HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-3-11B OARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
MA RCH 11, 2009
C OUNTY OFFICE BUILDIN G
3:00 P.M. – ROOM 241
1. Call to Order.
2. Work Session: FY 200910 C ounty Budget:
a. Board Dis cussion/W rap Up
b. Set 2009 Tax Rates for Public Hearing
c . Approve Proposed Budget for Public Hearing
3. Adjourn.
6:00 P.M. A UDITORIUM
1. Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. From the Board: Matters Not Lis ted on the Agenda.
5. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
6. Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
7. SP20080057. C harlottesville Kingdom Hall (Sign #11). PR OPOSED: Renewal of expired S.U.P. – SP
2004002 currently in site development process . Request for S.U .P. to allow a Church. ZONING
C ATEGORY/ GENERAL USAGE: R2 Residential 2 units/acre and R4 R esidential 4 units/acre.
SEC TION: Sections 14.2.2.12 and 15.2.2.12 of the Zoning Ordinance whic h allow for Churches.
C OMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAN D U SE/DENSITY: Neighborhood D ensity Residential residential (36
units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other smalls cale non
residential uses in Neighborhood 5. EN TRANC E CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: 665 Old Lync hburg Road
(Rt 631), at the intersection of Old Lynchburg Road and Sunset Avenue Extended. TAX MAP/PARC EL:
76/51. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville.
8. SP2009001. Montessori Community SchoolPantops Mountain (Signs #105&106). PROPOSED:
Special Use Permit (SP) request to extend approval for an exis ting special use permit (SP 06038) for a
private school to allow for replac ement of modular trailers with permanent buildings for 40,700 s quare feet of
total building area on a 6.71 acre site. ZONIN G C ATEGOR Y/GEN ERAL USAGE: C O Commercial Office
offices, supporting commercial and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/
acre).SECTION : 23.2.2.9 Private School. COMPR EHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: U rban
D ensity Residential residential (6.0134 units /ac re) and supporting uses such as religious institutions,
s chools, commercial, office and service uses in Neighborhood 3 (Pantops) D evelopment Area. EN TRANC E
C ORR IDOR: Yes . LOCATION: 305 R olkin R oad, adjacent to the NW of the intersection of R olkin Road
and Richmond Road (Route 250).TAX MAP/PAR CEL: TMP 7812A and 12A1. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT:
R ivanna.
9. SP20080032. C entral Virginia Recycling Center (Signs #49&52). PROPOSED : Special U se Permit on
approximately 25 acre portion of a 100.261 ac re parcel and a .23 acre parcel c ontaining a c entral well.
Proposal is to rec eive wood products from timber, stumps, and wood waste from construc tion, shipping and
excavation and then process ed/recycled by grinding, chipping, dying and composting into mulch and wood
biofuel; conduct both retail and wholesale sales of the products at the site; s ite would include twostory
building to hold offices, vehicle repair and was h bays; guardhous e at site entry ; and multiple bins to hold the
finished wood products. Materials to be processed and while c omposting w ould be placed in multiple max
12' high mounds. Hours/days of operation proposed from 7 AM to 5 PM Monday Friday and 7 AM to 1 PM
Saturday. ZONIN G C ATEGOR Y/GEN ERAL USAGE: RA R ural Areas: agric ultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots). SEC TION: 10.2.2 (14) Sawmills, planning mills
and woodyards. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: RA R ural Areas preserve and protect
agricultural, forestal, open spac e, and natural, his toric and sc enic resources/density (.5 unit/ac re in
development lots ); EC Entranc e C orridor Ov erlay to protec t properties of his toric, architectural or cultural
s ignificance from visual impac ts of development along routes of tourist acces s. ENTRANCE C ORR IDOR:
Yes. LOCATION : 4545 Richmond R oad; South s ide of Richmond Rd. (Rt 250 East) at its intersection with
Three Chopt Road (Rt 794), approximately 1,325 feet west of Union Mills Rd. (Rt 759) and Black C at Rd.
(Rt. 616). TAX MAP/PARCEL: TMP 9421N and TMP 9421N1 (w ell lot). MAGISTERIAL DISTR ICT:
Sc ottsville.
10. From the Board: C ommittee R eports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
11. Adjourn.
C O N S E N T A G E N D A
FOR APPR OVAL:
6.1 Approval of Minutes: April 2 and June 11, 2008.
6.2 Acquisition of Conservation Easements (AC E) R anking Order for FY 200809 Applicant Class.
FOR IN FORMATION:
6.3 2008 Annual Report of the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Ret urn t o Top of Agenda
Ret urn t o Board of Superv isors Home P age
Ret urn t o Count y Home Page
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Ranking
Order for FY 200809 Applicant Class
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Authorize staff to appraise six properties from FY 2008
09 ACE applicant clas s
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Herrick,
Cilimberg, Benish and Goodall
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
March 11, 2009
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
Pursuant to sections A.1110(G) and A.1110(H ) of the ACE Ordinance, the Board of Supervisors reviews the list of
ranked parcels submitted by the ACE Committee and identifies parc els on which it desires to acquire c onservation
easements . Each cons erv ation easement identified by the Board for purchase is appraised by an independent
appraiser c hosen by the C ounty.
Eleven (11) ACE applications were submitted for the R ound 9 class (FY 200809) by the October 31, 200 deadline.
Six of the applications (McDaniel, Mike Hudson, Thurman, R ives, Bark sdale and Rushia) w ere reenrolled from the
previous year because the County was unable to acquire ACE easements on those properties due to funding
limitations. Staff has evaluated the properties of eac h of the Round 9 applicants ac cording to the ACE Ordinance
ranking evaluation criteria. These objectiv e criteria inc lude: open spac e resources; threat of conversion to developed
use; natural, scenic and c ultural resources; and County fund leveraging from outside s ources. Bas ed on the results
of the evaluation, staff has determined the eligibility of the properties and has placed them in ranking order (see
Attachment A). These results w ere pres ented to the AC E Committee at its February 9, 2009 meeting.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2.1 – “Protect and/or preserve the County’s rural c haracter”
Goal 2.2 – “Protect and/or preserve the County’s natural resources”
DISCU SSION :
The ev aluation of the elev en applications from Round 9 has determined that nine (9) properties scored high enough
to be eligible for ACE funding. W ith $1,640,000 of appropriated funding available for this class, the ACE C ommittee
believes that the County c an acquire AC E easements on the 5 or 6 highest ranked properties. Based on the final
ranking order and eligibility status of the R ound 9 properties, the ACE C ommittee recommends that the Board
authoriz e s taff to acquire appraisals for the six (6) highest ranked properties: McDaniel, Garnett (E.N .), Hudson
(Michael), Magerfield, Hudson (Charles ) and Thurman. Although the total ACE budget for FY 200809 may be
insufficient for purchas ing easements on all six properties , the ACE Committee believes it is prudent to obtain
appraisals on more properties than funding w ill allow in the event that additional funding becomes available or some
higher rank ing applicants withdraw their application from the Program.
The ac quis ition of easements on the six highest rank ed properties w ould eliminate 65 development rights and result
in the protection of the follow ing resources:
849.6 acres of farm and forestland, of w hich 347 acres are “prime” farm & forestland
8,332 feet of state road frontage
8,412 feet of protected stream & river frontage (including 2,154 feet on the James River – a state sc enic
river)
15,533 feet of common boundary with other protected lands (including 541 feet adjoining W alnut Creek
Park )
140 acres within the proposed “mountain overlay district”
Five of the six properties have signific ant tourism value
Five of the six properties are productive, w orking farms
BUD GET IMPA CT:
There is no additional request for funding related to this action. The funding for the appraisals and the
purchase of these potential conservation easements would come from both the C IPPlanningConservation
budget (lineitem #901081010580409) and the C IPTourismConservation budget (lineitem #901072030
580416), a budget previously approved by the Board to fund ACE properties with “tourism value.” Staff will
continue to pursue outside funding sources to supplement the AC E Program funding. One suc h source is the
Office of Farmland Preservation (administered by the Virginia D epartment of Agriculture and C onsumer
Serv ices), which recently awarded the County a grant of $49,900 to help preserve farmland. Additional
sources of potential outside funding include the Preservation Trus t Fund, the Virginia Land Conservation
Foundation and the Farm and R anc hlands Protec tion Program.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The AC E Committee and staff rec ommend that the Board:
1) Approve the final ranking order for Round 9 (FY 200809) as shown on Attachment A;
2) Identify the McD aniel, Garnett (E.N.), Hudson (Michael), Magerfield, Hudson (Charles) and
Thurman properties as those on which it desires to purc hase conservation easements; and
3) Authorize staff to acquire appraisals for the McDaniel, Garnett (E.N.), H udson (Michael),
Magerfield, Hudson (Charles) and Thurman properties .
ATTA CHMEN TS
A – Ranking Order of AC E Applicants from R ound 9 (FY 200809)
Return to c ons ent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Attachment A
Ranking Order of ACE Applicants from Round 9 (FY 2008-09)
(20 points are needed to qualify for ACE Funding)
Applicant Tax Map Acres Points Tourism Eligibility
McDaniel, James TM 135, Parcel 15A ( 0.902 acres) 36.77 points yes eligible
(Scottsville) TM 135, Parcel 18 ( 24.371 acres)
TM 135, Parcel 19 “A” ( 87.481 acres)
TM 135, Parcel 19 “B” ( 24.785 acres)
TM 135, Parcel 22 ( 39.720 acres)
Total (177.259 acres)
Garnett, E.N. TM 73, Parcel 25 (113.000 acres) 33.36 points yes eligible
(Carters Bridge)
Hudson, Michael TM 100, Parcel 1 217.140 acres 32.01 points yes eligible
(North Garden)
Sarah Magerfield TM 73, Parcel 42 ( 38.000 acres) 31.31 points yes eligible
(North Garden) TM 73, Parcel 42A ( 70.860 acres)
Total (108.860 acres)
Charles P. Hudson TM 100, Parcel 20B ( 55.997 acres) 26.45 points yes eligible
(Walnut Creek) TM 100, Parcel 21 ( 68.990 acres)
Total (124.987 acres)
Thurman, Thelma TM 94, Parcel 20A 108.400 acres 25.36 points no eligible
(Milton)
Rives, Barclay TM 65, Parcel 93A1 3.811 acres 24.58 points yes eligible
(Cismont) TM 65, Parcel 94 3.000 acres
TM 65, Parcel 94 “A” 1.250 acres
TM 65, Parcel 94 “B” 15.950 acres
TM 65, Parcel 95 4.872 acres
TM 65, Parcel 95A 3.978 acres
TM 65, Parcel 121 38.840 acres
Total 71.701 acres
Barksdale, John TM 100, Parcel 34 (153.010 acres) 23.09 points no eligible
(Walnut Creek)
Rushia, Ed & Chris TM 39, Parcel 27 86.700 acres 22.43 points yes eligible
(Crozet)
Sobel, Jeff & Linda TM 57, Parcel 75 40.460 acres 12.01 points no ineligible
(Crozet)
White, Brant & Barbara TM 51, Parcel 2A 37.195 acres 11.48 points no ineligible
(Cismont)
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Totals 11 applicants 1,254.427 acres
Note: Tourism value is determined by the presence of specific elements from the ranking evaluation criteria making
certain properties eligible for funding from the transient lodging tax. The specific criteria include the following:
contains historic resources or lies in a historic district; lies in the primary Monticello viewshed; adjoins a Virginia
scenic highway, byway or entrance corridor; lies on a state scenic river; provides mountaintop protection
Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: James C. McDaniel
Property: TM 135, Parcel 15A ( 0.902 acres) 0 DivR’s + 1 DevR’s = 1 DR’s
TM 135, Parcel 18 ( 24.371 acres) 0 DivR’s + 0 DevR’s = 0 DR’s (in floodplain)
TM 135, Parcel 19 “A” ( 87.481 acres) 3 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 8 DR’s
TM 135, Parcel 19 “B” ( 24.785 acres) 0 DivR’s + 0 DevR’s = 0 DR’s (in floodplain)
TM 135, Parcel 22 ( 39.720 acres) 1 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 6 DR’s
Total (192.974 acres) 4 DivR’s + 11 DevR’s = 15 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 next to TNC easement plats/County overlay maps 2.00
Criteria A.2 177.259 acres RE Assessor’s Office 3.55
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.3 10 usable DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 5.00
Criteria C.1 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.2 yes landowner 3.00
Criteria C.3 1,550 feet on SR 627 County tax map/plats 4.51
959 feet on SR 726
Criteria C.4 1806 home (DHR 2-241) PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 3.00
Criteria C.5 Virginia mallow DCR Division of Natural Heritage 2.00
Stalkless yellow-cress
Criteria C.6 124 acres County Soil Survey 2.48
Criteria C.7 2,154 feet on the James River County overlay maps 1.08
Criteria C.8 no plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.9 100’ wide buffer on James River landowner 2.15
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 yes County overlay maps 2.00
Criteria C.12 no landowner/DOF 0.00
Criteria D.1 40% funding Based on income grid 6.00
Point Total 36.77 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation; SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor;
SR = State Road; CE = Conservation Easement; SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed
SWMHD = Southwest Mountains Historic District
Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: E.N. Garnett
Property: TM 73, Parcel 25 ( 113.000 acres) 4 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 9 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 4,401 feet on Page plats/County overlay maps 21.42
5,311 feet on Lewis
Criteria A.2 113.000 acres RE Assessor’s Office 2.26
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.3 6 usable DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 3.00
Criteria C.1 50 acres in MOD County overlay maps 1.50
10 acres in RAB
Criteria C.2 yes landowner 3.00
Criteria C.3 no road frontage County tax map/plats 0.00
Criteria C.4 no PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 0.00
Criteria C.5 no DCR Division of Natural Heritage 0.00
Criteria C.6 29 acres County Soil Survey 0.58
Criteria C.7 none County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.8 no plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.9 landowner not interested landowner 0.00
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.12 yes landowner/DOF 1.00
Criteria D.1 94% funding Based on income grid 0.60
Point Total 33.36 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation
SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road
CE = Conservation Easement
SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed
SWMHD = Southwest Mountains Historic District
ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: Michael Hudson
Property: Parcel A ( 40.00 acres) 1 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 6 DR’s
Parcel B ( 110.50 acres) 4 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 9 DR’s
Parcel C ( 51.00 acres) 1 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 6 DR’s
Parcel D ( 17.71 acres) 0 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 5 DR’s
TM 100- 1 (217.140 acres) 6 DivR’s + 20 DevR’s = 26 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 w/in ¼ mile of Powell County overlay map 2.00
Criteria A.2 217.14 acres RE Assessor’s Office 4.34
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.3 23 DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Department 11.50
Criteria C.1 yes - 50 acres in MOD County overlay map 1.00
no acres in RAB
Criteria C.2 yes landowner 5.00
Criteria C.3 1,328’ on SR 813 County overlay map 3.33
Criteria C.4 no DHR & Monticello viewshed maps 0.00
Criteria C.5 yes (5,000’ upstream of habitat of DCR - Division of Natural Heritage 2.00
American eel & mountain red belly dace)
Criteria C.6 97 acres “prime soil” County Soil Survey 1.94
Criteria C.7 no County overlay map 0.00
Criteria C.8 no County overlay map 0.00
Criteria C.9 300’ on SF Hardware River landowner 0.30
(in CREP)
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 no County overlay map 0.00
Criteria C.12 no Department of Forestry 0.00
Criteria D.1 94% funding Based on income grid 0.60
Point Total 32.01 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DHR = Department of Historic Resources; DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation
SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir
MOD = Mountain overlay District; RAB = Ridge Area Boundary (land within 100’ of ridgetop)
ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: Sarah Magerfield
Property: TM 73, Parcel 42 ( 38.000 acres) 1 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 6 DR’s
TM 73, Parcel 42A ( 70.860 acres) 2 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 7 DR’s
Total (108.860 acres) 3 DivR’s + 10 DevR’s = 13 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 5,280 on Lewis (TM 73-43) County overlay map 12.56
Criteria A.2 108.860 acres RE Assessor’s Office 2.18
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.3 10 DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Department 5.00
Criteria C.1 30 acres – Taylors Mountain MOD County overlay map 1.55
19 acres RAB
Criteria C.2 yes landowner 3.00
Criteria C.3 977 feet on SR 708 County overlay map 2.98
Criteria C.4 no DHR & Monticello viewshed maps 0.00
Criteria C.5 no DCR - Division of Natural Heritage 0.00
Criteria C.6 72 acres “prime soil” County Soil Survey 1.44
Criteria C.7 no County overlay map 0.00
Criteria C.8 no County overlay map 0.00
Criteria C.9 n/a landowner 0.00
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 yes County overlay map 2.00
Criteria C.12 no landowner/DOF 0.00
Criteria D.1 94% funding Based on income grid 0.60
Point Total 31.31 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DHR = Department of Historic Resources; DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation
SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir
ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: Charles P. Hudson
Property: TM 100, Parcel 20B ( 55.997 acres) 2 DivR’s + 4 DevR’s = 6 DR’s
TM 100, Parcel 21 ( 68.990 acres) 2 DivR’s + 4 DevR’s = 6 DR’s
Total (124.987 acres) 4 DivR’s + 8 DevR’s = 12 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 541 feet on Walnut Creek Park County overlay map 3.08
Criteria A.2 124.987 acres RE Assessor’s Office 2.50
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.3 9 DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Department 4.50
Criteria C.1 10 acres - Gay Mountain MOD County overlay map 0.22
Criteria C.2 yes landowner 5.00
Criteria C.3 1,271 feet on SR 631 County overlay map 3.27
Criteria C.4 no DHR & Monticello viewshed maps 0.00
Criteria C.5 no DCR - Division of Natural Heritage 0.00
Criteria C.6 94 acres “prime soil” County Soil Survey 1.88
Criteria C.7 no County overlay map 0.00
Criteria C.8 no County overlay map 0.00
Criteria C.9 3,000+/- feet landowner 6.00
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 no County overlay map 0.00
Criteria C.12 no landowner/DOF 0.00
Criteria D.1 n/a Based on income grid 0.00
Total 26.45 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DHR = Department of Historic Resources; DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation
SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir
ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: Thelma Thurman
Property: TM 94, Parcel 20A (108.400 acres) 4 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 9 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 w/in ¼ mile of Limestone Farm County overlay map 2.00
Criteria A.2 108.400 acres RE Assessor’s Office 2.17
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 yes landowner 3.00
Criteria B.3 6 DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Department 3.00
Criteria C.1 no County overlay map 0.00
Criteria C.2 yes landowner 5.00
Criteria C.3 2,647’ on SR 623 County overlay map 4.65
Criteria C.4 no DHR & Monticello viewshed maps 0.00
Criteria C.5 no DCR - Division of Natural Heritage 0.00
Criteria C.6 55 acres “prime soil” County Soil Survey 1.10
Criteria C.7 no County overlay map 0.00
Criteria C.8 no County overlay map 0.00
Criteria C.9 2,958’ w/ 50-100 foot wide landowner 4.44
buffers
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 no County overlay map 0.00
Criteria C.12 no Department of Forestry 0.00
Criteria D.1 n/a VOF, PEC, TNC etc. 0.00
Point Total 25.36 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DHR = Department of Historic Resources; DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation
SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir
Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: John Barksdale
Property: TM 100, Parcel 34 (153.010 acres) 7 DivR’s + 3 DevR’s = 10 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 1,076 feet on Walnut Creek plats/County overlay maps 4.15
Park
Criteria A.2 153.010 acres RE Assessor’s Office 3.06
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.3 7 usable DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 3.50
Criteria C.1 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.2 yes landowner 3.00
Criteria C.3 1,076 feet on SR 631 County tax map/plats 3.08
Criteria C.4 none PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 0.00
Criteria C.5 mafic outcrops w/ rare plants? DCR Division of Natural Heritage 3.00
Criteria C.6 105 acres County Soil Survey 2.10
Criteria C.7 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.8 no plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.9 none landowner 0.00
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.12 no landowner/DOF 0.00
Criteria D.1 88% funding Based on income grid 1.20
Point Total 23.09 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation
SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road
CE = Conservation Easement
SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed
SWMHD = Southwest Mountains Historic District
Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: Rives
Property: TM 65, Parcel 93A1 ( 3.811 acres) 0 DivR’s + 1 DevR’s = 1 DR’s
TM 65, Parcel 94 ( 3.000 acres) 0 DivR’s + 1 DevR’s = 1 DR’s
TM 65, Parcel 94 “A” ( 1.250 acres) 0 DivR’s + 1 DevR’s = 1 DR’s
TM 65, Parcel 94 “B” (15.950 acres) 0 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 5 DR’s
TM 65, Parcel 95 ( 4.872 acres) 0 DivR’s + 2 DevR’s = 2 DR’s
TM 65, Parcel 95A ( 3.978 acres) 0 DivR’s + 1 DevR’s = 1 DR’s
TM 65, Parcel 121 (38.840 acres) 1 DivR’s + 6 DevR’s = 7 DR’s
Total (71.701 acres) 1 DivR’s + 17 DevR’s = 18 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 783 feet on Mirza (TM 65-93) plats/County overlay maps 3.57
Criteria A.2 71.701 acres RE Assessor’s Office 1.43
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.3 16 DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 8.00
Criteria C.1 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.2 yes landowner 3.00
Criteria C.3 470 feet on Route 231 County tax map/plats 2.92
144 feet on SR 740
Criteria C.4 Southwest Mountains RHD PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 3.00
Criteria C.5 no DCR Division of Natural Heritage 0.00
Criteria C.6 33 acres County Soil Survey 0.66
Criteria C.7 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.8 no plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.9 none landowner 0.00
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 yes (Kinloch Ag-For) County overlay maps 2.00
Criteria C.12 no landowner/DOF 0.00
Criteria D.1 n/a Based on income grid 0.00
Point Total 24.58 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation; SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State
Road; CE = Conservation Easement; SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed; SWMHD = Southwest
Mountains Historic District
Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: Rushia
Property: TM 39, Parcel 27 (86.700 acres) 3 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 8 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 990 feet on Henley plats/County overlay maps 11.54
1,922 feet on Shaw
1,856 feet on Pietsch
Criteria A.2 86.700 acres RE Assessor’s Office 1.73
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.3 6 usable DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 3.00
Criteria C.1 61 acres in MOD County overlay maps 2.97
35 acres in RAB
Criteria C.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria C.3 none County tax map/plats 0.00
Criteria C.4 none PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 0.00
Criteria C.5 no DCR Division of Natural Heritage 0.00
Criteria C.6 8 acres County Soil Survey 0.19
Criteria C.7 SF Rivanna River Watershed County overlay maps 3.00
Criteria C.8 no plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.9 none landowner 0.00
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.12 no landowner/DOF 0.00
Criteria D.1 94% funding Based on income grid 0.60
Point Total 23.03 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation
SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road
CE = Conservation Easement
SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed
SWMHD = Southwest Mountains Historic District
Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: Sobel
Property: TM 57, Parcel 75 (40.460 acres) 1 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 6 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 <1/4 mile from Martin (57-73A) plats/County overlay maps 2.00
Criteria A.2 40.460 acres RE Assessor’s Office 0.81
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.3 4 usable DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 2.00
Criteria C.1 none County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria C.3 none County tax map/plats 0.00
Criteria C.4 none PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 0.00
Criteria C.5 yes (James spiny mussel) DCR Division of Natural Heritage 2.00
Criteria C.6 10 acres County Soil Survey 0.20
Criteria C.7 SF Rivanna River Watershed County overlay maps 3.00
Criteria C.8 no plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.9 100+ foot wide buffer on landowner 2.00
1,000 feet of perennial stream
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.12 no landowner/DOF 0.00
Criteria D.1 n/a Based on income grid 0.00
Point Total 12.01 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation
SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road
CE = Conservation Easement
SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed
SWMHD = Southwest Mountains Historic District
Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: White
Property: TM 51, Parcel 2A (37.195 acres) 1 DivR’s + 1 DevR’s = 2 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 <1/4 mile from Royster & plats/County overlay maps 2.00
Youngblood
Criteria A.2 37.195 acres RE Assessor’s Office 0.74
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.3 1 usable DR eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 0.50
Criteria C.1 none County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.2 yes ? landowner 3.00
Criteria C.3 none County tax map/plats 0.00
Criteria C.4 Southwest Mountains RHD PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 3.00
Criteria C.5 no DCR Division of Natural Heritage 0.00
Criteria C.6 32 acres County Soil Survey 0.64
Criteria C.7 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.8 no plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.9 100+ foot wide buffer on landowner 1.60
800 feet of perennial stream
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.12 no landowner/DOF 0.00
Criteria D.1 n/a Based on income grid 0.00
Point Total 11.48 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation
SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road
CE = Conservation Easement
SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed
SWMHD = Southwest Mountains Historic District
Ranking Evaluation Criteria.
A. Open-space resources.
1. The parcel adjoins an existing permanent conservation easement, a
national, state or local park, or other permanently protected open-space: two (2) points, with one additional (1) point
for every five hundred (500) feet of shared boundary; or the parcel is within one-quarter (1/4) mile, but not
adjoining, an existing permanent conservation easement, a national, state or local park, or other permanently
protected open-space: two (2) points.
2. Size of the parcel: one (1) point for each fifty (50) acres.
B. Threat of conversion to developed use.
1. The parcel is threatened with forced sale: five (5) points.
2. The parcel is threatened with other hardship: three (3) points.
3. The number of usable division rights to be eliminated on the parcel: one-half (1/2) point
for each usable division right to be eliminated, which shall be determined by subtracting the number of retained
division rights from the number of division rights. A division right includes all by-right divisions of both 2-acre lots
and the 21-acre residual lots. Each right represents the right to build a single dwelling.
