HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-4-14BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
APRIL 14, 2010
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. Six Year Secondary Road Plan. To receive comments on the County’s Priority List of secondary road
improvements and the VDOT Six Year Secondary Construction Program Budget.
8. PROJECT: SP-2009-00027. Grayson Farm Airstrip (Signs #1&3). PROPOSED: Construct private 1600' grass
airstrip for single-engine airplanes. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural,
forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots). SECTION: 10.2.2 (19) Private
airport. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal,
open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre in development lots). ENTRANCE
CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: 6507 Scottsville Road (Rt. 20 South), north of Scottsville Road and Glendower
Road junction. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 12100000082H0. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville.
9. PROJECT: SP-2009-00028. Augusta Lumber (Sign #14). PROPOSED: Amend SP200100034 to include an
existing lumber storage structure and an additional .267 acres with the approved special use permit. Waiver of
Section 5.1.15(a) to reduce required setbacks has been requested. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA
Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots.
SECTION: 10.2.2(14) Sawmills, planning mills and woodyards (reference Sec. 5.1.15 and subject to performance
standards in Sec. 4.14). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect
agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/acre in development
lots). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No. LOCATION: 4303 Plank Road (Rt. 712) at the intersection of Starlight Road
(Rt. 813), North Garden. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 099000000049A0 and TMP 099000000049A3. MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT: Samuel Miller.
10. AFD-2010-00001. Batesville Agricultural and Forestal District Review: 10-03( ) – Agricultural and Forestal
Districts. Periodic review of the Batesville Agricultural and Forestal District and consider amending section 3-207,
Batesville Agricultural and Forestal District, of Division 2, Districts, of Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance,
of Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of the Albemarle County . The proposed ordinance would identify
TMPs 85-21D and 85-21D1 as being in the district (these parcels were created from parcels already in the district),
would remove the reference to TMP 85A-1 (whose land was added to TMP 85-21), would remove any parcels
from the district for which a request for withdrawal is received before the board acts on the proposed ordinance,
and would continue the district and set the next district review date deadline of April 14, 2020.
11. SDP-2009-09. Arden Place, Discussion to reconsider construction of trail from Arden Place development to the
Woodbrook Lagoon Project.
12. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
13. Adjourn to Saturday, April 24, 2010, 1:00 p.m., Jefferson Madison Regional Library.
C O N S E N T A G E N D A
FOR APPROVAL:
6.1 Approval of Minutes: February 3, 2010.
6.2 Resolution to accept Hickman Road into the State Secondary System of Highways.
FOR INFORMATION:
6.3 Copy of letter dated March 15, 2010 from Ronald L. Higgins, Chief of Zoning, to Jay M. Courage, Managing
Member, Fairway Drive LLC, re: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS – Tax Map
80, Parcel 61A (property of Fairway Drive LLC) Rivanna Magisterial District.
6.4 2009 Annual Report of the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Return to Top of Agenda
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
Return to County Home Page
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgin ia, in regular meeting on the
14th day of April 2010, adopted the following resolution:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, Hickman Road, as described on the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated
April 14, 2010, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's
Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised the Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street
Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors
requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add Hickman Road, as described on the
attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated April 14, 2010, to the secondary system of state
highways, pursuant to §33.1 -229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street
Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right -of-
way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described
on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident
Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
* * * * *
The road(s) described on Additions Form AM-4.3 is:
1) Hickman Road (State Route 1316) from the intersection of Route 1117 (State
Farm Boulevard) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk
of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1485, page 406, with a 60-foot
right-of-way width, for a length of 0.30 miles.
Total Mileage – .30
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
TO: Members, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
FROM: Amelia G. McCulley, Zoning Administrator
DATE: April 6, 2010
RE: 2009 Annual Report of the Board of Zoning Appeals
Please find the attached 2009 annual report of the Board of Zoning Appeals.
State Code Section 15.2-2308 requires the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) to keep a full public record of its proceedings
and to submit a report of its activities to the governing body. The full 2009 annual report is attached for your information.
The Board of Zoning Appeals hears variances from the Zoning Ordinance, special use permits for certain sign types, and
appeals from decisions of the Zoning Administrator or her designee. These appeals can include determinations of zoning
violation.
The number of appeals in 2009 increased by 4, from 7 received in 2008 to 11 in 2009. Three were affirmed, two were
withdrawn, one was moot, one was dismissed as untimely, and two were deferred by the Board. There are four appeals
still pending by applicants’ request (including one from 2007 and one from 2008).
The number of variances in 2009 decreased by 2, from 11 in 2008 to 9 in 2009. Of the nine, three were approved, three
were denied, one was deferred indefinitely, and one was void. One variance is still pending.
The number of special use permits for off-site signs decreased by 1, from 3 in 2008 to 2 in 2009. Both applications from
2009 were approved, but one is still pending from 2008.
The following Circuit Court cases are still pending as of December 31, 2009:
1. Paul Begin, et al. v. Board of Zoning Appeals and Planned Parenthood : Appeal of use determination.
2. Scott W. and Caroline F. Watkins v. Board of Zoning Appeals: Appeal of determination of zoning violation.
3. Ellen Hawkins v Board of Zoning Appeals: Appeal of determination of zoning violation.
4. Rickey Lee Baumgardner, Donna G. Baumgardner and Crown Motorcar Company, LLC v Board of Zoning
Appeals: Appeal of determination of zoning violation.
5. T.E. Wood and Mahmood Pashazadeh v Board of Zoning Appeals: Appeal of determination of zoning violation.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
2009 ANNUAL REPORT
I. INTRODUCTION
The Code of Virginia states that the Board of Zoning Appeals shall submit a report of its activities to the governing body at
least once each year {Sec. 15.2-2308}. This report is a brief outline of their activities.
II. PERSONNEL
The Board of Zoning Appeals consists of five members. They are appointed by the Circuit Court for a term not to exceed
five years. The Board members during the year 2009 were:
Member _____________Term Expiration
David Bass, Chairman Reappointed May 23, 2007 for a five year term – to expire May 23, 2012
Lloyd (L.F.) Wood, Vice Chairman Appointed May 23, 2008 for a two year term (to replace Mr. Bailey for the
unexpired portion of his term) – to expire May 23, 2010
Randy Rinehart, Secretary Reappointed May 23, 2006 for a five year term – to expire May 23, 2011
David Bowerman Appointed April 22, 2009 for a four year term (to replace Mr. Kennedy for the
unexpired portion of his term) – to expire May 23, 2013
M. Clifton McClure Appointed May 15, 2009 for a five year term (to replace Mr. Cogan for the
unexpired portion of his term) – to expire May 23, 2014
III. OPERATING PROCEDURES
Regular meetings of the Board are held the first Tuesday of each month starting at 2:00 p.m. Special meetings may be
called in cases of a high number of submittals when the regular schedule does not provide sufficient hearing time. These
special meetings may begin at 1:00 p.m.
The Board operates with Rules of Procedure which were adopted November 15, 2002.
IV. EXPENSES
The Board of Zoning Appeals does not have a separate budget. Compensation and mileage are included within the
budget of the Department of Community Development. Funding for Board salaries in the fiscal year 2008-2009 is
consistent with prior years and expenses were a total of $1992.56. Board members are paid $45 per meeting and are
reimbursed for mileage traveled to the meetings.
Staff to the Board includes the Director of Zoning (Zoning Administrator), Chief of Zoning (Deputy Zoning Administrator),
and the Manager of Zoning Enforcement. Support staff includes the Zoning Assistant and a Code Enforcement Officer.
V. ACTION SUMMARY
The Board of Zoning Appeals held 11 meetings in 2009. The number of submittals and actions considered by the Board
in 2009 are shown in the following tables:
Variances
Nine (9) variance applications were received in 2009. Three (3) variances were approved, three (3) were denied, one (1)
was deferred indefinitely, one (1) was void, and one (1) is still pending.
Application # Project Name Type of request Approved Denied With
Conditions
VA09-03 Joshua or Ellen
Popkin / Edwin T.
Hughes, III
Relief from Code Sec.
10.4 to complete a BLA
between two non-
conforming lots.
X (3-0)
VA09-04 Avon Court
Holdings LLC
Reduce front setback
from 50 ft. to 10 ft. to
allow construction of a
small industrial park.
X (3-0)
VA09-05 James Crews Relief from Code Sec.
30.3.10 to allow a
structure in the Flood
Hazard Overlay District
X (5-0)
VA09-06 Thomas A.
Twomey / Sallie
Bostick
Smithwick
Reduce the side yard
setback from 25 ft. to 14
ft. to allow the
construction of a 20 x 30
ft. addition.
X (5-0)
VA09-07 John or Kathleen
Gruss
Reduce front yard
setback to allow
construction of a
residence with an
accessory
building/workshop
X (5-0) X
VA09-08 Preston Stallings Reduce building setback
to allow an addition to
the existing storage
building for Blue Ridge
Builders Supply.
X (4-0) X
Deferred Indefinitely and Void
Application # Project Name Deferred Indefinitely Void
VA09-01 David Shultis X
VA09-02 Page J McGee Revocable Trust X
Pending
Application # Project Name Pending/Action
VA09-09 Mattress Discounters Pending
Appeals
Eleven (11) appeals were taken in 2009. Three (3) were affirmed, two (2) were withdrawn, one (1) was moot, one (1) was
dismissed, two (2) were deferred by the Board. There are four (4) appeals still pending by the applicants’ request.
Application # Project Name Affirmed, Modified, Reversed ZA
(Zoning Administrator)
Type
Application # Project Name Affirmed, Modified, Reversed ZA
(Zoning Administrator)
Type
AP09-05 James E. Crews Affirmed ZA (5-0):
A structure built in the floodplain
that is designed or intended for
human habitation is prohibited.
Determination of
violation
AP09-08 T.E. Wood / Mahmood
Pashazadeh
Affirmed ZA (5-0):
The business use established at
tax map 46, parcel 28A1 is not a
permitted use in the R-1
Residential District.
Determination of
violation
AP09-11 Hyland Ridge Affirmed ZA (5-0):
The crushing and processing of
stone for off-site use is not a
permitted use in the Rural Area,
R-1 Residential, or Planned
Residential Development
Districts.
Determination of
violation
Withdrawn and Deferred
Application # Project Name Withdrawn / Dismissed / Moot Deferred Definitely /
Indefinitely
AP09-01 Farm Winery
Requirements
Determination
Withdrawn
AP09-03 Classic Furniture Moot
AP09-04 James or Peggy Dettor Withdrawn
AP09-06 Spring Hill Baptist Church Dismissed as untimely
AP09-07 Redfields PRD Definitely
AP09-09 Shady Lane Family Farm
Market
Indefinitely
Pending
Application # Project Name Pending by Applicant’s Request
AP07-03 Hollymead Town Center Area B Determination of Proffer Violation
AP08-05 Neighborhood Investments - NP
LLC - North Pointe -Northwest
Residential Area
Determination of Site Plan Noncompliance with
Application Plan
AP09-02 Jeffries II LLC / Re-Store’n
Station
Determination of Special Use Permit Requirement
AP09-10 Augusta Lumber Determination of Site Plan Violation
Special Use Permits
Two (2) special use permits for off-site signs were received in 2009. One (1) application is still pending.
Application # Project Name Type of request Approved Denied With Conditions
Application # Project Name Type of request Approved Denied With Conditions
SP09-03 The Villas at
Southern Ridge
Erect a freestanding
monument sign to
serve the Villas
condominium
development and
Jerusalem Church,
Inc.
X (3-0) X
SP09-05 Charlottesville
Health and
Rehabilitation
Center
Erect a freestanding
monument sign to
serve the
Charlottesville Health
and Rehabilitation
Center
X (4-0)
Pending
Application # Project Name Pending/Action
SP08-34 Church of the Incarnation
Off-site sign
Pending
V. COURT ACTIONS
The following are pending court actions involving the Board of Zoning Appeals:
1. Paul Begin, et al. v. Board of Zoning Appeals and Planned Parenthood : Petition for writ of certiorari filed in
Albemarle County Circuit Court challenging the 2004 decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals that Planned
Parenthood's use of the property is a professional office use. The court has issued a writ of certiorari directing the
Board of Zoning Appeals to file the record of its proceedings. A trial date has not been set.
2. Scott W. and Caroline F. Watkins v. Board of Zoning Appeals: Petition for writ of certiorari filed in Albemarle
County Circuit Court challenging the 2005 decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals that the use of the property by
Watkins & Co Landscape Contracting constitutes a contractor's storage yard which is not a permitted use in the
Rural Areas District. The applicants have pursued a different location. The applicants have obtained rezoning
and final site plan approval from the County. The appeal has neither been actively pursued nor withdrawn.
3. Ellen Hawkins v Board of Zoning Appeals: Petition for writ of certiorari filed in Albemarle County Circuit Court
challenging the 2007 decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals that keeping 27 adult dogs and seven puppies,
portable cages, portable kennels, fixed kennels, bulk amounts of dog food and related material on site is not a
permitted use in the R2, Residential District. The County and the BZA have not been served with the petition.
4. Rickey Lee Baumgardner, Donna G. Baumgardner and Crown Motorcar Company, LLC v Board of Zoning
Appeals: Petition for writ of certiorari filed in Albemarle County Circuit Court challenging the decision of the Board
of Zoning Appeals that Crown Motorcar Company LLC's use of the Baumgardner property on Richmond Road for
off-site display and parking is not a permitted use in the Highway Commercial (HC) District. On December 14,
2009, the Circuit Court affirmed the BZA’s decision.
5. T.E. Wood and Mahmood Pashazadeh v Board of Zoning Appeals: Petition for writ of certiorari filed in Albemarle
County Circuit Court challenging the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals that the business use established at
tax map 46, parcel 28A1 is not a permitted use in the R-1 Residential District. The court issued a writ of certiorari
directing the Board of Zoning Appeals to file the record of its proceedings , which the BZA did on February 11,
2010. A trial date has not yet been set.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
VDOT Six Year Construction Program, Secondary System
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearing to receive comment on the County’s Priority
List of Secondary Road Improvements and the VDOT Six
Year Secondary Construction Program Budget
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Graham, Cilimberg, and
Benish
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 14, 2010
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
This public hearing is to receive input on the County’s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements (Attachment A)
and the proposed VDOT Six Year Secondary Road Construction Program Budget (Attachment B). The County’s
Priority List establishes the priorities for road improvements for roads in the State’s Secondary Road system (roads
with a route number of 600 or higher). The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Six Year Secondary
Construction Program is based on the County’s Priority List and is reflective of available State road funding allocated
to the County. The County’s Priority List and the VDOT Construction Program Budget are typically reviewed
annually.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 3: Develop Policies and Infrastructure Improvements to Address the County’s Growing Needs.
DISCUSSION:
Two documents are before you for review and action, the County’s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements and
VDOT Six Year Secondary Road Construction Program Budget. Each is discussed below.
County’s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements – There are three (3) changes proposed to this year’s
Priority List:
1) Brown’s Gap Turnpike/Headquarters Lane (Routes 629 and 624) has been added to the “Rural Rustic
Road” paving list (Attachment A, page 3). This is a public request to pave this approximately .5 mile
section of road. The annual average traffic count on this road is 50 trips. While this dead-end road
provides access primarily to properties located along the road, it also provides an informal access (no
signage, no parking) to the Shenandoah National Park. Based on a preliminary assessment by VDOT
staff, the road is eligible for paving under the rural rustic road standards. The combination of the road’s
traffic volume, existing condition and location, along with the fact that it is a new request, lead to a low
priority ranking on the County’s Priority List. It should be noted that there are no State unpaved roads
funds being allocated to the County (or Statewide), so there are no new unpaved road projects
scheduled in the VDOT Six Year Secondary Road Construction Program Budget.
2) Removal of the Hatton Ferry from the “Strategic Priorities” list (Attachment A, Page 1) based on
VDOT’s elimination of the ferry service and the discontinuance of maintenance of that portion of State
Route 625 in Albemarle and Buckingham Counties.
3) Two bridge improvements (over the N. Fork Rivanna River and over Jacobs Run) that were part of the
Dickerson Road (Rt. 606) paving project have been added to the list of bridge projects. This is an
update that reflects a prior Board action to remove the Dickerson Road paving project from the VDOT
Six Year Construction Program. These bridge improvements had been listed as part of the Dickerson
Road paving project on the County’s priority list and had not been previously noted on the Bridge
Priorities page (Attachment A, Page 2).
Six Year Secondary Road Construction Program Budget – Due to the significant reduction in state funding over the
next six years, there are no new projects proposed to be added to the Program Budget. The total projected funding per
year for the six years of the Program is $324,624. In the proposed Six Year Program, the total allocations for FY11 and
AGENDA TITLE: VDOT Six Year Construction Program, Secondary System
April 14, 2010
Page 2
FY12, along with previous existing allocations of State funds to the “Countywide Projects” cost center, are being used to
cover the remaining funding shortfall for the Jarman’s Gap Road project ($920,178).
For the remaining out years of the Program (FY13 to FY16) the annual funding is proposed to be allocated to the
Broomley Road bridge project (Rt. 677). This bridge is the third highest priority bridge improvement project. The two
higher priority projects, Dry Bridge (Rt. 708) and Black Cat Road (Rt. 616), are already programmed for funding utilizing
mostly Federal Bridge Funds and are scheduled for bid in 2013 and 2015, respectively. The Broomley Road bridge
project is not yet programmed for full funding. The Board transferred unused unpaved road funds to the Broomley
Road bridge project last year with a mid-year amendment to the Six Year Program (October 14, 2009) in order to
advance this project. County and VDOT staff are recommending that the remaining out year funding be applied to this
project consistent with the priorities established by the Board during last year’s six year program review and mid-year
update.
