FOOTING SHALL BE 1'-6" MIN. BELOW FINISHED GRADE.
2) SUBMIT SAMPLE OF STONE AND PREPARE MOCK-UP. N
3) VERIFY THAT ALL COMPACTED FILL SUPPORTING STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS HAS A o
MINIMUM BEARING CAPACITY OF 2,000 P.S.F.
5) DO NOT SCALE WALL DETAIL DRAWINGS. L
' r i
N
"v
4" FULL SIZE FIELD STONE CAP _
2'-6" Z//� MATCH WALL STONE
FILL WALL CAVITY 2 6
0
(V
04
WALL TIES AS REQUIRED j jy�4' /
°O MORTAR SETTING BED
w OVER LATHE MECHANICALLY
Q FASTENED TO CMU-
m
CMU CORE
m
Q111valull
STONE EXTENDS BELOW FINISH GRADE i✓4 t,!
NO.4 BAR VERTICAL � . ` ) / 7-0
GROUT CELLS /F
► 3,000 PSI CONC. Q 28 DAYS
o
UNDISTURBED SOIL OR
8" _ 1'-0.. vz- COMPACTED FILL, SEE NOTE (4)
4'-6' WALL, SECTION ENTRY PIER, SECTION
SCALE : 1:2 2 SCALE : 1:2
5' DIA. STEEL ARMILLARY
CUSTOM FABRICATION
4" FULL SIZE FIELD STONE CAP
MATCH WALL STONE
THIN STONE VENEER
CORNER PEKES AT EDGE
1:8 BATTER
SHIELDED LANDSCAPE LIGHT
SEE CUTSHEET ON L 1.09
;L`
rF'
wate rstreetstu d i o NORTH POINTE: MIDDLE ENTRANCE SIGN 0 1 2 4 IWALLL DETAILS
landscape architects I planners I engineers ALBEMARLE COUNTY, SPECIAL USE PERMIT PLAN, MAY 4, 2020 L 1 •05
5'-0"
0
=
bo
_ _ _
___ _ =11 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 I I-1 -1 I-1 -1 I I-1 I -1 I I-1
-
-IIIIII-III III=1 I I=1 I I1 I I1 I I=1 I I=1 I I-1 I I-1 I I=1 I I=1 I I-1 I I1 I I=1 I I=1 I I-1 I I-1 I I=1
II I I=1I11I1=1 I __
I I-1 1 11 I I-1 I I I 1 11 1 11 1 11 I I-1 I I-1 I I-1 1 11 I I-1 I I-1 I I-1 1 11 I I-1 I I-1 I I-1 I I-1 I I-1 I I-1
III-1 I I=1 I I=1 I -1 I I1 I I=1 I I=1 I I1 I I1 I I=1 I I=1 I I=1 I I-1 I I=1 I I=1 I I; ,III, III=1 I I=1 I I=1
III=11-III 11III=III=11IIIIII=III=III=III111=111=III176-0" -111=11 I-III-III-III-III-IIIIII=11-I
-III=III=IIIIII-III-III=IIIIII-III-III-IIIIII-III= _ _ _
I II I I=1 I I-1 11 1 I 1 1 -1 11--
-III I_II
I I=1 I I1 I I-1 I I=1 I I=1 I I-1 I I III-1 I I III=1 I I1 I I-1 I I-1 I I=1 I I-1 I I-1 I I-1 I I-1 I I1 I I1 I I-1 I I-1 I I1 I I-1 I I=1 I I-1 I I-1 11
III-1I1=1I1=1 I1=1I I-1I1=1 I1=1I1=1I I-1 I1=1I1=1I I-1 I I-1I1=1I1=1 I1=1I11I11 I I
I I-1 I I-1 I I-1 I I-1 I I-1 I I-1 I I 17�= ' III-1 11=1 11=1 I I-1 1 11 11=1 11=1 11=1 I I-1 11=1 11=1 I I-1 I I-1 11=1 11=1 11=1 1 11 11=1 11=
I I1 I I1 I I=1 I I=1 I I-1 I I1 I I=== � I I 1=1 11=1 I I-1 1 11 11=1 11=1 11=1 1 11 11=1 11=1 I I-1 I I-1 11=1 11=1 11=1 I I-1 I I-1 I I-1 I I
_III -III III=11-11 I-IIIIII=III=IIIIIIIII=III=11 I-IIIIII=III=11 I-IIIIII=III=11 I-
_ -
I I=1 I I-1 I I1 1 11 1 1= I 1 11 11-=- 1-= III-1 -= III-1 I -1 1 11 I I-1
III1 I I-1 I I=1 I I=1 I I=1 I IIII=1 I I=1 I IIIIIII=1 I I=1 I IIIIIII1 I I=1 I I-1 I IIII1 I I=1
I IIII1 I I=1 I I=1 I I1 I I-1 I I=1 I I=1 I I-1 I I1 I I=1 I I=1 I I1 I I1 I I=1 I I=1 I I1 I I-1 I I1 I I=1 I I-1
IIIIII_III_IIIIIIIII=III=III=IIIIII=III=III-III=III=III=III=IIIIII=III=III=III-III=III=III=III=III=III=III=III=IIIIII=III-III-III=III=III-
- - - _ _ - IIIIII-III=III=III=IIIIII=III=III=III-IIIIII=III=III-IIIIII=III-III-III
11-=-= III-1 11-= =-1 I I-1 11= 1 11 1 11 11=1 11=1 11=1 1 11 11=1 11=1 11=1 1 11 11=1 11=1 1 11 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 1 11 11=
I I-1 I IIIIIII=1 I I=1 I IIII=1 I I=1 I I=1 I I1 I IIII=1 I I=1 I I=1 I I1 I I=1 I I=1 I I=1 I I-1 I I=1 I I=1 I I1 I I1 I I=1 I I=1 I I1 I I-1 I I=1 I I
I I1 I I1 I I=1 I I=1 I I1 I I=1 I I=1 I I-1 I I-1 I I1 I I=1 I I-1 I I1 I I1 I I=1 I I-1 I I=1 I I1 I I=1 I I=1 I I-1 I I1 I I=1 I I=1 I I=1 I I1 I I=1 11=
_ _ _ _ _
ELEVATION, WALL 1
SCALE : 1 :10
5-0"
o
`o
CID
- 1-111=III-111-111-111-111-111 111-111-III-III 111-111-III-III
_ =III
1 =1 1I1=1I1=1I I-111 1 1=1 1=1
111-111-111-111 III--111-III-III-III-III-III-III-III-III-III-III-III-III-III-III III-III-III=III-III-11
-III II
1 1
1III=III=1-
I III=III=III III-IIIIII-III-III=III-III-III-III-IIIIII-III-IIIIII-III-III-III=III-III-III-III-IIIIII-III-IIIIIIIII-III-III=III-IIIIII-III-
II=1II=III=1 -�;'� II III-1I1 1I1 1I1=1I1=1II-1I1 1I1=1I1=1II-1I1=1I1=1I1=1I1 1II-1II-1II-1I1=1II-1II-1II-1II-1II-1II-1II-1I1=1II-1II-1II-1II-1II-1I1=1I1=1I1=1I1=1I1
III=III=III IIIIIIIIII_III-III-IIIIII_III_IIIIIIIII=III=III-IIIIII_III-III-IIIIII_III_IIIIIIIII=III=III-III-III=III=III=IIIIII=III=III=III=III=III=III=IIIIII=III=III=III11
= = = = = = _
IIIIIII I I_I I I-IIIIII-III III III III III
1I1=1I1=1I1 111=1II
_ _
III I I
III=11I
= =
1 I-III-III1 I_III_IIIIII-1=1=11-11=11III1=1111=1-1-1=1=11
III - III III III=1 I I=1 I I-1 I I=1 I I=1 11=1 I I1 11=1 11=1 I I-1 I I-1 11=1 11=1 I I-1 I I-1 1 11 11=1
11=III=III-I
I-III=1III=1=1=1III=1=1-1=1=1=1=1=1=1=111=1=1
I I-1 I I-1 11=1 I I.127 -0' I I 1=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 I I-1 I I-1 11=1 I I-1 I I-1 1 11 11=1 11=1 I I-1 I I-1 11=1 11=1 I I-1 11=1
III=1
11=1 I
-------------
I I 1=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 1 11 I I-1 I I-1 I I-1 1 11 I I-1 I I-1 I I-1 I I-1 I I-1 I I-1 I I-1 I I-1 I I-1 I I-1 I I-1
I I=1 I I=1 I I-1 I I-1 I I1 I I � � I I I=1 I I1 I I=1 I I=1 I I-1 I l i l l 11 I I=1 I I=1 I I=1 I I1 I I=1 I I=1 I I1 I I1
------ -- -- -III=III
I I-1 I I-1 I I-1 I I-1 1 11 I I-1 I I-1 I I-1 I I-1 I I-1 I I-1 11=1 1 11 I I-1 I I-1 1 11 1 11 1 11 I I-1 11=1 11=1 1 11 I I-1 11=1 1 11 1 11 11=1 11=1 I
I I=1 I I=1 I I-1 I I1 I I=1 I I=1 I I1 I I1 I I=1 I I=1 11=1 I I-1 11=1 11=1 I I-1 I I-1 11=1 11=1 I I-1 I I-1 11=1 11=1 I I-1 I I-1 1 11 11=1 11=1 I I
ELEVATION, WALL 2
waterstreetstudio
landscape architects I planners I engineers
NORTH POINTE: MIDDLE ENTRANCE SIGN
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, SPECIAL USE PERMIT PLAN, MAY 4, 2020
0 5 10 20
WALLS, ENLARGED
ELEVATIONS
L 1.06
N
l O P _-
RO
TI
HN
FS, �,�u..r�AjitrllYd.dr
N
OP
RO
TI
HN
E
■ m i
I'm
Aj o P
RO
TI
HN
T
t, E
LETTER COLOR: 3M CHROMA IVORY, OR SIMILAR COLOR
CORTEN STEEL (NOT SPECIFIED FORTHE SIGN)
ARMILLARY: MATERIALT.B.D.