C. Natural, cultural and scenic resources.
1. Mountain protection: one (1) point for each fifty (50) acres in the mountain overlay
district, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. An additional one (1) point may be awarded for each twenty (20)
acres within a ridge area boundary. For purposes of this section, the term “ridge area boundary” means the area that
lies within one hundred (100) feet below designated ridgelines shown on county mountain overlay district elevation
maps. If the landowner elects to use these points in the ranking criteria, the Deed of Easement shall prohibit all
construction within the MOD. No farm building or agricultural structure may be allowed unless prior written
approval is obtained from each Grantee”.
2. Working family farm, including forestry: five (5) points if at least one family member’s
principal occupation and income (more than half) is farming or foresting the parcel; three (3) points if one family
member has as a secondary occupation working the farm sufficient to qualify for the land use tax program.
3. The parcel adjoins a road designated either as a Virginia scenic highway or byway, or as
an entrance corridor under section 30.6.2 of Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code: two (2) points, with one (1)
additional point for each six hundred (600) feet of road frontage; or the parcel adjoins a public road: two (2) points,
with one (1) additional point for each one thousand (1000) feet of road frontage; or, the parcel is substantially visible
from, but is not contiguous to, a public road designated either as a Virginia scenic highway or byway, or as an
entrance corridor under section 30.6.2 of Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code: two (2) points. If the
landowner elects to use points in the ranking criteria for frontage on a Virginia scenic highway or byway, any new
dwelling shall have a 250’ setback from said roadway or shall not be visible in any season of the year from the
scenic road on a site approved by the Grantee. Otherwise, one (1) point will be awarded for each one thousand
(1000) feet of road frontage.
4. The parcel contains historic resources: three (3) points if it is within a national or state
rural historic district or is subject to a permanent easement protecting a historic resource; two (2) points if the parcel
is within the primary Monticello viewshed, as shown on viewshed maps prepared for Monticello and in the
possession of the county; two (2) points if the parcel contains artifacts or a site of archaeological or architectural
significance as determined by a qualified archaeologist or architectural historian under the United States Department
of Interior’s professional qualification standards. If the landowner elects to use these points in the ranking criteria
for artifacts or sites of archaeological or architectural significance, the Deed of Easement shall require the permanent
protection of these resources as designed by Department of Historic Resources.
5. The parcel contains an occurrence listed on the state natural heritage inventory or a
qualified biologist has submitted documentation of an occurrence of a natural heritage resource to the ACE Program
and the Division of Natural Heritage on behalf of the applicant: five (5) points; or the parcel is within one-quarter
(1/4) mile of an occurrence listed on the State Natural Heritage Inventory: two (2) points.
6. The parcel contains capability class I, II or III soils (“prime soils”) for agricultural lands
or ordination symbol 1 or 2 for forest land, based on federal natural resources conservation service classifications
found in the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Survey of Albemarle County, Virginia: one (1) point for
each fifty (50) acres containing such soils to a maximum of five (5) points.
7. The parcel is within the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir Watershed, the Chris Greene Lake
Watershed, or the Totier Creek Reservoir Watershed: three (3) points; or the parcel adjoins the Ivy Creek, Mechums
River, Moormans River, Rocky Creek (of the Moormans River), Wards Creek (of the Moormans River), Doyles
Creek, Buck Mountain Creek, South Fork Rivanna Reservoir River, North Fork Rivanna River, Totier Creek
Reservoir, Swift Run (of the North Fork Rivanna River), Lynch River (of the North Fork Rivanna River, Rivanna
River, Jacob’s Run, or the Hardware River, Rockfish River, James River, any waters designated as “Exceptional
Waters” by the Virginia Water Control Board, any public water supply reservoir or emergency water supply
reservoir: one (1) point for each one thousand (1000) feet of frontage.
8. The parcel adjoins a waterway designated as a state scenic river: one-half
(1/2) point for each one thousand (1000) feet of frontage. If the landowner elects to use these points in the ranking
criteria, any new dwelling shall not be visible from the river or require a 250’ setback from the river so as to
maintain the natural, scenic quality of the property from the river.
9. The parcel is subject to a permanent easement whose primary purpose is to establish or
maintain vegetative forest buffers adjoining perennial or intermittent streams, as those terms are defined in Chapter
17 of the Albemarle County Code: one (1) point for each one thousand (1000) linear feet of buffer that is between
thirty-five (35) and one hundred (100) fifty (50) feet wide; one and one-half (1½) points for each one thousand
(1000) linear feet of buffer that is greater than fifty (50) feet but not more than one hundred (100) feet wide; two (2)
points for each one thousand (1000) linear feet of buffer that is greater than one hundred (100) feet wide. If the
owner voluntarily offers in his application to place the parcel in such a permanent easement, then the above-
referenced points may also be awarded.
10. The parcel is within a sensitive groundwater recharging area identified in a county-
sponsored groundwater study: one (1) point.
11. The parcel is within an agricultural and forestal district: two (2) points.
12. One (1) point for a professionally prepared Forestry Stewardship Management Plan
approved by the Virginia Department of Forestry.
D. County Fund Leveraging.
1. State, federal, or private funding identified to leverage the purchase of the conservation
easement: one (1) point for each ten (10) percent of the purchase price for which those funds can be applied.
Memorandum
TO: Members, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
FROM: Amelia G. McCulley, Zoning Administrator
DATE: March 4, 2009
RE: 2008 Annual Report of the Board of Zoning Appeals
Please find the attached 2008 annual report of the Board of Zoning Appeals.
State Code Section 15.22308 requires the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) to keep a full public
record of its proceedings and to submit a report of its activities to the governing body. The full
2008 BZA annual report is attached for your information.
The Board of Zoning Appeals hears variances from the Zoning Ordinance and appeals from
decisions of the Zoning Administrator or other administrative officer. These appeals can
include determinations of zoning violation.
The number of appeals in 2008 decreased by 2, from 9 received in 2007 to 7 in 2008. One was
moot, one was void, two were affirmed and one was modified by the Board. There are three
appeals pending (one from 2007 and two from 2008).
The number of variances in 2008 decreased by 1, from 12 in 2007 to 11 in 2008. Of the
eleven, five variances were approved, one was denied, and five were withdrawn. The number
of variance requests related to setbacks decreased (by one) in 2008.
The number of special use permits for offsite signs/lighted signs increased by 3, from 0 in 2007
to 3 in 2008. Of the three applications, two applications are still pending and one was void.
The following court cases are still pending as of December 31, 2008:
1. Paul Begin, et al. v. Board of Zoning Appeals and Planned Parenthood.
2. Scott W. and Caroline F. Watkins v. Board of Zoning Appeals. Appeal of determination
of zoning violation.
3. Ellen Hawkins v Board of Zoning Appeals: Appeal of determination of zoning violation.
4. Rickey Lee Baumgardner, Donna G. Baumgardner and Crown Motorcar Company, LLC
v Board of Zoning Appeals: Appeal of determination of zoning violation.
Go to attachment
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
2008 ANNUAL REPORT
I. INTRODUCTION
The Code of Virginia states that the Board of Zoning Appeals shall submit a report of its
activities to the governing body at least once each year {Sec. 15.22308}. This report is a brief
outline of their activities.
II. PERSONNEL
The Board of Zoning Appeals consists of five members. They are appointed by the Circuit
Court for a term not to exceed five years. The Board members during the year 2008 were:
Member Term Expiration
David Bass, Chairman Reappointed May 23, 2007 for a five year term – to
expire May 23, 2012
Richard Cogan, Vice Chairman Reappointed May 23, 2004 for a five year term – to expire
May 23, 2009
Randy Rinehart, Secretary Reappointed May 23, 2006 for a five year term – to
expire May 23, 2011
Lloyd (L.F.) Wood Appointed May 23, 2008 for a two year term (to replace
Mr. Bailey for the unexpired portion of his term) – to expire
May 23, 2010
Max C. Kennedy (vacant position) Reappointed May 23, 2008 for a five year term – to expire
May 23, 2013
III. OPERATING PROCEDURES
Regular meetings of the Board are held the first Tuesday of each month starting at 2:00 p.m.
Special meetings are called in cases of appeals or a high number of submittals, when the
regular schedule does not provide sufficient hearing time. These special meetings may begin
at 1:00 p.m.
The Board operates with Rules of Procedure which were adopted November 15, 2002.
IV. EXPENSES
The Board of Zoning Appeals does not have a separate budget. Compensation and mileage
are included within the budget of the Community Development Department, specifically within
the Zoning and Current Development cost center. Funding for Board salaries in the fiscal year
20072008 is consistent with prior years and expenses were a total of $2318.54. Board
members are paid $45 per meeting and are reimbursed for mileage traveled to the meetings.
Staff to the Board includes the Director of Zoning & Current Development (Zoning
Administrator), Manager of Zoning Administration and the Chief of Zoning Administration
(Deputy Zoning Administrator). Support staff includes the Zoning Assistant and at times will
include the Zoning Technician.
V. ACTION SUMMARY
The Board of Zoning Appeals held 9 meetings in 2008. The number of submittals and actions
considered by the Board in 2008 are shown in the following tables:
Variances
Eleven (11) variance applications were received in 2008. Five (5) variances were approved,
one (1) was denied, and five (5) were withdrawn.
Application #Projec t N ame Ty pe of request Approved Denied W ith Conditions
VA0801 Charles
Roumeliotes or
Katherine Krolof
R educe side setback
to allow existing
porc h to be
conv erted to an
enclosed room
X X
VA0803 Virginia National
Bank
Erect 3 wall signs
higher than 30 feet
X
VA0805 Daniel McLaughlin R educe front setback
for the construction of
a singlefamily home
X X
VA0807 American Legion
Post 74
Increase size of a
freestanding sign
X X
VA0809 Mark Slezak /
Eleanor Finger
R equest to complete
a boundary line
adjus tmentnon
conforming lots
X X
VA0810 Phyllis Hopkins /
Maxine Holland
R equest to complete
a boundary line
adjus tmentnon
conforming lots
X X
Withdrawn and Void
Application #Project Name Withdrawn Void
VA0802 The Villas at Southern Ridge X
VA0804 Bryan or Marcey Hammon X
VA0806 Lamont Breckenridge X
VA0808 Spas N Nails X
VA0811 Deborah & Alex Struminger X
Appeals
Seven (7) appeals were taken in 2008. One (1) was moot, one (1) was void, two (2) were
affirmed and one (1) was modified by the Board. There are three (3) appeals pending (one
from 2007 and two from 2008).
Application #Project N ame Affirmed ZA Type
AP0801 Ricky Lee & D onna
Baumgardner / Crown
Motorcar LLC
Affirmed ZA:
Crown Motorcar Company
LLC's use of the Baumgardner
property on Richmond R oad for
offsite display and park ing is
not a permitted use in the
Highway C ommercial (HC)
Distric t.
D etermination of
v iolation
AP0802 Barrac ks Road Land Trust
aka Colthurst W aste Area
Modified Program Authority's
Decision:
The oneyear time period for fill
activity relating to
WPO200600072 had expired.
The Board extended the time
period for the 1year fill ac tivity
with c lean fill only. Thes e fill
activities must stop as of
December 31, 2008.
Email determination that
the 1year time period
had expired and the
permit would not be
extended
AP0806 Barrac ks Road Land Trust
CW Hurt Contractors, aka
Colthurst Waste Area
Affirmed ZA:
Fill on the property contains
metal, w ire, plastic, trash and
other materials which are
neither s oil nor inert materials.
Dispos al of these materials in a
fill or was te area is prohibited.
D etermination of
v iolation
Withdrawn and Void
Application #Project N ame Withdrawn / Dismissed
/ Moot
Void
AP0803 Belvedere Integrated H ealing Arts
(Home Oc cupation)
Moot
AP0807 Scott or Annette Woody Void
Pending
Application #Projec t N ame Pending
AP0703 Hollymead Tow n Center Area B Determination of proffer violation
AP0804 Roger D unning Determination of floodplain fill violation
AP0805 Neighborhood Investments NP
LLC N orth Pointe Northw est
Residential Area
Determination of Site Plan Noncompliance with
Application Plan
Special Use Permits
Three (3) Special Use Permits for offsite signs/lighted signs were received in 2008. Two (2)
applications are still pending and one (1) was void.
Pending
Application #Projec t N ame Pending/Action
SP0826 CVS Pharmacy Electronic
Message Board
Pending
SP0834 Church of the Incarnation Offsite
sign
Pending
Withdrawn and Void
Application #Project Name Withdrawn Void
SP0851 Gatew ay Bank Lighted Signs X
VI. COURT ACTIONS
The following are court actions taken on the Board of Zoning Appeals in 2008:
1. Paul Begin, et al. v. Board of Zoning Appeals and Planned Parenthood: Petition for writ
of certiorari filed in Albemarle County Circuit Court challenging the decision of the Board
of Zoning Appeals that Planned Parenthood's use of the property is a professional office
use. The court has issued a writ of certiorari directing the Board of Zoning Appeals to
file the record of its proceedings. A trial date has not been set.
2. Scott W. and Caroline F. Watkins v. Board of Zoning Appeals: Petition for writ of
certiorari filed in Albemarle County Circuit Court challenging the decision of the Board of
Zoning Appeals that the use of the property by Watkins & Co Landscape Contracting
constitutes a contractor's storage yard which is not a permitted use in the Rural Areas
District. The applicants have pursued a different location. The applicants have
obtained rezoning approval from the County and they are currently in the site plan review
process. The appeal has not been withdrawn.
3. Ellen Hawkins v Board of Zoning Appeals: Petition for writ of certiorari filed in
Albemarle County Circuit Court challenging the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals
that keeping 27 adult dogs and seven puppies, portable cages, portable kennels, fixed
kennels, bulk amounts of dog food and related material on site is not a permitted use in
the R2, Residential District. The County and the BZA have not been served with the
petition.
4. Rickey Lee Baumgardner, Donna G. Baumgardner and Crown Motorcar Company, LLC
v Board of Zoning Appeals: Petition for writ of certiorari filed in Albemarle County Circuit
Court challenging the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals that Crown Motorcar
Company LLC's use of the Baumgardner property on Richmond Road for offsite display
and parking is not a permitted use in the Highway Commercial (HC) District.
Return to memo
February 20, 2009
Hardee Johnston
3664 Presidents Road
Scottsville VA 24590
RE: SP200800057 Charlottesville Kingdom Hall
Tax Map 76, Parcel 51
Dear Mr. Johnston:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 3, 2009, rec ommended approv al, by a vote
of 5:1, of the abovenoted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. The development of the site shall be in general accord w ith the concept plan entitled Kingdom H all of
Jehovah’s Witnesses prepared by H ardee Johnston, A.S.L.A. Landscape Architect , Page T.1 dated January
9, 2006, Revised 120808 and page C. 2 dated January 2, 2006, Revised 1109 (hereinafter, the "Concept
Plan"); In addition, the following elements shall be in strict acc ord with [or “c onform to”] the Concept Plan: the
relationship of parking areas to building areas, building areas to the street, location of the area for sidew alk
dedication and reservation of area for the extension of the Southern Parkway .
2. The area of assembly shall be limited to a max imum of tw o (2) auditoriums w ith one hundred seventyfive
(175) seats in eac h;
3. The final site plan s hall show an area to be graded across the front of the site to allow the future installation
of a sidew alk by others (the "sidewalk area"). The final site plan shall inc lude a note reserving the sidew alk
area for future dedication. The area for dedication shall allow for a minimum width of a five (5) foot sidew alk
and w hich shall meet all applicable VDOT and County standards per Section 32.7.2.8 of the Zoning
Ordinance. The s idew alk area s hall be graded in conjunction w ith the installation of other improvements on
the site required by the site plan. The sidewalk area shall be graded in compliance with the grading standards
imposed by the agent. Upon request by the County, the sidew alk area shall be dedicated for public use. The
owner shall grant all necessary temporary construction easements to allow the sidewalk to be installed;
4. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate spec ial use permit
and;
5. Construction of the development plan referenced in C ondition 1 abov e shall commence by [insert date 4
years after date of BOS approv al] or this spec ial use permit s hall expire.
View ex ecutive summary
View st aff report
View PC minutes of J anuary 13 and February 3, 2009
Ret urn t o regular agenda
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receiv e public
comment at their meeting on March 11, 2009.
If you should have any questions or c omments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact
me at (434) 2965832.
Sincerely,
Claudette Grant
Senior Planner
Planning D ivision
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SP 08 – 57 Charlottesv ille Kingdom Hall
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Reapproval of expired Special Use PermitSP2004
002, whic h is currently in the site development
process. The special us e permit request allow s a
church in the R 2 and R 4, residential districts.
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Cilimberg, Echols, Grant
LEGAL R EVIEW: NO
A GEN DA DATE:
March 11, 2009
A CTION: X INFOR MA TION :
C ONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION : INFOR MA TION:
A TTA CHMENTS: YES
BACK GROUND :
On February 3, 2009, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for the Charlottesville Kingdom Hall
special use permit reapproval request. The Commis sion, by a vote of 5:1, recommended approval with
conditions. (See Action Letter)
DISCU SSION :
The previously approved s pecial use permit, SP2004002, did not inc lude a condition addressing the lack of
public sewer on this site. The primary iss ue at the time of the approv al related to the c omplexity of connecting to
the clos est public sewer line, w hich is loc ated in the Mosby Mountain s ubdivision. It was determined that in
order to c onnect to public sewer, the applicant would need to cross Old Lynchburg R oad, w hich would be
topographic ally challenging and costly. As a result, a condition addres sing the lack of public sewer was not
provided.
At the Planning Commission public hearing on February 3, 2009, two options for public sew er connection w ere
discussed: 1) a property located in the Mosby Mountain subdivision w ould be the clos est point of connection;
however, the owner of the property is c oncerned with disturbance to the land interfering with the roots of a large
tree loc ated on his property that he wishes to preserve, and 2) connecting to public s ewer on the Southw ood
property. Although it would be a longer distance to connect to public s ewer in Southwood, the applic ant feels
there may be less complications.
The addition of a condition was not dis cus sed during the Planning Commission public hearing on February 3,
2009 as the applicant has indicated they w ant to hook up to public sewer and are working on making the
connection.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Approval of Special Use Permit 200857 with the conditions as recommended by staff and the Planning
Commis sion.
ATTAC HMENTS:
Attachment I: Planning Commission staff report, dated February 3, 2009
Ret urn t o PC act ions letter
ALBEMARLE C OUNTY DEPA RTMENT OF COMMUN ITY D EVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
Proposal: SP 2008 057 Charlottesville
Kingdom Hall
Staff: C laudette Grant
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
February 3, 2009
Board of Supervisors Hearing: To be determined.
Owners: East Congregation of Jehovah’s
Witnesses, Morgan Davis, et al Trustees
Applicant: East Congregation of Jehovah’s
Witnesses, Morgan Davis, et al Trustees
A creage: Approximately 3.685 acres Special Use Permit for: C hurch by special use
permit in R2 and R4, Residential districts.
TMP: TM: 76 P: 51
Location: 665 Old Lynchburg Road (R oute 631), at
the intersection of Old Lynchburg Road and Sunset
Avenue Extended. (Attachments A & B)
Byright use: R2, residential – 2 units/acre and R
4, residential 4 units/acre; Sections 14.2.2.12 and
15.2.2.12 of the Zoning Ordinance w hich allow for
Churches.
Magisterial D istrict: Scottsville Conditions: Yes EC: Yes
Proposal: Reapproval of expired Special Use
Permit – SP2004002, which is currently in the site
development process. The special use permit
request allows a Church in the R 2 and R4,
residential districts.
Requested # of Dwelling Units: 0
D A (Development Area): Neighborhood 5 Comp. Plan D esignation: Neighborhood Density
Residential – residential (36 units/acre) and
supporting uses such as religious institutions and
schools and other smallscale nonresidential uses.
C haracter of Property: The area surrounding the
church is made up of primarily single family
residences. The site is adjacent to a mobile home
park and a church is located across the street.
Use of Surrounding Properties: Primarily single
family residences. Berean Baptist Church is located
across the street and Southwood Mobile H ome Park
is located adjacent to the site.
Factors Favorable:
1. The special use permit provides an
institutional use, which is supported by the
Comprehensive Plan on Neighborhood
Density R esidential.
2. The site design is appropriate
given the topography.
3. Accommodation is made for a possible future
road, which could connect to the adjacent
property (Southwood Mobile Home Park).
4. The factors supporting approval of the
original special use permit have not changed.
5. No ordinance changes have taken place
which would affect development of the site.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The site w ill not currently be served with
public sew er; however, recommended
conditions would require hookup w hen
sew er is available nearby.
RECOMMEND ATION: Staff recommends re approval of SP 2008057 Charlottesville Kingdom Hall w ith
revisions to the originally approved conditions.
STAFF PERSON: Claudette Grant
PLANNIN G COMMISSION: February 3, 2009
BOAR D OF SU PERVISORS:
SP2008057: CHARLOTTESVILLE KIN GD OM H ALL
Petition:
PROJECT: SP200800057 C harlottesville Kingdom Hall
PROPOSED : Reapproval of expired S.U.P. – SP2004002 currently in site development process. Request for S.U.P.
to allow a Church.
ZONIN G CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: R2 R esidential – 2 units/acre and R4 R esidential 4 units/acre.
SECTION S: 14.2.2.12 and 15.2.2.12 of the Zoning Ordinance which allow for Churches.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: N eighborhood Density Residential – residential (36 units/acre) and
supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other smallscale nonresidential uses in Neighborhood 5.
ENTRANCE CORRID OR: Yes
LOCATION: 665 Old Lynchburg Road (R oute 631), at the intersection of Old Lynchburg Road and Sunset Avenue
Extended.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 76/51
MAGISTERIAL DISTRIC T: Scottsville
Character of the Area and Adjoining properties:
The subject property lies at 665 Old Lynchburg Road (Route 631), at the intersection of Old Lynchburg Road and Sunset
Avenue Extended. See Attachment A for the Tax Map and Attachment B for the Location Map. The area consists of
residential units, the Berean Baptist Church, located across the street, and Southwood Mobile Home Park, located
adjacent to the site.
Specifics of Proposal:
The applicant is requesting the reapproval of an expired Special U se Permit – SP2004002, w hich w as approved May
4, 2005 to allow a Church in a residential district. Section 31.2.4.4 of the Zoning Ordinance states “If the use, structure or
activity for which a special use permit is issued is not commenced within twentyfour (24) months after the permit is
issued, the permit shall be deemed abandoned and the authority granted thereunder shall thereupon terminate.” The
special use permit expired on May 4, 2007. The applicant has been currently working on a site plan request SDP 2006
002.
The site plan under review w as suspended on September 29, 2008 because of the expiration of the special use permit.
(See Attachment C for the concept plan) There is one change the applicant is requesting with this application. The
applicant is no longer going to provide an apartment in the facility as originally requested because they no longer have a
need to house visitors. The applicant also has expressed concerns regarding meeting the timeline for completion as it
relates to funding the building renovation. The church is requesting to increase the time allowed for the special use
permit request to 4 years instead of the 2 year limit associated with special use permit requests. Attached recommended
special use permit conditions have been updated and revised to reflect these changes.
The applicant has submitted a revised concept plan. Staff has reviewed this plan and notes there are no significant
changes.
Applicant’s Justification for the Request:
The applicant wants to complete the site development process because the church w ould like to provide a larger space
of w orship and education for four congregations. The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as N eighborhood
Density Residential and the guidelines associated with the N eighborhood Residential designation allow this form of
development.
Planning and Zoning History:
The church w as built on the site in 1981, and SP 2004002 was approved on May 4, 2005 to allow an expansion of the
church facility. SDP2006002 was suspended on September 29, 2008 because the approved Special Use Permit had
expired.
Comprehensive Plan:
The Land Use Plan designates this area as Neighborhood D ensity Residential in Neighborhood Five (5). The
Comprehensive Plan supports institutional uses, such as churches in Neighborhood Density Residential. As previously
stated in this staff report, the site will not be used for residential purposes.
A full N eighborhood Model Analysis was completed w ith the approved SP2004002 and is applicable for this reapproval
request. (See Attachment D for Neighborhood Model Analysis)
Staff C omment:
Staff addressed each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance with the approved SP2004002. This
information remains unchanged. (See Attachment D)
Summary:
The purpose of this request is to renew Special Use Permit – SP2004002, which has expired and is currently in the site
development process. The applicant w ishes to complete the site plan process.
The primary changes to this request is that the applicant does not plan on adding an apartment to the church facility and
the applicant has requested an additional four (4) year timeframe to begin construction.
Staff finds the following factors favorable to this request:
1. The special use permit provides an institutional use, which is supported by the Comprehensive Plan on
Neighborhood D ensity Residential.
2. The site design is appropriate given the topography.
3. Accommodation is made for a possible future road, which could connect to the adjacent property (Southwood
Mobile Home Park).
4. The factors supporting approval of the original special use permit have not changed.
5. No ordinance changes have taken place which would affect development of the site.
Staff finds the following factor unfavorable to this request:
1. The site will not currently be served with public sewer; how ever, recommended conditions would require hookup
when sew er is available nearby.
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends reapproval of SP 2008057, Charlottesville Kingdom Hall w ith the follow ing revisions to the originally
approved conditions:
1. The development of the site shall be in general accord with the concept plan entitled Proposed Addition Kingdom
Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses C harlottesville, Virginia prepared by Hardee Johnston, A.I.A. and A.S.L.A. Landscape
Architect , Page T.1 dated December 28, 2004 January 9, 2006, R evised 120808 and page C. 2 dated January 2,
2006, Revised 1109 (hereinafter, the "Concept Plan"); In addition, the follow ing elements shall be in strict accord with
[or “conform to”] the Concept Plan: the relationship of parking areas to building areas, building areas to the street,
location of the area for sidew alk dedication and reservation of area for the extension of the Southern Parkw ay.
