HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-10-13Tentative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
OCTOBER 13, 2010
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
3:00 p.m., Room 241 – Joint Meeting with School Board
1. Call to Order.
2. Presentation: School Division base line budget review and future funding needs
3. From the Boards: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
4. Adjourn.
6:00 p.m. – Lane Auditorium – Regular Night Meeting
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. Whittington PRD Amendment - Request to amend the Albemarle County Service
Authority Jurisdictional Areas for sewer service to the Whittington Subdivision located on Old
Lynchburg Road. Samuel Miller District. (Deferred from September 1, 2010.)
8. PROJECT: SP-2009-00033. Coleman Morris Development Right (Sign #51).
PROPOSED: Special Use Permit for one additional development right to create a minimum 2-acre
parcel. 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 (28) Divisions
of land as provided in section 10.5.2.1. 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:
5391 Morris Knoll Lane; approx 1600 feet west of the intersection of Rt 720 Harris Creek Rd. and
Rt. 20 Scottsville Rd; approx 1.5 mi. north of Rt 712 Plank Rd. TAX MAP/PARCEL: TMP 112
00000003200. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville.
9. PROJECT: SP-2010-00018. Matheny Development Right Request (Signs
#44&46). PROPOSED: Request for one additional development right for a family subdivision.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots). SECTION: 10.2.2.28, Divisions of land
as provided in section 10.5.2.1. 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: 2839 Craigs
Store Rd (Rt 635), approx 2000 feet south of the intersection with White Mountain Road (Rt 736).
Tax Map 84 Parcel 14E. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller.
10. CPA-2009-02. Crozet Master Plan. Amend the Land Use Plan section of the
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2010Files/Migration/20101013/00_Agenda.htm (1 of 3) [10/1/2020 2:31:59 PM]
Tentative
Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan by replacing the existing profile for the Community of Crozet
and the Crozet Master Plan with a revised Crozet Master Plan, which establishes new land use
policies, guidelines, recommendations, goals and strategies for future development within the
master plan area, which may include or exclude lands beyond those described in the existing
neighborhood and community profile and the removal of an approximately 29-acre portion of TMP
56-66 (NE of Firehouse Lane) from the Community of Crozet boundaries. The Crozet Master Plan
would establish the following for the master plan area: a vision for the area and guiding principles; a
future land use plan designating existing and proposed centers, mixed use areas, industrial areas,
residential areas, preservation areas; a plan for the transportation network, and its integration with
the land uses; a plan for providing and supporting community facilities and services; a plan for parks
and green systems; and a plan for implementing the master plan. CPA 2006-02, which is a
proposal to remove the proposed road shown in the 2004 Crozet Master Plan across TMP 56-14D,
will also be considered in conjunction with the Crozet Master Plan. Copies of the full text of the
Crozet Master Plan and related maps are on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors and in the Department of Community Development, County Office Building, 401
McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
11. PROJECT: SP-2009-00034. RE-STORE'N STATION (Signs #33&36).
PROPOSED: Use of more than 400 gallons of groundwater per site-acre per day for convenience
store. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: HC, Highway Commercial - retail sales and
service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/acre); EC Entrance Corridor -
Overlay to protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural significance from visual impacts of
development along routes of tourist access. SECTION: 24.2.2.13, Uses permitted by right, not
served by public water, involving water consumption exceeding four hundred (400) gallons per site
acre per day. Uses permitted by right, not served by public sewer, involving anticipated discharge of
sewage other than domestic wastes. 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: US 250
(Rockfish Gap Turnpike) approximately 1,600 feet (0.3 miles) west of Western Albemarle High
School. TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 55B Parcel 1. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall.
12. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
13. Adjourn.
C O N S E N T A G E N D A
FOR APPROVAL:
6.1 Approval of Minutes: July 7, 2010.
6.2 Request to defer ZMA-2006-0008 – Berkmar Business Park to December 8, 2010.
Return to Top of Agenda
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2010Files/Migration/20101013/00_Agenda.htm (2 of 3) [10/1/2020 2:31:59 PM]
Tentative
Return to County Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2010Files/Migration/20101013/00_Agenda.htm (3 of 3) [10/1/2020 2:31:59 PM]
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: Whittington PRD - Request to amend
the Albemarle County Service Authority Jurisdictional Area
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Public Hearing on a
request to amend the Jurisdictional Area Boundary to
designate Tax Map 89, Parcel 95 and Tax Map 90, Parcels
3, 45, 46, 47, and 48 located on Old Lynchburg Road
(Route 631) approximately 1¼ miles south of the
intersection of Old Lynchburg Road and Interstate 64 for
water and sewer service.
STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis,
Cilimberg, and Benish
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
September 1, 2010
ACTION: x INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The applicant is requesting Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Jurisdictional Area designation for “Water and
Sewer” service for six parcels totaling approximately 186 acres located on the west side of Old Lynchburg Road
(Route 631), south of its intersection with Interstate 64. (See Attachments A and B) The property is located entirely
within the Rural Areas in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. The parcels are currently designated for “Water Only”
service. The applicant is requesting this service for the Whittington Planned Residential Development (PRD) which
was originally approved by the Board of Supervisors in 1977 and amended in 2007. The properties adjacent to the
south, west and northwest of these parcels are in the Rural Areas and are not included in the Jurisdictional Area. The
properties across Old Lynchburg Road to the southeast are located within the Development Area and are designated
“Water and Sewer.” The parcels immediately to the northeast in the Mosby Mountain residential development are
located within the Rural Areas and are designated for “Water and Sewer” service. The Mosby Mountain “W ater and
Sewer” service designation is the result of a Jurisdictional Area approval made by the Board in the 1970s, prior to the
establishment of the current policies for Jurisdictional Areas designation. The “Water Only” service designation on the
Whittington property was also approved in the 1970s.
The Board considered this same request from the owners of the Whittington PRD for “Water and Sewer” designation
on November 1, 2006. The Board did not set a public hearing on that request, thereby denying the request to add the
sewer service designation to the development. (See Attachment C) There has been no change in circumstance
onsite or in County policies since that action.
The Board held a work session to discuss this request on July 7, 2010 and directed staff to set a public hearing and
provide additional information regarding properties that are comparable in circumstance to the Whittington PRD
(undeveloped and located in the Rural Areas, zoned for urban for development, and located adjacent to a
Development Area and public utilities).
DISCUSSION:
The Comprehensive Plan provides the following concerning the provision of water and sewer service to the
Development Areas:
General Principle 2: “Serve Urban Areas, Communities, and Villages with public water and sewer.” (p. 114)
“Provide water and sewer service only to areas within the ACSA jurisdictional area.” (p. 128)
“Follow the boundaries of the designated Development Areas in delineating jurisdictional areas.” (p.128)
“Only allow changes in the jurisdictional areas outside of designated Development Areas in cases where the
property is: 1) adjacent to existing lines; and 2) public health and/or safety is in danger.” (p. 130)
AGENDA TITLE: Whittington PRD - Request to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority Jurisdictional Area
September 1, 2010
Page 2
Providing public water and sewer service to the Rural Areas utilizes valuable treatment capacities which should be
reserved to support the Development Areas and will, over the long term, add to infrastructure maintenance costs.
Extending utility lines to the Rural Areas, particularly sewer lines, can also be a catalyst for growth in those areas over
the long term and can create an expectation that service should/will be provided to the adjacent properties. For these
reasons, the County has consistently maintained the policy to limit the provision of water and sewer service to the
Rural Areas since the mid-1980s.
The reason given for this request in the applicant’s justification (Attachment B) is to reduce the amount of clearing
required per site (approximately 10,000 sq. ft. for a typical septic system according to the State Health Department).
The parcels are currently covered by mature deciduous forest. However, clearing for septic systems is an expected
development requirement in the Rural Areas, and the provision of public sewer service does not guarantee that
clearing will not occur on these lots to accommodate yards or property owner preferences.
The Virginia State Department of Health has indicated that the soils on these parcels are adequate to support septic
systems for the proposed ninety-six (96) 40,000 square foot lots. Because the parcels are located in the Rural Areas
and adequate soils are present for the required septic systems connecting these lots, the provision of public sewer
would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan utility policies noted above, as there is no documented public
health or safety issue on the property. Section 4.1 of the County’s Zoning Ordinance has also established that 40,000
square foot lots are considered of adequate size to be served by one public and one private utility, as is the case with
this development. It should also be noted that the current policy for providing public utility service to the Rural Areas
would support extension of service to this development if a health and safety concern were to arise in the future.
As requested by the Board, staff has evaluated the properties in the County that are similar to the conditions present
for the Whittington development (undeveloped properties in the Rural Areas zoned for urban development and located
adjacent to the Development Area and existing utility lines). (See Attachment D) In summary, there are two other
residentially zoned properties which are similar to Whittington: 1) Clifton Lake PRD adjacent to the Rivanna Village,
and 2) Ashcroft PRD, which still has undeveloped sections and is located adjacent to the Pantops Neighborhood in
the Urban Area. There are also a number of undeveloped or further developable properties with both residential and
non-residential zoning that are in close proximity to, but not adjacent to, the Development Area and are adjacent to
public utility lines. In particular, many of these properties are located along the 250 East water line to the Rivanna
Village and along 250 West, adjacent to the Crozet Interceptor. Because public utility service to these properties
would be contrary to Comprehensive Plan policies, unless there is a demonstrable public health and/or safety
problem, potential applicants have been discouraged from applying for an Jurisdictional Area amendment. The Board
has consistently denied requests for service designations in these areas, and the Rural Areas in general, since the
mid-1980s.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There would be no immediate cost to the County; the property owner would bear the costs for sewer hook-up.
However, the expansion of the ACSA Jurisdictional Boundary to include properties in the Rural Areas will utilize the
capacity necessary to serve properties in the Development Areas and may result in the need for additional capital
investment in infrastructure necessary to serve the Development Areas.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This request is not consistent with the principles, objectives and strategies of the Comprehensive Pla n for the
provision of public sewer service outside of the designated Development Areas. Staff does not recommend approval
of this request.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Location Map with Jurisdictional Area Designations
B – Applicant’s Request
C – Board Minutes – November 1, 2006
D – Rural Area Properties with Urban Zoning
Return to regular agenda
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Tax Map Grid
Overview Roads
Primary Roads
Secondary Roads
Overview Roads - City
Road Bridges
Railroad Bridges
Road Centerlines
Road Centerlines - City
Roads
Roads - City
Railroads
Comprehensive Plan Areas
Buildings
Buildings - City
Driveways
Parcels
Lakes and Reservoirs
Ponds
Major Streams
Other Streams
ACSA Jurisdictional Areas
No Service
Water Only
Water and Sewer
Water Only To Existing Structures
Limited Service
City Water and Sewer
Albemarle Boundary
Charlottesville Boundary
Scottsville Boundary
ATTACHMENT A--Whittington ACSA Jurisdictional Area Request, Sewer Service Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources June 21, 2010
ATTACHMENT C
November 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
Item 6.3. Whittington PRD Amendment - Request to set public hearing to amend the
Jurisdictional Area Boundary to provide sewer service to Tax Map 89, Parcel 95 and Tax Map 90, Parcels
3, 45, 46, 47, and 48 located on Old Lynchburg Road (Route 631) approximately one and one-quarter
miles south of the intersection of Old Lynchburg Road and Interstate 64.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that the applicant is requesting ACSA Jurisdictional Area
designation for sewer service to six parcels totaling an approximately 186 acres located on the west side
of Old Lynchburg Road (Route 631), south of its intersection with Interstate 64. The property is located
entirely within the Rural Areas, in the Samuel Miller District. The parcels are currently served by water
only. The applicant is requesting sewer service for Whittington which was approved as a Planned
Residential Development (PRD) by the Board in 1977. Although the applicant prefers to connect to public
sewer, the Virginia State Department of Health has indicated that the soils on the site are adequate to
support septic systems for the proposed 96, 40,000 square foot lots. Because the parcels are located in
the Rural Areas and adequate soils are present for the required septic systems connecting these lots,
public sewer would be inconsistent with County utility policies. The properties adjacent to the south, west
and northwest of these parcels are in the Rural Areas and are not included in the Jurisdictional Are a. The
properties across Old Lynchburg Road to the southeast are located within the Development Areas and
are designated “water and sewer”. The parcels located immediately to the northeast in the Mosby
Mountain residential development are located within th e Rural Areas, but are served by both water and
sewer. The Mosby Mountain water service designation is the result of a zoning and Jurisdictional Area
action made by the Board in the 1970’s, prior to the establishment of the current policies for Jurisdictio nal
Areas designation.
The applicant has submitted a Zoning Map Amendment request on this property (Whittington,
ZMA-06-11), which is currently under review by staff. The property has been zoned PRD (or equivalent
zoning district) since 1977, with the original approved application plan showing a total of 104 lots. The
current rezoning request is not a new proposal, but an amendment in response to a Zoning Administrator
determination that development plans for the site would be subject to approval of an application plan that
meets the provisions of Section 8 of the Zoning Ordinance. The plan now under review, which shows a
total of 96 lots, is intended to meet the provisions of Section 8 and replace the original application plan.
Nothing in the County’s current ordinance is necessitating the provision of public sewer to the site.
The Whittington PRD is located outside of the designated Development Area off of Old Lynchburg
Road in Rural Area 4. The property is zoned Planned Residential Development, with the Comprehensive
Plan land use designated as Rural Areas. The parcels are currently covered by mature deciduous forest
and are located in the Moore’s Creek watershed. The Comprehensive Plan recommends serving only the
Development Areas with public water and se wer service; these parcels are located outside the
Development Areas. The Virginia State Department of Health has indicated that the soils on the site are
adequate to support septic systems for the proposed 96, 40,000 square foot lots; therefore, there doe s
not appear to be any health or safety need to provide public sewer to the site. Sewer system capacity
should be used to serve the designated Development Areas, in support of the County’s growth
management policy. Designating these parcels as part of the ACSA Jurisdictional Area for public water
and sewer service would not be consistent with County policy, particularly with the presence of adequate
soils to support the needed septic systems.
This request is not consistent with the principles, objectives and strategies of the Comprehensive
Plan for the provision of sewer service outside of the designated Development Area. No verification of
endangerment to public health and safety has been provided. Based on this information, staff does not
recommend approval of this request and recommends that the Board not proceed to public hearing.
However, should the Board wish to consider the proposed amendment in the context of the Whittington
ZMA (ZMA-06-11), it would have to set a public hearing. The Jurisdictional Area public hearing could
coincide with the Board’s public hearing for the ZMA (which is not scheduled for Board review at this
time).
ATTACHMENT C
(Discussion: Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas asked if the purpose of the request presented for
Whittington PRD amendment to the jurisdictional area boundaries is that the Board not move forward with
that request. Mr. Tucker responded that it is, and if the Board would like to take a different action, then
they could pull the item from the Consent Agenda and do so.
Mr. Rooker said that by voting on 6.3 on the Consent Agenda, the Board would be denying the
request.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board denied the request to set a public hearing
on a request to amend the ACSA jurisdictional area boundaries for sewer service to include
Whittington PRD.)
X
X
X X X RICHMOND RD
L O U I S A R D
K ESW ICK RDM I LTON RDCL
U
B D
RSTONY POINT RDH
A
C
K
T
O
WN RDUNDERHILL LNDARBY RDEDGEHILL DR
FRANKLIN DR
OLYM P I A D R
PIPER WAYHANS E N S MOUNTA I N R DJEFFERS DRFONTA N A D R
S
P
R
I
N
G
D
A
LE DR
ELK DR
NORTH MILTON RDSOUT
H P
A
N
T
OPS
D
R TREMO N T RD
FREE BRIDGE LNM O N T A L TO LOOP RDABBEY R
D
SHADWELL RDSU M M IT R IDGE TRL
¡731
¡744
¡729
¡730
¡612¡769 ¡621
¡823}ÿ22
}ÿ53
£¤250
§¨¦64
Roads
Streams
Water Body
Parcels
Development Areas
Prepared by Albemarle CountyOffice of Geographic Data Services (GDS). Map created by Elise Hackett, August 2010.
Note: The map elements depicted are graphic representations and are not to be construed or used as a legal description.This map is for display purposes only.
Parcels shown reflect plats and deeds recorded through December 31, 2009
µ0 2,500 5,0001,250 Feet
X = Zoned Residential , Undeveloped
Attachment D
Ashcroft
Clifton Lake PRD
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
September 3, 2010
Coleman R. Morris
5391 Morris Knoll Ln.
Charlottesville, Va 22902
RE: SP200900033 Coleman Morris Development Right
Tax Map 112 Parcel 32
Dear Mr. Morris:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 24, 2010, by a vote of 6:1,
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. The proposed subdivision of Tax Map 112 Parcel 32 shall only be permitted as a “family subdivision”
as provided by Chapter 14 of the Albemarle County Code.
2. The family division period to retain the property shall be extended to seven (7) years.
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 October 13, 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,
Scott Clark
Senior Planner
Planning Division
SP 2010-018
PC August 24, 2010
Staff Report Page 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP2009-00033 Coleman Morris Staff: Scott Clark
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
August 24, 2010
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
TBA
Owner/s: Coleman R. Morris Applicant: Coleman R. Morris
Acreage: 8.28 acres Special Use Permit: 10.2.2.28, Divisions of
land as provided in section 10.5.2.1
TMP: Tax Map 112 Parcel 32
Location: 5391 Morris Knoll Lane; appx. 1600
feet west of the intersection of Rt. 720 Harris
Creek Rd. and Rt. 20 Scottsville Rd.; appx. 1.5
mi. north of Rt. 712 Plank Rd.
Existing Zoning and By-right use: RA -- Rural
Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development
lots)
Magisterial District: Samuel Miller Conditions: Yes
RA (Rural Areas) Requested # of Dwelling Units: 1
Proposal: Request for one additional
development right for a family subdivision.
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural Areas
- preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open
space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/
density ( .5 unit/ acre in development lots)
Character of Property: Residential Use of Surrounding Properties: The adjacent
properties are residential.
Factors Favorable:
1. The proposal can be accommodated
without significant health or safety
impacts to the area.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. Additional development rights are
generally incosistent with the purposes
of the Rural Areas zoning district. Staff
proposes to minimize this concern with
a condition of approval that would
require the subdivision to be processed
as a family subdivision, which would
keep the land in the family for at least
four years.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this Special Use Permit, with one condition.
SP 2010-018
PC August 24, 2010
Staff Report Page 2
Petition:
PROJECT: SP200900033 Coleman Morris Development Right
PROPOSED: Special Use Permit for one additional development right to create a minimum 2-acre parcel
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 (28) Divisions of land as provided in section 10.5.2.1;
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____No__X__
LOCATION: 5391 Morris Knoll Lane; appx. 1600 feet west of the intersection of Rt. 720 Harris Creek Rd. and
Rt. 20 Scottsville Rd.; appx. 1.5 mi. north of Rt. 712 Plank Rd.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: TMP 112 00000003200
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
Character of the Area:
The property’s immediate surroundings are residential. However, the nearby land includes large farms and
large blocks of forest.
Specifics of the Proposal:
The applicant is requesting an additional development right for the purpose of giving a grandchild
approximately 2 acres of land (out of the 8.28-acre parcel) for a new home. This parcel and four others next
to it were created through family divisions, and are occupied by family members. There are no remaining
development rights on the property. (Please note that, if this special use permit is approved, a more detailed
subdivision plat meeting the County’s subdivision requirements would be required before the lot could be
created.)
Planning and Zoning History:
SP1976-00009: This request to locate a mobile home on the property was withdrawn on May 5,
1976
SP1982-00001: This request to locate a mobile home on the property was approved on February 18,
1983.
Since 1981, 21 applications for additional development rights on various RA parcels have been considered,
of which 10 were approved, and 11 denied. The Board of Supervisors typically based its approvals on
finding that the applications adequately met the criteria of Section 10.5.2.1, such as a location next to a
development area or existing development, for a family member, or some unique circumstance. The Board
approved all five of the applications that were intended to provide lots for family members prior to SP 2008-
00048 Matheny, which was denied in 2009.
Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan:
The Comprehensive Plan designates the site as part of the County’s Rural Areas, where land-use policies
focus on the preservation and protection of agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic
resources. The Plan states that:
To be consistent with the Guiding Principles, the County's land development policies must be
SP 2010-018
PC August 24, 2010
Staff Report Page 3
changed to stop the ongoing trend toward fragmentation and loss of rural character. New policies
should focus on protecting existing large parcels from fragmentation, preserving a general pattern
characterized by farms, forests, and habitat corridors, and reducing the potential overall level of
residential development and loss of rural character.
While this proposal is not directly supportive of this, the addition of one dwelling for a family member to a
group of family residences is not expected to have significant impacts.
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 not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property,
Residential uses are permitted by right in the Rural Areas zoning district, and the additional lot would match
the existing pattern of the surrounding lots.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and
The addition of one house to the existing grouping of homes will not significantly change the pattern of land
use in the area.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
Although section 10.1 (―Intent‖) makes it clear that residential development is not a preferred use in the
Rural Areas zoning district, this proposal is intended to provide an additional lot for a family member in a
concentrated area of family dwellings on land for which there are no remaining development rights. In order
to ensure that the additional development right would be used for this purpose, staff recommends a condition
requiring that the subdivision only occur through the ―family subdivision‖ provisions of the subdivision
ordinance. Section 14-212(B) of the Subdivision Ordinance would require that the land remain in family
ownership for at least four years after the recordation of the subdivision plat. The applicant has stated that
their intention is for the new parcel to be transferred to a grandchild.
with uses permitted by right in the district,
Residential uses are permitted by right in the district.
with additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance,
There are no supplemental regulations in section 5 for this use. However, section 10.5.2 requires the
following analysis for special use permits requesting additional development rights in the Rural Areas zoning
district:
10.5.2 WHERE PERMITTED BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
10.5.2.1 The board of supervisors may authorize the issuance of a special use permit for more lots than
the total number permitted under section 10.3.1 and section 10.3.2; provided that no such permit shall be
issued for property within the boundaries for the watershed of any public drinking water supply
impoundment, and further provided that no such permit shall be issued to allow more development lots
within a proposed rural preservation development than that permitted by right under section 10.3.3.3(b).
(Added 11-8-89; Amended 5-5-04 effective 7-1-04)
SP 2010-018
PC August 24, 2010
Staff Report Page 4
The board of supervisors shall determine that such division is compatible with the neighborhood as set
forth in section 31.2.4.1 of this chapter with reference to the goals and objectives of the comprehensive
plan relating to rural areas including the type of division proposed and specifically, as to this section
only, with reference to the following: (Amended 11-8-89)
1. The size, shape, topography and existing vegetation of the property in relation to its suitability for
agricultural or forestal production as evaluated by the United States Department of Agriculture Soil
Conservation Service or the Virginia Department of Forestry.
The portion of the property proposed for additional development would be surrounded by
residential properties. The existing property is just over 8 acres in size, which is small for the
types of agriculture common in the surrounding area. The property also has a home and other
structures. Overall, the proposed subdivision is not likely to make the property less suitable for
agriculture.
2. The actual suitability of the soil for agricultural or forestal production as the same shall be shown on
the most recent published maps of the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service
or other source deemed of equivalent reliability by the Soil Conservation Service.
Approximately 6.8 of the property’s 8.28 acres (82%) are in soils rated as Prime or Locally
Important in the Open Spaces and Critical Resources Plan. These ratings were developed for the
County by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly the Soil Conservation Service).
3. The historic commercial agricultural or forestal uses of the property since 1950, to the extent
that is reasonably available.
Aerial photographs from 1957 through 1980 appear to show that the majority of the property was
in agricultural use or forest. The next set of photographs, from 1990, show that residential use
was increasing—a new road had been built, and houses and/or building sites were being
developed.
4. If located in an agricultural or forestal area, the probable effect of the proposed development on the
character of the area. For the purposes of this section, a property shall be deemed to be in an
agricultural or forestal area if fifty (50) percent or more of the land within one (1) mile of the border of
such property has been in commercial agricultural or forestal use within five (5) years of the date of the
application for special use permit. In making this determination, mountain ridges, major streams and
other physical barriers which detract from the cohesiveness of an area shall be considered.
Within one mile of the property, approximately 70 percent of the land is enrolled in the County’s
use-value taxation program, the usual indicator of current agricultural and forestal activity.
Therefore this area would be considered to be an ―agricultural or forestal area.‖
However, the addition of one residence to a cluster of small family lots (which has already been
removed from agricultural production) is not expected to fragment the agricultural or forestal
lands, or to impede the use of that land for its current purposes.
5. The relationship of the property in regard to developed rural areas. For the purposes of this section, a
property shall be deemed to be located in a developed rural area if fifty (50) percent or more of the land
within one (1) mile of the boundary of such property was in parcels of record of five (5) acres or less on
the adoption date of this ordinance. In making this
determination, mountain ridges, major streams and other physical barriers which detract from the
SP 2010-018
PC August 24, 2010
Staff Report Page 5
cohesiveness of an area shall be considered.
Only 2.7 percent of the land within one mile of the property is currently in parcels of 5 acres or
less. Therefore less than 50 percent of the land within one mile was in such parcels on the
adoption date of the Zoning Ordinance, and this is not a ―developed rural area.‖
6. The relationship of the proposed development to existing and proposed population centers, services
and employment centers. A property within areas described below shall be deemed in proximity to the
area or use described:
a. Within one mile roadway distance of the urban area boundary as described in the comprehensive plan;
(Amended 11-8-89)
The property is not within one mile of a development area.
b. Within one-half mile roadway distance of a community boundary as described in the comprehensive
plan; (Amended 11-8-89)
The property is not within one-half mile of a community listed in the Comprehensive Plan.
c. Within one-half mile roadway distance of a village as described in the comprehensive plan. (Amended
11-8-89)
The property is not within one-half mile of a Village listed in the Comprehensive Plan.
7. The probable effect of the proposed development on capital improvements programming in regard to
increased provision of services.
The addition of one lot to this area of existing family lots is not expected to require any
significant increase in service provision.
8. The traffic generated from the proposed development would not, in the opinion of the Virginia
Department of Transportation: (Amended 11-8-89)
a. Occasion the need for road improvement;
b. Cause a tolerable road to become a nontolerable road;
c. Increase traffic on an existing nontolerable road.
Traffic counts for Route 720 are approximately 250 vehicle-trips per day. The Virginia
Department of Transportation estimates that one new dwelling would add 10 vehicle trips per
day, and states that this would not occasion the need for any road improvements.
9. With respect to applications for special use permits for land lying wholly or partially within the
boundaries for the watershed of any public drinking water impoundment, the following additional factors
shall be considered:
This section does not apply, as the property is not in the watershed of a public water-supply
impoundment.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
SP 2010-018
PC August 24, 2010
Staff Report Page 6
The applicants have stated that they want to use an existing private road to access the proposed lot. The
Virginia Department of Transportation has confirmed that that driveway has sufficient sight distance.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. The proposal can be accommodated without significant health or safety impacts on the area.
Staff has identified the following factors unfavorable to this application:
1. Additional development rights are generally inconsistent with the purposes of the Rural Areas
zoning district. Staff proposes to minimize this concern with a condition of approval that would
require the subdivision to be processed only as a family subdivision, which would keep the land in
the family for at least four years.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of SP 2009-00033 Coleman
Morris with the following condition:
1. The proposed subdivision of Tax Map 112 Parcel 32 shall only be permitted as a ―family
subdivision‖ as provided by Chapter 14 of the Albemarle County Code.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Area Map
Attachment B – Detail Map
Return to PC actions letter
122-1121-1 112-20112-30G113-6A112-15122-13113-1
112-16J112-30F1 1 2 -1 6 F
112-30A2112-16113-6112-18L112-171
1
3-9
113-10113-1A
113-8112-30C 113-4112-3121-1A112-18M 1112-16D112-34112-30A1112-31101-60
112-37D112-33 113-6C1112-26112-16C112-16E112-21
112-30D1 1 2 -1 9 G
121-2
1 1 2 -1 8 C
112-18J
112-37112-19I113-6C1 0 2 -1 7 D
112-19F112-19HSCOTTSVILLE RDF R YS PATH
P
LA
NK R
D
SECRE T A RYS RD
ESTOUTEVILLE FARMVIEWMONT FARM
COUNT Y OFA AL
LB
EEA
M
R
RI I IGNVF
OUNDED AD 1744
NSP 2009-00033 Coleman Morris00.5 10.25 Miles
► Prepared by Albemarle County Community Development Dept. Map created by Scott Clark, August 2010.► Note: The map elements depicted are graphic representations and are not to be construed or used as a legal description. This map is for display purposes only.► Parcel boundaries reflect most recent available data.
Attachment A
112-33112-32112-26112-33D1
1 1 2 -2 0
112-24B112-21112-18M112-23C112-24B2
112-23D112-26C1
1
2
-
2
2112-24A112-37112-24D112-23112-37A112-33F112-24B1112-23B112-33D 112-23A112-32A112-37C112-33D4
112-33D3112-33C112-32A2112-26B112-32B112-33E112-33D2112-37D112-18M1SCOTTSVILLE RDHARRIS CREEK RD
M O R R IS HLMORRIS KNOLL LNNA P IER H L
COUNT Y OFA AL
LB
EEA
M
R
RI I IGNVF
OUNDED AD 1744
NSP 2009-00033 Coleman Morris00.07 0.140.035 Miles
► Prepared by Albemarle County Community Development Dept. Map created by Scott Clark, August 2010.► Note: The map elements depicted are graphic representations and are not to be construed or used as a legal description. This map is for display purposes only.► Parcel boundaries reflect most recent available data.
Attachment B
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 24, 2010
DRAFT MINUTES –Submit to PC 10-4-10
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
August 24, 2010
SP-2009-00033 Coleman Morris Development Right (Sign # 51)
PROPOSED: Special Use Permit for one additional development right to create a minimum 2 -acre parcel.
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 (28) Divisions of land as provided in section 10.5.2.1;
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: 5391 Morris Knoll Lane; appx. 1600 feet west of the intersection of Rt. 720 Harris Creek Rd.
and Rt. 20 Scottsville Rd.; approximately 1.5 mile north of Rt. 712, Plank Rd.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: TMP 112 00000003200.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
Scott Clark presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report for SP-2009-00033
Coleman Morris Development Right.
This is a special use permit request for an additional development right on a parcel in the Rural Areas
zoning district. The parcel is located off Route 20 just west of its intersection with Rt. 720, Harris Creek
Road. In this case this parcel and four of the adjacent parcels were all created with the original five
development rights that existed on this property. All of these properties were transferred to family
members that occupy the property. The current request is for an additional development right for another
parcel to be given to a family member. The additional development right, if approved, would be at the
end of the driveway in the area of the subject parcel.
Since 1981, 21 applications for additional developm ent rights have been considered
10 applications approved
11 applications denied
The Board of Supervisors typically based its approvals on finding that the applications adequately met the
criteria of Section 10.5.2.1, such as a location next to a development area or existing development, for a
family member, or some unique circumstance.
The Board approved all five of the applications prior to SP-2008-00048 Matheny that were intended to
provide lots for family members, which the Commission will see again later. SP-2008-00048 was the first
denial of such a request. Previous to that all family division requests had been approved.
Staff has identified the following factor favorable to this application:
1. The proposal can be accommodated without significant health or safety impacts on the area.
Staff has identified the following factors unfavorable to this application:
1. Additional development rights are generally inconsistent with the purposes of the Rural Areas zoning
district. Staff proposes to minimize this concern with a condition of approval that would require the
subdivision to be processed only as a family subdivision, which would keep the land in the family for at
least four years.
Staff recommends approval of SP 2009-00033 Coleman Morris with the following condition:
1. The proposed subdivision of Tax Map 112 Parcel 32 shall only be permitted as a “family
subdivision” as provided by Chapter 14 of the Albemarle County Code.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 24, 2010
DRAFT MINUTES –Submit to PC 10-4-10
2
The condition means that the lot would have to stay in the intermediate family four years after it was
recorded.
Mr. Loach invited questions for staff.
Mr. Loach said that there were two of these requests and each one seems to have the same address. He
assumed that they are different.
Mr. Clark replied that they were different because of a typo in the address.
Mr. Smith asked what size lot was proposed.
Mr. Clark replied that it would have to be a minimum of 2 acres. The entire property is about 8 acres. He
deferred the question to the applicant, Mr. Morris.
There being no further questions, Mr. Loach opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to
address the Planning Commission.
Coleman Morris, property owner, said this was property has always been in the family. The property has
not changed hands since the „50‟s. The request is for an additional lot for his granddaughter. There is no
intention in making any profit off the lot or selling it. Basically it is a 2 acre lot that he had received from
his dad and mom who had owned the property. The property is in the Keene area on Route 20 south.
The property is in the rural area and is wooded with farms around it.
Mr. Loach asked if the proposed condition is acceptable that he keep this as a family subdivision for at
least four years.
Mr. Morris replied yes that was very acceptable.
Mr. Loach invited other public comment. There being none, he closed the public hearing to bring the
matter before the Commission.
Ms. Porterfield noted that there was a problem with two things. Some of the Commissioners were not
here when the request was previously heard. The problem is that there is nothing exceptional about
adding a development right here. In her mind it really opens the box. If they approve a request like this
she did not know how they could not approve the same type of request for anybody that comes in and
asks for another development right. She understands that it would be nice to have another family
member living there, but just keeping the property for four years does not necessarily mean that the y
won‟t end up selling the lot. If they are going to have the regulation that someone gets X number of
development rights based on the number of acres in the county, then that should be the rule that they
follow in the county. If the Board wants to change that for family members, then they should go back and
change the family division regulations. Otherwise she personally cannot support this because they were
opening Pandora‟s Box.
Mr. Morris said that he fully understands what Ms. Porterfield is saying. However, again when they have a
large parcel and are trying to keep the family together he thought that trumps it.
Mr. Franco said that he was torn in this whole thing. He agreed with what everybody said today, but he
did not know if he considered an 8-acre parcel a large parcel to start with. So he was struggling a little bit
with that. He thought it was good to be able to keep the family together, but it is inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. He did not know how this would apply to somebody else coming in. He had a
problem with the permanency of it.
Mr. Loach asked if the four years is a minimum requirement if there is anything that can keep the
applicant from extending that period to make it more acceptable.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 24, 2010
DRAFT MINUTES –Submit to PC 10-4-10
3
Mr. Kamptner replied that the four years is established by the family subdivision regulations in the
Subdivision Ordinance, which is the minimum period that the land owner is required to hold the property.
Mr. Loach asked if they can essentially proffer a longer period of time so that the concerns that Ms.
Porterfield has stated will be made more palpable.
Mr. Kamptner advised the Commission that they can revise the special use permit condition, but that staff
will look at it between now and the Board of Supervisors. That is something staff can look at. The
Commission can recommend that the holding period by the member of the intermediate family be longer
than four years.
Mr. Loach asked Ms. Porterfield if there was an acceptable time period as far as maintaining the lot that
she could live.
Ms. Porterfield said her follow up question is whether it is enforceable by the county and if they would
know if they sell it.
Mr. Kamptner replied yes because as a special use permit condition it is essentially a zoning regulation
that runs with the land. He did not know the extent to which Community Development tracks compliance
with the family subdivision holding periods, but knew that it had been lengthened over the last few years
as they have looked at the issue. They are required to record a document that upon sale will be found in
the title that lets the person know that it is subject to a four year holding period.
Mr. Clark said that because it is a special use permit it would be caught much more easily. If a
subdivision plat were to come in the planners would see that there was a special use permit on the
property that would have to be reviewed.
Mr. Zobrist said he assumed that the title company would pick it up since that would be their job. The
applicant would have to file a subdivision plat.
Mr. Kamptner noted there is different enabling authority for localities that have family subdivisions and the
outer limits for those localities are subject to stricter regulations than Albemarle County is. Fifteen years
is the outer limit now for a holding period just as a rule of thumb.
Mr. Lafferty asked if the family subdivision ordinance was created for this purpose.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that the family divisions were created to allow division of land for family members
that would not be subject to the normal subdivision requirements. It was not created for creating
additional lots beyond what is allowed by right. That is why there is a special use permit.
Mr. Lafferty said by changing the time period they would not necessarily be changing the way it is written
now.
Mr. Cilimberg said that it does not change the other provisions of the family division in the ordinance.
Ms. Monteith noted when they discussed this previously it was not just the time frame but also the
precedent. If they are going to allow one additional family member now, and they do have two of these
requests in front of the Commission, then next year it could be six and then the next year it could be
seven. Changing the time frame does not necessarily address the precedent that they would be
establishing.
Mr. Loach agreed, but could see Cal Morris‟ point too because he sees family somewhat of a different
circumstance. He heard Mr. Franco was also struggling with it. Knowing the situation today, knowing it is
going to be family, and then seeing from the staff report that they don‟t think it would essentially change
the character of the area around it kind of leads him to be more favorably inclined towards it.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 24, 2010
DRAFT MINUTES –Submit to PC 10-4-10
4
Ms. Porterfield said that the Commission got sections from the minutes from the last time they heard this.
At the time Sally Thomas was the Supervisor and her quote is that although this application is in her
district she is not going to vote for approval because she has never been in favor of increasing rural
development rights. She visited the site and it is a nice vista for the second one. It is a nice place to
have all of the family houses together, but there are many families in this situation and the Board has to
think about hundreds of families and not just one. That is what Ms. Monteith is talking about because
they did discuss precedent. That is the whole problem with this. She felt that there was nothing unusual
about it. It would be an unusual circumstance if a family came in and said that they really needed to
divide because they have a child in serious medical condition that they want to be able to move back.
This situation is not unusual. It is just a family that wants one more development right. They can‟t give
one more development right to everybody in the county. In other words what they would have done is
negated the planning that was done quite a while ago.
Mr. Smith said that first of all not everyone has enough property to give a family member a lot. He asked
staff roughly how many of these do they have on the books at this time.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that Mr. Clark had given a number of those lots approved for family division.
Mr. Clark noted that there have been five special use permits that have been approved to give peopl e
additional rights to do family divisions. Overall there are relatively few family divisions compared to
standard subdivisions. Several years ago when doing research for the Comprehensive Plan for the rural
areas he went back through the records for the family subdivisions that had been done and over several
years nearly all of them were still in family hands. It was a real perspective that almost all of them were
still in family hands.
Mr. Loach said that as far as 11 of them being approved it would not really be setting precedence of any
nature. He asked staff to address that.
Mr. Kamptner noted they want the decisions to be consistent, but each application also must stand on its
own facts. Each application is different and each one needs to be decided on its own merits. But they do
want to strive for consistency. It may be that even though they have a 10 to 11 split that there is a thread
that supports the 10 that were approved or denied and a common thread that supports the opposite result
in the other. Another thought, which has no direct relationship to either of these applications , is the family
division restriction applies only to the new parcels that are created. If someone already has the new
parcels created out of that original five, those could be transferred at any time. If somebody with a 12
acre parcel uses up all 5 development rights and with one of those five is a four acre parcel, they may ask
for a development right because they want to divide a family division. Any of those other four parcels
could be sold off. So the family division provides some protection and assurance that the additional
development right is being used for a purpose that the county supports, family divisions. But those pre -
existing parcels would not necessarily stay in the family.
Mr. Zobrist asked the applicant how big the original piece of land was and if it has been split into five lots
already.
Mr. Morris replied that it was 10 acres. He understood that a lot of people have abused the family divisio n
rights so that they could sell it to other individuals. That is not the case for this applicant. Since the „50‟s
his family has owned this property. He inherited the two acres they are talking about. He inherited the
two acres from his mom, which adjoined his property. He lives on eight acres now.
Mr. Zobrist noted that he had said there were five families living there. He was missing how fractionated
the land is.
Mr. Morris said when he bought the land from the original owner it was two acres that adjourned his 10
acres.
Mr. Zobrist noted that he was missing something. He asked how many families live on the 10 acres.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 24, 2010
DRAFT MINUTES –Submit to PC 10-4-10
5
Mr. Morris replied that it was four families.
Mr. Zobrist asked if he inherited the two acres as a separate parcel.
Mr. replied that was correct that he inherited the two acres , which was from his mom that joined the same
property.
Mr. Zobrist asked if the two acres was divided off these 10 acres.
Mr. Morris replied that it was divided off his mom‟s property, which adjourns this property.
Mr. Zobrist asked staff if this was a separate parcel.
Mr. Morris said that this was a parcel that was added to his parcel after his mom passed away.
Ms. Porterfield asked if it has officially been added to his parcel.
Mr. Morris replied yes.
Ms. Porterfield asked if now he just has one parcel number, and it was previously a separate parcel.
Mr. Morris replied that was correct. It was a larger parcel that belonged to his mom and they divided it
among the children. His brother and sisters had already gotten their parcel and this parcel was added to
his parcel.
Mr. Zobrist asked if basically he has 8.75 acres plus 2 acres.
Mr. Morris replied he had 6 acres before he got the 2 acres.
Mr. Zobrist assumed that when it was divided up by his mother it used the 5 division rights that were on
the original parcel. That is why he did not have a division right left.
Mr. Clark noted as he understands it there were five lots created that used the development rights that
existed on the property. The five lots created were tax map 112, parcels 33F, 33D3, 33C, 33D4 and 33D.
Mr. Smith asked if the lot is coming off the front or back of the property.
Mr. Morris replied that it was going to come off the back of the property. That road has always served the
property. Before his father gave all of the children the land he farmed the property, which is why that road
always existed and served that property.
Mr. Zobrist said when he got the two acres since there were no division rights left he took his two acres as
part of his lot because he did not have a division right left.
Mr. Morris replied that is basically what happened. All intentions were that they were all supposed to get
a division right there. It is no more land there to divide.
Mr. Zobrist said the problem was that the property only had five division rights.
Mr. Morris said that he understood the rules, but did not think his mom understood the rules.
Mr. Zobrist said that he accommodated his siblings who got the rest of the land. Now he was saying give
him a break so he could cut this off and gives it to his granddaughter.
Mr. Morris replied that is exactly what has happened. W hen his mom and dad were alive they wanted
him to get this particular lot. He was always promised this lot. He did get the lot, but they wanted him to
build a house on it. He did not do that because he bought the land right beside it , which is where he
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 24, 2010
DRAFT MINUTES –Submit to PC 10-4-10
6
acquired the other property. The two acres adjourned the other land. They did not know the stipulation s
that there were only five development rights.
Mr. Zobrist asked where the two acres was divided off of.
Mr. Clark pointed out the area at the edge of Mr. Morris‟ property, which as he said was transferred to his
ownership. When it was transferred it was noted on the plat that it was a parcel of two acres that had no
division rights and was not a buildable lot. It is identified on the plat that it has no rights.
Ms. Porterfield said that Mr. Morris‟ lot is 111-32. His original property ended and his mother owned that
piece plus those lots.
Mr. Morris said that was correct.
Ms. Porterfield said that piece when she did the other things she adjourned it to his property which is why
it does not have a separate parcel number.
Mr. Morris agreed that is what the surveyor did. All of the other lots are his brothers and sisters. It is
nobody outside of the family. They have had this property since the 50‟s and he has no intensions on this
2 acre lot to sell it anyone outside of the family. His house sits next to the 2 acres on 6 acres.
Ms. Porterfield suggested the Commission indicate in the motion that the reason for granting the special
use permit is unique because the reason this land has no development rights is that it was part of the
original division and did not become a lot by itself but simply was then hooked up to the other sibling in
the family.
Mr. Morris said that is exactly what happened.
Mr. Franco asked staff if parcel 112-32 has division rights.
Mr. Clark replied no that is why this became an issue.
Mr. Franco noted that it has used all five of its division rights.
Mr. Clark replied that he was not sure and would have to go back and go through the old tax maps.
Ms. Porterfield said she thought that Mr. Morris bought this land from somebody other than his parents.
Mr. Morris replied that the property outlined in red, other than the two acres they were talking about, he
did buy that from his neighbor.
Ms. Porterfield noted that was the question. Mr. Morris bought the two acres fro m his neighbor and it did
not come down from his parents. So does it have any division rights?
Mr. Zobrist said that the answer was no and was why the request was before the Commission.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the reason it was before the Commission is that the resulting parcel, which was
probably created through a combination of what he bought with what he already had, has not
development rights and has not rights to divide. That is why it is before them.
Ms. Porterfield said that the original property at 112-32 before he added this to it did not have any
development rights either.
Mr. Zobrist pointed out that it had the one development right that he is occupying and no additional ones.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 24, 2010
DRAFT MINUTES –Submit to PC 10-4-10
7
Mr. Morris said that his brothers and sisters received all of th e development rights. His mother and he
were not aware of all of the stipulations. He had known all of the stipulations he would have built his
house first since he had the opportunity.
Mr. Franco said that on the tract he bought it looks like the adjacent neighbors are 32A2, 32A, and 32B.
He asked are those relatives.
Mr. Morris replied yes, that was his son and daughter. The man he bought parcel 112-32A from had
given that lot to his son before he bought the property. Originally it was 12 acres, which with his purchase
left him with 10 acres. That is where he gave his son before he ever bought the property that was one of
the development rights. The 2 acres he received from his mom the road has always fed that because his
dad used it for farming before any houses were built. He said that family division had probably been
abused by some, but he was glad that there are stipulations on it. He certainly does not want anybody
else other than a family member to be on the property. The 2 acres they a re talking about has been in
the family since the 1950‟s since it belonged to his mom and dad.
Mr. Franco asked if he was comfortable with the extended period of time, and Mr. Morris replied yes.
Ms. Porterfield asked if they could put something into th e motion that indicates that this is an unusual
granting of one more development right due to the fact that may be it should have been done back before
they hooked that piece on it and come in and said this is what they wanted to do.
Mr. Kamptner replied certainly that it was appropriate to identify the unique circumstances to justify the
recommendation.
Ms. Porterfield said that would help a lot. She asked if he said that the outside amount of time was 4
years to 15 years.
Mr. Kamptner replied that under a different enabling authority 15 years is the maximum.
Mr. Zobrist noted that in our county it is 4 years.
Ms. Porterfield said that if they want a different time they are being told that as a special use permit it
could be 15 years because that is done other places. There is at least a track record as to why they
picked 15 years. If they don‟t intend to sell it she did not think they would care whether it is 100 years
from now. She was more concerned about making it unique than about the amount of time.
Mr. Franco said that he was concerned about making it unique.
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Morris seconded for approval of SP-2009-00033, Coleman Morris
Development Right subject to the staff‟s recommended condition and a second condition added by the
Commission:
1. The proposed subdivision of Tax Map 112 Parcel 32 shall only be permitted as a “family
subdivision” as provided by Chapter 14 of the Albemarle County Code.
2. The family division period to retain the property shall be extended to seven (7) years.
Ms. Porterfield suggested an amendment to add a condition that the lot cannot be created until a more
detailed subdivision plat is submitted with a minimum of two acres.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that is a requirement under the county ordi nance that they can‟t do a lot of less
than two acres.
Ms. Porterfield suggested adding a condition or indicating that the Board understands that this is a very
unusual situation due to the fact that when the family divided the original property there was this portion
that they could have come in and asked to create one more lot at that time , but it hooked onto a piece of
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 24, 2010
DRAFT MINUTES –Submit to PC 10-4-10
8
property owned by the person who wants it grant this at this point totally separately that was not a piece
of the family property.
Mr. Franco preferred that not to be part of the motion, but just as part of the discussion.
Mr. Loach noted that it would go in the minutes as far as a record of the discussion.
Ms. Porterfield agreed as long as it showed when it goes to the Board of Super visors in the action memo
and not just the minutes.
Mr. Zobrist said that it was not quite correct. It could never have obtained a division right because the
division rights were all distinguished. That is why the two acres merged into his property. They don‟t
want to go down that road.
Mr. Franco pointed out what makes it unique and why he is willing to make this motion is the fact it has
family all the way around it and it has been in the family for years. They‟ve agreed to an extended period
above and beyond what the family division would require today and he was comfortable with that.
The motion was passed by a vote of 6:1. (Porterfield nay) (Smith voted aye with reservation.)
