Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-12-09Tentative BOARD OF SUPERVISORS T E N T A T I V E DECEMBER 9, 2009 6:00 P.M. - LANE AUDITORIUM COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 1. Call to Order. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Moment of Silence. 4. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. 5. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda. 6. Consent Agenda (on next sheet). PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7. ZTA-2009-001. Small Wind Turbines. Amend Secs. 3.1, Definitions, 10.2.1, By right, 11.3.1, By right uses, 12.2.1, By right, 13.2.1, By right, 14.2.1, By right, 15.2.1, By right, 16.2.1, By right, 17.2.1, By right, 18.2.1, By right, 19.3.1, By right, 20.3.1, By right, 20A.6, Permitted uses, 20B.2, Permitted uses, 22.2.1, By right, 23.2.1, By right, 24.2.1, By right, 27.2.1, By right, 28.2.1, By right, and add Sec. 5.1.46, Small wind turbines, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would add small wind turbines as a by right use in all zoning districts and standardize the introduction of each of those sections (Secs. 10.2.1 through 28.2.1 listed above), would amend Sec. 3.1 to add definitions of "small wind turbines" and associated terms and "historic areas," and would add Sec. 5.1.46 to establish substantive and procedural requirements to establish and use small wind turbines. 8. PROJECT: ZMA-2007-002. Timberwood Commons Phase III (also known as) Hollymead Town Center TIKI (Sign #110). PROPOSAL: Rezone 1.021 acres from PD-MC Planned Development Mixed Commercial - large-scale commercial uses; and residential by special use permit (15 units/ acre) and HC Highway Commercial - commercial and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/acre) to PD-SC Planned Development Shopping Center - shopping centers, retail sales and service uses. PROFFERS: Yes. EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Town Center -- Compact, higher density area containing a mixture of businesses, services, public facilities, residential areas and public spaces, attracting activities of all kinds. (6.01-34 dwelling units per acre) and Neighborhood Density Residential - residential (3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small-scale non-residential uses. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: 450 feet West of the intersection of U.S. Route 29 and Timberwood Boulevard within the Hollymead Town Center, directly behind the existing CVS Pharmacy in the Community of Hollymead. TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 32, Parcel 41 R (portion) and Tax Map 32, Parcel 41D1. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio. 9. PROJECT: ZMA-2008-007. ATNA Building (Signs #15&17). PROPOSAL: Rezone .7866 acres from CO zoning district which allows offices, supporting commercial and file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/Agenda.htm (1 of 3) [9/30/2020 6:14:24 PM] Tentative service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/acre) to C1 zoning district which allows retail sales and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/ acre). Existing building on site will house an animal emergency care clinic. This proposal also includes one concurrent special use permit SP 08-067, a request to allow a veterinary services clinic on the property. PROFFERS: Yes. EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Density Residential - residential (3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small-scale non-residential uses. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: 1540 Airport Road/Southeast corner of the intersection of Dickerson Rd. and Airport Rd. in the Community of Hollymead. TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 32, Parcel 48 Lot A. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio. 10. PROJECT: SP-2008-067. ATNA Building (Signs #15&17). PROPOSED: Request a special use permit to operate a veterinary services clinic in the existing building on the site. This proposal also includes a concurrent rezoning request (ZMA 2008-007) to rezone .7866 acres from CO zoning district to C1 zoning district. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: CO Commercial Office - offices, supporting commercial and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/acre). SECTION: 22.2.2(5) Veterinary office and hospital and 5.1.11 Commercial Kennel, Veterinary Service, Office or Hospital, Animal Hospital, Animal Shelter. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Density Residential - residential (3- 6 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small-scale non-residential uses. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: 1540 Airport Road/Southeast corner of the intersection of Dickerson Rd and Airport Rd in the Community of Hollymead. TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 32, Parcel 48 Lot A. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio. 11. 09-03( ) – Agricultural and Forestal Districts; AFD 09-54 Kinloch AFD – District addition. The proposed ordinance would amend Sec. 3-220, Kinloch Agricultural and Forestal District, of Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of the Albemarle County Code, to add TMPs 49-5C, 49-6A1, 50-13 and 50-19 to the district. Notice also is hereby given that the Albemarle County Planning Commission will consider the addition and make their recommendations on the addition of TMP 50-19 on December 8, 2009 and the Albemarle County Agricultural and Forestal Advisory Committee on a date prior to December 8, 2009. 12. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. 13. Adjourn to December 10, 2009, Room 241, for Annual Meeting with Legislators. CONSENT AGENDA FOR APPROVAL: 6.1 Approval of Minutes: 6.2 Resolution to approve amendment of Personnel Policy P-61, Overtime/Compensatory Time. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/Agenda.htm (2 of 3) [9/30/2020 6:14:24 PM] Tentative 6.3 Authorize County Executive to execute a License Agreement for a private driveway within the County’s undeveloped Sun Ridge Road public right-of-way. 6.4 Resolution Certifying Consistency of Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan with Virginia Code § 15.2-2223.1. 6.5 Increase Department of Social Services (DSS) Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Employee Authorized Staffing Level. FOR INFORMATION: 6.6 Copy of the Albemarle County Service Authority’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009. (On file in Clerk's office) Return to Top of Agenda Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page Return to County Home Page file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/Agenda.htm (3 of 3) [9/30/2020 6:14:24 PM] letter November 25, 2009 Sara V. Salmon, DVM 1591 Reynovia Drive Charlottesville, Va 22902 RE: ZMA200800007 & SP200800067 ATNA Building Tax Map 32, Parcel 48 Dear Ms. Salmon: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 20, 2009, recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: Action on ZMA 2008-007 RECOMMENDED APPROVAL, by a vote of 6:0, for ZMA-2008-0007 with the proffers noted in the staff report, amended as discussed, so that the proffers are corrected before the Board of Supervisors meeting, which would include the addition of the sidewalk along the western side of the entrance and the uses to be included would be Section 23.2.1 By Right and Section 22.2.1 b 1, 3, 5, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 26 and 27. All of the uses in A would be left out. The following uses in Section 22.2.2 By Special Use Permit would also be left out, 1, 4, 8, 12, 13. Action on SP 2008-067 The Planning Commission, by a vote of 6:0, recommended approval of SP-2008-067 with staff’s recommended conditions, as follows: 1. Development of the use shall be in accord with the concept plan, entitled “Proposed Fencing” prepared by Gorman Architects, PLC, dated June 20, 2009 (the “Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in conformity with the Plan, development shall reflect the following elements only and all other elements of the Plan may be modified during site plan review and approval: general location of parking areas, buffer and screening from adjacent residential properties, the outdoor dog exercise yard and the canine elimination yard. Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. 2. This special use permit applies to the existing building and any new buildings for the veterinary use will require a new special use permit. 3. The opening of any windows shall be prohibited. 4. Dogs may be walked only in the outdoor dog walk area. 5. No animals shall be boarded overnight or groomed, except for those animals under medical care at the veterinary hospital. 6. The use shall not commence until the building located at 1540 Airport Road is served by public sewer. 7. An 8 foot tall treated solid wood privacy fence in a cabot slate gray #1445 stain for pressure treated wood shall be constructed and maintained along the full perimeter of the property adjacent to the file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/ATNABuildingPCActions.htm (1 of 2) [9/30/2020 6:14:29 PM] letter residential properties. The existing trees and landscape along the perimeter of the property adjacent to the residential properties shall not be disturbed. Screening requirements shall comply with Section 32.7.9.8 Screening of the Albemarle County Code. 8. An 8 foot tall treated solid wood privacy fence in a cabot slate gray #1445 stain for pressure treated wood shall be constructed and maintained to enclose the canine elimination yard shown on the Plan. Action on the Waivers: The Planning Commission, by a vote of 6:0, approved the following waivers: 1) A waiver of Chapter 18, Section 21.7 (C) of the Zoning Ordinance, which requires the maintenance of a 20 foot undisturbed buffer between residential and commercial properties; and 2) A waiver of Section 5.1.11 (b) of the Zoning Ordinance, which requires soundproofed confinements not be located closer than two hundred (200) feet to any agricultural or residential lot line, and which requires the soundproofed confinements, noise measured at the nearest agricultural or residential property line not exceed fifty-five (55) decibels” be approved. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on December 9, 2009. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 296-5832. View Exec Summary View staff report and attachments View PC minutes Return to regular agenda Sincerely, Claudette Grant Senior Planner Planning Division cc: Airport Office Center Llc C/O Virginia D Hahn 107 Dogwood Ln Radford Va 24141 file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/ATNABuildingPCActions.htm (2 of 2) [9/30/2020 6:14:29 PM] summary COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: ZMA2008-07 and SP2008- 67 ATNA Building SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Rezone 0.7866 acres from CO zoning district to C1 zoning district. The existing building on site will house an animal emergency care clinic. This proposal also includes one concurrent special use permit, SP 2008-067, a request to allow a veterinary hospital on the property. STAFF CONTACT(S): Cilimberg, Echols, Grant LEGAL REVIEW: NO AGENDA DATE: December 9, 2009 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: YES BACKGROUND: On October 20, 2009, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for the ATNA Building rezoning and special use permit requests. The Commission, by a vote of 6:0, recommended approval of ZMA-2008- 0007 with changes to the proffers to clarify the uses allowed by-right and by special use permit and for the addition of a sidewalk along the western side of the entrance. Also, the Commission, by a vote of 6:0, approved SP-2008-00067 with conditions. (See Action Letter) DISCUSSION: The attached proffers include clarifications as to uses allowed by-right and by special use permit (Proffer 1.) and a commitment to construct a sidewalk along the western side of the entrance (Proffer 2.) as recommended by the Planning Commission. The proffers are technically and legally acceptable. (Attachment II) RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval of ZMA 2008-0007 with the attached proffers (Attachment II) and Special Use Permit 2008- 00067 subject to the following conditions: 1. Development of the use shall be in accord with the concept plan, entitled “Proposed Fencing” prepared by Gorman Architects, PLC, dated June 20, 2009 (the “Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in conformity with the Plan, development shall reflect the following elements only and all other elements of the Plan may be modified during site plan review and approval: general location of parking areas, buffer and screening from adjacent residential properties, the outdoor dog exercise yard and the canine elimination yard. Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/ATNABuildingPCExecSummary.htm (1 of 2) [9/30/2020 6:14:29 PM] summary ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.2. This special use permit applies to the existing building and any new buildings for the veterinary use will require a new special use permit. 3. The opening of any windows shall be prohibited.4. Dogs may be walked only in the outdoor dog walk area. 5. No animals shall be boarded overnight or groomed, except for those animals under medical care at the veterinary hospital.6. The use shall not commence until the building located at 1540 Airport Road is served by public sewer.7. An 8 foot tall treated solid wood privacy fence in a cabot slate gray #1445 stain for pressure treated wood shall be constructed and maintained along the full perimeter of the property adjacent to the residential properties. The existing trees and landscape along the perimeter of the property adjacent to the residential properties shall not be disturbed. Screening requirements shall comply with Section 32.7.9.8 Screening of the Albemarle County Code. 8. An 8 foot tall treated solid wood privacy fence in a cabot slate gray #1445 stain for pressure treated wood shall be constructed and maintained to enclose the canine elimination yard shown on the Plan. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment I: Planning Commission staff report, dated October 20, 2009 Attachment II: Revised proffers, dated November 1, 2009 Return to PC actions letter file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/ATNABuildingPCExecSummary.htm (2 of 2) [9/30/2020 6:14:29 PM] minutes Albemarle County Planning Commission October 20, 2009 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing, work session and meeting on Tuesday, October 20, 2009, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Marcia Joseph, Don Franco, Bill Edgerton, Linda Porterfield, Thomas Loach, Vice Chairman and Eric Strucko, Chairman. Calvin Morris and Julia Monteith, AICP, non-voting representative for the University of Virginia were absent. Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; David Benish, Chief of Planning; Mark Graham, Director of Community Development; and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney. Call to Order and Establish Quorum: Mr. Strucko called the regular meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. and established a quorum. Public Hearings: ZMA-2008-00007 ATNA Building (Signs 15 & 17). PROPOSAL: Rezone .7866 acres from CO zoning district which allows offices, supporting commercial and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/ acre) to C1 zoning district which allows retail sales and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/ acre). Existing building on site will house an animal emergency care clinic. This proposal also includes one concurrent special use permit SP-08-067, a request to allow a veterinary services clinic on the property. PROFFERS: No. EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Density Residential - residential (3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small-scale non- residential uses. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: 1540 Airport Road/Southeast corner of the intersection of Dickerson Rd. and Airport Rd. in the Community of Hollymead. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 32/48 Lot A. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio AND SP-2008-00067 ATNA Building (Signs # 15 & 17). PROPOSED: Request a special use permit to operate a veterinary services clinic in the existing building on the site. This proposal also includes a concurrent rezoning request (ZMA 2008-007) to rezone .7866 acres from CO zoning district to C1 zoning district. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: CO Commercial Office - offices, supporting commercial and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/ acre). SECTION: 22.2.2(5) Veterinary office and hospital and 5.1.11 Commercial Kennel, Veterinary Service, Office or Hospital, Animal Hospital, Animal Shelter. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Density Residential - residential (3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small-scale non-residential uses. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: 1540 Airport Road/ Southeast corner of the intersection of Dickerson Rd. and Airport Rd. in the Community of Hollymead. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 32/48 Lot A. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio (Claudette Grant) Ms. Grant presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report. (See Staff Report) file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/ATNABuildingPCMins.htm (1 of 11) [9/30/2020 6:14:30 PM] minutes Purpose of Hearing; The applicant is requesting to rezone property (.7866 acres) located at 1540 Airport Road from CO zoning district to C-1 zoning district. This request includes proffers that would limit the use to CO uses and a few C-1 uses that are less intensive and appropriate for this location, including a veterinary hospital. A special use permit is also being requested because the applicant is proposing to relocate and expand the V.E.T.S. Animal Emergency Care Clinic, which has been located at 370 Greenbrier Dr. to this location. The existing building at this new location will house the animal clinic. The applicant has indicated that this location is centrally located for her existing clients, as well as potential new clients, and that V.E.T.S. is currently the only after–hours animal emergency care facility in Albemarle County. The special use permit utilizing the existing building will allow the applicant to relocate and expand her growing business into a larger space. This is proposed to be a 24-hour emergency animal critical care and referral facility. The applicant has temporarily relocated this facility to another location until the rezoning and special use permit have been processed. SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors favorable to the rezoning and special use permit requested: 1. The rezoning and special use permits are consistent with the Land Use Plan. 2. The rezoning and special use permit will provide the veterinary hospital use an opportunity to expand and relocate to a central location convenient for clients. 3. The veterinary hospital will provide a 24 hours/day service instead of the current hours, which are only after business hours. Proffers: The applicant has proposed proffers that would limit the use of this property to CO uses and a few C-1 uses that are less intensive for this location. As mentioned in the staff report there is also a portion of sidewalk on the west side of the entrance road to the applicant’s property that is incomplete. The applicant has agreed to complete the sidewalk system up to her property line. While there are no substantive changes needed to the proffers they are in need of technical changes. Staff believes the changes to the proffers can be made between the Planning Commission and the Board public hearing if the Commission is satisfied that they do not need to see the proffers in their final form. Staff has just identified the following factors unfavorable to this request: 1. The proffers need to be technically accurate. 2. Pedestrian access is not complete to this facility. However the applicant agrees to provide a proffer that will address the pedestrian access. RECOMMENDED ACTION: ZMA 2008-007 Staff recommends approval of this rezoning provided that the proffers (as noted in Attachment E of the staff report) are revised and are technically and legally acceptable prior to the Board of Supervisors public hearing, which would also include a commitment to complete the sidewalk on the west side of the entrance to the applicant’s property line. Staff recommends the following conditions for approval for the requested special use permit, should the file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/ATNABuildingPCMins.htm (2 of 11) [9/30/2020 6:14:30 PM] minutes rezoning be approved: SP 2008-067 1. Development of the use shall be in accord with the concept plan, entitled “Proposed Fencing” prepared by Gorman Architects, PLC, dated June 20, 2009 (the “Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in conformity with the Plan, development shall reflect the following elements only and all other elements of the Plan may be modified during site plan review and approval: general location of parking areas, buffer and screening from adjacent residential properties, the outdoor dog exercise yard and the canine elimination yard. Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. 2. This special use permit applies to the existing building and any new buildings for the veterinary use will require a new special use permit. 3. The opening of any windows shall be prohibited. 4. Dogs may be walked only in the outdoor dog walk area. 5. No animals shall be boarded overnight or groomed, except for those animals under medical care at the veterinary hospital. 6. The use shall not commence until the building located at 1540 Airport Road is served by public sewer. 7. An 8 foot tall treated solid wood privacy fence in a cabot slate gray #1445 stain for pressure treated wood shall be constructed and maintained along the full perimeter of the property adjacent to the residential properties. The existing trees and landscape along the perimeter of the property adjacent to the residential properties shall not be disturbed. Screening requirements shall comply with Section 32.7.9.8 Screening of the Albemarle County Code. 8. An 8 foot tall treated solid wood privacy fence in a cabot slate gray #1445 stain for pressure treated wood shall be constructed and maintained to enclose the canine elimination yard shown on the Plan. Waivers Staff also recommends approval of two waivers that are proposed with this request, as follows. 1. A waiver of Chapter 18, Section 21.7 (C) of the Zoning Ordinance, which requires the maintenance of a 20 foot undisturbed buffer between residential and commercial properties; and 2. A waiver of Section 5.1.11 (b) of the Zoning Ordinance, which requires soundproofed confinements not be located closer than two hundred (200) feet to any agricultural or residential lot line, and which requires the soundproofed confinements, noise measured at the nearest agricultural or residential property line not exceed fifty-five (55) decibels” be approved. Mr. Strucko invited questions for staff. Mr. Loach asked since this is a 24-hour building if there are any limitations on the lighting. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the lighting was covered as part of the existing site plan. Mr. Loach noted condition 5 says that no animals shall be boarded overnight or groomed except for those animals under medical treatment at the veterinary hospital. He assumed that except for animals that are patients no other animals can be accepted just to stay overnight. Ms. Grant replied that is correct. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/ATNABuildingPCMins.htm (3 of 11) [9/30/2020 6:14:30 PM] minutes Mr. Edgerton noted that the map shows two parcels and asked if the request is to rezone both parcels. Ms. Grant replied that the request is to rezone the one parcel with the building on it. Mr. Edgerton noted that the Commission just went through a revision of parking on this. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the Commission went through an allowance for off-site parking, which was associated with another building that has not yet been built. Mr. Edgerton noted that on page 3 under the zoning and planning history the last item on the list goes back to 1993 with a request to rezone this property to C-1 that was denied. He questioned why that was denied since that is sort of what the Commission is being asked to do. Ms. Grant replied that she did not remember all of the details. Mr. Edgerton noted that rezoning would have been from RA to C-1. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the C-1 generally would have been a wide range of uses, but here they are proffering their C-1 to be uses that are consistent or less intensive than CO. Mr. Edgerton noted that his last question was on page 4 about the anticipated impacts on public facilities under utilities. It says the building is currently not connected to public sewer. However, the applicant has committed to making sure that the building is served by public sewer prior to commencing use. He asked if that is included in the proffers. Ms. Grant replied yes, that it was part of one of the special use permit conditions. Mr. Cilimberg noted that it was #6 under the special use permit recommendation. Mr. Edgerton asked if that was something the applicant could do relatively easy or do they need to get permission from the Sewer and Water Authority to expand the district. Ms. Grant replied that is correct. The applicant is actually in the process of working with the Service Authority to obtain this. Mr. Edgerton suggested that perhaps the applicant could address that issue when they come up. Ms. Porterfield asked if the good side of the fence was going to face the residential use. If it is a fence that is board on board and has two good sides that is one thing. But if it is a fence that only has one good side in her past experience they always required that to go toward the residential that it is buffering. Ms. Grant said that it is a treated wood fence and will be stained an approved color that was approved by the Architectural Review Board. But she did not know if the fence was stained on both sides. Mr. Strucko pointed out what Ms. Porterfield was saying is that the side with the framing exposed is the bad side. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/ATNABuildingPCMins.htm (4 of 11) [9/30/2020 6:14:30 PM] minutes Ms. Joseph pointed out that staff had said that the Architectural Review Board had reviewed and approved the fence. Ms. Porterfield asked that they make sure that the good side of the fence faces the residential because an 8’ fence is a very big fence. She asked if there has been discussion with the neighbors about the height of the fence and if they were happy with it being 8’ tall. Ms. Grant replied that the applicant has had discussions with the neighbors and could explain the level of outreach she has done. As far as she knows the neighbors did not complain about the fence location. Ms. Porterfield said that there is a limit that the walking area for the animals can’t be used before 6:00 a.m. She thought that was a little early and wondered how the residents felt about that. She suggested limiting it to a reasonable time when people would be up perhaps somewhere around 7 and 8 a.m. before taking animals outside and then have the animals back in at a certain point at night. Staff listed how to limit the by-right uses under 22.2.1 and 22.2.2 and are limiting any other use on this property to the specific items listed. She questioned if staff was removing the items that were noted. From her read of 22.2.2 it appeared that 1, 4, 5, 8, 12 and 13 were still in there for use on the property. She asked if staff meant that those uses be excluded. Ms. Grant asked if she was referring to the proffers, and Ms. Porterfield replied yes. Ms. Grant noted that was where the technical issues come in to be worked on because there are some uses listed that staff mean to exclude. Mr. Kamptner noted not entirely because 22.2.2.5 is the veterinary office and hospital. He said that section needs to be cleaned up. Ms. Porterfield noted that in other words commercial recreation like pool halls, fast food restaurant, the motor vehicle sales and rental and body shop would all be removed. She asked if the animal shelter would dovetail with the animal hospital. Ms. Grant replied that animal shelter would be one that is removed as well. Ms. Porterfield asked if that would be the same thing as under 22.2.2.1 that the newsstand/tobacco shops, fire and rescue squad stations and the tailor and seamstress are being removed. Ms. Grant replied that those would be allowed. Ms. Joseph wondered why the sidewalk extension was part of the proffers and not part of special use permit conditions of approval. She asked if it was because it was off-site. Ms. Grant replied it is off-site. Mr. Kamptner noted that the rezoning is the most legally sustainable approach to the requirement. Mr. Strucko opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission. Dr. Sarah Salmon, owner and operator, said that the business has been in operation for the past 20 file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/ATNABuildingPCMins.htm (5 of 11) [9/30/2020 6:14:30 PM] minutes years. She offered the following comments. · The Service Authority has already given their approval on the sewer. That part is complete. The last part is signing the documents, which they are doing this week. · The 8’ fence is between two mature tree lines. She would be happy to face the fence whichever way they want. She did not think that the residents would see the fence nor would she be able to see much of it. She had not considered which way the fence would face. · As far as the timing on walking dogs early in the morning she felt that it would be imperative to understand that they walk dogs one at a time in an additional 8’ X 10’ additional 8’ fenced area. Also 6 a.m. is the time when noises increase due to the airport. In their sound engineer testing the airport made far and above an abundance of noise. It seemed that time would be an appropriate time for walking the dogs. · The airport location is ideal for several reasons. It is simple for a stressed client to find. Their prior location was difficult to fine, but this site is visible from the airport. To be able to find the business quickly and easily will be helpful to their clients when they are stressed. · She held two neighborhood meetings, which were not abundantly attended. The fence has not been brought up specifically as a concern. In both letters sent to the neighbors she specifically discussed what they were going to do and that they were planning a fence for their privacy and for the business. Any 24-hour business absolutely has to be concerned about noise. They are concerned particularly because they are an intensive care unit, which is very different from a general practice. The guest practice in which they currently function has 30 dog runs, and they have 4. It is imperative for the critical care business to maintain a quiet environment in the space. They don’t anticipate any impact to their neighbors. There has not been a problem in the past 20 years and they don’t anticipate it in future. Mr. Strucko invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and the matter before the Planning Commission. Ms. Joseph felt that this is a great use of the property. They are eliminating the uses in C-1. That area is growing up and is near the airport. She felt that it was an appropriate use. They are using an existing building. They are hooking up to public sewer. The applicant has talked to the neighbors, which is a wonderful thing to do to make sure that everybody knows what is going on. The neighbors are not here tonight. Obviously the neighbors have been informed. They need to figure out a condition. She asked what action should be taken first. Mr. Kamptner replied that the rezoning should be first followed by the special use permit and then the two waivers. Ms. Joseph asked if he had any suggestions for the proffer language now. Mr. Kamptner replied no, that he needed to sit down with staff and work with the applicant as well to finalize the proffer language as far as the uses and with respect to the sidewalk. Ms. Joseph said that she understands the sidewalk condition, but it was the uses that need to be clarified so that everyone understands what is in and what is out. Mr. Kamptner noted that if Ms. Grant knows what is in and out and can advise the Commission. Then the Commission as part of its action can direct the applicant to revise the proffers in order to meet their recommendation. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/ATNABuildingPCMins.htm (6 of 11) [9/30/2020 6:14:30 PM] minutes Ms. Joseph asked Ms. Grant to assist the Commission by clarifying the uses. Mr. Cilimberg noted that staff has the list for both. Staff thought that it would be best to give the Commission the shorter list as being included or excluded so that they don’t have a long list. Mr. Franco noted that everything that is not CO or the few uses listed is being prohibited. Ms. Grant noted that the uses in C-1 being taken out are all of the retail sales. Ms. Joseph asked for a list of those uses they would be keeping in. They know that they are maintaining all of the CO uses and adding a couple of uses in C-1. Ms. Grant agreed that was correct. Ms. Joseph asked what uses in C-1 would be allowed. Ms. Porterfield asked if they are allowing anything by special use permit under 23.2.2. Mr. Cilimberg noted that staff would cover both by-right and by special use permit uses. Ms. Grant said that the things they were keeping were administrative and professional office, financial institutions, churches, libraries and museums and eating establishments. Ms. Joseph asked if that included restaurants. Ms. Grant stated that was correct. Ms. Porterfield noted that those uses are limited to 20 percent of whatever use is there and be accessory. Ms. Grant noted that it is also allowed in the CO. Ms. Joseph noted that what Ms. Porterfield was saying was that it was allowed in CO if it was only 20 percent of the area. Ms. Porterfield said that if there would be something going in such as an eating establishment it has to be 80 percent of something that it is accessory to and it can’t be more than 20 percent. It can’t just be an eating establishment in general. Mr. Cilimberg noted that he was not sure they can limit it. That is one that they need to discuss the inclusion of. They don’t actually need to keep it in the C-1 if it is allowed in CO already. Mr. Kamptner said that there is some overlapping. Even though the public uses and the utilities are allowed in the CO it would be clearer if those use classifications that are also in C-1 are expressly allowed so there is no ambiguity for the people who are implementing these proffers down the road. Mr. Cilimberg said that the point is that the eating establishment under C-1 is not the same as the eating establishment under CO. Therefore, he thought that they would not want to have this. But the others that file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/ATNABuildingPCMins.htm (7 of 11) [9/30/2020 6:14:30 PM] minutes are the same they should keep. It would include #17 gas and #18 public uses. Ms. Grant noted that it would include #19, temporary construction uses, and #20 dwelling. Ms. Joseph asked if these are ones in common, and Ms. Grant replied yes. Ms. Joseph noted that whatever uses are in the CO are good to go, and Ms. Grant replied yes. Ms. Joseph said what they are looking for is what is being added to the list of acceptable uses on this property. Staff mentioned eating establishment which raised a questions. She asked what else. Ms. Grant replied that they then get into the special use permit uses. Ms. Porterfield suggested that they go back to 22.2.1 by right and if she was hearing correctly it is 17, 18, 19, 20 and 22. Ms. Grant replied that is correct. Mr. Cilimberg noted that staff also mentioned B1, administrative professional offices. Mr. Strucko noted that it included 1, 3, 5, 12, 14, 17, 18, 19 and 20. Ms. Porterfield asked why they are leaving eating establishment since the underlying one is only 20 percent and it is an accessory use to something. Mr. Cilimberg said that the Commission needs to decide among themselves whether they want it to be included or not. They mentioned they may not want it to be included. The other uses Ms. Grant needs to discuss would be uses allowed by special use permit, which would be remaining. Ms. Grant noted that all of A is out. Ms. Porterfield reiterated the numbers to be included as 1, 3, 5, 12, possibly 14, 17, 18, 19 and 20. Ms. Grant replied that was correct. She pointed out that they were taking out 1, 4, 8, 12, and 13. Mr. Strucko noted that they could do a Tier III by special use permit, but are excluded from doing a Tier I and Tier II altogether. Ms. Joseph noted that her understanding was that they were allowing everything in CO. So if it was in CO it was allowed because the underlying zoning right now is CO. Mr. Kamptner agreed and noted to be clear and consistent in what they have done the Tier I and Tier II Wireless Facilities should be allowed by right also. Even though they are in the CO they should also be included in C-1. Mr. Strucko asked that they add b.27. Ms. Grant pointed out that it should be 26 and 27 since both are in the CO. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/ATNABuildingPCMins.htm (8 of 11) [9/30/2020 6:14:30 PM] minutes Mr. Strucko said that they were saying potentially an eating establishment is okay, but a fast food restaurant is not. He noted that in allowing some things and excluding others there seemed to be some inconsistency. He asked if they were not allowing an animal shelter by special use permit. Ms. Grant said that they are allowing the veterinary office and hospital. Ms. Joseph noted that an animal shelter is different. Ms. Porterfield said that she would make a case to remove eating establishment from the previous one #14 so that the only eating establishments would be what could be in the CO, which would be an accessory use to the major use of the property. Mr. Franco asked if the revised proffer would reference the CO or is it just going to say here are the uses that are allowed. Mr. Kamptner replied that he thought that it would reference them. Mr. Franco said that it would reference with saying the uses allowed in CO plus C-1 and this. Ms. Joseph noted that would be very clear. Mr. Franco asked if the applicant cares about the eating establishment. He asked if the Commission was comfortable with striking #14 in C-1 and allowing it as accessory in the CO. Ms. Porterfield said that she was comfortable if everybody else is in agreement, but would love to see the nice side of the fence on the outside on the resident’s side. Mr. Cilimberg noted that would be in the special use permit section. Mr. Edgerton noted that his only concern was working contrary to what the ARB has already determined since they have seen a rendering of the fence. Ms. Porterfield said that the other alternative is if the ARB had seen it the other way then they could ask for a fence that has two good sides. She noted that would take care of the problem. Mr. Franco on asked what type of fencing is going to be used John Gorman, with Gorman Architects, said that he had been hired by Dr. Salmon to design the fence. The fence is a 4’ X 4’ post with 2’X 4’ stringers that have vertical boards applied to them. So it does have in the terminology as he had heard here that it had one good side. The ARB saw that with the good side facing the Entrance Corridor. It would be facing towards the parking lot and away from the residence. He echoed as Dr. Salmon said that there will be two rows of mature pine trees that are along the property line adjacent to the residential uses. The fence is designed to run between those rows. There is a fence on one of the resident’s properties that runs a good third of that distance. Ms. Porterfield asked what if they are going to leave enough room between so that it can be maintained. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/ATNABuildingPCMins.htm (9 of 11) [9/30/2020 6:14:30 PM] minutes Mr. Gorman replied that the fence they are going to put in is going to run typically 5’ off the property line. Ms. Porterfield noted that maintenance was not going to be a problem, and Mr. Gorman agreed. Motion on ZMA-2008-00007: Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Loach seconded to recommend approval of ZMA-2008- 00007 ATNA Building with the proffers noted in the staff report, amended as discussed so that the proffers are corrected before the Board of Supervisors meeting, which would include the addition of the sidewalk along the western side of the entrance. The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. Mr. Strucko noted that there was one issue related to the special use permit concerning the fence. Ms. Porterfield said that she did not feel very strongly because they don’t have an ordinance, which is a discussion that they need to have in the future. When building a fence the good side should face whoever they are buffering. If they need to have two good sides then it should be a fence that has two good sides. In this case it is a very big fence and she would like to see the good side face the property owners that are abutting knowing that the other part basically just faces the parking lot. Mr. Franco pointed out that in this particular case seeing that it has gone through the ARB and that there are mature trees on both sides of the fence he was less inclined to mess with that aspect of the plan. Ms. Porterfield noted that she understands that. Her question is whether the Planning Commission is allowed to overrule the ARB. She did not understand the procedure. Mr. Kamptner replied that in matters of public health and safety the Commission and the Board can act otherwise. Ms. Porterfield noted that in aesthetics they may not be able to. She did not have a problem, but would suggest when the Commission has time they should discuss fences to see if they could come up with something that would possibly give the better side of a fence to the buffered portions. The Commission will be discussing these types of issues later on the agenda. Mr. Loach agreed. Motion on SP-2008-00067: Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Ms. Porterfield seconded to recommend approval of SP-2008-00067 ATNA Building concurrent with ZMA-2008-00007 subject to the recommended conditions based on the staff report. 1. Development of the use shall be in accord with the concept plan, entitled “Proposed Fencing” prepared by Gorman Architects, PLC, dated June 20, 2009 (the “Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in conformity with the Plan, development shall reflect the following elements only and all other elements of the Plan may be modified during site plan review and approval: general location of parking areas, buffer and screening from file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/ATNABuildingPCMins.htm (10 of 11) [9/30/2020 6:14:30 PM] minutes adjacent residential properties, the outdoor dog exercise yard and the canine elimination yard. Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. 2. This special use permit applies to the existing building and any new buildings for the veterinary use will require a new special use permit. 3. The opening of any windows shall be prohibited. 4. Dogs may be walked only in the outdoor dog walk area. 5. No animals shall be boarded overnight or groomed, except for those animals under medical care at the veterinary hospital. 6. The use shall not commence until the building located at 1540 Airport Road is served by public sewer. 7. An 8 foot tall treated solid wood privacy fence in a cabot slate gray #1445 stain for pressure treated wood shall be constructed and maintained along the full perimeter of the property adjacent to the residential properties. The existing trees and landscape along the perimeter of the property adjacent to the residential properties shall not be disturbed. Screening requirements shall comply with Section 32.7.9.8 Screening of the Albemarle County Code. 8. An 8 foot tall treated solid wood privacy fence in a cabot slate gray #1445 stain for pressure treated wood shall be constructed and maintained to enclose the canine elimination yard shown on the Plan. The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. Mr. Strucko said that the ZMA-2008-00007 and SP-2008-00067 would go to the Board of Supervisors on December 9 with a recommendation for approval. Motion on Waivers: Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Ms. Porterfield seconded for approval of the waiver request for Chapters 18, Section 21.7 (c) and Section 5.1.11 9 (b) of the Zoning Ordinance based on the staff report, as follows. ● A waiver of Chapter 18, Section 21.7 (C) of the Zoning Ordinance, which requires the maintenance of a 20 foot undisturbed buffer between residential and commercial properties; and ● A waiver of Section 5.1.11 (b) of the Zoning Ordinance, which requires soundproofed confinements not be located closer than two hundred (200) feet to any agricultural or residential lot line, and which requires the soundproofed confinements, noise measured at the nearest agricultural or residential property line not exceed fifty-five (55) decibels” be approved. The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. Mr. Strucko said that the two waivers associated with ZMA-2008-00007 and SP-2008-00067 were approved by the Planning Commission. Waivers do not go to the Board of Supervisors. Return to PC actions letter file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/ATNABuildingPCMins.htm (11 of 11) [9/30/2020 6:14:30 PM] report Project Name: ZMA 200800007 ATNA Building SP 200800067 Veterinary use Staff: Claudette Grant Planning Commission Public Hearing: October 20, 2009 Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: To be determined Owners: ATNA Corporation, LLC Applicant: ATNA Corporation, LLC with Sara Salmon as the contact Acreage: approx. 0.7866 acres Rezone from: CO, Commercial Office to C1, Commercial Special Use Permit for: Veterinary Hospital by special use permit in C-1 Commercial district TMP: 32-48; Lot A By-right use: Retail sales and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/acre) in C- 1, Commercial District. Section 22.2.2(5) Veterinary office and hospital of the Zoning Ordinance which allows a veterinary hospital Magisterial District: Rio Proffers: Yes Proposal: Rezone 0.7866 acres from CO zoning district to C1 zoning district. The existing building on site will house an animal emergency care clinic. This proposal also includes one concurrent special use permit, SP 2008-067, a request to allow a veterinary hospital on the property. Requested # of Dwelling Units: None DA (Development Area): The Community of Hollymead Comp. Plan Designation: Neighborhood Density Character of Property: Located at 1540 Airport Road/Southeast corner of the intersection of Dickerson Rd. and Airport Rd., the property is developed with an existing building and parking area. Use of Surrounding Properties: The Deerwood subdivision is located south and to the rear of the subject property and is primarily comprised of single family residential units. The Charlottesville-Albemarle airport is located northwest of the property. There are also some vacant parcels surrounding the property. Factors Favorable: 1. The rezoning and special use permit are consistent with the Land Use Plan. 2. The rezoning and special use permit will provide the veterinary hospital use an opportunity to expand and relocate to a central location convenient for clients. 3. The veterinary hospital will provide a 24 hours/day service instead of the current hours, which are only after business hours. Factors Unfavorable: 1. The proffers need to be technically accurate. 2. Pedestrian access is not complete to this facility. However the applicant agrees to provide a proffer that will address the pedestrian access. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/ATNABuildingPCSR.htm (1 of 10) [9/30/2020 6:14:31 PM] report RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this rezoning, waivers, and special use permit with conditions, provided the proffers are revised and technically and legally acceptable prior to the Board public hearing. STAFF PERSON: CLAUDETTE GRANT PLANNING COMMISSION: OCTOBER 20, 2009 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: ZMA 08-07 ATNA Building SP 08-67 Special Use Permit-Veterinary Services Clinic PETITIONS PROJECT: ZMA200800007/ATNA Building PROPOSAL: Rezone 0.7866 acres from CO zoning district which allows offices, supporting commercial and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/ acre) to C1 zoning district which allows retail sales and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/ acre). Existing building on site will house an animal emergency care clinic. This proposal also includes one concurrent special use permit SP 08-067, a request to allow a veterinary services clinic on the property. PROFFERS: Yes EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Density Residential - residential (3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small-scale non-residential uses. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: 1540 Airport Road/Southeast corner of the intersection of Dickerson Rd. and Airport Rd. in the Community of Hollymead TAX MAP/PARCEL: 32/48 Lot A MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio PROJECT: SP200800067/ATNA Building PROPOSED: Request a special use permit to operate a veterinary services clinic in the existing building on the site. This proposal also includes a concurrent rezoning request (ZMA 2008-007) to rezone 0.7866 acres from CO zoning district to C1 zoning district. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: CO Commercial Office - offices, supporting commercial and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/ acre) SECTION: 22.2.2(5) Veterinary office and hospital and 5.1.11 Commercial Kennel, Veterinary Service, Office or Hospital, Animal Hospital, Animal Shelter COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Density Residential - residential (3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small-scale non-residential uses. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: 1540 Airport Road/Southeast corner of the intersection of Dickerson Rd. and Airport Rd. in the Community of Hollymead TAX MAP/PARCEL: 32/48 Lot A file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/ATNABuildingPCSR.htm (2 of 10) [9/30/2020 6:14:31 PM] report MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio CHARACTER OF THE AREA The site is approximately 0.7866 acres in size and is zoned CO Commercial Office. It is located in the Development Area. There is an existing building with parking areas on the parcel. The site is located west of Route 29, and across from the Charlottesville-Albemarle airport. The Deerwood subdivision is located to the south of the property. (See Attachments A and B) SPECIFICS OF PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting to rezone property located at 1540 Airport Road from CO zoning district to C-1 zoning district. This request includes proffers that would limit the use to CO uses and a few C-1 uses that are less intensive and appropriate for this location, including a veterinary hospital. A special use permit is also being requested because the applicant is proposing to relocate and expand the V.E.T.S. Animal Emergency Care Clinic, which has been located at 370 Greenbrier Dr. to this location. The existing building at this new location will house the animal clinic. The applicant has indicated that this location is centrally located for her existing clients, as well as potential new clients, and that V.E.T.S. is currently the only after–hours animal emergency care facility in Albemarle County. (See Attachment C) The special use permit utilizing the existing building will allow the applicant to relocate and expand her growing business into a larger space. This is proposed to be a 24-hour emergency animal critical care and referral facility. The applicant has temporarily relocated this facility to another location until the rezoning and special use permit have been processed. APPLICANT’S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST The applicant has indicated that the relocation and expansion of this animal emergency care practice will allow her to continue providing after-hours emergency care for more patients, along with specialty care for small pets that is not currently available locally and sometimes requires owners to travel elsewhere to be evaluated and treated appropriately. The now central location will provide a readily accessible location for existing and new clients. PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY SP2008-20 was a special use permit request to allow stand alone parking. The request was approved on October 8, 2008. SDP1989-29 Airport Office Center was a request for approval of a final site plan to construct two (2) office buildings and associated parking on approximately 1.54 acres. This request was approved. ZMA1984-10 was a request to rezone from RA-Rural Areas to CO-Commercial Office. This request was approved. ZMA1983-22 was a request to rezone from RA- Rural Areas to C-1 Commercial. This request was denied. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/ATNABuildingPCSR.htm (3 of 10) [9/30/2020 6:14:31 PM] report The Comprehensive Plan shows this area as Neighborhood Density in the Hollymead Community. The purpose/intent of the Neighborhood Density designation is to provide for a gross residential density of three (3) to six (6) dwelling units per acre, a range of dwelling unit types, and neighborhood-scale non-residential uses. The proposed Places 29 Master Plan designates this area as Office/Research & Development (R & D)/Flex/Light Industrial. This designation allows a range of employment generating uses and is applied to the majority of the nonretail employment areas within the Places 29 area to create Employment Neighborhoods. These uses are expected to have the fewest impacts on surrounding uses (e.g., noise, vibrations, odors). “Office” includes the typical commercial office buildings that may house a variety of users. The existing commercial building is a typical office building, in keeping with neighborhood scale structures and other similar neighborhood scale uses in this portion of Airport Road. The following Neighborhood Model principle is relevant to this request: Mixture of Uses – This existing commercial parcel is one of a mix of uses in this part of the County. There are several retail, commercial and light industrial uses located nearby along Airport Road, as well as the residential neighborhoods of Deerwood and Abington Place on adjacent parcels. The following Neighborhood Model principles are not met: Relegated Parking – Existing parking is not quite relegated. One of the parking areas is located near the front of the parcel and to the side of the building. The rest of the parking on site is either located to the side or rear of the existing building. It should be noted that there is no new parking or building construction proposed as a result of this request. Pedestrian Access – While a completed sidewalk is located on the north east entrance from Airport Road to the subject parcel, the northwest entrance to the parcel is showing only a portion of completed sidewalk located around the corner of Airport Road into the parcel. Ideally the sidewalk on the west side of the entrance would be completed to the applicant’s property line in order to complete the pedestrian access to this building. The applicant has agreed to provide a proffer that will address this issue. Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning district CO districts allow for a variety of office uses and supporting accessory uses and facilities. The CO district is intended as a transition between residential districts and other more intensive commercial and industrial districts. The C-1 districts are intended to permit more retail sales, service and public use establishments but not as many as Highway Commercial. It is intended that C-1 districts be established only within the urban area, communities and villages in the comprehensive plan. The C-1 district allows for veterinary office and hospital uses by special use permit. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/ATNABuildingPCSR.htm (4 of 10) [9/30/2020 6:14:31 PM] report Staff believes the proposal is consistent with the intent of the district and does serve as an appropriate service and public use within the Hollymead Community because of the proffered limitations. Anticipated impact on public facilities and services Staff does not expect this proposal to add additional new impacts to streets, schools, fire, rescue, and police. Utilities – This building is currently not connected to public sewer. However, the applicant has committed to making sure the building is served by public sewer prior to commencing the use. A special use permit condition also addresses this issue. Stormwater Management – There are no stormwater management concerns relating to this project. Transportation – VDOT does not have concerns relating to this project. (See Attachment D) The traffic to be generated by the animal hospital use is not substantially different from an office use, which has existed on this property. Staff does not anticipate neighborhood impacts from traffic because access to the property is directly off of Airport Road. Anticipated impact on cultural and historic resources Staff is not aware of any changes to the cultural and historic resources of the area or County. Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties Staff does not anticipate any significant impacts on nearby and surrounding properties. Although this is proposed to be an animal hospital and emergency care facility, the applicant does not anticipate any significant noise impacts. The applicant has explained that when animals arrive at her facility, they are usually very sick and not able to make a lot of noise. As requested by staff, the applicant has provided a variety of sound studies for this site, all of which have provided acceptable sound levels. The installation of a fence and landscaping adjacent to the residential district at the rear of the site will also help to attenuate any additional noise concerns. The applicant will also install a fence around the outside animal walk area, which is adjacent to the building. Public need and justification for the change The expansion and relocation of this proposed 24-hour animal emergency care facility will continue to provide a much needed service to area residents and their pets, particularly since it will be one of the only facilities of its’ type in the area. It will also provide additional employment opportunities in the County. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/ATNABuildingPCSR.htm (5 of 10) [9/30/2020 6:14:31 PM] report PROFFERS The applicant proposes proffers (Attachment E) that would limit the use of this property to CO uses and a few C-1 uses that are less intensive for this location, such as fire and rescue squad stations, tailor, seamstress, drive-in windows serving or associated with permitted uses and veterinary office and hospital. The applicant also agrees to proffer the completion of the sidewalk on the west side of the entrance to the subject property line. While there are no additional substantive changes needed to the proffers, they are in need of technical changes. The changes to the proffers can be made between the Planning Commission and Board public hearing if the Planning Commission is satisfied that they do not need to see the proffers in their final form. Waivers The applicant is requesting a waiver of Chapter 18, Section 21.7 (C) of the Zoning Ordinance, which requires the maintenance of a 20 foot undisturbed buffer between residential and commercial properties in order to provide privacy and noise attenuation for residences from the activity of commercial uses. Staff has requested the installation of a fence near the residential district at the rear of the existing building in order to provide privacy and noise attenuation for the adjacent residents. The applicant has committed to providing an approximately 8 foot tall treated solid wood privacy fence along the perimeter of the property adjacent to the residential properties for a buffer, sound attenuation and privacy. The applicant will have to disturb the buffer temporarily in order to construct the required privacy fence. Staff recommends approval of the waiver because the proposed fence and landscape will provide a good buffer between the adjacent residential area and this existing commercial property. Recently there have been several waiver approvals such as this. The applicant is also requesting a waiver of Section 5.1.11 (b) of the Zoning Ordinance, which states “For soundproofed confinements, no such structure shall be located closer than two hundred (200) feet to any agricultural or residential lot line. For soundproofed confinements, noise measured at the nearest agricultural or residential property line shall not exceed fifty-five (55) decibels” The building in which the animal hospital would be located is less than 200 feet from the adjacent residential properties. The closest residential property line is approximately 70 feet from the rear of the animal hospital building. The applicant has also submitted an engineer’s report confirming that the building is soundproofed and that when studied, the decibels never exceeded the required 55 decibels. (See Attachment F) Staff recommends approval of this waiver because the building is soundproofed and the applicant will be installing a fence with landscaping that will further attenuate the sound of the animal hospital. Other similar waivers have been recently granted for veterinary uses that are located within 200 feet of residential lots. (See Attachment G) Staff Comment on SP 2008-67-Request for Veterinary Services Clinic Uses in the C-1 Commercial District file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/ATNABuildingPCSR.htm (6 of 10) [9/30/2020 6:14:31 PM] report Section 31.6 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be assessed as follows: Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property? No detriment to adjoining properties is anticipated from the requested veterinary hospital use. Will the character of the zoning district change with this use? The character of the zoning district is not proposed to change with the relocation of the veterinary hospital. In the past, the existing building has served as an office use for the airport; however, currently the building is vacant and has been for some time. The existing building will remain on the site with primarily internal changes being made to the building. Redevelopment of the site is not proposed. Staff does not anticipate the use of this building as a animal hospital to be any more intensive than an office use. Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance? The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the C-1 zone, which is to permit limited retail sales, service and public use establishments. The applicant is further limiting the use of the property by providing proffers that would limit the use of this site to CO uses and a few C-1 uses that are less intensive for this location including a veterinary hospital. Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district? Uses allowed by-right in the C-1 District include a range of retail, and service uses. The veterinary hospital is not in conflict with any of these types of uses. Will the use comply with the additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance? Section 5.1.11 is applicable to the proposed animal hospital use and each regulation is addressed below: a. Except where animals are confined in soundproofed, air-conditioned buildings, no structure or area occupied by animals shall be closer than five hundred (500) feet to any agricultural or residential lot line. For non-soundproofed animal confinements, an external solid fence not less than six (6) feet in height shall be located within fifty (50) feet of the animal confinement and shall be composed of concrete block, brick, or other material approved by the zoning administrator; (Amended 11-15-89) Animals will be confined to the soundproofed, air-conditioned building. As conditioned, the applicant will be installing an approximately 8 foot tall treated solid wood privacy fence along the perimeter of the property adjacent to the residential properties and around the canine elimination yard. b. For soundproofed confinements, no such structure shall be located closer than two hundred (200) feet to any agricultural or residential lot line. For soundproofed confinements, noise measured at the nearest agricultural or residential property line shall file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/ATNABuildingPCSR.htm (7 of 10) [9/30/2020 6:14:31 PM] report not exceed fifty-five (55) decibels; (Amended 11-15-89; 6-14-00) As described in the waiver section of this staff report, a request from the applicant has been made to modify this requirement. c. In all cases, animals shall be confined in an enclosed building from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a. m. (Amended 11-15-89; 6-14-00) The applicant has indicated that this requirement will be met and that there will be no outdoor activity for these animals during these hours. d. In areas where such uses may be in proximity to other uses involving intensive activity such as shopping centers or other urban density locations, special attention is required to protect the public health and welfare. To these ends the commission and board may require among other things: (Amended 11-15-89) -Separate building entrance and exit to avoid animal conflicts ;( Added 11-15-89) -Area for outside exercise to be exclusive from access by the public by fencing or other means. (Added 11-15-89) The animal hospital will be the only occupant of the building on the property. There is no need to impose any additional requirements for a separate building entrance. As previously mentioned, staff recommended conditions for the fenced in canine elimination area. Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the use is approved? The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community are protected through the special use permit process which assures that the proposed use is appropriate in the location requested. There is no safety concern with the proposed veterinary services clinic use. SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors favorable to the rezoning and special use permit requested: 1. The rezoning and special use permit are consistent with the Land Use Plan. 2. The rezoning and special use permit will provide the veterinary hospital use an opportunity to expand and relocate to a central location convenient for clients. 3. The veterinary hospital will provide a 24 hours/day service instead of the current hours, which are only after business hours. Staff has identified the following factors unfavorable to this request: 1. The proffers need to be technically accurate. 2. Pedestrian access is not complete to this facility. However the applicant agrees to file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/ATNABuildingPCSR.htm (8 of 10) [9/30/2020 6:14:31 PM] report provide a proffer that will address the pedestrian access. RECOMMENDED ACTION: ZMA 2008-007 Staff recommends approval of this rezoning provided that the proffers (Attachment E) are revised and are technically and legally acceptable prior to the Board of Supervisors public hearing, including a commitment to complete the sidewalk on the west side of the entrance to the applicant’s property line. Staff recommends the following conditions for approval for the requested special use permit, should the rezoning be approved: SP 2008-067 1. Development of the use shall be in accord with the concept plan, entitled “Proposed Fencing” prepared by Gorman Architects, PLC, dated June 20, 2009 (the “Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in conformity with the Plan, development shall reflect the following elements only and all other elements of the Plan may be modified during site plan review and approval: general location of parking areas, buffer and screening from adjacent residential properties, the outdoor dog exercise yard and the canine elimination yard. Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. 2. This special use permit applies to the existing building and any new buildings for the veterinary use will require a new special use permit. 3. The opening of any windows shall be prohibited. 4. Dogs may be walked only in the outdoor dog walk area. 5. No animals shall be boarded overnight or groomed, except for those animals under medical care at the veterinary hospital. 6. The use shall not commence until the building located at 1540 Airport Road is served by public sewer. 7. An 8 foot tall treated solid wood privacy fence in a cabot slate gray #1445 stain for pressure treated wood shall be constructed and maintained along the full perimeter of the property adjacent to the residential properties. The existing trees and landscape along the perimeter of the property adjacent to the residential properties shall not be disturbed. Screening requirements shall comply with Section 32.7.9.8 Screening of the Albemarle County Code. 8. An 8 foot tall treated solid wood privacy fence in a cabot slate gray #1445 stain for pressure treated wood shall be constructed and maintained to enclose the canine elimination yard shown on the Plan. Waivers Staff recommends: file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/ATNABuildingPCSR.htm (9 of 10) [9/30/2020 6:14:31 PM] report 1) A waiver of Chapter 18, Section 21.7 (C) of the Zoning Ordinance, which requires the maintenance of a 20 foot undisturbed buffer between residential and commercial properties; and 2) A waiver of Section 5.1.11 (b) of the Zoning Ordinance, which requires soundproofed confinements not be located closer than two hundred (200) feet to any agricultural or residential lot line, and which requires the soundproofed confinements, noise measured at the nearest agricultural or residential property line not exceed fifty-five (55) decibels” be approved. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A – Location Map Attachment B – Tax Map Attachment C – Concept Plan, entitled “VETS Emergency Animal Hospital” prepared by Animal Arts Mark R. Hafen, Architect, dated June 1, 2009 Attachment D – Electronic mail from Joel DeNunzio, dated October 8, 2009 Attachment E - Revised Proffer Statement dated September 1, 2009 Attachment F – Sound Study letters from John McNair, dated July 15, 2009, June 30, 2009, and May 29, 2009 Attachment G – Waiver Request letters from Sara Salmon, dated July 20, 2009 and August 24, 2009 Return to PC actions letter file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/ATNABuildingPCSR.htm (10 of 10) [9/30/2020 6:14:31 PM] attachment RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is one of the localities subject to Virginia Code § 15.2-2223.1, which requires localities to amend their comprehensive plans to designate one or more Urban Development Areas (“UDA”) and to incorporate principles of new urbanism and traditional neighborhood development, as defined therein; and WHEREAS, in lieu of amending the County’s Comprehensive Plan, the Board of Supervisors is authorized by Virginia Code § 15.2-2223.1(E) to adopt a resolution certifying that the Comprehensive Plan accommodates growth in a manner consistent with the elements of a UDA and the principles of new urbanism and traditional neighborhood development; and WHEREAS, the County’s Comprehensive Plan addresses the elements of a UDA by allowing residential density of at least 4 dwelling units per gross acre (with the exception of the Village of Rivanna) and allowing commercial density having FARs of 0.4 per gross acre; by encouraging a mixture of housing types, including affordable housing, in all Development Areas; by providing that Development Areas are predominantly served by public water and sewer services and having a policy to extend public water and sewer facilities to all lands within the Development Areas; by locating the Development Areas in close proximity to various transportation facilities including inter-county and major intra-county roadways as well as other transportation services; and by locating Development Areas in close proximity to the City of Charlottesville (the Urban Area comprised of Neighborhoods 1-7 including the Pantops Master Plan Area), areas that are developed and continue to develop north of the Urban Area (the Communities of Hollymead and Piney Mountain), and areas that are already developed (the Community of Crozet and the Village of Rivanna); and WHEREAS, the Development Areas incorporate principles of new urbanism and traditional neighborhood development in that they comprise 36 square miles or 5% of the County’s total land area, and the form and characteristics of their development are guided by the Neighborhood Model, which promotes density through principles of pedestrian orientation, neighborhood friendly streets, street interconnections, parks and open space, neighborhood centers, buildings of human scale, relegated parking, mixture of uses, mixture of housing types and affordability, redevelopment, site development that respects terrain and clear boundaries with the Rural Areas. WHEREAS, the Development Areas are established to accommodate development for the next 20 years and, while it may be possible that the Development Areas are sufficient to accommodate development beyond 20 years, the overarching elements of a UDA and the principles of new urbanism and traditional neighborhood development expressed in Virginia Code § 15.2-2223.1 are better achieved by the current compact sizes of the Development Areas, their periodic review every 5 years, the County’s existing development policies, and the Neighborhood Model’s policy of establishing clear boundaries with the Rural Areas. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby certifies that the County’s Comprehensive Plan accommodates growth in a manner consistent with Virginia Code §15.2-2223.1. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/CertificationAttachA.htm (1 of 2) [9/30/2020 6:14:32 PM] attachment Go to next attachment Return to exec summary file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/CertificationAttachA.htm (2 of 2) [9/30/2020 6:14:32 PM] attachment Attachment B § 15.2-2223.1. Comprehensive plan to include urban development areas; new urbanism. A. Every county, city, or town that has adopted zoning pursuant to Article 7 (§ 15.2-2280 et seq.) of Chapter 22 of Title 15.2 and that (i) has a population of at least 20,000 and population growth of at least 5% or (ii) has population growth of 15% or more, shall, and any county, city or town may, amend its comprehensive plan to incorporate one or more urban development areas. For purposes of this section, population growth shall be the difference in population from the next-to-latest to the latest decennial census year, based on population reported by the United States Bureau of the Census. For purposes of this section, an urban development area is an area designated by a locality that is appropriate for higher density development due to proximity to transportation facilities, the availability of a public or community water and sewer system, or proximity to a city, town, or other developed area. The comprehensive plan shall provide for commercial and residential densities within urban development areas that are appropriate for reasonably compact development at a density of at least four residential units per gross acre and a minimum floor area ratio of 0.4 per gross acre for commercial development. The urban development areas may provide for a mix of residential housing types, including affordable housing, to meet the projected family income distributions of future residential growth. The comprehensive plan shall designate one or more urban development areas sufficient to meet projected residential and commercial growth in the locality for an ensuing period of at least 10 but not more than 20 years, which may include phasing of development within the urban development areas. Future growth shall be based on official estimates and projections of the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service of the University of Virginia or other official government sources. The boundaries and size of each urban development area shall be reexamined and, if necessary, revised every five years in conjunction with the update of the comprehensive plan and in accordance with the most recent available population growth estimates and projections. Such districts may be areas designated for redevelopment or infill development. B. The comprehensive plan shall further incorporate principles of new urbanism and traditional neighborhood development, which may include but need not be limited to (i) pedestrian-friendly road design, (ii) interconnection of new local streets with existing local streets and roads, (iii) connectivity of road and pedestrian networks, (iv) preservation of natural areas, (v) satisfaction of requirements for stormwater management, (vi) mixed-use neighborhoods, including mixed housing types, (vii) reduction of front and side yard building setbacks, and (viii) reduction of subdivision street widths and turning radii at subdivision street intersections. C. The comprehensive plan shall describe any financial and other incentives for development in the urban development areas. D. No county, city, or town that has amended its comprehensive plan in accordance with this section shall limit or prohibit development pursuant to existing zoning or shall refuse to consider any application for rezoning based solely on the fact that the property is located outside the urban development area. E. Any county, city, or town that would be required to amend its plan pursuant to this section that determines that its plan accommodates growth in a manner consistent with this section, upon adoption of a file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/CertificationAttachB.htm (1 of 2) [9/30/2020 6:14:33 PM] attachment resolution certifying such compliance, shall not be required to further amend its plan. F. Any county that amends its comprehensive plan pursuant to this section may designate one or more urban development areas in any incorporated town within such county, if the governing body of the town has also amended its comprehensive plan to designate the same areas as urban development areas with at least the same density designated by the county. G. To the extent possible, state and local transportation, housing, and economic development funding shall be directed to the urban development area. (2007, c. 896; 2009, c. 327.) Return to exec summary file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/CertificationAttachB.htm (2 of 2) [9/30/2020 6:14:33 PM] summary COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Certification of Consistency of Comprehensive Plan with Virginia Code § 15.2-2223.1 SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Resolution Certifying Consistency of Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan with Virginia Code § 15.2-2223.1 STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, and Cilimberg LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: December 9, 2009 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: Virginia Code § 15.2-2223.1 was enacted in 2007 as part of the massive transportation legislation (House Bill 3202) adopted by the General Assembly that year. Section 15.2-2223.1 requires certain high growth localities, including the County of Albemarle, to amend their comprehensive plans to incorporate one or more “urban development areas” (“UDA”), which is defined to be an “area designated by a locality that is appropriate for higher density development due to proximity to transportation facilities, the availability of a public or community water and sewer system, or proximity to a city, town, or other developed area.” Section 15.2-2223.1 requires that a UDA must provide for commercial and residential densities that are appropriate for reasonably compact development. Residential densities must be at least four dwelling units per gross acre and commercial densities must have a minimum floor area ratio of 0.4 per gross acre. A UDA may provide for a mix of residential housing types, including affordable housing, to meet the projected family income distributions of future residential growth. At least one UDA must be designated as being sufficient to meet projected residential and commercial growth in the locality for an ensuing period of at least 10 but not more than 20 years. Principles of new urbanism and traditional neighborhood development must be incorporated into the comprehensive plan. In lieu of amending the County’s Comprehensive Plan as set forth above, the Board of Supervisors is authorized by Virginia Code § 15.2-2223.1(E) to adopt a resolution certifying that the Comprehensive Plan accommodates growth in a manner consistent with the elements of a UDA and the principles of new urbanism and traditional neighborhood development. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 4: Effectively manage growth and development. DISCUSSION: The Comprehensive Plan’s Land Use Plan accommodates growth in a manner consistent with the file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/CertificationES.htm (1 of 3) [9/30/2020 6:14:33 PM] summary elements of a UDA under Virginia Code § 15.2-2223.1, as follows: Density: All residential land use designations (Neighborhood Density, Urban Density, Crozet Transects) in the Land Use Plan allow at least 4 dwelling units per gross acre with the exception of the Village of Rivanna. All commercial land use designations in the Land Use Plan (Neighborhood, Community and Regional Service, Crozet Transects) allow FARs of 0.4 per gross acre. The policy of the Comprehensive Plan is to provide a mixture of housing types, including affordable housing, in all Development Areas. The residential zoning districts encouraged within the Development Areas allow a mixture of housing types, and the Neighborhood Model District requires a mixture of housing types. Availability of public or community water and sewer systems: The Development Areas are predominantly served by public water and sewer services and the Comprehensive Plan’s policy is to extend public water and sewer facilities to all lands within the Development Areas. Proximity to transportation facilities: The Development Areas are located so that they are in close proximity to various transportation facilities including inter-county and major intra-county roadways such as Interstate 64, U.S. Route 29, and U.S. Route 250, as well as other transportation services such as public bus service, passenger rail service, and air service. Proximity to a city, town or other developed areas: The Urban Area (Neighborhoods 1-7 including the Pantops Master Plan Area) surrounds the City of Charlottesville. The Communities of Hollymead and Piney Mountain along U.S. 29 North are continuing to develop, and extend north from the Urban Area. The Community of Crozet primarily consists of an area that has been developed for a long time. The Village of Rivanna primarily consists of the Glenmore and Running Deer subdivisions, which are developed. The areas are sufficient to accommodate at least 10 years, but not more than 20 years, of development: The Development Areas will accommodate development for up to the next 20 years. While it may be possible that the Development Areas are sufficient to accommodate development beyond 20 years, it is staff’s opinion that the overarching elements of a UDA and the principles of new urbanism and traditional neighborhood development are better achieved by the current compact sizes of the Development Areas, their periodic review every 5 years, the County’s existing development policies, and the Neighborhood Model’s policy of establishing clear boundaries with the Rural Areas, rather than an arbitrary 20-year window. The Comprehensive Plan’s Land Use Plan also accommodates growth in a manner consistent with the principles of new urbanism and traditional neighborhood development under Virginia Code § 15.2-2223.1. The Land Use Plan designates seven Urban Neighborhoods, three Communities and one Village that constitute the County's Development Areas. The Development Areas comprise 36 square miles or 5% of the County’s total land area and the form and characteristics of their development are guided by the Neighborhood Model. The Neighborhood Model promotes density through principles of pedestrian orientation, neighborhood friendly streets, street interconnections, parks and open space, neighborhood centers, buildings of human scale, relegated parking, mixture of uses, mixture of housing types and affordability, redevelopment, site development that respects terrain and clear boundaries with the Rural Areas. In addition, area master plans that reflect these principles were added to the Land Use Plan for the Community of Crozet in 2004 and the Pantops Urban Neighborhood in 2008. Two new area master plans have recently been recommended for approval to the Board of Supervisors by the Planning Commission: (1) Places29, which includes the area of two Urban Neighborhoods and two Communities; and (2) the file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/CertificationES.htm (2 of 3) [9/30/2020 6:14:33 PM] summary Village of Rivanna. It is staff’s opinion that these elements and principles in the Comprehensive Plan are consistent with the manner of growth sought by Virginia Code § 15.2-2223.1. BUDGET IMPACT: There is no immediate budget impact; however, certification shows an additional level of County consistency with state code provisions that could be helpful in pursuing an Urban Development Area Planning Grant from the state. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached resolution certifying that the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan accommodates growth in a manner consistent with Virginia Code § 15.2-2223.1. ATTACHMENTS A - Resolution B – Virginia Code § 15.2-2223.1 Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/CertificationES.htm (3 of 3) [9/30/2020 6:14:33 PM] summary COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: 09-03( ) Agricultural and Forestal Districts; additions to Kinloch Agricultural and Forestal District SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Public hearing on an ordinance to amend § 3-220 to add four parcels to the Kinloch Agricultural and Forestal District STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, and Cilimberg LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: December 9, 2009 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: On December 2, 2009, the Board considered the review of three Agricultural and Forestal (“AF”) districts, the creation of two new AF districts, multiple requests for additions to several AF districts, and the adoption of an ordinance making corresponding changes to the County Code. Many of the properties are being added for land use taxation purposes. Because of a problem in advertising the public hearing, a proposed addition to the Kinlock AF District was unable to be considered on December 2. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 2: Protect the County’s Natural Resources DISCUSSION: Four parcels are being proposed to be added to the Kinloch AF District. The Kinloch AF District is located northeast of Cismont and currently is composed of 29 parcels over 1,573.69 acres. 26 parcels are identified in County Code § 3-220; 3 additional parcels have been created by subdivision since the last district review in 2004 and will be reflected in the County Code amendment at the time of the next district review. The four parcels proposed to be added to the district are approximately 109.27 acres in the aggregate. Virginia Code § 15.2-4309 requires that the Board conduct a public hearing on proposed additions to AF districts and that the proposed additions be reviewed by both the Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission for their recommendations. The Planning Commission will be considering the requests for additions to the Kinloch AF District at its December 8, 2009 meeting. The Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee will consider these additions prior to December 8, 2009. The staff report to the Planning Commission is included as Attachment B. Staff will advise the Board of the Committee’s and Planning Comission’s recommendations during its presentation at the December 9 Board meeting. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/KinlochAFDES.htm (1 of 2) [9/30/2020 6:14:34 PM] summary BUDGET IMPACT: None RECOMMENDATIONS: After conducting a public hearing and considering the recommendations of the Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission, staff recommends, assuming favorable recommendations, that the Board adopt the attached ordinance amending County Code § 3-220 to add the four parcels to the Kinloch AF District. ATTACHMENTS: A – Ordinance amending County Code § 3-220 B – Staff report to the Planning Commission Return to regular agenda file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/KinlochAFDES.htm (2 of 2) [9/30/2020 6:14:34 PM] attachment ORDINANCE NO. 09-03(5) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS, ARTICLE II, DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, DIVISION 2, DISTRICTS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, Division 2, Districts, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained as follows: PRIVATE By Amending: 3-220 Kinloch Agricultural and Forestal District Chapter 3. Agricultural and Forestal Districts Article II. Districts of Statewide Significance Division 2. Districts Sec. 3-220 Kinloch Agricultural and Forestal District. The district known as the “Kinloch Agricultural and Forestal District” consists of the following described properties: Tax map 49, parcels 5C, 6A1; tax map 50, parcels 13, 19; tax map 65, parcels 7, 7A, 8, 84A, 86, 89, 90, 91, 91A, 92, 93A, 93A1, 94, 94A, 95, 95A, 100, 121; tax map 66, parcels 2, 3C, 10G1, 32, 32D, 32E, 34 (Albemarle part only), 34B. This district, created on September 3, 1986 for not more than 10 years and last reviewed on November 3, 2004, shall next be reviewed prior to November 3, 2014. (11-17-93; 10-12- 94; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(f); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 00-3(3), 9-13-00; Ord. 04-3(3), 11-3-04) Return to exec summary file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/KinlochAFDOrd.htm [9/30/2020 6:14:34 PM] report COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Project Name: AFD2009-16; AFD2009- 17; AFD2009-54 Kinloch AFD Additions Staff: Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner Planning Commission Public Hearing: December 8, 2009 Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: December 9, 2009 Proposal: Additions to the Kinloch Agricultural and Forestal District Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural Areas RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission recommend approval of the additions to the Kinloch Agricultural and Forestal District. Petition: NOTICE OF AN APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONS TO THE KINLOCH AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICT Notice is hereby given pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-4307, which is part of the Agricultural and Forestal Districts Act (Chapter 43 of Title 15.2 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended (the “Act”)), that: 1.An application for an addition to the Kinloch Agricultural and Forestal District (the “District”) has been filed with the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the application has been referred to the Albemarle County Planning Commission pursuant to the Act; 2.The application for this addition to the District, together with descriptive maps, is available for public inspection in the offices of the Clerk of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the Albemarle County Community Development Department, Albemarle County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia; 3.Any political subdivision whose territory encompasses or is part of the District may propose a modification. Any proposed modification must be filed with the Albemarle County Planning Commission in the Albemarle County Community Development Department within 30 days after the date that this notice is first published (no later than October 16, 2009); 4.Any owner of additional qualifying land may join the application for the District within thirty days after the date this notice is first published (no later than 5:00 p.m., October 16, 2009) or, with the consent of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at any time before the public hearing the Board of Supervisors must hold on the application; 5.Any owner who joined in the application may withdraw his land, in whole or in part, by written notice filed with the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors in either office identified in paragraph 2 at any time before the Board of Supervisors acts pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-4309; 6.Additional qualifying lands may be added to an already created district upon separate application pursuant to the Act at any time following the district’s creation; 7.The application for the District and proposed modifications will be submitted to the Albemarle County Agricultural and Forestal Advisory Committee on October 19, 2009; file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/KinlochAFDSR.htm (1 of 5) [9/30/2020 6:14:35 PM] report 8.Upon receipt of the report of the Advisory Committee, a public hearing will be held by the Albemarle County Planning Commission on the application for the District, and any proposed modifications, on November 10, 2009. Purpose The County’s Comprehensive Plan identifies Albemarle County’s Agricultural and Forestal Districts Program (the “AFD Program”) as one of several voluntary programs available to landowners that “encourage the protection of prime agricultural soils and working farms from nonagricultural development.” The AFD Program is an important voluntary land protection measure. By State Law and the County Code, the purposes of the AFD Program are to: · Conserve and protect agricultural and forestal lands for the production of food and other agricultural and forestal products; · Conserve and protect agricultural and forestal lands as valued natural and ecological resources which provide essential open spaces for clear air sheds, watershed protection, wildlife habitat, as well as for aesthetic purposes; and · Provide a means by which agricultural and forestal lands may be protected and enhanced as a viable segment of the State and local economies, and as important economic and environmental resources. Effects of an Agricultural and Forestal District The placement of land in an Agricultural and Forestal District has the following effects: 1. Prohibition of development to more intensive use. As a condition to creation of the district, no parcel within the district may be developed to a use more intensive than that existing on the date of creation of the district, other than uses resulting in more intensive agricultural or forestal production, without the prior approval of the Board of Supervisors. The meaning of “development to a more intensive use” is defined in County Code § 3-202. 2. Applicability of Comprehensive Plan and Zoning and Subdivision ordinances. The Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances apply within a district to the extent they do not conflict with any conditions of creation or continuation of the district, or the purposes of the AFD Program. 3. Limitation on restricting or regulating certain agricultural and forestal farm activities. The County may not unreasonably restrict or regulate by ordinance farm structures or agricultural and forestal practices that are contrary to the purposes of the AFD Program unless the restriction or regulation is directly related to public health and safety. However, the County may regulate the processing or retail sales of agricultural or forestal products or structures in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and County ordinances. 4. Consideration of district in taking certain actions. The County must consider the existence of a district and the purposes of the AFD Program in actions pertaining to the Comprehensive Plan, its land use ordinances, and other land use-related decisions and procedures affecting parcels of land adjacent to a file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/KinlochAFDSR.htm (2 of 5) [9/30/2020 6:14:35 PM] report district. 5. Availability of land use value assessment. Land within a district devoted to agricultural or forestal production qualifies for land use value assessment if the requirements for such an assessment under State law are satisfied. Placing land within a district is one of three ways in which land devoted to open space use may qualify for land use value assessment if the requirements for such an assessment under State law are satisfied. 6. Review of proposals by agencies of the Commonwealth, political subdivisions and public service corporations to acquire land in district. The Board of Supervisors must review any proposal by an agency of the Commonwealth, political subdivision of the Commonwealth, or public service corporation to acquire land in a district. The purpose of the Board’s review is to determine: (i) the effect the action would have upon the preservation and enhancement of agriculture and forestry and agricultural and forestal resources within the district; and (ii) the necessity of the proposed action to provide service to the public in the most economical and practicable manner. 7. Parcel created by division remains in district. A parcel created from the permitted division of land within a district continues to be enrolled in the district. 8. Prohibition of certain service-related assessments and tax levies. Land used primarily for agricultural or forestal production may not be subjected to benefit assessments or special tax levies by a special district for sewer, water or electricity or for nonfarm or nonforest drainage on the basis of frontage, acreage or value. There are two exceptions: (a) the assessment or levy was imposed prior to the formation of the district; or (b) the assessment or levy is imposed on a lot not exceeding one-half acre surrounding any dwelling or nonfarm structure located on the land. In general, a district may have a stabilizing effect on land use. The landowners in the district are making a statement that they do not intend to develop their property in the near future, and that they would like the area to remain in agricultural, forestal, and open space uses. Adjacent property owners may be encouraged to continue agricultural, forestal or open space uses if they do not anticipate development of adjacent lands. Periodic Review of Agricultural and Forestal Districts A district may continue indefinitely, but it must be reviewed by the County every 10 years to determine whether the district should be continued. Before being considered by the Board of Supervisors, a district is reviewed by the County’s Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission. Both the Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission provide recommendations to the Board as to whether the district should be terminated, modified or continued. Once it has received the recommendations of the Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission, the Board conducts a public hearing. After the public hearing, the Board may terminate, modify or continue the district. If the Board continues the district, it may impose conditions on the district different from those imposed on the district when it was created or last reviewed. Landowners within a district receive notice of this process, including notice of any proposed different conditions. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/KinlochAFDSR.htm (3 of 5) [9/30/2020 6:14:35 PM] report When a district is reviewed, land within the district may be withdrawn at the owner’s discretion by filing a written notice with the Board at any time before the Board acts to continue, modify, or terminate the district. Unless the district is modified or terminated by the Board, the district continues as originally constituted, with the same conditions and time period before the next review as were established when the district was created or last reviewed. If the Board terminates the district, the land within the terminated district is subject to and liable for roll-back taxes under Virginia Code § 58.1-3237 and the lands are no longer subject to the benefits and obligations described in the “Effects” section above. THE KINLOCH AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICT The Albemarle County Code currently contains this description of the District: Sec. 3-220 Kinloch Agricultural and Forestal District. The district known as the "Kinloch Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following described properties: Tax map 65, parcels 7, 7A, 8, 84A, 86, 89, 90, 91, 91A, 92, 93A, 93A1, 94, 94A, 95, 95A, 100, 121; tax map 66, parcels 2, 3C, 10G1, 32, 32D, 32E, 34 (Albemarle part only), 34B. This district, created on September 3, 1986 for not more than 10 years and last reviewed on November 3, 2004, shall next be reviewed prior to November 3, 2014. (11-17-93; 10-12- 94; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(f); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 00-3(3), 9-13-00; Ord. 04-3(3), 11-3-04) The District is located northeast of Cismont (Attachment A). The district is characterized by evergreen and deciduous forest, open pasture, agricultural fields, hedgerows, as well as occasional residential and agricultural buildings. The District was created in 1986, and originally included 1,326.76 acres. An additional 9 parcels and 246.93 acres were added to the District between 1990 and 2004. The District now includes 29 parcels and 1,573.69 acres (Attachment B). Agricultural and Forestal District Significance: Of the 1,573.69 acres that comprise the Kinloch District, 87.21 acres are enrolled in the Forestry category of the land-use taxation program, and 237.70 acres are enrolled in the Agriculture category. Land Use other than Agriculture and Forestry: In addition to agricultural and forestal uses, the Kinloch District includes approximately 37 dwellings. Local Development Patterns: The District primarily consists of large forested parcels and large farm parcels. A majority of the parcels in the District are under conservation easements (Attachment C). Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Districts: The Kinloch District is entirely designated as Rural Areas in the Comprehensive Plan, and the parcels included in the District are zoned RA Rural Areas. The parcels adjacent to and abutting the parcels in the District are all zoned RA Rural Areas as well (Attachment C). file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/KinlochAFDSR.htm (4 of 5) [9/30/2020 6:14:35 PM] report Environmental Benefits: The District includes woodland and agricultural fields. Protecting and preserving these properties in an Agricultural and Forestal District will help protect forest and rich farm land, which the Comprehensive Plan and Rural Areas Zoning Ordinances seek to preserve. Conservation of this area will help maintain the environmental integrity of the County and aids in the protection of ground and surface water, agricultural soils, and wildlife habitat. The Kinloch District is in the North Fork Rivanna River-Flannigan Branch watershed. Two of the three parcels proposed for the District are in the Preddy Creek watershed (Attachment C). Time Period: The Kinloch District is currently on a 10-year review cycle. The District is scheduled to be reviewed on November 3, 2014. Proposal: Three applications have been submitted requesting to add four parcels to the Kinloch Agricultural and Forestal District, in accordance with Chapter 3, Sections 3-101, 3-201, 3-203 and 3-215 of the Albemarle County Code, which allows for additions of land to Agricultural and Forestal Districts. The Kinloch Agricultural & Forestal District was created on September 3, 1986, and was last reviewed on November 3, 2004. The District currently includes 29 parcels and 1,573.69 acres. The proposed addition of four parcels totaling 109.27 acres would increase the total number of acres in the Kinloch District to 1,682.96. The parcel, Tax Map 49, Parcels 5C and 6A1, are located north of Turkey Sag Road. The parcels, Tax Map 50, Parcels 13 and 19, are located at the junction of Turkey Sag Road and Gordonsville Road (Attachment A). The parcels are zoned Rural Areas with agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses as the preferred land use and includes a residential density of .5 unit per acre. The Comprehensive Plan identifies these parcels as Rural Areas; focusing on the preservation and protection of agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources, including a residential density of .5 units per acre. Agricultural and Forestal Districts Advisory Committee Recommendation: On November 30th, at 3pm, the Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee will review the proposed additions to the Kinloch Agricultural and Forestal District. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed additions to the Kinloch Agricultural and Forestal District. Attachments: A. Kinloch District - Proposed Addition B. Kinloch District - History C. Kinloch District - Conservation Easements & Zoning Return to exec summary file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/KinlochAFDSR.htm (5 of 5) [9/30/2020 6:14:35 PM] Kinloch Keswick Blue RunBlue Run Blue Run Kinloch Kinloch L O U I S A R D GORDONSVILLE RDT U R K E Y S A G R D S T J O H N R D STO NY POINT PASS PETERS MTN RDCAMPBELL RDLINDSAY RD ZIO N HILL R D MAXFIELD RD O L D K E S W IC K ROUGE MONT F A RMC H ESTN U T M TN TR LROCKVIE W LN CASTALIA FARM MILLW O O D LN BEAU VAL FARM STRA W BER RY HILL FAR M AIRSLIE FARMB R I DL E WOOD T R L COBHAM PARK MERRI E MI L L FARMMAXFIELD FARM HARRINGTON RDKINLOCH FARMSTONEMONT FARMLINDEN LANE FARM CI S MONT RI DGE RDT O N Y D R ASHANTI FAR M RD G R O V E H IL L C T EVERETT LNs 0 1,300 2,600 3,900 5,200 Feet Kinloch District- Proposed Additions Legend Agricultural and Forestal District Proposed Additions Attachment A COBHAM PARKSIPE CTWYATT LNTO N Y DR EVERETT LNCLA R K S TR A C T TWIN BROOKS D R HOL L Y FORK LN OWL ALLEY LN CISMONT LN GR O VE H ILL CTECHO BROOK LN ASHANTI FARM RD K ESWICK W I N ERY DR STARFIELD DRHOLLY R I DGE R D EAST HUNDRED LN LINDEN LANE FARM C I S MO N T R I D G E R D WINTE RHAW K CIR T HA MBER RD CLO V E R HI LL F A R M GORDONSVILLE RDKINLOCH FARM S T ARRY S KY LNST ONEMON T FARMLOUISA R D HARRINGTON RDST JO H N RDME R R I E MI L L F A R MHUCK LEBERRY LNM ERIFIELDS FARM RD MAXFIELD FAR M RAYNHAM HALL LNLOUISA RDB RID L E WO O D T R L AIRSLIE FARM ROCKVIEW LN MILLWOOD L N MAXFIELD RD LINDSAY RD BEAU VAL FARM P A D D O C K W O O D R D ZION HILL R DCAMPBELL RDO L D K E S W ICKSTRAWBERRY HILL FARM CHE STN U T M TN TR LR OUGEMONT F A R MGORDONSVILLE RDPETERS MTN RDCAS TALIA FARM STONY POINT PASS TURKEY SAG RD Attachment B: Kinloch AF District Prepared by Albemarle County | Office of Geographic Data Services(GDS).Map created by Ty Chambers, September 2009. Note: The map elements depicted are graphic representations and are not to be construed or used as a legal description.This map is for display purposes only. p Added Core WithdrawnAerial Imagery © 2007 Commonwealth of Virginia.0 0.5 1Miles Kinloch Keswick Blue RunBlue Run Blue Run Kinloch Kinloch L O U I S A R D GORDONSVILLE RDT U R K E Y S A G R D S T J O H N R D STO NY POINT PASS PETERS MTN RDCAMPBELL RDLINDSAY RD ZIO N HILL R D MAXFIELD RD O L D K E S W IC K ROUGE MONT F A RMC H ESTN U T M TN TR LROCKVIE W LN CASTALIA FARM MILLW O O D LN BEAU VAL FARM STRA W BER RY HILL FAR M AIRSLIE FARMB R I DL E WOOD T R L COBHAM PARK MERRI E MI L L FARMMAXFIELD FARM HARRINGTON RDKINLOCH FARMSTONEMONT FARMLINDEN LANE FARM CI S MONT RI DGE RDT O N Y D R ASHANTI FAR M RD G R O V E H IL L C T EVERETT LNMechunk Creek Preddy Creek Happy Creek Blue Run North Fork Rivanna River-Flannigan Branch s 0 1,300 2,600 3,900 5,200 Feet Kinloch District- Conservation Easements & Zoning Legend Watersheds Conservation Easement Agricultural and Forestal District Proposed Additions Attachment C 1 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy Manual has been adopted by the Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds that an amendment to Personnel Policy P-61/62 is necessary to modify and reorganize the County’s Overtime and Compensatory Time Policy. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby amends the following section of the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy Manual: By Amending: Section P-61/62 OVERTIME/COMPENSATORY TIME POLICY §P-61/62 OVERTIME/COMPENSATORY TIME POLICY A. Responsibility The authorization and control of all overtime work is the responsibility of the department head. Overtime shall be permitted only when required by operational necessity. Department heads shall assure that adequate funds are available for payment for overtime work and be responsible for the scheduling of compensatory time. Department heads may require that employees work additional time or overtime to meet the needs of the department. Whenever possible, notice of this requirement will be provided in advance so that the employees can arrange their personal schedules. B. Eligibility Employees are eligible to earn overtime except for those employees in bona fide professional, administrative or executive positions, elected officials, and certain seasonal employees, all as defined by the Fair Labor Standards Act. The County Executive will approve a list indicating positions determined to be exempt or non-exempt from overtime requirements. This list shall be maintained in the Human Resources Department and the status of individual positions shall be indicated in the personnel files. C. Computation of Overtime Pay Monetary overtime compensation shall be one and one-half times the employee’s hourly rate of pay for each hour of overtime worked. The hourly rate of pay shall be determined by dividing the employee’s annual salary, as defined by the Fair Labor Standards Act, by the required number of hours per year than an employee in that position would be regularly required to work. D. Reporting of Overtime Additional hours shall be recorded, in writing, on the day that it is worked. Such records shall be maintained by the employee’s supervisor. Overtime hours shall be reported at the end of the work period. E. Computation of Overtime Hours 1. Overtime shall be earned when, due to operational necessity, a non-exempt employee works in excess of the maximum number of allowable hours in the work period. 2. The work periods and maximum allowable hours for County employees are as follows: CATEGORY OF PERSONNEL WORK PERIOD (Consecutive Days) MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HOURS Law Enforcement 28 171 Fire Protection 28 212 All Other 7 40 2 The County Executive has established the official work period as extending from Saturday at 12:01 a.m. to Friday at 12 Midnight. The beginning and ending time for the 28 day work period under section 207(k) of the Fair Labor Standards Act shall be determined by the Chief of Police for law enforcement officers and by the Fire and Rescue Division Chief for the fire protection employees. Changes to the established work period may be determined by department heads to meet the needs of the department provided that the revised schedule is provided in writing to the employees and a copy is on file in the Human Resources Department. 3. Paid or unpaid time off during which the employee is absent from the service of the County shall not be counted as hours worked in determining if the maximum allowable number of hours has been exceeded. Such absences include, but are not limited to, sick, annual, compensatory, civil, personal and military leave, holidays, leaves of absence, lunch periods and inclement weather days. 4. When non-exempt employees work during the scheduled lunch period, such time shall be considered as hours worked. Employees shall report this time to their supervisor and it shall be documented on forms designated for that purpose. 5. When non-exempt employees are required to attend meetings or conferences that occur outside of the County and which require travel time, the hours involved in the actual travel as well as the hours involved in the training/meeting shall be considered hours worked. Employees shall report this time to their supervisor and it shall be documented on forms designated for that purpose. 6. Department heads shall manage their employees’ hours worked whenever possible within the official seven day work period or, for law enforcement purposes, the 28 day work period, to avoid the accrual of overtime. For example, if an employee works more than eight hours in one day, the number of additional hours worked that day may be given off during another day in that work period so the maximum number of hours (40) for that work period is not exceeded. Similarly, for law enforcement employees, such additional hours worked should be offset with scheduled time off during the 28 day work period to avoid the maximum number of hours (171 or 212) after which time and one-half compensation is required. F. Compensatory Leave or Compensatory Time 1. Non-exempt employees who work in excess of their regularly scheduled work hours, but who do not exceed the maximum allowable number of hours as defined in (E), above, may be granted compensatory leave in the amount of one hour of leave for each hour worked or may be paid their regular hourly rate in lieu of compensatory leave for hours worked. 2. Non-exempt employees who work in excess of their regularly scheduled work hours, and the hours exceed the maximum allowable number of hours as defined in (E), above, shall be given the choice of overtime pay or compensatory leave in the amount of one and one-half hours of leave for each hour worked during the work period in excess of the maximum allowable hours. This choice shall be made prior to working the hours constituting the overtime. Notwithstanding the choice option above, contractual overtime shall only be compensated monetarily. Contractual overtime is defined as work hours assigned to an employee, other than a sworn law enforcement employee, at the request of an outside entity and for which the County is reimbursed by the outside entity the wages of the employee. 3 No compensatory leave shall be used unless specifically approved by the department head in advance of it being taken. 4. Compensatory time shall be used within one year of its accrual or the employee shall be paid for it. Department heads shall be responsible for scheduling compensatory leave so that it is used within one year or assuring that adequate funds are available for payment of compensatory time in lieu of compensatory leave. 3 5. Employees in sworn law enforcement positions and fire protection positions eligible for a 28 day work period under Section 207(K) of the Fair Labor Standards Act may accrue up to 480 hours of compensatory time. All other employees may accrue up to 240 hours of compensatory time. Employees shall be paid for all compensatory time in excess of the maximum allowed for accrual. 6. Non-exempt employees who are transferring to another department or who are promoted from a non-exempt into an exempt position shall, prior to assuming the new position, reach an agreement with their department head to use their accumulated compensatory leave or to be paid for the unused compensatory time balance. The employee’s compensatory time balance must be zero prior to the starting date for the new position. 7. Upon termination, non-exempt employees shall be paid for unused compensatory time. 8. Any payment for unused compensatory time shall be based upon the employee’s current regular hourly rate. 9. Exempt employees shall not accrue compensatory time nor will they earn additional compensation for hours worked in excess of the regularly scheduled hours in a work week. This does not, however, preclude department heads from using their discretion and granting time off to exempt employees in recognition of time worked beyond normal work schedules. G. Holiday Pay Any non-exempt employee who is required by the department head to work on a holiday which is observed by the County, shall be: (1) compensated for that holiday for the hours worked plus the hours normally accrued for the holiday, all at the regular daily or hourly rate; or, (2) at the discretion of the department head, be paid the regular daily or hourly rate for the hours worked and accrue a day of compensatory leave. If an observed holiday falls on a day an employee is not otherwise scheduled to work, the employee shall earn one day of compensatory leave for the observed holiday. H. Call Back Pay Any non-exempt employee who is required by the department head to report back to work outside of regularly designated work hours on less than 24 hours notice, shall be compensated for the call back work hours at one and one-half times the employee’s regular hourly rate regardless of the number of hours worked in that work period. Hours required to be worked beyond regularly scheduled work hours which require an employee to stay at work rather than report back to work shall not be deemed call back hours and shall be compensated as otherwise provided herein. I. Additional Provisions for Sworn Law Enforcement Positions 1. Court time worked by sworn law enforcement employees outside of the regularly scheduled work hours for that day shall be compensated at one and one-half times the employee’s regular hourly rate regardless of the number of hours worked in that work period. 2. Voluntary contractual hours worked by sworn law enforcement employees shall not count as hours worked for the County. Employees shall be paid for contractual hours worked at a fixed flat rate established by the County Executive. J. Additional Provisions for Child Protective Service Positions Child Protective Services workers serving on-call are entitled to compensation as approved by the County Board of Social Services pursuant to the Virginia Department of Social Services Administrative Regulations, as follows: 4 1. For all workers covering on-call responsibilities, one hour of compensatory time will be given for each eight-hour shift of stand-by-duty. 2. When a worker is actually called out to provide direct door-to-door service more than two hours in any eight-hour shift, he/she will be compensated at one and one-half hours for each hour spent in the field. 