fi.
�. ar
1
I
STONE
ALUMINUM, PAINTEDTO LOOK LIKE CORTEN STEEL
Ovate rstreetstu d i o NORTH POINTE: MIDDLE ENTRANCE SIGN MATERIALS PALETTE
landscape architects I planners I engineers ALBEMARLE COUNTY, SPECIAL USE PERMIT PLAN, MAY 4, 2020 L 1,08
1
SHIELDED
LANDSCAPE
LIGHT
Integrated lamp (PAR30) and Integrated module
OrderinlRl ide
Series
Finish
Camping
Optics
CCT
i2.5
ED1
K
91
_____
Inground
_____
N Natural
________________________
1ED12 12W
SP Spot
_______
W Warm'
with
Trim Ring
Cast
Bronze
integrated lamp
c Cool'
UD13 13W FARM Long
MF Narrow Flood
W Warm
SS Stainless
Steel
integrated lamp
Iblankl
SP Spot
W Warm
integrated module
NF Narrow Flood
c Cool
FL Flood
' Must order LEDADP, Adaptor Ring if ordering an internal accessory
Available with LED Lamp or LED Moudule: Fixtures with MR16lamp will be shipped with lamp installed. Lamps
not sold separately, Fixtures with PAR38 LED lamp will be shipped with fixture loose, not installed. Must order
Adaptor Ring (LEDADP) if ordering an internal accessory.
Features
120 Volt
•PAR30L LED
• LED module
LED lamp
• 25,000 hours life (no mercury).
• 12W with 22' or 25' beam spread.
Color temp. (CCT): cool white (4,000K nom) or
warm white (2,]00K nominal).
• 13W with 25• beam spread
(only sold integral to 12.5 fixture).
Color temp. (CCT): warm white (2,]00K nom).
LED module
4,000K CCT or 3,000K OCT. Approx. 50,000
hours of operational life (at 25•C ambiant
temperature and 70% lumen maintenance).
>BOCRI
Aiming
Offers 15' either side of vertical and full 360'
rotation. Angle degree marks for precise vertical
aiming with too[ less aiming.
Housing
Single -piece compression molded, fiberglass
reinforced polyester composite housing. Separate
sealed compartments. Potted factory seat with
anti -wicking wiring. Hinged lens ring with captive
lens and fasteners. Only two fasteners required to
secure lens ring. ILL Listed silicone -filled wire nuts
provided -no encapsulant required.
Trim (supplied standard)
Natural cast bronze or cast stainless steel.
Secured with stainless steel screws.
Gasket
Single -piece wrap around molded 100%silicone
for lens assembly. Gasket for J-box cover is
single -piece die -cut neoprene.
Finish
Natural Cast Bronze has satin matte finish and will
age over time. Stainless Steel has satin matte
finish.
Landscape Spec Sheet 126 LEO Composite Inground.pdf 12/18 pa9elof2
waterstreetstudio
landscape architects I planners I engineers
'ns. t.
Locanon:
CaLNo:
Type:
Lamps: oty.
H— 9 ss —H
248 mm
F6
N mm
0 �
aao mm
Lens
Clear convex, tempered borosilicate for
high -impact resistance. 3,000 Ho live -load rated,
drive -over.
Optics
Available with spot, narrow Rood or Rood beam
pattern. Endural-ED lamps: spot or Rood beam
pattern.
Electrical
LED module is a key -slotted ballast assembly
with quick disconnects mounted to cast aluminum
bracket for easy maintenance. e-Vision electronic
ballasts automatically detect 120-277 volts,
50/60 Hz, HPF. Ballasts provide z 5% lamp power
regulation with a 10%input voltage regulation.
Incandescent (MR16) - utilizes stepdown
transformer.
IP68 rating
Dust tight and dual rated - sealed against direct
jets of water and against continuous immersion
up to a depth of 1 meter (3.28 feet).
Socket
Incandescent PAR30 Long
EnduraLED: Medium Base.
NORTH POINTE: MIDDLE ENTRANCE SIGN
i2.5
Composite inground
Electrical Assembly
120 VAC input, 50-601-z.
Note: LED lamp option is only available
in 120V.
Lamp only: 12 total watts consumed Operating
start temperature -40 C (-40 F).
ADA compliant
Compliant when used in concrete
and Rush -mounted with CP515.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, SPECIAL USE PERMIT PLAN, MAY 4, 2020
Optical Assembly
Clear, slightly convexed, molded borosilicate
glass, high impact, 3000 lb. live load rated,
drive -over glass, with molded wrap around
100% silicone lens gasket. Optional lens
assemblies include cool touch lens, reducing
lens temperatures by 35%, ice blue lens, linear or
multi -directional spread lens. Integral collimating
spot (10') optics. Integral collimating narrow Rood
(26') optics. Integral collimating wide Rood (387
optics. Clear tempered glass affixed at 10` angle
for natural cleaning. Sealed optical chamber.
Aiming 15' either side of vertical and full 360'
rotation. Angle degree marks for precise vertical
aiming with tool -less LOC-AIM--. Handle enables
easy tool -less removal of optical assembly for
hot aiming and re -tamping, simply press -fit back
into place.
Accessories (sold separately)
Secured with stainless steel screws.
Half dome: Fieldadjustable for
directional glare
control. Natural
cast bronze or cast stainless steel.
Rock Guard: Natural cast bronze or
cast stainless steel.
Labels
ETL and cETL listed. Suitable for wet locations.
Manufactured to ISO 90012008 Standards. to -
year limited warranty.
