HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-11-14Tentative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
NOVEMBER 14, 2012
AUDITORIUM
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
4:30 P.M.,
1. Call to Order.
2. Closed Meeting.
6:00 P.M.
3. Certify Closed Meeting
4. Pledge of Allegiance.
5. Moment of Silence.
6. Adoption of Final Agenda.
7. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
8. Recognitions:
a. 2011 Clean Farm Award, Dave Norford of Piedmont Farm in Albemarle County.
9. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
10. Consent Agenda.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
11. SP-2012-00024. Verizon Wireless Va. Dept. of Forestry "Buckingham
Circle" Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility (Signs #115&116). PROPOSAL:
Request for installation of a 110 foot tall "steath" monopole structure ("monopine") and associated
ground equipment. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: CO Commercial Office – offices,
supporting commercial and service; residential 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: 23.2.2.15 Tier III personal
wireless facilities. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood 6; Office Service
– office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities, supporting
commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre). ENTRANCE
CORRIDOR: YES. LOCATION: 76 feet SW of Natural Resources Dr. on the Forestry Dept.
Headquarters. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07600-00-00-017A0. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller.
12. SP-2012-00025. Verizon Wireless – Piedmont College – Tier III PWSF (Sign
#120). PROPOSAL: Tier III personal wireless service facility on 157.49 acres. No dwellings
proposed. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and
fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots) SECTION: Chapter 18 Section
10.2.2.48 of the Albemarle County Code, which allows for Tier III personal wireless service facilities
(reference 5.1.40). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT: To protect properties of historic,
architectural, or cultural significance from visual impacts of development along routes of tourist
access: Yes. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Institutional, Neighborhood 4, Institutional uses allow for a
range of public uses including schools, universities and public recreational facilities. LOCATION:
1800 Monticello Avenue (Route 20). TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07700-00-00-02500. MAGISTERIAL
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2012Files/1114/0.0_Agenda.htm (1 of 3) [10/2/2020 1:10:40 PM]
Tentative
DISTRICT: Scottsville.
13. SP-2011-00002. Castle Hill Cider; SP-2012-00018. Castle Hill Cider Pond &
SP-2012-00019. Castle Hill Cider Stream Crossing (Signs #30&32). PROPOSALS:
SP-2011-00002: Special Use Permit for farm cidery with special events for up to 3,000 attendees
on total of 310.47 acres. SP-2012-00018: Request to permit fill in the floodplain for an existing
pond and stream crossing on 185.06 acres. No dwellings proposed. SP-2012-00019: Request to
repair existing stream crossing in the floodplain and repair culverts. ZONING: RA Rural Areas -
agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots); FH
Flood Hazard – Overlay to provide safety and protection from flooding. SECTION: SP-2011-
00002: 10.2.2.53 Farm winery uses authorized under section 5.1.25 (c). SP-2012-00018:
30.3.05.2.1(1), which allows for dams, levees and other structures for water supply and flood
control. SP-2012-00019: 30.3.05.2.1(2), which allows for water related uses such as boat docks,
canoe liveries, bridges, ferries, culverts and river crossings of transmission lines of all types.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Areas – preserve and protect
agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/density (0.5 unit/acre in
development lots). LOCATION: 6065 Turkeysag Road, Keswick TAX MAP/PARCEL:
049000000018B1, 049000000018B2 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna. (To be deferred to
January 16, 2013, subject to Board approval.)
14. Ordinance to amend Open Burning. An ordinance to amend Chapter 6, Fire
Protection, Article IV, Burning of Brush, etc., of the Albemarle County Code. The proposed
ordinance, authorized by 9 VAC 5-130-100, would prohibit the open burning of household waste
throughout the County and update the definitions related to open burning to be consistent with
definitions set forth in the Virginia Administrative Code.
NEW: CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP TO SPEAK AT PUBLIC HEARINGS
15. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
16. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
17. Adjourn to November 28, 2012, Room 241, 12:00 noon, Annual Legislative Luncheon.
C O N S E N T A G E N D A
FOR APPROVAL:
10.1 Approval of Minutes: September 21, October 3 and October 10, 2012.
10.2 Road Improvement Priorities for Virginia’s Working Draft FY 2012-2019 Six Year
Improvements Program (SYIP) (deferred from November 7, 2012).
10.3 Brownfield Assessment EPA Grant Application.
10.4 Crozet Avenue North – “Safe Routes to School” Sidewalk and Crossing Improvements.
FOR INFORMATION:
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2012Files/1114/0.0_Agenda.htm (2 of 3) [10/2/2020 1:10:40 PM]
Tentative
10.5 VDOT – Culpeper District, Monthly Report for Albemarle County, November 2012.
Return to Top of Agenda
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
Return to County Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2012Files/1114/0.0_Agenda.htm (3 of 3) [10/2/2020 1:10:40 PM]
ALBEMARLE COUNTY RECOMMENDED PRIORITIES FOR FY 2014-2019 SYIP
November 14, 2012
NOTE: NEW ADDITIONS ARE NOTED IN RED ITALIC TYPE (AS PER BOARD REVIEW ON 11/7/12)
I. MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS
1. Improvements to Route 29 North Corridor:
a. Funding of 29H250 Phase II Study, Option B design recommendations, most
particularly additional north and southbound lanes on Route 29 from the
Hydraulic Road intersection to the Route 250 Bypass and an additional ramp
lane from Route 29 southbound onto the Route 250 Bypass West; Places 29
Priority project; Primary/Revenue Sharing/City funds – Partial funding
commitment to design and construct.
b. Construct Hillsdale Drive extension from Hydraulic Road to Greenbrier Drive;
Places 29 Priority project; Urban/Revenue Sharing/City funds/Private right
of way donations – Designed and being funded to construct.
c. Construct Berkmar Drive extension. Places 29 Priority project; Portion being
constructed in Hollymead Town Center; CIP funding – available for design
only (no funding to construct).
d. Intersection improvements at the Route 29 - Polo Ground Rd. (east)/Rio Mills Rd.
