HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-5-13
B OARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
MA Y 13, 2009
LANE AU DITORIUM
C OUNTY OFFICE BUILDIN G
1. C all to Order.
4:00 P.M. PU BLIC HEA RIN GS:
2. ZTA 2009004. Flood Hazard Overlay District. Amend Sec tion 30.3.05.1.1, By right within the floodway,
of C hapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County C ode. This ordinance would amend Section 30.3.05.1.1 to
add public water and sewer transmission lines , main or trunk lines, and interceptors owned and/or operated
by the Rivanna W ater and Sew er Authority, as by right uses within the floodw ay in the Flood Hazard
Overlay Distric t, and change the reference to a C ounty department.
3. 2009/102014/15. Six Year Secondary Road Plan and Upcoming Year Construction Budget.
4. STA20080002. Fees. Amend Sec. 14203, Fees, of Chapter 14, Subdivision of Land, of the Albemarle
C ounty Code. This ordinanc e w ould amend Sec. 14203 to impose new fees, to increase exis ting fees, and
to change but not necessarily increase other fees charged for almost all listed applications , permits,
reviews, approvals, inspections and other servic es provided by the County in the administration of C hapter
14.
Recess and Reconvene at 6:00 p.m.
5. Call to Order.
6. Pledge of Allegiance.
7. Moment of Silenc e.
8. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
9. From the Public: Matters Not Lis ted for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
10. Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
PUBLIC HEAR ING:
11. PROJECT: SP2008029. South Plains Presbyterian Church. PROPOSED : Addition of new fellowship
hall and sanctuary to existing church. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL U SAGE: RA Rural Areas:
agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots); EC Entrance
C orridor Overlay to protect properties of his toric, architectural or cultural significance from v isual impacts
of development along routes of tourist access . SEC TION: 10.2.2.35, 35, church building and adjunct
c emetery. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND U SE/DENSITY: Rural Areas preserve and protect
agricultural, forestal, open spac e, and natural, his toric and sc enic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre in
development lots ). ENTRAN CE C ORR IDOR: Yes. LOCATION: 410 Black Cat R oad, at the intersection of
Black Cat Road (R oute 616) and Louisa Road (Route 22). TAX MAP/ PARCEL: Tax Map 80 Parcel 116.
MAGISTERIAL DISTR ICT: Riv anna.
12. Boards and Commissions: Appointments.
13. From the Board: Matters Not Lis ted on the Agenda.
14. Adjourn.
CON SENT AGEND A
FOR APPR OVAL:
10.1 Approval of Minutes: February 25, March 2, March 4 and Marc h 5, 2009.
10.2 Set public hearing for July 1, 2009 to consider proposed ordinance to amend County Code Chapter 7
to revise regulations pertaining to noise and to change references to County departments and officers.
10.3 Set public hearing for June 3, 2009 to approve Telecommunic ations Tower Leas e on Buck ’s Elbow
Mountain.
10.4 Resolution to Recognize Albemarle County’s Volunteer Fire and Emergency Rescue Agenc ies
Pursuant to the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Act.
10.5 Resolution to Support Georgetow n R oad Improv ements.
FOR IN FORMATION:
10.6 Copy of 2009 Firs t Quarter C ertificate of Oc cupancy R eport as prepared by the Community
D evelopment Department.
10.7 Copy of 2009 Firs t Quarter Building Report as prepared by the C ommunity D evelopment Department.
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:
Flood Hazard Overlay Dis trict: ZTA 2009004
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Amend the Zoning Ordinance to make R ivanna
Water and Sewer Authority ’s w ater and sewer
lines a by right use within the Flood Haz ard
Overlay D istrict
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Graham, and Ms.
McCulley
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
May 13, 2009
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
In reviewing a plan for the upgrade to the Meadowcreek Sew er Interceptor, staff found that w ater and sewer lines
owned and operated by the R ivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) are not allowed by right or by special use
permit in the Flood Hazard Overlay Dis tric t. However, water and sew er lines owned and operated by the Albemarle
County Service Authority (ACSA) are a by right use in the Flood Hazard Overlay Dis tric t. Staff also found that
RW SA’s water and sewer lines are a by right use in all zoning distric ts outside of the Flood Hazard Overlay
District. Staff proposed a Resolution of Intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance to treat water and s ewer lines owned
and operated by Rivanna W ater and Sew er Authority the same as thos e owned and operated by the Albemarle
County Service Authority in the Flood Hazard Overlay District. The purpose of today ’s public hearing is to consider
a zoning text amendment pursuant to the Resolution of Intent.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 3: Develop Policies and Infrastructure Improvements to Address the County’s Growing Needs
DISCU SSION :
Because the Zoning Ordinance specifically includes RWSA water and s ewer lines as a by right use in all zoning
districts ex cept the Hazard Overlay Dis trict and ACSA water and sewer lines are allowed by right in the Flood
Hazard Overlay District, staff believes it w as an overs ight that RWSA lines w ere not also allowed by right in the
Flood H azard Overlay D istrict. The Meadow Creek Sewer Interceptor upgrade is not permitted without this
ordinanc e amendment. To avoid further delay to this project, staff proposed to expedite the process ing of this
zoning text amendment w ith the goal of having it heard by the Planning C ommission on May 5th and the Board on
May 13th. Finally, staff notes that because RW SA owns and operates transmission lines rather than distribution
lines, RW SA water or s ewer line projects not already s how n on the Comprehensive Plan are subject to a finding of
being in substantial accord with the Comprehensive Plan. This assures that the County has an opportunity to review
RW SA projects and ass ure they are c ons istent with the purpose and intent of the County’s C omprehensive Plan,
even if permitted as a by right use.
Due to the Planning C ommission’s public hearing being scheduled for May 5th, it is not possible to include a
summary of the Planning C ommission discussion with this executive summary. Staff anticipates that information
will be provided to Board members under separate cov er, but it may not be possible to have the information in
advance of the public hearing. Any Planning Commis sion concerns w ill be noted during the presentation at the
public hearing.
BUDGET IMPACT:
No direc t budget impac t w ill result from this ordinance amendment. There is the potential of lost tax revenue if
development projects are delayed as a result of inadequate water or sewer lines.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
After conducting a public hearing, staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached z oning text amendment for
the Flood Hazard Overlay District.
ATTAC HMENTS:
A – Zoning Text Amendment, ZTA 2009004
Ret urn t o regular agenda
OR DINA N CE N O. 0918( )
A N O RD INA NCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZO NIN G, A RTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF
TH E CODE OF TH E COUN TY OF ALBEMA RLE, V IRGIN IA
BE IT O RD AIN ED By the Board of Supe rvisors of the County of Albemarle , Virginia , tha t Cha pte r 18, Zoning,
A rticle III, Distric t Re gula tions, are he re by a me nded and reorda ined as follows:
By A mending:
Se c. 30.3.05.1.1 By right w ithin the floodway
Chapter 18. Zoning
A r ticle III. Distr ict Regulations
Se c. 30.3.05.1.1 By right within the floodw ay
The following use s or ac tivitie s a re a uthorize d within the floodwa y a s a ma tte r of right:
1. A gricultura l uses, exc luding structure s of any kind, limite d to fie ld crops, pasture , graz ing, live stoc k,
raising poultry, hortic ulture , vitic ulture and forestry.
2. Re c re ational use s (e xc luding struc ture s of a ny kind a nd use s involving huma n ha bita tion) suc h a s
pa rks; sw imming a re as, golf c ourses and driving range s; picnic grounds; w ildlife a nd na ture
pre se rves; ga me farms; fish ha tc herie s; shooting pre serve s; ta rget, tra p a nd ske e t ra nge s; hunting,
fishing and hiking area s; a thletic fie lds; a nd horse show grounds.
3. Flood wa rning aids a nd de vic e s, wa ter monitoring de vic es a nd the like .
4. Fe nc e s.
5. Ele c tric , gas, oil a nd c ommunica tions fa c ilitie s, inc luding pole s, line s, pipe s, me ters a nd re la ted
fac ilitie s for distribution of loca l se rvic e a nd ow ned and ope ra ted by a public utility, but exc luding
tow e r struc ture s. (Added 71 81) (Ame nde d 51293)
6. Wa te r distribution a nd sewage c olle ction line s and a ppurtena nc e s ow ned and operated by the
Albe ma rle County Service A uthority, but exc luding pumping stations a nd holding ponds; public w ate r
a nd se w er tra nsmission line s, ma in or trunk line s, a nd inte rc e ptors, but exc luding tre atme nt fa c ilities
a nd pumping sta tions, ow ne d a nd/or operate d by the Riva nna Wa te r and Sewer Authority (reference
5.1.12, 30.3.03.1, 31.2.5). (Adde d 7181)
7. If paragra phs (a ) through (d) a re ea c h satisfied, projec ts which: (i) a re de signed or direc ted by the
c ounty, a soil a nd wa ter c onse rvation distric t, or a public a genc y a uthoriz ed to ca rry out flood c ontrol
or e nvironme nta l restoration me asure s; or (ii) a re re viewed and a pproved by the de pa rtme nt of
e nginee ring and public w orks c ommunity deve lopme nt in a c corda nc e with the w a te r prote ction
ordina nce .
a . The purpose w hic h will be se rved by the proje c t, a s de termine d by the de partme nt of engine ering
a nd public works, is eithe r flood control or e nvironme nta l restoration;
b. The a mount of fill ma teria l plac e d w ithin the floodway, floodway fringe or a pproxima ted flood
plain doe s not e xce ed the a mount of c ut ma te ria l re move d from the sa me floodwa y, floodwa y
fringe or approxima te d flood pla in in w hic h the fill w a s plac e d;
c . N o natura l stre ams will be re loc a te d; and
d. The projec t will use natura l ma teria ls such as rock and ve ge tation, a nd w ill not use e ngine e re d
structure s suc h a s those identifie d in se ction 30.3.05.2.1(5).
8. Tie r I a nd Tie r II personal w ire le ss service fa cilities (re fe re nce 5.1.40). (Added 101304)
(Ord. 9818(2); 91698; Ord. 0418(2), 101304)
Re turn to exe c summa ry
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
County Priority List of Sec ondary Road
Improvements
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearing to receiv e c omment on the C ounty’s
Priority Lis t of Secondary Road Improvements and
the VD OT Six Year Secondary Construction
Program
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner,
Graham, Benish, Wade
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
May 13, 2009
ACTION: Yes INFOR MA TION :
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: N o INFOR MA TION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
This public hearing is to receive public input on the County’s Priority List of Secondary R oad Improv ements
(Attachment A) and the proposed VD OT Six Year Secondary R oad C ons truction Program (Attachment B). The
County’s Priority List establishes the priorities for road improvements for roads in the State’s Secondary Road
system (roads w ith a route number of 600 or higher). The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Six Year
Secondary C onstruction Program is based on the County’s Priority Lis t and is reflective of available State road
funding allocated to the County. The C ounty’s Priority List and the VDOT C onstruction Program are review ed
annually. The Board held a work session on the County’s Priority Lis t on April 1, 2009. Attachments A and B
represent the input and direction received in that work s ession.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 3: Develop Policies and Infrastructure Improvements to Address the County’s Growing Needs.
DISCU SSION :
At the April 1, 2009 w ork session, the primary point of dis cussion w as the status of funding for the Dic kerson Road
paving project (project priority #23, Unpav ed Road Projects). Last year, the Board direc ted that all unpaved road
funds be placed on the Dic kerson Road project, a road located within the designated Development Area of
Hollymead, until that project is complete. This direction w as, in part, in response to the Planning Commission’s
recommendation to focus road funds on projects within (or serving) the D evelopment Areas, and to deemphasize
improvements in the R ural Areas that might facilitate growth in the R ural Areas. The D ickerson Road project
includes replacement of tw o bridges. Approximately $1.8 million in road paving funds has previously been allocated to
the Dick ers on Road project.
Based on VDOT’s forecas ted statewide budget, there w ill be no allocations for the paving of unpaved roads, at least
through VDOT’s 2015 Fiscal Year. Sinc e there will be no additional road paving funds available for allocation over the
next six years of the Plan, no new funds will be alloc ated to the Dic kerson Road projec t in the foreseeable future.
With a total project cos t of $12 million, inc luding replacing both bridges, this project cannot be funded and constructed
utilizing unpaved road funds. All available regular cons truction funds over the next six years are needed to fund
higher priority projects, such as the Meadow Creek Parkw ay, Jarman’s Gap Road, and Georgetow n R oad, as well as
other maintenance projects. Based on these circums tances, the Board considered reallocating the $1.8 million from
the Dick ers on Road project to other projects, but decided to maintain the funding allocated to the Dick erson Road
project and see if additional funding bec omes available at the state or federal level ov er the next year to allow
continued funding of this project. The Board will reconsider w hether to reallocate the $1.8 million during next year’s
review of the County’s Priority List. The Board indic ated that the Old Ballard Road Bridge Improvement project would
be a likely candidate project for the realloc ation of these funds. VDOT and County s taff w ill continue to evaluate the
Old Ballard Road Bridge project to determine the total project cost in anticipation of the need to realloc ate funding
available to this project next year.
Staff has also adjusted the County’s Priority List to reflect comments from the Planning Commission and the Board.
Specifically , the Old Iv y R oad and Southern Parkway projects have been lowered on the Priority List. This change
reflects the desired higher priority given to the SunsetFontaine Avenue C onnector Road, the Berkmar D rive
Extension, and the Berkmar Drive Extens ion Bridge over the South Fork of the Rivanna River.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The Six Year Road Planning process es tablishes the County’s priorities for the expenditure of State/VD OT
secondary road construction funds.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
After the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board approve the County Priority List of Secondary R oad
Improv ements (Attachment A) and authorize the County Executive to sign the VDOT Secondary Sys tem
Construction Program for Albemarle County consistent with the County ’s Priority List (Attachment B).
ATTAC HMENTS
Attachment A County’s Priority of Secondary Road Improvements
Attachment B VDOT Six Year Secondary R oad Cons truction Program
Ret urn t o regular agenda
DRAFT STRATEGIC PRIORITIES FOR ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 2009-10 Through 2014-15 Strategic Priorities (Projects 1-23)VDOT's County'sRoute Number and NameLocationEstimatedEstimatedDescription/CommentsJustification for project Year Project wasMost Current SecondaryProposed From - ToAdvertisementCost/placed on Priority ListTraffic CountPlanRankingDateSource of Requestand year of Count =====================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================Y0County wideCounty wide$299,400signs,pipe,plant mix projects, raised median, crosswalks, restripe, lighting, etc safety, maintain function/staff, public req.Y0County wideTraffic mgmt. Program**Designated for traffic calming projects through out the County that meet requirements and sidewalk improvements.Safety/Public Request, studies-plansY1625 Hatton FerryHatton Ferry**operation of ferry will be two days a week during the summer (Satruday and Sunday)Historic operation of ferry/staff Y2Meadow Creek ParkwayMelbourne Rd to Rio Roadunder constr.$30,162,877two lane design approved by County and Comm. Transport. Bd., includes bridge over CSX RRCapacity/ CHART20,000-2006Y3691 Jarmans Gap RoadRt 240 to Gray Rock Jan-11$16,462,050serve increased traffic and provide ped/bike access to Gray Rock subdivisionCapacity,safety/Land Use Plan, CMP 2,700-2006 (CMPanticpates 4,500 in future)Y4656 Georgetown RoadRoute 654 to Route 743Feb-11$3,002,277spot improvement, pedestrian access, urban cross-section, may be 3lane x-section at certain locations Capacity,safety/G'town Rd Plan, Public17,000-20075649 Proffit RoadRt 29 to 1.6 miles eastimprove alignment, urban x-section with bike/sidewalk, the funding is only for preliminary engineeringCapacity, safety/Land Use Plan 6,800-20076781 Sunset AvenueFontaine/Sunset ConnectorImprovements to Fontaine Ave. and Fontaine/Sunset Ave. Connector PACC, Area B Study,Capacity/LU Plan2007, Connector portion added4,600-20067Berkmar Dr Ext. Bridge end of Berkmar Dr to HTCnew parallel road in the Rt. 29 Corridor UnJam 2025200623,5008631 Old Lynchburg Road1.35 MI. S. I-64 to Rt.708 spot improvements at various locations to serve development in Southern DA/County Capacity/Land Use Plan2,300-20079Bridge Improvement ProjectsVarious locations (See page 2) improve/replace low sufficiency rated bridges based on County and VDOT priorityvaries10726 James River RoadRoute 795 to Route 1302spot improvement to improve sight distanceSafety/Scottsville1,900-200611Hillsdale DriveGreenbrier Dr. to Seminole Sq.new connector road between Hillsdale Rd and Hydraulic Rd, to be constructed with urban fundsCapacity/Hillsdale Drive Extension Study12601 Old Ivy RoadIvy Road to 250/29 Bypwiden, improve alignment ,moved down 2008 to coordinate with UVA Gateway project Capacity/Land Use Plan6,900-200713Southern ParkwayAvon Str. to Fifth Str.Extend to 5th St., with pedestrian/bike facility, and Neighborhood street design/speedCapacity/Southern City Study15,000-200414795 Blenheim RoadIntersection of Route 790intersection improvement. Safety/Scottsville Request670-200715Eastern AvenueRoute 240 to Route 250interconnect future neighborhoods str, proj. to include RR underpass and bridge over Lickinghole Crk Capacity/Crozet Master Plan4,100-2003*16631 Rio RoadRio Rd @ Pen Park LaneImprove substandard intersection (may be funded in part with City/private developer funds) Safety/City26,000-200717643 Polo Grounds RoadRoute 29 to Route 649Improvement alignment, spot improvements. Safety/Public Request1,300-200618Main Street Crozet Avenue to Eastern Avenuenew road as recommended in the Crozet Master Plan, to be built with development of siteCapacity/Crozet Master Plan20033,600-2003*19743 Hydraulic RoadIntersection with Rt. 29 (29H250)improvements recommended from 29H250 Phase 2 Study Capacity,safety/29H250 Study200318,000-200720866 Greenbrier DriveIntersection with Rt. 29 (29H250)improvements recommended from 29H250 Phase 2 Study Capacity,safety/29H250 Study20038,200-200621Eastern ConnectorRoute 250 to Route 29new road is currently being studied for an alignmentCapacity/CHART200622702 Reservoir RoadFontaine Ave. Ext to Dead endpaving and spot improvements, to be done as part of the reservoir reconstruction project Safety/Public Request20032,000-200623Unpaved Road ProjectsVarious locations (see page 3) minimum required funding toward paving of unpaved roadsvariousPAGE 1Projects in bold are in the Development Area.** VDOT will add the estimated cost of these projects at a later time
DRAFT ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS FOR BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS 2009-10 Through 2014-15[SOME PROJECTS MAY NOT BE COMPLETED AS PRIORITIZED DUE TO PROJECT COMPLEXITY AND/OR AVAILABLE FUNDING] Bridge Priorities - In Priority Order Route Number, LocationSufficiencyTraffic CountDescription/Comments Road Name From - ToRating==========================================================================================================================================================================================================================Route 743, Advance MillNorth Fork Rivanna Riverclosed969under construction - spring 2009 Estimated cost, $3,715,368Route 708, Dry Bridge RoadBuckingham Branch Railroad261128high traffic count, EAD May -2013 Estimated cost, $2,736,912Route 616, Black Cat RoadBuckingham Branch 54.41479high traffic countRoute 677, Old Ballard RoadBuckingham Branch 42.21267high traffic countRoute 637, Dick Woods RoadIvy Creek36.11251high traffic countRoute 795, Presidents RoadHardware River19.4147low sufficiency ratingRoute 745, Wheeler RoadNorfolk Southern Railroad20.987Route 641, Frays Mills RoadMarsh Run49.6391Route 649, Proffit RoadNorfolk Southern Railroad35.25094upgraded in Summer 2007, has high traffic countThe Sufficiency Rating utilized by VDOT to rate the bridge structure. Lower rating indicates the bridge is in need.PAGE 2
DRAFT ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS FOR PAVING PROJECTS 2009-10 Through 2014-15 PAVING PRIORITY Route Number LocationFunding EstimatedMost Current Description/CommentsYear Project wasFrom - ToStatusCostTraffic Countplaced on Priority ListRegular/RRR and year of Count =================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================== 606 Dickerson RoadRt 850 to Rt. 1575 (paved sect.)Not Fully Funded$11,608,274960-2003The two bridges assoc. with this project have been separated in VDOT's Construction Plan. 643 Rio Mills RoadRt. 29 to Rt. 743 Not Funded650-2003Paving project near the DA and serves the DA.2003Projects in bold in the Development AreaPAGE 3
Page 1 of 5
Secondary System
Albemarle County
BR Formula $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
MG Formula $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Formula STP $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Federal STP $1,053,078 $1,100,107 $1,106,872 $1,113,678 $1,120,526 $1,127,417 $6,621,678
State Funds $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Formula STP - Match $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TeleFee $324,624 $324,624 $324,624 $324,624 $324,624 $324,624 $1,947,744
Secondary Unpaved Roads $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Federal STP - Bond Match $263,270 $275,027 $276,718 $278,420 $280,132 $281,854 $1,655,421
STP Converted from IM $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total $1,640,972 $1,699,758 $1,708,214 $1,716,722 $1,725,282 $1,733,895 $10,224,843
Fund FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 Total
Construction Program
Estimated Allocations
Board Approval Date:
Residency Administrator
County Administrator
Date
Date
Page 2 of 5
0606
82123
CONTRACT
BROS
0006.00
SECONDARY - ONE
HEARING DESIGN
0606002297
BRIDGES AND APPROACHES
0.0
BRIDGE REPLACE DICKERSON RD OVER
NORTH FORK RIVANNA RIVE
PE
RW
CN
Total
$693,109
$126,020
$4,250,332
$5,069,461
1/15/2015
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
2J009
Revised schedule required.
0708
77274
CONTRACT
BROS
0005.00
SECONDARY - ONE
HEARING DESIGN
0708002283
(0.09 MILE SOUTH OF ROUTE 738)
STRUCTURE #6084
0.2
RTE 708 - BRIDGE & APPROACHES OVER CSX
RAILROAD
PE
RW
CN
Total
$504,079
$252,040
$1,980,793
$2,736,912
5/14/2013
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
16009
Dry Bridge Road; Complete schedule required.
0743
77273
CONTRACT
BROS
0004.00
SECONDARY - ONE
HEARING DESIGN
0743002282
0.073 Mi. W of Rte. 641
0.011Mi. W. of Rte. 641
0.1
RTE 743 - BRIDGE & APPROACHES OVER
NORTH FORK RIVANNA
PE
RW
CN
Total
$600,000
$323,000
$2,792,368
$3,715,368
1/13/2009
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
15009
0656
12982
CONTRACT
STP/REVS,STPREVSH
0003.00
SECONDARY - ONE
HEARING DESIGN
GEORGETOWN ROAD
0656002254
ROUTE 654
ROUTE 743
0.9
RTE 656 - SPOT IMP., SIDEWALK & SAFETY
FEATURES
PE
RW
CN
Total
$500,000
$1,500,000
$1,002,277
$3,002,277
2/8/2011
13500
SAFETY/TRAFFIC OPERS/TSM
3I012
0691
11129
CONTRACT
STP,STPRVSHS
0002.00
SECONDARY - ONE
HEARING DESIGN
JARMAN GAP ROAD
0691002258
0.911 Mi. West Rte.240
0.003 Mi. West Rte.240
0.9
RTE 691 - WIDEN & IMPROVE ALIGNMENT
PE
RW
CN
Total
$2,150,000
$5,976,050
$8,336,000
$16,462,050
1/11/2011
2118
MINOR WIDENING
14005
2-lane Urban W/SW & Bike Lanes
Previous Funding W/ Rev. Sharing $7,756,607
0631
2530
CONTRACT
S
0001.00
SECONDARY - TWO
HEARING DESIGN
Meadow Creek Parkway - Rio Road
0631002128
INTERSECTION MELBOURNE ROAD
0.0863 MILE NORTH OF NORFOLK SOUTHERN
RAILWAY
1.4
RTE 631 - 2 LANE ON 2 LANE ROW; 4 LANE ON
RELOCATED RIO ROAD
PE
RW
CN
Total
$3,500,000
$10,925,180
$15,737,697
$30,162,877
10/14/2008
3I0_
Rev. Sharing $9,340,924
Priority #Length Ad Date
Board Approval Date:2010-11 through 2014-15
Route Road Name Estimated Cost Traffic Count
District: Culpeper
County: Albemarle County
Type of Funds FROM Comments
Type of Project TO
PPMS ID Project #Scope of Work
Accomplishment Description FHWA #
Page 3 of 5
4009
-2374
9999.99
1204009
VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN COUNTY
COUNTYWIDE TRAFFIC CALMING
PE
RW
CN
Total
$0
$0
$0
$0
0
____
TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES AS
DETERMINED BY RESIDENCY AND
DISTRICT TRAFFIC ENGINEER
0625
63912
STATE FORCES/HIRED
EQUIPMENT
S
0999.00
BUDGET ITEMS
HATTON FERRY
0625002BI
OPERATING BUDGET
0.0
RTE 625 - OPERATE HATTON FERRY - BUDGET
ITEM
PE
RW
CN
Total
$0
$0
$0
$0
220
RECONSTRUCTION
16003
0765
88110
STATE FORCES/HIRED
EQUIPMENT
S
0011.00
No Plan
WALNUT LEVEL ROAD
0765002P05
Rte 668
End State Maint.