Mr. Cilimberg clarified that the minutes will reflect the discussion, which will go to the Board. The Board
does not get the action memo, but the minutes. As they recall the action memo is simply to reflect their
actions and not individual comments from the action. That will be in the minutes.
Ms. Porterfield asked if the minutes will be completed and proofed by the Commission before this goes to
the Board.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the draft minutes would be complete prior to the Board meeting. The
Commission will not have seen them. There is no way the Commission will be able to act on the minutes
prior to the Board meeting or they would delay this applicant from going to the Board for probably three
months.
Mr. Franco noted that his experience has been in the past if they had something they wanted to share
with the Board they can send an email directly if the minutes are not prepared for it.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the minutes will be prepared, but will just have not gotten to the Commission for
action. Staff will send the minutes to the Commission as they are prep ared for the Board. But the
Commission‟s official action on the minutes will not have been taken.
Mr. Loach noted that SP-2009-00033, Coleman Morris Development Right, would go before 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
September 3, 2010
Ronald Or Janie Matheny
2806 Kacey Lane
Afton, Va 22920
RE: SP201000018 Matheny Development Right Request
Tax Map 84 Parcel 14E
Dear Mr. Matheny:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 24, 2010, by a vote of 6:1,
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following condition:
1. The proposed subdivision of Tax Map 84 Parcel 14E shall only be permitted as a “family subdivision”
as provided by Chapter 14 of the Albemarle County Code.
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 October 13, 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,
Scott Clark
Senior Planner
Planning Division
SP 2010-018
PC August 24, 2010
Staff Report Page 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP2010-00018 Matheny
Development Right Request
Staff: Scott Clark
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
August 24, 2010
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
TBA
Owner/s: Ronald E & Janie A Matheny Applicants: Ronald E & Janie A Matheny
Acreage: 4.936 acres Special Use Permit: 10.2.2.28, Divisions of
land as provided in section 10.5.2.1
TMP: Tax Map 84 Parcel 14E
Location: 2839 Craigs Store Road (Route 635),
approximately 2000 feet south of the intersection
with White Mountain Road (Route 736).
Existing Zoning and By-right use: RA -- Rural
Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development
lots)
Magisterial District: Samuel Miller Conditions: Yes
RA (Rural Areas) Requested # of Dwelling Units: 1
Proposal: Request for one additional
development right for a family subdivision.
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural Areas
- preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open
space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/
density ( .5 unit/ acre in development lots)
Character of Property: Residential Use of Surrounding Properties: Residential
lots on west side of Craigs Store Road; large
forest and farm parcels in the vicinity
Factors Favorable:
1. The proposal can be accommodated
without significant health or safety
impacts to the area.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. Additional development rights are
generally inconsistent with the
purposes of the Rural Areas zoning
district. Staff proposes to minimize this
concern with a condition of approval
that would require the subdivision to
be processed only as a family
subdivision, which would keep the
land in the family for at least four
years.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this Special Use Permit, with one condition.
SP 2010-018
PC August 24, 2010
Staff Report Page 2
Petition:
PROPOSED: Request for one additional development right for a family subdivision.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots);
SECTION: 10.2.2.28, Divisions of land as provided in section 10.5.2.1
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: 2839 Craigs Store Road (Route 635), approximately 2000 feet south of the intersection with White
Mountain Road (Route 736).
TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 84 Parcel 14E
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller
Character of the Area:
The area is located to the northwest of Heard’s Mountain, and is characterized by small residential parcels
along the road and large areas of forest and pasture.
Specifics of the Proposal:
The applicants are requesting an additional development right for the purpose of giving a grandchild
approximately 2 acres of land (out of their 4.9-acre parcel) for a new home. The new parcel would be added
to a group of five small residential parcels on the west side of Craigs Store Road, all belonging to members
of the same family. Those fives parcels contain all the acreage of the single parcel that was distributed to
family members. See Attachment C for a sketch plan of the proposed division—an arrow indicates the
location of the proposed lot. (Please note that, if this special use permit is approved, a more detailed
subdivision plat meeting the County’s subdivision requirements would be required before the lot could be
created.)
Planning and Zoning History:
SP 2008-00048: On April 21, 2009, the Planning Commission recommended denial of this request for an
additional development right (see Attachment D for Planning Commission minutes). On June 10, 2009, the
Board of Supervisors denied this request due to concerns with the proposal’s inconsistency with
Comprehensive Plan goals for the Rural Areas (see Attachment E for Board of Supervisors minutes). The
current application is the same as the previous request.
Since 1981, 21 applications for additional development rights on various RA parcels have been considered,
of which 10 were approved, and 11 denied. The Board of Supervisors typically based its approvals on
finding that the applications adequately met the criteria of Section 10.5.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, such as
a location next to a development area or existing development, for a family member, or some unique
circumstance. The Board approved all five of the applications prior to SP 2008-00048 that were intended to
provide lots for family members; SP 2008-00048 was the first denial of such a request.
Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan:
The Comprehensive Plan designates the site as part of the County’s Rural Areas, where land-use policies
focus on the preservation and protection of agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic
resources. The Plan states that:
To be consistent with the Guiding Principles, the County's land development policies must be
SP 2010-018
PC August 24, 2010
Staff Report Page 3
changed to stop the ongoing trend toward fragmentation and loss of rural character. New policies
should focus on protecting existing large parcels from fragmentation, preserving a general pattern
characterized by farms, forests, and habitat corridors, and reducing the potential overall level of
residential development and loss of rural character.
While this proposal is not directly supportive of this, the addition of one dwelling for a family member to a
group of family residences is not expected to have significant impacts.
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 not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property,
Residential uses are permitted by right in the Rural Areas zoning district, and the additional lot would match
the existing pattern of the surrounding lots.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and
The addition of one house to the existing grouping of homes will not significantly change the pattern of land
use in the area.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
Although section 10.1 (―Intent‖) makes it clear that residential development is not a preferred use in the
Rural Areas zoning district, this proposal is intended to provide an additional lot for a family member in a
concentrated area of family dwellings on land for which there are no remaining development rights. In order
to ensure that the additional development right would be used for this purpose, staff recommends a condition
requiring that the subdivision only occur through the ―family subdivision‖ provisions of the subdivision
ordinance. Section 14-212(B) of the Subdivision Ordinance would require that the land remain in family
ownership for at least four years after the recordation of the subdivision plat. The applicants have stated that
their intention is for the new parcel to be used long-term as a residence for their grandchild.
with uses permitted by right in the district,
Residential uses are permitted by right in the district.
with additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance,
There are no supplemental regulations in section 5 for this use. However, section 10.5.2 requires the
following analysis for special use permits requesting additional development rights in the Rural Areas zoning
district:
10.5.2 WHERE PERMITTED BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT 10.5.2.1 The board of supervisors
may authorize the issuance of a special use permit for more lots than the total number permitted
under section 10.3.1 and section 10.3.2; provided that no such permit shall be issued for property
within the boundaries for the watershed of any public drinking water supply impoundment, and
further provided that no such permit shall be issued to allow more development lots within a
proposed rural preservation development than that permitted by right under section 10.3.3.3(b).
(Added 11-8-89; Amended 5-5-04 effective 7-1-04)
SP 2010-018
PC August 24, 2010
Staff Report Page 4
The board of supervisors shall determine that such division is compatible with the neighborhood
as set forth in section 31.2.4.1 of this chapter with reference to the goals and objectives of the
comprehensive plan relating to rural areas including the type of division proposed and
specifically, as to this section only, with reference to the following: (Amended 11-8-89)
1. The size, shape, topography and existing vegetation of the property in relation to its suitability
for agricultural or forestal production as evaluated by the United States Department of
Agriculture Soil Conservation Service or the Virginia Department of Forestry.
The portion of the property proposed for additional development would be bordered on three sides by
residential properties. The existing property is just under 5 acres in size, which is small for the types of
agriculture common in the surrounding area. The property also has a home and other structures. Overall,
the proposed subdivision is not likely make the property less suitable for agriculture.
2. The actual suitability of the soil for agricultural or forestal production as the same shall be
shown on the most recent published maps of the United States Department of Agriculture Soil
Conservation Service or other source deemed of equivalent reliability by the Soil Conservation
Service.
The soils on the parcel are listed as ―Locally Important‖ in the Open Space & Critical Resources
Plan. This soil list was developed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service.
3. The historic commercial agricultural or forestal uses of the property since 1950, to the extent
that is reasonably available.
Aerial photos show that the property was in agricultural use (pastures) in 1937, and was
becoming wooded by 1957. The existing dwelling was built in 1968.
4. If located in an agricultural or forestal area, the probable effect of the proposed development
on the character of the area. For the purposes of this section, a property shall be deemed to be in
an agricultural or forestal area if fifty (50) percent or more of the land within one (1) mile of the
border of such property has been in commercial agricultural or forestal use within five (5) years
of the date of the application for special use permit. In making this determination, mountain
ridges, major streams and other physical barriers which detract from the cohesiveness of an area
shall be considered.
Approximately 84 percent of the Albemarle County parcels within one mile have been in
agricultural or forestal use, as indicated by enrollment in the County’s use-value taxation
program. However, the addition of one family dwelling to the area is not expected to create a
significant difference in the character of the area.
5. The relationship of the property in regard to developed rural areas. For the purposes of this
section, a property shall be deemed to be located in a developed rural area if fifty (50) percent or
more of the land within one (1) mile of the boundary of such property was in parcels of record of
five (5) acres or less on the adoption date of this ordinance. In making this determination,
mountain ridges, major streams and other physical barriers which detract from the cohesiveness
of an area shall be considered.
Less than 3 percent of the land within one mile is currently in parcels of 5 acres or less.
Therefore, much less than 50 percent of that land must have been in parcels of 5 acres or less
when the ordinance was adopted in 1980. Therefore, this is not a developed rural area.
SP 2010-018
PC August 24, 2010
Staff Report Page 5
6. The relationship of the proposed development to existing and proposed population centers,
services and employment centers. A property within areas described below shall be deemed in
proximity to the area or use described:
a. Within one mile roadway distance of the urban area boundary as described in the
comprehensive plan; (Amended 11-8-89)
The property is not within one mile of an urban area boundary.
b. Within one-half mile roadway distance of a community boundary as described in the
comprehensive plan; (Amended 11-8-89)
The property is not within one-half mile of a community boundary.
c. Within one-half mile roadway distance of a village as described in the comprehensive plan.
(Amended 11-8-89)
The property is not within one-half mile of a village boundary.
7. The probable effect of the proposed development on capital improvements programming in
regard to increased provision of services.
The addition of one lot to this area of existing family lots is not expected to require any
significant increase in service provision.
8. The traffic generated from the proposed development would not, in the opinion of the Virginia
Department of Transportation: (Amended 11-8-89)
a. Occasion the need for road improvement;
b. Cause a tolerable road to become a nontolerable road;
c. Increase traffic on an existing nontolerable road.
VDOT does not expect that the addition of one new lot will create the need for any road
improvements
9. With respect to applications for special use permits for land lying wholly or partially within the
boundaries for the watershed of any public drinking water impoundment, the following additional
factors shall be considered:
This section does not apply, as the property is not in the watershed of a public water-supply
impoundment.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The applicants have stated that they want to use an existing driveway to access the proposed lot. The
Virginia Department of Transportation has confirmed that that driveway has sufficient sight distance,
provided that some minor clearing of vegetation is done.
SP 2010-018
PC August 24, 2010
Staff Report Page 6
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. The proposal can be accommodated without significant health or safety impacts on the area.
Staff has identified the following factors unfavorable to this application:
1. Additional development rights are generally inconsistent with the purposes of the Rural Areas
zoning district. Staff proposes to minimize this concern with a condition of approval that would
require the subdivision to be processed only as a family subdivision, which would keep the land in
the family for at least four years.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of SP 2010-18 Matheny
Development Right Request with the following condition:
1. The proposed subdivision of Tax Map 84 Parcel 14E shall only be permitted as a ―family
subdivision‖ as provided by Chapter 14 of the Albemarle County Code.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Area Map
Attachment B – Detail Map
Attachment C – Conceptual Plan
Attachment D – Planning Commission minutes, April 21, 2009
Attachment E – Board of Supervisors minutes, June 10, 2009
Return to PC actions letter
SP 2010-00018
SP 2010-018
PC August 24, 2010
Staff Report Page 7
Attachment A
SP 2010-00018
SP 2010-018
PC August 24, 2010
Staff Report Page 8
Attachment B
SP 2010-00018
SP 2010-018 PC August 24, 2010 Staff Report Page 9 Attachment C
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 21, 2009 10
2. The footprint of the building identified on the Conceptual Plan as “Proposed Multi-
Purpose Building” shall not exceed 14,500 square feet.
3. A dwelling used by the church's staff, located within the church, may be permitted as an
accessory use.
4. All structures shall meet commercial setback standards as set forth in Section 21.7(b) of
the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. The tot lot is not subject to this condition.
5. A fire-suppression water supply meeting the approval of the Albemarle County
Fire/Rescue Department shall be required before approval of the preliminary site plan for
this use.
6. Health Department approval of well and/or septic systems.
7. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from
all abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater
than 0.3 foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for
approval.
8. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate
special use permit;
9. If the use, structure, or activity for which this special use permit is issued is not
commenced within sixty (60) months after the permit is issued, the permit shall be
deemed abandoned and the authority granted there under shall thereupon terminate.
10. The church should work out an agreement with the adjoining neighbor(s) to provide
some sort of screening be it a fence, shrubbery, trees, or whatever is acceptable.
The screening is to reduce the noise and trash. On the lower side closest to Parcel
96H, all of the fencing and landscaping, if the neighbors decided it was needed,
would be on the church property. Note: The fencing and other screening should
be provided for those neighbors that make accommodations with the church to have
it.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. (Morris absent)
Mr. Strucko said that SP-2007-00052 Nortonsville Church of God Facility Expansion would go to the
Board of Supervisors on June 10, 2009 with a recommendation for approval.
SP-2008-00048 Mathney Development Rights
PROJECT: SP-2008-00048 Matheny Development Right Request
PROPOSED: Request for one additional development right for a family subdivision.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots);
SECTION: 10.2.2.28, Divisions of land as provided in section 10.5.2.1
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: 2839 Craigs Store Road (Route 635), approximately 2000 feet south of the intersection with
White Mountain Road (Route 736).
TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 84 Parcel 14E
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller
(Scott Clark)
Mr. Clark made a power-point presentation and summarized the staff report.
The applicants are requesting an additional development right for the purpose of giving a
grandchild approximately 2 acres of land (out of their 4.9-acre parcel) for a new home. The
new parcel would be added to a group of five small residential parcels on the west side of
Craigs Store Road, all belonging to members of the same family. Those fives parcels
contain all the acreage of the single parcel that was distributed to family members. If this
special use permit is approved, a more detailed subdivision plat meeting the County’s
subdivision requirements would be required before the lot could be created.
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 21, 2009 11
1. The proposal can be accommodated without significant health or safety impacts on the
area.
Staff has identified the following factors unfavorable to this application:
1. Additional development rights are not normally in accord with the purposes of the Rural
Areas zoning district. Staff proposes to address this concern with a condition of approval
that would require the subdivision to be processed as a family subdivision, which would
keep the land in the family for at least four years.
Staff recommends approval of Special Use Permit SP-2008-028 with the one condition listed in
the staff report.
1. The proposed subdivision of Tax Map 84 Parcel 14E shall only be permitted as a “family
subdivision” as provided by Chapter 14 of the Albemarle County Code.
Mr. Strucko invited questions for staff from the Commission.
Mr. Edgerton asked how many of the previous parcels given away to family members have been built on
and Mr. Clark replied all of them.
Mr. Edgerton said that the owner has used up all the development rights they have and there are no
development rights left. He questioned if they would be asked to give two more development rights. He
was struggling with why they would want to give additional development rights and thought it was a
terrible idea. He asked if a family division needs development rights
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that for the parcel requesting this additional right there is not enough land to do
more than one more additional division because that particular property only has 4.9 acres. So as a
family division for that particular property there is only one more possible division.
Mr. Edgerton noted that Parcel 64-14E, which was one of the parcels cut off from the original parcel, used
up a development right.
Mr. Cilimberg said without the special use permit they can’t do anything. If the Board ultimately grants a
special use permit the applicant could only do one more division with the allowance through special use
permit of an additional development right.
Mr. Edgerton said that he did not have anything against trying to help family members out, but at the
same time they have some larger parcels in the back and they may be asked later, too. This is totally
contrary to everything in the Comp Plan. He did not have anything against the concept, but he did have a
hard time in the rural area adding development rights to existing parcels that have already used up their
development rights.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the Commission and Board have been very strict about that. He believed if they
go back in history about the only times in the recent years that has been an added development right has
been for a family member. There were other requests which were not granted.
Ms. Joseph pointed out that a development right was given to a family, but there was also land that was
given to the fire station.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that ended up being one additional development right and the land that was given to
the fire station.
Mr. Strucko asked if in order to do a family subdivision there has to be an unused development right.
Ms. Joseph replied that was correct.
Mr. Cilimberg said that was the subject of the special use permit and the Board had to grant the additional
development right before the applicant could even do it.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 21, 2009 12
Mr. Strucko opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to come forward to address the
Commission.
Ms. Janie Matheny, property owner, said that the request is for their 21 year old grandson that needs
a place to live. They had this one place where there is enough land they could give to this one
grandchild to build on. Rent and everything is so high now it is hard for a person to make it,
especially if they are not married. They would also like to put it with his dad’s name on it so that he
could not sell it. The other lots they gave to their four sons. She built a house and lived on one of
the lots, lot 4, because one of their sons preferred to live in Crimora. They would like to give their
grandson part of the lot. They feel like that is the best thing they could do for their grandson so that
he would have a place where he could go out on his own and be there with family. She asked the
Commission to grant the special use permit.
Mr. Strucko invited questions for the applicant.
Mr. Loach asked if all of the other subdivisions that were divided are currently occupied by family
members, and Ms. Matheny replied yes.
Mr. Strucko invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and the
matter before the Commission.
Ms. Joseph agreed with Mr. Edgerton. She found it very difficult to grant this because she did not see
any compelling reason to grant this at this time.
Mr. Loach understood their objections, but also understands family and the fact that all of the other
divisions are now occupied by family and given the fact that this is being retained in the family. There is a
lot of credibility that this is being about keeping family together in hard times. He would be very honest
that he understands where they are coming from, but this is one he could support.
Mr. Franco said that he had the same opinion as Mr. Loach. He struggled with this when he first read it
because of the development of the rural area. He asked if there is a way that they could allow a second
unit to be built on the parcel but not have a subdivision.
Mr. Clark said that they would still need a development right.
Mr. Franco said he was not sure if it accomplishes anything, but in his mind it keeps it from creating one
more lot in the rural area. It probably would keep it so it would be more difficult to sell. What they are
trying to do is house a family member so selling the property is not as much of an issue. He felt that
would be a better safeguard if that was possible.
Mr. Kamptner said that the development right is needed to add the second dwelling. The way that zoning
looks at it is that they when they analyze the second dwelling they want the dwellings situated so it
complies with all the zoning regulations in the event that there was a division. So a development right is
needed.
Mr. Cilimberg said the question was whether they could issue a special use permit granting the
development right with a condition that it not be divided.
Mr. Franco replied that is the questions, but he was not sure if that does anything for us.
Mr. Kamptner replied that legally they could impose that condition. But whether or not that works for
zoning in their analysis he was not sure. The other problem that they often hear is that it is going to be
very difficult for the owners to get financing.
Mr. Franco said that he was not sure if the owners agree with that or if it even made sense. He knows
that it will be hard to get financing to build it and it creates a lot of other issues. But it does not create
another lot.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 21, 2009 13
Ms. Joseph said that it is not just the lot. The fact is that there would be another dwelling on there. There
would be more wheels on the roads. There will be more children in the schools, etc. There will be
another well and septic. She felt that would not make any difference.
Mr. Franco agreed with Mr. Loach. He struggled given the fact that there are 5 lots and they are all still
occupied by family members is very compelling.
Mr. Strucko said that this one is tough for him as well. First he is a strong component of the principle that
they don’t want to encourage or expand development in the rural areas. However, they have always
been respectful of family subdivisions. However, this particular situation the existing development rights
were all utilized. That is what he sees as the legal capacity of the existing parcel. So this grants
something new. He was thinking of the longer term impacts as well. So as difficult that this would be he
could not support this proposal.
Ms. Porterfield said she could not support this proposal for basically the same reasons as Mr. Strucko
and only supported the use of the allowed number of development rights. She did not want to set a
precedent in voting for it.
Motion: Ms. Joseph moved and Mr. Edgerton seconded to deny SP-2008-00048, Mathney Development
Rights.
The motion passed by a vote of 4:2. (Loach and Franco voted nay.)
Mr. Strucko said that SP-2008-00048, Mathney Development Rights would go to the Board of
Supervisors on June 10, 2009 with a recommendation for denial.
The Planning Commission took a ten minute break at 7:10 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 7:22 p.m.
Work Session:
ZTA-2009-00001 Wind Turbines
Consider possible Zoning Ordinance Amendment to allow wind turbines. (Mark Graham)
Mr. Strucko noted that prior to receiving the staff report that Jeremy Hayes, of Skyline Turbine, would
provide some background information. He invited Mr. Hayes to come forward and address the
Commission.
Jeremy Hayes, President of Skyline Turbine, presented a PowerPoint presentation entitled “The Future Is
Wind Power”. (Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation and Related Information) The presentation outline
included their mission statement and the motivation for small wind power in Albemarle County specifically.
He worked the outline towards what he heard in previous work sessions about the three tiered system
that the Commission has been working towards. The photos, in his opinion, show how turbines or more
appropriately the installations themselves fit inside those tiers as he understands them. At the end of the
presentation he would open the floor for questions from the Commissioners.
Mission Statement: Skyline Turbine is a renewable energy supplier for residential and small business
customers. Skyline Turbine’s mission is to research, implement, and install wind power appliances to
meet the specific requirements of each customer. We envision a day when all aspects of wind, solar, and
energy efficiencies will be brought together to make our structures self-supporting and contributing to the
community. Skyline Turbine is committed to supporting local governments and its citizens by fostering
open communication and utilizing all available means to successfully accomplish each installation.
Motivation: Dispelling the Image of Wind Power
•Large wind farms define the common thought of wind power
June 10, 2009 (Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
be installed before the certificate of occupancy is issued for the building identified on the
Conceptual Plan as the “Multi-Purpose Building.” This requirement for screening shall be
documented in a screening plan that shall be submitted with the site plan application and shall be
subject to the approval of the Planning Director or his designee and shall be a condition of final
site plan approval.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. PUBLIC HEARING: PROJECT: SP-2008-048. Matheny Development
Right Request.
PROPOSED: Request for one additional development right for a family subdivision.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
SECTION: 10.2.2.28, Divisions of land as provided in section 10.5.2.1.
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: 2839 Craigs Store Road (Route 635), approximately 2000 feet south of the
intersection with White Mountain Road (Route 736).
TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 84 Parcel 14E.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 25 and June 1, 2009.)
Mr. Cilimberg said that this request would allow one additional development right for a family
member, and by conditions recommended by staff that would be through a family division. He said that
this property is located in the southwestern part of the County, close to the Nelson County line, on Craig’s
Store Road. He presented a schematic of the proposed location of the second house – noting that the
property of roughly two acres would be provided to a grandson. Mr. Cilimberg said that the other three
lots have houses occupied by the children of the parents – who live on Parcel 4. He stated that the
proposal can be accommodated without significant health or safety impacts to the area, and staff plans to
address concerns about additional development rights – which are limited in accord with the purposes of
the rural area zoning district – with a condition of approval that would require the subdivision to be
processed as a family division, which would keep the land in the family for at least four years.
Mr. Cilimberg reported that staff was able to identify 20 applications for additional development
rights such as this one since 1981; 10 were approved and 10 were denied. The Board typically made
findings in their approvals that the applications adequately met the criteria of Section 10.5.2.1 of the
Ordinance. He said that in each case there was either a development located next to or near a
development area existing development, or an additional right for a family member or other unique
circumstance such as the additional land given for the North Garden Fire Station. Mr. Cilimberg
mentioned that the Board approved all five applications that were intended to provide lots for family
members, according to the history staff researched.
He stated that staff recommends approval with one condition. The Planning Commission was
concerned about this application being inconsistent with rural area purpose as it adds development rights
in the rural area; they have recommended denial of the special use permit with a 4-2 vote.
Mr. Dorrier asked for clarification of the site size.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that the parcel is 4.9 acres, but the lot to be created is around 2 acres
with the description from the applicant putting it at 2.17 acres. He said that the lot to be subdivided has
one house on it now, and they are requesting another home that would be on the “new lot.”
Ms. Mallek asked about the opportunities to build an accessory use on the original lot.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that it couldn’t be done as a dwelling, as it would need a development right.
Ms. Mallek asked how the Board would not be rewriting zoning on this property if it approves this
request unless they do not find it unique. Mr. Slutzky said the Board in effect is being asked to upzone the
property by adding a development right. They are being asked to view this as a special circumstance as a
family subdivision.
Mr. Cilimberg said that he recalls one family division increase request that was approved in the
1990s, and the most recent one was with the fire station in North Garden.
Ms. Mallek expressed concern that there is not a situation here where there is a public purpose,
uniqueness, or hardship.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that with previous approvals there have been cases of hardship – where
there are more family members than they had lots they could provide for.
Ms. Mallek commented that there are thousands of families in that situation.
At this time the Chairman opened the public hearing.
June 10, 2009 (Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
Ms. Janie Matheny said that she and her husband gave their children the four lots and now their
grandson needs a place to live. She emphasized that it is the only other place that can be divided on their
land here. She confirmed that the existing house is also being occupied by a family member.
Mr. Dorrier asked about the roadway.
Ms. Matheny stated that it is the longest site distance on the whole road from Batesville all the way
through Route 635, and there is already a driveway that has been cut back onto the parcel.
Mr. Ronald Matheny commented that 800 feet can be seen from either direction.
Mr. Boyd asked how many houses are in the area. Ms. Matheny said the only people who live
there are family members.
There being no one else from the public to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that accessory apartments are allowed in all of the districts, and they are
considered as “connected to the existing house” and thus do not require another development right.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the applicant could add to the existing structure as an accessory unit and not
create an additional development right.
Ms. Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator, said that it must be within the single-family detached
dwelling to which it is accessory; it can’t be a free-standing independent or detached unit – it must be
physically attached and part of the main single-family dwelling.
Mr. Davis read from the Ordinance that the definition of an accessory apartment “is a separate
independent dwelling unit contained within the structure of, and clearly subordinate to, a single-family
detached dwelling as distinguished from a duplex or other two-family dwelling.” He clarified that it must be
a unit within a structure; it couldn’t be a duplex.
Ms. McCulley noted the size limitations from the supplemental regulations: “the gross floor area
for the accessory apartment shall not exceed 35 percent of the total gross floor area of the unit”.
Ms. Thomas said that although this application is in her district, she is not going to vote for
approval because she has never been in favor of increasing rural development rights. She visited the site
and it is a nice place for the family to have all their houses together. She stated that there are many
families in this situation, and the Board “has to think about hundreds of families and not just one.”
Mr. Boyd said he also worries about setting a precedent, but this Board also has to show a little
compassion and use common sense at times. Considering the number of houses there, this would not be
a detractor from the rural area character. He supports the request. He said that family subdivisions are a
“great thing” for families, and are worth accommodating in this case.
Mr. Slutzky said that generally he would be in favor of family subdivisions, but he does not want to
accommodate families at the expense of careful rural protection strategies. He said that it’s a “slippery
slope” to add upzoning in the rural areas to accommodate a particular situation. It gives rise to when you
choose not to do it. Mr. Slutzky stated that it’s bad policy from a planning perspective.
Mr. Boyd noted that there have only been 20 applications in 20 years, and just because this is
approved it doesn’t mean everyone would start asking for them.
Mr. Dorrier said that the family already has five residential lots, there is good site distance on the
road, the additional lot would match the existing pattern of the surrounding lots, the addition of one home
would not change that pattern of land use, and the proposal can be accommodated without significant
health or safety impacts on the area. He does not see that the request is going to deviate that substantially
from the Comprehensive Plan. He supports the request.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier moved for approval of SP-2008-048 subject to the one condition
recommended by staff.
Mr. Rooker said that this particular family has a compelling story, but this approval would be
contrary to the Comprehensive Plan – which is focused on limiting development in the rural areas to
protect natural resources and for other reasons. He thinks this is a slippery slope once you start down it.
He will not support approval of the request.
Ms. Mallek stated that there are valid alternatives within the Ordinance that would allow for all of
the family’s plans to be achieved without adding an extra lot, an extra well, and an extra septic plan, and
also maintain zoning requirements. She is very concerned about zoning by parcel when the Board needs
to be looking at the rules that apply across the entire area. County citizens rely upon the Board’s
consistency so that they feel protected. She is not in favor of this request.
Mr. Boyd seconded the motion. He commented that this is not a rezoning; it is a special use
permit.
Ms. Mallek said that it’s changing the density.
June 10, 2009 (Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
Ms. Thomas added that it’s requesting another development right.
Mr. Rooker also mentioned that the lot size here is almost the minimum lot size allowed in the
rural areas; it’s not a 50-acre parcel with someone seeking a five-acre piece.
Roll was then called and the motion failed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: Ms. Thomas, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Slutzky.
Ms. Thomas then moved for denial of SP-2008-048. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion.
Roll was then called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Slutzky.
NAYS: Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. PUBLIC HEARING: PROJECT: SP-2008-058. Harris Garage.
PROPOSED: Amend SP 00-49 Thomas Harris Garage to expand the public garage on
approximately a .60 acre portion of a 3.17 acre property.
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 (37) Public Garage.
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: 6929 Markwood Road, approx. one-half mile north of Davis Shop Road.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 008000000035A0.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 25 and June 1, 2009.)
Mr. Cilimberg reported that the request is for amendment of a special use permit for a previously
approved garage, located in the northwestern part of the County, near the Greene County line on
Markwood Road. He explained that the special use permit was originally approved through SP-2001-049
to correct violations and bring into compliance Harris Auto. He said that in May 2000, Zoning determined
that the garage addition to enclose an outside lift and provide storage would not constitute an expansion of
the special use permit. There were new violations discovered in December 2008 and a notice of violation
was mailed. He clarified that this request is to amend the original special use permit in order to correct the
violations and make the plan current. He noted a comparison of aerial photographs of what existed in
2002 and then in 2007 – which shows the additions and increased activity with the garage. He also
provided some comparative pictures of 2001 and 2009. Mr. Cilimberg said that there are a number of
existing development features that would be part of the special use permit, and additional changes that
would be proposed under the special use permit – including a new storage building. He said that a critical
slopes waiver was also requested, and that was granted by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that there are a number of existing development features that would be part
of the special use permit, and additional changes that would be proposed under the permit – including a
new storage building. He explained that the particulars of this proposal include garage expansion, storage
buildings, relocated dumpsters, an outside lift, carports, etc. – some of which already exist. Mr. Cilimberg
noted that it is a public garage that provides service to the surrounding community, and at the Planning
Commission hearing a number of people spoke in support of it. He stated that the applicant has made
improvements to the garage and the parking area. The use can be consistent with the rural area if all
impacts of the use are mitigated in the sense that it would be supporting the surrounding community and
would no longer be in violation and some of the issues regarding how it’s been improved over time be
addressed.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that unfavorable factors include a compromising of the character of the Rural
Areas district, given the conditions at the garage, and there is a question as to how those are allowed to
grow over time until their use is more appropriate in a development area commercial district. He stated
that the Commission recommends approval with conditions. There was an original hearing held but signs
were not posted so signs were posted at the site and a second hearing was held last night. Mr. Cilimberg
noted that between the two meetings, the recommended conditions addressing hours of operation were
changed, as the applicant originally requested the hours to be 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. but modified them to
be 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. He added that under condition #8 a buffering requirement for cars that would
be parked in the area that is “personal vehicle parking” has been removed; original conditions
recommended screening that area as well as service areas. The Commission has recommended nine
conditions of approval.
Mr. Slutzky asked why the Commission modified condition #8 to remove screening of all the
vehicles. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the Commission agreed with the applicant that those were private
vehicle spaces and why that would be different from other owner’s cars that were parked on their property.
Mr. Slutzky asked how many cars would be a part of the personal vehicle parking area.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 24, 2010
DRAFT MINUTES –Submit to PC 10-4-10
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
August 24, 2010
SP-2010-00018 Matheny Development Right Request (Signs 44 & 46). PROPOSED: Request for one
additional development right for a family subdivision. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA --
Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots);
SECTION: 10.2.2.28, Divisions of land as provided in section 10.5.2.1. 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: 2839 Craigs Store Road (Route 635), approximately 2000 feet south of the intersection with
White Mountain Road (Route 736). TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 84 Parcel 14E. MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT: Samuel Miller
Scott Clark presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report for SP-2010-00018
Matheny Development Right Request.
PROPOSED: This is a request for one additional development right for a family subdivision.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots);
SECTION: 10.2.2.28, Divisions of land as provided in section 10.5.2.1
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: 2839 Craigs Store Road (Route 635), approximately 2000 feet south of the intersection with
White Mountain Road (Route 736).
TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 84 Parcel 14E
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller
The properties in this area all belong to members of the same family. Mr. and Mrs. Matheny live on
parcel 14B. The additional development right would be for a family division for their grandson.
Since 1981, 21 applications for additional development rights have been considered
10 applications approved
11 applications denied
The Board of Supervisors typically based its approvals on finding that the applications adequately met the
criteria of Section 10.5.2.1, such as a location next to a development area or existing development, for a
family member, or some unique circumstance.
The Board approved all five of the applications prior to SP-2008-00048 Matheny that were intended to
provide lots for family members. SP-2008-00048 was the first denial of such a request, which was this
same request.
Staff has identified the following factor favorable to this application:
1. The proposal can be accommodated without significant health or safety impacts on the area.
2. Staff has identified the following factor unfavorable to this application:
3. Additional development rights are generally inconsistent with the purposes of the Rural Areas
zoning district. Staff proposes to minimize this concern with a condition of approval that would
require the subdivision to be processed only as a family subdivision, which would keep the land in
the family for at least four years.
Staff recommends approval of SP-2010-18 Matheny Development Right Request with the following
condition:
1. The proposed subdivision of Tax Map 84 Parcel 14E shall only be permitted as a “family
subdivision” as provided by Chapter 14 of the Albemarle County Code.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 24, 2010
DRAFT MINUTES –Submit to PC 10-4-10
2
There being no questions for staff, Mr. Loach opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to
address the Planning Commission.
Ronald Matheny, applicant, pointed out that the picture shows that he gave all of his sons a lot and now
he has a grandson just 22 years old and he wants to give him a lot.
Mr. Loach asked if he would have any objections to lengthening the time that it would have to stay in the
family.
Mr. Matheny replied that he would not care if they make it 50 years because he thought his grandson
would stay there that long.
Mr. Porterfield asked if he was going to use the existing driveway to his house to access this lot.
Mr. Matheny replied no, that there was already a driveway into that lot f rom years ago.
Mr. Clark noted that the proposed lot had an existing driveway on to Craig’s Store Road.
Ms. Porterfield asked if a condition could be put added that is the access to both lots so no one can come
back in the future for another cut.
Mr. Clark replied that would not be practical because the other part of the lot was accessed from different
point.
Ms. Porterfield noted that the staff report says that the new lot would be accessed by the existing
driveway.
Mr. Clark replied that the existing driveway was on to Craig’s Store Road. The other portion of the
property is accessed off of Casey Lane.
Ms. Porterfield asked if there were two accesses to this particular lot at this point.
Mr. Clark replied that there was an access off of the private road that goes to the existing house. The
new lot would use an existing driveway that has not been used in a long time, but is there directly onto
Craig’s Store Road. It has reviewed by VDOT for site distance and is acceptable.
Mr. Smith asked if the lot on the left is now accessed off his existing driveway.
Mr. Matheny replied that is not correct. There is an existing entrance or driveway going in off the state
road, Route 635 to the proposed lot.
Mr. Lafferty noted that it was a 30’ access easement. If they required them to share an entrance he
would have to give an easement across his property.
Mr. Franco asked if lots 1 - 4 as shown are still owned by family members.
Mr. Matheny replied yes.
There being no further questions, Mr. Loach opened the public hearing for public comment.
Dave Wyant said that he did not know any of these families, but wanted to point out that people who have
lived in the country all their lives want to keep their families together. He suggested that they look at the
surrounding parcels in this case and consider that they want to keep their grandchildren and other family
members together. He knew his mom and dad’s family have lived in this county for nine generations and
wanted their family here. This is a real concern in the county out in the country. He had people come by
his store in the mornings as was sure that there would be other similar requests. He acknowledged that
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 24, 2010
DRAFT MINUTES –Submit to PC 10-4-10
3
they have rules and regulations, but he believed the applicant could have built another ho use as an
accessory. Staff could address that. His concern is when they are out there in these small areas is a war
situation. They have to make sure that they are supported there in the area where they want to put these.
That is the only thing that he would be concerned about in the family. But he wanted to see the family
parcels around it. He would not want to see all these other folks living there is someone was trying to be
devious. They know about and have faced some of those cases. He came tonight to hear the
Commission’s discussion and just wanted to share his views on what he had been seeing.
Mr. Loach invited other public comment. There being none, he closed the public hearing to bring the
matter before the Commission.
Mr. Smith noted that this was in his district and he has looked at the lot. He personally knows Mr.
Matheny and has seen what kind of subdivision he has. He thought that the family division was created
for just this purpose to help the family. He discussed with Mr. Matheny that he would never build a house
before he drilled well, and he agreed.
Motion: Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Morris seconded for approval of SP-2010-00018 Matheny
Development Right Request subject to staff’s recommended condition.
1. The proposed subdivision of Tax Map 84 Parcel 14E shall only be permitted as a “family
subdivision” as provided by Chapter 14 of the Albemarle County Code.
Ms. Porterfield noted that there was another piece of property here that is 4.142 acres. This one is 4.936
acres. So they have the real possibility of another one coming in.
Mr. Clark pointed out that those parcels do not have any remaining rights.
Ms. Ronald Matheny said that parcel cannot be divided because the light line comes in front of it, which
was why they gave that son more land than the others. That lot cannot be divided no more.
Mr. Cilimberg asked for clarification on the motion and the second. He asked whether it was to just
include the just the condition recommended by staff, but also a condition like the previously 7 year
limitation.
Mr. Smith clarified that the motion for approval was for the four year limitation since he thought that the
seven year limitation was ridiculous. That was why he voted for the prior request with reservation. That
was his reservation.
Ms. Porterfield asked if it was for a minimum of two acres, and Mr. Cilimberg replied that in the rural area
it has to be at least two acres.
Ms. Matheny pointed out that Mr. Morris had drawn this lot as 2.170 acres, which had been surveyed off.
Mr. Franco voted aye with reservations, which was he would prefer the longer period of time.
Ms. Porterfield voted no because she really did think they were setting a precedent.
Mr. Loach voted aye with reservation.
The motion was approved by a vote of 6:1 subject to the condition recommended by staff. (Porterfield
voted nay) (Franco and Loach voted aye with reservation)
Return to PC actions letter
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
CPA 2009-002 Crozet Master Plan Five Year
Update
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public Hearing on 2010 Crozet Master Plan
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Graham, Cilimberg,
Benish, and Ms. Echols.
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
October 13, 2010
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On September 1, 2010, the Board of Supervisors held a worksession on the proposed 2010 update of the Crozet
Master Plan. The Board accepted the Planning Commission’s recommendation for approval from July 27, 2010 with
one exception which had been recommended by the Crozet Community Advisory Council (CCAC) on August 19,
2010. The CCAC asked that the Future Land Use Plan map show the J. Bruce Barnes Lumber Company property as
a mixed use area for Office/R&D/Flex/Light Industrial and Downtown commercial uses. The CCAC recommended
that the area be shown in a purple and red hatched pattern. Minor changes to the text were also requested to explain
the expectations for the area.
The Board also discussed the Yancey Business Park proposal (CPA 08-02) and the Ploumis request (CPA 07-02) for
changes in land use designations. The Board asked that CPA 08-02 (Yancey) be brought back at a later date for
discussion. The Board declined to make any changes to the recommended 2010 Crozet Master Plan other than the
change recommended by the CCAC.
DISCUSSION:
The recommended 2010 Crozet Master Plan reflects the change recommended by the CCAC. The Plan also includes
minor changes to grammar and style.
BUDGET IMPACT:
No budget impact is expected with adoption of the 2010 Crozet Master Plan.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends adoption of the 2010 Crozet Master Plan.
ATTACHMENTS
A - October 13, 2010 Crozet Master Plan
Return to regular agenda
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Crozet Master Plan 2010 Page
Chapter 1-Introduction 4
Purpose of Master Plan 5
Chapter 2-Vision Statement & Guiding Principles 7
Chapter 3-Existing Conditions 8
Natural, Scenic, and Historic Assets 9
Environmental Features Map 9
Demographics 12
Existing Land Use 14
Community Facilities and Services 15
Existing Transportation Network 18
Chapter 4-Future Land Use 21
Land Use Categories 21
Future Land Use Plan 22
Recommendations by Geographic Sector 24
Fringe Areas and the US 250 West Corridor 32
Relationship between Land Use Plan and Zoning 34
Chapter 5-Future Transportation 35
Vehicular Travel 35
Transportation Plan 36
Transit/Rideshare 40
Pedestrian/Bicycle 41
Chapter 6-Parks & Green Systems Plan 42
Parks and Green Systems Plan 43
Parks 46
Greenways 47
Dark Skies 47
Chapter 7-Plan for Community Facilities and Services 49
Water/Wastewater 49
Solid Waste Management 50
Schools 50
Police 50
Fire/Rescue 51
Library 51
Old Crozet School Reuse 52
Social Services 52
Stormwater Management 52
Chapter 8-Implementation 54
Priority Areas Plan 55
Appendix – Crozet Implementation Projects 59
Return to exec summary
4 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
Chapter 1 Introduction
The Community of Crozet is located in western
Albemarle County between the City of Charlottesville
and the Blue Ridge mountains. It contains
approximately 2,914 acres or 4.6 square miles. The
Development Area is almost entirely within the
Lickinghole Creek watershed, with the exception of a
small northern strip containing portions of the old
Downtown commercial and residential area and the
Blue Ridge Builder Supply area south of Route 250
West.
The watershed boundary is primarily the basis on which
the Crozet Development Area boundary was
established. The southern boundary extends west from
the Lickinghole Basin dam along the south side of
Lickinghole Basin and Creek, intersecting the Rockfish
Gap Turnpike east of the Clover Lawn development,
and continuing west along the north side of the highway.
The eastern boundary is the ridgeline for two streams
which flow into the Lickinghole Creek sedimentation basin. The boundary follows this stream
system north to Three Notch’d Road, crosses it, and, from a point opposite the Acme property,
heads north to the south side of Parrot Creek. From there, the boundary continues west,
turning north to parallel the eastern boundary of the new Crozet Elementary School parcel to its
north property line, then angling west to the south side of Old Ballard Road. At that point it
continues in a westerly direction through the Weston subdivision across Buck Road (Route 789)
to take in the water tank, then south to Railroad Avenue. This northern boundary to the
Development Area is defined as containing the area draining to a series of proposed stormwater
facilities located along Parrot Creek. The western boundary runs along Route 684 to its
intersection with Route 691. At this point, the boundary line turns eastward and follows a
stream system until it reaches Rockfish Gap Turnpike. (See inset below.)
Crozet was designated as
an area for development in
the 1971 Albemarle County
Comprehensive Plan. In
1980, there were several
amendments to the
Development Area
boundaries and
recommendations for
Crozet. There is a history
of major infrastructure
investments to
accommodate future
growth in Crozet, including
the Beaver Creek
Reservoir, which was
constructed in 1965. Other
Crozet
Charlottesville
COMMUNITY OF CROZET Development Area boundaries
5 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
significant infrastructure investments were made with the decision to build the Crozet Interceptor
in 1979, its completion in 1988, and construction of the sedimentation basin in 1993. The first
master plan for future development of the community was approved in 2004. Prior to
development of the Master Plan, the neighborhood study for the Crozet Community was
completed in 1993 by the County and a Board-appointed committee. The purpose of that study
was to assist the County in establishing policy to help guide public and private activities as they
relate to land use and resource utilization within Crozet. The recommendations of the 1993
study were considered and incorporated in the Master Plan and the carry-over of many of the
original recommendations demonstrates the residents’ commitment to guiding principles, such
as downtown revitalization, adequate public facilities, and historic preservation.
Purpose of the Plan
This plan represents a refinement of the 2004 Crozet Master Plan and relies on the guiding
principles and recommendations in that Plan. This update of the 2004 Plan is intended to
provide guidance on a form of development that is preferable to conventional suburban
development. This Plan directs where and how new residential and nonresidential uses should
develop. Further, it makes recommendations on the future transportation improvements and
capital projects. Finally, its purpose is to guide the timing of public investments, as well as the
timing of new development in the Community.
Planning in Albemarle County’s Development Areas
Albemarle County has a long-standing goal of directing development into designated
development areas. To further County growth management goals, the current development area
concept remains a critical planning tool. The Land Use Plan of the Comprehensive Plan,
including the Neighborhood Model, presents mechanisms that provide the best opportunity for
the County to achieve the goals of compact, livable development in designated development
areas and keeping the Rural Areas rural.
The Comprehensive Plan establishes three types of development areas: Urban Areas
(Neighborhoods 1 – 7), Communities (Crozet, Hollymead, and Piney Mountain) and Villages
(the Village of Rivanna).
Crozet is designated a Community. Communities consist of smaller urban centers that are
geographically removed from the Urban Areas around the City of Charlottesville. Communities
are expected to be more town-like than city-like in character with less density, smaller scale of
development, and may still rely on nearby urban areas for regional services. Communities are to
be supported by a full range of public utilities, facilities, services, and amenities.
Communities consist of:
A full range of residential uses and densities and the full range of non-residential uses
described in the Land Use Designations section of this plan.
A Community core of mixed service and residential uses, including community and/or
regional services.
Regional employment centers.
A network of major intra-County roadways linked to the Urban Area.
Well-defined residential areas supported by an integrated and interconnected system of
streets; pedestrian and bicycle circulation systems; neighborhood commercial,
professional, business, and public service uses; and public water and sewer.
Public facilities supporting the Community and surrounding County areas.
6 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
Communities should reflect the principles of the Neighborhood Model. The Neighborhood
Model is a County policy and a component of the Comprehensive Plan. The Neighborhood
Model seeks to change the form of development from a pattern of sprawling, isolated buildings
to a more compact and interconnected design, relying on 12 principles for new development:
1. Pedestrian orientation- Sidewalks or paths that connect houses to each other and to
centers and common areas will be the norm. Walks will connect sidewalks to front doors
and main entrances.
2. Neighborhood friendly streets and paths- Accommodates walkers, bikers, and public
transportation so that mobility can be a reality for the elderly, the young, and those with
limited access to automobiles.
3. Interconnected streets and transportation networks- Requires interconnected streets
within developments and between developments so that pedestrians can walk easily to
many destinations, traffic has alternative routes, and car trips are reduced in number and
length.
4. Parks and open space- Makes open space integral to overall design so that residents
and workers can walk to a public park, experience preserved natural areas, and enjoy
public gathering spaces
5. Neighborhood centers- Provides for neighborhoods to have a designated center to bring
diverse and continuous activity to a neighborhood.
6. Buildings and spaces of human scale-. Keeps buildings and spaces at a human scale so
that street views are attractive and pedestrian friendly.
7. Relegated parking- Moves off-street parking out of sight and encourages on-street
parking.
8. Mixture of uses- Contains a mixture of residential and non-residential uses so residents
have convenient access to work, to services, and to entertainment.
9. Mixture of housing types and affordability- Mixes housing types and markets so that a
full range of housing choices is offered within the neighborhood.