(west) intersection to address traffic back-ups on Polo Grounds Rd. Consider
signalization improvements and/or construction of turn lanes on Polo Grounds
Road; Board request – new project request/not funded.
e. Deployment of an adaptive traffic control system or other equivalent signal
synchronization enhancements to US 29, from the Charlottesville city limits to
Hollymead.
2. Improve Route 250 East corridor as recommended in the Pantops and Village of Rivanna
Master Plans (improvements to I-64 interchange, pedestrian crossings in Pantops, parallel
roads, new bridge/crossing at Rivanna River and widening of Route 250 east from the I-64
interchange to Village of Rivanna). [note: I-64 exit ramp improvements completed]
Portions of parallel roads constructed in private projects; no additional funding to
design or construct.
3. Improvements in accord with the recommendations of the Crozet Master Plan:
a. Implement sidewalk plan (per Downtown Sidewalk and Parking Study and Crozet
Master Plan); CIP/Enhancement /Revenue Sharing funds – Crozet Ave.
Streetscape project designed and funded to construct.
b. Create bike lanes to and in downtown; Secondary/Revenue Sharing funds –
Jarman’s Gap Rd. complete; Library Ave. partially built.
c. Construct Eastern Avenue, to include the Lickinghole Bridge and a railroad
crossing; Portion constructed in private project; location plan complete. No
funding to design or construct.
d. Construct un-built sections of Library Ave. east from Crozet Avenue to Hill Top
St. CIP funds – Portion constructed; No additional funding to design or
construct.
4. Widen Route 20 North from Route 250 to Elks Drive/Fontaine Drive intersection, including
bike lanes and sidewalks. No funding.
5. Undertake improvements recommended in the Southern Urban Area B Study, including
improvements to Fontaine Avenue and construction of Fontaine Avenue to Sunset Avenue
connector road. Proffer for a portion of Fontaine Ave. to Sunset Ave. Connector; No
additional funding to design or construct.
6. Widen Route 20 South from I-64 to Mill Creek Drive, including bike lanes and sidewalks. No
funding.
7. Improve two intersections on Route 20 (Valley Street) in Scottsville: the Warren Street
intersection and the Hardware Street intersection. No funding.
II. TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS
1. Regional Transit Authority - Funding to establish a regional transit authority to provide
expanded transit service to Albemarle County and Charlottesville. No funding.
2. Expand Existing Service - Funding to expand existing transit service capacity for CAT,
JAUNT and RideShare, including capital projects to enhance capital operations (such as
bus pull-outs, shelters, etc.). Limited funding in CIP for 2-4 bus stops/shelters.
3. Funding for Transit Operational Costs - Fully fund the State’s existing formula share of
transit operating costs or provide fuel subsidies in the face of rapidly escalating fuel costs.
Services provided in County by CAT are County funded.
4. Inter-City Rail - Maintain increased inter-city rail service initiated to Charlottesville/Albemarle
County in 2009. State funded through 2012.
5. Provide new service to Avon Street/Urban Neighborhood 4 area. No funding.
6. Provide new service in the US 29 North corridor/Hollymead/Airport. No funding.
III. SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
1. Construction of pedestrian walkways and/or bikeways along primary roads in the County’s
Urban Neighborhoods and Development Areas as part of road widening/improvement
projects. Absent major road improvements, the following are prioritized for pedestrian and/or
bikeway improvement:
a. Route 240 in downtown Crozet; Enhancement/Revenue Sharing funds –
Crozet Ave. streetscape project designed and funded to construct.
b. Pedestrian crossings at strategic locations on Rt 29 North; No funding.
c. Route 250 East in Pantops - complete existing sidewalk system through
extension and connections; provide pedestrian crossings at strategic locations;
CIP funding – sidewalk sections recently completed on Route 250;
crosswalks need to be designed/ installed.
d. Route 250 West from the City limits to the 250 Bypass area; No funding.
e. Route 20 South from City limits to Mill Creek Drive extended. No funding.
f. Route 250 West in Crozet (Cloverlawn/Blue Ridge Shopping Center/Cory
Farms subdivision area). Limited funding available (County CIP).
2. Intersection improvements on Route 250 West at: 1) Tilman Road; 2) Owensville Road; 3)
Route 240 (at Mechums River Bridge). Improvements to address traffic control, such as
traffic light, round-about, or other such improvements. No funding.
3. Full lane widths, paved shoulders and spot improvements on Route 22 and Route 231. No
funding.
4. Traffic control improvements at the intersection of Route 250 West and Route 151 (traffic
light, round-about, or other such improvements). No funding.
FOR INFORMATION ONLY:
OTHER APPROVED PROJECTS FULLY FUNDED IN THE STATE SIX YEAR IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Rt. 250 Bypass, Construct Interchange with McIntire Road (Charlottesville)
McIntire Road Extended, Construct 2 Lanes (Charlottesville)
Route 29 Corridor Improvements, reconstruction with added capacity from Ashwood
Boulevard to Town Center Drive
Route 29 Western Bypass, New Construction
Bridge Replacement, Route 250 over Little Ivy Creek
Various spot and safety improvements--5 projects on Rt. 29, Rt. 53, Rt. 20, Rt. 250
(flashing lights, shoulder widening, signage and guardrail, turn lane improvements)
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Brownfield Assessment EPA Grant Application
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Letter of Support for Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission’s Regional Grant Application
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, and Graham; and Msses.
Catlin and Stimart
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 14, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC) is again seeking $400,000 in grant-in-aid funding from the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to support the Thomas Jefferson Regional Brownfield Assessment Project. No
match funding from the County is required for the grant; however, TJPDC has requested that the County provide a letter of
support (Attachment A) for this initiative.
On October 5, 2011, the Board was requested to provide a letter of support for the TJPDC’s previous grant application for
$4,000,000 in funding for the Regional Brownfield Assessment Project. The Board provided the letter and the TJPDC
applied for the grant, but the grant was not awarded to the TJPDC. The 2011 application, while rated quite high, was
ranked just below the award cut-off. The EPA was looking for more specificity in a couple of areas, which TJPDC staff
have addressed in the current application.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 3: Encourage a diverse and vibrant local economy
DISCUSSION:
Work under this project is proposed to include identifying properties in the TJPDC that possess good redevelopment
potential but are affected by existing or potential environmental contamination which has resulted in the properties
being undesirable for redevelopment. This assessment will begin a process that could ultimately transform these
properties to more desirable and marketable sites. Specific tasks of the grant include:
1. Outreach and Education: The TJPDC will reach out to elected officials, planning commissioners, economic
development organizations, the business community (especially real estate companies, developers, and
banking institutions), and the public to educate them on the challenges and opportunities of brownfields
remediation.