2. The area of assembly shall be limited to a maximum of tw o (2) auditoriums with one hundred seventyfive (175)
seats in each;
3. The final site plan shall show an area to be graded across the front of the site to allow the future
installation of a sidewalk by others (the "sidewalk area"). The final site plan shall include a note reserving the sidewalk
area for future dedication. The area for dedication shall allow for a minimum width of a five (5) foot sidewalk and w hich
shall meet all applicable VDOT and County standards per Section 32.7.2.8 of the Zoning Ordinance. The sidewalk area
shall be graded in conjunction w ith the installation of other improvements on the site required by the site plan.
The sidew alk area shall be graded in compliance with the grading standards imposed by the agent. Upon request by the
County, the sidewalk area shall be dedicated for public use. The owner shall grant all necessary temporary construction
easements to allow the sidewalk to be installed;
4. The building shall not have more than one (1) apartment; and
4. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate special use permit and;
5. Construction of the development plan referenced in Condition 1 above shall commence by [insert date 4 years
after date of BOS approval] or this special use permit shall expire.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Tax Map
Attachment B – Vicinity Map
Attachment C – Concept Plan, Page T.1 dated January 9, 2006, revised 120808 and page C. 2 dated January 2,
2006, Revised 1109
Attachment D – Planning C ommission Staff Report dated March 15, 2005
Attachment E – Board of Supervisors’ Action letter to Hardee Johnston, dated May 12, 2005
Attachment F – Electronic Mail from Gary Whelan, dated D ecember 2, 2008
Attachment G – Letter from Joel DeN unzio, dated November 19, 2008
Return to PC actions letter
Albemarle County Planning Commission
January 13, 2009
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing, meeting and w ork session on Tuesday, January
13, 2009, at 6:00 p.m., at the C ounty Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesv ille, Virginia.
Members attending w ere Marcia Joseph, C alvin Morris, Bill Edgerton, Linda Porterfield, Thomas Loach and Eric
Strucko, C hairman. Jon Cannon, Vice C hairman was absent. Julia Monteith, AICP, nonvoting representative for
the Univ ers ity of Virginia was present.
Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Direc tor of Planning; David Benish, Chief of Planning; Mark Graham,
Director of Community D evelopment; Bill Letteri, Director of Facilities Development; Bill Fritz, Director of Current
Development; Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner and Greg Kamptner, Deputy C ounty Attorney.
C all to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Struck o called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and establis hed a quorum.
Item Requesting Deferral:
SP200800057 Charlottesville Kingdom Hall
PROPOSED : Reapproval of expired S.U.P. – SP2004002 currently in site development process. Request for
S.U.P. to allow a Church.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENER AL USAGE: R2 Res idential 2 units /ac re and R4 Res idential 4 units /acre.
SECTION: Sections 14.2.2.12 and 15.2.2.12 of the Zoning Ordinanc e w hich allow for Churches.
COMPREHEN SIVE PLAN LAND U SE/DEN SITY: N eighborhood Density Residential residential (36 units/acre)
and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other smallscale nonresidential uses in
Neighborhood 5.
ENTR ANCE CORRIDOR : Yes
LOCATION: 665 Old Lync hburg Road (Route 631), at the intersection of Old Lynchburg Road and Sunset Avenue
Extended.
TAX MAP/PAR CEL: 76/51
MAGISTER IAL DISTR ICT: Scottsville
(Claudette Grant)
APPLICAN T REQUESTS DEFERRAL – DA TE TO B E DETERMINED
Mr. Strucko noted that the applic ant has requested deferral to February 3, 2009. H e opened the public hearing and
asked for comment from the applicant or the public. There being none, he closed the public hearing to bring the
matter before the Commission.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Ms. Porterfield seconded to approv e the applicant’s request for deferral of SP2008
00057, Charlottesville Kingdom Hall to February 3, 2009.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. (Cannon absent)
Mr. Struck o said that this item is being deferred and will be brought bac k on February 3, 2009.
Go to next set of minutes
Return to actions letter
Albemarle County Planning Commission
February 3, 2009
The Albemarle C ounty Planning Commission held a public hearing and meeting on Tuesday, February 3, 2009, at
6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Members attending w ere Marcia Joseph, C alvin Morris, Bill Edgerton, Linda Porterfield, Thomas Loach and Eric
Strucko, Chairman. Julia Monteith, AICP, nonvoting representative for the U nivers ity of Virginia was absent.
Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Bill Fritz, C hief of Current Development;
Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Elizabeth Marotta, Senior Planner; Amy Pflaum, Senior Planner; Megan Yaniglos,
Senior Planner and Greg Kamptner, Deputy C ounty Attorney.
C all to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Struck o called the regular meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. and establis hed a quorum.
D eferred Item:
SP200800057 Charlottesville Kingdom Hall
PROPOSED : Renewal of expired S.U.P. SP2004002 currently in site dev elopment process . Request for S.U .P.
to allow a C hurch.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENER AL USAGE: R2 Res idential 2 units /ac re and R4 Res idential 4 units /acre.
SECTION: Sections 14.2.2.12 and 15.2.2.12 of the Zoning Ordinanc e w hich allow for Churches.
COMPREHEN SIVE PLAN LAND U SE/DEN SITY: N eighborhood Density Residential residential (36 units/acre)
and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other smallscale nonresidential uses in
Neighborhood 5.
ENTR ANCE CORRIDOR : Yes
LOCATION: 665 Old Lync hburg Road (Route 631), at the intersection of Old Lynchburg Road and Sunset Avenue
Extended.
TAX MAP/PAR CEL: 76/51
MAGISTER IAL DISTR ICT: Scottsville
(Claudette Grant)
DEFER RED FR OM THE JAN UARY 13, 2009 PLA NNING COMMISSION MEETING
Ms. Grant presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the s taff report. (Attac hment – PowerPoint
Presentation)
The applic ant is reques ting reapprov al of an expired special use permit, SP20042, which is currently in site plan
review proc ess. The special use permit allow s a church in a residential district. The c urrent plan is v ery similar to
the plans that were approved with SP20042. This plan no longer provides an apartment as originally intended.
That basic ally is the main change.
Factors Favorable:
The permit provides an ins titutional use, which is supported by the C omprehensive Plan on N eighborhood
D ensity Residential.
The site design is appropriate given the topography.
Accommodation is made for a possible future road, which could connec t to the adjacent property.
The factors s upporting approval of the original special use permit have not changed.
No ordinance changes have taken place whic h w ould affect development of the site.
Factor Unfavorable:
The site will not currently be served with public sewer. How ever, a rec ommended condition w ould require
hook up whenever sewer is available near by.
There being no questions for staff, Mr. Strucko opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the
Commis sion.
Hardy Johnston, repres entative for the c ongregations , pointed out that there are now four congregations using an
existing building at Kingdom Hall. As the needs hav e grown over the years the congregations hav e expanded which
has created the need to enlarge the building. The proposal is for tw o auditoriums instead of one that will allow the
scheduling of the use of the building. As noted in the staff report nothing has really changed from the application
made five years ago. The only thing unresolved at this time is the sew er. Some recent developments w ith the
change of ownership in Southwood have opened up s ome other pos sibilities for hook ing into the public sewer. Their
intention is to hook into the public sewer w hen possible.
Mr. Struck o invited questions for the applicant.
Ms. Joseph asked if there is some reas on the storm water is located where the propos ed roadway is located.
Mr. Johnston replied that the site is relatively tight for the use and has relatively steep topography . That location
was the only available space short of having an underground system. The thought was that if the road w as
developed that it would have its own s torm water sys tem and absorb this one as part of that. But, that road may be
a long w ays off.
Ms. Joseph said that the storm water was part of the plan. She was trying to envis ion when that road comes in w ho
will then be responsible for their storm water. If the county pays for the road does the county have to pay for the
storm water? If there is a condition that says a reasonable location or distance for sewer how do they figure out
what reasonable means ? She asked w hat that means to him.
Mr. Johnston replied that there are two options. There is 400’ to the subdivision across the road where they c an
connect to a private sewer line. But, they have to bore under the Old Ly nchburg Road and pump the sewage to that
point. The other option, whic h they had put in the background because they c ould not work with the former owner of
Southwood, is dow n on Hickory Lane that w as 2,000 feet aw ay. But, they are right in the middle of weighing that
option. They have not had a chance to completely ex plore that option. It is looking favorable. He noted that Mr.
Tom W ilfong, who is put on that task , is here tonight. But, they hav e not completely w orked that scenario out.
Mr. Struck o invited public comment.
David. Mitchell, resident of 1242 H atcher C ourt, voic ed c oncerns about being the priv ate landowner for the potential
tap on for the sewage system for the church. He came tonight to learn more about the development. He
commended the community for possibly allow ing them to build a larger church, whic h would be a fantastic asset for
the neighborhood and community. However, his concern w as being the private landowner for the tap in. W hen he
purchas ed the property 3 ½ years ago he was unaw are of the tap in, which w as in his backyard. The contractor
showed him the plans for the potential tap on. His concern as the landow ner was how they w ould actually put that
in. It w ould disturb their cons erv ation area, which is to the backs ide of his property. Since he put his name on the
list he had since learned that there is another potential tap on in that area, which he hoped that the committee would
allow them to do since it was to his benefit. He hoped that it would be beneficial to the other portions of the
community as well. He as ked for additional elaboration about potential sewer tap on.
Mr. Morris requested that the individual working on that particular phase of the proposal c ome forward and address
this.
Mr. Struck o invited Mr. W ilfong to addres s the Commiss ion.
Tom W ilfong, a Class A contractor in the state of Virginia and the project coordinator for the Kingdom Hall of
Jehovah Witnesses, said they had two options. One was to do the force main up and under Old Ly nchburg Road
and in to the Mosby Mountain project and tap in to their public sewer that runs in the back of Mr. Mitc hell’s property.
The other option, whic h was more fav orable, is to go out the south of their property down through the Southwood
Mobile H ome Park all the way to Hick ory Street. That is 2,000 feet of sewer line, but it is all gravity flow. There are
no pump s tations. They have talked to Ms. Audrey Storm with H abitat for Humanity w ho has spoken v ery favorably
of this. It will take studies and a period to determine exactly how to run the line and how it will benefit both
Southwood and the church.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Strucko closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the
Commis sion.
Ms. Joseph asked if staff recalled the church on Avon Road that the Commission approved without hooking up to
sewer c onditioned on hook up as soon as the sewer w as available or w ithin a certain distance.
Ms. Grant replied that she did not recall.
Mr. C ilimberg noted that there have been a few instances of uses approved without hooking up to sewer conditioned
on hook up as soon as the sew er was available or within a c ertain distance. He w as not s ure if staff has a magic
distance. He asked Mr. Kamptner if he recalled any similar prior considerations.
Mr. Kamptner replied that the only case he recalled was Kappa Sigma Fraternity H eadquarters where the timing of
their c onnection w as related to the development happening on Av on R oad. Ultimately, he believed that they did
connect. That is the only example that comes to mind.
Ms. Jos eph said that the seating will be determined by the size of the septic site that they can find. She assumed
that was w hat the Health Department would do.
Ms. Grant said that the Health Department was involved in the review of the original request.
Mr. Struck o asked if the septic expansion will be underneath a paved parking lot, and Ms. Grant replied yes.
Mr. Struck o asked to hear more about the concerns regarding the storm w ater and the new proposed road.
Ms. Jos eph noted that the proposed road that will connect to Sunset is right under that road. If and when that road
is ever built the storm water facility serving the churc h and the pavement will be gone and that w ill have to be tak en
up by s omeone else
Mr. Struck o asked if there is an alternative site, and Ms. Grant replied yes.
Ms. Joseph pointed out that Mr. Johns on was saying there is a little space behind the one parking area, but there
are also pricey underground facilities that could potentially happen.
Mr. Struck o asked if that is the case, and Ms. Grant agreed.
Mr. Struck o asked if that road goes in if the church will be required to find an alternative.
Ms. Grant agreed that was her understanding after talking with Jack Kelsey. Mr. Kelsey said that if the c ounty were
going to put in a road at that location then the county would have to acc ommodate the storm water. Typically what
they do is tie in with whatever storm water they use for the road improv ements.
Ms. Porterfield asked if they have done fouryear extensions before.
Mr. Cilimberg replied yes that they have had fiveyear extensions and the Board recently granted a tenyear
extension for a church.
Ms. Porterfield said that they were not s etting any kind of precedent for that.
Ms. Joseph ask ed s taff if they are getting the sidewalk area graded in and who they expect will eventually put the
sidewalk in.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that it w ould have to be a county project in a future plan, whic h they don’t have at this point.
Ms. Joseph asked where the closest sidewalk is to this place.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that there is an asphalt path on the other side of Fifth Street, whic h runs on the north side.
Mr. Morris said there are s till a lot of loose ends here that made him hesitant to approve the request. He wished that
it was a lot cleaner and that a number of the questions raised tonight had answers. He was a little concerned
primarily with the storm w ater, which seems to be something that could turn around and bite the county.
Ms. Joseph asked if it was possible to add a condition that if and when that road is ev er put in that this applicant will
be responsible for providing its own storm w ater facility so that they could retrofit this site if they needed to.
Therefore, it would not be someone else’s expense or responsibility.
Mr. Kamptner replied yes, that a condition could be added to address the storm w ater issue. He was not aw are of
any county regulation that requires us to tie the existing facility into the road’s storm water system.
Mr. Morris said that would be helpful.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that they should be careful bec ause in fac t a better storm water management solution may
very well be tying into the public system especially in an urbanizing type of area. If they start expecting every
development to have storm water on site they might not be accomplishing in all cases w hat they want to
accomplish.
Mr. Morris noted that his concern is not w hether it is going to be onsite or not, but that it w ould be the applicant’s
respons ibility to do what has to be done.
Ms. Porterfield said that in other words the applicant would bear the cos ts.
Mr. Morris replied that is correct.
Mr. Edgerton said that he would play the devil’s advocate on that a little bit. The road that is shown going across
the applicant’s property, w hich was tak ing a large portion of their property, he believ ed was proffered as part of the
Biscuit Run project. The county has some resources coming in the future to help w ith this. But, they don’t know
when as the applicant pointed out. The easement shown on the plat raised a question on how they took that proffer
without this property owner being involv ed.
Ms. Joseph noted that this was already approv ed and that road connec tion was already shown with this special use
permit.
Mr. Edgerton s aid that it w as shown in the original spec ial use permit and is limiting their use of their land. As such
he felt that the county should have some responsibility if they are going to be putting a road across the property.
There might be a way to put it to the southeast of the parking lot w here the ex isting church is now that will become
a parking lot. There is s ome substantial proffer funding available for this road. He recalled that the proffer on Bisc uit
Run was that this has to go in before anything else. He felt that will be an enormous benefit to the county ultimately
to have this road. They have already gotten it secured as step one of what is going to happen in the future. He w as
not familiar with the previous plan, but it looks like there is a benefit. For that reason he was comfortable in
supporting the request.
Motion: Mr. Edgerton moved and Mr. Loach seconded to approve SP200800057, Charlottesville Kingdom Hall
with the conditions recommended by s taff.
1. The development of the site shall be in general accord with the c onc ept plan entitled Kingdom Hall of
Jehovah’s Witnes ses prepared by H ardee Johnston, A.S.L.A. Landscape Architect , Page T.1 dated January
9, 2006, Revised 120808 and page C. 2 dated January 2, 2006, Revised 1109 (hereinafter, the "Concept
Plan"); In addition, the following elements shall be in strict acc ord with [or “c onform to”] the Concept Plan: the
relationship of parking areas to building areas, building areas to the street, location of the area for sidew alk
dedication and reservation of area for the extension of the Southern Parkway .
2. The area of assembly shall be limited to a max imum of tw o (2) auditoriums with one hundred seventyfive
(175) seats in eac h;
3. The final s ite plan shall s how an area to be graded acros s the front of the site to allow the future installation
of a sidewalk by others (the "sidewalk area"). The final s ite plan shall include a note reserv ing the sidew alk
area for future dedication. The area for dedication shall allow for a minimum width of a five (5) foot sidew alk
and w hich shall meet all applicable VDOT and County standards per Section 32.7.2.8 of the Zoning
Ordinance. The s idew alk area s hall be graded in conjunction w ith the installation of other improvements on
the site required by the site plan. The sidewalk area shall be graded in compliance with the grading standards
imposed by the agent. Upon request by the County, the sidew alk area s hall be dedicated for public use. The
owner shall grant all necessary temporary construction easements to allow the sidewalk to be installed;
4. There shall be no day care center or private school on site w ithout approval of a separate s pecial use permit
and;
5. Construction of the development plan referenc ed in C ondition 1 above shall commence by [insert date 4
years after date of BOS approv al] or this spec ial use permit s hall expire.
The motion passed by a vote of 5:1. (Morris voted nay ).
Ms. J oseph noted that she was encouraged that the applicant was working with the H abitat of Humanity on the
sewer c onnection.
Mr. Struck o said SP200857, C harlottes ville Kingdom Hall w ould go to the Board of Supervisors on March 11 with a
recommendation for approval.
Return to actions letter
March 3, 2009
Hunter Mc Cardle
111 3rd Street SE
Charlottesv ille, VA 22902
RE: SP200900001 Montessori Community School Expansion
TMP 7812A and 12A 1
Dear Mr. McCardle:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 17, 2009 rec ommended approval of the
abovenoted petition to the Board of Supervisors, by a vote of 6:0.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Maximum enrollment shall be three hundred (300) students.
2. Dev elopment of the us e shall be in conformity with the “Montessori Pantops Mountain C ommunity School
Sheets SP01SP03”, prepared by N eal R. Deputy, Architecture & Master Planning, las t revised January 16,
2007, as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in conformity with the
plan, development shall reflect the general size, arrangement, and location of proposed Buildings A, B, C, D,
and E, C entral Lawn, Amphitheatre, playgrounds and ball fields, w ooded natural area, and parking areas .
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict w ith the elements above may be made to ensure
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
3. Fencing shall be provided at a minimum around the perimeter of the C entral Lawn, Lower Elementary
Playground, and Children’s House Playground, or at other locations as required by the C ounty to ensure
safety of children adjacent to Route 250 and R olkin R oad. Final design of the fence shall be subject to review
and approval by the Architec tural R eview Board. How ever, to address safety concerns, the fence details
shall include:
a. At least fortyeight (48) inches tall;
b. No more than a two (2) inch gap under the fence;
c. Openings shall be small enough that a four (4) inc h s phere will not pass through;
d. No ornamental indentations that c an be used as a ladder;
e. Maximum mesh s ize for chain link fences is two and onequarter (21/4) inches; and
f. Maximum mesh size for diagonal lattice fences is one and threequarter (13/4) inc hes.
4. The existing chain link fence shall be replaced with a new fenc e that satisfies the requirements of the
Architectural Rev iew Board by September 1, 2009. Alternately, planting s hall be installed by September 1,
2009 that will screen the fence from the Entrance Corridor. That planting shall be in accord with an approv ed
landscape plan that satisfies the requirements of the Architectural Review Board.
5. Construction of proposed buildings as shown on the concept plan shall commence on or before March 11,
2015 or this special use permit shall expire.
View ex ec s ummary and att achments
View PC minutes
Ret urn t o regular agenda
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receiv e public
comment at their meeting on March 11, 2009.
If you should have any questions or c omments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact
me at (434) 2965832.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Ragsdale
Senior Planner
Planning D ivision
C OUNTY OF A LB EMARLE
EXECU TIVE SUMMAR Y
AGENDA TITLE:
SP 20090001 Montessori C ommunity School
(Pantops) Extension
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request for extension of time allowed s pecial use
permit (SP 06038) for 48 months
STAFF:
Rebecca Ragsdale
PLANN ING COMMISSION :
February 17, 2009
BOARD OF SU PERVISORS:
March 11, 2009
OW NER /APPLICAN T: Montessori C ommunity School of Charlottesv ille; represented by Hunter Mc Cardle, Water
Street Studio
BACK GROUND
A special use permit (SP 06038) for new buildings and campus improvements at the Montessori Sc hool was
approved by the Board on March 14, 2007. The campus improvements include a phas ed plan to replace temporary
modules with permanent c lassrooms and to develop the site with features such as an amphitheatre, ball field and
ball court, playgrounds, gardens, lawns , and other as soc iated site improvements like parking. (Refer to Attachment
CStaff Report for SP 06038, page 20Attachment H)There was no increase in enrollment, staffing or change in
operating hours associated with SP#2006038 and it w as approved with the following c onditions. (Attac hment A
Approval letter, Attachment BPC minutes )
At the time SP 06038 was reviewed, a z oning violation existed on the site (VIO2006239) becaus e a fence was
installed without site plan or ARB approval. Most of the fence is chain link and visible from the Entrance Corridor.
The applicant agreed, following ARB dis cussion of the matter at their meeting on February 5, 2007, to address the
fence v iolation. The fence issue has not yet been resolv ed.
DISCU SSION
The ex isting special use permit is due to expire on Marc h 14, 2009 and the applicant has not yet started construction
to prev ent its expiration. The applicant is requesting an additional four y ears and is nearing final site plan approval for
Phase I of the project. It is uncertain when the school w ill begin construc tion on Phase 1 so this additional time is
needed. The purpose of the time period provision for s pec ial use permit approvals in the ordinance is to allow any
ordinanc e c hanges to be applied at the time the extension is reviewed. It allows the County to cons ider whether
there have been changes in circumstances such that the granting of the special use permit should be revisited. In
the cas e of this request for extension, there is no reason to revisit the special use permit and there have been no
ordinanc e c hanges since the SP was approved in 2007. Staff does not foresee any upc oming amendments or
changes of circumstance to suggest the use w ill not be appropriate at this location.
The applicant has gotten preliminary site plan approval and final site development plans are under review for phase
1, which w ill address the fence iss ue w ith the AR B. It is the cons ens us of the ARB that the new fence s hall be
erected by September 1, 2009. Alternatively, an ex tensive landscape plan showing landscaping that will completely
screen the fenc e from the EC can be submitted for rev iew, with the planting to be ins talled by September 1, 2009.
Staff is concerned, how ever, that the fence issue be resolved to the ARB’s s atisfaction in a timely manner. For that
reason, an additional condition has been recommended below. (Condition #3)
RECOMMENDA TION
Staff has found no unfav orable factors to this reques t, other than the ongoing fence issue, and recommends
approval of SP 20090001 with the conditions below. These include the same conditions as those previously
approved, with #2 modified to use new standard c ondition language, #4 and #5 are new conditions. (U pdates/new
conditions in bold italics.)
1. Maximum enrollment shall be three hundred (300) students.
2. The site shall be developed in general accord w ith the plan entitled “Montessori Pantops Mountain
Community School Sheets SP01SP03”, prepared by Neal R. Deputy, Architec ture & Master Planning, last
rev ised January 16, 2007. Development of the use shall be in conformity with the “Montessori Pantops
Mountain Community School Sheets SP01SP03”, prepared by Neal R. Deputy, Architecture & Master
Planning, last revised January 16, 2007, as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning
Administrator. To be in conformity with the plan, development shall reflect the general size,
arrangement, and location of proposed Buildings A , B, C, D, and E, Central Lawn,
Amphitheatre, playgrounds and ball fields, wooded natural area, and parking areas. Minor
modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
3. Fencing shall be provided at a minimum around the perimeter of the Central Lawn, Lower Elementary
Playground, and Children’s House Playground, or at other locations as required by the County to ensure
safety of children adjacent to Route 250 and Rolk in R oad. Final design of the fence shall be subject to review
and approval by the Architectural R eview Board. How ever, to address safety c oncerns, the fenc e details
shall include:
a. At leas t fortyeight (48) inches tall;
b. No more than a two (2) inch gap under the fence;
c. Openings shall be small enough that a four (4) inch sphere will not pass through;
d. No ornamental indentations that can be used as a ladder;
e. Maximum mesh size for chain link fenc es is two and onequarter (21/4) inches; and
f. Maximum mesh size for diagonal lattic e fences is one and threequarter (13/4) inches.
4. The existing chain link fence shall be replaced with a new fence that satisfies the requirements of the
Architectural Review B oard by September 1, 2009. Alternately, planting shall be installed by
September 1, 2009 that will screen the fence from the Entrance C orridor. That planting shall be in
accord with an approved landscape plan that satisfies the requirements of the Architectural R eview
Board.
5. Special U se Permit 200901 shall be valid for fortyeight (48) months from [date of approval].
ATTAC HMENTS:
A. SP 2006038 Board of Supervisors approval letter with conditions, dated April 5, 2007
B. Planning Commiss ion February 20, 2007 meeting minutes for rev iew of SP 2006038
C. Staff R eport for SP 2006038 Montessori Community School, dated February 20, 2007
Return to actions letter
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP200600038 Montessori
Community School
Staff: Rebecca R agsdale
Planning Commission Public H earing:
February 20, 2007
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
March 14, 2007
Owners: Montessori Community School Applicant: Neal R. D eputy, Architect
Acreage: 6.71 acres Special U se Permit: Private School
TMP: TM 78, Parcels 12 & 12A
Location: 305 Rolkin Road at the intersection
of Richmond R oad (R oute 250 & Rolkin
Road)
Existing Zoning and B yright use: C O
Commercial Office – offices, supporting
commercial and service uses; and residential
use by special use permit (15 units/ acre)
Magisterial District: Rivanna Conditions: Yes
Proposal: Phased replacement of existing
modular trailers w ith permanent buildings in a
revised site layout plan.
Requested # of Dwelling Units:
NA
DA (D evelopment Area): Pantops
(N eighborhood 3)
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Urban
Density Residential ( 634 units/acre) and
supporting uses in Pantops (N eighborhood
3)
Character of Property: The Montessori
School is already established on the parcel
subject to the Special Use Permit.
Use of Surrounding Properties: The
property is surrounded by commercial uses
to the south, east, and west and residential
uses to the north.