10. Redevelopment- Emphasizes re-use of sites.
11. Site planning that respects terrain- Adapts development to site terrain so that natural
topography can be preserved
12. Clear boundaries with Rural Areas- Maintains a clear boundary between development
areas and Rural Areas.
Another key element of the Neighborhood Model is that the master planning process guides
growth in the development areas and that a Master Plan should be developed for each
development area. Through the master planning process, the Neighborhood Model principles
should be adapted to meet the needs of the particular place. This has been done through the
Crozet Master Plan process.
The Planning Process and Public Involvement
The first Crozet Master Plan was adopted in 2004 after considerable public involvement. This
2010 plan represents the first five-year update. The update officially began in October 2009.
Five community forums were held in 2009 and early 2010 to consider changes to the 2004 plan.
After the community meetings, the Crozet Community Advisory Council provided guidance on
changes to the 2004 plan. The Planning Commission reviewed those changes and other
recommendations by staff. Following several worksessions in the spring and summer, as well
as a public hearing, the Commission recommended approval of the Master Plan on July 27,
2010.
7 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
Go to next chapter
Return to Table of Contents
7 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
Chapter 2 Vision Statement & Guiding Principles
The visioning process was the first step toward recognizing the community’s desires for Crozet
and setting the direction for the Master Plan. The vision builds on existing planning work and on
County policy, such as the Neighborhood Model. Residents and property owners developed the
vision as well as the seven guiding principles, which capture what is most important for Crozet
and what Crozet residents value most about their community.
Vision
Crozet is and will continue to be a small town with a “small town feel.” It will have
distinct neighborhoods, a historic downtown area, and industries that support the
County, state, and nation. Downtown will be a vibrant place with a library,
employment area, shops, and housing. Parks and open space will be key features
of the community. Trails and greenways will link other important centers to
provide ways for people to walk and bicycle throughout the community.
Guiding Principles
1. Existing neighborhoods and the Downtown area will be preserved; new or infill
development will be appropriate in scale and type to these existing growth patterns.
2. Multiple transportation options and multimodal infrastructure will be provided to support
access throughout the community. Pedestrian and bicycle options should be provided
for as alternative transportation choices.
3. The housing stock in Crozet should continue to provide choices in affordability and
building types, as it attracts people from many social and economic backgrounds.
4. Locally grown businesses are supported for their contributions in providing both jobs and
an enhanced quality of life for residents.
5. Crozet values and will protect its natural resource assets through a variety of cultivation,
recreation, and conservation efforts.
6. Crozet will continue to encourage a sense of community through its history, diverse
activities, institutions, and interests.
7. Community facilities and services must accommodate the changing needs of the
community as it grows over time.
Go to next chapter
Return to Table of Contents
8 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
Chapter 3 Existing Conditions
This chapter provides a snapshot of the natural and built environment in Crozet. It examines the
existing demographics and the trends in Crozet. Existing land uses, the transportation network,
and current and planned infrastructure are discussed as well.
Natural, Scenic, and Historic Assets
Natural Resources
Located in the western part of Albemarle County, Crozet is part of the South Fork Rivanna
River watershed. The South Fork of the Rivanna River supplies the drinking water for
Charlottesville and the urban areas in the County around Charlottesville. Topographically,
the Crozet area varies from gently rolling to steeply rolling terrain. Lickinghole Creek flows
through the center of Crozet and is fed by numerous creeks and tributaries. Steep slopes
line many of the creeks, and other slopes are scattered in the southern portion of this
Development Area. Wooded areas are present throughout the Community.
The majority of the Crozet Development Area drains into Lickinghole Creek. The
Lickinghole Creek sedimentation basin was constructed to reduce nonpoint discharge from
Crozet. The basin serves as an erosion, sedimentation and runoff control device. It will also
be operated as a public park in the future.
One-hundred year floodplain designations occur along Powell’s Creek, Lickinghole Creek,
Slabtown Branch and the Parrot Branch drainage. In addition to the floodplain designation,
all streams in Crozet are protected by the County’s Water Protection Ordinance because
Crozet is in the drinking water supply watershed. Other resources are protected through the
County’s floodplain, steep slopes, and stream buffer regulations
Because of these important natural resources in Crozet and the goal of protecting them,
some properties with important environmental features have been placed in conservation
easements both in the Crozet Development Area and the immediately adjacent Rural Areas.
There are two properties under conservation easement in the Crozet Development Area,
including Canary Cottage and Eaglehurst Farm. The Environmental & Natural Resources
map on the following page identifies all of these important assets.
Parks
Parks and open space are important features of Crozet. Crozet has small neighborhood
and pocket parks that have been provided with residential development. It has community
parks, district parks and regional parks outside of Crozet that serve Crozet and the larger
Western Albemarle area. The list of larger parks by type is provided in the table on the
following page.
9 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES MAP THIS PAGE
10 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
Crozet Parks 2010
Park
Acreage
Type
Facilities
Old Crozet Elementary
School
8 acres
Neighborhood
1 60’ baseball/softball field; 1 outdoor
basketball court
Meadows Community
Center
1 acre
Neighborhood
Community meeting space
Claudius Crozet Park
22 acres
Community
2 60’ baseball/softball fields;1 T-ball
field; 1 full size soccer field; 2 basketball
courts
2 picnic shelters; 2 playgrounds; 1
outdoor swimming pool; Planned park
amenity: Running Trail around
perimeter of Crozet Park
Brownsville Elementary
School
12.5 acres
Community
1 60’ baseball/softball field; 1 junior
multiuse field; 1 7000 sq. ft.
gymnasium; 2 playground areas; 1
outdoor basketball court; 1 90’ baseball
field
Henley Middle School
50 acres
District
2 full size multiuse fields; 1 7,150 sq. ft.
gymnasium; 2 outdoor basketball courts
Western Albemarle High
School
75 acres
District
2 60’ baseball/softball fields; 4 full size
multiuse fields; 2 gymnasiums totaling
24,000 sq. ft.; 6 tennis courts; 1 stadium
field with track
Crozet Elementary
School
21.1 acres
Community
1 60’ baseball/softball field; 1 junior
multiuse field; 1 4700 sq. ft. gymnasium
2 playground areas 1 outdoor
basketball court
Western Park (Future
Park)
35.8 acres
Community
Land is dedicated to the County
Future improvements: Multi-Use
Fields, Open Space Play Areas, Trails
System through preserved natural
areas, pavilion, picnic shelters, and
promenade
Source: Albemarle County Department of Community Development 2010
11 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
Crozet Development Area residents also have convenient access to recreational facilities
just outside the Development Area at Mint Springs Park, Beaver Creek Park and the
Greenwood Community Center. These nearby County park properties total 757 acres
including 112 water acres.
Standards for parks are provided in the Albemarle County Community Facilities Plan.
According to those standards, parks and recreational resources are sufficient to serve
existing residents of Crozet and the western part of Albemarle County. The Parks & Green
Systems chapter and map show new parks and improvements to accommodate future
residents.
Historic and Cultural Resources
Crozet was named for Colonel B. Claudius Crozet (1789 -1864) who was a French-born civil
engineer and artillery officer under Napoleon. He is best remembered as the chief engineer
for the 17-mile-long railroad tunnel through the Blue Ridge Mountains near the Community
of Crozet. The Community of Crozet began as a whistle-stop on the Chesapeake and Ohio
Railroad in 1876. The train stop was established at the request of the Miller Manual Labor
School (the Miller School), which was founded that year. Since its inception, Crozet has
functioned as a distinct settlement with a unique agricultural history, small business
enterprises, and a dynamic civic spirit. Over time, Crozet became known for its fruit
industry. In the 1930s, it led the state in the production of Albemarle Pippin and Winesap
apples. It also was known as the Peach Capital of Virginia. With the arrival of Acme Visible
Records and Morton Foods (ConAgra) in the 1950s, year-round employment was available
to balance the area’s seasonal economy. Although these businesses closed in the 1990s,
technology-related enterprises and other small contracting firms are now occupying portions
of the old plant buildings, with space still available for future adaptive re-use.
In 2007-2008, an architectural resources
study was completed for the Community of
Crozet as a joint effort of the County of
Albemarle, the Virginia Department of
Historic Resources (VDHR) and the
Piedmont Environmental Council. Survey
work done as part of this study resulted in
VDHR approving part of Crozet as a
potential National Register Historic District.
The historic buildings in Downtown and the
residential areas extending from Downtown
together illustrate the history and
development of Crozet and mark it as a
unique place in Virginia. The map to the
right shows the potential National Register
Historic District boundaries.
To help protect the scenic and historic
resources of the Crozet area, the Board of
Supervisors established Route 250 and
Route 240 as Entrance Corridors.
Entrance Corridors are streets that lead to
and through historic areas. Route 250 is a primary east-west road through Albemarle
Boundaries of potential Crozet National Register Historic
District as identified by Virginia Department of Historic
Resources (Map prepared by Albemarle County GDS)
12 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
County and Route 240 is a north-south thoroughfare. The purpose of Entrance Corridor
designations is to ensure that development and redevelopment of property is compatible
with the County’s historic and cultural resources.
Scenic Resources
The most scenic resource in Crozet
is the Blue Ridge Mountains located
west of the community. These
mountains are visible from most
parts of Crozet and are one of the
reasons new residents are attracted
to Crozet. The County’s Rural Area
policies help to preserve this scenic
resource through policies and
programs like the Mountain
Protection Plan, conservation
easements and agricultural and
forestal districts.
Within and near Crozet, Route 250
West functions as a scenic resource
and has been designated a Virginia
Byway. A Virginia Byway is an existing road with significant aesthetic and cultural
values, leading to or lying within an area of historic, natural, or recreational significance.
The primary purpose of this designation is to give formal recognition to deserving roads
and to further the creation of a system of roads to promote tourism and public
appreciation of natural and historic resources.
Demographics
Population
Crozet’s population has seen steady growth since the 1990s with the number of residential
units in Crozet more than tripling from about 600 in 1990 to an estimated 2,192 units in the
Development Area today (March 2010 estimate). Based on the current number of units, the
current estimated population is between 4,723 and 5,501 residents, depending on the
multiplier used to calculate the number of people per dwelling unit. The table below shows
growth in the Crozet Community over the last 20 years.
Residential Units and Population Growth 1990-2010
Year Units Population
1990 599 1733
2000 1051 2753
2010* 2192 5501
Source: US Census and Albemarle County Department of Community Development, Office of Geographic
Data Services, March 2010
*The number of units is based on parcel data in Albemarle County's CountyView Development Tracking
System. The average number of persons per household from the 2000 Census of Population and Housing is used
as the multiplier. Population in Group Quarters (dormitories, fraternities and sororities, and elderly care
facilities) is based on actual residents in these facilities at time of estimate.
View west of the Blue Ridge Mountains from Crozet
13 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
The population of Crozet has grown at a higher rate than the County as a whole. While the
County has grown at a rate of approximately two percent a year over the last ten years,
Crozet has experienced a ten percent annual growth rate. The population of Crozet
represents about five percent of the County’s overall population and about approximately
ten percent of the population in the County’s development areas.
Housing
In March 2010, there were 2,192 dwellings in Crozet. At present there have been approvals
through rezonings for up to 2,836 more dwellings if maximum densities are achieved for
approved developments. The rezonings have included a greater number of attached
housing and apartments than in the past, which will increase housing choices and
affordability in Crozet. With the existing zoning on properties, there is the potential of
between 1,368 and 1,982 additional units. If maximum densities are achieved under
developments already approved and zoned, this could result in a potential estimated
population range of 13,837-16,628.
Employment
Historically, Crozet’s economic base was agricultural, which expanded to include food
processing in the mid-to-late Twentieth Century. Other economic activities include records
storage and a lumber company. Today, the largest business is MusicToday, an
entertainment marketing company that runs fan clubs and handles ticket sales and
merchandising for clients in the entertainment industry. Music Today, Starr Hill
microbrewery, and other smaller users operate out of the old food processing facility (Con-
Agra Foods). US Joiner, a ship interiors company, also provides employment. The other
major employers in Crozet are Mountainside Senior Living Facility, the public schools, and
two grocery stores – Great Valu and Harris Teeter.
Crozet’s surrounding rural agricultural areas also help support the community’s economy.
Vineyards and orchards bring travelers to Crozet. Hops farming supports local breweries.
The Yancey Lumberyard processes lumber, which is used in Crozet, Albemarle County, and
the region.
The County’s source for employment data is the Virginia Employment Commission (VEC).
Employment data for Crozet is not available for just the area within the Crozet Development
Area boundaries because of the way employment data is reported to the VEC. According to
Crozet area estimates, which are based on zip codes and include some employers outside
the Development Area, there are presently 1,638 employees. The 2004 Crozet Master Plan
projected 5,000 jobs for a population of 12,000, which would result in an employee-to-
population ratio of nearly 0.5. A more conventional approach and what the County typically
uses, compares jobs to housing or jobs to dwelling units.
As a whole, the County has a jobs-housing ratio of 1.22 jobs per dwelling, which represents
more jobs than houses in the County. In contrast, Crozet has more housing than jobs with a
a ratio of 0.74 jobs per dwelling. This information suggests that Crozet is a bedroom
community to Charlottesville and the urban areas of Albemarle County. A goal from the
2004 Master Plan for Crozet was to have a higher jobs housing ratio of between 0.8 and
0.9:1. If achieved, this ratio would represent a greater number of jobs in Crozet, reduce
dependency on Charlottesville for employment, and reduce commuting traffic on Route 250
West.
14 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
Existing Land Use
Most of the 2900 acres in Crozet has been developed residentially or is undeveloped/open
space. Industrial land comprises approximately five percent of the land area and commercial or
mixed use takes up approximately three percent of the area. Over time, more
commercial/mixed use growth is expected.
Residential Use
The predominant land use in Crozet is residential. Of the roughly 2200 units, 72 percent are
single-family detached; 21 percent are townhouses, single-family attached or duplexes; four
percent are multifamily; and four percent are mobile homes. Townhouses provide the
majority of the newest housing stock.
The historic or older neighborhoods of the Tabor/Hilltop area, Carter Street area, and the
northern neighborhoods on St. George Avenue and Waylands Drive surround Downtown.
Mountainside Senior Living is an assisted living facility in Downtown, which has 105
residents. The Meadows is a senior housing complex south of Downtown with 96 units.
Other older neighborhoods include the Crozet Mobile Home Park, Brookwood, and Orchard
Acres. Newer neighborhoods are Western Ridge, Cory Farm, Grayrock Orchard, Wayland’s
Grant, Highlands at Mechums River, and Crozet Crossing. Parkside Village, Old Trail,
Westhall, Wickham Pond, Liberty Hall and Foothill Crossing are the newest residential
developments in Crozet.
Commercial and Office Use
Commercial and office uses outside of Downtown comprise less than two percent of the
land area in Crozet. Most of the older commercial buildings are located on Crozet Avenue
and Three Notch’d Road, while newer commercial areas are located in Old Trail or on Route
250 West.
In terms of square footage, the largest commercial area is the new Blue Ridge Shopping
Center, which totals 56,267 square feet and includes a grocery store, shops and a bank.
Blue Ridge Building Supply Company, which is located adjacent to the Blue Ridge Shopping
Center on Route 250 West, has approximately 48,000 square feet. The next largest building
is the Great Valu Shopping Center with 29,502 square feet. The Crozet Commons building
constructed in 2005 on Three Notch’d Road in Downtown provides 23,110 square feet of
office space and is headquarters to US Joiner. This building also houses physical therapy
and fitness businesses and a medical office. Adjacent to that building is an additional 19,500
square feet of approved office space and a 3,000 square foot bank in the Birchwood Place
development.
Industrial Use
Industrial buildings and associated zoned land that may be undeveloped comprise about
five% of the land area of Crozet. Included are three large industrial buildings: the former
Con Agra building (464,821 square feet), Acme Visible Records (286,187 square feet) and
the J. Bruce Barnes Lumber Company. The first two buildings are located on Route 240
(Three Notch’d Road); the lumber yard is located adjacent to the Square in Downtown. At
present, the lumber company is the only industrially used property.
The former Con-Agra building is part of a mixed commercial and industrial area. It is the
primary employment center for Crozet and is divided by the Route 240 Corridor and the
railroad tracks.
15 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
Mixed Use
Mixed use occupies around one percent of the land area of Crozet. The largest mixed use
area of residential and nonresidential use is the Square in Downtown. The Square provides
13,427 square feet of commercial and residential area. A newer mixed use area is Clover
Lawn on Route 250 West with 33,000 square feet of commercial uses and 29 residential
units. Commercial areas in the Old Trail development provide for approximately 25,000
square feet of mixed commercial uses with residential units above. Old Trail is approved for
up to 250,000 square feet of commercial uses, 192,000 of which may be retail uses, and
2200 potential dwellings. However, Downtown historically has been and is intended to be
Crozet’s “district-wide” focal point for cultural and commercial activities. It is the largest and
most important center in Crozet
Downtown
In addition to its function as the largest mixed use center in Crozet, Downtown is and is
intended to be the commercial core and to provide many opportunities for employment.
The area is bisected by the railroad tracks and is zoned Downtown Crozet District (DCD)
and Heavy Industrial. North of the railroad tracks, the DCD includes the Great Valu
Shopping Center and the Dairy Queen. An existing stream drainage ditch north of
Downtown divides the commercial area from the residential neighborhoods along St.
George and Wayland Drive. This stream is protected because it feeds into Crozet’s
drinking water supply at the Beaver Creek Reservoir and is subject to the County’s
Water Protection Ordinance.
The Downtown Crozet District zoning was a significant recent zoning change in Crozet.
The DCD was adopted by the County with a Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map
amendment in June 2008. The DCD establishes zoning regulations unique to Crozet to
encourage traditional downtown development. It provides for flexibility and variety of
development for retail, service, and civic uses with light industrial and residential as
secondary uses. The regulations for the DCD are intended to promote the economic and
social vitality and diversity of Downtown Crozet.
Community Facilities and Services
Existing community facilities and services are described here. More information can also be
found in the Chapter 7 of the Master Plan.
Water and Sewer
The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority is an independent public body, which provides
impoundment, treatment, storage, and transmission of potable water as well as transport
and treatment of wastewater for the citizens of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. The
Authority is the wholesale agency with the Albemarle County Service Authority as its
customer and agency that provides service to individual retail customers in Albemarle
County including Crozet.
The County’s policy is to provide water and sewer service to properties within the
development areas. As a development area, the community of Crozet is to be provided with
water and sewer. Most of the developed portions of Crozet are currently served with these
utilities. The Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) will provide service to all of Crozet
as new development occurs.
16 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
Raw Water
Currently, the Beaver Creek Reservoir (BCR) serves as the sole raw water source for
the Crozet Development Area. The Beaver Creek D am(BCD) and Reservoir was
constructed in 1963 by the United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Services (NRCS). The dam was designed with both a water storage and
flood control component on the design of the sediment storage volume, theoretical
sedimentation documentation rates, and anecdotal evidence, there does not appear to
be a current problem with sediment accumulation within the BCR drainage basin. The
2007 BCR Safe Yield Study indicated that during the drought of record (2001-2002), the
maximum constant demand that could be supplied from BCR is 1.8 million gallons per
day (mgd). Currently, the raw water pump station at BCD houses two pumps at 1.0 mgd
each. Although more than one pump can be operated, the firm pumping capacity of the
pump station is 1.0 mgd. Currently a 12” main conveys water from the BCD to the
Crozet WTP. The raw water pipeline capacity is approximately 1.3 mgd.
Finished Water
Potable water for the Development Area is currently produced at the Crozet Water
Treatment Plant located on Rt. 240. Currently, the water treatment plant is capable and
permitted to treat 1.0 mgd. When demand at the water treatment plant reaches 80% of
the permitted capacity, RWSA and ACSA will begin design of a plant and raw water
conveyance expansion. The size of the expansion will be dependent on the projected
demands and uses. Current water demand for the Crozet area is approximately 0.4 mgd.
Sewer
Wastewater treatment is provided at the Moore’s Creek Treatment Plant, which conveys
sewage from Crozet via the Crozet interceptor line. Generally, flow passes through a
series of gravity mains. Four pumping stations are located between Crozet and the Ivy
Road/Route 250 West interchange where the flow discharges into the Morey Creek &
Moore’s Creek interceptor, which lead to the wastewater treatment plant.
Solid Waste Management
The Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) is a regional authority established to manage
solid waste disposal originating in the City of Charlottesville and the County. Solid waste
collection service to all County residents and businesses, including Crozet, is provided by
private haulers. The RSWA operates the Ivy Materials Utilization Center (at the old Ivy
Landfill), the McIntire Recycling Center in the Charlottesville, a paper sorting facility (as a
result of a public-private partnership), and the Zions Crossroads transfer and disposal facility
(in partnership with Allied Waste). The McIntire Road Recycling Center in Charlottesville
provides primary recycling services to the Crozet Area. There is also a drop-off center
located in the Pantops Shopping Center.
The RSWA is currently developing a new strategic plan for solid waste management. The
plan is still under development as of the writing of this Master Plan.
Schools
There are four public schools located in, or adjacent to, and serve Crozet: Crozet
Elementary, Brownsville Elementary, Henley Middle, and Western Albemarle High School.
There are numerous private schools in Crozet and the surrounding area, including the Field
School and the Miller School. Albemarle County School’s Long Range Planning Committee
is responsible for monitoring residential development in the area and, either through
17 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
redistricting or by providing additional facilities, ensuring that the capital needs of the school
children will be met. At present, school facilities and teacher-to-student ratios are met.
Police
The Albemarle County Office Building on Fifth Street contains the Albemarle County Police
Department (ACPD), although police patrol all areas of the County. Current policy for police
services recommends a response time of five minutes or less 85 percent of the time in the
development areas.
On average, ACPD has one officer working the West End (including the Crozet area) per
shift. ACPD allocates shift resources throughout the County based on crime, traffic, and
special problem patterns. A satellite office is located at the Meadows. (A satellite office is
used by officers to perform administrative tasks and keep them in their assigned ar eas of
patrol. It is not a “manned” office.) ACPD current data reflects that ACDP is not meeting the
standard of a five-minute response 85 percent of the time. Instead, ACPD is meeting this
standard 65 percent of the time.
Fire Rescue
Albemarle County has a unique emergency services system. Volunteer and career
personnel cooperatively provide fire, rescue, and emergency medical services to the
community while partnering with other local and regional emergency services. Albemarle
County maintains a centralized headquarters to coordinate the provision of fire, rescue, and
emergency medical services. Commonly referred to as ACFR, these staff members handle
administrative tasks, training, volunteer programs, fire prevention and life safety programs,
and provide career operations staffing to supplement volunteer staffing. However, in Crozet,
fire suppression services, are provided by the all-volunteer Crozet Volunteer Fire
Department. This station serves an 184-square mile area of Western Albemarle County,
which includes the Ivy area, Afton Mountain, and areas that extend north of Whitehall to
south of Batesville. Ambulance/rescue service is provided by the Western Albemarle
Rescue Squad, which is also all-volunteer and covers most of the same areas of Western
Albemarle as the Crozet Volunteer Fire Department.
Library
Public library service is provided through the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library (JMRL)
system. Crozet currently has one branch library of 1,864 square feet. The facility is already
inadequate to serve the community’s needs based on the County standards and State
Standards (Library of Virginia).
Property has been purchased in Downtown Crozet for a new 20,000 square foot library to
serve Crozet and Western Albemarle. The new library will be built within the heart of
Downtown on Crozet Avenue and is a high priority of the Master Plan. The library will
provide an anchor and focal point for community activity and serve as an economic catalyst
in Downtown. Locating the library in Downtown is expected to result in fewer car trips, more
opportunity for community interaction, promotion of pedestrian safety and access, and
additional Downtown parking. As part of the project, the County will build a portion of the
new “Main Street”, which was identified in the 2004 Plan. The new space will also have
public meeting rooms and community space. However, due to current funding constraints,
this project has been pushed back several years in the County’s Capital Improvements
Program.
18 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
Social Services
Social service programs are provided in Crozet to low-to-moderate income families and also
to senior citizens. Mountainside Senior Living and the Meadows are housing for low-to-
moderate income older adults. Reduced-cost lunch and other programs are provided
through the County schools.
Stormwater Management
The County implements a number of programs to protect water resources of the County. These
programs include education, ensuring proper maintenance of stormwater management facilities,
enforcing the prohibition of illicit discharges, responding to citizen inquiries regarding drainage
issues, and designing and building capital projects. The initiatives are especially important in
Crozet as it is part of the drinking water supply watershed.
The Lickinghole basin is a large sediment control facility that helps to protect the watershed by
detaining sediment from new construction before runoff makes its way downstream into the
Mechums River and ultimately the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. In addition to its functional
role, this protective environmental measure is a public amenity.
Existing Transportation Network
US250 West (Rockfish Gap Turnpike) and US240 (Crozet Avenue and Three Notch’d Road) are
the primary roads serving the Development Area and are part of the County’s Entrance Corridor
Overlay District. Other major streets and roads are Jarman’s Gap Road and Old Trail Drive.
The table on the next page provides information on daily vehicle traffic on these main streets
and roads based on VDOT’s 2008 Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) Volume Estimates.
Route 250 West (Rockfish Gap Turnpike)
This street, referred to by the public as “Route 250” or “250 West,” is a rural section road
forming the southern Development Area boundary except for the portion across from the
Clover Lawn development. Portions of the new commercial area on Route 250 West, east
of Crozet Avenue, have curb and gutter. The remainder of the road is a wide two-lane road
with a center turn lane.
Route 250 West is also a state designated Scenic Byway. This program identifies road
corridors containing aesthetic or cultural value near areas of historical, natural or
recreational significance. By designating certain roads as Virginia Byways, the program
encourages travel to interesting destinations and away from high-traffic corridors.
Three Notch’d Road (Route 240)
Three Notch’d Road extends from the northern part of the V-intersection with Route 250
West (east of Crozet) to its intersection with Crozet Avenue. It is a rural section road until it
reaches the Music Today/Starr Hill area. From there it is an urban two-lane street with
narrow sidewalks on the northern side into Downtown. At the railroad overpass, it becomes
Crozet Avenue.
Crozet Avenue (also Route 240)
Crozet Avenue, which is Route 240, connects the northern part of Crozet with Route 250
West. The northernmost section has curb or curb/gutter and sidewalks. The central section
is undergoing a streetscape improvement program to widen sidewalks and place utilities
underground.
19 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
Annual Average Daily Trips on Streets and Roads in Crozet in 2008
Street/Road
From To AADT
US 250
I-64 near Yancey Mills Rt. 240/Crozet Ave. 10,000
US 250
Rt. 240/Three Notch’d Rd. Rt. 240/Crozet Ave. 7,100
US 250
Rt. 240/Three Notch’d Rd. Dick Woods Road 13,000
Rt. 240/Crozet
Ave.
US 250/Rockfish Gap
Turnpike
Rt. 810/Three Notch’d Rd. 7500
Route 240/Three
Notch’d
Rt. 810/Crozet Avenue Rt. 802/Old Three Notch’d Rd 6700
Route 240/Three
Notch’d
Rt. 802/Old Three Notch’d US 250/Ivy Rd. 6700
Rt. 810/Crozet
Ave.
Rt. 240/Three Notch’d Rt. 811/N. Jones Mill Rd. 2500
Rt. 691/Jarman’s
Gap
Rt. 611/Greenwood Rd Rt. 1215/Killdeer Lane 1100
Rt. 691/Jarman’s
Gap
Rt. 1215/Killdeer Lane Rt. 240/Crozet Ave. 2800
Source: VDOT’s 2008 Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) Volume Estimates.
Jarman’s Gap Road
Route 684 (Jarman’s Gap Road) is a substandard design to support proposed development,
and is scheduled for upgrading including widening, alignment improvements, bike lanes, and
a sidewalk on the north side by VDOT. It connects Crozet Avenue with Half Mile Branch
Road in western Crozet. It is a narrow, two-lane rural road, will be improved to an urban
road with sidewalk on one side over the next few years. It is the major street carrying traffic
from western Crozet to Downtown. Its intersection with Crozet Avenue is offset from Tabor
Street; however, this offset is not expected to be corrected and provides for traffic calming
near Downtown.
Old Trail Drive (previously referred to as Western Avenue)
Old Trail Drive connects Jarman’s Gap Road with Route 250 West through the Old Trail
development. It is a two-lane urban street with an asphalt trail on one-side, which functions
as a multi-use path. Sidewalks will be constructed on the other side of Old Trail Drive as
development occurs. The multi-use path will transition to a wide sidewalk in the higher
density and commercial center of the Old Trail development. Street trees will separate the
pavement from the sidewalks and path.
Other Accessibility
Accessibility to portions of the Development Area south of Three Notch’d Road and east of
20 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
Crozet Avenue is restricted due to lack of public roads in these areas. In the central portion
of the Development Area, alignment and sight distance pose problems along both Three
Notch’d Road and Crozet Avenue, especially in the Downtown area.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Networks
Sidewalks and pedestrian pathways exist in some neighborhoods in Crozet such as St.
George Avenue, Three-Notch’d Road from the former ConAgra building to Downtown, and
Downtown along Crozet Avenue to Field School/Old Crozet School of the Arts. The existing
Downtown sidewalk system is not interconnected and some portions are in need of
maintenance. Implementation of the Downtown streetscape project will address this need
and provide additional parking for Downtown revitalization.
Bicycle facilities are inadequate within the community; however, construction of these
facilities is anticipated with road and new development projects. Greenway development is
underway from Lickinghole basin and Western Ridge to Claudius Crozet Park as well as in
the area west of Crozet Avenue in conjunction with the Old Trail development.
Transit
Jaunt
JAUNT, Inc. is a regional transportation system that was organized in 1975 and provides
service to the citizens of Charlottesville and the nearby Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna,
Louisa, Nelson, Buckingham, and Amherst. This public transportation system makes
over 270,000 trips each year, carrying riders to work, doctor’s appointments, shopping,
and leisure activities. JAUNT is owned by the local governments it serves and uses
federal, state, and local funding to supplement fares and agency payments. JAUNT on-
demand transit service is currently available in the Crozet area.
Go to next chapter
Return to Table of Contents
Crozet Master P lan Prepared by Albemarle County | Office of Geographic Data Services(GDS).Map created by Derek Bedarf, August 19, 2010.
p
0 800 1,600 2,400Feet
Note: The map elements depicted are graphic representations and are not to be construed or used as a legal description. This map is for display purposes only.
RoadParcelsRailroadWater FeatureStreamContour (4 Ft./Y2007)Critical Slope (Y2007)Floodplain (100 Yr.)Wetland (NWI)Stream Buffer (100 Ft.)Critical Slope (Y2007) &Stream Buffer (100 Ft.)Outside Development AreaCrozet Development AreaDevelopment Area Removal
Environmental & Natural R es ources
21 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
Chapter 4 Future Land Use
Centers
The Crozet Master Plan Future Land Use Plan is organized around centers—distinctive places
in Crozet that are oriented toward the pedestrian. Pedestrian-oriented place-making involves a
combination of focal points and boundaries in which the ideal distance from focal point to
boundary is approximately a 1/4 mile radius (i.e., a five minute walk). The center is the most
intensely developed, while the middle and edge bands around the center become progressively
more residential, less mixed use, and less dense.
The primary and most important center in Crozet is the Downtown area. There is one major
employment center in the Crozet Development Area: Music Today (the former Con Agra
facility).Other important mixed use centers include Old Trail/Western Park and the Clover Lawn
commercial and residential area. Schools also serve as important focal points in Crozet. In
addition to the centers noted above, Claudius Crozet Park, Western Park, and the future
Eastern Park are also centers.
Economic Development Policy and the Master Plan
The County’s Economic Development Policy, updated in March 2009, recommends that the
County maintain a strong and sustainable economy. Economic growth and vitality are required
to sustain and enhance the human, economic, cultural, and natural characteristics of any
community. An economic development policy should be based on planning efforts which
support and enhance the strengths of the County. This policy has also been incorporated into
recommendations throughout the Master Plan, including the Future Land Use Plan, which
identifies where new economic growth should occur in Crozet. The Master Plan puts a strong
emphasis on maintaining a jobs-housing balance to help Crozet become less of a ―bedroom
community‖ to Charlottesville.
Future Land Use Plan
The Future Land Use Plan is provided on the following page. This plan shows areas designated
for development, the type of development desired, and what should be preserved as important
natural features in Crozet. A major premise of the Master Plan is the protection of the Rural
Areas and Route 250 West surrounding Crozet. The desired future uses are shown in colors on
this plan. The non-park centers are represented by the darkest colors on the map. The most
intensively developed area is and will continue to be Downtown. Lighter colored shades radiate
out from the darker colors to illustrate where lower intensity development is expected.
Land Use Designations (Refer to Crozet Master Plan Land Use Plan on next page)
Greenspace
This designation refers to all existing and proposed public parks, public open space,
environmental features and active park areas. It includes public greenways and park-
related institutional uses. It also contains important environmental features and
privately owned park and recreational areas which may be active or passive. The Parks
& Green Systems map and Chapter 5 of the Master Plan further define expectations for
the Greenspace shown on the Land Use Plan. Sensitive environmental features
including stream buffers, flood plains, and adjacent slopes are included in this category.
Typically, only passive recreation and greenway trails will occur in the sensitive
environmental areas, while active recreation is planned for other areas.
22 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
Insert Future Land use Plan
23 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
Institutional
This designation represents areas for civic use such as schools, libraries, parks,
recreational facilities, water treatment facilities, and other similar uses on County or
publicly-owned property. It may also include facilities such as community centers, clubs,
lodges, and civic and fraternal facilities.
Neighborhood Density-Low
This designation represents residential areas where a density of 2 residential units per
acre or less is expected. Housing is expected to be single-family detached. Non-
residential neighborhood uses, such as places of worship, public and private schools,
religious institutions, daycare facilities, parks, and private schools, may also be present
in these areas.
Neighborhood Density
This designation represents residential areas with a desired density of 3 – 6 residential
units per acre. It also represents existing residential areas within or below this range.
Housing in this area is primarily single-family detached with some single-family
attached/townhouses. Non-residential uses include institutional uses, such as places of
worship, public and private schools, and early childhood education centers (daycare
centers and preschools). Neighborhood-serving retail/commercial areas and office uses
of less than 5,000 square feet may be allowed by exception only in Neighborhood
Density Residential areas located within half a block of Downtown along Blue Ridge
Avenue and east of Firehouse Lane.
Urban Density
This designation represents primarily residential areas with a density of 6 – 12
residential units per acre. All housing types are found in this category, including single-
family detached, townhouses, and apartments. Urban Density residential areas include
places of worship, public and private schools, and early childhood education centers
(daycare centers and preschools). Urban Density residential areas also accommodate
small scale office and commercial uses. Neighborhood-serving commercial buildings of
less than 5,000 square feet and office uses of less than 20,000 square feet per site may
be allowed by exception only.
Mixed Use
This designation represents areas with a mixture of residential, commercial, and office
uses. Residential density does not exceed 18 dwelling units per acre, mostly as
apartments or townhouses. This designation is used inside mixed use centers -- such as
Old Trail and Clover Lawn and as transition areas around Downtown. In centers, it
includes a balanced mix of retail, housing, commercial, employment, and office uses
along with some institutional uses. The types of retail and services, as well as dwelling
unit types, vary depending upon the nature of the center. Specific recommendations for
the Mixed Use (Transition) areas surrounding Downtown are provided in the Mixed Use
Areas near Downtown section of this chapter starting on Page 24.
Downtown
This designation is applied to the most intensely developed area in Crozet. It is a mixed
use area, which promotes commercial, employment, and office uses and allows up to 36
residential units per acre in the form of multifamily/mixed use buildings. Institutional
uses, such as libraries and County offices, as well as limited amounts of office, research,
and development (R&D) uses are present in this area.
24 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
Mixed Office/Research & Development (R & D)/Flex and Commercial
This designation, which is a subcategory of Downtown, represents a mixture of
employment, retail, and service uses. Retail and service uses that would occur
in Downtown are expected in this category of use as well as office, research and
development (R&D), and flex uses. Examples of office/R&D uses include
research and development of computer software, information systems,
communication systems, geographic information systems, and multi-media and
video technology. Development, construction, and testing of prototypes may be
associated with this use. Such a business does not involve the mass
manufacture, fabrication, processing, or sale of products.
Flex describes businesses that may include several uses such as a
manufacturing facility with warehouse space for components and completed
products, a showroom for sale of the products, and office space where
administrative duties for the business take place.
Light industrial uses are secondary. They are expected to have limited impacts
on surrounding uses (e.g., noise, vibrations, odors), although a use may have a
greater traffic impact due to the number of employees.
Residential uses are also secondary uses, up to 36 units per acre in the form of
upper story apartments. Open space and institutional uses constitute additional
secondary uses.
Light Industrial
This designation represents uses that involve manufacturing, predominantly from
previously prepared materials, of products or parts. It may include processing,
fabrication, assembly, treatment, packaging, incidental storage, sales, and distribution of
these products. It does not include basic industrial processing. Light Industrial areas
provide a place for employment and commercial uses that need to be segregated from
residential uses and other commercial uses because of their impacts. Primary uses are
light manufacturing, storage, and distribution. Secondary uses include related office and
retail activities (particularly wholesale), research and development (R&D), flex, other
commercial uses that are associated with the primary uses in the area, larger auto
commercial service uses, open space, and institutional uses.
Recommendations by Geographic Sector
For this section of the Master Plan, the Community of Crozet has been divided into six
geographic sectors in which future development and redevelopment projects or preservation
efforts are focused. The areas are Downtown, the Route 240 Corridor (Downtown to Music
Today), the Music Today (formerly ConAgra) area, Western Crozet, the Crozet Avenue
Corridor, and Eastern Crozet. Each area has unique characteristics and challenges. This
section identifies land use recommendations and priority implementation strategies for each
area.
Downtown Area
The Downtown Area contains five different land use designations and this Master Plan
recommends that the area continue to serve as the focal point for cultural and commercial
activities in Crozet. It designates the existing commercial core of Downtown for infill and
25 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
Land Use Plan - Downtown area
redevelopment for commercial and mixed uses. The Downtown Crozet Zoning District
(DCD) has been placed on properties designated for the Downtown use. This zoning district
provides for flexibility and variety of development for retail, service, office/R&D/flex/light
industrial, and civic uses. Within the zoning district, light industrial and residential uses are
secondary uses. New buildings are expected to be two to three stories in height, although
the zoning regulations allow up to four stories by-right and up to six stories by special use
permit. Shared parking that is on-street or in parking lots is expected. Redevelopment of
existing viable structures is encouraged.
Locations for office/R&D/flex/ provide primary
employment uses in Downtown and are
considered necessary and are a high priority
in addition to retail, residential, and service
uses. Flexibility exists in where and how
these uses are provided in Downtown. While
office/R&D/flex/light industrial uses could be
provided in one or more different locations in
the Downtown, the location of the current J.
Bruce Barnes Lumber Company has
particular opportunities due to its historic
industrial use and its location adjacent to the
rail line. Care should be taken in
redevelopment of Downtown so that access
to the rail line is not precluded.
Some County projects to improve the
Downtown are in process and others are proposed. A new library site and right-of-way for a
portion of the new ―Main Street‖ have been secured. Construction will occur when funding is
available. Additional temporary parking to serve Downtown will be provided on the library
site that will be supplanted by permanent parking after the library is constructed.
Recommendations for Downtown
Direct new commercial and employment growth to Downtown.
Complete Downtown infrastructure projects, which have a major implementation
priority:
o Construct the new Western Albemarle/Crozet Library when funding is available.
o Complete Downtown stormwater project in south Downtown and develop it as a
community greenspace amenity.
o Complete Crozet Avenue streetscape improvements.
o Complete construction of the first segment of ―Main Street‖ from Crozet Avenue
to High Street.
o Continue construction of ―Main Street‖ east from Crozet Avenue through public
and private development activities.
o Provide additional public parking in Downtown.
Include a mixture of office, research and development (R&D), flex uses, retail, and
service uses in redevelopment of the lumber yard property. Residential and light
industrial uses are secondary uses for this area.
Reuse viable buildings within the Downtown. Where buildings cannot be preserved,
new construction should reflect the vernacular architecture in Crozet.
26 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
Consider recommendations from the Community of Crozet Architectural Resources
Study and Strategies Report for properties located within the potential Crozet Historic
District.
Encourage a ―block‖ form of development in undeveloped areas of the Downtown.
Create a Downtown community green.
Include pocket parks in block development and redevelopment.
Continue business development and marketing programs for the Downtown such as:
o Public private partnerships/dialogue.
o Expansion of existing and development of new businesses.
o Community led fairs, festivals, and celebrations.
Continue programs to support the business community, which include the work of the
County’s Business Development Facilitator in business development and growth.
Consider creating a Downtown redevelopment website.
Develop guidelines for renovating historic structures and for new buildings (scale,
materials, and setbacks).
Look for new opportunities to promote or take advantage of agritourism, heritage
tourism, and other tourism initiatives in Western Albemarle such as the Artisan Trail,
Monticello W ine Trail, and Brew Ridge Trail.
Create destinations in the Downtown that support tourism initiatives.
Mixed Use Areas Near Downtown
The area west of Carter Street is designated Mixed Use. This area provides a transition
between Downtown and existing residential neighborhoods near Downtown. The role of this
mixed use area is to support Downtown and provide opportunities for less intensive
commercial and residential uses. Redevelopment of existing viable structures is
encouraged.
Recommendations for Mixed Use Areas Near Downtown
Uses in this category include low-impact neighborhood-scale uses like office with
limited service and retail uses that would not have adverse impacts to adjoining
neighbors, e.g., 24-hour convenience store commercial, office, townhouses and
multifamily buildings, and mixed use buildings with residential on upper floors.
Residential density in these areas should not exceed Neighborhood Density.
Smaller scale commercial and office activities should be directed to these areas.
Total square footage per building for commercial uses should not exceed 5,000
square feet, and office uses should not exceed 10,000 square feet total building
square footage per site.
A mix of uses is encouraged in these areas that results in about 50 percent
residential uses and 50 percent non-residential uses by each block area.
Reuse of existing viable structures for commercial and service activities should be
encouraged. Recommendations of the ―Community of Crozet Architectural
Resources Study and Strategies Report‖ should be considered for properties located
within the potential Crozet Historic District.
Uses should generate significantly less traffic than uses allowed in Downtown.
New buildings should be compatible in scale and massing with surrounding
residential structures. There should be consistent building heights and setbacks.
Features of existing streetscapes should be retained or incorporated into new
development projects.
Generally, buildings should not be taller than three (3) stories; they may be taller by
exception.
27 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
Signage and lighting should be unobtrusive to surrounding residences.
Hours of operation should be compatible with surrounding residences.
Small parking areas (less than 5 spaces) and shared parking and access is
encouraged. Parking areas must be landscaped and screened.
Allowance for limited stream buffer reductions on already developed properties
where no buffer exists can be made. (See hatching on Land Use Plan). These
reductions shall be limited and only in exchange for reclamation/additional plantings
or other measures to mitigate runoff and improve watershed protection.
Residential Properties North of Downtown
The residential area north of Downtown is separated from the Downtown Crozet Zoning
District by a stream and associated stream buffer. Closest to Downtown, redevelopment of
existing residential uses may occur at higher densities than in neighborhoods further away
from the Downtown. All residential areas north of Downtown are shown for Neighborhood
Density Residential development.
The hatched pattern over the Neighborhood Density designation indicates the presence of a
stream and its associated stream buffer. (See Future Land Use Plan.) Over time, the stream
closest to Three Notch’d Road and west of Crozet Avenue north of Downtown has been
impacted by development such that a true stream no longer exists. In places the stream is
piped; in other places, the streambed is just a swale. The County’s requirement for a 100-
foot stream buffer limits some use of this area. To allow for reuse and redevelopment in the
area where a true stream does not exist, consideration should be given to a reduction in the
stream buffer. However, should be mitigated with additional plantings onsite which will help
improve water quality as runoff occurs and help protect the Beaver Creek Reservoir.
Route 240 Corridor (Downtown to Music Today)
The corridor between Downtown (Firehouse Lane) and Music Today is currently a
residential area with small houses on deep lots. Its location provides an area for future
redevelopment and opportunities for uses that support both the Downtown and the
employment uses to the east. In the near term, redevelopment and new development are
encouraged within the existing Downtown before expansion into this adjacent area.
As with the Neighborhood Density area north of Downtown, there is a stream and associated
buffer across many of the lots in this corridor shown as green on the above Land Use Plan. In
some places the buffer is wooded and should continue to be protected. A portion of the property
previously designated Neighborhood Density Residential is recommended for removal from the
Development Area. An alternative development concept for the property is to permit the total
Land Use Plan - Route 240 Corridor (Downtown to Music Today) Area
Replace Map
Route 240
28 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
number of units allowed under the current RA zoning to be clustered in a more dense form and
served by utilities (water and sewer) if the remainder of the property is left in greenspace. The
purpose of this adjustment is to reduce the amount of new development in the Beaver Creek
watershed.
While not reflected by land use designations at this time, this area is anticipated to transition to
Mixed Use in the future. It should be studied with the next update of the Master Plan to see if it
is ready for a Mixed Use designation. If an opportunity for redevelopment occurs before the 5-
year update, Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) requests could be considered in advance
of the update. When it is time for redevelopment of this area, consideration should be given to
reducing the stream buffer closest to Three Notch’d Road, where a wooded buffer currently
does not exist. Any reductions should be mitigated with additional plantings.
Recommendations for Route 240 Corridor (Downtown to Music Today):
Retain existing residential uses until the area is ripe for redevelopment.
When ready for redevelopment, designate the properties adjacent to Firehouse Lane
and along the Three Notch’d Road Corridor for mixed use or other designations
which will provide effective transition from the Downtown to the employment center.
Redevelopment of this area should provide for stream and water supply protection.
Existing wooded stream buffers and vegetation should remain undisturbed.
Allow for limited stream buffer reductions on already developed properties where no
buffer exists. (Refer to Land Use Plan). These reductions shall be limited and only in
exchange for reclamation/additional plantings or other measures to mitigate runoff
and improve watershed protection.
Music Today (formerly Con Agra) Area
This area represents the primary employment center for Crozet and a small residential area
north of Three Notch’d Road. Over the past five years, existing manufacturing buildings
have undergone some renovation in support of the microbrewery and music merchandising
center.
It is anticipated that the buildings will continue to be used by a combination of employers.
Light industrial uses and other employment generators are expected with new development.
Existing and new retail, office, and service uses are expected to serve this employment
center.
Land Use Plan - Music Today (formerly Con Agra) Area
29 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
Land Use Plan - Western area of Crozet
Residential uses are suggested adjoining this employment area on several sides. In the
northeast corner of Parkview Lane and Three Notch’d Road, the Master Plan designates
residential uses on currently undeveloped land in support of the employment center, and a
residential development is approved along Parkview Lane.
Recommendations for Music Today (formerly Con Agra) Area:
Support existing industries to retain existing employers.
Attract new employers to the undeveloped areas.
Support residential developments that create a live/work neighborhood. Encourage
only office, retail, and services that directly support industry in this area.
Western Crozet
This sector of Crozet is located west
of Crozet Avenue and north of Route
250 West. It includes the existing
neighborhoods of Jarmans Gap
Estates, Orchard Acres, Gray Rock,
Waylands Grant, Bargamin Park,
Haden/Killdeer, and Old Trail. A
mixed use development center in Old
Trail under development will include
retail uses and offices. Other focal
points in this part of Crozet include
Western Park and the school
complex located on the southern
boundary of the Development Area
(Route 250 West).
The emphasis for this part of Crozet
is on preservation of existing
neighborhoods, preservation of
Route 250 West, development of
Western Park, and transportation
improvements. Development of
Western Park will occur as funds are
available.