VDOT Revenue Sharing Program – The VDOT Revenue Sharing Program will again be available this year and
would be a source for additional funding that could support transportation/road improvement projects. The Revenue
Sharing Program will match, dollar-for-dollar up to $1.0 million, a locality’s contribution toward funding of transportation
projects. The County’s application would achieve a higher ranking for funding in the Program (“Tier 2”) if the county’s
contribution is greater than dollar-for-dollar match. The County has traditionally participated in this Program, resulting
in as much as $2.5 million in additional funds provided toward transportation projects ($1.0 million Revenue Sharing
funds, $1.5 County match). Should the Board choose to pursue Revenue Sharing Program funds this year, staff would
recommend requesting funding to cover the shortfall in the Jarman’s Gap Road project ($500,000 County match,
$421,000 Revenue Sharing funds). If awarded, this amount of secondary road construction funds allocated in FY
2010-11 and FY2011-12 could be moved from Jarman’s Gap Road to the Broomley Road bridge project, further
advancing the funding and ultimate construction of that project.
A decision on whether the County will apply for Revenue Sharing funding is NOT needed at this time or with the
Board’s action on the Six Year Secondary Construction Program Budget. The deadline for submitting an application
for Revenue Sharing Funds is June 18, 2010.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The Six Year Secondary Road process establishes the County’s priorities for the expenditure of State/VDOT
secondary road construction funds and does not impact County funding. Should the County also decide to participate
in the Revenue Sharing Program the County’s match would be funded from existing appropriations in the CIP’s
“Transportation-Revenue Sharing Supplement” cost center (41020).
RECOMMENDATIONS:
After the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board approve the County’s Priority List of Secondary Road
Improvements (Attachment A) and authorize the County Executive to sign the VDOT Secondary System Construction
Program Budget for Albemarle County consistent with the County’s Priority List (Attachment B).
Staff also recommends that the County continue to participate in the VDOT Revenue Sharing Program and will bring
back additional information for the Board to consider in order to move forward with an application prior to the June
deadline.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Albemarle County Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements
B – VDOT Six Year Secondary Road Construction Program
Return to regular agenda
DRAFT STRATEGIC PRIORITIES FOR ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTSProposed April 2010 Strategic Priorities (Projects 1-22)VDOT's Secondary Plan County's Proposed RankingRoute Number and NameLocation From - ToEstimated Advertisement DateEstimated CostDescription/CommentsJustification for project/Source of Request Year Project was placed on Priority ListMost Current Traffic County and year of Count Y0County wideCounty widevaries County services/improvements: signs,pipe,plant mix projects, raised median, crosswalks, restripe, lighting, etc safety, maintain function/staff, public req.Y0County wideTraffic mgmt. Programvaries Designated for traffic calming projects through out the County that meet requirements and sidewalk improvements.Safety/Public Request, studies-plansY1Meadow Creek PkwyMelbourne Rd to Rio Rdunder constr.$30,162,877 Two lane design approved by County and Comm. Transport. Bd., includes bridge over CSX RRCapacity/ CHART20,000-2006Y2691 Jarmans Gap RoadRt 240 to Gray Rock Jan-11$16,026,149 Curb &Gutter, sidewalk/crosswalk/bikelanes, turn lane improvementsCapacity,safety/Land Use Plan2,700-2006 anticpates 4,500 in future)Y3656 Georgetown RoadRt 654 to Rt 743Feb-11$3,001,450 Curb &Gutter, sidewalk/crosswalk, improvements to certain turn lanesCapacity,safety/G'town Rd Plan, Public17,000-20074649 Proffit RoadRt 29 to 1.6 miles eastimprove alignment, urban x-section with bikelanes/sidewalk and multi-use pathCapacity, safety/Land Use Plan 6,800-20075781 Sunset AvenueFontaine/Sunset ConnectorImprovements to Fontaine Ave. and Fontaine/Sunset Ave. Connector Area B Study,Capacity/ LU Plan20074,600-20066Berkmar Dr Ext. Bridge End of Berkmar Dr to HTCNew parallel road in the Rt. 29 Corridor UnJAM 2025200623,5007631 Old Lynchburg Rd1.35 MI. S. I-64 to Rt 708Spot improvements at various locations to serve development in Southern DA/County Capacity/Land Use Plan2,300-2007Y8Bridge Improvement ProjectsVarious locations (See Att. A) Improve/replace low sufficiency rated bridges based on County and VDOT priorityvaries9726 James River RoadRt 795 to Rt 1302Spot improvement to improve sight distanceSafety/Scottsville1,900-200610Hillsdale DriveGreenbrier Dr. to Seminole Sq.New connector between Greenbrier Dr. and Hydraulic Rd; constructed with urban system fundsCapacity/Hillsdale Drive Extension Study11601 Old Ivy RoadIvy Rd to 250/29 BypWiden, improve alignment , coordinate with UVA Gateway project Capacity/Land Use Plan6,900-200712Southern ParkwayAvon St to Fifth StExtend to 5th St., with pedestrian/bike facility, and Neighborhood street design/speedCapacity/Southern City Study15,000-200413795 Blenheim RoadIntersection of Rt 790Intersection improvement. Safety/Scottsville Request670-200714Eastern AvenueRt 240 to Rt 250Interconnect future neighborhood streets, includes RR underpass and bridge over Lickinghole Crk Capacity/Crozet Master Plan4,100-2003
DRAFT STRATEGIC PRIORITIES FOR ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTSProposed April 2010 VDOT's Secondary Plan County's Proposed RankingRoute Number and NameLocation From - ToEstimated Advertisement DateEstimated CostDescription/CommentsJustification for project/Source of Request Year Project was placed on Priority ListMost Current Traffic County and year of Count 15631 Rio RoadRio Rd @ Pen Park LnImprove substandard intersection (may be funded in part with City/private developer funds) Safety/City26,000-200716643 Polo Grounds RoadRt 29 to Rt 649Improvement alignment, spot improvements. Safety/Public Request1,300-200617Main Street Crozet Ave to Eastern AveNew road as recommended in the Crozet Master Plan, to be built with development of siteCapacity/Crozet Master Plan20033,600-2003*18743 Hydraulic RoadIntersection with Rt 29 (29H250)Improvements recommended from 29H250 Phase 2 Study Capacity,safety/29H250 Study200318,000-200719866 Greenbrier DriveIntersection with Rt 29 (29H250)Improvements recommended from 29H250 Phase 2 Study Capacity,safety/29H250 Study20038,200-200620Eastern ConnectorRt 250 to Rt 29Initial study of new road concept completed. Further study of alignment on holdCapacity/CHART200621702 Reservoir RoadFontaine Ave. Ext to Dead endPaving and spot improvements, to be done as part of the reservoir reconstruction project Safety/Public Request20032,000-200622Dickerson RoadN. of Rt 805 to just S. of Rt 1030Paving of unpaved road segments--no state unpaved road funds available for the foreseeable futureUnJam 2030; DA location; Rt 29 alternate route2008200- 2003
DRAFT ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS FOR BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTSProposed April 2010[Some projects may not be completed as prioritized due to project complexity and/or available funding]Bridge Priorities - In Priority OrderVDOT's Secondary PlanRoute Number, Road NameLocation From-ToSufficiency Rating**Traffic CountDescription/CommentsEstimated cost/funding sourceYRoute 743, Advance MillNorth Fork Rivanna Riverclosed969under construction $3,715,368 / federal bridge fundsYRoute 708, Dry Bridge RoadBuckingham Branch Railroad261128suff rating, high traffic count -- EAD 2013$2,736,912 / federal bridge funds Y*Route 616, Black Cat RoadBuckingham Branch 54.41479suff rating, high traffic count -- EAD 2015federal bridge fundsYRoute 677, Old Ballard RoadBuckingham Branch 42.21267suff rating, high traffic count -- EAD 2017$4,499,373 / federal bridge and secondary fundsRoute 637, Dick Woods RoadIvy Creek36.11251suff rating, high traffic countRoute 795, Presidents RoadHardware River19.4147low sufficiency ratingRoute 745, Wheeler RoadNorfolk Southern Railroad20.987low sufficiency ratingRoute 641, Frays Mills RoadMarsh Run49.6391low sufficiency ratingRoute 649, Proffit RoadNorfolk Southern Railroad35.25094upgraded in Summer 2007, has high traffic countRoute 606, Dickerson Road Jacobs Run200low suff. Rating; in Devel. Area; parallel road to Rt. 29 Route 606, Dickerson Road North Fortk of Rivanna River200low suff. Rating; in Devel. Area; parallel road to Rt. 29 NOTE: Bold Italics are proposed changes.Programmed into future allocations of federal bridge funds in Culpeper District.**Sufficiency Rating is utilitzed by VDOT to rate bridge structure.
DRAFT ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS FOR PAVING PROJECTSProposed April 2010[Some projects may not be completed as prioritized due to project complexity and/or available funding]POTENTIAL ROAD PAVING PROJECTSRURAL RUSTIC ROAD PAVING PROJECTS IN PRIORITY ORDER (HIGH TO LOW) VDOT makes the determination on whether a road is eligible for RRR paving. All projects are placed on the regular paving list until the determination is made by VDOT. Route Number, Road Name,County PriorityLocation From - ToFunding StatusEstimated Cost Regular/RRRMost Current Traffic County and Year of Count Description/CommentsYear Project placed on Priority ListEstimated Advertisement Date762 Rose Hill Church LnRt 732 to Dead EndNot Funded$97,596 120-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date704 Fortune LaneRt 715 to Dead EndNot Funded$142,443 130-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date672 Blufton RoadRt 810 to Dead endNot Funded$92,017 170-2006School Request in 20072003no date608 Happy Creek RoadRoute 645 to Route 646Not Funded$108,333 140-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date662 Bleak House RoadRt 660 to Rt 665Not Funded320-2003Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date774 Bear Creek RoadNCL to dead endNot Funded80-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date703 Pocket LaneRt 715 to Dead endNot Funded110-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2005no date637 Dick Woods RoadRt 691 to Rt 758Not Funded110-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2005no date747 Preddy Creek RoadRt 600 to Rt 640Not Funded110-2006School request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date600 Stony Point Pass2.5 miles east to Rt. 231Not Funded80-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date769 Beam RoadRt 1484 to dead endNot Funded60-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date629/624 Browns Gap TP/Headqrters LnRt 810 to end of Rt 624Not Funded90/50-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2010no dateNOTE: Bold Italics are proposed changesStaff and VDOT will further evaluate the cost closer to construction, which may decrease or increase.
DRAFT ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS FOR PAVING PROJECTSProposed April 2010[Some projects may not be completed as prioritized due to project complexity and/or available funding]POTENTIAL ROAD PAVING PROJECTSREGULAR PAVING PROJECTS IN PRIORITY ORDER (HIGH TO LOW) VDOT makes the determination on whether a road is eligible for RRR paving. All projects are placed on the regular paving list until the determination is made by VDOT. Route Number, Road Name,County PriorityLocation From - ToFunding StatusEstimated Cost Regular/RRRMost Current Traffic County and Year of Count Description/CommentsYear Project placed on Priority ListEstimated Advertisement Date643 Rio Mills RoadRt 29 to Rt 743 Not Funded$3,218,665 650-2003Staff request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2003Dec-15784 Doctors Crossing Rt 600 to Rt 640Not Funded$1,842,855 260-2006School Request in 2007, public request as wellAug-11688 Midway RoadRt 635 to Rt 824Not Funded$213,513 300-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date689 Pounding Creek RdRt 250 to Rt 635Not Funded590-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date731 Keswick DriveRt 744 to Rt 22Not Funded310-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2005no date787 Gillums Ridge Rd.Rt 682 to Rt 708Not Funded$1,427,288 290-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date671 Wesley Chapel RdRt 609 to Rt 674Not Funded820-2006School transportation request2007no date685 Bunker Hill RoadRt 616 to Dead endNot Funded310-2003Public request. No longer qualifies for RRR due to align-ment and utility problems, will have to be reg. paving project.784 Doctors Crossing Rt 600 to Dead EndNot Funded260-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2004no date720 Harris Creek RoadRt 20 to dead endNot Funded250-2006Public request2007no date736 White Mtn RoadRt 636 to dead end Not Funded (sect. btwn Rt 635 & 636 doesn't meet VDOT requirements)230-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date731 Keswick Road .60 ME Rt 744 to Rt 744Not Funded (short road seg. btwn P.O & K.C.C.-may be eligible for RRR) 230-2003Public request. ranking due to traffic count. Possible RRR2004no date683 Shelton Mill RoadRt 751 to dead endNot Funded230-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2007no date712 North Garden LaneRt 692 to Rt 29Not Funded220-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date712 Coles Crossing RdRt 713 to Rt 795Not Funded220-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no dateNOTE: Bold Italics are proposed changesStaff and VDOT will further evaluate the cost closer to construction, which may decrease or increase.
DRAFT ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS FOR PAVING PROJECTSProposed April 2010[Some projects may not be completed as prioritized due to project complexity and/or available funding]POTENTIAL ROAD PAVING PROJECTSREGULAR PAVING PROJECTS IN PRIORITY ORDER (HIGH TO LOW) VDOT makes the determination on whether a road is eligible for RRR paving. All projects are placed on the regular paving list until the determination is made by VDOT. Route Number, Road Name,County PriorityLocation From - ToFunding StatusEstimated Cost Regular/RRRMost Current Traffic County and Year of Count Description/CommentsYear Project placed on Priority ListEstimated Advertisement Date712 North Garden LaneRt 29 to Rt 760Not Funded220-2006This project will be paved as part Rt. 712 -btwn Rt. 713 to Rt. 795no date671 Wesley Chapel RdRt 609 to Rt 749Not Funded100-2006School transportation request2007no date829 Horseshoe Bend RdRt 601 to Dead EndNot Funded210-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2004no date645 Magnolia RdRt 608 to Orange CLNot Funded 190-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date637 Dick Woods RdRt 691 to Rt 635Not Funded180-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2006no date674 Sugar Ridge RoadRt 614 to Rt 673Not Funded180-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date761 Briery creek Road Rt 622 to County LineNot Funded160-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2005no date682 Broad Axe RoadRt 637 to to current paved sectionsNot Funded160-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date678 Decca LaneRt 676 to Rt 614Not Funded 160-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date640 Gilbert Station RoadAshleigh Way Dr to paved sectionNot Funded$1,500,000 120-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date856 Burton Lane Rt. 711 to dead endNot Funded120-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2007no date687 Shifflett Mill Road Rt.601 to Rt 810 Not Funded45-2006School Department Request 2007no date668 Fox Mountain TrailRt 601 to Rt 810 Not Funded30-2006School Department Request 2007no date605 Durrett Ridge Road Rt 743 to Swift Run (including bridge)Not Funded140-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date723 Sharon RoadRoute 6 to Route 626Not Funded130-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date633 Cove Garden Rt 29 to Rt 712Not Funded130-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2004no dateNOTE: Bold Italics are proposed changesStaff and VDOT will further evaluate the cost closer to construction, which may decrease or increase.
DRAFT ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS FOR PAVING PROJECTSProposed April 2010[Some projects may not be completed as prioritized due to project complexity and/or available funding]POTENTIAL ROAD PAVING PROJECTSREGULAR PAVING PROJECTS IN PRIORITY ORDER (HIGH TO LOW) VDOT makes the determination on whether a road is eligible for RRR paving. All projects are placed on the regular paving list until the determination is made by VDOT. Route Number, Road Name,County PriorityLocation From - ToFunding StatusEstimated Cost Regular/RRRMost Current Traffic County and Year of Count Description/CommentsYear Project placed on Priority ListEstimated Advertisement Date707 Blair Park RoadRt 691 to Dead endNot Funded130-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date698 Hungrytown Road Rt 633 to DENot Funded90-2006School transportation request2006no date813 Starlight Road Rt 712 to Dead EndNot Funded80-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2004no date600 Stony Point Pass2.5 miles west to Rt 20Not Funded80-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.no date634 Spring Valley RoadRt 633 to Rt 635Not Funded80-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2007no date637 Dick Woods RoadRt 151 to Nelson CLNot Funded70-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2007no date721 Old Dominion RdRt 6 to Rt 630Not Funded70-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2006no date776 Buck Mtn Ford LaneRt 667 to Rt 664Not Funded20-2006Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count.2004no dateNOTE: Bold Italics are proposed changesStaff and VDOT will further evaluate the cost closer to construction, which may decrease or increase.