Factors Favorable:
1. The private school will continue to
provide expanded educational
opportunities to the community.
2. The Land Use Plan suggests
residential and residentially supportive
uses in this area of Pantops.
3. There will be no detrimental impacts to
surrounding properties.
Factors Unfavorable:
There were no factors unfavorable
identified.
RECOMMEND A TION: Staff recommends approval of the special use permit with conditions.
A critical slopes w aiver and buffer/screening w aiver are requested and are recommended for
approval.
STAFF PERSON: R ebecca Ragsdale
PLANN IN G C OMMISSION DATE: February 13, 2007
BOARD OF SUPER VISORS D ATE: March 14, 2007
SP 200600038 Montessori Community School
Waiver requested to Section 4.2 C ritical Slopes
Waiver request to Section 21.7.3 Buffer Zone Adjacent to Residential districts
PETITION
PR OJEC T: SP 200600039 Montes sori Community SchoolPantops Mountain
PR OPOSED : Spec ial U se Permit (SP) request to amend an exis ting special use permit for a private school to
allow for replacement of modular trailers with permanent buildings for 40,700 square feet of total building area on
a 6.71 acre site.
ZON ING CA TEGOR Y/GEN ERA L USAGE: CO Commercial Office – offices, s upporting commercial and
serv ice uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/ acre)
SEC TION: 23.2.2.9 Private School
COMPREHENSIVE PLA N LAND USE/D ENSITY: Urban Dens ity Residential – residential (6.0134 units/acre)
and supporting uses such as religious institutions , s chools, commercial, office and service uses in
Neighborhood 3 (Pantops) D evelopment Area.
EN TR ANC E CORR IDOR: Yes
LOC ATION : 305 Rolkin Road, adjacent NW of the intersection of R olkin Road and R ichmond Road (Route 250)
TAX MA P/PARCEL: TMP 7812A and 12A1
MAGISTERIAL DISTR ICT: Rivanna
CHARACTER OF THE AREA
The Mont ess ori Communit y Sc hool is loc ated on the north side of Ric hmond Road (Route 250 E ast ) in
the P ant ops neighborhood. It is located ac ros s Rt. 250 from the Riv anna Ridge/Giant shopping center,
east of the American Legion, s outh of res idential developments, and west of the E c kerds pharmac y,
the Lux or c ommerc ial dev elopment and Wes tmins ter Canterbury of the Blue Ridge. The sit e s its high
abov e t he Rout e 250, an Entranc e Corridor. The slope that oc cupies t he rightofway bet ween t he s ite
and Rt. 250 is partially v egetat ed. (A ttac hments AAerial Loc ation map, BLand Use Plan ex hibit, C
Zoning exhibit)
SPECI FI CS OF THE PROPOSAL
The Mont ess ori School is s eek ing an amendment t o t heir ex is ting s pec ial use permit (SP 9904
At tac hment D) to allow for t he c onst ruc tion of permanent buildings to replace their aging and
deteriorating modular t railers. A rec ent ly updated s urv ey is attached to indic ate t he Ex ist ing Campus
Plan and buildings ons ite, Sheet EX01 of t he at tac hed plan, the proposed Conc ept Plan (Sheet SP01
of t he att ached plan), and t he phasing approac h to c ons truct ion (Sheet SP02). (A ll plan s heets
prov ided in Attac hment H) There are c urrent ly 8 ones tory buildings wit h 32 park ing spaces t hroughout
the s ite. The modular clas sroom unit s t hat are c urrently on the Montes s ori site were not intended t o be
permanent .
The propos ed amendment t o t he special us e permit is to replace t he temporary modules wit h permanent
class rooms and to dev elop the s ite as indic at ed on the c onc ept plan with an amphitheatre, ball field and ball
court, play grounds, gardens, lawns, and as soc iated sit e improvement s . (Att achment H) There is no inc reas e in
enrollment, st affing or change in operating hours reques ted. The ex ist ing 1924 main hous e and carriage hous e
would be ret ained, with the c arriage hous e being mov ed to a diff erent location on t he s ite. New buildings will be
two t o t hree s tories in height and t otal 40,700 t ot al s quare feet with 54 park ing s pac es. The applicant has noted
that the t otal footprint of t he buildings will remain c omparable to t he exis ting campus plan with 20,800 square
feet as the propos ed foot print and 20,880 square feet as t he ex is ting buildings foot print. The applic ant has
indicated that the proposed buildings will reflec t the t raditional arc hitec ture of the s ite and the s urrounding area,
modified as required to support the environmental and educ ational goals of the s c hool. The s c hool intends to
employ green roof tec hnology in most or all of the new buildings . New clas sroom buildings are organiz ed around
the main administration building, linked by c olonnades . The carriage house is s hown in a new loc at ion, on ax is
wit h t he adminis tration building and the amphitheater. The proposed building layout ack nowledges the ex is ting
his toric res idenc e and reus es the c arriage house in a new location t hat will improv e t he c onditions on the s ite.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY
The Mont ess ori Communit y Sc hool was es tablis hed in the early 1980’s and loc ated at the Pant ops
Mountain s ite in 1991. The s ite was rez oning from R15 t o CO Zoning, inc luding proffers, with ZMA 82
03. A subsequent rez oning (ZMA 9512) and s pecial us e permit (SP 9522) allowed for delet ion of the
prof fers approved with the previous ZMA, and permit ted up to 120 s tudents at the s c hool. SP 9904
was approved May 12, 1999 t o allow for ex pans ion of t he s chool with 9 modular unit s , a multipurpose
building, increas ed enrollment up to 300 st udents and additional grade levels , along with 25 additional
park ing s pac es . (Att achment DSP 9904 approv al lett er)
There is c urrent ly a z oning v iolation on the s ite (VI O2006239). A fenc e was ins talled around a majorit y
of t he perimeter of t he s ite without s ite plan or ARB approv al. Most of the f enc e is c hain link ; a 100’
lengt h of f enc e s ituated parallel to the EC near the eas t end of the s ite is a board f enc e. Both f enc es
are approx imately 6’ tall and are vis ible from the EC. Ov er the past sev eral months , repres entat iv es
from t he s chool hav e been dis cuss ing abatement of the violation with s taff. ARB s taff rec ommended
that the applic ant purs ue replacing the fence along the EC and any other portions of the fence t hat are
vis ible from the E C with blac k aluminum (or other metal) pic k et s tyle fencing. Bec aus e it appeared t hat
the s chool was moving f orward with abating t he violation, a f ormal notice of violat ion was not
proc ess ed at that time. Howev er, an ARB applic ation was nev er s ubmitt ed for review. Wit h t he
submitt al of t he reques t for the amendment to the SP, a formal notic e of v iolation has been proc ess ed.
The ex is ting f enc e is s hown on the E x ist ing Campus Plan EX01 in Attac hment H. As an int erim
meas ure, the sc hool has off ered to add plants to minimize the v isibility of the fenc e, but a propos al for
new f enc ing c oordinat ed with the phas ed expans ion plan has not been provided. The applicant has
agreed, following ARB disc uss ion of the mat ter at t heir meet ing on February 5, 2007 t o address
fenc ing, providing details and loc ation, wit h t he sit e plan for Phase 1 improv ements as s hown on the
Concept Site Plan SP02 in Att ac hment H.
CONFORMI TY WITH THE COMP RE HENSIVE P LAN
Land Use Plan
The property is loc ated in Pantops (Neighborhood 3) of the Dev elopment Area and is des ignated Urban
Densit y Res idential in the Land Us e Plan. As det ermined wit h prev ious land use applic ations (ZMA 82
03, ZMA 9512, and SP 9522 and 9904) to allow the us e, the s chool is c ons is t ent with this res idential
land use des ignat ion. It is s upportiv e of nearby res idential us es and an appropriat e us e at this loc at ion
in Pantops , as a transit ion from the nearby res idential areas to c ommercial us es . The propos ed
Pantops Mas ter P lan is als o s upportiv e of t his us e at t his location, along wit h expans ion of the s c hool,
and the propos ed land use des ignat ion is t o remain Urban Dens ity Res idential.
Neighborhood Model
The Neighborhood Model sets forth twelv e princ iples for ev aluating development propos als within t he
Dev elopment Area. How thes e principles are met with the reques ted amendment t o t he s pec ial us e permit is
address ed in t he table below:
Pedestri an Ori entation The propos ed Conc ept Plan prov ides f or improv ed pedes trian orientation and
pedes trian c irc ulat ion s ys tem on the sc hool c ampus . All buildings , c entral
features , and parking areas will be connect ed with walkways , inc luding
colonnades. (At tac hment E) This princ iple has been met ons ite.
Of fs ite, a sidewalk ex is ts along both s ides of Rolkin Road, whic h is on t he
north side of Rout e 250, leading t o t he s c hool campus. There is no s idewalk
loc ated along t he north s ide of Route 250 adjac ent t o t he Mont ess ori School.
Sinc e t he Mont ess ori Sc hool is not propos ing an int ens ific ation of t he s c hool
us e on t his sit e, s taff did not recommend any of fs ite improv ements to the
sidewalk s y st em as a requirement of approval of this s pec ial use permit
reques t. St aff did bring the lac k of a s idewalk at that loc ation and need f or
improv ements to the s c hool’s at tention but they declined to of fer the offsit e
improv ement to Rout e 250.
Neighborhood Fri endl y
Streets and P aths
There are ex is ting s idewalks on Rolk in Road adjacent to the s ite. Thes e
sidewalk s are not buff ered by s treet trees but the applicant is propos ing
enhanc ed v egetat ion of the bank adjacent to the s idewalk and leading up t o t he
sc hool campus . While t his principle is not met due to the s lopes adjac ent t o t he
sidewalk , no c hanges t o Rolkin Road are ex pec ted.
Interconnected Streets and
Transportation Networks
The s ite is loc ated along Rolk in Road, which will ev entually prov ide for
int erc onnec tions t o Fontana and an eas twes t parallel route to Rout e 250, nort h
of the s c hool s ite. This site is not expected to provide for any interc onnec tions
to adjoining properties and this principle has been met.
Mi xture of Uses Pantops has been rapidly dev eloping and a greater mix of off ic e, commercial,
and f uture res idential us es hav e emerged adjacent to this s ite. The institutional
us e of t his sit e, along with the Americ an Legion sit e t o the wes t, adds an
appropriate us e t o t he mix in this area of Pantops. This princ iple has been
met.
Neighborhood Centers The Montess ori Sc hool is loc at ed adjac ent to two neighborhood centers, one at
Lux or and the ot her ac ros s Rout e 250 at Rivanna Ridge/Giant Shopping Center.
This princ iple has been met.
Bui lding and Spaces of
Human Scale
Buildings will be two to three st ories in height and range in s ize from 5,000
7,000 square feet in siz e with one building proposed at 10,000 square feet in
siz e at t he southwest corner of the propert y adjac ent to Route 250. Buildings
and s ite features will be c onnec ted with c olonnades. This principle is met on
the s c hool c ampus . Due to its loc ation on a hill above Route 250 and Route 20,
the new buildings will not hav e a relat ions hip to those adjoining s treet s .
Internally t his princ iple is met; ex ternally t he grades mak e t he princ iple hard to
ac hiev e.
Relegated P arking Park ing is relegated from Route 250, with the c ampus buildings and other
features loc at ed bet ween t he park ing and road. It Is located t o t he s ide of
buildings in relat ion to Rolk in Road and vegetat ion bet ween t he park ing area
and Rolk in Road will be enhanc ed. This princ iple has been met .
Site Planni ng that
Respects Terrain
The applicant has indic ated that the previous flatgradedsit eapproac h
es tablis hed for the modular c lass rooms will not be continued wit h t he new plan
for ex pans ion. Ins tead, a more sensit iv e approach will be used, where 23 st ory
st ruc tures will be built into t he hillside, allowing walkouts atgrade for
clas srooms . Two s ite sect ions hav e been prov ided t o des c ribe t he relationship
of the propos ed s truct ures to the grade. (Att achments E and F) There are
ex is ting c rit ic al s lopes on the s ite that the applicant is propos ing to impac t and
a c rit ic al slopes waiv er is att ached. (At tac hment G)
The applicant is proposing to use low impac t design t echniques and biof ilters .
Sheet SP03 of t he Conc ept Plan in Attac hment H illus trat es the concept ual
st ormwater management s trategies , utilities and tree c onservation. This
principle is met .
Parks and Open Space
The redesign of the sc hool c ampus will prov ide int ent ionally des igned open
space on t he s ite with the c entral lawn, gardens , and playgrounds on the
campus. The applicant has noted t hat the s ite is a Certified Audubon Sanc tuary
and t he s c hool is c areful in maint aining nat iv e plant and wildlif e habit at. Woods ,
nature t rails , orc hard, and gardens are propos ed along the northern propert y line
to enhanc e the s ite with new landsc aping and veget ation. This princ iple is met.
Mi xture of Housing Types
and Affordabili ty
No res idential us es are proposed but a v ariety of res ident ial us es are located
nearby with Fontana and t he propos ed Pav ilions town homes adjacent. This
principle is met .
Redevelopm ent This propos al repres ent s redevelopment of the sit e t o bet ter ac c ommodate the
sc hool us e with an improv ed lay out , lands caping, and additional s quare
footage, while k eeping the s c hool c ent rally loc at ed in t he Pantops Dev elopment
Area.
Clear Boundaries wi th the
Rural Areas
This projec t is loc ated c entral to the Pant ops Dev elopment Area.
Staff finds that t he propos ed Conc ept P lan for redev elopment of the Montes sori Community School campus
appropriately address t he 12 Princ iples of t he
Neighborhood Model.
STAFF COMMENT
St aff will address each provis ion of Sec tion 31.2.4.1 of t he Zoning Ordinanc e as follows :
31.2.4.1: Special Use Perm its provided for in this ordinance m ay be i ssued upon a finding by
the Board of Supervisors that such use wi ll not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property,
The propos ed buildings and new c ampus plan to acc ommodate the ex is ting s c hool are not ex pect ed to
have any impac t on adjacent properties and the us e is c ons idered compatible with adjac ent us es .
As part of the rev iew of the s pec ial use permit reques t, the need for addit ional s etback s or buffering
beyond thos e required in t he Zoning Ordinanc e S ect ion 21.7 f or CO z oned property is c ons idered t o
address any impact s t o adjac ent propert ies. (s ee below) There is R6 z oned property adjac ent to the
Montes s ori School to the nort h/northwes t where a t ownhous e dev elopment c alled P avilions is
proposed. A final s ite plan (SDP 0643) is under rev iew f or that project . St aff does not f eel that there is
a need for additional requirements for setbac ks and buf fering bey ond t hat whic h is prov ided for on the
proposed Concept Plan. The Concept Plan, if approv ed as proposed, requires a waiver of t he required
buff er z oned adjacent to the res ident ial dis tric t to allow for t rails . This waiv er is rec ommended to
ac hiev e the concept plan and is disc uss ed in t he Wai vers s ec tion of t he report.
21.7 MINIMUM YARD REQUI RE MENTS
21.7.1 Adjac ent t o public streets : No portion of any st ruc ture, ex c ept s igns , s hall be erected clos er than
thirty (30) feet to any publi c street rightofway. No
offs treet park ing or loading space shall be located clos er than ten (10) feet to any publ ic street ri ghtof
way. (Amended 71085; 7892)
21.7.2 Adjac ent t o resident ial and rural areas dis tric ts: No portion of any s truc ture, exc luding s igns , s hall be
loc ated c los er than fifty (50) feet to any residential or rural areas district. No of fs treet parking or loading
space s hall be located c loser t han twent y (20) feet to any residential or rural areas
dis tric t. (Amended 71085; 7892)
21.7.3 Buffer z one adjacent to residential and rural areas districts: No c ons truct ion activit y inc luding
grading or c learing of v egetat ion s hall oc cur c loser than t wenty (20) f eet to any res idential or rural areas
dis tric t. Screening s hall be prov ided as required in s ec tion 32.7.9. (A mended 9992) Ex c ept, the commis s ion may
waiv e this requirement in a partic ular cas e where it has been demons trated that grading or clearing is
nec es sary or would result in an improved s ite des ign,
prov ided that:
a. Minimum s creening requirements are met; and
b. Ex ist ing lands caping in ex c es s of minimum requirement s is subs tantially res tored. (Added 7
1085)
that the character of the district wi ll not be changed thereby and
There will be sit e development c hanges and new buildings on the propert y . No intensif ic at ion in land us e is
ex pec ted The Arc hitect ural Rev iew B oard will ens ure t hat the appearanc e of buildings and lands c aping
vis ible from Route 250 are in k eeping with the Entranc e Corridor guidelines for improvements . An ARB
application was s ubmit ted as part of the SP and the A RB rev iewed and provided adv isory c omments to the
Planning Commiss ion at their meeting on February 5, 2007. The ARB did no hav e any object ions to t he
proposed c onc ept plan and of fered the f ollowing c omment s , which planning s taff feels c an be address ed at
the s ite plan s tage:
1. There is insufficient information to comment on arc hitectural design, compatibility of scale, or the
impact of blankness in building design on the EC.
2. R egarding fencing:
a. Remove the ex isting c hain link and wooden fence that parallels the EC and remove the
length of chain link fence on the west side of the site that extends from the southwes t corner of
the site 160’ north to the “wooded area to remain” shown on the concept plan; and
b. Add a blac k pick et s tyle fence, or alternate style fence as approved by the AR B, along the
side of the site that parallels the EC, and extend it from the s outhwest corner of the site 160’
north to the “wooded area to remain” shown on the c oncept plan, and
c. This fence removal and replacement shall be ac complished as part of Phase 1 construction
or by the end of August 2008, whichever is sooner.
3. R egarding the inconsistenc ies in the submittal regarding landscaping:
a. Coordinate the proposal regarding the wooded area at Building E; clarify if the trees in this
area are to remain or are to be replac ed.
b. Include in eac h phase of construction the proposed landscaping adjacent to the area of
construction.
4. N o building shall be cons tructed higher than the existing administration building.
that such use wil l be in harm ony wi th the purpose and i ntent of this ordinance,
The Commerc ial Off ic e (CO) Zoning Dis tric t was creat ed to establis h a z one that provides for
administ rat iv e, business , and profes sional off ic es and s upportiv e ac ces sory us es and fac ilities. It is
intended to ac t as a t rans ition bet ween res idential dis tric ts and other more intens iv e c ommerc ial and
indus trial dis tric ts . Priv at e s c hools are allowed by s pec ial us e permit in this dis t rict .
The Mont ess ori School is c ons is t ent with this purpos e and intent and prov ides an appropriate
trans itional use, along wit h t he adjacent American Legion, between the more intens ive commercial
us es to the wes t and t he adjoining resident ial us es .
with uses permitted by right in the district,
Us es permit ted by right in the CO Zoning Dis tric t include off ic es and inst itut ions , c hurches, libraries,
mus eums, and c hild care fac ilities . This private sc hool is s imilar to many ot her ins tit utional uses and
child c are f acilit ies allowed byright in t he z oning dis tric t.
with the additi onal regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance,
There are no addit ional regulations in Sec tion 5.0 relating t o priv ate sc hools .
and with the publ ic health, safety and general wel fare.
The public health, s afety, and general welf are of t he c ommunity is prot ect ed through the special us e
permit proc es s which as s ures that the propos ed us es are appropriat e in the loc ation reques ted. The
Fire Mars hall, Albemarle County Servic e Authorit y (ACSA) and VDOT have prov ided comments .
The Albemarle County Serv ice Authority (ACSA) has indic ated that water and s ewer s erv ic e is
adequat ely available f or the proposed us e and the s ite is c urrently served wit h bot h water and s ewer.
The Fire Marshall has rev iewed the plan and has no c onc erns to the propos al, noting t hat when the
phas es of c ons truc tion begin, they will mak e f ield vis its to ens ure adequat e ac c ess is being
maintained. Adequate fire f low will als o be v erified during phases of s ite dev elopment plan approv als .
Regarding trans portation, t he Virginia Department of Trans portation (VDOT) has c omment ed that the
recent improv ements to the entranc e and Rolkin Road are adequat e f or this us e; improv ements hav e
inc luded alignment of Rolk in Road, t urning lanes , sidewalk s , and s ignaliz at ion.
St aff has ident ified t he need t o ens ure adequate f enc ing for safety on the sit e. Due to its proximit y t o Route 250
and Rolkin Road the fencing of the Lower Elementary Play ground s hould be required during the s pec ial us e
permit. Potentially t he Cent ral Lawn s hould als o hav e fenc ing adjac ent to Route 250 t o addres s s afety. A
condition of approval is rec ommended to addres s this iss ue and t he s pec ific ations rec ommended are t hos e
prov ided by the B uilding Offic ial for fencing of s wimming pools .
SUMMARY
St aff has ident ified t he following fac tors fav orable to this applic at ion:
1. The priv at e s c hool will continue to provide ex panded educ at ional opportunities t o t he community.
2. The Land Us e Plan s ugges ts res idential and res identially s upport iv e us es in t his area of Pant ops .
3. There will be no detrimental impac ts on surrounding properties .
Additionally , s taff not es that t here is a zoning violat ion on the propert y regarding fenc ing; howev er, t he
applic ant is c urrently work ing to abat e t he v iolation.
RECOMMENDED ACTI ON:
Bas ed on the f indings contained in this s taf f report , s taf f recommends approv al of Spec ial Us e Permit
200638 with the following c onditions , whic h replac e t hos e prev ious ly approv ed:
1. Maximum enrollment s hall be 300 st udent s .
2. The s ite s hall be dev eloped in general ac cord with the plan ent itled “Montes sori Pant ops
Mountain Community Sc hool Sheets SP01SP03”, prepared by Neal R. Deputy, Arc hit ect ure &
Mas ter Planning, last revis ed J anuary 16, 2007.
3. Fenc ing shall be prov ided at a minimum around the perimet er of the Central Lawn, Lower
Elementary Play ground, and Children’s Hous e Play ground, or at ot her loc at ions as required by
t he County to ens ure s af ety of children adjac ent t o Rout e 250 and Rolk in Road. Final design of
t he fenc e shall be s ubject to rev iew and approval by the A rchitec tural Review Board. However,
t o addres s s afety c onc erns , t he fenc e details shall inc lude:
§ At leas t 48’’ tall
§ No more than a 2” gap under the f enc e
§ Openings s hall be s mall enough that a 4” sphere will not pas s t hrough
§ No ornamental indentations that c an be usedas a ladder
§ Maximum mes h s ize for c hain link f enc es is 21/4’’
§ Maximum mes h s ize for diagonal lat tice fenc es is 13/4’’
Condit ions approv ed wit h Special Use Permit 9904 are provided for information below, mark ed up to show
rec ommended changes and s taf f c omment s :
1. Modular units whic h are not s ubject to Arc hitect ural Rev iew B oard ARB approv al will be a s hade of green
c los ely matching Pine needle in color and design wit h t he modular unit s in the photographs shown at the
P lanning Commis sion meeting and att ached to the report.
This condit ion is not nec es s ary . The applic ant has not prov ided architec tural det ails of the proposed buildings
and the ARB will addres s that with the sit e development plans .
2. E nrollment will be limited t o not more than s tudents 300 s tudents.
3. S ewer connec t ion s hall be made prior to iss uance of a c ertific at e ofoc c upanc y for the f irst addit ional
c las s room
The sc hool is now connec ted t o s ewer and all new buildings will be c onnec ted t o s ewer, t his c ondit ion is no
longer needed.
4. A conservation plan will be prov ided with the preliminary site plan to show how the undist urbed buffer between
the res identially z oned properties and the sc hool will be ret ained if required by c ons truc tion of a retaining wall.
This condit ion is not nec es s ary and there are no ret aining walls propos ed.
5. A pproval of the c onc eptual plan does not c onst itut e approval of t he des ign or appearanc e of modular
s truct ures . Any buildings c ons truct ed in t he Ent ranc e Corridor mus t meet requirements of the A rchitec tural
Review Board.
This condit ion is not needed becaus e ARB is a requirement of the Ordinance.
WAIVE RS
CRITICAL SLOPES WAI VER
The applicant has submitt ed a reques t f or modific ation of Sect ion 184.2 of t he Zoning Ordinanc e and provided all
pertinent analy s is and information in their reques t which is att ached. (A ttac hment H) Critical slopes , which are s lopes
greater than 25%, on t he s ite are loc ated primarily around t he perimeter of t he s ite and would be dis turbed f or the
parking area and ball field. The areas of c rit ic al s lopes are illus trated on Sheet SP03 of the c onc ept plan prov ided as
Att achment H. These c ritic al s lopes are not ident ified in the Open Space Plan for protec tion.
Recom m ended Action:
There are no engineering c onc erns with the critic al s lopes waiv er reques t . St aff rec ommends approv al of t his
modification of Sec tion 4.2.3.
WAIVE R OF SECTION 21.7.320 FOOT BUFFER ZONE ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL/RURAL DISTRICTS
Sec tion 21.7.3 of the Ordinanc e requires a 20 foot undist urbed buffer adjac ent to resident ial z oning dist rict s . The
concept plan s ubmitted with the s pec ial use permit requires a modification of Sec tion 21.7.3 to allow remov al of
vegetat ion for nature trials and s ome pas siv e recreation areas adjac ent to the R6 Zoned property line t o t he north of
the s ite. This is illustrated on Sheet SP01 of t he Conc ept Plan prov ided as At tac hment H. This area is noted on the
plan to be ref ores ted with a deciduous/evergreen mix of Piedmont s pec ific veget ation. Screening must be provided in
ac c ordance with Sec tion 32.7.9.5 below.