Transportation improvements include widening Jarman’s Gap Road, including sidewalks on
one side. The street that will connect the Old Trail development to the school complex
should be built to help provide other options for cars and school busses. Greenway paths
are needed to provide easy access to natural areas and to Downtown. No commercial use is
recommended on Route 250 West in order to retain Route 250 West as a Scenic Byway.
Additional commercial uses will add traffic to this road, which would damage the rural
character of Route 250 West.
30 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
Land Use Plan - Crozet Avenue Corridor
Recommendations for Western Crozet:
Start and complete improvements to Jarman’s Gap Road. No additional
developments in this area of Crozet should be approved by rezoning or special use
permit until the Jarman’s Gap Road improvement project is completed.
New residential development adjacent to existing neighborhoods should be
compatible with housing types and have comparable densities.
Build greenway paths to provide pedestrian and bike linkages from the Western area
to Downtown and the schools. Construction of these paths is a high priority, and
portions can be constructed by volunteers.
Limit new development on Route 250 West.
Protect Route 250 West as a Scenic Byway.
Build Western Park improvements according to the park Master Plan and look for
ways to complete the park with public/private collaboration.
In addition to building the street from Old Trail Drive to the school complex, find
methods to improve traffic flow to the school complex from Route 250 West.
Limit other improvements on Jarman’s Gap Road to Half Mile Branch Road to site
distance and safety improvements. Encourage use of Western Avenue for access
from Jarman’s Gap Road to Route 250 West.
Explore opportunities to connect greenway trails for pedestrian and bike linkages to
Mint Springs.
Crozet Avenue Corridor
Crozet Avenue is a winding rural scenic road providing access
from the interstate to Downtown Crozet. It includes properties from
Dunvegan Lane south of Downtown to the intersection with Route
250 West. A wide vegetated buffer on a majority of the corridor is
present on both sides of the street. It includes land preserved in
conservation easements, the cemetery, streams and floodplains.
The land use goals for this corridor are to maintain the rural
character of this entry into Downtown Crozet.
Because of safety concerns and limitations on widening Crozet
Avenue, Neighborhood Density development is shown outside of
the buffer area. Neighborhood Density is also shown south of
Downtown. A key recommendation for this corridor is to provide a
multipurpose path along the western side of the road within the
existing road right-of-way, to the greatest extent possible.
Existing zoning along the corridor is not totally consistent with the
Land Use Plan for this area. The Land Use Plan recommends that
wide swaths of rural land continue to exist as Greenspace.
However, some properties in the corridor are zoned R1 and R2
Residential which allows one and two dwellings per acre,
respectively. There is also existing Highway Commercial zoning
at the northeast corner of Crozet Avenue and Route 250 West.
Because of this zoning and because a redevelopment plan is
approved at this location, the Land Use Plan shows the corner as
available for commercial development. However, no further
commercial development is recommended at this
intersection.
Crozet
Avenue
Route 250
Crozet
Avenue
31 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
Land Use Plan – Eastern Crozet
Recommendations for the Crozet Avenue Corridor:
Preserve environmental features and the rural scenic qualities of the corridor.
Encourage conservation easements on properties designated as Greenspace, if they
meet the qualifications for conservation easements.
To the greatest extent possible, provide a multipurpose path along the western side
of the road or where feasible, within the existing road right-of-way.
A trailhead park is recommended at a central location along the Crozet Avenue
corridor.
Further development along this corridor is discouraged. No additional development
above what can occur under existing ―by-right‖ zoning should be approved unless
environmental protection and transportation safety priorities are addressed.
Eastern Crozet
Eastern Crozet is the area east of Crozet Avenue and includes the neighborhoods of
Hilltop/Myrtle, Parkside Village, Westhall, Western Ridge, Wickham Pond, The Highlands,
Clover Lawn, Cory Farms, and the future developments Liberty Hall and Foothill Crossing.
There are also undeveloped properties in this portion of Crozet. The future Eastern Avenue
is intended to provide key linkages between neighborhoods and centers.
The Lickinghole Creek
sedimentation basin not only
provides water quality protection,
but also offers future passive
recreational opportunities.
Existing focal points within this
area include Crozet Park, the
Clover Lawn/Blue Ridge
Shopping Center, and the future
Eastern Park. Development for
the area east of Crozet Avenue
should focus on greenway
development, key pedestrian/bike
linkages, the construction of
public amenities such as schools
and parks, and creation of roads
and bridges.
Specific recommendations and tasks for Eastern Crozet include the following:
Construct Eastern Avenue, ―Main Street‖, and primary neighborhood streets within
the two or three major properties available for new development.
Construct a crossing of the CSX tracks between the Acme and Con Agra buildings
(below or above-grade options).
Construct Lickinghole bridge on a timeline appropriate to demand.
Establish a multipurpose path in the right-of-way that has been reserved for the
future Eastern Avenue to provide bike and pedestrian connectivity.
Aside from construction traffic, truck traffic should not be allowed on Eastern Avenue.
Replace Map
32 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
Establish a greenway trail (for pedestrians and bikes) from Lickinghole Creek basin
to Crozet Park and Downtown.
If needed, construct a new neighborhood elementary school on a timeline
appropriate to demand in the general location shown on the Plan.
Explore and develop potential access points to Lickinghole Creek basin.
Establish Eastern Park with public/private collaboration.
Fringe Areas and the Route 250 West Corridor
Crozet has notable agricultural history and was once known as the Peach Capital of the
state. Today, the Development Area, which includes areas historically farmed, is designated
for future growth, but orchards and other agricultural activities continue in the surrounding
Rural Area. During the development of this Master Plan update, a review took place of the
fringe areas to determine whether any conditions had changed since adoption of the prior
Master Plan. Specifically, the eastern quadrant of the I-64 and Route 250 West interchange
was studied to consider whether the boundary of the Crozet Development Area should be
expanded to allow for a business and industrial park. After study, as well as input from
residents, it was determined that an expansion of the Development Area is not warranted at
this time and that all new buildings for office, retail, and industrial uses should be located
within the existing Community of Crozet. This Master Plan update recommends that the
Rural Areas outside of the Community of Crozet remain rural, including the stretch of Route
250 West between the Development Area boundary and the interstate interchange.
The edges of the Crozet Development Area are surrounded with important Rural Area and
scenic resources, including Route 250 West a designated Byway, and properties under
easement or used for agricultural activities. In keeping with the County’s policies to have
commercial and industrial development occur only within the designated development
areas, additional commercial or industrial development of the fringe areas is not
recommended.
The fringe areas of Crozet are designated as Rural Areas in the County Land Use Plan and
changes to County policy to allow for further commercial and industrial development are not
supported by this plan. Commercial and industrial development in these areas are
discouraged for several reasons, most importantly water supply watershed protection.
Commercial and industrial users can be large water users and potentially impact
groundwater supplies. Similarly, they can require larger septic systems, which are not
appropriate in the County’s Rural Area. Commercial and industrial uses bring traffic to the
Route 250 West corridor. In addition, commercial uses draw users away from Downtown
and can negatively affect efforts to revitalize Downtown. Additional recommendations for
the land use in these areas are found in the Rural Areas Plan.
While the policy goals are to protect the Route 250 West corridor and Rural Area from
further development, the existing zoning in these areas permits commercial and other uses
―by-right.‖ By-right uses do not require approval by the Board of Supervisors. By-right uses
are approved administratively by the staff because the zoning ordinance allows them.
Special uses, on the other hand, require Board of Supervisors’ approval because they
represent a potentially more intensive development that can have negative impacts on an
area. When requested for approval, the only special uses that should be approved are
those that have minimal impacts on the Rural Areas, environmental resources, and
transportation systems; improve the form of development in the fringe area; or better
achieve the goals of the Comprehensive Plan than uses which are allowed by right.
33 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
In addition to transportation and potential environmental impacts, preservation of the rural
scenic character of Route 250 West is important to retain its status as a Virginia Byway.
Preservation of the rural scenic character of this area is important because it contributes to
the quality and physical character of the Crozet community. Byways are also important
tourist routes, drawing visitors to destinations and stimulating the local economy. For these
reasons, inside the Development Area, most properties along the corridor are shown as
Greenspace or with a vegetated buffer.
As previously mentioned Route 250 West is an Entrance Corridor. Throughout the County,
Entrance Corridor design guidelines are not corridor-specific and more work is needed to
develop corridor-specific guidelines. Corridor-specific guidelines will help the County
achieve unity and coherence, while recognizing the uniqueness of Crozet.
Specific Recommendations for Route 250 West:
Do not approve any rezoning for new development along the Route 250 West
Corridor.
Preserve the rural scenic character of Route 250 West.
Develop corridor-specific design guidelines for Route 250 West in and near Crozet.
Where special use permits or waivers to requirements are allowed, only approve
uses which have the least impact on the Rural Areas, environmental resources, and
transportation systems.
Northern Boundary of Crozet
Development Area
The 2010 Master Plan reflects the
removal of a portion of a property
located to the north of the Route 240
corridor, which was added to the
Development Area in 2004 (see
hatched pattern on map to the right).
The goal for the remainder of the
property, which is shown as
Neighborhood Density, is to permit the
total number of units allowed under the
current RA zoning to be clustered and
served by public utilities (water and
sewer). The purpose of this
adjustment is to reduce the amount of new development in the Beaver Creek watershed.
Historic Districts
The Community of Crozet Architectural Resources Study and Strategies Report made
recommendations for designation of a historic district within Crozet. Other initiatives are
underway to establish a rural historic district west of Crozet in the Greenwood, Afton, and
Yancey Mills area. To preserve the historic fabric of the Crozet Development Area, the Master
Plan recommends that community residents begin the process of applying for historic landmark
status for Downtown by listing it with the National Register for Historic Places. Though mostly
honorary in nature, the status of listing in the National Register encourages and requires local,
state and federal government staff to consider the historic nature of Crozet’s historic resources
when weighing options for publicly-funded improvements. Listing on the National Register
Remainder of
Property
34 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
allows for economic incentives for preservation in the form of significant state and federal tax
credits. The Master Plan recommends:
Support a community-led National Register nomination for Downtown Crozet and the
potential Greenwood-Afton Historic District.
Encourage protection of buildings and sites that are contributing structures to potential
and listed National Register Historic Districts.
Consider the recommendations of the Crozet Architectural Resources Strategies Report
for projects in the report study area.
Relationship Between the Land Use Plan and Zoning
The Future Land Use Plan shows the community’s desired future uses by location. As
mentioned previously, the Zoning Map and the Future Land Use Plan are not identical. In some
cases, the existing zoning represents a lower density or different use than the Future Land Use
Plan recommends. This is deliberate. If a property owner wishes to have a more compact
development, greater density, or a more intense use than the current zoning allows, the owner
is expected to mitigate the impacts of the development in return for the greater density or
intensity. Generally during a rezoning, the owner makes a commitment to mitigate impacts of
the development using proffers.
There are times that owners desire to develop their property as it is currently zoned rather than
asking for a rezoning. Most of these instances involve property shown for Greenspace that has
underlying low-density residential zoning. In one instance, land shown as Downtown on the
Future Land Use Plan is zoned industrially. While it is hoped that the future land use will be in
accordance with the Master Plan, the future land use use may not be the same as what is
shown on the Future Land Use Plan.
Go to next chapter
Return to Table of Contents
INDIGO RDUNION MISSION LNCARLYLE PLSTAYMAN CTGALA CTPARSONS GREEN LNWESTHALL DRJARMAN LAKE RDSUNFLOWER LNGRASSY KNLFAIRWINDS CTOAK STPARK LNCLAUDIUS CTR E D P IN E C T
O L D F O X
T R A I L L N
BEAVER CREEK MTN RDHIGHLAN DS DRMCALLISTER STQUICK LNMA P L E S T CORY FARM RDNICOLET CTPINE LNB
A
L
L
A RD DRSTONEGATE CTELLIN G T O N BN D
YORK RDB A Y B ER
R Y C TBELLE DRVISTA VIEW LNCLINTON LNADELE STLAURA LNFIRETHORN CTFIREHOUSE LNB RA D B U R Y T E R WEST END DRPARK RIDGE CTBEAVER HILL DRCLEARFIELDS CTWOODMONT RIDGE RDRADFORD LNROLLING MEADOW LNHIGH STDAVIS DRBURNT ACRES CTS U M M I T
V I E W L N
PLEASANT GREEN STDUNVEGAN LNBEAVER HILL LNHAMPSTEAD DRJAMESTOWN CTWICKHAM POND DRPLAIN S DRCLAREMONT L N
PIEDMONT CHURCH LNCLAY DRWILLOW SPRING RDBLUE RIDGE AVETUCKE D AWAY SPRING S LNOAK DRW ICKHAM WAYW E STON LNSUNSET RDW IL D
T U RK E Y L N
ST GEORGE STP E A C H
B U S H R D
C L A U D IUS C R O Z E T PARKTABOR STBRAEBURN STLANETOWN WAYMYRTLE STSAVA N N A H
C T
BARGAMIN LOO P
TUCKER WAYHEATHER CREST PLCARTER STLOCUST LNL A KE T R E E LNROTHWELL LNPEAC H TREE D R CAITLIN DR
WINDMERE LNW I6 4 E XIT 10 7 O FFCOTTONWOOD FARMBROOK VIEW RDKILLDEER LNLONGMONT DRORCHAR D D R G ATE POST LNM CC O M B ST NORMANDY DRGRAYROCK DRWAYLAND DRRIVENDELL LNJAM E STO W N R D
HADEN LNPARK RDHIGHLANDS PLAUTU M N HILL C T
EMERALD L NFRANK TATE RD
F O X D A L E L N
WELB OURNE LNMECHUMS RIVER R D
SHEPHERD RUNL E N O X
H IL L R DMECHUMHTS
F R E E
T O W N L NMEADOWS DRHILL TOP STPARK RIDGE DRHILLSBORO LNCATHAROSS LNB R O OK W O OD RDWOODBOURNE L NAMBER
R ID GE RD
HALF MILE BRANCH RDFITZGERALD RDC R O Z E T
A V E
LICKINGHOLE CREEK RDST GEORGE AVEYANCEY M ILL LNHARVEST FARMS LNBROWNSVILLE RDCLING LNLANETOWN RDHEDGEROW L N
YONDER HILL FARMFOREST GLEN DRP A R K V IE W D R
BUCK RDO L D
T R A IL D RRAILROAD AVEMARYMART FARM RDGOLF DRHALCYON DRTHURSTON DRPATTERSON MILL LNSHELTON MILL R DCOLONY DRCLAUDIUS CROZET PARKCROSSOVERBROOKWOOD RDJORDAN LNG R AYROCK
CT ALBEMARLE PIPPIN CTMILLBURN CTEDMOND DRPARK RIDGE CTCLAY CTGRASS DALE LNROCKFISH GAP TPKEAMBER RIDGE CTCLOVER LAWN LNWAYLANDS GRANT DRTHE SQUARELITTLE FOX LNSPRING COVE LNFAIR HILL LN
FRONTIER LNALFRED STRUSSET RDHELT LNWEST END DRMEADOW S DRLAURA LNINDIGO ALYADELE STMARQUETTE CT
BEAVER CREEK M TN RDJEREMIAH LNCEDARBROOK CTH E A T H ERCROFT C IRPAINTED SKY TERJARMAN RDGWEST END CIR CLAUDIUS CTHADEN TERWINDY RIDGE RDSUMMERFORD LNWINESAP LNS U M M IT
V IE W L N
OAK D R
B E D F O R D
P A R K R D
MEADOWS CTALBERTA DRHIGH STPEACH TREE DR CLOVER RIDGE PLHOME PORT LNSTONEGATE WAYMCCAUL E Y
ST FOXDALE LNGATE
POST LN
RAVEN STONE RDWICKHAM P O N D DRMOREWOOD LN
M CCOM B ST
HIGHL A N D S
DR
B I R C H W OOD D R
STONEG A TE LN
ROSENKRANS STEMERALD LNFILLY RUNGRAYR OCK DR
NORM A N D Y DR
BALLARD DRWELBOURNE LNLAKE TREE LNBUFORD STORCHARD DRHILLSBORO LNYONDER HILL FARMBROOK VIEW RDE I64 EXIT 107 OFFWOODBOURNE LNA U T U MN
H IL L CT
HADEN LNPARK RDE I64 EXIT 107 ONCLAUDIA STM E C H U M S R I V E R RDS H EPHERD
R UNLENOX HILL RDW I64 EXIT 107 ONFREE TOWN LNHILL TOP STPARK RIDGE DRHALF MILE BRANCH RDJARMANS GAP RDAMBER RIDGE RDCROZET AVEROSELAND FARMHARVEST FARMS LNST GEORGE AVEY A NCEY
M I LL LNMINT SPRINGS RD
M I LLE R
SCHOO L RD
B ROW NSVILLE RDTHURSTON DRCLING LNLANETOWN RDHE D G EROW LNFOREST GLEN DRI-64 WI-64 ETHREE NOTCH'D RDBUCK RDPARKVIEW DRO L D
TR AIL D RRAILROAD AVEPATTERSON MILL LNMARYMART FARM RDGOLF DRHALCYON DRSHELTON
M ILL RD00.250.5MilesRailroadCrozet Development AreaParcelsGreenspace *Neighborhood Density Residential (Low)Neighborhood Density ResidentialUrban Density ResidentialMixed-UseDowntownInstitutionalLight IndustrialSee Crozet Master Plan TextPotential Roads/ConnectionsPotential Stream Buffer Reduction **Note: The map elements depicted are graphic representations and are not to be construed or used as a legal description. This map is for display purposes only.Crozet Master PlanLand Use PlanPrepared by Albemarle County | Office of Geographic Data Services(GDS).Map created by Derek Bedarf, September 16, 2010.p* Refer to Parks & Green Systems Map** Refer to Text
35 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
Chapter 5 Future Transportation
The Future Land Use Plan identifies the desired land use designations. The land uses desired
for Crozet depend, in large part, on the success of the transportation system, which is described
in this chapter. Recommended transportation improvements are shown on the Transportation
Plan on the following page and also described in this chapter. Strategies for implementation
and details regarding transportation priorities can be found in Chapter 8-Implementation. This
chapter divides the transportation network into three sections: vehicular, transit, and
pedestrian/bicycle.
Vehicular Travel
Vehicular travel is and will likely continue to be the major mode of transportation in Crozet. The
2004 Crozet Master Plan included a detailed traffic study which was not updated with this
Master Plan. The traffic modeling and the assumptions from the 2004 plan are still valid and no
new road recommendations are part of the 2010 update. Detailed information regarding the
traffic study that was part of the 2004 Master Plan is contained in the Appendix of the 2004
Master Plan.
The increased employment opportunities recommended in an earlier chapter of this Master Plan
and the added roadway network of the Master Plan can combine to minimize congestion in and
around the Crozet Development Area. With these two changes, moderate congestion levels are
anticipated only on Route 240, east of Downtown Crozet and on Route 250 West, east of the
Development Area. If development occurs under current zoning and no additional roadway
improvements are made in the area except for Eastern Avenue, significant congestion is
expected on Route 240, Route 250 West, and on Crozet Avenue.
In order to support the vision for Crozet, transportation should:
Better integrate new and existing residential areas located east of Route 240 (Crozet
Avenue).
Improve connections to Downtown from new and existing neighborhoods east of Crozet
Avenue.
Better distribute traffic to all roads, thereby reducing the ultimate design of any one road;
Provide an alternative route to relieve traffic on Route 240 (Crozet Avenue and Three
Notch’d Road), particularly to Downtown.
Provide better access, particularly emergency access, to those residents living east and
south of Route 240 (Crozet Avenue).
Emphasize improvements to roads that provide for pedestrian and bike facilities.
As indicated in Chapter 3, the existing major streets in Crozet are Route 250 West (Rockfish
Gap Turnpike), Crozet Avenue (US 240), Three Notch’d Road (also US 240), Jarman’s Gap
Road, and Old Trail Drive. The location of these streets is shown on the Transportation Plan.
The Transportation Plan also shows two new major streets. One of the streets is a “Main Street”
for Crozet, which is expected to help provide access to Downtown from the eastern part of
Crozet and which does not require a railroad crossing. The other new major street is “Eastern
Avenue”, which will connect Three Notch’d Road to Route 250 West.
36 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
Replace page with Transportation Plan
37 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
Route 250 West (Rockfish Gap Turnpike)
The existing traffic volume of Route 250 West is around 13,000 vehicles trips per day (VPD)
in the most heavily traveled road segment of the road way between Crozet and Ivy.
Because of its scenic and historic character and its location primarily in the Rural Areas, the
County’s policy is to maintain the existing cross-section of the roadway from the US 29
Bypass at Bellaire to the I-64 interchange at Yancey Mills. The County opposes
recommendations in the Virginia Department of Transportation’s (VDOT) Route 250 West
Corridor Study, which included recommendations for widening Route 250 West. Route 250
West is expected to retain its state designation as a Scenic Byway and to continue as a rural
road section. Except where turn lanes/passing lanes are provided, it will have two travel
lanes and a walking or bike path on the northern side for portions of Route 250 West that
run parallel to the Crozet Development Area boundaries. No medians are planned.
Typical Section for a Rural Road
To maximize capacity and retain its rural appearance, the County must limit the amount of
development on properties adjacent to Route 250 West from I-64 to US 240 as shown on
the Land Use Plan. This strategy will keep the number of entrances to a minimum and
reduce pressure for traffic signals (and slowdowns) beyond those which exist at Crozet
Avenue, Three Notch’d Road, and Old Trail Drive.
Recommendations for Route 250 West:
Limit widening of Route 250 West and maintain it as a rural road.
Provide a walking/biking path on the north side of Route 250 West within the Crozet
Development Area.
Future signalization is recommended for the intersection of Route 250 West with
“Eastern Avenue”.
Crozet Avenue (US 240/Route 810)
Crozet Avenue, which is US 240, is a two-lane street that connects the northern part of
Crozet with Route 250 West. North of Downtown, Route 810 is also named Crozet Avenue.
It is an urban section street with curb, gutter, and sidewalks on two of its three sections.
Where designated on the Transportation Plan, it is expected to have an improved
streetscape with wider sidewalks and street trees. Although it is narrow and winding, the
rural section between Dunvegan Lane and Route 250 West is not recommended for
widening. A multi-use path is recommended for this street on one side where right-of-way is
available or can be obtained.
Recommendations for Crozet Avenue:
A two-lane urban street section is recommended for portions of Route 240 in
Downtown and Route 810 north of Downtown.
38 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
sidewalk, curb curb
bike lane travel lanes bike lane
A two-lane rural street section is recommended for portions of Route 240 south of
Dunvegan Lane with a multipurpose path on one side.
Three Notch’d Road (also US 240)
Three Notch’d Road is a two-lane road that extends from the V-intersection with Route 250
West, east of Crozet, to its intersection with Crozet Avenue at the four-way stop sign in
Downtown. In places it is and will continue to be an urban section road as illustrated below. An
urban section with curb, gutter, sidewalks, and street trees is expected with redevelopment
between Park Ridge Drive and Downtown inside the Development Area. Turn lanes are not
expected on this street.
Typical Section for an Urban Street
On the north side of Three Notch’d Road, an urban section is expected from the Development
Area boundary to Downtown. Where indicated on the plan, the street is recommended to
continue as a rural section Road. A multi-use path is recommended on both sides of the street
in the Development Area to Park View Lane.
Recommendations for Three Notch’d Road:
A rural section is recommended for the portions of Three Notch’d Road in the
Development Area from the eastern boundary to Parkview Drive across from Acme.
The segment of Three Notch’d Road from Parkview Drive to its intersection with
Crozet Avenue should be an urban street.
Jarman’s Gap Road
Jarman’s Gap Road connects Crozet Avenue with
Half Mile Branch Road. It has both urban and rural
sections. There is a VDOT project underway that
will make upgrades to the existing road. From Half
Mile Branch to Jarman’s Lane, it is expected to be
a two-lane rural section with shoulder widening to
five- feet. From Old Trail Drive to Crozet Avenue, it
will be an urban section with two travel lanes and
some turn lanes, including shared bicycle lanes,
curb and gutter and a five - foot sidewalk on the
north side.
Recommendations for Jarman’s Gap Road:
Ensure that the Jarman’s Gap Road project remains a high priority road project for
completion in Crozet.
39 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
Old Trail Drive
Old Trail Drive connects Jarman’s Gap Road with Route 250 West. It has been constructed
as a two-lane urban section street with an asphalt trail on one side where sidewalks have
yet to be constructed. The expected improvements to Old Trail are sidewalks with street
trees on both sides of the street. Sidewalks will be wider in the higher density area and
commercial center of the Old Trail development.
Recommendations for Old Trail Drive:
Require completion of Old Trail Drive to an urban section street with street trees and
sidewalks.
“Main Street”
“Main Street” is a new two-lane urban avenue expected in Crozet. It will connect Park Ridge
Road with Crozet Avenue. (See Avenue illustration below.) In some portions of the road,
where right-of-way or other constraints limit the ability to achieve a typical Avenue section,
the road may transition from an avenue to a street section. Construction phasing should
begin from the west (Crozet Avenue) eastward. A portion of the street will be constructed
with the new library project. This will ensure critical linkages between Downtown and new
development to the south and east.
Recommendations for “Main Street”:
Plan and initiate the first stages of a new “Main Street” parallel to and south of the
CSX tracks running from Crozet Avenue eastward.
Require construction of “Main Street” with redevelopment of the J. Bruce Barnes
Lumber Company parcels.
“Eastern Avenue”
“Eastern Avenue” is also a new street expected in Crozet. “Eastern Avenue” will extend from
Three Notch’d Road to Route 250 West through the existing Cory Farm development and
will involve a bridge over Lickinghole Creek, a bridge or underpass to cross the CSX tracks
to the north, and numerous connections to neighborhood streets. “Eastern Avenue” has
been recommended in County plans for over 30 years, and right-of-way for this street has
been dedicated or reserved in some places. It is expected to be built by developers during
construction of their projects, except for the bridge over Lickinghole Creek. Aside from
construction, truck traffic should not be allowed on this road which will function as an
avenue. Construction phasing is prioritized to begin at the northern end of the project,
connecting to the new “Main Street”.
Typical Section for an Avenue
40 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
Recommendations for “Eastern Avenue”:
Plan and initiate the first stages of a new “Eastern Avenue”.
Truck traffic should not be permitted on “Eastern Avenue”.
Other streets
New Streets
There are several areas on the Transportation Plan where a proposed gridded
neighborhood street pattern is shown for future new streets in Crozet. This pattern is
intended to emphasize the expectation that interconnections will be a part of future
neighborhood block and street design. New streets should have two lanes and be built with
the features of an urban street.
Existing Streets
There are many existing streets in Crozet that are not specifically addressed with
recommendations on the Transportation Plan. Future improvements to existing streets in
Crozet connecting to Downtown should provide features of a two-lane urban street, such as
Carter Street and Blue Ridge Avenue. Streets that are located on the edge of the
Development Area, such as Lanetown Road, or Parkview Drive, may continue as rural
section roadways.
Potential Connections
“Potential Connections” is an additional category shown on the Transportation Plan. This
category depicts possible locations for a future pedestrian, bicycle, and possibly vehicular
connections. Where shown on the Transportation Plan, this term does not indicate a
desired public street connection. Instead, the Plan shows connections between public
streets which should be made to support the existing and proposed uses for that area.
Connections might be a walking path, bike path, or drive. Because they are not proposed
as a public street connection or public greenway trail, construction is expected to be
provided by developers when property is developed or redeveloped.
Transit/Rideshare
As indicated earlier in this Master Plan, the only transit system operating in Crozet is JAUNT,
which provides transportation to area elderly and disabled residents who request and qualify for
this service. Future transit opportunities include light rail and Bus Rapid Transit.
Light rail is often considered the preferable form of transit for commuters. Funding and sufficient
density of ridership make it impractical for Crozet in the planning horizon of this Master Plan.
Such a system could be part of a larger system that begins west of the Blue Ridge and ends in
eastern Charlottesville. It is not recommended with this plan because of the cost. While it is
possible to reduce construction costs by using the freight rail tracks from Crozet to
Charlottesville, it has proven extremely difficult to reach agreements with private railroad
companies for the use of their tracks because of safety and other concerns. Furthermore,
operating costs, borne mostly by state and local government, are high in relation to the
anticipated ridership. Ridership would have to be a minimum of 10,000 riders per day in order
for this type of system to be economically feasible.
The other potential transit service is Bus Rapid Transit. Travel via Interstate 64 appears to be
the most economically viable service given the ridership potential. The route could begin in
Downtown Crozet and provide service to the University of Virginia, Downtown Charlottesville
and other strategic bus transfer locations including strategic park-and-ride locations along the
41 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
way. With the rising cost of gasoline and increasing travel demands, this service should be
considered by the County. It is recognized as a longer-term goal for Crozet.
In the shorter term, ridesharing would be the most cost-effective means of reducing vehicle trips
on Route 250 West to Charlottesville. Ridesharing usually takes place from a park-and-ride
parking lot. There is a 10-space park-and-ride lot located at Mountainside Senior Living in
Downtown Crozet. Constructing additional park-and-ride facilities to serve the community and
surrounding areas would enhance the opportunities for ridesharing.
Recommendations for Transit and Rideshare::
Maintain and upgrade the existing Downtown park-and-ride lot.
Establish a park and-ride lot on Route 250 W est, preferably near the I-64
interchange.
Establish a park-and-ride lot on Three Notch’d Road in or near the old Con-
Agra/Music Today site.
Pedestrian/Bicycle Transportation
The centers designated on the Land Use Plan are destinations for many residents. Both walking
and bicycling are modes of transportation that are supported by the Master Plan. This Master
Plan incorporates recommendations for Crozet included in the Jefferson Area Bicycle,
Pedestrian, and Greenways Plan. This publication provides recommendations for a coordinated and
safe multimodal system to serve citizens and visitors in the region with access to most common
destinations, services within communities, and links between towns, villages, and the Charlottesville
urban area.
All new urban streets in Crozet will have curb or curb and gutter, sidewalks, and street trees.
“Eastern Avenue” and Jarman’s Gap Road are expected to have designated bike lanes. For
existing neighborhoods, which have rural section roads, paths are needed to connect
neighborhoods to Downtown and to each other. Planned bikeway/walkways are shown on the
Parks and Green Systems Map and are described in that chapter. Pedestrian and bike linkages
to Downtown are especially important, and the Master Plan makes recommendations for
specific improvements to enhance mobility.
Recommendations for Pedestrian/Bicycle Transportation:
Create pedestrian connections and bike lanes to and within Downtown.
Create pedestrian connections and bike lanes to schools.
Provide bike lanes or bike facilities/multipurpose paths on the following roads to
provide key linkages in Crozet:
o “Eastern Avenue”
o Jarman’s Gap Road
o “Main Street”
o Crozet Avenue
o Route 810
o Route 684/Mint Springs Road
o Three Notch’d Road
Explore alternatives to the current underpass at Crozet Avenue. (long-term)
Create a pedestrian railroad crossing in the Downtown core (below or above grade). (long-
term)
Go to next chapter
42 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
Return to Table of Contents
CROSSOVERUNIO N MIS S IO N LNCOLONY DR
TURNING LANECARLYLE PLSTAYMAN CTREMINGTON PLJORDAN LNPARSONS GREEN LNGLENVIEW CT
G
R
A
Y
ROCK CTI-64 E
EXIT 107 ON WOODBOURNE CTALBEMARLE PIPPIN CTMILLBURN CT ELLISON ST
C LAY CTAGATHA
DRJARMAN LAKE RDGRASS DALE LNJOLIET CT
R OC K FIS H GA P T PKE
SUNFLOWER LN
G R A S S Y K N L
AMBER RIDGE CT
CLOVER LAWN LNWAYLANDS GRANT DRTHE SQUARE
L IT T L E F O X L NPARK LNIN
DIGO RD
SPR IN G COV E L N
CORY CTCRANBERRY LNFR O NTIER LN
A LFR E D S TEDMOND DRHE
LT LNRUSSET RDMARQ U E T
TE CTR
E
D PIN
E CTFAIR HILL LN
O
L
D FOX T
R
AIL LNBEAV ER CRE E K MT N RDJEREMIAH LN
CEDARBROOK CT
HIGHLANDS DRMCALLISTER STBROOKLEY DRPAINTED SKY TERJARMAN RDGQUICK LNMAPLE STWEST END
C
IRCORY FARM RDNICOLET CTCLAUDIUS CTOLD T H R E E
N OT C H 'D R D
MILLSTREAM DRHADEN TERW I N DY R I D G E RD
PI N E L NSUMMERFORD L N
HEATHERCROFT CIRBALLARD DR
WINESAP LNSTONEGATE CTFAIRWINDS LNELLIN
G
T
O
N
BN
DYORK RDBAYBERRY CTBED
F
O
R
D
P
A
R
K
R
DMEADOWS CTBELLE DRALBERTA DRVISTA VIEW LNB
R
A
D
B
U
RY
C
T CLINTON LNADELE STWESTH ALL DR
CLOVER RIDGE PL
CLEARFIELDS CTLAURA LN
HOM E PORT LNFIRETHORN CTFIREHOUSE LNSTONEGATE WAYWEST END DR
PARK RIDGE CT BEAVER HILL DRMCCAULEY STBEAVER HILL LAKE DRW O O D M O N T R I D G E R D
RADFORD LNROLLING MEADOW LNHIGH STDAV I S DRBURNT ACRES CT
RAVEN STONE RD
MOREWOOD LN
SU
MMI
T
VI
E
W
L
NME A D O W S DRPLEASANT GREEN STDUNVEGAN LNRUHR POC KET LNBI
RCHW
OOD DR
B E A V E R H IL L L NSTONEGA
TE LN
HAMPSTEAD DR
JAMESTOWN CT
R O S E NK RANS STPLAINS DRCLAREMONT LN
PIEDMONT CHURCH LN
FILL Y RUN
WI
CKHAM WAYCLAY DR
WILLOW SPRING RD
BLUE RIDGE AVETUCKED AWAY
SPRINGS LN
O A K D R
WESTON LNSUNSET RDWILD
TURKEY
L
NST GEORGE STPEACH BUSH RDCLAUDIUS CROZET PARKTABOR ST
BRAEBURN STLANETOW N W A YMYRTLE ST
SAVAN
N
AH CTBARGAMIN LOOP
T U C K E R W A Y
HEA THER CRES T PLROTHWELL LNCARTER STBUFORD ST
L O C U S T L N WICKHAM POND DRLAKE TREE LNYONDER HILL FARM
PEACH TREE DR
CA I T LIN DR
W
I64 EXIT
107 OFF COTTONWOOD FARMBROOK VIEW RD
W I N D M E RE LN
R I V E N D E L L LNMECHUMS HTSORCHARD D
R
LONGMONT D R GATE POST LNE I64 EXIT 107 OFF
MCCOMB
ST
NORMANDY DRG RAYROCK DR
WAYLAND DR
AUTUMN HILL CT
JAMESTOWN
RDHADEN LNPARK RD HIGHLAN D S PL
EMERALD L
N
E I64 EXIT 107 ON
FRANK T ATE RD FOXDALE LNKILLDEER LNWEL B OURNE L
N
CLAUDIA S T
MECHU
M
S
RIVER
R
D
SHEPHERD RUNL
E
NOX HIL
L RDW I64 EXIT 107 ON FREE TOW N LNHILL TOP ST PARK RIDGE DRFITZGERALD RD
H ILLSB OR O LN
CATHAROS S LNBROOKWOOD R DROSELAND FARM WOODBOURN E L
N
J A R M ANS G A P RD
LICKINGH O LE CR E EK RDAMBER
RIDGE RD
HALF MILE BRANCH RDCROZET AVEH A RVES T F ARMS L NST GEORGE AVE
YANCEY MILL LN MI
LLER SCHOOL RDBROWNSVILLE R D
C L I N G LN
MINT SPRINGS RD
LANETOWN RDHEDGEROW LNFOREST GL E N DRI-64 WI-64 E
THREE NOTCH'D RD
THURSTON DR
PATTERSON MILL LN PARKVIEW DRB U C K R DO
L
D
T
R
AIL
D
R
RAILROAD AVE
M A R Y MA RT F A R M RD
GOLF DR
H ALCYON DR
SHELTON MILL RD
0 0.25 0.5Miles
Railroad
Crozet Development Area
Roads (Proposed Master Plan 2004):
Street (To Be Built)
Street (Conceptual Location)
Avenue (Proposed)
Eastern Ave. (Proposed)
Roads (Existing or Improvements Expected):
Avenue
Drive/Rural Road
Improvements Expected
Street
Potential Connection *
Development Area Removal
Note: The map elements depicted are graphic representations and are not to be construed or used as a legal description. This map is for display purposes only.
C r o z e t M a s t e r P la n Tra n s p o r t a t i o n P la n Prepared by Albemarle County | Office of Geographic Data Services(GDS).Map created by Derek Bedarf, August 23, 2010.
p
Note: This map shows existing streets, streets approved but not yet built, and many remaining streets from the 2004 Master Plan. Some streets from the 2004 Master Plan have been removed to reflect recommended land use changes, to date, from community forums.
* Pedestrian, Bicycle or Vehicular
Streets indicated in Orange are illustrative of the block patternexpected in new development where terrain allows. They do notrepresent exact locations of new streets and not all streets shownin this color may be needed. The streets show that interconnectionsare expected both within new development and new streets willconnect to existing streets in Crozet.
42 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
Chapter 6-Parks & Green Systems Plan
Retaining green systems and building new parks and greenways are essential to the quality of
life expected for Crozet. Green systems refer to undeveloped land or open space with important
environmental features such as lakes, streams, floodplains, and adjacent slopes, and active and
passive recreational areas. Green system areas are shown on the Land Use Plan as
Greenspace. On the Parks and Green Systems map, they are identified by type of open space.
Residents expect the green systems to provide for key linkages, such as a greenway from
Lickinghole basin to Crozet Park, neighborhoods to Downtown and neighborhoods to schools.
These systems also help residents enjoy the natural features of the area. However, the strategy
in the Master Plan is to preserve and nourish a system integral to the community rather than
account for minimum standards for parks and associated facilities. The existing and proposed
open space system can mitigate stormwater runoff, nourish the plant and animal communities of
Crozet, create new pedestrian and bike routes, and attract tourism.
For Parks and Green Systems, the goals of the community are to:
Protect sensitive natural systems (centered on the Lickinghole Creek drainage system).
Reserve public areas of topographic, historic, or
cultural interest that contribute to the character
of Crozet.
Create areas for structured and unstructured
recreation.
Link neighborhoods to Downtown, schools,
parks, squares, greens, and the larger region.
Protect and preserve Crozet’s exceptional
mountain views from light pollution.
Link rural area trails to Downtown destinations.
Protect areas shown, as well as identify the
location of existing/new parks and greenways on
the Parks & Green Systems Plan.
The Parks and Green Systems Plan is shown on the
following page. The categories are described as
follows.
Environmental Features
Due to the rolling terrain and dendritic stream patterns of Crozet, a large portion of the
Development Area is floodplain with steep slopes proposed to be preserved or used as potential
greenways. Areas intended for environmental preservation are shown as Environmental
Features on the Parks and Green Systems Plan.
Existing County regulations provide many protections for these critical environmental features.
The Water Protection Ordinance requires a 100-foot stream buffer on all streams in Crozet.
Steep slopes and wetlands are adjacent to many of those streams. Little disturbance is allowed
where an overlap of a stream buffer and steep slopes exists. Disturbance of steep slopes
(slopes in excess of 25%) requires consideration by the County prior to approval. Slopes
designated for preservation on County plans are given the most protection.
Lickinghole Sedimentation Basin
43 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
Replace with Parks and Green Systems Plan
44 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
While the Water Protection Ordinance is intended to protect streams feeding into the water
supply, it is sometimes applied to swales or where there is no daylighted stream. A daylighted
stream is one that is exposed, not piped. Sometimes, stream buffer protection requirements on
swales or non-daylighted streams conflict with recommendations for redevelopment in Crozet.
Such is the case in an area north of Downtown and another area east of Downtown between the
Fire Station and the old Con Agra/Music Today area. These areas are identified on the Future
Land Use Plan with the hatched patterns shown below:
Land Use Plan Land Use Plan
Stream Buffer North of Downtown Stream Buffer Between Fire Station and Music Today Area
In order to allow for redevelopment of properties in these areas affected by the stream buffer
requirement, modifications to the stream buffer requirements are proposed. These modifications
would allow encroachment in the buffer with mitigation/additional plantings. The modifications
should only be allowed in these areas where there is no existing vegetated buffer.
Slopes and stream buffers are not the only features protected by existing regulations.
Disturbance of wetlands requires permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers. Floodplain
regulations in the County zoning ordinance also help protect these important environmental
resources.
Tree preservation and planting is also important in Crozet. Trees help protect streams as well as
mitigate air and water pollution, reduce glare, reduce energy costs, absorb noise, create
microclimates, increase property values, create character, and help attract new businesses. It is
recognized that an urban forestry plan is a long term goal and that it might be developed in the
context of an urban forestry plan for the County’s development areas.
Open Space
Privately Owned Open Space
Some environmental features in Crozet are already preserved in properties owned by
homeowner associations and civic groups. Land, which is not shown with the environmental
features and is owned privately by an organization is designated on the Parks and Green
Systems Plan as Privately Owned Open Space. This designation includes Crozet Park and
properties, which are in conservation easements.
Other Open Space
Other Open Space is shown on the Parks and Green Systems Plan in the lightest color of
green. The designation represents properties that are to be preserved in the future that are
not part of environmental systems. These properties meet other goals of the Master Plan as
further described on the following page.
45 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
Recommendations for Other Open Space
Vegetated buffers along Crozet Avenue south of Downtown are intended to help
retain a rural appearance along these corridors.
Property east of Park Ridge Drive (Tax Map 56 Parcel 91A) is intended to remain
rural and undeveloped to help break up the appearance of continuous development
along Three Notch’d Road.
Properties east of Eastern Avenue and north of Lickinghole Creek have a system of
slopes that fall off towards Lickinghole Creek. This area is intended to provide for
private open space for new development on Tax Map 56 Parcels 95A.
Properties along Route 250 West that are west of Crozet Avenue and east of the
School complex are intended to retain their rural character and agricultural activities
and reinforce the goal for no new commercial activities in this corridor.
Crozet Ave. Route 250 West
Crozet Ave.
Crozet Ave.
Park
Ridge
Drive Three Notch’d Road Tax Map
55-91A
Lickinghole
Creek
Future
Eastern
Ave.
Tax Map
56-95A
Route 250 West
Route 250 West
Parks and Green Systems Plan
Crozet Corridor
Parks and Green Systems Plan
East of Park Ridge Drive
Parks and Green Systems Plan
East of Eastern Ave., North of Lickinghole Creek
Parks and Green Systems Plan
Properties along Route 250 West
Tax Map
56-91A
Park Ridge
Drive
Crozet Ave.
Tabor
Street
Crozet Ave.
Crozet Ave.
46 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
Community Facilities
Existing and proposed schools, libraries, fire stations, rescue squad stations, and future civic
spaces are shown on the Parks and Green Systems Plan. Future civic spaces are not identified
in an exact location. They are shown in the general location where a park or open space should
be, with one exception. The old Crozet Elementary School is currently leased to a private
middle school for boys. In the future, it is expected to function as a community building for civic
activities.
Parks and Public Open Space
Existing and proposed areas for parks and public open space are shown on the
Parks and Green Systems Plan in an olive color. This designation includes
school grounds, the Lickinghole basin, the future Eastern Park, and other
publicly owned lands. The color on the plan does not separate out
environmental features from the designation as public open space. It should be
noted that some of the publicly owned lands include important environmental
features such as steep slopes, streams, stream buffers, and floodplain. The
parks are further described in the section below.
Parks
Western Park
Western Park (in Old Trail) is a new 35.8 acre County park. Land for the park was given
in conjunction with the adjacent Old Trail development. The County has developed a
plan for this park that has recreational facilities of multi use field, pavilion, playground,
small amphitheatre, open space play areas, and natural areas with trails. The park will
be developed in phases as funding allows. Construction funding has been delayed in the
most recently approved Capital Improvements Program.
Eastern Park
Eastern Park is located on a high point on the eastern side of the Development Area.
When established, this park will provide views of the Blue Ridge Mountains and
Downtown Crozet and will have multiple trail access points. The expectation for the park
is that it will be similar in size to Western Park and have a similar relationship to
surrounding neighborhoods. It should have a mix of recreational uses including sports
fields, trails, picnicking, and preserved areas.
Other Parks
Other parks are expected with new development and some redevelopment. The addition
of a new elementary school on the eastern side of the Development Area will bring
additional field space if the school site is acquired and developed. A three-acre trailhead
park centrally located on Crozet Avenue is recommended to provide parking and access
to the greenway system although its exact location is not yet determined. Other small
pocket parks and greens, averaging one acre in size, will serve new and old
neighborhoods. These neighborhood parks would be created through private funding or
by developers fulfilling their open space requirements.
Greenway Trails
The greenway system, a linear network of open space and streams shown on the Parks and
Green Systems Plan, offers an opportunity to connect neighborhoods with each other and
Downtown. Public paths in greenways are identified separately from expected privately
Route West
47 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
owned pathways. The Greenways follow the stream corridors within the 100-foot wide
stream buffer through both public and private land. In situations where the Greenways
access urban areas, they connect with the urban infrastructure of sidewalks and bike lanes.
Bike facilities, as described in Chapter 5-Transportation, are also shown on the Parks and
Green Systems Plan. The plan identifies priority segments for completion based on
providing key linkages to Downtown, schools, parks, and centers.
Implementing and maintaining a greenway system will require a public/private partnership
involving many different people, volunteer groups, and possibly businesses. Access to and
use of these areas would have to be negotiated. It is expected that large sections of the
greenway system would be built, as opportunities arise, by civic groups and/or members of
the development community. There is an active group of citizens in Crozet who have
organized to help construct trails, plan for future trails, and conduct other trail-related
activities. Where parks are public, the County is primarily responsible for maintenance of the
system. However, to minimize cost, portions of the system could be adopted by volunteer
groups under an Adopt-A-Trail program. Greenway trail construction standards are identified
in the Albemarle County Design Standards Manual.
Not only do trails connect to important centers in Crozet, but there are also opportunities to
connect to nearby parks outside the Development Area, such as Mint Springs and Beaver
Creek. There is also an initiative underway, spearheaded by the Three Notched Trail
Foundation, to create a scenic and safe walking and biking route from the Rivanna River
near Monticello to the Blue Ridge Mountains along the historic Three-Notched Road.
Parks and Greenways Recommendations:
Create a multipurpose path along the west side of Crozet Avenue or where feasible
along the corridor.
Create a multipurpose path in right-of-way acquired for Eastern Avenue to provide
pedestrian and bike connections before the road is completed.
Construct key trail linkages as public trails:
o Crozet Connector Trail (Lickinghole basin to Crozet Park).
o Trails to Downtown, schools, and other centers.
Establish a not-for-profit Crozet Trails Foundation (like the Rivanna Trails
Foundation) for design, construction, and maintenance.
Create an Adopt-a-Trail program.
Gather and distribute information on tax incentives for landowners to donate
easements for greenways (floodplains).
Develop signage for greenways trails.
Complete Western Park according to the park plan as funding is available.
Create a Downtown community green.
Build a trailhead park at a central location along the Crozet Avenue corridor.
Establish Eastern Park with public/private collaboration.
Explore potential access points to Lickinghole Creek basin.
Organize the gathering of GPS data for mapping these routes. by groups such as
students, Boy Scouts and other volunteers.
Dark Skies
Protection from light pollution is recommended in this Master Plan. Outdoor lighting should be
minimized in areas that are widely visible from other parts of the community, such as upland
areas or flat expanses that do not have the benefit of a visual buffer created by topography,
48 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
vegetation, or existing structures. Where used, street lights should be chosen, which avoid
lighting up the sky.