LANDSCALE LIGHT
L 1,09
North Pointe Community - North Entrance
Sign Diagrams
Sign Dimensions
Sign
Height
Distance to property line
or edge of right-of-way
Sign Height =
Sign Dimensions =
Pole -Mounted Sign - Diagram 1
(Generally not acceptable in the ECs)
Sign Sign Dimensions
Height
Building Frontage
Building Frontage =
Sign Height =
Sign Dimensions =
Wall Sign - Diagram 3
Sign 2 Height =
Sign 2 Dimensions =
Sign 3 Height =
Sign 3 Dimensions =
Sign
Height
Sign Dimensions
Distance to property line
or edge of right-of-way
Sign Height = 131--6"
Sign Dimensions = 10'-6" tall X 3'-0" wlde
1AIA00f nninfl
Monument Sign - Diagram 2
If multiple wall signs are proposed, list dimensions here:
Sign 4 Height -
Sign 4 Dimensions =
Sign 5 Height -
Sign 5 Dimensions =
Sign Diagrams revised 7/2009 — 1
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
ELECTRONIC MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 2020 — 2:00 P.M.
Board Members present: Marcia Joseph
Ed Robb
John Shepherd
Randy Rinehart
Staff Members present: Bart Svoboda, Zoning Administrator
Francis MacCall
Lisa Green
Bill Fritz
Marsha Alley, BZA Clerk and Recorder
County Attorney: Andy Herrick, Deputy County Attorney
BZA Attorney: James Bowling, IV
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m. by Chairman John Shepherd. He said this is an electronic meeting
and asked for patience as they become familiar with this meeting alternative. He read the following statement:
This meeting is being held pursuant to and in compliance with Emergency Ordinance No. 20 A(6); An
Emergency Ordinance to Ensure the Continuity of Government During the Covid-19 Disaster
The BZA Members who are electronically present at this meeting are John Shepherd, Randy Rinehart,
Marcia Joseph, and Ed Robb (Vice Chair).
The persons responsible for receiving public comment are the Board of Zoning Appeals of Albemarle
County.
The opportunities for the public to access and participate in the electronic meeting are posted on the
Albemarle County website on the Board of Zoning Appeals home page and on the Albemarle County
calendar.
2. Establish a Quorum
The BZA established a quorum, with four members present.
Ms. Joseph, Mr. Robb, Mr. Rinehart, and Mr. Shepherd each stated their presence.
Mr. Shepherd introduced others in attendance: James Bowling (BZA Attorney); Andy Herrick (Deputy County
Attorney); Bart Svoboda, Francis MacCall, Marsha Alley, and Bill Fritz (County Staff); and Valerie Long
(Counsel for Yancey Lumber Mill).
3. Deferral Request
A. AP202000001 R. A. Yancey Lumber Corporation — 55-111B, 55-112
Mr. Shepherd said in reviewing the background of this issue, he has come to appreciate how difficult and
frustrating this has been for all sides. He noted that the application for the special exemptions was submitted on
January 26, 2018, almost two and a half years ago. He said the stakes are high for the public, the company, and
the process.
Mr. Shepherd said today, however, there are only two rather narrow issues before the BZA. He said one was a
public hearing for the BZA to consider the appeal of the Zoning Administrator's determination that there are
two setback violations on this site. He said the other is a request to the defer the hearing on the appeal until the
August BZA meeting. He said they will take up the deferral request first, then hold the public meeting if, and
only if, the Board denies the deferral request.
Mr. Shepherd asked participants to understand that their scope was limited to the deferral request and the
validity of the violation notice. He said they are not going to deal with the long-term remedies for this situation.
He said there is a process in place to do that. He said hearings to consider the requests for special exemptions
are scheduled to be conducted by the Planning Commission on June 23, and by the Board of Supervisors on
July 15. He said this is where the matter will truly be resolved in the long-term.
Mr. Shepherd said he would start with the deferral. He noted the discussion of the deferral is not a public
hearing, meaning they will not take public comment during this portion of the meeting, but that they will have
the right to ask anyone present any questions that would clarify the situation.
Mr. Shepherd said Mr. Svoboda, Zoning Administrator, would explain the issues of the deferral request.
Mr. Svoboda said staff made a brief analysis based on the factors to consider out of the BZA's Rules of Order.
He said favorable factors in a deferral may promote fairness in the process. He said the applicant has argued that
Special Exception requests had been delayed by COVID-19 pandemic protocols. He said Consideration #4 is
that the outcome of the Special Exception request is uncertain, and any deferral [inaudible] the appellant to
resolve the underlying issues so that the BZA action might be unnecessary.
Mr. Svoboda said regarding unfavorable factors, Consideration #2 says a deferral may be considered a
convenience or a personal benefit to the applicant. He said Consideration #3 says a deferral may delay
enforcement or abatement of the zoning violation that is adversely affecting an abutting property, a neighbor,
the neighborhood, or the public.
Mr. Svoboda concluded staff s remarks, noting there were two proposed motions.
Ms. Valerie Long, representative for the appellant, asked if she had a time limit on her presentation.
Mr. Shepherd replied they were using the same time limits for this meeting as they normally would. He said the
appellant will have 15 minutes to present, then another 5 minutes to rebut.
Ms. Long said she was representing R.A. Yancey Lumber Corporation on this matter. She said she was joined
by Patrick May (Vice President of the company), who was newly authorized to lead the company's participation
throughout the process and work towards bringing the entire site fully into compliance with all regulations. She
said several other representatives of the company were participating as well.
Ms. Long said as stated in her written request, she requests that the BZA grant a short deferral of this matter so
that they can continue the Special Exception process that, as Mr. Shepherd noted, they have been diligently
pursuing for two and a half years. She said although the original application was submitted in January of 2018,
they first met with Mr. Svoboda's predecessor Amelia McCulley (the Zoning Administrator at the time) in
December of 2017.
Ms. Long said in specifically addressing the factors to be considered in considering an appeal, she will reiterate
some of the points she made in the deferral request letter and supplement that as appropriate. She said the
County has been working diligently with the County staff on the Special Exception requests for two and a half
years. She said if not for the COVID-19 delay, those requests would have been heard by now. She said the
Board was originally scheduled to take action on the requests in April, and the County staff have been
graciously working with the appellant throughout to coordinate the timing of the two hearings so that they have
the opportunity to have the discretion of the Special Exception requests prior to the appeal hearing.
Ms. Long said they were very understanding of the need and importance of having to delay those applications,
in light of a worldwide pandemic. She said they also understand that the County needed several weeks to work
out the logistics for meeting remotely. She said they were as patient as they could be and did continually request
that the County schedule the meetings on the Special Exceptions as the absolute earliest possible time. She said
nevertheless, it will end up being a three-month delay by the time the first meeting takes place at the end of
June.
Ms. Long said they were merely asking for the opportunity to continue that process first, since the outcome has
the potential to resolve the underlying issue. She said the Special Exception requests were submitted two years
before the Notice of Violation was issued by the County.
Ms. Long said denying the appeal deferral request would ignore the constructive work that the applicant has
undertaken over the past two and a half years to address the situation. She said thus, it is only fair to grant a
short delay for this appeal hearing in light of the three-month delay in hearing the Special Exception requests.
She said it would, in their opinion, promote fairness in the process.
Ms. Long said similarly, they contend that a short deferral would provide an opportunity to resolve the
underlying issue. She said they understand there are no assurances that the Board of Supervisors will grant the
Special Exception requests, but that there is certainly the potential. She said those hearings have been
rescheduled and advertised, and they are moving forward on that. She said if the Board approves the Special
Exception application, this appeal would be moot and unnecessary, and it would resolve the underlying issue of
the appeal.
Ms. Long said the Rules of Procedure do not require the BZA to make a finding that it would absolutely resolve
the underlying issue of the appeal, but merely have the potential to do so. She noted the rules say, "may allow
the underlying issue to be resolved." She said this would also promote judicial efficiency, avoid wasting the
time of the Board, County staff, members of the public, and the appellant unnecessarily. She said if the
underlying issue is resolved, hearing the issue that day would be, in her opinion, wasteful of those scarce
resources.