1.0
Rte 765 - RURAL RUSTIC ROAD (SURFACE
TREAT NON-HARD SURFACE)
PE
RW
CN
Total
$0
$0
$105,000
$105,000
9/24/2008
RECONSTRUCTION - SURFACE
TREATMENT
16016
0668
82246
STATE FORCES/HIRED
EQUIPMENT
S
0010.00
NO PLAN,SECONDARY
WALNUT LEVEL ROAD
0668002P99
ROUTE 810
ROUTE 765
1.6
ROUTE 668 - WALNUT LEVEL RD. FROM Rte 810
TO Rte 765
PE
RW
CN
Total
$0
$0
$145,000
$145,000
8/6/2008
RECONSTRUCTION
16003
0722
72524
STATE FORCES/HIRED
EQUIPMENT
S
0009.00
NO PLAN,SECONDARY
OLD GREEN MTN RD
0722002P29
ROUTE 6
ROUTE 723
2.2
RTE 722 - RURAL RUSTIC ROAD (SURFACE
TREAT NON-HARDSURFACE)
PE
RW
CN
Total
$5,000
$0
$212,000
$217,000
11/3/2009
150
RESURFACING
16007
0606
54429
CONTRACT
S
0008.00
NO PLAN,SECONDARY
DICKERSON ROAD
0606002P75
ROUTE 850
ROUTE 1030
2.0
RTE 606 - RECONSTRUCT & SURFACE TREAT
NON-HARDSURFACED ROAD
PE
RW
CN
Total
$541,000
$305,360
$3,518,236
$4,364,596
12/11/2015
170
RECONSTRUCTION
16003
Updated Estimate Pending
Total Roadway Estimate $3,789,205
$900,000 Transfer from Rio Mills Pending
0606
82128
CONTRACT
BROS
0007.00
SECONDARY - ONE
HEARING DESIGN
0606002296
BRIDGE AND APPROACHES
0.0
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT DICKERSON ROAD
OVER JACOBS RUN
PE
RW
CN
Total
$258,405
$126,020
$1,789,792
$2,174,217
5/14/2014
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
2J009
Revised schedule required.
Board Approval Date:2010-11 through 2014-15
Route Road Name Estimated Cost Traffic Count
District: Culpeper
County: Albemarle County
PPMS ID Project #Scope of Work
Type of Project TO
Priority #Length Ad Date
Accomplishment Description FHWA #
Type of Funds FROM Comments
Page 4 of 5
4006
-2371
9999.99
1204006
VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN COUNTY
COUNTYWIDE FERTILIZATION & SEEDING
PE
RW
CN
Total
$0
$0
$0
$0
0
____
FERTILIZATION AND SEEDING TO IMPROVE
SLOPE STABILIZATION ON SECONDARY
SYSTEM
4005
-2370
9999.99
1204005
VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN COUNTY
COUNTYWIDE ENGINEERING & SURVEY
PE
RW
CN
Total
$0
$0
$0
$0
0
____
MINOR SURVEY & PRELIMINARY
ENGINEERING FOR BUDGET ITEMS AND
INCIDENTAL TYPE WORK.
4008
-2373
9999.99
1204008
VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN COUNTY
COUNTYWIDE RIGHT OF WAY ENGR.
PE
RW
CN
Total
$0
$0
$0
$0
0
____
USE WHEN IMPARTICAL TO OPEN A
PROJECT: ATTORNEY FEES and
ACQUISITION COST.
4007
-2372
9999.99
1204007
VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN COUNTY
COUNTYWIDE TRAFFIC SERVICES
PE
RW
CN
Total
$0
$0
$0
$0
0
____
TRAFFIC SERVICES INCLUDE SECONDARY
SPEED ZONES, SPEED STUDIES, OTHER
NEW SECONDARY SIGNS
4004
-2369
9999.99
1204004
VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN COUNTY
COUNTYWIDE - SUBDIVISION PLAN REVIEW
PE
RW
CN
Total
$0
$0
$0
$0
0
____
SUBDIVISION PLAN REVIEW - INCLUDES
MILESTONE INSPECTION & INSPECTION
FOR FINAL ACCEPTANCE.
4003
-2368
9999.99
1204003
VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN COUNTY
COUNTYWIDE RURAL ADDITIONS
PE
RW
CN
Total
$0
$0
$0
$0
0
____
RURAL ADDITIONS - SECTION 33.1-72.1.
ROLLOVER OF FUNDS CAN BE FOR FIVE
YEARS.
4002
-2367
9999.99
1204002
VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN COUNTY
COUNTYWIDE PIPE & ENTRANCE
PE
RW
CN
Total
$0
$0
$0
$0
0
____
INSTALLATION CHARGE FOR PIPES AT
PRIVATE ENTRANCES AND OTHER MINOR
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS.
Board Approval Date:2010-11 through 2014-15
Route Road Name Estimated Cost Traffic Count
District: Culpeper
County: Albemarle County
PPMS ID Project #Scope of Work
Type of Project TO
Priority #Length Ad Date
Accomplishment Description FHWA #
Type of Funds FROM Comments
Page 5 of 5
1427
71722
COUNTIES,
DEVELOPERS, ETC.
STP
9999.99
MIN PLAN,FED-
AID,SECONDARY
1427002S74
ROUTE 631 (RIO ROAD)
ROUTE 866 (GREENBRIER DRIVE)
0.9
RTE 1427 - RAISED MEDIAN XWALKS,
RESTRIPE, LIGHTING, ETC.
PE
RW
CN
Total
$5,400
$0
$294,000
$299,400
1/31/2009
SAFETY/TRAFFIC OPERS/TSM
3J012
Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvement.
0029
75815
NOT APPLICABLE
S
9999.99
STUDIES ONLY (CORR,
FS, IS, ETC)
0029002134
GREENBRIER ROAD
GREENE COUNTY LINE
10.0
RTE 29 - CORRIDOR AND ACCESS
MANAGEMENT STUDY
PE
RW
CN
Total
$575,999
$0
$0
$575,999
STUDIES ONLY
22114
PE Only
Type of Funds FROM Comments
Type of Project TO
Priority #Length Ad Date
Accomplishment Description FHWA #
County: Albemarle County
District: Culpeper
Board Approval Date:2010-11 through 2014-15
PPMS ID Project #Scope of Work
Route Road Name Estimated Cost Traffic Count
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Subdivis ion Ordinance Fees: STA 2009002
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearing to consider amending fees
associated w ith applications and review s
required by the Subdiv ision Ordinance
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner,
Graham, Fritz, and McC ulley.
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
May 13, 2009
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
At the D ecember 5, 2007 Board meeting, staff presented a Community Development Fee Study and a
recommendation for a fee policy. Subs equent to that study, staff propos ed changes to the fees in the Building
Regulations and Water Protection Ordinances, which w ere approved by the Board in August 2008. Staff then
presented a recommendation for Subdivision Ordinance fees to the Board in September 2008. The Board directed
staff to present that recommendation to the Planning C ommission and the Planning C ommission to return a
recommendation to the Board. The Planning C ommission held works ess ions in October 2008 and January 2009.
The Planning Commis sion then held a public hearing on the text amendment in March 2009, resulting in a
recommendation to the Board for fees s et at 75% of cost recovery, except for family s ubdivisions where the fee was
recommended at 50% of c ost recovery. The Board held a w orksession on April 8th and directed staff to advertise
fees at 50% of cost recov ery.
Staff has assumed it w as not necessary to attach all of the previous executive summaries to this report. For those
interested in those materials, they are attached to the April 8th Executive Summary av ailable online.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 3: Develop a comprehensive funding strategy/plan to address the County's growing needs.
DISCU SSION :
The purpose of this public hearing is to c onsider adopting an ordinanc e to amend the fees in the Subdiv ision
Ordinanc e (Attachment A). This text amendment has undergone an ex tensive review process. Staff has
approac hed the fee recommendation bas ed on earlier guidance from the Board that focuses on balanc ing two
considerations. Namely, fees should recover the County’s cost for assuring compliance with ordinanc e requirements
while maintaining reas onable consistency with the fees in other localities.
With res pect to the Subdivision Ordinance fees, the main point of cons ideration has been how muc h of the review
cost should be the res ponsibility of the applicant and how much should be the responsibility of the County. Staff
has rec ommended a 50% cost recovery recognizing much of the cos t is related to providing opportunities for public
participation rather than the technical rev iew of ordinance requirements. Basically, staff is assuming the cost of
public participation should remain with the C ounty while the applicant is responsible for the cost of tec hnical review
by County staff. Staff notes that this approach prov ides reasonable consistency with fees in other localities,
although there is a wide range in fees among the localities.
Next, in finalizing this text amendment for adoption, staff has gone back and reviewed all of the fees as well as
considered comments and concerns that have been rais ed. Based on that analysis , s taff is recommending two
changes to the advertised fees that reduce certain fees. This is further detailed in Attac hment B and summarized
below:
1. Under subsection 14203(C), staff recognized that lumping a boundary line adjustment w ith other
reviews has s kew ed that fee. A boundary line adjustment is a simpler review than that required for a
subdivision that creates an additional lot. As a result of this analysis, staff recommends splitting
subsection 14203(C) into tw o separate fees and recommends a fee of $200 for a boundary line
adjustment. This change is incorporated into Attachment A.
2. Under subsection 14203(D), staff recognized that it rev iews easement plats that are occ asionally
required w ith a site plan and concluded that fees for such easement plats should be separated from the
fees for other easement plats . Staff rec ommends adding a third fee class to subsection 14203(D) for
easement plats required with a site plan and recommends a fee of $200 for that plat. This change is
incorporated into Attachment A.
3. Staff notes a question w as raised with respect to postconstruction easement plats. As a result of field
changes during construction, it is often nec essary for dev elopers to obtain easements before roads can
be accepted into the statemaintained system. Those easements are often across lots that that have
already been sold. For convenience in dealing w ith the new property ow ners, the developer w ill often
create a separate easement plat for each lot rather than have one easement plat for the entire
easement. W hen multiple plats are submitted together for review , staff has historically treated them as
a single easement and charged a single fee. The proposed text amendment has been rev ised in
Attachment A to expressly codify this longstanding practic e.
Finally, staff notes there is a need to establish an effectiv e date for the new and amended fees. Staff normally
recommends a minimum of 30 days from adoption to give time to publish notices and as sure that applic ants are
aware of the change. In this case, staff recommends the effective date be established as July 1, 2009. Setting the
effectiv e date at the start of the fiscal year will simplify administration of the fees.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The County currently collects approximately $145,000 from subdivision fees in an av erage year. U nder the
attached draft text amendment, the revenue would inc rease to approximately $476,000, increasing C ounty
revenues by approximately $331,000 in an average year. D ue to the building downturn, staff anticipates
applications will be onehalf of an average year for FY 09 10. Assuming the text amendment is adopted with the
recommended July 1 effective date, staff anticipates a revenue increase of approximately $90,000 in FY 09 10.
No significant drop in the number of applic ations is anticipated as a result of the new and increased fees. W hile
the increas e is significant in many circumstances, the fees remain v ery small in comparison to the value of the
subdivided property.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
After conducting a public hearing, staff recommends that the Board adopt STA 2009002 with an effective date of
July 1, 2009.
ATTAC HMENTS
Attachment A – STA 2009002
Attachment B – Staff memo detailing recommended fee c hanges
Ret urn t o regular agenda
ORD INANC E NO. 0914( )
A N O RD INA NCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 14, SUBDIV ISION OF LAN D, A RTICLE II,
A DMINISTRA TION AN D PROCED URE, OF TH E CODE OF THE COUN TY O F ALBEMA RLE,
V IRG INIA
BE IT O RD AIN ED By the Board of Supe rvisors of the County of Albemarle , Virginia , tha t Cha pte r 14,
Subdivision of La nd, Artic le II, A dministration and Proc e dure , is he re by amended a nd re ordaine d a s follow s:
By A mending:
Se c. 14203 Fe es
Chapte r 14. Subdivision of Land
A rtic le II. Administr ation and Pr oc e dur e
14203 Fee s.
Eac h subdivide r sha ll pay a fee upon the submittal of a pla t or other a pplic a tion, ba se d on the sc he dule
be low; provide d tha t ne ithe r the c ounty nor the county sc hool board sha ll be re quire d to pay a ny fe e if it is the
applica nt. The fee sha ll be in the form of c ash or a c hec k pa ya ble to the “County of A lbe ma rle.”
A. Pre liminary pla t for subdivision:
1. If subjec t to re vie w by the c ommission:
(a ) 1 to 9 lots: $720.00 $2,200.00.
(b) 10 to 19 lots: $1,100.00 $2,200.00.
(c ) 20 or more lots: $1,330.00 $2,200.00.
2. If subjec t to re vie w by the a gent:
(a ) Tw olot subdivision as desc ribed in se c tion 14232(B)(2) or if all lots front on a n
e xisting public stre e t: $95.00 $250.00.
(b) 1 to 9 lots: $360.00 $1,150.00.
(c ) 10 to 19 lots: $550.00 $1,150.00.
(d) 20 or more lots: $670.00 $1,150.00.
3. Re instate ment of re vie w: $65.00 $520.00.
4. Ea c h filing of a pre liminary pla t, w hether or not a prelimina ry plat for the sa me property
has bee n filed previously,: The sha ll be subjec t to the same re quire me nts applic able
pre liminary pla t fe e .
B. Fina l pla t for subdivision:
1. If subjec t to re vie w by the c ommission:
(a ) 1 to 9 lots: $720.00 $2,100.00.
(b) 10 to 19 lots: $1,100.00 $2,210.00.
(c ) 20 or more lots: $1,330.00 $2,340.00.
2. If subjec t to re vie w by the a gent:
(a ) Tw olot subdivision as desc ribed in se c tion 14232(B)(2) or if all lots front on a n
e xisting public stre e t: $95.00 $540.00.
(b) 1 to 9 lots: $360.00 $1,000.00.
(c ) 10 to 19 lots: $550.00 $1,100.00.
(d) 20 or more lots: $670.00 $1,230.00.
3. Fina l pla t without a n a pprove d pre limina ry pla t: The a pplic able pre limina ry pla t fe e plus
the applic able fina l plat fee .
34. Condominium plat: $100.00.
45. Re instate ment of re vie w: $65.00 $520.00.
5. In addition to the fore going, if the subdivide r is required to construc t a stre et, he shall pa y
to the c ounty a fe e e qua l to the cost of the inspe c tion of the c onstruc tion of any suc h
stre et. These fe e s sha ll be paid prior to c omple tion of all ne c essa ry inspe c tions a nd sha ll
be de e me d a pa rt of the c ost of c onstruction of the stre et for purpose s of se ction 14
435(B).
C. O the r subdivision pla ts:
1. Pla t for a rural subdivision, fa mily subdivision, or resubdivision, or bounda ry line
a djustment: $95.00 $690.00.
2. Pla t for a boundary line a djustment: $200.00.
D. Ease me nt pla t or plats, pe r ea se ment: $95.00.
1. Ea se me nt plat(s) without a de ed: $490.00.
2. Ea se me nt plat(s) with a de ed: $760.00.
3. Ea se me nt plat(s) required w ith a site plan: $200.00
E. Stre ets:
1. Public road plans: $250.00 for e a ch re vie w of a submitted pla n, inc luding re vie ws of
revisions a fter plan a pprova l.
2. Priva te roa d pla ns: $400.00 for ea c h re vie w of a submitte d pla n, inc luding reviews of
revisions a fter plan a pprova l.
3. Authoriz a tion for one or more private stre ets w ithin a subdivision: $670.00.
4. Waiver of one or more stre e t standards be fore approva l of a pre liminary pla t: $540.00.
5. Waiver of curb and/or gutte r re quire me nts be fore approva l of a pre limina ry pla t: $540.00.
6. Waiver of stree t inte rc onnec tion requireme nts before a pprova l of a pre liminary pla t:
$540.00.
7. If re quire d to construc t a stre e t, the subdivider sha ll pa y to the county a fee equal to the
c ost of the inspe ction of the construc tion of any such stree t. The se fe e s sha ll be pa id prior to
c omple tion of all nec e ssary inspe ctions a nd shall be dee me d a pa rt of the cost of construc tion of
the stree t for purpose s of se ction 14435(B).
F. Bonds:
1. Bond estimate request for subdivision improve me nts: $250.00.
2. Bonding inspe c tion for a pla t or bond reduc tion: $250.00.
G. Groundwate r asse ssme nt information required by se c tion 14308.1:
1. Tie r 1 a ssessme nt unde r se c tion 17401: $50.00.
2. Tie r 2 a ssessme nt unde r se c tion 17402: $330.00.
3. Tie r 3 a ssessme nt unde r se c tion 17403: $510.00.
4. Tie r 4 a ssessme nt unde r se c tion 17404: $1,100.00.
H. O the r ma tte rs subjec t to re vie w:
1. Waiver of any requirement of this c hapter for which a wa ive r is a uthoriz ed afte r a pprova l
of a pre limina ry pla t a nd be fore a pprova l of a fina l plat: $180.00 $830.00.
2. Waiver of any requirement of this c hapter for which a wa ive r is a uthoriz ed afte r a pprova l
of a final plat: $830.00.
23. Re lie f from pla t c onditions imposed by the c ommission prior to the date of adoption of
this cha pte r: $180.00 $390.00.
34. Appe al of a plat de c ision to the board of supervisors: $240.00 $270.00.
45. Extension of a plat approva l: $45.00 $120.00.
5. Bonding inspe c tion for pla t: $60.00.
6. Vac a tion of a pla t or pa rt thereof: $170.00 $240.00.
7. Re vie w of groundw a te r a sse ssme nt information re quire d by sec tion 14308.1:
(a ) Tie r 2 a ssessment unde r sec tion 17402: $250.00 plus $25.00 per lot.
(b) Tie r 3 a ssessment unde r sec tion 17403: $400.00 plus $25.00 per lot.
(c ) Tie r 4 a ssessment unde r sec tion 17404: $1,000.00.
I. Notic es a s required by se c tions 14216 a nd 14221:
1. Pre pa ring and mailing or de live ring up to fifty (50) notic e s: $200.00 plus the ac tua l c ost of
first cla ss posta ge .
2. Pre pa ring and mailing or de live ring, pe r notic e more tha n fifty (50): $1.00 plus the a c tual
c ost of first cla ss posta ge.
(9596, 121191, 6789, 41785, 12182, 121477, 3277, 111076, 82874 (§ 3); 1988 Code , § 1843; Ord.
98A(1), 71598; Ord. 9914(1), 61699; Ord. 0214(2), 7302; O rd. 0414(1), adopte d 12804, e ffe c tive 2805;
O rd. 0514(1), 42005, effe ctive 62005)
St at e law referenceVa. Code § 15.22241(9).
This ordina nce sha ll be effe ctive on a nd a fter July 1, 2009.
G o to next a tta c hment
Re turn to exe c summa ry
Memorandum
To: Mar k Graham
From: Bill Fritz
D ivision: Zoning and Cur re nt De velopme nt
D ate : A pr il 28, 2009
Subjec t: Subdivision Fe e s
I have r eviewed the fe e structur e for Boundar y Line A djustme nts and Ease ment Plats and offe r the
follow ing r ec ommendations:
Boundar y Line Adjustments.
It a ppe ars that Boundary Line A djustments were inc luded w ith the othe r re vie w s without a n inde pe nde nt
ana lysis. Re ce ntly we ha ve re a na lyz ed the time spent on the re vie w of Boundary Line Adjustme nts inde pe nde nt
of the other type s of subdivisions. The ca lculation for othe r type s of re vie w s appe a rs to be corre c t. Howeve r,
time spe nt on Boundary Line adjustme nts appea rs to be approxima te ly 1/3 the time spent on othe r types of
proje c ts. A c cordingly, I would re c ommend that a 50% re covery w ould be $200 c ompared w ith the e xisting $95.
Ease me nt Plats
The only ea se me nt plats re vie w e d by Current Development a re those ea se me nts required as part of County
approva l. Exa mple s include : private stre ets, public drainage e a seme nts a nd gree nways. Ea seme nts not re vie w ed
by the County inc lude : Utilities such a s ele ctric , ga s, wate r and se w e r. Subdivisions pla ts a re typica lly re vie w ed
and a pproved w ith all e ase me nts on the plat submitte d for the crea tion of the lots. No sepa ra te plat is submitted
and no se pa ra te fe e is c olle cte d. Howe ver, whe n a site pla n re quire s a n e a sement a se parate pla t is submitte d. I
w ould re c omme nd that in ca se s whe re a n e a sement pla t is submitte d showing a n e ase me nt tha t is required for a
site pla n that is a lso unde r re vie w tha t we colle c t a $200 fee . The re vie w re quired is simila r to tha t re quire d for a
boundary line a djustment plat. For ea se me nt pla ts not a ssocia te d with a site pla n the consultant’s
re comme nda tions a ppe ar a ppropria te .
Ret urn t o ex ec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
County C ode – Ordinance to amend County Code
Chapter 7
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Set public hearing to c ons ider proposed ordinance
to amend C ounty Code Chapter 7 to revis e
regulations pertaining to noise and to change
referenc es to County departments and officers
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Miller,
Graham, and Ms. McC ulley
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGEND A D ATE:
May 13, 2009
ACTION : INFOR MA TION :
CONSEN T AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFOR MA TION :
ATTAC HMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACK GROUND :
Traditionally, noise has been regulated by ordinances based on one or more of three approaches: (1) by prohibiting
sounds that exceed presc ribed sound levels, measured in decibels, and monitored by us ing instruments (the County’s
Zoning Ordinance regulates noise generated by land us es under this approach); (2) by prohibiting noise levels that are
unreasonable and which are measured by determining whether the noise is a nuisance to a reasonable person
(County Code Chapter 7, Health and Safety, regulates noise under this approach); and (3) by prohibiting sound levels
that are audible from a s pecified distance or location, for a specified period, as determined by a pers on with normal
hearing.
The noise regulations under C hapter 7 regulate nuisance noises, including but not limited to noises created from: (1)
motor vehicles and motorcycles; (2) sounds from electronic devices such as radios , televisions, music al instruments
and sound amplification equipment generated from cars, private property and places of public entertainment; and (3)
sound generated near institutions such as schools, courts and hospitals. C ompliance with C hapter 7’s noise
regulations is determined by the sound’s impact on the recipient of that sound using standards suc h as “unreasonably
loud, dis turbing, raucous or unnecessary noise” and noise “w hich unreasonably disturbs or annoys the quiet, comfort
or repose of any person” (hereinafter c ollectively referred to as the “nuis ance noise s tandards”). Chapter 7 also
prohibits the creation of s ound w hich c aus es a 15 dec ibel (Aw eighted average) increas e in the sound level above the
ambient sound level.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 1: Enhance the Quality of Life for all Albemarle County Residents
DISCU SSION :
The nuisance noise standards established in C hapter 7 are similar to standards utilized in noise ordinances that have
been adopted in approx imately 73 other Virginia localities, including the Cities of Virginia Beach and Ric hmond.
Ordinanc es using nuis anc e noise standards similar to those in Chapter 7 also are c ommon throughout the country
and hav e been upheld in most states. On April 17, 2009, however, the Virginia Supreme C ourt struck down the C ity
of Virginia Beach’s noise ordinance, holding that the language in its regulations was unc onstitutionally vague because
it did not inform a person of ordinary intelligence from k now ing what conduct w as permitted or prohibited and because
the City ’s nuisance noise standards allow ed subjective application. Bec ause of the similarities betw een the language
of the City of Virginia Beach’s noise ordinance and the County’s noise regulations in Chapter 7, the Police
Department w as immediately informed of the Virginia Supreme Court decision and advis ed not to c harge any pers on
under C hapter 7’s noise regulations, ex cept for sounds prohibited by exc eeding the 15 decibel standard, until Chapter
7 is amended. Other localities throughout Virginia with s imilar ordinances have reacted similarly.
The proposed ordinanc e w ould amend Chapter 7 and replace the nuis anc e noise standards with objec tive standards
that do not require sound levels to be measured by instruments but are instead based on one or more of the following
standards: (1) the duration of the sound; (2) the distanc e at w hich the sound can be heard; and (3) the time of day
during w hich the sound is being created. County staff has not completed its research of the appropriate duration,
distance, and time of day for the sounds prohibited in s ections 7104 and 7105, but the attached draft ordinance
provides a framework as to how the regulations would be amended. For example, music emanating from a parked
car could be a violation of Chapter 7 if it was audible from a distance of 100 feet for any duration. In the alternative,
the applicable standard could be further refined so that a sound would be prohibited if the sound was audible from a
defined distance for a specified time period. With this approach, the general nuisanc e noise standard in section 7104
would make some or all of the specific nuisance noise standards in section 7105 unnecessary. Another issue
requiring additional research is establishing a reasonable standard for determining the audibility of noise within a
building, particularly a dw elling, generated from an outs ide sound sourc e or an adjoining or nearby dwelling. The
attached draft proposes that audibility within an occupied structure w ould be based on the structure’s doors and
windows being closed, but further researc h is required.
The proposed ordinanc e also would amend Chapter 7 to revise the references to County departments and officers so
that they conform to current department names, officer titles and ass ignments and mak e other nec ess ary technical
changes .
While the animal noise regulations in C hapter 4 are distinct from the C hapter 7 noise regulations, the animal noise
regulations use the same “reasonableness ” language used in Chapter 7. The Police D epartment has been advised
not to charge any person under the animal noise regulations until Chapter 4 is amended. Staff will be presenting an
update on the County’s animal regulations in June, and a discussion of the animal nois e regulations will be part of
that review .
Staff will complete its research and consult with other localities and then recommend specific standards to be
incorporated into this ordinance framework.
BUDGET IMPACT:
None
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff recommends that the Board set a July 1, 2009 public hearing for the attached ordinance.
ATTAC HMENTS:
A Proposed Ordinanc e (Chapter 7)
Return to consent agenda
Ret urn t o regular agenda
OR DINA N CE N O. 0907( )
A N O RD INA NCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 7, HEALTH A ND SAFETY, A RTICLE I, N OISE, AND
A RTICLE II, NAMIN G O F RO ADS AN D NUMBERIN G OF PROPERTIES, OF THE CODE OF THE
COU N TY OF ALBEMA RLE, VIRGIN IA
BE IT O RD AIN ED By the Board of Supe rvisors of the County of Albemarle , Virginia , tha t Cha pte r 7, He a lth
and Sa fe ty, A rticle I, N oise , a nd Article II, Naming of Roa ds a nd Numbe ring of Prope rties, are he re by a me nded
and re ordained as follow s:
By A mending:
Se c. 7100 Purpose a nd inte nt
Se c. 7101 A dministration and e nforce me nt
Se c. 7103 D e finitions
Se c. 7104 Prohibite d noise
Se c. 7105 Prohibite d a cts enumerate d
Se c. 7106 Exe mpt sounds
Se c. 7201 D e signa tion of a ge nt
C hapter 7. He alth and Safety
Ar tic le I. N oise
Se c. 7100 Pur pose and inte nt.