Go to next chapter
Return to Table of Contents
"")
kkj
"")
"")
"")
"")
"")
"")
kkj
"")
kkj
kkj"")
Beaver Creek Park
Mint Springs Park
Western Park
Lickinghole CreekEastern Park(Proposed)
Lib
RS
FS
MS
HS
ES
ES
Lib (Future)
ES (Proposed)
Crozet Master P lan Prepared by Albemarle County | Office of Geographic Data Services(GDS).Map created by Derek Bedarf, August 19, 2010.p
0 800 1,600 2,400FeetNote: The map elements depicted are graphic representations and are not to be construed or used as a legal description. This map is for display purposes only.
Parks & Green S ystems P lan
Privately Owned Open Space is land owned bycivic associations and/or homeowners associations.
Other Open Space is land designated specificallyfor preservation or to achieve other stated goalsof the Crozet Master Plan.
Environmental Features are comprised of streambuffers, critical slopes and flood plains.
Alignments of trails are conceptual andprovided to identify connections criticalto the greenway and trail network.
"")ES = Elementary School
"")MS = Middle School
"")HS = High School
"")FS = Fire Station
"")RS = Rescue Squad
"")Lib = Library
kkj Future Civic SpaceProposed Bike LaneMajor Greenway or TrailConnecting Greenway or TrailParcelsCrozet Development AreaRoadRailroadWater FeatureStreamPrivately Owned Open SpaceParks and Public Open SpaceOther Open SpaceEnvironmental FeaturesEnvironmental Features(outside Development Area)Development Area Removal
49 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
Chapter 7 Plan for Community Facilities & Services
Crozet is served by numerous County facilities and services, some of which are located within
the Development Area. These facilities and services are described in detail in Chapter 3 --
Existing Conditions. During development of the Master Plan, residents of the area identified the
need to maintain or improve the provision of services, especially for library, police, schools, and
passive and active recreational space. Location of existing and proposed facilities is shown on
the Parks and Green Systems Plan, as indicated in the previous chapter. The provision of
facilities and services is the responsibility of several different entities depending on the service
or facility. The Albemarle County Community Facilities Plan is the primary component of the
Comprehensive Plan that governs planning for community facilities and services and includes
the following goals:
• Community facilities should be equitably provided for all County residents based on cost-
effectiveness.
• Development areas should receive higher levels of service.
• The location of new public facilities should be within the County’s development areas.
This chapter of the Master Plan identifies the specific future community facilities or services
needed for Crozet.
Water and Sewer
Water
Water supply is adequate for the existing and future population of Crozet. At present, usage
is approximately 0.4 million gallons day (mgd) while the maximum constant demand that
could be supplied from Beaver Creek Reservoir is 1.8 mgd. The water treatment plant can
process 1.0 mgd. Recommendations for future water service provision are below.
Water Recommendations:
Continue to monitor water usage in Crozet to ensure that capacity is adequate for
the future population.
When demand at the water treatment plant reaches 80 percent of the permitted
capacity, begin design for expansion of the plant and raw water conveyance
system. The size of the expansion will be dependent on the projected demands
and uses.
Wastewater
Wastewater is processed at the Moore’s Creek Sewage Treatment Plant, which is planned
for expansion to serve all of the development areas except the Village of Rivanna, which is
served by a separate plant. Planning and modeling information has shown that the need to
expand/upgrade the Crozet sewer lines is highly dependent on the development of the Old
Trail project. In order to provide service for the full buildout of Old Trail, construction of
replacement mains on the Lickinghole Creek and Slabtown Branch lines will be needed. At
this time, the Old Trail developer has committed to the design and construction of the
southern (Slabtown) branch. The Old Trail developer also has an agreement with ACSA for
future construction of the northern branch of Lickinghole Creek.
The construction of a flow equalization tank, pump station and odor control facility
downstream of Old Trail but upstream of pump station number 4 will also be needed. This
50 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
project may also be completed with private developer contributions. Improvements are
needed to the sewer interceptor line through Ivy. Within the 60-year planning horizon of the
sewer analysis, all gravity lines and pump station will require upgrading. In the near term
the following projects are anticipated.
Wastewater Recommendations:
Construct replacement mains on the Lickinghole and Slabtown Branch sewer lines
(by developer).
Construct a flow equalization tank, pump station, and odor control facility
downstream of Old Trail and upstream from pump station 4 (may be by developer).
Upgrade a section of gravity sewer near the Boars Head Inn.
Continue long-term planning for sewer improvements based upon sewer system
studies currently being conducted by the ACSA and the RWSA. New sewer
connections would be based on the ACSA’s first-come first-served basis policy.
Solid Waste Management
As indicated in Chapter 3, solid waste management and recycling takes place on a countywide
basis. Needs for Crozet are considered as part of the overall program. The growth of the
Crozet area is not expected to significantly change the overall needs for solid waste and
recycling with the County, unless a large industrial user locates in Crozet. The desire for
greater recycling opportunities in Crozet is recognized in the recommendations below.
Solid Waste Management Recommendations:
Monitor Crozet solid waste management needs in conjunction with countywide solid
waste management.
Provide greater opportunities for recycling in Crozet in conjunction with countywide
planning efforts.
Schools
Facility planning for schools is done by the Albemarle County School’s Long Range Planning
Committee. As identified in Chapter 3, school standards are presently being met in the Crozet
schools. Ongoing capital improvements at the schools ensure that the facilities are adequate
for students. A new elementary school may be needed in the County within the next ten years.
The site for this school will be one of three locations in the County based on need/demand:
Crozet, the southern urban area, or the Northern Development Areas. In keeping with future
school needs, the following recommendations are made.
Schools Recommendations:
Monitor the annual Albemarle County Schools Long Range Planning Process to
assess the need for additional school facilities in Crozet.
If an additional elementary school is needed for Crozet, it should be located in the
eastern portion of Crozet as generally shown on the Parks and Green Systems Plan.
Continue with planned expansions and upgrades identified in the Capital
Improvements Program for existing schools.
Emergency Services
Albemarle County Police Department (ACPD)
As indicated in Chapter 3, police service is provided through the sector/beat system.
Service does not meet County standards of a five-minute response time 85 percent of the
51 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
time. Instead, police response in Crozet is within five minutes 65 percent of the time.
Officers also provide assistance to the community for crime prevention programs.
Police Service Recommendations:
Relocate the police satellite office from The Meadows to a more central location in
Crozet, such as in Downtown.
Continue community crime prevention programs, such as Neighborhood Watch.
Work to achieve a five-minute response 85% percent of the time.
Fire Rescue Services
Fire Rescue service provided by volunteers is important to Crozet. However, the County’s
financial contribution for equipment purchase is essential to the service. Because of the
County’s role in providing funding for capital expenditures, the following recommendations
are made.
Fire Rescue Recommendations:
Continue to provide County funding for capital purchases for Fire Rescue.
Continue to support volunteer programs.
Library
As indicated in Chapter 3, the need for a new library has been well established. A plan has
been developed and property has been purchased in Downtown Crozet for the new facility.
When funding is available, construction of a 20,000 square foot library building will begin.
Construction will include the first block of the new “Main Street.” The facility will include space
for complementary uses such as public meeting rooms and community space. The building will
be constructed to LEED specifications. (LEED stands for Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design and is a nationally accepted rating system for designing and building
green buildings.) The new Western Albemarle/Crozet Library will be the County’s first new
building designed to be LEED certified. The most recent schematic design of the facility is
shown below:
Library Recommendations:
Until a new library can be constructed, maintain the existing Crozet Library in its
current location.
Construct the new library when funding is available.
Schematic Design Approved by the Board of Supervisors July 3, 2009
52 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
Old Crozet School Reuse
Crozet residents have expressed a strong desire that the County continue stewardship and
reuse of the former elementary school on Crozet Avenue across the street from the current
Crozet Elementary School. This facility is commonly known as the Old Crozet School building.
A valued institution in the Crozet community since 1924, the Old Crozet School served as a
combined elementary and high school until the completion of Albemarle High School in 1954.
After the high school students were moved, the school was renamed Crozet Elementary and
used by the County for another 35+ years, until studies finally determined that a new school
building was needed and completed in 1990 across the street. The school is a contributing
building and is included in the boundaries of the potential Crozet Historic District. The Virginia
Department of Historic Resources considers this area as eligible for nomination as a historic
district on the Virginia Landmarks Register and National Register of Historic Places.
In 2008, the County contracted with a planning consultant to study acceptable and
productive alternative uses for the school. The Old School Reuse Study Final Report
summarizes the public participation process, community comments and preferences, history
and condition of the building, consultants' recommendations for next steps, and estimated costs
for renovation of the building. Residents clearly expressed a preference for a community center
to provide performance and assembly space in the old auditorium. In addition, residents
supported using the former classrooms for satellite county offices, dance classes, arts spaces,
community movies, and programs for youth and the elderly.
In the fall of 2008, the Board of Supervisors sought tenants for the Old School until a decision
on the permanent use of the building could be made. Currently, the building is leased to two
tenants, the Field School, a private middle school for boys, and Old Crozet School Arts (OCSA).
OCSA is a non-profit school for arts instruction.
Social Services
Social service providers and programs are important to the community. At a County level,
services are provided through schools, in conjunction with countywide assistance programs,
and to seniors at Mountainside Senior Living and the Meadows. Although no specific separate
recommendations are made, the County needs to keep a watch on Crozet’s social service
needs. As growth occurs, the County will need to consider augmenting the services it provides
and, perhaps, creating a central location within Crozet where these services can be accessed.
Social Service Recommendations
Continue to monitor social service needs in Crozet.
Consider providing services at a County facility to be located in Crozet.
Stormwater Management
As indicated in Chapter 3, controlling the quantity and quality of runoff is essential to maintaining
a safe and adequate drinking water supply. Redevelopment of Downtown is tied to a County
stormwater project, which has been engineered but not yet built. Development of the area north
of Downtown and north of Three Notch’d Road has the potential to affect the Beaver Creek
Reservoir, so more intensive stormwater management is needed.
The County should also look for opportunities to further protect the drinking water reservoirs by
promoting innovative stormwater management. Stormwater management should be
emphasized in areas adjacent to impervious surfaces such as roofs, parking lots and paved
roads. Permeable paving, porous asphalt and modular pavers allow increased water infiltration
53 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
and should be considered for any impervious surface. Use of native grasses, shrubs and trees
in retention ponds and swales can help provide excellent holding areas for water quality
improvement while providing diverse wildlife habitats.
Stormwater Recommendations:
Construct the Downtown stormwater project improvements.
Look for opportunities to further protect the Beaver Creek Reservoir through
innovative stormwater management techniques.
Go to next chapter
Return to Table of Contents
54 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
Chapter 8 Implementation
Introduction
The implementation projects of the Crozet Master Plan are found in the tables in the Appendix.
They have been prioritized based on needs identified by residents and stakeholders during the
Master Plan process. Implementation of these initiatives will take place in several different
forms: with private sector investment, as part of land use decisions, through programs and
services provided by the County, through County capital expenditures, and by community
initiatives.
County capital expenditures are identified in the County’s Capital Improvements Program (CIP)
which is based on a two-year financial cycle. The CIP represents the County’s funding policy,
including funding level, timing, and sources of money associated with specific improvements. As
occurs throughout the County, the actual programming of Crozet projects in the CIP will be
based on priority needs of the County and the availability of funding. Capital costs and funding
sources are also identified in the table at the end of this chapter.
Community facilities and service standards have been established in the County’s Community
Facilities Plan for many of the public services/facilities. W ith rezonings for new development,
community services and facilities are evaluated to determine the adequacy of services and
impacts of the proposed development in relation to the service standards.
Population Capacity and Future Rezonings
The Crozet Land Use Plan provides for a long-term population capacity of approximately
18,000. Based on actual growth trends in Crozet, it is estimated that the population of Crozet
will be approximately 12,000 in 2030. It could go lower or higher depending on the actual rate of
growth. This implementation chapter describes the improvements needed in order to support
the long-term population capacity of Crozet. The timing of improvements to support new
development is discussed in the section below.
Priority Areas
The Crozet Development Area has received steady and consistent growth over the past ten
years. To focus improvements in the areas of Crozet where they are most needed, priority areas
have been established to guide public efforts and resources over the next five to ten years. The
priority areas are Downtown including the surrounding Mixed Use areas, “Main” Street and the
new library and the Music Today/Starr Hill area. In the long term, redevelopment of the area
between these Downtown and the Music Today/Starr Hill area hubs will be needed to better
support both areas. The Priority Areas are shown on the map on the following page. Other
areas of Crozet will not be the primary focus of public capital investment or resource allocation
during in next ten years.
Priority areas and improvement projects have been established to guide decisions in the near
future. The boundaries of these areas will be reevaluated with the next five-year review of the
plan. While decisions regarding private development proposals/investments should not be
based solely on these priority areas, decisions on development proposals should be made with
an understanding of where public investments are being focused. Land use decisions should be
consistent with the priority areas established in the Master Plan. New proposals outside of the
priority areas should not be approved if planned facilities are not in place to support the project
and the existing neighborhood. Projects outside the priority areas will need to provide more
55 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
Replace Page with Map of Priority Areas
56 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
significant levels of improvements to ensure adequate infrastructure and services are available
to the area.
The implementation projects are grouped into six categories: (1) Community Life, (2)
Transportation, (3) Land Use, (4) Community Facilities and Services, (5) Parks and Green
Systems, and (6) Business Development. The Neighborhood Planner for Crozet, as
recommended in the 2004 Plan, will continue to assist with Plan implementation.
Community Life
Civic participation and dialogue between the County and the Crozet community on Master Plan
and Crozet issues should be an on-going process. The Crozet Community Advisory Council
(CCAC), which is appointed by the Board of Supervisors, should be continued to the extent that
County resources can provide support to all advisory councils formed for the Development
Areas. It is anticipated that the CCAC may meet on a less frequent basis in the future. Other
community-led initiatives that create a sense of unique community identity should be continued,
such as the current local fairs and celebrations.
Community Life Priorities:
Continue the Crozet Community Advisory Council in the role determined by the
Board of Supervisors.
Support community efforts to continue with community fairs, festivals, and events.
Transportation
Transportation improvements in the plan focus on making important road connections and
improvements. These include bike and pedestrian improvements on existing collector or main
routes in Crozet, such as Jarman’s Gap Road, Crozet Avenue, and Three Notch’d Road.
Completion of the future east-west road referred to as “Main” Street in the plan and other new
roads will provide for bike/pedestrian improvements along with key vehicular linkages in Crozet.
“Main Street” will provide an alternate route to the four-way stop sign and underpass in
Downtown Crozet. Construction of “Eastern” Avenue will provide an important north-south
alternative route to Crozet Avenue.
Transportation Priorities:
Complete Jarman’s Gap Road improvements.
Complete Downtown streetscape project.
Complete first segment of “Main Street” from Crozet Avenue to High Street, then
continue eastward.
Establish the “Eastern” Avenue road alignment and adopt an official map designating
the road and right-of-way location.
Land Use
The Land Use recommendations of the plan will be implemented in several ways, including
rezonings, zoning text amendments, and by-right development. For many years, Albemarle
County has implemented its Land Use Plan through developer initiated rezonings. If this
practice continues on a site-by-site basis, properties would be rezoned consistent with the
Master Plan and with increased opportunities for design flexibility offered by the Neighborhood
Model.
The Future Land Use Plan in Chapter 4 governs land use and development decision-making for
new development in Crozet. As each zoning map amendment and special use permit is
57 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
reviewed for approval, the recommendations in this Master Plan will be applied. As such, there
are fewer individual projects listed in the Land Use & Development Projects sections of the
Implementation Table than there are, for example, under Transportation. Instead, as developers
bring forward new proposals, the proposed developments will be evaluated according to the
Future Land Use Map and Tables, Parks & Green Systems Map, the principles of the
Neighborhood Model, and other parts of the Comprehensive Plan. The County’s Zoning
Ordinance may need to be amended to designate a transitional zoning district near Downtown.
Another ordinance amendment, which may be needed, would allow for reductions of the stream
buffer in support of redevelopment north of Downtown.
The Entrance Corridor ordinance is significant because it is an existing tool that can assist in
implementing the types of design regulations set forth in the Crozet Master Plan. For the
existing corridors, corridor-specific design guidelines should be created in compliance with the
Crozet Master Plan for each Entrance Corridor.
As assets to the County, historic resources in and near Crozet should be protected and
preserved. To educate residents and visitors on these historic assets, interpretive areas could
be designed and put in place. New development and redevelopment in the potential Crozet
Historic District should be designed in a manner that is sensitive to its historic significance.
Community residents are encouraged to pursue inclusion of the historic district on the state and
national register. This will allow property owners to take advantage of significant state and
federal tax credits.
The Crozet Master Plan includes a network of public parks and greenways structured around
the streams within the Lickinghole Creek watershed. Portions of the open space system within
the Lickinghole Creek floodplain are already owned by the County; others will be acquired or
donated for community parks. Some portions of the greenway system that are integrated into
development projects may remain in private ownership. These areas could be designated
voluntarily as conservation easements.
Land Use Priorities:
Ensure implementation of the Master Plan through review of development projects,
especially in priority areas.
Monitor capacity of infrastructure to support new development.
Consider ordinance amendments to support recommendations in the Master Plan,
such as a transitional zoning district, revised industrial standards, and modifications
of the water protection ordinance.
Support a community-led National Register nomination for Downtown Crozet and the
potential Greenwood-Afton Historic District.
Encourage protection of buildings and sites that are contributing structures to
potential and listed National Register Historic Districts.
Consider the recommendations of the Crozet Architectural Resources Strategies
Report for projects in the report study area.
Encourage easements on properties to protect important environmental, scenic, or
other resources and to allow rights of access for greenways.
Develop corridor-specific design guidelines for Entrance Corridors in Crozet.
Parks & Green Systems
Crozet’s existing and proposed parks, trails, greenways, and open spaces are shown on the
Parks & Green Systems Plan in Chapter 6. In some cases, the proposed open space needs will
58 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
be addressed as new developments are planned and constructed. In others, the County will
provide open spaces as the need for them arises and funds are available.
Parks & Green Systems Priorities:
Preserve environmental systems in new development projects.
Complete the Crozet connector trail system between Downtown and Eastern Crozet
as a public trail.
Complete trails that lead to schools and parks and other centers as public trails.
Complete Western Park Improvements.
Incorporate the Downtown stormwater wetland into the parks/greenway system as a
passive park and trail hub.
Business Development and Support
Successful redevelopment of Downtown and provision of job opportunities in Crozet requires
public/private collaboration. Expansion of existing and development of new small businesses in
Crozet is essential to increase the vitality of the downtown. Jobs in Crozet help to reduce traffic
impacts to Routes 240 and 250 and help Crozet to be more than a “bedroom community” to the
City of Charlottesville.
After adoption of the 2004 Master Plan, the County hired a Business Development Facilitator to
assist with economic development in Crozet as well as other parts of the County. The Business
Development Facilitator is responsible for coordinating and responding to business inquiries and
assessing options and incentives. This position can be critical to achieving the desired vision
for Downtown. Adaptive reuse of the Acme property is another area where the Business
Development Facilitator’s role will be critical to success.
Business and Development Support Priorities:
Continue dialogue with and support of the business community through involvement
of the Business Development Facilitator.
Collect and monitor employment and economic data for Crozet.
Promote infill development in the Downtown and employment opportunities in Crozet
that are consistent with the Master Plan.
Plan Monitoring and Master Plan Review
Good planning practice includes the periodic review and update of plans after they are adopted.
An important part of this review is an ongoing monitoring program that keeps tabs on how well
implementation is proceeding and what additional issues or information have arisen since the
plan was prepared.
This Plan should be reviewed and updated as necessary every five years. Five-year reviews are
envisioned as the time to adjust the plan, based on any changes in conditions or new
information.
The Implementation Table in the Appendix lists the various projects necessary to achieve the
vision for Crozet. It categorizes the projects by type, provides cost estimates for each project
and expected sources of funding. The table identifies the individual, department, or agency
which will take the lead in implementation. Where necessary, it identifies where the County will
be a liaison if it is not the lead agency on the project. The Implementation Table should be
used as a guide and is a general reference tool to help direct the allocation of available
resources to implement the Master Plan.
59 | Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
Return to Table of Contents
INDIGO RDUNION MISSION LNCARLYLE PLSTAYMAN CTGALA CTPARSONS GREEN LNWESTHALL DRJARMAN LAKE RDSUNFLOWER LNGRASSY KNLFAIRWINDS CTOAK STPARK LNCLAUDIUS CTR E D P IN E C T
O L D F O X
T R A I L L N
BEAVER CREEK MTN RDHIGHLAN DS DRMCALLISTER STQUICK LNMA P L E S T CORY FARM RDNICOLET CTPINE LNB
A
L
L
A RD DRSTONEGATE CTELLIN G T O N BN D
YORK RDB A Y B ER
R Y C TBELLE DRVISTA VIEW LNCLINTON LNADELE STLAURA LNFIRETHORN CTFIREHOUSE LNB RA D B U R Y T E R WEST END DRPARK RIDGE CTBEAVER HILL DRCLEARFIELDS CTWOODMONT RIDGE RDRADFORD LNROLLING MEADOW LNHIGH STDAVIS DRBURNT ACRES CTS U M M I T
V I E W L N
PLEASANT GREEN STDUNVEGAN LNBEAVER HILL LNHAMPSTEAD DRJAMESTOWN CTWICKHAM POND DRPLAIN S DRCLAREMONT L N
PIEDMONT CHURCH LNCLAY DRWILLOW SPRING RDBLUE RIDGE AVETUCKE D AWAY SPRING S LNOAK DRW ICKHAM WAYW E STON LNSUNSET RDW IL D
T U RK E Y L N
ST GEORGE STP E A C H
B U S H R D
C L A U D IUS C R O Z E T PARKTABOR STBRAEBURN STLANETOWN WAYMYRTLE STSAVA N N A H
C T
BARGAMIN LOO P
TUCKER WAYHEATHER CREST PLCARTER STLOCUST LNL A KE T R E E LNROTHWELL LNPEAC H TREE D R CAITLIN DR
WINDMERE LNW I6 4 E XIT 10 7 O FFCOTTONWOOD FARMBROOK VIEW RDKILLDEER LNLONGMONT DRORCHAR D D R G ATE POST LNM CC O M B ST NORMANDY DRGRAYROCK DRWAYLAND DRRIVENDELL LNJAM E STO W N R D
HADEN LNPARK RDHIGHLANDS PLAUTU M N HILL C T
EMERALD L NFRANK TATE RD
F O X D A L E L N
WELB OURNE LNMECHUMS RIVER R D
SHEPHERD RUNL E N O X
H IL L R DMECHUMHTS
F R E E
T O W N L NMEADOWS DRHILL TOP STPARK RIDGE DRHILLSBORO LNCATHAROSS LNB R O OK W O OD RDWOODBOURNE L NAMBER
R ID GE RD
HALF MILE BRANCH RDFITZGERALD RDC R O Z E T
A V E
LICKINGHOLE CREEK RDST GEORGE AVEYANCEY M ILL LNHARVEST FARMS LNBROWNSVILLE RDCLING LNLANETOWN RDHEDGEROW L N
YONDER HILL FARMFOREST GLEN DRP A R K V IE W D R
BUCK RDO L D
T R A IL D RRAILROAD AVEMARYMART FARM RDGOLF DRHALCYON DRTHURSTON DRPATTERSON MILL LNSHELTON MILL R DCOLONY DRCLAUDIUS CROZET PARKCROSSOVERBROOKWOOD RDJORDAN LNG R AYROCK
CT ALBEMARLE PIPPIN CTMILLBURN CTEDMOND DRPARK RIDGE CTCLAY CTGRASS DALE LNROCKFISH GAP TPKEAMBER RIDGE CTCLOVER LAWN LNWAYLANDS GRANT DRTHE SQUARELITTLE FOX LNSPRING COVE LNFAIR HILL LN
FRONTIER LNALFRED STRUSSET RDHELT LNWEST END DRMEADOW S DRLAURA LNINDIGO ALYADELE STMARQUETTE CT
BEAVER CREEK M TN RDJEREMIAH LNCEDARBROOK CTH E A T H ERCROFT C IRPAINTED SKY TERJARMAN RDGWEST END CIR CLAUDIUS CTHADEN TERWINDY RIDGE RDSUMMERFORD LNWINESAP LNS U M M IT
V IE W L N
OAK D R
B E D F O R D
P A R K R D
MEADOWS CTALBERTA DRHIGH STPEACH TREE DR CLOVER RIDGE PLHOME PORT LNSTONEGATE WAYMCCAUL E Y
ST FOXDALE LNGATE
POST LN
RAVEN STONE RDWICKHAM P O N D DRMOREWOOD LN
M CCOM B ST
HIGHL A N D S
DR
B I R C H W OOD D R
STONEG A TE LN
ROSENKRANS STEMERALD LNFILLY RUNGRAYR OCK DR
NORM A N D Y DR
BALLARD DRWELBOURNE LNLAKE TREE LNBUFORD STORCHARD DRHILLSBORO LNYONDER HILL FARMBROOK VIEW RDE I64 EXIT 107 OFFWOODBOURNE LNA U T U MN
H IL L CT
HADEN LNPARK RDE I64 EXIT 107 ONCLAUDIA STM E C H U M S R I V E R RDS H EPHERD
R UNLENOX HILL RDW I64 EXIT 107 ONFREE TOWN LNHILL TOP STPARK RIDGE DRHALF MILE BRANCH RDJARMANS GAP RDAMBER RIDGE RDCROZET AVEROSELAND FARMHARVEST FARMS LNST GEORGE AVEY A NCEY
M I LL LNMINT SPRINGS RD
M I LLE R
SCHOO L RD
B ROW NSVILLE RDTHURSTON DRCLING LNLANETOWN RDHE D G EROW LNFOREST GLEN DRI-64 WI-64 ETHREE NOTCH'D RDBUCK RDPARKVIEW DRO L D
TR AIL D RRAILROAD AVEPATTERSON MILL LNMARYMART FARM RDGOLF DRHALCYON DRSHELTON
M ILL RD00.250.5MilesRailroadCrozet Development AreaPriority Area BoundaryParcelsGreenspace *Neighborhood Density Residential (Low)Neighborhood Density ResidentialUrban Density ResidentialMixed-UseDowntownInstitutionalLight IndustrialSee Crozet Master Plan TextPotential Roads/ConnectionsPotential Stream Buffer Reduction **Note: The map elements depicted are graphic representations and are not to be construed or used as a legal description. This map is for display purposes only.Crozet Master PlanLand Use Plan Priority AreasPrepared by Albemarle County | Office of Geographic Data Services(GDS).Map created by Derek Bedarf, September 16, 2010.p* Refer to Parks & Green Systems Map** Refer to Text
APPENDIX
59 Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
Crozet Implementation Projects
Implementation Strategy
Estimated
Cost/Funding
Responsible
Department/ Division
Issues to Be Addressed
Actions Required
Milestones Timing
Short-term (FY11 to FY14)
Mid-term (FY15 to FY19)
Long-term (FY19 and out)
COMMUNITY LIFE
Crozet Community
Advisory Council
Included in
Community
Relations/CDD
budget for staff
time
Crozet
Planner/Community
Relations
Continue community-County
dialogue and community
involvement in master plan
implementation
Periodic meetings of CCAC
Ongoing
Crozet Neighborhood
Planner
Included in CDD
budget for staff
time
CDD
Monitor plan implementation
Staff facilitates plan
implementation initiatives (ZTAs,
studies, capital project planning,
etc.), as necessary
Staff pursues new federal, state,
and other funding sources for
transportation projects and other
projects, as needed
Staff conducts five-year plan
review and update, in conjunction
with the Planning Commission
and the CCAC.
Staff monitors development
review projects for conformity with
the Plan.
Administration/management
begins when Master Plan is
adopted
Periodic written reports on
progress will be prepared for the
Planning Commission
Planning for five-year review will
begin in year 4 of each five-year
cycle
Ongoing
Fairs/Festivals/Events
Community
initiative
Community
Continue community tradition of
events
Celebrate Crozet history
Ongoing
Ongoing
Historic/Cultural
Resources programs
Interpretation Opportunities
not known at
this time
Community/Historic
Pres Committee
Evaluate opportunities for
interpretation of area history
Investigate support to provide
locate history interpretation at
local institutions
Short to mid-term
TRANSPORTATION
Jarman’s Gap Road
$16 million
VDOT and County-
OFD
Provide a safer & efficient vehicle,
bicycle, and pedestrian corridor
between Crozet Avenue and Old
Trail Drive
Improvements include curb,
gutter, bike lanes, and sidewalks
on north side only
Design/ROW complete
Utility relocation
Bid
Construct
UNDERWAY
Short-term-Advertisement date
January 2011
Crozet Streetscape
Enhancement Project-
Phase 2
Includes Main Street at
Crozet Avenue
$3. million
($550,000
VDOT grants)
$ 760,000
County-OFD
Relocation of overhead utilities
New Stormwater drainage system
A portion of New Main Street to
library entrance, design to High
Street
Pedestrian/Vehicular
improvements to Crozet Avenue
from the Square to Tabor Street
This project will include alley
improvements between Main
Street and The Square.
Design
Bid
Construct
UNDERWAY
Short-term
Construction – mid to long term;
construction prior to
improvement to US 250 in
Pantops
Crozet North Sidewalk
$610,000
($190,000 grant)
County-OFD and
VDOT
Pedestrian safety and drainage
improvements on west side of
Crozet Avenue from St. George
Avenue to Crozet Elementary
School and continue to Ballard
Drive (crosswalks at school)
Safe Routes to School grant
received to extend to Ballard
Drive ($190,000)
Final Design plans uder review
Design completion
Construct
Expect to Fall 2010
UNDERWAY
Short -term
Eastern Avenue-
Alignment
Currently
unfunded
County-OFD
Location and cross-section
concept completed
Refine the alignment and cross-
section for the north-south
connector road “Eastern Avenue”
Explore funding opportunities for
the road, including proffer funds
Hire surveyor to provide boundary
and topographic survey as basis
for official map of road alignment
Short-mid-term
APPENDIX
60 Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
Implementation Strategy
Estimated
Cost/Funding
Responsible
Department/ Division
Issues to Be Addressed
Actions Required
Milestones Timing
Short-term (FY11 to FY14)
Mid-term (FY15 to FY19)
Long-term (FY19 and out)
Eastern Avenue
Construction
$9.5million (’04)
Private Development/
County-OFD
Evaluate function/capacity benefit
of roundabout over signal
Periodic monitoring and evaluation
of intersection
Long - term
Crozet Plaza Streetscape
Study
Provides for
recommended Downtown
Community Green
$350,000
(design and
construct)
Private Development/
County-OFD
Provides Downtown community
green/plaza
Location
Design study
Construct Improvements
Short-term-mid-term
Main Street Extensions
$2.5 million (’04
estimate)
County/Private
development
Determine alignment from library
site/alley to connect to Park Ridge
Drive (Foothill Crossing Roads)
Provide additional east-west
access in Downtown area as an
alternative to Three Notch’d Road
Design for road sections
Construct
Design – mid-term
Construction – mid to long term;
depends on pace of new
development
Crozet Avenue
walkway/bikeways
Unfunded
OFD/Private
Development
Improve pedestrian and bicycle
safety
Design
Obtain any needed easements
Construct
Long-term
Bike Network
All new streets include
bike facilities or
accommodate bike travel
Priority upgrades to
existing streets:
-Crozet Avenue
-Railroad Avenue
-Route 810/Crozet Avenue
-Three Notch’d Road
-Route 684/Mint Springs
Variable
Private
development/VDOT/
OFD
Add/upgrade bike lanes and
sidewalks as components of all
new and expanded public road
projects.
Correct existing gaps in bicycle
and pedestrian facilities and
improve existing crosswalks
Require construction of bike and
pedestrian connections with
development projects
Completed segments of bike
improvements
Ongoing
Park and Ride Lots
-Upgrade Downtown lot
-Route 250 West/near I-64
-Three Notch’d Road near
employment area
Variable
depending on
location,
property
ownership, etc.
RideShare/TJPDC/
County-Crozet
Planner
Lots provide an option for single
occupant vehicle
travel/commuting
Reduces demand on existing
road networks
Identify new locations
Establish as designated park/ride
lot
Short to mid-term-Provide
additional park and ride lots
Ongoing-Rideshare
“Regional” Transit-
Express Bus (to CTS) -
Regional – but includes
Village
Capital:
$305,000 to
$575,000
Operation:
$200,000 to
$400,000/yr
County/CTS/possibly
JAUNT or future
Transit Authority or
equivalent
organization
Provide alternatives to auto travel,
reduce future auto trips on Rt 250
Establish RTA or an equivalent
planning/management organization
Implement service
Pursue commuter service through
JAUNT when viable
Short term – establish regional
planning/management process
(RTA)
Short to Mid-term priority (w/in
next 5-10 years), next regional
transit plan update.
Long-term Implementation
(after 2017) depending on
study results.
PARKS AND GREEN SYSTEMS
Greenway completion
-Connections to Downtown
-Connections to Schools
-Connections to Parks
Variable
Private developer
contributions with
rezonings
Parks &
Rec./Planning/Crozet
volunteer trailbuilders/
neighborhood assoc.’s
Provide passive recreation
opportunity & alternate pedestrian-
bike route.
Interpret cultural and natural sites
Identify more precise location for
trail connections
Design and consider with
development proposals.
Easements/property obtained
Complete Trail Construction
Complete Connections made
between neighborhoods and to
greenway/public lands
Short and mid-term timeframe.
Ongoing planning/
acquisition/construction
throughout length of corridor in
strategic locations
Western Park
$4.1 million total
(construction will
be phased;
$50,000
proffered for
park
improvements)
County/private
developer
contributions
Provide community park consistent
with Western Park Master Plan
Acquire additional land or
easements
Construction Western Park
according to master plan for park
Mid-term
Neighborhood Parks Unfunded Private Development Provide amenities and
greenspace within new
developments in Crozet
Ongoing Ongoing
Trailhead Park Unfunded County Parks &
Rec/Private
Development.
Provide access point to
greenways network
Determine location
Design
Construct
Long-term
Neighborhood Trails
Not known at
this
time/variable
Private developer
contributions with
rezonings
P&R/Planning/
neighborhood assoc.’s
P & R/ Crozet planner to
coordinate assistance to
neighborhoods to construct trails
Connections made between
neighborhoods and to
greenway/public lands
Ongoing, initiative; trails may
be public or private
APPENDIX
61 Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
Implementation Strategy
Estimated
Cost/Funding
Responsible
Department/ Division
Issues to Be Addressed
Actions Required
Milestones Timing
Short-term (FY11 to FY14)
Mid-term (FY15 to FY19)
Long-term (FY19 and out)
Eastern Park
$4 million
Private development/
Planning/Parks & Rec.
Provide additional public
community park to serve eastern
Crozet
Acquire property
Design
Construct
Mid-term to Long-term
LAND USE & DESIGN
Master Plan
Implementation
Included in CDD
budget for staff
time
County
Implements land use
recommendations of master plan
Ongoing
Ongoing
New Development
Included in CDD
budget for staff
time
Private
Developments/Crozet
Planner/PC/BOS
Monitor capacity of infrastructure
to support new development
No additional residential units
until transportation improvements
are made
Short and mid-term
“Transition” Zoning
District for Mixed Use
Areas
Included in CDD
budget for staff
time
Crozet Planner
Consider creating new zoning
district to allow for transitional
mixed use areas around
Downtown Crozet
Resolution of Intent
Amend Zoning Ordinance
Long-term
Water Protection
Ordinance Amendment
Included in CDD
budget for staff
time
County
Engineer/Water
Resources/Crozet
Planner
WPO amendment to allow for
stream buffer modifications in
certain areas identified on land
use map only
Allows redevelopment and
reclamation/replanting of buffers
Resolution of Intent
Amendment process
WPO Amended
Short-term
LI Zoning Text
Amendments
Included in CDD
budget for staff
time
BDF/County
Supports Crozet LI
uses/employers
Resolution of Intent
Amend Ordinance
Underway/Short-term
Crozet Historic District
Community
initiative
Community Listing potential Crozet Historic
District on the State and National
Register
Submit for listing
Listing approved
Short-term
ARB Corridor Specific
Design
Guidelines
Design Planner/ARB Provide design guidelines specific
to Crozet’s uniqueness for Route
250 and Route 240
Study
Design Guidelines developed
Adopted
Mid-term
Easements
Crozet Planner
Monitor protection of
environmental, scenic, and
historic resources in Crozet
ID easements
Develop monitoring program
Ongoing/Long-term
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
Business Development
Facilitator (BDF)
Included in CDD
budget for staff
time
BDF
Continue dialogue with business
community in Crozet, including
CBNG and DCA, Nelson and
Charlottesville-Albemarle
Chambers of Commerce
Ongoing
Ongoing
Employment/
Business
Tracking
Attract new employers to
areas designated on master
plan
Included in CDD
budget for staff
time
BDF
Maintain data that is updated
annually to determine business
employment trends and needs in
County, including Crozet
Ensures jobs/housing balance
and economic vitality in Crozet
Ongoing
Ongoing
Downtown/Priority Areas:
Infill/New Business
Downtown (including
adjacent Mixed Use Area)
Evaluate need to
designate Three Notch’d
Corridor Mixed Use
Included in CDD
budget for staff
time
Private
developers/BDF
Crozet
Planner/County
Improve Downtown economic
vitality
Allows for future additional area to
provide for new business
development in support of
Downtown and employment area
Economic measures
Vacancy rate/etc.
Increased revenue
Consider with update of master
plan in 5 years
Short-term
Mid-term
Tourism/Agribusiness
Included in CDD
budget for staff
time
BDF/Private
Developers/CBNG/
DCA/Convention-
Visitors Bureau
Expansion and promotion of
tourism in Crozet and Western
Albemarle
Identify new products, such,
emphasis on Crozet history,
destinations/tours (Current Ex.
Brew Ridge and Artisan Trails)
APPENDIX
62 Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
Implementation Strategy
Estimated
Cost/Funding
Responsible
Department/ Division
Issues to Be Addressed
Actions Required
Milestones Timing
Short-term (FY11 to FY14)
Mid-term (FY15 to FY19)
Long-term (FY19 and out)
Marketing Plan for
targeting areas:
Downtown
Employment
Tourism
Adjacent Rural
Areas
Development of Crozet
Website
Consider programs such
as:
Virginia Main
Street Program
Seek Grants
CDGB
Other
Variable
depending on
scope of project
and grant
funding
BDF/DCA/CBNG
BDF/DCA/CBNG
Improve Crozet’s economic
vitality
Complete marketing plan
ID specific strategies for each
targeted area
Implement plan
Seek funding sources/grants
for promotional
activities/products
Short-term to Mid-term
Ongoing
COMMUNITY FACILITIES & SERVICES
Existing Library Service
JMRL Board, Facilities
staff
Continue to consider facility needs
w/ long range planning process of
the JMRL Board.
Evaluate facility needs
Short-term
New Library site parking
lot
$750,000
(construction)
OFD
Provide parking for Downtown, in
advance of library building
construction
Site Development Plan Approval
Bid
Construct
Underway/Short-term
Existing Crozet Library
building
Continue use as
Crozet library until
library relocates
Reuse for when library
moves
JMRL/County
Ensure continued use and reuse
of train depot
Library relocates
Determine future use(s)
Remodel/Adapt depot
Continue use-Short-term
Re-use of depot- Mid-term-
long-term
Old Crozet School
Continue to lease to
tenants for the Old
School until a decision
on the permanent use
of the building is made.
Fully renovate building
for community
preferred uses
No cost
Estimate
$6-8.3 million
dollars (’08)
depending on
various factors
and project
conditions
General Services
Ensure continued use and reuse
of Old Crozet School consistent
with Old Crozet School Reuse
Study
Meet long-term community needs
(preferred concept for community
center type uses)
Lease agreements with tenants
approved by Board of Supervisors
Future uses identified
Design
Bid
Construct
Short-term
Long-term
Schools -- monitor needs
Additional elementary
school
Undetermined
Crozet Planner/Dept
of Ed., Facilities staff
Continue to consider facility needs
w/ long range Planning Committee.
Evaluate facility needs
Site Acquisition
Design
Construct
Ongoing yearly evaluation of
school growth and facility
needs with long range Planning
Committee.
Long-term/when needed
Downtown Stormwater
Project
$1.2 million
OFD/Water
Resources
Provide stormwater
management/water quality
measures for water protection to
serve the Downtown drainage
area
Facility will also serve as possible
greenspace amenity.
Property Acquisition (completed)
Easements
Design (completed)
Establish service district
Construct
Short-term
APPENDIX
63 Crozet Master Plan October 13, 2010
Implementation Strategy
Estimated
Cost/Funding
Responsible
Department/ Division
Issues to Be Addressed
Actions Required
Milestones Timing
Short-term (FY11 to FY14)
Mid-term (FY15 to FY19)
Long-term (FY19 and out)
Water and Wastewater
Expansion of water
treatment plant
Need estimate
from RWSA
ACSA/RWSA
Monitor water usage in Crozet to
ensure capacity is adequate for
future population
When demand reaches 80% of
capacity, begin design for
expansion; size of the WTP
expansion will be dependent on
the projected demands and uses.
Ensure adequate water supply for
Crozet
Capacity of existing water
treatment plant reaches 80%
Design
Bid
Construct
Long-term
Wastewater
Need estimate
from RWSA
ACSA/RWSA
Ensures adequate waste water
capacity to serve Crozet.
Continue long-term planning for
sewer improvements based upon
sewer system studies currently
being conducted by the ACSA
and the RWSA. New sewer
connections would be based on
the ACSA’s first come first served
basis policy.
Study/Monitor
Design
Construction
Mid-term-long term
Mid-term
Eastern Crozet
Elementary School site
Construction
$12.3 million
(’04)
Crozet Planner/Dept
of Ed., Facilities staff
To address future school capacity
needs in Crozet
Acquire site through proffers
Determine need
Design
Build
Long-term
Fire/Rescue Service
Region is served
by Crozet
Volunteer Fire
Department and
Western
Albemarle
Rescue Squad
Crozet Planner/Fire
Rescue/ Facilities staff
Monitor any needs/support from
County
Ongoing
Ongoing
Police Service
Police Office in
Downtown Area
Undetermined
Crozet
Planner/Police/OFD
Provides improved work space for
beat officer
Improve response times to meet
Development Area standards
Provides for improved police
service to Crozet/Western
Albemarle
Identify office space
Locate police in satellite office
Ongoing yearly evaluation of
population growth and facility
needs.
Recycling Programs
$250,000-
$500,000 – to
be determined
on revised
regional solid
waste plan
RSWA/County
(General Services,
Planning)
Provide convenient drop center.
RSWA Solid Waste Mgt Plan
Review may indicate different
approach to recycle (curbside may
be considered)
Review w/ RSWA during update of
Solid Waste Plan. Funding
requested in CIP.
Construction
Dependent on implementation
recommendations of Solid
Waste plan as recommended
in adopted plan
ACSA – Albemarle County Service Authority
ARB – Architectural Review Board
BDF – Business Development Facilitator
BOS – Board of Supervisors
CBNG – Crozet Business Networking Group
CCAC – Crozet Community Advisory Council
CDD – Community Development Department
CTS – Charlottesville Transit Service
DCA – Downtown Crozet Association
JMRL- Jefferson Madison Regional Library
OFD – Office of Facilities Development
P&R – Parks and Recreations
PC – Planning Commission
RTA – Regional Transit Authority
RWSA – Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
TJPDC – Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
VDOT – Virginia Department of Transportation
WPO – Water Protection Ordinance
WTP – Water Treatment Plant
WWTP – Wastewater Treatment Plant
ZTA – Zoning Text Amendment
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SP200900034 Re-Store ‘N Station
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request to withdraw more than four hundred (400)
gallons of groundwater per site acre per day.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Graham, Fritz, Ms.
Frederick.
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
October 13, 2010
ACTION: x INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In October 2008, an application was received requesting approval of a preliminary site plan to construct a
convenience store with gas pumps and associated parking. In January, 2009 the Deputy Zoning Administrator
(Deputy) made an official determination that the proposed site plan would require a special use permit for water
consumption because the use would cause water consumption of more than 400 gallons per site acre per day and its
water source is a private well. This determination was appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) by the
applicant in February 2009 and deferred at the applicant’s request. The applicant submitted additional data regarding
the proposed development’s projected water consumption with a request that the Deputy’s determination be
reconsidered. In October 2009, the applicant submitted a revised site plan, and requested a determination regarding
water consumption based on the redesigned project scope. In November 2009, the Deputy determined that the
proposed redesigned project would still require a special use permit for water consumption. The applicant submitted
an application for a special use permit in December 2009. The application for a special use permit was heard before
the Albemarle County Planning Commission on June 8, 2010. (Attachment A) The Planning Commission
recommended denial of the application by a vote of 4-1. (Attachment B) Based on subsequent information submitted
by the applicant, the Deputy reaffirmed on August 27, 2010 the requirement of a special use permit.
DISCUSSION:
Sec. 18-31.6.1 of the County Code establishes the findings that must be made by the Board to approve a special use
permit. Staff’s analysis of this application, as presented in the staff report provided in Attachment A, focused on
determining the impact caused by exceeding the by-right water consumption permitted. Staff’s consideration is limited
to the impacts associated with the water consumption, recognizing the site plan is otherwise a by-right use of the
property. By-right, the applicant may consume 400 gallons per site acre per day (a total of 1624 gallons per day for
this site). The applicant’s request is to permit the consumption of 400.25 gallons per acre per day (a total of 1625
gallons per day for this site). In reviewing the application, staff believes that there is not sufficient data to guarantee
groundwater failure will not occur, however, the proposed or projected water consumption on this parcel as restricted
by the special use permit and viewed from an engineering standpoint has no greater impact on adjacent properties
than water consumption permitted by-right. Additionally, the proposed use will not change the character of the
applicable zoning district, and it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Ordinance as it pertains to the
designated HC-Highway Commercial district.
The applicant has supplied a Tier III Groundwater Study, conducted and compiled by a state certified geologist. It is
staff’s opinion that the processes used to prepare the Groundwater Study are sound. This study indicates adequate
water supply is available on site. A study submitted by a member of the public, also a state certified geologist, raises
questions regarding the adequacy of the water supply. This conflicting data provides a point of concern regarding the
general welfare of adjacent landowners. General welfare is a required finding in the Ordinance’s special use permit
review process.
Finally, this site, notwithstanding its HC Zoning, is designated Rural Areas. The Board should consider if a special
use for a use determined to require consumption of more than 400 gallons of water per site acre per day, with
reasonable conditions, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff believes that this use with a condition
restricting water consumption to 1625 gallons per day is consistent with water consumption expected in the Rural
Areas.
AGENDA TITLE: SP200900034 Re-Store ‘N Station
October 13, 2010
Page 2
BUDGET IMPACT:
A recommended condition of approval will require periodic monitoring by the Zoning Administrator. This may
have minimal budgetary impacts.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of SP2009-34 with the following conditions:
1) The applicant shall install a meter on the well-head to monitor water consumption. Prior to installation, the model of
said meter will be approved by the Zoning Administer, in consultation with the County Engineer. Results of daily
water consumption monitoring results will be made available within forty-eight (48) hours of a request from the Zoning
Administrator; and
2) Water consumption shall be restricted to no more than 1,625 gallons per day.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Planning Commission Staff Report
B – Planning Commission Action Letter
C – Applicant Information Submitted after PC review
D – Zobrist Law Group Letter (August 23)
E – Zobrist Law Group Letter (Sept 20)
F – Tom Goeke Letter
View PC minutes
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP 2009-34 Re-Store ‘N Station Staff: Summer Frederick, Senior Planner; Glenn
Brooks, County Engineer
Planning Commission Public Hearing: June 8,
2010
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: TBD
Owners: Jeffries II, LLC Applicant: Jo Higgins
Special Use Permit for: Uses permitted by right,
not served by public water, involving water
consumption exceeding four hundred (400)
gallons per site acre per day. [Sec. 18-24.2.2.13]
TMP: Tax Map 55B Parcel 1
Location: US 250 (Rockfish Gap Turnpike)
approximately 1,600 feet (0.3 miles) west of
Western Albemarle High School.