Page 1 of 5
Secondary System
Albemarle County
BR Formula $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
MG Formula $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Formula STP $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Federal STP $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
State Funds $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Formula STP - Match $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Federal STP - Bond Match $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TeleFee $327,183 $324,624 $324,624 $324,624 $324,624 $324,624 $1,950,303
Secondary Unpaved Roads $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
STP Converted from IM $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Residue Parcel $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total $327,183 $324,624 $324,624 $324,624 $324,624 $324,624 $1,950,303
Fund FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 Total
Construction Program
Estimated Allocations
Board Approval Date:
Residency Administrator
County Administrator
Date
Date
Page 2 of 5
Rt.0743
77273
CONTRACT
BROS
0004.00
SECONDARY - ONE
HEARING DESIGN
0743002282
0.073 Mi. W of Rte. 641
0.011Mi. W. of Rte. 641
0.1
RTE 743 - BRIDGE &
APPROACHES OVER NORTH
FORK RIVANNA
PE
RW
CON
Total
$599,945
$323,000
$2,390,590
$3,313,535
1/13/2009
$3,715,368
$2,482,806
$1,232,562
($401,833)
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
($401,833)
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
15009
Rt.0656
12982
CONTRACT
STP/REVS,STPREVS
H
0003.00
SECONDARY - ONE
HEARING DESIGN
GEORGETOWN ROAD
0656002254
0.043 MI. E. ROUTE 654
(BARRACKS RD)
0.023 MI. W. ROUTE 743
(HYDRAULIC RD)
0.8
RTE 656 - SPOT IMP.,
SIDEWALK & SAFETY
FEATURES
PE
RW
CON
Total
$600,000
$706,450
$1,695,000
$3,001,450
2/8/2011
$2,858,263
$820,150
$2,038,113
$143,187
$144,014
$144,014
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
($827)
13500
SAFETY/TRAFFIC OPERS/TSM
3I012
Rt.0691
11129
CONTRACT
STP,STPRVSHS
0002.00
SECONDARY - ONE
HEARING DESIGN
JARMAN GAP ROAD
0691002258
0.911 Mi. West Rte.240
0.003 Mi. West Rte.240
0.9
RTE 691 - WIDEN & IMPROVE
ALIGNMENT
PE
RW
CON
Total
$2,150,000
$5,540,149
$8,336,000
$16,026,149
1/11/2011
$15,405,971
$3,467,200
$11,938,771
$620,178
$0
$0
$0
$324,624
$324,624
$0
$324,624
$324,624
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
($29,070)
2118
MINOR WIDENING
14005
Revised schedule and estimate
required. 2-lane Urban W/SW & Bike
Lanes
Previous Funding W/ Rev. Sharing
$7,756,607
Rt.0631
2530
CONTRACT
S
0001.00
SECONDARY - TWO
HEARING DESIGN
Meadow Creek Parkway - Rio
Road
0631002128
INTERSECTION MELBOURNE
ROAD
0.0863 MILE NORTH OF
NORFOLK SOUTHERN
RAILWAY
1.4
RTE 631 - 2 LANE ON 2 LANE
ROW; 4 LANE ON RELOCATED
RIO ROAD
PE
RW
CON
Total
$3,500,000
$10,925,180
$15,737,697
$30,162,877
10/14/2008
$31,090,522
$9,340,924
$21,749,598
($927,645)
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
($927,645)
3I0_
Rev. Sharing $9,340,924
Priority #Length Ad Date Total
Board Approval Date:2011-12 through 2015-16
Route Road Name Estimated Cost Previous Additional PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS Balance to Traffic Count
District: Culpeper SECONDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (in dollars)
County: Albemarle County
Type of Funds FROM SSYP Funding 2010-011 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Comments
Type of Project TO Other Funding
PPMS ID Project #Funding Funding complete Scope of Work
Accomplishment Description Required FHWA #
Page 3 of 5
Rt.4007
-2372
9999.99
1204007
VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN
COUNTY
COUNTYWIDE TRAFFIC
SERVICES
PE
RW
CON
Total
$0
$0
$0
$0 $816,620
$0
$816,620
($816,620)
$116,169
$116,169
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
($932,789)
0
____
TRAFFIC SERVICES INCLUDE
SECONDARY SPEED ZONES,
SPEED STUDIES, OTHER NEW
SECONDARY SIGNS
Rt.4008
-2373
9999.99
1204008
VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN
COUNTY
COUNTYWIDE RIGHT OF WAY
ENGR.
PE
RW
CON
Total
$0
$0
$0
$0 $49,345
$0
$49,345
($49,345)
$5,000
$5,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
($54,345)
0
____
USE WHEN IMPARTICAL TO OPEN
A PROJECT: ATTORNEY FEES and
ACQUISITION COST.
Rt.4009
-2374
9999.99
1204009
VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN
COUNTY
COUNTYWIDE TRAFFIC
CALMING
PE
RW
CON
Total
$0
$0
$0
$0 $106,711
$0
$106,711
($106,711)
$10,000
$10,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
($116,711)
0
____
TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES AS
DETERMINED BY RESIDENCY AND
DISTRICT TRAFFIC ENGINEER
Rt.0677
95114
CONTRACT
BROS
0006.00
Single Hearing
0677002823
Rte. 677 over Buckingham
Branch RR
0.1
Bridge Replacement Rte 677
over Buckingham Branck RR
PE
RW
CON
Total
$760,000
$620,000
$3,119,373
$4,499,373
3/15/2017
$1,708,045
$0
$1,708,045
$2,791,328
$10,000
$10,000
$0
$0
$156,250
$156,250
$0
$299,218
$299,218
$324,624
$833,178
$508,554
$324,624
$599,873
$275,249
$324,624
$1,149,284
$0
($256,475)
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
15009
Revised schedule required.
Rt.0708
77274
CONTRACT
BROS
0005.00
SECONDARY - ONE
HEARING DESIGN
0708002283
(0.09 MILE SOUTH OF ROUTE
738)
STRUCTURE #6084
0.2
RTE 708 - BRIDGE &
APPROACHES OVER CSX
RAILROAD
PE
RW
CON
Total
$461,043
$139,600
$2,233,550
$2,834,193
5/14/2013
$560,946
$379,079
$181,867
$2,273,247
$0
$1,825,543
$1,825,543
$0
$350,423
$350,423
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,825,543
$97,281
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
16009
Dry Bridge Road; Revised schedule
required.
Board Approval Date:2011-12 through 2015-16
Route Road Name Estimated Cost Previous Additional PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS Balance to Traffic Count
District: Culpeper SECONDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (in dollars)
County: Albemarle County
PPMS ID Project #Funding Funding complete Scope of Work
Type of Project TO Other Funding
Priority #Length Ad Date Total
Accomplishment Description Required FHWA #
Type of Funds FROM SSYP Funding 2010-011 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Comments
Page 4 of 5
Rt.4003
-2368
9999.99
1204003
VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN
COUNTY
COUNTYWIDE RURAL
ADDITIONS
PE
RW
CON
Total
$0
$0
$0
$0 $225,000
$0
$225,000
($225,000)
$25,000
$25,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
($250,000)
0
____
RURAL ADDITIONS - SECTION 33.1
-72.1. ROLLOVER OF FUNDS CAN
BE FOR FIVE YEARS.
Rt.4005
-2370
9999.99
1204005
VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN
COUNTY
COUNTYWIDE ENGINEERING
& SURVEY
PE
RW
CON
Total
$0
$0
$0
$0 $42,781
$0
$42,781
($42,781)
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
($42,781)
0
____
MINOR SURVEY & PRELIMINARY
ENGINEERING FOR BUDGET
ITEMS AND INCIDENTAL TYPE
WORK.
Rt.4006
-2371
9999.99
1204006
VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN
COUNTY
COUNTYWIDE FERTILIZATION
& SEEDING
PE
RW
CON
Total
$0
$0
$0
$0 $19,746
$0
$19,746
($19,746)
$5,000
$5,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
($24,746)
0
____
FERTILIZATION AND SEEDING TO
IMPROVE SLOPE STABILIZATION
ON SECONDARY SYSTEM
Rt.1427
71722
COUNTIES,
DEVELOPERS, ETC.
STP
9999.99
MIN PLAN,FED-
AID,SECONDARY
1427002S74
ROUTE 631 (RIO ROAD)
ROUTE 866 (GREENBRIER
DRIVE)
0.9
RTE 1427 - RAISED MEDIAN
XWALKS, RESTRIPE,
LIGHTING, ETC.
PE
RW
CON
Total
$765
$0
$368,468
$369,233
1/31/2009
$421,769
$387,729
$34,040
($52,536)
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
($52,536)
SAFETY/TRAFFIC OPERS/TSM
3J012
Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvement.
Rt.4002
-2367
9999.99
1204002
VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN
COUNTY
COUNTYWIDE PIPE &
ENTRANCE
PE
RW
CON
Total
$0
$0
$0
$0 $29,751
$0
$29,751
($29,751)
$12,000
$12,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
($41,751)
0
____
INSTALLATION CHARGE FOR
PIPES AT PRIVATE ENTRANCES
AND OTHER MINOR DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS.
Priority #Length Ad Date Total
Type of Project TO Other Funding
Board Approval Date:2011-12 through 2015-16
County: Albemarle County
District: Culpeper SECONDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (in dollars)
Route Road Name Estimated Cost Previous Additional PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS Balance to Traffic Count
Type of Funds FROM SSYP Funding 2010-011 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Comments
Accomplishment Description Required FHWA #
PPMS ID Project #Funding Funding complete Scope of Work
Page 5 of 5
Rt.0029
75815
NOT APPLICABLE
S
9999.99
STUDIES ONLY
(CORR, FS, IS, ETC)
0029002134
GREENBRIER ROAD
GREENE COUNTY LINE
10.0
RTE 29 - CORRIDOR AND
ACCESS MANAGEMENT
STUDY
PE
RW
CON
Total
$575,999
$0
$0
$575,999 $600,000
$300,000
$300,000
($24,001)
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
($24,001)
STUDIES ONLY
22114
PE Only
Type of Funds FROM SSYP Funding 2010-011 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Comments
Accomplishment Description Required FHWA #
Priority #Length Ad Date Total
Type of Project TO Other Funding
County: Albemarle County
District: Culpeper SECONDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (in dollars)
Board Approval Date:2011-12 through 2015-16
PPMS ID Project #Funding Funding complete Scope of Work
Route Road Name Estimated Cost Previous Additional PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS Balance to Traffic Count
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
March 31, 2010
Schmidt Family Limited Partnership
C/O Tim T. Schmidt
6507 Scottsville Rd.
Scottsville, VA 24590
RE: SP200900027 Grayson Farm Airstrip
Tax Map Parcel 121000000082H0
Dear Mr. Schmidt:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on march 16, 2010, by a vote of 7:0,
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Development of the use shall be in conformity with the Conceptual Plan entitled, “Concept
Plan,” prepared by Tim Schmidt, and submitted October 13, 2009, (hereinafter, the
“Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator.
To be in conformity with the Conceptual Plan, development shall reflect the following major
elements within the development essential to the design of the development:
location of airstrip
location of buildings and structures
shown on the Conceptual Plan.
Minor modifications to the Conceptual Plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be
made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The airstrip shall be located not less than 500 feet horizontally nor 1,000 feet longitudinally
to any existing dwelling on adjacent property.
3. No lighting of the airstrip shall be permitted.
4. The airstrip shall not be paved or graded.
5. Approval and registration with the Federal Aviation Administration, the Virginia Department
of Aviation, and the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport shall be required and must be kept
current.
6. Landings and takeoffs shall be limited to daylight hours only, and shall not be permitted
between the hours of 10:00am to 12:00pm on Sundays.
7. All maintenance, repair, and mechanical work, except that of an emergency nature, shall be
performed in an enclosed building.
8. Commercial activities and private clubs shall not be permitted on-site in conjunction with the
airstrip.
9. No fuel shall be stored on-site.
10. Aircraft usage shall be limited to a single-engine, fixed-wing aircraft.
11. The airstrip shall be limited to Visual Flight Restricted (VFR) flying.
12. No more than five (5) takeoffs and landings shall be allowed per week.
View PC staff report and attachments
View PC minutes
Return to regular agenda
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on April 14, 2010.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
Eryn Brennan
Senior Planner
Planning Division
SP 2009-27
PC March 16, 2010
Staff Report Page 1
STAFF PERSON: Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION: March 16, 2010
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD
SP2009-27 Grayson Farm Airstrip
Petition:
PROJECT: SP200900027 Grayson Farm Airstrip
PROPOSED: Construct private 1600' grass airstrip for single-engine airplanes
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots)
SECTION: 10.2.2 (19) Private airport
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal,
open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre in development lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: 6507 Scottsville Road (Rt. 20 South), north of Scottsville Road and Glendower Road junction.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 12100000082H0
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
Character of the Area:
The surrounding context is comprised of primarily large forested parcels intermixed with agricultural
land to the north, south, and east. The parcels to the west are smaller, but are also primarily
forested (Attachment A). The property is located in the Totier Creek watershed, and several parcels
of land adjacent to the north, east, and south are located in the Totier Creek Agricultural and
Forestal District and/or are under conservation easements . The parcel is also located within the
Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District and the Route 20 Entrance Corridor (Attachment B). The
property is characterized primarily by wooded area along the eas tern and southern edges of the
parcel boundary, and large open fields with hedgerows in the north and west portions of the parcel.
The main house is located approximately one -quarter of a mile east of Scottsville Road (Rt. 20
South), and several farm buildings are located approximately one-quarter of a mile southeast of the
main house.
Specifics of the Proposal:
The applicant is seeking approval of a 1600’ private grass airstrip for a single -engine airplane
(Attachment C). The airstrip is proposed to be us ed in the daytime only, with no use from 10:00 am
to 12:00 pm on Sundays, in order to avoid disruption to a church located approximately three -
quarters of a mile away (Attachment I). Use of the proposed airstrip would be limited to a maximum
of 250 take-offs and landings per year. The airstrip would be limited to Visual Flight Restricted (VFR)
flying. No significant site grading is proposed, nor any paving or additional roads. However, the
applicant would like to conduct some minor fill where necessary to even the landscape along the
proposed strip. A few trees along a fence line are proposed to be removed. The applicant will
convert a hay barn, identified on the concept plan (Attachment D), into a hangar.
The decibel level at take-off of the single-engine plane proposed to be used on the airstrip is 63.6 to
70.3 decibels. The Zoning Ordinance states that noise levels of up to only 60 decibels are allowed
by-right in the Rural Areas; however, transient sounds generated from transportation, such as
private airports are exempt from noise restrictions. The applicant has also provided a chart
demonstrating that decibel levels at property lines and structures would not exceed 55.12dB at any
time during take-off (Attachment E).
No objections have been received f rom adjacent property owners, and the applicant has submitted
SP 2009-27
PC March 16, 2010
Staff Report Page 2
letters to this effect from eight adjacent property owners (Attachment F). The applicant has also
indicated that an additional three adjacent property owners have no objection to the application . The
Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport and the Federal Aviation Administration have submitted letters
stating they have no objection to the proposed airstrip (Attachments G and H).
Planning and Zoning History:
This special use permit request is the first planning and zoning application for this property since the
adoption of the Zoning Ordinance.
Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan:
The land uses supported by the Rural Areas chapter of the Comprehensive Plan include
agriculture, forestry, and conservation. The proposed use does not directly contribute to these land
uses, but also does not negatively impact these land uses. There are no permanent improvements
proposed to the site to accommodate the proposed use; therefore, the proposed use would have
only a minimal impact on the rural character of the area. The agricultural activities and properties
under conservation easement located nearby and the adjacent A gricultural and Forestal District
would not be negatively impacted by the proposed activity with the conditions recommended by
staff. In summary, the limited scale of this proposal is such that it would not be detrimental to the
important elements that define Rural Area (agricultural/forestal resources; land
preservation/conservation; water supply resource; natural/scenic/historic/cultural resources). There
are no provisions in the Comprehensive Plan regarding private airstrips in the Rural Area.
A chart showing the history of airports, airstrips, helistops, and heliports in Albemarle County is
included below. Two special use permit applications were previously denied for reasons of adverse
ecological impacts of an airstrip and because a helistop was not an allowed use in a n area zoned
Planned Development Mixed Commercial.
SP Tax Map/Parcel Use Action Date Zoning
SP-71-103 05700-00-00-032B0 PRIVATE AIRPORT APPROVED 4/15/1971 R3
SP-74-421 08600-00-00-02500 AIRPORT-PRIVATE APPROVED 11/13/1974 R3
SP-76-095 10600-00-00-005B0 AIRPORT/PRIVATE APPROVED 1/4/1977 R4
SP-77-052 06100-00-00-13400 HELICOPTER PAD APPROVED 10/5/1977 N2
SP-85-061 11100-00-00-00500 AIRPORT/PRIVATE APPROVED 3/19/1986 R3
SP-86-033 10200-00-00-035A0 HELIPAD APPROVED 7/16/1986 R4
SP-91-028 040B0-00-00-06900 PRIVATE AIRPORT APPROVED 8/21/1991 R1
SP-92-059 08000-00-00-07000 HELIPORT APPROVED 1/13/1993 R2
SP-93-018 07800-00-00-020C0 HELISTOP DENIED 9/15/1993 N3
SP-93-31 04000-00-00-03900 AIRSTRIP DENIED 12/22/1993 R1
SP-02-038 13400-00-00-00300 HELICOPTER LANDING APPROVED 1/8/2003 RA
SP-02-39 02800-00-00-01200 AIRPORT/HELIPORT APPROVED 1/8/2003 RA
STAFF COMMENT:
Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance:
31.2.4.1: Special Use Permits provided for in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by
the Board of Supervisors that such use will no t be of substantial detriment to adjacent
property,
As required in the supplemental regulations, there is no residence within 500 feet horizontally or
1,000 feet longitudinally of the airstrip; therefore, the proposed private airstrip would not constitute a
substantial detriment to adjacent properties. Associated traffic patterns or overall activity on the site
would not change as a result of this proposal. The applicant has submitted a diagram of calculated
SP 2009-27
PC March 16, 2010
Staff Report Page 3
sound levels demonstrating that the decibel level at takeoff would never exceed the 60 decibels
allowed by-right during the day in the Rural Areas (Attachment E). Therefore, the proposed airstrip
would have no noise impact on adjacent prop erty owners. The proposed airstrip also would have
no visual impact on neighboring properties.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and
The proposed airstrip would require only minimal changes to the property, consisting mainly of
mowing a section of a hay field, which would return to a hay fi eld when it is no longer mowed. No
significant site grading is proposed, only minor fill to even the landscape, and no additional
structure to house the airplane is proposed, as the applicant would convert an existing hay barn
into a hangar. The applicant is proposing to remove a few trees where the airstrip would cross a
fence line.
that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
The purpose of the Rural Areas Zoning District is the preservation of agricultural and forestal lands
and activities; water supply protection; limited service delivery to the rural areas; and conservation
of natural, scenic, and historic resources. The proposed use does not directly promote the
purposes of the Rural Areas Zoning District; however, private airstrips are allowed by special use
permit in the Rural Areas. Given that the requested use would not have a detrimental impact on
adjacent properties or the character of the district, it is not discordant with the goals and intent of
the Rural Areas Zoning. The proposed use also would have no adverse impact on the water
supply, traffic, or natural, scenic, and historic resources in the area.
with uses permitted by right in the district,
The subject property and the surrounding adjacent properties are zoned Rural Areas. The uses
permitted by right under RA zoning directly support agriculture, forestry, and conservation of rural
land. The proposed airstrip would not adversely affect the permitted by right uses in the Rural Area
zoning district.
with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance,
The additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance address airports,
heliports, and helistops.