2. Regional Inventory: The TJPDC will inventory brownfields with a focus on sites that possess potential for
redevelopment.
3. Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs): The TJPDC, with help from an advisory committee to be
comprised of representatives from each locality, will develop criteria to guide the selection of sites from the
inventory on which to conduct Phase I ESAs. The TJPDC will hire consultants to conduct the Phase I ESAs.
4. Phase II Environmental Site Assessments: With information gathered from the Phase I ESAs, the advisory
committee will select sites on which to conduct Phase II ESAs. The TJPDC will hire consultants to conduct
the Phase II ESAs.
AGENDA TITLE: Brownfield Assessment EPA Grant Application
November 14, 2012
Page 2
5. Remediation Plans: Based on the findings of the Phase II ESAs, the advisory committee will determine which
sites the TJPDC should contract with a consultant to develop remediation plans.
At the conclusion of this planning work, the TJPDC will be able to apply for state and federal grants and loans to
implement remediation plans and possibly to begin redevelopment planning. Anticipated benefits to the locality from
remediation include:
Brownfield property may be returned to its highest and best use
Brownfield property may be returned to, or an increased contribution may be made to, the tax base
A detractor of development for surrounding property is reduced or eliminated
Jobs are created and/or attracted
Pressure to grow outward is reduced
Citizens’ exposure risk to environmental contamination is reduced
Pollution/contamination and the risk of its migration to soil, water, and air is reduced
BUDGET IMPACT:
Because the TJPDC is only seeking a letter of support for its grant application, staff does not anticipate there will
be any budget impact to the County through this initiative.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board support the TJPDC’s grant application and authorize the Board chair to sign a letter
of support on behalf of the Board (Attachment A).
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Draft Letter of Support
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
November 14, 2012
Mr. Steve Williams, Executive Director
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
401 E. Water St.
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Mr. Williams:
Albemarle County is pleased to participate in the coalition of localities that are represented in the
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission’s (TJPDC) application to the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) for the Thomas Jefferson Regional Brownfield Assessment and Planning Grant. Albemarle
County shares the TJPDC’s commitment to environmental stewardship and community development,
both of which will be furthered by this project. We believe the investment in challenging properties
made possible by this project will result in reinvestment and job creation that would not otherwise have
occurred in Albemarle County. Additionally, the project will help establish the necessary steps to clean
up pollution that potentially threatens our natural resources, health, and livelihood.
We are committed to participating in this project. We are excited to assist the TJPDC in the site selection
process, and already have sites in mind that would benefit Albemarle County, our citizens, and the
environment if determined to be eligible for assessment activities. The County will also participate in
the brownfields steering committee by assigning a staff member to the committee, who will help
identify brownfield sites in Albemarle with the greatest potential to benefit the community, reduce
poverty and reduce blight. Further, we will help TJPDC reach out to our community leadership and
community groups to educate them about brownfield redevelopment. We see this project as an
opportunity to transform negative aspects of our communities into assets, improving the quality of life
for our citizens and attracting positive attention from outside. The TJPDC has assisted the County many
times in the past and we have found the organization to be a very capable partner. The Commission’s
quality of work and comprehensive approach to regional issues uniquely qualifies them to undertake
this project on behalf of the coalition members. For these reasons, we hope the EPA will support the
TJPDC’s proposal to assess and plan for brownfields remediation in our region.
Sincerely,
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Crozet Avenue North – “Safe Routes to School” Sidewalk
and Crossing Improvements
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request to approve the purchase of a right-of-way and
easements and authorize the County Executive to sign
the Deed of Dedication
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis, Herrick, Henry, and Kelsey
PRESENTER (S): NA
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 14, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Office of Facilities Development is presently progressing with the completion of the Crozet Avenue North - “Safe
Routes to School” Sidewalk and Crossing Improvements. This is a Safe Routes to School (SRTS) grant-funded project
that will provide a new crosswalk at the Crozet Elementary School and provide a new curb, sidewalk and storm water
system on the west side of Crozet Avenue from the Old Crozet Elementary School to Ballard Drive. The acquisitions
of a permanent right-of-way, a permanent drainage easement, and two temporary construction easements across
TMP 56B-56, belonging to Agnew and Delois Morris, are necessary to construct this project.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2: Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs.
DISCUSSION:
The cost of acquiring the right-of-way and the easements are reimbursable expenses from the SRTS grant. VDOT,
pursuant to the SRTS grant, required the County to obtain an independent appraisal to establish the fair market value
of the right-of-way and the three easements to be acquired, and to offer just compensation. The appraisal determined
the property value to be $3,179.00, and this information was shared with the owners as required by the SRTS grant.
The owners agreed to sell the right-of-way and the easements to the County for $3,179.00, based upon the appraisal
and the compensation estimate, and have signed the Deed of Dedication and the Plat (Attachment A).
BUDGET IMPACT:
Funds in the amount of $190,000 were previously appropriated for the project to include the project design, right-of-
way and easement acquisitions, and construction. The cost of this acquisition is $3,179, which will be reimbursed by
the SRTS grant.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board approve the right-of-way and easement purchase on property identified as
TMP 56B-56 at the agreed price of $3,179, and authorize the County Executive to sign, in a form approved by the
County Attorney, all documents necessary for the purchase of the property and the recordation of the Deed.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – TMP 56B-56 Deed of Dedication and Plat
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Page 1 of 5
Culpeper District
Albemarle County Monthly Report
November 2012
Special Issues
The Route 637 and 677 Bridge Replacement Public Hearings were postponed due to
weather conditions. These will be rescheduled.
Route 29 crash data was collected and reviewed by VDOT for the corridor within
Albemarle County as requested. This data will be sent to the Board for review.
A request was made to VDOT Traffic Engineering to find potential solutions to the
Polo Grounds Road and Route 29 occasional queuing issue.