21.7.3 Buffer zone adjacent to residential and rural areas districts: No c ons truction activity including
grading or clearing of vegetation shall occur clos er than twenty (20) feet to any residential or rural
areas district. Sc reening shall be provided as required in section 32.7.9. Except, the commission may waive
this requirement in a particular case w here it has been demonstrated that grading or clearing is necessary or
w ould result in an improved s ite design, prov ided that:
a. Minimum screening requirements are met; and
b. Existing landscaping in excess of minimum requirements is subs tantially restored. (Added 7
1085)
3 2.7.9.8 SCREEN IN G
The following requ irements shall apply to screen ing :
a. W hen required , screening shall consist of a plan tin g strip, existin g vegetation, a slightly opaque w all or fence, or
combination thereof, to th e reasonable
satisfaction of th e agent. Where on ly vegetativ e screening is prov ided, such screen ing strip shall not be less than
twenty (2 0) feet in depth. V egetative screening
shall consist of a double staggered row of evergreen trees planted fifteen (15) feet on center, or a dou ble staggered
row of evergreen shrubs plan ted ten (10) feet
o n center. Alternate methods of vegetative screening may be approved by the ag ent. W here a fence o r wall is
provided , it shall be a min imum of six (6) feet in
h eight and plantings may be required at intervals along such fence o r wall. (32.8 .6.1, 71085; A mend ed 5187)
b . Screening of park ing lots shall n ot be counted tow ard the interior landscaping req uirement. Wh en screening is
required along the frontag e of public streets, the
ag ent shall determine if the street tree requirement h as been met. (3 2.8.6.2, 71085 )
c. Screening sh all b e required in the following instan ces:
1 . Commercial and industrial u ses shall be screen ed from adjacen t residential and ru ral areas districts. (32.8.6.3.a, 7
1085)
2 . Parking lots consisting of four (4) spaces or more shall be screened from adjacent residential and rural areas
districts. (32 .8.6.3.b, 710 85 ; Amended 51
8 7)
3 . Objectionab le features inclu din g, but not limited to, the follo win g uses shall be screened from ad jacent
residential and rural areas districts and pu blic streets:
loadin g areas
refuse areas
storage yards
detention ponds
recreatio nal facilities d etermined to be of objectionab le character by the agent other than children's play
areas w here visib ility is necessary or passive
recreation areas where visibility is desirable. (32.8.6.3.c.5, 71085; Amended 5187)
4 . Double frontag e residential lo ts shall be screened betw een the rear of the residences and the pub lic rightofway
when d eemed appropriate b y the agent.
(32.8.6.3.d, 71085; Amended 51 87)
5 . The agent may require screenin g of any use, or p ortion thereof, upo n determination that the use wou ld otherwise
have a neg ative visual impact on a
p roperty listed on the V irginia Historic Landmarks Register. (32.8 .6.3.f, 71085; Amended 5187 )
Recom m ended Action:
Staff rec ommends approv al of t he waiv er of Sect ion 21.7.3 t o allow c ons truct ion ac tivit y inc luding
grading or c learing of v egetat ion c los er than twenty (20) feet t o t he adjoining residential property line, in
ac c ordance with the c onc ept plan provided as Attac hment H. Provided that:
1. Screening requirement s of S ect ion 32.7.9.8 are met .
ATTACHMENTS
A. Loc at ion MapA erial
B. Loc ation MapLand Use Plan
C. Loc ation MapZoning
D. A pproval Letter for Spec ial Use Permit 9904 Montes orri School
E. Cros s Sec tion Diagram A
F. Cros s Sec tion Diagram B
G. Montes sori Pant ops Mountain Community SchoolRequest of Modification of Sec tion
4.2 to allow Activit y on Critical Slopes
H. Conc ept Plan s heets ent itled “Montes sori Pant ops Mountain Community School”,
prepared by Neal R. Deputy, Arc hit ect ure & Mas ter Planning, las t revis ed J anuary 16,
2007.
Return to exec summary
Albemarle County Planning C ommission
February 17, 2009
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing, meeting and work session on Tuesday , February
17, 2009, at 6:00 p.m., at the C ounty Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesv ille, Virginia.
Members attending w ere Marcia J oseph, Calvin Morris , Bill Edgerton, Linda Porterfield, Thomas Loach, Vice Chair
and Eric Strucko, C hairman. Julia Monteith, AICP, nonvoting representative for the U niversity of Virginia w as
absent.
Other offic ials present were Juan Wade, Transportation Planner; Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner; W ayne C ilimberg,
Director of Planning; Rebecca R agsdale, Senior Planner; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner, Joan McD owell, Principal
Planner; Bill Fritz, Chief of C urrent D evelopment and Greg Kamptner, D eputy County Attorney.
C all to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Struck o called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and establis hed a quorum.
Public Hearing Items:
SP200900001 Montessori Community SchoolPantops Mountain (Signs # 105 & 106)
PROPOSED : Special U se Permit (SP) request to extend approval for an existing special use permit (SP 06038) for
a private school to allow for replacement of modular trailers with permanent buildings for 40,700 square feet of total
building area on a 6.71 acre site. ZONIN G CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: CO Commercial Office offices,
supporting commercial and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units / acre). SECTION:
23.2.2.9 Private School. COMPR EHENSIVE PLAN LAND U SE/DEN SITY: Urban Density Residential residential
(6.0134 units/acre) and s upporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service us es
in Neighborhood 3 (Pantops) D evelopment Area. ENTRAN CE CORR IDOR: Yes. LOC ATION: 305 Rolkin Road,
adjacent to the N W of the intersection of R olkin Road and R ichmond R oad (Route 250). TAX MAP/PARCEL: TMP
7812A and 12A1. MAGISTERIAL DISTRIC T: Rivanna. (R ebecca R ags dale)
Ms. Ragsdale summarized the staff report and presented a PowerPoint presentation. (See Staff Report SP20091)
This is a reques t to ex tend the time period allowed to establish a special use permit for the Montess ori
C ommunity Sc hool of C harlottesville on Pantops. A special use permit (SP 06038) for new buildings and
c ampus improvements at the Montessori School was before the C ommission in February and approv ed by
the Board on March 14, 2007. That special use permit was for an updated campus plan or master plan for
the property. The c ampus improvements include a phased plan to replace temporary modules w ith
permanent c lassrooms and to develop the site w ith features such as an amphitheatre, ball field and ball
c ourt, playgrounds, gardens, lawns, and other associated s ite improvements like parking. There was no
increase in enrollment; staffing or change in operating hours associated with SP#2006038 and it w as
approved with conditions.
Since the last time the special use permit was reviewed the school acquired the American Legion property
to the west.
The property is zoned C ommercial Offic e, whic h requires a special use permit for private schools. It is
s urrounded to the west by Highway Commercial. The school is a byright use on the American Legion
property. There is residential in the back with the Pavilions ’ development and more commercial on the other
s ides with the Eck erd and the Giant across the road.
At the time SP 06038 was reviewed, a zoning v iolation existed on the site (VIO2006239) because a fence
was installed w ithout site plan or ARB approval. Most of the fence is chain link and visible from the Entrance
Corridor. The applicant agreed, following ARB discussion of the matter at their meeting on February 5, 2007,
to address the fence v iolation. The fence issue has not yet been resolved. Staff has recommended a
condition that would reinforce the ARB’s recommendation that the fence be removed or addressed w ith
landscaping.
W hen this was approved in 2007 it was approv ed with a condition to address maximum enrollment and that
the site would be developed in accordance with the new concept plan. Staff had s ome comments from the
rev iewers that there are some specific ations for safety fencing for some of the playgrounds since they would
be adjacent to slopes. The site is located up on a hill. The s chool has moved forward w ith Phase One.
They did develop a phasing plan for their ow n construction purposes or fund raising primarily. So they begun
with the building on the corner of the site. There is a final site plan under rev iew for that portion of it.
Staff has recommended approval with the same conditions as before except they have modified condition 2
to use standard language. Staff is working with the County Attorney to develop a standardized language and
better wording for conditions of approval for the s pecial use permit. Condition 2 has been modified with the
new wording. Condition 3 is recommended to address the ARB and the fence issue. Condition 4 is the
condition where staff recommends that the time period be 48 months, whic h is twice as long as the ordinance
provides for special use permits. The County Attorney since they sent the staff report has recommended
they go with the standardiz ed language. So that wording is a little different from what was in the staff report.
The applicant may address the issue of the time period allowed and request a longer period in their
presentation this evening. Sinc e the staff report was written the applicant sent in a letter requesting 72
months to explain since they acquired the American Legion property they would be doing fund raising to move
forward w ith the phases of the property and would like a longer time w indow.
Mr. Struck o invited questions for staff.
Mr. Loach asked if the C ommission can add a time frame into the fencing condition since this was a problem in
2007 and it is now 2009.
Ms. Ragsdale replied that condition 3 states that the fencing be resolv ed by September 1, 2009, which was the
action and recommendation of the Arc hitectural Review Board. There is already a time period in the condition.
Mr. Morris asked where the 4’ fence is suppose to be in accordance w ith the Architectural Review Board.
Ms. Ragsdale noted that the fence was constructed without any s ite plan or ARB approv al. In the site plan under
review the fence will addressed. The ex isting fence is part board and chain link. It is vis ible from the Entrance
Corridor. She did not have a c opy of the site plan that show s where it will be removed, but the applicant is work ing
with the ARB on that.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the fence as is right now is not approved. So it is not show n on the plan.
Mr. Morris said that from reading the staff report it seems that the 4’ fence is around a playground area for young
children.
Ms. R agsdale said that the sc hool did construct the existing fence for safety purposes . Staff will ensure that their
reviewers look at the slopes and sugges t where fencing should go, that it meets AR B requirements and the
recommended safety guidelines for the s afety of the c hildren.
Ms. Porterfield asked if there have been other extension requests in the past for this length of time.
Ms. Ragsdale replied that the length of time varies.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that there have been a few, but not typically. Actually the Commission needs to hear from the
applicant in terms of their reasoning. If they get a site plan approved, as an example, a site plan of itself has five
year duration of the final site plan to get started on the work . So it literally would be 60 months from that site plan’s
approval.
Ms. Porterfield asked if there w as any logic in saying that if there are any ordinance changes that would affect this
between now and when they get to the site plan approval that they would have to meet those changes if they want
the extens ion.
Mr. Cilimberg deferred the question to Mr. Kamptner.
Mr. Kamptner said that both in the approval of the special use permit and probably more directly in this cas e the
approval of the final site plan is the first step in establishing vested rights anyway. So once they get those approv als
they are probably well on their way to hav ing their rights vest in the regulations at the time of the approval.
Ms. Porterfield said that they would have to meet anything up to the point that they vest. Therefore, it w ould be a
moot point in putting anything in.
Mr. Kamptner replied y es because that w as controlled by State law.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that one of the reasons that the two years is in the ordinance as it is now is to protect in the
event that a special use permit is granted and then certain ordinance changes occ ur in the two year period so that it
could be reevaluated based on that. That is w hy they have the two years in the ordinance. They have had a lot of
requests recently for a longer period. They have seen some up to five years. The Board of Superv isors not too long
ago gav e a ten year allowance for a s pec ial use permit. It can be modified.
Ms. Joseph asked if they have a site plan that comes in that vests this special permit, the s ite plan she is assuming
is one of the phases in this, that w ith each phase that comes in and a new site plan is submitted they have to meet
whatever the current ordinance regulations are for that site plan.
Mr. Kamptner said if they have an approved preliminary for the entire site and they are going to final with each phase
the approved preliminary site plan is also considered a significant gov ernmental act for purposes of determined
vested right. That preliminary s ite plan for the entire site may establish the vested rights. Each phase is really just
there diligently pursuing that approval.
Ms. Jos eph said that each phase as it comes in will have to meet whatever the current ordinance requirements are
for that s ite.
Mr. Kamptner said that if it is found that it is v ested by virtue of the preliminary site plan the regulations in effect at
that point for a phased development may establish the vested rights at the time of approval of the preliminary s ite
plan.
Ms. J oseph asked if they vest tomorrow the current ordinance will c over any s ubsequent site plans that are
submitted on that site.
Mr. Kamptner said that if the special use permit or whatever site plan is approved may v est their rights .
Ms. Joseph said that if they come in for a site plan for phase 2 three years from now and the ordinance has changed
a little bit they hav e to meet whatever standards are in the ordinance three years from now for any subsequent s ite
plans that come in or the current ordinance.
Mr. Kamptner said that they w ould have to look at everything. It may be that the special use permit that authoriz ed
this use may create vested rights independent of and in addition to any s ite plan that follow s as well. When they do
a vested right analysis with zoning it is v ery fact specific. But it is possible for a developer to develop in phas es
and to hav e rights ves t w ith the initial phase.
Ms. Jos eph asked how they could word something then that worked for w hat Ms. Porterfield was talking about that
as the site plans comes in throughout the years that they have to comply w ith whatever the current s tandards are for
site plans.
Mr. Kamptner said that the State ves ted rights statute prohibits localities from altering the vested rights statute.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that in other words they can’t do that.
Mr. Kamptner s aid that when they are looking at the 24 month period or in this cas e the 48 or 72 months, if their
rights are vested under State law they vest. The 24 month commencement period is a hold over from the old days
before the vested rights law was put into a statute.
Mr. Struck o opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to addres s the Commiss ion.
Wendy Fis her, Head of School of Montessori C ommunity School, said that the Commission has all of the
information in front of them. She highlighted that the reason they are asking for the extension is for a number of
reasons , but mainly because they were quite pleas ed to have the opportunity last year to buy the adjacent property .
That was a once in a life time opportunity for the school. The school pulled all of their resources in order to take
advantage of that. Thus it delayed their ability to begin construction on new buildings . They plan to go into a fund
raising phase once the economy finds itself in a more attractive situation. So they just want to make sure they have
enough time in order to do things in a responsible manner.
Ms. Porterfield asked for an explanation of the fence problem
Ms. Fisher replied that the fence was c onstructed during a period when they w ere having a change in leadership.
They simply did not follow the process . They have been through a lot of meetings with the county . In retrospect
they realized they made a terrible error and are working to make sure that they correc t it. Either they will screen the
fence now according to ARB guidelines or they will replace it with a fence that provides a safe campus for their
students but complies with ARB guidelines by September 1. The issue will go aw ay by September 1. It is planned
for a s ummer time project.
Mr. Morris asked what the length of time is that they are requesting this to be extended to.
Ms. Fisher replied that the request is for 72 months, which is two more years beyond what staff has recommended.
Mr. Struck o invited other public c omment. There being none, he c losed the public hearing to bring the matter before
the Planning Commiss ion.
Mr. Morris said that the request to extend this time frame to 72 month is very realistic especially due to the
economic s ituation that we are in right now . Everyone is in a fund raising c ampaign right now. Therefore, he was in
favor of granting the request.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Ms. Porterfield seconded to approve SP200900001 Montessori Community School
Pantops Mountain with the conditions recommended by staff, as modified, to ex tend the time period to establish the
special use permit to 72 months.
1. Maximum enrollment shall be three hundred (300) students.
2. Dev elopment of the use shall be in conformity with the “Montessori Pantops Mountain C ommunity School
Sheets SP01SP03”, prepared by N eal R. Deputy, Architecture & Master Planning, last revis ed January 16,
2007, as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in conformity with the
plan, development shall reflect the general size, arrangement, and location of proposed Buildings A, B, C, D,
and E, Central Lawn, Amphitheatre, playgrounds and ball fields, w ooded natural area, and parking areas .
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
3. Fencing shall be provided at a minimum around the perimeter of the C entral Lawn, Lower Elementary
Playground, and Children’s House Playground, or at other locations as required by the County to ensure
safety of children adjacent to Route 250 and Rolk in R oad. Final design of the fenc e shall be subject to review
and approval by the Architectural R eview Board. H owever, to address safety concerns, the fence details
shall include:
a. At leas t fortyeight (48) inches tall;
b. No more than a two (2) inch gap under the fence;
c. Openings shall be s mall enough that a four (4) inch sphere will not pass through;
d. No ornamental indentations that can be used as a ladder;
e. Maximum mesh size for chain link fences is two and onequarter (21/4) inches; and
f. Max imum mesh siz e for diagonal lattice fences is one and threequarter (13/4) inches.
4. The existing c hain link fenc e s hall be replac ed with a new fence that s atis fies the requirements of the
Architectural R eview Board by September 1, 2009. Alternately , planting shall be installed by September 1,
2009 that will screen the fence from the Entrance C orridor. That planting shall be in accord with an
approved landscape plan that satisfies the requirements of the Architectural R eview Board.
5. Construction of proposed buildings as shown on the c onc ept plan shall commence on or before March 11,
2015 or this special use permit shall expire.
The motion carried by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Strucko noted that SP20090001 Montess ori Community SchoolPantops Mountain will go to the Board of
Supervisors on March 11, 2009 with a rec ommendation for approval.
Return to actions letter
March 3, 2009
Terra Concepts PC c/o Steve Edwards
224 Court Square
Charlottesv ille, VA 22902
RE: SP200800032 C entral Virginia Recycling
TMP 9421N and TMP 9421N 1
Dear Mr. Edwards:
By a vote of 6:0, the Planning Commis sion recommended denial of SP200800032 Central Virginia Recycling
Center bas ed on the findings stated in the staff report. These include factors listed as unfavorable, as follow s:
1. The operation would cause noise and traffic that is uncharac teristic to this Rural Area.
2. The operation could exceed the maximum allowed noise standards in the Zoning Ordinanc e.
3. The noise, both volume and duration, could disturb the neighbors.
4. The mulc hing operation would be of greater benefit to development occurring in both
Albemarle’s Development Areas and in Fluvanna County.
5. The information requested by staff pertaining to groundw ater, parking and traffic generated
from this operation has not been fully prov ided; therefore, the review is incomplete.
And the following findings stated in the s taff report:
Use will be of substantial detriment to adjacent property.
o Potential impacts of the v olume and length of time of noise from the operation.
o Potential impacts of dust and odor based on similar mulching operations.
o Potential for mulch piles catching on fire.
Changes to the character of the district.
o Visibility of operation from neighboring properties.
o Impac t of operation including traffic from heavy truck s and customer vehicles, and the equipment
running the w ood mulc hing operation.
Not in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance and uses permitted by right in the
district.
o Use is of an industrial nature otherwis e only permitted by right in the H eavy Industrial District and is
not consis tent with the intent of the Rural Areas District and uses permitted byright therein.
Not in harmony with the public health, safety and welfare.
o Although intersection and entrance improvements to meet VDOT standards are proposed, the truck
traffic accessing the site is not customary for this area and safety is a concern for trucks us ing
Route 794.
o Potential for mulchpile fires.
Commis sioners also noted the follow ing additional concerns in making their recommendation for denial:
The propos ed operation has grow n and become inc redibly intense. It is not just the tub grinding of material
being brought in and w holesaling it. This would be a retail enterprise along with the repairing of trucks and a
manufacturing process with the coloration. This is not the intent of the Rural Areas and the Rural Areas
needs to be protec ted.
The potential groundwater contamination from the colorants needs to be addressed. DEQ has not
c ommented on this contamination issue.
The traffic is understated. The C ommission does not hav e a full handle on the traffic impacts.
This propos al is a great idea, but in the wrong location. The existing surrounding rural residential area w as
here first and must be taken into acc ount. (Staff and/or a Planning Commissioner made three trips to
s imilar operations in VA. The land used for the operation in each case had been zoned a minimum of light
industrial prior to the decision to operate a mulching facility.)
This should not be viewed as a s awmill or wood yard because of the treatment going on. There is a risk of
c ontaminating the ground water in a sensitiv e area.
Potential for injury as grinder might “throw” large pieces of wood hundreds of feet.
Potential for contaminated material to be brought on site.
Noise tes ts were conduc ted in the summer w hen trees w ere leafed out.
Question of whether the amount of water needed for this use will deplete the w ells of surrounding property
owners and other ow ners as far away as Running Deer Drive, where property owners hav e long reported
w ell issues.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receiv e public
comment at their meeting on March 11, 2009.
View st aff report and at tac hment s
View PC minutes
Ret urn t o regular agenda
If you should have any questions or c omments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact
me at (434) 2965832.
Sincerely,
Joan McDowell
Principal Planner
Planning D ivision
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP200800032 Central Virginia Recycling
Center
Staff: Joan McDowell, Principal Planner, Rural Areas
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
February 17, 2009
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
March 11, 2009
Owner/s: Outdoor Theater Land Partnership, LLC c/o Mr. and
Mrs. Charles McRaven
Applicant: Central Virginia Recycling, Inc.
Acreage: overall – 100.261 acres
Acreage for special use permit = 21 25 acres
Special Use Permit: Section 1810.2.2 (14) Sawmills,
planning mills and woodyards
TM P: 9421N and TMP 9421N1 (well lot)
Location: 4545 Richmond Road; south side Rt. 250
Richmond Road at S.R. 794 Three Chopt Road; approximately
1,325 feet west of Rt. 616 Blackcat Road / Rt. 759 Union
Mills Road
Existing Zoning and Byright use:
Rural Areas (RA) agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential
density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots)
Magisterial D istrict: Scottsville Conditions: Yes, if the application is approved.
DA (Development Area): or
RA (Rural Areas) X
Requested # of Dwelling Units: reserved approximately 26 acres
for a future dwelling
Proposal: Receive wood products and process into wood
mulch; conduct wholesale and retail sales; repair vehicles;
office for business
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Rural Areas 4
Character of Property: Partially wooded with cleared fields;
one single family house under construction; intermittent
streams
Use of Surrounding Properties:
Agricultural and residential uses
Factors Favorable:
1. The wood recycling would provide a
service to reuse waste from land clearing,
construction, and pallets.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The operation would cause noise and traffic that is
uncharacteristic to this area.
2. The operation could exceed the maximum allowed
noise standards in the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The noise, both volume and duration, could disturb
the neighbors.
4. The mulching operation would be of greater benefit to
development occurring in both Albemarle’s Development Areas
and in other counties, instead of the Rural A reas.
5. The information requested by staff pertaining to groundwater,
parking study, traffic generated from this operation has not been
forthcoming; therefore, the review is incomplete
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of this Special Use Permit.
STAFF PERSON: Joan McDowell, Principal Planner Rural Areas
PLANNING COMMISSION: February 17, 2009
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: March 11, 2009
SP 200800032 Central Virginia Recycling Center
Petition:
SP20080032. Central Virginia Recycling Center (Signs #49&52). PROPOSED: Special Use
Permit on approximately 25 acre portion of a 100.261 acre parcel and a .23 acre parcel containing a
central well. Proposal is to receive wood products from timber, stumps, and wood waste from
construction, shipping and excavation and then processed/recycled by grinding, chipping, dying and
composting into mulch; conduct both retail and wholesale sales of the products at the site; site would
include structures related to the use.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots). SECTION: 10.2.2 (14) Sawmills, planning
mills and woodyards. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: RA Rural Areas preserve
and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/density (.5
unit/acre in development lots); EC Entrance Corridor Overlay to protect properties of historic,
architectural or cultural significance from visual impacts of development along Rt. s of tourist access.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes.
LOCATION: 4545 Richmond Road; South side of Richmond Rd. (Rt 250 East) at its intersection with
Three Chopt Road (Rt 794), approximately 1,325 feet west of Union Mills Rd. (Rt 759) and Black Cat
Rd. (Rt. 616).
TAX MAP/PARCEL: TMP 9421N and TMP 9421N1 (well lot).
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
Character of the Area: Located approximately one mile west of Fluvanna County, this eastern edge
of Albemarle County includes a mixture of residences, agricultural uses, intermittent forest patches and
hedgerows. The Keswick Farms subdivision borders the subject property on the south and east sides.
The property is intersected by several intermittent streams. Pastures, forest patches and residential
dwellings are located on the west side of the property. The nearest dwelling is approximately 450 feet
from the mulching operation’s access road. A commercial business is located at the nearest intersection
at Three Chopt Road (Rt. 794) and Richmond Road (Rt. 250). Several properties in the area, including
Limestone Farm, have been placed into conservation easements. (Attachment A)
Specifics of the Proposal: The applicant has requested a special use permit to be allowed to operate a
wood mulching operation on approximately 2125 acres of a 100.261 acre property; 53 acres would be
a preserved wooded area; approximately 26 acres would be later subdivided. Access to the mulching
operation would be from a reconfigured “Y” shaped entrance at the junction of Rt. 250 and Rt. 794
(see sketch later in report). The access road is currently an unimproved driveway through the edge of
the property. The applicant has plans to improve this into an access driveway by widening it to 24 feet
and paving it with asphalt. The access driveway parallels the adjacent property on the western border
and is separated from the property line by an evergreen hedgerow.
The operation would include the following improvements:
• A two story building containing a vehicle/machinery repair shop and office;
• A caretaker’s cottage;
• A guardhouse;
• Bins to hold materials;
• Equipment / trucks; and
• Concrete and gravel areas for the parking, staging, aging and mulching operation areas.
The mulching operation would include the delivery of wood construction materials, shipping pallets,
and timbered material to the site by truck. The material is sorted, ground, and stored until it is sold as
wood mulch. The applicant intends to sell to both wholesale and retail markets. The finished materials,
topsoil and mulch, would be either delivered to the destination or it would be picked up by the
customer.
The operation would include the following:
• The proposed days and hours of operation are: Monday – Friday, 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM;
Saturday, 7:00 AM to 1:00 PM; closed Sunday;
• The proposed number of employees: 10;
• The anticipated number of dump trucks per day: 50;
• The anticipated number of tractor trailers per day: 10;
• Storage of the equipment/trucks would be onsite; and
• Noise associated with this operation would be related to the vehicles as well as from the
operation itself. Noise impacts are discussed later in this report.
The application materials submitted by the applicant for the November 17, 2008, application re
submittal are included as Attachments B through I.