Existing Zoning and By right use: HC-Highway
Commercial; EC - Entrance Corridor Overlay
Magisterial District: Whitehall Conditions: Yes
Requested # of Dwelling Units: N/A DA RA X
Proposal: Use of more than 400 gallons of
groundwater per site-acre per day for
convenience store.
Comprehensive Plan Designation: RA - Rural
Area in Rural Area 3
Character of Property: The site is currently
vacant.
Use of Surrounding Properties: Surrounding
properties include the Crozet Moose Lodge,
single-family residential, and various commercial
enterprises, including convenience stores with
gas stations.
Factors Favorable:
1. Character of the zoning district
will not be changed by the
proposed use.
2. Granting the special use permit
will allow a proposed
development that directly
promotes the purpose and
intent of the HC-Highway
Commercial zoning district.
3. The proposed water
consumption will not adversely
affect uses permitted by right in
the HC-Highway Commercial
zoning district.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. There is not enough data to
determine if the existing water
supply is adequate to support
water consumption in excess of
400 gallons per site-acre per
day on this parcel.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of SP 2008-00033, with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall install a meter on the well head to monitor water consumption. Prior to
installation, the model of said meter will be approved by the Zoning Administrator. Results
of daily water consumption monitoring results will be made available within forty-eight (48)
hours of a request from the Zoning Administrator; and,
2. Water consumption shall be restricted to 1,625 gallons per day.
2
STAFF: Summer Frederick, Senior Planner; Glenn Brooks, County Engineer
PLANNING COMMISSION: June 8, 2010
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD
PROJECT: SP2009-34 Re-Store ‘N Station
Petition:
PROPOSED: Use of more than 400 gallons of groundwater per site-acre per day for gas station and
convenience store.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: HC-Highway Commercial: retail sales and service uses; and
residential use by special use permit (15 units/ acre); EC-Entrance Corridor Overlay: to protect properties
of historic, architectural or cultural significance from visual impacts of development along routes of
tourist access.
SECTION: 18-24.2.2.13: Uses permitted by right, not served by public water, involving water consumption
exceeding four hundred (400) gallons per site acre per day.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Area in Rural Area 3 - preserve and protect
agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre in
development lots).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes.
LOCATION: US 250 (Rockfish Gap Turnpike) approximately 1,600 feet (0.3 miles) west of Western
Albemarle High School.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 55B Parcel 1
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Whitehall
Character of the Area:
The immediate surrounding properties include commercial uses, the Crozet Moose Lodge, and single-
family residential properties.
Specifics of the Proposal:
Section 18-24.2.2.13 of the Zoning Ordinance requires uses in the HC-Highway Commercial zoning
district not served by public water to obtain a special use permit if they use more than 400 gallons per
site-acre per day. As it cannot be determined that the proposed gas station and convenience store will
not use less than 400 gallons of water per site-acre per day, this requirement must be met.
This request is only for the water usage, and not for the store use—the store itself is a by-right use in
the HC zoning district.
Planning and Zoning History:
SDP2008-154: Request for preliminary site plan approval to construct a 5,750 square foot, two (2)
story commercial building with gas pumps and associated parking 4.06 acres. Application includes a
request to waive restrictions found in Sec. 18-21.7(c) in order to allow for land disturbance in a
required twenty (20) foot buffer area. To be reviewed and acted upon following the Planning
Commission taking action on this special use permit application.
3
Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan:
The Comprehensive Plan designates the site as Rural Areas, emphasizing the preservation and
protection of agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources.
The character of the area is unusual, as it contains HI-Heavy Industrial, HC-Highway Commercial, NMD-
Neighborhood Model District, R1-Low density single-family residential, and RA-Rural Areas zoning all
within one-half of a mile (Attachment A). All these areas are designated as Rural Area in the
Comprehensive Plan (Attachment B).
Zoning of this parcel is HC-Highway Commercial. The proposed use (convenience store with gas station)
is by-right in this district.
STAFF COMMENT:
It is understood a site plan will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable Ordinance
requirements should this special use permit application be approved. The Planning Commission
is required to review the submitted preliminary site plan because an abutting owner has
requested such a review in accord with Sec. 18-32.4.2.5(c). Submitted site plan drawings are
included in this report for informational and reference purposes only (Attachment C).
In conjunction with other information submitted by the applicant, staff has reviewed the Tier III
Groundwater Study prepared by a Professional Geologist, certified by the State Board of
Geology. It is staff’s opinion that the processes used to prepare the Groundwater Study are
sound.
Section 18 - 31.6.1 of the Code of Albemarle requires that Special Use Permits be assessed as
follows:
31.6.1: Special use permits for uses as provided 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,
After reviewing data submitted by the applicant (Attachment D), the County Engineer states the
proposed, or projected, water use on this parcel is acceptable from an engineering standpoint.
Additionally, the area in which the parcel is located is not known for groundwater well failure.
However, there is not sufficient data to ensure future groundwater well failure will not occur in the
area.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and
The character in terms of established by right usage of the area will not change as this property has
been zoned HC-Highway Commercial since the adoption of the current zoning ordinance.
that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
The purpose of the HC-Highway Commercial zoning district, as stated in the ordinance, is to permit
development of commercial establishments, other than shopping centers, primarily oriented to
highway locations rather than to central business concentrations. The intent of this district is stated as
limiting sprawling strip commercial development by providing sites with adequate frontage and depth
to permit controlled access to public streets.
The proposed use, water consumption, does not directly promote the purpose of the HC-Highway
Commercial zoning district; however, water consumption in excess of 400 gallons per site-acre per day
is allowed by special permit in the district. Given that allowing such water consumption would support
4
a use that directly promotes the purpose and intent of the assigned zoning district, the special use
permit is consistent with the purpose and intent of the ordinance.
with the uses permitted by right in the district,
Water withdraw in excess of 400 gallons per site-acre per day would not adversely affect the by right
uses in the HC-Highway Commercial district.
with additional regulations provided in section 5, and
Section 5.0 contains no additional regulations regarding water usage.
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 use is appropriate in the location requested.
As previously addressed, concern has been expressed in relation to the question of whether or not the
existing water supply can support water consumption in excess of 400 gallons per site-acre per day on
this parcel.
The applicant has submitted information from a state certified geologist indicating adequate water
supply is available. A study submitted by a member of the public, also a state certified geologist, raises
questions regarding the adequacy of the water supply.
The applicant states water usage will not exceed 1,625 gallons per day. Staff proposes a condition
capping water consumption at 1,625 gallons per day, which translates to 400.25 gallons per site acre,
per day. By-right water consumption for this parcel is 400 gallons per site acre, per day. Based on the
analysis of the available information, it is staff’s opinion that the minor increase in water consumption
is not inconsistent with public health, safety, and general welfare.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factor favorable to this application:
1. Character of the zoning district will not be changed by the proposed use.
2. Granting the special use permit will allow a proposed development that directly promotes
the purpose and intent of the HC-Highway Commercial zoning district.
3. The proposed water consumption will not adversely affect uses permitted by right in the
HC-Highway Commercial zoning district.
Staff has identified the following factor unfavorable to this application:
1. There is not enough data to determine if the existing water supply is adequate to support
water consumption in excess of 400 gallons per site-acre per day on this parcel.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of SP2009-34 Re-Store
‘N Station, with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall install a meter on the well head to monitor water consumption. Prior to
installation, the model of said meter will be approved by the Zoning Administrator. Results of
daily water consumption monitoring results will be made available within forty-eight (48) hours
of a request from the Zoning Administrator; and,
2. Water consumption shall be restricted to 1,625 gallons per day.
5
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Location Map with zoning districts
Attachment B – Location Map with Comprehensive Plan designations
Attachment C – Submitted site plan drawings
Attachment D – Information submitted in junction with special use permit application
Attachment E – Memo from County Attorney in reference to review of special use permit
Attachment F – Tier III Groundwater Study
Attachment G – Additional information submitted by the applicant.
Attachment H – Additional Information submitted by the public.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4012
June 23, 2010
NP Engineering
1850 Browns Gap Turnpike
Charlottesville VA 22901
RE: SP200900034 RE-STORE'N STATION & SDP200800154 Re-Store'n Station - Preliminary
Dear NP Engineering:
The Planning Commission at its meeting on June 8, 2010 recommended the following:
SP200900034 RE-STORE'N STATION – denial by a vote of 4:2 and this application will go before
the Board of Supervisors on a date to be determined with a recommendation for denial for the
following reason:
- The Commission found that the use will be a substantial detriment to adjacent property
because there was insufficient information to determine the amount of water the proposal
will use and the water use may adversely affect the neighboring properties.
SDP200800154 Re-Store'n Station - Preliminary – Denied waiver of buffer requirements by a
vote of 5:1.
SDP200800154 Re-Store'n Station - Preliminary – accepted the applicant’s request for deferral
by a vote of 6:0 for the preliminary site plan.
Return to exec summary
Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have any questions or require additional
information.
Sincerely,
Summer Frederick
Senior Planner
Current Development Division
cc: Jeffries II LLC
PO BOX 910
Crozet VA 22932
1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
________________________________________________________________________________
TO: Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator
Ron Higgins, Chief of Zoning/Deputy Zoning Administrator
FROM: Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney
DATE: March 25, 2010
RE: Re-Store’N Station
________________________________________________________________________________
This memorandum addresses several questions raised by the applicant and County staff pertaining to the
proposed Re-Store’N Station project. The applicant is seeking a special use permit authorized in the Highway
Commercial (“HC”) zoning district under County Code § 18-24.2.2(13), which provides:
13. Uses permitted by right, not served by public water, involving water consumption
exceeding four hundred (400) gallons per site acre per day. Uses permitted by right, not
served by public sewer, involving anticipated discharge of sewage other than domestic
wastes. (Added 6-14-89)
The scope of this memorandum is limited to certain questions related to water consumption and the special
use permit. The Department of Community Development is addressing other issues related to this project.
1. Questions asked by the applicant
The applicant’s questions have been narrowed to two because they all focus on a single issue – the
applicability of a special use permit and its conditions if the use’s water consumption is less than 400 gallons of
water per site acre per day.
Under County Code § 18-24.2.2(13), the special use is permission to consume more than 400 gallons of
water per site acre per day, up to some ultimate daily limit that may be imposed as a special use permit condition.
In response to the applicant’s questions below, we have assumed that the 1,624 gallons per day referenced in the
applicant’s questions is the site acre equivalent to the threshold of 400 gallons of water per site acre per day
established in County Code 18-24.2.2(13).
A. Question: Does the special use permit “exist” if the water consumption is less than 1,624
gpd?
Answer: Yes. The “special use” is permission to consume more than 1,624 gpd and that
permission exists regardless of whether the water consumption is less than 1,624 gpd.
2
B. Question: Would the conditions imposed by a special use permit be enforceable if water
consumption remained in the by-right range (less than 1,624 gpd) or would they be
enforceable only when water consumption exceeds the 1,624 gpd threshold?
Answer: The conditions would be enforceable at all times although, as explained below,
the Board of Supervisors could determine that some conditions apply only once some
water consumption threshold is exceeded.
The County has already determined that “there is a significant likelihood that the project’s
water consumption will not stay below the [1,624 gpd] consumption threshold.” Official
Determination dated November 17, 2009 (Ron Higgins). Because the special use is
permission to exceed 1,624 gpd, a condition requiring the ongoing and daily monitoring of
water consumption would be a reasonable condition to not only determine whether the
threshold is exceeded on any day, but also to determine compliance with any special use
permit condition limiting water consumption. Since on any given day the threshold or
limit could be exceeded, ongoing monitoring could be required even if water consumption
on any given day does not exceed 1,624 gpd.
However, the Board of Supervisors also could impose conditions related to water
consumption that would provide that they would not apply until, for example, water
consumption exceeded a prescribed amount for the first time. If daily water consumption
never exceeded that amount, those conditions would not apply.
2. The proper scope of review when considering a special use permit under County Code § 18-24.2.2(13)
County Code § 18-24.2.2(13) authorizes any by-right use in the HC zoning district, but requires a special
use permit if the use will consume more than 400 gallons of water per site acre per day. In evaluating a special use
permit under County Code § 18-24.2.2(13), the proper scope of review does not include the underlying by-right
use.
For example, if an applicant proposes an “automobile service station” use, which is a by-right use in the
HC zoning district under County Code 18-24.2.1(3), but the proposed automobile service station would consume
more than 400 gallons of water per site acre per day, a proper special use permit analysis would not include
consideration of whether automobile service stations are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan or, whether the
automobile service station use satisfies the criteria for evaluating a special use permit under County Code § 18-
31.6.1. By allowing automobile service stations as a by-right use in the HC zoning district, the Board of
Supervisors has already legislatively determined that the use is within the class of by-right uses that satisfy the
purpose and intent of the HC zoning district and that the use does not generate impacts that require a case-by-case
evaluation under the special use permit process. As a by-right use within the HC zoning district, any impact
resulting from the automobile service station use is addressed by existing site regulations such as those pertaining to
the buildings’ height, setbacks, noise, parking and outdoor lighting. A by-right use would neither change the
character of a district nor be contrary to the district’s purpose and intent because the range of by-right uses allowed
in a zoning district defines the district’s essence.
Therefore, the review of an application for a special use permit authorized by County Code § 18-24.2.2(13)
is limited to the issue of water consumption. Even though the scope of this special use permit review is more
limited than a typical special use permit, the same special use permit criteria apply. The Planning Commission and
the Board of Supervisors will need to determine whether the water consumption use is consistent with the County’s
Comprehensive Plan and whether it satisfies the criteria delineated in County Code § 18-31.6.1, i.e., whether the
water consumption: (1) poses a substantial detriment to adjacent property; (2) could cause a change to the character
of the district; and (3) would be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, the uses
permitted by right in the district, with additional regulations provided in section 5, and with the public health, safety
and general welfare. Because the proposed Re-Store’N Station site is designated Rural Areas in the Comprehensive
Plan even though it is within the HC zoning district, whether the water consumption for the proposed project is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan would also be a key issue. In addition, because of the difference between
3
the proposed project site’s Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning district, whether the proposed project is in
harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance (rather than merely the purpose and intent of the HC
zoning district) would be another crucial issue.
3. The proper scope of the conditions imposed under the special use permit
Based on the analysis in Section 2, a special use allowed under County Code § 18-24.2.2(13)
pertains to water consumption only and, therefore, the scope of the conditions are limited to impacts arising
from water consumption, and not from the underlying by-right use. Any conditions imposed must be
reasonably related to the impacts of water consumption, and the extent of the conditions must be roughly
proportional to those impacts.
In granting a special use permit under County Code § 18-24.2.2(13), the County may impose
reasonable conditions that pertain to not only monitoring water consumption as discussed in the answers to
the applicant’s questions in Section 1, but also which pertain to the consumption of water in general. Some
of these conditions could indirectly pertain to the by-right use, provided that they reasonably relate to
addressing the impacts of water consumption, e.g., hours of operation to control total water consumption
per day or restrictions on using groundwater to wash down parking areas or watering landscaping.
4. The applicable criterion for determining the amount of water consumed per day
A question was asked whether compliance with the special use permit or determining whether the
water consumption is above or below the 400 gallons of water per site acre per day threshold could be
based on a periodic average.
County Code § 18-24.2.2(13) requires a special use permit if water consumption exceeds 400
gallons per site acre per day. In determining whether a special use permit is required, daily consumption,
rather than by a weekly, monthly or other periodic average, is the applicable standard. See, Board of Zoning
Appeals ex rel. County of York v. 852 L.L.C., 257 Va. 485 (1999) (zoning administrator could not, through
interpretation, vary from the clear ordinance standards which established density credits of 0%, 50% and
100% and allocate a reduced density credit based on what the administrator determined was an appropriate
percentage under the circumstances; the Court said that if the board of supervisors had intended the zoning
administrator to “have such latitude, it would have so provided in the ordinance; such latitude may not
properly be created by administrative interpretation”). Once the special use permit is obtained, however,
measuring water consumption is not tied to the per day standard. Thus, special use permit conditions could
provide that they would become applicable once water consumption exceeded a specified amount that
could be determined on a per day, per week or other periodic basis, or a daily, weekly or other periodic
average. Likewise, a condition limiting water consumption could be based on a similar measurement
standard.
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Summer Frederick, Senior Planner
From: Ron Higgins, Chief of Zoning
Division: Zoning Administration
Date: March 24, 2010
Subject: SP2009-034, Re-Store’ N Station Water Use – Comments and Official Determination
I have reviewed the information supplied by the applicant as well as the letters and memorandum
submitted by Joseph Associates (on behalf HE & J, Inc.) and Scenic 250. I have also reviewed previously
submitted materials for this project, the Shadwell Store SP and the ZTAs for the “400 gallon/acre/day”
provisions in the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. My comments are:
1. Whether the anticipated discharge is “domestic waste”:
-both the Albemarle County Code (Chapter 16) and the Department of Health website define the
discharge from the Re-Store’N Station to be within the limits of “domestic waste.” This decision
was originally rendered in March of 2009 for this property and is not subject to appeal at this time.
2. Whether the proposed use(s) are permitted in the HC zoning district:
-the retail, office and gasoline sales elements of the proposed facility are all permitted uses in the HC
zoning district as listed in Section 24.2.1. Of these three uses, only gasoline sales is not explicitly
listed as a category of use. Gasoline sales have consistently been permitted as accessory to
convenience stores and are allowed under the category of use: automobile service station (Section
24.2.1 #3).
3. Whether the storm water re-use is considered “consumption” in the use category:
-Based on my research of the staff reports and minutes of the Zoning Text Amendments that established
and amended this special permit use:
This use category spoke of the Public Purpose being to “protect surface and groundwater
supplies from overdraft and pollution.” It was also stated, in the February 13, 1985 minutes of
the BOS, that “Special Permit review would be required for both groundwater and surface
water withdrawal.” Both of these remarks support the position that intercepting storm water
could be a form of consumption.
-It is agreed that the capturing of storm water and use of it prior to allowing it to discharge/recharge into
the ground is a form of consumption. However, since there is no reasonably practical way to quantify
this and separate it from other rainwater, it is not counted in the consumption figures. However,
because it is a form of consumption, the commission and board can consider this in their review
depending on how the water to be captured will be used in the proposed plan.
SP2009-034 - 2 - March 23, 2010
Since Comments 2 and 3 above are determinations, in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of the Code of
Virginia, they may be appealed by any person aggrieved by the determinations. An appeal must be made
within thirty (30) days of the date this notice is given. If a person aggrieved does not file a timely appeal, this
determination shall be final. An appeal application must be completed and filed with the Zoning
Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals. A one time processing fee of $120 must accompany the
appeal application.
I have no other comments on the special use permit application.
Other recipients:
Jo Higgins
Marcia Joseph
Jeffries II, LLC
November 17, 2009
Ms. Jo Higgins
Project Development Limited LC
2564 Mt. Torrey Road
Lyndhurst, Virginia 22980
Re: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION
Re-Store N’ Station – Revised Preliminary Site Plan & Water Use Data
As proposed in SDP2008-154, TMP55B-1, (New Data of October 23, 2009)
Dear Ms. Higgins
This letter is a determination of whether the proposed use described in the resubmitted
site development plan application materials for the Re-Store N’ Station (SDP 2008-154)
will require a special use permit under the use classification in Albemarle County Code
Sec. 18.24.2.2 (13).
It is my determination, after careful review of your new data and analysis dated
October 23, 2009, the pertinent sections of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance and discussions with Albemarle County Officials, that the proposed
Re-Store N’ Station, SDP2008-154 will require a Special Use Permit in accordance
with Section 18.24.2.2, (13) of the Albemarle County Code (Zoning Ordinance).
This determination is based on the conclusion that there is a significant
likelihood that the project’s water consumption will not stay below the 400
gallons per site acre per day consumption threshold stated in this Zoning
Ordinance Section.
If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have the right to appeal it within thirty
(30) days of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Virginia
Code Sec. 15.2-2311(A). If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be
final and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning
Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the
grounds for the appeal. An appeal application must be completed and filed along with
the fee of $120. Notice of this determination is being given as of the same date as this
letter.
Sincerely,
Ronald L. Higgins, AICP
Chief of Zoning/Deputy Zoning Administrator
cc: Jeffries II, LLC, P. O. Box 910, Crozet, VA 22932
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 8, 2010 PAGE 1
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2009-00034 RE STORE N STATION AND
SDP-2008-00154 RE STORE N STATION
Submitted to BOS 10-4-2010
Albemarle County Planning Commission
June 8, 2010
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing, and meeting on Tuesday, June 8,
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 absent.
Other officials present were Elizabeth Marotta, Senior Planner; Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner; Summer
Frederick, Senior Planner; Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of
Planning; Ron Higgins, Chief of Zoning; and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Loach called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Deferred Items:
SP-2009-00034 Re Store N Station
PROPOSED: Use of more than 400 gallons of groundwater per site-acre per day for convenience store.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: HC, Highway Commercial - retail sales and service uses; and
residential use by special use permit (15 units/ acre); EC Entrance Corridor - Overlay to protect properties
of historic, architectural or cultural significance from visual impacts of development along routes of tourist
access
SECTION: 24.2.2.13, Uses permitted by right, not served by public water, involving water consumption
exceeding four hundred (400) gallons per site acre per day. Uses permitted by right, not served by public
sewer, involving anticipated discharge of sewage other than domestic wastes.
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: US 250 (Rockfish Gap Turnpike) approximately 1,600 feet (0.3 miles) west of Western
Albemarle High School
TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 55B Parcel 1
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Whitehall
(Summer Frederick)
DEFERRED FROM THE APRIL 20, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
AND
SDP-2008-00154 Re Store N Station
The request is for preliminary site plan appro val to construct a 5,750 square foot, two (2) story
commercial building with gas pumps and associated parking 4.06 acres. The property is zoned HC
(Highway Commercial) and is described as Tax Map 55B, Parcel 1. The site is located on the south side
of Rockfish Gap Turnpike (SR250), approximately 0.78 miles west of its intersection with Miller School
Road/Crozet Avenue (SR240). This site is located in the White Hall Magisterial District and is
recommended for Rural Area uses in Rural Area 3 by the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Loach said that the next item was Re Store N Station. He noted that Mr. Zobrist wanted to make a
statement.
Mr. Zobrist asked to make a bit of a clarification.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 8, 2010 PAGE 2
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2009-00034 RE STORE N STATION AND
SDP-2008-00154 RE STORE N STATION
Submitted to BOS 10-4-2010
- His name was Duane Zobrist and he had served on the Planning Commission since January 1st.
He personally has been involved as counsel for the owners of some of the adjoining property and
the principals. Since he has been involved with that he would like to disqualify himself from
participating in the transaction and request that this fact be recorded in the public record for a
period of five years.
- He would also like to clarify a little bit for the public and for his fellow Commissioners so they can
understand what the rules are as they affect Duane Zobrist who does a lot of work in the land use
area. When he was reappointed to the Planning Commission at this particular time he had a
conversation with county counsel and asked for a clarification on what he was able to do and not
able to do because lawyers have a broader ethical obligation when they serve on public bodies
than just members of the public. Any member of this committee certainly has the right to be
involved and have an interest in transactions, but they are required to disclose it. They can even
vote on it and stay if they feel they can be unbiased about it. Our legal ethic opinions require that
when a lawyer serves on a public board he is not allowed to appear before that board nor any
member of his firm can appear before that board. That lawyer must also reframe from any
contact with respect to the public or staff with respect to that item.
- Now in our county we have a little bit of a strange thing because the Board of Zoning Appeals,
Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission all use the same staff. So he was permitted
to appear before the Board of Zoning Appeals on behalf of this property owner in this particular
matter and he has so appeared and continued to appear. He has spoken to several members of
the Board of Supervisors with respect to this and he expects to be present at the Board of
Supervisors hearing as counsel for this applicant or property owner at that period of time. With
respect to the Planning Commission he had not spoken with his fellow Commissioners about this
item. He has not spoken with members of the community with respect to this item , and he was
not here nor has he or will he be counsel for this particular property owner with respect to items
before this Commission. So he would request permission to recuse himself and leave the ro om.
(Attachment: State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act – Transactional Disclosure
Statement For Officers and Employees of Local Government [Section 2.2-3115(E)] for SP-2009-34 and
SDP-2008-154 Re Store N Station, which noted that he had represented and provided services to HE &
J, Inc and Chris and Anne Suh on issues related to the transaction. The statement declared that he was
disqualifying himself from participating in this transaction and requests that this fact be recorded in the
appropriate public records for a period of five years.)
Mr. Zobrist left the meeting at 6:42 p.m.
Mr. Loach noted that there were two separate requests with one being a special use permit for the more
than 400 gallons of water per site per acre per day. The second item is the preliminary site plan approval.
The Planning Commission will take the items in two pieces separately. The Commission has received a
lot of emails with a number of good points of concerns, but the Commission would first be considering the
water usage. He asked the public to tailor their remarks to the water usage, which would be helpful to the
Commissioners.
Ms. Frederick presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report.
The request is for special use permit application, SP-2009-34, Restore N Station. The property is tax
map 55B, Parcel 1 located on Route 250 West, otherwise known as Rockfish Gap Turnpike
approximately a third of a mile west of its intersection of Old Trail Drive. The character of the area
includes other commercial uses, a Moose Lodge and single family residential properties. The
comprehensive plan designates the property as Rural Area in Rural Area 3. The parcel is located in both
Highway Commercial and Entrance Corridor zoning districts.
The Albemarle County Service Authority jurisdiction designation for this parcel is classified as water to
existing structures only. The project is before the Planning Commission because the Zoning Administrator
has determined that it is possible the proposed project will consume an amount of water in excess of 400
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 8, 2010 PAGE 3
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2009-00034 RE STORE N STATION AND
SDP-2008-00154 RE STORE N STATION
Submitted to BOS 10-4-2010
gallons per site acre per day. The special use permit request is only for water usage. The store, office,
and gas sale proposed usages are all by right in the Highway Commercial zoning distr ict. The proposed
project is a 4,750 square foot convenience store with a thousand square feet of office above and
associated gas pumps. Staff reviewed the proposed plan noting the gas pump locations proposed.
Section 18 - 31.6.1 of the Code of Albemarle requires that Special Use Permits be assessed with the
following standards:
31.6.1: Special use permits for uses as provided 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
properties.
After reviewing data submitted by the applicant, the County Engineer states the proposed or projected
water use on this parcel is acceptable from an engineering standpoint. Additionally, the area in which the
parcel is located is not known for groundwater well failure. However, it should be pointed out there is not
sufficient data to ensure future groundwater well failure will not occur in the area.
That the character of the district (zoning) will not be changed thereby, and
The character in terms of the established by right usage of the area will not change as this property has
been zoned HC-Highway Commercial since the adoption of the current zoning ordinance.
That such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of thi s ordinance,
The purpose of the HC-Highway Commercial zoning district, as stated in the ordinance, is to permit
development of commercial establishments, other than shopping centers, primarily oriented to highway
locations rather than to central business concentrations. The intent of this district is stated as the purpose
of limiting sprawling strip commercial development by providing sites with adequate frontage and depth to
permit controlled access to public streets.
The purposed use, water consumption, does not directly promote the purpose of the HC-Highway
Commercial zoning district; however, water consumption in excess of 400 gallons per site -acre per day is
allowed by special use permit in the district. Given that allowing such water consumption wou ld support a
use that directly promotes the purpose and intent of the assigned zoning district, the special use permit is
consistent with the purpose and intent of the ordinance.
With the uses permitted by right in the district,
Water withdraw in excess of 400 gallons per site-acre per day would not adversely affect the by right uses
in the HC-Highway Commercial district.
With additional regulations provided in section 5, and
Section 5.0 contains no additional regulations regarding water usage.
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 use is appropriate in the location requested.
The applicant has submitted information from a state certified geologist indicating adequate water supply
is available. It should be noted a separate study has been submitted by a member of the public . It was
also done by a state certified geologist and it raises some questions regarding the adequacy of water
supply. The applicant states water usage will not exceed 1,625 gallons per day. Staff proposes a
condition capping water consumption at 1,625 gallons per day, which translates to 400.25 gallons per site
acre per day. By right water consumptions for this parcel is 400 gallons per site acre per day Based on
the analysis of available information it is staff‟s opinion that the minor increase in water consumption is
not inconsistent with public health, safety, and general welfare.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 8, 2010 PAGE 4
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2009-00034 RE STORE N STATION AND
SDP-2008-00154 RE STORE N STATION
Submitted to BOS 10-4-2010
1. Character of the zoning district will not be changed by the proposed use.
2. Granting the special use permit will allow a proposed development that directly promotes the
purpose and intent of the HC-Highway Commercial zoning district.
3. The proposed water consumption will not adversely affect uses permitted by right in the HC -
Highway Commercial zoning district.
Staff has identified the following factor unfavorable to this application:
1. There is not enough data to determine if the existing water supply will be adversely affected in the
future and is adequate to support water consumption in excess of 400 gallons per site -acre per
day on this parcel.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of SP -2009-34 Re Store
„N Station, with the following conditions:
1. The applicant will install a meter on the well head to monitor water consumption. Prior to
installation, the model of said meter will be approved by the Zoning Administrator. Results of
daily water consumption monitoring results will be made available within forty-eight (48) hours of
a request from the Zoning Administrator; and,
2. Water consumption shall be restricted to 1,625 gallons per day.
Points for Discussions:
The section specific for this special use permit application is uses permitted by right not served by public
water involving water consumption exceeding 400 gallons per site acre per day. At its last meeting the
Board of Zoning Appeals affirmed the Deputy Zoning Administrator‟s determination that the proposed
project is not a truck stop nor will it discharge waste other than domestic waste.
Mr. Loach invited questions for staff. There being none, the public hearing was opened and the applicant
invited to address the Commission.
Jo Higgins, representative for the applicant, presented a PowerPoint presentation. She thanked the
Commission for the opportunity to speak.
- As staff explained this is the Highway Commercial and it has been commercial since the plan was
adopted in 1980. The prior use at this particular site was a small engine repair, at least in recent
memory, with mowers that kind of covered part of the site. There was an old building, which has
since been removed. The property has rolling topography. It is a rectangular parcel with a little
over four acres. At this point the right-of-way is 120 feet. She wanted to give them some
reassurance about the history of this. They actually sought very eagerly to avoid this process
because their contention is that this business owner will not exceed or use the allowable water.
They had five different concept layouts they started with. They selected the best after taking input
from the ARB, neighbors, Chief of Zoning, and other Entrance Corridor folks. They actually did a
totally new concept and reduced the size of the store , which originally was around 6,000 square
feet down to 4,750 square feet. This was actually an effort to give some reassurance to the folks
involved about the water usage. This was then engineered and it has been through site plan
approval. There have been a lot of issues about how the site is designed and what the
perception is, but she would not go into that until they are in the site plan.
- In comparison modern day convenience stores, such as Sheetz and WAWA are very unpopular.
The Liberty Café and other all typically have two or three entrances, corner locations, and high
traffic volume on primary roads. Some have full restaurants, but this does not. It will be less than
15 seats, which falls under the Department of Agriculture, which is a completely different internal
operational use that affects water. The Re Store N‟ Station will have the six fuel dispensers as
noted on the site plan under the main canopy and a diesel dispenser in the rear. It will have food
sales inside. Again, it is not a restaurant use. Although a smaller footprint and less fuel
dispensers it is probably as close to WAWA as can be on a smaller scale.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 8, 2010 PAGE 5
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2009-00034 RE STORE N STATION AND
SDP-2008-00154 RE STORE N STATION
Submitted to BOS 10-4-2010
- She wanted to talk just a second to give an idea of what Re-store N‟ Station is about. The focus
of this station makes it different. It is recycling, renewing, and eco-friendly. Refuel, replenish,
and refresh is part of the goals. The logo has earthy colors and a farm motif, which is very
specific. The goals are to buy and stock products such as grocery, fresh baked items, recycled
containers, drug store, hardware, feed, pets and livestock, and more local farm produce. This
includes the food sales. It will stock Virginia wines and Virginia products. It will be a welcome to
visitors to Crozet. They also will have an educational exhibit on rain tanks, and rain water
harvesting site design to be an example to others. It may be a future franchise that might be
available in other areas of the way to do it correctly with conservation in mind. Independent fuel
sales is part of this, which will bring lower prices to the Crozet community and also diesel for
agricultural and construction equipment. It is 38 cents cheaper with no road tax.
- The owner in this case is a fifth generation Albemarle County resident, graduate of Western
Albemarle with strong roots in the community with previous and current business ownership , and
three kids in the school system. Mr. and Mrs. Sprouse are here. They have 18 years, with 16
years in Albemarle in operating a convenience store just like this. So that experience is not to be
taken lightly. They have a proven record of supporting Girl Scouts, Boy Sc outs and other
community efforts.
- The logo is specific to the special use permit. There are a couple of points. The 1624 is built
basically calculated on the size. The request is for one gallon more. This is to serve as a
mechanism for the special use permit to limit, monitor, and enforce that limit. So really the issues
pertain to that one gallon. They will not exceed the water limit, which has demonstrated by
studying other operations such as WAWA data. WAWA has about 1,000 more square feet, more
pumps, more fixtures, exterior spigots, and higher traffic locations. They are still within the
bounds of the allowable water usage. The fixture analysis using modern fixtures with heavy use
shows about 1,189 gallons per day. That is all the fixtures that will be inside the building that
adds up a high frequency, a flush every five minutes, washing hands anytime anyone flushes and
all the other fixtures to come up with that.
- After talking to the Albemarle County Building Code Official, she determined what the number of
required fixtures is for this operation, as shown in the shaded area. The shaded area showing the
calculation for those fixtures is about 651 gallons per day. The Code Official also advised that
there is no requirement after you open to m ake water use fixtures available to the public. That‟s
actually just part of the convenience. So operationally the water use can be controlled. If the
threshold at this point is actually the septic permit for 1,600 gallons, as they approach the 1,600
gallons they have to amend that permit. There are other actions that can be taken so that the
limit is not exceeded. Operationally no high wash water fixtures will be installed; no automatic
dishwashers, icemakers, spigots, or yard hydrants, which they have found contribute to higher
water usage at other locations.
- She would like to basically refute some of the issues raised on the Tier III Groundwater Study that
was reviewed and deemed excellent by a water resource manager. Although the position is not
filled at this time, it was filled at the time the request was submitted and was found to comply with
the county requirements. Although others contend that it lacks information, it meets the level
required by Albemarle County. There has been a lot of discussion about recharge. She has a
letter from the PE who also signed off on the Tier III Groundwater Study about that the water
withdrawal will actually go back into the septic system with the exception of what leaves inside
people and there is a net effect of the people that will actually go there and redeposit and that will
all go into the groundwater. He‟s very concise. The concern was about all groundwater. But in
this case they are talking about one gallon. The condition to monitor is appropriate to confirm
compliance. If ever exceeded it becomes a zoning violation and there are remedies in the
ordinance for zoning violations. The 1,624 gallons cannot be taken away and it would be an
effected down zoning action specific to this property as this allocation applies to all Highway
Commercial and C-1 uses in the county not served by public water. She believed it included the
previous application, which would be another example. Any conditions intended to limit the by
right use because it is not desired by neighbors generally popular with its stale zoning will limit the
water usage and take away from that allowed amount. That is basically a legal issue that maybe
the county attorney can advise on.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 8, 2010 PAGE 6
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2009-00034 RE STORE N STATION AND
SDP-2008-00154 RE STORE N STATION
Submitted to BOS 10-4-2010
- The most important concern is really about groundwater as a resource. If that is the case and
you want to protect wells, which this will be one of those wells, the board has the power to allow a
public water connection by the Albemarle County Services Authority, which would relieve staff
totally of the burden to monitor this and the staff time that entails.
- The Commission was shown the fixture analysis. Other submitted data was emailed to the
Commission because the data submitted in their packet was the January amount, which did not
include the WAWA analysis. This analysis even has a fixture count. There were pictures of all
the sinks and fixtures within that particular store. All of the stores in Albemarle County including
the ones outside Albemarle County that were analyzed at about 1,000 gallons were found that
those stores had different interior fixtures. One of the stores makes and bags their own ice to
sell, which is a high volume water use. Some of the stores have automatic dishwashers, which
again are operational features. That was pointed out so they are aware it can operationally be
controlled. None of these other localities or stores has any kind of limit on their water, except in a
drought condition where they are sent notice not to water their plants. The only times their water
usage has exceeded or gets close to this limit is in the summer months where they have yard
hydrants, soaker things in their landscape area, and they use them. There have been a couple of
leaks that happened, but that was not consumption.
- She would like to rebut a few things. She talked about the Tier III Groundwater Study. This is not
an auto/bus service station. It was not treated that way by the health department or the county.
There has been an issue raised about 10 wells missing, which is not the case. The relationship
between 10 gallons per vehicle per service station and convenience store is inappropriate. The
discharge issue has been raised. The intent behind this in the commercial zoning is that this
property has remained commercial and it has been commercial since before the ordinance was
adopted. So historically this is not creating any new commercial districts. If there are any
questions about the submitted information, she would be happy to answer any operational details.
Mr. Loach invited questions from the Planning Commission.
Mr. Lafferty noted that he was trying to get a handle on the water usage. If they start with ten cars per
hour per day coming in and going out it seems like a minimum figure to use to try to get to water usage.
Using the design standard of 10 gallons per car it comes up with 2,400 gallons right there.
Ms. Higgins replied that she did not get into that completely, but has the health department table that
reference comes from, which was created in the 1970‟s. This is not a service station, which would imply
that people come, put their cars in a bay for service, and wait for their car. That term has not been used
and it is not a use by definition. Clearly the data supports this because when you look at all the locatio ns
analyzed there really isn‟t a relationship between the cars and the water because you have to have that
use in the table. It also says in the table that deviations are allowed. She would like to give them the
reference.
Mr. Lafferty said that there has to be a relationship between the number of cars and the water usage. He
did not believe that any table she had would convince him that isn‟t the case.
Ms. Higgins replied that the cars bring the people. But, if the fixtures are not available for them to use or
there are a certain number of fixtures, then the frequency of the use of those fixtures is about the water.
They could study the different convenience stores potentially. The use that is defined in the table at 10
gallons would mean that for some of these convenience stores, such as WAWA‟s, one would have to take
the amount of water and divide by 10. The numbers do not check back.
Mr. Lafferty noted one of his concerns is that they wouldn‟t be in violation right after opening in using too
much water. He also had some concerns about what happens to the water afterwards with the septic
system. He did not think any good construction practices would allow paving over a septic system. He
was not sure how it could be handled after it is being used.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 8, 2010 PAGE 7
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2009-00034 RE STORE N STATION AND
SDP-2008-00154 RE STORE N STATION
Submitted to BOS 10-4-2010
Ms. Higgins replied that they could address that. The health department permit has already been issued.
The site plan would be submitted; there would have to be a testing of those fields ; and they would look at
the improvements that will be on that site. Actually there is an argument that paving or putting concrete
over a septic field gives it better protection because it has been relieved basically of the storm water load
and protected for its use as a drain field. It is an allowable practice. The most recent one she recalled
was the Shadwell store. There are many septic fields around the area that are under parking lots , and it
is allowed by the health department.
Mr. Lafferty said that it is allowed, but it is not a good construction practic e particularly when there are no
auxiliary fields not paved over.
Ms. Higgins noted that they do at the site. Looking at the site plan it shows they have the primary fields
and 100 percent reserve. One-half of the field at the front is outside the limits. It is up in the 110‟ green
strip at the front. The designer of this is Mike Craun who is a PE who does health department and
commercial facilities a lot in Albemarle County and other counties. The health department has approved
the system design as per the site plan. Part of the fields is under the pavement, but others are not. They
are actually using the ones under the pavement as the primary because they would install the lines and
then protect the reserve outside predominantly. She was not sure if the technology has changed, but that
is what is allowed and is already covered under an issued health department permit.
Mr. Lafferty pointed out that she mentioned storm water of which he has some questions. He assumed
the paving is over impervious surface. If they get one inch of rain on that lot in an hour or an amount of
time, assuming it is an acre, they are talking about 27,000 gallons that has to be handled. He could not
see where they could handle that at the end of the lot where it goes do wn to the water control because of
being paved over.
Ms. Higgins said there was a narrative in the site plan analysis provided by the design engineer, Nat
Perkins. It goes into a description of the rain tanks and the treatment. The actual tanks have not been
sized but they are required to take the pre- versus post-development flows and handle a critical storm , a
10-year storm for example, and also they are going to meet and exceed that. They can adequately do
that in the two rain tanks that will be under the surface. The intention is to have one that is lined so they
can reuse the water just to water plants back on site so the water will stay there. If it over flows it would
go to the one that is unlined, which will infiltrate into the soils. No credit is taken for that infiltration in the
storm water calculation. So the size of that container cannot be downsized to assume infiltration. But it
will occur. That is part of the detailed description on the final site plan. Nat has designed many systems
and they have the narrative in the next section to go through. It is not necessarily pertinent to the one
gallon they are asking for, but the recharge issue is. That is part of the recharge. The recharge of the
groundwater that is pumped out of the well will be put back on the site plus the calculation that was done
in the Tier III tells you 2,115 gallons are the estimate of recharge. Staff says there is not enough
information to determine impact on wells, which she agrees. Two or three groundwater studies were
decided by the county. There was a lot of discussion about testing wells. There was a lot of back and
forth. But that was what was adopted in the ordinance and is a general premise.
Mr. Lafferty said he was trying to get an estimate on it for himself in using accepted standards like the 10
gallons per car. Given the size of the water holding tanks that she was talking about he calculated
roughly that they would need almost 300 of those to handle the volume of water for one inch of rain.
Ms. Higgins replied that it was about pre- and post-development flow. One cannot release that at any
greater rate than before the development occurred. There are a lot of basins around the county that one
can see above ground, which would provide an idea on size. There are very many available on single
sites to look at. The only thing they are doing would be underground, which is more efficient.
Mr. Lafferty asked if they are paving an acre.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 8, 2010 PAGE 8
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2009-00034 RE STORE N STATION AND
SDP-2008-00154 RE STORE N STATION
Submitted to BOS 10-4-2010
Ms. Higgins replied approximately it is a four acre site with underground storage tanks. One
underground storage tank would be up front just outside the pavement. The one at the back is in the
south west corner of the site. It has been conceptually approved for use of underground storage all over
Albemarle County. It is done most in urban areas.
Mr. Lafferty said he noticed that it didn‟t appear to have any easement on the plans for water discharge
and they are going from a coefficient runoff of something like .4 to .9.
Ms. Higgins said in Albemarle County for MS 19 it was required to have a downstream easement for a
point discharge. But for a sheet flow discharge it was not required. Crozet Elementary School is an
example of this. They would actually have the discharge, which was about rate or how fast t he water
leaves the site. But they will meet and exceed it. They intend to make this a very low flow situation.
Many times someone uses a level spreader to take their point discharge and spread it out in sheet flow.
In this particular case there will be a concrete curb so there will not be any erosion. There is one at
Jefferson Bank on 250 where it is invisible since it is in the landscaping. It is on the south side of Crozet
Elementary School, which has been there since 1989. So there are a bunch of them around. It is
accepted in the Albemarle County Engineering Manual as a way to handle this.
Mr. Loach asked if there are any other questions.
Mrs. Porterfield asked Ms. Higgins to talk a little bit about what type of food they you are going to sell in
the store.
Ms. Higgins replied that Brownsville Market, which Jeff Sprouse has operated for 16 years, would be a
good example. It‟s not a restaurant and does not fall under the Department of Health. It is under the
Department of Agriculture. It is simple foods; ones that are sandwiches that are sliced or chicken that is
fried and those sorts of things. It is common in a lot of convenience stores. It‟s really a lot of big lunch
traffic. It is probably some dinner traffic. But it is part of the convenience store culture basically almost
anywhere that you go. She did know that there was anything unusual about it. It is usually done with
disposable plates, knives, forks; and there is nothing that gets washed. The only thing that is washed
would be what they cook in, and even those sometimes can be recyclable type of containers that might
not be washed. But as far as the types of food it would include hamburgers, biscuits in the morning,
chicken, potato salad, and other salads sold in small containers, which typically leave the site.
Ms. Porterfield asked if this will be prepared on site
Ms. Higgins replied that there will be a kitchen. All the convenience stores they have looked at had
kitchens.
Ms. Porterfield asked how they avoid having a dishwasher.
Ms. Higgins replied that it is not a requirement. There are very few convenience stores that have
automatic dishwashers. Of the ones analyzed she thought that the top three did have automatic
dishwashers. What they do have is a triple sink, which is five gallons per sink, where they wash, wash
again, and then rinse just for pots and pans. There is nothing else to wash. There are no plates, dishes
and cups. That is all done with recycled materials that are disposable.
Ms. Porterfield questioned if that is because they are under the Department of Agriculture and not under
the Department of Health.
Ms. Higgins replied no.
Ms. Porterfield asked if it is not required period for anybody to have a dishwasher for cleanliness.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 8, 2010 PAGE 9
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2009-00034 RE STORE N STATION AND
SDP-2008-00154 RE STORE N STATION
Submitted to BOS 10-4-2010
Ms. Higgins replied no, that Mr. Sprouse has operated a convenience store with Brownsville being one
and they don‟t have a dishwasher there. Only the top three convenience stores have automatic
dishwashers. Sheetz has a dish sanitizer, but they also have more dishes.
Mr. Morris asked from a practical standpoint if having a meter on the well site with a possible cut off and
being required to provide data to the county within 48 hours is really doable.
Ms. Higgins replied yes, that this was not a new subject. Over the past year they submitted a pulse
meter, which is an electronic device that Mike Craun, the PE who designed the sewer system, will be
putting on the well regardless of whether it is monitored or not. It is part of the monitoring for the septic
system. W e have a 1,600 gallon permit for the septic system. He has one on Jeff‟s store in Buckingham
County and will be putting one in place here. So it is reasonable to do. They have become very
technical. She did not think Jeff can even read it. He has some one read it for him. But the pulse meters
are very accurate. As far as cutting it off, for example if they say they got to the limit on the Health
Department or within 10 gallons of this they could be routinely submitted. They offered to do a monitoring
agreement similar to the storm water management agreement that would be a recorded document to go
with the land that they would submit on whatever frequency the county requests. But basically they are in
this process because there is not a comfort level with doing that.
Mr. Morris thanked her for the response.
Ms. Higgins asked to answer one question she was looking for regarding the table people keep referring
to. The W ater Works regulation that people keep referring to is 12VAC5-590-690, Capacity of
Waterworks, which says it has service stations per vehicle served. At the top it says “if deviations are
made” which is in this case “they shall be based on sound engineering knowledge, substantiated in a
designer report and approved by the division.” That is what was done in this case because this table
came from a 1970‟s manual, and it has never been updated. So the health department frequently takes
actual data as more careful information than this. This is a guide and a design manual. Anyone has the
opportunity to use a professional engineer and submit the data. The division reviewed it and has signed
off on it, and issued the permit. She believed the county has been in touch with that individual about the
domestic waste. If anyone was interested in reading it she had that information.
Mr. Lafferty asked the average number of vehicles they would expect in an hour.
Ms. Higgins replied the traffic study will be done as part of the final site plan, which is required.
Mr. Lafferty said obviously some economic analysis has gone into this so they have some idea of how
many vehicles will come by and how much fuel they will sell. He just wondered what it was based on and
how many vehicles.
Ms. Higgins replied that she did not know.
Mr. Lafferty noted that way he could come up with some kind of realistic approach to water consumption.
Ms. Higgins replied that she would say in today‟s day and age when someone has a credit card where
basically they can drive in, refuel your car, and never go in th e store that the disparity has increased over
time. Many people don‟t go into the store.
Mr. Lafferty asked for an estimate on how many vehicles per hour.
Ms. Higgins replied that she knew at peak hour such as lunch time.