The boa rd of supe rvisors he re by finds and de cla re s that exc essive or unwa nte d sound is a serious haz ard
to the public hea lth, safe ty, we lfare, a nd qua lity of life , a nd that the inha bita nts of the county ha ve a right to a nd
should be fre e from a n e nvironment of exc essive or unw a nte d sound in public pla c es suc h a s stre e ts a nd parks
and on priva te prope rty. Therefore, it is the policy of the c ounty a nd the purpose and intent of this article to
prohibit suc h exc essive or unw a nted sound a s provided he re in in orde r to promote a n e nvironme nt for a ll county
inhabita nts tha t is free from noise tha t je opa rdiz e s the ir he a lth, safety, we lfa re a nd qua lity of life .
(§ 12.11, 91080, § 1; Code 1988, § 12.11; O rd. 98A (1), 8598)
St at e law referenceVa. Code § 15.21200.
Se c. 7101 A dministr ation and e nforc e ment.
The c hie f of polic e is he re by de signate d the a gent of the board of supe rvisors in the a dministration and
enforc ement of this a rticle . The chie f of polic e ma y be a ssiste d in the enforc e ment of this article by e mploye es
of the de partment of building code and z oning se rvic es c ommunity de velopment, the de pa rtme nt of e nginee ring
and public w orks ge ne ra l se rvic e s, and othe r offic e rs a nd employe es of the c ounty.
(§ 12.13, 91080, § 3; 111484; Code 1988, § 12.13; Ord. 98A (1), 8598)
St at e law referenceVa. Code § 15.21200.
Se c. 7103 De finitions.
The following definitions sha ll a pply to this a rticle . The de finitions of a ny soundrela te d terms not
de fine d he re in sha ll be obtained from the Ame rica n Sta nda rd Acoustica l Te rminology if de fine d the re in.
(1) Eme rgency ope ration. The te rm “e merge ncy ope ra tion” mea ns a ny emerge ncy service provide d by
any police , she riff, fire or fire a nd re scue de pa rtme nt, a ny a mbulanc e se rvic e or any othe r emerge nc y se rvice
re quiring a prompt response , a nd a ny e me rge nc y re pair of public fa c ilitie s or public utilitie s.
(2) Motorc yc le . The term “motorcyc le ” me a ns a ny motorize d ve hic le , whe the r re gistere d a s a motor
ve hic le or not, de signed to trave l on not more tha n three (3) w hee ls in c ontac t with the ground and a ny four (4)
w hee le d ve hic le w e ighing less tha n five hundre d (500) pounds, exce pting riding mowe rs, fa rm and la w n tra c tors.
(3) Motor ve hic le . The term “motor ve hicle ” me a ns a ny se lfpropelled de vic e or de vic e designe d for
selfpropulsion, upon or by which any person or prope rty is or may be dra wn or tra nsported upon a roa d, exc ept
de vic es moved by huma n power or use d e xclusive ly upon sta tionary w hee ls or trac ks.
(4) Noise . The te rm “noise ” mea ns a ny sound which is exc essive or unw a nte d a udible for the applic able
dura tion, from the applica ble distance , during the a pplic a ble hours, or whic h is a bove the spe c ifie d dec ibe l le ve ls
provide d in se ctions 7104 a nd 7105, but does not include any sound whic h is e xe mpt pursuant to se ction 7106.
(5) Oc c upied structure. The term “oc cupie d structure ” me ans a structure which is occ upied by pe rsons
for any purpose a nd w hose doors and windows a re c lose d whe n the a udibility of a sound is determine d unde r
sec tion 7105.
(56) Person. The te rm “pe rson” me ans any natura l person, a ssoc iation, partne rship, c orpora tion or other
le gal e ntity.
(67) Road. The te rm “road” me a ns a public or private thoroughfa re w hic h a ffords ac c e ss to abutting
property.
(§ 12.12, 91080, § 2; 61081; Code 1988, § 12.12; O rd. 98A(1), 8598)
St at e law referenceVa. Code § 15.21200.
Se c. 7104 Pr ohibite d noise.
It shall be unla w ful for a ny pe rson to c re a te or a llow to be c re a te d a ny unre a sona bly loud, disturbing,
ra uc ous or unne c essa ry noise if the sound is a udible by a pe rson with norma l hea ring from a dista nc e of _____
(___) fe et from the sound sourc e , or from w ithin a n oc c upied struc ture , for a dura tion of _____ (___) ________ or
more within a ______ (___) _______ pe riod. Noise of suc h c ha ra cte r, whe n its inte nsity a nd dura tion is
de trimental to the life or he a lth of any pe rson, or which unre a sonably disturbs or annoys the quie t, comfort or
re pose of any pe rson, is he re by prohibited.
(Ord. 98A(1), 8598)
St at e law referenceVa. Code § 15.21200.
Se c. 7105 Pr ohibite d acts e numer ated.
The following a cts are dec la re d to be unrea sona bly loud, disturbing, raucous or unne ce ssary noise
prohibite d by se c tion 7104, but this e nume ra tion shall not be dee me d to be e xc lusive Notw ithstanding se ction 7
104, it sha ll be unla w ful for a ny pe rson to c re ate or allow to be c re ate d noise from the following ac ts:
A. Motor v ehicle or m otorcy c le ope ration. The ope ration, or permitting the ope ra tion, of a ny motor
ve hic le or motorc yc le so a s to c re a te a n unre asonably loud sound re sulting from: (i) the re moval, a lte ra tion or
fa ilure to prope rly ma inta in its mufflere xha ust or othe r noisecontrol e quipme nt; (ii) ja c krabbit sta rts, spinning
tire s, ra c ing e ngines, or othe r ope rations; or (iii) a refrige ra tion unit mounte d on a motor ve hic le, if the sound is
audible by a person w ith norma l he a ring from a dista nce of _____ (___) fee t from the sound source , or from
w ithin an oc c upied struc ture , for a dura tion of _____ (___) ________ or more w ithin a ______ (___) _______
pe riod.
B. Radios, tape playe rs, tele visions, musical instrum e nts, sound amplification e quipment, and
ele ctronic and similar dev ice s. The ope ra tion, or permitting the ope ra tion, of any ra dio, ta pe playe r, te le vision,
phonograph, musica l instrume nt, sound amplifica tion e quipment, ele ctronic or othe r simila r de vic e which
produc e s, re produc es or a mplifie s sound w hen in suc h a manner: (i) as to a nnoy or disturb the quie t, comfort or
re pose of any pe rson in a dw e lling, hote l or other type of re side nce , whe n such the device is not operate d in or on
a motor vehicle in a loca tion othe r tha n a plac e of public e nte rta inme nt as provide d in se c tion 7105(C); or (ii) a s
to annoy or disturb the quiet, c omfort or re pose of a ny pe rson a c ross a ny re al property bounda ry whe n such the
de vic e is operate d in or on a motor ve hic le which is pa rke d or be ing operate d on a roa d; or (iii) a s to be audible
by some one of norma l hea ring, from outside a motor ve hic le a t a dista nc e of 100 fee t or more , whe n such de vic e
is loc ate d within a motor ve hic le whic h is pa rke d or is be ing ope rate d on a roa d, if the sound is a udible by a
pe rson with norma l he a ring from a dista nc e of _____ (___) fe e t from the sound sourc e , or from w ithin a n
oc c upie d struc ture , for a dura tion of _____ (___) ________ or more within a ______ (___) _______ pe riod.
C. Place s of public e nte rtainment. The operation, or pe rmitting the ope ra tion, of a ny ra dio, tape
pla ye r, te le vision, phonograph, drum, musica l instrume nt, sound amplifier a mplific ation equipme nt, e lec tronic or
other simila r device w hic h produc es, reproduc e s or amplifies sound in a ny pla ce of public enterta inme nt in such a
ma nner a s to annoy or disturb the quiet, c omfort or re pose of a ny pe rson not within the pla ce of public
enterta inme nt if the sound is audible by a person w ith norma l he aring from a dista nce of _____ (___) fee t from the
sound sourc e or from within a n oc cupie d structure for a dura tion of _____ (___) ________ or more within a
______ (___) _______ pe riod be tw ee n the hours of 10:00 p.m. a nd 7:00 a .m.
D. Noise ne ar institutions. The crea tion of any e xce ssive noise sound on any stre et adjac e nt to any
school, institution of le a rning or c ourt, while suc h the school, institution of lea rning, or court is in se ssion, or
adjac ent to a ny hospita l, w hic h unrea sona bly interferes with the w orkings of suc h institution or disturbs or unduly
annoys pa tie nts in the hospita l if the sound is a udible by a pe rson w ith normal he aring within the sc hool,
institution of le arning, c ourt or hospital for a duration of _____ (___) ________ or more within a ______ (___)
_______ pe riod; provide d tha t c onspic uous signs a re poste d a nd visible in suc h stree ts on the stree t a dja c ent to
those use s indic a ting sta ting that suc h the stree t is a dja c ent to a sc hool, institution of le a rning, court or hospita l or
court stre et.
E. Sound le v el ex c ee ding am bie nt sound lev e l by 15 de c ibe ls. The c re ation of sound whic h c auses a
fiftee n (15) dBA inc re ase in the sound le ve l a bove the ambie nt sound le vel, a s de te rmine d pursua nt to the z oning
ordina nce .
(Ord. 98A(1), 8598)
St at e law referenceVa. Code § 15.21200.
Se c. 7106 Exe mpt sounds.
The following sounds sha ll not be prohibited by this a rticle:
A. Em erge nc y operations. Sound generate d in the pe rformanc e of e me rge nc y opera tions including,
but not limited to, a udible signa l de vice s w hic h a re e mploye d a s wa rning or a larm signa ls in c a se of fire, collision
or imminent da nge r.
B. Silvicultural or agric ultural ac tiv itie s. Sounds ge ne ra ted during la wfully permitted bona fide
silvic ultural or a gricultura l a ctivitie s including, but not limited to, logging a c tivitie s and sounds c a use d by
livestoc k.
C. Construction, de m olition and/or maintenanc e ac tivitie s. Sounds ge ne ra ted from construc tion,
de molition a nd/or mainte nanc e a ctivitie s be twee n 7:00 a .m. a nd 10:00 p.m.
D. Transient sounds from transportation. Tra nsie nt sounds ge nerated by transporta tion inc luding, but
not limite d to, public a nd priva te airports (e xce pt as othe rwise regula te d), a irc ra ft, ra ilroa ds a nd othe r me a ns of
public tra nsit.
E. School athle tic c ontests or prac tic es, and othe r sc hool ac tiv ities. Sounds ge nera ted from sc hool
athle tic c onte sts or pra c tic es, and othe r school ac tivities, but only if c onditions are impose d whic h regula te the
ge nera tion of sound inc luding, but not limite d to, c onditions regula ting the hours of the ac tivity and the
amplific a tion of sound.
F. Parade s, fire work s and sim ilar offic ially sanc tione d e ve nts. Sounds ge nerate d from parade s,
fire w orks or other simila r e ve nts whic h a re officially sa nc tioned, if re quire d. This e xe mption shall not a pply to
priva te fireworks displa ys.
G. Yard mainte nanc e ac tiv itie s. Sounds gene ra te d from routine ya rd ma inte na nce a c tivities
inc luding, but not limited to, mowing, trimming, c lipping, le a f blow ing a nd snow blowing.
H. Public facilities. Sounds ge nerate d from the ope ration of a public fa c ility or public use .
I. Warning de v ic e s. Sounds gene ra te d by a horn or w a rning de vic e of a ve hic le w hen use d a s a
w a rning device , including ba c kup a larms for truc ks a nd other e quipment.
J. Churc h be lls or c him e s. Sounds gene ra te d by c hurc h be lls or c hime s.
K. Fire arms. Sounds gene ra te d from the lawful disc ha rge of a firea rm.
L. Animals. Sounds gene ra te d from a nimals inc luding, but not limited to, ba rking dogs, e xce pt a s
provide d in c ha pte r 4.
M. Prote cte d e xpre ssion. Any other lawful a ctivity w hic h c onstitute s prote cte d e xpre ssion pursua nt
to the First A me ndme nt of the Unite d Sta tes Constitution, but not a mplifie d e xpre ssion.
(§ 12.17, 91080, § 7; Code 1988, § 12.17; O rd. 98A (1), 8598)
St at e law referenceVa. Code § 15.21200.
Ar tic le II. Naming of Roads and N umbe r ing of Prope rtie s
Se c. 7201 D e signation of age nt.
The dire ctor of pla nning a nd c ommunity deve lopme nt is he re by designa te d the a ge nt under Virginia Code
§ 15.22019 for the purpose of a ssigning roa d na mes a nd prope rty addre sses, and for the de velopme nt a nd
ma inte nanc e of a ma nua l a nd ma ps, a s provide d in se ctions 7202 a nd 7203.
(§ 16.012, 7892; 101393; Code 1988, § 16.012; O rd. A(1), 8598)
St at e law referenceVa. Code § 15.22019.
Re turn to exe c summa ry
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Buck’s Elbow Mountain Tow er Lease
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request to Set a Public Hearing to Approve a Tele
communications Tower Lease on Buc k’s Elbow
Mountain
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Elliott, Davis, Hanson, and Ms.
Kim
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
May 13, 2009
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
The County owns a 120foot telecommunications tow er and tower s ite located on Buck’s Elbow Mountain. This
tower hosts equipment us ed by the C harlottesvilleU.Va.Albemarle C ounty Emergenc y C ommunic ations Center
(“ECC ”) as part of the regional 800 MHz. public safety radio system. From 1996 to 2001, the County leased excess
space on the tow er, as w ell as ground space for an equipment shelter, to Charlottesv ille C ellular Partnership, the
local licensing entity for U.S. Cellular C orporation. In July, 2001, the C ounty renew ed the lease for another fiveyear
term that ended in July, 2006. Since the expiration of the lease, U.S. C ellular has remained onsite and continued to
make payments according to the leas e terms. Payments for FY 2007 and FY 2008 totaled $16,348.29.
After obtaining a fair mark et value study from RCC C ons ulting, a firm that the ECC has contracted for various
telecommunications matters, staff began negotiating a new lease in the spring of 2008. The resulting lease,
attached to this summary, has been ac cepted by U.S. Cellular. Virginia C ode § 15.21800 requires the Board to
hold a public hearing prior to approving a lease of this County property.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 1: Enhance the Quality of Life for all Albemarle County Residents.
DISCU SSION :
In the proposed lease, U.S. C ellular agrees to significant retroactive rent increases for FY 2007 and 2008, as well as
significantly higher rental rates for the new, 5year term of the lease. These increases reflect the fair market values
determined by RCC Consulting. See Attachment A, Section 7 – Rent. For the firs t y ear of the new term (July 1,
2008June 30, 2009), U.S. Cellular w ill pay $24,189—a roughly 296% inc rease in rent from the approximate annual
rent of $8,174 for FY 2008. In addition, U .S. Cellular will pay the difference between the new rental rate and the rate
paid in y ears 2006 and 2007 as retroactiv e rent. Within ten days of lease execution, U .S. Cellular will pay both the
retroac tive rent increases and Year 1 rent for a total of $54,124.71. During the 5year term, rent will inc rease by 3%
each year. Following this initial term, the parties may extend the lease for up to two renew al terms of five years
each. Rental rates for these renewal terms w ill be negotiated based on then prevailing fair market values for the
tower s pac e.
BUDGET IMPACT:
In addition to the $54,124.71 payment for the retroac tive increase and Year 1 of the lease, the following payments
will be made in subsequent years of the 5year term:
Y ear 2: $24,915
Y ear 3: $25,662
Y ear 4: $26,432
Y ear 5: $27,225
Should U.S. C ellular choose to locate an additional 10 foot microwave dish on the tow er, the above annual rents will
increase by the following amounts:
Y ear 2: $8912
Y ear 3: $9179
Y ear 4: $9454
Y ear 5: $9738
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff recommends that the Board set a public hearing for June 3, 2009 to consider the attached leas e proposal in
accordance with Virginia C ode §15.21800.
ATTAC HMENTS
A – Proposed Lease
Ret urn t o c ons ent agenda
Ret urn t o regular agenda
TO WER AND G R O UND SPACE LEASE
Th is le a s e is m a d e a n d e n te re d in to th e ________________ d a y o f 2 0 0 9 , b y a n d
b e twe e n th e CO UNTY O F AL BEM ARL E, a p o litic a l s u b d iv is io n o f th e Co m m o n we a lth o f
Virg in ia , wh o s e p rin c ip a l a d d re s s is 4 0 1 M c In tire R o a d , Ch a rlo tte s v ille , Virg in ia 2 2 9 0 2 4 5 9 6 ,
h e re in a fte r re fe rre d to a s "L e s s o r," a n d Ch a rlo tte s v ille C e llu la r Pa rtn e rs h ip , a Wa s h in g to n ,
D.C. g e n e ra l p a rtn e rs h ip with its p rin c ip a l p la c e o f b u s in e s s a t 8 4 1 0 We s t Bry n M a wr
Av e n u e , Su ite 7 0 0 , Ch ic a g o , Illin o is 6 0 6 3 1 , h e re in a fte r re fe rre d to a s "L e s s e e ."
WITNESS:
WHEREAS, th e L e s s o r a n d L e s s e e we re p a rtie s to a To we r a n d Gro u n d Sp a c e L e a s e
fro m J u ly 1 , 1 9 9 6 to J u ly 1 , 2 0 0 1 (th e “Orig in a l L e a s e ”) a n d a n Ad d e n d u m to th e Orig in a l
L e a s e fo r th e te rm o f J u ly 1 , 2 0 0 1 to J u ly 1 , 2 0 0 6 (th e “Ad d e n d u m ”), a n d d e s ire to e n te r in to
a n e w to we r a n d g ro u n d s p a c e le a s e .
WHEREAS, th e L e s s o r is th e o wn e r o f c e rta in re a l p ro p e rty in th e Bu c k 's Elb o w a re a o f
Alb e ma rle Co u n ty wh ic h h a s a n e x is tin g c o mm u n ic a tio n s to we r e re c te d o n it a n d e x is tin g
c o m m u n ic a tio n s e q u ip m e n t o wn e d b y L e s s e e ; a n d
WHEREAS, th e L e s s e e d e s ire s to le a s e a p o rtio n o f th e p ro p e rty , in c lu d in g s o m e
s p a c e o n th e to w e r.
NO W THEREFO RE, in c o n s id e ra tio n o f th e m u tu a l p ro m is e s , c o n d itio n s a n d o th e r
g o o d a n d v a lu a b le c o n s id e ra tio n o f th e p a rtie s h e re to , it is c o v e n a n te d a n d a g re e d a s
fo llo ws :
1 . Prope rty . Th e L e s s o r is th e o w n e r o f c e rta in p ro p e rty , h e re in a fte r re fe rre d to a s th e
"Pro p e rty ," lo c a te d in th e Co u n ty o f Alb e m a rle , Sta te o f Virg in ia , id e n tifie d a s th e "To w e r Site "
o n Ex h ib it A, wh ic h is a tta c h e d h e re to a n d in c o rp o ra te d h e re in b y re fe re n c e . L e s s o r a ls o is
th e o w n e r o f a 1 2 0 fo o t te le c o m m u n ic a tio n s to we r, h e re in a fte r re fe rre d to a s th e "To we r,"
wh ic h is lo c a te d o n th e Pro p e rty . Th e p o rtio n o f th e Pro p e rty th a t h a s b e e n u s e d b y L e s s e e
fo r its te le c o m m u n ic a tio n s fa c ility , h e re in a fte r re fe rre d to a s th e "Site ," is d e p ic te d o n Ex h ib it
A, wh ic h is a tta c h e d h e re to a n d in c o rp o ra te d h e re in b y re fe re n c e . Th e d e m is e d p re m is e s
re fe rre d to in Se c tio n 2 a re lo c a te d w ith in th e Site .
2 . De m is e of Pre m is e s . L e s s o r h e re b y le ts a n d d e m is e s u n to L e s s e e , a n d L e s s e e
h e re b y re c e iv e s a n d a c c e p ts fro m L e s s o r, th e fo llo win g d e s c rib e d Pre m is e s :
"To we r Sp a c e ”: Atta c h m e n t lo c a tio n s o n th e To we r lo c a te d o n th e Site fo r th e
p la c e m e n t a n d a ffix in g o f: two (2 ) a p p roxima te ly 6’ panel ante n n a s, 1 Rad Ce n te r a p p roximate ly
9 0’ above g ro u n d le v e l, two (2 ) a p p roxima te ly 4 ’ p a n e l a n tennas, 1 Rad Ce nter appro ximate ly
1 00’ a b o ve g ro u n d leve l and lin e s (1 5 /8 ” co a x ia l ca b le ), a n d a tta c h m e n t lo c a tio n s fo r th e
p la c e m e n t a n d a ffix in g o f u p to two (2 ) te n fo o t micro wa ve d ish e s, 1 Ra d Cente r appro ximately
7 0’ a b o ve g round leve l a n d lin e s (1 5 /8 ” c o a x ia l c a b le ), a n d a d d itio n a l a tta c h m e n t lo c a tio n s
o n th e To we r a s a u th o riz e d b y th e L e s s o r in writin g .
“Gro u n d Sp a c e ": 2 4 0 s q u a re fe e t o f g ro u n d s p a c e a t th e Site , a d ja c e n t to the base o f
the To we r fo r the p la ce me nt o f a ra d io statio n co n crete e q u ip ment s h e lte r ("Less e e 's Bu ild in g ")
a ppro x ima tely 20’ X 1 2 ’, one g e n e ra to r, one fuel ta n k and a lin e bridge structure.
"Ac c e s s Ea s e m e n t": A n o n e x c lu s iv e e a s e m e n t o v e r th e Site , m e a s u rin g
a p p ro x im a te ly 9 9 fe e t in wid th a n d 9 8 fe e t in le n g th fo r in g re s s a n d e g re s s e x te n d in g a c ro s s
th e Pro p e rty , wh ic h e a s e m e n t s h a ll b e fo r th e p u rp o s e s d e s c rib e d h e re in .
"Utility Ea s e m e n t”: An e a s e m e n t fo r u tility lin e s a n d re la te d a p p u rte n a n c e s e x te n d in g
b e twe e n th e Site a n d s u ita b le u tility c o m p a n y s e rv ic e p o in ts .
Th e To we r Sp a c e , G ro u n d Sp a c e , Ac c e s s Ea s e m e n t a n d Utility Ea s e me n t a re
c o lle c tiv e ly re fe rre d to h e re in a fte r a s th e "Pre m is e s ," a n d e a c h s h a ll b e lo c a te d o n th e Site a s
s h o wn o n Ex h ib it A.
3 . Us e of the Pr e m is e s . L e s s e e s h a ll b e e n title d , a t L e s s e e 's s o le e x p e n s e , to u s e
a n d o c c u p y th e Pre m is e s fo r th e c o m m e rc ia l p u rp o s e o f a ffix in g , in s ta llin g , o p e ra tin g a n d /o r
m a in ta in in g fo u r c e llu la r a n te n n a s a n d two m ic ro wa v e a n te n n a s o n th e To we r Sp a c e , a n
a c c e s s ro a d o n th e Ac c e s s Ea s e m e n t, a n e q u ip m e n t b u ild in g o n th e Gro u n d Sp a c e , a n d a
s e c u rity fe n c e a ro u n d th e p e rim e te r o f th e Pre m is e s , to g e th e r with a ll n e c e s s a ry lin e s ,
a n c h o rs , c o n n e c tio n s , c o n d u its , d e v ic e s , a n d e q u ip m e n t fo r th e tra n s m is s io n , re c e p tio n ,
e n c ry p tio n , a n d tra n s la tio n o f v o ic e a n d d a ta s ig n a ls b y m e a n s o f ra d io fre q u e n c y e n e rg y
a n d la n d lin e c a rria g e , a s s h o wn o n Ex h ib it A.
4 . Te rm . Th e te rm o f th is L e a s e s h a ll b e fiv e (5 ) y e a rs , c o m m e n c in g o n J u ly 1 , 2 0 0 8
a n d e x p irin g o n J u n e 3 0 , 2 0 1 3 (th e “O rig in a l Te rm ”).
5 . Exte nsions of Te rm. The p a rties ackn o wle d g e th a t it is th e ir inte n t to e xte n d th e le a se
for two (2 ) a d d itio n a l, fiv e (5 ) y e a r te rms u p o n th e fo llo win g c o n d itio n s :
(a ) Th e c o n d itio n s a n d p ro v is io n s conta in e d in this lea se will b e th e basis for any
lease a mendme n t e x e cute d fo r a ren e wal term, exce p t fo r th e re n ta l terms in
Se ctio n 7.
(b ) The annual re n t a n d a n n u a l p e rcenta g e in c rease in re n t fo r e a ch renewa l term will
be d e termined b y th e parties prior to th e re n e wa l term to re flect th e n e xistin g marke t
conditio n s (fair marke t value). Fair marke t v a lu e will b e d e termined by a th ird pa rty
appraise r to b e mu tu a lly a gre e d upon b y the p a rtie s.
(c) Written n o tice o f in tent to re n e w mu st be p ro vided by Lesse e to Lesso r no late r
th a n ninety (90) d a ys prio r to the e xpira tion o f th e cu rren t te rm.
(d ) Notwith s ta n d in g the pro vision s of th is sectio n , n e ither party is b o u n d to acce p t a
renewa l te rm.
(e ) Neith e r th e o riginal nor a n y re n e wa l te rm o f th is Lease s h a ll be establish e d with o u t
th e exp re ss writte n c o n sent of the L e ssor.
All refe re n ces in this Lease to th e "term" o f th is L e a se shall be dee me d to in clude th e o rig in a l term
h ere o f a n d a n y and a ll e xte nsio n s there of p u rsuant to this Se ctio n .