Crash data has been collected for Garth Road and will be submitted to the Board
for Review and recommendations.
Preliminary Engineering
PROJECT LAST MILESTONE NEXT
MILESTONE
AD DATE
Route 53 Safety Project –
Shoulder Widening 0.4 Mi E. of
Monticello Loop Road
Right of Way Advertisement February 2013
Route 53 Safety Project –
Shoulder Widening 0.06 Mi E.
of Monticello Loop Road
Right of Way Advertisement February 2013
Route 53 Safety Project –
Intersection Improvements at
Route 20
Design Public
Hearing Advertisement February 2013
Route 708, Dry Bridge Road
Bridge Replacement over RR Right of Way Advertisement May 2013
Route 53 Safety Project –
Intersection Improvements at
Route 729
Design Public
Hearing
Right of Way –
October 2012 October 2013
Page 2 of 5
Route 616, Black Cat Road
Bridge Replacement over RR
Design Public
Hearing
Right of Way –
May 2013 March 2014
Route 677, Broomley Road
Bridge Replacement over RR
Preliminary
Design
Design Public
Hearing –
October 30,
2012
December 2014
Route 637, Dick Woods Road
Bridge Replacement over Ivy
Creek
Preliminary
Design
Design Public
Hearing –
October 30,
2012
December 2014
Route 29 Widening, Ashwood
to Hollymeade Town Center Project Kick-off Survey – Fall
2012 December 2015
Route 250, Bridge replacement
over Little Ivy Creek Project Kick-off Survey – Fall
2012 January 2018
Brocks Mill Road, Rural Addition -- Project Scoping
– Summer 2012 *
Route 774, Bear Creek Road,
Unpaved Road -- Project Scoping
–2016 *
Route 703, Pocket Lane,
Unpaved Road -- Project Scoping
–2016 *
*Dates to be determined following evaluation of Scoping Team comments.
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE:
PROJECT LAST MILESTONE NEXT
MILESTONE AD DATE
Best Buy Ramp Preliminary
Design
Design Public
Hearing –
November 2012
November 2014
Page 3 of 5
Construction Activities Completed or Near Completion
Bridge Painting (NFO) BRDG-967-078, N501
Scope: Remove lead base paint and repaint various structures.
Next major milestone: Complete bridge painting.
Contract Completion Date: (Expected Completion Date Nov. 15, 2012)
Guardrail Repair GR07-967-096, N501
Scope: Guardrail repairs – on call – District wide.
Next Major Milestone: Contract Renewal – 2nd term
Contract Completion date: July 1, 2013.
McIntire Road U000-104-102, C501
Scope: Construct New Two Lane Road, Bridge and Pedestrian Path.
Next major Milestone: Complete bridge construction.
Contract Completion: June 10, 2013
Route 608 (Happy Creek Rd) Rural Rustic Road Project 0608-002-R04, N501
Scope: Upgrade existing gravel surface to hard surface
Next major milestone: Contract Completion
Contract Completion Date: November 2, 2012.
Route 704 (Fortune Ln) Rural Rustic Road Project 0704-002-P01, N501
Scope: Upgrade existing gravel surface to hard surface
Next major milestone: Contract Completion
Contract Completion Date: October 26, 2012.
Route 672 Rural Rustic Road Project 0672-002-P00, N501
Scope: Upgrade existing gravel surface to hard surface
Next major milestone: Contract Completion
Contract Completion Date: November 8, 2012.
Page 4 of 5
Construction Activities Completed or Near Completion Continued
Bridge Painting (NFO) BRDG-967-078, N501
Scope: Remove lead base paint and repaint various structures.
Next major milestone: Complete bridge painting.
Contract Completion Date: (Expected Completion Date Nov. 15, 2012)
Traffic Engineering Studies
Completed
Route 250 near Boars Head Inn –Guardrail review – Study memorandum complete;
awaiting funding for installation.
Route 250 and 1054 (E. of Shadwell) – Study complete recommend signing
adjustments. Installation pending.
Route 797 from Route 250 to Route 684 – Pavement marking review; pavement
markings and sign modifications recommended. Installation pending.
Route 6 and Route 627 – The intersection study has been completed and the
recommendations are to lower the advisory speed signs on the approaches to the
intersection from 45 to 35 mph due to the school bus traffic and clear the sight distance
by cutting vegetation.
003-0692-20120713-010 Route 692 @ Route 29– Intersection safety review;
complete, sign installation pending.
003-0250-20120803-010 Route 250 – Share the road sign evaluation; Sign installation
pending.
003-0020-20120717-007 Route 20 @ Route 708 – Intersection safety review; complete.
Recommendation installation pending available funding.
003-0006-20120817-008 Route 6 at Route 715 - Intersection safety review complete;
signs installed.
003-0712-20120914-010 Route 712 Signing Study complete; no recommendations.
003-0020-20120914-010 Route 20 School Bus Stop Ahead Sign review complete; Sign
installation pending.
003-0029-20120914-010 Route 29 School Bus Stop Ahead Sign review complete; Sign
installation pending.
003-0022-20120914-010 Route 22 School Bus Stop Ahead Sign review complete; Sign
installation pending.
003-1850-20120918-011 Route 1850 (subdivision review) Speed study complete:
25mph speed signs installed.
Page 5 of 5
Traffic Engineering Studies Continued
Under Review
003-0020-20120614-007 Route 20 @ Route 726– Intersection safety review; Draft
report complete, final pending.
003-0762-20120719-011 Route 762– Speed study; draft report complete, awaiting
approvals.
003-0760-20120822-011 Route 760 (Red Hill School Road) Speed study; draft complete.
Final pending
003-0726-20120925-003 Route 726 Guardrail review; Pending
003-0680-20121001-006 Route 680 Pavement marking review; Pending
003-0626-20121018-010 Route 626 Signing adjustments at one lane bridge; Pending
Maintenance Activities
On-going routine maintenance activities.
Mowing Operations-Primary Routes.