Mr. Lafferty asked for an estimate over a 24-hour period so he could get some idea.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 8, 2010 PAGE 10
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2009-00034 RE STORE N STATION AND
SDP-2008-00154 RE STORE N STATION
Submitted to BOS 10-4-2010
Ms. Higgins replied that she did have a number in that it could be about 120 cars at peak hour in an
hour‟s time frame. Peak hours are usually the worse and it all comes down from there. There is an a.m.
and p.m. peak. The p.m. is usually twice as much as a.m. That‟s just a general figure. But again the
Health Department draws no relationship between the two. She included statistical data on traffic that
shows in the table the traffic on the road where the locations are located. The water use goes up when
you get up to 40,000 and 50,000 vehicles trips per day. They are assuming that the people that pass by
are the one‟s stopping in. Pass by traffic is one of the highest volume draws that convenience stores
have. People don‟t drive form Charlottesville to go to a convenience store. It‟s the people that actually
pass by. So there is a possible correlation that way. But there is not a way to count cars or people using
the bathroom. It hasn‟t been done nor was it required by the health department. But they are only talking
about the one gallon difference in the actual groundwater that is allowed by right, which is what they have
to live with. And with Jeff‟s years of experience, he has operated two stores very successfully and never
come anywhere near this. At Brownsville he was around 700 to 750 gallons.
Mr. Lafferty said if they go by some of the design parameters of the 10 gallons per vehicle then it is more
than one gallon that they are talking about.
Ms. Higgins noted that it is not a service station by the zoning administrator‟s use determination or the
health department‟s.
Mr. Loach noted that brings up another question. In this type of business what is the ratio of the profits
made for gas versus made in the convenience store. He asked did they make most of their money from
the sales inside the convenience store; therefore, it being that most of the traffic is in that part versus
sales of gas
Ms. Higgins said the only way that they can measure that is by dollars. At Brownsville for the year it was
probably about 1.1 million dollars. They did a little under the 700 gallons a day. They are on a public
meter and that data is available from the Service Authority. W hen they say inside sales, she believed it‟s
about a million dollars.
Mr. Loach asked if they make 75% of their money from gasoline sales and 25% from the convenience
sales. Or, is it vice versa and they made most of their money from the inside sales of the food which
generates the need for water versus what she said before is gas, which doesn‟t generate that much need
for water.
Ms. Higgins replied that Mr. Sprouse can probably answer that question, but inside sales excludes gas
sales. At Brownsville Market it was around a million. She did not have the ratio of sales for gas sales
because that fluctuates per gallon price based on the market. Over time it has been very linear. It could
not be compared to three years ago because gas might have been $1.69 a gallon where now it‟s $2:39 a
gallon. Dollars are a way to equate to that. They have not done that analysis because there are enough
stores on public meters that they can actually look at their operation, have the meter readings, and look at
the consumption. That has been the key issue with the health department. And again, the one gallon
more is just to enforce that. They are willing to live with cut it off at that amount. If that is what it has to
be they are not asking for anything more.
Mr. Loach asked if there are any other questions from the Planning Commission.
Mr. Franco asked if she said that the septic permit that has been issued is for 1,600 even.
Ms. Higgins replied yes. The reason it is 1,600 is the health department does not go in odd increments.
It is in their packet.
Mr. Loach noted that he had a question for staff. Ms. Higgins brought the Tier III Study and said it was
reviewed by the water resource manager.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 8, 2010 PAGE 11
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2009-00034 RE STORE N STATION AND
SDP-2008-00154 RE STORE N STATION
Submitted to BOS 10-4-2010
Ms. Frederick replied that was correct.
Mr. Loach noted that there was also a second report in the packet from Hydro Environmental
Consultants. He asked if this report was reviewed by the water resource manager.
Ms. Frederick replied that the water resource manager no longer works with the county.
Mr. Loach asked if it was reviewed by engineering.
Ms. Frederick replied yes that she believed it was.
Mr. Loach said that he had a question on the report itself. He was not asking if she feels the conclusions
are valid, but asking if in her determination was the methodology used in the report consistent with good
engineering practices.
Glenn Brooks, County Engineer, said that it was not so much a report as a commentary on the first report.
He didn‟t find that it generated any data on its own. So when he asked that question he would have to
say yes, but on the other hand it‟s not so much an engineering study as it is a critique on the first report.
Mr. Loach asked if the critique they used was based on good engineering practices or their analysis.
Mr. Brooks replied yes, and he agreed with their points on the recharge.
Mr. Loach asked if there were any other questions. There being none, he opened the public hearing for
public comment and invited the first speaker to come forward and address the Planning Commission.
Marcia Joseph reminded the Planning Commission that when they are looking at a special use permit in
section 31.6.1 the Albemarle County Code states that special use permits for uses as provided in this
ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisor s that such use will not be of
substantial detriment to adjacent properties. She did not think that has happened.
When she read through the staff report it does not compare the groundwater report that was submitted by
the applicant and the analysis of the groundwater report by Doug Frazer, the geologist. There are no
conclusions made by staff in the staff report concerning that. She was happy to see that staff did at least
discuss the fact that the chief of zoning required a special use permit because he said it was likely that
more than 1,624 gallons of water per day would be consumed. The staff report apparently agrees that
only one more gallon will be consumed. She did not think that is necessarily true. She thought there was
a lot of information that the Commission was given in the 147 pages that sort of leads to the conclusion
that maybe that is not the case. The chief of zoning officer determined that capturing of storm water and
use of it prior to allowing it to discharge recharge into the ground is a form of consumption. That has not
been addressed in the staff report nor has it been included in the report in their packet. This calculation
has not been included in the information concerning water consumption at all. All they are looking at right
now is the water that is coming out of the ground. They are supposed to also be looking at some of the
surface water and seeing what happens to it. There is no indication of the effect groundwater withdrawal
may have on the adjacent properties. All they have said is that they don‟t think anything will happen to
the adjacent properties, but they don‟t know that for sure. VDOT does indicate that a traffic impact
analysis would be required. That‟s going to tell you how many people are coming to this site. It‟s going to
tell you how much water will be used on this site. The staff report indicates that the county will shoulder
responsibility for monitoring the water use. With the reduction of staff it is difficult how to imagine this is
going to occur. It is also not fair to make the community shoulder this fiscal responsibility or allow the
applicant to monitor it itself. She would love it if Virginia Power allowed her to send in whatever she
thought her reading was. The staff report does not provide a remedy if the water exceeds the special use
permit. It indicates no plans to construct a gate at the entrance, or lock it when the water use exceeds
1,625 gallons during the day. There is also no indication on how staff calculates the hours of the day . Is
it from midnight to midnight? Please consider these issues when you review the requirement to over
extend the use of our precious groundwater in the rural areas.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 8, 2010 PAGE 12
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2009-00034 RE STORE N STATION AND
SDP-2008-00154 RE STORE N STATION
Submitted to BOS 10-4-2010
Doug Frazer, owner of Hydro Environmental Consultants, said he was a registered Virginia Professional
Geologist. He was hired to review the general site development plans and specifically the Tier 3
Groundwater Assessment Report for this project. He would like to focus his comments on two issues.
- The first issue would be the hydrologic balance for the site and specifically the groundwater
recharge area discussion. The groundwater assessment estimated pre-development recharge at
about 2,100 gallons per day. First of all he generally concurs with their approach and conclusions.
In fact, he thought the groundwater recharge estimate may be a little bit low given the flat
topography and the lack of trees on the site. So recharge may actually be higher pre -
development than they estimated.
- Second of all they fail to estimate post-development recharge. The change in slopes on the site
post-development groundwater recharge will probably decrease by approximately 75% based on
the impervious area. The net effect of all this is that they are going to have a change in the
hydrologic balance for this site. Even if all the groundwater that they withdraw from the
subsurface is put back through the drain field they are going to still end up with a net deficit in
terms of groundwater volume. The recharge will be cut by approximately 1,500 gallons per day
with a cut in natural recharge. They are going to end up transferring the water from a
groundwater recharge standpoint to surface water that is going to exit the site via the level
spreader at the south end.
- The last item is in regard to potential impacts to existing groundwater users. He concurs with the
staff‟s conclusion that there is insufficient data to determine future impacts to groundwater users.
In particular one of the well locations is at the south end of the development planned. That
location is within a few hundred feet of 10 to 20 existing private wells , which were inadequately
documented in the report. Groundwater draw downs may occur particularly to bored wells, which
are very susceptible with the changes in water table. That effect could be to adversely affect
those wells leaving those residents without some recourse for correcting that issue.
Tom Goeke, a Crozet resident, said he lived in Yancey Mills and would like to speak about water usage.
He presented a PowerPoint presentation and made the following comments.
- He chose the topic because the claim was 725 gallons for phase 1; phase 2 for 185 gallons,
which is 910 gallons per day; and the most used comparison was Brownsville Market. What they
know on top is the claim . They also know that the Institute of Transportation and Engineers trip
generation data is the standard for determining trip count. They also know that water is not a
square foot measurement it is a trip measurement. They also know the traffic on 250 is
increasing. They know that Brownsville Market uses 650 gallons per day. He looked at ITE,
VDOT, the county and all the resources for data. He compared Brownsville Market data to other
facilities in the county of the same scale and basically they had the same transaction. The actual
data for Brownsville is known. There is 1,385 transa0ctions a day, 525 for gas, 860 for
convenience and if you use ITE data and extrapolate it to 48%, which is the actual for
Brownsville, and then correspond it to Restore N Station you come up with 2,620 transactions per
day.
- All the other institutions in the county determine water usage not by square foot age but by fuel
transactions. Tiger Fuel, for example, with all their facilities uses 1.2 gallons per fuel transaction
and Brownsville Market coincidentally uses 1.24. If you use the same average data and
extrapolate ITE data it comes to 1,281 gallons per day. For Restore N Station on a like square
foot basis the verification of the data was shown on the slide. But that is ITE data for
convenience market and for fueling position, which comes right out of the book. VDOT uses 136
trips. For gas it is 846 trips for convenience per fueling position. It is not per pump or station, but
per fueling position. It checks out to 48% on fueling with Brownsville and 38% on convenience.
So what does it mean? Based line water use is 1,300 gallons on a comparable basis to other
stations. That is for a 17-hour operation. The 24-hour operation is 250 to 384 gallons more.
Interstate rest stop, which none of the others are, is more trips and truck trips with higher water
consumption, excellent parking and access, more trips, off road diesel only show in town, more
trips, additional 2,000 square feet of retail convenience store by data says there are 700 more
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 8, 2010 PAGE 13
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2009-00034 RE STORE N STATION AND
SDP-2008-00154 RE STORE N STATION
Submitted to BOS 10-4-2010
trips per day, more water usage. Phase II is a claim of 185 gallons per day. So every trip is more
water.
- The conclusion is that based on standard industry data for usage, standard industry data for
transactions, that the claim of 725 gallons per day is ludicrous in a state of the art maximum huge
convenience market gas station facility. If they take into account all of the other additional
amenities in comparison to Brownsville or other stations 1,625 gallons per day is also seriously in
question.
Richard Brown, resident of Freetown, said he had lived there all my life and wanted to talk about the
water runoff. They have nine bored wells, four dug wells, and three springs. At one time everybody used
the springs in Freetown. The springs are still there. If they put this construction right on top the hill from
these springs where is the runoff going to go. It would be right to those wetlands. The average well in
Freetown is about 70 to 100 feet deep. The construction site is about 30 feet higher than their properties.
So they are going to have to go at least 400 to 500 feet in the ground and will have to build below them.
So if he drilled in one spot and he did get enough water, he‟s going to drill in another spot and all at the
same time that is going to put stress on the wells in Freetown. They are going to have bacteria and
sediment in their water, and they may not get any water at all. Mrs. Higgins stated that the water was
going to be used so much per day, but she didn‟t mention the time that they might get a hurricane. They
are going to get water down that hill because no one will be able to hold water up the hill. With Route
250 and I-64 if they get a bus load of kids or a tour bus all of people are going to run off the bus to use the
bathroom. He asked if they are going to control that by telling them only five persons can go in. That is
not going to happen. The people in Freetown want to be assured that their wells are not hurt. He did not
see how they were going to do that. When they start drilling and digging in mud they are going to blow
their wells and they are going to have a problem. He did ask them one time and Ms. Higgins said that
if that happens the county would have to step in. He did not know what she meant by stepping in, but
that question was asked. He asked how far that would go. The basic thing he wanted to talk about was
how the community of Freetown that has been there since the 1800‟s and they want to keep it just like it
was when he was a kid growing up there. He did not think they need to put this huge building right on top
of these people.
Frank Calhoun said that he was a new resident of the Crozet Route 250 area. He moved his residence
and horse breeding farm here just a few months ago only to find that he was going to have a truck stop as
a neighbor. He was a little qualified to give advice to Albemarle officials since he worked for the U.S.
Congress when he was in law school and for several years after becoming a member of the bar. He
worked for the executive branch handling legislation and regulations for 33 years. He has been reviewing
some of the Albemarle Ordinances and he would ask if they were planning a long trip would they take a
30 year old car and start it up, get in it and get on the road. They are dealing with from what he had seen
here ordinances, rules, and regulations that date back to the 1980‟s. He thought that it‟s not fair to the
residents of Albemarle County to have boards like the BZA and Planning Commission making decisions
on outmoded laws and regulations. He acknowledged that they have budget constraints and drafting new
laws and legislation and going through the process it takes a long time. But he thought that it has to be
done. He asked permission of the council to speak as a representative of state wide organizations in
Virginia and Board of Trustees that he serves.
Mr. Loach replied that he still had time.
Frank Calhoun noted that the Board of Scenic Virginia in their last bi-monthly meeting adopted a
resolution. They are very involved in protecting scenic byways, scenic view sheds and are in the process
of helping to establish a scenic view shed registry. They were instrumental in getting the four federal
parkways all put on the All American Parkway System at one time. That is the first time that has ever
happened in the United States. They have an advisory board member who is a retired VMI geology
professor and he thinks and hopes that the Commission has a letter from Dr. Helen Mazano who now
does private consulting.
Mr. Loach asked that he finish up since his time was up.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 8, 2010 PAGE 14
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2009-00034 RE STORE N STATION AND
SDP-2008-00154 RE STORE N STATION
Submitted to BOS 10-4-2010
Mr. Calhoun noted that Dr. Mazano briefly reviewed the documents that had been forwarded to her and
she thinks that an environmental impact assessment should be done prior to any permit issuance. In light
of the fact that the site lies within the Chesapeake Bay watershed it should be mandatory that all efforts
be made to protect any pollution from entering the watershed/waterways. A formal assessment would
require that a com prehensive well canvas be carried out with a minimum radius of one and a half and up
to two miles surrounding the site. It is essential to establish a database of existing conditions before
development followed by monitoring of those conditions after the development. He thought that that the
existing situation clearly demands further assessment.
Jeff Werner, representative for the Piedmont Environmental Council, said it is PEC‟s opinion that the
special use permit request for the Restore N Station does not meet the necessary requirements for its
approval.
- The very nature of the special use permit process is based on the assumption that some uses are
potentially more harmful than uses by right. This is supported by the courts which in 1982 stated
the legislature may require certain uses that it considers to have potentially greater impact upon
neighboring properties or the public than those uses permitted in the district by right to undergo
the special exception process. The Albemarle County Code recognizes this and it states the
board of supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits
permitted here under. Special use permits for uses as provided 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 properties. In the issuance of a special use permit it is predicated on the finding that the
proposed use will not be a substantial detriment to the adjacent property. If the applicant cannot
overcome this presumption then application must be denied.
- In their request before the commission, a finding must be made that the water consumption in
excess of 1,625 gallons per day will not adversely affect adjacent users. To make this finding th e
application must contain adequate information about existing water resources and proposed
consumption. As stated very specifically in the staff report the conclusion and he quotes, “there is
not enough data to determine if the existing water supply is a dequate to supply water
consumption in excess of 400 gallons per site acre per day on this parcel.” The applicant has
provided insufficient information as to proposed consumption relying primarily on how much water
is used at comparably sized convenience stores in three jurisdictions. Consumption can be
estimated by vehicular traffic, but no traffic study has been completed. Until a traffic study
establishes estimated traffic the water use cannot be determined. Therefore, the application does
not provide sufficient information to make this determination. So in reviewing the special use
permit the county must use and follow the standards enacted into law that without sufficient data
on use or impact the county cannot make a finding that such use will not be of substantial
determent to the adjacent property. He apologized for that sounding more legal than he usually
speaks. He had some help today.
Marco Rol, resident in Greenwood, said that his home was very close to the proposed site. He maybe
should have studied more than before he signed up, but he was not coming here as an expert. He came
as a concerned resident who doesn‟t understand why any chances would be taken with groundwater or
any of the other possibly detrimental effects when they have a number of service stations there. So short
and sweet, he was against it. His friends and neighbors he knew were also against it.
Stacy Hunt, resident at Freetown Lane, asked to bring up the fact that there are nine residences on
Freetown Lance and two on the other adjoining lane on the other side of the parcel. All of those
residences are on wells. When the well was drilled on her house the neighbor below them lost their
water. So this is a large concern for them because if that just happened with one single house redrilling a
well that is just a little bit deeper and another neighbor loses their water then what do you think will
happen when you put a gas station in with the proposed traffic amounts and their water usage. They all
are going to lose their water. She pointed out that in the report it says if they go over their allotted
amount, then they are just going to close down the restrooms or close off fixtures that aren‟t required.
They all know that is not a viable solution to this. She asked who would regulate this. If the county staff is
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 8, 2010 PAGE 15
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2009-00034 RE STORE N STATION AND
SDP-2008-00154 RE STORE N STATION
Submitted to BOS 10-4-2010
already short of the people who can‟t verify the ground water studies then who is going to regulate their
water usage. This is a major concern and it will completely devalue our properties if they have no water.
Jonathan Hunt, resident of Freetown Lane, said that his wife Stacy and he had lived there for the last 5 ½
years. He would also like to speak to the part of the special use permit dealing with the detriment to the
community particularly to their health and welfare. He made the following comments.
- They have been talking with Jo and Jeff since November 2008. At that point when they proposed
it was the second largest gas station in the county. A year and half later it is still the second
largest gas station in the county. So they have met a lot but the end result is still the same that it
is the second largest gas station in the county. It will be the largest gas station that is in front of a
residential neighborhood. They are really worried about the scale. W hen you look at the slope of
that property it is going to generate an incredible amount of water that comes off that. The
diesel pumps will be in the back of the property. So the nosiest, dirtiest part of the station will be
closest to their neighborhood. There will be a 20 foot grade off the back. On the back where the
diesel pumps are there will be a 17 foot canopy. The property then continues to slope about
another 10 feet. So they will be looking at the top of that canopy being almost 40 feet over the
neighborhood. This is the type of scale that they are looking at.
- When they talk about the safety and welfare of the neighborhood water becomes the central
issue. They are all on wells. Anyone that has been watching the news over the last two months
realizes that bad things can happen. When looking at the oil spill that has been going on they
realize that the chance for contamination is real. They can sit here and talk about all the
wonderful things that are going to be done to prevent that, but they all know that when a gas
station is put in of that scale and they are looking at runoff, which will include transmission fluid,
antifreeze, gas, and diesel, and not even to count the particulate matter that will come from the
diesel trucks as they sit there and idle as they fuel. This is all in front of a neighborhood, which
has been here for over a 170 years. It is one of the oldest neighborhoods in Crozet. He did not
think that as a neighborhood they have to justify the reason that they have a right clean water and
clean air. He believed that the special use permits were put into place so that our elected officials
have the ability to protect our health, well being, and safety.
- Another point he would like to make is there would be an incredible increase in traffic. In talking
with Joel DeNunzio, who is in charge of VDOT, regarding some of the preliminary studies he was
mentioning numbers such as 2,500 trips a day with 250 during peak hours. When they start
looking at those numbers it becomes very difficult to believe that they are going to only need an
additional one gallon a day. He thought that was an insult to the community and this board for
them to believe that there is just a potential of that kind of use. When they look at the possible
threats to the neighborhood, to their wells, and our safety, that this special use permit should be
denied.
David Fisher, resident of Freetown, said that he had been sitting and listening to this meeting and he just
concludes that if they have good supervisors and good people that they put in office, and then they put
other people in to help us do jobs and see that they are done correct that he felt that from what they have
heard this evening that there is no way they can issue this permit. He puts the good judgment in their
judgment.
Gardy Bloemers was present to speak on behalf of the Scenic 250 Steering Committee as well as a
resident of Hillsboro Lane in Yancey Mills.
- They believe that the size and scale of the project is inappropriat e and this is evident by the fact
that it requires a special use permit to operate as proposed. It is clear that the Planning
Commission must take into consideration the grounds they have to deny a special use permit.
The proposed use will have an adverse impact on the character of the neighborhood. This is not
just another Brownsville Market or similar gas station. They have heard it from the applicant‟s
representative. This is a much larger “modern day convenience store” located right in the middle
of a number of established residential communities notably Freetown, Yancey Mills, and more
communities in Old Trail and greater Crozet.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 8, 2010 PAGE 16
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2009-00034 RE STORE N STATION AND
SDP-2008-00154 RE STORE N STATION
Submitted to BOS 10-4-2010
- The proposed use will have adverse impact on the roads and create hazardous traffic situations.
Interstate traffic, residential traffic, and school traffic with bus drivers and young drivers will create
a deadly mix. According to VDOT the daily trips are expected to increase by at least 25% from
10,000 to 12,500. The proposed use would have an adverse impact on the abutting property.
This development will be detrimental to the equality of life of many abutting property owners. The
impact on their ground water supply is likely to be devastating. They question whether they will
continue to have a clean and reliable ground water supply. The proposed use is inconsistent with
the comprehensive plan. Open sprawl outside the growth area boundaries is not the intent.
- She would like to emphasize that Restore N Station is proposed to be located in a residential
rural community located on a Scenic Byway. It is important to protect our heritage and historic
character and not destroy them for short term and short sighted economic benefit. What is the
purpose of ruining our community to bring in money from truckers and other non r esident traffic
from I-64? Based on all this evidence before you there is more of an ample reason for you to
reject this proposal. You are well within your authority to reject this and require a more
appropriate proposal that will have less of an impact on the property and citizens around it.
Mary Rice, a member of the Crozet community, asked to bring up two issues tonight.
- One has been addressed already, and it‟s the monitoring aspect. The question before you is who
will monitor this. As they have read in the staff report there is currently insufficient staff to provide
data for analysis of the water impact of this project. Knowing that and knowing how many unfilled
positions there are right now in community development she can‟t imagine who would monitor
this water usage.
- The second issue is what the consequences of that monitoring would be. The applicant has
suggested that they would shut down fixtures that aren‟t required by code. In their packet is the
fixture approach. In that are the fixtures that they project to put in the facility and then over on the
right hand side are the ones that are required by code. W hat the applicant has said is that they
simple will shut down the fixtures that aren‟t required by code. This doesn‟t really make sense.
They would not cut down on the water usage simply by shutting off of a feature. Water is based
on how many people are using the fixture. It is not how many fixtures there are. It depends on
how many customers they have and how much a kitchen is used for washing and cleaning. It is
not on how fixtures are in a facility. For the fixture approach the right hand side of sheet shows
the Code required fixtures. The sheet shows the gallons per day for each of the fixtures. For
example, they are projecting three toilets for customers, but the Code only requires two toilets for
customers. The applicant says that if their water usage is excessive they will simply shut off one
of the toilets and the water usage for the toilets will be cut down by a third . But this doesn‟t make
any sense because if they are predicting a certain amount of people will be using three toilets and
you shut one of the toilets down there will still be the same amount of people using the toilets .
There will just be one less toilet. So if you are predicting that a certain amount of people will be
coming to your facility they are going to use the same amount of water regardless of how many
fixtures at the facility. They will just wait in line for the next fixture.
Bruce Kirtle y, resident of an adjacent property, asked those present in opposition to stand. Today the
Commission has heard some very passionate presentations dealing on issues such as size and scope,
the nature of Scenic 250, and traffic and safety. As most are aware there are three schools within a half a
mile of this particular gas station. There are issues that the neighbors up and down 250 have right now
with the traffic that will be attracted to this particular site. It is a little bit baffling to them that no traffic
study has been ordered or been done at this point. He would think that would be requisite to coming to a
final conclusion. But the real reason why they are here today is to discuss the issue of water usage. The
Hunt‟s have told us that they had actually dug a well in the Freetown neighborhood with the result being
that one of their neighbors did lose water. He thought that is not just antidotal but it‟s factual and has to
be considered. He felt sympathetic for Tom Goeke because he was trying to compress in three minutes a
study of 150 pages of research. The general tone of what Tom was getting to was that using industry
standards and state standards that there are certain standards that equate to per car gas usage in a
gallon basis. Tom‟s research indicates that this particular site will exceed that amount. In research they
found that Bellair Exxon 1,366 gallons of water a day. They have three pumps . The proposed Restore N
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 8, 2010 PAGE 17
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2009-00034 RE STORE N STATION AND
SDP-2008-00154 RE STORE N STATION
Submitted to BOS 10-4-2010
Station would have eight pumps. The Bellair Exxon has retail square footage of 2,365 square feet.
Restore N Station will be nearly double that at 4,750 square feet. Bellair Exxon is open from six in the
morning till nine at night and it is not adjacent to an interstate. This proposed site will be a 24 -hour
operation presumably with 24-hour food operation double the size. It‟s not a stretch to think that they can
actually double the water use compared to Bellair, which would be 2,755 gallons a day. He thought they
were not just right on the edge, but had exceeded that 1,600 amount. They would strongly encourage the
Commission to take these facts into consideration when making their determination. Finally and briefly
they have not tried to stop this because we recognize that the owner has the right to develop something
on the site. They have met with them three or four times. They are suggesting to possibly modify it in
terms of hours of operation, the number of pumps could be reduced, and there are things that can be
done to make this a practical and viable commercial operation. Just the scale doesn‟t satisfy them at this
point.
Barbara Westbrook, a native of Crozet, noted that a map is being passed out that she drew up showing
the different mileages. Within three tenths of a mile from the proposed Restore N Station are Henley
Middle School, Brownsville Elementary, and Western Albemarle High School. She was going to use a
word that could be considered a four letter word, teenage drivers. There are going to be a lot of teenage
drivers that leave Western in the afternoon and go up to the convenience store. That is only going to get
worse. She did not want to be redundant, but her notes are the same that everyone has already said.
She had a concern about the slope of the land itself , which slopes downhill towards Freetown. There is
going to be gas spillage on the pavement and when it rains it is going to wash down the hill. It seems that
would be very detrimental to the residents. Pulling out onto Route 250 from any place from within 9/10 of
a mile was very dangerous. Sometimes you are taking your own life in your hands, especially if you are
trying to make a left hand turn. She could only imagine what it is going to be like if there are semi-trucks
trying to pull out on to Route 250.
Fred Williamson, a local resident, said from briefly listening to the prior comments Ms. Higgins was taking
issue with 10 gallons per car and she also mentioned possibly 120 cars per hour during peak time. If that
was six hours of peak, that would be 720 cars and half that man y cars the rest of the day, they are getting
around 2,000 cars a day. If they only went two gallons per car, it would be 4,000 gallons. If they scale it
back to only four peak hours a day and only 30 cars the rest of the time they would still be over 1,000
cars a day. Again, at just two gallons a car it would be over 2,000 gallons a day.
Mike Marshall, Chairman of the Crozet Community Advisory Council, said that the Commission has a
copy of two resolutions that were passed by the Advisory Council at the meeting in May. Obviously the
council tried to keep pulse of this project. He did think anyone on the council is a supporter at this point.
To summarize the resolutions one is about why isn‟t there a traffic study. Looking into the question it
seems like the most obvious impertinent piece of data comes from the answer to the question of how
many cars are going to come in here. The applicant says they will do that later and if they are that
confident in their water numbers why not do it now. The first resolution says they really don‟t think the
applicant can answer this thing accurately or with sufficient knowledge unless they have the traffic study.
The second thing that they talk about is they are distressed and alarmed to see that the staff report says
that the staff does not have the manpower to investigate the validity and accuracy of the applicant ‟s data,
which they therefore seem to accept and seem to present to the Commission to accept. They are
alarmed to think that the people who are suppose to be the gate keepers on these ordinances are going
to accept the applicant‟s numbers as sufficient. In this case they have the applicant‟s engineer‟s
information. If this is not going to be challenged they think the applicant should be obliged to pay for a
study from a engineer who is impartial, judged to be impartial by the staff, so that they can have
confidence that it is basically not massaged, cherry picked information designed to make sure that the
applicant‟s application is suitable. He was so proud of the Crozet people who have come out tonight and
talked, particularly Tom Goeke. These are volunteer citizen efforts looking into this question. He was so
impressed with the accuracy, insight, and cogency. This is great. The applicant has a financial motive
and money to pay people to come up with the information. He just wanted to say kudos to the folks from
Crozet.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 8, 2010 PAGE 18
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2009-00034 RE STORE N STATION AND
SDP-2008-00154 RE STORE N STATION
Submitted to BOS 10-4-2010
Mary Gallo, a new member of the Crozet Community Advisory Council, urged the Commission to deny
this application. A traffic study and an independent analysis of water usage should be minimum
requirements prior to the consideration of the special use permit. If there is not enough data to determine
if there is an adequate water supply for the project, as county staff has stated, t hen you must deny this
application. The county has an obligation to the community to verify information provided by the applicant
and not just blindly accept it. Anything less would be irresponsible. The applicant is looking after his own
interest. The county must look after the interest of everybody else in the community. That is their charge.
There is an opportunity right now to get this right. The repercussions of getting it wrong are just too
serious. And will have lasting and devastating effects on Crozet, Freetown, local businesses, the school
communities, and the water shed. She asked that they do the studies, get it right, and scale this thing
back. One final point that is not about the water is as other people have said a truck stop fueling station
of this size is a really bad idea so close to the schools. The existing traffic there is already a nightmare.
She did not think anybody wants to see another tragedy like they saw in the northern part of the county a
few years ago when an inexperienced high school driver was killed when her car was struck by a sleepy
trucker. They don‟t want to relive that out here in the western end of the county. She urged the
Commission to deny the request.
Morgan Butler, representative for the Southern Environmental Law Center, asked to add a few things
tonight.
- Number one, the county zoning ordinance plainly sets forth the findings that must be made before
a special use permit can be granted. Two of those findings are worth highlighting. One, the
special use permit will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property. Two, the special use
will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance. Case law establishes
another important consideration worth mentioning, which is that the use must be consistent with
the comprehensive plan. A lot of information about this use and its potential impacts has been
presented to you tonight. Boiled down to its essence the applicant is asserting that the extra
water usage and resulting impacts will be minimal. And they have provided documents and
studies that will attempt to support that claim. On the other side they have a large set of
concerned neighbors and county residents who presented a second set of studies which indicate
that the water use and resulting impacts could be a great deal more severe than the applicant
suggest. The conflicting information should cast a serious doubt of whether it is even possible to
make all the findings that are required before the special use permit can be granted. At the very
least the conflicting information suggests we have more than adequate grounds to recommend a
denial.
- For example one of the illuminated purposes of the zoning ordinance is to protect ground water.
Another purpose is to protect against encroachment upon historic areas. As such it is certainly
debatable whether granting this special use permit would be in harmony with the purpose and
intent of the zoning ordinance. And it is even harder to assert that granting this permit to allow
extra ground water withdrawal for a gas station of this scale is consistent with the comprehensive
plan. The Crozet Master Plan, which is part of the comprehensive plan, specifically calls for
limiting the amount of development along this stretch of 250. Also, this site is located in the rural
areas and one of the overall themes of the comprehensive plan is to discourage development in
the rural areas and promote instead the preservation of natural resources such as ground water.
Perhaps most important in light of the information suggesting this use could measurably affect
water levels of nearby wells. It may not even be possible to make the finding that the use will not
be of substantial determent to adjacent property. The staff report suggest these conc erns can be
side stepped by capping the water use at a level that more or less matches the amount allowed
by right. But as folks have pointed out tonight the staff report does not offer any
recommendations on how this might be realistically enforced. Nothing else he has heard tonight
inspires him with confidence that it can be enforced effectively. Since it is clear that the
Commission is well within their authority to recommend denial, he asked them to please take a
step back and consider the larger question of whether or not granting this permit is really in the
best interest of the county residents. For many of reason that have been elegantly articulated
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 8, 2010 PAGE 19
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2009-00034 RE STORE N STATION AND
SDP-2008-00154 RE STORE N STATION
Submitted to BOS 10-4-2010
tonight they urge them to recommend denial of this permit and to require a more appropriate
proposal that will clearly use less water, and has less of an impact on the surrounding area.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Loach closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the
Planning Commission for discussion. First, the Commission would take a seven minute break.
The Planning Commission took a break at 8:17 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 8:26 p.m.
Mr. Loach called the meeting back to order at 8:26 p.m. He invited the applicant to come forward for a
rebuttal.
Ms. Jo Higgins pointed out that a lot of good points have been brought up tonight. It‟s a very difficult
decision for the planning commission and they respect that. There are a couple of things she wanted to
clarify.
- The subject is really about ground water. It is about the extra gallon and not about the base
amount. The study that keeps being referred to was carefully reviewed and approved, which was
submitted when the county had a review staff. The approval actually says excellent Tier III
Groundwater Assessment and to please show primary well sites, etc. The comments to record: a
geologist and a PE signed off on the amendment on this. There seems to be some confusion
that this is about pre-development. The assessment actually acknowledges that the development
plan was reviewed as well as the storm water containment and that sort of thing. So that‟s a little
bit misleading. She actually has an email from the PE who signed the amendment and is
responsible for the report. She did not want to get into criticizing consultants for the reviewing of
other consultant‟s work, but would give this information to the secretary. The PE says the Tier III
Groundwater Assessment was performed according to the Albemarle County ordinances and was
approved by Albemarle County.
- The onsite waste water treatment and dispersal system was designed according Virginia
Department of Health standards and Albemarle County ordinances and was approved by the
Health Department. The groundwater recharge analysis in the Tier III did not include recharge by
the drain field. The drain field was designed for approximately 1,600 gallons per day. The only
water that will not go to the drain field will be water that is consumed on premises - soda
machine, water fountain - this water is technically consumed and deposited via urine into another
location and will not recharge the aquifer. They cannot account for the segment of site users that
have consumed water elsewhere and deposit in the Restore N Station bathroom. In either case
they are not dealing with large quantities of water and all the effluent that enters the drain field will
recharge the aquifer.
- There is a statement about HCC‟s letter not aiding and understanding and misleading and wrong
in many instances. Again, there is an ethical issue between consultants. But the opinion of the
study that was done it is not just about pre-recharge. It‟s post recharge. It acknowledges the
storm water system. Now in a case where you would pump from a well, it would go in a public
sanitary system and be carried away from the site. That recharge would not be included. But
basically what comes on site will go back into the groundwater. The applicant also has a well and
it will be important that well be protected. Mr. Goeke did do a lot of calculations and she believed,
since she read it very quickly up on the screen, that he came up with 1,284 gallons per day for
Restore N Station or around about 1,300 gallons a day based on his analysis. That could be a
very good correlation; but he excluded some other things that actually she would argue are
included. They know that the operation can be done successfully within the limits , and those
limits are not what the special use permit is about. It is about the extra .25 gallons per day. So
the advice about considering all these aspects about impact is really got to be defined that way.
Our surface water runoff will be done and designed according to Albemarle County standards ,
which will not allow the runoff that is oily discharge to leave the site. It will actually be filtered in
the fill terra system.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 8, 2010 PAGE 20
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2009-00034 RE STORE N STATION AND
SDP-2008-00154 RE STORE N STATION
Submitted to BOS 10-4-2010
- There were many concerns brought up about the age of the neighborhood and they very much
respect that. They have tried to consider that and have redesigned the site to do that. There is no
expectation of semi-trucks being invited. It is not friendly to that kind of thing. They will see that
in the site plan part of it. The fixture frequency, too, was again just an effort to give a reasonable
assumption. But it takes fixtures for people to use it. The as sumptions in there were very
conservative, such as a flush every 5 minutes, over 24 hours. If it meant a flush every 30 minutes
in six hours it is still about providing a reasonable assumption. Again, it came very close to the
number that Tom Goeke expressed. She thought that they were all coming back to that same
number, which is well under 1,624 gallons a day. Staff enforcement, zoning, and those sorts of
things are really not something that she believed can be considered in a special use permit. In
any decision the Commission made they can‟t say they can make a rule but someone is going to
break it. So they can‟t do anything about it making a rule. If the standards need to be changed
fine, but there is not missing information. The information submitted was approved according to
Albemarle County standards. If they are asking for a different level of standards then the rules
need to be changed, but not applied indifferently to this application. If there are any other
questions she would be happy to answer it. She thanked the Commission for their time and
listening to all the public input.
Mr. Loach asked if there were any other questions. The matter was brought back to the Planning
Commission for discussion and action.
Mr. Morris said his primary concern was really summed up by Stacy Hunt. Number one, he had no
reason to doubt any of the data that the applicant has brought forth. However , Ms. Hunt brought up the
fact that supposedly that a well was dug on a property which substantially deteriorated the well on an
adjacent property. That is data that bothers him in that they have requested other applicants to do some
real work to try to avoid degradation of the property of other people. This is one well for one house that
supposedly did this. He would really like to have a staff look into that since this is good hard data that
talks to whether this area is fit for a well or wells that will draw up to 1,624 gallons. That is his concern.
Mr. Lafferty noted that he expressed some concerns earlier. Part of the concern was that they don‟t have
a good handled on the usage of the water. There are a number of figures that were thrown out. He tried
to guess at it regarding vehicle trips per 24 hour period and he came up with more usage for the well. If
they are going to consider the recycling of water, groundwater, and the septic system he still has some
major reservations about covering a majority of the drain fields with blacktop. He has never seen that
considered a good construction practice. He was concerned with the runoff given the topography of the
site. Just estimating a 1 inch rain, there would be 27,000 gallons coming down the hill. W ith a six inch
curb he saw no way right now that the water is not going to go over the curb and bring o il, gas and
antifreeze into the neighbor‟s yard, and their springs and wells. If there is something he was missing he
would like to hear that.
Mr. Loach pointed out that he received an email from the county attorney, as everyone else did;
reminding the Planning Commission that what they were dealing with tonight was going to be an issue of
water. Taking that into consideration his response would be one of taking into consideration the water.
The proposal, as stated in the documents received, was to use more than 400 gallons of groundwater per
site acre per day for a convenience store. However, the fact ors unfavorable to this from the county said
there was not enough data to determine if the existing water supply is adequate to support water
consumption in excess of 400 gallons per site acre per day. Additionally from the county engineer there
is a statement that goes on to say regarding well failure, there is not sufficient data to ensure future
groundwater failure will not occur in the area. Additionally, the report done and spoke by Mr. Frazer from
HEC Consultants also makes a conclusion that in effect there may be a negative consequence of the
water usage. He thought that Mr. Hunt said it best that it should not be up to the adjacent residents to
justify their need for water. Staff did a good job in making the justification for denial for this special use
permit application based on two factors. One is there is a detriment to adjacent residents, which he
believed was evident. Two, would be the public health and safety concerns. Obviously if someone‟s well
goes out there is a public health and safety concern. He could probably extrapolate that to also include
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 8, 2010 PAGE 21
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2009-00034 RE STORE N STATION AND
SDP-2008-00154 RE STORE N STATION
Submitted to BOS 10-4-2010
that if they shut down the bathrooms in the place and the cars are still coming there may well be another
public health emergency. W ith all that said, he cannot support the special use permit.
Mr. Smith noted that he had two points. He assumed that t he owner is a gambler because he doesn‟t
know whether he is going to have water or not to start off with. Secondly, he worried about the solution
for adjacent property owners if they have well failure.
Ms. Porterfield said that her problem has been the same thing since she read the application. When she
moved to this county and built their house in 2002 they were coming from Arizona. Therefore, she has
had a lot of background with water. She had no idea that she was moving to a place that within the last
eight years that they would have had two major water crises that certainly affected her family. They
actually live in a development area. If sitting on the Commission she has to make a decision as to what
she perceives in this county to be a precious resource, which is water , she would have to make a
decision as to whether or not she thinks this is where they should be giving the water. W hen she stood
out on 250 and looked and drove around she realized that there are at least two gas stations within
spitting distance of this property. There also is a place where someone can purchase food and some
other supplies. However, she has never been in that particular facility. If she was going to look at this
and decide whether she can allocate a precious resource she really did not think she can. There are
probably other things that the people who live in that area need. At this point she did not think they
necessarily need another gas station.
Mr. Franco said that everybody has raised a lot of good points tonight . But where he really got stuck with
reading the staff report and all the emails has been that 1,624 is the limit that they could withdraw now.
The extra gallon, as he understands it, has been put in place in order to create a monitoring and
enforcement mechanism for ensuring that they stay within that range. In his mind it is less about the
gallon so much as about creating some sort of enforcement mechanism to make sure they stay within
that range. Mr. Smith said before that the owner must really be a gambler. The owner is also gambling
that the analysis they have done on the fixtures is going to allow them to operate with the hours that they
expect to because they will have to be cut off when they exceed that. So if that occurs and if indeed they
really need to run 3,000 gallons a day to operate 24 hours a day they are not going to be able to do that.
Because the limit is in place we now are creating a mechanism to monitor and enforce that limit. So it‟s
really not about how much they could use, it is the matter of how much they are allowing them to use and
whether they have a mechanism to create an enforcement of that limit. He gets a little bit disturbed about
how they are going to enact the reduction of the moratorium. He was not sure and assumed there are
ways that could be dealt with to keep it so that maybe there are two staff bathrooms and the things that
are shut off are open to the public. So indeed it‟s not related trips per day. It is really about the number
of employees that they have instead. He had concerns about how they are going to enforce that and how
it is going to be implemented. He feels good about the extra gallon from the sense that it is giving us a
means to monitor and enforce. As he understands it if they don‟t have the special use permit and go to
that limit of 1,624 they would not have a mechanism.
Mr. Kamptner noted that is correct. The quirk of this special use permit is that the difference of a gallon
changes the ability of us to have conditions in place if they require ongoing monitoring of their water
consumption.
Mr. Franco said Ms. Higgins noted in her presentation some kind of covenants that would run with the
land. He asked if none of those good mechanisms or as good a mechanism as the special use permit. If
the one gallon is the big concern is there another way to attack this without adding an extra gallon.
Mr. Kamptner replied that there is another way. They have used in a couple of situations covenants that
ran with the land where the county was a third party beneficiary and had enforcement rights. But , he
thought that in this case putting it directly in front of the planning commission and the board for their policy
considerations that deal with this special use and enforcing it is purely a zoning matter where there is
ongoing monitoring under the conditions of the special use is probably the best most direct way to deal
with this.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 8, 2010 PAGE 22
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2009-00034 RE STORE N STATION AND
SDP-2008-00154 RE STORE N STATION
Submitted to BOS 10-4-2010
Mr. Franco asked what the resolution of the consumption of surface waters is. He heard that raised a
couple of times. Ms. Joseph mentioned and there was talk about the capturing and reuse of the surface
waters being consumption.
Mr. Loach noted that he wanted Ron Higgins to answer that because he is the one that has done all the
research regarding the water consumption usage, rain tanks, reuse and things like that.
Ron Higgins pointed out this came up during the special use permit review. The question was asked
whether or not capturing rain water and using it on the site was a form of consumption. In his research he
went back to the discussions that occurred when this ordinance was created. It was initially created and
then added to other districts. Anytime they talked about groundwater and surface water the intent was to
protect groundwater, but it included surface waters. His conclusion based on the record was that it is a
form of consumption. But the commission and the board of supervisors have ability to determine what
impact that consumption has on the other form of consumption, draw down from the well. It depends on
how you use it. It depends on what you do with it after you use it. If you capture rain water and pipe it
into a device in the building that filters it, and bottles it, and you put it on the shelf and sell it that is a
different form of consumption. He was using that as an example than capturing rain water, holding it in a
tank, letting it seep back into the ground, or using it and spreading it on the ground. That is two very
different forms of consumption. So they have to consider what kind of consumption it is. But it is a form
of consumption.
Mr. Lafferty pointed out that there is a remedy for the applicant in reducing the size of the plans so it
wouldn‟t be drawing anywhere near 1,600 gallons.
Mr. Franco suggested they say the applicant reduces it and take one of the islands away and two years
from now they have got two years worth of data that says that they have been using half as much and
that that island is now supportable so to speak. That is where his concern comes in because they will
have monitoring information but there is no way to enforce for the county to have that data and to enforce
it without granting the special use permit. T hey don‟t have the ability to go over it because it is a legal
requirement. He suggested that m aybe the penalties need to be more severe than just shutting down the
bathrooms or that the hours are to be amended or some kind of solution that resolves this better so that
there is not a question of 50 people trying to use one toilet or one fixture.
Mr. Lafferty said he did not consider it that one gallon difference. He considers that they are including the
surface water, the rain water, and the runoff as part of the calculations. If they lived downhill from this
installation, he asked if they would vote to put it in.
Mr. Franco replied given the standards that he is trusting staff is going to enforce they shouldn‟t have
problems with runoff, the quality of the water, or the rate of the water. That‟s where he gets really
confused on consumption, too. If they are talking about consumption being gathered in the tank and
infiltrating into the ground because of storm water detention is that really consumption at that point or is it
really if they pump it out and use it for irrigation. He felt that could be consumption, but he thought that
was a good thing and what they are trying to encourage in places. He felt like all of a sudden he was
creating penalties for doing the right thing.
Mr. Lafferty said one of his concerns is that he thinks that the applicant has come up with extensive plans
but they haven‟t answered some of the critical questions that have been brought up tonight. The
applicant has had ample time to address these. He has not seen the concerns addressed. He was
inclination would be to deny the special use permit. As a matter of fact he would make that motion if there
was no further discussion.
Mr. Franco said he was just trying to figure out how they gain from this if the health department has
looked at it and determined the water usage and it is being set on the septic at 1 ,600 gallons. There is a
permit for that, which would be enforceable by the Health Department. If they monitor this usage and
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 8, 2010 PAGE 23
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2009-00034 RE STORE N STATION AND
SDP-2008-00154 RE STORE N STATION
Submitted to BOS 10-4-2010
records are created and given to the county, then he was having a problem seeing where they are really
going to be exceeding the by right use. He knew they were by a gallon, but they have done that gallon to
create an enforcement mechanism. He asked if that was a tenth of a gallon instead would that make
people more comfortable. He did not think they could create a special use permit that is below the by
right use.
Mr. Lafferty said the gallon is a trigger mechanism to indicate that they need a special use permit. The
indications in the plans since they say to be determined in the drain fields and things like that his common
sense says it will exceed that and therefore the need of a special use permit comes into effect. Since he
did not have sufficient information they should go back and either provide sufficient information or reduce
the size of it.
Mr. Loach said he did not think that it is what they would gain but what the neighbors might lose. He
agreed with Ms. Porterfield that this was a shared resource and that one element of the special use
permit is that it not be detrimental to the adjacent property owners. The neighbors have come up with a
consultant who says there is the potential for well failure. There are other things such as bacteria and
other elements that might be detrimental to the public health.
Mr. Franco agreed with that statement, but where he struggled is they have a by-right ability to use the
1,624 gallons. He was concerned about the neighbors without a doubt and what the impact could be.
The 1,600 gallons is probably equivalent to four houses going in on that property. He thought that the
potential was there that it could impact things. He noted that Ms. Higgins noted that it used to be on
public water. He asked if that still is an option that public water could be pursued.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that there was a request for a jurisdictional area change over a year ago, which was
denied by the Board. The reasoning really has to do with what the Comprehensive Plan says about
granting public water and sewer outside of development areas. It is a pretty specific set of circumstances
that they were not able to meet.
Mr. Franco said that this is where he really struggles. He thought if this were a request that needed that
extra gallon to exist he would probably not be in favor of it because is not rural area even though it has
the by right zoning. As he sees it the way it has been shaped it has been created as a trigger to create
enforcement and a monitoring system. So given that he really feels that the by-right use is to be allowed
at this point and they are just putting an extra safe guard on it versus what you would have if it just used
1,624 gallons.