6 . Option to Te rm ina te . L e s s e e s h a ll h a v e th e u n ila te ra l rig h t to te rm in a te th is L e a s e
a t any time b y g iv in g writte n n o tic e to L e s s o r o f L e s s e e 's e x e rc is e o f th is o p tio n a n d p a y in g
L e s s o r th e a m o u n t o f Twe n ty Fo u r Th o u s a n d , O n e Hu n d re d a n d Eig h ty Nin e Do lla rs a n d
($2 4 ,1 8 9 .0 0 ) a s liq u id a te d d a m a g e s . Th e s e liq u id a te d d a m a g e s a re fo r L e s s o r's d a m a g e s
re s u ltin g fro m th e te rm in a tio n o f th e L e a s e o n ly , a n d b y L e s s o r's a c c e p ta n c e th e re o f, L e s s o r
d o e s n o t wa iv e a n y rig h t o r re m e d y it m a y h a v e a g a in s t L e s s e e a ris in g fro m a n y d e fa u lt b y
L e s s e e a s d e s c rib e d in Se c tio n 1 6 o f th e L e a s e , fro m a n y d a m a g e c a u s e d b y L e s s e e to th e
Pro p e rty o r a n y im p ro v e m e n ts th e re o n , o r fro m L e s s e e 's fa ilu re to re m o v e its p ro p e rty
a n d /o r re s to re th e p ro p e rty if re q u e s te d to d o s o b y L e s s o r, a s p ro v id e d in Se c tio n 2 4 .
7 . Re nt.
7 .1 . O rig in a l Te rm Re n t. Re n t fo r Ye a r O n e o f th e Orig in a l Te rm , b e g in n in g J u ly 1 ,
2 0 0 8 a n d e n d in g J u n e 3 0 , 2 0 0 9 , s h a ll b e Twe n ty Fo u r Th o u s a n d , O n e Hu n d re d a n d Eig h ty
Nin e Do lla rs ($2 4 ,1 8 9 .0 0 ). In Ye a rs Two , Th re e , Fo u r a n d Fiv e , re n t s h a ll in c re a s e a n n u a lly
b y th re e (3 ) p e rc e n t, a s s h o wn b e lo w:
Ye a r 2 : $2 4 ,9 1 5
Ye a r 3 : $2 5 ,6 6 2
Ye a r 4 : $2 6 ,4 3 2
Ye a r 5 : $2 7 ,2 2 5
7 .2 . Re tro a c tiv e Re n t. R e n t fo r th e p e rio d o f J u ly 1 , 2 0 0 6 to J u n e 3 0 , 2 0 0 8 s h a ll b e
a s fo llo ws : $2 2 ,8 0 0 fo r th e te rm J u ly 1 , 2 0 0 6 to J u n e 3 0 , 2 0 0 7 , a n d $2 3 ,4 8 4 fo r th e te rm
J u ly 1 , 2 0 0 7 to J u n e 3 0 , 2 0 0 8 . Th e p a rtie s a g re e th a t L e s s e e s h a ll re m it to L e s s o r Twe n ty
Nin e Th o u s a n d , Nin e Hu n d re d a n d Th irty Fiv e Do lla rs a n d Se v e n ty O n e Ce n ts ($2 9 ,9 3 5 .7 1 )
with in te n (1 0 ) d a y s o f e x e c u tin g th is L e a s e , w h ic h is th e d iffe re n c e b e twe e n th e re n t p a id b y
L e s s e e fo r th e 2 0 0 6 0 7 a n d 2 0 0 7 0 8 le a s e y e a rs ($1 6 ,3 4 8 .2 9 ) a n d th e re n t e s ta b lis h e d b y
th is Se c tio n .
7 .3 . Su b m is s io n o f Re n t. Re n t fo r Ye a r O n e in th e a m o u n t o f $2 4 ,1 8 9 s h a ll b e d u e
with in te n (1 0 ) d a y s o f e x e c u tin g th is L e a s e . R e n t fo r Ye a rs Two th ro u g h Fiv e s h a ll b e d u e
a n n u a lly o n th e firs t d a y o f e a c h L e a s e y e a r (J u ly 1 ). Pa y m e n t s h a ll b e m a d e to th e Co u n ty
o f Alb e m a rle , De p a rtm e n t o f Fin a n c e , 4 0 1 M c In tire Ro a d , Ch a rlo tte s v ille , Virg in ia 2 2 9 0 2
4 5 9 6 , a n d th e p a y m e n t s h a ll id e n tify th a t it is fo r th e Bu c k 's Elb o w To we r a n d Gro u n d Sp a c e
L e a s e , a n d s ta te th e d a te o f th is L e a s e .
7 .4 . Re n t fo r Ad d itio n a l M ic ro wa v e Dis h . In th e e v e n t th a t L e s s e e a d d s a n a d d itio n a l
te n fo o t m ic ro wa v e d is h to th e To we r fo r a to ta l o f two (2 ) te n fo o t m ic ro wa v e d is h e s o n th e
To we r, th e fo llo win g re n t will b e c h a rg e d a s a d d itio n a l re n t to b e p a id th e L e s s o r b e y o n d th e
re n t p a y m e n ts d e s c rib e d in Se c tio n 7 .1 . Su c h a d d itio n a l re n t fo r th e a d d itio n a l m ic ro wa v e
d is h s h a ll b e c a lc u la te d a n d p a id a s fo llo w s :
7 .4 .1 . Re n t fo r th e a d d itio n a l m ic ro wa v e d is h s h a ll b e c a lc u la te d b y ta k in g th e
a m o u n t o f $7 0 0 p e r m o n th , wh ic h is th e re n ta l v a lu e th a t wo u ld h a v e b e e n
c h a rg e d fo r th e p e rio d o f J u ly 1 , 2 0 0 6 to J u n e 3 0 , 2 0 0 7 , a n d a p p ly in g a n a n n u a l
th re e (3 ) p e rc e n t in c re a s e fo r e a c h c o n tra c t y e a r s in c e J u n e 3 0 , 2 0 0 7 . Th e
a n n u a l re n t d u e fo r th e a d d itio n a l d is h s h a ll b e p a id a s fo llo ws , m in u s a n y
p ro ra tio n b a s e d o n th e n u m b e r o f m o n th s re m a in in g in th e c o n tra c t y e a r a t th e
tim e o f a n te n n a in s ta lla tio n :
Ye a r 1 : $8 6 5 2
Ye a r 2 : $8 9 1 2
Ye a r 3 : $9 1 7 9
Ye a r 4 : $9 4 5 4
Ye a r 5 : $9 7 3 8
8 . M a inte na nc e .
8 .1. Ma in tenance of th e Towe r. L e s s o r s h a ll, a t L e s s o r's e x p e n s e , k e e p th e To we r in
g ood conditio n and rep a ir, a n d in clude the To wer in a regular regime o f in s p e ctio n and
mainte n a n ce . In th e e ve n t th a t th e co n d ition of the Tower is such th a t Lesse e is u n a b le to
transmit, re ce ive, e n cryp t a n d tra n sla te voice a n d d a ta sig n a ls by means o r ra d io fre q u e n c y
e nerg y a n d la n d lin e ca rriage from the Site, a n d su ch co n ditio n is th e re s u lt o f L e s s o r's fa ilu re to
k e e p th e To we r in g o o d c o n d itio n a n d re p a ir, L e s s o r s h a ll, u p o n re c e ip t o f n o tic e fro m L e s s e e
o f s u c h in a b ility , p ro m p tly m a k e n e c e s s a ry re p a irs to restore L esse e 's ability to p ro vide such
se rvice s . In th e alte rnative, Less o r may auth o rize L e ssee to ma ke such nece ssary re p a irs b y
written agreeme n t wh ich s h a ll, amo n g o ther th in g s, sp e c ify the work to b e p e rfo rmed and the cost
therefo r. No twith s ta n d in g th e fo re g o in g , L e s s e e m a y e ffe c tu a te e me rg e n c y re p a irs to th e
To we r with th e p rio r a u th o riz a tio n o f L e s s o r, wh o s h a ll re im b u rs e L e s s e e fo r th e re a s o n a b le
co st fo r such repairs . Lesso r sh a ll n o t u n rea sonably withh o ld su ch p rio r a u th o rizatio n .
8 .2 . M a in te n a n c e a n d Re p la c e me n t o f Eq u ip m e n t. L e s s e e s h a ll k e e p a ll o f its
a n te n n a s , lin e s , a n c h o rs , c o n n e c tio n s , c o n d u its , d e v ic e s , a n d o th e r e q u ip m e n t lo c a te d o n th e
To we r in g o o d c o n d itio n a n d re p a ir. All tra s h a n d u n wa n te d d e b ris s h a ll b e p ro p e rly
d is p o s e d o f a n d re m o v e d fro m th e p re m is e s . L e s s e e m a y m a in ta in a n d re p a ir a n y lin e s ,
a n c h o rs , c o n n e c tio n s , d e v ic e s o r e q u ip m e n t with o u t p rio r c o n s e n t o f th e L e s s o r.
L e s s e e s h a ll n o t a d d a n y a n te n n a s to th e To we r, o r re lo c a te its a n te n n a s , with o u t th e
p rio r writte n c o n s e n t o f L e s s o r, wh ic h c o n s e n t s h a ll n o t b e u n re a s o n a b ly with h e ld o r
d e la y e d . L e s s e e s h a ll n o t a d d o r re lo c a te a n y a n te n n a s , lin e s , a n c h o rs , c o n n e c tio n s ,
d e v ic e s o r e q u ip m e n t with o u t th e p rio r writte n c o n s e n t o f L e s s o r, wh ic h c o n s e n t s h a ll n o t b e
u n re a s o n a b ly with h e ld o r d e la y e d . In a d d itio n , p rio r to re p la c in g a n y c u rre n tly e x is tin g
e q u ip m e n t o r a n te n n a s with n e w o r m o d ifie d e q u ip m e n t, L e s s e e s h a ll c o n d u c t a s tru c tu ra l
a n a ly s is o f th e to we r, a t its s o le e x p e n s e , to e n s u re th a t a n y n e wly p la c e d e q u ip m e n t will n o t
im p a ir th e s tru c tu ra l in te g rity o f th e to we r a n d p ro v id e a c o p y o f th e s tru c tu ra l a n a ly s is re p o rt
to L e s s o r. L e s s e e s h a ll s u b m it to L e s s o r th e n a m e s a n d p ro p o s a ls o f th re e (3 ) c o n tra c to rs
q u a lifie d to p e rfo rm th a t wo rk fo r s e le c tio n b y L e s s o r.
9 . Av ia tion Ha z a r d M a rk ing. L e s s o r s h a ll, a t L e s s o r's s o le c o s t a n d e x p e n s e , c o m p ly
a t a ll tim e s with th e To we r m a rk in g , lig h tin g , re c o rd in g a n d n o tific a tio n re q u ire m e n ts o f th e
Fe d e ra l Co m m u n ic a tio n s Co m m is s io n a n d th e Fe d e ra l Av ia tio n Ad m in is tra tio n .
1 0 . Utilitie s . L e s s o r s h a ll c o o p e ra te with L e s s e e in a n y e ffo rts m a d e b y L e s s e e to
o b ta in u tility s e rv ic e s a t th e Site fo r L e s s e e 's in te n d e d u s e . L e s s e e s h a ll b e re s p o n s ib le fo r
th e s e p a ra te m e te rin g , b illin g , a n d p a y me n t o f its u tility c o n s u m p tio n b y its o p e ra tio n .
1 1 . Ta x e s . L e s s e e s h a ll p a y a ll p e rs o n a l p ro p e rty ta x e s le v ie d a g a in s t L e s s e e 's
Bu ild in g a n d L e s s e e 's b a s e s ta tio n e q u ip m e n t. L e s s o r s h a ll c la im a n y e x e m p tio n fro m re a l
a n d p e rs o n a l p ro p e rty ta x e s to wh ic h L e s s o r is e n title d .
1 2 . Com plia nc e w ith La w s . L e s s e e , s h a ll, a t L e s s e e 's c o s t a n d e x p e n s e , c o m p ly with
a ll fe d e ra l, s ta te , c o u n ty o r lo c a l la ws , ru le s , re g u la tio n s a n d o rd in a n c e s n o w o r h e re a fte r
e n a c te d b y a n y g o v e rn m e n ta l a u th o rity o r a d m in is tra tiv e a g e n c ie s h a v in g ju ris d ic tio n o v e r
th e Pre m is e s a n d L e s s e e 's o p e ra tio n s th e re u p o n .
1 3 . Inde m nific a tion. L e s s e e s h a ll in d e m n ify a n d h o ld L e s s o r h a rm le s s fro m a n d
a g a in s t a n y lo s s , d a m a g e , o r in ju ry c a u s e d b y , o r o n b e h a lf o f, o r th ro u g h th e fa u lt o f
L e s s e e , its o ffic e rs , e m p lo y e e s a n d a g e n ts . No th in g in th is Se c tio n s h a ll re q u ire L e s s e e to
in d e m n ify a n d h o ld L e s s o r h a rm le s s fro m a n d a g a in s t a n y lo s s , d a m a g e , o r in ju ry c a u s e d
b y , o r o n b e h a lf o f, o r th ro u g h th e fa u lt o f L e s s o r its o ffic e rs , e m p lo y e e s a n d a g e n ts .
1 4 . Ins ur a nc e . L e s s e e s h a ll c o n tin u o u s ly m a in ta in in fu ll fo rc e a n d e ffe c t a p o lic y o f
c o m m e rc ia l g e n e ra l lia b ility in s u ra n c e with limits o f n o t le s s th a n On e Millio n Do lla rs c o v e rin g
L e s s e e 's wo rk a n d o p e ra tio n s u p o n th e Pro p e rty . L e s s e e s h a ll n a m e th e "Co u n ty o f
Alb e m a rle , its o ffic e rs , a g e n ts , e m p lo y e e s a n d v o lu n te e rs " a s a d d itio n a l in s u re d s a n d , with in
fiv e d a y s o f th e e x e c u tio n o f th is L e a s e , s h a ll p ro v id e to L e s s o r a c e rtific a te o f in s u ra n c e s o
s ta tin g .
1 5 . Inte rfe re nc e . L e s s e e 's b a s e s ta tio n s h a ll b e in s ta lle d a n d o p e ra te d in a m a n n e r
wh ic h d o e s n o t c a u s e in te rfe re n c e to th e o p e ra tio n s o f a n y Pro te c te d Us e rs . "Pro te c te d
Us e r" s h a ll m e a n a n y u s e r o f th e Site a n d th e To we r wh o s e c la im e d p ro te c te d o p e ra tio n s
c h ro n o lo g ic a lly p re d a te L e s s e e 's a c c u s e d o ffe n d in g o p e ra tio n s . L e s s e e a g re e s to
im m e d ia te ly c u re a n y s u c h in te rfe re n c e o r, if s u c h in te rfe re n c e c a n n o t im m e d ia te ly b e
c u re d , to te m p o ra rily re d u c e p o we r o r c e a s e th e o ffe n d in g o p e ra tio n s , if s o d e m a n d e d b y
L e s s o r o n th e g ro u n d o f in te rfe re n c e , u n til a c u re a t fu ll p o we r is a c h ie v e d . L e s s o r c o v e n a n ts
to u s e L e s s o r's b e s t e ffo rts to p ro te c t L e s s e e fro m in te rfe re n c e c a u s e d o r p o te n tia lly c a u s e d
b y s u b s e q u e n t u s e rs o f c h a n g e s in u s e .
1 6 . De fa ult. If L e s s o r o r L e s s e e fa ils to c o m p ly with a n y p ro v is io n s o f th is L e a s e wh ic h
th e o th e r p a rty c la ims to b e a d e fa u lt h e re o f, th e p a rty m a k in g s u c h c la im s h a ll s e rv e writte n
n o tic e o f s u c h d e fa u lt u p o n th e d e fa u ltin g p a rty , wh e re u p o n a g ra c e p e rio d o f th irty (3 0 ) d a y s
s h a ll c o m me n c e to ru n d u rin g wh ic h th e d e fa u ltin g p a rty s h a ll u n d e rta k e a n d d ilig e n tly
p u rs u e a c u re o f d e fa u lt. Th e g ra c e p e rio d s h a ll a u to m a tic a lly b e e x te n d e d fo r a n a d d itio n a l
th irty (3 0 ) d a y s , p ro v id e d th e d e fa u ltin g p a rty m a k e s a g o o d fa ith s h o win g th a t e ffo rts
to wa rd a c u re a re c o n tin u in g .
1 7 . Q uie t Enjoy m e nt. L e s s o r h e re b y c o v e n a n ts th a t L e s s e e s h a ll h a v e q u ie t a n d
p e a c e fu l e n jo y m e n t o f th e Pre m is e s th ro u g h o u t th e le a s e te rm a s lo n g a s L e s s e e is n o t in
d e fa u lt h e re u n d e r.
1 8 . Title , Ac c e s s a nd A uthority . L e s s o r c o v e n a n ts a n d wa rra n ts to L e s s e e th a t
L e s s o r p re s e n tly o wn s th e fe e s im p le in te re s t in a n d to th e Pro p e rty ; th a t L e s s o r is d u ly
a u th o riz e d a n d e m p o we re d to e n te r in to th is L e a s e ; a n d th a t th e p e rs o n e x e c u tin g th is
le a s e o n b e h a lf o f th e L e s s o r wa rra n ts h im s e lf to b e d u ly a u th o riz e d to b in d th e L e s s o r
h e re to .
19. As signment of Les s e e 's Inte re s t. L e ssee's inte rest unde r th is Lease ma y be free ly
a ssig n e d in connection with th e transfer of the Fe d e ra l Communica tions Co mmission
a utho riza tion to o p e ra te a ce llular commo n carrie r mo b ile radio te le p h o n e c o mmunicatio n s
syste m, so th a t th e n a me and id e n tity o f the h o lder o f L e sse e's in te re st hereunder can be
co n siste n t with the name and identity of th e h o ld e r o f sa id Fe d e ral Co mmu n icatio n s Co mmission
a utho riza tion. Any o th e r a s s ig n m e n t o f th is L e a s e b y L e s s e e s h a ll re q u ire L e s s o r's p rio r writte n
c o n s e n t, wh ic h c o n sent sh a ll not b e unreaso n a b ly withheld.
2 0 . Env ir onm e nta l Wa r ra nty . L e s s o r h e re b y re p re s e n ts a n d w a rra n ts to L e s s e e th a t
L e s s o r h a s n e v e r g e n e ra te d , s o rte d , h a n d le d , o r d is p o s e d o f a n y h a z a rd o u s wa s te o r
h a z a rd o u s s u b s ta n c e s u p o n th e Pre m is e s , a n d th a t L e s s o r h a s n o k n o wle d g e o f s u c h u s e s
h is to ric a lly h a v in g b e e n m a d e o f th e Pre m is e s o r s u c h s u b s ta n c e s h is to ric a lly h a v in g b e e n
in tro d u c e d th e re u p o n .
2 1 . Subordina tion. L e s s e e a g re e s to s u b o rd in a te th is L e a s e to a n y m o rtg a g e o r tru s t
d e e d w h ic h m a y h e re a fte r b e p la c e d o n th e Pre m is e s , p ro v id e d s u c h m o rtg a g e e o r tru s te e
th e re u n d e r s h a ll in u re to L e s s e e th e rig h t to p o s s e s s io n o f th e Pre m is e s a n d o th e r rig h ts
g ra n te d to L e s s e e h e re in s o lo n g a s L e s s e e is n o t in d e fa u lt b e y o n d a n y a p p lic a b le g ra c e o r
c u re p e rio d , s u c h a s s u ra n c e to b e in a fo rm re a s o n a b ly s a tis fa c to ry to L e s s e e .
2 2 . Notic e s . An y n o tic e , d e m a n d o r c o m m u n ic a tio n wh ic h L e s s o r o r L e s s e e s h a ll
d e s ire o r b e re q u ire d to g iv e p u rs u a n t to th e p ro v is io n s o f th is L e a s e , s h a ll b e s e n t b y
re g is te re d o r c e rtifie d m a il; a n d th e g iv in g o f s u c h n o tic e s s h a ll b e d e e m e d c o m p le te u p o n
m a ilin g in a Un ite d Sta te s Po s t O ffic e with p o s ta g e c h a rg e s p re p a id , a d d re s s e d a s in d ic a te d
b e lo w , o r to s u c h o th e r a d d re s s a s s u c h p a rty m a y h e re to fo re h a v e d e s ig n a te d .
If to L e s s o r:
To m Ha n s o n , Dire c to r
Ch a rlo tte s v ille U.Va .Alb e m a rle Co u n ty Em e rg e n c y Co m m u n ic a tio n s Ce n te r
2 3 0 6 Iv y Ro a d
Ch a rlo tte s v ille , VA 2 2 9 0 3
If to L e ssee :
Ch a rlo tte s v ille Ce llu la r Pa rtn e rs h ip
Attn : Re a l Es ta te
8 4 1 0 We s t Bry n M a wr Av e ., Su ite 7 0 0
Ch ic a g o , Illin o is 6 0 6 3 1
2 3 . Le s s e e 's Pe rs ona l Pr ope rty . All p e rs o n a l p ro p e rty p la c e d u p o n th e Pre m is e s b y
L e s s e e s h a ll re m a in th e s o le a n d e x c lu s iv e p ro p e rty o f th e L e s s e e , a n d m a y b e re m o v e d b y
L e s s e e a t a n y tim e , in c lu d in g u p o n th e e x p ira tio n o r o th e r te rm in a tio n o f th is le a s e o r a n y
e x te n s io n h e re o f.
2 4 . Upon Ex pira tion of this Le a s e . Prio r to th e e x p ira tio n o r o th e r te rm in a tio n o f th is
L e a s e , L e s s e e m a y re m o v e L e s s e e 's b u ild in g , a n te n n a s a n d lin e s . Up o n th irty d a y s ' writte n
n o tic e p rio r to th e e x p ira tio n o r o th e r te rmin a tio n o f th is L e a s e , a t L e s s o r's re q u e s t, L e s s e e
s h a ll (i) re m o v e a n y o r a ll o th e r p e rs o n a l p ro p e rty p la c e d u p o n . th e Pre m is e s b y L e s s e e , (ii)
re q u e s t th a t o v e rh e a d u tility lin e s a n d re la te d a p p u rte n a n c e s b e re m o v e d fro m th e u tility
e a s e m e n t a n d (iii) re s to re th e Pre m is e s to its c o n d itio n a s o f th e o rig in a l d a te o f th is L e a s e .
In n o e v e n t s h a ll L e s s e e re m o v e a n y im p ro v e m e n ts m a d e to th e To we r. Up o n th e e x p ira tio n
o r o th e r te rm in a tio n o f th is L e a s e , a ll im p ro v e m e n ts im p ro v e m e n ts m a d e b y th e L e s s e e o n
th e Site s h a ll re v e rt to L e s s o r a n d s h a ll b e fre e fro m a n y e n c u m b ra n c e a t th e tim e o f s u c h
re v e rs io n .
2 5 . Lim ita tion of Le s s or 's Lia bility . L e s s o r s h a ll n o t b e lia b le to L e s s e e fo r a n y
d a m a g e s wh a ts o e v e r fo r a n y d a m a g e to L e s s e e 's p ro p e rty lo c a te d o n th e Pre m is e s ,
in c lu d in g b u t n o t lim ite d to a n y e q u ip m e n t o f L e s s e e in s ta lle d o n th e To we r, o r fo r a n y
in te rfe re n c e with , o r a n y d a m a g e , in ju ry , o r lo s s to its o p e ra tio n s , c a u s e d b y fire , flo o d , win d ,
ra in , s n o w, h a il, ic e , lig h tn in g , e a rth q u a k e , o r a n y o th e r fo rc e o f n a tu ra l c a u s e , o r a n y
a c c id e n t n o t c a u s e d b y a n d n o t with in th e c o n tro l o f th e L e s s o r.
2 6 . Binding Effe c t. All o f th e c o v e n a n ts , c o n d itio n s a n d p ro v is io n s o f th is L e a s e s h a ll
in u re to th e b e n e fit o f a n d b e b in d in g u p o n th e p a rtie s h e re to a n d th e ir re s p e c tiv e
s u c c e s s o rs a n d a s s ig n s .
2 7 . Entir e Agr e e m e nt. Th is L e a s e c o n s titu te s th e e n tire a g re e m e n t b e twe e n th e
p a rtie s a n d s u p e rs e d e s a n y p rio r u n d e rs ta n d in g s o r o ra l o r writte n a g re e m e n ts b e twe e n th e
p a rtie s re s p e c tin g th e with in s u b je c t m a tte r.
2 8 . M odific a tions . Th is L e a s e c a n n o t b e m o d ifie d e x c e p t b y a writte n a g re e m e n t
e x e c u te d b y b o th p a rtie s e x p re s s ly s ta tin g th a t it s e e k s to m o d ify th is L e a s e .
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Act
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Resolution to Recogniz e Albemarle C ounty’s
Volunteer Fire and Emergency R escue Agencies
Pursuant to the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits
Act
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Elliott, Davis, Eggles ton, and
Ms. Kim
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
May 13, 2009
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
The Public Safety Officers’ Benefits (“PSOB”) Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. §§3796, et seq., provides onetime monetary
benefits to the eligible s urv ivors of public safety officers whose deaths result directly from traumatic injury sustained
in the line of duty, or from certain cardiac conditions. The PSOB Ac t also provides disability benefits for public
safety officers w ho have been permanently and totally disabled by a catastrophic injury sustained in the line of duty ,
if that injury permanently prevents the officer from performing any gainful w ork. The United States Department of
Justice administers all benefits granted under the Act.
As defined by the Act, a qualifying “public safety officer” is an individual “serving a public agency in an official
capacity , w ith or without c ompensation, as a law enforcement officer, as a firefighter, as a chaplain, or as a member
of a rescue squad or ambulance crew .” 42 U.S.C. §3796b(9). Before deeming the individuals who s erv e volunteer
fire or emergency rescue agencies “public safety officers,” the Department of Justic e requires local gov ernments to
affirm that those organiz ations are legally organized and authorized to provide fire and emergency res cue services .
The Board may accomplish this by adopting the attac hed Resolution. The Board does not need to tak e any action
regarding c areer staff or County volunteers at the Holly mead and Monticello stations because they already qualify as
“public s afety officers” under the Act.