Joel DeNunzio Virginia Department of Transportation
Charlottesville Residency Administrator 701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE
SP201200024 - Virginia Department of Forestry
“Buckingham” Verizon Wireless Tier III PWSF
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request for installation of a 110 foot tall "steath"
monopole structure ("monopine") and associated
ground equipment.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Cilimberg, Benish, Baldwin
LEGAL REVIEW: NO
AGENDA DATE:
November 14, 2012
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: YES
BACKGROUND:
On October 23, 2012, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the application for a Tier III Monopine. The
Planning Commission recommended approval of the monopine, with two additional special exceptions that are discussed
below.
DISCUSSION:
During the discussion and ultimate approval of the monopine it was noted that the top diameter of this structure
exceeded the recommended maximum of 30 inches, which was inadvertently left out of the motion. It was also noted
that the limbs of the monopine will contain artificial green pine needles and is not in conformance with the ordinance
which requires all equipment match the color (brown) of the structure. Staff does not believe that the monopine’s
design will help the pole blend into the surrounding area. However, because of its limited visibility beyond the site and
adjacent property, the proposed structure creates limited negative visual impact to surrounding areas. Staff is
supporting the two additional waivers due to the location of the monopine, which will not provide any adverse visual
impact. The additional special exception language is double underlined in the recommendation below.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board approve SP201200024 Tier III personal wireless services facility with the following
condition:
Conditions of approval:
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with what is described in the applicant's request and site plans,
entitled “Buckingham Circle Rawland Monopine,” with a final zoning drawing submittal date of 9/25/12 (hereafter
“Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and Zoning Administrator. To be in accord with the
Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the following major elements within the development essential
to the design of the development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan:
a. Height
b. Mounting height
c. Antenna type
d. Number of antenna
e. Color
f. Location of ground equipment
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION ON SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS FOR TIER III WIRELESS FACILITY:
Staff recommends approval of the special exceptions including the additional language contained #2 and 4 in the special
exceptions:
1. Section 5.1.40(c)(3)-no antenna to project more than 12 inches from a structure
2. Section 5.1.40(d)(5)-maximum base and top of the diameter of the structure
3. Section 5.1.40(d)(6)-height of the structure in relation to the reference tree
4. Section 5.1.40(d)(7)-request for equipment attached to the structure to be a color matching the structure.
View PC actions letter and attachments
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
November 8, 2012
Stephen Waller
536 Pantops Center - PMB# 405
Charlottesville, Va. 22911
RE: SP201200024 – Verizon Wireless Va. Dept. of Forestry "Buckingham Circle" Tier III
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07600-00-00-017A0
Dear Mr. Waller:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 23, 2012, by a vote of 4:2,
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with what is described in the applicant's request and site
plans, entitled “Buckingham Circle Rawland Monopine,” with a final zoning drawing submittal date of
9/25/12 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and Zoning
Administrator. To be in accord with the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the following
major elements within the development essential to the design of the development, as shown on the
Conceptual Plan:
a. Height
b. Mounting height
c. Antenna type
d. Number of antenna
e. Color
f. Location of ground equipment
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
In addition, the Planning Commission recommended approval, by a vote of 4:2, the modifications for special
exceptions of this personal wireless service facility, as proposed, with an addition to include the two
recommendations as staff works them out to address the color and diameter of the pole.
1. Section 5.1.40(c)(3)-no antenna to project more than 12 inches from a structure
2. Section 5.1.40(d)(5)-maximum base and top of the diameter of the structure
3. Section 5.1.40(d)(6)-height of the structure in relation to the reference tree
4. Section 5.1.40(d)(7)-request for equipment attached to the structure to be a color matching the
structure.
View staff report and attachments
View PC minutes
Return to exec summary
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on November 14, 2012.
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,
Sarah Baldwin
Senior Planner
Zoning Services
Cc: Virginia Public Building Authority C/O Va. Dept Of Forestry
470 George Dean Dr.
Charlottesville, Va. 22903
1
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP201200024 Virginia Department of
Forestry “Buckingham” Verizon Wireless Tier III PWSF
Staff: Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
October 23, 2012
Board of Supervisors Hearing:
November 14, 2012
Owners: Virginia Public Building Authority c/o Va.
Department of Forestry
Applicant: Verizon Wireless-c/o Stephen
Waller
Acreage: 32.59
Rezone from: Not applicable
Special Use Permit for: 23.2.2(15) Special Use
Permit, which allows for Tier III personal wireless
facilities in the CO Zoning District.
TMP: Tax Map 76 Parcel 17A
Location: 908 Natural Resources Drive
By-right use: CO, Commercial Office
Magisterial District: Samuel Miller Proffers/Conditions: Yes
Requested # of Dwelling Units/Lots: N/A DA -X RA -
Proposal: Request for installation of a 110 foot tall
monopine and associated ground equipment Comp. Plan Designation: Neighborhood 6;
Office Service
Character of Property: This property is zoned CO and
located in the Entrance Corridor and contains an office
building and accessory structures next to wooded areas.
Use of Surrounding Properties: Vacant R-1
and CO
Factors Favorable:
1. The ARB finds that the proposed location and
design of the facility will minimize visibility such
that no significant negative impact on the
Entrance Corridor will be created. However, their
opinion is specific to this site and this treatment,
and does not endorse this monopine treatment to
be used on a wider scale in circumstances where
the pole exceeds the recommended height above
the surrounding trees.
2. This facility will provide advanced technology
service and support a larger project to provide
fourth generation (4G) services therefore
contributing to the general health, safety, and
welfare of the public.
3. No objection has been received from the adjacent
owner, which is where the structure is visible.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The Personal Wireless Service Facilities
Policy looks unfavorably on mitigating
visual impact by creating more visual
impact.
2. The height of the monopine relative to
the surrounding trees increases its
visibility primarily on site and from the
adjacent property.
Zoning Ordinance Waivers and Recommendations:
Modifications for Sections 5.1.40(c)(3), and (d)(5)(6) are included. Based on findings presented in the
staff report, staff recommends approval of SP201200024 and all modification (special exception)
requests with a condition.
2
STAFF CONTACT: Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION: October 23, 2012
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: November 7, 2012
AGENDA TITLE: SP201200024 Virginia Department of Forestry
“Buckingham” Verizon Wireless Tier III PWSF
PROPERTY OWNER: Virginia Public Building Authority c/o Va.