Ms. Long added that granting the appeal deferral would not be solely for the convenience or for the personal
benefit of the company. She said it would respect the time and resources that the County staff and other County
elected official and representatives have put in on this request over the past two and a half years. She said the
County has been extremely cooperative and helpful to the appellant over this time and has expended vast
resources in collaboratively working with the appellant, members of the public, and nearby neighbors. She said
she thinks that denying the deferral request would be counterproductive to those issues, and thus would not be a
personal benefit to the company.
Ms. Long said deferral would also promote judicial efficiency, which is not a personal benefit of the company,
and would avoid wasting the time and resources of the members of the community, since the appeal might be
moot and unnecessary upon action of the County Board of Supervisors on the Special Exceptions.
Ms. Long said similarly, deferral would not unreasonably delay an abatement of the violation. She said the
equipment that the Swales have repeatedly cited as creating the noise issue is not 35 feet from their property, as
has been stated. She said that in fact, the piece of equipment that they have regularly stated is their main source
of aggravation is located straddling the line of the 100-foot setback. She said she would present an exhibit of
this.
Ms. Long said there is a partially constructed piece of equipment that is 35 feet from the comer of their property
line. She said that piece of equipment is only partially constructed, is not in operation, and is not making a
single sound or emitting any noise, and certainly not emitting any vibration.
Ms. Long noted with regard to vibration, the company is in compliance with the County's vibration ordinance
according to their professional consultant, who has studied the issue. She said the appellant submitted a report
to the County, to that effect.
Ms. Long said as the Swales and their counsel are aware, and as stated in materials the appellant has submitted
to the public, the company has made numerous commitments to reduce future noise issues upon the approval of
the Special Exception. She said they know the merits are substance of the Special Exception requests and are
not before the BZA that day but that she wanted to make the Board aware of those issues.
Ms. Long said upon others, the appellant has proposed that upon approval of the Special Exception, the
equipment that is causing noise will be enclosed within a building, which has always been part of the plan. She
said specific noise limits would be adhered to, which are detailed in the application materials. She said there
would be sound attenuation materials added to the inside of the walls of the building that will enclose the
equipment, which is a stacker to reduce noise. She said the company would add an additional sound barrier wall
to further reduce noise levels.
Ms. Long said she would share an exhibit that references the statement regarding the distance of the equipment
to the adjacent parcel. She presented a page from the application materials for the Special Exception to help
orient everyone. She said these were unfortunately left out of the BZA's supplemental packet.
Mr. Bowling said if they were in Ms. Long's email, he had forwarded this along to the BZA members.
Ms. Long said for everyone's benefit, including anyone watching who had not seen the materials before, she
would use the exhibit to help orient everyone. She indicated on the exhibit to Route 250, to the main mill
building, to the Swales' property line, and a black line that was the property boundary line. She said the red line
on the exhibit was the 100-foot setback line for buildings from adjacent parcels. She indicated to a piece of
equipment that was labeled "new stacker," noting this is the only equipment in operation currently. She said this
was completed prior to any Special Exceptions being submitted, and long before any violation was noticed. She
said as they could see, it was not 35 feet from the property line but was straddling the 100-foot line. She
indicated to the distance of 35 feet in another location.
Ms. Long indicated on the exhibit to the new sorter. She said this is the piece of equipment that is under
construction and only partially constructed. She said construction was halted when the appellant first met with
the Zoning Administrator in December of 2017. She said the company did this voluntarily once it became clear
4
that they needed to cease construction. She said the new sorter is only partially constructed, is not operational,
and is not emitting any noise or vibration.
Ms. Long said although the plans would make it appear that this is a single building (and that eventually, it will
look like a single building), currently there is no building between the two, but a concrete barrier wall. She said
the stacker is operational, which is the only stacker they have available. She indicated on the exhibit to the old
original stacker, which was so dysfunctional and dangerous it was causing numerous employee accidents. She
said it was so old, they cannot order new parts for it, which is why a new stacker had to be built.
Ms. Long said the Special Exception, if approved, would enable the appellant to continue construction of the
sorter, complete that sorter, and integrate the two pieces of equipment together (which would, on its own,
substantially reduce the noise). She said it will also allow them to build a building to enclose that, build the
sound barrier wall that will overlap the wall on the two buildings, and to insert the sound attenuation materials
inside. She reiterated that the equipment is not 35 feet from the Swales' property line, as has been regularly
stated.
Ms. Long said as such, for all the reasons she has previously stated in the application materials and today, she
would respectfully request that the BZA grant the appellant's deferral request. She said it equates to a two -
month deferral. She said they endured what will be a three-month delay on the Special Exception hearings
through no one's fault. She said they understand it was unavoidable. She said they ask for the BZA's
consideration to allow that process to continue and be completed, since they have been working on it for so long
and so diligently, and the County has expended extraordinary expense in pursuing that request. She said it
would be extraordinarily challenging for this business to continue without the ability to continue operations.
Mr. Shepherd asked if Mr. Svoboda or anyone on staff wished to use 5 minutes to add to their presentation.
Mr. Andy Herrick (County Attorney's Office) said that as Mr. Shepherd recognized, the scope of the matter
before the Board, at least at this moment on the agenda, is very narrow. He said that the one and only question
is whether to grant the applicant's request to defer its appeal.
Mr. Herrick said that page 12 of the BZA's main package is the Notice of Violation that was delivered to the
appellant. He said that the one and only violation was cited in the Notice of Violation is that the piece of
equipment constructed in the VDOT right of way, and the new sorter stacker constructed on these parcels, do
not meet the required setbacks. He said there are only one or two (depending on how one looks at it) violations
that have been noticed, and that this is the only issue that is under appeal, if they even hear the appeal that day.
Mr. Herrick said that before getting to this issue, however, the applicant has made a request that the appeal be
deferred. He said that the appeal is laid out beginning on page 6 of the main package. He said that Ms. Long
wrote a letter that articulated why she and her client believe that the appeal should be deferred, Mr. Blaine (on
behalf of the neighbors) has responded on page 105 of the supplemental package and has laid out the reasons
why he and his client believe that the matter should not be deferred today.
Mr. Herrick said that either way, the basis for the BZA's decision is spelled out in Rule 2D of the BZA's Rules
of Procedure, which was included on page 4 of the main package. He encouraged the BZA members to look
through Rule 2D for the five considerations when deciding deferral requests. He said that staff, in looking at this
issue, honed in on two different considerations of those five that seemed to address the situation. He said that
Consideration #3 is whether the deferral would delay the enforcement or abatement of a violation that is
adversely affecting an abutting property, a neighbor, the neighborhood, or the public. He said that as the BZA
has seen, they have received a number of complaints from affected neighbors complaining about quality of life
issues in the neighborhood.
Mr. Herrick said that, on the other hand, Consideration #4 is about whether the deferral would allow the
appellant or applicant to resolve the underlying issues so that BZA action might be unnecessary. He said that as
Ms. Long has indicated, the applicant has made various Special Exception requests, which are going to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors and are not before the BZA today.
Mr. Herrick said that it seemed to staff as though those two considerations are the competing considerations for
the BZA in whether or not to grant a deferral. He said that at this point in the agenda, they are only looking at
whether or not the deferral should be granted , and if the BZA decides to take up the appeal that day, the one
and only issue would be whether the Zoning Administrator's determination of a setback violation was correct or
not.
Mr. Shepherd asked if anyone from the County side wished to use the rest of the 5 minutes, if there was time
left. Hearing no remarks, he asked Ms. Long if she had any concluding remarks.
Ms. Long said she appreciated the Board's thoughtful consideration of this request in light of all of the
circumstances involved. She said the company is diligently pursuing the Special Exceptions and asks for the
BZA's consideration of the reasons stated and the ability to continue the process they have been working on for
so many years now.