Planning and Zoning History:
SP 1975490 Approved special use permit for a central well on a 1acre well lot to serve the
Woodsedge Subdivision. (The subject parcel was later subdivided and a field verified check of the well
location shows that the well is south of this property, but the waterline easement goes through the
subject property in the wooded are between the operation site and the south property line.)
ZTA 199201 Approved zoning text amendment added Section 10.2.2 (44) “Theater, outdoor drama”
by special use permit in the Rural Areas zoning district;
SP 199307 Approved special use permit for 1781 Productions an outdoor historical drama (Attachment
J); the special use permit was vested but the outdoor drama has not been commenced.
Official Determination September 15, 2008 The Zoning Division determined that the Central Virginia
Recycling Center is within the “Sawmills, planning mills, and woodyards” use classification in the
Albemarle County Code Sec. 1810.2.2 (14). (Attachment K). This determination was not appealed in
the permitted timeframe; therefore, the determination is final.
Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan: Comprehensive Plan designates the subject properties as
Rural Areas emphasizing the preservation and protection of agricultural, forestal, open space, and
natural, historic and scenic resources as land use options. The proposed operation would recycle wood
products primarily from land clearing, construction waste, and wood pallets into mulch. As such, the
wood products used in this operation would not often come from forestry operations or from
agricultural operations. Activities in the Development Areas and the growing communities in the Zions
Crossroads area would likely receive the most benefit from this proposed operation and would likely
provide many of its customers who would utilize the mulch for things such as landscaping. While the
recycling of material can be a beneficial enterprise, this use would not directly support the preservation
and protection of resources called for in the Rural Areas Guiding Principles.
The Guiding Principles also pledge to “Protect and enhance rural quality of life for present and future
Rural Areas residents.” The negative impacts of this operation to this area's rural residents would not
be consistent with this pledge.
The mulching operation would be located toward the center of the parcel, approximately 1,762 feet
from Rt. 250, so it would not be visible from the Rt. 250 Entrance Corridor.
STAFF COMMENT:
This application has received three reviews: 1) original application submitted on June 16, 2008; 2) re
submittal on September 19, 2008; 3) resubmittal on November 17, 2008. Although the resubmittals
answered many of the comments/requests for additional information, some questions have not been
satisfactorily addressed or the answers have presented new information that prompted additional
questions. On December 18, 2008, the applicant determined not to provide any further responses and
have the Planning Commission public hearing be scheduled. Although many of the unanswered
comments pertain to items that will be required to be included with the site plan application, staff
believes that the special use permit review presents the greatest opportunity to bring to light all
potential issues and impacts. As all information has not been submitted by the applicant, staff has not
been able to complete the review of this application. Further, a condition that would require that the
final plans be in “general accord” with the concept plan may require changes with the site plan that can
not be anticipated at this time because of the incomplete review. The applicant has also been advised
during the review process to first have a Planning Commission work session for this project. However,
the applicant has declined and directed that this project be brought to public hearing.
The most significant comments that the applicant has not provided the information requested by staff
are discussed below:
1. Noise – The onsite noise test conducted by the applicant in June 2008 with one piece of
equipment operating, the grinder, indicated that the noise levels at one location on the northwest
property line exceeded the maximum allowable levels (see below). The applicant has stated that the
equipment would be sited further away from the location used during the noise test in June 2008,
but they realize that there is no way of determining if some degree of violation will persist until the
site is developed and testing can be performed under actual conditions. Although the equipment
would be situated further away and continue to be separated by an existing evergreen hedgerow at
the property line, the concept plan shows that the delivery and grinding location would be moved
closer to the properties on the south and the east sides. The proposed truck and equipment repair
shop would also be located closer to these properties. The operations areas (grinding) would be
separated by an existing stand of trees. Although the applicant has made assurances that they will
“do whatever is necessary, within reason, to circumvent any problems”, excessive noise and noise
for long periods of time remains a major concern of the neighbors and of staff. According to the
Zoning Division, “This will be a significant concern in the review and operation, as it is something
that may be a constant irritation to neighbors, likely prompting numerous calls for possible
violations. The final decision may hedge on whether any noise of a more constant nature is
compatible with the RA district.”
These concerns are echoed by the County Engineer in the following statement:
“It is not clear whether the intended use can meet the maximum noise limits allowed by the
zoning ordinance. With regard to noise and other performance standards (vibration, lighting, air
pollution, etc.) the primary response to the likelihood of expected concerns are promises to
adhere to operational limits (not putting equipment in certain locations, not operating at night,
turning off equipment not in use, watering down dusty areas, limit the traffic to the facility,
etc.). Physical measures (screening and walls, barriers, distance, reduced site area, etc.) are
preferable, and far more reassuring, not just to meet ordinance requirements, but to address
neighbor’s concerns, which may be to lower thresholds than allowed by ordinance. Operational
measures are far less likely to work, and rely solely upon the vigilance of neighbors and their
willingness to persistently police the operation.”
Also of concern is that the noise from this operation, including traffic noise from the large trucks
entering and exiting the site, their backup warning noises, and the clanging from flapping truck
tailgates (which has been a noise irritant for neighbors of the Ivy Landfill site) is uncharacteristic in
this area.
2. Parking – The concept plan shows 15 car parking spaces in front of the office/repair shop. The
Zoning Division has requested that a parking study/analysis be submitted to determine if the
parking is adequate for employees and visitors/customers is adequate. The County Engineer has
advised that the space shown for parking and travelways does not appear to meet Code
requirements. The applicant responded that this would be done with the Site Plan review. Parking
areas also have not been shown for trucks and equipment or for parking associated with the repair
facility. Again, this special use permit offers an opportunity to assure that parking is adequate for
the proposed uses and to adjust parking areas to assure that adequate and appropriate parking spaces
are provided.
3. Traffic – The access to the property would be at the intersection of Richmond Road (Rt. 250)
and Three Chopt Road (Rt. 794). The existing unimproved driveway into the property would be
constructed to a 24’ wide asphalt surfaced accessway that would include a paved dual “Y”
entrance/exit onto each road.
A deceleration right turn lane would be constructed on eastbound Rt. 250 onto a relocated and
upgraded Rt. 794 at the project entrance. In this area, Rt. 250 is a twolane 40’ wide Primary Road
with the most current published traffic count of 5,500 vehicle trips per day. Rt. 794 is a 10’ wide
gravel road with 2’ shoulders. Two cars traveling in opposite directions would be required to move
to the shoulders in order to pass each other on Rt. 794. The most current traffic count on Rt. 794
(2006) is 96 vehicles per day and 5,471 (2007) The anticipated number of vehicles accessing this
property has been questioned by the County Engineer who has concluded that truck traffic may
have been underestimated, due to the sizes given for the operational areas on the concept plan. The
applicant has stated that the size of the operation is consistent with the space shown for the
proposed activities.
According to VDOT, the applicant shows that there would 140 trips per day with the project’s retail
component. A capacity analysis on the intersection found that there is no significant increase in
delay to Rt. 250 by not having a westbound left turn lane onto a new relocated and upgraded Rt.
794 at the project entrance. The intersection will function at the same Level of Service as it will
with no site at this location. This is because the traffic on Rt. 250 allows enough gaps to make the
left turn going east without holding up the through traffic and the traffic on this section of road is
relatively low. Of course it is always desirable to provide left turn lanes at all intersections but this
is typically not practical due to Right of Way constraints or the cost of constructing these
improvements. VDOT does not recommend a left turn lane for this intersection because Rt. 250 at
this location has only 40 feet of paved width. In order to accommodate a two lane road with left
and right turn lanes, the pavement would need to be 48 feet wide with additional width needed for
shoulders and ditches.”
4. Water – The applicant has stated that the projected water usage of 1,000 gallons per day is a best
guess until the site is developed. The projected water usage is based on data that was received from
the Albemarle County Service Authority and the Thomas Jefferson Health Department. Water
would be used for sanitary facilities, as well as for sprinkling the mulch piles for dust, odor and fire
management. The Water Resources Manager has stated:
“In the Site Overview section of the Tier III Groundwater Assessment, the applicant makes
an estimate "based on water usage by other similar operations." A table of the water usage
of similar operations and a description of any difference in scale between those operations
and the operation described in this application would allow us to derive a justified estimate
of the water usage that will be required to run this operation. The well the applicant will use
is high yielding. But, without a justified estimate of the operation's water use I can not
evaluate the effect of that use on the local groundwater supply.”
There has been significant interest in this proposal. Copies of the emails and letters from citizens are
attached (Attachment O).
Staff addresses each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below:
31.2.4.1: Special Use Permits provided for in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the
Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property,
The access road and the wood recycling operation would be on the west side of the subject property,
adjacent to agricultural and residential properties. The properties on the south and east side of the
subject site are part of an established residential subdivision, Keswick Forest. As discussed above, the
noise impacts from this operation would be heard from the surrounding properties, and at one location
the noise reading exceeded the maximum allowable decibel level. Both the volume and the length of
time the noise that would be heard each day would likely have an undesirable affect on adjacent
properties.
Reports from visits to similar mulching operations in the Zions Crossroads area, Williamsburg, and the
Ivy Landfill revealed that there are also issues concerning dust and odor. Although the dust can be
reduced by keeping the mulch piles damp, wet piles are the most likely to catch on fire, according to the
Landfill Manager. Other methods to reduce the dust problem are to plant vegetative cover to slow wind
velocity at the surface and to plant wind screens/breaks according to a letter included in the Certified
Engineer’s Report from Apex Companies (Attachment F). Also, the odor of mulch can be offensive to
some people. According to the Apex Companies, “malodorous conditions..can occur for numerous
reasons, but typically result from anaerobic conditions (low or no oxygen) within mulch piles or from
anoxic standing water or holding ponds.” Apex has offered monitoring and corrective actions for both
dust and odor. These suggestions have been included in the proposed conditions, should the application
be approved. Copies of photographs taken at the subject site are included as Attachment L. The other
mulching operations are included as Attachment M. Two of the mulching operations were integrated
into existing landfills (Ivy and Williamsburg). The Williamsburg facility also contains an airport.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and
While the mulching operation would not be visible from nearby public roadways, it would be visible
from neighboring properties during some or all times of the year. The residential and agricultural
character of this area will be impacted by a heavy industrial operation that includes traffic from heavy
trucks and from customer vehicles. The noise generated by the these vehicles and the noise generated
from the equipment running the wood mulching operation would not be in harmony with the existing
residential and agricultural character of this area.
that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
Section 18, Chapter 10 of the Zoning Ordinance outlines the purpose of Rural Areas zoning: “This
district (hereafter referred to as RA) is hereby created and may hereafter be established by amendment
of the zoning map for the following purposes:
Preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities;
Water supply protection;
Limited service delivery to the rural areas; and
Conservation of natural, scenic, and historic resources. (Amended 11889)”
Although the wood mulching operation has been determined to be consistent with the
sawmill/woodyard category in the zoning ordinance, these uses are allowed only by special use permit,
signifying that these types of uses may not be appropriate in all Rural Areas or under all circumstances.
with uses permitted by right in the district,
Although allowed by special use permit in the RA district, the only other zoning district this use would
be permitted in is the Heavy Industrial (HI) District. Heavy Industrial Districts were created to “permit
industries and commercial uses which have public nuisance potential and will therefore be subject to
intensive review for locational impact on surrounding land uses and environment.” The HI district
allows this category of use as a byright use.
The uses allowed by right in the Rural Areas zoning district are uses that support preservation of land
for agricultural and forestal purposes, provide services that promote our cultural and historic heritage,
and require a limited number of services to serve rural area communities. The areas surrounding the
wood mulching operation consist of both residential and agricultural byright uses.
with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance,
The applicable portions of Section 5 and Section 4 have been copied below, with an underlined staff
comment following each section.
5.1.15 SAWMILL, TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT
Each temporary or permanent sawmill shall be subject to the following:
a. No structure and no storage of lumber, logs, chips or timber shall be located closer than one hundred (100)
feet to any lot line. Trees and vegetation within the one hundred (100) foot setback shall be maintained as a
buffer to adjoining properties and uses, provided that during the last three months of operation such trees may
be removed;
b. No saw, planer, chipper, conveyor, chute or other like machinery shall be located closer than six hundred
(600) feet to any dwelling on other property in the area;
c. No sawing, planing, chipping or operation of other processing machinery shall occur between 7.00 p.m. and
7:00 a.m. No loading/unloading of wood/wood products shall occur between 12:00 midnight and 7:00 a.m.;
d. All timbering and milling operations, including reforestation/restoration and disposal of snags, sawdust and
other debris, shall be conducted in accordance with Title 10.1 of the Virginia Code and the regulations of the
Virginia Department of Forestry;
e. All such operations shall be subject to the noise limitation requirements of section 4.18.
The proposed hours of operation and setbacks would be consistent with the requirements of this
ordinance. A noise test in June 2008 determined that noise in one location would exceed the permitted
limit (discussed below).
4.18 NOISE
The board of supervisors hereby finds and declares that noise is a serious hazard to the public health, safety,
welfare, and quality of life, and that the inhabitants of the county and adjoining localities have a right to and
should be free from an environment of noise. Therefore, it is the policy of the county to regulate noise as
provided in this section 4.18.
4.18.01 APPLICABILITY
This section 4.18 shall apply to sound generated from any land use within Albemarle County, regardless of
whether the property in the receiving zone is within or without Albemarle County. This chapter is in addition to
any sound or noise regulations set forth in any other chapter of the Albemarle County Code.
4.18.04 MAXIMUM SOUND LEVELS
Except as provided in section 4.18.05, it shall be unlawful for any person to operate or cause to be operated, any
source such that the sound originating from that source causes a sound level that exceeds the sound levels in the
receiving zone, measured pursuant to section 4.18.03, as set forth below:
Receiving Zone Time Period Noise Level (dBA)
Rural Areas and Residential Daytime 60; Nighttime 55
Industrial Daytime 70; Nighttime 70
The results of the noise test conducted in June 2008 revealed that the daytime noise of the grinder exceeded
maximum levels (60dBA) at one location adjacent to the TMP 9421K property line. The readings for the
(mulch) grinding test are as follows:
First reading was the ambient noise level taken from the tent area. An average of 46dbs was recorded.
Second reading was with grinder running, taken from same location. Decibels ranged from 65 to 78; 65dbs
was just machine running, 78dbs was machine actually grinding.
Third reading was with grinder operating as intended, taken from nearest property line. Decibels ranged from
55 to 58.
Fourth reading was with grinder operating as intended, taken from a second location on the nearest property line
(Terra Concepts flag #6). Decibels ranged from 67 to 79.
4.18.05 EXEMPT SOUNDS
The following sounds shall not be subject to this section 4.18:
L. Warning devices. Sounds generated by a horn or warning device of a vehicle when used as a warning device,
including backup alarms for trucks and other equipment.
Concerns have been raised regarding the backup warning devices on the trucks. Although these noises are
exempt from the noise regulations, they would contribute to the sounds that would be out of character in this
rural neighborhood.
4.18.07 MODIFICATION OR WAIVER
Although the noise test revealed that the noise produced would exceed the maximum allowed by the
ordinance, a waiver from these regulations has not been sought by the applicant. The applicant has
advised that they would make adjustments, if necessary, after the mulching business is in operation.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
Although the Rt. 250 / Rt. 794 intersection and the entrance to this proposal would be improved to
VDOT standards, the truck traffic accessing the site is not customary for this area. Should truck
traffic use Rt. 794, a narrow gravel road, safety is a concern.
The ability to obtain an adequate supply of potable water for this us is a question. There is also a
question as to whether some of the adjacent property’s water supply may be affected by this use.
All runoff from the impermeable area, including the mulch piles, should be captured and treated by
the stormwater retention ponds. The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has reviewed
this application and has advised the applicant that permits may be required, upon further review. A
copy of the DEQ letter is attached as reference (Attachment N).
The comment from the Virginia Department of Health advises that, “The only item the health
department would be concerned with is the sewage facility for the bathrooms. The other issues you
referred to such as composting piles, water runoff, dust and groundwater usage would not come
under any health department regulations.”
As mentioned earlier in this report, mulch piles have caught on fire at the Ivy landfill, as well as in
other locations. The Fire Department has commented that the Statewide Fire Prevention Code
provides regulations pertaining to these types of operations: “Section 1908.6 Static pile protection
Static piles shall be monitored by an approved means to measure temperatures within the static
piles. Internal pile temperatures shall be monitored and recorded weekly. Records shall be kept on
file at the facility and made available for inspection. An operational plan indicating procedures and
schedules for the inspection, monitoring and restricting of excessive internal temperatures in static
piles shall be submitted to the fire code official for review and approval.” In addition, the Code
contains other requirements, including requirements for access, security, fire protection systems,
separation, pile size limits, emergency plans, housekeeping, and dust management.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factor favorable to this application:
1. The wood recycling would provide a service to reuse waste from land clearing, construction, and
pallets.
Staff has identified the following factors unfavorable to this application:
1. The operation would cause noise and traffic that is uncharacteristic to this Rural Area.
2. The operation could exceed the maximum allowed noise standards in the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The noise, both volume and duration, could disturb the neighbors.
4. The mulching operation would be of greater benefit to development occurring in both Albemarle’s
Development Areas and in Fluvanna County.
5. The information requested by staff pertaining to groundwater, parking and traffic generated from
this operation has not been fully provided; therefore, the review is incomplete.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends denial of SP200800032 Central
Virginia Recycling.
However, if the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors determines that the application should be
approved, the following conditions are offered for consideration:
1. Development of the Special Use Permit SP200800032 Central Virginia Recycling use shall
be in general accord with the “Central Virginia Recycling Center Concept Plan”, last revised
November 17, 2008, as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To
be in conformity with the plan, development shall reflect the general size, arrangement, and location
of the mulching operation, access, driveway, proposed buildings, parking, and limits of clearing.
Minor modification to the plan which does not conflict with the elements above may be made to
ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Dust emitted from the operation and traffic associated with the operation shall be controlled
at all times. Procedures to control dust from intruding on any abutting property shall include at a
minimum and as necessary, sprinkling with water the ground surface, wood and soil material
stockpiles, and access road; sprinkling with water the trucks prior to their leaving the property,
stabilize soil by planting and maintaining a vegetative ground cover or other landscape material
approved by the Planning Director in all areas not expected to handle vehicular traffic or paved or
gravel areas dedicated to the operation of the mulching operation.
3. A minimum 20’ wide landscape screening buffer of evergreen trees and other suitable
evergreen landscape materials starting on the west property line at Route 250, extending around the
entire special use permit boundary and on the east side of the access road, excluding the entry, as
necessary, in order to achieve adequate sight distance. Existing evergreen trees and shrubs shall be
supplemented as necessary to achieve and maintain a visual barrier between the entry, the access
road, and the wood mulching facility “dedicated to the special use permit”, as shown on the
Concept Plan identified in Condition 1. This landscape buffer shall be at a height and density that
would prevent visibility of the entry, the access road, and the building, equipment, vehicles, product
piles (mulch and materials waiting to be processed) from the adjacent property on the west side of
TMP 9421N. The buffer shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director or designee.
4. The use allowed by SP199300007 shall not be permitted on the property while the use
permitted by SP200800032 is operated on the property.
5. All fixtures emitting 3000 lumens or more for outdoor lighting shall be full cutoff luminaire
as defined in Zoning Ordinance Section 4.17.3. and arranged or shielded to reflect light away from
all abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than
0.3 foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval.
6. The hours and days of operation shall be limited to no more than the following: Monday
through Friday between 7:00 AM and 5:00 PM and Saturdays between 7:00 am and 1:00 PM.
7. No grinding or processing shall be allowed on Saturday or Sunday.
8. There shall be a maximum of ten employees on the site at any time.
9. Storage and repair of equipment and trucks not used onsite for the delivery and / or process of
wood mulching shall be prohibited.
10. A tree protection plan shall be required to be submitted with the site plan.
11. No tree removal, grading, or disturbance shall take place within the driplines of the trees
shown outside the limits of clearing area, as shown on the concept plan described in condition
number one. The applicant shall have the dripline of the trees surveyed and shall mark the dripline
in the field with a minimum five (5) feet high, threeboard fence. The fence shall be maintained for
the duration of SP200800032. Any grading or disturbance within ten (10) feet of any dripline shall
necessitate submittal of a "Tree Protection Plan" in accord with section 32.7.9.4 of the Zoning
Ordinance. No grading or disturbance within ten (10) feet of any dripline shall be permitted until a)
the survey and fencing have been completed and b) the Planning Director approves a plan which
show the grading or disturbance and the surveyed dripline of the existing trees.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A Location and Easement/Resource Map
Attachment B Central Virginia Recycling Center (November 17, 2008) (3 plans stapled together) (on
file in Clerk's office)
1. Existing Conditions Plan
2. Concept Plan
3. Audio Testing Plan
Attachment C Central Virginia Recycling Center Overall Sketch Plan
Attachment D Central Virginia Recycling Center Illustrative Plan
Attachment E Request and Justification for a Special Use Permit
Attachment F Certified Engineers Report (on file in Clerk's office)
Attachment G Central Virginia Recycling Center Tier 3 Groundwater Assessment Plan
Attachment H Trip Generation Assessment
Attachment I Central Virginia Recycling Center prepared by Ramsey Kemp & Associates
Attachment J SP 9307 1781 Productions, Board of Supervisors Approval letter, dated May 17, 1993
Attachment K – Official Zoning Determination, dated September 15, 2008
Attachment L – Photographs – Proposed Site
Attachment M Photographs – Wood Mulching Sites at Waltrip Williamsburg); Agri Mulch & Recycling
(Lousia County); Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (Albemarle County)
Attachment N – Department of Environmental Quality correspondence from Jonathan Pascarella,
Environmental Program Planner, dated September 30, 2008
Attachment O – Citizen Correspondence (on file in Clerk's office)
Return to actions letter
Albemarle County Planning Commission
February 17, 2009
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing, meeting and work session on Tuesday , February
17, 2009, at 6:00 p.m., at the C ounty Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesv ille, Virginia.
Members attending w ere Marcia J oseph, Calvin Morris , Bill Edgerton, Linda Porterfield, Thomas Loach, Vice Chair
and Eric Strucko, C hairman. Julia Monteith, AICP, nonvoting representative for the U niversity of Virginia w as
absent.
Other offic ials present were Juan Wade, Transportation Planner; Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner; W ayne C ilimberg,
Director of Planning; Rebecca R agsdale, Senior Planner; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner, Joan McD owell, Principal
Planner; Bill Fritz, Chief of C urrent D evelopment and Greg Kamptner, D eputy County Attorney.
C all to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Struck o called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and establis hed a quorum.
Public Hearing Item:
SP200800032 Central Virginia Recycling Center (Signs #49&52)
PROPOSED : Special Use Permit on approximately 25 acre portion of a 100.261 acre parcel and a .23 acre parcel
containing a central well. Proposal is to rec eive wood products from timber, stumps, and wood waste from
construction, shipping and excavation and then proces sed/recycled by grinding, chipping, dying and composting into
mulch and wood biofuel; conduct both retail and wholes ale sales of the products at the site; site would include
structures related to this use. ZONING CATEGOR Y/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal,
and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in dev elopment lots)SEC TION: 10.2.2 (14) Sawmills, planing mills
and woody ards COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/D ENSITY: RA Rural Areas preserve and protect
agricultural, forestal, open s pac e, and natural, historic and scenic res ources/ density (.5 unit/ ac re in development
lots); EC Entrance Corridor Overlay to protect properties of historic , architectural or cultural significance from vis ual
impacts of development along routes of tourist access. ENTRAN CE CORR IDOR: Yes. LOC ATION: 4545
Richmond Road; South side of R ichmond R d. (Rt. 250 East) at its intersection w ith Three Chopt R oad (Rt. 794),
approximately 1,325 feet wes t of U nion Mills R d. (Rt. 759) and Black Cat R d. (Rt. 616). TAX MAP/PARC EL: TMP
9421N and TMP 9421N1 (well lot). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scotts ville. (Joan McD owell)
Ms. McD owell presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report. (SEE Attachment 3: Staff
Report and Attachment 4: Pow erPoint Presentation)
Proposal: This is a special use permit request for C entral Virginia Recycling Center to receive wood products and
process into w ood mulc h; conduct wholesale and retail sales; repair vehicles; office for business
In the preparation and rev iew of this application staff explored the local recyc ling facilities as well as all the way to
Williamsburg s ince they have not done a wood recycling fac ility before. Ms. Porterfield visited the recycling facility
in W illiamsburg. As show n in the photographs of other recycling facilities there is some s cattering of wood
materials as they proces s. In a photograph at Ivy Landfill there was some s moke coming from the wood mulch pile
that was left over from last year. The w ood mulch pile was being turned as they were visiting the site. She
reviewed other photographs in the PowerPoint presentation of other materials on the site.
This application received an incomplete review. The applicant directed that the application proceed to public
hearing. Early in the process staff offered to have the request brought before the Planning Commis sion as a work
session, but the applicant declined.
Staff had some issues in the review that they asked for additional information or materials on. Thes e are listed at
length in the staff report. They include the following:
Noise – There was a noise test done last June. In one area it exceeded the allow able noise levels. No additional
noise tests have been conduc ted. The proposed grinding area mov ed c loser from where it was tes ted at the tree line
because the applicant did not want to tak e down trees. On the site plan it actually moved closer to the east property
line. The existing trees between the mulching operation and the east and south property lines would be preserv ed
with this application. The applicant has assured that noise issues would be resolved w hen the bus iness is in
operation. The remaining noise concerns are noise from the operation, noise from the traffic (which includes the
truck back up warning devices and the flapping of truc k tailgates that they were told at Ivy were a problem for their
neighbors), noise from trucks slowing dow n and brak ing before entering the site and both the lev els and duration
during the hours of operation. The neighbors w ould be placed in the position of policing this operation. This
operation w ould generate noise that is unc haracteristic of this rural area.