Department of Forestry
APPLICANT: Verizon Wireless-c/o Stephen Waller
PROPOSAL:
This is a proposal to install a Tier III personal service wireless facility on the Department
of Forestry site. The Applicant is proposing a monopine, which is a monopole structure
designed to look like a pine tree that will be located upon a hill as well as supporting
ground equipment that will be located at the bottom of the hill adjacent to an existing
building. The monopine will be 110 feet tall, which is 616 above mean sea level
(“AMSL”). Three antenna arrays mounted in full sectors are also proposed and will be
located at 104 feet, 100 feet and 96 feet respectively. The pine tree limbs are intended
to provide screening for the panel antennas. The supporting ground equipment will be
located in an existing parking lot at the bottom of the hill from the monopine. The site
will be accessed by an existing parking lot used by the Forestry Department. The 32.59
acre property, described as Tax Map 76, Parcel 17A, is located in the Samuel Miller
District and is zoned Commercial Office (“CO”).
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates the property located in Urban Neighborhood 6-for
Office Service uses.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
This property is zoned CO and located in the Entrance Corridor and contains an office
building and accessory structures next to wooded areas.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
ZMA 1992-10, rezoning from R-1 to CO.
DISCUSSION:
This is a proposal to install a Tier III monopine. The tower is a Tier III due to the fact that
it does not qualify to be either a Tier I or II facility. The site is located in the Entrance
Corridors for the Route 29/250 Bypass, Fontaine Avenue Extended and I -64 and was
evaluated by the ARB. As part of the application, several waivers are proposed that are
outlined below.
Additionally, the Applicant has been working with the Department of Forestry as part of
a special pilot project to place towers on state owned lands. The proposed design for a
monopine was specifically selected by the Department.
3
ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST:
Section 31.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be
reviewed as follows:
Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property?
The monopine is proposed to be 110 feet (616 AMSL), and there are few trees within
25 feet of the structure. The Applicant has requested a waiver of the reference tree
requirement as the monopine is significantly taller than the surrounding trees which
increases its visibility. (Attachments C & D). The Applicant proposes to construct the
facility to resemble a pine tree and the Department of Forestry has selected this
specific type of structure. Additionally, adjacent property owners, including the
Fontaine Research Park, have expressed no objection to the monopine.
Will the character of the zoning district change with this use?
Although the height of the monopine relative to the surrounding tree canopy is
significant, its visibility is limited within the vicinity. A balloon test was performed on
September 12, 2012 and viewed from various areas. The balloon was visible and
skylighted for a brief period of time along the Route 64 Bridge over the Norfolk
Southern Railroad tracks. At other locations, the topography and tree coverage
mitigate the visibility of the proposed structure. The ARB reviewed and
recommended approval of this proposal on October 1, 2012. The ARB also provided
additional comment to the Planning Commission that their opinion is specific to this
site and this treatment, and does not endorse this monopine treatment to be used on
a wider scale in circumstances where the pole exceeds the recommended height
above the surrounding trees.
Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning
ordinance?
Staff has reviewed this request as it relates to the “purpose and intent” that is set
forth in Sections 1.4. of the Zoning Ordinance, and as it relates to the intent specified
in the Commercial Office chapter of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 10.1). This
request is consistent with both sections.
Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
A monopine by design is an attempt to disguise the appearance of a personal
wireless service facility. The Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy states that
“the most important rule in mitigating visual impact is to avoid creating more visual
impact through an attempted mitigation.” The use of a monopine structure would
create more visual impact and draw more attention because the disguised structure
appears unrealistic due to its scale and materials used. However, this particular
location and its lack of visibility mitigate any adverse impacts.
Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be
protected if the use is approved?
The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community is protected through
the special use permit process, which assures that uses approved by special use
permit are appropriate in the location requested. The proposed monopine will
provide more reliable access to the wireless communication market, to include
schools and residences. This can be seen as contributing to the public health, safety
and welfare. Otherwise, no change to the public health, safety and general welfare is
expected with this approval.
4
Compliance with Section 5.1.40 of the Zoning Ordinance
The county’s specific design criteria for Tier III facilities as set forth in section
5.1.40(e) are addressed as follows [Ordinance sections are in bold italics]:
Section 5.1.40(e) Tier III facilities. Each Tier III facility may be established upon
approval of a special use permit issued pursuant to section 31.6.1 of this chapter,
initiated upon an application satisfying the requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a)
and section 31.6.2, and it shall be installed and operated in compliance with all
applicable provisions of this chapter and the following:
1. The facility shall comply with subsection 5.1.40(b) subsection 5.1.40(c)(2)
through (9) and subsection 5.1.40(d)(2),(3),(6) and (7), unless modified by the
board of supervisors during special use permit review.
2. The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the special use
permit.
Requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) application for approval and section 31.6.1
special use permits have been met, with the exception of the modifications detailed
below. Compliance with Section 5.1.40(e) of the Zoning Ordinance: The County's
specific design criteria for Tier III facilities set forth in Section 5.1.40(e )(1) and
5.1.40(e)(2) are addressed as follows:
Subsection 5.1.40(b)(1-5): Exemption from regulations otherwise applicable:
Except as otherwise exempted in this paragraph, each facility shal l be subject to
all applicable regulations in this chapter.
The proposed wireless facility meets the required Commercial Office setbacks in
addition to all other area and bulk regulations and minimum yard requirements.
Attached site drawings, antennae and equipment specifications have been provided to
demonstrate that personal wireless service facilities (PWSF) regulations and any
relevant site plan requirements set forth in Section 32 of the zoning ordinance have
been addressed.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(2)-: The facility shall be designed, constructed and
maintained as follows: (i) guy wires shall not be permitted; (ii) outdoor lighting for
the facility shall be permitted only during maintenance periods; regardless of the
lumens emitted, each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded as required by
section 4.17 of this chapter; (iii) any equipment cabinet not located within the
existing structure shall be screened from all lot lines either by terrain, existing
structures, existing vegetation, or by added vegetation approved by the county’s
landscape planner; (iv) a whip antenna less than six (6) inches in diameter may
exceed the height of the existing structure; (v) a grounding rod, whose height
shall not exceed two (2) feet and whose width shall not exceed one (1) inch in
diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be installed at the top of facility
or the structure; and (vi) within one month after the completion of the installation
of the facility, the applicant shall provide a statement to the agent c ertifying that
the height of all components of the facility complies with this regulation.