Mr. Shepherd directed the discussion to the BZA members, noting that each member would be asked to offer a
comment or question, if they choose, then move onto the next member. He asked Ms. Joseph if she had
questions or comments.
Ms. Joseph said in the letter, it states that the letter is to "notify to stop the activity or use outlined above
immediately." She said it then offers the fact that there is an appeal process. She asked County staff if, once the
letter is written telling someone to cease and desist, and they appeal it, they are able to continue working with
the pieces of equipment that are not in compliance.
Mr. Svoboda replied that under the Code of Virginia, an appeal to the BZA stays enforcement action.
Ms. Joseph said this means they can continue their operations within these pieces that are outside of the
property line, and within the required setback.
Mr. Svoboda said this was correct
Ms. Joseph asked if a deferral until August would allow the company to continue the operation until August,
unless they receive the Special Exception.
Mr. Svoboda replied that it would continue the stay of enforcement action, and that this was correct.
Mr. Bowling asked if the deferral is set for August or for July 15.
Ms. Joseph said the applicant has requested the deferral to the BZA August meeting. She said July is when the
Board of Supervisors would hear the Special Exception.
N
Ms. Joseph said what happens with the appeal process had been her major question. She said she figured,
looking at the timeline of the project, that the appeal would allow them to continue using the property and not
stop the activities on the property.
Mr. Herrick clarified that this appeal simply delays enforcement of the violation in the courts.
Ms. Joseph said it essentially allows production and activities to continue on the site the way it has been
Mr. Herrick said that there was not necessarily a free pass. He said that if the operator continues to operate in
violation, additional violations may be incurred. He said that it was not as though the operator was getting a free
pass, but simply that State law prohibits the County from seeking enforcement in the courts while an appeal is
pending.
Ms. Joseph asked if there was anything retroactive. She asked about monetary penalties. She said she was trying
to figure out why the letter would then be sent asking to cease and desist by a certain date if the company can
appeal it and continue operations and not have to cease and desist by a certain date. She asked if this was
correct.
Mr. Herrick replied that it was not that they can continue and be in compliance with the law. He said that in a
typical case that is not appealed, if the activity continued unabated, the County would file a warrant in debt and
pursue civil penalties in the General District Court. He said that because the applicant filed an appeal in this
case, the County is prohibited by State law from seeking that sort of enforcement at this point.
Mr. Robb said he did not have the letter that Mr. Blaine wrote (dated May 29) in front of him, but that he
recalled that the last paragraph stated that Mr. Blaine was representing the Swales and that they would work
with the appellant to address the issues and details. He said to him, he took that message to be that the Swales
were more than willing to be cooperative. He said the BZA members then received messages from David and
Lisa Swales (dated May 31) that they did not agree with the letter that Mr. Blaine wrote, who was representing
them. He said this was confusing to him and asked where they should go with this question.
Mr. Shepherd asked if the question was what to make of the Swales saying they would not object to the deferral
and if the Swales would support this deferral if there was no further use of the machine. He said he wanted to
make sure the question was right before asking Mr. or Mrs. Swales to respond to that.
Mr. Shepherd said under the circumstances, it would be fair to allow the Swales to respond to that. He cautioned
that he wanted to confine the discussion to the narrow points that are set forth in the Notice of Violation that
they are focused on. He said he did not want to get outside of that discussion. He said it would be proper to ask
the Swales to respond, however, if they wish to do so.
Mr. Bowling pointed out that he saw a request on his screen by Steve Blaine for the right to clarify.
Mr. Shepherd said he did not see that, but he would start with Mr. Blaine if he was present.
Ms. Alley said she saw Mr. Blaine's hand raised and asked if they should ask Mr. Swales if he wanted to defer
to Mr. Blaine to comment, or for his preference.
Ms. Alley informed Mr. Swales that he could choose to talk with the BZA or defer to Mr. Blaine as his
representative.
7
Mr. Swales replied that he was happy to defer to Mr. Blaine.
Ms. Alley asked Mr. Blaine to address the BZA
Mr. Blaine said his letter addresses the very narrow point, as the County Attorney has pointed out, that is before
the BZA, which is whether or not the delay should be granted. He said his clients and other neighbors have
expressed their general displeasure and have noted the problems that the mill has caused for them. He said there
have been materials and information about the Special Exception that goes to the merits of the underlying case,
which is what the clients and neighbors are focusing on in their objections.
Mr. Blaine said they hired a lawyer to focus on the procedural matters, which is what his letter is intended to
address. He said as a procedural matter, his clients can only get some redress here by at least stopping the
operations that are ongoing that would otherwise be in violation of the ordinance. He said he understands
reference was made to the sorter stacker, which is 35 feet from the property line. He said the fact of the matter is
that the stacker that is operational, as Ms. Long indicates, violates the setback and has been permitted to be
operated without any attenuation of the noise all during the time of the Special Exception application.
Mr. Blaine said their objection is to continue to allow the violation of the ordinance, which is prejudiced to his
clients, at the convenience of the company. He said as a compromise, they would offer that rather than litigate
the actual notice of the violation, if there is a grant of a stay, at least ask the company to stay their illegal
activity until the Special Exception may be heard. He said it seems like a small request but is the time of year
when his clients want to enjoy their patio and backyard. He said they want to continue to work with the
applicant, and as Ms. Long has indicated, they have reached out to his clients. He said they have not addressed
the injuries to his clients, at this point.
Mr. Blaine said he hoped this clarifies that this is not in conflict. He said he represents his clients, who reviewed
his letter before he sent it in. He said it is a difference of a general objection versus his specific objection to the
delay and offer of a compromise.
Mr. Rinehart commented that he was trying to understand why the appellant could not negotiate in the period of
time until August and deal with the Board of Supervisors, and why they should stop operation in that short
period of time. He said he was sympathetic to the neighbors, read all the letters, and looked at the noise and
vibrations. He said he was struggling with why they could not defer this and allow the parties to work it out
versus stopping the whole operation and costing people's jobs for several months. He said he was not
insensitive to the noise that the neighbors are currently under. He said this was a statement and that he did not
have any questions.
Mr. Shepherd said it was a new idea for him to think of the sorter being separate from the stacker. He said he
thought this was one machine. He asked what, exactly, is the subject of the Notice of Violation. He asked if it
was the new sorter, or the old stacker, or if this is thought of as one thing. He said the Notice of Violation did
not clearly identify what, exactly, is being referred to and used rather general terms about the machines. He
clarified he was asking if both the sorter and the stacker are in violation by the Notice of Violation, or only the
sorter.
Mr. Herrick replied that the Notice of Violation cites the piece of equipment constructed in the VDOT right of
way as one piece.
Mr. Shepherd asked if this was the debarker on Route 250.
F1
Mr. Herrick replied that he believed this was the piece of equipment that most closely encroaches into the right
of way. He said that the second piece is the new sorter/stacker constructed on the parcels. He said that he would
defer to Mr. Svoboda or to Ms. Green, who he understood wrote the letter, to clarify what structures or
equipment might be referred to.
Ms. Alley said Mr. Patrick May had his hand raised, and that she recalled he is with Yancey Lumber
Corporation. She said Mr. May may be able to answer and asked if he should be allowed to speak.
Mr. Herrick said it was his understanding that Mr. Shepherd was looking for clarification on the Notice of
Violation and the contents of that. He said he would suspect that either Mr. Svoboda or Ms. Green would be the
best ones to answer the question.
Ms. Alley agreed and said she just wanted to let everyone know that Mr. May's hand was raised.
Ms. Joseph asked Mr. Shepherd if Ms. Green could be asked to speak, since she wrote the letter.
Ms. Lisa Green asked if the BZA was asking about the Notice of Violation that was written in 2019.
Mr. Shepherd said yes.
Ms. Green said this was based on the list of buildings for setbacks that Zoning looked at with all the buildings in
total to see what did not meet the current regulations. She said it had nothing to do with the Special Exceptions
coming forth. She said anything new that had been built was not deemed as something that had a permit or
nonconforming. She asked if this answered the question.