Parking – Onsite parking may not be adequate to meet ordinance requirements. A parking study w as requested,
but not submitted. The applicant said they would submit the park ing study with the site plan. The special use
permit provides an opportunity to make adjustments that may be nec essary to the concept plan since the first
condition will always tie it to a concept plan.
Traffic – Access is from R oute 250 (Richmond Road) and Route 794 (Three Chopt Road). The entrance w ould be
constructed in a Y configuration with ac cess onto each road. The existing driveway would be 24’ and paved. An
east bound right turn lane would be constructed on 250. A west bound left turn lane on 250 is not warranted at this
time.
Water – The projected us age w as 1,000 gallons per day. The review s tated that without a jus tified estimate of the
water usage the effect on the local groundwater cannot be determined at this time. No permits are required by the
Department of Environmental Quality . A letter from D EQ is included in the conditions .
The C omprehensive Plan
• Rural Areas Land Use Designation
• Preservation and protection of agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic
resources
• The wood products to be recy cled (turned into mulch) w ould c ome primarily from land clearing for
development, pallets, construction waste
• The proposed use would not direc tly support the preservation and protection of the Rural Areas.
• The Guiding Principles has a pledge to “Protec t and enhance rural quality of life for present and future Rural
Areas residents.” The negative impacts would not allow fulfillment of the Guiding Principles .
There are a couple of properties across the street currently under easement.
Factors Favorable:
1. The w ood recy cling would provide a service to reuse waste from land clearing, cons truction, and
pallets.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The operation would cause nois e and traffic that is uncharac teristic to this area.
2. The operation could exceed the maximum allowed noise standards in the Zoning Ordinanc e.
3. The noise, both v olume and duration, could disturb the neighbors.
4. The mulching operation would be of greater benefit to development occurring in both Albemarle’s
D evelopment Areas and in other counties, ins tead of the Rural Areas.
5. The information requested by staff pertaining to groundwater, parking study, traffic generated from this
operation has not been forthcoming; therefore, the review is inc omplete
RECOMMENDED ACTION :
Based on the findings c ontained in this staff report, staff recommends denial of SP200800032 Central
Virginia Recycling.
However, if the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors determines that the application s hould be
approved, the following conditions are offered for consideration:
1. Development of the Special Us e Permit SP200800032 Central Virginia Recyc ling use shall be in
general accord w ith the “Central Virginia R ecy cling Center Concept Plan”, last revised November 17,
2008, as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in conformity
w ith the plan, development shall reflect the general size, arrangement, and location of the mulching
operation, acces s, driveway, proposed buildings, parking, and limits of clearing. Minor modification to
the plan w hich does not conflict w ith the elements abov e may be made to ens ure c ompliance with
the Zoning Ordinanc e.
2. D ust emitted from the operation and traffic ass ociated with the operation shall be controlled at all
times. Procedures to control dust from intruding on any abutting property shall include at a minimum
and as necessary , sprinkling with water the ground surface, w ood and soil material s tockpiles, and
access road; sprinkling with water the trucks prior to their leaving the property, s tabilize soil by
planting and maintaining a vegetative ground c over or other landscape material approved by the
Planning Director in all areas not expected to handle vehicular traffic or paved or gravel areas
dedic ated to the operation of the mulching operation.
3. A minimum 20’ w ide landsc ape screening buffer of evergreen trees and other suitable ev ergreen
lands cape materials s tarting on the wes t property line at Route 250, extending around the entire
s pec ial use permit boundary and on the east side of the access road, excluding the entry, as
necessary, in order to achieve adequate s ight dis tance. Existing evergreen trees and s hrubs shall
be supplemented as necessary to achieve and maintain a vis ual barrier betw een the entry, the
access road, and the wood mulching facility “dedicated to the special use permit”, as show n on the
C onc ept Plan identified in Condition 1. This landscape buffer s hall be at a height and density that
w ould prevent visibility of the entry, the access road, and the building, equipment, vehicles, product
piles (mulch and materials waiting to be proces sed) from the adjacent property on the west side of
TMP 9421N. The buffer shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Direc tor or designee.
4. The use allowed by SP199300007 shall not be permitted on the property while the use permitted by
SP200800032 is operated on the property.
5. All fixtures emitting 3000 lumens or more for outdoor lighting shall be full cutoff luminaire as defined
in Zoning Ordinance Section 4.17.3. and arranged or shielded to reflect light aw ay from all abutting
properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than 0.3 foot candles
s hall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval.
6. The hours and days of operation shall be limited to no more than the follow ing: Monday through
Friday between 7:00 AM and 5:00 PM and Saturdays between 7:00 am and 1:00 PM.
7. No grinding or proc essing shall be allowed on Saturday or Sunday.
8. There shall be a maximum of ten employees on the site at any time.
9. Storage and repair of equipment and trucks not used onsite for the delivery and / or proc ess of wood
mulc hing shall be prohibited.
10. A tree protection plan shall be required to be submitted w ith the s ite plan.
11. N o tree removal, grading, or disturbance shall take place w ithin the driplines of the trees shown outside
the limits of clearing area, as shown on the c onc ept plan described in condition number one. The
applicant shall have the dripline of the trees surveyed and shall mark the dripline in the field with a
minimum five (5) feet high, threeboard fence. The fence shall be maintained for the duration of SP
200800032. Any grading or disturbance w ithin ten (10) feet of any dripline s hall necessitate s ubmittal
of a "Tree Protec tion Plan" in acc ord with section 32.7.9.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. No grading or
disturbance within ten (10) feet of any dripline s hall be permitted until a) the s urvey and fencing have
been completed and b) the Planning D irector approves a plan which show the grading or disturbance
and the surveyed dripline of the ex isting trees.
Mr. Struc ko asked if there were any questions for staff. There being none, he opened the public hearing
and invited the applicant to address the C ommission.
Mark Keeler, of Terra Concepts PC of Charlottesville, represented the applicant Central Virginia Rec ycling
and explained the proposal in a PowerPoint presentation.
The applicant, Bobby Vess, is present to answ er questions. The request is v ery controversial. Regardless
of the points that are made against the request there are quite a few more than just one positive aspect of
this applic ation. So he w anted to bring those to the Commis sion’s attention. The description of the
business is a w ood recyc ling center. It is strictly wood and the recycling of natural materials that are
otherwis e considered was te product. These products consist of pallets, branches, construction debris,
section of logs and stumps. Thes e are byproduc ts of land clearing, construction and in some c ases storm
damage. These are rec ycled into mark etable secondary products.
This is not a dump, but quite the opposite. It is mandatory for a facility of this nature to remain clean.
Otherwis e, the produc ts will not be purc hased. Furthermore, it is self regulating since once at capacity a
load in needs to equal a load out. These products do not stay on this property. In fact, the permit that
DEQ will issue at some point in time will require that 75 percent of these products s tay on the site no
longer than one year. H aving a facility of this nature would reduce the activity at the Ivy Landfill. It
enables the county to curtail burning of these natural products as w as the cas e in Belvedere. It would
reduce erosion and the compromising of good land which now occurs through onsite burial of these types
of materials.
Mr. Vess has operated a mobile tub grinding operation for several y ears. The site conditions when he
shows up at these properties are often time muddy and littered with debris. The items are not sorted. As a
result the product is contaminated and many times unmarketable. Typically the produce is casually
disposed of. H e has in the past contracted with Ivy Landfill to go there and do tub grinding. It w ould not
be surprising that the photo presented w as mulch that he had grinded for the county. Tipping fees still
apply when a c ontractor comes into the Iv y Landfill with these materials. In addition the county has to pay
somebody to come in and grind it. Then there is a product which is unsorted and of dubious quality.
The following key points they would like to bring to the Commission’s attention:
• Rec ycling is the right thing to do
• Must be cheaper than landfill
• Controlled environment = quality products
• Importance of second income stream in this recyc ling process
• Accessibility and convenience are c rucial for the land to be us ed. If not the people w ill dispos e of it
otherwise
• Proposal represents true “recycling” They are not taking the products to a transfer station hoping to
find a market for those products and then having to ship them to some other loc ation to be processed
there into a reusable raw material. This is a turn k ey proposal.
There are a series of core requirements for any kind of recycling fac ility, as follows:
• Proper Zoning C learances
• Facility Area Requirements – What kind of land does the property require?
• Site Requirements – What type of site do they need to shop for?
• Operational Requirements – For Zoning:
• Busines s D efinition – Saw mill / Planing Mill/ Wood yard
• ByRight in Heavy Industrial Zone
• By Spec ial U se Permit in Rural Area
In the report they have broken dow n the flow chart of the activities that this facility is built around. It is
rather complex. H e offered to answer any questions since he has been dealing with this project for nearly
a year. He created the process flow chart s o that he could explain it. (See Central Virginia Rec ycling
Process Flowchart in PowerPoint Presentation) The left hand side of the chart des cribes the incoming and
process ing of the material. The right hand side des cribes for the most part the c ustomization of those
ground products and their sale and dis tribution.
The site requirements are as follows:
• Ready Access to Interstate 64
• Frontage on Major R oadway That C an Handle Truc ks
• Large Acreage (1015 Acre Operations Area + Buffering) Note: This site is signific antly larger.
• W ooded Area for Screening and Abatement
• Adequate W ater Supply Note: This is not a high use w ater facility. It is s omewhere between 5 and
10 equivalent residential connections . That over 100 acres would not be signific ant. This facility
does require water to maintain dust and to properly age the products. But, it is not an enormous
amount.
• In an Area of Predominantly Large Rural Parcels
• All in an effort to avoid the respons e, “Good plan…wrong location.” They are doing their best s o they
don’t hear that tonight.
The property selected is located east of C harlottes ville, w est of Zion Crossroads and the Fluvanna county line.
About tw othirds of the property is wooded. An exhaustive searc h w as done first analyzing those parcels in the HI
district of which there were eight. None of the eight parcels were ov er nine acres. So that would not allow them to
do any buffering, although buffering in a HI D istrict would be less. But it s till was not large enough for them to
accomplish what they needed to do. So they decided to pursue this property and found somebody willing to sell it.
He reviewed photographs of the property .
The C ertified Engineer Report is submitted to acquire a zoning compliance clearance and is prerequisite to approval
of a s ite plan. Given the nature of this business proposal the applicant went to the time and expense of preparing
this report. There are operational requirements which are performance standards that when a business is in
operation it must operate within these perimeters. It includes such items , as follows.
• Noise
• Vibration
• Glare
• Air Pollution
• Water Pollution
• Radioactivity
• Electric Interference
The applicant wanted to perform enough due diligenc e to ensure that his operation could perform on this site and not
exceed these limitations. That is the reason for the engineer’s report. The applicant is aware of the limits and
consequences. He has performed preliminary noise tests to approximate impacts. H e has involved experts to study
and/or prov ide professional input on dust, traffic, odor, fire avoidanc e and groundwater and environmental matters .
All of this information is in the report. He is confident that he can operate his facility w ithin these limitations.
They conducted an onsite test with a tub grinder and an excavator. The equipment was not located back in the
wooded area w here they would ac tually do their work but rather on the w ood’s edge much closer to the property
line. It dis played a 69 dec ibel reading. Everybody k now s that 60 is the maximum decibel reading. They feel that by
moving that back and preserving trees that will be greatly abated. But there are a series of other mec hanical and
architec tural means by which they can further abate noise if it becomes a problem regardless of whether it is 60
decibels or more.
They have some additional considerations, as follow s.
• Traffic
• Water Consumption
• Visual Impact
• Hazardous C hemical Storage
• Trash Collection
There are operational limitations. Many of the follow ing have already been discussed.
• Operations (MF 7 am – 5 pm) (Sat 7 am – 1 pm)
• Saturday primarily a sales day – sale of produc t to homeowners and landscapers
• No grinding on w eekends
• Maximum 50 dump trucks and 3 semis per day
• Strictly limit s ite lighting
• Water truck to control dust
• Limit activity during dry, windy days
• Other conditions you may deem appropriate
Summary
• This is the type of business w e s hould be promoting.
• Rural area is the most appropriate location for this business.
• Large parcel capable of buffering the operation is best.
• Facility needs to be convenient to promote patronage.
• Appropriate limitations can be placed on thes e operations.
• W e’ve done what we can to present all the facts about this application and have performed enough due
diligence to know that this facility can operate w ithin the performance standards that apply.
• They feel that they have a good plan at the right location, and
• Ask for you to make a determination on this item tonight.
Also, he has with additional slides and information that discuss the recy cling process , the facility, the equipment and
specifics on other issues, but he would leave that to the Commission’s discretion to bring to their attention.
Mr. Struck o invited questions for the applicant.
Mr. Edgerton noted that in reading the materials and staff report there was a disc repancy that jumped out that
perhaps could be clarified. On page 11 of the staff report under maximum s ound levels the staff report states that
the decibels range w as 65 to 78 in one tes t. On the second report it was 64 to 79. In Mr. Keller’s material it
contradicts that and says that in only one instance did the noise level exceed 60 decibels at 69. He asked how to
reconcile those two. H e asked if it was the same test.
Mr. Keller noted that he w ould like to c onfer with the expert here tonight to answer that question.
Mr. Loach noted regarding water that the letter from DEQ references the mulching operation, but does not address
the colorfast colorants that the applic ant plans to use. He wondered if in the context of their communication w ith
DEQ that they were only referencing the mulching operation and did not take into acc ount the use of c olorants.
Mr. Keller replied that may have been the case. What they actually did w as involv e someone that w as more aware
of the products that are used. Subsequent to the engineer report there is a letter about the materials being us ed
behind fire safety that says the materials are non toxic and water soluble. But, that he might not be ans wering the
question in stating that.
Ms. Joseph asked if only part of the entire parcel would be used for the special use permit.
Mr. Keeler replied that was c orrect. W hat the applicant really wanted to do was have the front part of the property,
which is roughly 25 ac res , to be a horse farm. There is an existing house back up on the hill overlooking that
pasture. Staff suggested w isely that they not designate it as a horse farm, but to put some form of easement or
buffer that limits one house on those 25 acres.
Ms Joseph said that the sections show that there will be a lot of trees that will be buffering from one side of the s ite
to the other and the trees are not w ithin the s pec ial use permit zone. She as ked how is that going to work as far as
preserv ing those areas if the applicant sells them off.
Mr. Keller replied that the sections were designed to go through each individual adjacent home.
Ms. Joseph said that there are sections that were cut through the w ooded area. A lot of them are going through
Sections A, C , B, D and E that go through the wooded area that is not part of this area that has been des ignated for
the special use permit.
Mr. Keller s aid that there is no clearing to occur in those areas.
Ms. Joseph said that maybe it is a legal question that needs to be asked. She as ked if that area is not designated
as part of the special use permit how do they ensure thos e areas remain wooded.
Mr. Kamptner replied that ordinarily the special use permit applies to the entire parcel. W hat the applicant might be
showing is w here the us e itself would take place. The conditions can reach out to the entire parcel.
Mr. Loac h said that he had a process question because the diagram says for sales . H e asked w hat type of sales
would oc cur if people are c oming in to the property w ith trucks.
Mr. Keller said that it would include anything from your little car pulling a trailer to get mulch in small portions. That
is a small portion of the business. There w ould be landscape companies and big purchasers like UVA that would
purchas e specific products. Primarily exporting is going to be the same trucks that are going to be bringing in
materials that would be anything from a single axle truck to a semi tractor trailer.
Mr. Keller noted that he would try to answ er Mr. Edgerton’s question. W hat he had been told w as that the county
also had another pers on out there other than the person who the client hired to do the decibel readings. Apparently
that person recorded a range of decibels. The report given to them was done in averages. So he had no way to
contest what was said. It w as the same test done by different people and arguably the same kind of equipment.
Ms. Joseph noted that one of the things listed to be done is truck repair. She ask ed how extensive are his
expectation of that. There is a whole building designated as truck repair. Not only would the people be working w ith
the wood, but folks would be working on repairing truc ks and selling to the public.
Mr. Keller presented slides to show what kind of trucks and equipment w ill be used in the operation. H e said that all
or mos t of the vehicle and equipment would be worked on ins ide the structure. The applicant plans to place several
5,000 gallon tanks to store w ater below the shop. So rather than having a peak demand on the well he w ould like to
have a s mall draw dow n and gradually fill those wells. Then he would fill his water truck from the location behind
the shop to avoid a peak demand on the water well sy stem. The 23 gallons per minutes that w ell y ields equates to
33,120 gallons per day. The recharge rate for that area is 49 gallons per day. They feel that they are using a small
percentage of the water in that area.
Mr. Strucko opened the public hearing and invited public comment. H e noted that if there were a lot of s peakers the
Commis sion may take a break in the middle of the public hearing. While they want to give everybody a c hance to
speak he encouraged eac h person to cons ider if prior speak ers have made their point that they come up and agree.
They are looking for each speaker to add something new to our discussion. But, they don’t want to preclude anyone
from actually coming up and saying what they want to s ay. .
Eric Wagner, resident of 2040 Fox Hunt Drive, spok e in oppos ition to the request. The staff has done a good job in
summarizing the problems of this application considering that the applicant has not res ponded to s o many of the
inquiries that the staff has had. As neighbors they have asked the same questions and have gotten very little in
respons e. The one noise test that was done, which failed, w as done w ith one piece of equipment running. There
will be ten employees at this site at any giv en time, which indicates that there will be far more than one piece of
equipment running at any given time. So there will be a lot more noise. In summary he felt they are talking about a
manufacturing facility, retail facility and construction equipment yard, whic h is not what they want in a rural area
surrounded by such beautiful property . There are too many unanswered questions.
Dr. V. C ole Peyton, resident of 2140 Fox Hunt Drive and a physician at the Martha Jefferson Hospital spoke against
the request. As a home ow ner in the adjacent community of Kes wick Farm he opposed the propos ed
“industrialization” of the nearby countryside for many reasons. He ask ed for a show of hands from the audience of
all that opposed the request. He noted concerns about the proposal due to many reasons such as air pollution,
abhorrent traffic conditions , noise pollution, spontaneous combustion of w ood piles, destruction of wildlife habitat,
health is sues including respiratory and w ater contamination, disturbance of adjacent livestock such as horses and
cattle and depletion of water w ith the propos ed 2,000 gallon use per day. There are more reasons if the truth would
be known. He addressed tw o other topics – what are the goals or ulterior motives and the industrialization of the
Keswic k eastern section of Albemarle C ounty. It is difficult to see how a start up project that costs 3 million dollars
to operate a recycling center when there are cheaper opportunities in Zion Crossroads which is already zoned
industrial. It is 100 acres and the first 25 acres is proposed as a horse farm. It is hard to imagine a horse farm in
front of a fac ility with this amount of heavy traffic. He could not make sens e of this economic question and how it
was economically feasible. The neighborhood is a group of concerned c itizens trying to pres erv e the area. This is
not a project to be undertaken to be stuck in the middle of the Keswick area.
Julie Minetos, an adjacent property ow ner and resident of 1950 Fox Hunt Drive, spoke against the request. She has
had problems with w ells on her own 21 acres and actually has drilled 4 w ells to get 1.5 gallons a minute. She
worried about the fire hazard and taking care of a fire if it happened. The noise level is terrible. She stood on her
deck while they conducted the test in June and it sounded like a helicopter was fly ing in her bac k yard. If they take
the leaves off the trees and adding the trucks coming in and the people coming in she felt that the noise is going to
be greater than the 60 decibel limit. She worried about the dust. She w as not agains t small bus iness growth but
this is not a proper plac e for this business. The increased traffic would be bad for the farm land and horses. There
are safety factors due to limited sight distance and increased accidents. There are a lot of unanswered questions
that need to be addressed. She did not think that the road could handle this type of traffic and kinds of large
vehicles. Once the special use permit is granted it is a done deal. She asked for denial of the request.
Dr. Matthew Bassignani, adjacent property owner and resident of 4653 Vista Court in Troy and physician at
University of Virginia, spoke against the request. He presented 245 signatures opposed to project of area
residents. (Attachment 5 – Petition with 250 signature against SP0832) As a physician at the University of
Virginia one of his interes ts is bladder cancer. There were about 62,000 new cases in 2006. The two most common
risks are smoking and exposure to commercial dyes. He noted concerns w ith the proposed operation in dying the
mulch depending on buy er’s wishes. The product will be stored on site and they will be exposed to the air which will
send obnoxious odors over to their properties. The dye may seep into w ell w aters and they may drink them. These
dyes may become concentrated into our body. The s tudy says that these dyes are s afe. But, no level of a foreign
substance in our bodies is s afe if not intended to be there. In the materials it does not mention the three different
dyes to be used. But it notes that res pirators are required for the yard workers. So it is not going to be as nontoxic
as is told. This is not a saw mill, but ac tually a manufac turing plant whic h will disturb the neighborhood. He felt
there w ere better plac es than Kesw ick to put this type of business such as in the new industrial park in C rozet. It is
not meant to be in Kes wick.
Karen W arren, resident of 140 W arren Cres cent Drive in Kesw ick, s poke in opposition. She lives one mile from the
site. They already have existing traffic problems during the day. She worked out of her home and is at home in day.
They already have large trucks going to and from Zion Crossroads and Luc k Stone. There are three inclines
between the site and her house that create sight distance problems . The left hand turn would be very diffic ult
particularly w ith the vehic les not adhering to the 45 mile an hour speed limit. The road is already unsafe. There is a
current special use permit on an adjacent property that is not policed. He breaks the rules almost every day .
Therefore, she had concerns over who would police the activ ities of the proposed site if the special use permit is
approved. She oppos ed the reques t bec ause it adversely impacts the adjac ent neighborhood. It is may be a good
plan, but in the w rong plac e.
Sylvia Straun, resident of 4939 Richmond Road, spok e in opposition and deferred her c omments to her husband.
Tom Struan, resident of 4979 Richmond Road, spok e in opposition to the reques t. He did not have anything against
Mr. Ves s because he w as a small businessman himself. His main concern being that he lived .4 mile from this
project going east on 250 w as the inc rease in truck traffic on a narrow road that could not handle it. His wife’s mom
is afraid to go up to the mailbox because of traffic. With that in mind he dec ided to measure the road. From the
yellow line to the white line it is 123”. From that white line to the lid of his mailbox is 24”. His neighbor’s mailbox es
are the same. His small pick up truck is 75” wide. He measured bigger truc ks which range from 80” to 94” in
width. He did the math and determined that if they can thread the needle they can do it. But, he forgot about the
mirrors . Also when tw o big trucks meet on the road they are going to v eer over more tow ards the while line. He
would not want to be standing at his mailbox w hen these truck s go by. Therefore, he felt that the road w as not w ide
enough. H e felt that this is a residential area and the road is not built for big trucks.
Paul Manning, President of Keswick Farms, spoke in opposition. He was w orried about the health and safety
issues, particular about the dust and potential respiratory problems. He manufactures infant formula. The EPA has
already told us they would measure this as parts to the million. That would be like sev eral drops in a swimming pool
causing k idney infections. He was w orried about the noise because he has a horse farm dow n the road. He w as
very concerned about the health and safety issues down the road. It is critical. Ten years from now it may be a
problem and they should do something about it now.
Stephen Reynolds , of Keswick Farms, spoke in opposition to the request. He came to this area because Albemarle
County w ants to preserve its scenic resourc es. Looking at 50 to 250 dump trucks per day is not going to be very
scenic. Hid brotherinlaw tried to put a canopy over Cis mont Market and was turned down based on that very same
reason. He lives 100 yards from the proposed site. When he moved here he brought a special needs daughter w ho
12 years old. Her life is dependent on clean air. They have an air filtering system in her bedroom and have to give
air treatments. If they cannot keep the dust down his daughter’s w elfare will be at great risk. He wants to protect
his family. H e w as not against this business man, but he wants to protect his family. He was conc erned over the
noise, w ater and how to k eep the dus t down.
Brian Verhoff, an adjac ent property owner, spoke in opposition to the request. He had lived there for ten years near
Boyd Tavern Market. H e has seen four major accidents on the road. On accident involved a dump truck had
wrecked in front of his house. The speed limits w ere lowered. The 0.4 of a mile of road is a problem. H e agreed
with everything that had been said. He wondered about bringing w aste wood products in that might bring new
diseases to area.
Marcia Buck s aid that she owned Boyd Tavern with her husband. She spoke in opposition to the request because
they w anted to preserv e the historic nature of the properties in Albemarle County . She was concerned with the
noise, traffic and damage to the historic fabric of their home. They have been approved to be a Virginia Landmark .
They prefer that the area remain residential.
Steve Friedman, resident of Albemarle C ounty, said that he lived off of Woodsedge Road a couple of miles from the
site. He w as not going to be impacted like the other speakers. He appreciates what Mr. Vess is trying to do in
trying to fit a round peg into square hole. H e felt that it would be cheaper and a lower cost for Mr. Ves s to locate
this bus iness at this loc ation instead of in an industrial area. He suggested that another site be found in an industrial
area.
Charles Meyer, resident of 4562 Three Chopt Road, s poke in oppos ition. A lot of his concerns have already been
address ed. H e lived right across from this property which is a gravel rd where two cars have difficulty pass ing each
other. The approach from the south onto Three Chopt Road w ill require engine breaking as well as off of Three
Chopt R oad. The nois e generated from this engine breaking is a big concern. The s peeding on the road is already a
concern. The road is already being used as a by pass to the traffic light at the intersection of Route 616 and 794.
Increas ed truck traffic will decrease the safety along the old remaining part of Three Chopt Road. They have seen
traffic increase along this road and feel that the most recent traffic studies done in 2006/2007 understate the traffic
volume
Donna Knoll, resident of Albemarle C ounty on Three Chopt Road, spoke in opposition. Many of her concerns ov er
this application have been expressed. She has tw o issues. One is referred to as a flood gate. The second is the
truck nois e on Route 250. W ith regards to the nois e it has been w ell covered. The flood gate issue is that the
project w ill represent the first domino that is going to fall. Then there will be more and more commercial
development along 250. The impact from this development will be unacc eptable to the adjacent res idential property .