After receiv ing information about the PSOB Act, the Albemarle County Fire Rescue Advisory Board (“ACFRAB”)
voted at its March 25, 2009 meeting to request the Board of Supervisors to adopt a res olution recognizing the fire
and emergency rescue agencies for purposes of receiving benefits under the Act. The C ounty Attorney’s Office has
prepared a single resolution recognizing all of the County’s volunteer fire/rescue organizations for the Board’s review
and adoption.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 1: Enhance the Quality of Life for all Albemarle County Residents.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The adoption of this R esolution has no budgetary impact on the County .
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached R esolution (Attachment A).
ATTAC HMENTS:
A – Resolution to Rec ognize Albemarle County’s Volunteer Fire and Emergency Resc ue Agencies Pursuant
to the Public Safety Offic ers’ Benefits Act
Ret urn t o c ons ent agenda
Ret urn t o regular agenda
RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE ALBEMAR LE COU NTY’S VOLU NTEER
FIRE AND EMER GENCY R ESCU E AGENC IES PUR SUA NT TO
THE PU B LIC SAFETY OFFICERS’ BENEFITS ACT
WH ER EA S, the Board recognizes the invaluable services provided by the County’s seven
volunteer fire agencies and three volunteer emergency rescue squads to the citizens of Albemarle County;
and
WH ER EA S, the Board seeks to ensure that the men and women w ho volunteer their services
through these agencies, and their families, are eligible for benefits under The Public Safety Officers’
Benefits (“PSOB”) Act of 1976, 42 U .S.C. §§3796, et seq., should death or disability occur in the line of
duty; and
WH ER EA S, the PSOB Act requires that elected officials of the locality served by volunteer fire and
emergency rescue agencies formally acknowledge the legal organization and service of its volunteer
agencies prior to the receipt of any benefits under the Act.
NOW, TH EREFOR E, BE IT R ESOLVED that the following organizations are hereby recognized
to be legally organized and authorized by the Albemarle C ounty Board of Supervisors to act on behalf of
the County of Albemarle, Virginia to provide fire services, as their primary functions, to the community of
Albemarle C ounty: C rozet Volunteer Fire Department, Earlysville Volunteer Fire C ompany, East Rivanna
Volunteer Fire Company, North Garden Volunteer Fire C ompany, Scottsville Volunteer Fire Department,
Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department, and Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company; and
BE IT FUR TH ER R ESOLVED that the following organizations are hereby recognized to be legally
organized and authorized by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to act on behalf of the C ounty of
Albemarle, Virginia to provide emergency rescue squad services, as their primary functions, to the
community of Albemarle County: C harlottesvilleAlbemarle R escue Squad, Scottsville Volunteer Rescue
Squad, and Western Albemarle R escue Squad.
Return to exec summary
RESOLUTION TO SU PPOR T GEOR GETOWN ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
WH ER EA S, the Georgetown Road (Route 656) corridor is well developed with an existing high
volume mix of pedestrian, bicycle, vehicle and bus traffic; and
WH ER EA S, Albemarle County, the CharlottesvilleMetropolitan Planning Organization (MPO),
and the Thomas Jefferson Planning D istrict C ommission (TJPC) have recognized the need for
improvements to this corridors for bicyclists and pedestrians; and
WH ER EA S, VDoT held a D esign Public Hearing to solicit input on the proposed improvements for
consideration of the preliminary design for proposed pedestrian facility improvements on Georgetow n
R oad (Project: #0656002254,PE101, RW201, C 501) (Federal Project #STP002 – UPC 12982), located
in Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WH ER EA S, 24 respondents commented at or following the Public Hearing held on March 24,
2009; and
WH ER EA S, 88 percent of respondents support the project; and
WH ER EA S, after reviewing the options and considering all aspects of the proposed project, VD oT
recommends approval of the project design as presented at the public hearing to provide safer pedestrian
facilities betw een two major roadways, Barracks R oad and Hydraulic R oad; and
WH ER EA S, the project will include replacing the existing sidew alk with a five foot wide concrete
sidew alk, and the construction of three midblock pedestrian crossings.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors does
hereby support the improvements to Georgetown Road as proposed by the Virginia D epartment of
Transportation.
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
I. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units (Table I & Chart A)
II. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units by Type (Tables II, III, & IV)
III. Comparison of All Building Permits (Table V)
KEY TO TYPES OF HOUSING REFERRED TO IN REPORT
SF Single-Family (includes modular)
SFA Single-Family Attached
SF/TH Single-Family Townhouse
SFC Single-Family Condominium
DUP Duplex
MF Multi-Family
MHC Mobile Home in the County (not in an existing park)
AA Accessory Apartment
INDEX
Office of Geographic Data Services
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296-5832
Community Development Department
2009
FIRST QUARTER
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY REPORT
County of Albemarle
- 1 -
I. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units
Table I. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Development Area and Rural Area
Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural
1st Quarter 91 36 166 36 57 47
2nd Quarter 132 75 52 48
3rd Quarter 104 47 57 45
4th Quarter 66 62 65 42
393 220 340 171 57 47
Chart A. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Development Area and Rural Area
128
Totals
202
During the first quarter of 2009, 94 certificates of occupancy were issued for 104 dwelling units. There were 23 certificates of occupancy issued
for mobile homes in existing parks, at an exchange rate of $2,500, for a total of $57,500. There were no certificates of occupancy issued for the
conversion of an apartment to a condominium.
200820082007
207
127
100
YEAR TO
DATE
TOTALS
511613
COMP PLAN
AREA
TOTALS
102
107
151
Quarter 20092007
Totals
0
0
104
2009
Totals
104
0
Annual Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Dev
Area
Rural
Area
Dev
Area
Rural
Area
Dev
Area
Rural
Area
Dev
Area
Rural
Area
Dev
Area
Rural
Area
2007 2008 2009* 2010 2011Dwelling UnitsSF Unit Other Units*Through First Quarter
Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services
- 2 -
1st Quarter 2009
II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE
Table II. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Magisterial District and Dwelling Unit Type
MAGISTERIAL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL
DISTRICT SF SFA SF/TH SFC DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS
RIO 5 01000006 6%
JACK JOUETT 2 050012001918%
RIVANNA 9 0 14 000002322%
SAMUEL MILLER 10 20000001212%
SCOTTSVILLE 16 00000301918%
WHITE HALL 17 06000202524%
TOTAL 59 2 26 0 0 12 5 0 104 100%
Table III. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Area and Dwelling Unit Type
DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL
SF SFA SF/TH SFC DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 003001200 15 14%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 40000000 4 4%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 0 0 13 00000 13 13%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 10000000 1 1%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 30000000 3 3%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 10200000 3 3%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 00000000 0 0%
9 0 18 0 0 12 0 0 39 38%
CROZET COMMUNITY 60600000 12 12%
HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY 00200000 2 2%
PINEY MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY 00000000 0 0%
60800000 14 13%
RIVANNA VILLAGE 40000000 4 4%
40000000 4 4%
19 0 26 0 0 12 0 0 57 55%
RURAL AREA 1 10 2000020 14 13%
RURAL AREA 2 90000000 9 9%
RURAL AREA 3 12 0000000 12 12%
RURAL AREA 4 90000030 12 12%
40 2000050 47 45%
59 2 26 0 0 12 5 0 104 100% TOTAL
DEVELOPMENT AREA SUBTOTAL
RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREA
URBAN AREAS SUBTOTAL
COMMUNITIES SUBTOTAL
VILLAGE SUBTOTAL
Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services
- 3 -
1st Quarter 2009
II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE (continued)
Table IV. Breakdown of Residential Dwelling Units by Elementary School District and Dwelling Unit Type
% TOTAL
SF SF/TH DUP MHC UNITS
Agnor-Hurt 4 0 0 0 4%
Baker Butler 3 0 0 0 3%
Broadus Wood 4 0 0 1 5%
Brownsville 12 0 0 0 12%
Cale 4 0 0 0 4%
Crozet 4 6 0 1 11%
Greer 0 5 0 0 16%
Hollymead 0 2 0 0 2%
Meriwether Lewis 1 0 0 0 1%
Murray 3 0 0 0 5%
Red Hill 4 0 0 0 4%
Scottsville 4 0 0 0 4%
Stone Robinson 7 13 0 1 20%
Stony Point 4 0 0 0 4%
Woodbrook 0 0 0 0 0%
Yancey 5 0 0 2 7%
TOTAL
III. COMPARISON OF ALL BUILDING PERMITS
Table V. Estimated Cost of Construction by Magisterial District and Construction Type
MAGISTERIAL #NEW *NEW NON-RES. **NEW COMMERCIAL FARM BUILDING
DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL & ALTER. RES. & NEW INSTITUT. & ALTER. COMM.
No. No. No. No. No.
RIO6 36103183
JOUETT 9 23 2 1 35
RIVANNA 23 35 3 9 70
S. MILLER 12 42 8 2 64
SCOTTSVILLE 19 24 5 2 50
WHITE HALL 25 44 3 3 75
* Additional value of mobile homes placed in existing parks is included in the Alteration Residential category.
* Additional value of Single-Family Condominium Conversions is included in the Alteration Residential category.
..
100%
48 37712,142,475$ 62,185,150$
Amount-$
4,460,025$
1,659,000$
1,031,650$
104
TOTAL
UNITS
21
4
0
7
1
5
4
4
4
11
17
2
4
3
5
12
0
012 5
0
0
0
0
AA
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
387,000$
30,000$
2,275,000$
5,495,845$
3,454,500$
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,932,300$
50,000$
00
Amount-$
617,577$ 1,465,000$
0
9,500$
TOTAL 28,783,549$ 9,446,781$ 31 11,812,345$
170,000$
6,107,300$
5,826,800$
94
1,601,800$
2,711,370$
204
951,272$
2,728,305$
4,233,000$
4,639,000$
6,512,449$
836,456$
Amount-$ Amount-$
0
0
TOTAL
Amount-$
0
0
0
10,469,377$
5,149,456$
12,325,297$
16,395,599$
9,127,750$
8,717,670$
00
00
00
00
2 0
0
00
0
0
0
0
26 0
SCHOOL
DISTRICT SFA SFC
DWELLING UNIT TYPE
MF
00
00
00
00
00
* Additional value of condominium shell buildings is included in the New Non-Residential category. Additional permitting associated with the residential
component of condominium shell buildings will be necessary and reported in other tables of the Building Report as permitting occurs.
** Additional value of mixed use buildings is included in the New Commercial category. Mixed use buildings are comprised of residential and commercial
uses. Additional permitting associated with the residential component of mixed use buildings will be necessary and reported in other tables of the Building
Report as permitting occurs.
00
00
0
59 2
0
Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services
I. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units (Table I & Chart A)
II. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units by Type (Tables II, III, & IV)
III. Comparison of All Building Permits (Table V)
KEY TO TYPES OF HOUSING REFERRED TO IN REPORT
SF Single-Family (includes modular)
SFA Single-Family Attached
SF/TH Single-Family Townhouse
SFC Single-Family Condominium
DUP Duplex
MF Multi-Family
MHC Mobile Home in the County (not in an existing park)
AA Accessory Apartment
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296-5832
INDEX
Office of Geographic Data Services
401 McIntire Road
Community Development Department
2009
FIRST QUARTER
BUILDING REPORT
County of Albemarle
- 2 -
I. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units
Table I. Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Development Area and Rural Area
2009
Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Totals
1st Quarter 88 57 381 96 184 52 51 26 157 123 81 64 267 57 78 49 38 20 58
2nd Quarter 351 88 292 86 133 90 105 107 121 66 101 80 232 38 86 53
3rd Quarter 78 55 305 66 103 72 72 82 188 46 65 67 73 67 47 47
4th Quarter 105 53 426 68 361 84 90 66 68 61 68 49 57 40 28 30
622 253 1404 316 781 298 318 281 534 296 315 260 629 202 239 179 38 20
Chart A. Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Development Area and Rural Area
58575 831 418
COMP PLAN
AREA
TOTALS
Quarter
YEAR TO
DATE
TOTALS
8301079 599875 1720
During the first quarter of 2009, 58 building permits were issued for 58 dwelling units. There were no permits issued for mobile homes in existing
parks. There were no permits issued for the conversion of an apartment to a condominium.
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 200920082007
Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Dev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural Area2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009*Dwelling UnitsSF Unit Other Units*Through First Quarter
Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services
- 3 -
1st Quarter 2009
II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE
Table II. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Magisterial District and Dwelling Unit Type
MAGISTERIAL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL
DISTRICT SF SFA SF/TH SFC DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS
RIO 2 04000028 14%
JACK JOUETT 0 00000000 0%
RIVANNA 4 0 21 000002543%
SAMUEL MILLER 2 10000003 5%
SCOTTSVILLE 8 00000211119%
WHITE HALL 8 20000011119%
TOTAL 24 3 25 0002458100%
Table III. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Area and Dwelling Unit Type
DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL
SF SFA SF/TH SFC DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 00000001 1 2%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 20000000 2 3%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 0 0 21 00000 21 36%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 10000000 1 2%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 00000001 1 2%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 00000000 0 0%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 00000000 0 0%
302100002 26 45%
0
CROZET COMMUNITY 52000000 7 12%
HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY 00400000 4 7%
PINEY MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY 00000000 0 0%
52400000 11 19%
RIVANNA VILLAGE 10000000 1 2%
10000000 1 2%
922500002 38 66%
RURAL AREA 1 11000001 3 5%
RURAL AREA 2 60000000 6 10%
RURAL AREA 3 40000001 5 9%
RURAL AREA 4 40000020 6 10%
15 1000022 20 34%
2432500024 58 100% TOTAL
DEVELOPMENT AREA SUBTOTAL
RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREA
URBAN AREAS SUBTOTAL
COMMUNITIES SUBTOTAL
VILLAGE SUBTOTAL
Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services
- 4 -
1st Quarter 2009
II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE (continued)
Table IV. Breakdown of Residential Dwelling Units by Elementary School District and Dwelling Unit Type
% TOTAL
SF SF/TH DUP MHC UNITS
Agnor-Hurt 2 0 0 0 7%
Baker Butler 1 0 0 0 2%
Broadus Wood 1 0 0 0 2%
Brownsville 6 0 0 0 12%
Cale 1 0 0 0 3%
Crozet 1 0 0 0 5%
Greer 0 0 0 0 0%
Hollymead 0 4 0 0 7%
Meriwether Lewis 0 0 0 0 0%
Murray 1 0 0 0 3%
Red Hill 1 0 0 0 2%
Scottsville 2 0 0 0 3%
Stone Robinson 5 21 0 0 45%
Stony Point 3 0 0 0 5%
Woodbrook 0 0 0 0 0%
Yancey 0 0 0 2 3%
TOTAL
III. COMPARISON OF ALL BUILDING PERMITS
Table V. Estimated Cost of Construction by Magisterial District and Construction Type
MAGISTERIAL NEW *NEW NON-RES. **NEW COMMERCIAL FARM BUILDING
DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL & ALTER. RES. & NEW INSTITUT. & ALTER. COMM.
No. No. No. No. No.
RIO 8 19 2 27 56
JOUETT 0 14 1 10 25
RIVANNA 25 33 6 15 79
S. MILLER 3 24 3 5 35
SCOTTSVILLE 11 22 2 14 49
WHITE HALL 11 28 3 13 55
* Additional value of mobile homes placed in existing parks is included in the Alteration Residential category.
* Additional value of Single-Family Condominium Conversions is included in the Alteration Residential category.
* Additional value of condominium shell buildings is included in the New Non-Residential category. Additional permitting associated with the
residential component of condominium shell buildings will be necessary and reported in other tables of the Building Report as permitting occurs.
** Additional value of mixed use buildings is included in the New Commercial category. Mixed use buildings are comprised of residential and
commercial uses. Additional permitting associated with the residential component of mixed use buildings will be necessary and reported in other
tables of the Building Report as permitting occurs.
TOTAL
100%
84 2994,030,853$ 260,926,835$
Amount-$
0
2,825,465$
9,000$
214,420,000$
12,900,000$
2,472,000$
0
1
1,061,020$
706,700$
938,400$
513,621$
2
544,512$
Amount-$
0
0
4
58
TOTAL
UNITS
26
3
0
2
0
0
4
1
1
7
2
2
3
0
0
0
10
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
Amount-$
547,558$ 1,081,000$
0
Amount-$
0
1
24 3
266,600$
TOTAL 16,401,000$ 7,408,517$ 17 233,086,465$
460,000$
3,946,000$
4,922,000$
58
841,487$
1,005,233$
140
1,276,850$
1,628,389$
-$
5,860,000$
592,000$
2,109,000$
0
0
4
2
Amount-$
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,614,179$
2,662,512$
222,617,870$
15,827,089$
8,551,352$
6,653,833$
00
00
00
0
0
00
0
0
SCHOOL
DISTRICT SFA SFC
DWELLING UNIT TYPE
MF AA
00
00
00
00
00
20
00
00
0
25 0
00
Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services
April 14, 2009
Ashley Cooper
c/o Atwood Architects Inc
250 W . Main St., Suite 100
Charlottesv ille, VA 22902
RE: SP200800029 South Plains Presbyterian Church
Tax Map 80 Parcel 116
Dear Ms. Cooper:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on Marc h 24, 2009, by a vote of 6:1, recommended
approval 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 with the “Conceptual Site Plan” prepared for South
Plains Presbyterian C hurch by Atwood Architects, Inc., dated January 19, 2009. In addition, the follow ing
elements s hall be in strict accord with and or conform to the C onceptual Site Plan: the location of the park ing
area, the location of the new sanctuary and fellowship hall, and the preservation of existing trees.
2. The footprint of the new sanctuary shall not exceed 3,550 square feet. The footprint of the new
fellow ship hall s hall not exceed 5,750 square feet.
3. Provided park ing shall not exc eed 75 spaces.
4. Commercial setback standards , as set forth in Section 21.7.2 of the Albemarle Zoning Ordinance, shall
be maintained adjacent to properties zoned Rural Areas.
5. Storm water facilities and parking lot surfac e meeting the approval of the County Engineer shall be
required before approval of the final site plan for this use.
6. Staff approval of a landscape plan shall be required before approval of the final site plan for this use.
Plantings for screening of the church facilities, to c ons ist of a naturalistic pattern of multispecies trees
and shrubs, as listed in the brochure titled “N ative Plants for Conservation, Restoration, and
Landscaping: Piedmont Plateau,” published by the Virginia Department of Conservation and
R ecreation, are to fill the open area shown on Attachment C of the staff report . These plantings are to
be arranged in a density that w ould mitigate v iews of the new church facilities, w ith a spacing allowing
the natural form/habit of the plant material to be recognized.
7. There s hall be no day care c enter or private s chool on site without approval of a separate special use
permit;
8. Health Department approval of well and/or septic systems.
9. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cutoff fixtures and 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
s hall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receiv e public
comment at their meeting on May 13, 2009.
View s taff report and attachments
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,
Scott Clark
Senior Planner
Planning D ivision
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP200800029 South Plains
Presbyterian Church
Staff: Scott Clark
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
March 24, 2009
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
May 13, 2009
Owner/s: South Plains Church Applicant: South Plains Church
Acreage: 4.95 acres Special Use Permit: 10.2.2.35, 35, church building and
adjunct cemetery
TMP: Tax Map 80 Parcel 116
Location: 410 Black Cat Road, at the intersection
of Black Cat Road (Route 616) and Louisa Road
(Route 22)
Existing Zoning and Byright use:
RA Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots); EC
Entrance Corridor Overlay to protect properties of
historic, architectural or cultural significance from visual
impacts of development along routes of tourist access
Magisterial District: Rivanna Conditions or Proffers: Yes
RA (Rural Areas) Requested # of Dwelling Units: n/a
Proposal: Addition of new fellow ship hall and
sanctuary to existing church
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural Areas
preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space,
and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density ( .5
unit/ acre in development lots)
Character of Property: Historic church site on
rural highway.
Use of Surrounding Properties:
Factors Favorable:
1. There are no know n significant physical limitations
that would prevent this expansion.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The proposed design has significant impacts on the
historic character of the existing church and site, as well as
the Entrance Corridor.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this Special Use Permit with conditions.
Petition:
PROPOSED: A ddition of new fellowship hall a nd sa nctuary to e xisting church.
ZO NING CATEGORY /GENERAL USAGE: RA Rura l Are as: a gricultura l, fore stal, and fishe ry use s; re sidential density (0.5
unit/a cre in development lots); EC Entrance Corridor Overlay to protect prope rties of historic , architectural or cultural significanc e
from visual impa cts of development along routes of tourist access
SECTION: 10.2.2.35, 35, c hurc h building and adjunc t cemetery
COMPREHENSIVE PLA N LAND USE/DEN SITY: Rural A reas preserve and protec t a gricultura l, fore stal, open spac e, and na tural,
historic and scenic resourc es/ density ( .5 unit/ acre in deve lopme nt lots)
EN TRANCE CORRIDOR: Ye s
LO CATION: 410 Bla ck Cat Roa d, at the intersection of Black Cat Road (Route 616) and Louisa Road (Route 22)
Char acter of the Ar ea:
The area is c hara cte rize d by la rge fa rms on the east side of the Southwest Mountains, as well as some smaller reside ntial parc els. The
c hurc h site is included in the Southwest Mounta ins Rural Historic District. The surrounding land is la rgely open, w ith scattere d patc hes
of woods.
The church is located on Route 22, whic h is in the Entranc e Corridor zoning ove rla y and is designate d a Virginia Byway. Union Grove
Church is loc ate d a pproximately 600 feet a wa y to the ea st.
The c hurc h’s date of construc tion cannot be ve rified—some source s say it was built in the e arly 19th c entury, while others sa y it was
built in the 1870s. The church is a good example of verna cular G othic Reviva l architecture. The re ctory wa s built in the 1870s to replac e
the origina l rec tory, which had burned. Both struc ture s contribute to the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District. Se e Attachme nt C
for an ae ria l vie w of the site.
The historic c hurc h ha s a footprint of 1,230 square feet and seats up to 80 people . The c hurc h is currently holding two service s eac h
Sunday in order to ac commodate its me mbership.
Spec ifics of the Proposal:
The a pplica nts are proposing to expand the church use by adding a fe llowship hall with office s and Sunda y sc hool classrooms (5,218
square fee t w ith 126 seats) a nd a connec te d larger sa nctuary (3,200 square fe et with 225 seats). The e xisting church a nd the rectory (or
manse ) would be re tained at their current size . Ne ither of the new structures would c onne ct to the e xisting c hurc h, but the ma nse w ould
be attached to the re ar of the new fe llowship hall. See Attachment D for the proposed pla n for the site , a nd Atta chment E for a n
e levation.
Planning and Zoning History:
South Pla ins Pre sbyte ria n Church is an existing nonc onforming church, as it was construc te d prior to the adoption of z oning in Albe marle
County.
Conformity with the C ompre hensive Plan:
The Comprehe nsive Plan designates the site as Rura l Are as, e mphasiz ing the preserva tion and protection of a gric ultura l, foresta l, ope n
spa ce, and natural, historic and scenic resources.
The Compre hensive Plan’s “Vision for Rural Albemarle County” sa ys that two important features of the Rura l Are as are :
Protected historic structures, archaeologica l sites, and othe r cultural re sources;
Rural citiz ens supported by community meeting plac es, a basic le vel of se rvices, and rura l orga niz ations and other
cultural institutions at
traditional rura l sca les, with opportunities to take part in community life and decisions;
The Guiding Princ iples of the Rural Area c hapter also state that historic re sources a nd sc enic resourc es a re among the defining
c ompone nts of the Rura l Are as.
While this c hurc h currently provides a cultural institution and me eting place at a traditiona l rural sca le, the proposed expansion w ould
provide the same be nefits a t a more suburba n scale (but one intended to support the church’s large r and growing congregation). The
proposed plan w ould re tain the historic chape l (separate fro, but in c lose proximity to, the la rger ne w buildings) but large ly effa ce the
historic ma nse by a ttaching it to the rea r of a new structure.
Regulatory Context:
This application is subject to the First Amendment's Esta blishment and Free Exercise Clauses and the Religious Land Use and
Institutiona lized Persons Ac t of 2000 ("RLUIPA"). One key provision of RLUIPA states:
No government sha ll impose or imple me nt a land use re gulation in a ma nne r tha t imposes a substantial burde n on the re ligious exercise
of a pe rson, including a re ligious a ssembly or institution, unless the government demonstrate s that imposition of the burden on that
person, asse mbly, or institution – (A) is in furtherance of a compelling gove rnme ntal inte re st; a nd (B) is the le ast restric tiv e means of
furthe ring that c ompelling gove rnmental interest. (italics a dde d)
42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a )(1). RLUIPA also requires that land use re gulations: (1) trea t a religious assembly or institution on equal terms
with nonreligious a ssemblie s and institutions; (2) not discriminate aga inst any assembly or institution on the basis of religion or religious
denomination; and (3) not totally exclude re ligious assemblies, or unre asonably limit religious asse mblies, institutions or struc ture s, from
the locality. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc (b).
STAFF COMMENT:
Staff will address ea ch provision of Sec tion 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordina nce .
31.2.4.1: Special Use Pe rmits provided for in this ordinance may be issue d upon a finding by the Board of Supe rvisors that such use
will not be of substantial detrime nt to adjace nt property ,
Neighbors have expressed c onc erns over the visibility of the parking and struc ture s from adjac ent prope rties (see Attachme nt H). The
a pplica nts ha ve moved the proposed parking from the re ar of the property to the front. (Please note that this design c hange c onflicts with
sta ff design review c omments disc usse d below.) Howeve r, the new buildings w ould be visible from the adja cent property to the
southe ast. Staff re commends a condition (#5) to c reate a vege tated buffe r on the 0.38a cre ope n a rea at the southeast side of the c hurc h
prope rty (see Attac hment C) to reduce the visua l impac ts.
that the charac ter of the distric t will not be change d thereby and
The increasing size s of rural churches raise c onc erns over the ir physic al and aesthetic impac ts on their surroundings. In this c ase, the
surrounding district would still be rural in c hara cte r, but this particular property would be more intensely develope d. Howe ver, given the
re gulations discussed above under “Regula tory Conte xt,” an inc rease in a church’s c apac ity is conside red a part of its religious activity.