Mr. Shepherd replied no
Mr. Svoboda said the sorter/stacker is multiple pieces of equipment and is one lengthy process. He said when
they look at it on the drawings that are labeled, it is one long piece of equipment that Ms. Long had brought up
on her drawing.
Mr. Svoboda presented an exhibit and indicated to the long piece of equipment.
Ms. Green said based on the current conversation, it seemed to be only about the sorter/stacker, but the violation
letter had been written about several other buildings or comers of building for the parcel in total.
Mr. Shepherd said his understanding was that they were looking at something narrower than an entire
nonconformity study of the site and that they were only talking about two pieces of equipment.
Mr. Herrick said that this was correct and referred back to the Notice of Violation. He said that if they did not
defer the appeal, the underlying question is whether the Zoning Administrator was correct in the Notice of
Violation letter on December 20. He said that the Notice of Violation letter only cites setback violations as to
the piece of equipment constructed in the VDOT right of way and the new sorter/stacker constructed on these
parcels. He said that this is the very limited scope of the underlying issue that would be before the BZA if the
deferral were not granted.
Mr. Robb said the day prior, he visited the site, and the sorter and stacker, though in line with one another, are
two different buildings. He said one is a metal frame that was under construction and is now halted. He said he
wanted there to be the understanding that it was not one building.
0
Ms. Joseph said she would also like to ask a question that Ms. Green brought up. She said she wanted to clarify
that there was no building permit issued for either of these that are discussed in the official determination, and
that neither the equipment that is in the VDOT right of way or the new sorter/stacker ever received any kind of
building permit approval from the County.
Mr. Shepherd asked if there was any disagreement with that from County staff or the appellant.
Mr. Herrick replied that he would have to defer to Mr. Svoboda or Ms. Green.
Mr. Svoboda said there were permits that were applied for in some instances, but not issued, as they went
through the process. He said depending on whether or not they were talking about equipment or buildings
would depend on whether or not building permits are needed. He said as they go to put buildings around the
equipment, the buildings would require permits but not necessarily the equipment.
Ms. Long asked Ms. Joseph if she could respond to the question.
Mr. Shepherd said yes.
Ms. Long said neither piece of equipment has a building around it yet. She said there is a plan to do that, and
that the company very much wants to do so. She said in order to construct a building, however, they need a
building permit, and in order to obtain a building permit, they need relief from the setback regulations, which is
why they applied for that relief two and a half years ago.
Ms. Long said the company has long wanted to enclose the equipment in a building to reduce any noise from
them. She said they have repeatedly stated this to the neighbors, but they are not authorized to do this until the
Special Exception is granted. She said they are hopeful that this will occur in mid -July.
Ms. Long added that there is no longer any equipment located in the VDOT right of way. She said among other
measures that the company has undertaken, they spent ten months working with VDOT and purchased 10 feet
of land across the entire frontage of the property along Route 250 to buy back land from VDOT (which was
acquired by VDOT when Route 250 was widened many decades ago). She said it was originally the company's
land, and they had to buy it back, which took quite a long time going through the VDOT process. She said that
equipment is no longer located in the VDOT right of way.
Ms. Long also added that the appellant disputes the merits of the zoning violation, which is why they have it on
appeal. She requested the BZA grant the appellant the opportunity to continue to work through the Special
Exception process, given there is a chance it may allow the underlying issue to be resolved. She said if not, they
will welcome the opportunity to come back before the BZA and discuss this violation appeal on the merits.
Mr. Shepherd asked Mr. Bill Fritz to describe what has been happening between the County and the company
since the request was made for the Special Exceptions two and a half years ago, how this process has been
progressing, and if he sees any significant effect on that process by anything the BZA might do that day (i.e.
deferral or making a ruling on the violation).
Mr. Fritz said if the BZA were to hold the hearing that day and find that no violation existed, there would be
two fewer Special Exceptions the Board of Supervisors would need to consider. He said if the BZA upholds the
Zoning Administrator's decision, then those Special Exceptions would go before the Board of Supervisors. He
10
said the BZA acting or not acting that day does not impact the Special Exceptions, as there are numerous
Special Exceptions for a wide range of matters.
Mr. Fritz said the applicant made an initial application. He said they have done sound studies. He said there was
also the significant issue that, with the exception of a building permit for an expansion of the office building up
front, there have been no building permits for any structures out there. He said all the buildings do not have
building permits, so staff has been working to figure out how to retroactively issue those building permits, and
that this work has been picking up lately.
Ms. Long asked if she could weigh in on this
Mr. Shepherd replied yes.
Ms. Long said to the specific question about the delay, in addition to the many challenges with this process, the
company spent about one year with the Special Exception request on hold because there was an issue that came
up with the company. She said there was a hum or noise coming from what turned out to be a fan that is part of
the boiler of one of the kilns. She said in approximately August of 2018, while the company was diligently
pursuing the Special Exception requests, the company undertook routine maintenance and replaced the fan,
which unfortunately created a noise at a certain decibel or frequency that was quite loud and disruptive to the
community. She said the company figured this out on their own, after some testing, and immediately undertook
measures to correct the problem.
Ms. Long said unfortunately, it turned out to be far more challenging to correct than anyone had ever
anticipated. She said they consulted with numerous industry experts and consultants around the country, and
expended hundreds of thousands of dollars on silencing mufflers for the stack and other mechanisms to attempt
to mitigate the noise. She said during that time, the company scaled back their operations substantially and did
not operate the kiln at night so that they could avoid any noise or further disruption of the neighbors. She said
they also essentially turned the kiln off during the holidays and on weekends. She said they worked very hard
with the community. She said it was a very challenging time for the company and for the community.
Ms. Long said they did not feel it was appropriate to bring the Special Exception requests before the Planning
Commission and the Board of Supervisors at that time. She said they recognized that the most immediate focus
by the company should be on fixing the problem with the fan noise. She said they had thought initially that this
might take a month or two, at most, but it unfortunately took nearly a year, perhaps even longer. She said they
had three pieces of equipment specially designed, engineered, and manufactured at substantial expense on rush
orders. She said one was manufactured and shipped in Canada, and one was manufactured in England. She said
the company diligently pursued the issue to its resolution and that it has been fixed.
Ms. Long said they then immediately resumed work on the Special Exception. She said they did not want to
bring the requests immediately before the Planning Commission and the Board, as they knew they needed to
take a month or so to allow things to settle out. She said they also wanted to allow some time to have the new
fan and new noise cancelling mechanism work and confirm that it would be effective before moving forward
with the public hearing. She said other than that, they followed up and had a new round of noise and vibration
tests taken to confirm or update any readings that had occurred in the past year. She said they had detailed plans
prepared and updated to substantially address the Special Exception requests.
Ms. Long said Mr. Fritz was correct that there were a number of Special Exception requests but that she wanted
to note that the particular reason for that is because it was specifically suggested to the appellant when they first
met with the County Zoning Administrator in late 2018. She said they agreed with the suggestion and that it
11
made sense not only to ask for relief from setback regulations from any new equipment they wanted to complete
and bring into operation, but that they look at any regulations that the company is essentially grandfathered by
and ask for relief from those regulations as well. She said this would result in the entire site being in compliance
with all regulations.
Ms. Long said this mill began operation in this location 71 years ago, in 1949. She said all of the regulations
that are at issue were adopted in 1980. She said many of the Special Exception requests that are pending are
essentially to ask for relief from regulations that the company is exempt from as a legal nonconforming. She
said that not all, but several, of them are. She said it was suggested that they assemble a comprehensive package
of Special Exception requests and submit them all at one time so that there would be no question about the
company's compliance in the future. She said that is why there is a package of them.
Mr. Shepherd said one issue hanging over the discussion is the suggestion that there is a request that the
neighbors would ask the company to suspend certain activities pending the resolution of the Special Exceptions.
He asked if this was something the company wishes to pursue or agree to.