Staff will address each provision of Section 5.1.01 of the Zoning Ordinance as follows:
a. In review of a special use permit petition for an airport or heliport, the board of
supervisors shall be mindful of the substantial public investment in the Charlottesville -
Albemarle Airport, and shall only approve such petit ion upon a finding that:
1. Equivalent or better service is not available at the Charlottesville-Albemarle
Airport;
The applicant has indicated that the one and a half hour round-trip commute to the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport is inconvenient and that there is an approximately
five-year waiting list to lease hangar space for private planes.
2. Operation of the proposed airport or heliport will in no fashion interfere or
compete with the physical operations of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport.
The applicant has submitted an approval letter from the Charlottesville -Albemarle
Airport with his application (Attachment G).
b. No application shall be considered unless it is accompanied by five (5) copies of a
SP 2009-27
PC March 16, 2010
Staff Report Page 4
plan drawn to scale, showing the proposed location of the airport; boundary lines;
dimensions; names of owners of abutting properties; proposed layout of runways,
landing strips or areas, taxi strips, aprons, roads, parking areas, hangars, buildings and
other structures and facilities; the location and height of all buildings, structures, trees
and overhead wires falling within the airport approach zones and less than five hundred
(500) feet horizontally and one thousand (1,000) feet longitudinally from the proposed
runway; other pertinent data, such as topography and grading plan, drainage, water and
sewerage, etc. Copies of the plan shall be forwarded to the Federal Aviation
Administration and the Virginia Department of Aviation for comment and
recommendation on the following:
1. The area shall be sufficient to meet requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and Virginia Department of Aviation for the class of airport
proposed;
The Federal Aviation Administration has indicated no objection to the proposed
airstrip (Attachment H), and Condition 5, requiring approval and registration with the
Federal Aviation Administration and the Virginia Department of Aviation, and
approval from the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, has been included as a
condition of approval.
2. There are no existing flight obstructions such as towers, chimneys or other
tall structures, or natural obstructions outside the proposed airport which fall
within the airport imaginary surfaces or instrument approach zones to any of
the proposed runways or landing strips of the airport;
There are no flight obstructions within the airport imaginary surfaces or instrument
approach zones.
3. There is sufficient distance between the end of each usable landing strip
and the airport boundary to satisfy the requirements above. In c ases where
air rights or easements have been acquired from the owners of abutting
properties in which the approach zones may fall, satisfactory evidence
thereof shall be submitted with the application.
There is sufficient distance at each end of the airst rip to satisfy the above
requirements. No air rights or easements have been acquired for this application.
c. In addition to the foregoing, the following requirements shall be met:
1. No runway or heliport area shall be located nearer than five hundred (5 00)
feet horizontally or one thousand (1,000) feet longitudinally to any residential
structure on any adjoining property. No hangar or aircraft storage shall be
located nearer than five hundred (500) feet to any residential structure on an
adjoining property. Within any agricultural or residential district, commercial
activities and private clubs located on the premises with a private airport,
flight strip, or helipad, are expressly prohibited;
The applicant has submitted a map demonstrating that no structures are located
within 500 feet horizontally nor 1,000 feet longitudinally of the proposed airstrip
(Attachment I).
2. Any roof top surface or touchdown pad which will be utilized as an elevated
SP 2009-27
PC March 16, 2010
Staff Report Page 5
heliport shall be designed and erected in a manner sufficie nt to withstand the
anticipated additional stress;
Not applicable.
3. All maintenance, repair and mechanical work, except that of an emergency
nature, shall be performed in enclosed buildings;
This has been made a condition of approval.
4. All facilities shall be located and designed so that operation thereof will not
seriously affect adjacent residential areas, particularly with respect to noise
levels;
The airstrip would not negatively impact adjacent properties. The applicant has also
submitted a chart of calculated sound levels demonstrating that the noise level
would not exceed that which is allowed by-right in the Rural Areas at both property
lines and structures.
5. Except for elevated helistops, no area used by aircraft under its own power
shall be located within a distance of five hundred (500) feet of any residential
structure on any adjoining property. Elevated helistops shall be located in
accordance with the bulk regulations of the zoning district in which located;
The applicant has submitted maps showing that no structure or property line is
located within 500 feet of the proposed airstrip (Attachments I & J)
6. All areas used by aircraft under its own power shall be provided with a
reasonably dust free surface.
The area to be used by the aircraft would be a grassy field.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community are protected through the special
use permit process, which assures that the proposed uses are ap propriate in the location
requested. The Zoning Administrator, the County Engineer, and ARB staff have no objection to the
special use permit request.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. The proposed use wo uld only minimally impact the character of the site, given that no
permanent structures or improvements would be constructed.
2. There are no anticipated detrimental impacts on adjacent property resulting from the
proposed use.
Staff has identified one factor unfavorable to this application.
1. The use does not directly contribute to the goals outlined in the Rural Areas section of the
Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
SP 2009-27
PC March 16, 2010
Staff Report Page 6
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends appro val of Special Use
Permit 2009-27 Grayson Farm Airstrip with the following conditions:
1. Development of the use shall be in conformity with the Conceptual Plan entitled, “Concept
Plan,” prepared by T im Schmidt, and submitted October 13, 2009, (hereinafter, the “Conceptual
Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator.
To be in conformity with the Conceptual Plan, development shall reflect the following
major elements within the development essential to the design of the development:
location of airstrip
location of buildings and structures
as shown on the Conceptual Plan.
Minor modifications to the Conceptual Plan which do not conflict with the elements above may
be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The airstrip shall be located not less than 500 feet horizontally nor 1,000 feet longitudinally to
any existing dwelling on adjacent property.
3. No lighting of the airstrip shall be permitted.
4. The airstrip shall not be paved or graded.
5. Approval and registration with the Federal Aviation Administration and the Virginia
Department of Aviation, and approval from the Charlottesville -Albemarle Airport shall be
required.
6. Landings and takeoffs shall be limited to daylight hours onl y, and shall not be permitted
between the hours of 10:00am to 12:00pm on Sundays.
7. All maintenance, repair, and mechanical work, except that of an emergency nature, shall be
performed in an enclosed building.
8. Commercial activities and private clubs shall not be permitted on -site in conjunction with the
airstrip.
9. No fuel shall be stored on-site.
10. Aircraft usage shall be limited to a single-engine, fixed-wing aircraft.
11. The airstrip shall be limited to Visual Flight Restricted (VFR) flying.
12. No more than five (5) takeoffs and landings shall be allowed per week.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Site Context
Attachment B – Character of the Area
Attachment C – Application Letter
Attachment D – Concept Plan
Attachment E – Calculated Decibel Levels at Property Lines & Structures
Attachment F – Letter of No Objection from Adjacent Property Owners
Attachment G – Letter of No Objection from Charlottesville Albemarle Airport
Attachment H – Letter of No Objection from Federal Aviation Administration
SP 2009-27
PC March 16, 2010
Staff Report Page 7
Attachment I – Map Showing Distances to Nearest Structures
Attachment J – Map Showing Distances to Nearest Property Lines
Return to PC actions letter
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 16, 2010
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
March 16, 2010
SP-2009-00027 Grayson Farm Airstrip
PROPOSED: Construct private 1600' grass airstrip for single-engine airplanes
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots).SECTION: 10.2.2 (19) Private airport
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre in development
lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: 6507 Scottsville Road (Rt. 20 South), north of Scottsville
Road and Glendower Road junction. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 12100000082H0. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT:
Scottsville (Eryn Brennan)
Ms. Brennan presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report.
This is a special use permit to construct a private 1600’ grass airstrip for a single-engine airplane.
The airstrip is proposed to be used in the daytime only with no use from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. on
Sundays.
Use of the proposed airstrip would be limited to a maximum of 250 take -offs and landings per
year.
The airstrip would be limited to visual flight restricted flying.
Although no significant site grading, additional paving or roads are being proposed, the applicant
would like to conduct some minor infill where necessary in order to even out the landscape along
the proposed grass strip. A few trees along the fence line are proposed to be removed. The
applicant would convert an existing hay barn near the proposed airstrip into a hangar.
The applicant has submitted letters of no objection from eight adjacent property owners. The
Charlottesville Albemarle Airport and the Federal Aviation Administration have also submitted
letters stating that they have no objections to the proposed airstrip.
The surrounding context is comprised of primarily large forested parcels intermixed with
agricultural land to the north, south, and east. Several parcels of adjacent land are located in the
Totier Creek Agricultural and Forestal District and/or are under c onservation easements. The
parcel is also located in the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District and the Route 20 Entrance
Corridor. The main house is located approximately one-quarter of a mile east of Scottsville Road
and several farm buildings are located southeast of the main house.
There are no provisions in the Comprehensive Plan regarding private airstrips in the rural areas.
The land uses supported in the rural areas include agriculture, forestry and conservation. This
proposed use does not directly contribute to these land uses, but it also does not negatively
impact these land uses. There are no permanent improvements proposed to the site to
accommodate the airstrip. Therefore, the proposed use would have only a minimal impact on the
rural character of the area. Furthermore, as required in the supplemental regulations there is no
residence within 500 feet horizontally or 1,000 feet longitudinally of the airstrip. Therefore, the
proposed airstrip would not constitute a detrimental impact to adjacent properties.
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. The proposed use would only minimally impact the character of the site, given that no permanent
structures or improvements would be constructed.
2. There are no anticipated detrimental impacts on adjacent property resulting from the proposed
use.
Staff has identified one factor unfavorable to this application.
1. The use does not directly contribute to the goals outlined in the Rural Areas section of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Staff recommends approval of Special Use Permit 2009-27 Grayson Farm Airstrip subject to the
conditions as recommended in the staff report.
Mr. Loach invited questions for staff from the Commission. He asked if there were any FAA requirements
on the part of the County.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 16, 2010
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
2
Ms. Brennan replied no, that one of the conditions requires the applicant to get FAA approval, which the
applicant has already done. The applicant is also required to obtain approval from the Virginia
Department of Aviation.
Mr. Loach asked how the applicant would deal with condition 9 that said no fuel stored on site.
Ms. Brennan referred the question to the applicant.
Ms. Porterfield asked Mr. Kamptner if the special use permit approval would run for this applicant only.
Mr. Kamptner replied no, the special use permit runs with the land.
Ms. Porterfield pointed out according to the letter from the Charlottesville Airport it is a noncommercial
strip for Mr. Schmidt’s personal use only. She asked if they could condition it that way.
Mr. Kamptner replied that the Charlottesville Airport is conditioning it as part of their approval. He was not
sure what role they would have.
Ms. Brennan noted that other than that it is a condition of the County’s approval that the proposed airstrip
does not conflict with any of their air traffic patterns.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out if Mr. Schmidt no longer resided there and the new owner was not able to get
approval from the Charlottesville Albemarle Airport, then condition 5 would not be satisfied. So that
concern has already been taken care of.
Mr. Loach opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Tim Schmidt, applicant, presented a PowerPoint presentation and explained the request, as follows.
The airstrip is for his private personal use for a single-engine plane. There would be no flying
lessons or student training. It is purely for his recreational use. There would be no bad weather
flying. This is only for VFR, which is visual flight requirements, which means 3 miles of visibility
longitudinally and at least 1,000 feet of ceiling from ground to the bottom of the clouds. There
would be no flying between 10 a.m. and noon on Sundays because Christ Church is adjacent to
their property, which is out of respect for their services on Sunday mornings. There will be less
than 250 takeoffs and landings per year. That is an average number, which turns out to be less
than five per week. Since it is not paved and with a winter like this past year it would be weeks
without any flying.
The neighborhood impact is the thing of most concern. Nothing will be visible from Route 20.
There will be no structural changes on the property since the strip will go through two hay fields.
When the airstrip is no longer used it will revert back to being a hay field. No structures are being
built. The adjacent hay barn will be converted to a hangar for plane storage.
Noise is a concern to everyone in the rural areas. The highest noise level at the property line is
55.12 dB at the nearest neighbor. (As calculated per the European Aviation Safety Association)
The rating is so many decibels at 100 feet at take-off. He noted that 60 decibels is allowed
through the rural areas standard. When taking noise into consideration it needs to be noted how
long this noise will be heard, which is only at tak e off. The noise may last 10 to 20 seconds as
the plane is moving and taking off and its impact insignificant.
Environmentally, there will be no paving. There will be no significant changes to the landscaping.
Regarding safety, there will be no lights on the airstrip. The plane is small with two seats and has
low landing speeds. It will be used only for recreational use.
Mr. Loach questioned how he would deal with the condition regarding no fuel stored on site.
Mr. Schmidt replied that the plan holds 30 gallons of fuel and burns between 4.5 and 5 gallons per hour.
It is a small 100 horse power engine. There would be six hours of flying with one fill up. It would be flying
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 16, 2010
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
3
to Charlottesville or Farmville with a fill up. If he flew to Farmville he wo uld fill up with 30 gallons. By the
time he got back and landed one-half hour after fill up he would have burned 2 ½ to 3 gallons of fuel and
still have 27 gallons of fuel left. That would be how he would handle the fuel.
Mr. Loach asked if there would be other aircraft other than his landing on the property.
Mr. Schmidt replied no.
Mr. Loach invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and the matter
placed before the Planning Commission.
Motion: Mr. Zobrist moved and Mr. Franco seconded to approve SP-2009-00027, Grayson Farm AirStrip
with the conditions recommended by staff as amended for condition 5.
1. Development of the use shall be in conformity with the Conceptual Plan entitled,
“Concept Plan,” prepared by Tim Schmidt, and submitted October 13, 2009,
(hereinafter, the “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the
Zoning Administrator.
To be in conformity with the Conceptual Plan, development shall reflect the following
major elements within the development essential to the design of the development:
location of airstrip
location of buildings and structures
shown on the Conceptual Plan.
Minor modifications to the Conceptual Plan which do not conflict with the elements
above may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The airstrip shall be located not less than 500 feet horizontally nor 1,000 feet
longitudinally to any existing dwelling on adjacent property.
3. No lighting of the airstrip shall be permitted.
4. The airstrip shall not be paved or graded.
5. Approval and registration with the Federal Aviation Administration, the Virginia
Department of Aviation, and the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport shall be required and
must be kept current.
6. Landings and takeoffs shall be limited to daylight hours only, and shall not be permitted
between the hours of 10:00am to 12:00pm on Sundays.
7. All maintenance, repair, and mechanical work, except that of an emergency nature, shall
be performed in an enclosed building.
8. Commercial activities and private clubs shall not be permitted on-site in conjunction with
the airstrip.
9. No fuel shall be stored on-site.
10. Aircraft usage shall be limited to a single-engine, fixed-wing aircraft.
11. The airstrip shall be limited to Visual Flight Restricted (VFR) flying.
12. No more than five (5) takeoffs and landings shall be allowed per week.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Loach said that SP-2009-00027 Grayson Farm AirStrip would go to the Board of Supervisors on a
date to be determined with a recommendation for approval.
Return to PC actions letter
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
March 31, 2010
Chris Schooley, Nowak/Schooley Design
10 S. New St., Suite1
Staunton, Va 24401
RE: SP200900029 Augusta Lumber
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 099000000049A0 & 49A3
Dear Mr. Schooley:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 16, 2010, 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 Special Use Permit:
By a vote of 7:0, the Planning Commission approved SP-2009-00028, Augusta Lumber as recommended by
staff subject to the conditions of approval as follows.
1. Approval SP-2009-00028 is for the addition of one 3,600 square foot lumber
storage/sorting building only. Any other uses, buildings, and/or enlargement of buildings
shall require amendment of this special use permit;
2. The subject storage shed shall be located on the property in general accord with the
sketch plan entitled “Plat of Boundary Line Adjustment Tax Map 99 Parcels 49A and
49A3” dated September 25, 2008” (thereinafter the “Plat”)subject to standards within
Section 5.1.15 of the Albemarle Zoning Ordinance;
3. The subject storage shed shall be restricted to the following purposes:
a. storage of lumber
b. sorting of lumber;
4. No noise generating production equipment shall be used within the building proposed
with SP200900028, as shown in Attachment A the “Plat” (yellow) or within 100’ of the
property line of TMP 99-49A3;
5. Approval of a waiver from Section 5.1.15(a) shall be required.
Motion on Waiver of Section 5.1.15(a):
By a vote of 7:0, the Planning Commission approved a waiver from Section 5.1.15(a) to allow the two
storage/sorting buildings as shown on Attachment A, subject to the conditions of approval as recommended
by staff.
1. Compliance with Section 5.1.15 of the Zoning Ordinance except as modified or waived
below:
a. Section 5.1.15 (a) shall not apply to existing development of the property; provided that
any building or storage area currently within 100 feet of a property line shall not be
expanded or extended in the direction of the property line. Buildings and storage areas
which are in conformance with Section 5.1.15(a) shall remain in conformance with that
section;
b. Section 5.1.15 (b) shall not apply to any machinery regulated by Section 5.1.15(b) (the
machinery) or any building housing machinery currently within 600 feet of any dwelling
on other property in the area, provided that neither any machinery nor any building
housing machinery may be expanded or relocated in the direction of such dwelling.