This a pplica tion ha s be en reviewed by Archite ctural Review Board staff a nd designplanning staff, who have conc erns about how the
proposed plan would impact historic re source s on the site and the historic c hara cte r of the are a, vie ws from the Entra nce Corridor, and
landsc aping on the site. (De sign issues with spec ial use permits are typically reviewed by staff. The full Architec tural Review Board
a nalysis occurs during site pla n review, which occurs a fter spe cia l use pe rmits are approved.) Se e Attachme nt F for designreview
c omme nts, and Attac hment G for historicprese rvation c omme nts and a response from the Historic Preservation Committee .
In summary, these conc erns inc lude:
Change s in historic c hara cte r ca used by locating the new, la rger structure s more prominently than the historic churc h
Loss of significa nt tre es due to building construc tion, and the appropriateness of proposed plantings
Loss of the historic c hara cte r of the ma nse (or rec tory), and resulting incompatibility of building designs, if the ma nse is
attac hed to the rear of
the ne w fellowship hall
Visua l impac ts of the large front parking a rea on the Entra nce Corridor
Significa nt differences remain betwee n the proposed plan a nd sta ff rec omme ndations. Although staff had recommended that the
a pplica nts discuss the se differences with the Commission a t a work se ssion, the applicants ha ve de cided to go direc tly to a public
hearing with the attached proposal.
Staff’s sta nda rd practice with special use permits for churche s is to only re commend approval in ac cord with a spec ific c once ptual plan.
However, given the e xte nt of outstanding design issues in this ca se , staff is rec ommending that the c hurc h not be held to the proposed
c once ptual plan. This would allow the Architectural Re vie w Boa rd to do a full review of the design during the County’s re vie w of the
site pla n for this use, wherea s a specific conceptua l pla n would severe ly limit the scope of the ir review.
There fore staff is recommending that only the size of the expansion be controlled by this special use permit. Proposed condition #1 w ould
a llow for a ten pe rcent inc rease over the propose d building sizes in orde r to a llow minor c hanges without the ne ed for a spe cia l use
permit amendment.
and with the public health, safety and general we lfare.
The Virginia Department of Transporta tion has c onfirmed tha t the planned entranc e, w hic h is located on Bla ck Cat Roa d rather than on
Route 22, is a cceptable.
The applicants ha ve stated tha t 75 parking spac es are ne eded for the eventual total sanc tua ry sea ting capacity of 225 persons. Staff is
re commending a condition of approval limiting parking to 75 spaces in orde r to e nsure tha t traffic and water quality impacts do not
incre ase beyond those expected from the current proposal. The a pplica nts have proposed to use porous pave rs in the parking are a to
re duc e runoff, which staff supports. The specific pave rs to be used will nee d to be a pproved by the County Engineer during site plan
re vie w in order to ensure that mate ria ls appropriate to the intensity of this use a re insta lle d.
The submitted c once ptual plan doe s not show stormwate r facilities. At the siteplan stage , those fac ilities will ne ed to be shown and
a pproved by the County Engine er.
SUMMARY:
There are two distinct aspects to this review—the ge nera l he alth, safety, and we lfa re impa ct of the use, and the impa ct of this partic ula r
design on historic preserva tion and the Entrance Corridor. Staff fe els tha t the use as proposed a t this loca tion is ac ceptable in terms of
general he alth, safe ty, and welfare c onsiderations. How ever, staff still ha s significant concerns about the de sign of the addition, and
fe els tha t design review should be carried out by the Archite ctural Re vie w Boa rd at the site plan stage without the limita tions of a
c once ptual plan.
Staff has identified the following fa ctors favorable to this applica tion:
1. The re a re no known significant physic al limita tions that would prevent this e xpa nsion.
Staff has identified the following fa ctors unfavora ble to this application:
1. The proposed de sign ha s significant impac ts on the historic character of the existing church a nd site, as w ell as the
Entrance Corridor.
RECOMMENDED ACTION :
Ba se d on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of SP 200800029 South Plains Presbyterian Church with
the following conditions:
1. The footprint of the new sanc tuary shall not exc eed 3,550 squa re fe et. The footprint of the new fellowship hall sha ll
not e xcee d 5,750
square feet.
2. Provided parking shall not e xceed 75 spaces.
3. Comme rcia l se tba ck standards, as set forth in Sec tion 21.7.2 of the Albemarle Zoning Ordinanc e, shall be ma intained
adjace nt to
prope rties zoned Rura l Are as.
4. Stormwate r fa cilities and parking lot surfac e mee ting the approval of the County Enginee r sha ll be require d before
approva l of the final site
plan for this use .
5. Staff approva l of a la ndsca pe pla n sha ll be require d before a pproval of the final site pla n for this use. Plantings for
sc reening of the c hurc h
fac ilities, to consist of a na tura listic patte rn of multispecies trees a nd shrubs, as liste d in the brochure titled “Na tive
Plants for
Conse rvation, Restora tion, and Landscaping: Piedmont Plateau,” publishe d by the Virginia De partme nt of
Conservation and Recrea tion,
a re to fill the open area shown on Atta chment C of the staff re port . These pla ntings are to be arra nge d in a density
that would mitigate
views of the new c hurc h fa cilities, with a spac ing a llowing the natural form/habit of the plant material to be
recognized.
6. The re sha ll be no da y c are center or private school on site without approva l of a sepa rate spec ial use pe rmit;
7. He alth Departme nt approva l of well and/or septic systems.
8. All outdoor lighting sha ll be only full cutoff fixtures and shie lde d to refle ct light a wa y from all abutting properties. A
lighting plan limiting
light leve ls at a ll property lines to no greater tha n 0.3 foot c andles sha ll be submitte d to the Zoning Administrator or
their designee for
approva l.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Area Map
Attachment B – Detail Map
Attachment C – Conceptual Plan
Attachment D – Aerial Photo
Attachment E – Elevation
Attachment F – ARB Staff Comments
Attachment G – Design Planner Comments on Historic Preservation (refers to original
submission)
Attachment H – Comment from neighboring landowners
Attachment I – Letter to Planning Commission from Applicants
Return to PC actions letter
SP 2008-29
PC March 24, 2009
Staff Report Page 6
Attachment A
SP 2008-29
PC March 24, 2009
Staff Report Page 7
Attachment B
SP 2008-29
PC March 24, 2009
Staff Report Page 8
Attachment C
SP 2008-29
PC March 24, 2009
Staff Report Page 9
Attachment D
SP 2008-29
PC March 24, 2009
Staff Report Page 10
Attachment E
SP 2008-29
PC March 24, 2009
Staff Report Page 11
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
MEMORANDUM
TO: Scott Clark
FROM: Brent Nelson
RE: Design Planning comments on: SP 2008-29: South Plains Presbyterian Church,
Construction of the Fellowship Hall, Sanctuary, and Parking
Lot
DATE: March 11, 2009
I have reviewed the revised plan submitted for the above-referenced proposal (Sheets A0, SP2, and SP3 dated 1/19/09;
Sheet SP1 with revision date of 11/14/08; Sheet SP4 with revision date of 1/17/09; and architectural rendering undated
and received 2/17/09). I have the following comments related to Entrance Corridor issues.
Issue: Loss of Significant Trees
Comments: The pastoral setting of the historic church and manse is a primary feature of the site’s scenic quality. The
setting of the church contributes significantly to the character of the rural corridor. The Architectural Review Board is
charged with approving only site and building proposals that reflect designs which are compatible with historically
significant architecture of Albemarle County. The location of the proposed sanctuary (Phase 2), as shown on the current
submission, requires the removal of an existing 33” Red Oak located 20’ northeast of the proposed sanctuary. This tree,
and others like it, contributes significantly to the vernacular landscape of Route 22, so its loss would significantly
impact the Corridor. It appears that shifting the location of the sanctuary and fellowship hall southeastward could avoid
the removal of this tree. Staff cannot support a proposal that would remove significant trees when alternate building
locations are available.
Recommendations: Revise the Conceptual Site Plan to show the 33” Red Oak, located 20’ northeast of the proposed
sanctuary, remaining. Revise the plan by shifting the location of the proposed Sanctuary and Fellowship Hall footprints
southeastward to avoid conflicts with the canopy and root system of the 33” Red Oak
Issue: Proposed Building Design/Compatibility with Manse
Comments: In this latest submission, the sanctuary footprint, previously 95’x48’ (4,560 sf) has been reduced in size to
50’x65’ (3,250 sf). The location of the northwest (EC) elevation of the sanctuary has been shifted southeastward, away
from the Corridor, to align with the adjacent northwest (EC) elevation of the fellowship hall. Whereas the reduction in
size and relocation of the sanctuary footprint represent positive steps in giving the existing church more visual
hierarchy, the location and size of the fellowship hall continues to deemphasize the architecture of the existing historic
church. Shifting the location of the proposed sanctuary and fellowship hall further southeastward, so the distance from
the Entrance Corridor to the front (northwest) elevation of the existing church and the northwest (EC) elevation of the
proposed sanctuary and fellowship hall is more equal, would give the architecture of the existing church more
hierarchy, as viewed from the Corridor. This would further help to mitigate the imbalance in scale between the existing
and proposed structures.
Attachment F
SP 2008-29
PC March 24, 2009
Staff Report Page 12
The existing 2-story, frame rectory, adjoining the south (rear) elevation of the proposed fellowship hall, originally
designated for demolition, is designated as to remain in the current proposal. It appears that the upper section of this
structure would be visible from the Entrance Corridor; however, it is not shown in the perspective drawing provided
with this latest submission. The rectory, while an important historic structure that should be retained and reused, is of
an architectural style and material (frame) composition that is not compatible with the sanctuary and fellowship hall. As
a result, it would have an awkward and unresolved appearance in its current close proximity to the sanctuary and
fellowship hall. This awkward relationship would be even more visible from the Corridor during Phase 1 of this
development due to construction of the proposed sanctuary not taking place until Phase 2 of the development.
Relocating the existing rectory to another location on the parcel where it maintains an appropriate distance from and
orientation to the proposed structures would be more appropriate.
Recommendations: Revise the Conceptual Site Plan by shifting the location of the proposed sanctuary and fellowship
hall southeastward so the distance from the Entrance Corridor to the front (northwest) elevation of the existing church
and the northwest (EC) elevation of the proposed sanctuary and fellowship hall is more equal, giving the architecture of
the existing church more hierarchy, as viewed from the Corridor. If possible, relocate the existing rectory, displaced by
the revised sanctuary/fellowship hall location, to a location on the parcel that would provide an appropriate distance
from and orientation to the proposed structures.
Issue: Proposed Parking/Location and Design
Comments: In the previous submission, half of the proposed parking (45 spaces) was shown behind, southeast of, the
proposed sanctuary and fellowship hall. The other half (45 spaces) was shown in the northeast corner of the parcel,
adjacent to the Route 22 Entrance Corridor. In this latest submission, all of the proposed parking (75 spaces) is shown
in an L-shape lot centered in the north corner of the site, directly adjacent to the Route 22 Entrance Corridor and the
Route 616 right-of-way. The edge of the parking lot is shown approximately 15’ from the Route 22 pavement edge and
10’ from the Route 616 pavement edge. Street trees are proposed, 35’ on center, between the parking lot and the Route
22 Corridor. The urban-like appearance of this parking lot design, further hi-lited with the characteristic consistent
spacing of street trees, is inappropriate for the rural setting of this Corridor. The location and design of the parking lot
detracts from the architecture of the existing and proposed structures, while also reducing the wooded appearance that
currently characterizes the setting.
Recommendations: Revise the proposal to show a minimum of parking between the existing/proposed buildings and the
Route 22 Entrance Corridor. Show the remaining parking at the rear of the site, behind the buildings. Provide a
landscape proposal that retains the wooded character of the site, as seen from the Corridor, with the planting of
additional trees.
Attachment F
SP 2008-29
PC March 24, 2009
Staff Report Page 13
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 MEMORANDUM
TO: Scott Clark
FROM: Margaret Maliszewski
DATE: March 11, 2009
RE: SP-2008-29: South Plains Presbyterian Church
I have reviewed the revised plan submitted for the above-referenced proposal (Sheets A0, SP2 and SP3
dated 1/19/09; Sheet SP1 with revision date of 11/14/08; Sheet SP4 with revision date of 1/17/09; and
architectural rendering undated and received 2/17/09). I have the following comments related to historic
preservation issues.
Sources differ as to the construction date of the South Plains Church. Some cite the early nineteenth
century as the date of construction; others say the 1870s. The church is a good example of vernacular
Gothic Revival architecture. The rectory was built in the 1870s to replace the original rectory which had
burned. Both structures contribute to the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District.
Issue: Parking/Wooded Area
Comments: The parking layout has changed from the previous proposal. Parking is no longer proposed
behind the church. It is now proposed in an L-shaped lot centered at the north corner of the site, along
the Route 22 Entrance Corridor and along Route 616. This parking layout has a suburban appearance
that is not appropriate for this EC and its location between the building and the EC diminishes the visual
prominence of the church. Its location (and the proposed development, in general) also limits the ability
of the site to maintain a wooded rural character that is the appropriate historic appearance for this
corridor. Although the planting of new trees with the development is appropriate, the consistently spaced
row of trees proposed along the parking area projects an appearance that is inconsistent with the historic
character of the site and the corridor. The loss of mature trees is a concern.
Recommendations: Maintain a minimal amount of parking at the front of the site. Move parking to the
rear of the site. Maintain a rural wooded appearance along Route 22 and Route 616 by retaining existing
trees and planting new trees.
Issue: Position of new buildings
Comments: The prominence of the historic church is reduced by the size and position of the fellowship
hall and the phase 2 sanctuary. Placing the new structures forward of the front elevation of the historic
church is not a positive aspect of this proposal. The perspective rendering can be a useful tool; however,
architectural elevations illustrating the proposed additions together with the existing church are needed
to fully assess the impacts of the proposal, particularly regarding compatibility of building heights and
Attachment G
SP 2008-29
PC March 24, 2009
Staff Report Page 14
scale.
Recommendations: Locate the new structures so that they do not project forward of the front elevation of
the historic church.
Issue: Rectory
Comments:
• The proposal retains the rectory, which is positive. However, the integrity and significance of the
rectory are destroyed by the method of connecting the buildings and the resulting relationship among
the buildings. The junction of the buildings is expected to have an extremely awkward appearance.
Building the new structures around the rectory, as proposed, ignores its historic significance and
discounts its architectural form and character.
• Should demolition of the rectory be considered to accommodate an alternate site layout, full
documentation of the structure prior to demolition would be appropriate.
Recommendations: If the rectory is to be retained, integrate it into the new development in a way that
retains it historic character, significance and integrity. If the rectory will be demolished, provide the
County will full documentation of the structure in photographs and drawings. The documentation shall
be undertaken by a qualified architectural historian. The rectory shall not be demolished prior to
approval of the site plan for the development.
Issue: Pergola
Comments: The pergola is represented differently on the rendering and the site plan. Located in front of
the historic church, the pergola tends to diminish the church’s significance.
Recommendations: Coordinate drawings regarding the location of the pergola. Eliminate the pergola
from in front of the historic church.
General Recommendations: Any development plan for this historic site should be established in a way
that maintains the prominence of the existing sanctuary. It is recommended that new structures be
located to reinforce the existing church as the main resource on site. Positioning new structures behind
the front face of the existing church is recommended. It is preferred that the rectory also be retained and
fully integrated into the development, but maintaining the prominence of the existing church is the
priority. Maintaining the character of the wooded site is also important, particularly along Route 22 and
Route 616. This will require a significant reduction in the size of the parking lot at the front of the site.
Historic Preservation Committee comments: Following the request of a member of the Historic
Preservation Committee to see the proposal, the Historic Preservation Committee discussed the proposal
at its meeting on December 22, 2008. The committee had the following comments regarding the
11/14/08 plan:
• The historic character of the existing sanctuary should be respected. The sanctuary and the rectory
are contributing structures in the Southwest Mountains Historic District.
• The proposed development does not protect the historic character of the sanctuary or the rectory.
• The historic nature of Route 22 and the landscape along it should be respected.
• Access to the site should be limited to Black Cat Road; access should not be made from Route 22.
• Trees located between the face of the addition and Route 22 should not be disturbed. Tree protection
throughout the site is extremely important.
• Establish additional vegetation to compensate for lost trees, particularly at Route 22/Black Cat Road.
Attachment G
SP 2008-29
PC March 24, 2009
Staff Report Page 15
January 30, 2009
Scott Clark, Senior Planner
County of Albemarle, Community Planning Dept.
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
RE: South Plains Church, Keswick, Site Plan – Revision 2
Dear Scott:
Thanks for allowing me to review the newly revised site plan (dated January 20, 2009) of the South Plains Church.
To recap, our property is Heathcote Farm, the 16.617 acre parcel that is T.M. 80 PAR. 114A, Parcel No. 08000-
00-00-114A0. Our property borders the church on the two sides where the church does not border public roads.
In addition, not contiguous to the church, but within approximately 12-20 feet of its western border, we also own
4027 Louisa Road, Keswick, T.M. 80 PAR 115, Parcel No. 0800-00-00-11500, which will also be significantly
impacted by development of the church property.
W e appreciate that the most recent revision has addressed our concerns regarding parking and traffic into the rear
and interior of the site. Having the front of the new sanctuary face the front of the property and placing all the
parking in the front areas of the property is a significant improvement that is better not only for us as the church’s
immediate neighbor, but for the entire community.
W e do, however, continue to share the County’s other concerns raised in its review of the original plan regarding
the loss of trees and the siting and size of the buildings, and their potential to diminish the beauty and significance
of the original church.
W e do wish to note that even with the helpful changes in this revision, this project will still cause a significant
disturbance to, and detrimental impact on, our property. As the winter photos of the area I sent to you last
December illustrate, the existing buffer is made up of hardwood trees. W hen they drop their leaves, we have a
clear view of the church and manse from our property, and we will have a clear view of the two new buildings as
well. To reduce these negative impacts, we recommend that as a condition of the special use permit, evergreen
trees be planted as added screening, perhaps along the line of the existing tree line. Because the location of
these trees would be at a significantly lower elevation than the new buildings, it will take many years before that
buffer adequately screens either Kirk Hall or the Sanctuary. Therefore, these evergreens should be planted in
Phase One and be at least as large as those planted by the Little Keswick School as part of its construction of a
dormitory on our western boundary, which was a condition of their special use permit. In your December
comments, you suggested native plantings for a buffer, and we look forward to working with you on that.
W e hope these comments have been constructive and look forward to receiving your and the county’s
comments on the revised site plan.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Rintels
Patricia C. Rintels
Attachment H
SP 2008-29
PC March 24, 2009
Staff Report Page 16
ATWOOD
ARCHITECTS
INC.
!
"#$%$&
’!(
$)
%’’’)
*’+’,’-%’’
".--%’’’’!!%%!-’’
/’’%’%’0 ’’-%’
’%’,’’’’’
• ’’%%’!’’’
/!%%%!%!*’’-’
*’’-’-’%%
%’’%%%%1 ’!!’
• ’’--,%!-!%%’2 ’’
’’’’’%-!’%-%’-
’
• ’’’%!-%%’-’’2
’3 /2 ’%’%%’’%’’
*’%’’’’’’%’
!%’’’%’!%’!’’’-
’%
• *-’’’’’’’’’
%!%’%34 /2
’%’’’’’’"5"4 646 *’%
’
’#
Attachment I
SP 2008-29
PC March 24, 2009
Staff Report Page 17
SP 2008-29
PC March 24, 2009
Staff Report Page 18
Albemarle County Planning Commission
March 24, 2009
The Albemarle C ounty Planning Commission held a public hearing, work session and meeting on Tuesday, March
24, 2009, at 6:00 p.m., at the C ounty Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesv ille, Virginia.
Members attending were Marcia Joseph, Don Franco, Calvin Morris, Bill Edgerton, Linda Porterfield, Thomas Loac h,
Vice Chairman and Eric Strucko, C hairman. Mr. Edgerton arrived at 6:02 p.m. J ulia Monteith, AICP, nonvoting
representative for the University of Virginia was absent.
Other officials present were W ayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Juan Wade, Transportation Planner; Scott
Clark, Senior Planner; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner 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.
SP200800029 South Plains Presbyterian C hurch
PROPOSED : Addition of new fellowship hall and sanctuary to existing church.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: R A Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses ; residential
density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots); EC Entrance Corridor Overlay to protect properties of historic,
architec tural or cultural significance from visual impacts of development along routes of tourist acc ess
SECTION: 10.2.2.35, 35, church building and adjunct cemetery
COMPREHEN SIVE PLAN LAND U SE/DEN SITY: Rural Areas pres erve and protect agricultural, forestal, open
space, and natural, his toric and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre in development lots)
ENTR ANCE CORRIDOR : Yes
LOCATION: 410 Black Cat Road, at the intersection of Black Cat Road (Route 616) and Louisa R oad (R oute 22)
TAX MAP/PAR CEL: Tax Map 80 Parcel 116
MAGISTER IAL DISTR ICT: Rivanna
(Scott C lark)
Mr. Clark pres ented a Pow erPoint presentation and s ummarized the staff report. (See staff report and PowerPoint
presentation)
This is a request for a s pecial use permit is to allow the addition of a new fellowship hall and sanctuary to an
existing 19th century church. There is a wooded area at the southwest end of the parcel. There is a stream buffer.
There are tw o distinct as pects to this review—the general health, safety, and welfare impact of the use, and the
impact of this particular design on historic preserv ation and the Entrance Corridor. Staff feels that the use as
proposed at this location is acceptable in terms of general health, safety , and welfare c onsiderations . The entrance
is adequately sited and staff has no concern with that. However, staff still has significant concerns about the des ign
of the addition, and feels that design review should be carried out by the Architectural Review Board at the siteplan
stage without the limitations of a conceptual plan. The parking area is larger due to the increas e in size of the
church. The parking area is very visible because it wraps around to the front of the property along the entrance
corridor. The landscaping will be covered in more detail at the site plan phase.
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. There are no known signific ant physical limitations that would prevent this expansion.
Staff has identified the following factors unfavorable to this application:
1. The proposed design has significant impacts on the historic character of the existing church and
site, as well as the Entranc e Corridor. Staff is concerned with what happens to the manse. The
manse is 19th century and when attached to the new building will not be v isible.
Staff’s rec ommendation is somewhat different than the way they have treated other churches in the past.
Rather than recommending approval of a particular conceptual plan acknowledging that the sc ale of the
enlargement of the church c an be accommodated on the s ite staff is recommending approval of a church of
that scale with a fellowship hall as propos ed with about a ten percent addition to acc ommodate later changes.
However, staff is not recommending approval based on this specific plan because there are still a lot of issues
to be worked out. Therefore staff would leave the rev iew of the exact arrangement of the buildings to the
Architectural Review Board during the site plan process rather than approving a plan that Design Planning staff
has a lot of concerns with and then sev erally limiting the review of the ARB. Based on the findings c ontained
in this s taff report, staff recommends approval of SP 200800029 South Plains Presbyterian Churc h with the
following conditions. The first condition limits the siz es of the buildings to ten percent more than is currently
proposed and the 75 spac es as proposed. Most of the remainder of these c onditions is standard conditions for
churches, except for condition #5 whic h calls for the open area to the rear of the property to be filled in with
trees and shrubs essentially in order to increase the screening of the property from neighboring properties.
1. The footprint of the new sanctuary shall not ex ceed 3,550 square feet. The footprint of the new
fellowship hall shall not exceed 5,750 square feet.
2. Provided park ing shall not exceed 75 spac es.
3. C ommerc ial setback standards, as set forth in Section 21.7.2 of the Albemarle Zoning Ordinance,
shall be maintained adjacent to properties zoned Rural Areas.
4. Stormwater facilities and parking lot surfac e meeting the approval of the County Engineer shall be
required before approval of the final site plan for this use.
5. Staff approval of a landsc ape plan shall be required before approval of the final site plan for this
use. Plantings for s creening of the church facilities, to consist of a naturalistic pattern of multi
species trees and shrubs , as listed in the brochure titled “Native Plants for Conservation,
R estoration, and Landsc aping: Piedmont Plateau,” published by the Virginia Department of
C onservation and R ecreation, are to fill the open area shown on Attac hment C of the staff report .
These plantings are to be arranged in a density that would mitigate views of the new church
facilities, w ith a spacing allowing the natural form/habit of the plant material to be recogniz ed.
6. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approv al of a separate special
use permit;
7. Health Department approval of well and/or septic systems .
8. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cutoff fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from all
abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light lev els at all property lines to no greater than 0.3
foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval.
Mr. Struck o invited questions from the C ommission.
Mr. Morris noted that this was the first time that he had seen the rec ommendation on the sc reen. The staff report
says based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of SP 200800029 South Plains
Presbyterian Church w ith the conditions listed in the staff report, whic h does not include Architectural Review Board
approval as part of the recommendation.
Mr. Clark replied that he addressed that issue in the body of the report and it was not part of the conditions . This
explanation is just an attempt to sum up and explain the process at the end of the pres entation.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the fact there is no condition on a conceptual plan included among the eight conditions
would result in the site plan determining how the s ite is laid out and the ARB having its review. On this s lide s taff is
telling the C ommission w hat would happen w ith the results of the conditions.
Mr. Morris pointed out that all he was s aying w as that it w as not in the recommendations or the conditions.
Mr. Clark said that the ARB rev iew is a s tandard part of the site plan process. Staff does not include elements that
are already required in the conditions.
Ms. Porterfield noted that comments and concerns have been expres sed by area and adjacent residents as w ell as
members of the congregation. By staff’s recommendation it would take away the ability to be completely open
about how this site is going to be planned. She questioned w hy staff is doing that.
Mr. Clark replied that the Architectural Review Board is a public proc ess .
Ms. Porterfield noted that the Architectural R eview Board is not sitting here listening to everybody who is going to
come up and talk . She asked if there was a way the Commission through a motion could at leas t provide to the
ARB some know ledge as to where things need to be placed and then let them make a decision if they like or dislike
that.