Ms. Alley reminded Mr. Shepherd that Mr. May had his hand raised to speak.
Ms. Long said Mr. May would like to respond and that she believed it would be appropriate for him to do so.
She asked if she could add a few comments first.
Ms. Long said as noted by Mr. Blaine, she and the company have met with the Swales on a number of
occasions. She said Mr. May has been meeting with them regularly. She said the company has had noise studies
taken at their property at their request. She said they have worked very hard to better understand their concerns
and work with them on compromise options.
Ms. Long said the company is absolutely willing to compromise and try to address issues anywhere and
everywhere they possibly can, so long as they do not require the business to shut down. She said unfortunately,
shutting down the stacker would do just that. She said it would shut down the entire business and that they
could not continue their operations in any viable fashion without the ability to continue operating the stacker.
Ms. Long said she wished there were an opportunity to construct a building around the equipment that day. She
said today, they would build the sound barrier wall and add the insulating noise attenuation material to it. She
said unfortunately, they are not able to do so until the Special Exception is granted, if it is. She said if not, they
will have serious issues to contend with. She said the appellant knows this, which is why they are working hard
to do it, but that shutting down the stacker is not a compromise position from the company's perspective,
unfortunately.
Ms. Long said in their numerous meetings with the Swales, they have continuously stated they do not wish the
mill to have to shut down. She said they are very understanding of the Swales' position and the aggravation they
have endured. She said if the stacker shuts down, however, it kills the business, all the jobs that come with it,
and all the economic revenue that comes to the County right now. She said they have a study from the County's
Economic Development Office that demonstrates that the company contributes $32 million to the County.
Ms. Long said this delay in having the Special Exception heard by the Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors was not due to the company. She said it was an unfortunate delay they had absolutely no choice in.
She said they wish they had been able to continue, but it was a terrible timing situation. She said they were
ready to go a week before the first meeting was cancelled.
12
Ms. Long said this delay was not due to the company. She said they think it is only fair, reasonable, and
appropriate that they be granted a one -month or two -month delay. She said they would like two months but
would take one if they have to. She said they suffered what would be a three-month delay on the Special
Exception request. She said they were just asking that the company not be penalized and prohibited from
carrying out that process and given the opportunity for the Board of Supervisors to consider those requests
before this hearing on the appeal.
Ms. Long said she would like Mr. May to weigh in further to address the question.
Mr. May said Ms. Long summed up the issue well. He said both pieces of equipment are critical. He said
everything that the mill does is essentially streamlined from one piece of equipment to another, and they are all
tied to one another. He said when one piece goes down, the entire business comes to a stop.
Mr. May said they are happy to work with the Swales and the neighbors. He said he has slowed down the
stacker and is looking at putting in supports that will help dampen the sound, since that seems to be the major
issue they have. He said he has tried to get their support so they can put a building around that stacker so that
they can dampen the noise and reduce any discomfort it causes the neighbors.
Mr. May said the main point is that both pieces of equipment are critical to the company's existence and that
without them, the company is no longer there.
Ms. Alley said Mr. Blaine's hand was raised as well.
Mr. Shepherd called on Mr. Blaine to speak.
Mr. Blaine said his understanding of the company's position is that they went forward with installing equipment
that violates the ordinance. He said their relief requires a legislative act, and they are saying they must shut the
entire company down if they are not given that. He asked what they did before they built the new sorter/stacker.
He said what the company said is that they had out-of-date former equipment, and either abandoned it or ceased
maintaining it to pursue new equipment that cannot be operated legally. He said they made a decision as a
company to give the County no choice, as what they are saying is that they must have the Special Exceptions, or
they are going out of business. He asked how the County can regulate businesses to go forward in that manner
and posture, then leave the legislative organization no choice.
Mr. Blaine said the company had a choice to go forward with this and did so a year and a half ago while
violating the ordinances. He said he realized they were not issued a "cease and desist" until December, but the
fact of the matter was that they were giving the County no option. He said this is not the way businesses should
be allowed to operate and be regulated.
Ms. Long asked if she could respond to this.
Mr. Shepherd said yes.
Ms. Long said she believed that the appellant long ago ventured beyond the question at issue here, which is on
the deferral request. She said she realized that as part of the Board's decision -making process, it is very helpful
to have additional background information and to answer their specific questions, and that she appreciated the
opportunity to provide this background information. She asked to focus on the specific question at issue on the
deferral and those factors in the BZA's Rules of Procedure about fairness, the potential ability to resolve the
13
underlying issue before the appeal, and the fact that this is not solely for the convenience of the company
because the need for the deferral is in no way due to the company's delay. She said the delay was forced upon
them.
Ms. Long said the company has been working diligently to try to address the concerns. She said they are asking
for a delay to complete an expensive, time-consuming process that they have undertaken for several years and
have been pursuing diligently. She said she believes this is what is important here.
Ms. Long said Mr. Blaine may have his own opinions on how the Board of Supervisors should consider the
Special Exception and may have the same comments as to how the BZA should handle the appeal itself She
said this is not what the question is at the moment. She said the question is on the deferral request only.
Ms. Long said the appellant believes it is entirely reasonable to have the ability to continue the same order that
this process has continued since the violation was issued, which is to allow the Special Exception process to go
forward first. She said it would be inappropriate to not allow that process to continue, given that the delay was
not due to the applicant's actions, and certainly was not to any benefit to the applicant. She said every day that
goes by makes it more and more challenging for this company, so they have desperately begged to get before
the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors for many months.
Ms. Alley noted that Mr. May's hand was raised.
Mr. Shepherd said he wanted to wrap up the hearing soon but that he wanted to hear from Mr. May.
Mr. May said Ms. Long covered everything he wanted to say and had no extra comments to add.
Mr. Shepherd said they had heard what they needed to hear. He said he could ask for a motion, or circle through
the Board members to make statements and get a general idea of what they would like to do.
MOTION: Mr. Rinehart moved to defer AP202000001 R.A. Yancey Lumber Corporation 55-11113 and 55-
112 to the August 4, 2020 BZA meeting. Mr. Robb seconded the motion.
Ms. Joseph said she felt that they were just looking at this determination of violation. She said she appreciated
that there were so many people from the public that have weighed into this and hoped that they will be seen and
heard at the Planning Commission meeting and the Board of Supervisors meeting. She said the BZA has read
letters from the Swales, Tom Goeke, Heather Dickey, Alice Faintich, Debbi Meslar-Little, Terry Maynard, and
Lillian Mezey. She said she did read all the letters and was sure the rest of the BZA read them, so they do take
these into account.
Ms. Joseph said this determination of violation, however, only deals with two things, and it is the fact that there
is a piece of equipment constructed in a VDOT right of way and the new sorter/stacker constructed on these
parcels do not meet the required setbacks. She said what they have heard is that the applicant has purchased
property from VDOT, so hopefully this was taken care of, but that they have already heard from Mr. Fritz and
Ms. Long that these issues will perhaps be taken care of if they get approval from the Board of Supervisors.
Ms. Joseph said right now, however, all of the other issues that people are concerned about are the purview of
the Board of Supervisors. She said the BZA just cannot do that. She said the only thing the BZA was looking at
are the violations stated in the letter of December 20, 2019. She said this is her reasoning for being able to
support this deferral request.
14
Mr. Robb echoed Ms. Joseph's comments and, as he stated his feelings earlier, had nothing to add.
Mr. Shepherd said he clearly saw both sides of the issue and that both sides are very compelling. He noted that
in general, this matter has been under active discussion for almost two and a half years. He said there is a
process undergoing to resolve this once and for all. He said they were only really there at the meeting because
of the intervention of the virus, which delayed the timeline that the Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors were on to address this, which then brings in the BZA out of the necessity of meeting the 90-day
requirement, which he felt was unfortunate.