Machinery and buildings housing machinery, which are in conformance with Section
5.1.15 (b), shall remain in conformance with that section;
c. No sawing, planning, chipping or operation of other processing machinery (except the
boiler plant and drying kiln) shall occur between 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. No
loading/unloading of wood/wood products shall occur between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m.;
d. Noise measured shall not exceed the levels allowed under Section 4.14 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
View staff report and attachments
View PC minutes
Return to regular agenda
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on April 14, 2010.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
Joan McDowell
Principal Planner
Planning Division
cc: Augusta Lumber LLC
567 N Charlotte Ave
Waynesboro Va 22980
SP200900028
PC March 16, 2010
Staff Report Page 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: P200900028 Augusta Lumber Staff: Joan McDowell, Principal Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
March 16. 2010
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
To Be Determined
Owner: Augusta Lumber, LLC Applicant: Augusta Lumber, LLC;
Shenandoah Properties, LLC; Vicente
Arroyo
Acreage: 20.639 acres Special Use Permit:
TMP: 099000000049A0
Location: 4303 Plank Road (Rt.
712) at the intersection of Starlight
Road (Rt. 813), North Garden
Existing Zoning and By-right use:
RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and
fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre
Magisterial District: Samuel Miller
Conditions: Yes
DA (Development Area):
RA (Rural Areas): X
Requested # of Dwelling Units: NA
Proposal: Amend SP200100034 to
add an existing lumber storage
structure and an additional .267 acres
to the approved special use permit.
Waiver of Section 5.1.15(a) to reduce
required setbacks has been requested.
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural
Areas - preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and
scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre)
Character of Property: Property contains
existing lumber yard / sawmill
Use of Surrounding Properties:
Residential, agricultural and forest patches
Factors Favorable:
1. The lumber storage building would be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
goal to support forestal uses within the
Rural Area.
2. No production activities would be
contained within the storage/sorting
building; therefore, noise generating uses
would not result from this application.
Factor Unfavorable:
1. There are potential negative impacts that
could result from this use in the RA;
however, conditions of approval are
included to mitigate or prohibit these
impacts.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this Special Use Permit with
conditions.
SP200900028
PC March 16, 2010
Staff Report Page 2
STAFF PERSON: Joan McDowell, Principal Planner Rural Areas
PLANNING COMMISSION: March 16, 2010
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD
SP 200900028 Augusta Lumber
Petition:
PROJECT: SP200000028 Augusta Lumber
PROPOSED: Amend SP200100034 to include an existing lumber storage
structure and an additional .267 acres with the approved special use permit.
Waiver of Section 5.1.15(a) to reduce required setbacks has been requested.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural,
forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development
lots
SECTION: 10.2.2(14) Sawmills, planing mills and woodyards (reference
Sec. 5.1.15 and subject to performance standards in Sec. 4.14).
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve
and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic
resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre in development lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: 4303 Plank Road (Rt. 712) at the intersection of Starlight Road
(Rt. 813), North Garden
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 099000000049A0 and app. .296 acre portion of TMP
099000000049A3
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller
Character of the Area: The area is a mixture of residential, pastures, farms
and forest patches. The property is located approximately 1.5 miles east of
the Crossroads village at the intersection of Route 29 and Plank Road.
Jumping Branch, on the east side of the property feeds into the South Fork of
the Hardware River.
Specifics of the Proposal: As the application requests are complex, a color
coded survey of the site has been included (Attachment A) to help illustrate
these requests. The narrative below includes the color code (shown
parenthesis and italics) for each element discussed.
Augusta Lumber has requested approval of a special use permit that would
allow an additional 3,600 square foot lumber storage/sorting building
(yellow) that was constructed in violation of SP 2001-34. Also, the building
was constructed on the adjacent property (TMP 99-49A3) in error.
A boundary line adjustment application (SUB200800236) to adjust the
boundary between the Augusta Lumber and an adjacent property (purple –
proposed property line / green – existing property line) has also been
submitted. Approval of the boundary line adjustment would allow the
SP200900028
PC March 16, 2010
Staff Report Page 3
building (yellow) to be located on the Augusta Lumber property (TMP 99-
49A). SUB200800236 has been deferred until the special use permit process
has been completed, as it cannot be processed without the approval of
SP200900028.
Waiver: A waiver from Section 5.1.15(a) for the zoning ordinance
requirement of a 100 foot setback for a sawmill structure, including a
structure for storage, from any lot line, has also been requested by the
applicant (blue – 100’ setback line). The building requested by
SP200900028 (yellow) would be approximately 25 feet from the property
line proposed by SUB200800236 (purple – proposed property line).
The building approved by SP 2001-34 (orange) was inadvertently
constructed in the 100 foot setback (blue) required by Section 5.1.15(a). The
proposed application to relocate the property line (SUB200800236) (purple)
would not prevent encroachment into the required setback; therefore, the
applicant has also requested that the waiver include this building (orange).
Planning and Zoning History: County records indicate that a lumber
company was established in this location in the 1950s. Prior to the initial
special use permit application in 1982, the property was developed with a
lumber storage yard, a mill building and an office.
SP 82-09: Special use permit approved for a permanent sawmill and lumber yard:
drying kiln and boiler plant, subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with Section 5.1.15 of the Zoning Ordinance except as
modified or waived below:
a. Section 5.1.15 (a) shall not apply to existing development of the
property; provided that any building or storage area currently within
100 feet of a property line shall not be expanded or extended in the
direction of the property line. Buildings and storage areas which are
in conformance with Section 5.1.15(a) shall remain in conformance
with that section;
b. Section 5.1.15 (b) shall not apply to existing development of the
property provided that any machinery or building housing such
machinery currently within 600 feet to any dwelling on other
property in the area shall not be expanded or relocated in the
direction of such dwelling. Machinery and buildings housing
machinery, which are in conformance with Section 5.1.15 (b), shall
remain in conformance with that section;
c. No sawing, planning, chipping or operation of other processing
machinery (except the boiler plant and drying kiln) shall occur
between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. No loading/unloading of
wood/wood products shall occur between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m.;
SP200900028
PC March 16, 2010
Staff Report Page 4
d. Noise measured at the closest dwelling shall not exceed current
levels. The applicant shall submit a certified engineer’s report to the
County Engineer which shall specify current noise levels during
normal operation of the milling plant.
2. Compliance with Fire Official recommendations, dated March 30, 1982;
3. Approval is for addition of drying kiln and boiler plant only. Any other
additional uses such as the proposed cut-up plant and planer shed shall
require amendment of this petition;
4. Compliance with State Air Pollution Control Board and Environmental
Protections standards for wood-fired boiler;
5. Dedication of twenty-five (25) feet from the centerline of Route 712;
6. These conditions shall be met prior to issuance of a building permit for
the drying kiln or boiler plant.
SP 90-61: Amendment to SP 82-09 to amend condition 1.c. (above) regarding the
regulation of noise-generating uses during certain hours. The hours requested by the
applicant were 6:00 AM to 12:00 AM (midnight), but after several neighbors
described the impact of the noise on their properties, the Board of Supervisors
approved the following modification of the requested hours:
1.c.“No sawing, planning, chipping or operation of other processing machinery
(except the boiler plant and drying kiln) shall occur between 9:00 P.M. and 6:00
A.M.”
SP 91-47: Amendment to SP 82-09 conditions of approval to allow the location of a
planer and a building to house the planer. This approval was subject to the preceding
conditions, with the addition of a limitation requiring the applicant to obtain sight
distance prior to planer location. Condition #3 of SP 82-09 was amended as follows:
“3. Approval is for addition of drying kiln, boiler plant and planer and planer building
only. Any other additional use such as the proposed cut-up plant shall require
amendment of this petition. Planer shall be located as shown on sketch dated October
1, 1991 and initialed W.D.F. (copy attached).” [As the sketch is not significant to
SP200900028, it has not been attached to the report.]
The Board also added a condition (#7) as follows:
“7. Planer shall not be located on site until clearing of vegetation to achieve
adequate sight distance has been performed.”
AP-92-07: Appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s determination of violation in
accordance with Section 34.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. The business was in violation
of the special use permit conditions regarding the hours of operation of processing
equipment. It was determined that although the business predated the zoning
ordinance, subsequent approvals of special use permits brought the business use into
compliance with the zoning ordinance; therefore, the business was no longer a
nonconforming use.
SP200900028
PC March 16, 2010
Staff Report Page 5
SP 01-34: An amendment to SP 1991-47 to construct a 100’ by 50’ building
(orange) for lumber and sorting of lumber (Attachment C) was approved subject to
the following conditions:
1. Conditions of approval for SP-1982-09, as amended by SP-1990-61 and SP-1991-
47, shall apply;
2. The subject storage shed shall be located on the property in general conformance
with the sketch plan entitled “Augusta Lumber SP 2001-34,” subject to standards
within Section 5.1.15 of the Albemarle Zoning Ordinance;
3. The subject storage shed shall be restricted to the following purposes:
a) storage of lumber
b) sorting of lumber
4. No noise generating production equipment shall be used within the subject
building.
SUB200800236: Application for a boundary line adjustment to place a building
serving Augusta Lumber that is currently encroaching into the adjacent property
(TMP 99-49A3) (yellow). The building was constructed without prior approval of an
amendment to the special use permit (SP 2001-34). Also, the storage/sorting building
approved with SP 2001-34 (orange) was constructed within the required 100’
setback. The boundary line adjustment would also adjust the property line in an area
containing the well serving TMP 99-49A3 currently located on the Augusta Lumber
property (TMP 99-49A). The boundary line adjustment would add .267 acres to the
size of the Augusta Lumber parcel. SUB2008000236 has been deferred by the
applicant until the special use permit and waiver request processes have been
completed.
ZVIO2009000191: Zoning violation for a new building serving Augusta Lumber
that was constructed on an adjacent parcel. The new building is considered an
unpermitted expansion and a violation of the approved conditions of SP 2001-34.
Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan
designates the subject property as Rural Areas emphasizing the preservation
and protection of agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and
scenic resources as land use options. The lumber company implements the
Comprehensive Plan goal to support forestal uses in the RA. The building to
store and sort lumber at an existing sawmill would be consistent with the
goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
STAFF COMMENT:
Staff addresses each provision of Section 31.6 of the Zoning Ordinance:
31.2.4.1: Special Use Permits provided for in this ordinance may be issued
upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of
substantial detriment to adjacent property,
SP200900028
PC March 16, 2010
Staff Report Page 6
The applicant has advised that the 3,600 square foot building (yellow) will be
used for storage and sorting, operations that do not require the use of noise
generating equipment. A condition of approval (Condition 4) has been
offered to ensure that future uses of the building would be restricted to
storage and sorting of lumber and that noise generating equipment would not
be used in this area. No additional traffic, noise or pollution would be
associated with this structure. No complaints pertaining to the building
(yellow) or the uses taking place within the building have been received by
the Zoning Division.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and
The additional storage building for the lumber company has not changed the
character of the district. Although it is visible from Plank Road, the building
is consistent in size and appearance with other buildings on the Augusta
Lumber property.
that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this
ordinance,
Section 18, Chapter 10 of the Zoning Ordinance outlines the purpose of
Rural Areas zoning district: “This district (hereafter referred to as RA) is
hereby created and may hereafter be established by amendment of the zoning
map for the following purposes:
-Preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities;
-Water supply protection;
-Limited service delivery to the rural areas; and
-Conservation of natural, scenic, and historic resources.
A sawmill is consistent with the purpose and intent of the district, as it
supports the local lumber industry.
with uses permitted by right in the district,
The proposed lumber storage / sorting building would not create unmitigated adverse
impacts on the district.
with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance,
The ordinance sections contained in 5.1.15 have been copied in their entirety and the
staff analysis follows each section in italics.
5.1.15 SAWMILL, TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT
Each temporary or permanent sawmill shall be subject to the following: (Added 10-3-
01)
a. No structure and no storage of lumber, logs, chips or timber shall be located closer
than one hundred (100) feet to any lot line. Trees and vegetation within the one
hundred (100) foot setback shall be maintained as a buffer to adjoining properties and
uses, provided that during the last three months of operation such trees may be
removed;
A waiver from this section has been requested and is discussed later in this report.
SP200900028
PC March 16, 2010
Staff Report Page 7
b. No saw, planer, chipper, conveyor, chute or other like machinery shall be located
closer than six hundred (600) feet to any dwelling on other property in the area;
The applicant has advised that the building is used solely for the storage and sorting
of lumber. No noise generating equipment would be used in these activities.
c. No sawing, planing, chipping or operation of other processing machinery shall
occur between 7.00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. No loading/unloading of wood/wood products
shall occur between 12:00 midnight and 7:00 a.m.;
The hours of operation would not be affected by the additional storage of materials.
d. All timbering and milling operations, including reforestation/restoration and
disposal of snags, sawdust and other debris, shall be conducted in accordance with
Title 10.1 of the Virginia Code and the regulations of the Virginia Department of
Forestry;
This regulation pertains to forestry operations at the site and is not applicable to this
application, according the spokesperson at the Virginia Department of Forestry.
e. All such operations shall be subject to the noise limitation requirements of section
4.18.
The applicant has advised that the noise associated with the storage and
sorting taking place is inside the building would not violate the noise
ordinance. A condition of approval (Condition 4) to restrict noise generating
equipment from operating in the 100’ setback has been offered.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
If approved subject to the conditions of approval, the proposed lumber
storage building would not cause adverse impacts or harm to the public
health, safety and general welfare.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. The lumber storage building would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
goal to support forestal uses within the Rural Area.
2. No production activities would be contained within the storage/sorting building;
therefore, noise generating uses would not result from this application.
Staff has identified the following factor unfavorable to this application:
There are potential negative impacts that could result from this use in the RA;
however, conditions of approval are included to mitigate or prohibit these impacts.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends
approval of SP200900028 Augusta Lumber, subject to the following
SP200900028
PC March 16, 2010
Staff Report Page 8
conditions of approval. The conditions approved with SP 82-09, as amended
by SP 90-61, SP 01-47, and SP 01-34 have been copied below and amended,
as needed. As condition number one pertains to the proposed waiver, it has
been removed as a special use permit condition and is offered as a condition
of the waiver request.
1. Compliance with Section 5.1.15 of the Zoning Ordinance except as
modified or waived below:
a. Section 5.1.15 (a) shall not apply to existing development of the property;
provided that any building or storage area currently within 100 feet of a
property line shall not be expanded or extended in the direction of the
property line. Buildings and storage areas which are in conformance with
Section 5.1.15(a) shall remain in conformance with that section;
b. Section 5.1.15 (b) shall not apply to existing development of the property
provided that any machinery or building housing such machinery
currently within 600 feet to any dwelling on other property in the area
shall not be expanded or relocated in the direction of such dwelling.
Machinery and buildings housing machinery, which are in conformance
with Section 5.1.15 (b), shall remain in conformance with that section;
c. No sawing, planning, chipping or operation of other processing
machinery (except the boiler plant and drying kiln) shall occur between
9:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M. No loading/unloading of wood/wood products
shall occur between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m.;
d. Noise measured at the closest dwelling shall not exceed current levels.
The applicant shall submit a certified engineer’s report to the County
Engineer which shall specify current noise levels during normal operation
of the milling plant.
2. Compliance with Fire Official recommendations, dated March 30, 1982;
3.1. Approval SP200900028 is for the addition of drying kiln and boiler plant
one 3,600 square foot lumber storage/sorting building only. Any other
additional uses, buildings, and/or enlargement of buildings such as the
proposed cut-up plant and planer shed shall require amendment of this
petition special use permit;
4. Compliance with State Air Pollution Control Board and Environmental
Protections standards for wood-fired boiler;
7. Dedication of twenty-five (25) feet from the centerline of Route 712;
8. These conditions shall be met prior to issuance of a building permit for
the drying kiln or boiler plant.
2. The subject storage shed shall be located on the property in general
conformance with the sketch plan entitled “Augusta Lumber SP 01-34,”
subject to standards within Section 5.1.15 of the Albemarle Zoning
Ordinance. The subject storage shed shall be located on the property in
general accord with the sketch plan entitled “Plat of Boundary Line
Adjustment Tax Map 99 Parcels 49A and 49A3” dated September 25,
SP200900028
PC March 16, 2010
Staff Report Page 9
2008” (thereinafter the “Plat”)subject to standards within Section 5.1.15 of
the Albemarle Zoning Ordinance;
5.
6.3. The subject storage shed shall be restricted to the following purposes:
a) storage of lumber
b) sorting of lumber;
7.4. No noise generating production equipment shall be used within the
subject building proposed with SP200900028, as shown in Attachment A
the “Plat” (yellow) or within 100’ of the property line of TMP 99-49A3;.
8.5. Approval of a waiver from Section 15.1.15(a) shall be required.
Waiver Request:
The applicant has requested a waiver from the following zoning ordinance section for
two existing structures:
5.1.15 SAWMILL, TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT
Each temporary or permanent sawmill shall be subject to the following:
a. No structure and no storage of lumber, logs, chips or timber shall be located closer than
one hundred (100) feet to any lot line. Trees and vegetation within the one hundred (100)
foot setback shall be maintained as a buffer to adjoining properties and uses, provided
that during the last three months of operation such trees may be removed.
Applicant’s Justification:
“The SUP Amendment will rectify an error enacted by the previous owner as a lumber
drying shed was constructed across a shared property line. The Boundary Line
Adjustment, in conjunction with the SUP Amendment will allow for all of the structures
owned by Augusta Lumber, LLC to be on property owned by that entity. The two
structures shown on the BLA plan also fall within the 100’ setback as outlined in Sec.