The proposed monopine will not require the installation of guy wires, nor will it be fitted
with any whip antennas. The proposed grounding rod will not extend more than 2 feet
above the tallest branches of the monopine. All other requirements of this subsection
5
have been met.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(3): Equipment shall be attached to the exterior of a structure
only as follows: (i) the total number of arrays of antennas attached to the existing
structure shall not exceed three (3), and each antenna proposed to be attached
under the pending application shall not exceed the size shown on the application,
which size shall not exceed one thousand one hundred fifty two (1152) square
inches; (ii) no antenna shall project from the structure beyond the minimum
required by the mounting equipment, and in no case shall any point on the face of
an antenna project more than twelve (12) inches from the existing structure; and
(iii) each antenna and associated equipment shall be a color that matches the
existing structure. For purposes of this section, all types of antennas and dishes
regardless of their use shall be counted toward the limit of three arrays.
The proposed antenna configuration will be spaced horizontally in a single array
mounted on T—mount sector frames. The 12 proposed antennas will be installed in a
triangular sector with dispersed antennas meeting the size requirements. However, the
antennas will project more than 12 inches from the existing structure and will not be
flush-mounted. The Applicant has requested a waiver from this section. Staff can
support this waiver, since the T-mounts will match the color of the main structure (Java
Brown #6090) and will also be screened by the pine branches. If the Planning
Commission chose not to approve the monopine, but rather a monopole, Staff would not
support the waiver.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(4): Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall
submit a tree conservation plan prepared by a certified arborist. The plan shall be
submitted to the agent for review and approval to assure that all applicable
requirements have been satisfied. The plan shall specify tree protection methods
and procedures, and identify all existing trees to be removed on the parcel for the
installation, operation and maintenance of the facility. Except for the tree removal
expressly authorized by the agent, the applicant shall not remove existing trees
within the lease area or within one hundred (100) feet in all directions
surrounding the lease area of any part of the facility. In addition, the agent may
identify additional trees or lands up to two hundred (200) feet from the lease area
to be included in the plan.
The installation of the proposed personal wireless service facility will only require
removal of short pines that range in height between 4-8 feet and were planted by the
Department of Forestry. A conservation plan meeting the requirements of the
subsection will be provided for review prior to building permit issuance.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(5) The installation, operation and maintenance of the facility
shall be conducted in accordance with the tree conservation plan. Dead and
dying trees identified by the arborist’s report may be removed if so noted on the
tree conservation plan. If tree removal is later requested that was not approved by
the agent when the tree conservation plan was approved, the applicant shall
submit an amended plan. The agent may approve the amended plan if the
proposed tree removal will not adversely affect the visibility of the facility from
any location off of the parcel. The agent may impose reasonable conditions to
assure that the purposes of this paragraph are achieved.
As stated above, a conservation plan meeting the requirements of this subsection shall
6
be provided for review.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(6): The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the
site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for personal wireless service
purposes is discontinued. If the agent determines at any time that surety is
required to guarantee that the facility will be removed as required, the agent may
require that the parcel owner or the owner of the facility submit a certified check,
a bond with surety, or a letter of credit, in an amount sufficient for, and
conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type and form of the surety
guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the agent and the county attorney. In
determining whether surety should be required, the agent shall consider the
following: (i) the annual report states that the tower or pole is no longer being
used for personal wireless service facilities; (ii) the annual report was not filed;
(iii) there is a change in technology that makes it likely that tower or pole will be
unnecessary in the near future; (iv) the permittee fails to comply with applicable
regulations or conditions; (v) the permittee fails to timely remove another tower
or pole within the county; and (vi) whenever otherwise deemed necessary by the
agent.
Should the use of this facility in this location become discontinued at anytime in the
future, Verizon Wireless and/or its assignee(s) will be required to remove the facility
within 90 days.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(7): The owner of the facility shall submit a report to the
agent by no earlier than May or and no later than July 1 of each year. The report
shall identify each user of the existing structure, and include a drawing,
photograph or other illustration identifying which equipment is owned and/or
operated by each personal wireless service provider. Multiple users on a single
tower or other mounting structure may submit a single report, provided that the
report includes a statement signed by a representative from each user
acquiescing in the report.
It is recommended that Verizon Wireless submit an annual report updating the user
annually to satisfy the requirements under the Ordinance.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(8): No slopes associated with the installation of the facility
and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining
walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the county
engineer are employed.
No new slopes greater than 2:1 will be created as a result of installation of the facility.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(9): Any equipment cabinet not located within an existing
building shall be fenced only with the approval of the agent upon finding that the
fence: (i) would protect the facility from trespass in areas of high volumes of
vehicular or pedestrian traffic or, in the rural areas, to protect the facility from
livestock or wildlife; (ii) would not be detrimental to the character of the area; and
(iii) would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare.
The Applicant is not proposing fencing at this time.
Section 5.1.40(d)(2): The site shall provide adequate opportunities for screening
7
and the facility shall be sited to minimize its visibility from adjacent parcels and
streets, regardless of their distance from the facility. If the facility would be
visible from a state scenic river or a national park or national forest, regardless of
whether the site is adjacent thereto, the facility also shall be sited to minimize its
visibility from such river, park or forest. If the facility would be located on lands
subject to a conservation easement or an open space easement, or adjacent to a
conservation easement or open space easement, the facility shall be sited so that
it is not visible from any resources specifically identified for protection in the
deed of easement.
The monopine is meant to disguise the appearance of a tower and a length of string and
the balloon was briefly visible from Route 64; however, the facility is adequately sited to
minimize visibility elsewhere. The ARB has also approved the monopine largely due to
its location and limited visibility.
Section 5.1.40(d)(3): The facility shall not adversely impact resources identified in
the county’s open space plan.
The Personal Wireless Service Facility Policy encourages facilities that have limited
visual impact. This proposed site is in the Entrance Corridor, but will only be visible from
a limited location and therefore does not adversely impact any resources in the open
space plan.