3. No worker shall receive both stand-by and door-to-door compensation in any one eight-hour shift. §P-61 OVERTIME/COMPENSATORY TIME POLICY I. GENERAL A. Purpose. This policy establishes the general guidelines and procedures Albemarle County will follow regarding overtime and compensatory time requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and applicable state law. If any conflict arises between this policy and the FLSA or state law, the requirements of the FLSA and/or state law will govern. B. Scope. This policy applies to all County employees. II. KEY TERMS REGARDING OVERTIME PAY AND COMPENSATORY TIME A. Fair Labor Standards Act. The FLSA requires all covered employers, including the County, to comply with its minimum wage and overtime compensation requirements. Public employers must compensate eligible employees for hours worked in excess of maximum allowable hours by making monetary payment or granting compensatory time. B. Exempt Employees. Employees are exempt from the FLSA’s overtime and compensatory time requirements if they satisfy the criteria for bona fide professional, administrative, or executive positions. A list of these positions must be approved by the County Executive and maintained by the Department of Human Resources. C. Non-exempt Employees. Employees who are subject to the FLSA’s overtime and compensatory time requirements are considered non-exempt. D. Public Safety Exemption. The FLSA provides a partial exemption to employees whose primary duty is law enforcement or fire protection. Employees who qualify for the 207(k) partial exemption work a 28-day work period. E. Workweek and Work Period. The County Executive has established the official workweek as extending from Saturday at 12:01 a.m. to Friday at 12 midnight. Changes to this established workweek may be adopted by department heads to meet the operational needs of their department, provided that the revised workweek notice is provided in writing to the employees and a copy is on file in Human Resources. The work period for law-enforcement and fire protection employees is a 28-day period. The beginning and ending time for the 28-day work period under section 207(k) of the Fair Labor Standards Act shall be determined by the appropriate department head. F. Maximum Allowable Hours. Maximum allowable hours for employees are as follows: Sworn Law-Enforcement Employees 171 hours within the 28-day work period Fire Protection Employees 212 hours within the 28-day work period All Other Employees 40 hours within the workweek 5 G. Hours Worked. 1. General. Non-exempt employees who work more than the maximum allowable hours in a workweek or work period must receive either overtime pay or compensatory time for their excess hours worked. Paid or unpaid time off during which the employee is absent from the service of the County shall not be counted as “hours worked” in determining if the maximum allowable number of hours has been exceeded. Such absences include, but are not limited to, holiday, sick, annual, and compensatory leaves, leaves of absence, meal breaks, and inclement weather closures. 2. Meal Breaks. Bona fide meal breaks do not count as hours worked. Meal breaks must ordinarily be at least 30 minutes long and provide the employee a rest period free from any work requirements. 3. Travel Time. When non-exempt employees are required to attend meetings or conferences that occur outside of County facilities, the hours involved in the actual travel, as well as the hours involved in the training/meeting, shall be considered hours worked. Employees shall report this time to their supervisors, using forms designated for that purpose. III. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS OF OVERTIME PAY AND COMPENSATORY TIME A. Eligibility to Earn Overtime/Compensatory Time 1. Non-exempt Employees. Unless excluded by the FLSA, all non-exempt employees of the County who work in excess of 40 hours within one designated workweek or the maximum allowable hours within one 28-day work period are eligible to earn overtime/compensatory time. 2. Exempt Employees. Exempt employees are not eligible to earn overtime, whether as monetary payment or compensatory time. This does not, however, preclude department heads from using their discretion and granting time off to exempt employees in recognition of time worked beyond normal work schedules. B. Calculation of Overtime/Compensatory Time All eligible, non-exempt employees are to be compensated one and one half times the employee’s regular hourly rate of pay for hours worked in excess of their maximum allowable hours. This compensation may be monetary or through the accrual of compensatory time at the choice of the employee prior to the performance of the overtime work. Special conditions apply if the hours worked are performed pursuant to the Emergency Situation Staffing Policy (P-37). Calculation of overtime/compensatory time shall be as follows: 1. Fire Protection Employees. Fire protection employees who work in excess of 212 hours within the 28-day work period are to be paid one and one half times the employee’s regular hourly rate of pay, or be compensated one and one half hours of compensatory time for every hour in excess of 212 hours. 2. Sworn Law-Enforcement Employees. Sworn law-enforcement employees who work in excess of 171 hours within the 28-day work period are to be paid one and one half times the employee’s regular hourly rate of pay, or be compensated one and one half hours compensatory time for every hour in excess of 171 hours. 3. All Other Employees. All other, eligible non-exempt employees who work in excess of 40 hours within the workweek are to be paid one and one half times the employee’s regular hourly rate of pay, or be compensated one and one half hours of compensatory time for every hour in excess of 40 hours. 4. Compensatory Time for Non-Overtime Work. Non-exempt employees who work in excess of their regularly scheduled work hours but do not exceed the maximum allowable number of 6 hours may be granted compensatory leave in the amount of one hour for each hour worked or may be paid their regular hourly rate for those excess hours worked. 5. Pay-outs of Compensatory Time. Any payment for unused compensatory time shall be based upon the employee’s current regular hourly rate. Upon termination, non-exempt employees shall be paid for unused compensatory time. Non-exempt employees who are transferring to another department or who are promoted from a non-exempt into an exempt position shall, prior to assuming the new position, reach an agreement with their department head to use their accumulated compensatory leave or to be paid for the unused compensatory leave balance. The employee’s compensatory leave balance must be zero prior to the starting date for the new position. 6. Two or More Hourly Rates. Employees holding more than one position may have two or more regular hourly rates. Department heads should consult with Human Resources for guidance regarding the payment of overtime compensation to such employees. C. Maximum Compensatory Time Balances Employees in positions eligible for a 28-day work period under FLSA 207(k) may accrue up to 240 hours of compensatory leave. All other non-exempt employees may accrue up to 100 hours of compensatory leave. Employees shall be paid for all compensatory leave in excess of the maximum allowed for accrual. D. Employer Responsibilities 1. Managing the Accrual of Overtime. Department heads may require that employees work additional time or overtime to meet the needs of the department, and are responsible for managing employees’ hours worked whenever possible within the designated workweek or work period to avoid overtime. If an employee works more than the designated work hours in one day, thus creating the potential to exceed the maximum allowable hours within the workweek or work period as defined in section II.F, the employee’s supervisor may require the employee to take leave in the amount of the excess time worked within the same workweek or work period to avoid the accrual of overtime. 2. Fund Availability. Department heads shall ensure that adequate funds are available to pay required overtime compensation and compensatory time pay-outs. 3. Scheduling Compensatory Leave. Department heads shall be responsible for scheduling compensatory leave so that it may be taken within a reasonable period of time after the employee requests it, so long as such use does not unduly disrupt the operations of the department. A “reasonable period'' under the FLSA is determined by considering the customary work practices within the department, such as: a) the normal schedule of work; (b) anticipated peak workloads based on past experience; (c) emergency requirements for staff and services; and (d) the availability of qualified substitute staff. Leave is considered to “unduly disrupt the operations of the department” if it would impose an unreasonable burden on the department’s ability to provide services of acceptable quality and quantity for the public during the time requested without the use of the employee's services. 4. Recordkeeping. Department heads shall ensure that all non-exempt employees complete and submit, on a timely basis, accurate data recording their hours worked and leave taken. E. Employee Responsibilities 1. Authorization for Overtime. Employees may work overtime only with prior authorization from their supervisors. Failure to do so may result in disciplinary action in accordance with 7 County policy. Employees will report additional hours worked to their supervisors within five business days. 2. Scheduling Compensatory Leave. Employees are required to arrange use of compensatory leave in advance with their supervisors. In case of a conflict because of the work schedule in a particular department, leave will be granted at the discretion of their supervisors. 3. Time Recording. All non-exempt employees must complete and submit, on a timely basis, accurate data recording their hours worked and leave taken. Failure to do so may result in disciplinary action in accordance with County policy. IV. ON-CALL AND CALL-BACK COMPENSATION A. On-Call Compensation 1. Eligibility. Non-exempt employees required to be “on-duty” while on-call must be compensated for the “on-duty” hours worked while on-call. Whether the FLSA considers an employee to be “on-duty” while on-call depends on a number of circumstances, including, but not limited to, being required to remain on the employer’s premises and being restricted from using on-call time effectively for personal purposes. In addition, non-exempt employees may be compensated for “off-duty” on-call time pursuant to a departmental on- call compensation program approved in accordance with this section. Exempt employees are not eligible to receive on-call compensation. 2. Departmental On-Call Compensation Programs. Departments may develop on-call compensation programs to compensate employees for “off-duty” on-call time based on department-specific needs. Department heads must submit their proposed guidelines to the Human Resources Department and the County Attorney’s Office for approval in order to ensure that they meet all applicable legal and policy requirements. Compensation pursuant to a departmental program will be authorized only if the on-call service meets all of the following criteria: a. Service must be mandated. b. On-call employees are expected to respond promptly to calls, resulting in partially restricted personal time of on-call employees. Specific response time may vary depending on individual department requirements. c. On-call employees will not be called if another County employee is already on duty and available to perform the required services. d. The department’s on-call guidelines have been approved by Human Resources and the County Attorney’s Office. 3. Calculation. The rate of compensation for off-duty on-call time shall be established in each departmental on-call compensation program. In all cases, however, employees shall be given the option of monetary payment or compensatory time and must communicate that preference to supervisors prior to working the on-call time. 4. Special Provisions Regarding CPS Workers. Child protective service workers employed by the Department of Social Services shall be compensated for their on-call service in accordance with all state-mandated requirements. B. Call-Back Compensation 1. Eligibility. Any eligible non-exempt employee who is required by the department head to report back to work outside of the employee’s regularly designated work hours on less than 8 24 hours’ notice shall be eligible for call-back compensation at one and one-half times the employee’s regular hourly rate, regardless of the number of hours worked in that workweek or work period. An employee’s “regularly designated hours” are those hours at which the employee is normally scheduled to work. Hours worked beyond regularly scheduled work hours which require an employee to stay at work, rather than report back to work, shall not be deemed call-back hours and shall be compensated as otherwise provided herein. 2. Calculation. In lieu of paying an employee for call-back time, the County may compensate an employee with compensatory time. Compensatory time shall be accrued at a rate of one and one half hour for every hour of call-back time worked. Employees shall decide whether to receive monetary compensation or compensatory time and communicate that preference to their supervisors prior to working the call-back time. V. HOLIDAY PAY A. General Rule. Any non-exempt employee who is required by the department head to work on a holiday which is observed by the County shall be: 1. Compensated for that holiday for the hours worked plus the hours normally accrued for the holiday, all at the regular hourly or daily rate; and 2. At the discretion of the department head, be paid the regular hourly or daily rate for the hours worked and accrue eight hours of compensatory leave. If an observed holiday falls on a day when an employee is not otherwise scheduled to work, the employee shall earn eight hours of compensatory leave for the observed holiday. 3. Full-time employees shall receive eight hours of holiday leave to be used on the designated holiday. For part-time employees, the amount of holiday leave received shall be consistent with the length of a regularly scheduled work day. B. Alternative Work Schedules. Full-time employees that work an alternative work schedule (e.g., 10 hours/day for 4 days/week) shall also receive eight hours of holiday leave for each observed holiday. It is the employee’s responsibility to make up the hourly difference between the hours granted as holiday leave and the employee’s regular work schedule. The employee and his/her supervisor may compensate for the difference in hours in one of two ways: 1. The employee may use compensatory leave or annual leave; or 2. The employee may work the difference within that workweek. VI. SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR SWORN LAW-ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEES A. Court Time. Court time worked by sworn law-enforcement employees outside of the regularly scheduled work hours for that day shall be compensated at one and one-half times the employee’s regular hourly rate regardless of the number of hours worked in that work period. B. Contractual Overtime. Contractual overtime is defined as work hours assigned to a sworn law- enforcement employee at the request of an outside entity that reimburses the wages of the employee. Contractual overtime shall only be compensated monetarily. Voluntary contractual hours worked by employees shall not count as hours worked for the County. Sworn law- enforcement employees shall be paid for voluntary contractual hours worked at a fixed flat rate established by the County Executive. Amended August 4, 1993; August 3, 1994; September 1, 1997 9 I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of ___ to ___ on _____________________________, 2009. _________________________________ Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Aye Nay Mr. Boyd ____ ____ Mr. Dorrier ____ ____ Ms. Mallek ____ ____ Mr. Rooker ____ ____ Mr. Slutzky ____ ____ Ms. Thomas ____ ____ summary COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Revisions to Personnel Policy SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Resolution to approve amendment of Personnel Policy P-61, Overtime/ Compensatory Time SAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley and Elliot, Ms. Kim, Ms. Suyes and Ms. Gerome LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: December 9,2009 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: Human Resources and the County Attorney’s Office are working together to review and update personnel policies as part of the comprehensive revision of the County’s Personnel Policy Manual. Under joint policies adopted by the School Board (GAD-AP) and Local Government (P-08), the two boards require that when proposed personnel policies apply to both of them, a joint staff committee will review the proposed policies and make recommendations to the Superintendent and County Executive for Board and School Board adoption. The proposed revisions to the Overtime/ Compensatory Time policies have been reviewed and approved by this committee. The corresponding School Board policy will be presented to the School Board on December 10, 2009. STRATEGIC PLAN: 4.1 Provide effective, responsive and courteous service to our customers. DISCUSSION: The proposed Overtime/Compensatory Time policy revisions include the following: · The organization of the policy is revised to be more user-friendly. · Key terms related to overtime and compensatory time are defined. · Both employer and employee responsibilities are more clearly established and defined. · A provision to allow for departments to develop on-call compensation programs is added. · A provision has been added in the Holiday Pay section to address alternative work schedules. · The maximum accrual balance for compensatory time is decreased as indicated: 1. The maximum accrual for employees in sworn law enforcement positions is reduced from 480 hours to 240 hours 2. The maximum accrual for all other employees is reduced from 240 hours to 100 hours file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/PersonnelPolicyES.htm (1 of 2) [9/30/2020 6:14:55 PM] summary BUDGET IMPACT: The provision to allow for departments to develop on-call compensation programs may result in a budgetary impact, which would be assessed during the development of each program. The cost would be assumed at the departmental level. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution, which will approve the proposed changes to Personnel Policy P-61. ATTACHMENTS Personnel Policy P-61 Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/PersonnelPolicyES.htm (2 of 2) [9/30/2020 6:14:55 PM] summary COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Increase Department of Social Services (DSS) Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Employee Authorized Staffing Level SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Authorize the increase in Authorized FTE Employees in DSS from 98.2 to 100.2 STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Elliott, Davis, and Downs, and Ms. Ralston LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: December 9, 2009 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: Since 2007, the County Executive’s Office has pursued a wide range of proactive strategies aimed at addressing the continued shortfall in County revenues void of resorting to employee layoffs and furloughs. One of these strategies has included the voluntary reallocation of staff from areas of the County currently experiencing reduced workloads to those departments witnessing increased demand for services. To date, these staff reallocation efforts have contributed to generating the equivalent of sixty (60) positions that have been eliminated, frozen or offset with alternative revenue sources. DSS, being a County Department experiencing increased workload, has benefitted from this strategy with at least three (3) of its vacant positions being filled in this manner. Recently, the County’s Human Resources Department, working in conjunction with several Department Heads, identified two (2) additional employees that are qualified to perform work at DSS and therefore are eligible for reassignment. In order to proceed with relocating these employees to DSS, it is necessary to seek Board approval to increase the number of DSS authorized FTE employees from 98.2 to 100.2. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal One: Enhance the quality of Life for all citizens; Objective 1.3: Increase the ability of those individuals and families, who are living in lower income households, to become self-sufficient; and Goal Five: Fund the County’s Future Needs; Objective 5.1: Develop a comprehensive funding strategy/plan to address the county’s needs. DISCUSSION: The rationale for seeking an increase in staffing for DSS is linked to the fact that this Department has experienced an unprecedented growth in caseload over the past two years without additional resources to manage or address this growth. Staffing was below state standards prior to this growth and continues to be a significant problem for the department to manage. The majority of growth has been seen in the Benefit Programs that provide Medicaid, TANF, Employment Services and SNAP (formally Food Stamps) assistance to citizens. As demonstrated in quarterly DSS workload summary provided to the file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/SocialServicesES.htm (1 of 2) [9/30/2020 6:14:55 PM] summary Board at its December 2, 2009 meeting, these areas have witnessed the following changes since November 2007: · 52% increase in SNAP (Food Stamp) cases; 55% increase in applications · 63% increase in TANF cases; 23% increase in applications. · 19% increase in Medicaid cases; 50% increase in applications Workload standards established by the state for line staff are monitored by the department on a regular basis. Based on those standards, the DSS Eligibility Division is currently understaffed by a total of seven (7) positions. Given the County’s financial position, it is not possible to consider hiring externally for these, or other vacant positions; however, reallocating existing staff into the DSS Eligibility Division allows for federal reimbursement of up to 50%. For every two positions the County can move into DSS Benefit Programs from other departments that are fully funded by County dollars, there is the equivalent savings of one FTE’s cost. BUDGET IMPACT: Increasing the overall FTE employee total in DSS from 98.2 to 100.2 and voluntarily transferring two (2) existing local government employees to fill these positions will generate the equivalent of one additional position offset with alternative revenue given that the County will receive 50% federal reimbursement for any position that can be allocated to Benefit Programs. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board authorize an increase in the number of authorized General Fund FTE Employees in DSS from 98.2 to 100.2. Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/SocialServicesES.htm (2 of 2) [9/30/2020 6:14:55 PM] Draft: 11/24/09 1 This document was prepared by: Albemarle County Attorney County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Tax Map and Parcel Number 062A1-00-0F-01000 AGREEMENT GRANTING LICENSE TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN PRIVATE IMPROVEMENT IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY THIS AGREEMENT is made this _____ day of ______________ 2009, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter referred to as the “COUNTY,” and identified as the Grantor for indexing purposes, and the WILLIAM G. CRUTCHFIELD, JR. REVOCABLE TRUST, William G. Crutchfield, Trustee, hereinafter referred to as the “OWNER,” identified as the Grantee for indexing purposes, and whose address is 2406 Northfield Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. WHEREAS, the Owner is the owner in fee simple of the real property located in Albemarle County identified in the tax records of the County of Albemarle as Tax Map and Parcel Number 062A1-00-0F-01000, hereinafter referred to as the “Property;” and WHEREAS, the County is the owner of that public right-of-way in Albemarle County known as Sun Ridge Road, one segment of which is improved with pavement, another segment of which is not improved with pavement (hereinafter, the “unimproved segment”); and WHEREAS, the Property abuts the unimproved segment of Sun Ridge Road; and WHEREAS, the Owner desires to obtain from the County a license that would allow the Owner to use a portion of the unimproved segment of Sun Ridge Road to establish, maintain and use a gravel driveway that would serve a garage on the Property; and WHEREAS, the parties intend that this Agreement serve as a license from the County to the Owner granting permission to the Owner to establish and maintain a private driveway within the unimproved segment of Sun Ridge Road. WITNESS: NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual premises stated herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. GRANT OF LICENSE. For and in consideration of ONE DOLLAR ($1.00), cash in hand paid, the County hereby grants a license to the Owner to establish and maintain at its sole expense and for its sole use a private driveway within the unimproved segment of Sun Ridge Road. In addition: Draft: 11/24/09 2 A. Non-Exclusive Grant of License. The grant of this license is non-exclusive permission from the County to the Owner to occupy and use the unimproved segment of Sun Ridge Road under the terms and conditions of this Agreement. B. Unimproved Segment of Sun Ridge Road Remains a Public Right-of-Way. The unimproved segment of Sun Ridge Road shall remain at all times a public right-of-way and the Owner shall do nothing that impedes or obstructs the public’s right of passage upon the right-of-way. C. Successors and Assigns. All references in this Agreement to the “Owner” include the Owner’s successors and assigns. This license shall automatically transfer to each subsequent owner of the Property, and each subsequent owner shall be subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement until the license is terminated as provided herein. This license may not be transferred or assigned to any person or entity who is not an owner of the Property other than to an occupant of the Property, in which case the owner shall not completely transfer or assign the license and both the owner and the occupant of the Property shall be subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 2. ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF DRIVEWAY. The Owner shall have the right to establish and maintain a driveway in the general location and to the extent as shown on the drawing attached hereto as Attachment A (hereinafter referred to as the “Driveway”), which is incorporated herein by reference. In addition: A. Design and Construction. The design of the Driveway shall be subject to the review and approval of the County’s Transportation Engineer. No land disturbing or construction activity pertaining to the Driveway shall occur within the unimproved segment of Sun Ridge Road prior to the Transportation Engineer’s approval of the Driveway design. The Driveway shall be constructed and maintained in compliance with the Driveway design approved by the Transportation Engineer. B. Grading. If deemed necessary by the Owner at the time the Driveway is established or maintained, the Owner may grade within the unimproved segment of Sun Ridge Road with the prior review and approval of the proposed grading by the County. C. Materials and Other Improvements. The Driveway shall be constructed of gravel. If determined to be necessary by the County’s Transportation Engineer to address erosion, stormwater, drainage or any other impact caused by the Driveway, the Owner shall install other improvements within a reasonable time as directed by the Transportation Engineer. D. Applicable Laws. The Owner shall comply with all applicable laws in establishing and maintaining the Driveway. 3. TERM OF LICENSE. The term of this license and the rights and obligations of the parties upon termination of this license shall be as follows: Draft: 11/24/09 3 A. Term of license. The term of this Agreement shall be for a period of one (1) year from the date hereof, and shall automatically renew for an additional one (1) year term on the anniversary date. Either party, however, may terminate this Agreement at any time by giving sixty (60) days written notice to the other party of its intent to terminate. B. Removal of the Driveway. If either party terminates this Agreement as provided in paragraph 3(A), the Owner shall remove all gravel and all other improvements established for the Driveway from the unimproved segment of Sun Ridge Road during the sixty (60) day notice period. C. Restoration of Unimproved Segment of Sun Ridge Road. If either party terminates this Agreement as provided in paragraph 3(A), the Owner also shall restore the unimproved segment of Sun Ridge Road as nearly as possible to the condition it was in prior to the grant of this license, as determined by the County’s Transportation Engineer. 4. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. A. Liability insurance. The Owner shall add the County to its general liability insurance policy as an additional insured for any claim by the Owner or any third person pertaining to establishment, maintenance or use of the Driveway. B. Modifications. This Agreement may not be modified, except in a writing signed by the parties. C. Entire agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and supercedes any prior understandings or oral or written agreements between the parties respecting the within subject matter. The County, acting by and through its County Executive, duly authorized by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby consent to the terms of this Agreement. WITNESS the following signatures. [SIGNATURES ARE ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE] Draft: 11/24/09 4 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA By:________________________________ Robert W. Tucker, Jr. County Executive STATE/COMMONWEALTH OF _______________ CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of _____________________, 2009 by __________________. ______________________________ Notary Public My Commission Expires: Registration No.: WILLIAM G. CRUTCHFIELD JR. REVOCABLE TRUST ________________________________ William G. Crutchfield, Trustee STATE/COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY/COUNTY OF __________________________: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of _____________________, 2009 by __________________. ______________________________ Notary Public My Commission Expires: Registration No.: Approved as to form: ___________________________ County Attorney summary COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Sun Ridge Road – Crutchfield Request for Private Driveway within the County Public Right-of-Way SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Authorize County Executive to execute a License Agreement for a private driveway within the County’s undeveloped Sun Ridge Road public right- of-way STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Letteri, and Kelsey LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: December 09, 2009 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The Office of Facilities Development recently constructed the Phase 2 extension of the existing Sun Ridge Road. Beyond this road extension is a network of unimproved public rights-of-way that connect to Huntington Road and Wakefield Road that were platted with the Northfields subdivision. Tax Map Parcel 62A1-F-10, currently owned by William Crutchfield (the “Owner”), backs up to a segment of this unimproved right-of-way. The Owner has requested permission to construct a private driveway from the new terminus of Sun Ridge Road to the rear portion of this parcel. [Please refer to the attached letter for the details of Mr. Crutchfield’s request (Attachment A)]. As shown on the enclosed Driveway Concept Sketch (Attachment B), approximately 275 feet of this proposed private driveway will be within the existing undeveloped public right-of-way. Since this undeveloped public right-of-way is owned by the County, the construction of any private improvement within the right-of-way requires a license agreement between the County and the Owner specifying the rights and responsibilities of both parties for the construction and maintenance of the improvements. A draft license agreement, which was prepared by the County Attorney, is attached (Attachment C). STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal Four: Effectively Manage the County’s Growth and Development DISCUSSION: Staff has reviewed the driveway request and, from a land use perspective, has no issues or concerns. Although it is rare for the County to authorize private improvements in a public right-of-way, under appropriate terms and conditions, the public’s interest in the right-of-way is protected. In this case: (1) the public right-of-way at issue is an unimproved segment; (2) the license agreement expressly requires that the public’s right of passage not be impeded or obstructed; and (3) the license agreement allows either party to terminate the agreement with 60 days’ notice (such as when the County may desire to improve file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/SunridgeRoadES.htm (1 of 2) [9/30/2020 6:14:58 PM] summary this segment as a public street or trail), and requires the unimproved segment to be restored to its current condition. From an engineering perspective, staff will require a high level of care be taken in the proposed driveway’s design and construction to assure downstream drainage problems are not created by increased runoff from the driveway or by driveway grading diverting runoff from the upstream area across the existing drainage divide. The proposed license agreement requires that the design of the driveway be approved by the County’s Transportation Engineer and that the Owner address all erosion, drainage, stormwater or any other impacts when directed by the Transportation Engineer. BUDGET IMPACT: Under the terms of the license agreement, the Owner of TMP 62A1-F-10 (currently Mr. Crutchfield) will be responsible to construct and maintain the driveway; and, when abandoned the Owner will be responsible to remove the driveway and restore the area to its current condition. Therefore, there are no anticipated budget impacts to the County. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to execute a license agreement, approved as to content and form by the County Attorney. ATTACHMENTS A - Crutchfield_Driveway Request_Letter B - Crutchfield_Driveway_Concept_Sketch C - Crutchfield_Draft License_Agreement Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/SunridgeRoadES.htm (2 of 2) [9/30/2020 6:14:58 PM] letter December 1, 2009 Jo Higgins 2564 Mt. Torrey Road Lyndhurst, VA 22952 RE: ZMA200700002 Timberwood Commons Phase III (AKA) Hollymead Town Center TIKI Tax Map 32, Parcel 41 R (portion) and Tax Map 32, Parcel 41D1 Dear Ms. Higgins: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 17, 2009 recommended approval, by a vote of 4:0, of the above-noted petition with the proffers and a note that the traffic issue is recognized and staff with explore what can be done. The Commission also approved, by a vote of 4:0, the waiver request to Chapter 18, Section 2.7 (a) to allow the front setback of 5 feet for the building fronting on Timberwood Boulevard. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on December 9, 2009. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 296-5832. View staff report and attachments View PC minutes Return to regular agenda Sincerely, Claudette Grant Senior Planner Planning Division CC: Post Office Land Trust; Charles Wm Hurt & Shirley L Fisher Trustees P O Box 8147 Charlottesville Va 22906 Tiki, LLC 1460 Stable Lane file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/TimberwoodCommonsPCActions.htm (1 of 2) [9/30/2020 6:15:01 PM] letter Charlottesville, VA 22901 file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/TimberwoodCommonsPCActions.htm (2 of 2) [9/30/2020 6:15:01 PM] minutes Albemarle County Planning Commission November 17, 2009 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, November 17, 2009, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Calvin Morris, Bill Edgerton, Linda Porterfield, and Eric Strucko, Chairman. Absent were Marcia Joseph, Don Franco, Thomas Loach, Vice Chairman; and Julia Monteith, AICP, non- voting representative for the University of Virginia. Other officials present were Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Mark Graham, Director of Community Development; and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney. Call to Order and Establish Quorum: Mr. Strucko called the regular meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. and established a quorum. Public Hearing Items: ZMA-2007-00002 Hollymead Town Center (TIKI) PROPOSAL: Rezone 1.021 acres from PD-MC Planned Development Mixed Commercial - large-scale commercial uses; and residential by special use permit (15 units/ acre) and HC Highway Commercial - commercial and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/acre) to PD-SC Planned Development Shopping Center - shopping centers, retail sales and service uses. PROFFERS: Yes EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Town Center -- Compact, higher density area containing a mixture of businesses, services, public facilities, residential areas and public spaces, attracting activities of all kinds. (6.01-34 dwelling units per acre) and Neighborhood Density Residential - residential (3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small- scale non-residential uses. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: 450 feet West of the intersection of U.S. Route 29 and Timberwood Boulevard within the Hollymead Town Center, directly behind the existing CVS Pharmacy in the Community of Hollymead. TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 32, Parcel 41 R (portion) and Tax Map 32, Parcel 41D1 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio (Claudette Grant) Ms. Grant presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report. ● Staff corrected the site’s acreage to 1.021 acres. The purpose of tonight’s hearing to create harmonious zoning on a parcel for commercial development by rezoning .711 acres from Planned Development Mixed Commercial and .310 acres from Highway Commercial to Planned Development Shopping Center. ● Favors favorable for this request are: file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/TimberwoodCommonsPCMins.htm (1 of 6) [9/30/2020 6:15:02 PM] minutes m The proposal eliminates split zoning on the site, and m The proposal makes administration of regulations such as uses and parking on the site easier to follow. ● There are no factors unfavorable. ● Staff recommends approval of this rezoning inclusive of proffers. ● Staff also recommends approval of a waiver from Chapter 18 section 2.7(a) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the setback of 5’for the building front and on Timberwood Boulevard. Mr. Strucko invited questions from the Commission. Ms. Porterfield noted that she could support the request. She did not have a problem with the application. She had a problem because staff has identified a dangerous turning movement using the cut through section that is located a little further to the west of the CVS property. There are cars coming through there and then going down the wrong way to get into CVS. Personally it would be difficult to vote to approve this because they have identified a bad situation. She had been looking to see if there was a way they could make a bad situation better. Since it is an offsite improvement she understood that they can’t ask the applicant to handle this. From talking to staff this afternoon she wondered if they could at just erect some signs that would indicate what they don’t want people to do. She took pictures of the signs that have been erected on Glenmore Way because they had the same problem there where people were going the wrong way on the wrong side of the street. Ms. Grant has those pictures if the other Commissioners were interested. Mr. Strucko noted that the cut out in the median is across from the south building. Ms. Grant pointed out on a slide the area that is going to be developed on the other side as well as this site. She pointed out the property that goes to the proposed hotel across street and the area in question. She had been told by the engineering staff that they have worked out something with VDOT and the applicant across the street for the hotel site in which they would make further improvements to this opening so it would hopefully eliminate the bad turning movements currently going on. It would eliminate that from happening in the future. Mr. Strucko said that if he was heading east bound, which he assumed was Timberwood Boulevard, the only way he could access CVS is to go through the intersection and do a U-turn. There is no way to access the CVS parking lot from the side of the road where the arrow is located on the slide. Ms. Grant replied that one would have to go through the roundabout and go through the development that is adjacent to the Timberwood Commons site. CVS could be access through that site by going around. Ms. Porterfield asked if that is available right now, and Ms. Grant replied that it is not available right now, but only when that site is developed. Mr. Strucko agreed that signage is needed in the mean time. Mr. Edgerton pointed out that on the by pass there was a cut in the median near the children’s pool that created problems. There were some posts put up to discourage this activity. He asked if that could be required as part of this rezoning. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/TimberwoodCommonsPCMins.htm (2 of 6) [9/30/2020 6:15:02 PM] minutes Mr. Kamptner replied that the applicant could proffer that. Mr. Edgerton noted that the roundabout was put there for the hotel development. He asked if the developer of the hotel was different from this site. Ms. Grant replied that the developers were different. Mr. Strucko opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission. Jo Higgins, representative for the applicant, thanked the Commission for accommodating their request to go first. ● After receiving an email this afternoon she followed up with an email and made a call to VDOT. The process involved with this road is that it is not in the state system. VDOT since the road was constructed actually took over the whole road’s program and handles road acceptance. She spoke with Mr. Charles Baber and he confirmed that the road is not in the state system and until that issue is worked out it will not be taken into the system. His knowledge of it was that it might be closed. But then some further information with Mr. Marlow with VDOT is that the hotel developer wants to reconfigure it physically to make it less easy for anyone to turn left there. ● Unfortunately there are interim situations when development is occurring. There is not much traffic coming in that way and that is why people try to shoot through. She believed that if there was temporary signage it would help. She believed that if the developer does not step up to the plate to modify it they could lose the cross over. That is very compelling because the crossover was constructed for their behalf. Unfortunately they don’t have entrance on the road. They would have liked to have an entrance on the road, but it was not a possibility. ● This development has a long history. It is actually infill to fill in between block 9, area C and the CVS. By infill there is actually a connection that will occur with this development. If that does not take place the people going from block 9, which is going to have substantial square footage of development, and CVS would have to go back out on Timberwood Boulevard to get back and forth between the two. This infill development was actually the connecting piece. It has been in the works since block 9 was envisioned and when Hollymead Town Center was rezoned. They have hit some stumbling blocks with some zoning issues that have to do with the actual zoning of CVS and other things. That is what brought them before the Commission today. They perceive this as a critical piece that will give the people that interconnectivity off the state right-of-way. ● It was also approved and Mr. Anderson has brought the actual drawings of the buildings that have been through the Architectural Review Board. It was reviewed with area C block 9 as being consistent. That is why the waiver to go to a 5’ setback is so important. The buildings would actually be lined up. The footers have been poured on block 9. The buildings and site plan were approved. There was a certificate of appropriateness issued about a year ago. The buildings and site were taken into consideration as part of that connection. Architecturally she felt that the buildings blend in. If they don’t get the 5’ setback it would not work and have a jagged appearance. So the Architectural Review Board has implied by their approval that setback works for them. They ask that the Commission to approve the 5’ setback. ● Other than that they are trying to make use of the PD-SC which is intended for small acreage. It will not have a residential component. It will be managed and there is a cooperative agreement for file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/TimberwoodCommonsPCMins.htm (3 of 6) [9/30/2020 6:15:02 PM] minutes the whole corner of the CVS and the Seminole Commons buildings to flow as their own shopping center with the other buildings. This designation will allow them to have a blanket parking rate. In other words it so much gross square footage, which is very critical, so when uses change there is no need to go out and count and assign a space. This is what most planned districts have moved to. It has pedestrian sidewalks that connect to block C. It has an upper level that will be at the elevation of the parking lot of block C and a lower level that will be at the level of the parking lot of CVS. It was even envisioned when CVS was approved for pedestrian sidewalks that connect the area for good pedestrian flow. The zoning change since they have proffered out specific uses that generate more traffic is a better plan for the future. Mr. Strucko asked if there were any questions. Ms. Porterfield said that they need a couple of signs. Ms. Higgins noted that what is happening out is illegal but there is no police enforcement. That could be put into place by the board. Regarding the signage there is a bond in place being held by the county. VDOT is the overseer of that and they could require the road to be built or temporarily close it because the entrance it is serving is a dead end. Unfortunately the pavement is not owned by VDOT. The curb and gutter is not owned until it is taken into the state system. From her experience if there was an issue like this that developer and that benefactor of that cross over would have to step up to the plate. For another developer to enter their property and punch holes in their pavement or modify their curb and gutter would create problems. It is not the property of her clients, Dr. and Mrs. Valente. Their hands are tied because they would have to take responsibility at the road acceptance for any damage. That gets into another issue. They don’t like that it occurs either. This is not a long term problem because the people in block 9 can go around the roundabout and enter CVS through Timberwood. It would relieve the pressure from that cross over and the illegal turns. Ms. Porterfield noted that her problem is the words in the long term. She asked staff if they can do the things she is suggesting. Ms. Echols replied that staff can look into the signage. Because it is privately owned right now, even though it probably has been dedicate, it is in an odd situation. But staff can look into the signage. Ms. Porterfield asked what about putting bollards in the center and closing it off completely for the time being. She asked if they could get one or the other. Ms. Echols replied that she was not sure. Mr. Benish noted that staff could look at the options available to us. He could not tell them specifically what mechanisms can be used given the circumstances. Ms. Porterfield voiced concern with approving this knowing there is a very dangerous traffic pattern existing right now. Mr. Strucko pointed out that he did not think that this application would change that one way or the other. If this application was to go through and there were buildings there would be no access onto Timberwood Boulevard onto their parcels. So it is not going to alleviate or acerbate that because they have no control over that. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/TimberwoodCommonsPCMins.htm (4 of 6) [9/30/2020 6:15:02 PM] minutes Ms. Higgins said that in the Hollymead Town Center area C there was a proffer in the final draft for Timbrwood Drive from the Route 29 intersection to Airport Road to be taken into the state system before any CO’s in area C could be issued. Therefore she thought between this and the intermediacy of the hotel that something is going to happen. VDOT has the authority to request this because it was not shown on the road plans if the county pursued it. Mr. Strucko invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and the matter was before the Planning Commission. He asked staff what recourse they have to fix this problem. Mr. Benish said that VDOT does not control the property. Since this is a new issue he asked the Commission to give staff time to review the proffers to see what kind of enforcement mechanisms are there and what kind of options are available. He felt that staff could find a way to address the issue. Ms. Porterfield agreed that they would not have more people accessing the property because there is no opening, but they will have more traffic going west because they have to go down farther to access that property. So they could get slammed into by the people going the wrong direction. She would feel good if they could solve the problem. Mr. Morris said that the Commission has to ask staff to look at this very seriously and take action on what they find. But they can’t hold the current applicant hostage on this. He asked Mr. Graham to address the issue. Mark Graham said as the Director of Community Development he wanted to make sure everybody understood that this is not a new issue for staff. The County Engineer and others have been looking at this for quite some time. The road does have a performance bond on it. It is a public right-of-way. They need the road accepted by VDOT. VDOT ultimately decides what kind of signage losing of the cross over or whatever will happen to be able to accept it for state maintenance. Ultimately it is VDOT’s decision. They are working with VDOT to come up with a decision that works for everybody for the public safety. It is still out there and something on everybody’s radar. Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Mr. Edgerton moved for approval of ZMA-2007-00002 Hollymead Town Center (TIKA) with conditions/proffers. Ms. Porterfield asked to put it on record that the Commission asked staff to see what they can do about the traffic issue and that they all recognize that they have a traffic issue. Mr. Strucko replied that he thought that was agreeable and asked that the record show that. Ms. Porterfield noted that issue ought to be front and center on this particular motion. The motion passed by 4:0. Mr. Strucko said that ZMA-2007-00002 Hollymead Town Center (TIKA) would go before the Board of Supervisors on December 9, 2009 with a recommendation for approval. Motion: Ms. Porterfield moved and Mr. Edgerton seconded for approval of the waiver request to Chapter 18, Section 2.7 (a) to allow the front setback of 5 feet for the building fronting on Timberwood Boulevard. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/TimberwoodCommonsPCMins.htm (5 of 6) [9/30/2020 6:15:02 PM] minutes The motion passed by a vote of 4:0. Mr. Strucko noted that the waiver was approved. Return to PC actions letter file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/TimberwoodCommonsPCMins.htm (6 of 6) [9/30/2020 6:15:02 PM] report PRIVATE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Project Name: ZMA 07-02 Timberwood Commons Phase III (also known as Hollymead Town Center TIKI) Staff: Claudette Grant Planning Commission Public Hearing: November 17, 2009 Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: December 9, 2009 Owners: Tiki, LLC (32-41D1) and Post Office Land Trust (32-41R portion) Applicant: Tiki, LLC (Mr. & Mrs. Valente) (32- 41D1) and Post Office Land Trust (Dr. Hurt and Shirley Fisher) (32-41R portion) with Jo Higgins as the contact. Acreage: 1.021 acres Rezone from: (0.711 acres) PDMC, Planned Development – Mixed Commercial (Hollymead Town Center) and (0.310 acres) HC, Highway Commercial to PDSC, Planned Development Shopping Center TMP: Tax Map 32, Parcel 41D1 and Tax Map 32, Parcel 41R portion (See Attachments A and B) By-right use: PDMC allows uses in the C-1, CO and HC districts. Magisterial District: Rio Proffers: Yes Proposal: Create homogenous zoning on a parcel for commercial development. Requested # of Dwelling Units: 0 DA (Development Area): Community of Hollymead Comp. Plan Designation: Town Center Character of Property: Undeveloped and under construction, the property is located 450 feet West of the intersection of U.S. Route 29 and Timberwood Boulevard within the Hollymead Town Center, and directly behind the existing CVS Pharmacy. Construction had begun on the site and has since stopped with the pending rezoning request. Use of Surrounding Properties: The CVS pharmacy is located to the east of this property. A self storage facility is located adjacent and to the north of the site. A vacant parcel is located to the west and south of this property. There are also several shopping centers and residential developments located in the general vicinity of this property. Factors Favorable: 1. The proposal eliminates split zoning on the site. 2. The proposal makes administration of regulations, such as uses and parking on the site, easier to follow. Factors Unfavorable: None file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/TimberwoodCommonsSR.htm (1 of 7) [9/30/2020 6:15:02 PM] report RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of ZMA 2007-002, Timberwood Commons, Phase III (also known as) Hollymead Town Center TIKI inclusive of proffers. Staff also recommends approval of the waiver request to reduce the setback requirement. STAFF PERSON: Claudette Grant PLANNING COMMISSION: November 17, 2009 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: December 9, 2009 ZMA 2007- 002 Timberwood Commons Phase III PETITION PROJECT: Timberwood Commons Phase III (also known as) Hollymead Town Center TIKI PROPOSAL: Rezone 1.021 acres from PD-MC Planned Development Mixed Commercial - large-scale commercial uses; and residential by special use permit (15 units/ acre) and HC Highway Commercial - commercial and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/acre) to PD-SC Planned Development Shopping Center - shopping centers, retail sales and service uses. PROFFERS: Yes EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Town Center -- Compact, higher density area containing a mixture of businesses, services, public facilities, residential areas and public spaces, attracting activities of all kinds. (6.01-34 dwelling units per acre) and Neighborhood Density Residential - residential (3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small-scale non-residential uses. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: 450 feet West of the intersection of U.S. Route 29 and Timberwood Boulevard within the Hollymead Town Center, directly behind the existing CVS Pharmacy in the Community of Hollymead. TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 32, Parcel 41 R (portion) and Tax Map 32, Parcel 41D1 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio CHARACTER OF THE AREA A portion of the site is located in the Hollymead Town Center area and is primarily undeveloped. Construction had begun on the site and stopped when the applicant decided to request a rezoning. While portions of the Hollymead Town Center have been developed, with the exception of the CVS Pharmacy and a self storage facility, most of the area adjacent to the subject site is currently undeveloped. The site is made up of gently sloping hills and fronts on Timberwood Boulevard. In addition to Hollymead Town Center, there are a variety of retail centers, residential developments and the Charlottesville Albemarle Airport located in this portion of the Route 29 North corridor. SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL The proposal to rezone for commercial use is made to combine two different commercial zones file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/TimberwoodCommonsSR.htm (2 of 7) [9/30/2020 6:15:02 PM] report on the property into a single zone. This site is located 450 feet west of the intersection of U.S. Route 29 and Timberwood Boulevard directly behind the existing CVS Pharmacy. (See Attachments A & B) This parcel is created from the residue of the CVS pharmacy parcel, which is zoned HC, Highway Commercial and a small portion of the Hollymead Town Center, which is zoned PDMC, Planned Development – Mixed Commercial. The application plan for the rezoning is Attachment C. APPLICANT’S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST This parcel will be developed with a mixture of commercial and office uses. The applicant is primarily seeking one homogeneous zoning district which will make administration of requirements, regulations, and uses in the buildings and on the site easier to facilitate. The applicant’s intent is to provide a development that has a broad range of commercial and service facilities, which is also the intent of the PDSC district. In particular, the HC district has the potential of providing a higher intensity of uses, which the applicant does not intend for this particular site, and the PDMC district is intended for sites that are larger than 3 acres. This site is slightly over one acre in size. PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY Tax Map and Parcel 03200-00-00-041D1: 1. SP2002063 CVS Pharmacy, Store Drive–in Window – Approved with conditions on May 14, 2003. 2. SUB2003-176 CVS Store – Final Plat approved on September 16, 2003. Tax Map and Parcel 03200-00-00-041D0 (See Attachment D): 1. SDP 2002-114 CVS Pharmacy, Store – Preliminary site plan approved with conditions on June 4, 2003. 2. SDP 2003-050 CVS Pharmacy – Final site plan approved on September 18, 2003. There is no specific history for tax map and parcel 03200-00-00-041R0. This parcel is a portion of the Hollymead Town Center Area C Block 9 development, which has had numerous site plans associated with it. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Land Use Plan shows this area as Town Center. The Town Center designation at Hollymead is accompanied in the Land Use Plan with the “Conceptual Master Plan and Design Guidelines for the Hollymead Town Center”. The purpose/intent of the Town Center designation is to provide a compact, higher density area containing a mixture of businesses, services, public facilities, residential areas and public spaces, attracting activities of all kinds for a gross residential density of 6.01-34 dwelling units per acre. The proposed Places 29 Master Plan designates this area as Neighborhood Service Center and further describes this area as commercial mixed use and urban mixed use. These designations file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/TimberwoodCommonsSR.htm (3 of 7) [9/30/2020 6:15:02 PM] report allow a range of retail, housing, commercial, employment, and office uses that are located along major roadways that provide pedestrian and bicycle access. The request is in accord with both the existing and proposed comprehensive plan designations. The following Neighborhood Model principles are relevant to this request: Relegated Parking – Majority of the buildings front on Timberwood Boulevard and parking areas are located behind the buildings. Mixture of Uses – This parcel will provide a mixture of commercial and office uses in this part of the County. There are also several retail, commercial, and residential uses located in the surrounding area. Pedestrian Orientation – The buildings located on Timberwood Boulevard and their entrances are close to sidewalks, encouraging pedestrian activity. Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale – The maximum building height in this development is 65 feet. Scale of buildings and their proximity to the road compared with the design of other buildings in adjacent developments were reviewed by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning district PDMC districts allow for the development of large-scale commercial areas with a broad range of commercial uses under a unified planned approach. The PDMC district is intended to be established on major highways in the urban area and communities in the Comprehensive Plan. HC districts allow for the development of commercial establishments, other than shopping centers, primarily oriented to highway locations rather than to central business concentrations. The HC district is also intended to be established on major highways in the urban area and communities in the Comprehensive Plan. The PDSC districts are intended to permit the development of neighborhood, community and regional shopping centers in accordance with standards set forth in the comprehensive plan. It is intended that PDSC districts serve areas not conveniently and adequately provided with a broad range of commercial and service facilities. The PDSC district allows for a mixture of commercial and office uses in a planned commercial center. The PDSC district allows for small sized developments, whereas the PDMC district intends for areas larger in acreage to develop. Staff believes the proposal is consistent with the intent of the PDSC district as the commercial and office uses will provide appropriate services on a neighborhood, community and regional scale for public use within the Hollymead Community. The proffered limitations provided by the applicant lessen the intensity of possible uses on this site. Anticipated impact on public facilities and services Staff does not expect this proposal to add additional new impacts to streets, schools, fire, rescue, and police as the development that would take place under the proposed zoning will be file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/TimberwoodCommonsSR.htm (4 of 7) [9/30/2020 6:15:02 PM] report no more intensive than that which could take place with existing zoning. Utilities – There are no concerns relating to utilities for this proposal. (See Attachment E) Stormwater Management – There are no stormwater management concerns relating to this project. Transportation – While VDOT has not expressed concern relating to this project, staff has identified the following concern that should resolve itself once future areas within the Hollymead Town Center are completely developed: Some vehicles traveling east on Timberwood Boulevard are using the median opening on Timberwood Boulevard between Route 29 and the roundabout, which serves the entrance to the south side of Timberwood Boulevard/Hollymead Town Center, to make a left turn to go to CVS. This movement results in vehicles going the wrong way in the west bound lane of Timberwood Boulevard for a short distance in order to access the CVS entrance. This is an illegal turning movement that is dangerous. The applicant proposes that once Block 9 of the Hollymead Town Center is developed, an internal connection will be completed within Timberwood Commons that will enable eastbound vehicles on Timberwood Boulevard to use the roundabout to enter Block 9 and go through Timberwood Commons to enter the CVS site. Timberwood Boulevard has not been dedicated to VDOT yet, making police enforcement difficult on this road. While staff does not see this issue in the short term as an ideal situation, in the long term staff sees an acceptable solution to the problem, although the need for signage describing this traffic pattern will be important. (See Attachment F) Anticipated impact on cultural and historic resources Staff is not aware of any changes to the cultural and historic resources of the area or County. Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties Staff does not anticipate any significant impacts on nearby and surrounding properties. Public need and justification for the change This rezoning request lowers the intensity of possible uses allowed on this site, while still providing a mixture of commercial and office uses in this part of the County. Office and commercial uses will not only provide services, but also employment opportunities for residents. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD COMMENT This project was reviewed by the ARB staff. In summary, the applicant addressed all outstanding conditions of ARB approval. A Certificate of Appropriateness was issued to the applicant. (See Attachment G) PROFFERS The application plan is entitled “Application Plan for Timberwood Commons”, dated June 5, 2009. Through proffers, the applicant has also eliminated some allowed by-right uses under Section 25.2.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance such as cemeteries, hotels, motels file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/TimberwoodCommonsSR.htm (5 of 7) [9/30/2020 6:15:02 PM] report and inns and wholesale distribution because they are not appropriate uses for this particular location. Uses permitted by special use permit under Section 25.2.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance which are subject to separate legislative action, have not been removed and will be allowed. (See Attachment H) Waivers The applicant is requesting a waiver of Chapter 18, Section 21.7 (a) of the Zoning Ordinance, which requires that no portion of any structure located in a commercial district shall be erected closer than thirty (30) feet to any public street right of way. The applicant is requesting a front set back of 5 ft. for the buildings fronting on Timberwood Boulevard so that the new buildings on Timberwood Boulevard are consistent with the proposed buildings located to the west in Block 9 of the Hollymead Town Center. During the ARB process, elements such as scale, relationships with adjacent buildings and proximity to the road were reviewed and compared with the buildings located in Block 9 of the Hollymead Town Center. As previously mentioned, this was approved by the ARB. Staff recommends approval of this waiver because the building will be located closer to the sidewalk, encouraging pedestrian activity and interaction with the various uses located in and around this site. This will also allow consistent and continuous design element that will be consistent with the Hollymead Town Center development. SUMMARY Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this rezoning request: 1. The proposal eliminates split zoning on the site. 2. The proposal makes administration of regulations, such as uses and parking on the site easier to follow. Staff has identified no factors which are unfavorable to this rezoning request: RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of ZMA 2007-002, Timberwood Commons, Phase III (also known as) Hollymead Town Center TIKI inclusive of proffers. Staff also recommends approval of the waiver request to Chapter 18, Section 2.7 (a) to allow the front setback of 5 feet for the building fronting on Timberwood Boulevard. ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT A – Tax Map ATTACHMENT B – Location Map ATTACHMENT C – Application Plan, dated June 5, 2009, revised September 23, 2009 ATTACHMENT D – Tax Map for TMP:03200-00-00-041D0 ATTACHMENT E – Memo from Gary Whelan, Albemarle County Service Authority, dated March 29, 2007 file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/TimberwoodCommonsSR.htm (6 of 7) [9/30/2020 6:15:02 PM] report ATTACHMENT F – Letter from Joel DeNunzio, dated April 3, 2007 ATTACHMENT G – Letter from Brent Nelson, dated September 23, 2008 ATTACHMENT H – Proffers, dated November 2, 2009 Return to PC actions letter file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/TimberwoodCommonsSR.htm (7 of 7) [9/30/2020 6:15:02 PM] minutes Albemarle County Planning Commission April 21, 2009 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing, work session and meeting on Tuesday, April 21, 2009, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Marcia Joseph, Don Franco, Linda Porterfield, Bill Edgerton, Thomas Loach and Eric Strucko, Chairman. Cal Morris and Julia Monteith, AICP, non- voting representative for the University of Virginia, were absent. Other officials present were Steward Wright, Permit Planner; Sherri Proctor, Permit Planner; Ron Higgins, Chief of Zoning; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development; Scott Clark, Senior Planner; John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration; Mark Graham, Director of Community Development and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney. Call to Order and Establish Quorum: Mr. Strucko called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum. Work Session: ZTA-2009-00001 Wind Turbines Consider possible Zoning Ordinance Amendment to allow wind turbines. (Mark Graham) Mr. Strucko noted that prior to receiving the staff report that Jeremy Hayes, of Skyline Turbine, would provide some background information. He invited Mr. Hayes to come forward and address the Commission. Jeremy Hayes, President of Skyline Turbine, presented a PowerPoint presentation entitled “The Future Is Wind Power”. (Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation and Related Information) The presentation outline included their mission statement and the motivation for small wind power in Albemarle County specifically. He worked the outline towards what he heard in previous work sessions about the three tiered system that the Commission has been working towards. The photos, in his opinion, show how turbines or more appropriately the installations themselves fit inside those tiers as he understands them. At the end of the presentation he would open the floor for questions from the Commissioners. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesApril21PCmins.htm (1 of 22) [9/30/2020 6:15:03 PM] minutes Mission Statement: Skyline Turbine is a renewable energy supplier for residential and small business customers. Skyline Turbine’s mission is to research, implement, and install wind power appliances to meet the specific requirements of each customer. We envision a day when all aspects of wind, solar, and energy efficiencies will be brought together to make our structures self-supporting and contributing to the community. Skyline Turbine is committed to supporting local governments and its citizens by fostering open communication and utilizing all available means to successfully accomplish each installation. Motivation: Dispelling the Image of Wind Power •Large wind farms define the common thought of wind power •Most people envision: wLarge loud objects wThreat to wildlife •Detachment from the natural environment and daily life •Obstruction of view Motivation: Small Wind Power •Schmidte Installation wSeveral of advantages include: §Generation of power at the homestead §Revenue incentives to sell back to the grid §Affordability §Energy cost reduction •Blends into environment: §Blades closer together §Can be seen by wildlife and acts as deterrent §Reduced decibel levels Most commonly what people are familiar with when thinking of wind power is large looming objects 300’ in height that are commonly a threat to wildlife with migratory birds primarily. A large portion of things that may be against wind turbines in this area would be something to do with view sheds. The reason to use small wind power is that they are much smaller apparatuses. The diameter of the spinning blades themselves is a very small blade disc about 12’ in diameter. In the Skystream 3.7 model the 12’ blade diameter is very easy for wildlife and birds to see. Typically a large portion of bird death file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesApril21PCmins.htm (2 of 22) [9/30/2020 6:15:03 PM] minutes problems happen when migratory birds fly between two of the very large blades that have a long distance apart and are not privy to the blades even coming their way. There are many reasons to look at small wind power for residences and small businesses. One reason would be to have each individual have the opportunity to generate some portion or even all of their own power by using a wind power device and/ or coupling it with a solar device to reduce or entirely eliminate energy consumption by an individual. Typically these can be done through installing a very small appliance. In the photograph the turbine shown in front of the White House is one of the largest that is used for residences. Those turbines are put in place in front of people’s homes to reduce the overall cost and in some cases contribute their power back to the grid for people in their community. Ms. Joseph asked if the turbine was actually installed in front of the White House. Mr. Hayes replied that the turbine was installed only for a short time for demonstration purposes. Other motivations to use wind power include: Motivation: Tax Incentives and Energy Independence •30 % Federal Tax Rebate. •Grid Inter-Connection Possible In Virginia. •Visualize Free Electricity. Ms. Joseph asked if the 30 percent federal tax rebate was for the total cost. Mr. Hayes replied that for the equipment and installation currently the federal government will rebate on your taxes 30 percent of that installation at the end of the year. Ms. Joseph asked if there was any state tax rebate. Mr. Hayes replied that currently in the state of Virginia there is none. There are incentives in a tax rebate fashion very much like the federal government in both Maryland and North Carolina. In Virginia they have the federal rebate to count on and the interconnection agreement. The interconnection agreement is a big portion of it because it does allow people to get credit back for power that they put on the grid. That is a very efficient way to afford one of these appliances. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesApril21PCmins.htm (3 of 22) [9/30/2020 6:15:03 PM] minutes Tier I: Turbines by Right In side of what the Commissioners have spoken previously in the tiered system for an ordinance for Albemarle County it is his understanding that Tier 1 Turbines would be by right, which would mean that someone would apply for a building permit prior to installation. These turbines would in most cases solve all of the common issues that pop up around turbines. Fall zones for the actual towers for turbines are commonly an issue. For some of the newer types of turbines, such as the Helix which is a vertical access turbine, they have very short towers and the fall distances are negligible and in some cases not worth mentioning. The Helix turbine operation is very quiet in the 5db decibel range. They generally don’t require much of a footprint to install at all. Generally it takes about a 10’ diameter circle. They can provide power for a home in the nature of 2.5kw to 5kw of power given that they have the wind resource. In Albemarle County he would estimate that 60 percent of the people have some resource or some percentage of their power they could provide with wind power. Another product that is a very small turbine, an Air Breeze, has a 2’ blade diameter and creates very much a smaller amount of power. There is a similar type of turbine on Rio Road currently. These are two turbines that could be examples of a Tier 1 installation Tier II: Dinardo Installation In a Tier II installation would be turbines that have some sort of a tower and need to be looked at overall for view shed or other concerns. The primary concerns would be noise and view shed concerns. The footer and foundation for this particular piece of equipment is rather small. It is a 6’ X 6’ X 3’ deep cube. The photos show the apparatus in the center, which is the bolt diagram for the tower itself, and the pole installation itself for scale. That installation was done about a month again in Rockbridge County. Most of the 60’ monopole is above the trees. They had to get a special use permit in order to put the monopole in, which included review by the Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors and State Park Service. The State Park Service cleared this turbine for view shed reasons. Tier III: Large Residential and Small Business The Tier III would be anything that qualified for residential or small business use. But typically these are appliances that are quite a bit louder and generate quite a bit more electricity in the nature of 10kw. These particular turbines do have applications in Albemarle County and are generally looked at as large residential or small commercial file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesApril21PCmins.htm (4 of 22) [9/30/2020 6:15:03 PM] minutes business use. He would suggest that this type of application be looked at through a full special use permit application. As he previously said there could be applications where people have properties larger than 2 acres and are far enough from other homes and view sheds where they could be employed and really not be noticed by most people and be very effective for their owners. This could be an example of a Tier III. He offered to answer any questions. Mr. Strucko invited questions from the Commissioners. Ms. Joseph asked when he went before the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors in Rockbridge was there public input and if so what kind of concerns were expressed by the Planning Commission, the Board and the public. Mr. Hayes replied yes there was public comment. The comments were really exactly about the same concerns, which would have to do either with the safety measures of the fall zones of the tower, which is typically the height of the tower or a diameter or circle around it, and the noise levels of the particular equipment. The noise levels of everything that he had showed the Commission today had a maximum level of 110 decibels judged at a distance of 500. That is for the noisiest of the equipment. Many of the other models, such as the Helix, are a 5 decibel rating and it really makes about as much noise as a laptop. The Skystream 3.7 has a 45 to 50 decibel level rating and from 150’ away someone can have a conversation with somebody and overcome the noise of the turbine and a 12 mile an hour wind. Ms. Joseph asked if the turbine that went up in Rockbridge had a 110 decibel level. Mr. Hayes replied that the turbine in Rockbridge has a 45 decibel rating, which was the Skystream 3.7. It is mounted in the front parking lot. With a 12 to 15 mile wind inside the home one cannot hear it. The decibel level of 45 decibels is monitored at 150’. Ms. Porterfield asked what would be the distance for the ice throws for the turbines he was showing that might fit in the Tier I. Mr. Hayes replied that on that particular model there are no ice throws. Ice throws are typically ice that is gathered on blades and then thrown from it when they spin. There are things that are done to prevent that. For a vertical access turbine, as the one shown in the photo, they actually prevent ice from forming on them because the whole mechanism is spinning vertically. There are no ice throws on that model. Ms. Porterfield asked if there is any amount of setback from other buildings or other file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesApril21PCmins.htm (5 of 22) [9/30/2020 6:15:03 PM] minutes things like that for this type. Mr. Hayes replied that it was not brought up in any of the other conversations. He was not privy to information that could tell them that. Ms. Porterfield noted that he did not know if it does need a setback or not. Mr. Hayes replied that he did not know, but would be more than happy to find that out and provide that information. Mr. Loach noted on the Helix power output it is 2.5kw or 5kw. He asked what that means for an average family use. Mr. Hayes relied that an average family of 4 in the United States consumes 2,600 watts per month or 2.6 kilowatts. They will find a very wide range on both sides of what people actually use. Mr. Loach asked if in using it are there peaks and valleys depending on the wind. He asked if there is any way to store the power. Mr. Hayes replied that there is no way to store the power effectively beyond battery use. At this time, in his opinion, battery use can be hazardous for the average person to hold in their household. That is why he strongly advocates when power is generated in excess of the use by the residential owner that it flows freely back onto the grid to be used by others when it is connected with the grid. That person receives a monetary credit. He refers to that as a “monetary battery”. Mr. Loach asked on the accepted 60’ tower besides the safety concerns and the noise was there much concern about the visual impact of the tower itself. Mr. Hayes replied that the visual impact was studied by the State Park Service from a distance of a quarter mile away and they determined that at no point on the Skyline Drive could they see that appliance and have it affect them. They actually rented a lift, went out to the site and elevated it to a height of 60’ and used a 4’ X 4’ target card painted bright pink for them to photograph. Ms. Porterfield asked what kind of equipment is needed to send power back to the grid. Mr. Hayes replied that a disconnect is needed at the meter. It freely flows into a 20 amp breaker in the panel box. There is a physical disconnect at the meter that is required for file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesApril21PCmins.htm (6 of 22) [9/30/2020 6:15:03 PM] minutes UL listings nationwide because they are capable of producing enough power to hurt a lineman. That is there so that the power companies themselves can come shut that appliance off themselves even though there is a double redundant electronic relay on the inside of each one of these units to stop that power from going back onto the grid during times when it is down. Ms. Porterfield asked if it is traveling through conduit of some type to that box. Mr. Hayes replied yes. Ms. Porterfield asked if they don’t have any other structures or anything like that if it is just literally going to the breaker box. Mr. Hayes replied that is correct. Mr. Strucko asked in the case of a general power outage during a storm if his turbine is humming away does he have power. Mr. Hayes relied no that he would not. The UL listing in the United States requires that there are redundant safety switches on inside of these turbines so that if the power grid goes down they also turn themselves off for protection of the linemen themselves for every interconnected turbine. It is not the case with non-grid connected turbines. Mr. Loach asked what the cost range is. Mr. Hayes replied that the cost range currently is between $12,000 and $25,000 in typical installations, which can be reduced by the 30 percent federal rebate. Ms. Porterfield asked if it is not connected to the gird and Mr. Strucko’s power goes out does he still have power. Mr. Hayes replied yes because he is entirely independent. Ms. Porterfield asked if there is much upkeep. Mr. Hayes replied that there is very little upkeep except for the waxing of the blades in the first five years. They have not had anyone take that one on yet. Mr. Strucko thanked Mr. Hayes for taking the time to come and give the presentation. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesApril21PCmins.htm (7 of 22) [9/30/2020 6:15:03 PM] minutes Mr. Loach asked if in any other areas they have co-located cell towers of any other type. Mr. Hayes replied that there was not anything that he is aware of in the state of Virginia. But there is precedence for that in many other states. Mr. Strucko noted that he assumed that flush-mounted antenna would have to be used. Mr. Hayes replied that he was not familiar with that whole conversation yet. He was interested himself in what the vibrations of the turbines will actually do to those antennas. He wondered if it was even possible to co-locate them. Mr. Graham noted that staff has been working with two Commissioners and would like to extend thanks to Ms. Joseph and Mr. Edgerton for providing the guidance that they need to get something going here. It is a three-tiered approach as referred to by Mr. Hayes. He walked through the three tiers in a PowerPoint Presentation. (Attachment – PowerPoint Presentation) Tier I Wind Turbines – • Only in Rural Areas zoning district • Meets building height requirements (35’ Maximum, measured to highest point) • Supplementary Regulations: – Not allowed in either Entrance Corridors or within Mountain Contour List (MOD) – Setback from property lines = height of structure plus 20’ (That is the fall zone staff is looking for to make sure the structure does not go onto an adjacent property.) – No lighting on structure – No collocation of personal wireless antenna Tier II Wind Turbines • Possible waivers or modifications of Supplementary Regulations: – Locating within Entrance Corridors or within Mountain Contour List (MOD) – Locating within other zoning districts, with height not to exceed allowed building height – Reduced setback from property lines – Lighting on structure – Collocation of personal wireless antenna Tier III Wind Turbines • Special Use Permit file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesApril21PCmins.htm (8 of 22) [9/30/2020 6:15:03 PM] minutes – Allow height to exceed maximum building height in zoning district • Consider Tier II waivers or modifications simultaneously with Special Use Permit. Remaining Issues • Establish considerations for approving a Tier II or Tier III (e.g. visual impact from entrance corridor) • Establish application requirements for Tier II and Tier III • Establish administrative process for processing of applications (e.g. building permits, fees) Mr. Graham pointed out that the Tier II proposal noted by Mr. Hayes in Rockingham County would actually be a Tier III proposal under this proposal. Mr. Strucko invited public comment. Morgan Butler, speaking on behalf of the Southern Environmental Law Center, asked to make one general point, add one suggestion and then just ask a couple of clarifying questions of staff. · The general point is that they think that the tiered approach is a good idea and commend both staff as well as Ms. Joseph and Mr. Edgerton for their work in coming up with this. They realize that this is just a basic framework with some specifics yet to be filled in, but support the overall strategy of trying to rank proposals by the potential impacts and then adjusting the level of review accordingly. They think that the main point here is it needs to make sure that they are not stifling residents from putting a reasonably sized wind turbine on their property, but to also have a system in place to provide some case specific analysis when the potential impacts of a proposed turbine passes a certain threshold. The general framework set forth in the executive summary seems to do just that. · As a suggestion under the administrative section of the staff report where it talks about Tier II turbines the staff report says, “As part of approving a waiver or modification for a particular turbine application the Planning Commission may establish reasonable conditions to assure the ordinance intent is maintained. He emphasized “ordinance intent”. Similarly the Board of Supervisors might establish conditions for a turbine that requires a special use permit and those conditions would also need to have some relation to the intent of the ordinance. Because conditions need to have some type of nexus to the intent of the ordinance they would urge the Commission to set forth a wide range of intent in the preamble to the section of the supplemental regulations that will address wind turbines. The file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesApril21PCmins.htm (9 of 22) [9/30/2020 6:15:03 PM] minutes intent should probably note that the purpose of the ordinance is to find the right balance between allowing and encouraging renewable energy sources and protecting against the potential visual, noise, environmental, safety and property noise concerns. By specifically referencing those visual, environmental, safety and property noise concerns it helps them ensure that future site specific conditions that are crafted to protect those concerns are deemed within the authority of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. · He noted several questions that he would like addressed: o He questioned why the by-right aspect of this is focusing just within the rural areas. It seems that a lot of the impacts they are trying to protect against are now as applicable in the developable areas. o With respect to the Comprehensive Plan’s Mountain Contour list, he noticed those were categorized by different contours. There is a 700’, 800’ up to 1,200’ contour. He was curious if the restriction would only apply to the portions of those named mountains that are above that contour line. It also mentions unnamed mountains and references a concept map to find them. He questioned how the unnamed mountains would be dealt with. o He questioned how the underlying noise restrictions within each zoning category would be dealt with. He asked if those would also be a by-right consideration. Jeff Werner, representative for Piedmont Environmental Council, noted that they have been working on this for over two years. He talked with Ms. Joseph sometime last fall and bounced some ideas off of some folks within PEC. There are a lot of people in the county struggling with wind turbine issues in order to make it happen, which includes the following. · There are some aesthetic issues that will create some problems. There was overall consensus among the folks he talked to that this tier approach is the way to do it. He had some discussions on how it is different from the cell tower industry versus this private homeowner use, which don’t get into problems with discrepancies with cell towers. · He thought that Mr. Butler hit on the good questions that the Planning Commission should bring up in their discussions. He was surprised with the noise issue that the gentleman brought up from Skyline. He did not know that turbines got that big and became that loud. He remembered when the Commission talked about the grinders and the noise issues were a big deal. He questioned if they need to address that in this regulation. It would be nice if someone in the growth area could come in with some way to be able to do this. He asked if there are models out there that might encourage it. · The last part that they might have to contemplate on is in regards to the file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesApril21PCmins.htm (10 of 22) [9/30/2020 6:15:03 PM] minutes accessory structure issue. There are a lot of people who have conservation easements in the rural areas who have restrictions on these sorts of structures. He did not know if there has to be some notice that it might be by-right in the zoning, but it may not be allowed by the provisions of a conservation easement. It is just something to contemplate on whether that is just in there as a note for staff to make sure they check this to make sure that a landowner does not end up in a dispute that they don’t need to be in. · This is a wonderful idea and he was glad staff was bringing it to the floor. He hoped that they have a positive discussion and they get this proposal approved. There being no further public comment, Mr. Strucko closed the public comment to bring the matter back to the Commission for discussion. Mr. Edgerton pointed out that there was one small point that jumped out on the top of page 2 under the definition for the small wind turbines. The definition was fine, but he did not understand why they had to include the last line, “provided the power sold is not in excess of that typically used for the primary use of the property.” He knows currently that the net metering system in Virginia has a provision in there that protects the utilities from having to pay someone who is producing more energy than they are using. They very successfully lobbied this through the General Assembly as the way for the net metering system. But he did not know why they needed to get involved in that. If somebody is producing more electricity than they are using they should not be punished for that. The General Assembly has already locked that up a little bit. He was hoping that some day soon they will have a true net metering system where anybody producing electricity through renewable energy will be treated the same way a power producer is in that capacity. He knew in Colorado that the utility company has to accept the power and credit people at the rates they charge. They have different rates for different times of day and night. That is a true net metering system. There are actually facilities in Colorado that have been there for quite some time been producing more solar energy than they are using at their facilities. The ultimate dream is that they can get to the point where they can be providing all of the energy they need with renewable energy. They are a ways away from that. But he would hate to have that in the ordinance unless there is some overriding legal reason that they have to include it in there. Mr. Graham noted that he could speak to what the idea was in crafting that. It was that the wind turbines were an accessory use and not a primary use on the property. For example, if someone does not have one turbine on there that is supplying the power for their property but 30 wind turbines along the ridge line on their property for the purpose of selling it is not consistent in what they envision for these small wind turbines. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesApril21PCmins.htm (11 of 22) [9/30/2020 6:15:03 PM] minutes Ms. Joseph noted that when she and Mr. Edgerton worked on the ordinance language one of the things they looked at was the tier process. If someone was putting in more than one that is when they would go to special use permit. That is when it became apparent. What they are hearing from Mr. Hayes also is that these things the way they are designed are going to limit themselves anyways. Maybe that is something within the language that it could not be anything more than 2.5 kilowatts and if it produces anything more than that then that is when they start getting a little bit questionable. If that is all a family needs, then why would they need more than that? Or maybe the ordinance says if there is more than one of these on the property they get a special use permit so that there is a little more regulation. The way these things are defined and manufactured may actually limit the output of the, but she really did not know the specifics. Mr. Graham said that the reality is that unless they are requiring the property owner to give us their electric bills they are not going to know how much electricity they are generating or how much they are using. Ms. Joseph noted that she did not want to have to hire another person to have to look at somebody’s electric bill. Mr. Edgerton said that if they are worried about someone trying to do a commercial application he would love to figure out another way to restrict that. Mr. Graham suggested limiting the number on the property or one per primary use for example. Mr. Edgerton said that he thought that would be preferable. He was optimistic that with some increased acceptance of the use of renewable energy that in a very short order there will be a more standardized net metering system in this country. It will probably come down on the federal level. He would hate for our ordinance to be more restrictive than what should actually be happening. But it has not made it in Virginia yet. Mr. Joseph asked to talk to something that Mr. Butler brought up. When they were talking about the Tier I, Tier II and Tier III it was contemplated in the rural areas because one anticipates the acreage to be greater per parcel and that it would have less of an impact than it might on adjacent neighbors then maybe the Tier II that would be allowed within the development area. It would be allowed in zoning other than RA so that the adjacent owners would be notified that this was happening and if they did not care then it could go ahead and be approved administratively. But it was because the lots are smaller. When talking to other localities somebody brought up the fact that it would be file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesApril21PCmins.htm (12 of 22) [9/30/2020 6:15:03 PM] minutes good to allow them in other zoning districts. Circumstances like a home owners association might have a larger piece of land and might want to put up something to run the pool house or pump. It was contemplated that in a Tier II or beyond it would be allowed in other zoning districts, but with a little more regulatory action on it. It would affect neighbors more. Now that they are hearing the noise aspects it would just make more sense. Mr. Loach agreed that he would like to see the development areas included in this. He was just thinking back to his neighbor’s first satellite dish, which was 15’ to 20’ across. The technology has gotten better. He assumed that this technology is going to continue that way, too. So he would like to at least have the development areas included in the discussion and get public feedback at a time later. Mr. Edgerton noted that Mr. Graham, Ms. Joseph and he agree that there should be an opportunity for it to be in all zoning districts. One of the ideas they started with was just treating it as an accessory structure and then allowing the current height restrictions in the different districts to determine how high it could be in different districts. If they needed to go higher than that then it would have an impact. If he put up a shed in his back yard he could make it 35’ high as an accessory structure. The argument was why this couldn’t be treated like an accessory structure. One of the issues is the sound issue that they have to worry about. As Mr. Hayes was explaining there are sounds, but they do have a Noise Ordinance in the county. Mr. Graham noted that the noise level is 60 decibels during the day and 55 decibels at night. Mr. Edgerton pointed out that the noise is measured at the property line. Therefore, it depends on how far away you are. The ones that Mr. Hayes was suggesting as possible Tier I units were both less than that and he thought would not be a problem. As Ms. Joseph pointed out in the rural areas that hopefully the noise would not impact anybody if it was a by-right situation. Mr. Strucko asked if they considered the impact on a conservation easement. Ms. Joseph noted that there are a lot of things that are not allowed in some conservation easements. They are all different. Some owners have agreed to not have any kind of a commercial enterprise when receiving conservation easements. But they can have a winery. There are other things that are allowed within our ordinance that the covenants or the conservation easements speaks to specifically for that parcel. She thought what Mr. Werner was asking was as people come in just as general knowledge when staff is file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesApril21PCmins.htm (13 of 22) [9/30/2020 6:15:03 PM] minutes talking with them to just say that they better check their conservation easement to see whether they can do this or not. She questioned whether it was up to the county’s responsibility to determine that. Mr. Edgerton noted that different conservation easements have different standards right now. Mr. Graham noted that when talking about conservation easements they are still talking about a building permit being required for these. Over the last few years they have taken the development tracking system in County View and modified it and listed all the properties that have conservation easements. When somebody applies for a building permit a flag pops up if that property happens to have a conservation easement on it. If it is one that PFRA takes care of they research the easement agreement. Otherwise, they notify the easement holder that this building permit has been applied for. Mr. Kamptner noted that there are some existing conservation easements that have expressly authorized wireless facilities. If the county determines under its zoning regulation that the small wind turbines are accessory to a residential use very likely without amending their conservation easement they may fall within the scope of a permitted use on the property. Ms. Porterfield felt that it was a good idea, but would like to see them go into the process in a gentler way. She was very concerned about making these by right to start out with since they should wait to should see what happens in terms of the number of applications received in the next two to four years Glenmore is in the development area but abuts a lot of rural area zoning. With the 35’ height limitation adding 20’ and being set back 55’ off the lot lines she felt that many people would be affected in Glenmore in the development area. Even in the rural area mulching proposal there was a lot of concern about the noise. She asked that they not create problems visually. If they had that turbine sitting on top of a house at 55’ it would be an eyesore for a lot of people who cherish what things look like around here. She noted that Mr. Loach’s district also has a lot of land that abuts up against a lot of rural area. This particular ordinance also needs something in it about what happen when a structure becomes derelict so that if the county has to take it down they can send them a bill. Including the enforcement of some of these things would make it easier to administer. Ms. Joseph suggested that some of the language can be replicated from the cell tower ordinance. She felt that it should be made easy for people to do since it is an accessory use. When people live next door to rural areas there are things that happen. She felt that it should be allowed in other zoning districts since there are other mechanisms to be file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesApril21PCmins.htm (14 of 22) [9/30/2020 6:15:03 PM] minutes used. Mr. Porterfield said that with larger parcels there needs to be some wording that the turbine has to be located X # of ft from lot lines. She felt that they need to know the concerns of that particular application. Mr. Graham asked if she was saying there should be a special use permit required for all cases. Ms. Porterfield replied yes at this time so they can try it to see and then revisit it in a few years after they have some history. Mr. Loach wondered how onerous it would be someone to go through the special use permit process. He would love to hear feedback from the public on whether it will be visually obtrusive, which he felt was Ms. Porterfield’s point. Mr. Edgerton agreed that some of Ms. Porterfield’s thoughts have merits in that this should be considered carefully. It is the reality of the expense in the cost of the special use permit that is scary. Just to get the application in would cost. The compromise suggested has been through lots and lots of suggestions and should be considered. The compromise is that by right would only allow the turbines to be treated as accessory and be limited in height. There is no 55’ tower in a by right situation the way it was described. It would be limited to 35’ to the top of the blade. If go higher they would have to go through the special use permit process. That is a way seeing the type of interest to get it achievable in the rural area if people want to do it. Ms. Porterfield questioned that it would double the cost in the process to require a special use permit. Mr. Graham noted that when staff went out to the community they were told that their cost of the special use permit was running $25,000 to $35,000 for cell towers, which includes engineering plans, attorney fees, balloon test, etc. Ms. Porterfield suggested coming up with a very simple process, but that it be still be a public process with neighbor involvement. She was not saying to have everyone fly a balloon. Mr. Graham emphasized wind energy and explained the cost benefit. But there is a potential that the applicant will want to go higher to get up above the trees. There will be lots of situations for measuring visual impact, which is what staff has seen in the process file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesApril21PCmins.htm (15 of 22) [9/30/2020 6:15:03 PM] minutes with cell towers. The higher the height proposed the more material needs to be submitted. Mr. Loach agreed with Ms. Porterfield’s approach to go slow until they get more comfortable. He did not know what they would do when the height starts to go up. They have had people complaining about the 7’ to 10’ above the trees for cell towers. Mr. Edgerton supported the proposed compromise for the by right turbines at the 35’ height limitation as suggested. Mr. Cilimberg said that he heard that there might be interest by one commissioner that all of the tiers be special use permit. That is just one comment for tonight that could be taken forward to the Board of Supervisors. At this point it is just a work session for the Commission’s input to take forward to the Board. Ms. Joseph asked what the work session would be with the Board. She asked if staff planned on taking this and amending the documents with Planning Commission diverse comments. Mr. Graham replied frankly he did not have time for that now because the staff report for the Board was due today. All he would do is verbally communicate whatever comments the Commission wanted to pass along to the Board. Ms. Joseph asked if they would have the ability to do those themselves. She suggested instead of trying to unravel or package this that they concentrate on whether there are any questions that could be cleared up before they go to the Board. Mr. Strucko said that he hoped that the public comments that happened tonight and the rest of the comments since this is in the work session category of our agenda that if the timing is such that this is the report that gets submitted to the Board of Supervisors he would think that there would be a supplement that says here is the result of the work session by the Planning Commission on this evening. He felt that they would want to include some of the comments they heard from Morgan Butler and Jeff Werner as well as some of the Commission’s discussion here. It sounds like Ms. Porterfield, perhaps with the support of Mr. Loach, that they are supportive of a more go slow approach where this is a new entity in our community and that perhaps every one of these tiers should be under a special use permit. He was hearing from Ms. Joseph and Mr. Edgerton, which he would add himself to that as well, did not think that there was a real issue with the Tier 1 small wind turbine going by right. Of course, they have not heard from Mr. Franco at all. Mr. Franco made the following comments. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesApril21PCmins.htm (16 of 22) [9/30/2020 6:15:03 PM] minutes · Mr. Loach referred to the 35’ height and the 4’ to 7’ height above the trees for the cell towers. This is 35’ above the ground is his understanding and not above the tree line. So it is a completely different impact. He wanted to make sure that his understood was correct. · He liked the tier approach and the by-right component of a tiered approach. He felt that was important in order to move this technology forward. · With respect to the noise component he questioned the following: o Is that up wind or down wind the 145’ or that distance? o He asked how loud a 12 mile per hour wind is. Jeremy Hayes replied that it was also important to note that was also along with the wind. If they hear a 45 decibel noise coming from a turbine with a 20 mile per hour wind that is traveling along with it the maximum velocity of the wind and decibel level of the machine. At that same time there is an incredible amount of other noises caused by the trees themselves, people’s wind chimes, etc. He has a video of a 12 mile per hour wind and a conversation between two people about 5 feet apart is largely louder than the turbine at 75 feet away. Mr. Franco felt to answer the concerns he was hearing from Mr. Loach and Ms. Porterfield that as he said this was part of a process and he would hope that public input and concerns would come out during this process so that they could include the by-right components. He asked that they keep that in mind. The last comment is that on page 2 of the attachment under the definitions under tier 1 he was not sure if it was a definition or a commentary that is in italics where it says these facilities are anticipated to result in very little or not impact to the community. He might change to say “negative impact” because one of the reasons they are exploring this is because of the potential positive impacts that this brings. He felt that they need to stress that as part of the reason why they are pursuing this. Ms. Joseph asked that Mr. Hayes be invited to the joint meeting. Mr. Edgerton noted that he already has been invited. Ms. Porterfield said that if they are not going to give them any information from this meeting she did not see that they have achieved a lot. She really thinks that they are going to have to pull together something that the Board of Supervisors gets based on the comments that were made here. She did not say that because she has a negative feeling about one of the items. She just thinks it makes sense. Mr. Cilimberg agreed noting that at a minimum the Board will get the Commission’s file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesApril21PCmins.htm (17 of 22) [9/30/2020 6:15:03 PM] minutes action memo which outlines the points that were made. If possible they will also have the draft minutes for the Board. But it is a short turn around. Therefore, he could not guarantee that. What he could guarantee is that they would get the action memo that the Commission reviews. That action memo would include all of the comments noted tonight. Ms. Porterfield asked staff to tell the Commission the date and time of the meeting. She suggested that in the future that staff allow enough turn around time to get the materials to the Board. Mr. Graham noted that the Board would hear it on May 6, but that the time has not been scheduled yet. Typically these types of work sessions are held in the late afternoon. But they have been scheduled in the morning. It depends on how the schedule is going. He noted that this is a little bit different for everybody. Typically if the Board says this is something that they want staff and the Planning Commission to work on they go work on it. In this case as part of the discussion on the department’s work program they ask just to see what is going on or to check in. He was not sure what the Board is hoping to accomplish. He was assuming that what the idea is was to just look at the direction this seems to be going and see if they are comfortable with that direction before they go to the next step of actually drafting an ordinance. Ms. Joseph pointed out that they need to remember that they are still at work session stage. It is okay because all of this is going to come out at the work session also. So they are not going to them with anything other than this document and some ideas at this point. Mr. Graham noted that they don’t even have a resolution of intent to amend an ordinance at this point. Ms. Joseph said that at that a point she would expect that some parameters would be set. Then from that point on then they can start. She asked that this not be rescheduled from May 6 because she really wanted it to go forward. Mr. Graham said that he was very interested to find out if this is what people are going to be comfortable moving forward with. In January he was saying that it looked like this was too complicated and was suggesting perhaps that they put it on the shelf. Ms. Joseph and Mr. Edgerton graciously volunteered to assist staff. He was at the point that he felt that they need to decide is this something that they can reach an agreement and move forward or not. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesApril21PCmins.htm (18 of 22) [9/30/2020 6:15:03 PM] minutes Ms. Porterfield pointed on based on what she had been saying with Mr. Loach’s support she would like to see if he had a different way of going at Tier One. If it is not going to come in as a special use permit is there a different way of going at it. Does there have to be a minimum acreage before one can have this. Do these have to be kept X number of feet from any property line. There are some things if they want to go with the less for the applicant to do she felt that they need to solve a few of the problems going in, which are number one the visual part of it and the noise. They know from a past thing that noise is going to be an issue on this. If they come up with saying that Tier One is not going to be a special use permit then they are going to be allow it by-right, but by-right for which properties. Do they have to have a minimum of 5 or 10 acres? Do they have to keep the apparatus at least 1500’ from any property line? There are some things that they could probably do to make sure that whatever comes in is going to work. Ms. Joseph noted that would be ordinance language and Mr. Graham does not want to do that right now. Mr. Graham noted that he wanted to do what the Planning Commission and Board want to do. Ms. Porterfield pointed out the one thing that has come up in this discussion is how to handle Tier One. She asked if there are any other ideas that could be ready in two weeks if the Board wants to hear any other ideas that come from some of the things that they have talked about. She questioned whether staff could come back with something. Mr. Edgerton asked Mr. Graham if he was going to the seminar on Friday at James Madison University on writing an ordinance. Mr. Graham replied that he was going to try to attend the seminar. Mr. Edgerton noted that he and Ms. Joseph were going to attend the seminar. Ms. Joseph noted that she was not sure. Mr. Edgerton pointed out that there is a seminar that is being put on by James Madison University by the Shenandoah Planning District Commission in Staunton on Friday. It is an all day event and the whole experience is that they are going to hear how other counties have addressed this and what they have done. They will come back with a model ordinance which he intends to share with everybody. He got some literature on it today. There is an outline of a model ordinance which has a tier system in it that he thinks will give us the benefit of some of the experience that some of these counties file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesApril21PCmins.htm (19 of 22) [9/30/2020 6:15:03 PM] minutes have had. There has been a varying degree of responses from other counties. The ones that have been the most negative, as Mr. Hayes pointed out, were for these large turbines that have to be on mountain top ridges. He did not think that was something that any of us would advocate. Ms. Joseph noted that they were not even considering that at this point. This ordinance does not even contemplate that. What they were thinking about was all about the personal turbine. It is not about producing all kinds of energy for New York City. Ms. Porterfield asked to clear up one thing. What is the cost of a type of turbine that they are talking about? Is it $12,000 to $25,000? She needed to understand that because of what Mr. Edgerton said about the cost of making application to the county. She asked if they are talking about a minimum of $12,000. Mr. Hayes replied that the minimum level to buy one of these turbines with full installation is $12,000 and reduced by the 30 percent tax credit. Ms. Porterfield asked if it costs that much to apply to the county. Mr. Strucko noted that the expense for going through the special use permit process they are looking at an expense of about $12,000 for the applicant. Mr. Edgerton said that he was worried that the cost would put it out of the market. Mr. Loach understood what Ms. Porterfield was saying was that she wanted a process that was easy, but also accessible. She did not want to make it to be an onerous cost so the public can get in to make their opinion. The comparison of the turbine and balloon test comes with the upper tiers with the 30’ above the tree line. At that tier it is distinct. He asked how do they say to a company that you spend X number of tens of thousands of dollars to go 3’ to 7’, but that an individual what do we hold them to go 30’ above the tree line. That was his question. Mr. Franco noted that does require per this going through that process. Mr. Loach noted that was his point in what would be the criteria for that. Mr. Strucko said that there are different gradations here. A Tier One is by right. A Tier Two requires a waiver. A Tier Three requires a special use permit. So could a Tier One require less of a waiver; a Tier Two a waiver and a Tier Three a special use permit? That is Ms. Porterfield’s point. The less of a waiver might not be so cost onerous file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesApril21PCmins.htm (20 of 22) [9/30/2020 6:15:03 PM] minutes because one would not have to hire a $12,000 attorney to take you through the special use permits process. But they could meet some more basic standards that are not as onerous or costly to get the Tier One instead of going directly by right. That is the sentiment. That is a legitimate point. It should be something that the Board of Supervisors should hear as part of the discussion there. But they have spent over an hour discussing this here. They had a presentation by Mr. Hayes. It is a little baffling why they would have to have this entire thing all over again in front of the Board of Supervisors. Perhaps a report could maybe inform that later discussion and may be cut right to some of these issues. He did not know. He felt that they need to communicate this to the Board that the Commission did wrestle with this particular issue and that there were merits on both sides. By right makes it very simple and it achieves some of the public good. That is that a lot of the environmental concerns and issues, but going through a public process does protect some of the neighbors from something that is quite new. They could debate that on both sides. Certainly the Supervisors should hear if they have not considered that already that these are issues that are worthy of debating or discussion. Mr. Cilimberg asked that the Commissioners pay attention to the action memo in the appendix where it will note all of the comments they have heard so that they have all of that right. If that is all they are able to get to the Board at least that will be a very important piece. Mr. Strucko said that the Commission would not decide anything here tonight. Staff just wanted to gauge their reactions and see what they are going to take to the Board. He felt that they got a pretty rich set of comments. Mr. Edgerton suggested that an addendum could be added to the staff report to clarify what was being suggested for the by right in that it be limited to whatever the current zoning regulations is in height. This does not deal with the sound. But it should be limited in height to what accessory structures are limited to if he understood what they had been talking about. But that does not really jump out at you in the staff report. He felt that it was a very important consideration. Ms. Joseph noted that there should be a reminder to everybody that they do have a noise ordinance. She suggested that staff remind the Board what the Noise Ordinance states and what the acceptable decibel levels are. There are a lot of things already on the books that can be used for this. Mr. Strucko asked for the sake of time he would like to move along. He asked if all of the concerns been aired on this issue. He thanked Mr. Hayes for coming. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesApril21PCmins.htm (21 of 22) [9/30/2020 6:15:03 PM] minutes · The Planning Commission plans to participate with the Board of Supervisors in the wind turbine work session on May 6. Return to exec summary file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesApril21PCmins.htm (22 of 22) [9/30/2020 6:15:03 PM] Draft: 11/23/09 1 ORDINANCE NO. 09-18( ) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article III, District Regulations, are hereby amended and reordained as follows: By Amending: Sec. 3.1 Definitions Sec. 10.2.1 By right Sec. 11.3.1 By right uses Sec. 12.2.1 By right Sec. 13.2.1 By right Sec. 14.2.1 By right Sec. 15.2.1 By right Sec. 16.2.1 By right Sec. 17.2.1 By right Sec. 18.2.1 By right Sec. 19.3.1 By right Sec. 20.3.1 By right Sec. 20A.6 Permitted uses Sec. 20B.2 Permitted uses Sec. 22.2.1 By right Sec. 23.2.1 By right Sec. 24.2.1 By right Sec. 27.2.1 By right Sec. 28.2.1 By right By Adding: Sec. 5.1.46 Small wind turbines Chapter 18. Zoning Article I. General Regulations Sec. 3.1 Definitions . . . Fall zone. A zone on the surface of the ground that is a circle whose center is the proposed or standing personal wireless service facility or small wind turbine (the “facility or turbine”), where the radius is measured from the outer surface of the facility’s or turbine’s pole or other vertical structure immediately above its foundation, and where the radius is: (i) for facilities, equal to the height of the facility; and (ii) for turbines, equal to the height of the turbine plus a distance of twenty (20) feet. . . . Historic district. The Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District, the Southern Albemarle Historic District, Draft: 11/23/09 2 the Proffit Historic District and the Batesville Historic District, all of which are listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register. . . . Small wind turbine. A wind energy conversion system used for the generation of power to support an authorized use on the property and all components of the system including, but not limited to, the tower, guy wires, wiring, rotors and turbine blades, generators and control systems. Small wind turbine, Tier I. A small wind turbine within any zoning district but which is not within a historic district or within a ridge area and which complies with the requirements of subsection 5.1.46(b) without waiver or modification. Small wind turbine, Tier II. A small wind turbine that does not qualify as a Tier I small wind turbine because it would be located within a historic district or within a ridge area or because the owner requests a waiver or modification of any requirement of subsection 5.1.46(b). Article II. Basic Regulations Sec. 5.1.46 Small wind turbines The purpose of this section 5.1.46 is to authorize small wind turbines as an accessory use in order to promote renewable energy. Each small wind turbine shall be subject to following, as applicable: a. Application for approval. In conjunction with the submittal of a building permit application for a small wind turbine, the applicant shall submit the following information: 1. A plat of the parcel showing the lot lines, the location of the proposed small wind turbine and the setbacks to the lot lines. 2. Plans that show the total height of the proposed structure, including rotors or turbine blades and that show compliance with the building code. 3. For Tier II small wind turbines, if a waiver or modification of any requirement of subsection 5.1.46(b) is requested, information addressing each of the findings stated in subsection 5.1(a). b. Requirements. Each small wind turbine shall be subject to the following: 1. Primary purpose. The primary purpose of the small wind turbine shall be to support and provide power for one or more authorized uses of the property; provided that nothing herein shall prohibit the owner from connecting the small wind turbine to a public utility and selling surplus power to the utility. 2. Location. Notwithstanding section 4.2.3.1 of this chapter, the small wind turbine may be located in an area on a lot other than a building site. 3. Setbacks. The small wind turbine shall not be located closer in distance to any lot line than its fall zone. The agent may authorize a small wind turbine to be located closer to any lot line if the applicant obtains an easement or other recordable document showing agreement between the lot owners that is acceptable to the county attorney and that prohibits development on the portion of the abutting parcel sharing the common lot line that is within the small wind turbine’s fall zone. If the right-of-way for a public street is within the fall zone, the Virginia Department of Transportation shall be included in the staff review, in lieu of recording an easement or other Draft: 11/23/09 3 document. 4. Height. The small wind turbine shall not exceed the maximum height permitted for structures within the applicable zoning district; provided that the commission may waive the maximum height permitted for small wind turbines. 5. Lighting. The small wind turbine shall have no lighting. 6. Collocation. The small wind turbine shall not have personal wireless service facilities collocated upon it. 7. Removal. The small wind turbine shall be disassembled and removed from the property within ninety (90) days after the date the use(s) to which it provides power is discontinued or its use to generate power is discontinued. If the agent determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that the small wind turbine will be removed as required, the agent may require that the owner submit a certified check, a bond with surety, or a letter of credit, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the removal of the small wind turbine. The type and form of the surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the agent and the county attorney. c. Tier I small wind turbines. The agent is authorized to review and approve Tier I small wind turbines. The agent shall act on the application before the building permit application or site plan for the small wind turbine is approved. Notwithstanding subsection 5.1, no requirement of subsection 5.1.46(b) may be waived or modified for a Tier I small wind turbine. d. Tier II small wind turbines. The commission is authorized to review and approve Tier II small wind turbines. The commission shall act on the application before the building permit application or site plan for the small wind turbine is approved. 1. Notice. Notice of the commission’s consideration of an application for a Tier II small wind turbine shall be sent by the agent to the owner of each lot abutting the lot on which the proposed Tier II small wind turbine will be located. The notice shall: (i) describe the nature of the Tier II small wind turbine, its proposed location on the lot and its proposed height; (ii) identify the historic district or ridge area in which the small wind turbine is proposed to be located, if applicable; (iii) describe each requested waiver or modification of any requirement of subsection 5.1.46(b); (iv) identify the appropriate county office where the complete Tier II small wind turbine application may be viewed; and (v) state the date, time and location where the commission will consider the application. The notice shall be mailed by first class mail or hand delivered at least ten (10) days prior to the commission meeting. Notice shall be mailed to the last known address of the owner and mailing the notice to the address shown on the current real estate tax assessment records of the county shall be deemed compliance with this requirement. The failure of an owner to receive the notice as provided herein shall not affect the validity of an approved Tier II small wind turbine and shall not be the basis for an appeal. 2. Review of requests for waivers or modifications. Requests for waivers or modifications shall be subject to the standards and procedures set forth in subsection 5.1, even if there is no pending subdivision plat or site plan, and the following: a. Conditions. If the commission approves an application, it may impose reasonable conditions it deems necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare. b. Denial. If the commission denies an application, it shall identify which requirements were not satisfied and inform the applicant of what needs to be done to satisfy each requirement. Draft: 11/23/09 4 3. Historic districts or ridge areas. Requests for small wind turbines in a historic district or a ridge area shall be subject to the following: a. Standards. In considering an application for a small wind turbine within a historic district or a ridge area, the commission shall consider the following: (i) whether the small wind turbine would adversely impact any historic resources within the historic district; (ii) whether the small wind turbine would be backlit against a ridge line; (iii) whether the small wind turbine would adversely impact resources identified in the county’s open space plan; (iv) the extent to which the small wind turbine is sited to minimize its visibility from adjacent parcels and streets, regardless of their distance from the small wind turbine; (v) if the small wind turbine would be visible from a state scenic river or a national park or national forest, regardless of whether the river, park or forest is adjacent thereto, the extent to which it is sited to minimize its visibility from the river, park or forest; and (vi) if the small wind turbine would be located on lands subject to a conservation easement or an open space easement, or adjacent to a conservation easement or open space easement, the extent to which it is sited to minimize its visibility from any resources specifically identified for protection in the deed of easement. b. Conditions. If the commission approves an application, it may impose reasonable conditions it deems necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare. c. Denial. If the commission denies an application, it shall identify which requirements were not satisfied and inform the applicant of what needs to be done to satisfy each requirement. d. Appeal. The board of supervisors may consider an application for a small wind turbine facility only upon an appeal of the denial of the application by the commission. An appeal shall be submitted in writing in the office of the agent within ten (10) calendar days after the date of the denial by the commission. In considering an appeal, the board may affirm, reverse, or modify in whole or in part, the decision of the commission, and its decision shall be based upon the standards delineated in subsection 5.1.46(d)(3)(a). Article III. District Regulations Sec. 10.2.1 By right The following uses shall be permitted in any RA district subject to the requirements and limitations of these regulations: The following uses shall be permitted by right in the RA district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter: . . . 25. Small wind turbines (reference 5.1.46) Sec. 11.3.1 By right uses The following uses shall be permitted by right in the MHD, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter: . . . 25. Small wind turbines (reference 5.1.46) Draft: 11/23/09 5 Sec. 12.2.1 By right The following uses shall be permitted subject to requirements and limitations of this ordinance: The following uses shall be permitted by right in the VR district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter: . . . 17. Small wind turbines (reference 5.1.46) Sec. 13.2.1 By right The following uses shall be permitted subject to requirements and limitations of this ordinance: The following uses shall be permitted by right in the R-1 district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter: . . . 14. Small wind turbines (reference 5.1.46) Sec. 14.2.1 By right The following uses shall be permitted subject to requirements and limitations of this ordinance: The following uses shall be permitted by right in the R-2 district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter: . . . 14. Small wind turbines (reference 5.1.46) Sec. 15.2.1 By right The following uses shall be permitted subject to requirements and limitations of this ordinance: The following uses shall be permitted by right in the R-4 district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter: . . . 16. Small wind turbines (reference 5.1.46) Sec. 16.2.1 By right The following uses shall be permitted subject to the requirements and limitations of this ordinance: The following uses shall be permitted by right in the R-6 district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter: . . . 17. Small wind turbines (reference 5.1.46) Sec. 17.2.1 By right The following uses shall be permitted subject to the requirements and limitations of this ordinance: The following uses shall be permitted by right in the R-10 district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter: . . . Draft: 11/23/09 6 17. Small wind turbines (reference 5.1.46) Sec. 18.2.1 By right The following uses shall be permitted subject to the requirements and limitations of this ordinance: The following uses shall be permitted by right in the R-15 district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter: . . . 17. Small wind turbines (reference 5.1.46) Sec. 19.3.1 By right The following uses shall be permitted subject to the requirements and limitations of this ordinance: The following uses shall be permitted by right in the PRD district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter: . . . 13. Small wind turbines (reference 5.1.46) Sec. 20.3.1 By right The following uses shall be permitted subject to the requirements and limitations of this ordinance: The following uses shall be permitted by right in the PUD district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter: . . . 13. Small wind turbines (reference 5.1.46) Sec. 20A.6 Permitted uses The following uses shall be permitted in an the NMD district, subject to the regulations in this section and section 8, the approved application plan and code of development, and the accepted proffers: a. By right uses. The following uses are permitted by right if the use is expressly identified as a by right use in the code of development or if the use is permitted in a determination by the zoning administrator pursuant to subsection 8.5.5.2(c)(1): . . . 10. Small wind turbines (reference 5.1.46) Sec. 20B.2 Permitted uses The following uses shall be permitted in the DCD, subject to the regulations in this section: F. Accessory uses and structures. Accessory uses and structures are permitted, including but not limited to: (i) home occupations, Class A and Class B (reference 5.2) for primary residential uses; (ii) storage buildings for primary residential and non-residential uses; (iii) outdoor performance areas for primary Draft: 11/23/09 7 cultural arts center uses; and (iv) prototype manufacturing for research and development uses; and (v) small wind turbines (reference 5.1.46). Sec. 22.2.1 By right The following uses shall be permitted in any the C-1 district, subject to the requirements and limitations of these regulations applicable requirements of this chapter. The zoning administrator, after consultation with the director of planning and other appropriate officials, may permit as a use by right, a use not specifically permitted; provided that such use shall be similar to uses permitted by right in general character and more specifically, similar in terms of locational requirements, operational characteristics, visual impact and traffic generation. Appeals from the zoning administrator’s decision shall be as generally provided in section 34.0. . . . b. The following services and public establishments: . . . 28. Small wind turbines (reference 5.1.46) Sec. 23.2.1 By right The following uses shall be permitted in any the CO district, subject to the requirements and limitations of these regulations applicable requirements of this chapter: . . . 15. Small wind turbines (reference 5.1.46) Sec. 24.2.1 By right The following uses shall be permitted in any the HC district, subject to the requirements and limitations of these regulations applicable requirements of this chapter. The zoning administrator, after consultation with the director of planning and other appropriate officials, may permit, as a use by right, a use not specifically permitted; provided that such use shall be similar to uses permitted by right in general character, and more specifically, similar in terms of locational requirements, operational characteristics, visual impact and traffic generation. Appeals from the zoning administrator’s decision shall be as generally provided in section 34. . . . 47. Small wind turbines (reference 5.1.46) Sec. 27.2.1 By right Except as otherwise limited by section 27.2.2.10, the following uses shall be permitted by right in the LI district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter: . . . 29. Small wind turbines (reference 5.1.46) Sec. 28.2.1 By right Draft: 11/23/09 8 Except as otherwise limited by section 28.2.2.14, the following uses shall be permitted by right in the HI district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter: . . . 25. Small wind turbines (reference 5.1.46) I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________. __________________________________ Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Aye Nay Mr. Boyd ____ ____ Mr. Dorrier ____ ____ Ms. Mallek ____ ____ Mr. Rooker ____ ____ Mr. Slutzky ____ ____ Ms. Thomas ____ ____ attachment Attachment ACOUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Wind Turbines SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Work session to consider possible Zoning Ordinance Amendment to allow wind turbines STAFF CONTACT(S): Graham, Fritz, Clark PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: April 21, 2009 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes BACKGROUND: This is the fourth Planning Commission worksession on wind turbines. As previously noted, it will be very difficult for wind turbines in this area to be cost effective without creating significant visual impacts. This has made it difficult for staff and the Planning Commission to find an acceptable balance. At the last worksession, it was agreed that two of the Planning Commissioners would work with staff to develop a proposal that attempts to find this balance point. This worksession is to review that proposal in advance of a planned County Board worksession on May 6th. STRATEGIC PLAN: Protect the County's Natural, Scenic and Historic Resources Effectively Manage Growth and Development DISCUSSION: The attached outline summarizes a proposed ordinance amendment that would allow wind turbines in the County. This proposal has limited wind turbines to being allowed to support other uses on the same property. Effectively, this eliminates commercial/industrial wind turbines that generate power for profit. The proposal attempts to balance the County’s interest in promoting sustainable energy with that of protecting its natural resources and vistas. This is done by a tiered approach very similar to what the Board and Planning Commission have seen with personal wireless antenna. Tier I are those wind turbines that would have the lowest impact on the community. Tier I facilities are intended to be a simple administrative matter. Tier II facilities are those that have a higher potential for impacting surrounding properties and/or the community. As such, a Tier II requires the Planning Commission to consider a waiver or modification of the Supplemental Regulations that allow wind turbines. This process increases the turbine owner’s cost and uncertainty, but attempts to balance their interest against the County’s interest of avoiding undesired impacts. Tier III facilities are those that are anticipated to result in significant concerns with visual impact. As such, those facilities require a Special Use Permit. A Special Use Permit will significantly increase the file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesMay6AttachA.htm (1 of 4) [9/30/2020 6:15:05 PM] attachment applicant’s cost of obtaining permits and may prove cost prohibitive for some applicants, but this process provides the highest level of County oversight for those uses likely to prove controversial. Recommendation: Staff requests the Planning Commission provide comments they would like shared with the County Board with respect to this proposal. Attachments: Attachment A – Wind Turbine Outline Attachment A Wind Turbine Outline 10 April 2009 Draft Definitions: Small Wind Turbine - A wind energy conversion system used for the generation of power to support an allowed activity on the property. This includes all components of the system such as the tower, guy wires, wiring, rotors and turbine blades, generators, and control systems. The small wind turbine may be connected to a public utility and sell power to that utility provided the power sold is not in excess of that typically used for the primary use on that property. This definition effectively restricts small wind turbines to an accessory use of the property. For those turbines that are an accessory to a single family residence or agricultural use, no site plan is required per 18-32.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. For other uses (e.g. power for a commercial greenhouse), there would still be a site plan requirement to satisfy before a building permit for the small wind turbine could be issued. Tier I A small wind turbine located on property zoned Rural Areas that is not within the Entrance Corridors or the Mountain Contour List as defined in the County’s Comprehensive Plan. A Tier I system would be considered a “by right” use, subject to the conditions in the Supplementary Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance but administratively handled with minimal cost to applicants. These facilities are anticipated to result in very little or no impact to the community and would have minimal costs associated with County requirements. Tier II A small wind turbine that does not qualify as a Tier I, but still fits conforms to the height restrictions in the underlying zoning district. This would include situations such as a system within the Entrance Corridor, reduced setbacks, or located within the Development Areas. This would require the Planning Commission waiving a condition of the Supplemental Regulations. The administrative cost for such a system would be considerably higher than a Tier I but less than the Special Use Permit required for a Tier III. Tier III A small wind turbine that does not conform to the height restrictions of the underlying zoning district. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesMay6AttachA.htm (2 of 4) [9/30/2020 6:15:05 PM] attachment This system would require a Special Use Permit in order to be permitted. Supplemental Regulations for Small Wind Turbines Within Section 5 of the Zoning Ordinance (Supplementary Regulations), establish conditions for wind turbines. As a Supplementary Regulation, the Planning Commission may waive or modify these conditions, for a Tier II facility. This provides the simplest oversight for situations where project specific conditions may require special consideration. The following are the recommended conditions: 1. Small wind turbines are an allowed use within the Rural Areas Zoning District. This makes wind turbines a “by right” use within the RA zoning district and allows the Planning Commission to decide if the use is appropriately sited in other zoning districts where the potential for conflicts between uses are higher. 2. Require a minimum setback from property lines of the height of the structure, plus twenty feet. It is recommended this include a provision for an administrative waiver where the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Agent and County Attorney that the adjoining property owner has agreed to restrict development within that part of their property that would be within this setback distance. This allows a margin of safety for structure collapse and ice throws from turbines. 3. Prohibit collocation of personal wireless service antenna. This avoids situations where wind turbines might be constructed to circumvent wireless facility ordinance requirements rather than being primarily intended for generation of wind energy. 4. Prohibit all lighting of the wind turbine and tower. This restriction recognizes the dark skies provisions in the Comprehensive Plan. 5. Prohibit wind turbines within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District or within the Mountain Contour List as defined by the Comprehensive Plan . This assures oversight by the Planning Commission for visual impacts within the Entrance Corridors and mountains. Within the EC, the Planning Commission may also request input from the Architectural Review Board before considering a request. Height Restrictions Under Section 4.10 of the Zoning Ordinance, add a provision for small wind turbines to meet the height limits within the underlying zoning district, but allow this to be modified by Special Use Permit. Application requirements for this Special Use Permit would be similar to those for personal wireless towers. This would require those wind turbines that will have the highest potential impacts to be considered as a Special Use Permit where conditions could be used to mitigate impacts. For example, this could consider locations that minimize skylighting, colors for the wind turbine, or sensitivity to bird migration paths. Administration A building permit is required prior to the County permitting construction of a small wind turbine. A site plan may be required before a building permit application is submitted per 18-32.2 of the Zoning Ordinance for those uses that are not exempted from the site plan requirements. . The following information must be provided with the building permit application. 1. A plat of the property that clearly shows the boundary lines, location of the proposed small wind turbine, and setbacks to the property line. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesMay6AttachA.htm (3 of 4) [9/30/2020 6:15:05 PM] attachment 2. Plans that clearly show the total height of the proposed structure and satisfy all provisions of the Building Code. 3. A signed and notarized affidavit using a County form that demonstrates the small wind turbine will be used to support an allowed use of the property and assures the small wind turbine shall be removed if the supported use is ended. Tier I - A Tier I small wind turbine is a “by right” use and will typically only require a building permit. Recognizing administrative costs can be a significant deterrent to use of small wind turbines, this provision attempts to keep that cost to a minimum. Tier II - A Tier II small wind turbine shall require Planning Commission approval of a waiver or modification of the conditions in the Supplemental Regulations prior to approval of a building permit or site plan. As part of approving a waiver or modification, the Planning Commission may establish reasonable conditions to assure the ordinance intent is maintained. If the commission denies an application, it shall identify which requirements were not satisfied and inform the applicant what needs to be done to satisfy each requirement. Recognizing site specific considerations may suggest a small wind turbine should be allowed, the Planning Commission can waive or modify the requirements as related to setbacks, zoning districts and overlay districts, collocation of antenna, and lighting. Depending on the submission requirements, the cost of this application may be a significant deterrent to applicants constructing small wind turbines. Tier III A Tier III small wind turbine shall require Board of Supervisors approval of a Special Use Permit prior to submission of a building permit or site plan. This provision is used for those turbines that present the most significant visual impact. Anticipating submission requirements similar to those used for personal wireless facilities, the cost of this application is anticipated to be a significant deterrent to applicants constructing small wind turbines. It is anticipated the County will see very few of these applications. Go to next attachment Return to exec summary file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesMay6AttachA.htm (4 of 4) [9/30/2020 6:15:05 PM] attachment Planning Commission Wind Turbines Work Session In summary, the Planning Commission held a work session on ZTA-2009-00001 Wind Turbines. Jeremy Hayes, President of Skyline Turbine, presented a brief PowerPoint presentation to help the Commission understand what sort of turbines might be available in Albemarle. Mark Graham presented a PowerPoint presentation and explained the proposed ordinance amendment and responded to the questions raised by the Commission. The Commission took public comment, asked questions and provided comments and suggestions. The Planning Commission asked staff to consider their suggestions and to pass their comments on to the Board of Supervisors before the joint May 6 work session, as follows: · Mr. Franco felt to answer the concerns he was hearing from Mr. Loach and Ms. Porterfield that as was said this was part of a process and he would hope that public input and concerns would come out during this process so that they could include the by-right components. He asked that they keep that in mind. On page 2 of the attachment under the definitions under Tier 1 he was not sure if it was a definition or a commentary that is in italics where it says these facilities are anticipated to result in very little or not impact to the community. He might change that to say “negative impact” because one of the reasons they are exploring this is because of the potential positive impacts that this brings. He felt that they need to stress that as part of the reason why they are pursuing this. · Mr. Haynes should be invited to the joint Board meeting. · Ms. Porterfield pointed out on based on what she had been saying, which Mr. Loach supported, she would like to see if he had a different way of going at Tier 1. If it is not going to come in as a special use permit then is there a different way of going at it. Does there have to be a minimum acreage before one can have this? Do these have to be kept X number of feet from any property line? There are some things if they want to go with the less for the applicant to do she felt that they need to solve a few of the problems going in, which are number one the visual part of it and the noise. They know from the past that noise is going to be an issue on this. If they come up with saying that Tier 1 is not going to be a special use permit then they are going to allow it by-right, but by-right for which properties. Do they have to have a minimum of 5 or 10 acres? Do they have to keep the apparatus at least 1500’ from any property line? There are some things that they could probably do to make sure that whatever comes in is going to work. The one thing that has come up in this discussion is how to handle Tier 1. Are there any other ideas that could be ready in two weeks if the Board wants to hear any other ideas that come from some of the things that they have talked about? She questioned whether staff could come back with something. · Mr. Loach understood what Ms. Porterfield was saying was that she wanted a process that was easy, but also accessible. She did not want to make it to be an onerous cost so the public can get in to make their opinion. The comparison of the turbine and balloon test comes with the upper tiers with the 30’ above the tree line. At that tier it is distinct. He asked how do they say to a company that you spend X number of tens of thousands of dollars to go 3’ to 7’, but that an individual what do we hold them to go 30’ above the tree line. His question was what would be the criteria for that. · There are different gradations here. A Tier 1 is by right. A Tier 2 requires a waiver. A Tier 3 requires a special use permit. So could a Tier 1 require less of a waiver; a Tier 2 a waiver and a Tier 3 a special use permit. That was Ms. Porterfield’s point. The lesser waiver might not be so cost onerous because one would not have to hire a $12,000 attorney to take them through the special use permit process. But they could meet some more basic standards that are not as onerous or costly to get the Tier 1 instead of going directly by right. It should be something that the Board of Supervisors should hear as part of the discussion there. · The Commission wrestled with this particular issue and there are merits on both sides. By right makes it very simple and it achieves some of the public good. That deals with a lot of the environmental concerns and issues. But, going through a public process does protect some of the file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesMay6AttachB.htm (1 of 2) [9/30/2020 6:15:05 PM] attachment neighbors from something that is quite new. They could debate that on both sides. Certainly the Supervisors should hear if they have not considered that already that these are issues that are worthy of debating or discussion. · The Planning Commission plans to participate with the Board of Supervisors in the wind turbine work session on May 6. Several Commissioners asked for the following changes to the staff report: o An addendum could be added to the staff report to clarify what was being suggested for the by right in that it be limited to whatever the current zoning regulations are in height. This does not deal with the sound. But it should be limited in height to what accessory structures are limited to. That does not really jump out in the staff report. That is a very important consideration. o There should be a reminder to everybody that they do have a noise ordinance. Staff should remind the Board what the Noise Ordinance states and what the acceptable decibel levels are. There are a lot of things already on the books that can be used for this. Go to next attachment Return to exec summary file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesMay6AttachB.htm (2 of 2) [9/30/2020 6:15:05 PM] memo Memorandum To: Board of Supervisors From: Mark Graham, Director of Community Development Date: 20 November 2009 Subject: ZTA-2009-001. Small Wind Turbines On November 17, 2009, the Planning Commission recommended approval of ZTA 2009-001, Wind Turbines, by a vote of 4- 0 with only one change to the ordinance. At staff’s request, the Planning Commission agreed to include a small change to the draft zoning ordinance amendment to better define a “fall zone.” The proposed definition is provided below and has been included in the version forwarded to the Board. Fall zone. A zone on the surface of the ground that is a circle whose center is the proposed or standing personal wireless service facility or small wind turbine (the “facility or turbine”), where the radius is measured from the outer surface of the facility’s or turbine’s pole or other vertical structure immediately above its foundation, and where the radius is: (i) for facilities, equal to the height of the facility; and (ii) for turbines, equal to the height of the turbine plus a distance of twenty (20) feet. Attachments: View Draft Ordinance Nov 17, 2009 Exec Summary and attachments View PC minutes: September 9, 2008; January 13, 2009; April 21, 2009; May 6, 2009; October 6, 2009; November 17, 2009 Return to regular agenda file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesMemo.htm [9/30/2020 6:15:05 PM] attachment COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Wind Turbines – Zoning Text Amendment SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Adopt Resolution of Intent and review ordinance proposal prior to drafting an ordinance amendment for public hearing STAFF CONTACT(S): Mark Graham AGENDA DATE: October 7, 2009 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes BACKGROUND: The purpose of this report is for the Planning Commission to adopt a Resolution of Intent and to review the current ordinance proposal prior to a Planning Commission public hearing scheduled for November 17, 2009. On May 6, 2009, the Board of Supervisors (Board) and Planning Commission held a joint worksession to consider an ordinance proposal and provide direction on how to proceed. Staff was directed to draft an ordinance amendment, working in cooperation with Mr. Slutzky, Mr. Edgerton, and Ms. Joseph and to maintain the previously approved Community Development work program in scheduling this effort. Staff gratefully notes its appreciation for the help provided by Ms. Joseph, Mr. Edgerton, and Mr. Slutzky in preparing an ordinance proposal. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 2: Protect the County's Natural Resources Goal 4: Effectively Manage Growth and Development DISCUSSION: Based on the direction at the joint worksession and subsequent guidance by the representatives of the Planning Commission and Board, staff has revised the previous April 2009 proposal. The revised October 2009 proposal is Attachment A. Among the changes with this proposal are: ● A simplified administrative process that eliminates the need for a Special Use Permit associated with height. It was recognized that a modification of Supplemental Regulations would provide an opportunity for public vetting of any issues associated with modifying the height without the need for the complex and expensive process required for a Special Use Permit. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesNov17AttachA.htm (1 of 2) [9/30/2020 6:15:06 PM] attachment ● Allowing small wind turbines in the Development Areas and Entrance Corridors as part of a Tier 1 use. It was recognized that the proposed setback requirement results in a much greater restriction on wind turbines than it would for other structures. That assured there is no increased impact on adjoining properties. ● Restricting the use of wind turbines within County recognized Historic Districts and Mountain Overlay. By placing this requirement in the Supplemental Regulations, this assures wind turbines in those areas would be allowed only if a waiver of the Supplemental Regulations is granted by the Planning Commission. BUDGET IMPACTS: This proposal would treat small wind turbines the same as other uses regulated by the Zoning Ordinance’s Supplemental Regulations. For Tier 1 applications, which only require a Building Permit, staff believes the administrative costs are offset by the permit fees. For Tier 2 applications, staff recognizes the cost of such waivers or modifications does create some additional cost to the County which is not offset by fees, the same as other waivers or modifications of Supplemental Regulations. Staff anticipates the County will only see a couple of Tier 2 applications per year for the next several years. With an anticipated staff impact of 20 hours per application, staff believes this workload can be absorbed without any need for additional staff or budget funding. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Advise staff of any additional changes the Planning Commission wishes to see with an ordinance presented for public hearing. 2. Adopt the Resolution of Intent provided in Attachment B ATTACHMENTS A- October 7, 2009 Ordinance Proposal B- Resolution of Intent C- May 6, 2009 Executive Summary Return to Nov 17 exec summary file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesNov17AttachA.htm (2 of 2) [9/30/2020 6:15:06 PM] attachment Attachment A Wind Turbine Outline October 7, 2009 Proposal Definitions: Small Wind Turbine - A wind energy conversion system used for the generation of power to support an allowed activity on the property. This includes all components of the system such as the tower, guy wires, wiring, rotors and turbine blades, generators, and control systems. The small wind turbine may be connected to a public utility and sell power to that utility provided the power sold is not in excess of that typically used for the primary use on that property. This definition effectively restricts small wind turbines to an accessory use of the property. For those turbines that are an accessory to a single family residence or agricultural use, no site plan is required per 18-32.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. For other uses (e.g. power for a commercial greenhouse), there would still be a site plan requirement to satisfy before a building permit for the small wind turbine could be issued. Tier I A small wind turbine located on property within any zoning district except within a County recognized Historic District or within the Mountain Contour List as defined in the County’s Comprehensive Plan. A Tier I system would be considered a “by right” use, subject to the conditions in the Supplementary Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance but administratively handled with minimal cost to applicants. These facilities are anticipated to result in very little or no impact to the community and would have minimal costs associated with County requirements. Tier II A small wind turbine that does not qualify as a Tier I, requiring the Planning Commission to waive Supplemental Conditions for the use. This would include situations such as a system within a County recognized Historic District, reduced setbacks, or height above that allowed for buildings in that zoning district. This would require the Planning Commission waiving a condition of the Supplemental Regulations. The administrative cost for such a system would be considerably higher than a Tier I. Supplemental Regulations for Small Wind Turbines Within Section 5 of the Zoning Ordinance (Supplementary Regulations), establish conditions for wind turbines. As a Supplementary Regulation, the Planning Commission may waive or modify these conditions, for a Tier II facility. This provides the simplest oversight for situations where project specific conditions may require special consideration. The following are the recommended conditions: 1. Small wind turbines are an allowed use within any zoning district, except within County recognized Historic District or the Mountain Overlay District. This makes wind turbines a “by right” use within any zoning district and allows the Planning Commission to decide if the use is appropriately sited in the overlay district where the potential for conflict is higher. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesNov17AttachAA.htm (1 of 3) [9/30/2020 6:15:06 PM] attachment 2. Require a minimum setback from property lines of the height of the structure, plus twenty feet. It is recommended this include a provision for an administrative waiver where the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Agent and County Atoorney that the adjoining property owner has agreed to restrict development within that part of their property that would be within this setback distance. This allows a margin of safety for structure collapse and ice throws from turbines. 3. Prohibit collocation of personal wireless service antenna. This avoids situations where wind turbines might be constructed to circumvent wireless facility ordinance requirements rather than being primarily intended for generation of wind energy. 4. Prohibit all lighting of the wind turbine and tower. This restriction recognizes the dark skies provisions in the Comprehensive Plan. 5. Prohibit wind turbines within the Entrance within the Mountain Contour List as defined by the Comprehensive Plan . This assures oversight by the Planning Commission for visual impacts within the Entrance Corridors and mountains. Within the EC, the Planning Commission may also request input from the Architectural Review Board before considering a request. Height Restrictions Under the Supplemental Conditions for small wind turbines, add a provision for small wind turbines to meet the height limits within the underlying zoning district. Thus, the Planning Commission could modify this requirement. Unlike previous proposals, this eliminates the need for a Special Use Permit, which greatly reduces the administrative burden for the County and the cost to the applicant while still assuring there is a process where exceptions are vetted in public. Administration A building permit is required prior to the County permitting construction of a small wind turbine. A site plan may be required before a building permit application is submitted per 18-32.2 of the Zoning Ordinance for those uses that are not exempted from the site plan requirements. . The following information must be provided with the building permit application. 1. A plat of the property that clearly shows the boundary lines, location of the proposed small wind turbine, and setbacks to the property line. 2. Plans that clearly show the total height of the proposed structure and satisfy all provisions of the Building Code. 3. A signed and notarized affidavit using a County form that demonstrates the small wind turbine will be used to support an allowed use of the property and assures the small wind turbine shall be removed if the supported use is ended. Tier I - A Tier I small wind turbine is a “by right” use and will typically only require a building permit. Recognizing administrative costs can be a significant deterrent to use of small wind turbines, this file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesNov17AttachAA.htm (2 of 3) [9/30/2020 6:15:06 PM] attachment provision attempts to keep that cost to a minimum. Tier II - A Tier II small wind turbine shall require Planning Commission approval of a waiver or modification of the conditions in the Supplemental Regulations prior to approval of a building permit or site plan. As part of approving a waiver or modification, the Planning Commission may establish reasonable conditions to assure the ordinance intent is maintained. If the commission denies an application, it shall identify which requirements were not satisfied and inform the applicant what needs to be done to satisfy each requirement. Recognizing site specific considerations may suggest a small wind turbine should be allowed, the Planning Commission can waive or modify the requirements as related to setbacks, zoning districts and overlay districts, collocation of antenna, lighting, and height. Depending on the submission requirements, the cost of this application may be a significant deterrent to applicants constructing small wind turbines. Go to next attachment Return to exec summary file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesNov17AttachAA.htm (3 of 3) [9/30/2020 6:15:06 PM] attachment Attachment B RESOLUTION OF INTENT WHEREAS, wind turbines have been determined to not be accessory to primary commercial, industrial and residential uses in Albemarle County because, historically, they have not been customarily incidental to those primary uses; and WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle desires to promote renewable energy sources such as wind turbines; and WHEREAS, it is desired to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to permit wind turbines that provide energy for the primary use or uses to which they are accessory in various zoning districts under appropriate regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices, the Planning Commission hereby adopts a resolution of intent to add to and amend the appropriate sections of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to achieve the purposes described herein; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the zoning text amendment proposed by this resolution of intent, and make its recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, at the earliest possible date. Go to next attachment Return to exec summary file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesNov17AttachAB.htm [9/30/2020 6:15:07 PM] attachment Attachment C AGENDA TITLE: Wind Turbines SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review Staff’s and the Planning Commission’s recommendation on wind turbines STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, Fritz, Clark LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: May 6, 2009 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: Staff and the Planning Commission have been working on a possible Zoning Ordinance amendment that would permit wind turbines within the County. Examples of the types of wind turbines being considered will be included in the presentation at the Board meeting. Currently, wind turbines are neither permitted as a primary use nor as an accessory use in any of the County’s zoning districts. The purpose of this worksession is for the Board to receive a brief presentation on the complexities of wind energy in Albemarle County, review the draft proposal outline as it currently stands (Attachment A), and provide an opportunity to comment and give direction. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 2: Protect the County's Natural Resources Goal 4: Effectively Manage Growth and Development DISCUSSION: Staff and the Planning Commission have not considered large commercial /industrial wind turbines, but have limited their considerations to small wind turbines. Small wind turbines have been defined as those that are used to provide electricity for uses on the property rather than those used primarily for the sale of electricity (i.e., commercial “wind farms”). Small Wind Turbine Issues Based on its review of the literature, staff believes the following are important considerations for locating file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesNov17AttachAC.htm (1 of 3) [9/30/2020 6:15:07 PM] attachment small wind turbines in Albemarle County: 1. The visibility of monopoles and towers is one of the most common and usually the most controversial land use issue, and small wind turbines may be visible. While most of the concern is with large commercial wind turbines, concerns have also been noted with small wind turbines, especially when they are proposed in areas of high aesthetic value, such as mountain tops and land in or near a conservation easement. Another visual factor with small wind turbines has been shadow flicker, resulting from the sun behind the rotating blades. This primarily is a concern with small wind turbines in close proximity to other uses. 2. Small wind turbines create noise. It appears that the technology has significantly reduced the noise levels with newer wind turbines, but noise concerns are still an issue when the turbines are in close proximity to other uses. A whirring noise is often identified as an annoyance in places where wind turbines are placed near residences. 3. Albemarle County has very limited areas where wind power will be cost effective, as most of the County is considered poor for wind energy production. With this in mind, staff believes that if wind turbines are to be encouraged in the County, it will be necessary to keep County regulation of the use to a minimum and provide as much flexibility as possible. Due to the marginal economic benefit that might be realized in low wind areas and the fact that turbine technology and design are evolving, staff believes a rigid ordinance could exclude some promising new technologies. 4. Turbine efficiency increases with height, and this is especially true when height is necessary to provide wind clearance from nearby obstructions. Given the challenging economics of wind turbines in this area, flexibility on the height of structures will be a critical consideration. The literature indicates that turbine blades should be a minimum of thirty feet above any obstruction within three hundred feet of the turbine. For example, if nearby trees are seventy feet tall and the wind turbine blades are twenty six feet in diameter, the turbine shaft should be at least one hundred thirteen feet above the ground to be considered effective. This height can be reduced based on the local conditions. 5. The consequences of a tower collapse, ice throws, and noise should be taken into account when considering the required clear zone and setback distances. The literature suggests that most localities require a clear zone somewhere between one to three times the structure height. For stand alone turbines, this would effectively limit wind turbines to sparsely developed areas. 6. The telecommunications industry may seek to co-locate personal wireless service facilities (cell phone antennas) on wind turbines. Because most wireless facilities in the County are either attached to an existing structure (Tier I) or are limited to a height not exceeding 10 feet about the nearest tree (Tier II), the additional height required for a wind turbine could provide a tremendous incentive to co-locate these antennas on wind turbines. There are still some technical issues with antenna co-location, such as vibration created by the turbine’s rotor blades, but those issues may be resolved in the future. Because a wind turbine would likely be considered an existing facility under the County’s wireless regulations, the current Zoning Ordinance could allow an antenna to be co-located as a “Tier 1 Facility”, which would be considered through an administrative process. Comprehensive Plan file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesNov17AttachAC.htm (2 of 3) [9/30/2020 6:15:07 PM] attachment Staff notes that the most desirable location for wind energy production will be the mountain ridges, and this appears to conflict with existing policies in the Comprehensive Plan. In particular, elements of the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets section and the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan have policies regarding the siting of structures in order to protect the natural beauty of the mountains. These policies discourage structures that alter the continuity of the ridgeline, that are located so that the structure is sky-lighted against the horizon, or that are taller than the natural tree canopy. Current Proposal The current proposal outline is provided as Attachment A. This proposal attempts to balance the policy issues through a tiered approach, similar to the way the County regulates and permits wireless facilities. Tier I would be reserved for those small wind turbines that are anticipated to have very low visual impact and be limited to the Rural Areas outside of the Entrance Corridors and designated mountain areas. Tier II would require a modification of the regulations by the Planning Commission in order to locate a small wind turbine in either the Entrance Corridors or the mountain areas, but would not allow structures taller than otherwise allowed in the underlying zoning district (typically thirty-five feet). Tier III would require a special use permit in order to build a small wind turbine taller than otherwise allowed in the zoning district. This provides the Board the opportunity to make discretionary decisions on those wind turbines anticipated to have the most significant visual impact, particularly those in the Entrance Corridors or in the mountains. BUDGET IMPACT: No budget analysis has been prepared at this point. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff requests that the Board provide direction to staff as to how to proceed with this proposal. ATTACHMENTS A - Planning Commission April 21, 2009 report with attached proposal outline B – Planning Commission April 21, 2009 Action Memo Work Session Summary View PC minutes Return to Oct 7 exec summary file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesNov17AttachAC.htm (3 of 3) [9/30/2020 6:15:07 PM] Attachment B Wind Turbines P.C. Nov 11,2009 Ord Draft: 10/27/09 1 ORDINANCE NO. 09-18( ) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article III, District Regulations, are hereby amended and reordained as follows: By Amending: Sec. 3.1 Definitions Sec. 10.2.1 By right Sec. 11.3.1 By right uses Sec. 12.2.1 By right Sec. 13.2.1 By right Sec. 14.2.1 By right Sec. 15.2.1 By right Sec. 16.2.1 By right Sec. 17.2.1 By right Sec. 18.2.1 By right Sec. 19.3.1 By right Sec. 20.3.1 By right Sec. 20A.6 Permitted uses Sec. 20B.2 Permitted uses Sec. 22.2.1 By right Sec. 23.2.1 By right Sec. 24.2.1 By right Sec. 27.2.1 By right Sec. 28.2.1 By right By Adding: Sec. 5.1.46 Small wind turbines Chapter 18. Zoning Article I. General Regulations Sec. 3.1 Definitions Historic district. The Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District, the Southern Albemarle Historic District, the Proffit Historic District and the Batesville Historic District, all of which are listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register. . . . Small wind turbine. A wind energy conversion system used for the generation of power to support an authorized use on the property and all components of the system including, but not limited to, the tower, guy wires, wiring, rotors and turbine blades, generators and control systems. [Why are they called small wind turbines, and not just wind turbines? To distinguish from commercial type wind turbines] Attachment B Wind Turbines P.C. Nov 11,2009 Ord Draft: 10/27/09 2 . . . Tier I small wind turbine. A small wind turbine within any zoning district but which is not within a historic district or within a ridge area and which complies with the requirements of subsection 5.1.46(b) without waiver or modification. Tier II small wind turbine. A small wind turbine that does not qualify as a Tier I small wind turbine because it would be located within a historic district or within a ridge area or because the owner requests a waiver or modification of any requirement of subsection 5.1.46(b). Article II. Basic Regulations Sec. 5.1.46 Small wind turbines The purpose of this section 5.1.46 is to authorize small wind turbines as an accessory use in order to promote renewable energy. Each small wind turbine shall be subject to following, as applicable: a. Application for approval. In conjunction with the submittal of a building permit application for a small wind turbine, the applicant shall submit the following information: 1. A plat of the parcel showing the lot lines, the location of the proposed small wind turbine, and the setbacks to the lot lines. 