5.1.15a and will require a waiver to be used for their existing purpose for lumber
storage. The buildings do not face the adjacent property and do not produce an
operational nuisance for adjacent property owners.”
Staff Comment:
Two buildings, one approved with SP 01-34 (orange) and another constructed in
violation of SP 2001-34 (yellow), encroach into the 100 foot setback required by Sec.
5.1.15(a). The relocation of the property line, as proposed with SUB 200800236, would
not remedy these encroachments. The boundary line adjustment would provide a 25 foot
setback, 75 feet less than the required 100 foot setback.
Concerns regarding potential impacts a sawmill may have on adjacent neighbors,
including noise, visual, and odor would be mitigated with a 100’ setback. The location of
the closest building in relation to the property line of the nearest residence (TMP 99-
49A3) would be approximately 25 feet from the property line. The entrances to both
buildings face away from the adjacent property and any noise associated with the
buildings would be buffered by the building walls. Condition 7 has been offered to
restrict noise generating machinery in the buildings and within the 100 foot buffer area
SP200900028
PC March 16, 2010
Staff Report Page 10
adjacent to TMP 99-49A3. Assisting with the noise buffering, the rear yard of the
residential property is wooded and the property between the building and the proposed
property line is also wooded. An aerial photograph taken in 2009 showing the subject
area is included as Attachment B.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the request for a waiver from Section 5.1.15(a) for the two
storage / sorting buildings, as shown on Attachment A, subject to the following
conditions of approval:
.
1. Compliance with Section 5.1.15 of the Zoning Ordinance except as
modified or waived below:
a. Section 5.1.15 (a) shall not apply to existing development of the property;
provided that any building or storage area currently within 100 feet of a
property line shall not be expanded or extended in the direction of the
property line. Buildings and storage areas which are in conformance with
Section 5.1.15(a) shall remain in conformance with that section;
b. Section 5.1.15 (b) shall not apply to any machinery regulated by Section
5.1.15(b) (the machinery) or any building housing machinery currently
within 600 feet of any dwelling on other property in the area, provided
that neither any machinery nor any building housing machinery may be
expanded or relocated in the direction of such dwelling. Machinery and
buildings housing machinery, which are in conformance with Section
5.1.15 (b), shall remain in conformance with that section;
c. No sawing, planning, chipping or operation of other processing
machinery (except the boiler plant and drying kiln) shall occur between
9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. No loading/unloading of wood/wood products
shall occur between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m.;
d. Noise measured shall not exceed the levels allowed under Section 4.14 of
the Zoning Ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – The “Plat” of Boundary Line Adjustment Tax Map 99 Parcels
49A and 49A3 dated September 25, 2008 (color coded)
Attachment B – 2009 Aerial Photograph of SP 200900028
Attachment C – SP 2001-34 Approved Concept Plan
Return to PC actions letter
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 16, 2010
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
March 16, 2010
SP-2009-00028 Augusta Lumber
PROPOSED: Amend SP200100034 to include an existing lumber storage structure and an additional
.267 acres with the approved special use permit. Waiver of Section 5.1.15(a) to reduce required setbacks
has been requested. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal,
and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots. SECTION: 10.2.2(14) Sawmills,
planing mills and woodyards (reference Sec. 5.1.15 and subject to performance standards in Sec. 4.14).
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density ( .5 unit/ acre in development
lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No. LOCATION: 4303 Plank Road (Rt. 712) at the intersection of Starlight
Road (Rt. 813), North Garden. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 099000000049A0 and appx. .296 acre portion of
TMP 099000000049A3. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller (Joan McDowell)
Ms. McDowell presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report.
This is a special use permit for Augusta Lumber. There were several items of history contained in
the staff report. The first special use permit began in 1982 with subsequent amendments to the
special use permit. There were a couple of zoning violations. One was concerning the hours of
operation and the latest one was concerning construction of an unpermitted expansion, which is
what they are addressing with this special use permit.
The applicant is requesting to amend SP-2009-00034 to add a 3,600 square foot building that
was constructed without amending the previous special use permit. The building is used for
storage and sorting of lumber. There is a condition of approval that has been offered to ensure
that the future users of the building would be restricted to these two uses and that noise
generating equipment would not be used in this area. No additional traffic, noise or pollution
would be associated with this structure.
With a boundary line adjustment that is on hold until this process has been completed .267 acres
would be added to the Augusta Lumber property.
A waiver has been requested of Section 5.1.15.a to reduce the required setbacks. Approval of
SP-2009-00034 would bring the business into compliance and would permit the processing of the
boundary line adjustment.
An aerial photograph of the site shows that the building that they are requesting is on the
adjacent property. The building apparently was built by the owner prior to the current owner and
he owned both properties at the time. The boundary line adjustment would make an adjustment
to put the well and building on the subject property within the Augusta Lumber property boundary.
There is an issue with the setbacks, which was dealt with in the staff report.
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
o The lumber storage building would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goal to
support forestal uses within the Rural Area.
o No production activities would be contained within the storage/sorting building; therefore,
noise generating uses would not result from this application.
Staff has identified the following factor unfavorable to this application:
o There are potential negative impacts that could result from this use in the RA; however,
conditions of approval are included to mitigate or prohibit these impacts.
o Staff identified factors favorable to the application as follows:
Staff recommends approval of SP-2009-00028 Augusta Lumber subject to the recommended
conditions listed in the staff report.
Staff recommends approval of the request for a waiver from Section: 5.1.15 SAWMILL,
TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 16, 2010
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
2
o Each temporary or permanent sawmill shall be subject to the following:
o a. No structure and no storage of lumber, logs, chips or timber shall be located closer
than one hundred (100) feet to any lot line. Trees and vegetation within the one hundred
(100) foot setback shall be maintained as a buffer to adjoining properties and uses,
provided that during the last three months of operation such trees may be removed.
Applicant’s Justification:
o “The SUP Amendment will rectify an error enacted by the previous owner as a lumber
drying shed was constructed across a shared property line. The Boundary Line
Adjustment, in conjunction with the SUP Amendment will allow for all of the structures
owned by Augusta Lumber, LLC to be on property owned by that entity. The two
structures shown on the BLA plan also fall within the 100’ setback as outlined in Section
5.1.15a and will require a waiver to be used for their existing purpose for lumber storage.
The buildings do not face the adjacent property and do not produce an operational
nuisance for adjacent property owners
Mr. Loach invited questions for staff from the Commission.
Ms. Porterfield asked if the applicant was the owner when the problems occurred with the County that
was cited in the staff report.
Ms. McDowell replied that was correct since the applicant bought the property about two years ago.
Ms. Porterfield asked if everything existed as it is now for the past two years.
Ms. McDowell replied yes.
Ms. Porterfield asked if staff already has the application for the boundary line adjustments, and Ms.
McDowell replied yes that the application had been put on hold for the special use permit review.
There being no further questions for staff, Mr. Loach opened the public hearing and invited the
applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Chris Schooley, CLA with Nowak Schooley Design representing Augusta Lumber, LLC, noted that Ms.
McDowell gave a wonderful background. The Carr family owned Augusta Lumber and the adjacent
property. Clearly someone went out and built a barn that did not get the building permit that they thought
they did not need. Of course, since they owned both properties the barn ended up across the property
line. Augusta Lumber as an entire entity, which is a number of holdings, was sold to a capital holding
group out of Boston in 2006. During the due diligence period they asked the County to come out and do a
compliance check on the property. He believed that it was John Shepherd who signed the letters saying
that everything looked fine. He imagined that he looked at the other property because it feels like it is part
of everything else and it looked okay. They might have missed it on the GIS. That is neither here nor
there because the end result is, whether it was missed or not, that they still have to come back through
this process and amend the special use permit to get the boundary line adjusted. At this point this seems
to be the most logical path to get this resolved. As noted Augusta Lumber LLC was not involved when
this was built and just wanted to have it resolved and move forward.
There being no questions for the applicant, Mr. Loach invited public comment. There being no
public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter before the Commission for discussion
and action.
Motion on Special Use Permit:
Motion: Ms. Porterfield moved and Mr. Morris seconded to approve SP-2009-00028, Augusta Lumber
subject to the conditions of approval as recommended by staff.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 16, 2010
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
3
1. Approval SP-2009-00028 is for the addition of one 3,600 square foot lumber
storage/sorting building only. Any other uses, buildings, and/or enlargement of buildings
shall require amendment of this special use permit;
2. The subject storage shed shall be located on the property in general accord with the
sketch plan entitled “Plat of Boundary Line Adjustment Tax Map 99 Parcels 49A and
49A3” dated September 25, 2008” (thereinafter the “Plat”) subject to standards within
Section 5.1.15 of the Albemarle Zoning Ordinance;
3. The subject storage shed shall be restricted to the following purposes:
a) storage of lumber
b) sorting of lumber;
4. No noise generating production equipment shall be used within the building proposed
with SP200900028, as shown in Attachment A the “Plat” (yellow) or within 100’ of the
property line of TMP 99-49A3;
5. Approval of a waiver from Section 15.1.15(a) shall be required.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Motion on Waiver of Section 5.1.15(a):
Motion: Ms. Porterfield moved and Mr. Morris seconded to approve a waiver from Section 5.1.15(a) on
SP-2009-00028 Augusta Lumber for the two storage/sorting buildings as shown on Attachment A, subject
to the conditions of approval as recommended by staff.
1. Compliance with Section 5.1.15 of the Zoning Ordinance except as modified or waived
below:
a. Section 5.1.15 (a) shall not apply to existing development of the property; provided that
any building or storage area currently within 100 feet of a property line shall not be
expanded or extended in the direction of the property line. Buildings and storage are as
which are in conformance with Section 5.1.15(a) shall remain in conformance with that
section;
b. Section 5.1.15 (b) shall not apply to any machinery regulated by Section 5.1.15(b) (the
machinery) or any building housing machinery currently within 600 f eet of any dwelling
on other property in the area, provided that neither any machinery nor any building
housing machinery may be expanded or relocated in the direction of such dwelling.
Machinery and buildings housing machinery, which are in conformance w ith Section
5.1.15 (b), shall remain in conformance with that section;
c. No sawing, planning, chipping or operation of other processing machinery (except the
boiler plant and drying kiln) shall occur between 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. No
loading/unloading of wood/wood products shall occur between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m.;
d. Noise measured shall not exceed the levels allowed under Section 4.14 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Loach said that SP-2009-00028 Augusta Lumber would go to the Board of Supervisors on a date to
be determined with a recommendation for approval. The waiver from Section 5.1.15(a) was approved
and does not require Board approval.
Return to PC actions letter
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
AFD 2010-00001 Batesville AFD Review
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Public hearing on
periodic review of Batesville AF District and on ordinance
to amend County Code § 3-207, Batesville Agricultural and
Forestal District
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, and
Cilimberg
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 14, 2010
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Batesville Agricultural and Forestal District (the “District”) was created in 1990 and currently includes 34 parcels
and 1,155.338 acres. (See Attachment A) The District is located to the west of Batesville, the south of Dick Woods
Road, primarily west of Plank Road, and north of Craigs Store Road.
Virginia Code § 15.2-4311 requires the periodic review of districts to determine whether they should continue, be
modified, or be terminated unless the Board determines that review is unnecessary. As part of this process, the District
is reviewed by both the Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission for their
recommendations. County Code § 3-207 identifies the parcels composing the District and specifies when the District
must be reviewed. During the review process, land within the District may be withdrawn at the owner’s discretion by
filing a written notice with the Board any time before the Board acts on the review.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2: Protect the County’s Natural Resources
DISCUSSION:
The District primarily consists of large forested parcels and large farm parcels. Five parcels in the District, and many to
the north and west, are under conservation easements. Of the 1,155.338 acres in the District, 766.06 acres are
enrolled in the Forestry category of the land use taxation program, and 216.11 acres are enrolled in the Agricultural
category. Enrollment in these tax categories indicates active rural uses in the District. In addition to agriculture and
forestry, there are approximately 22 dwellings in the District. The conservation of this area will help maintain the
environmental integrity of the County and aid the protection of ground and surface water, agricultural soils and wildlife
habitat.
The parcels identified in the proposed ordinance as being added are merely new parcel numbers assigned to parcels
created from parcels already in the District. Tax map 85 parcels 21D and 21D1 were created from Tax map 85 parcel
21. Tax map 85A parcel 1 is identified as being removed from the district because the land in that parcel was added to
Tax map 85 parcel 21.
The Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission have each reviewed the
Batesville Agricultural and Forestal District and each recommends that the District continue for another ten year period.
As of the date this Executive Summary was written, no owner within the District has requested that land be withdrawn.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
RECOMMENDATIONS:
After conducting a public hearing, staff recommends that the Board continue the Batesville Agricultural and Forestal
District for an additional ten-year period, and that it adopt the ordinance amending County Code § 3-207 (Attachment B)
to update the parcels in the District and establishing the next review period.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Staff report to the Planning Commission
B – Ordinance amending County Code § 3-207
View PC minutes
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name:
AFD2010-00001 Batesville AF District
Review
Staff: Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
March 16, 2010
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
April 14, 2010
Proposal: Periodic review of the Batesville AF
District.
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Rural Areas
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission recommend renewal of the Batesville
Agricultural and Forestal District for a period of ten years from the date of the Board of
Supervisors action.
Petition: Review of the Batesville Agricultural and Forestal District: Periodic (10-year) review of the
Batesville Agricultural and Forestal District, as required in Section 15.2-4311 of the Code of Virginia. The
district includes the properties described as Tax map 70, parcels 40, 40A; tax map 71, parcels 23A, 23C, 24B,
24C, 24C1, 26, 26A, 26B, 26B1, 26B2, 26C, 27A, 29C, 29D, 29E, 29G, 29H, 29I; tax map 84, parcels 35A,
69; tax map 85, parcels 3, 3A (part), 4J, 17, 17B, 21, 21D, 21D1, 22B, 22C, 30D, 31. The area is designated as
Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan and the included properties are zoned RA Rural Areas.
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
2
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 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.
3
Periodic Review of Agricultural and Forestal Districts
A district may continue indefinitely, but it must be periodically reviewed by the County to determine whether
the district should be continued. The Batesville Agricultural and Forestal District has been reviewed by the
Board of Supervisors in ten year increments. 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 of Supervisors 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 of Supervisors 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.
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 of Supervisors 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 for the time period approved by the Board of Supervisors. If the Board terminates the
district, the land within the terminated district would be subject to and liable for roll-back taxes under Virginia
Code § 58.1-3237 and the lands would no longer be subject to the benefits and obligations described in the
“Effects” section above.
AFD 2010-1 BATESVILLE DISTRICT REVIEW
The Albemarle County Code currently contains this description of the Batesville District:
Sec. 3-207 Batesville Agricultural and Forestal District.
Review of the Batesville Agricultural and Forestal District: Periodic (10-year) review of the Batesville
Agricultural and Forestal District, as required in Section 15.2-4311 of the Code of Virginia. The
district includes the properties described as Tax map 70, parcels 40, 40A; tax map 71, parcels 23A,
23C, 24B, 24C, 24C1, 26, 26A, 26B, 26B1, 26B2, 2 6C, 27A, 29C, 29D, 29E, 29G, 29H, 29I; tax map
84, parcels 35A, 69; tax map 85, parcels 3, 3A (part), 4J, 17, 17B, 21, 21D, 21D1, 22B, 22C, 30D, 31.
The area is designated as Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan and the included properties are zoned
RA Rural Areas.
The Batesville Agricultural and Forestal District is located to the west of Batesville, south of Dick Woods
Road, primarily west of Plank Road, and north of Craigs Store Road (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 1990, and originally included
1,015.62 acres. The District now includes 34 parcels and 1,155.338 acres.
Agricultural and Forestal District Significance: Of the 1,155.338 acres that comprise the Batesville District,
766.06 acres are enrolled in the Forestry category of the land-use taxation program, and 216.11 acres are
enrolled in the Agricultural category.
Land Use other than Agriculture and Forestry: In addition to agricultural and forestry uses, the district
currently includes 22 dwellings.
4
Local Development Patterns: The District primarily consists of large forested parcels and large farm parcels.
Five parcels in the District, and many to the north and west, are under conservation easements (Attachment B).
The Batesville Historic District is also located east of the district.
Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Districts: The Batesville District is entirely designated as Rural
Areas in the Comprehensive Plan, and the parcels included in the District are zoned RA Rural Areas. Two
small clusters of parcels zoned Planned Residential Development abut the northern most parcels in the district
(Attachment B).
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 Batesville District is located in the Upper Mechums River
watershed (Attachment B).
Time Period: The District was created on May 2, 1990, and was last reviewed on March 19, 2000. The
Batesville District is currently on a 10-year review cycle.
Landowners may withdraw their parcels from districts by right during a renewal at anytime before the Board of
Supervisors takes final action to continue, modify, or terminate the district. Landowners were notified of the
renewal by certified mail on January 22, 2010. As of this date, no landowners have requested withdrawal.
Agricultural and Forestal Districts Advisory Committee Recommendation: On February 15, 2010, the
Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee recommended renewal of the Batesville District for a
10-year period until April 14, 2020.
Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission recommend renewal of the Batesville Agricultural and
Forestal District for a period of ten years from the date of the Board of Supervisors action.