Mr. Loach agreed, but that it would seem that if they were willing to do this in the rural area and if they
were going to do this on well water, then the mechanism that they have is one that is adequate in reality
terms to measure what the potential impact is. That is what they have and what he is judging it on.
Mr. Kamptner asked to catch on that theme that he just said and then add a couple of other things that he
thinks the Commission needs to consider. The first is that a couple of people during the presentation and
staff in the staff report noted the role the Comprehensive Plan plays. Bear in mind that this is a special
use in the Highway Commercial district. The Comp Plan designation for this property is Rural Areas.
Staff has noted at the top of page three the general goals of the Comp Plan within the rural areas as far
as preserving agricultural, forestall, historic, and scenic spaces. It is almost away from the whole water
consumption issue, it is a special use or a more intensive use in an area that is zoned Highway
Commercial, but it is planned for Rural Areas. There is another thing he wanted to clarify in the staff
report, which Ms. Frederick mentioned at the beginning of her presentation. It has come up a couple of
times. It is on page four of the staff report where the staff notes the factor that is unfavorable to this
application where it states that “there is not enough data to determine if the existing water supply is
adequate to support water consumption in excess of 400 gallons per site acre per day on this parcel.” On
page three is a statement that should be repeated in place of the statement that he just quoted. That is
“there is not sufficient data to ensure future groundwater well failure will not occur in the area”. That is a
distinction they need to be aware of as they are considering this.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 8, 2010 PAGE 24
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2009-00034 RE STORE N STATION AND
SDP-2008-00154 RE STORE N STATION
Submitted to BOS 10-4-2010
Mr. Loach noted interestingly enough that he just mentioned the emphasis that it is in the Rural Areas.
He found looking back at another staff report for the Earl ysville proposal the factor favorable was the
proposed expansion does not directly contribute to the goals outlined in the Rural Area section of the
Comp Plan. He thought that could be applied here as well. Although going on what they were talking
about earlier about staying with the water consumption that was basically what his focus was on. But
again, it was in another report that this would be an unfavorable factor.
Mr. Franco asked if the Commission would mind if they heard from Ms. Higgins.
Ms. Higgins suggested that he ask her a question.
Mr. Franco asked given the discussions, and Ms. Higgins replied compromise.
Mr. Franco pointed out that all he was trying to do was to give Ms. Higgins an opportunity to defer or does
the Commission want to push the vote.
Mr. Loach pointed out that Mr. Lafferty is ready to make a motion.
Mr. Lafferty said he would like to make a motion.
Ms. Porterfield suggested that if they are going to have a n egative motion that the Commission give the
applicant the ability to defer if she wishes to.
Mr. Franco said what he heard the Commissioner say was that there is more information that they would
like to see and an opportunity to either scale it down or provide information to substantiate her arguments
better. He would like to give her that opportunity if it is going the other way. That‟s all.
Mr. Lafferty said that he would hope that they would not have to go through the whole procedure again.
He did not a problem with Ms. Higgins making some comments that might change his mind.
Ms. Higgins suggested that sometimes in cases where the Commission was making a recommendation to
the Board that they would have some conditions that would say the Commission was recommending
against it but should the Board consider it differently that there be certain conditions imposed. She was
going to offer as a compromise a potential condition that would make them more comfortable with this
particular chicken and egg situation because they can‟t prove what they can use. She suggested a
condition that basically says that there would only be four gas dispensers allowed until some period of
time, six months or a year, of water data being submitted on a monthly basis such that the full site
development could occur. They have asked staff members several times what is the threshold that they
are comfortable with, which is why they have downsized the store. That is why we downsized the gas
dispensers and the parking. She suggested a potential second motion would be if the board were to
consider it that you would recommend a staged type of development , which would affect scale. In that
way it would make them more comfortable with what the water usage is. She was going to suggest a limit
on four gas dispensers when there is now six and one diesel dispenser. In addition, the period would be
six months or a year and it is not targeted to open until January, 2012. But that year or six months, which
ever you would prefer, would be absolute data would be in your hands. That can be done by an
independent professional monitoring person to make everybody more comfortable. She was just going to
offer that as a compromise to satisfy the scale and monitoring issue.
Mr. Loach said that to be very honest he did not want to make a motion on the fly with conditions
especially since the community has no recourse to respond to what the conditions that she just brought
up were.
Motion: Mr. Lafferty moved and Mr. Morris seconded to recommend denial for SP-2009-000034, Re
Store N Station as it exists right now.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 8, 2010 PAGE 25
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2009-00034 RE STORE N STATION AND
SDP-2008-00154 RE STORE N STATION
Submitted to BOS 10-4-2010
Mr. Lafferty said that the existing proposal already had plans for expansion. The applicant has had time
to reduce it and if they want to reduce it then they can come back with better information.
Mr. Kamptner noted for the benefit of the Board it would be helpful to articulate the reasons for the
motion.
Mr. Lafferty said the reason for the motion is that he has insufficient information to believe that they will
not exceed the allowable usage of water and that the neighbors will be adversely affected.
The motion for denial passed by a vote of 4:2. (Mr. Smith and Mr. Franco voted nay) (Mr. Zobrist
abstained)
Mr. Franco noted for the record for the Board he would like to say that he understands everybody‟s
concern about exceeding the number, but he felt what they have done is established a number that is just
outside the by-right use in order to enable us to do the enforcement and the monitoring. As such he
votes no on the request.
Mr. Loach noted that the motion for denial had been passed. His understanding of the denial of the
special use permit that going on to the preliminary site plan is a non-issue.
Mr. Fritz noted that the Commission still needs to take action on the preliminary site plan. What has
historically been done by the Planning Commission is that there is a condition that presumes approval of
the special use permit by the Board of Supervisors. That condition says that the site plan must be in
compliance with SP-2009-00034. If the special use permit is then denied by the Board of Supervisors,
then the approval of the site plan would then fail because it can‟t possibly be in compliance.
Mr. Loach noted that the Commission would move on to the site development plan.
Ms. Porterfield asked why they would want to approve a site plan that requires the amount of water that
came in. She would assume in order for the applicant to get down to a level that it would be by-right that
the applicant would have to reduce the site plan. She did not see how she could vote yes for the site plan
if it does not meet what was in the staff report. She asked if that was correct.
Mr. Fritz said the Commission could make a finding that the site plan because it does not have the special
use permit that they believe that it will exceed the limit and could make a finding to deny the site plan
because it does not have the proper zoning and the use is a not a use permitted and it fails on that count.
Mr. Kamptner replied yes that was correct. But it saves some procedural steps. This is just a preliminary
site plan so the Commission‟s action on this is approval for the preliminary with a condition tied to
obtaining the special use permit. That is one condition among many others that go with an approved
preliminary site plan. The Commission‟s action today was merely a recommendation to the Board of
Supervisors on the special use permit. The Board has the ultimate decision on the special use permit.
Procedurally it is simpler if the Planning Commission goes ahead and takes action on the pre liminary site
plan recognizing that the final site plan won‟t come in until after there has been a final action on the
special use permit.
Ms. Porterfield asked based on that will the final site plan would come back to the Commission for review.
Mr. Kamptner replied it can since the Commission‟s action can direct the final site plan come back for
review.
Ms. Porterfield assumed that is where the community input would come into play again. She asked if that
was correct if it comes back here it would be an open hearing as opposed to being taken care of by staff.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 8, 2010 PAGE 26
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2009-00034 RE STORE N STATION AND
SDP-2008-00154 RE STORE N STATION
Submitted to BOS 10-4-2010
Mr. Fritz replied yes if the Planning Commission directed the final site plan come back before them. But
remember that the preliminary site plan, which is before them tonight, and the final site plan, which will
come before them in the future, is a ministerial act and not a discretionary act. What they would be doing
then is simply determining if the plan meets the minimum requirements of the ordinance. If the site plan
meets the requirements, the Commission would have to approve it. If the site plan does not meet the
requirements, the Commission would have to deny. Staff would
Mr. Franco noted if the final site plan was before the Commission it would have been reviewed by staff.
Mr. Fritz replied yes that staff will review the final site plan and advise the Commission if it meets or does
not meet the requirements of the ordinance.
Ms. Porterfield asked why the request was before the Commission.
Mr. Fritz replied that it was before the Commission for two reasons. It was appealed by an abutting
property owner, and there was a request for disturbance of the undis turbed buffer. There is a waiver the
Planning Commission is considering and it has been appealed. The reason it is before th e Commission
has nothing to do with the special use permit. The site plan is not before them because of the special use
permit.
Ms. Porterfield noted that staff was not looking at the size of the facility in comparison to the amount of
water or traffic.
Mr. Loach said that if it had not been called up the Commission would still be hearing the waiver, He
questioned if it was that narrow and they were really looking at the waiver.
Mr. Fritz pointed out that it had been appealed and the Commission has both the site plan and the waiver
before them tonight. They would be determining if the site plan meets the minimum requirements of the
ordinance.
Mr. Loach noted that it meets that, which is the only threshold they are deciding besides the waiver.
Mr. Fritz replied that was correct for the site plan.
Ms. Porterfield asked if in order to construct this particular site plan the applicant has been told that they
are going to use more water than they can and need a special use permit how can the site plan be a
ministerial decision if they don‟t have any water.
Mr. Kamptner said assuming that some kind of special use permit is approved at that point there are no
more discretionary or legislative decisions left to be taken. So at that point it does become a ministerial
act. When the final site plan comes back it would be a ministerial act. He did not know if there was
anything on the site plan itself that is a function of the amount of groundwater consumed. He would defer
that question to staff. There may be some notes and things like that. If they were ta lking about the
difference between 1,624 gallons or 1,625 gallons he questioned if there would be any changes to the
site plan.
Mr. Fritz replied that there could be a change or a reduction in the size or scope of the development such
as a removal of an island or a reduction in the size of the building.
Mr. Lafferty said if they consider the handling of groundwater as consumption it will have a definite effect.
If they reduce the size of the paved area, then they will have less handling of any groundwater.
Mr. Kamptner replied yes, because they could have a site plan as shown here and if the business is open
six hours a day and was only going to consume 600 gallons of water and all the food was broug ht in and
there was no food preparation on site the physical construction at the site could stay the same whether
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 8, 2010 PAGE 27
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2009-00034 RE STORE N STATION AND
SDP-2008-00154 RE STORE N STATION
Submitted to BOS 10-4-2010
they operate that way or if they are consuming much more water. That is probably just complicating the
issue at this point.
Mr. Loach asked if the Commission has the ability to defer this until after the Board‟s decision is made.
He thought that Ms. Porterfield had a valid point.
Mr. Fritz replied that he believed they were up on the time limit. The applicant could request a deferral.
The Commission‟s option would be to deny the preliminary site plan or the applicant could request a
deferral. One of the things it does not have is that it is proposing a use right now that the zoning
administrator has determined needs a site plan. So the C ommission could deny the site plan because it
is not a use currently permitted. The special use permit is not in place right now. Mr. Kamptner is exactly
correct for the purpose of keeping things moving forward and tying them together they have acted on the
site plan under the presumption that the special use permit would be approved with a condition so that if
the special use permit is not approved the site plan automatically dies and the approval is no longer valid.
Mr. Loach invited the applicant to come forward to address the question if they were interested in a
deferral of the site plan.
Ms. Higgins thanked the Commission for the opportunity of making that decision. She replied no, that
because of the timeframe that they have been in the process it is important for them to understand all of
the implications of the input that would be received from the Commission on the site plan. Otherwise, they
would be on different tracks. At this point they would like to proceed and get Commission input. The
request has been through staff review and meets the site plan requirements, and now they would like to
receive the Commission‟s comments. This has been done on several occasions.
Mr. Loach noted that the hearing would proceed and asked staff to present the staff report.
Ms. Frederick presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report for SDP-2008-
00154, Re Store N Station.
The request is for preliminary site plan approval to construct a 5,750 square foot, two (2) story
commercial building with gas pumps and associated parking 4.06 acres. The application includes a
request to waive restrictions found In Sec. 18-21.7(c) in order to allow for land disturbance in a required
twenty (20) foot buffer area.
Waiver of Section 18-21.7(c)
Sec. 18-21.7(c) states: No construction activity including grading or clearing of vegetation shall occur
closer than twenty (20) feet to any residential or rural areas district. Screening shall be provided as
required in section 32.7.9.
Sec. 18-21.7(c)1 allows the Planning Commission to waive the above standards as follows:
In a particular case where the developer or subdivider demonstrates that grading or clearing is necessary
or would result in an improved site design, provided that: (i) minimum screening requirements are met
and (ii) existing landscaping in excess of minimum requirements is substantially restored.
Minimum standards for screening are identified by the following sections:
Sec. 18-32.7.9.8(c) states:
Screening shall be required in the following instances:
Commercial and industrial uses shall be screened from adjacent residential and rural area districts.
Sec. 18-32.7.9.8(a) provides the following applicable requirements for screening:
When required, screening shall consist of a planting s trip, existing vegetation, a slightly opaque wall or
fence, or combination thereof, to the reasonable satisfaction of the agent. When only vegetative
screening is provided, such screening strip shall not be less than twenty (2 0) feet in depth. Vegetative
screening shall consist of a double staggered row of evergreen trees planted fifteen (15) feet on center, or
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 8, 2010 PAGE 28
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2009-00034 RE STORE N STATION AND
SDP-2008-00154 RE STORE N STATION
Submitted to BOS 10-4-2010
a double staggered row of evergreen shrubs planted ten (10) feet on center. Alternate methods of
vegetative screening may be approved by the agent.
Staff reviewed the proposed landscaping plan. The applicant proposes to locate required screening
plantings along the southern parcel boundary within an area designated as a required twenty (20) foot
undisturbed buffer. In reviewing the Landscape Plan submitted with the Preliminary Site Plan (Page 10,
Attachment B staff report), staff believes there is sufficient space in the southern portion of the site to
allow for the required screening plantings to be planted outside the required twenty (20) foo t undisturbed
buffer. Therefore staff does not believe the developer has “demonstrate[ed] that grading or clearing is
necessary, or would result in an improved site design”. That is the staff analysis as was submitted for this
staff report. However, today the applicant proposed and submitted supplemental information that would
change their application and the information found in their waiver request. This has been included in the
presentation.
Mr. Fritz noted that staff gave the presentation this wa y because that is what is before the Commission.
Today he received this information and he would actually work with the applicant. The applicant provided
a sight line that shows 250 going through the property going down to the residential property. The
applicant is proposing a slightly different layout to maintain the buffer along the side with plantings within
the current open area with supplement plantings in other areas of the buffer. In addition to the plantings a
fence would be installed just outside of the buffer that would also be at the top of the slope near the
parking area and canopy. This is a substantially different proposal than was presented before. Staff did
not analysis the proposal completely, but it is possible had this been the origin al proposal that staff might
have been able to approve this disturbance of the buffer administratively because it does provide for
additional landscaping in excess of what currently exists within the buffer in certain places and it
maintains the buffer in other places. It installs screening since 6‟ fencing is considered screening. This is
the applicant‟s current proposal. Staff wanted to give them both presentations so everybody had
everything that was presented. This was presented to staff today.
Mr. Franco said that from what he said it was his understanding, without commitment because it only
came in today, that there is a potential that this would not require a waiver and could be granted
administratively.
Mr. Fritz replied that staff was not granting it administratively because at the time they felt it would be
completely inappropriate to take it off the agenda and approve it administratively. Staff felt that would be
wrong. In looking at this he could say that staff would probably have approved this type of waiver
administratively. Staff can support this sort of disturbance of the buffer.
Mr. Kamptner noted that the Commission‟s consideration of the waiver is discretionary under the criteria
in the ordinance. The Commission could act to approve the waiver and still proceed to deny the site plan
because it does not comply with the requirements of having a special use permit.
Ms. Frederick presented staff‟s current recommendations in the staff report with an asterisk noting the
additional recomm endation that if the Planning Commission chooses to approve the revised waiver
application that there is a condition that approval be tied to the drawings submitted today.
• Staff recommends denial of the requested Buffer disturbance Waiver found in Sec. 18-21.7(c).*
• Staff recommends approval of SDP2009-154 re-Store „n Station – Preliminary site plan with the
following conditions:
1. The Final Site Plan must meet all requirements of Sec. 18-32.6;
2. The Final Site Plan must be in compliance with SP2000-34 Re-Store „N Station;
3. The Final Site Plan receives VDOT approval;
4. The Final Site Plan receives Virginia Department of Health approval;
5. A Certificate of Appropriateness is granted by the ARB; and,
6. If the Final Site Plan reflects changes significantly different from the Preliminary
Site Plan, the Final Site Plan will be subject to an additional Site Review
Committee review.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 8, 2010 PAGE 29
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2009-00034 RE STORE N STATION AND
SDP-2008-00154 RE STORE N STATION
Submitted to BOS 10-4-2010
*If the Planning Commission chooses to approve the revised waiver application, staff recommends the
following condition:
1. Disturbance of the required undisturbed buffer shall be limited to that
shown on plan titled “Proposed Buffer Plan if waiver is granted” initialed
WDF 06.08.10. Landscaping and fencing shall be installed as shown on
plan titled “Proposed Buffer Plan if waiver is granted” initia led WDF
06.08.10. Minor variations of landscaping required by members of the
site review committee or Architectural Review Board are permitted.
Mr. Loach asked if there was is no finite point for submittal of new information so that everyone has an
expectation of what is coming.
Mr. Fritz replied no, there is no standard to say that. They do have a mechanism for projects not
associated with a special use permit that are on a very strict time line. There is no rule that says 48 hours
or one week. The Commission could very easily say this is a discretionary act as pointed out by Mr.
Kamptner. That is why they were giving two presentations. Staff gave both the current and additional
information. Staff has looked at it to the best of their ability, but if the Commission believes it is a
discretionary act and they have not had sufficient time to evaluate it.
Mr. Loach pointed out that it was more in the equity with the people in the community versus what Mr.
Fritz had just explained.
Mr. Fritz said there is no answer that they have this hard and fast cut off time period.
Mr. Loach invited questions from the Commission.
Ms. Porterfield asked in order to give the applicant direction can the Commission moderate whatever the
motion is going to be to give some specific movement of items in the site plan.
Mr. Fritz asked if she meant in the waiver.
Ms. Porterfield replied no. She asked if they can give them some direction in the motion to try to make
this thing come down in size.
Mr. Fritz replied that the motion on the site plan would be that it does or does not comply with the
requirements of the ordinance.
Ms. Porterfield said that they could tag it on to special use permit.
Mr. Fritz noted unless they decide that the motion is that the use is not permitted and it fails on that
account.
Ms. Porterfield said the use is not permitted.
Mr. Fritz said that the applicant does not have the special use permit for the use until the Board of
Supervisors acts on it.
Mr. Loach opened the public hearing an d invited the applicant to come forward and address the Planning
Commission.
Jo Higgins noted Ms. Porterfield was suggesting those compromising potential features, which was
something she was trying to get to before the Commission took the action on the s pecial use permit.
She believed the preliminary site plan was either in conformance with the ordinance or not. That
feedback is important as they go forward to link these two requests together. They could go on with the
presentation and then get that feedback. She was not sure what they were asking.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 8, 2010 PAGE 30
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2009-00034 RE STORE N STATION AND
SDP-2008-00154 RE STORE N STATION
Submitted to BOS 10-4-2010
Mr. Loach asked that she make her presentation.
Ms. Higgins presented the Power Point presentation, as noted below, to summarize the site plan request.
This information was what she actually started the site plan with, but she did not get into the details of the
site.
Re Store N Station Information:
• Highway Commercial Zoning (HC) – has been commercial since prior to adoption of comp plan in
1980. Prior use – small engine repair with mowers stored over ½ the front area & an old bldg.
• Rolling topography – rectangular parcel of 4.06 acres
• RT 250 Right of Way is 120 ft wide (60‟ each side of RT250 centerline) – improvements to include
right turn & left turn lanes into the site
- After considering about 5 different concept layouts, the best was selected & the preliminary site
plan was submitted and completed staff review. After ARB & neighbor & EC concerns were
raised – A totally new concept layout was taken to an ARB work session. This was then
engineered and completed staff review which is the site plan before you. We wish the layout was
more efficient but with septic fields (& 100% reserve), travel ways, parking, turning radius, loading
space etc. the layout has met all the requirements. There is no re quirement in AC to limit the
impervious area or FAR (floor area ratio). In urban locations, layouts are tighter but there is less
land available and most are “re-development”. Expansion is extremely difficult because they
must meet all the new requirements, which is not necessarily possible on smaller sites.
There has been a question why isn‟t it less impervious area. There are four acres here and the whole
idea is that in most cases there is less land available and it is redevelopment. In this particu lar case they
wanted to use it in the most effective way. There are a lot of requirements now that did not apply when a
lot of the convenience stores that they look at today have.
Modern Day Convenience Stores:
• Sheetz – 10KSF, 10 fuel dispensers, car wash, full restaurant, and drive-thru (new prototype)
• WaWa – 5,950sf, 8 fuel dispensers, food sales
• Liberty – Every day Café – convenience store, full restaurant, 12 fuel dispensers, 2 diesel, car
wash
• All – typically have 2 or 3 entrances & corner locations along high traffic volume primary roads
• RS – 4,750sf, 6 fuel dispensers & diesel, food sales (not a restaurant “use” )
• Although smaller footprint and less fuel dispensers – RS can be compared to WaWa in most
aspects
What is Re Store N Station About:
FOCUS - RECYCLING, RENEWING AND ECO-FRIENDLY.
RE-FUEL, REPLENISH, REFRESH – LOGO HAS EARTHY COLORS WITH FARM MOTIF
GOALS – TO BUY LOCAL AND STOCK PRODUCTS SUCH AS GROCERY, FRESH BAKED ITEMS,
RECYCLED CONTAINERS, DRUG STORE, HARDWARE, FEED (PETS & LIVESTOCK) AND MORE
LOCAL FARM PRODUCE; AND STOCK VIRGINIA WINES AND VIRGINIA PRODUCTS.
WELCOME VISITORS TO CROZET AND HAVE AN EDUCATIONAL EXHIBIT ON THE FILTERRA,
RAIN-TANKS/RAIN WATER HARVESTING SITE DESIGN TO BE AN EXAMPLE TO OTHERS. RE-
STORE‟N STATION MAY BE A FUTURE FRANCHISE AVAILABLE IN OTHER AREAS.
INDEPENDENT FUEL SALES WHICH WILL BRING LOWER PRICES TO THE CROZET COMMUNITY
AND OFF - ROAD DIESEL FOR AGRICULTURAL & CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT THAT IS 38
CENTS CHEAPER BECAUSE NO ROAD TAX.
OWNER IS 5TH GENERATION ALBEMARLE COUNTY RESIDENT , GRADUATE OF WAHS WITH
STRONG ROOTS IN THE COMMUNITY WITH PREVIOUS & CURRENT BUSINESS OWNERSHIP & 3
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 8, 2010 PAGE 31
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2009-00034 RE STORE N STATION AND
SDP-2008-00154 RE STORE N STATION
Submitted to BOS 10-4-2010
CHILDREN IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM. HAS OPERATED A CONVENIENCE STORE FOR 18 YEARS
(16 IN ALBEMARLE) AND HAS A PROVEN RECORD OF SUPPORTING GIRL & BOY SCOUTS AND
OTHER COMMUNITY EFFORTS.
Reasons for Site Layout:
• Septic field locations - high priority to protect
• Entrance – single point of conflict rather than many
• Meet travel ways and Parking space requirements
• Building orientation to Rt 250 & Main canopy to side with small canopy to rear (Main canopy
made shorter)
• Green strip across the front of the entire site with EC plantings & at Northeast corner
• Yard Buffer along South and West edge
• Turning radius for vehicles at all canopies
• Not inviting to large trucks (Large trucks must pass by cars backing out of parking & patrons
coming into store)
• No accommodation for truck parking (it would block turning movement). They are proposing
signage to control this to have no truck parking, no overnight parking and no loitering. They can
add those as items on the site plan to be binding with the site plan CO.
Storm water management – They are proposing a filterra for water quality and to do the storm
water detention. She noted that if they include storm water management in consumption, then
every C-1 and HC site in Albemarle County that exists in the Rural Areas that is on a well would
be violation of the Zoning Ordinance because they all would use more than 400 gallons per acre.
That consumption issue has some far reaching implications as she was thinking about it when
they were talking. The trench drain will pick up run off under the canopy that may have oily
residue (to go to filterra).
Justification for Waiver request
• With the exception of 2, all the homes are from 200 – 380 ft from the property line. Just inside the
property line, there is a 20 ft buffer strip shown. (FYI -The rear canopy is at least 100 ft from the
rear & side property line)
• The 2 closest homes block the majority of the view from others but for those closest homes the
existing vegetation only screens in the summer months.
• The majority of the buffer strip across the rear is grass only. The waiver request is to allow a
limited area of deciduous vegetation to be cleared (approx. 40 ft) and for a row of Leyland
Cypress trees to be planted 15 ft on center in the middle of the buffer strip. The waiver is
necessary to allow the planting within the buffer strip. Over time, there will be a more “wall like”
screen at the lower elevation. It will provide a visual & noise buffering between the different
zoning districts. To provide an immediate screen, a 6 ft privacy fence (shadowbox style so it
looks good from both sides) will be installed along the back of the curb at the higher elevation.
Allowing the minor amount of clearing and a row of trees in the buffer strip is an improved design
especially with the privacy fence located at the higher elevation. They thought it was an
improvement for the neighbors to add a solid fence.
• Although not required along the east edge, the fence will continue to follow the curb and wrap
the SE corner up to the recycling container area then pick up again to end approx. even with the
front face of the bldg. There are trees along the inside of the fence along this strip as part of other
landscaping.
• At the SW corner of the rear paved area, the fence will end at the upper level. It will then start
again along the buffer 20ft from the property line and will continue along the West edge until
approx. even with the front face of the bldg where the fence will end. From that point up to RT
250, a double staggered row of bushes 10ft on center that are shown to be planted inside the 20ft
buffer strip starting at least 10ft off the property line so not to conflict with the existing driveway.
(If waiver is granted) The shorter bushes are important to provide good sight distance at that
driveway entrance.
• See Buffer Plan for specific fence and buffer plant locations.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 8, 2010 PAGE 32
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2009-00034 RE STORE N STATION AND
SDP-2008-00154 RE STORE N STATION
Submitted to BOS 10-4-2010
THIS WAIVER IS NOT A CRITICAL ELEMENT BUT IT MAY BE IMPORTANT TO THE VIEW FROM
PROPERTIES BEHIND THAT ARE CLOSEST TO THE SE CORNER.
Conclusion:
• STALE ZONING IS ALWAYS A CHALLENGE. PEOPLE FORGET WHAT WAS OR DON‟T
KNOW WHAT COULD BE WHEN THEY MOVE INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD. FORTUNATELY,
THE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS IN PLACE AT THIS TIME ARE BETTER THAN EVER AND
THE PROBLEMS FROM GRANDFATHERED SITES CANNOT BE REPEATED.
• HAVING ANOTHER BUSINESS EXPEND THIS AMOUNT OF EFFORT WITH ATTORNEYS
AND CONSULTANTS TO KEEP ANOTHER BUSINESS FROM OPERATING IS VERY
UNUSUAL. I DON‟T RECALL THAT IT HAS HAPPENED BEFORE. TRADITIONALLY,
COMPETITION IS HEALTHY AND THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS BOTH FROM COMPETITIVE
PRICES AND FROM THE VARIETY OF PRODUCTS OFFERED.
• FOR THOSE THAT ARE SURE THAT ANOTHER CONVENIENC E STORE IS NOT NEEDED -
THEY SHOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE THAT THERE WILL BE NO CUSTOMERS FOR RE-
STORE‟N STATION.
• THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN HAS COMPLETED STAFF REVIEW AND WITH THE
EXCEPTION OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT – IT CAN PROCEED TO FINAL SITE PLAN
DESIGN AND APPROVAL.
• RS SITE DESIGN INCLUDES A WIDER GREEN STRIP ACROSS THE FRONT THAN ANY
OTHER SIMILAR USE IN THIS COUNTY. THE PROPOSED BUFFER PLAN IS ALSO
IMPORTANT. HOPEFULLY, YOU WILL GIVE THIS FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION AND
GRANT THE WAIVER.
• WE DID LISTEN TO THE NEIGHBORS AND COMBINED WITH THE ARB INPUT RESULTED
IN SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES IN THE SITE PLAN AND REDUCTION TO THE STORE SIZE.
(EVERYONE SEEMS TO FORGET THAT – ONLY A FEW DEVELOPMENT PLANS MAKE
SUCH DRASTIC CHANGES).
• RS MUST MEET ALL SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS WHICH HAVE EVOLVED TO ADDRESS
THE MANY CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED.
• THIS WILL NOT BE A REPEAT OF THE TRAFFIC CONFLICTS IN FRONT OF BROWNSVILLE
MARKET & NO VEHICLES WILL BE PARKED IN THE STATE ROW. RT 250 TRAFFIC WOULD
BE SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVED IF ALL BUSINESSES HAD THE SAME IMPROVEMENTS AS
IN THIS CASE. .
• DUE TO THE EXISTING ZONING, THE USE IS BY-RIGHT. THERE ARE NO ORDINANCE
REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIC TO THE SCALE OR SIZE OF THIS USE OTHER THAN ITEMS
SUCH AS HEIGHT LIMITATIONS ON THE BLDG.
• WE ASK THAT YOU ALLOW THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN TO PROCEED TO FINAL SITE
PLAN REVIEW.
The preliminary site plan has completed staff review and will meet all of the requirements and satisfy all of
the concerns that have been raised about runoff and impacts to the site. It has evolved and is a better
plan than it was and they think the waiver should be approved. The reason it was only revised today is
that the staff report was rather late getting out. When she realized there was some confusion and their
site plan actually showed the plantings there and no one brought up it was an issue for the waiver. They
were trying to work it out to get Leyland Cyprus because the ARB indicated they wanted a mixture of slow
growing plants. They thought the Leyland Cyprus was a more wall like feature to put on the site. She
asked the Commission to consider the waiver favorably. She suggested that the neighbors might speak
and say that is better than just some small trees that might grow up. It really is more important to the
neighbors than to them.
There being no questions for the applicant, Mr. Loach opened the public hearing and invited public
comment.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 8, 2010 PAGE 33
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2009-00034 RE STORE N STATION AND
SDP-2008-00154 RE STORE N STATION
Submitted to BOS 10-4-2010
Marcia Joseph pointed out that at one point in time there was a policy that staff would not receive things
on the day of the Planning Commission meeting so the Planning Commission would have an opportunity
to review it and not have to do it cold in front of the public. It would also offer the public the opportunity to
look at whatever had been submitted, also. She questioned how the site plan can be on a time line
because the use is not allowed by right and the applicant has to wait until they get the water use issue
determined before the site plan itself can be on a time line. But they are here now.
Ms. Joseph continued noting that the diesel pumps themselves do not necessarily have to be behind. On
each side of the pumps is 60 feet and 40 feet on another. If they take out the site where the diesel pumps
are it is about ½ acre of actual pavement back there. She has driven a diesel car for 11 years and the
diesel pumps in a lot of stations around town are nestled in between regular gasoline pumps. They will
see trucks and trucks with trailers on the other side of the pump. To say this is not designed to serve
semis is bazaar. There is no reason to put the expense of all this pavement and filterra, etc. out there
unless they are serving semis. She asked that they remember that standing at the base of that hill
looking up at this site you would be down 38‟ from the top of that canopy. They might have a 6‟ fence, but
there will be three light poles that are bound to be taller than 6‟ tall. So the lighting would be visible. They
would want to see more indigenous species out there than the Leyland Cyrus that would be friendlier to
the neighborhood. They would be planting the trees at the base of the hill. The trees will grow fast but
they don‟t live that long. She did not think the Leyland Cyprus would reflect the character of this
neighborhood. It would not help the neighbors because they would still have a lot of lighting in the area
and the diesel trucks in the back. She questioned how they would stop the trucks from sitting on the lot
even with a lot of signs. It is another thing that they would be relying on the county to do the enforcement
for something that just should not happen in first place.
Mike Marshall, President of the Crozet Advisory Committee, spoke against the request particularly about
the note on the site plan that says future addition. He attended the ARB meetings on this plan and they
were exasperated and got to the point where they asked the applicant to show them the whole thing. The
fact is that the Commission is not being shown the whole thing either. What will the impact be of the
additional 2,500 square feet? They don‟t get to see the traffic study until the special use permit is passed.
On the water question Ms. Higgins‟ gets three attempts for their attention and the public unfortunately will
get a second attempt. There is a meter that monitors the septic tank. So even without the special use
permit he understands what Mr. Franco is trying to say that they can request the information from that
meter as their enforcement device. Just because they have the special use permit does not mean that
they don‟t have information they can get access to monitor with. They had the applicant can up and offer
to reduce two pumps. It is a hasty concession to try to win support for the plan. They have the applicant
submit new information today to the staff trying to sweeten the deal on the buffer waiver. He submits that
this is not an applicant that is dealing in good faith with the public. Th ese concessions on pumps could
have been made anytime in the last two years. The Advisory Council at its last meeting tried to discuss
these issues as they were pertinent to the Board of Zoning Appeals business. They were told by county
staff that unless they had published an agenda three days in advance of their meeting that they were
going to talk about this it was an illegal and not allowed discussion. So they can‟t talk about something
that is on the public agenda because they did not publish that item three days in advance. But they can
come in here today and put it before you now. The Crozet Community Advisory Council is appointed by
the Supervisors and in some sense have the same constitutional authority an advisory board as the
Planning Commission. It is contradictory. He thought that the request should be denied because it does
not have the special use permit; they are not showing the whole plan; and they don‟t deal with them in
good faith.
Bill Schrader, a member of the CCAC, asked the Commission to think about what they are proposing at
the Re Store N Station not as an individual piece of property but how it impacts with what they have tried
to do with the master plan even though they are right outside the boundary of the master plan. They
have made tremendous strides in changing how they are transitioning the core of Downtown Crozet so
that it is slowly moved into the rural areas outside the boundaries of the master plan . He felt that what
was being presented is that they have done their work and eliminated some of the core centers that
would be businesses in the Crozet Master Plan area. They have made sure that it transitions out to the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 8, 2010 PAGE 34
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2009-00034 RE STORE N STATION AND
SDP-2008-00154 RE STORE N STATION
Submitted to BOS 10-4-2010
rural area, but as soon as they get to the border they are going to have a Re Store N‟ Station the size of a
Sheetz Station. So why did they do all the work with the master plan to transition to rural areas if they
plop a big gas station in the area. They need to make sure they are working together on these projects.
He asked that they please take a look at this site. It does not match what they are trying to do with the
master plan and what they are trying to do to protect the rural areas. If they look at Article 18 Section
30.6, which is noted in the staff‟s recommendation on the certificate of appropriateness, there is no way in
what the county says it wants to do to protect 250 that this site is appropr iate to the rural area and the
Crozet Master Plan. He asked that the Commission request that it be cut back.
Johnathan Hunt said the proposal is unprecedented in this county. The only thing that is comparable is
the Liberty Station on Pantops. They have all seen how big that station is, which is proposed at 200‟ from
the neighborhood. He felt that 200‟ was not very far when they look at the slopes coming off the back of
the property and the increase in traffic. They can only imagine how difficult it will be when someone tries
to get out of their driveway while fighting the traffic coming into and out of this station. He did not think
that the community should not have to absorb these things. The only person who will benefit would be
the applicant. This does not benefit the safety of the community, or the safety of the students. It does not
do anything good for anybody except it puts more money in the applicant‟s pocket. He did not think that
is why they have a representative government.
Richard Brown, resident of Freetown, said that he was not satisfied with the runoff they were talking
about. He had heard what Ms. Higgins said about the water, but she does not say where the water will
end up at. If oil gets away from that station on the hill it is going to go into the springs first, then it is going
to hit Stockton creek, then Mechums River to Mormon‟s River on into the drinking water. That is pretty
serious. Eventually it is going into the rainwater. His property was destroyed one time by the same
party. It ruined the pond and killed his fish. There was 4‟ in depth of sediment in his pond. So he knows
what running water can do. Speaking of traffic they have 40 school buses leaving the three schools every
day, which loads 250 up every day. Then they are going to put a big service station there with tractors
and trailers coming in and out. It is ridiculous. He can‟t believe that the county people can‟t feel what they
feel. It is not about 250, Freetown, Hillsboro or Old Trail, but about t hem making the right decision.
Before they make a decision they need to come out and look at the property. He noticed Ms. Higgins has
taken pictures, but she did not take any pictures of where this water is going to end up at. He knows the
stream that leaves that property and the water is going to get into the drinking water.
Bruce Kirtley agreed with Ms. Porterfield that they were trying to approve something that can‟t be
approved. There is another dimension they have been trying to track, which is th rough the ARB. What
they decide today will impact what their thinking is. They could potentially be planning on approving
something that is not ultimately going to be approved. He asked that they keep that in the back of their
minds as they make their recommendations. He reiterated that their intentions are not to stop this project.
They have maintained all along that they would just like to see something a little smaller that is more
compatible with Scenic 250 and the neighborhood. The hours of opera tion and the scope of the
operation are important to them.
Frank Calhoun said that he did not think the creation of the Greenwood Historic District has been
mentioned. He was not sure of any of the changes he had heard suggested tonight by the applican t will
enable the Historic District that is going to be established to look any better.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Loach closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the
Planning Commission for discussion and action. He invited rebuttal from the applicant.
Ms. Higgins made following rebuttal comments:
- She did not give any additional information about the note on the site plan. The note on the site
plan that shows a façade and says future addition was specifically at the request of the ARB the
second time they were there. The ARB wanted to see what could possibly be. It was added just
for their purposes for a location. They again went back and said they wanted to see the parking
for it. They responded that would be a subject of a site plan amendment. The note will be
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 8, 2010 PAGE 35
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2009-00034 RE STORE N STATION AND
SDP-2008-00154 RE STORE N STATION
Submitted to BOS 10-4-2010
removed on the final. It was not intended to be any part and it says that clearly on the site plan.
It was not meant to be confusing.
- Regarding the good faith comment, she noted that there was some confusion. I t was not until
staff made a recommendation for denial that she realized that confusion exists. Again, it was just
to improve what was being offered. It was not part of their goals to begin with, but they were
trying to do something better and thought it was important to get to the Commission. Many times
the Planning Commission will look at those buffer and waiver requests and say what they would
like to see is this or a more integrated plan. They can address most of the concerns regarding
the runoff. The filterra requirement is part of the storm water quality controls. It is not something
they are throwing out there to just satisfy anyone, but an integrated part of a plan.
- Regarding the reference Ms. Joseph made about the turning radius around the diesel pumps is
exactly the turning radius provided not only for tractor trailers but for horse trailers, construction
equipment and that sort of thing. It is actually very limited to get turned around because there is
not an entrance to come in and an entrance to go out. The other choice would be to wrap a
whole road around the building, which they thought would make easy access for trucks. However
it is perceived it is not truck stop. It is not a use that is defined as truck stop by the zoning. It is
clearly trying to keep conflicts on site rather than in the state right -of-way. They think the conflicts
won‟t exist as other locations.
- School buses will have a way to get around cars that are turning left or turning right, which does
not exist today. At Harris Teeter is a good functioning intersection where people won‟t be
impeded by the traffic flow. That was the intent with the design of that. She did not know if there
was a response to give on all the issues. This is by right zoning, which she tho ught Mr. Kamptner
touched on before. Things like traffic and that sort of thing are not something that can be
considered in something like this. It is really the s ite design itself. The traffic study that will be
done for VDOT is a requirement that will go in their data base for information only. It is not
typically part of the consideration of the site plan when zoning is in place exclusive of the
underlying use. She suggested that Mr. Kamptner might be able to shed light on that. Lights,
noise and all these other things they understand that the fence will help with that.
- There is a Noise Ordinance that drops the decibels down at night, which is enforced. Regarding
the Lighting Ordinance the fixtures will be full cutoff. They do agree with that perspective. There
is 8 foot of fill at the back of the site and the height of the canopy is 14‟ 6” to the bottom and 17‟ 6”
to the top. That is one of the reasons they wanted the dual buffering at the back. They have tried
to consider all of these things. Mostly the general anxiety that people have that it will become a
truck stop like Zion Cross roads in reality will become an enforcement issue. It will not be acres
of parking for trucks because that is not being provided here. There are four acres. T here is no
requirement to make it really intense and small. It would look more urban if it was. The size of
the store seems to be an issue, but it is not much bigger than the Texaco, which is 4,080 square
feet. They downsized from 6,000 square feet to 5,750 square feet and then down to 4,750
square feet. The intent was to be as efficient as possible. The square footage has been
considered.
- The main thing brought up is the diesel in the back, which was intended to give clear access.
They have tried to work with the community. It is not just the neighbors. There is a business
competition issue here. Most of the people involved are attorneys working for the adjacent
business, such as Mr. Zobrist, who do not want this to open. They feel that competition in the
market is good for the community. Having price competition is good. Gateway, for instance, has
an approved site plan to take away their gas pumps. So in the future Gateway will not be a gas
filling station and it does not do much business now. Their future desire is to do something right
and to do it to protect the drinking water and the runoff. Under the current regulations that are in
place the site plan can meet all of those requirements.
Mr. Loach said that he would bring the request back to the Planning Commission for further action. He
invited further discussion. He noted that he would start the discussion since it was his district. He agreed
with Ms. Porterfield‟s logic. He could not in good conscious approve th is site plan in the face of the
special use permit they just denied. In addition Ms. Porterfield made an effort to get the applicant at least
to think about a deferral in the face of everything she was saying and he appreciates that. Fifteen
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 8, 2010 PAGE 36
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2009-00034 RE STORE N STATION AND
SDP-2008-00154 RE STORE N STATION
Submitted to BOS 10-4-2010
minutes ago what they were hearing was the applicant was starting to remove pumps. But he really did
not think at the Planning Commission level at this late stage of the game that this is the place to play let‟s
make a deal especially since the community does not have any chance for in put on a deal that they are
making. He appreciates the staff‟s attempt to put the landscaping in with the waiver itself and what they
were trying to do. That said when it comes in today he thinks that is problematic. As Mr. Marshall pointed
out at the CCAC they were told that they were given the rules like three days before and had it on the
agenda and it was set. So he thought there was element in that. He could not support an approval of the
site plan based on the special use permit being denied. He could not support the waiver either due to the
lateness of submittal of the new information.
Mr. Franco asked if the Commission needed to take two separate actions on the waiver and site plan.
Mr. Kamptner noted that an action should be taken on the waiver first.
Mr. Franco said he tends to agreed with everybody that has commented about the late change. He
thought that it was a modification for the better, but he would prefer to act on what has been submitted
and they had an opportunity to digest.
Motion on Waiver:
Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded to recommend denial of the waiver of the buffer for SDP-
2008-000154 Re Store N Station as submitted and based on the reasons identified in the staff report.
The motion passed by a vote of 5:1. (Ms. Porterfield nay) (Zobrist abstain)
Ms. Porterfield said she had no problem with the original waiver and liked the second one better.
Therefore, she voted no.
Mr. Loach noted that they need another motion on the site plan itself.
Ms. Porterfield requested to ask again because she did not know where this puts the applicant. Unless
the applicant is upheld by the Board of Supervisors are they back to square one again.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out with the preliminary site plan they would need to submit they may appeal it to
the Board of Supervisors in which case he assumed staff would likely schedule it to around the same time
as the Board is considering the special use permit.
Ms. Porterfield asked if they defer can the special use permit go to the Board and they could see how that
one pans out and then go from there.
Mr. Kamptner replied yes if the applicant wants to request deferral they could hold on to it and keep it
here until the Board has acted on the special use permit.
Ms. Porterfield asked the applicant if they were interested in that.
Ms. Higgins asked that it be restated so she could understand what she was asking.
Ms. Porterfield replied what she was trying to say was if they go ahead and make a motion and hook it to
the special use permit, which went down, the logic says as she said before that she could not possibly
vote for a site plan that is connected that way.
Ms. Higgins asked if the denial would be the basis because the special use permit recommendation for
denial and if it is an appropriate reason.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 8, 2010 PAGE 37
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2009-00034 RE STORE N STATION AND
SDP-2008-00154 RE STORE N STATION
Submitted to BOS 10-4-2010
Ms. Porterfield asked if they want to start from square one with their site plan or do they want to defer it
and see what happens at the Board level. If they don‟t get the special use permit, then the site plan is still
alive and they could adapt it.
Ms. Higgins said if she understood what Mr. Kamptner said correctly, if the Commis sion denies it based
on the special use permit recommendation of denial, then when it would go es to the Board of Supervisors
it would be an appeal of the site plan. So if the Board approved the special use permit they would
actually take action on the site plan also.
Mr. Kamptner noted that they would have to file an appeal of the denial of the site plan to the Board of
Supervisors. It does not automatically go to the Board of Supervisors. They would have to file an appeal.
Ms. Higgins asked if that takes longer than a resubmittal. It is a process question.
Mr. Cilimberg noted one thing to keep in mind if it is appealed to the Board and the Boa rd acts on the
special use permit, the site plan is still alive in whatever way that they act on the special use permit. It is
very possible that the Board will refer the site plan back to the Planning Commission and they won‟t act
on it.
Mr. Kamptner noted that in deferring it keeps the site plan here, which is where it normally is.
Ms. Higgins asked if they could do that as an indefinite deferral. She asked with that deferral would it be
possible to get the Planning Commission‟s input that they are trying to get. In other words they could
approve it if X, Y and Z.
Mr. Franco noted the answer to the question from his perceptive was that he voted no on the waiver of
the buffer because he heard the neighbors say they don‟t want it. He understands her position of saying
that it is for their benefit. Staff has recommended approval because it meets the conditions of the site
plan. He was prepared to vote against this because of the lack of the special use permit for the water
usage. But if it was to come back then he thought that is solved and he would feel obligated since staff
has recommended approval.
Mr. Kamptner said that the other thing she should know is that when the special use permit goes to the
Board of Supervisors they may impose additional conditions which may significantly affect the design of
the site, which would require that the site plan be amended. So it might be worthwhile to wait until after
the Board has acted to see if they are going to impose conditions that change the site design.
Ms. Higgins asked if that means it is better to defer. She requested deferral of the Planning
Commission‟s action on the site plan and ask respectfully for their input to the extent possible that they
feel comfortable with.
Mr. Kamptner said if the Commission decides to defer action on the site plan he would recommend that
the Commission also reconsider the action on the waiver so that they can keep all of that together.
Ms. Higgins noted that they were okay with the action on the waiver.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that they don‟t really need to have another action on the waiver. The applicant
will just refile.
Mr. Fritz said that the applicant would just bring the waiver back with the site plan.
Mr. Franco asked if there are other points that someone wants to express to the applicant with respect to
the site plan.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 8, 2010 PAGE 38
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2009-00034 RE STORE N STATION AND
SDP-2008-00154 RE STORE N STATION
Submitted to BOS 10-4-2010
Ms. Porterfield noted that from what was heard from the community that they really need to look at the
positioning of the pumps. She felt that the pumps in the back are not very popular. She invited Stacy
Hunt up to speak.
Stacy Hunt asked to correct Mr. Franco‟s statement of saying that the neighbors did not want the buffer
because that is incorrect. They have met with the applicant multiple times and have addressed all of their
concerns for scale, the location of the pumps, hours of operation, lighting, noise, traffic and all of those
and nothing has really changed.
Mr. Franco noted that his expression was the public did not want the waiver of the buffer requirement.
He acknowledged that the public did not want the grading in the buffer.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Mr. Franco seconded to accept the applicant‟s request for deferral for
SDP-2008-000154 Re Store N Station.
The motion for deferral was approved by a vote of 6:0. (Zobrist abstain)
Return to exec summary