2. Plans that show the total height of the proposed structure, including rotors or turbine blades, and that show compliance with the building code. 3. For Tier II small wind turbines, if a waiver or modification of any requirement of subsection 5.1.46(b) is requested, information addressing each of the findings stated in subsection 5.1(a). [The ordinance outline includes a provision that would require the applicant to sign an affidavit acknowledging the SWT will be used to support an allowed use of the property and assuring that they will be removed if the supported use ends. Since the regulations impose these requirements, I’m not sure of the value of these types of affidavits, though I’d like to get Zoning’s comments on this. It might be easier to include a box on an application form that must be checked before it is signed, and the checked box refers to a statement that the applicant (owner) has read and understands the requirements of Section 5.1.46] b. Requirements. Each small wind turbine shall be subject to the following: 1. Primary purpose. The primary purpose of the small wind turbine shall be to support and provide power for one or more authorized uses of the property; provided that nothing herein shall prohibit the owner from connecting the small wind turbine to a public utility and selling surplus power to the utility. 2. Location. Notwithstanding section 4.2.3.1 of this chapter, the small wind turbine may be located in an area on a lot other than a building site. 3. Setbacks. The small wind turbine shall not be located closer in distance to any lot line than its height, including rotors or turbine blades, plus twenty (20) feet (the “fall zone”). The agent may authorize a small wind turbine to be located closer to any lot line if the applicant obtains an Attachment B Wind Turbines P.C. Nov 11,2009 Ord Draft: 10/27/09 3 easement or other recordable document showing agreement between the lot owners, acceptable to the county attorney, prohibiting development on the portion of the abutting parcel sharing the common lot line that is within the small wind turbine’s fall zone. If the right-of-way for a public street is within the fall zone, the Virginia Department of Transportation shall be included in the staff review, in lieu of recording an easement or other document. 4. Height. The small wind turbine shall not exceed the maximum height permitted for structures within the applicable zoning district; provided that the commission may waive the maximum height permitted for small wind turbines. 5. Lighting. The small wind turbine shall have no lighting. 6. Collocation. The small wind turbine shall not have personal wireless service facilities collocated upon it. 7. Removal. The small wind turbine shall be disassembled and removed from the property within ninety (90) days after the date the use(s) to which it provides power is discontinued or its use to generate power is discontinued. If the agent determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that the small wind turbine will be removed as required, the agent may require that the owner submit a certified check, a bond with surety, or a letter of credit, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the removal of the small wind turbine. The type and form of the surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the agent and the county attorney. c. Tier I small wind turbines. The agent is authorized to review and approve Tier I small wind turbines. The agent shall act on the application before the building permit application or site plan for the small wind turbine is approved. Notwithstanding subsection 5.1, no requirement of subsection 5.1.46(b) may be waived or modified for a Tier I small wind turbine. d. Tier II small wind turbines. The commission is authorized to review and approve Tier II small wind turbines. The commission shall act on the application before the building permit application or site plan for the small wind turbine is approved. 1. Notice. Notice of the commission’s consideration of an application for a Tier II small wind turbine shall be sent by the agent to the owner of each lot abutting the lot on which the proposed Tier II small wind turbine will be located. The notice shall: (i) describe the nature of the Tier II small wind turbine, its proposed location on the lot and its proposed height; (ii) identify the historic district or ridge area in which the small wind turbine is proposed to be located, if applicable; (iii) describe each requested waiver or modification of any requirement of subsection 5.1.46(b); (iv) identify the appropriate county office where the complete Tier II small wind turbine application may be viewed; and (v) state the date, time and location where the commission will consider the application. The notice shall be mailed by first class mail or hand delivered at least ten (10) days prior to the commission meeting. Mailed notice shall be mailed to the last known address of the owner, and mailing the notice to the address shown on the current real estate tax assessment records of the county shall be deemed compliance with this requirement. The failure of an owner to receive the notice as provided herein shall not affect the validity of an approved Tier II small wind turbine and shall not be the basis for an appeal. 2. Review of requests for waivers or modifications. Requests for waivers or modifications shall be subject to the standards and procedures set forth in subsection 5.1, even if there is no pending subdivision plat or site plan, and the following: Attachment B Wind Turbines P.C. Nov 11,2009 Ord Draft: 10/27/09 4 a. Conditions. If the commission approves an application, it may impose reasonable conditions it deems necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare. b. Denial. If the commission denies an application, it shall identify which requirements were not satisfied and inform the applicant of what needs to be done to satisfy each requirement. 3. Historic districts or ridge areas. Requests for small wind turbines in a historic district or a ridge area shall be subject to the following: a. Standards. In considering an application for a small wind turbine within a historic district or a ridge area, the commission shall consider the following: (i) whether the small wind turbine would adversely impact any historic resources within the historic district; (ii) whether the small wind turbine would be backlit against a ridge line; (iii) whether the small wind turbine would adversely impact resources identified in the county’s open space plan; (iv) the extent to which the small wind turbine is sited to minimize its visibility from adjacent parcels and streets, regardless of their distance from the small wind turbine; (v) if the small wind turbine would be visible from a state scenic river or a national park or national forest, regardless of whether the river, park or forest is adjacent thereto, the extent to which it is sited to minimize its visibility from the river, park or forest; and (vi) if the small wind turbine would be located on lands subject to a conservation easement or an open space easement, or adjacent to a conservation easement or open space easement, the extent to which it is sited to minimize its visibility from any resources specifically identified for protection in the deed of easement. [This is borrowed from the wireless regs to provide standards for the PC to consider] b. Conditions. If the commission approves an application, it may impose reasonable conditions it deems necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare. c. Denial. If the commission denies an application, it shall identify which requirements were not satisfied and inform the applicant of what needs to be done to satisfy each requirement. d. Appeal. The board of supervisors may consider an application for a small wind turbine facility only upon an appeal of the denial of the application by the commission. An appeal shall be submitted in writing in the office of the agent within ten (10) calendar days after the date of the denial by the commission. In considering an appeal, the board may affirm, reverse, or modify in whole or in part, the decision of the commission, and its decision shall be based upon the standards delineated in subsection 5.1.46(d)(3)(a). [I didn’t have anything in my notes or see it in the action memo, but was there any PC request to allow an abutting owner to appeal the approval of a SWT?] Article III. District Regulations Sec. 10.2.1 By right The following uses shall be permitted in any RA district subject to the requirements and limitations of these regulations: The following uses shall be permitted by right in the RA district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter: . . . Attachment B Wind Turbines P.C. Nov 11,2009 Ord Draft: 10/27/09 5 25. Small wind turbines (reference 5.1.46) Sec. 11.3.1 By right uses The following uses shall be permitted by right in the MHD, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter: . . . 25. Small wind turbines (reference 5.1.46) Sec. 12.2.1 By right The following uses shall be permitted subject to requirements and limitations of this ordinance: The following uses shall be permitted by right in the VR district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter: . . . 17. Small wind turbines (reference 5.1.46) Sec. 13.2.1 By right The following uses shall be permitted subject to requirements and limitations of this ordinance: The following uses shall be permitted by right in the R-1 district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter: . . . 14. Small wind turbines (reference 5.1.46) Sec. 14.2.1 By right The following uses shall be permitted subject to requirements and limitations of this ordinance: The following uses shall be permitted by right in the R-2 district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter: . . . 14. Small wind turbines (reference 5.1.46) Sec. 15.2.1 By right The following uses shall be permitted subject to requirements and limitations of this ordinance: The following uses shall be permitted by right in the R-4 district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter: . . . 16. Small wind turbines (reference 5.1.46) Sec. 16.2.1 By right Attachment B Wind Turbines P.C. Nov 11,2009 Ord Draft: 10/27/09 6 The following uses shall be permitted subject to the requirements and limitations of this ordinance: The following uses shall be permitted by right in the R-6 district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter: . . . 17. Small wind turbines (reference 5.1.46) Sec. 17.2.1 By right The following uses shall be permitted subject to the requirements and limitations of this ordinance: The following uses shall be permitted by right in the R-10 district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter: . . . 17. Small wind turbines (reference 5.1.46) Sec. 18.2.1 By right The following uses shall be permitted subject to the requirements and limitations of this ordinance: The following uses shall be permitted by right in the R-15 district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter: . . . 17. Small wind turbines (reference 5.1.46) Sec. 19.3.1 By right The following uses shall be permitted subject to the requirements and limitations of this ordinance: The following uses shall be permitted by right in the PRD district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter: . . . 13. Small wind turbines (reference 5.1.46) Sec. 20.3.1 By right The following uses shall be permitted subject to the requirements and limitations of this ordinance: The following uses shall be permitted by right in the PUD district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter: . . . 13. Small wind turbines (reference 5.1.46) Sec. 20A.6 Permitted uses The following uses shall be permitted in an the NMD district, subject to the regulations in this section and section 8, the approved application plan and code of development, and the accepted proffers: Attachment B Wind Turbines P.C. Nov 11,2009 Ord Draft: 10/27/09 7 a. By right uses. The following uses are permitted by right if the use is expressly identified as a by right use in the code of development or if the use is permitted in a determination by the zoning administrator pursuant to subsection 8.5.5.2(c)(1): . . . 10. Small wind turbines (reference 5.1.46) Sec. 20B.2 Permitted uses The following uses shall be permitted in the DCD, subject to the regulations in this section: F. Accessory uses and structures. Accessory uses and structures are permitted, including but not limited to: (i) home occupations, Class A and Class B (reference 5.2) for primary residential uses; (ii) storage buildings for primary residential and non-residential uses; (iii) outdoor performance areas for primary cultural arts center uses; and (iv) prototype manufacturing for research and development uses; and (v) small wind turbines (reference 5.1.46). Sec. 22.2.1 By right The following uses shall be permitted in any the C-1 district, subject to the requirements and limitations of these regulations applicable requirements of this chapter. The zoning administrator, after consultation with the director of planning and other appropriate officials, may permit as a use by right, a use not specifically permitted; provided that such use shall be similar to uses permitted by right in general character and more specifically, similar in terms of locational requirements, operational characteristics, visual impact and traffic generation. Appeals from the zoning administrator’s decision shall be as generally provided in section 34.0. . . . b. The following services and public establishments: . . . 28. Small wind turbines (reference 5.1.46) Sec. 23.2.1 By right The following uses shall be permitted in any the CO district, subject to the requirements and limitations of these regulations applicable requirements of this chapter: . . . 15. Small wind turbines (reference 5.1.46) Sec. 24.2.1 By right The following uses shall be permitted in any the HC district, subject to the requirements and limitations of these regulations applicable requirements of this chapter. The zoning administrator, after consultation with the director of planning and other appropriate officials, may permit, as a use by right, a use not specifically permitted; provided that such use shall be similar to uses permitted by right in general character, and more Attachment B Wind Turbines P.C. Nov 11,2009 Ord Draft: 10/27/09 8 specifically, similar in terms of locational requirements, operational characteristics, visual impact and traffic generation. Appeals from the zoning administrator’s decision shall be as generally provided in section 34. . . . 47. Small wind turbines (reference 5.1.46) Sec. 27.2.1 By right Except as otherwise limited by section 27.2.2.10, the following uses shall be permitted by right in the LI district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter: . . . 29. Small wind turbines (reference 5.1.46) Sec. 28.2.1 By right Except as otherwise limited by section 28.2.2.14, the following uses shall be permitted by right in the HI district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter: . . . 25. Small wind turbines (reference 5.1.46) I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________. __________________________________ Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Aye Nay Mr. Boyd ____ ____ Mr. Dorrier ____ ____ Ms. Mallek ____ ____ Mr. Rooker ____ ____ Mr. Slutzky ____ ____ Ms. Thomas ____ ____ summary COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Wind Turbines – ZTA2009-001 SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Public Hearing to provide recommendation to Board of Supervisors on zoning text amendment with respect to wind turbines STAFF CONTACT(S): Mark Graham, Amelia McCulley, Bill Fritz AGENDA DATE: November 17, 2009 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes BACKGROUND: In February 2008, the County Board of Supervisors (Board) reviewed Community Development’s annual work program and directed staff to include consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that would allow wind turbines. In May 2008, staff presented the Planning Commission an overview of the subject to solicit direction. This was followed by four additional worksessions, including a combined Board/Planning Commission worksession in May 2009. Following that May 2009 worksession, a Board member, David Slutzky, and two Planning Commission members, Marcia Joseph and Bill Edgerton, agreed to help staff prepare a draft concept. On October 6, 2009, the Planning Commission reviewed this draft concept, approved a resolution of intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance in support of this concept, and directed staff to proceed to public hearing. (Attachment A) Staff has prepared an ordinance amendment for public hearing that reflects the reviewed concept. (Attachment B) The purpose of tonight’s meeting is to provide a public hearing where comment can be received on the proposed ordinance amendment before the Planning Commission forwards a recommendation to the Board. Anticipating a Planning Commission recommendation, a Board public hearing has been tentatively scheduled for December 9, 2009. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 2: Protect the County's Natural Resources Goal 4: Effectively Manage Growth and Development DISCUSSION: Staff believes the ordinance amendment in Attachment B accurately represents the Planning Commission’s direction. Staff considers the following to be the important elements of this proposal: ● A simplified administrative process that eliminates the need for a Special Use Permit. It was file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesNov17ES.htm (1 of 3) [9/30/2020 6:15:08 PM] summary recognized that a modification of Supplemental Regulations would provide an opportunity for public vetting of any issues associated with modifying the standards without the need for the complex and expensive process required for a Special Use Permit. ● Allowing small wind turbines in the Development Areas and Entrance Corridors as part of a Tier 1 use. It was recognized that the proposed setback requirement results in a much greater restriction on wind turbines than it would for other structures. That assured there is no increased impact on adjoining properties. ● Restricting the use of wind turbines within County recognized Historic Districts and Mountain Overlay. By placing this requirement in the Supplemental Regulations, this assures wind turbines in those areas would be allowed only if a waiver of the Supplemental Regulations is granted by the Planning Commission. Next, staff notes there appeared to be diverging opinions on the Planning Commission as to whether Tier I small wind turbines should be allowed within the County’s Entrance Corridors. As drafted, a Tier I small wind turbine would be allowed in the Entrance Corridors. If the Planning Commission recommends Entrance Corridors to be considered with Tier II small wind turbines, meaning it requires a waiver by the Planning Commission rather than administrative permit by the Agent; this is a relatively simple change to the definitions within this ordinance amendment. The ordinance amendment could be forwarded to be Board with this recommendation. Finally, staff will also discuss an effective date with the Board. Assuming the fees are adopted on December 2, 2009, staff plans to recommend a February 1st effective date. This will give applicants advance notice of the fee change and staff time to modify application forms. BUDGET IMPACTS: No need for additional funding or staff resources is anticipated with this ordinance amendment. This proposal would treat small wind turbines the same as other uses regulated by the Zoning Ordinance’s Supplemental Regulations. For Tier I applications, which only require a Building Permit, staff believes the administrative costs are captured within the permit fees. For Tier II applications, staff recognizes the cost of such waivers or modifications does create some additional cost to the County which is not offset by fees, the same as other waivers or modifications of Supplemental Regulations. Staff anticipates the County will see very few Tier II applications over the next several years. Rather than establish a fee for this review at this time, staff recommends monitoring this review activity and include a recommendation on waiver fees with the next regularly scheduled review of Zoning Ordinance fees. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Zoning Ordinance amendment as presented in Attachment B. If the Planning Commission recommends any changes to Attachment B, staff will include these at the Board’s public hearing. ATTACHMENTS: A- October 7, 2009 Executive Summary B- ZTA 2009–001, Small wind turbines Return to memo file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesNov17ES.htm (2 of 3) [9/30/2020 6:15:08 PM] summary file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesNov17ES.htm (3 of 3) [9/30/2020 6:15:08 PM] minutes Albemarle County Planning Commission April 21, 2009 Work Session: ZTA-2009-00001 Wind Turbines Consider possible Zoning Ordinance Amendment to allow wind turbines. (Mark Graham) Mr. Strucko noted that prior to receiving the staff report that Jeremy Hayes, of Skyline Turbine, would provide some background information. He invited Mr. Hayes to come forward and address the Commission. Jeremy Hayes, President of Skyline Turbine, presented a PowerPoint presentation entitled “The Future Is Wind Power”. (Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation and Related Information) The presentation outline included their mission statement and the motivation for small wind power in Albemarle County specifically. He worked the outline towards what he heard in previous work sessions about the three tiered system that the Commission has been working towards. The photos, in his opinion, show how turbines or more appropriately the installations themselves fit inside those tiers as he understands them. At the end of the presentation he would open the floor for questions from the Commissioners. Mission Statement: Skyline Turbine is a renewable energy supplier for residential and small business customers. Skyline Turbine’s mission is to research, implement, and install wind power appliances to meet the specific requirements of each customer. We envision a day when all aspects of wind, solar, and energy efficiencies will be brought together to make our structures self-supporting and contributing to the community. Skyline Turbine is committed to supporting local governments and its citizens by fostering open communication and utilizing all available means to successfully accomplish each installation. Motivation: Dispelling the Image of Wind Power •Large wind farms define the common thought of wind power •Most people envision: wLarge loud objects wThreat to wildlife •Detachment from the natural environment and daily life •Obstruction of view Motivation: Small Wind Power •Schmidte Installation wSeveral of advantages include: §Generation of power at the homestead §Revenue incentives to sell back to the grid §Affordability §Energy cost reduction •Blends into environment: §Blades closer together file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesPCminsApril21.htm (1 of 17) [9/30/2020 6:15:09 PM] minutes §Can be seen by wildlife and acts as deterrent §Reduced decibel levels Most commonly what people are familiar with when thinking of wind power is large looming objects 300’ in height that are commonly a threat to wildlife with migratory birds primarily. A large portion of things that may be against wind turbines in this area would be something to do with view sheds. The reason to use small wind power is that they are much smaller apparatuses. The diameter of the spinning blades themselves is a very small blade disc about 12’ in diameter. In the Skystream 3.7 model the 12’ blade diameter is very easy for wildlife and birds to see. Typically a large portion of bird death problems happen when migratory birds fly between two of the very large blades that have a long distance apart and are not privy to the blades even coming their way. There are many reasons to look at small wind power for residences and small businesses. One reason would be to have each individual have the opportunity to generate some portion or even all of their own power by using a wind power device and/or coupling it with a solar device to reduce or entirely eliminate energy consumption by an individual. Typically these can be done through installing a very small appliance. In the photograph the turbine shown in front of the White House is one of the largest that is used for residences. Those turbines are put in place in front of people’s homes to reduce the overall cost and in some cases contribute their power back to the grid for people in their community. Ms. Joseph asked if the turbine was actually installed in front of the White House. Mr. Hayes replied that the turbine was installed only for a short time for demonstration purposes. Other motivations to use wind power include: Motivation: Tax Incentives and Energy Independence •30 % Federal Tax Rebate. •Grid Inter-Connection Possible In Virginia. •Visualize Free Electricity. Ms. Joseph asked if the 30 percent federal tax rebate was for the total cost. Mr. Hayes replied that for the equipment and installation currently the federal government will rebate on your taxes 30 percent of that installation at the end of the year. Ms. Joseph asked if there was any state tax rebate. Mr. Hayes replied that currently in the state of Virginia there is none. There are incentives in a tax rebate fashion very much like the federal government in both Maryland and North Carolina. In Virginia they have the federal rebate to count on and the interconnection agreement. The interconnection agreement is a big portion of it because it does allow people to get credit back for power that they put on the grid. That is a very efficient way to afford one of these appliances. Tier I: Turbines by Right file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesPCminsApril21.htm (2 of 17) [9/30/2020 6:15:09 PM] minutes In side of what the Commissioners have spoken previously in the tiered system for an ordinance for Albemarle County it is his understanding that Tier 1 Turbines would be by right, which would mean that someone would apply for a building permit prior to installation. These turbines would in most cases solve all of the common issues that pop up around turbines. Fall zones for the actual towers for turbines are commonly an issue. For some of the newer types of turbines, such as the Helix which is a vertical access turbine, they have very short towers and the fall distances are negligible and in some cases not worth mentioning. The Helix turbine operation is very quiet in the 5db decibel range. They generally don’t require much of a footprint to install at all. Generally it takes about a 10’ diameter circle. They can provide power for a home in the nature of 2.5kw to 5kw of power given that they have the wind resource. In Albemarle County he would estimate that 60 percent of the people have some resource or some percentage of their power they could provide with wind power. Another product that is a very small turbine, an Air Breeze, has a 2’ blade diameter and creates very much a smaller amount of power. There is a similar type of turbine on Rio Road currently. These are two turbines that could be examples of a Tier 1 installation Tier II: Dinardo Installation In a Tier II installation would be turbines that have some sort of a tower and need to be looked at overall for view shed or other concerns. The primary concerns would be noise and view shed concerns. The footer and foundation for this particular piece of equipment is rather small. It is a 6’ X 6’ X 3’ deep cube. The photos show the apparatus in the center, which is the bolt diagram for the tower itself, and the pole installation itself for scale. That installation was done about a month again in Rockbridge County. Most of the 60’ monopole is above the trees. They had to get a special use permit in order to put the monopole in, which included review by the Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors and State Park Service. The State Park Service cleared this turbine for view shed reasons. Tier III: Large Residential and Small Business The Tier III would be anything that qualified for residential or small business use. But typically these are appliances that are quite a bit louder and generate quite a bit more electricity in the nature of 10kw. These particular turbines do have applications in Albemarle County and are generally looked at as large residential or small commercial business use. He would suggest that this type of application be looked at through a full special use permit application. As he previously said there could be applications where people have properties larger than 2 acres and are far enough from other homes and view sheds where they could be employed and really not be noticed by most people and be very effective for their owners. This could be an example of a Tier III. He offered to answer any questions. Mr. Strucko invited questions from the Commissioners. Ms. Joseph asked when he went before the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors in Rockbridge was there public input and if so what kind of concerns were expressed by the Planning Commission, the Board and the public. Mr. Hayes replied yes there was public comment. The comments were really exactly about the same concerns, which would have to do either with the safety measures of the fall zones of the tower, which is typically the height of the tower or a diameter or circle around it, and the noise levels of the particular equipment. The noise levels of everything that he had showed the Commission today had a maximum file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesPCminsApril21.htm (3 of 17) [9/30/2020 6:15:09 PM] minutes level of 110 decibels judged at a distance of 500. That is for the noisiest of the equipment. Many of the other models, such as the Helix, are a 5 decibel rating and it really makes about as much noise as a laptop. The Skystream 3.7 has a 45 to 50 decibel level rating and from 150’ away someone can have a conversation with somebody and overcome the noise of the turbine and a 12 mile an hour wind. Ms. Joseph asked if the turbine that went up in Rockbridge had a 110 decibel level. Mr. Hayes replied that the turbine in Rockbridge has a 45 decibel rating, which was the Skystream 3.7. It is mounted in the front parking lot. With a 12 to 15 mile wind inside the home one cannot hear it. The decibel level of 45 decibels is monitored at 150’. Ms. Porterfield asked what would be the distance for the ice throws for the turbines he was showing that might fit in the Tier I. Mr. Hayes replied that on that particular model there are no ice throws. Ice throws are typically ice that is gathered on blades and then thrown from it when they spin. There are things that are done to prevent that. For a vertical access turbine, as the one shown in the photo, they actually prevent ice from forming on them because the whole mechanism is spinning vertically. There are no ice throws on that model. Ms. Porterfield asked if there is any amount of setback from other buildings or other things like that for this type. Mr. Hayes replied that it was not brought up in any of the other conversations. He was not privy to information that could tell them that. Ms. Porterfield noted that he did not know if it does need a setback or not. Mr. Hayes replied that he did not know, but would be more than happy to find that out and provide that information. Mr. Loach noted on the Helix power output it is 2.5kw or 5kw. He asked what that means for an average family use. Mr. Hayes relied that an average family of 4 in the United States consumes 2,600 watts per month or 2.6 kilowatts. They will find a very wide range on both sides of what people actually use. Mr. Loach asked if in using it are there peaks and valleys depending on the wind. He asked if there is any way to store the power. Mr. Hayes replied that there is no way to store the power effectively beyond battery use. At this time, in his opinion, battery use can be hazardous for the average person to hold in their household. That is why he strongly advocates when power is generated in excess of the use by the residential owner that it flows freely back onto the grid to be used by others when it is connected with the grid. That person receives a monetary credit. He refers to that as a “monetary battery”. Mr. Loach asked on the accepted 60’ tower besides the safety concerns and the noise was there much concern about the visual impact of the tower itself. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesPCminsApril21.htm (4 of 17) [9/30/2020 6:15:09 PM] minutes Mr. Hayes replied that the visual impact was studied by the State Park Service from a distance of a quarter mile away and they determined that at no point on the Skyline Drive could they see that appliance and have it affect them. They actually rented a lift, went out to the site and elevated it to a height of 60’ and used a 4’ X 4’ target card painted bright pink for them to photograph. Ms. Porterfield asked what kind of equipment is needed to send power back to the grid. Mr. Hayes replied that at the meter a disconnection would be needed. It freely flows into a 20 amp breaker in the panel box. There is a physical disconnect at the meter that is required for UL listings nationwide because they are capable of producing enough power to hurt a lineman. That is there so that the power companies themselves can come shut that appliance off themselves even though there is a double redundant electronic relay on the inside of each one of these units to stop that power from going back onto the grid during times when it is down. Ms. Porterfield asked if it is traveling through conduit of some type to that box. Mr. Hayes replied yes. Ms. Porterfield asked if they don’t have any other structures or anything like that if it is just literally going to the breaker box. Mr. Hayes replied that is correct. Mr. Strucko asked in the case of a general power outage during a storm if his turbine is humming away does he have power. Mr. Hayes relied no that he would not. The UL listing in the United States requires that there are redundant safety switches on inside of these turbines so that if the power grid goes down they also turn themselves off for protection of the linemen themselves for every interconnected turbine. It is not the case with non-grid connected turbines. Mr. Loach asked what the cost range is. Mr. Hayes replied that the cost range currently is between $12,000 and $25,000 in typical installations, which can be reduced by the 30 percent federal rebate. Ms. Porterfield asked if it is not connected to the gird and Mr. Strucko’s power goes out does he still have power. Mr. Hayes replied yes because he is entirely independent. Ms. Porterfield asked if there is much upkeep. Mr. Hayes replied that there is very little upkeep except for the waxing of the blades in the first five years. They have not had anyone take that one on yet. Mr. Strucko thanked Mr. Hayes for taking the time to come and give the presentation. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesPCminsApril21.htm (5 of 17) [9/30/2020 6:15:09 PM] minutes Mr. Loach asked if in any other areas they have co-located cell towers of any other type. Mr. Hayes replied that there was not anything that he is aware of in the state of Virginia. But there is precedence for that in many other states. Mr. Strucko noted that he assumed that flush-mounted antenna would have to be used. Mr. Hayes replied that he was not familiar with that whole conversation yet. He was interested himself in what the vibrations of the turbines will actually do to those antennas. He wondered if it was even possible to co-locate them. Mr. Graham noted that staff has been working with two Commissioners and would like to extend thanks to Ms. Joseph and Mr. Edgerton for providing the guidance that they need to get something going here. It is a three-tiered approach as referred to by Mr. Hayes. He walked through the three tiers in a PowerPoint Presentation. (Attachment – PowerPoint Presentation) Tier I Wind Turbines – • Only in Rural Areas zoning district • Meets building height requirements (35’ Maximum, measured to highest point) • Supplementary Regulations: – Not allowed in either Entrance Corridors or within Mountain Contour List (MOD) – Setback from property lines = height of structure plus 20’ (That is the fall zone staff is looking for to make sure the structure does not go onto an adjacent property.) – No lighting on structure – No collocation of personal wireless antenna Tier II Wind Turbines • Possible waivers or modifications of Supplementary Regulations: – Locating within Entrance Corridors or within Mountain Contour List (MOD) – Locating within other zoning districts, with height not to exceed allowed building height – Reduced setback from property lines – Lighting on structure – Collocation of personal wireless antenna Tier III Wind Turbines • Special Use Permit – Allow height to exceed maximum building height in zoning district • Consider Tier II waivers or modifications simultaneously with Special Use Permit. Remaining Issues • Establish considerations for approving a Tier II or Tier III (e.g. visual impact from entrance corridor) • Establish application requirements for Tier II and Tier III • Establish administrative process for processing of applications (e.g. building permits, fees) Mr. Graham pointed out that the Tier II proposal noted by Mr. Hayes in Rockingham County would actually be a Tier III proposal under this proposal. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesPCminsApril21.htm (6 of 17) [9/30/2020 6:15:09 PM] minutes Mr. Strucko invited public comment. Morgan Butler, speaking on behalf of the Southern Environmental Law Center, asked to make one general point, add one suggestion and then just ask a couple of clarifying questions of staff. · The general point is that they think that the tiered approach is a good idea and commend both staff as well as Ms. Joseph and Mr. Edgerton for their work in coming up with this. They realize that this is just a basic framework with some specifics yet to be filled in, but support the overall strategy of trying to rank proposals by the potential impacts and then adjusting the level of review accordingly. They think that the main point here is it needs to make sure that they are not stifling residents from putting a reasonably sized wind turbine on their property, but to also have a system in place to provide some case specific analysis when the potential impacts of a proposed turbine passes a certain threshold. The general framework set forth in the executive summary seems to do just that. · As a suggestion under the administrative section of the staff report where it talks about Tier II turbines the staff report says, “As part of approving a waiver or modification for a particular turbine application the Planning Commission may establish reasonable conditions to assure the ordinance intent is maintained. He emphasized “ordinance intent”. Similarly the Board of Supervisors might establish conditions for a turbine that requires a special use permit and those conditions would also need to have some relation to the intent of the ordinance. Because conditions need to have some type of nexus to the intent of the ordinance they would urge the Commission to set forth a wide range of intent in the preamble to the section of the supplemental regulations that will address wind turbines. The intent should probably note that the purpose of the ordinance is to find the right balance between allowing and encouraging renewable energy sources and protecting against the potential visual, noise, environmental, safety and property noise concerns. By specifically referencing those visual, environmental, safety and property noise concerns it helps them ensure that future site specific conditions that are crafted to protect those concerns are deemed within the authority of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. · He noted several questions that he would like addressed: o He questioned why the by-right aspect of this is focusing just within the rural areas. It seems that a lot of the impacts they are trying to protect against are now as applicable in the developable areas. o With respect to the Comprehensive Plan’s Mountain Contour list, he noticed those were categorized by different contours. There is a 700’, 800’ up to 1,200’ contour. He was curious if the restriction would only apply to the portions of those named mountains that are above that contour line. It also mentions unnamed mountains and references a concept map to find them. He questioned how the unnamed mountains would be dealt with. o He questioned how the underlying noise restrictions within each zoning category would be dealt with. He asked if those would also be a by-right consideration. Jeff Werner, representative for Piedmont Environmental Council, noted that they have been working on this for over two years. He talked with Ms. Joseph sometime last fall and bounced some ideas off of some folks within PEC. There are a lot of people in the county struggling with wind turbine issues in order to make it happen, which includes the following. · There are some aesthetic issues that will create some problems. There was overall consensus among the folks he talked to that this tier approach is the way to do it. He had some discussions on how it is different from the cell tower industry versus this private homeowner use, which don’t get into problems with discrepancies with cell towers. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesPCminsApril21.htm (7 of 17) [9/30/2020 6:15:09 PM] minutes · He thought that Mr. Butler hit on the good questions that the Planning Commission should bring up in their discussions. He was surprised with the noise issue that the gentleman brought up from Skyline. He did not know that turbines got that big and became that loud. He remembered when the Commission talked about the grinders and the noise issues were a big deal. He questioned if they need to address that in this regulation. It would be nice if someone in the growth area could come in with some way to be able to do this. He asked if there are models out there that might encourage it. · The last part that they might have to contemplate on is in regards to the accessory structure issue. There are a lot of people who have conservation easements in the rural areas who have restrictions on these sorts of structures. He did not know if there has to be some notice that it might be by-right in the zoning, but it may not be allowed by the provisions of a conservation easement. It is just something to contemplate on whether that is just in there as a note for staff to make sure they check this to make sure that a landowner does not end up in a dispute that they don’t need to be in. · This is a wonderful idea and he was glad staff was bringing it to the floor. He hoped that they have a positive discussion and they get this proposal approved. There being no further public comment, Mr. Strucko closed the public comment to bring the matter back to the Commission for discussion. Mr. Edgerton pointed out that there was one small point that jumped out on the top of page 2 under the definition for the small wind turbines. The definition was fine, but he did not understand why they had to include the last line, “provided the power sold is not in excess of that typically used for the primary use of the property.” He knows currently that the net metering system in Virginia has a provision in there that protects the utilities from having to pay someone who is producing more energy than they are using. They very successfully lobbied this through the General Assembly as the way for the net metering system. But he did not know why they needed to get involved in that. If somebody is producing more electricity than they are using they should not be punished for that. The General Assembly has already locked that up a little bit. He was hoping that some day soon they will have a true net metering system where anybody producing electricity through renewable energy will be treated the same way a power producer is in that capacity. He knew in Colorado that the utility company has to accept the power and credit people at the rates they charge. They have different rates for different times of day and night. That is a true net metering system. There are actually facilities in Colorado that have been there for quite some time been producing more solar energy than they are using at their facilities. The ultimate dream is that they can get to the point where they can be providing all of the energy they need with renewable energy. They are a ways away from that. But he would hate to have that in the ordinance unless there is some overriding legal reason that they have to include it in there. Mr. Graham noted that he could speak to what the idea was in crafting that. It was that the wind turbines were an accessory use and not a primary use on the property. For example, if someone does not have one turbine on there that is supplying the power for their property but 30 wind turbines along the ridge line on their property for the purpose of selling it is not consistent in what they envision for these small wind turbines. Ms. Joseph noted that when she and Mr. Edgerton worked on the ordinance language one of the things they looked at was the tier process. If someone was putting in more than one that is when they would go to special use permit. That is when it became apparent. What they are hearing from Mr. Hayes also is that these things the way they are designed are going to limit themselves anyways. Maybe that is file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesPCminsApril21.htm (8 of 17) [9/30/2020 6:15:09 PM] minutes something within the language that it could not be anything more than 2.5 kilowatts and if it produces anything more than that then that is when they start getting a little bit questionable. If that is all a family needs, then why would they need more than that? Or maybe the ordinance says if there is more than one of these on the property they get a special use permit so that there is a little more regulation. The way these things are defined and manufactured may actually limit the output of the, but she really did not know the specifics. Mr. Graham said that the reality is that unless they are requiring the property owner to give us their electric bills they are not going to know how much electricity they are generating or how much they are using. Ms. Joseph noted that she did not want to have to hire another person to have to look at somebody’s electric bill. Mr. Edgerton said that if they are worried about someone trying to do a commercial application he would love to figure out another way to restrict that. Mr. Graham suggested limiting the number on the property or one per primary use for example. Mr. Edgerton said that he thought that would be preferable. He was optimistic that with some increased acceptance of the use of renewable energy that in a very short order there will be a more standardized net metering system in this country. It will probably come down on the federal level. He would hate for our ordinance to be more restrictive than what should actually be happening. But it has not made it in Virginia yet. Mr. Joseph asked to talk to something that Mr. Butler brought up. When they were talking about the Tier I, Tier II and Tier III it was contemplated in the rural areas because one anticipates the acreage to be greater per parcel and that it would have less of an impact than it might on adjacent neighbors then maybe the Tier II that would be allowed within the development area. It would be allowed in zoning other than RA so that the adjacent owners would be notified that this was happening and if they did not care then it could go ahead and be approved administratively. But it was because the lots are smaller. When talking to other localities somebody brought up the fact that it would be good to allow them in other zoning districts. Circumstances like a home owners association might have a larger piece of land and might want to put up something to run the pool house or pump. It was contemplated that in a Tier II or beyond it would be allowed in other zoning districts, but with a little more regulatory action on it. It would affect neighbors more. Now that they are hearing the noise aspects it would just make more sense. Mr. Loach agreed that he would like to see the development areas included in this. He was just thinking back to his neighbor’s first satellite dish, which was 15’ to 20’ across. The technology has gotten better. He assumed that this technology is going to continue that way, too. So he would like to at least have the development areas included in the discussion and get public feedback at a time later. Mr. Edgerton noted that Mr. Graham, Ms. Joseph and he agree that there should be an opportunity for it to be in all zoning districts. One of the ideas they started with was just treating it as an accessory structure and then allowing the current height restrictions in the different districts to determine how high it could be in different districts. If they needed to go higher than that then it would have an impact. If he put up a shed in his back yard he could make it 35’ high as an accessory structure. The argument was why this couldn’t be treated like an accessory structure. One of the issues is the sound issue that they have to worry about. As Mr. Hayes was explaining there are sounds, but they do have a Noise Ordinance in the file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesPCminsApril21.htm (9 of 17) [9/30/2020 6:15:09 PM] minutes county. Mr. Graham noted that the noise level is 60 decibels during the day and 55 decibels at night. Mr. Edgerton pointed out that the noise is measured at the property line. Therefore, it depends on how far away you are. The ones that Mr. Hayes was suggesting as possible Tier I units were both less than that and he thought would not be a problem. As Ms. Joseph pointed out in the rural areas that hopefully the noise would not impact anybody if it was a by-right situation. Mr. Strucko asked if they considered the impact on a conservation easement. Ms. Joseph noted that there are a lot of things that are not allowed in some conservation easements. They are all different. Some owners have agreed to not have any kind of a commercial enterprise when receiving conservation easements. But they can have a winery. There are other things that are allowed within our ordinance that the covenants or the conservation easements speaks to specifically for that parcel. She thought what Mr. Werner was asking was as people come in just as general knowledge when staff is talking with them to just say that they better check their conservation easement to see whether they can do this or not. She questioned whether it was up to the county’s responsibility to determine that. Mr. Edgerton noted that different conservation easements have different standards right now. Mr. Graham noted that when talking about conservation easements they are still talking about a building permit being required for these. Over the last few years they have taken the development tracking system in County View and modified it and listed all the properties that have conservation easements. When somebody applies for a building permit a flag pops up if that property happens to have a conservation easement on it. If it is one that PFRA takes care of they research the easement agreement. Otherwise, they notify the easement holder that this building permit has been applied for. Mr. Kamptner noted that there are some existing conservation easements that have expressly authorized wireless facilities. If the county determines under its zoning regulation that the small wind turbines are accessory to a residential use very likely without amending their conservation easement they may fall within the scope of a permitted use on the property. Ms. Porterfield felt that it was a good idea, but would like to see them go into the process in a gentler way. She was very concerned about making these by right to start out with since they should wait to should see what happens in terms of the number of applications received in the next two to four years Glenmore is in the development area but abuts a lot of rural area zoning. With the 35’ height limitation adding 20’ and being set back 55’ off the lot lines she felt that many people would be affected in Glenmore in the development area. Even in the rural area mulching proposal there was a lot of concern about the noise. She asked that they not create problems visually. If they had that turbine sitting on top of a house at 55’ it would be an eyesore for a lot of people who cherish what things look like around here. She noted that Mr. Loach’s district also has a lot of land that abuts up against a lot of rural area. This particular ordinance also needs something in it about what happen when a structure becomes derelict so that if the county has to take it down they can send them a bill. Including the enforcement of some of these things would make it easier to administer. Ms. Joseph suggested that some of the language can be replicated from the cell tower ordinance. She felt that it should be made easy for people to do since it is an accessory use. When people live next door file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesPCminsApril21.htm (10 of 17) [9/30/2020 6:15:09 PM] minutes to rural areas there are things that happen. She felt that it should be allowed in other zoning districts since there are other mechanisms to be used. Mr. Porterfield said that with larger parcels there needs to be some wording that the turbine has to be located X # of ft from lot lines. She felt that they need to know the concerns of that particular application. Mr. Graham asked if she was saying there should be a special use permit required for all cases. Ms. Porterfield replied yes at this time so they can try it to see and then revisit it in a few years after they have some history. Mr. Loach wondered how onerous it would be someone to go through the special use permit process. He would love to hear feedback from the public on whether it will be visually obtrusive, which he felt was Ms. Porterfield’s point. Mr. Edgerton agreed that some of Ms. Porterfield’s thoughts have merits in that this should be considered carefully. It is the reality of the expense in the cost of the special use permit that is scary. Just to get the application in would cost. The compromise suggested has been through lots and lots of suggestions and should be considered. The compromise is that by right would only allow the turbines to be treated as accessory and be limited in height. There is no 55’ tower in a by right situation the way it was described. It would be limited to 35’ to the top of the blade. If go higher they would have to go through the special use permit process. That is a way seeing the type of interest to get it achievable in the rural area if people want to do it. Ms. Porterfield questioned that it would double the cost in the process to require a special use permit. Mr. Graham noted that when staff went out to the community they were told that their cost of the special use permit was running $25,000 to $35,000 for cell towers, which includes engineering plans, attorney fees, balloon test, etc. Ms. Porterfield suggested coming up with a very simple process, but that it be still be a public process with neighbor involvement. She was not saying to have everyone fly a balloon. Mr. Graham emphasized wind energy and explained the cost benefit. But there is a potential that the applicant will want to go higher to get up above the trees. There will be lots of situations for measuring visual impact, which is what staff has seen in the process with cell towers. The higher the height proposed the more material needs to be submitted. Mr. Loach agreed with Ms. Porterfield’s approach to go slow until they get more comfortable. He did not know what they would do when the height starts to go up. They have had people complaining about the 7’ to 10’ above the trees for cell towers. Mr. Edgerton supported the proposed compromise for the by right turbines at the 35’ height limitation as suggested. Mr. Cilimberg said that he heard that there might be interest by one commissioner that all of the tiers be special use permit. That is just one comment for tonight that could be taken forward to the Board of Supervisors. At this point it is just a work session for the Commission’s input to take forward to the Board. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesPCminsApril21.htm (11 of 17) [9/30/2020 6:15:09 PM] minutes Ms. Joseph asked what the work session would be with the Board. She asked if staff planned on taking this and amending the documents with Planning Commission diverse comments. Mr. Graham replied frankly he did not have time for that now because the staff report for the Board was due today. All he would do is verbally communicate whatever comments the Commission wanted to pass along to the Board. Ms. Joseph asked if they would have the ability to do those themselves. She suggested instead of trying to unravel or package this that they concentrate on whether there are any questions that could be cleared up before they go to the Board. Mr. Strucko said that he hoped that the public comments that happened tonight and the rest of the comments since this is in the work session category of our agenda that if the timing is such that this is the report that gets submitted to the Board of Supervisors he would think that there would be a supplement that says here is the result of the work session by the Planning Commission on this evening. He felt that they would want to include some of the comments they heard from Morgan Butler and Jeff Werner as well as some of the Commission’s discussion here. It sounds like Ms. Porterfield, perhaps with the support of Mr. Loach, that they are supportive of a more go slow approach where this is a new entity in our community and that perhaps every one of these tiers should be under a special use permit. He was hearing from Ms. Joseph and Mr. Edgerton, which he would add himself to that as well, did not think that there was a real issue with the Tier 1 small wind turbine going by right. Of course, they have not heard from Mr. Franco at all. Mr. Franco made the following comments. · Mr. Loach referred to the 35’ height and the 4’ to 7’ height above the trees for the cell towers. This is 35’ above the ground is his understanding and not above the tree line. So it is a completely different impact. He wanted to make sure that his understanding was correct. · He liked the tier approach and the by-right component of a tiered approach. He felt that was important in order to move this technology forward. · With respect to the noise component he questioned the following: o Is that up wind or down wind the 145’ distance? o He asked how loud a 12 mile per hour wind is. Jeremy Hayes replied that it was also important to note that was also along with the wind. If they hear a 45 decibel noise coming from a turbine with a 20 mile per hour wind that is traveling along with it the maximum velocity of the wind and decibel level of the machine. At that same time there is an incredible amount of other noises caused by the trees themselves, people’s wind chimes, etc. He has a video of a 12 mile per hour wind and a conversation between two people about 5 feet apart is largely louder than the turbine at 75 feet away. Mr. Franco felt that the concerns he was hearing from Mr. Loach and Ms. Porterfield would be answered as part of the process and he would hope that public input and concerns would come out during this process so that they could include the by-right components. He asked that they keep that in mind. The last comment is that on page 2 of the attachment under the definitions under tier 1 he was not sure if it was a definition or a commentary that is in italics where it says these facilities are anticipated to result in very little or not impact to the community. He might change to say “negative impact” because one of the reasons they are exploring this is because of the potential positive impacts that this brings. He felt that they need to stress that as part of the reason why they are pursuing this. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesPCminsApril21.htm (12 of 17) [9/30/2020 6:15:09 PM] minutes Ms. Joseph asked that Mr. Hayes be invited to the joint meeting. Mr. Edgerton noted that he already has been invited. Ms. Porterfield said that if they are not going to give them any information from this meeting she did not see that they have achieved a lot. She really thinks that they are going to have to pull together something that the Board of Supervisors gets based on the comments that were made here. She did not say that because she has a negative feeling about one of the items. She just thinks it makes sense. Mr. Cilimberg agreed noting that at a minimum the Board will get the Commission’s action memo which outlines the points that were made. If possible they will also have the draft minutes for the Board. But it is a short turn around. Therefore, he could not guarantee that. What he could guarantee is that they would get the action memo that the Commission reviews. That action memo would include all of the comments noted tonight. Ms. Porterfield asked staff to tell the Commission the date and time of the meeting. She suggested that in the future that staff allow enough turn around time to get the materials to the Board. Mr. Graham noted that the Board would hear it on May 6, but that the time has not been scheduled yet. Typically these types of work sessions are held in the late afternoon. But they have been scheduled in the morning. It depends on how the schedule is going. He noted that this is a little bit different for everybody. Typically if the Board says this is something that they want staff and the Planning Commission to work on they go work on it. In this case as part of the discussion on the department’s work program they ask just to see what is going on or to check in. He was not sure what the Board is hoping to accomplish. He was assuming that what the idea is was to just look at the direction this seems to be going and see if they are comfortable with that direction before they go to the next step of actually drafting an ordinance. Ms. Joseph pointed out that they need to remember that they are still at work session stage. It is okay because all of this is going to come out at the work session also. So they are not going to them with anything other than this document and some ideas at this point. Mr. Graham noted that they don’t even have a resolution of intent to amend an ordinance at this point. Ms. Joseph said that at that a point she would expect that some parameters would be set. Then from that point on then they can start. She asked that this not be rescheduled from May 6 because she really wanted it to go forward. Mr. Graham said that he was very interested to find out if this is what people are going to be comfortable moving forward with. In January he was saying that it looked like this was too complicated and was suggesting perhaps that they put it on the shelf. Ms. Joseph and Mr. Edgerton graciously volunteered to assist staff. He was at the point that he felt that they need to decide is this something that they can reach an agreement and move forward or not. Ms. Porterfield pointed on based on what she had been saying with Mr. Loach’s support she would like to see if he had a different way of going at Tier One. If it is not going to come in as a special use permit is there a different way of going at it. Does there have to be a minimum acreage before one can have this. Do these have to be kept X number of feet from any property line. There are some things if they want to go with the less for the applicant to do she felt that they need to solve a few of the problems going in, file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesPCminsApril21.htm (13 of 17) [9/30/2020 6:15:09 PM] minutes which are number one the visual part of it and the noise. They know from a past thing that noise is going to be an issue on this. If they come up with saying that Tier One is not going to be a special use permit then they are going to be allow it by-right, but by-right for which properties. Do they have to have a minimum of 5 or 10 acres? Do they have to keep the apparatus at least 1500’ from any property line? There are some things that they could probably do to make sure that whatever comes in is going to work. Ms. Joseph noted that would be ordinance language and Mr. Graham does not want to do that right now. Mr. Graham noted that he wanted to do what the Planning Commission and Board want to do. Ms. Porterfield pointed out the one thing that has come up in this discussion is how to handle Tier One. She asked if there are any other ideas that could be ready in two weeks if the Board wants to hear any other ideas that come from some of the things that they have talked about. She questioned whether staff could come back with something. Mr. Edgerton asked Mr. Graham if he was going to the seminar on Friday at James Madison University on writing an ordinance. Mr. Graham replied that he was going to try to attend the seminar. Mr. Edgerton noted that he and Ms. Joseph were going to attend the seminar. Ms. Joseph noted that she was not sure. Mr. Edgerton pointed out that there is a seminar that is being put on by James Madison University by the Shenandoah Planning District Commission in Staunton on Friday. It is an all day event and the whole experience is that they are going to hear how other counties have addressed this and what they have done. They will come back with a model ordinance which he intends to share with everybody. He got some literature on it today. There is an outline of a model ordinance which has a tier system in it that he thinks will give us the benefit of some of the experience that some of these counties have had. There has been a varying degree of responses from other counties. The ones that have been the most negative, as Mr. Hayes pointed out, were for these large turbines that have to be on mountain top ridges. He did not think that was something that any of us would advocate. Ms. Joseph noted that they were not even considering that at this point. This ordinance does not even contemplate that. What they were thinking about was all about the personal turbine. It is not about producing all kinds of energy for New York City. Ms. Porterfield asked to clear up one thing. What is the cost of a type of turbine that they are talking about? Is it $12,000 to $25,000? She needed to understand that because of what Mr. Edgerton said about the cost of making application to the county. She asked if they are talking about a minimum of $12,000. Mr. Hayes replied that the minimum level to buy one of these turbines with full installation is $12,000 and reduced by the 30 percent tax credit. Ms. Porterfield asked if it costs that much to apply to the county. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesPCminsApril21.htm (14 of 17) [9/30/2020 6:15:09 PM] minutes Mr. Strucko noted that the expense for going through the special use permit process they are looking at an expense of about $12,000 for the applicant. Mr. Edgerton said that he was worried that the cost would put it out of the market. Mr. Loach understood what Ms. Porterfield was saying was that she wanted a process that was easy, but also accessible. She did not want to make it to be an onerous cost so the public can get in to make their opinion. The comparison of the turbine and balloon test comes with the upper tiers with the 30’ above the tree line. At that tier it is distinct. He asked how do they say to a company that you spend X number of tens of thousands of dollars to go 3’ to 7’, but that an individual what do we hold them to go 30’ above the tree line. That was his question. Mr. Franco noted that does require per this going through that process. Mr. Loach noted that was his point in what would be the criteria for that. Mr. Strucko said that there are different gradations here. A Tier One is by right. A Tier Two requires a waiver. A Tier Three requires a special use permit. So could a Tier One require less of a waiver; a Tier Two a waiver and a Tier Three a special use permit? That is Ms. Porterfield’s point. The less of a waiver might not be so cost onerous because one would not have to hire a $12,000 attorney to take you through the special use permits process. But they could meet some more basic standards that are not as onerous or costly to get the Tier One instead of going directly by right. That is the sentiment. That is a legitimate point. It should be something that the Board of Supervisors should hear as part of the discussion there. But they have spent over an hour discussing this here. They had a presentation by Mr. Hayes. It is a little baffling why they would have to have this entire thing all over again in front of the Board of Supervisors. Perhaps a report could maybe inform that later discussion and may be cut right to some of these issues. He did not know. He felt that they need to communicate this to the Board that the Commission did wrestle with this particular issue and that there were merits on both sides. By right makes it very simple and it achieves some of the public good. That is that a lot of the environmental concerns and issues, but going through a public process does protect some of the neighbors from something that is quite new. They could debate that on both sides. Certainly the Supervisors should hear if they have not considered that already that these are issues that are worthy of debating or discussion. Mr. Cilimberg asked that the Commissioners pay attention to the action memo in the appendix where it will note all of the comments they have heard so that they have all of that right. If that is all they are able to get to the Board at least that will be a very important piece. Mr. Strucko said that the Commission would not decide anything here tonight. Staff just wanted to gauge their reactions and see what they are going to take to the Board. He felt that they got a pretty rich set of comments. Mr. Edgerton suggested that an addendum could be added to the staff report to clarify what was being suggested for the by right in that it be limited to whatever the current zoning regulations is in height. This does not deal with the sound. But it should be limited in height to what accessory structures are limited to if he understood what they had been talking about. But that does not really jump out at you in the staff report. He felt that it was a very important consideration. Ms. Joseph noted that there should be a reminder to everybody that they do have a noise ordinance. She file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesPCminsApril21.htm (15 of 17) [9/30/2020 6:15:09 PM] minutes suggested that staff remind the Board what the Noise Ordinance states and what the acceptable decibel levels are. There are a lot of things already on the books that can be used for this. Mr. Strucko asked for the sake of time he would like to move along. He asked if all of the concerns been aired on this issue. He thanked Mr. Hayes for coming. · The Planning Commission plans to participate with the Board of Supervisors in the wind turbine work session on May 6. In summary, the Planning Commission held a work session on ZTA-2009-00001 Wind Turbines. Jeremy Hayes, President of Skyline Turbine, presented a brief PowerPoint presentation to help the Commission understand what sort of turbines might be available in Albemarle. Mark Graham presented a PowerPoint presentation and explained the proposed ordinance amendment and responded to the questions raised by the Commission. The Commission took public comment, asked questions and provided comments and suggestions. The Planning Commission asked staff to consider their suggestions and to pass their comments on to the Board of Supervisors before the joint May 6 work session, as follows: · Mr. Franco said to answer the concerns he was hearing from Mr. Loach and Ms. Porterfield that this was part of a process and he would hope that public input and concerns would come out during this process so that they could include the by-right components. They should keep that in mind. On page 2 of the attachment under the definitions under Tier 1, he was not sure if it was a definition or a commentary that is in italics where it says these facilities are anticipated to result in very little or no impact to the community. He suggested changing that to say “negative impact” because one of the reasons they are exploring this is because of the potential positive impacts that this brings. They need to stress that as part of the reason why they are pursuing this. · Mr. Hayes should be invited to the joint Board meeting. · Ms. Porterfield and Mr. Loach supported pursuing a different way of going at Tier 1. If the wind turbine request is not going to come in as a special use permit then is there a different way of going at it. The following questions were raised: Does there have to be a minimum acreage before one can have this? Do these have to be kept X number of feet from any property line? If they want to go with less for the applicant to do they need to solve a few of the problems going in, which include the visual part of it and the noise. If they come up with saying that Tier 1 is not going to be a special use permit then they are going to allow it by-right, but by-right for which properties. Do they have to have a minimum of 5 or 10 acres? Do they have to keep the apparatus at least 1500’ from any property line? There are some things that they could probably do to make sure that whatever comes in is going to work. The one thing that has come up in this discussion is how to handle Tier 1. Are there any other ideas that could be ready in two weeks if the Board wants to hear any other ideas that come from some of the things that they have talked about on how to handle Tier 1? · Mr. Loach noted what Ms. Porterfield was saying was that she wanted a process that was easy, but also accessible and not at an onerous cost. The comparison of the turbine and balloon test comes with the upper tiers with the 30’ above the tree line. At that tier it is distinct. What criteria could be used for an individual to go 30’ above a tree line when come companies spend X number of tens of thousands of dollars to go 3’ to 7’ above the tree line. There are different gradations here. A Tier 1 is by right. A Tier 2 requires a waiver. A Tier 3 requires a special use permit. So could a Tier 1 require less of a waiver; a Tier 2 a waiver and a Tier 3 a special use permit? The lesser waiver might not be so cost onerous because one would not have to hire a $12,000 attorney to take them through the special use permit process. But they could meet some more basic standards that are not as onerous or costly to get the Tier 1 instead of going directly by right. It should be something that the Board of file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesPCminsApril21.htm (16 of 17) [9/30/2020 6:15:09 PM] minutes Supervisors should hear as part of the discussion there. · The Commission wrestled with this particular issue. There are merits on both sides. By-right makes it very simple and it achieves some of the public good. That deals with a lot of the environmental concerns and issues. But, going through a public process does protect some of the neighbors from something that is quite new. They could debate that on both sides. Certainly the Supervisors should hear if they have not considered that already that these are issues that are worthy of debating or discussion. · The Planning Commission plans to participate with the Board of Supervisors in the wind turbine work session on May 6. Several Commissioners asked for the following changes to the staff report: o An addendum could be added to the staff report to clarify what was being suggested for the by- right in that it be limited to whatever the current zoning regulations are in height. This does not deal with the sound. But it should be limited in height to what accessory structures are limited to. That does not really jump out in the staff report. That is a very important consideration. o There should be a reminder to everybody that they do have a noise ordinance. Staff should remind the Board what the Noise Ordinance states and what the acceptable decibel levels are. There are a lot of things already on the books that can be used for this. Go to next set of minutes Return to memo file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesPCminsApril21.htm (17 of 17) [9/30/2020 6:15:09 PM] minutes Albemarle County Planning Commission January 13, 2009 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing, meeting and work session on Tuesday, January 13, 2009, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Marcia Joseph, Calvin Morris, Bill Edgerton, Linda Porterfield, Thomas Loach and Eric Strucko, Chairman. Jon Cannon, Vice Chairman was absent. Julia Monteith, AICP, non-voting representative for the University of Virginia was present. Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; David Benish, Chief of Planning; Mark Graham, Director of Community Development; Bill Letteri, Director of Facilities Development; Bill Fritz, Director of Current Development; Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney. Call to Order and Establish Quorum: Mr. Strucko called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum. Work Session: Wind Turbines (Mark Graham) The purpose of the work session was to consider possible Zoning Ordinance Amendment to allow wind turbines. Mr. Graham presented a PowerPoint presentation and reviewed the staff report. (See Staff Report) · This is the third work session on wind turbines. In May, 2008 he pointed out that there is limited wind in this area. There are challenging economics in this area. Staff recognizes that the wind turbines would go along the hill tops and there would be issues with the Entrance Corridor. In September staff came forth with the recommendation with the accessory structure only to support an existing use on the property. The summary to the September meeting is attached to the staff report. · He asked if there is a pressing demand for these things. There are a lot of policy questions and staff is looking for direction. There does not seem to be a huge demand for wind turbines at this point in time. Staff recommends getting closure on this issue by delaying action on wind turbines for two years. They need a decision on whether they can accept this and the aesthetic impact associated with it. Mr. Strucko opened for public comment. Morgan Butler, with the Southern Environmental Law Center, encouraged the County to move forward at this time, but to recognize and balance the potential problems associated with wind turbines particularly with the height limitations and the potential of clear cutting. He was optimistic that a balance can be struck by starting with small wind turbines and that information gained from other localities in building the first file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesPCminsJan13.htm (1 of 2) [9/30/2020 6:15:10 PM] minutes wind turbines could be useful. Jeremy Hayes asked that the issue not be tabled at this time. He learned that six days ago two applications were submitted in the county. He noted that he had information from other localities to present to staff. He asked staff to move forward on wind turbines. Neil Williamson asked that they not table this issue for two yes. He asked staff to consider the tier method and as the wind turbines move up in height to have Planning Commission permission. He would like to get a better definition on no net power generation. He understood that some operations can generate more than their house needs. Susan Midland, homeowner of Albemarle County, advocated for renewable energy and asked that the county not table the request. She was trying to construct a home that will provide about 85 percent of our energy needs. There being no further public comment, the public comment was closed and the matter before the Planning Commission. Mr. Morris supported moving forward with this and not tabling it for two years. Mr. Edgerton agreed. He thought that Mr. Williamson had good suggestions. He suggested that perhaps they could pursue not modeling anything higher than the existing accessory structure height and to try to develop an ordinance provision for more scrutiny the higher it got. There could be an aesthetic impact on the neighbors. There are regions in the county that would not be an issue, but they need to be responsible to address that issue. In summary, the Planning Commission directed staff to move forward to draft an ordinance text amendment. Due to its importance a sub-committee was formed of Ms. Joseph and Mr. Edgerton will assist staff in drafting a proposal for consideration. No formal action was taken. Go to next set of minutes Return to memo file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesPCminsJan13.htm (2 of 2) [9/30/2020 6:15:10 PM] minutes Agenda Item No. 19. Joint Meeting with Planning Commission - Work Session - Wind Turbines. Planning Commission members present: Mr. Bill Edgerton, Mr. Don Franco, Ms. Marcia Joseph, Mr. Tom Loach, Ms. Julia Monteith (UVA non-voting member), Mr. Calvin Morris and Ms. Linda Porterfield, Absent: Mr. Eric Strucko. Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, said the purpose of this meeting is to establish the rationale for investigating the use of wind turbines, to educate the members on wind energy opportunities and challenges in the County, and to determine if the current proposal meets the Board’s expectations. He said when the Board adopted the Cool Counties Climate Stabilization Declaration in 2007, a goal of that was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by the year 2050. The only way that can be accomplished is to look at alternative forms of energy that don’t emit greenhouse gasses. Also, in the Sustainability Section of the Comprehensive Plan there is a goal for providing a sustainable community without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Also, a 2007 strategy specifically mentions alternative energy as something that should be considered. Also, the Board asked staff to investigate the use of wind turbines. Mr. Graham said there are small, large and utility turbines. He will focus on the small ones today. He will give a brief perspective on the large utility ones, but the Planning Commission and staff basically focused on the small ones. The issue with the large utility type is the size; they are huge. He checked to determine the size of the biggest one and found that it has a span for the turbine blades of 413 feet. He showed on the screen an illustration of the largest one that is not lit; lighting has always been a concern of the Board. A commercial-sized turbine for an industrial plant is about 198 feet tall. That is about as big as it can be without lighting. All others require significant lighting due to FAA restrictions. He pointed out several pictures on the screen of how they would appear in a mountain ridge landscape. Mr. Graham said the next question concerns wind opportunities in the County. Realistically, most of Albemarle County is considered fairly poor for wind energy. Mountain ridges provide the best opportunities for wind power. There are some opportunities in areas with “micro-climates” - these are very small areas that due to their topography channel wind and provide opportunities in lower elevations. Also, the turbines need to be outside of interference areas – this is a requirement of the Department of Energy which says they should be sited at about 30 feet above the nearest tree within about 300 feet of the turbine. Looking at that in terms of what it means in the County, the cost-effectiveness is proportional to the prevailing wind. If there is not sufficient wind, it takes longer to break even on cost, and if the life span of the wind turbine is lowered, there never would be a break-even point. That’s one of the challenges in Albemarle County. He said there is an interest in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and there are limited wind resources, but there are some places where they would work. The best opportunities are on the mountain ridges, but the visual impacts are the highest there. As to the economics, it must be recognized that the County’s review process can be a significant part of the cost, and that cost might be the tipping point. Mr. Graham said staff and the Planning Commission are suggesting a tiered approach. Tier One would create the lowest visual impact and would be treated as a by-right use. Tier Two, with a slightly higher visual impact, would require a waiver by the Commission and it would be done through supplemental regulations in the Zoning Ordinance. Tier Three would have the highest visual impact and would require a special use permit. Mr. Graham explained that a Tier One turbine would be limited to the rural areas, and would be file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesPCminsMay6.htm (1 of 12) [9/30/2020 6:15:11 PM] minutes restricted to no more than the height of buildings allowed in that zoning district; for the rural area that is 35 feet. Turbines would not be allowed in the Mountain Overlay or Entrance Corridor areas, and setback from the property line would be determined by a formula (height of the structure plus 20 feet) in order to address the issue of a falling turbine or times when ice forms on the blades so when it turns that ice is thrown off. No lighting of any kind would be permitted on a wind turbine, and no co-location of personal wireless antennae on the facility. Mr. Graham then showed on the screen an example of what could be placed on an RA property at this time. There could be a 35-foot tall wind turbine, and it would have to be a minimum of 55 feet from the property line. The visual impact of that turbine from the adjoining property line would be less than accessory buildings on that same property. He presented several examples of wind turbines, noting variables that impact their effectiveness such as wind coming off of water. He said the Planning Commission could grant a waiver for Tier Two turbines in the other zoning districts, including the Mountain Overlay and Entrance Corridor areas, and could also consider co-location of personal wireless facilities on it, as well as lighting and setbacks. He said there was a great deal of discussion about setbacks. He showed a couple of examples of turbines in an Entrance Corridor where it takes advantage of the winds created off of the edge of the buildings because buildings can actually funnel winds. Mr. Graham said the visual impact of the Tier Three turbines would be the greatest. A special use permit would be required because of that visual impact. Concurrent with that consideration, the Board could grant any of the waivers for the Tier Two turbines. He noted that they could get clearance above the nearby trees so a turbine would be more effective, but also more expensive to build. He said they discussed co- location for wireless facilities, but that is still emerging technology; nobody seems to be doing this yet. He showed a rendering of what such a facility would look like for a 128-foot tower with a 10 kilowatt turbine on top of it; included on the rendering are typical arrays of antennas. Mr. Graham said another consideration of wind turbines is noise. They did not propose that Zoning Ordinance requirements be modified; those requirements would have to be met. Basically, the noise limit is 55 decibels at nighttime. Mr. Rooker said there is a difference. If the wind is blowing, the noise is continuous. He is concerned about creating a situation where continuous noise is imposed on neighbors, particularly in situations where the facility is placed closer to the neighbor than to the home of the person constructing the facility. Mr. Slutzky said according to the website of the Department of Energy an office environment has a higher decibel level than the sound level produced by a wind turbine. A home environment has a slightly higher decibel level than the noise produced by the wind turbine. The question is whether a sound level is something that has to be endured by the neighbors or is it a sound that is relatively speaking benign. Keep in mind that the number 55 decibels means nothing except in context. Mr. Rooker said that is a good point. He would not want to create a situation where turbines were allowed and it created a problem visually as well as from a noise standpoint. Mr. Graham added that air conditioners are exempted from the County’s Noise Ordinance, and they have been noted at 65 and 70 decibels and could be noisier than wind turbines. Mr. Slutzky pointed out that 60 is ten times what 50 is. Mr. Graham agreed, noting that decibels are measured on a logo rhythmic scale. He said all wind turbines would not work in all locations. Staff file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesPCminsMay6.htm (2 of 12) [9/30/2020 6:15:11 PM] minutes would have to help the property owner look at that issue because there are some very noisy wind turbines on the market mostly due to older technology which has been phased out. He emphasized that Noise Ordinance requirements would have to be met with these facilities. Mr. Rooker referred to the statements about air conditioners and said that they run at 55 decibels at the source, and not at the property line. Mr. Graham said there are heat pump units running at 70+ decibels measured at 10 feet from the unit. If the property line is only 20 feet away, it does not meet Noise Ordinance requirements. They are specifically exempted from the Noise Ordinance because they cannot meet the requirement in an urban situation. Mr. Slutzky said that is an issue that needs to be attended to – for context itself the 55 decibels is common. Mr. Bill Edgerton said that Mr. Jeremy Hayes is going to give a brief presentation. In the presentation he gave to the Planning Commission he indicated that a lot of the noise is caused by the wind itself, not the turbine. Even if there were no turbine, the Noise Ordinance requirements might be exceeded by the wind, and there is no control over the wind. If the amount of noise produced by the turbine can be pulled out of the formula, that would probably be the best way to measure it. From what was presented to the Commission, he is fairly confident that the majority of the noise will be from the wind itself which will occur whether there is a turbine or not. Mr. Rooker said all kinds of information is available about the amount of noise produced by these wind turbines, even turbines of the same size. If the County decides to move forward with approving this, he does not know why the County could not require use of better technologies in noise reduction. Mr. Graham agreed. Mr. Graham said his next point concerns ice throws. The reason for the setback requirements is to make sure that ice throws are not an issue. He said issues with wildlife have been in the press but he has found that the problems with wildlife deal with the utility sized turbines in places such as mountain passes where no one had considered migratory bird patterns. He looked for information about smaller turbines and that problem, and no one has identified that as an issue with that size turbine. He said that Mr. Jeremy Hayes, a private consultant, is present to make a presentation. Ms. Thomas said she had read the Planning Commission’s minutes and they were very complete and helpful. She had never heard of a helix wind turbine, so asked that he explain exactly what its advantages are, since they appear to be substantial. She wonders if that would be part of how to define a by-right turbine. Mr. Hayes said he is President of Skyline Turbine, a supplier of small turbines, and a renewable energy supplier for residential and small business customers. It is their mission to research, implement, and install wind power appliances to meet the specific needs of each customer. He said that they envision a day when all aspects of wind, solar and energy efficiencies will be brought together to make their structures self-supporting and contributing to the community. He said Skyline Turbine is committed to supporting local governments and its citizens by fostering communication and utilizing all available means to successfully accomplish each installation. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesPCminsMay6.htm (3 of 12) [9/30/2020 6:15:11 PM] minutes Mr. Hayes gave a PowerPointe presentation. He showed an image of a large wind farm with turbines in excess of 200 feet tall. He said it is the primary vision people have when talking about wind power projects. He showed a picture of one of their installations in a rural setting. It is an 80-foot lattice tower with a Skystream 3.7 mounted on the top and is an example of a tower with a 50 decibel rating. Reasons to install small wind power include the 30 percent rebate offered by the Federal Government, and connection to a grid which offers the possibility of getting some of the installation money back while providing some or all of the owner’s electricity needs. He then showed a representation of a helix wind turbine in an urban setting. He said in this case the helix turbines are special; they meet many or all of the requirements discussed, are not susceptible to ice throws, and have only a five-decibel maximum output as well as being bird and bat-friendly. Mr. Rooker asked how the helix wind turbine compares in terms of power production. Mr. Hayes said the smaller unit is a match for the Skystream 3.7 and the larger unit provides double what that unit provides. He said a 2.5 kilowatt generating machine, depending on the wind resource and the consumption of each person, can produce between 40 and 90 percent of most people’s electricity needs. He said that in some cases a five kilowatt turbine is necessary to cover the overall electricity needs of some persons and/or entirely cover their home and produce some excess. There have been many questions about producing excess electricity and the possibility of making money by installing one of these turbines. He generally suggests that is not a good idea. In Virginia the interconnection agreement provides that if energy is taken from the grid it can be replaced at a 1:1 cost, and anything produced in excess is paid back at a wholesale rate – only 44 percent of what it actually costs from an electricity provider. Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Hayes how long he had been in this business. Mr. Hayes said it has been two and one-half years. Mr. Rooker asked if he had installed units in various places in Virginia. Mr. Hayes said “yes.” Mr. Rooker asked if he could provide the names and contact numbers for people who might provide information about how their turbines have worked. Mr. Hayes said “yes.” He cannot provide any helix information from this area because none of them are installed yet. He said Skystream 3.7 information is available. In the information he provided to the Board, there are pictures from two of his customers. One is close to Vesuvius, Virginia, where the turbine is located atop the Blue Ridge Mountains. That turbine was cleared by the National Parks Service for its viewshed from the Skyline Drive. Mr. Rooker asked if there are any turbines installed in areas that resemble Albemarle’s condition - normal pastureland types of terrain. Mr. Hayes said he does not have any installed close by or in that exact setting. Mr. Rooker indicated interested in the amount of power a turbine would generate. In this area, if someone were interested in generating some of their own power or selling power back to the grid, how would that compare with solar if the turbine were not on a hilltop? Also, why would anyone go in this direction compared to solar? Mr. Hayes said his company offers a wind study in two different ways. One is by reading the tree life around the property, which establishes the direction and wind speed in the area, and they also install anemometers over a two- to three-month period and take that data and extrapolate it over the course of the year. He emphasized that they will not install a wind turbine unless a minimum 12 mile per hour resource across the year can be established; his company also provides customers with file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesPCminsMay6.htm (4 of 12) [9/30/2020 6:15:11 PM] minutes analyses of their current electric bills and their anticipated savings. They are provided with options to reduce their electricity consumption bills through efficiencies. He said that if turbines were installed and did not perform well, it would hurt the overall installation of wind turbines. Currently, there are “wind schools” across the nation (James Madison University and Appalachian State University in Boone, N.C. are close) that train people to properly site and install turbines to be effective for individual customers. Mr. Rooker asked if Mr. Hayes also installs solar facilities. Mr. Hayes said his company does install solar, and in some situations a combination of both solar and wind is necessary to make it effective for consumers. Mr. Hayes next showed a photo of an installation just off Skyline Drive in Rockbridge County. It is a 60-foot tall monopole installation with a Skystream 3.7 mounted on top. The base of the turbine is provided by a 6’x6’x3’ deep concrete cube. This turbine is located near The Homestead, and it is difficult to see. In this particular case, it is also 20 feet above the treetops. Mr. Rooker said there is a wind turbine on a house off of Rio Road; he asked what type of turbine it is. Mr. Hayes said he is not familiar with that installation. There are many types of small turbines which typically produce between 200 and 400 watts on a monthly average. Overall, that would not overcome a person’s full electricity needs, unless they installed quite a few of them. Mr. Boyd referred to the installation in Rockbridge County and asked the total cost of it. Mr. Hayes said that particular installation was $22,500. Mr. Boyd asked if it will provide 100 percent of the home’s electrical needs. Mr. Hayes said it would provide just over 50 percent - in the first 26 days which was the first bill they could monitor it on, the turbine provided 700 kilowatts of power. Mr. Dorrier asked if it has storage capacity. Mr. Hayes said for most of the turbines they install, they recommend that the customer connect it to the grid. That allows the grid to be used as “a monetary battery” instead of having hazmat batteries in the home and needing to replace them every five years, and being forced to have some sort of maintenance cycle. It is possible to merely run that through the meter backwards and put it back on the grid and cause a reduction of the overall electricity bill. Generally, in between five and 10 years the cost of a turbine can be paid off in its entirety and provide a percentage of free electricity for the owner. Mr. Rooker asked if that depends on the amount of wind. Mr. Hayes said it depends entirely on the amount of wind, and most importantly, the siting. Mr. Boyd asked if the $22,500 includes putting electricity back into the grid. He looked at installing a generator at one time, and it was very expensive to put in a connection so it did not back feed. Mr. Hayes said it can be viewed as expensive, but he is of the opinion that it is largely reduced by the 30 percent rebate by the Federal government. On top of that, a home generator is not capable of putting that energy back onto the grid and reducing the overall electricity bill and the cost of the overall unit. He said that over the 30-year average mortgage for the average four person family, $54,000 is spent during that time. Installing a turbine at a 60 percent value of full electricity would reduce the overall cost of that electricity in a 30-year term by $12,000 to $20,000. Mr. Hayes next presented information on other turbine options with different features, such as file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesPCminsMay6.htm (5 of 12) [9/30/2020 6:15:11 PM] minutes having blades lying flat until the wind speed picks up. He then addressed the issue of noise generated from wind turbines which only make noise when the wind is blowing. Also, it is generally masked by whatever the tree life is around it; as the wind speeds increase, the noise coming through the trees increases as well. He said that the Skystream 3.7 model is one of the best performers in this regard, as it is possible to have a conversation while standing near one. He then offered to answer questions. Mr. Loach asked if there is a separate course for the evaluation. He asked the cost of the taller installation such as the one depicted in the Park. Mr. Hayes responded that there was a $450 charge to get the man-lift to the site, and they were told they will not have to repeat that test. They are looking forward to using that data for other installations which are close by. They have two different evaluations – there is a $450 charge to do a site assessment based on tree life, and an $800 assessment to place an anemometer for two months and take that data. When they get to the property, it is analyzed to determine what type of wind turbine might cover all of the costs, and then the wind estimate is performed in two different fashions. The cost for that is included in the installation should they do one. They assess a charge if it is not. Mr. Boyd said Mr. Graham had posted some charts earlier showing the wind circumstances in this area. Based on that information, does Mr. Hayes think it is conducive to this type of facility. Mr. Hayes said it would be much harder to make the larger wind turbines function. Most of the cut-in speeds for the smaller turbines are at 12 mph. That is the bare minimum available in Albemarle County. Some of those turbines are capable of producing more if a microclimate can be found – there are many microclimates available, in the mountains for instance. Also, any of the valleys that run up into the mountains create a “chimney” of wind. People close to rivers or streams frequently have a resource caused by the stream itself. Mr. Dorrier asked what states are good wind producers. Mr. Hayes said there is a band from Michigan all the way down to Texas. In Virginia, and all the way up the Appalachian chain, there are some of the highest wind values available anywhere. They are 5.5 or 6.0 wind class, but they are on top of the ridges. A concern is that wind turbines do not interfere with any viewshed. Overall, small turbines hold the possibility of being outside of those viewsheds specifically something like the helix because it excels at collecting turbulent wind and does not necessarily need to be installed at 20 feet above treetops. Generally, they are installed at no higher than 32 feet off the ground from the base to the top of the unit. Mr. Rooker said in an area like Albemarle, people have commented to him that solar is much more economical and feasible than a wind turbine. Mr. Hayes said the technology for both increases every day. Small wind turbines are typically slated now to work in wind zones of 2.0 and higher. A lot of work has been done to cause them to work better in lower wind environments. He said solar technologies are also increasing, and there are many types that excel in collecting light from many different directions to avoid things like a large solar array that needs to turn those panels 90 degrees for the sun to be effective. Mr. Slutzky said it appears that staff and the Planning Commission have done a very thoughtful job of balancing competing interests. There is clearly some desire in the County to pursue the opportunity for wind power generation, and there is clearly some concerns about it also. If the Board is being asked today to provide feedback he has his own bias on the subject matter. He is strongly of the mind that alternative energy technologies should be pursued with appropriate haste. He is probably less concerned about placement on the ridges than the rest of the Board members. He believes accessing wind power is a priority. What staff and the Planning Commission have provided is a good framework that would allow citizens in the community to experiment with this emerging technology in a way that is well-managed. In general, his feedback would be to move forward with the way this has been proposed. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesPCminsMay6.htm (6 of 12) [9/30/2020 6:15:11 PM] minutes Mr. Rooker said based on the information the Board has now, he would be disposed to support Tier One by itself without either Tier Two or Tier Three. He said the Board spent a huge amount of time and effort to create the Cell Tower Ordinance which has been written up around the State as a model to be followed by other communities. What is being talked about is approving something that would bring large, tall structures of the kind that would not be approved in the form of a cell tower and allow them to be put up by-right throughout the County. He thinks the Board has an obligation to allow alternative forms of energy use to go forward, but he questions whether allowing these turbines in an area with little wind would be practical when compared to solar alternatives. He wonders if the Board would be encouraging people to invest in something that is marginal as opposed to something that is more likely to produce a positive return. These things work on mountaintops and they work in Texas – they are economical in offshore Virginia where 16 miles out there is no visual impairment. There is an area out there where it appears that high scale production could take place from wind farms. He suggests the Board be careful when creating a policy that would allow tall structures that may have noise issues to be installed throughout the County. Ms. Marcia Joseph said that she, Mr. Graham, and Mr. Edgerton worked on this question together. The Planning Commission talked about exactly what Mr. Rooker just said. One of things was the microclimate. A lot of properties have wind bursts in one or more areas on their property. She has lost the roof on her barn a couple of times. In the rural areas there are areas that experience that sort of thing so it might be worth while to install a turbine. They also talked about the height of these structures in relation to cell towers. Since cell towers are installed among the trees, they discussed ways to juxtapose these things so they cannot be skylighted, etc. They concluded that supplemental regulations could be imposed just like the different tiers for cell towers. They looked at the existing cell tower ordinance because they do not want to undermine what is already on the books. Mr. Rooker said cell towers are required to be sited in groves of trees and they cannot be skylighted. Wind turbines would need to be sited in open places not in trees, and if they were near trees they would need to be in a significant clear area above those trees. He asked how that visibility issue might be addressed. Ms. Joseph said some localities consider the size of the parcel itself and also the zoning district. If it were in a rural area district and it was a five-acre parcel a turbine could be located and not be visible. Mr. Rooker said he thinks that is a great idea, but is not embodied at all in the tiered recom- mendations. Ms. Joseph said that is because they have not gotten to the details of the tiers. She said Mr. Graham told the Commission the Board wanted a joint meeting so all could discuss whether or not to go forward with this idea, or just step back. Mr. Rooker said he has a different view of a turbine(s) in the middle of a farm where it was not significantly visible to surrounding properties and where it could not be heard by anyone, and creating a situation where someone on a two-acre tract of land put up a turbine that might be closer to his neighbor’s house than his own house, and was the tallest thing in an area where the Board would clearly not approve a cell tower. He is not concerned about wind turbines, but is troubled by establishing a policy that would allow “coming out of the box.” He knows that the cell towers which were erected before adoption of the Cell Tower Ordinance are generally acknowledged by anyone driving by as a mistake. Mr. Slutzky said Mr. Rooker is raising a number of interesting and relevant points. He asked if, under this approach, the owner of land in a designated growth area would be prevented from installation of file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesPCminsMay6.htm (7 of 12) [9/30/2020 6:15:11 PM] minutes a 32-foot turbine. Mr. Graham said that would be a Tier Two and it would require a waiver from the Planning Commission. He said they have not yet fleshed out guidelines that would accompany the ordinance. The Commission would need to decide whether the facility would impact the neighbors and then decide if they could justify granting a waiver. Mr. Slutzky said he would like for the Planning Commission to move forward with all three tiers, and then take public comments. He said if the details are fleshed out, and a public hearing held, it might show that a lot of people are interested. He lives in the growth area, and would be very frustrated if he could not experiment with this technology particularly to take advantage of some of the current subsidies available through the Federal government. It is not entirely about economic viability, it is also about a moral commitment to try and reduce dependence on foreign oil, etc. There are other variables that come into the calculus of decision-making about installation of a turbine. He thinks the County should move forward and at least flesh out the rules for Tiers One and Two and hopefully Three, and then go through the public input process. At that point, a decision might be made not to go forward with any of it, but it would be a more informed decision than to just outright reject this option for growth area residents. Mr. Rooker said nothing would prevent the County from having a Tier One and seeing how it worked before allowing wind turbines to be located on much smaller parcels in closer proximity to other areas. Mr. Slutzky said the people who live in the growth area would not be able to do it if they have to wait. Mr. Rooker commented that they would have to wait to see how things work. Mr. Edgerton said he has a strong prejudice in favor of approval. What’s being proposed as the next step is to develop an ordinance that would allow for the Tier One on an administrative by-right basis in the rural areas where parcels are large and limiting that to what is already allowed in the rural areas for an accessory structure. The big question is whether it would be more of a visual impact to erect a 35-foot tall turbine on their farm or a 35-foot tall barn or shed, which would be classified as an accessory structure which according to the ordinance can be as close as six-feet to the property line. The drawing shown by Mr. Graham earlier showed that what is being proposed is even more conservative than that because the setback from the property line would have to be 55 feet for a turbine to accommodate a fall zone. Mr. Edgerton said he thinks this is a cautious approach, far more cautious than he would like to see, but at the same time he thinks a lot of people may have a different opinion. He said there was a wind ordinance writing workshop held by the Shenandoah Valley Planning District Commission a couple of weeks ago. He went and it was fascinating. There was excitement about some of the larger commercial facilities. There are four different counties in Virginia that have written language into their ordinances allowing for the smaller private turbines and they did it in a tiered way. Being concerned about the impact of these turbines, they required special use permits or special exemptions for all applications. There have been few applications. Every county represented at the meeting who had done this said they wished they had not worried about the rural areas at all – that was a non-issue. And then, Mr. Hayes said he would not install a turbine unless it would actually produce some viable help. Mr. Rooker said the Board cannot adopt an ordinance based on the responsibility of one provider. Mr. Edgerton said even the cost of the small turbine is a big investment, and there are microclimate situations in the rural areas that would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. They would file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesPCminsMay6.htm (8 of 12) [9/30/2020 6:15:11 PM] minutes not make sense in certain areas unless someone just wanted a “lawn ornament”. He thinks that is the case of the one on Rio Road. Ms. Thomas said she visited that property yesterday and the owner wants the turbine to produce power like the solar panel he has on the other side of his lawn. He asked her if the question the Board is debating is whether to allow the Planning Commission to proceed with a three-tier approach or whether to stop at one tier. She thinks the Board should go forward with the three tier approach. The community’s standards should be stated clearly in anything put together, and that includes considering impacts – visual, mountain, skyline, noise, light, and neighborhoods – in the forefront. She said the cell panels that are flush-mounted were first brought to the attention of the Board by a manufacturer after hearing the Board’s standards. She said cell towers are different because they are revenue producing poles and these would not be. If the Board’s standards were shared around the State, she thinks they would get some creative designs that fit the lower wind levels of the eastern United States. She would like for the County to be ready for that when it comes. Mr. Rooker said he has no problem with taking this question forward and having public hearings to see what the public is interested in. He has a problem with allowing any kind of lighting at all. Due to the cost of these turbines, someone could pursue one as a way of co-location on a cell facility immediately or right after it is constructed. He can see a lot of support for that from cell operators, so the County needs to think carefully about allowing co-location of wireless facilities. Mr. Slutzky said as an advocate of moving toward an ordinance, he agrees with Mr. Rooker about the lighting and co-location issues. He would prefer to have both of those options removed from what the Planning Commission considers. He has one point to share with the Commission. There is a lot of talk about economic viability, but for a lot of people generation of power through wind turbines and other alternative energy technologies is not about today’s economic yield on investment, but about a personal commitment to not be dependent on foreign oil. He suggested that the Commission not overwhelm its discussion with their own interpretation of aesthetics. When he looks out on the horizon and sees a cell tower, he sees a corporation making money; he sees economic self-interest so he does not see quite the same aesthetic experience as when he sees a wind turbine. To him, that turbine is a graceful depiction of somebody trying to solve an ecological problem. He thinks the aesthetics issue should be addressed, but he does not want it to be assumed by definition that any physical structure not placed there naturally is by definition unacceptable aesthetically. For some, it is actually a positive aesthetic experience. Mr. Boyd said he has a different perspective. He is torn over this whole idea. He strongly supports personal property rights and allowing people to do with their property what they wish to do. However, on the other side he is scared that a neighbor will put one at their house so he would have to watch and listen to it everyday. He is not opposed to moving forward with this idea and taking public comments, but it is not something that is a high priority on his list. He knows the Community Development Department is understaffed so wonders where this item would be put in its Work Program. Mr. Slutzky asked if there is room in the work plan for this item. Mr. Graham said staff actually started work on this idea last year. It already has a placeholder in the work plan, but there are many other things in that work plan that staff is not getting to at this time. Mr. Boyd said he would not want this to hold up other work items. Ms. Mallek asked if these turbines can be dropped in by helicopter, or do they require a road and file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesPCminsMay6.htm (9 of 12) [9/30/2020 6:15:11 PM] minutes heavy equipment to get the materials to the site. One of the biggest problems at The Highlands is the complete destruction of the environment to get towers in, although those towers are bigger than what is being discussed. Mr. Hayes responded that the large turbines require a road and massive amounts of concrete, but many of the smaller turbines have very small foundations. Nothing is used larger than a typical concrete truck can haul. The Synergy model can be installed in environments which do not require heavy lift cranes or helicopters. Mr. Slutzky said he assumes that for installation of a non-commercial scale turbine in a location requiring a big truck, the cost factor of installation would be higher, so there would be a disincentive to locate them in places where that type of disturbance would need to take place. Mr. Hayes said that is true. Also, everything involved in that size turbine is entirely inside of what is being called Tier Three. There would be an opportunity for comments to be taken before that could happen. Mr. Graham said these turbines are typically placed close to the building they would serve so there is not a lot of energy loss. Trucks would be required to get the materials to that building site, and wires are typically run underground between the building and the turbine. Mr. Slutzky said there seems to be a consensus of support that the Planning Commission and staff work on this proposal with the understanding that the Board will get more specificity to the process steps. He asked if any Board member objected to moving forward. Mr. Rooker said public input should be taken so the Board can decide what to do from that point. In line with some of the other comments about lack of staff and cost, if the Board adopted a one-tier ordinance, it would require less ongoing work than a three-tier ordinance. Ms. Joseph said she and Mr. Edgerton have been working on this with Mr. Graham because they felt it was important, and they did not want to put an additional burden on staff. They would be happy to continue working with him. They have done a lot of research and a lot of ordinances. From what they have heard today, language could be inserted into an ordinance they have been “toying” with. Mr. Edgerton said he would be delighted to continue with this work. He said they contacted all of the counties that have implemented some language in their zoning ordinances to allow this use. He said Rockingham County is probably the more mature in this instance. They did not bring that to the Board at this time, wanting to get a read on the Board’s enthusiasm for the idea. He is sure they can come up with some draft language for discussion. Mr. Rooker said he wants everyone to be mindful of the fact that if a tiered system is created there might be more ongoing administrative expense associated with it. Mr. Boyd said he agrees with Mr. Rooker. He is also interested in getting public input. Mr. Slutzky said he is uncomfortable denying the public the opportunity to participate in this. A lot of people in the community share his views that this is a priority of importance and will become more so in the near future. He is of a mind to go forward exploring the three tiers as proposed, take it to public hearing and then make decisions about how much further to go rather than cutting off two-thirds of the process now. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesPCminsMay6.htm (10 of 12) [9/30/2020 6:15:11 PM] minutes Mr. Rooker said he has no problem with the three-tiered approach for getting public comments. He is suggesting that there are reasons why it might end up with a single tier. He would have difficulty supporting a tier that allowed lighting or co-location of wireless facilities. Ms. Thomas asked that lighting be “taken off the table” right now. Ms. Slutzky asked if co-location should also be removed. Ms. Thomas said the consultant that worked on the cell panel ordinance said that as cell panels become even more ubiquitous, each panel can only take a certain number of calls so it would end up with panels being on every building. She does not know how that fits in the rural area. Panels will also become smaller. She said Tier Three allows questions about whether that is reasonable or not and she would not take it off of the table the same way she would take lighting off of the table. Mr. Dorrier asked how much electricity would be replaced and what would be the total effect of the turbines on the overall energy problem. He thinks the Board should explore that issue. Mr. Slutzky asked if staff and the Planning Commission get the feeling there is consensus to move forward with the next step. Mr. Graham said he understands lighting is “off the table” and there should be no consideration of co-location for wireless facilities. Ms. Thomas said she is not willing to take co-location “off the table.” She asked the thinking of the other Board members. Mr. Rooker said it simplifies the matter. The ordinance could always be amended at a later time – he does not want to see wind turbines installed in order to have co-location. Mr. Boyd said cell towers are allowed to go on existing structures now, so he asked if that would be stopped by this ordinance not addressing that issue. Mr. Slutzky said there is consensus on the Board for removing lighting, but for the moment staff and the Planning Commission need to know the co-location issue needs to be addressed and the Board can make a decision about it later. Mr. Edgerton said at that seminar he attended he asked several people about co-location. Most indicated that vibration would be an issue, and the cell antenna would have to be located below the turbine rotors. There was also some argument about whether that was an accurate statement. He said cell companies have not been jumping at the opportunity to co-locate. Mr. Rooker said if it were taken “off the table” it would not really affect anything. Mr. Edgerton said he thinks that is correct for the foreseeable future. Mr. Slutzky asked Ms. Thomas if she would be okay pulling it off for now, and saying it will be attended to later, if at all. Ms. Thomas said “yes.” file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesPCminsMay6.htm (11 of 12) [9/30/2020 6:15:11 PM] minutes Mr. Slutzky thanked the Planning Commissioners, especially Ms. Joseph and Mr. Edgerton, for sorting this out and bringing this issue to the Board’s attention. He volunteered to help them in this effort. Mr. Rooker said it might be wise to not just require that setbacks be met, but that a facility be located closer to the residence on which it was built than to the residence of a neighbor. Perhaps the requirement could be waived in the case wind was optimal in another spot and there were no objections from the neighbors. He said there is a setback requirement now for cell towers, but if there is an agreement from the neighbor that can be waived. He said there are a lot of neighborhoods in the rural areas with two-plus acre lots. He thinks people would be upset by having someone push one of these turbines close to their residence and more distant from the house being served. Mr. Boyd said he does not think many understood his analogy earlier. He and Mr. Calvin Morris live in that type of situation just a couple of doors from each other on three-acre lots. Ms. Linda Porterfield added that there was discussion by the Planning Commission that Tier One should not totally be by-right, i.e., there should be specific requirements for it to be by-right. Otherwise, it would be heard by the Commission, and at that time given the waivers necessary. Also, they want the application process for Tier One to be as simple as possible to help people interested in the technology get moving and keep the cost down as much as possible. Mr. Slutzky asked if someone can install a turbine of 35 feet or below at this time, or is it treated as an accessory they have to get permission. Mr. Graham responded that currently the County would not grant a permit for a turbine. Mr. Slutzky asked if the ones that exist in the growth area now are technically non-compliant. Mr. Graham said all that exist in the County now are non-compliant. (Note. The Board recessed at 4:30 p.m. and reconvened at 4:36 p.m. ______________ Go to next set of minutes Return to memo file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesPCminsMay6.htm (12 of 12) [9/30/2020 6:15:11 PM] minutes Albemarle County Planning Commission November 17, 2009 ZTA-2009-00001 Wind Turbines Amend Secs. 3.1, Definitions, 10.2.1, By right, 11.3.1, By right uses, 12.2.1, By right, 13.2.1, By right, 14.2.1, By right, 15.2.1, By right, 16.2.1, By right, 17.2.1, By right, 18.2.1, By right, 19.3.1, By right, 20.3.1, By right, 20A.6, Permitted uses, 20B.2, Permitted uses, 22.2.1, By right, 23.2.1, By right, 24.2.1, By right, 27.2.1, By right, 28.2.1, By right, and add Sec. 5.1.46, Small wind turbines, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would add small wind turbines as a by right use in all zoning districts and standardize the introduction of each of those sections (Secs. 10.2.1 through 28.2.1 listed above), would amend Sec. 3.1 to add definitions of "small wind turbines" and associated terms and "historic areas," and would add Sec. 5.1.46 to establish substantive and procedural requirements to establish and use small wind turbines. A copy of the full text of the ordinance is on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and in the Department of Community Development, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. (Mark Graham) Mr. Graham presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the executive summary. This is a public hearing to provide a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on the zoning text amendment with respect to wind turbines. In February 2008, the County Board of Supervisors (Board) reviewed Community Development’s annual work program and directed staff to include consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that would allow wind turbines. In May 2008, staff presented the Planning Commission an overview of the subject to solicit direction. This was followed by four additional work sessions, including a combined Board/Planning Commission worksession in May 2009. Following that May 2009 worksession, a Board member, David Slutzky, and two Planning Commission members, Marcia Joseph and Bill Edgerton, agreed to help staff prepare a draft concept. On October 6, 2009, the Planning Commission reviewed this draft concept, approved a resolution of intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance in support of this concept, and directed staff to proceed to public hearing. This is provided in the staff report in Attachment A. Staff has prepared an ordinance amendment for public hearing that reflects the reviewed concept. (See Staff Report Attachment B) The purpose of tonight’s meeting is to provide a public hearing where comment can be received on the proposed ordinance amendment before the Planning Commission forwards a recommendation to the Board. Anticipating a Planning Commission recommendation, a Board public hearing has been tentatively scheduled for December 9, 2009. Staff believes the ordinance amendment in Attachment B accurately represents the Planning Commission’s direction. The ordinance concept laid out today for a wind turbine is a two tier concept very similar to the concept used for cell towers or personal wireless facilities. Staff considers the following to be the important elements of this proposal: ● A simplified administrative process that eliminates the need for a Special Use Permit. It was recognized that a modification of Supplemental Regulations would provide an opportunity for public vetting of any issues associated with modifying the standards without the need for the complex and expensive process required for a Special Use Permit. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesPCminsNov17.htm (1 of 5) [9/30/2020 6:15:11 PM] minutes ● Allowing small wind turbines in the Development Areas and Entrance Corridors as part of a Tier 1 use. It allows approval by the agent. It was recognized that the proposed setback requirement results in a much greater restriction on wind turbines than it would for other structures. That assured there is no increased impact on adjoining properties. ● The Tier II requires the Planning Commission to approve this with a waiver or modification of those Tier I conditions under the supplemental regulations. With the Tier II there are notices that are sent to the abutting property owners in advance of the Planning Commission considerations. As part of their consideration the Planning Commission with those Tier II applications can set reasonable conditions with the application. ● Restricting the use of wind turbines within the County recognized Historic Districts and Mountain Overlay as defined in the ordinance. By placing this requirement in the Supplemental Regulations, this assures wind turbines in those areas would be allowed only if a waiver of the Supplemental Regulations is granted by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission after consideration could decide whether to allow it within one of the historic districts or the ridge areas and set reasonable conditions associated with that. That would also include reducing building heights or setbacks; lighting of the structure, or co- location of the personal wireless antenna with that facility. ● It is an accessory use to the use on the property whether that is a residence, business or barn. It is not a stand-alone use. The structure must meet the building height allowed in the district. The setback must meet the height of the structure plus 20’. It does allow for administrative modification of that where there is an agreement with the adjacent property owner. In addition the definition of fall zone has been added. There shall be no lighting on the structure. There shall be no co-location of a personal wireless antenna. If it goes into disuse it must be disassembled and removed within 90 days of that time. ● Additional changes include adding a definition of “fall zone” to be used with the setback requirement under Section 5.1.46 b.3 on page 39 of the packet. Including this definition helps define what that means for staff interpretation. Staff recommends the adoption of ZTA-2009-0001 Wind Turbines as presented in Attachment B with the addition of the fall zone definition. Mr. Strucko invited questions from the Commission. There being no questions at this time he opened the public hearing and invited public comment. Kathy Rash represented Forever Albemarle that was a group from the White Hall District in favor of wind turbines in our area. They have been having local meetings with farmers and others in the area. They think they should look at wind turbines in the county to help in the farming areas and the residents around farms. They are thrilled that this is being considered and thank them for their efforts. Jeff Werner, with the Piedmont Environmental Council, agreed with Ms. Rash that it is good to move forward on this. Overall the way it is broken down is the way they wanted to see it when they talk about the Entrance Corridors being Tier I or II. He was most concerned about historic districts and ridge tops which has been taken care of, but hoped that they don’t see wind turbines on monopoles. The visibility issue is going to be there. Everyone in the Albemarle County has worked hard to protect the view shed and he did not want to give up on that with the wind turbines but still encourage them. He supported that when an issue comes up that they aesthetically look at the pros and cons of the issues. He supported looking at possibly requiring Tier II for the Entrance Corridor in areas such as Route 250 west. He asked for some clarification on whether a public hearing is conducted by the Planning Commission or if it is just file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesPCminsNov17.htm (2 of 5) [9/30/2020 6:15:11 PM] minutes something that they see. Morgan Butler, representative for the Southern Environmental Law Center, asked to add his voice in applauding the county for promoting renewable energy. It is important for the county to facilitate the use of wind turbines, but at the same time it is important that they balance this important use with other scenic and environmental values that the county has long promoted. In the context of this ordinance when they are talking about balance they are not talking about when something is permitted or when something is prohibited. They are simply talking about when something has a potential impact that it generates an additional level of review other than at staff level. He raised the following three points. 1. The question of whether or not a public hearing is involved as part of the Tier II is an important one. He liked that this ordinance requires notifying the adjacent landowners. But the notice could be meaningless if the owners don’t have a chance to come before the Planning Commission to discuss their concerns and help influence the conditions the Commission may decide on a particular turbine. 2. The question on whether to require a special use permit for wind turbines in the Entrance Corridor is a tricky one. He could see merits to both approaches where they have gone to great lengths to try to protect our Entrance Corridors but at the same time try to promote wind turbine. He questioned whether there was some kind of middle ground. At the last meeting Mr. Kamptner said that wind turbines could potentially be considered as one of these county wide certificates of appropriateness they discussed earlier tonight. He questioned if there was a way to limit it to just those entrance corridors that have more of that scenic value as suggested by Mr. Werner. He felt that is an important consideration. 3. It looks like anything said to limit the overall number of wind turbines on a parcel has been dropped. It simply says that they provide energy for the primary use on the parcel. If there was an excessive use on the parcel they could have any number of wind turbines on the parcel. He did not necessarily think that is a bad thing, but it may indeed be one of those situations that might need an additional level of review. If they get to the third wind turbine on that parcel, then perhaps it would kick it into another level or a Tier II review. There being no further public comment, Mr. Strucko closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the Planning Commission for further action. Ms. Porterfield noted concerns with the view shed issues because she hears more about it because of Monticello being located in her district. She wondered if there should be some kind of additional review if the wind turbine was in the view shed. She was concerned with a blanket by-right in the Entrance Corridor since it may negate many of the other things they are trying to achieve. If they are going to do by-right in the Entrance Corridors she suggested that they select two different items being the single family residential since that is not subject to ARB review and that the other would be main and accessory residential forestall and agricultural buildings so to allow to be Tier I if in Entrance Corridor. The other items she felt should be reviewed as a Tier II. From beginning she had been concerned about not putting a limit on the number of wind turbines that could be placed on a parcel without at least required a Tier II review. Mr. Morris thanked Mr. Graham because this has come a long way. He saw with great joy on the news today one community in the mid-west that is totally powered by wind power and no more fossil fuel. That is not what we are looking at, but it is a start. He commended staff and supported the application. Mr. Edgerton said that he was enthusiastic about this approach. He thanked Mr. Graham for figuring out a file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesPCminsNov17.htm (3 of 5) [9/30/2020 6:15:11 PM] minutes reasonable approach to start this process. He did not think that those issues are going to become an issue in the near future because the cost of doing this and the economic viability. His interests initially is leaving the door open in encouraging people when the value is there and prohibit it for something that is not going to happen to worry needlessly. If it became a problem they could tighten it up. This ZTA as proposed will allow the testing of whether this makes sense in Albemarle County and have people think of sustainable energy. When thinking of an investment of 25 to 30 thousand dollars it is significant. Motion: Mr. Edgerton moved and Mr. Morris seconded to recommend approval of ZTA-2009-00001 Wind Turbines in accordance with Attachment B including the definition of fall zone. Ms. Porterfield wondered if there was any support for making a few minor changes. Mr. Graham noted that they need to recognize when a Certificate of Appropriateness is required or not. If there is a site plan required there is a Certificate of Appropriate required. The single-family house and farming use is not covered with that Certificate of Appropriateness. If it was a site plan and there was a commercial building it would be expected to be shown with that site plan and therefore it falls with the Certificate of Appropriateness and the Architectural Review Board is going to review that. He asked Mr. Kamptner if he was correct. Mr. Kamptner noted that it would if the prerequisite for that triggers their oversight exists. But the Entrance Corridor Overlay District also exists as a territory and something apart from ARB review. Ms. Porterfield said if the building is done and the site has been approved and there is no site plan and they are only adding the wind turbines to the top of the roof would it be looked at. Mr. Graham said that this would be no different than if they came in to exchange out the air conditioning units on the building and they need new parapets around the air conditioning unit. There is an ARB review with that. Mr. Kamptner said that what has been suggested is including not only ridge areas and historic areas but the physical areas that are comprised of the Entrance Corridors as being those areas that should be subject to Tier II. Not necessarily ARB review but simply having the small wind turbines in those territories should be Tier II instead of Tier I. Mr. Edgerton said that sounds like a reasonable approach except for the fact that as staff has explained that will add substantially to the cost of this and in so doing will discourage the implementation of this technology. Therefore, he had a problem with that. Ms. Porterfield noted that she was suggesting that any one that is a single-family home or the farm uses would not fall under Tier II and would be exempted if in the Entrance Corridor. It would be the other types of uses such as commercial uses that are probably the most prominent in the Entrance Corridors. Mr. Edgerton noted that he deferred to the majority of the Commission, but personally would like to leave the motion as it stays. Mr. Kamptner said that if the requirements were as Ms. Porterfield suggested then it is essentially in most or if not all cases those facilities would be subject to ARB review anyway because they would be serving commercial uses so there would be review under the ARB. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesPCminsNov17.htm (4 of 5) [9/30/2020 6:15:11 PM] minutes Ms. Porterfield said that the wind turbines would automatically be reviewed even though it would be by right. Mr. Kamptner said that within the Entrance Corridor if they exclude residential uses, agriculture and forestal related structures then this would be an accessory structure to a commercial use. Therefore if visible and within the Entrance Corridor the wind turbine would be subject to ARB review. In addition, if they wanted any kind of waiver from any of the small wind turbine Tier I standards it would require coming to the Planning Commission. Mr. Porterfield asked if they need to rewrite it to indicate the exclusions. Mr. Kamptner replied that is the way it is written now. Mr. Graham noted that the Tier 1 facility with a commercial building in the Entrance Corridor the ARB still has to approve it. It is already implied. Mr. Strucko asked if the process for reviewing the Tier II by the Planning Commission would involve a public hearing. Mr. Kamptner replied that as the Commission does with almost everything that comes before them they invite public comment. It is not the mandatory public hearing that is held for zoning map and zoning text amendments, Comp Plan amendments and special use permits. But it would be akin to the Tier II Wireless considerations, waiver considerations, site plans and subdivision plats where public comment is always permitted. Ms. Porterfield asked if there is any support for a limit on the Tier I for the numbers that can be Tier I before going to Tier II on a piece of property. Mr. Edgerton and Mr. Morris did not support it. Mr. Kamptner asked if the Commission wants to include the definition of the fall zone that staff recommends which is included in the Wireless regulations. Mr. Edgerton replied that was the intent of the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4:0. Mr. Strucko personally thanked Ms. Joseph and Mr. Edgerton who were really instrumental in getting this to the point where they are today. He also thanked Mr. Graham and his staff for their hard work. He noted that ZTA-2009-00001 Wind Turbines would go before the Board of Supervisors on December 9, 2009 with a recommendation for approval. Return to memo file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesPCminsNov17.htm (5 of 5) [9/30/2020 6:15:11 PM] minutes Albemarle County Planning Commission October 6, 2009 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing, work session and meeting on Tuesday, October 6, 2009, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Marcia Joseph, Don Franco, Calvin Morris, Bill Edgerton, Linda Porterfield, Thomas Loach, Vice Chairman and Eric Strucko, Chairman. Julia Monteith, AICP, non-voting representative for the University of Virginia was absent. Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; Mark Graham, Director of Community Development; Scott Clark, Senior Planner; David Benish, Chief of Planning; Bill Fritz, Director of Current Development; Francis McCall, Planner; Amelia McCulley, Director of Zoning/Zoning Administrator and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney. Call to Order and Establish Quorum: Mr. Strucko called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum. Work Sessions: ZTA-2009-00001 Wind Turbines Adopt Resolution of Intent and review ordinance proposal prior to drafting an ordinance amendment for public hearing (Mark Graham) Mr. Graham presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the executive summary. (See Executive Summary) BACKGROUND: The purpose of this report is for the Planning Commission to adopt a Resolution of Intent and to review the current ordinance proposal prior to a Planning Commission public hearing scheduled for November 17, 2009. On May 6, 2009, the Board of Supervisors (Board) and Planning Commission held a joint work session to consider an ordinance proposal and provide direction on how to proceed. Staff was directed to draft an ordinance amendment, working in cooperation with Mr. Slutzky, Mr. Edgerton, and Ms. Joseph and to maintain the previously approved Community Development work program in scheduling this effort. Staff gratefully notes its appreciation for the help provided by Ms. Joseph, Mr. Edgerton, and Mr. Slutzky in preparing an ordinance proposal. Based on the direction at the joint work session and subsequent guidance by the representatives of the Planning Commission and Board, staff has revised the previous April 2009 proposal. The revised October 2009 proposal is Attachment A. Among the changes with this proposal are: ● A simplified administrative process that eliminates the need for a Special Use Permit associated with height. It was recognized that a modification of Supplemental Regulations file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesPCminsOct6.htm (1 of 7) [9/30/2020 6:15:12 PM] minutes would provide an opportunity for public vetting of any issues associated with modifying the height without the need for the complex and expensive process required for a Special Use Permit. ● Allowing small wind turbines in the Development Areas and Entrance Corridors as part of a Tier 1 use. It was recognized that the proposed setback requirement results in a much greater restriction on wind turbines than it would for other structures. That assured there is no increased impact on adjoining properties. ● Restricting the use of wind turbines within County recognized Historic Districts and Mountain Overlay. By placing this requirement in the Supplemental Regulations, this assures wind turbines in those areas would be allowed only if a waiver of the Supplemental Regulations is granted by the Planning Commission. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Advise staff of any additional changes the Planning Commission wishes to see with an ordinance presented for public hearing. 2. Adopt the Resolution of Intent provided in Attachment B Wind Turbine Outline October 7, 2009 Proposal Definitions: Small Wind Turbine - A wind energy conversion system used for the generation of power to support an allowed activity on the property. This includes all components of the system such as the tower, guy wires, wiring, rotors and turbine blades, generators, and control systems. The small wind turbine may be connected to a public utility and sell power to that utility provided the power sold is not in excess of that typically used for the primary use on that property. This definition effectively restricts small wind turbines to an accessory use of the property. For those turbines that are an accessory to a single family residence or agricultural use, no site plan is required per 18-32.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. For other uses (e.g. power for a commercial greenhouse), there would still be a site plan requirement to satisfy before a building permit for the small wind turbine could be issued. Tier I A small wind turbine located on property within any zoning district except within a County recognized Historic District or within the Mountain Contour List as defined in the County’s Comprehensive Plan. A Tier I system would be considered a “by right” use, subject to the conditions in the Supplementary Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance but administratively handled with minimal cost to applicants. These facilities are anticipated to result in very little or no impact to the community and would have minimal costs associated with County requirements. Tier II A small wind turbine that does not qualify as a Tier I, requiring the Planning Commission to waive Supplemental Conditions for the use. This would include situations such as a system within a County recognized Historic District, reduced setbacks, or height above that allowed for buildings in that zoning file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesPCminsOct6.htm (2 of 7) [9/30/2020 6:15:12 PM] minutes district. This would require the Planning Commission waiving a condition of the Supplemental Regulations. The administrative cost for such a system would be considerably higher than a Tier I. Supplemental Regulations for Small Wind Turbines Within Section 5 of the Zoning Ordinance (Supplementary Regulations), establish conditions for wind turbines. As a Supplementary Regulation, the Planning Commission may waive or modify these conditions, for a Tier II facility. This provides the simplest oversight for situations where project specific conditions may require special consideration. The following are the recommended conditions: 1. Small wind turbines are an allowed use within any zoning district, except within County recognized Historic District or the Mountain Overlay District. This makes wind turbines a “by right” use within any zoning district and allows the Planning Commission to decide if the use is appropriately sited in the overlay district where the potential for conflict is higher. 2. Require a minimum setback from property lines of the height of the structure, plus twenty feet. It is recommended this include a provision for an administrative waiver where the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Agent and County Attorney that the adjoining property owner has agreed to restrict development within that part of their property that would be within this setback distance. This allows a margin of safety for structure collapse and ice throws from turbines. 3. Prohibit collocation of personal wireless service antenna. This avoids situations where wind turbines might be constructed to circumvent wireless facility ordinance requirements rather than being primarily intended for generation of wind energy. 4. Prohibit all lighting of the wind turbine and tower. This restriction recognizes the dark skies provisions in the Comprehensive Plan. 5. Prohibit wind turbines within the Entrance within the Mountain Contour List as defined by the Comprehensive Plan. This assures oversight by the Planning Commission for visual impacts within the Entrance Corridors and mountains. Within the EC, the Planning Commission may also request input from the Architectural Review Board before considering a request. Height Restrictions Under the Supplemental Conditions for small wind turbines, add a provision for small wind turbines to meet the height limits within the underlying zoning district. Thus, the Planning Commission could modify this requirement. Unlike previous proposals, this eliminates the need for a Special Use Permit, which greatly reduces the administrative burden for the County and the cost to the applicant while still assuring there is a process where exceptions are vetted in public. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesPCminsOct6.htm (3 of 7) [9/30/2020 6:15:12 PM] minutes Administration A building permit is required prior to the County permitting construction of a small wind turbine. A site plan may be required before a building permit application is submitted per 18-32.2 of the Zoning Ordinance for those uses that are not exempted from the site plan requirements. . The following information must be provided with the building permit application. 1. A plat of the property that clearly shows the boundary lines, location of the proposed small wind turbine, and setbacks to the property line. 2. Plans that clearly show the total height of the proposed structure and satisfy all provisions of the Building Code. 3. A signed and notarized affidavit using a County form that demonstrates the small wind turbine will be used to support an allowed use of the property and assures the small wind turbine shall be removed if the supported use is ended. Tier I - A Tier I small wind turbine is a “by right” use and will typically only require a building permit. Recognizing administrative costs can be a significant deterrent to use of small wind turbines, this provision attempts to keep that cost to a minimum. Tier II - A Tier II small wind turbine shall require Planning Commission approval of a waiver or modification of the conditions in the Supplemental Regulations prior to approval of a building permit or site plan. As part of approving a waiver or modification, the Planning Commission may establish reasonable conditions to assure the ordinance intent is maintained. If the commission denies an application, it shall identify which requirements were not satisfied and inform the applicant what needs to be done to satisfy each requirement. Recognizing site specific considerations may suggest a small wind turbine should be allowed, the Planning Commission can waive or modify the requirements as related to setbacks, zoning districts and overlay districts, collocation of antenna, lighting, and height. Depending on the submission requirements, the cost of this application may be a significant deterrent to applicants constructing small wind turbines. Mr. Graham noted that this is a follow up from the joint work session of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors held earlier this year. Staff has been working with Ms. Joseph, Mr. Edgerton and Mr. Slutzky on this since then. The purpose of this review is for the Planning Commission to adopt a Resolution of Intent and to review the current ordinance proposal prior to a Planning Commission public hearing scheduled for November 17, 2009. Staff has had one question since the staff report on whether an appeal could be made on one of these modification requests. The answer is yes it could be appealed by the applicant to the Board if the modification is denied by the Planning Commission. Staff recommends approval of the resolution of intent noting that they plan to bring this back to the Planning Commission for a public hearing on November 17. If there is any other changes the Commission would like to see with this advertised ordinance staff will try to incorporate those as well. Mr. Strucko invited questions for staff. Mr. Edgerton asked on page 3 in the definition of small wind turbine if the last part of the first paragraph, file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesPCminsOct6.htm (4 of 7) [9/30/2020 6:15:12 PM] minutes “Provided that the power sold is not in excess of the typically used for the primary use of that property” was necessary. The current net metering system regulation coming down from the State actually says that. He was hoping that at some future date when Dominion Power is more inclined to be going towards renewable energy that regulation will be adjusted to allow and encourage private property owners to generate as much power as they can into the grid. Right now it is kind of a protection. So they have a regulation right now that will keep it that way regardless of whether it is a solar system or a wind system. He was wondering if they want to add that extra language in an ordinance because if the regulations in Richmond change then they would have to come back and adjust this later. He asked if there was some legal reason that has to be in there. Mr. Kamptner replied no that there was none that he was aware of. He thought that the reason for this language is to assure that the scale of the wind turbine was appropriate to the primary use. They can probably develop some other language that will accomplish the same thing. That is to just assure that the scale is consistent, but to provide the flexibility that he was referring to. Mr. Edgerton said if it was to try to keep the scale he felt the high limitation is going to do a rather dramatic job of doing that anyhow it being limited to the current height regulations in the underlying zoning district. But if they can leave that language out and achieve what they are trying to do somewhere else he would prefer to do it that way because this is so specific. Then they go back and look at last year’s electric bill and limit them to what that is. Right now the explanation he has been given on the limitation is that it is a protection for the power company, which happens to be Dominion Power in Albemarle, but the power company under law has to credit the individual for electricity that is being generated into the grid from a renewable source. He thought that this clause in the current legislation protects them from having to credit the land owner with more than what had been done before. So it is a protection clause. He was hoping that this changes. There are a number of people working on changing this legislation in the General Assembly. But if they can leave it out of our ordinance and achieve the scale or issue that everybody is worried about some other way he felt it would be a healthier way to go about it. Mr. Graham replied that Mr. Kamptner had it right. The intent was just to assure that this was not turning into a small commercial wind farm with someone putting up 30 or 40 for the purposes of making money by selling electricity. Ms. Porterfield asked if there was a limitation on how many wind turbines can be placed on a piece of property. Mr. Graham replied not as proposed. That was the important part of limiting the power that could be sold to no more than the use of that property. That was the intent so that it remains accessory to that use on the property. Ms. Porterfield asked if it would be possible that somebody would not want to sell the power but would put more on their property. Mr. Graham replied absolutely. One of the things that they were trying to recognize is that the state of the art is changing so quickly and for example one of the things that is happening is people are putting many turbines along the edges of certain buildings. They may be a foot in diameter and may have 30 or 40 wind turbines setting on the parapet of the building and that is what generates their power. The question is raised in how they regulate the number and still not impact the state of the art as it is moving forward here. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesPCminsOct6.htm (5 of 7) [9/30/2020 6:15:12 PM] minutes Mr. Morris noted that many of those he just described are not propeller driven. Mr. Graham agreed because there are egg beaters and all sorts of different shapes and sizes. Ms. Porterfield pointed out that wind turbines would be allowed in the Entrance Corridor without any review. Mr. Graham agreed that was the way it was being proposed right now. As proposed right now the wind turbines would have to meet the setback requirement as discussed. Ms. Porterfield questioned wind turbines in the Entrance Corridor not having to meet other regulations. Ms. Joseph noted that cell towers on commercial buildings and multi-family residence in the Entrance Corridor required review by the Architectural Review Board. Mr. Graham summarized the concerns as follows: · Leave the proposal for the EC District the way staff has presented it and PC can discuss it after receiving public input at the public hearing; · Need to have a provision for removal of derelict or abandoned wind turbines; · Regarding Tier II, staff needs to provide for a notification of adjacent property owners on modifications or waivers; and · Regarding ridgelines, as alluded to by Mr. Kamptner, staff will need to more clearly define what those areas are. Mr. Franco noted that he did not hear Mr. Edgerton’s proposed modification in the list to relook at the language. Mr. Edgerton agreed and noted that it was in regards to the scale issue and taking out the limitation on how much is being produced. He asked that this be encouraged. In discussion with Ms. Joseph they felt the fair way to do this would be to model it after the cell tower ordinance. But that is such an onerous thing that it could only happen with a huge commercial investment, which a private land owner that wanted to stipulate more use of renewal energy would not be able to afford to participate. That would in fact kill it. That is why they are where we are. He thought that the conversation going around amongst the Commission and the concerns expressed are certainly valid and he thought that they ought to be vetted in a public hearing. They need to hear if there are other concerns. Ms. Porterfield suggested that additional thought be given to regulations for wind turbines in the Entrance Corridor. Motion: Mr. Edgerton moved and Mr. Franco seconded for adoption of the resolution of intent for ZTA- 2009-00001 Wind Turbines. The motion passed by a vote of 7:0. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesPCminsOct6.htm (6 of 7) [9/30/2020 6:15:12 PM] minutes Mr. Strucko said that the resolution of intent for ZTA-2009-00001 Wind Turbines has passed. Staff would proceed to set the public hearing and incorporating the Commission’s and public’s comments and suggestions to the draft. RESOLUTION OF INTENT WHEREAS, wind turbines have been determined to not be accessory to primary commercial, industrial and residential uses in Albemarle County because, historically, they have not been customarily incidental to those primary uses; and WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle desires to promote renewable energy sources such as wind turbines; and WHEREAS, it is desired to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to permit wind turbines that provide energy for the primary use or uses to which they are accessory in various zoning districts under appropriate regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices, the Planning Commission hereby adopts a resolution of intent to add to and amend the appropriate sections of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to achieve the purposes described herein; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the zoning text amendment proposed by this resolution of intent, and make its recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, at the earliest possible date. * * * * * Go to next set of minutes Return to memo file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesPCminsOct6.htm (7 of 7) [9/30/2020 6:15:12 PM] minutes Albemarle County Planning Commission September 9, 2008 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting, work session and public hearing on Tuesday, September 9, 2008, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Thomas Loach, Jon Cannon, Vice Chairman; Bill Edgerton, Linda Porterfield and Calvin Morris, Chairman. Absent were Marcia Joseph and Eric Strucko. Julia Monteith, AICP, non-voting representative for the University of Virginia was absent. Other officials present were Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner; David Benish, Chief of Planning; Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner; Scott Clark, Senior Planner; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development; Mark Graham, Director of Community Development and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney. Call to Order and Establish Quorum: Mr. Morris called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum. Work Sessions: Wind Turbines (Mark Graham) Mr. Graham made a power-point presentation and summarized the executive summary. (See power-point presentation and executive summary) · The purpose of the work session is to review a proposed approach for allowing some wind turbines in the county and to seek Planning Commission guidance on the extent of regulation. Currently, wind turbines are not allowed as a use in any zoning district. Recognizing the County’s interest in promoting renewable energy sources, the Board has expressed interest in considering changes to the Zoning Ordinance that would allow wind turbines to be allowed. · The Planning Commission on May 13, 2008 advised staff that there was no interest in pursuing an ordinance amendment for large commercial wind turbines at the time. This was primarily in recognition that there were limited opportunities for commercial wind turbines in the county and those opportunities conflicted with other county values. The Planning Commission did express interest in pursuing an ordinance amendment that would allow smaller wind turbines that are accessory to other uses on a property. With respect to issues related to wind turbines, the Planning Commission recognized the limited wind speeds in the county that made it appropriate to provide flexibility with respect to constraints, but provided little additional guidance. ● Staff recommends in the executive summary that wind turbines be classified as an file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesPCminsSept9.htm (1 of 6) [9/30/2020 6:15:13 PM] minutes allowed accessory structure. That would mean that the wind turbine is only allowed on the property to support another use. For example, for the house it would be allowed to support the electric demand by that house. It would not be allowed as a stand-alone facility for commercial sale of electricity. ● Turbines would be exempt from the height requirements that are in the Zoning Ordinance. Height would be controlled by prohibition on lighting, which under FAA regulations would effectively set a maximum height. Most importantly for other things there will be a need for certain exceptions through supplementary regulations. Staff recommends supplementary regulations for wind turbines. Among those supplemental regulations there would be no lights on the towers. It sets the maximum height at 200’ or less. If it is in the Airport Corridor along certain mountain regions that height is actually reduced. There would be a minimum setback on the height of the tower plus 20’. In other words, there would be a 20’ buffer in case the tower collapsed since the tower should be captured within the property. ● Staff has also recommended no wind turbines in the Entrance Corridors. In the staff report it was noted that there was some question as to whether the Planning Commission felt that was the appropriate border or if an additional buffer was necessary. In circumstances where it looks like it may fit, the Planning Commission by the use of the supplemental regulations could modify or waive that requirement. ● With that said, staff requests comment from the Planning Commission on the questions posed in the staff report, as follows. 1. Does the recommended approach appropriately balance the interest in the County in promoting wind energy with other County values? 2. Are Supplemental Regulations an appropriate way of establishing conditions for wind turbines? 3. Should wind turbines be restricted in the Entrance Corridor as staff has recommended? 4. Should wind turbines be restricted on the mountain ridges, which is not something that staff is recommending at this point? 5. Should collocation of cell phone antennas or wireless facilities be prohibited on the wind turbine tower, which is something staff has recommended? 6. Are there other concerns that need to be addressed such as tower types and colors? ● Assuming getting through the questions, staff proposes to bring back a resolution of intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance to hopefully go on the consent agenda. At that point staff would begin drafting the ordinance language. Mr. Morris invited questions for staff. Mr. Cannon noted that Mr. Graham mentioned that there are more stringent FAA requirements for towers that are located on ridge tops. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesPCminsSept9.htm (2 of 6) [9/30/2020 6:15:13 PM] minutes Mr. Graham replied that it could be, but he was not sure how the FAA makes the determination in which ones are important or not. Staff looked at the Comp Plan and other things for guidance and that the primary concern would be with the lighting of the facility. If they could avoid the need to light the facilities they thought that they had addressed a lot of the concerns. Staff’s recommendation was to use supplemental regulations. If the Planning Commission feels that the circumstance is warranted, they could waive the lighting provision. Ms. Porterfield said when she read the two sections from other areas that proposed language for Albemarle County seemed way too loose. When information provided indicated that Albemarle County was not very windy, she felt that the logic of people using these turbines is pretty slim. A 200’ structure would be visible for a long distance. She noted that they are having enough trouble with cell towers, which approach 100’. Mr. Loach questioned how to resolve the difference between the cell tower and wind turbines. He noted that monopoles are 30’ above the trees. He asked if they would propose a balloon test. Mr. Graham noted that this goes back to the challenge of the balloon test, which costs approximately $2,000. Mr. Cilimberg noted that it was a public purpose question. Mr. Cannon suggested that there might be some middle ground. The Rockingham Ordinance had limits of 65’ or 80’, but something considerably less than 200’. Maybe it is not technically or economically feasible, but at least land owners would have the choice to put on their land something that many land owners consider a traditional option for them. Mr. Graham pointed out that the most effective area for wind turbines in this county will be along ridge lines. When one gets on the ridge line there are options. If the wind turbine can’t be put up far enough above the trees to make it efficient the alternative is either don’t build a wind turbine or cut all the trees down. Cutting the trees down would be by right. Mr. Loach noted that it would bring limited benefits to a limited amount of people. Therefore, they can’t base it on ratios. He would like to hear from any rural organizations such as Farm Bureaus that might have more experience in dealing with this. . Mr. Morris agreed with Mr. Cannon. From what he heard at the seminar at James Madison University many of the wind mills, as they know them, are down in the valley. It is like a valley that they might find if they walk down the mall that they have a tunnel of wind or a wind situation that is caused if one is in the valley. If a farmer or whoever wants to erect a wind mill/wind turbine at a certain height that is not extrusive, etc. he would like the people to at least have that legal option to pursue this with restrictions. He commended staff for bringing this subject back up again. There are a number of Commissioners that think there might be a place for wind turbines in Albemarle County. But, he did not think that it has to be on the ridge line or on the Entrance Corridor. He asked staff to also take a look at solar power, which is the question that file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesPCminsSept9.htm (3 of 6) [9/30/2020 6:15:13 PM] minutes he felt needs to be addressed. Ms. Porterfield said that if they are going to draft ordinance language for wind turbines that it really needs to have specifics in it. The Rockingham County ordinance has all kinds of specifics. She really believes that is what they have to do. There have to be reasonable heights with the ability to get a higher limit if you come in and explain why it has to be. One would need to have a minimum number of acres. One would have to be so far from neighboring properties. There has to be a sound limit because these could be quite noisy. What happens if a turbine becomes derelict? What should be done with them such as how quickly do they have to be taken down. If they don’t come down, what is the county’s alternative. They should not be able to be climbed so possibly after 12’ in height there are no ladders. She thought that was the biggest difference in what was being suggested. She was not against turbines. She remembered Mr. Edgerton’s comment that he had been watering his cattle by solar energy. She thought that they need to make sure that there are teeth in the ordinance language. Mr. Edgerton said that he was very pleased with the staff’s enthusiastic staff report. He attended the seminar at James Madison University. He came away discouraged by the economic potential. Right now if someone wanted to put up one of the smallest packages someone would be looking at about $20,000. That is what they heard pretty clearly at that seminar. So he felt that the requests were not going to overwhelm them. As far as the benefit to the community he wanted to respond to Mr. Loach’s comment. They are right on the edge of seeing a change in attitudes nationally on how energy is produced and the impacts of that production on the community. As a community they need to figure out a way to put some teeth in it to make sure that they are responsible to the neighbors. He really hoped that they could think about the impacts. The more people that are able to generate energy using the sun, wind and water the less power plants have to be built and the less impact on the global climate. He noted that Mr. Morris made some good points about the location. He would like to find a way to pursue this without it becoming too onerous. Mr. Loach asked how they are going to resolve the difference between what they have been doing for cell towers and what they are not going to be doing for wind turbines. He remembered the first cell tower arguments they had in the county where the towers were going to be 200’. They were told not to worry because they would look like a Loblolly Pine. He remembered those debates. It gets back to what Ms. Porterfield said. Mr. Morris said that it was clear that they would have to have clearly defined requirements. He invited public comment. Morgan Butler, representing the Southern Environmental Law Center, thanked staff for looking into this issue. He offered some preliminary thoughts and questions. One question concerns the prohibition that would prohibit selling back energy to make sure that they don’t actually facilitate or allow for commercial wind facilities. He wondered if there was any potential problem with how that might overlap with the state’s regulations. It is complicated. But, he understands file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesPCminsSept9.htm (4 of 6) [9/30/2020 6:15:13 PM] minutes that if one put a wind turbine on their property and generates an excess of electricity one would be able to enter into contracts with power companies and sell that power back. He wondered if the two present any problems with any inherent incapability. Secondly, he wanted to make one comment about the co-locating of wind turbines with cell towers. He thought that it is a real threat, which staff has identified, which they certainly should try to avoid. He wondered if they should go so far as not to allow a waiver in that particular situation to avoid cell tower companies to get waivers to avoid the height restrictions applied to cell towers and to take the more lenient one applied to wind turbines. In the supplemental regulations he wondered if that provision could be differentiated from the others. He felt that the 200’ seemed very high. He did not want to establish an incentive for people to go out and clear cut their property. This is one issue that should be looked into further. He noted that cell tower companies could possibly get into the business of wind turbines with the potential of putting cell antenna on it to get the more liberal height. Jeff Werner, representative for Piedmont Environmental Council, voiced concerns about wind turbines. He asked the Commission to consider the options in future work sessions. Mr. Morris closed the hearing to bring the matter back before the Planning Commission. Mr. Graham clarified that the net metering was looked at on an annual basis that there would be no net production of electricity. Part of the reason staff had included that was to recognize that they were not trying to limit the number of facilities anybody could build on their property. So by trying to define it as an accessory to the primary use they were effectively limiting the number of these things and making sure that they were not inadvertently creating a utility wind farm. Mr. Loach noted that he worried about the unintended consequences of allowing wind turbines. On one hand they are trying to minimize the requirements for experimental purposes to reduce the greenhouse effect and also what to do with cell towers. The Commission discussed the proposal and commented to the questions posed by staff, as follows. Question 1 – Is the Planning Commission comfortable with the approach outlined by staff in the executive summary? Does the recommended approach appropriately balance the interest in the County in promoting wind energy with other County values? Are Supplemental Regulations an appropriate way of establishing conditions for wind turbines? The Planning Commission was concerned that this approach is not providing enough limits on how the wind turbines could be established. The Commission suggested that staff start by obtaining feedback from Rockingham County and the Farm Bureau. They were concerned about unintended consequences and valued opinion on how people investing in such facilities think it would work. . file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesPCminsSept9.htm (5 of 6) [9/30/2020 6:15:13 PM] minutes Question 2 – Should wind turbines be allowed within the Entrance Corridor or restricted to great distances from the Entrance Corridor? The Planning Commission preferred not to have the Entrance Corridor be a natural prohibitor of wind turbines. It was suggested that wind turbines be setback a reasonable distance and not be right on the edge. Question 3 – Should wind turbines be limited within the Mountain Overlay District? The Planning Commission did not want wind turbines to be sky-lighted, which would keep them off the ridges. They did not want to encourage trees to be cut down. Question 4 – Should personal wireless antenna be allowed to collocate on wind turbines? The Planning Commission suggested allowing collocation as Tier 1 facilities as long as there are restrictions to ensure that the wind turbines otherwise are accessory to the primary use on the property. Question 5 – Are there other issues for the Planning Commission? The Planning Commission asked staff to use the Rockingham County ordinance as a framework. In summary, the Commission requested staff to obtain comment from the Farm Bureau and Rockingham County and proceed to draft a resolution of intent to bring back for review on the consent agenda. No formal action was taken. Go to next set of minutes Return to memo file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2009Files/20091209/WindTurbinesPCminsSept9.htm (6 of 6) [9/30/2020 6:15:13 PM]