Attachments:
A. Batesville Ag For District
B. Batesville Ag For District Characteristics
Return to exec summary
Draft: February 17, 2010
1
ORDINANCE NO. 10-03(1)
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:
By Amending:
3-207 Batesville Agricultural and Forestal District
CHAPTER 3
AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS
DIVISION 2. DISTRICTS
Sec. 3-207 Batesville Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Batesville Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following
described properties: Tax map 70, parcels 40, 40A; tax map 71, parcels 23A, 23C, 24B, 24C, 24C1, 26,
26A, 26B, 26B1, 26B2, 26C, 27A, 29C, 29D, 29E, 29G, 29H, 29I; tax map 84, parcels 35A, 69; tax map
85, parcels 3, 3A (part), 4J, 17, 17B, 21, 21D, 21D1, 22B, 22C, 30D, 31; tax map 85A, parcel 1. This
district, created on May 2, 1990 for not more than 10 years and last reviewed on April 19, 2000 April 14,
2010, shall next be reviewed prior to May 2, 2010 April 14, 2020.
(Code 1988, § 2.1-4(s); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 00-3(1), 4-19-00; Ord. 00-3(3), 9-13-00; Ord. 01-3(2),
7-11-01; Ord. 04-3(1), 3-17-04; Ord. 09-3(4), 12-2-09)
Return to exec summary
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 16, 2010
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – AFD-2010-0001 BATESVILLE AGRICULTURAL/FORESTAL DISTRICT
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
March 16, 2010
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and public hearing on Tuesday,
March 16, 2010, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor,
401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Duane Zobrist, Vice-Chairman; Ed Smith,
Thomas Loach, Chairman; Linda Porterfield, Don Franco and Calvin Morris. Julia Monteith,
AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was present.
Other officials present were Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner; Joan McDowell, Principal Planner;
Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney; Amelia
McCulley, Director of Zoning/Zoning Administrator; and Bill Fritz, Chief of Current
Development.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Loach called the regular meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. and established a quorum.
Public Hearing Items:
AFD-2010-00001 Batesville Agricultural/Forestal District
Review of the Batesville Agricultural and Forestal District: Periodic (10-year) review of the
Batesville Agricultural and Forestal District, as required in Section 15.2-4311 of the Code of
Virginia. The district includes the properties described as Tax map 70, parcels 40, 40A; tax map
71, parcels 23A, 23C, 24B, 24C, 24C1, 26, 26A, 26B, 26B1, 26B2, 26C, 27A, 29C, 29D, 29E,
29G, 29H, 29I; tax map 84, parcels 35A, 69; tax map 85, parcels 3, 3A (part), 4J, 17, 17B, 21,
21D, 21D1, 22B, 22C, 30D, 31. The area is designated as Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan
and the included properties are zoned RA Rural Areas. (Eryn Brennan)
Ms. Brennan presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the request noted below.
This is the ten year district review of the Batesville Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district is located west of Batesville and south of Dick Woods Road and north of
Craigs Store Road. The district was created in 1990 and originally included 1,015 acres.
The district now includes 34 parcels and 1,155 acres with 982 of which are in enrolled in
land use. As of this date no land owners have requested to withdraw from the district.
On February 15, 2010, the Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee
recommended renewal of the Batesville District for a 10-year period until April 14, 2020.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend renewal of the Batesville
Agricultural and Forestal District for a period of ten years from the date of the Board of
Supervisors action.
Mr. Loach opened the public hearing and invited public comment.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 16, 2010
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – AFD-2010-0001 BATESVILLE AGRICULTURAL/FORESTAL DISTRICT
2
There being none, the public hearing was closed and the matter was before the Planning
Commission for further comment and action.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded to recommend approval of AFD-2010-
00001 Batesville Agricultural/Forestal District as recommended for ten years.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Loach noted that the Batesville Agricultural/Forestal District Review will go to the Board of
Supervisors on April 6, 2010 with a recommendation for approval.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SDP-2009-09 Arden Place
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Discussion to reconsider construction of a trail from the
Arden Place development to the Woodbrook Lagoon
Project
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Graham, and Fritz
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 14, 2010
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On November 4, 2009 the Board of Supervisors granted a density increase in return for the dedication of open space
and the construction and maintenance of a path running from Rio Road, to the Gardens Shopping Center (Carmike)
and ending at land owned by the County which is the site of the Woodbrook Lagoon. This path would also connect to
the Arden Place development and then by the Arden Place path system to other residential development in the area.
The Planning Commission had recommended to the Board of Supervisors that the path be only five (5) feet wide and
end at the Gardens Shopping Center (Carmike) with no connection to the Woodbrook Lagoon. The Board of
Supervisors required that the path be eight (8) feet wide and extend to the Woodbrook Lagoon.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 1: Enhance Quality of Life for all Citizens; Goal 2: Protect the County’s Natural Resources
DISCUSSION:
The proposed open space with a path helps achieve several Comprehensive Plan goals. Pedestrian paths are
important features in designated development areas because of their ability to create pedestrian orientation and
interconnections (goals from the Neighborhood Model) and an alternate transportation option (Land Use Plan). The
approved open space with a path will provide a pedestrian connection between the approved but unconstructed
apartment complex and public facilities. The path also will provide the opportunity for pedestrians to walk to the
Carmike movie theater and the Albemarle Square shopping center and Rio Road. Pedestrian access to the
mentioned public amenities will provide an alternative to automobile transportation. The pedestrian path will be built to
ADA standards, will be eight (8) feet in width, and will meet the County’s standards established in the Design
Standards Manual. The 8-foot width is the width recommended for mixed pedestrian and bicycle use. The
owner/applicant of the apartment complex has agreed to maintain the path and the open space.
Staff has visited the site and notes that a system of informal paths already exists on the property. This path system
links the site to the Woodbrook Lagoon area, the Gardens Shopping Center (Carmike) and the Woodbrook
subdivision. If the County required path is not extended to the Woodbrook Lagoon, it is staff’s opinion that an informal
path will continue to be used by the residents of the area, linking all the features of the area together.
Arden Place will dedicate the trails and open space after it purchases the property from its current owner and before it
applies for any building permits for the project. The Board may recall that when this matter was last before it, Arden
Place needed to complete the dedication and obtain building permits by March 1, before the Albemarle County Service
Authority’s new and higher tap fees became effective. Arden Place was able to reach an agreement with the Authority
and purchase the required connections before the new tap fees took effect.
BUDGET IMPACT:
No budget impact. Applicant has agreed to maintain the open space and path.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This executive summary is provided for information and review at the request of the Board of Supervisors.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – 11.4.09 Executive Summary
Attachment B – Board of Supervisors Minutes from 11.4.09
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Arden Place [SDP-2009-009] Open Space Acceptance
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Requesting that the Board accept 1.58 acres of open
space dedicated to the County for a 15 percent increase in
density under County Code § 18-18.4.2
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Graham, Fritz and Gatobu
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 4, 2009
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The applicant is seeking final site plan approval for a 212 unit multifamily residential apartment complex. The
development proposes to include 1.58 acres of open space that would be dedicated to the County for a fifteen (15)
percent density increase as provided by County Code § 18-18.4.2.
The Planning Commission, at a hearing on September 8, 2009, approved a critical slopes waiver, a buffer disturbance
waiver, and the preliminary site plan (with conditions). The Commission also recommended approval/acceptance of the
proposed open space with a five (5) foot pedestrian path that would meet County and ADA design standards, but would
not extend beyond the proposed Carmike movie theater connection (Attachment F). The Planning Commission asked
the applicant to dedicate additional land (adjacent to the Albemarle County Woodbrook Lagoon Project) to the County
and the applicant agreed (Attachment D). In the Planning Commission staff report, (Attachment A), staff asked the
Planning Commission to consider the dedication of a pedestrian/bike path that would connect Albemarle Square to the
Woodbrook Lagoon Project, which the applicant was willing to do. However, numerous residents from the Woodbrook
neighborhood opposed a potential pedestrian connection into Woodbrook, which adjoins the other side of the
Woodbrook Lagoon Project. The Planning commission specifically approved the site plan with no pedestrian connection
to the Woodbrook Lagoon Project.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 1: Enhance Quality of Life for all Citizens; Goal 2: Protect the County’s Natural Resources
DISCUSSION:
The proposed open space with a path helps achieve several Comprehensive Plan goals. Pedestrian paths are
important features in designated development areas because of their ability to create pedestrian orientation and
interconnections (goals from the Neighborhood Model) and an alternate transportation option (Land Use Plan). The
proposed open space with a path will provide a pedestrian connection between the proposed apartment complex and
public facilities. The proposed five (5) foot path will provide the opportunity for pedestrians to walk to the Carmike movie
theater and the Albemarle Square shopping center and Rio Road from the proposed development. Pedestrian access
to the mentioned public amenities will provide an alternative to automobile transportation. The pedestrian path will be
built to ADA standards, will be five feet in width, and will meet the County’s standards established in the Design
Standards Manual. The owner/applicant of the apartment complex has agreed to maintain the path and the open
space.
Since density bonuses are available through several means including the provision of affordable housing, staff analyzed
the request for the benefits of providing affordable housing for a density increase at this location. After discussing the
issue with the Director of Housing, staff concluded that while affordable housing is desirable, an abundance of
affordable housing at this location is not desirable. Dispersing affordable housing is in keeping with the Neighborhood
Model’s recommendation that affordable housing be integrated into many areas, not established as an enclave.
BUDGET IMPACT:
No budget impact. Applicant has agreed to maintain the open space and path.
AGENDA TITLE: Arden Place [SDP-2009-009] Open Space Acceptance
November 4, 2009
Page 2
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends the full density bonus be given for the proposed dedicated open space as shown on Attachment D.
Staff also recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to accept the dedication of open space after the
County Attorney has approved the deed of dedication and plat as to form and substance.
ATTACHMENTS
A. 9.8.09 Planning Commission Staff Report
B. Aerial Map
C. Arden Place Site Plan
D. Arden Place Open Space Exhibit
E. Planning Commission Action Letter
F. 9.8.09 Final PC Action Memo 090809
Return to exec summary
1
Attachment B
Board of Supervisors Minutes of 11/4/2009 for SDP-2009-009. Arden Place – Request acceptance of
open space dedication.
Mr. Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development, said the Board is requested today to review an open
space dedication which is part of a site plan reviewed by the Planning Commission in September, 2009.
The applicant proposes a 212-unit multi-family development on property located off of Rio Road near the
Putt-Putt and the Woodbrook Subdivision. The northern portion of the property is proposed for
development, the front portion is zoned commercial, and the rear portion is zoned Residential R -15. To
the west is Albemarle Square. Access to the property would be through Putt-Putt Road with a right-in/
right-out entrance on Rio Road.
Mr. Fritz said before the Board today is the open space dedication which the applicant proposes
as a bonus factor for his development. Within the dedicated area the applicant would install a trail all the
way from the Carmike Theatre parking lot through the development to the existing sidewalk on Rio Road.
When this application came before the Planning Commission, staff recommended that the trail be
extended all the way to the Woodbrook Lagoon project – but there was significant opposition from
Woodbrook residents. In making its decision, the Commission was specific in saying that the trail should
end at the Carmike parking area. In addition, the original proposal was for a 10-foot wide trail, but the
Commission wanted it reduced to a five-foot trail along its entire length.
Mr. Fritz said when the Planning Commission reviewed this request, only a small area was to be
dedicated all the way to the Woodbrook property. The Commission asked – and the applicant agreed – to
increase the area of dedication to include a significant wooded area that makes a logical extension of the
Woodbrook Lagoon project. Before the Board now is an area of dedication that would include a five foot
wide pedestrian trail running from the Carmike facility all the way to Rio Road, an d the dedication of land
including a significant wooded area adjacent to the Woodbrook Lagoon project which is to include
construction of some parking spaces, a small path and some bike racks. The project is primarily for a
stormwater facility and is not a park per se, but there is an educational component to the facility. He
reiterated that the Commission was very specific in saying the trail should not connect through to that
Woodbrook Lagoon project.
Mr. Rooker asked the total public expenditure with respect to the Woodbrook Lagoon. Mr. Greg
Harper, County Engineer, was present and said property acquisition didn’t cost the County anything, but
the design fees are approaching $200,000 with actual construction costs expected to be less than
$400,000. The project is still in the preliminary phase, so there is not a solid construction cost estimate at
this time.
Mr. Rooker asked if those costs include the bike racks and trails within the lagoon. Mr. Harper
said the County is not proposing to construct any formal trails within the area. Trails exist just because
people walk there; the parking spaces are just a concept at this point. Construction of parking spaces is
only an idea at this time. There is on-street parking available and the County does not intend to make this
area into a park, per se.
Ms. Thomas asked what the bike racks are for. Mr. Harper responded that staff anticipates that
people, as they do today, would continue to use the area for passive recreation, and staf f thought it might
be nice to have some bike racks. Basically, that was included on the plans by the consultant without really
talking about it.
Mr. Boyd asked if the lagoon (stormwater management pond) is already there or is it proposed to
be put in. Mr. Harper said there is an abandoned sanitary lagoon there now that served the Woodbrook
neighborhood years ago, but it was formally abandoned in the 1980s. The County owns the property and
intended to build a regional stormwater management facility on the property. Staff has been working with
a consultant to formalize that, so it intends to actually construct something different to treat the urban
runoff coming down the Route 29 corridor through those streams.
2
Mr. Boyd asked if the project has been in the CIP as a stormwater management project. Mr.
Harper said it was actually listed in the stormwater master plan incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan
in 2005.
Mr. Boyd asked if it was moved up based on this Arden Place project. Are they contributing to this
project at all? Mr. Harper said the County does not have a relationship with the Arden Place developers.
This project has just been in the works for the last couple of years.
Ms. Mallek asked if future developments in this area could contribute to the cost of this facility.
Mr. Harper said this is not intended as a system to serve future development. It is intended to help clean
up the mess that exists in the area today.
Ms. Mallek asked if it is really for remediation. Mr. Harper said based on some new State rules,
this project might be applied as a credit toward future TMDL requirements.
Mr. Boyd said this actually has nothing to do with the Arden Place development. Mr. Fritz said
Arden Place is not relying on this project for any of its stormwater m anagement.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the relevance is the connectivity between Arden Place, the Carmike property
and the Woodbrook neighborhood. Mr. Fritz said that is correct.
Ms. Thomas said the relevance is that this is a public piece of land that is being used now, and
will continue to be used, for passive recreation whether trails are designed around the lagoon or not, and
whether there is a trail to it or not.
Mr. Slutzky said the Board is not being asked to approve or disapprove anything relating to the
lagoon project. The question before the Board today has to do with the southern part of the Arden Place
property. He asked that Mr. Fritz clarify how this lagoon relates to the Arden Place issue. Mr. Fritz said
what is before the Board today is the acceptance of open space which will authorize additional units in
Arden Place; there is a bonus factor allowing 25 extra units that goes along with the dedication.
Acceptance of the open space with the trail system is before the Board today; the Woodbrook Lagoon
project is a separate project. The Board could consider the presence of the Woodbrook Lagoon as part of
acceptance of the open space deliberations; they are connected in that respect. The Board’s action to
accept, or not accept, the open space will not affect what goes forward with the Woodbrook Lagoon
project.
Ms. Mallek asked if the Board had anything to say about the connection decision made by others.
Mr. Fritz said the Board can say the open space does not serve a purpose unless it has a connec tion, or
doesn’t have a connection – the Board is under no obligation to accept the open space.
Mr. Dorrier said one of the primarily goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to create walkable areas
and neighborhoods. Does acceptance of this open space support that goal? Mr. Fritz said it does to the
extent that as currently proposed a pedestrian could walk from Rio Road to the Carmike theatre and
residents of the Arden Place development, as well as the existing development in that area, would have
pedestrian access to the Carmike.
Mr. Dorrier asked the distance of the trail. Mr. Fritz said if one had to walk along Rio to Route 29
and then down to the Carmike it would be two-plus miles; the trail shortens that distance. It helps
establish a walkable community.
Ms. Thomas said two issues come to her mind. One is the width of the path. The 10 -foot width
seemed like a small road to the neighbors and she can understand that. Five feet apparently fits the
standards if it is only a pedestrian path, but if there will be also be bicycle traffic the standards are that it
has to be eight feet wide at a minimum. She said eight feet would not look like a road and would make it
possible to have bicycle use as well as pedestrian use and she would urge the Board to think about
making it eight feet in width.
3
Mr. Rooker said that is a wise suggestion. If the goal is to create access for people to get from
this area into commercial areas, it should not be a narrow sidewa lk width. To be functional it needs to be
wider than five feet.
Mr. Slutzky said the choice of widening the path from five to eight feet might be something for the
applicant to speak to since they know now that it is an issue of interest for the Board.
Mr. Rooker said the applicant had offered to make the path ten feet in width.
Mr. Slutzky said the Woodbrook Community was emphatically against that offer.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks somebody will be sorry if the Board does not require this trail to be
wide enough to make it useable.
Mr. Boyd asked if this is the only issue related to this development that will come before the
Board. Mr. Fritz said “yes.”
Mr. Rooker said the only issue before the Board is the open space dedication acceptance which
then gives rise to increased density.
Ms. Mallek said she was reluctant to endorse a piece of County-owned property that is only
available for use by one neighborhood. She thinks the trail should be connected to the lagoon because it
is public property and there is a significant improvement being made by the County. If people will be able
to walk into that property and it is left unconnected, she thinks that is a mistake.
Mr. Slutzky said one of the reasons the Woodbrook community seemed to react so strongl y
against the idea of that connection is that there are only the streets in Woodbrook for people to walk on -
it has no sidewalks. If there were a connection that invited bicyclists and pedestrians to go from Arden
Place into Woodbrook, they would all be dumped onto the streets in that subdivision. Woodbrook is a cul-
de- sac community designed for a small number of pedestrians to walk in the middle of the street. The
present residents are mindful of that, but they were concerned that adding an artery of connectivity would
invite some dangers on the road. A lot of people said they might feel differently if the County invested in
sidewalks throughout the community. He asked Mr. Fritz if the County invested in sidewalks at some
future time, would there be the option to expand a connection to the lagoon. Mr. Fritz replied that it’s the
County’s land, so the decision lies with the County.