The Planning C ommission took a five minute break at 8:02 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 8:07.
Heinz Gadient spoke in opposition to the request. H e represents Gadient Enterpris es Inc t/a Woods Edge W ater
Facilities which is a community water s ystem supply ing 42 homes w ith drinking water. The well that s upplies all the
drinking water is a short distance and directly downs tream from the property where the Zoning hearing sign #49 is
posted. Our easement passed exac tly over the same property in question. He would like to be brought fully up to
speed on the particulars of what is proposed. There was a woodchipping operation that lasted a short time last year
in this area and coincided with a bad bacterial sample taken which gives me cause for great concern for the safety
of our public drinking water. This exact watershed is a very porous limestone area and therefore very sensitiv e to
contamination from runoff of anything. He was w orried about water contaminated. Last summer he had a bad
water sample. He found a chipping operation breaking dow n and moving away. H e did not know if it was the
cause, but it caused him to be concerned. He had not had a bad water sample since. In 2002 he hired Nick Evans
to do a study for him regarding his water supply. At that time he was financially an interes ted person in the land this
project was on. He suggested that possibly Mr. Evans should have recus ed himself from submitting a report on
this. H e did not know if Mr. Evans still ow ned part of this property, but he did in 2002.
Carlton Brooks, resident of Keswick Farms, spoke in opposition to the request partic ularly because his home w as
the clos est to where this will happen. His home is about 400’ due eas t of this property line. He w as not opposed to
recycling, but felt its advantages should outw eigh the disadvantages. H e was concerned with the noise, fly ing
debris dangers and dus t. H e met w ith an ow ner of one of thes e facilities and he told him that if someone w anted to
locate a mulch grinding operation next to his home clos e to his home that he would oppose it also. He said that
there w ere reasons why a facility of this type should be located on an industrially zoned property because it is nois y,
dusty and potentially dangerous from the flying debris and fire. He met w ith some of the residents around the facility
in Williamsburg. W hen he asked them if the noise and dust ever bothered them and they replied that you get us ed
to it. He felt that is the same res ponse one would hear from residents about the odor from a w ood mill. He felt that
the granting of the special use permit w ould impact his home for the rest of his life and he w ould therefore ask the
Commis sion to deny the request.
Bill Johnson, owner of Limestone Farm and resident of Keswick for 35 years, spoke in opposition to the request. He
had a farm on Black Cat Road that w as close to 500 acres, w hich had been put in an easement. He supported
preserv ing the land. H is company is in the lumber business. He was very concerned about the air and water
pollution. There is no w ay that properties that have w ood products and do this kind of manufacturing on them are
not going to seep into the ground. He urged the Commission to consider the trees and streams and protect the land.
Leslie D ors ey, resident of an adjacent property, spoke in opposition to the request. She had many concerns about
the propos al. The first and foremost concern was if this business was allowed to operate in the community and to
police themselves disposing of c ontaminants in the way they are planning will this ensure the safety of the
community . According to the applicant’s concept of operation they will have strategic ally located gates at the check
points and at the entrance of the state road. To c ontrol access they are proposing a modest care tak er
residenc e/office/shop complex to police around the cloc k. This in itself is concerning in that they must have
someone to police your bus iness around the clock. Another one would be to have the man pow er to monitor this
business and that being the c ounty and police. She asked if this would bring crime to their area. The applicant
plans to monitor the materials that are being trucked going in. She w as concerned that the applicant w as monitoring
this hims elf and wondered if they w ere licensed professionals. She asked if the c ounty can guarantee that the
contaminated loads w ill not be accepted in the facility . Then if the loads are not ac cepted where w ill they be tak en
to. Will the c ustomer take them off or is the business going to take the loads and put them somewhere on the
property as c ontaminated loads. There are too many unanswered questions. She felt that the proposed business
was like putting the fox in charge of the hen house. This is not good for the neighborhood or community . Work ing
out of her home she would have to watch the trucks going in and out of the site if the special us e permit w as
approved.
Trevor Joselin, President of the Home Owner’s Assoc iation for Glenmore, spoke in oppos ition to the request. He
pointed out that one mile w est is Running D eer Road that has about 80 residences on it. Then to the west of that is
the edge of Glenmore, which has about 750 homes. Riv anna Village will hav e another 300 to 400 homes. There are
high density developments in the area. They are c oncerned about the proximity and the traffic. He felt that they
were talking about 250 truck trips a day w hen counting the trips in and out of the facility. A high proportion of the
trucks going to and from the Charlottesville area will go west along R oute 250 and avoid the one mile each direction
in getting to I64. This is going to add a lot of traffic between Glenmore and the freew ay junction to the west of
Glenmore w hich is currently a total bottle neck. The application does not mention the w ord odor onc e. He quoted
Tom Richard of The C ornell Waste Management Ins titute, whic h says, “Odor is perhaps the most common problem
associated w ith composting and the failure to adequately address it has lead to numerous neighbor c omplaints and
the closure of many large s cale facilities. Fortunately for the most part odors can be controlled but proper
management can take time and money.” Anyone that lives near these types of mulch piles says that there are
tremendous smells that happens when the humidity is high and the proportion of air and moisture within them are not
managed. It is a technical is sue. H e had not heard anything in the applic ation that says how they are going to stop
it from smelling when it gets wet and humid.
Diane Reynolds, resident of Keswick Farm on an adjacent property , spoke in opposition to the request. She home
schools her daughter who has special needs as referred to earlier. Her son has attention deficient and focusing is
specifically related to noise. In the rural area they don’t have to compete with all of those noises. She noted
concerns about the noise issues and the safety iss ues related to the increased traffic. If the applicant moves the
operation eastward it w ould move it closer to her home. If they have tw o pieces of equipment instead of one running
at the same time the decibel lev el w ould inc rease by about 3 decibels. She asked that the Commission take that
into consideration.
Mary Beth W agner spoke in opposition to the reques t. She asked to tell a story about when the noise test w as
done. She agreed with Ms. Minetos that it sounded like a helicopter outside during the early morning test. In the
afternoon the noise test was done while s he was ins ide vacuuming and it sounded like a helicopter. She was told
that the helicopter was tested at either 69 or 70 decibels. If she could hear that while vacuuming one could just
imagine w hat it would sound lik e if they were outs ide. She as ked that the Commiss ion take this in consideration
and preserve the rural area.
Bill Dorsey, Senior, said that he w as one of the largest adjoining landowner to Mr. Vess’ operation. He spoke in
opposition to the request. He agreed with comments of the other speak ers particularly about the noise and pollution
concerns. This is a beautiful area and s hould be preserved and not become an industrial area.
Bill Dorsey, son, spoke in opposition to the request. He noted that the white house in the center of the field was his
residenc e. His biggest concern among many was the traffic. He asked that the reques t not be approved.
Carol Mallon, resident of Boyd Tavern Lane and a loc al artist, spoke in opposition to the request. She w as
concerned with the truck traffic going to the w est and going by Luck Stone. But previous to passing Luck Stone they
would be passing the entranc e to 250 where the buses from Stone Robinson school bus come and go twic e a day .
She asked that they consider the mix and number of trucks w ith the school buses for their safety . She was a local
artist and had done a portrait of one of the residences on Fox Hunt Lane and felt this was an area of unparallel
beauty and would hate to see anything happen to des troy that. .
Doug Lowe, resident in the Greenwood area, said that if they would like put this use near his property that he did not
want it in his backyard. He was someone interested in environmental issues, recycling and affordable housing. The
county needs to out a w ay to possibly have an operation like this whether this location or something else because
they need to tie this in with burning issues as an alternative to clearing lots. There are a lot of different trade offs.
Whether they approve this loc ation there may be a need in our community for those interested in recyc ling. As a
second issue he was asked by the County As sistant Fire Marshall to do an evaluation on burning iss ues in regard to
the clearing of lots and so forth. He would tie that to the affordable housing issue. It w as determined that our current
way of clearing lots is that they clear for the house site. They may be able to get rid of the good w ood at a facility
that could use it, but the s tumps and debris go to the current land fill and have certain costs associated with doing
that. W ithout going into the detail it turned out to be if there w as a facility like this it would probably be about $1,800
less per house on the affordable hous ing issue. He would like to see the recycling is sue concern addressed. He
did not hav e the expertise to addres s the dyes . Whether this is the site or not for rec ycling there needs to be a
consideration to do something like this somew here in the county.
Jay W illard spoke in opposition to the request. H e pointed out that most of what he knew about this proposal is by
being in this room tonight. The second is that he did know Mr. Vess. He wanted to echo what Mr. Low e just s aid
that this could be a very valuable solution to their concern about other alternativ es. The comments specific to this
site w ere noise, dust, sounds, etc. They will not be able to find a site in Albemarle County industrially zoned,
residentially zoned or w hatever zoning possible that w ould allow a s ite outside some of the parameters they have
heard about. If they are serious about finding some alternatives this may be an acceptable solution. There are a
number of solutions such as the denial or approval of the project. This is not the last time this will be considered.
He urged the Commis sion to keep in mind some of these things as they consider the choices.
Matt Montgomery, area resident on Fox Hunt Drive, spoke in opposition to the request because the health issues
are very important. He agreed with what everybody said particularly about the potential spontaneous combustion in
the areas of the compost. Just a few miles down the road at Zion Crossroads there is already a developed facility
for this ty pe of thing. H e did not want this intense use in their backyards due to health issues.
Laura Aurisy, resident who lived a mile down the road on 250, spoke in opposition to the request. She said that it
was apparent that there w ill be no policing if the materials contain lead paint or as bes tos. They already know that
there are children who live in Kes wick already diagnosed with cancer. She noted that she had problems getting her
mail on 250. She had to flatten herself against the mail box to get mail if trucks go by. She questioned asked how
they k now where the policing is going to be for the products brought in. The business is to take the produc t. She
was concerned with what is going to go into this mulch and into their ground water.
Aaron Zatlolf, resident of 4571 Woodsedge R oad, ec hoed the conc erns of the community in opposition to the
request. He had heard dozens of people talk agains t the request, but only one in favor except the applicant. He
submitted a petition with 12 additional signatures against the project request. (Attachment 6 – Petition with 12
additional signature in opposition to the request)
There being no further public comment, Mr. Strucko closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the
Commis sion for further discussion and ac tion. He pointed out that Mr. Keller was available for questions.
Ms. Joseph noted that several persons mentioned spontaneous combustion. She asked if staff had gotten any
information from the fire official about their concern for that.
Ms. McDow ell replied that their response w as they were aw are of that and w ere also concerned, but they would
handle it if it came up. The Fire Department has its own set of regulations and this operation w ould hav e to fall
under their regulations . So they felt that they could handle it. When they visited the Ivy facility they were told that
they had a fire about three years ago and she assumed it was handled.
Ms. Joseph asked if the fire official had to come out and inspect periodically.
Ms. McDowell replied that they w ould have to go out and inspect it to make sure it c omplied with all of their
regulations. But, she did not know what their schedule would be for periodic visits.
Mr. Morris asked Mr. Keller to come forward and address the hazardous w aste situation. As he recalled w hen he
visited the site that iss ue was specifically addressed but he could not recall exactly how that is handled.
Mr. Keller questioned if as far as hazardous waste they are referring to incoming materials being compromised. He
explained the process as follow s.
The trucks are checked in at the guardhous e by the employee who has a logbook and knows who is c oming
in, who has an account and w ho does not. If they don’t have an account their truck does not go anywhere.
They have to park the truck, go up to the guardhouse and establish an account. There is a preliminary
query as to what they are bringing in on the truck and where it came from. If the answer is good enough
and there is an account then that person is directed to continue into the site to the unloading area which is
back in the w oods.
At that point an employee of Central Virginia Recyc ling Center physically ins pec ts what is on the truck and
then it is unloaded. The truck is unloaded under the s upervision of one of those ten employees. If
s omething comes off the truck that has a stain or paint on it or is questionable in any way, such as hav ing
pieces of metal that would highly compromise the equipment when it processes the w ood, all of that is stuff
is throw n right back on the truck. If there is a great deal of of materials then that person has to reload their
truck or it is reloaded for them and he is dismiss ed. They are no longer invited back to the facility. If there
are small portions of impurities that are discovered either at that time and they are not hauled off, or if in
their subsequent sorting of materials, such as the sorting of stumps that might come in with brush or pallets,
they are put in separate piles. It would be unproc essed, but in s eparate piles .
D uring that s orting process there is a second review of that material. W ith that second sorting process he
assumed that the person who brought it are now gone. There w ould be two bins and the business name is
put on that. N ext time that business or person comes in they are told they brought something bad and have
to pick it up. If that person never comes back then they put it over to the side and as small amounts are
gathered together they are then taken to the proper repository for that.
It is critical for Mr. Ves s to have clean product coming in bec ause people are not going to buy his produc t if
he does not do it properly. H e is going to be selling a product that is grinded up stumps to be used for
mulch and landscaping for residential and commercial uses . The mulch that goes around our house would
be medium to good grade. Then he is also going to be selling produc t that are very fine, color spec ific and
texture specific for specific commercial uses . H e wants to be able to meet the specific ations and criteria
for a variety of us ers and not reject 50 percent of the product that comes in. He wants to impress upon the
C ommission that the applicant is very sensitive to contamination of his products and w ants to have several
w ays to inspect and dispose of it if it comes to the property .
Mr. Loach questioned how many pieces of equipment would be grinding at one time.
Mr. Keller replied that there is only two pieces of equipment that does grinding. The tub grinder does the major
grinding. There is a piece of equipment used at the v ery beginning of the process before the tub grinder that is called
the trammel. At the beginning the material is put on the griz zly, whic h is a vibrating grate that goes on the trammel.
When stumps specifically brought to the site and they are put on grizz ly and shaken and the dirt and gravel comes
off of it. The trammel may do some minor grinding, but its primary job is to gradate the mulch and also to internally
colorize. All of the coloration occurs within the confines of the trammel. After discussion with Mr. Vess, Mr. Keeler
noted that with the proper equipment purchased with the proper screens the tub grinder could be the only one.
Mr. Struck o asked if there w ere other questions for Mr. Keeler.
Mr. Keller asked to mention one other thing. R egarding the truck traffic and the limitations they are proposing to limit
the traffic on has increased. He asked to restate that they are proposing to limit the traffic for bulk materials coming
in and going out to 50 trucks and 3 s emis per day. W ith the guard house they have a turn around and can send
people away. They k now if they violate any of the performance standards or proffers that this operation would be
shut down. Regarding the issue about spontaneous combustion that is an increasingly large c oncern w here people
do not properly manage the product that they grind. They allow it to s it there and stream which creates internal
combus tion and many piles would catch fire. But this whole proces s is predicated on the fact that they are creating
a quality product and for the product to look good it needs to have uniformity. The only w ay to get that is to turn it
and to prevent all of this anaerobic decomposition so it does not turn into compost. N obody wants to purchase
something that three months later would be pow der around their plants . They w ould want it to last a long time. The
50 truc k trips would be coming or leav ing would mean that it would be times two.
Ms. Porterfield noted that the proposed projec t is in her district. She commended Mr. Vess and Terra C oncepts
because they have done a good job in educating her by sending her out to the facility in W illiamsburg that was most
like what Mr. Vess is planning. She vis ited the facility in Williamsburg and then met with Ms. McDow ell and Linds ay
Dorrier to ask questions and get more educated on the project. She visited one site on her own and the other three
sites with Joan McDow ell. They hav e look ed at a variety of mulching facilities. She certainly wanted to see them
bring more business into Albemarle County. But frankly she believed from having looked at things that this is not
the place. She w ould love to be able to have ten more employees in Albemarle County and to have the machinery,
property and product sales taxes . She would like to know that they would be eliminating burning and dumping in the
land fields. She liked the thought that they w ould be prov iding a useful product.
From a review of other mulching operations Ms. Porterfield made the following observations and concerns:
The one thing that she saw when visiting three of the four facilities is that all of the facilities basically came firs t.
The facility near Zion Cross roads, Agric uMulch, is on a piece of property approximately 44 acres that w as already
had the Light Commerc ial z oning. The facility located outside of Williams burg, Waltrip R ecycling, had been owned
by the same family sinc e World War II. They started a land field around 1950 on 200 ac res. They also in the mid
60’s opened a s mall regional airport. In the early 90’s they made application for their mulching facility . Anything that
came in around them already knew there was a land field there. It is closed today, but the land field is there. The
noise issues she doubted were very big because they already had an airport. The ow ner indicated that probably if
he was apply ing for the permit for the mulc hing fac ility today he might not get it. It took him over a year in the early
90’s to get it. The mos t recent trip w as to the Ivy Land Fill, which has a lot of acres .
Dust and fire issues The dust issues and fire is sues were discussed. There was a signific ant fire that burned at
Ivy Land Field but they were able to take care of it. It is a problem. In fact a number of the piles w ere smoldering.
They c ould see the smok e coming out of them. It is true that the mulch piles have to be managed well. But there
is the possibility of fire. The people in Williamsburg indic ated that even in moist air c ondition they have dust
problems down there. One member of AgriMulch indicated that they try to weed out all of the poison ivy that might
be on s ome of these things because it c ould be air borne.
Grinder danger, safety issues She had not thought about grinder danger until they actually c ame upon a log that
had been throw n out of the grinder. She was told that the log c ould be throw n 100 to 150 yards. At that facility they
don’t allow anybody outs ide without a hard hat and usually just the one person running the things.
Dying process – There had been talk about the safety of the colorants. The application suggested that fire fighters
should choose selfcontained breathing apparatus when fighting the fire w ith things that have been colored. Also
one fac ility indicated that there could be discoloration of land or water. Those are definite concerns in that area.
Water Use – She had been heavily involved in the Village of Rivanna planning and she had been made aware that
there are s ignificant well w ater issues in the eastern part of Albemarle County. The residents on the west side of
Running Deer have asked to be in the dev elopment area because they have had so many problems with their wells.
That needs to be taken into consideration.
Noise – There is no ques tion that there have been the noise tests that they could say either failed or did not fail.
But the problem is that they were in the height of summer and they had all the leaves on the trees. The logic says
that the noise is going to get a little worse. Having a helicopter in your backy ard for eight hours is totally different
from having one go fly ov er.
The residents came first She could not support the reques t because there is already a large residential population
around this land. The residents came first and they s hould not have to expect something like this to be there. There
are lots of reasons to say there are definite problems with it, but the biggest thing is that unlike the other three
facilities the res idents here came first. If it had been the other way around and they chose to build their hous es
around it that would have been their chose. They did not anticipate having a heavy industrial application in their
backyard.
Mr. Strucko opposed extending this indus trial operation into the rural areas . This is a rural area zoned parcel ins ide
the rural area. In preserving Albemarle County’s rural c haracter they have to stic k to that principle. That is w hy he
is not in favor of the request. It has been compared to the Ivy landfill, which has been a headache for Albemarle
County for quite some time. One of the major issues w as leakage into the ground w ater. He c ould not v iew this
operation as an agricultural, forestall or fishery use. He could not view it as a saw mill or w ood y ard. This does
have an industrial component. There is treatment going on here. They run the risk of contaminating the ground
water in a sensitive ground w ater area of the county where they have had w ells fail and county concern about what
is available in this particular sec tion of the county. He felt that the factors unfavorable weigh very heavily. Giv en
the incomplete nature of the application relating to ground w ater, parking and traffic he c ould not support the request.
Mr. Edgerton concurred w ith w hat had been said. He felt strongly that the rural area is not the place to put this use
even though it was a potential value for the county to someday have a facility of this sort. This is far too industrial
to ever be put into the rural area.
Mr. Loac h agreed. He was glad to hear Ms. Porterfield say that the residents came first. The report is really
incomplete. With that s aid he could not support the request. The D EQ memo did not deal w ith the aspect of
coloration. The carc inogenics do not belong in Crozet either as one of the speakers pointed out. There was some
concern by the county engineer that the traffic was understated. The report is inc omplete and therefore he could not
support the request.
Mr. Morris agreed v ery much with his colleagues. W hen he went out to the site he was very impressed with the
operation. It does provide a tremendous servic e. However, he was also amaz ed at looking at its location and
connection with the res idential areas and so on. It is a great idea, but the wrong loc ation.
Ms. Joseph said when they first went out there and looked at this in June they were just contemplating at that point
in time a grinding operation. The proposed operation has grown. There is a reason that we allow or at least have it
within our ordinance that some of thes e things are allowed in the rural areas. They need a big piece of land. Some
of this stuff they do in the rural areas is industrial. This area is very developed. It is hard to look at this and say it is
rural area w hen she looks at this tax map and sees all of the s ubdivisions that have occurred in the area. She w as
grateful to the Johnsons for putting their land under easement because that really is s aving a beautiful part of the
county for all of us. She looks at this as being incredibly intense. It is not jus t tub grinding w ith bringing in stuff and
wholesaling it. This is a retail enterprise, the repairing of trucks and a manufacturing proces s with the coloration.
She felt that is not the intent of the rural areas. May be grinding something up where it is not so close to a residential
area is something that can happen. It is important that everyone remembers that indus trial stuff happens in the rural
areas w ith trucks going back and forth. They w ant people to use the rural areas for agricultural and forestry, but this
goes well beyond that. Therefore, she could not support the request.
Ms. Porterfield moved for denial of SP200800032 C entral Virginia Recycling Center for the reasons listed in the
staff report, as follows.
1. The operation would cause noise and traffic that is uncharac teristic to this Rural Area.
2. The operation could exceed the maximum allowed noise standards in the Zoning Ordinanc e.
3. The noise, both volume and duration, could disturb the neighbors.
4. The mulching operation w ould be of greater benefit to development oc curring in both
Albemarle’s Development Areas and in Fluvanna County.
5. The information requested by staff pertaining to groundwater, parking and traffic generated
from this operation has not been fully prov ided; therefore, the review is incomplete.
Mr. Morris seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Strucko noted that SP200800032 Central Rec ycling Center w ould go to the Board of Supervisors with a
recommendation for denial on March 11, 2009 for further consideration.
Mr. Cilimberg said that there was a list of conditions included in the event that there w as a Board inclination to
approve this. He asked if the Commission has any comments regarding the conditions that they would want
forwarded on or just leave them as they are.
Mr. Loach said that they need to get clarification on the D EQ and the coloration because they dealt only with the
water aspects versus the water and the contamination. H e would make that a condition that DEQ address the
potential groundwater contamination from the colorants . He was not sure that they have a full handle yet on the
traffic.
Mr. Edgerton said that sev eral Commissioners commented, which he did not comment on but agreed w ith it, that
staff has judged this application to be incomplete. As such he did not know how they c ould narrow down a list of
conditions to go with it. So he would suggest that they not leave the door open as far as their opinion.
The Planning Commission agreed w ith Mr. Edgerton not to pass on a list of conditions to the Board of Supervisors
due to the incomplete application.
In summary, the Planning Commiss ion recommended denial of SP200800032 Central Virginia Rec ycling Center
based on the findings s tated in the staff report. These include factors listed as unfavorable, as follows :
1. The operation would cause noise and traffic that is uncharac teristic to this Rural Area.
2. The operation could exceed the maximum allowed noise standards in the Zoning Ordinanc e.
3. The noise, both volume and duration, could disturb the neighbors.
4. The mulching operation w ould be of greater benefit to development oc curring in both
Albemarle’s Development Areas and in Fluvanna County.
5. The information requested by staff pertaining to groundwater, parking and traffic generated
from this operation has not been fully prov ided; therefore, the review is incomplete.
And the following findings stated in the s taff report:
Use will be of substantial detriment to adjacent property.
o Potential impacts of the v olume and length of time of noise from the operation.
o Potential impacts of dust and odor based on similar mulching operations.
o Potential for mulch piles catching on fire.
Changes to the character of the district.
o Visibility of operation from neighboring properties.
o Impac t of operation including traffic from heavy truck s and customer vehicles, and the equipment
running the w ood mulc hing operation.
Not in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance and uses permitted by right in the
district.
o Use is of an industrial nature otherwis e only permitted by right in the H eavy Indus trial D istrict and is
not consis tent with the intent of the Rural Areas District and uses permitted byright therein.
Not in harmony with the public health, safety and welfare.
o Although inters ection and entrance improvements to meet VD OT standards are proposed, the truck
traffic accessing the site is not cus tomary for this area and safety is a concern for trucks us ing
Route 794.
o Potential for mulchpile fires.
Commis sioners also noted the follow ing additional concerns in making their recommendation for denial:
The proposed operation has grown and bec ome incredibly intens e. It is not just the tub grinding of material
being brought in and wholesaling it. This w ould be a retail enterprise along with the repairing of trucks and a
manufacturing process with the coloration. This is not the intent of the Rural Areas and the Rural Areas
needs to be protec ted.
The potential groundwater contamination from the colorants needs to be addressed. DEQ has not
c ommented on this contamination issue.
The traffic is understated. The C ommission does not hav e a full handle on the traffic impacts.
This proposal is a great idea, but in the wrong location. The existing surrounding rural residential area w as
here first and must be taken into account. (Staff and/or a Planning Commissioner made three trips to
s imilar operations in VA. The land used for the operation in each case had been zoned a minimum of light
industrial prior to the decision to operate a mulching facility.)
This should not be view ed as a sawmill or wood yard because of the treatment going on. There is a risk of
c ontaminating the ground water in a sensitiv e area.
Potential for injury as grinder might “throw” large pieces of wood hundreds of feet.
Potential for contaminated material to be brought on site.
Noise tes ts were conduc ted in the summer w hen trees w ere leafed out.
Question of whether the amount of water needed for this use will deplete the wells of surrounding property
owners and other owners as far away as Running Deer Drive, where property owners have long reported
w ell issues.
Return to action letter