Mr. Shepherd said he wanted to allow the process to stay on the track it is on but wanted to make clear to
everyone that if this is deferred to the August 4 meeting and is not resolved by then, on August 4 they would
take this up again with none of the mitigating circumstances before them and will simply look at the violation
itself and take action. He said he could clearly see the power behind both arguments, but with that said, with the
history of this, the intervention of the virus, and the opportunity to make a clear and definitive determination in
August makes him want to support the motion.
Mr. Shepherd asked Ms. Alley to call for the vote.
Ms. Alley called for the vote from each member. The motion passed unanimously (4-0)
Mr. Rinehart asked a technical question regarding the possibility of a Board of Supervisors outcome that did not
please the applicant which resulted in them appearing before the BZA and the legal notice requirements for
hearing the time on August 4. He said perhaps Mr. Svoboda could respond to that.
Mr. Svoboda said if the hearing is scheduled for August 4, the County would meet whatever their required
advertising and notification requirements are under the local ordinance and under State Code.
Mr. Rinehart asked if this would still give staff enough time, even if they were waiting for the Board of
Supervisors' decision.
Mr. Svoboda replied yes.
Mr. Shepherd thanked everyone who weighed in on the matter, adding he hoped it would have a good
resolution. He acknowledged that not everyone attending was satisfied.
Ms. Long said she appreciated the Board's support.
4. Approval of Minutes
A. February 4, 2020
MOTION: Mr. Rinehart moved to approve the February 4, 2020 minutes. Mr. Robb seconded the motion.
Ms. Joseph said she would assume where some things were struck out and replaced with different words, these
would not be shown in the final minutes.
Ms. Alley said this was correct.
Mr. Shepherd said he clearly remembered reading the minutes carefully as they were preparing for the appeal
and found that they accurately reflected the discussion and particularly the decisions and findings they made.
15
The motion passed unanimously (4-0).
Mr. Shepherd asked Mr. Herrick to inform the courts that the minutes were approved and valid.
Mr. Herrick said that Ms. Alley could substitute these now -approved final minutes of February 4, 2020 into the
record, if this is what the BZA would like her to do.
Mr. Shepherd said yes.
Ms. Joseph said she would like Ms. Alley to let her know when the minutes are finished so she can come in and
sign them.
Ms. Alley said she would do this.
Ms. Joseph said she wanted to interject something regarding the deferral request. She said that as Ms. Long said
as she was leaving, she appreciated the Board's support for the item. She noted that she was not offering Ms.
Long support for the Special Exception. She said she was simply voting on what was before the BZA. She said
she wanted this included in the minutes.
Mr. Bowling expressed that it was too late for this.
Ms. Joseph said the minutes had not been done for this yet.
Mr. Bowling said he meant it was too late as far as the matter was concerned. He said the statement could
appear in the minutes but that the matter was done.
Ms. Joseph said she just wanted the statement in the minutes. She said the comment was said after she had made
the vote, and that she did not want it misconstrued that she was adding her support for the Special Exception.
5.Old Business
A. Training Update
Mr. Svoboda said the training was on hold and that he would check with the Circuit Court to see how or where
they are, if possible, in the process for the Board's new member. He said they would also try to time the training
to be able to train everyone at once, including a new member. He said if this process goes longer, however, they
may get together with the current members.
Mr. Rinehart said he assumed they would be looking at the fall for training rather than encumbering vacations
and members or staff going out of town.
Mr. Svoboda said there was a July meeting scheduled and now one in August.
Ms. Alley noted that it was July 7.
Mr. Rinehart referred to the training and asked if Mr. Svoboda's intent was to tie it in with a meeting.
Mr. Svoboda replied that depending on the item and the timing they have to get prepared for it, training would
probably not be in July or August. He said July may not give staff enough time to prepare and that there could
be a number of speakers at the August appeal, which could take some time. He said the training was more likely
16
to happen in September or October. He said he would take a harder look at the July agenda and see if they have
some time to get started on the training.
Mr. Shepherd said it was important to include the new member in the training. He said he hoped the court
would move quickly on that, as it would be a great way to serve as an orientation for the new member and also
allow the Board to get to work together on something before actually getting a hearing. He said it was important
to wait for that. He said when they know the new person is on board, they can focus on finding a time that
works for everyone. He said it was important to all do the training together, and perhaps this meant waiting until
the fall.
Mr. Svoboda said this was up to the Board
Mr. Shepherd said he didn't plan on anything anymore and that he wanted to meet in person, but they cannot
He said it was hard to make definite plans at this point but that they would do the best they could with this.
Mr. Rinehart asked if, with as few people that would be in the training, there would be any reason why they
couldn't have social distancing in Lane Auditorium so they could be in person for that training.
Mr. Svoboda replied that he would check on the policy. He said they are currently reviewing moving into Phase
II and moving towards normalcy. He said he would check on what they have available per the guidelines.
Mr. Herrick said that the scheduling of the building is up to the County Executive. He said that immediately
before the Board of Supervisors started doing virtual meetings, their final in -person meetings in Lane
Auditorium required them to sit in every other seat. He said that the six -person Board of Supervisors was able to
meet at the dais. He said that ultimately, this is a question for the County Executive and when exactly the
County will reopen the County Office Building.
Mr. Shepherd said many adjustments were being made these days, and perhaps it would be possible to meet in
some other venue where they are in an area outside, for instance. He expressed he was open to ideas and
appreciated face-to-face meetings, especially for the training, which would benefit from the flow of give and
take and face-to-face conversation and would be stilted in a virtual situation. He said he would like something
better thanjust a PowerPoint. He said they can take this on when they are a full Board, and that Mr. Svoboda
had a sense of the Board as he is making the plans.
Mr. Rinehart asked Mr. Herrick if they could legally have a Zoom training follow-up to this meeting to hone in
on how they did and procedurally, how they might modify up and coming hearings. He asked if this was
appropriate.
Mr. Herrick replied that he was happy to provide training or education on whatever topics Board members
would like. He said that he always prefers to give training in more general terms rather than reference to any
specific applications.
Mr. Rinehart clarified he was talking about this Zoom hearing, where he saw some things that they need to
improve on. He asked if they could have another training session just on conducting themselves on Zoom.
Mr. Herrick replied yes, noting that he was sure Ms. Alley, IT staff, and others would be happy to provide more
Zoom training, especially if they are just focused on the topic of how to conduct Zoom meetings specifically,
not considering applications or any other business before the BZA.
17
Ms. Joseph asked Mr. Svoboda if he receives any new information about the new BZA member, could he let the
members know what is going on.
Mr. Svoboda replied yes.
Ms. Joseph agreed with Mr. Rinehart, adding she would like more of an idea of how to proceed, including who
is speaking and not speaking and how they enter into the conversation. She expressed that it seems to follow a
looser format than when they are sitting on the dais. She said she would like to work through this also.
Mr. Herrick said that as an initial suggestion, there are other public bodies of the County that are meeting via
Zoom. He said that evening at 6:00 p.m., he would be involved in another Zoom meeting with the Planning
Commission. He said that if members are interested in how other public bodies are handling Zoom, the
Planning Commission would be meeting that evening, and the Board of Supervisors would have a Zoom
meeting the next day in the afternoon. He said that members are welcome to tune in to those meetings online.
Mr. Svoboda recommended that when Board members look at those other bodies' meetings, they look at them
through the operation of the meeting and not necessarily from the public view of receiving the presentation.
Mr. Shepherd said he would benefit from that and would take up that suggestion
Mr. Robb asked about his technical issues and what he could do to resolve them.
Mr. Svoboda said he would have Ms. Alley call Mr. Robb to help work out the issues.
Ms. Alley said she would touch base with Mr. Robb the next day to come up with alternatives.
7. Adjournment
MOTION: At 3:44 p.m., Mr. Rinehart moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Joseph seconded the motion, which
passed unanimously (4-0).
(Recorded by Marsha Alley and transcribed by Beth Golden)
Respectfully Submitted,
Marcia Joseph, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals
18