Ms. Mallek asked if there is the opportunity to have the private sector do the work for the County
now. Mr. Fritz said it is.
Ms. Mallek said this reminds her of the 10 or 15 years the County spent trying to reestablish a
predesigned connection between Hollymead Subdivision and South Forest Lakes, and the same issues
were raised. She does not think having those neighborhoods connected by a street has been a disaster.
In this case, it is not even a street.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that Ms. Thomas had reminded him that the same issue arose with
respect to Humprhis Park and the connection that went to the public road. That road comes down
Webland Drive and then a trail takes the walker by the stormwater project the County constructed and
then the trail goes into the public park. That was fought by the neighborhoods which backup to the trail,
but many of the residents now use that trail - he uses it frequently.
Mr. Rooker said that at one time the Woodbrook neighborhood was to connect to the Carrsbrook
neighborhood; there is a road stub in place. Now, school busses h ave to go out onto Route 29 to get to
Woodbrook School from Carrsbrook because there was a demand that the two subdivisions not be
connected. When this originally started, the real fight was over a proposed road connection, not a path
connection. He can understand the road connection, but cannot understand not allowing one area to
access something the County is investing $600,000 of public money in because one neighborhood does
4
not want the neighbors on the other side to have access. He agrees with Ms. Thom as and Ms. Mallek that
it should be an eight-foot path which is not a road, and there should be a connection to that publicly
owned property.
Ms. Thomas said there wouldn’t be any asphalt trails so it would not be a back way into
Woodbrook because it will go to the lagoon area. She thinks this is a chance to actually have a new bike
and pedestrian facility. She thinks everyone in the community will be appreciative of it eventually.
Mr. Slutzky said there are two pieces to this issue. There is the potentia l bike and/or pedestrian
facility connecting the Carmike property to Rio Road. That is one issue and it is on the table today. If the
proposal is to add to that an extension of the trail to the lagoon property and let it terminate there, he does
not think a facility that accommodates the Woodbrook neighborhood has been added. The residents did
not want it, and it will not connect through unless people walk their own path through the property. He is
asking if Ms. Thomas is suggesting that the bike trail connect to Woodbrook through the lagoon property.
Ms. Thomas said “no”, but she thinks the Board should facilitate access to a public open space
area.
Mr. Slutzky asked if it would terminate at the entrance to the lagoon property.
Ms. Thomas said “however it works.” She does not know the geography of the area.
Mr. Rooker said there is talk of droves of people coming in, but the path through Humphris Park
through the stormwater facility out to Webland Drive is in a heavily populated area, and although he us es
that route about four times a week he rarely sees more than two or three people. He does not think this
will be a situation where there will be scores of people finding their way to the lagoon and then up to
Woodbrook to walk down Woodbrook Drive.
Ms. Thomas referred to “Figure 2” in the staff report and said she had assumed that the small,
blue crosshatched tail to the left is in fact where the proposed trail would be. She asked if that was
correct. Mr. Fritz said that was correct.
Mr. Slutzky said in reply to Mr. Rooker’s comment, there is the Mallside neighborhood with a lot of
children and they go to Woodbrook Elementary School.
Mr. Rooker said a school bus picks up those children and takes them to school.
Mr. Slutzky said the concern expressed by the Woodbrook neighborhood at the Planning
Commission’s meeting was that they were worried about a lot of kids walking down the streets of
Woodbrook where there are no sidewalks that would disgorge into the neighborhood streets and the
school, and there would be a safety issue. He said that was a significant concern in the neighborhood.
Mr. Rooker said he views it as a way overblown concern.
Ms. Thomas said she read all of the Planning Commission’s minutes and those concerns were
well expressed, so she is aware of those concerns. She had heard these same concerns over the years,
and then people are very pleased with connections and trails when they are built.
Mr. Rooker said their big objection in the beginning was a proposed road connection. That is
gone; it is not part of the proposal now. He would not have supported that.
Ms. Mallek said she is sorry that the proposal did not include a bus route through there.
Mr. Rooker said for them to say they want to shut off pedestrians and keep children from walking
to school, which is public property, is beyond the pale.
5
Mr. Slutzky said if there are no further issues to discuss, he will ask the applicant to speak.
Ms. Valerie Long said she is present to represent the applicant for the Arden Place development.
They were aware that this might be an issue, and they will implement the ultimate decision of the Board.
Originally they had agreed to build the 10-foot wide path connecting all the way to the lagoon project.
They ask that the Board consider maintaining the current proposal recommended by the Planning
Commission. The applicant worked closely with the Woodbrook residents throughout this process and
tried to incorporate their suggestions when they felt it was appropriate and possible to do so. She said the
Commission felt strongly about it, and they do not want to disrupt their consensus. They recognize some
of the points the Board has made, and they will do whatever the Board decides is best. Ms. Long said,
since the County owns the land, there are opportun ities in the future to connect the trail. They think that
when Arden Place is developed, some of the Woodbrook residents will recognize that it is a lovely
community, and this trail will be a wonderful amenity. Perhaps at that time the residents will appreciate
the benefits of the trail and maybe having a connection made then. They want to be respectful of the
Woodbrook residents, so are willing to do it either way. She said she did not hear any questions about the
dedication itself, but if there, are she will address them.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the width of the path could be increased from five feet to 10 feet. Ms. Long
replied that it could be if that was the Board’s direction. That is how it was shown on the original plans
that went to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Rooker said Ms. Thomas had suggested eight feet. Ms. Long said when the applicant
appeared before the Planning Commission they were not certain they would have the connection to the
Carmike complex in place. Although final easement agreements and other supporting documentation has
not yet been signed, they are “at the finish line” with the Garden Shopping Center owners who have been
exceptionally cooperative. The final site plan application, which they are submitting this week, will show
that connection.
Mr. Slutzky said the connection to Carmike makes it possible for this project to go forward, but it
is far from the optimal place for this property to connect. The best place to connect would be the southern
end of the property heading west toward the Albemarle Square property connecting up just south of
Circuit City. That would do a lot to make this whole redevelopment area make sense. It would make it
possible for there to be a commercial stretch on Rio Road, but which is a separate project from Arden
Place and which will be under separate ownership. That would make it possible to connect, not directly
onto Rio Road, but rather at the light at Circuit City. Similarly, this project could dump its traffic there, not
out onto Putt-Putt Lane without a light (which is what “we are stuck with here”) but through Albemarle
Square. Once the developer has approval and they successfully achieve signed documentation for the
connection to Carmike, their negotiation position with their neighbors will be changed. If they were
successful at some point negotiating that much preferred access point to the south, his question is what
that would do to this configuration. Would it meaningfully alter it or would it just become an extension of
the bike/pedestrian path across that corridor? Could it also jut out on that easement/right-of-way as an
additional point of connectivity?
Ms. Long said she cannot say what would happen. They have been unsuccessful in negotiating
with the Albemarle Square Shopping Center owners. Frankly, they are not optimistic that they will even
come back to the table once they have the Carmike connection approved on the final site plan. Those
owners are aware they are pursuing the Carmike connection. If they agreed they would build the
connection through Albemarle Square to the side of the Circuit City parking lot which is the preferred
location for a second connection. They would still want this as a trail connection and a bike connection so
the Arden Place residents could walk to the Carmike Theatre and all the other stores and services in and
nearby that center.
Ms. Long said that in addition to opening opportunities to walk to the Garden Shopping Center
and the theatre, it would get bike and pedestrian access to Route 29 and then connect t o sidewalks up
and down Route 29. It opens up a wide array of opportunities for pedestrian and bicycle access. They
have been working with the Carmike folks and it is a complicated legal transaction to get through all of the
6
documents and work with all the lenders, but they have been cooperative, so at this point they are
pursuing that Albemarle Square connection.
Mr. Slutzky said the way this plan is laid out now (this is an excellent use of this site), he would
prefer this to go forward as a high-end rental property. There is a dearth of available product at that end
of the growth area, and in light of the Rivanna Station (NGIC) expansion, this will be a successful project.
If it becomes problematic from a traffic flow standpoint in the future that might make it more challenging
for the developer to be able to achieve that kind of use of the property. Even though he believes the
County needs to accommodate affordable housing wherever possible, he would not like to see a large tax
credit end up in this location – he believes there is too much of a concentration of low-income housing in
one very small area and it would not be healthy for the economic vitality of what is the County’s main
intersection at the corner of Route 29 and Rio Road. There are a lot of complexities involved. The plan
now shows traffic going out the Carmike property, for pedestrians only.
Ms. Mallek asked if she is correct that there is enough right-of-way available between the
buildings that it could become a street at some point, even if for busses only. Ms. Long said the Carmike
connection will be a vehicular connection, but only for Arden Place residents and it will be gated so it
cannot be used as a cut-through for people coming from Rio Road to cut off the corner and continue onto
Route 29. It will be sort of a back -door entrance for Arden Place residents and for emergency vehicles.
Mr. Slutzky said Arden Place residents will get in and out of Arden Place as presently proposed
by two ways. One will be to use the private road that is Putt-Putt Lane. Two will be to go straight
through the commercial property that will be built there someday that will dump onto Rio Road. There will
be intersections that are not currently scheduled for traffic lights. There is proffer money available to
provide a traffic light at Putt-Putt Lane – the owner of Putt-Putt lane would like to have a traffic light there.
It would make sense to accommodate the use of that area and it would be a benefit for the people in
Mallside Apartments to have a traffic light at that intersection.
Mr. Slutzky said it is VDOT’s position that certain warrants have to be met before a traffic light
can be installed. At this time they do not want to slow down traffic between construction of the Meadow
Creek Parkway and Route 29. He said Arden Place will be forced to dump its traffic through this private
road, with a private commercial permit, to Rio road. He thinks VDOT may end up further constraining the
flow of traffic. He said the Board should move forward and approve this project; this is the best possible
use for this site and it enriches the community in a positive way. Then, the Board needs to push VDOT to
get a light at Putt-Putt Lane to solve a whole bunch of problems with the traffic flow in the area.
Ms. Mallek said there was an accident at that location about six weeks; she went with the rescue
people to watch them clean up and it was exactly at that location. Ms. Long said the applicant
understands that once the commercial portion of this parcel – the portion that fronts directly on Rio Road -
is developed, it will trigger the signal warrants necessary for the installation of a light at Putt-Putt Lane.
They are optimistic that once that commercial development moves forward, the Albemarle Square
Shopping Center owners may change their mind and be more cooperative. Once the commercial
development is there, it would make more sense to have that connection.
Mr. Slutzky said the applicant will not have a limiting easement through there, so cooperation will
still be needed from the owners of that property. He said they are locking up the flow of traffic the way
they have handled this, and it is frustrating. He said a light at Putt-Putt Lane would do a lot to relieve the
pressure in the near term.
Mr. Rooker said there is no plan for the property to have its own entrance onto Rio Road at any
time, even after the commercial is built. Ms. Long said she needs to correct one thing. Mr. Fritz had said
there would be a right-in/right-out onto Rio Road. That was on their plan at the first Planning Commission
review, but the Commission said specifically they did not want that right-in/right-out so it will not be shown
on the final site plan. VDOT did not want it as well.
7
Mr. Slutzky said that was a terrible idea. Mr. Rooker said development of the commercial part of
that property would not change the none-entry directly onto Rio Road. Ms. Long said it is her
understanding that there would be a connection from the commercial portion of the land to Putt-Putt so
the commercial traffic would also use Putt-Putt Lane - the traffic counts would then be high enough to
meet the signal warrant requirements for installation of a light.
Ms. Mallek asked if there would be an entrance from Rio Road into the commercial section. Ms.
Long said she does not believe there will be. In the interest of full disclosure, the applicant is not involved
in any proposed commercial projects on that piece of property, so she does not know what might be
proposed in the future.
Ms. Thomas said it is shown on some of the agenda materials. Ms. Long said that is wrong.
When they went before the Planning Commission the second time that right-in/right-out onto Rio Road
was shown because at the first meeting the Commission specifically requested that entrance. The
applicant did not show it originally because it did not make sense from a traffic perspective. VDOT did not
like it because there were too many points of access too close to Putt-Putt Lane and it did not help
facilitate traffic flow. Ms. Long said at that time, the applicant had not progressed far enough with the
Carmike Shopping Center owners to feel comfortable showing it as their only second access - they must
have a second point of access because there are more than 50 units. The applicant was trying to mee t
the Commission’s request, the requirements of the ordinance and have a second connection. Since that
time a great deal of progress has been made with the Carmike owners, so they feel confident it will
ultimately come together. Since the Commission said to remove the right-in/right-out directly onto Rio
Road, that will not be shown on the final site plan. Ms. Long said they think that ultimately this project will
be great, and as Mr. Slutzky has indicated, if they see some movement with the owners of Albem arle
Square Shopping Center, they will have other decisions to make in trying to get the best solution, but they
think this will work well at this time. Their traffic modeling shows that having this second entrance will
work well. Hopefully, a lot of these residents will work at the Rivanna Station so to go north they will go
through the shopping center to get onto Route 29.
Mr. Slutzky asked if any Board member had another issue to discuss. He asked the thinking on
the eight-foot versus the five-foot width of the trail.
Ms. Mallek said she would like to know what the other Board members think about the question.
Mr. Boyd said he doesn’t have a problem with a five-foot trail versus an eight-foot trail. He thinks
that is probably appropriate and it should be widened. He does have a problem with extending it to the
lagoon property. To change that after it was such a hard fought battle by the people in that neighborhood,
and to do it without having a public hearing so they could have a chance to comment o n it again is
something he would not support.
Mr. Slutzky said he won’t represent those folks much longer, but he thinks it would be unfair to
not allow them the opportunity to weigh in on an issue that is important to that community.
Ms. Thomas said the Board does not have to approve this proposal at all.
Mr. Slutzky said that is true, but he thinks there is a lot of value to the community as a whole.
Ms. Thomas said she has to weigh how much value there is to the community in a trail that is
certainly an amenity to the proposed 200+ units. The Board is supposed to make its decision based on
the public benefit and not on the private benefit. The benefit of having a trail that goes to a public open
space (lagoon) is much greater than having just a trail that will be used by the Arden Place residents; she
thinks that is the major distinction between the two.
Mr. Slutzky said he completely disagrees with Ms. Thomas’ interpretation of how it will be used.
He will use the trail but only as far as the Carmike. He can ride his bike through this trail to get to Carmike
so he doesn’t have ride through the parking lot of the shopping center. This will be a much better amenity
8
for the community as a whole. The likelihood that he would ever go beyond that point to the stub end at
the lagoon is small.
Ms. Thomas said that is exactly her point. She does not think it will be widely used - it will not
become a through pathway and will not dump people and bikes onto the roads of Woodbrook because it
will be awkward to get there from the lagoon.
Mr. Slutzky said that is the reason the people in the Woodbrook neighborhood weighed in against
connecting it is because not many people will use it for that little stretch between the Carmike and the
lagoon.
Ms. Thomas said it is because it is a public facility that has been used and will continue to be
used for people just walking around and getting an education about the functions of the lagoon and the
stormwater much like is being proposed in the Crozet area. It will be slightly used, but it is a chance for
the County to get a trail that goes to it as opposed to the County building its own trail at some point in the
future - she thinks there will be a worn path that needs to be made safer.
Ms. Mallek said this is a chance to have the trail be done properly as part of the project as it’s
being constructed.
Mr. Dorrier said there is a proposal to widen the trail and emphasize the importance of the trail. It
is a pedestrian path and the County has been trying to create pedestrian paths to get people off the
highways and onto bicycles.
Mr. Slutzky said there are two issues. One is widening the path and the other is connecting to the
lagoon.
Mr. Dorrier said they are both important. He thinks that both things need to be done.
Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Rooker wanted to make a motion.
Mr. Slutzky said the property is in his district.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks Ms. Thomas is going to propose an eight-foot path.
Mr. Slutzky said he is fine with an eight-foot path. He will not support it going all the way to the
lagoon. He wants this development approved.
Mr. Rooker said there can be two motions.
Ms. Thomas said the motion has to deal with the full density bonus for the proposed dedicated
open space and authorize the County Executive to accept the dedication of open space.
Mr. Davis said the motion would be to grant the density bonus conditioned upon the dedication of
the property as outlined in the staff report modified with an eight-foot path.
Mr. Slutzky said he would like to offer motion that the Board grant the full the density bonus to
Arden Place for the proposed dedicated open space as shown in Exhibit D of the staff report, and that the
Board authorize the County Executive to accept the dedication of open space after the County Attorney
has approved the deed of dedication plat as to form and substance, with the change that the path be
widened to eight feet from five feet, terminating at the Carmike exit. He said if his motion does not pass ,
then the Board can vote on the issue of extending the path to the lagoon.
9
Mr. Boyd seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion failed by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Slutzky and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
__________
Mr. Slutzky said since that motion failed, he would offer motion that the Board grant the full
density bonus to Arden Place for the proposed dedicated open space as shown in Exhibit D of
the staff report, and that the Board authorize the County Executive to accept the dedication of the open
space after the County Attorney has approved the deed of dedication plat as to form and substance, with
two modifications – one that the path be widened from five feet to eight feet, and, two that the path be
extended and terminated at the beginning of the lagoon property.
Ms. Thomas seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: Mr. Boyd.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she thinks Arden Place will be a fine addition to the housing stock, and she
thinks Mr. Slutzky is right about it being a popular cost point for people working at the Rivanna Station.
She thinks the Board has taken a brave, significant step forward in having the community be more
pedestrian and bike-friendly.
Return to exec summary