Mr. Cilimberg said that if the Commission so determines that they w ant to give the ARB further guidance than has
been recommended then they certainly c an. The C ommission could go so far as to recommend that the Board
include the conceptual plan that the applicant has offered as one of the conditions, which would then tell the ARB
that is the way it needs to be. The Commission has to decide in their majority vote how they want to recommend
that to the Board. Staff has given the recommendation that reflects the input from the Design Planner, which is not
necessarily what all of the people have s aid that they want to s ee. So it is a decision left up to the Commiss ion
whether to recommend more than what staff has sugges ted in the conditions. The Commiss ion c ould go so far as
going bac k to the standard condition that has been us ed in the past inc luding the conceptual plan if they feel
comfortable w ith it.
Mr. Loach questioned the parking that s ays 75 spaces . In the specifics of the proposal it says class room size for
126 seats and the largest sanctuary with 225 s eats. How does the number of seats correlate to the number of
parking spaces required?
Mr. Clark replied that usually staff as ks the church to do a parking study to determine what their ow n needs are
rather than applying a single standard. In this case they went with the former standard that they use to apply, which
was one parking space per three (3) seats in the area of as sembly. That is the way park ing is usually calculated and
not from the class rooms.
Mr. Struck o opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to come forward and address the C ommission.
Bill Atw ood said he was present with Ashley Cooper and members of the South Plains C hurch. H e presented a
PowerPoint presentation and explained the proposal for the historic c hurch.
They c oncur with the comment that this is the postcard of the community. Actually his relationship w ith
this building started in 1995 when the Japanese government asked them to do a village in H iros hima. A
delegation came to Albemarle County and selected this church as their symbol of Christian faith. They built
a replic ate in Hiros hima as part of that village. So they k now this churc h very w ell. It is more than a
postcard. This is a community of caring people who are tak ing care of their family and have been good
neighbors. They have been folks that have taken care of this particular historic church for 190 years without
bathrooms in the churc h itself. They define this as a three part church scheme – the church itself w ith
people that play in the front yard; to the cemetery that is historic to the century which is the large 51” R ed
Oak and its twin the 48” wide oak behind the manse. They did a tree s tudy on the trees as they relate to
the site. The s ite is twothirds cov ered with the trees on the site, a 27,000 square foot cemetery , an 18,000
s quare foot parking lot and the building. There is a small strip of critical slopes.
Four years ago they created a plan that pulled the building back but took dow n the manse. That w as not
their primary concern. It became apparent as they got adjacent to the old sanctuary itself w ith the low clear
w indows that they were actually violating the view shed. Placing a building in this position it was their
opinion that it would actually be one of the most offensive things that c ould happen to the scale of the
c hurch itself. It would only be w orse if actually touching the church. They s ubmitted a scheme that plac ed
the parking behind the church s upplemented by parking that is actually on the existing parking lot.
They took this s cheme to a town hall meeting in September. W ith this he felt that they got a very positive
response from the attendees. He thought that the neighbors, Mr. Rintels and his wife along with Peter
H allock, actually had some s urprise of the scheme and did register a conc ern for the hardw ood edge as it
relates to their property. They agreed to meet with them again and did. They indicated that the parking lot
takes out s ome of the trees. The two century trees are very much in doubt because of the narrowness of
the 40’ separation between the tree and the cemetery. They then attempted a s cheme where they took
more spaces and w ent with spaces in the front and back out of the buffer. They discussed that and some
other alternatives w ith the Rintels and the conclusion with the trees w as pretty much the s ame that they
w ere taking out a large number of trees. It became apparent in the conversation that it became apparent in
the conversation that the problem of taking a drivew ay on the back side of that church was going to take out
two of the biggest trees in that part of the county .
He noted that this drawing was shown to the community with many of the questions answ ered. They really
don’t see anywhere else that the sanctuary c ould go other than down the hill. They feel that the sanctuary
s hould step forward because it is the new major element to the site and has a certain scale to it. They
decided to do a parking study to attempt to get the numbers dow n to see if they could actually take some of
the parking away from the Rintels’ side. They started studying buildings in the area. Staff called their
s olution kind of suburban. He noted several ex amples of other churches w here the parking is predominantly
in front of the c hurch, others on the side and pretty much all over the place. They actually came up the
c urrent parking scheme. The social viability for a church w as found to be at the front door and parking.
People tend to spill out the front. It would be a diss erv ice to the Rintels to have that pouring out in the
back. They decided to go with the gras s pav ed scenario with a gravel paved road. All of that other than the
road is green or a substitute material that w ould be approved by the county. All of the large trees between
the church and the Rintels would be protected. There are really only two trees in the park ing area that will
be at risk. They are committed to save the red oak that is in question w ith staff. If they have to they will
move the new s anctuary back , which will not be built for another five years. But they are committed to
s aving that tree, also.
One of the suggestions that came out of the town hall meeting w as to build a stone w all like the one across
the street. They dec ided to trim out the parking area with the stone w all all the way around the park ing
area. This is in the Architectural Rev iew Board venue. But they feel that in this scenario if they take the
portico scale and the gothic formula and sc ale and begin to create almost like a Jeffersonian pavilion look
for the fellowship hall the large footprint can be brok en down in elements that makes sense with this
c hurch. But it makes total sense architecturally to step forw ard allowing the trellis, which will be stepped
back away from the church, to create a main street that goes right through the church by the manse. It is
their main s treet in. It gives those people w ho are challenged access to the church in a short distance.
They feel quite comfortably that the appropriate thing to do is to create a family of forms in w hich the original
s anctuary is part of that family. There will be no ridge in this scenario that will be higher than the
s anctuary. They feel that it is appropriate. The sanctuary will be tucked somewhat behind the trees. It will
really be a pretty low impact building.
He requested approval of phase one tonight w hich would allow them to go ahead in the first fiv e years to
c onstruct the building and use the existing park ing lot that has been used for years. He presented their
proposed final site plan, which was their final dream. He as ked the community to support their dream.
Mr. Struck o invited questions for the applicant.
Ms. Joseph noticed on site plan it shows an area labeled the septic location for phase 1. She as ked if they have a
septic location for phas e 2 when that goes in.
Mr. Atwood replied that it is the same. They are committing on phas e one to use the existing park ing lot, renew the
septic s ystem and build Kirk Hall.
Ms. Joseph asked if the septic system that is shown w ill serve the ultimate build out, and Mr. Atw ood replied yes.
Ms. Joseph understood that engineering will not approve the grass pav ers at this point in time that they are
proposing. They are looking at other means of pavement, but they will probably have some s torm w ater run off from
the roof tops of these things.
Mr. Atwood said that they are propos ing a water catchment. Every building they do now has a water catchment.
They w ill use that water to take care of toilets and other aspects and are committed to that cause. The calculations
in phase one literally with the existing parking staying the w ay it is w ill be presented during site plan approval.
Mr. Morris asked that he refresh his memory from the Tow n Hall meeting in September about relegated parking.
One of the proposals mentioned in the briefing was relegated parking and Mr. Edgerton w as very concerned about
the relegated parking in the rear. H e as ked if the reason they were giving up the relegated parking in the rear w as
due to a number of problems for the neighbors including the trees.
Mr. Atwood replied that they could not create a road surface in the rear that would guarantee saving the big trees .
Therefore, this entrance needs to be turned towards the front to make peac e for the neighbors. He felt that the
grass pavers would create a minimal impac t in creating a parking scenario on the busy side of the street with a
stone edge which would minimiz e the visual considerations. That was the beginning of their discussions with the
Rintels about that area in the back. He felt that the best solution would be to leave it alone.
Mr. Struck o opened the public hearing and invited public comment.
David Garth, Pastor of South Plains Presbyterian Churc h, thanked the Commission and planning staff for the efforts
put into the consideration of the church plans. They are coming before the Commission tonight not to start a new
business on the corner of Black Cat Road and R oute 22, but to come as people who have really sacrific ed for 190
years to maintain that building with a lot of sweat equity and a lot of hard cash as the years have gone by. They
have always been more than an artifact of the past. That is important to emphasize here. They are a liv ing
breathing part of the Kes wick community. They do support area food banks, the ministry at the Winter Hav en
Nursing Home and other similar type of activities in the area. They feel that they make a contribution to the
community . At times they have seen this church survive by the grace of God. They have gotten to a place that
they feel w ith a modes t expansion in membership that they can be a healthy self s upporting churc h. They don’t
want to crowd out the present sanctuary. They are very much committed to the beauty of that area. They feel that
plan presented tonight acc omplishes all of those things within the parameters of the county. Therefore, they ask for
the Commission’s support.
Marian Thompson, resident of Lake Monticello, spok e in support of the request. She wrote a history of the church in
1994. She explained the history noting that South Plains C hurch became the fifth Presbyterian Church in the
county. Her heart was touched by all of the faithful s erv ice that she read about w hen she studied the history of the
church and she prayed that the C ommission would consider their need for growth and to further the Christian gos pel
in Charlottesville, Albemarle C ounty and Lake Monticello.
Travis Taylor, an Elder at South Plains Church, said that his family, which included his wife and son, has been
members since 2004. They live in the Boyd Tavern area of eastern Albemarle not too far from the church. He w as
employed an engineer in Albemarle County. The strong tradition of community involvement and warm friendship of
the fellowship and community attracted his family to this church. As a family with a young child they have found the
congregation of this churc h to have a lov ing and supportive fellowship. They w ant their family to grow up in a strong
faith community with fac ilities and programs that foster good citizenship and a caring life. In order to achiev e these
goals the churc h needs the following basic needs: adequate c lassroom and nursery space, a room where the whole
congregation can gather for meals and fellowship and a safe clean restroom. Their dream is not for a large churc h,
but only for church fac ilities adequate for the programs and activities that w ill nurture their families. They feel that
the building plans presented are entirely in keeping w ith the historic Kesw ick community of whic h South Plains is a
vital part.
Abby Brown said s he has been going to South Plains Church for ten yeas. Many people have joined since s he w as
born. They need a new building because they are c row ded and need more room for classrooms and activ ities . It
will be very helpful.
Carl Buck, res ident of the old Boyd Tavern structure, said that his family chose to live in this area because they
were big believers of preserving history. When they lived in N orth Carolina they joined the National Trust Society
and hav e been contributors to that caus e for quite some time. It has not been easy refurbishing the old Boyd Tavern
structure because there have been many challenges. They bec ame members of the South Plains Presbyterian
Church in 2005. One of the crucial factors in choosing to worship at the church was the congregation’s commitment
to continue to honor its historic positions in the area as well as its classic 19th century sanctuary.
Jeff Buck, son of Carl Buck, pointed out that he and his brother were the only two in their c lass for the teen Sunday
school. Their classroom is also a storage room. It is really cramped. There are number of things crammed in the
storage room such as a television, a ladder and clothes. He w as also part of a new youth group with this church
and two other churches. They have not been able to have any youth groups meetings at their church due to the s ize
of each room. He hoped that the Commission would allow them to build Kurt Hall in order to make more room for
everybody and everything to have its own place.
Carl Buc k noted that as Jeff said the c hurch is simply out of room. The feel that it is difficult for the church to
continue the next generation of Presbyterians in this area is simply because they don’t hav e the facilities to
welcome other people aboard. H e emphasized that they were w ork ing with other local churches to continue
community involvement with the youth in the community. Their church accepts its res ponsibility to treas ure the
history that it provides to the Keswic k area. He hoped that the Commission would take into consideration their
request to add Kurt Hall to be a valuable part of the community.
Joanna Hadata, an area resident, noted that she and her husband retired to the area 15 years ago and loves the area
and its w onderful historic back ground. She c omes from the Old Dutch Church of Sleepy Hollow that was built in
1685, which is famous in Washington Irving’s legion. There is really a church and she use to belong to it. That
church still stands with 3’ thick walls without electricity, heat or any modern things. However the congregation had
to move because there was no place next to it to build a church house. A church needs to have facilities. She w as
a member of the choir. Their churc h choir goes to the old manse, which about 25 y ards from the s anctuary. They
have to go dow n there, robe up and then come rain, snow, hail or sleet they dash from there up to the sanctuary .
They really need to have a facility that will be closer and will give them the opportunity to robe up and to go to the
sanctuary with the worshipful attitude that one really should enter the sanctuary for w orship in. They really need this
facility, which w ill be v ery historically in character.
Mary How ard, a retired federal employee and resident of Westminster Canterbury, said that she had been a member
of South Plains Church since 1987. For those who attend South Plains and live at Westminster Canterbury the
church is very convenient. It is clos e by and does not take very long to get to in heavy traffic. The friendly attitude
at South Plains has made members very welcome as members of the church family. However, South Plains needs
meeting space and rest rooms that are on the same level as the present sanctuary. At least onehalf of their
members are 65 or older. Those w ho rely on a cane or a walker have a difficult time going down the unev en sloping
sidewalk from the pres ent sidewalk down to the old manse. Once ins ide there are the uneven floors . Those w ho
can’t do stairs are confined to the four rooms downstairs . Thos e four rooms are the Church office, a nursery , a
kitchen and one meeting room. So the older folks would like to see their Kurt Hall built and become a reality while
they are s till around to enjoy it.
Marge Hampton, a 77 year old Elder at South Plains Church, said ten years ago she came to the church emotionally
and phy sically challenged. The church welcomed her with open arms and put her to work. She did volunteer work
and became the C hair Person for the Fellow ship C ommittee. The old manse is a wonderful place, but is old and
inadequate for what the church needs . She agreed w ith the previous speakers. Three years ago they decided to
step out on faith and raise funds for Kirk Hall. They have managed to raise $700,000 to put into Kirk Hall. The
church has seen three miracles over the past year and she is requesting the fourth miracle tonight in her request for
approval of Kirk Hall. They want to hav e the building in the ground by next D ecember when the next snow flies .
She invited everyone one at a time to visit South Plains C hurch.
William Orr, resident in the neighborhood for 30 years, said that the church has been there for 30 years. In recent
years the church has really been a source of a lot of support for his family. His son was buried in the church
cemetery. He w as an urologist which dealt with problems associated w ith being able to go to the bathroom in a
timely manner. He pointed out that the church s urely needs that and make this a very reasonable reques t. They
would like to have something similar to the church located just down the road, Grace Episcopal Church. H e hoped
that the Commission w ould see fit to approve their request for the park ing as proposed on the sketch. On the
bottom of the sketch is a triangular piece of land that is an open field that Mr. Rintel has been having hair cut on it
although it belongs to the churc h. They went through a good bit of time and expense to offer to trade him that
triangle for s ome land along the cemetery where they could eventually expand the cemetery. It is a long w ay from
the church and there is already one row of trees. Therefore, he saw no logic in requiring the c hurch to fill that field in
with tree planting. He felt that it ties their hands and k eeps the church from using it as a playground, picnic area or
possibly to enlarge the cemetery. It s eems it would be better to have a border of trees rather than ask ing to fill the
whole area in w ith trees .
Ken Edwards, Pastor of Union Grove Baptist Churc h since 1999, s aid that their c hurch was about 200 yards from
South Plains C hurch on Black Cat Road. For generations both churches have enjoyed friends hips and have
supported each others ministries. Once a year the two congregations v isit each others services. They have
vacation bible s chool together eac h summer in order to serve the needs for Christian education not only for their
children from the two congregations but also for other families in the area that are interested. This is about more
than meets the eye. This is about something much smaller. South Plains Church is not a mega church. They are
not talk ing about Liberty U niversity or Kenneth Copeland Ministries w here thousands attend. They are talking about
in comparison a little South Plains Presbyterian Church with a membership around 150 people building a little bitty
building on land that they purchased before anyone in this building were ev en born. They believe that strong
churches mak e a strong c ommunity. Therefore, Union Grov e Baptist Church support the plan South Plains
Presbyterian Church has submitted to expand their ministry and serv e the community.
Frank Kiplinger said that he and his w ife came to Keswick 15 years ago and joined South Plains C hurch about 14
years ago. Their congregation w as aging. Many others have discuss ed what the church has done in the community
and around the world. The requested facility would give their aging congregation the opportunity to bring in younger
children in our c ommunity and to start training them and bringing them up to c ontinue this work around the world.
That is why they are asking for this spac e. This process started fiv e or s ix years ago w hen Bill Atwood c ame in
and s tarted the plan. At that time they met w ith their neighbor. Through that time they have met with staff and
worked towards the plan w hich they are requesting approval on tonight. They pray that the C ommission c an
approve that plan as s how n on wall
Jay C ronnester, resident of Fluvanna County and Elder, said that he and his wife have been members of South
Plains Churc h sinc e 1994. He serves as Trustee of the Chairman of the Long Range Planning. For the past four
years he has been actively involved w ith the plan, which the congregation adopted. In the spring of 2007 the church
held a c apital fund campaign and raised the bulk of the money they need to construc t this facility. They don’t aspire
to be a large churc h, but a church that meets the need of their congregation, community and neighbors. One of the
major considerations that he sees in the questions that hav e been rais ed is where Kirk Hall is loc ated in relation to
the manse. The reason that manse is there is they can’t take it dow n and build Kirk Hall. The c onstruction is about
a year project. They need offic es, class rooms and fellow ship area, whic h the manse provides. They also need the
restrooms too. A number of the folks have talked about the age of their congregation. One of their conc erns is
being able to respond to the needs of all of the c ongregation members inc luding the children that need adequate
space for c lass rooms. Therefore, the manse is critical to the church right now and they can’t tear it down to move
Kirk H all. To use portable facilities would be difficult on the senior members of the congregation. On behalf of the
Long Range Planning Committee who looked at where the church can best place facilities on the limited space the
plan that Bill Atw ood has worked with the c ongregation, s taff and the neighbors is the best they can come up with.
Their commitment is to preserve the historic nature of that area. When they build new buildings the old sanctuary is
still going to be the foc us of their ministry. They have a lot of pride and have spent a lot of money on keeping it up to
date so they can use it. They have worked to make their church ass essable with the new Kirk Hall and eventually
the new sanctuary . The big issue right now is the new Kirk Hall. They were hoping to be building it now because
they need it now. They hav e inadequate classrooms in the mans e and cannot add to the manse. They are
requesting approval of a s ite plan and a building plan that w ill allow the church to continue to meet the obligation that
they have to the original donator of the property, Margaret Rogers w ho on June 15, 1871 deeded the property.
Minister Linda Battle said that she grew up in the Kesw ick community and remembers as a child coming past South
Plains Pres byterian C hurch and alw ays wondering what kind of fellowship they had. She was thankful because in
the last three years she has had the opportunity to fellowship with them being the Associate Minister at U nion Grove
Baptis t C hurch. She prayed that with the help of God and the Planning Commission that they w ill s upport them in
expanding their building. She prayed that the Commis sion would help them meet their needs. There are a lot of
elderly people in the church and it is hard for them to w alk down the hill to the manse to get to the restrooms. She
asked that the C ommission support the request.
Cynthia Step, a member of the congregation of South Plains Church, said that the church has been in the
community s ince s he was a child. She feels the love of the people at the church. The church has been a place of
peace and she feels that the plan should be approved to allow the church to continue serving the community. It is
for the benefit for the church, congregation and those in the community . She as ked that they not hinder the churc h’s
service or w ork . If they have a heart or prayerful mind it should be approved and the churc h has given adequate
reasons why it should be s o.
The Planning C ommission took a seven minutes break at 7:23 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 7:35 p.m.
Peter Taylor, part owner of BenC oolyn Farm, which is immediately to the church, said that his driveway intersec ts
on Route 22 and Black Cat Road. He has the good fortunate of being able to look at this beautiful church for the
past 10 to 12 y ears. It is truly a magnificent site. H e absolutely supports the expansion of the church. It is clear
while it is a post c ard of Kesw ick it is clearly small and does not have the facilities that any reasonable church
would need in this day and age. H e knows that it was an exciting moment when Grace Church, w hich is up the road
and he is a member, added to the H all. He applauds the church on their initiative and s upports it. That being s aid
he thought that they have a respons ibility as a community becaus e this is a scenic by w ay and one of the main
thoroughfares into Charlottesville and Montic ello to get this right. W hile he thought that the plans have come a long
ways and he really likes them and Mr. Atwood has been very communicative w ith the neighbors on some of the
changes they have requested and he thanks him for that, he thinks that it is important to get this right. Within the
context of supporting the request he would ask two things. He did not understand fully staff’s rec ommendation to
approve this and then turn it over to the Architectural Review Board. He would ask that the Planning Commiss ion
be careful to ensure that the details of this are consistent with the historic nature of the neighborhood. The second
item he w ould ask because time has a way of changing things is to approve what is going to be built now and not
approve a number of open ended items that could c hange over time. Within the context of that he fully supports it
and he wished the congregation the best of luck.
Tony Vander w alker, a Kesw ick citizen, said that he liv ed about a mile dow n the road from the church. He asked to
tell the Commission a little story. This is really not about a dispute between a neighborhood and a church. It is
really about the devotion of a neighborhood to its character. W hen he first bought the farm in Keswick a neighbor
called him up and said welcome to the neighborhood and asked c ould a number of people come over and discuss a
problem they have with his property. He agreed to allow them to come. Six people showed up at his door the next
day and said that they had a problem with his drivew ay entrance. He was told that he had azaleas planted along
both s ides of the drivew ay entranc e and in the spring mos t of the azaleas are magenta, but there is one azalea that
is orange. The previous owner would not get rid of the orange azalea. So they asked if he would please consider
getting rid of the orange azalea because it really bothered them. H e agreed and took the orange azalea. It just
shows you the kind of commitment, c ompassion and devotion that the neighborhood has about every roc k, fence
and building in the neighborhood. That is why mos t of the land in the Southwest Mountains Historic District is
protected with conservation easements. People have gone far enough to giv e the right to develop their property
because they believe in it. That is really what is going on here. Mr. Orr mentioned Grace Episcopal Church and the
way its historic structure relates to its new fellowship. In talking with Mr. Atwood at the break he said that if this
church could approach Grace Episcopal segregation of the new building to the old building the neighborhood would
be much appreciative. They openly embrace Grace Episcopal in the way they handled that new building. If this
church could do the same thing they would all be on the same page.
Jonathan Rintels noted that he had c ut hay on the property as noted with the permiss ion of the pastor. H e made the
following comments.
For 18 years he and his wife have owned an adjacent farm w hich borders the church on tw o sides. They
have the utmost respect for the church and its members. Over those years they have meet from time w ith
them not to prevent their expansion but to facilitate it. As proof of their ability to work w ith their neighbors
they have a landscaping agreement from two years ago w hen the Little Keswick School built its dormitory
on their wes tern border. They worked with the school very closely when they sought that special use.
W hen they saw the harm that their expans ion would do to their property they stepped up and agreed to
buffer its impac t for which he was very grateful.
Last fall they meet w ith Bill Atwood, the churc h’s architect, to suggest some reas onable sugges tions that
w ould make its expansion plan ac ceptable to us. They hav e made some changes. The new sanctuary now
faces forward, the park ing is in front and more trees are preserved. They are very grateful for those
c hanges to the church and thank them for making them. Unfortunately, those changes don’t go far enough.
They agree with the county s taff and the nearly 60 other members of the Kesw ick community including
nearly ev ery res ident that lived within w alking distance or close proximity of the church w ho have sign their
joint letter to the C ommission. There s till remain too many aspects of this particular expansion plan that are
too damaging not just to his property but to the wider Keswick and Albemarle C ounty communities.
As heard the church is often called Keswic k’s post c ard. The church s tands in the Southw est Mountain
R ural Historic District where many local residents have donated v aluable permanent conservation
easements. Of all places w here sensitivity is required it is in this Rural Historic D istrict on a State and
Sc enic By W ay . The plan can easily be improved to become acceptable to the community at little expense
to the church in time, money or square footage with a few reasonable changes. They agree with the staff
that the two buildings are not designed of a rural s cale and should be pushed back. They think that the
manse should be taken down and the hall built on its footprint. A landscaping plan w ith far more vegetative
buffering is required. The staff’s recommendation of plantings in the open area and the new field is
w elcomed but will not mitigate their v iews becaus e that field is so much low er than the new building’s
elevation. They need significant evergreen trees planted during phase one on the churc h’s side of the
existing rear tree line. The Kes wick School’s landscaping plan agreement c ould be a precedent for that.
The do agree with the church that the park ing should be in front of the building. However, those s pac es
c ould be muc h better integrated among the site’s existing trees as at Grace Episcopal Church that is on the
s ame Entranc e C orridor. For two hours on Sunday morning w hen there is almost no traffic on the Entrance
C orridor having the parking in front is hardly a burden. Placing the parking in the rear will adv ertently affect
a wet land and a stream that waters horses on their and others properties and will require the removal of the
trees that screen the church and significantly reduce the value of their property as a rural farm. Requiring
these reasonable changes w ill avoid needlessly damaging for decades not just their farm but one of their
c ommunities’ signature rural and historic treasures while also allowing the church to expand as it w ishes.
Mark Columbus, Head Master of Little Keswick School, said that he was in a unique position because he was on
both sides of the fenc e. About two years ago sinc e the sc hool borders Mr. Rintel’s property the school went through
a special use permit for a school expansion to meet their needs . In thinking about what has been said and look ing
at Bill Atwood’s draw ings he noted that there have been things that have changed since the first time he saw the
plans at the church. There are some things that are inherent when one takes the responsibility of having a special
use permit in which they take on the burden to meet the need of the neighbor or community. In doing so with their
relations hip with Mr. Rintels and what they have done through the whole process, and he thought that the church
has made an effort to do this as well, is to keep them informed. But when they realized they infringed on his view
and w ith property values and taxes the sc hool went above and bey ond meeting the need of that neighbor. In doing
so the s chool planted over 100 trees in the height of anyw here from 10’ to 20’ and even got permission to plant trees
on his property. When looking at Mr. Atwood’s plan he felt that in ac tuality there w as not much of a s creen at all.
That is something that should be taken into consideration by the Commission. The other concern the school has is
in the lower left hand corner of this area is more or less where the stream comes through is a bog. He was pleas ed
that the parking lot was moved to the front. There is still a danger w hich was in the details and getting right firs t in
doing all of the planning before they allowed it to go out of the barn. That area w ould significantly impact the
watershed of a creek that feeds their hors es and goes on to Keswic k H all.
Jim Balheim, area resident, said that he had lived w ithin one mile from the church for 30 years. One of the things he
noticed w as that the membership goes up and down. There have been many times when there were ten or fifteen
cars in the parking lot on Sunday morning. H e sugges ted that maybe the current s ituation is on the up swing.
Maybe they don’t have to plan as things will keep going upw ards. He suspects that many of the new er members of
the church probably pick the c hurch because they drov e by and it is pretty and a nice area. He and his wife did the
same thing 30 years ago w hen they moved here. In 1985 they put an easement on their farm. He had the feeling
that w hat is going on right now. He took issue w ith the request. They put an easement on their farm in 1985 and
since then thousands of acres in the area have been done. At leas t three properties contingent to the church have
done this. They can’t change their mind about the easement if the community changes. Part of doing something
like this they would expect the county to go along with their regulations and uphold these. There has been much
said about the integrity of the building, which is more dependent on the building on the s ite than the building per say .
He did not think they could make something so much larger and say they are concerned about the integrity of the
building. At the meeting last fall he asked the architec t if he had looked at expanding the current building and the
answer w as no. He found that very odd and nobody from the c hurch spoke to it either. The bathrooms are not the
issues here because bathrooms could be added onto the building and the people in the neighborhood would s ay
great.
Craig Ellis, a neighbor across the street, noted that there was a basic argument here for the need for a bigger church
and the need to protec t Kesw ick. Being that they are debating 190 years of history and character the neighbors have
invested significant time and money in permanently protec ting a lot of that character. He proposed sending it back
to planning and doing more work on this to get something that they all can be proud of. They can enhance the
character of Keswick that future generations will be proud of.
Hattie Douglas, resident of Kesw ick on Black Cat R oad, said that the church had a positiv e effec t on the
community . She asked that the Commis sion take the c hurch’s need for expansion into consideration
Louise Butler, Youth Director of Union Grove Church, sugges ted that everyone pull together and allow the church
what they need in order to expand the church. She felt that they need to look out for the needs of the elderly and
youth. She asked that the C ommission approve the request and allow the church expansion.
Natasha Wood, member of Union Grov e Church, expressed support for the plans for expansion of South Plains
Church.
Peter Hallock, of BenCoolyn Farm, sugges ted that would be helpful if they can volunteer to give things to get the
special use permit to agree if the woods along the creek and side would be a permanently do not disturb area and
just let it grow up. If they don’t want to plant anything in that area c edar trees w ill come in w hich will create a
buffer. That is truly w hat the Rintels need. That is what they did w ith the school. If they put in some evergreens
in time the trees would grow up and cut out what can be seen of the manse right now from Mr. R intels front porch.
This is a church and a needed building, but they have to realize this is a rural area and this is a spec ial use permit.
So they should at least listen to the neighbors, which they hav e. He gave Bill Atw ood some credit and was pleas ed
to see that there was nothing connec ted to the little churc h. He complimented him today for coming up w ith the idea
that the view out of the church is important. All of this needs to be worked out. It would be very nice to put in a
permanently do not dis turb area of the trees along the bank, critical s lopes and around in the back.
Jeff W erner, representativ e for Piedmont Environmental County, noted that he recently had gotten off the council of
St. Marks Lutheran Church and had sincere respec t for the efforts of the congregation of South Plains. H e knew
how hard all of this w ork is. The PEC has a very special relationship with the Southwest Mountain. In the past
they w ork ed with residents to establish the Southw est Mountains R ural H istoric D istrict. It is on the State and
National Register. The C ommission is aware of the importance of that entire landscape and not just a single s ite
within it. The integrity of the w hole is what is important in a district. Their primary c oncern was the entrance off
Black Cat Road, which appeared to be resolved. He asked to insert into the Commission’s considerations that
some more tree protection provisions be applied for the site as a w hole. For example, in the parking area tree
protection provisions suc h as what they have in the cell tower regulations that stipulate how the trees will be
protected during construction and not just put a piece of tape on it. That tape does not stop a bull dozer from going
in. Some specific provisions that protect those trees would be useful. In the staff report it mentions that the storm
water facilities hav e not been designed. So that puts at risk s ome trees and vegetation which has not been
identified in this plan. He sugges ted that the Commiss ion flus h out how important and critical the vegetation and
trees are so that when s taff reviews it later that they know what is protected.
Laurie Campbell, member of South Plains Church for eight years , s pok e in support of the request. She asked for
consideration for their church so that it goes on for the future of the c hildren.
Lisa C lymer, member of the church sinc e 1997, spoke in support of the request so that they can fulfill the needs of
the community.
Edgar Lee, resident of Keswick, asked the Commis sion to allow the c hurch’s expansion request particularly for the
youth’s need for Christian education.
Vince H ockett, resident of Keswick c ommunity, supported the request so that the c hurch and community can grow
in a pos itive way. He felt that the plan before the Commission does not take into acc ount maybe all of the concerns
that have been raised. He asked if there w as a way that the C ommission could as stewards of the community c an
bring the parties together by staying involved and approving something that they have seen and understand what the
concept is prior to handing it off to another forum, the AR B that is maybe a little less public to help the community in
Keswic k arrive at a plan that is positive for the church and the community. He felt that is the C ommission’s role
and ask ed them to fulfill that to help the community continue to grow in a very positiv e w ay.
Betty McC lenahan, a member of South Plains, spok e in support of the request because the church is accomplishing
some w onderful thing in their mission w ork.
Chad W iener, member of South Plains for four years with his w ife and c hild, spoke in support of the request. He
asked that the Commission reconsider condition #5, whic h requires that the church fill the open grassy field with a
screen or buffer of trees and shrubs. Condition #5 w ill be diffic ult to satisfy as one of the neighbors wants to assure
that the c hurch is not seen from their property. In a letter to Mr. Clark they specifically request that large evergreens
be planted in the open gras sy field. This specific request is troubling for if the Commission approves condition #5
the c hurch w ill effec tively be required to plan a long dense wall of evergreen vegetation along the southeast property
line. In his view it is not desirable that the county encourage its residents to plant dense evergreens to separate
each others property. Not only would that detract from the rural beauty it suggests that the proper way to live along
side eac h other is to not be seen. Sec ond, he worried that by approving c ondition #5 the Planning Commission is
effectiv ely encouraging its resident who do not like to see their neighbors to submit letters to do their bidding. This
is not a neighborly way to handle thes e matters and not a respectful use of the Commission’s time. C ondition #5
address es one resident of the county. It will not make the property more beautiful from those pass ing by as such
buffer is s et back from the road and not visible from R oute 22 or Black Cat Road. He believes that the church has
been responsive to staff’s concerns throughout this process and dis play ed its willingness to change its plans for the
broader benefit of the county. However, condition #5 does not benefit the county more broadly and is only aimed to
satisfy one property owner. H e suggested that if the neighbor does not like to see the church they could have
planted large ev ergreens along the property long ago. He asked the Commission to reconsider c ondition #5 and
approve the special use permit tonight.
Kelly Mosque Golding, a member of South Plains Church, spoke in support of the request and ask ed for approv al of
the request. First Presbyterian, Meadows and Westminster Presbyterian took the youth fellows hip from South
Plains Presbyterian into their group because of their small historic church and not having adequate space for the
youth meeting. South Plains Church is grow ing and needs the additional space.
Jeff Battle Sr. resident of Keswic k and member of U nion Grove Church, prayed that the Commiss ion w ill take into
consideration some of what the homeowners have to say, but to allow this church to do what they need to do.
Mr. Struck o closed the public hearing to bring the matter back before the Commission for discussion and action.
Mr. Morris pointed out that this is his district and he had the pleas ure of meeting w ith these lovely people. He
acknowledged the plans pres ented tonight are different from seven months ago and that they have been doing an
awful lot of work to addres s many conc erns. What they are looking at is that a s anctuary is made for a community
of believ ers . That community of believers changes going up and down as they hav e heard. Unlike many churches in
the US and throughout the world are going up while others are failing. He w anted to do everything that he could to
increase the growth that they are experiencing. But to really experience that growth the church needs room,
particularly for the youth. He believed that these folks over last four years and sev en months hav e bended ov er
backwards to listen to staff and the neighbors. It is the Commiss ion’s turn to step up to the plate and accept their
respons ibility to mov e forw ard and approve or disapprove this. But as of this evening they need to know where they
stand. That it does not go back for architectural review, but moves forward. He agreed that condition is an
obstruc tion. This particular piece of land is below where the neighbor’s house is. He did not think that anyone here
would liv e long enough for the trees to grow high enough to really c reate a buffer in that particular area. H e fully
supports this based upon what they have in front of them that says they w ill recommend approv al of SP2008 09
with the 7 not 8 conditions and definitely that it does not go back to the Architectural R eview Board..
Mr. Strucko agreed and wanted to grant the special use permit. One speaker said this church is not an artifac t and
if they can preserve history while accommodating contemporary needs he thought that is a s olution and would
probably benefit all sides of the argument. H is only concern is that he is not sure w hat they are granting a special
use permit for. It seems that they are adding 9,300 square feet to this facility and not looking at design. He hoped
they can have some discussion on that. He was confus ed by the role of the ARB in what is proposed here.
Ms. Joseph suggested the Commission request Margaret Maliszewski, D esign Planner, to come forward and
address the AR B conc ern.
Mr. Struck o asked Ms . Maliszewski to come forward and address the Commission.
Margaret Malis zew ski, Design Planner, said the project has not been before the ARB and so it can’t go back to
them because it has not been there yet. The ARB review w ould be part of the site plan review proces s.
Ms. Jos eph noted that there are some issues still outstanding conc erning the placement and size. She asked w hy
this request did not come before the Commission as a work session. The Commiss ion takes comments from the
public in work ses sions. It is very helpful in working these types of issues out. Right now what they have is a
recommendation from staff to just approve the square footage and then allow the AR B to determine the placement.
That mak es her feel unc omfortable.
Ms. Malis zew ski replied that there w as a recommendation that there be a work ses sion. That was not the option
that was c hosen. Therefore, it was s taff’s recommendation just as a means to try to move things forw ard to bring it
to the Planning Commiss ion and mak e a recommendation.
Mr. Struck o noted that he misread the staff report that said that the plan had been review ed by the Architectural
Review Board staff or D esign Planner.
Ms. Jos eph pointed out that the AR B would have to grant a C ertific ate of Appropriatenes s in the site review
process . There is no way for this project to avoid going before the AR B.
Mr. C ilimberg noted that without a plan condition here the AR B would not be obligated to design based on that plan.
In a more typical case where a conceptual plan would be one of the conditions then the ARB would be obligated to
review but the applicant would have the plan or bas is layout already es tablished by the Board of Supervisors. The
ARB would have less discretion on how they would recommend building location and such because it w ould have to
conform to the conceptual plan. He noted that the back area w ould be outside of the AR B review.
Ms. Porterfield asked if the Commiss ion could specify where the park ing is to be. If the Commission is comfortable
with the parking in the front yard she felt that they should keep it. She felt that the ARB w ould w ant the parking in
the rear. The Commiss ion would not want that to bec ome an issue. There are reasons for both but that seems to
be something they need to decide here. She asked if the Commission could say that the footprint should stay
where it is or needs to move.
Ms. Joseph noted that the Commission could say anything they want to.
Mr. Cilimberg s uggested that the C ommission should probably go ahead and have the condition for the conceptual
plan if the footprint of the buildings and the location of the parking area are stipulated because not much else will
really be affected.
Mr. Edgerton said that if he was hearing correctly if they go with s taff’s rec ommendation they will be delegating the
respons ibly for not only the aesthetics that would be impacting the corridor that the ARB is responsible but they
would also be delegating to them the res ponsibility of the plan. H e was uncomfortable with that. He felt that the
Commis sion has the responsibility to give the ARB a plan that they are comfortable w ith so the ARB can apply their
review in the more traditional way where they do accept a schematic plan. H e has been lis tening hard to the
concerns and to the efforts that the architect has made here. He was looking at a site that has some absolutely
spectac ular trees that the design has gone to great lengths to try to preserve. He thought that there was one tree
that Mr. Clark had mentioned in the staff report that he was c oncerned about, but he believed he heard the architect
is committed to trying to save that. If the tree c an’t be preserved, then the architect is going to try to amend the
placement of the future sanctuary . From a massing point of view he thought that the architect has been incredibly
sensitive in placing that future sanctuary into the hillside so that it can actually be lower than the historic structure.
He did not see a way of getting this s cale of an addition to the church, whic h he thought that they have heard loud
and clear was needed, without doing more damage to the site. If the facility is located anywhere else on the s ite
several of the really magnific ent trees w ill be destroyed. Those trees have been on the s ite for sev eral hundred
years. He supported Mr. Atw ood’s propos al and sugges ted that they approv e the schematic plan as shown. In the
past he had alway s argued for relegated parking, but in this particular situation out of concern for the specifics of the
site he thought that this is the time that this parking should be in the front. He appreciates the effort of the architect
and the church in try ing to soften the impact w ith the porous pavers and the s tone wall which will minimize the
visual impact. He thought that they have really gone the extra mile and supported the request.
Mr. Struck o asked what his view was of the open area.
Mr. Edgerton said that heard two points about the open area. If the church was asked to increase the vegetation on
the open area to provide a buffer it w ill certainly benefit the property owner to the southeast. But at the same time it
will take away an area that he thought some members of the church s ay that they use for activ ities. H e thought that
would be unfortunate. If the neighbor is concerned about his impact he certainly has plenty of land that he c an plant
trees on that would provide a better buffer than what would go in that low er site.
Ms. Porterfield agreed. She observed that the meadow is very low from having been on the site today. If someone
stands on the Rintels property and looks across they are going to look over these trees even if it was a 20’ tree.
The applicant indicated that they are going to plant a garden between the historic church and the manse. She
suggested that the churc h submit a landscape plan that shows what they intend to do since they should be able to
soften the building with a v ariety of things that certainly in the winter time the Rintels w ill see. In addition the church
could bring that softening around the large church they intend to eventually build.
Mr. Edgerton noted the option of taking down the manse, w hich one could argue that it has some historic value as
well, and allowing Kirk Hall to be moved back is a problematic option. The church right now cannot exist without the
facilities that are currently in the manse. This plan as proposed ac tually will allow them not to have to touch the
manse until after the facility is built. Then the church can go in and retrofit it so the manse will still be useful during
the constructive stage and available to the church to use. That is res ponsive to the practical needs of the church.
For that reason he was comfortable with the plan that is before the Commission tonight.
Mr. Strucko noted that staff’s recommendation says that the special use permit would only address the size of the
expansion.
Mr. Edgerton said that he was totally opposed to staff’s point of view and thought that they need to designate and
approve this plan.
Mr. Strucko said that was the point that he wanted to mak e. He w as mov ing past the staff’s recommendation and
looking at this conceptual site.
Mr. Edgerton said that he felt that the C ommission has a respons ibility for the site. The ARB has another
respons ibility and the request has to go through that proces s. Certainly in the final site plan there will be
adjustments made. But rather than just picking a square footage and hoping that they get it right later he supported
the plan before the C ommission bec aus e it was their best chance to address a lot of the environmental issues on
the site and address the church’s needs for expansion.
Mr. Morris asked if that was a motion and if that includes condition #5 of the 8 conditions.
Mr. Edgerton moved for approval of SP200800029 ex tracting condition #5.
Mr. Morris seconded the motion.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that would require that they add the typical condition referencing this plan.
Mr. Edgerton agreed.
Mr. Kamptner said for staff’s benefit the condition will read the development s hall be in general acc ord w ith this
conceptual site plan. What they have been doing recently with the conc eptual site plan is asking that the k ey
elements s how n on that c onceptual site plan be identified so that staff has better direction as to determining whether
or not ultimate development is in accord. He had heard the location of the parking area up near the front, the
location of the new sanctuary and fellowship hall. H e asked if it w as that exact location or no c loser to Route 22
that is important. It may be where it is s how n becaus e any movement in any direction looks like it w ill affect trees.
Mr. Edgerton said that if they move it back they were going to destroy the mans e and the 100year old tree. The
location is responsive to the site and he w as comfortable with what he s ees before them.
Mr. Kamptner s aid just for the AR B’s benefit the Commission is mak ing this recommendation with this additional
condition in order to be s atisfied that the applicant has addressed the element that the character of the district will
not be changed, which was the one element that was out there.
Mr. Edgerton noted that he w as glad Mr. Kamptner brought that up. Mr. Kamptner educated the C ommission this
last week in anticipation of this discussion in some of the Religious Land Use and Institutional Person’s Act of 2000.
That really gives them some serous responsibility here. He did not k now how many of the Commissioners hav e a
copy of w hat Mr. Kamptner sent them, but on page 6 under section 21.510 in determining whether features is a
religious exercise, in some of the red bold type, “In conducting its review, an ARB is advised to heed the follow ing
passage from First United Methodist Church v. Hearing Examiner for the Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board.
This w as a precedent in the 1996. In this case the judgment reads, “W hile preserving aesthetic and historic
structures may be of value the locality, ‘the possible los s of s ignificant architectural elements’ is a price we must
accept to guarantee the paramount right of religious freedom.” He asked if that language was part of the ruling.
Mr. Kamptner replied yes that it was part of the public benefit. This application is different from most of the special
use permit applications that they receive because they have to cons ider the First Amendment to the US Constitution
in a federal act, w hich is c alled the Religious Land Use and Institutionaliz ed Person’s Act that applies only to
prisoners and specific land use applications. But they have to cons ider that as part of our analysis as well. It
changes the analysis a little bit. But certainly they hav e to be sensitiv e to the legislature.
Mr. Edgerton said that it was directly applicable to this particular request. They have the so c alled postcard of
Keswic k before the Commission, w hich is a 180 plus year old sanctuary that is no longer functioning in the way that
it needs to function for this congregation. H e thought that they have to be respectful. Per the information supplied
to the Commission he w as not sure if they have the right to turn the request down if they w anted to. But he would
leave that to Mr. Kamptner since he was not an attorney.
Mr. Kamptner said that he would not have to make that call because he was hearing a favorable rec ommendation.
But there are a couple of issues that are raised with this application, which do raise the red flag. One is that they
have a c hurch that needs to expand on this site. Compounding that issue is that this is a churc h that has been there
for almost 190 years . To expect them to go and find another place of w orship he thought could be problematic. The
other issues raised with this are jus t the physical elements of the ultimate church buildings and the extent to which
the ARB will decide w hat its outw ard appearance is and if there are any architectural elements that are religious in
nature that are beyond the scope of the c ounty’s review.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that staff does a lot of consulting w ith Mr. Kamptner when they are dealing w ith church
issues. In the las t couple of years in several reviews the siz e has been an issue. This one w as due to the
questions of design. In consulting with Mr. Kamptner staff did not feel that they could make a recommendation for
denial and didn’t. Mr. Kamptner suggested that if there were concerns about the presented plan that c ould be simply
address ed as part of the site plan process w ith the AR B. That is w hy staff recommended in this way because of
the concern with the plan. He thought what the C ommission has said tonight is they are not concerned with the
plan and that most of the Commissioners feel comfortable with the plan. Therefore, conditioning that is the
alternative that staff would have recommended if the plan was not an issue.
Mr. Strucko noted that there was a motion on the table and had been seconded. He reiterated that the motion w as
for this conceptual site plan before us and 7 of the 8 conditions that are in the s taff report with condition #5 remov ed
regarding the landscape plan.
Ms. Porterfield noted plus the added condition that it was going to be in general accord with this conceptual s ite
plan.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that Mr. Kamptner identified two elements that were important, building location and park ing
location. He heard in the conversation among some of the people who s poke that the pres ervation of trees w as
identified as something the Commission w anted to achieve. He ask ed if the Commission would c onsider that as
an element that is important in this plan for the preservation of trees .
Mr. Edgerton agreed.
Mr. Morris agreed noting that it was a good point.
Mr. Edgerton pointed out that there was one thought he had about that. The applicant suggested that right now they
are only considering phase one. Unfortunately, the drawing shows both phase one and the addition of the future
sanctuary. Unless he misheard the impact on the third beautiful tree over near the wooded area he thought that the
thread of the future sanctuary is really the issue there. H e suggested that maybe they should cons ider approving it
in phases. He asked how the rest of the C ommissioners felt about that.
Ms. Porterfield said that they were giv ing the church the opportunity to slide the new sanctuary back. If they slide
the sanctuary back it does not affect that tree towards the road. The other big tree is behind the manse.
Mr. Cilimberg said that it becomes a little difficult to des ign on the run so to speak.
Ms. Porterfield said that s he would rather see them have the ability to stick as c lose to this design and if in the
future they have to slide it around she w as sure that they were not going to move it that far.
Mr. Morris said if they k eep it that way then they know w hat they are approving.
Mr. Franco said with the approach of making the c oncept plan the plan that they are following do they need
conditions 1 through 4 since they are basically show n on the site plan. He noted that at least conditions 1 through 3
would be reflective in the plan.
Mr. Cilimberg asked if it was the number of parking spaces and building square footages. He referred the question
to the rev iew staff.
Mr. Clark noted that 75 spaces are shown on the plan. Therefore, that would be covered. Condition 4 would need
to remain because it w ould be requiring a later approv al.
Mr. Franco said that conditions 1 – 3 are reflective in the plan and so are redundant.
Mr. Kamptner noted that zoning staff may appreciate the specificity of these conditions.
Mr. Cilimberg said that it does not hurt to keep them in because it further defines the plan.
Ms. Joseph said that she did not agree with taking out condition #5. She thought that it was important to note that
churches have a different function in a rural and residential area. When a church is adjacent to residential properties
it was just good neighbors to have some sort of barrier between the tw o. She did not think that they need a brick
wall. She did not think that there was any thing wrong in allow ing some vegetation back there to grow and did not
agree with taking out condition #5. She w as also a little bit concerned about the landscaping s how n across Route
22 where the park ing area is going. She would like to see s omething that is more natural. The staff report say s that
it looks like a suburban church. She was concerned w ith the massing and the rural character in that area. Those are
two things that make it difficult to support, but she understands the need and that it is a tiny little church. But there
is still something about the size of it. She knew that Mr. Atwood has done a good job in us ing the architectural
forms to make it look integrated. It is unfortunate but what will happen with the plan is that the existing church is
going to be subordinate to the new big church. She thought that was w hat s taff w as talking about. So she still has
a little problem with that. She understands Mr. Atwood’s concept that if they s mash that building right against the
other that when one looks out they are going to see a brick wall or the other building rather than the rural country
side. She was hoping what the ARB would do is help this thing settle into the landscape and allow the existing
church to still be the primary structure on the property.
Mr. Loach asked if c ondition #6 should say that there shall be no full time day care center assuming that the church
may want to set aside part of their building for daycare. .
Mr. Clark replied that day care is a separate use by special use permit.
Mr. Loach asked if the church w ould be prohibited from having daycare area during the services, and Mr. Cilimberg
replied that was not part of it.
Mr. Loach asked if bible school would be considered as part of the priv ate school, and Mr. Cilimberg replied that it
was not.
Mr. Loach agreed with Mr. Edgerton and Mr. Morris on condition #5 because he did not see a need for it. The plan is
a good one. From what he had heard from the congregation there is a commitment to respect the past and the
architec ture was going to be consistent w ith the church. Therefore he saw no reason to shield it. As Mr. Edgerton
said the adjacent owner could put s hielding on their land if they w ant to. H e was s upportive of the proposal as
outlined.
Mr. Cilimberg as ked to make a comment about Ms. J oseph’s c omment about plantings along Route 22 sinc e he did
not think the Commis sion identified it as a k ey element. Therefore, he thought that the ARB c an exercise some
discretion in how they ask that the plantings be treated to the extent that they have the room to deal with it.
Mr. Struck o asked to be clear that after the Commiss ion takes action tonight that this matter does go to the Board of
Supervisors and then at the site plan phas e it will go to the AR B. He as ked for a role call.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:1. (Ms. Joseph voted nay)
Mr. Struc ko noted that SP200800029 South Plains Presbyterian Church w ould go to the Board of Supervisors on
May 13 with a recommendation for approval.
The Planning C ommission’s motion and conditions are reiterated and summarized below:
Motion: Mr. Edgerton mov ed and Mr. Morris seconded for approval of SP200800029, South Plains Presbyterian
Church with staff’s recommended conditions, as amended extracting condition #5 and that the development shall be
in general accord with this conceptual site plan. The key elements s how n on the conceptual site plan were
identified as follows: the location of the parking area up near the front and the location of the new sanctuary and
fellowship hall.
1. The development of the site shall be in general ac cord with the “C onceptual Site Plan” prepared for South
Plains Presbyterian C hurch by Atw ood Architects, Inc., dated January 19, 2009. In addition, the follow ing
elements shall be in strict accord with and or conform to the Conceptual Site Plan: the location of the park ing
area, the location of the new sanctuary and fellowship hall, and the preservation of existing trees.
2. The footprint of the new sanctuary shall not exceed 3,550 square feet. The footprint of the new
fellow ship hall s hall not exceed 5,750 square feet.
3. Provided park ing shall not exc eed 75 spaces.
4. Commercial setback standards , as set forth in Section 21.7.2 of the Albemarle Zoning Ordinance, shall
be maintained adjacent to properties zoned Rural Areas.
5. Storm water facilities and park ing lot s urface meeting the approval of the C ounty Engineer shall be
required before approval of the final site plan for this use.
6. Staff approval of a landscape plan shall be required before approval of the final site plan for this use.
Plantings for screening of the church facilities, to consis t of a naturalistic pattern of multispecies trees
and shrubs, as listed in the brochure titled “N ative Plants for Conservation, Restoration, and
Landscaping: Piedmont Plateau,” published by the Virginia Department of Conservation and
R ecreation, are to fill the open area shown on Attachment C of the staff report . These plantings are to
be arranged in a density that w ould mitigate view s of the new church facilities , with a spacing allowing
the natural form/habit of the plant material to be recognized.
7. There shall be no day c are center or private school on site without approval of a separate special use
permit;
8. Health Department approval of well and/or septic systems.
9. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cutoff fixtures and 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
s hall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:1. (Joseph voted nay )
Mr. Struc ko noted that SP200800029 South Plains Presbyterian Church w ould go to the Board of Supervisors on
May 13 with a recommendation for approval.
The Planning C ommission took a break at 8:57 p.m.
Return to PC actions letter