Section 5.1.40(d)(4): The facility shall not be located so that it and three (3) or
more existing or approved personal wireless service facilities would be within an
area comprised of a circle centered anywhere on the ground having a radius of
two hundred (200) feet.
The proposed monopine is the only facility on the property or within the 200 feet radius.
Section 5.1.40(d)(5): The maximum base diameter of the monopole shall be thirty
(30) inches and the maximum diameter at the top of the monopole shall be
eighteen (18) inches.
The Applicant has requested a waiver because the diameter of the tower will be
approximately 54 inches. Staff is supporting this waiver due to the location of the
monopine, which will not provide any adverse visual impact.
Section 5.1.40(d)(6): The top of the monopole, measured in elevation above mean
sea level, shall not exceed the height approved by the commission. The approved
height shall not be more than seven (7) feet taller than the tallest tree within
twenty-five (25) feet of the monopole, and shall include any base, foundation or
grading that raises the pole above the pre-existing natural ground elevation;
provided that the height approved by the commission may be up to ten (10) feet
taller than the tallest tree if the owner of the facility demonstrates to the
satisfaction of the commission that there is not a material difference in the
visibility of the monopole at the proposed height, rather than at a height seven (7)
feet taller than the tallest tree; and there is not a material difference in a dverse
impacts to resources identified in the county’s open space plan caused by the
monopole at the proposed height, rather than at a height seven (7) feet taller than
the tallest tree. The applicant may appeal the commissioner’s denial of a
8
modification to the board of supervisors as provided in subsection 5.1.40(d)(12).
The proposed monopine will be roughly 47 feet taller than any of the surrounding trees.
The Applicant is requesting a waiver of the reference tree requirements for this
subsection. Staff and the ARB are supporting the waiver in this instance, since it is not
visible from most locations due to topography and tree coverage and no objections from
the public have been received.
Section 5.1.40(d)(7): Each wood monopole shall be a dark brown natural wood
color; each metal or concrete monopole shall be painted a brown wood color to
blend into the surrounding trees. The antennas, supporting brackets, and all
other equipment attached to the monopole shall be a color that closely matches
that of the monopole. The ground equipment, the ground equipment cabinet, and
the concrete pad shall also be a color that closely matches that of the monopole,
provided that the ground equipment and the concrete pad need not be of such a
color if they are enclosed within or behind an approved structure, façade or
fencing that: (i) is a color that closely matches that of the monopole; (ii) is
consistent with the character of the area; and (iii) makes the ground equipment
and concrete pad invisible at any time of year from any other parcel or a public or
private street.
The Applicant has stated that the monopine’s trunk, limbs and antenna arrays will be
painted JAVA Brown (#6090). The limbs will also contain artificial green pine needles.
The intent of this subsection is to ensure that the structure blends in with the wooded
area. Staff does not believe that the monopine’s design will help the pole blend into the
surrounding area. However, because of its limited visibility beyond the site and
adjacent property, the proposed structure creates limited negative visual impact to
surrounding areas.
Section 5.1.40(e)2: The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the
special use permit.
The facility complies with all conditions of approval of the special use permit (Section
31.6.3).
Section 704(a) (7) (b) (I) (II) of The Telecommunications Act of 1996:
This application is subject to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which provides in
part that the regulation of the placement, construction, and modi fication of personal
wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof (I)
shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent
services; (II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal
wireless services. 47 U.S.C.
In order to operate this facility, the applicant is required to comply with the FCC
guidelines for radio frequency emissions that are intended to protect the public health
and safety. Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the
provision of personal wireless services. However, both do implement specific policies
and regulations for the sighting and design of wireless facilities. The applicant has not
provided any additional information regarding the availability, or absence of alternative
sites that could serve the same areas that would be covered with the proposed structure
9
at this site. Therefore, staff does not believe that the special use permitting process nor
the denial of this application would have the effect of prohibiting or restricting the
provision of personal wireless services.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal:
Factors favorable to this request include:
1. The ARB finds that the proposed location of the facility will minimize visibility
such that no significant negative impact on the Entrance Corridor will be
created. However, their opinion is specific to this site and this treatment, and
does not endorse this monopine treatment to be used on a wider scale in
circumstances where the pole exceeds the recommended height above the
surrounding trees.
2. This facility will provide advanced technology service and support a larger
project to provide fourth generation (4G) services therefore contributing to the
general health, safety, and welfare of the public.
3. No objection has been received from the adjacent property owner, which is
where the structure is visible.
Factors unfavorable to this request include:
1. The Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy looks unfavorably on mitigating
visual impact by creating more visual impact.
2. The height of the monopine relative to the surrounding trees increases its
visibility, primarily on site and from the adjacent property.
Staff finds the tower location acceptable due to the limited visibility. The Personal
Wireless Facilities Policy states that the most important rule in mitigating visual impacts
of a facility is to avoid creating more visual impact through an attempted mitigation.
Staff’s opinion is that the artificial tree of this scale (monopine) could actually draw
attention to facilities, and generally this visual mitigation approach should be avoided.
Since this particular tower site has limited visibility and the adjacent Research Park has
no objection to the monopine, Staff can support this particular proposal.
In order to comply with Section 5.1.40(d) of the Zoning Ordinance if recommended for
denial, the Planning Commission is required to provide the applicant with a statement
regarding the basis for denial and all items that will have to be addressed to satisfy each
requirement.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this Tier III personal wireless
services facility based upon the analysis provided herein.
Special Exceptions to the Zoning Ordinance:
10
Requests for modifications must be reviewed under the criteria established in Section
31.8 taking into consideration the factors, standards, criteria and findings for ea ch
request; however no specific finding is required in support of a decision. The proposed
modifications are for certain required information to be provided on supporting plan
documents. The application request is for an additional antenna array on the existing
tower are part of a larger project to improve Verizon Wireless’ existing network of
facilities by adding fourth generation (“4G”) services to the existing cellular services.
The recommended modifications are for requirements of the ordinance that are
generally meant to aid in the determination of whether a new tower is appropriate in the
proposed area of the County or whether a height increase is appropriate. Staff is able
to support all of the recommended modifications described in the staff report due to the
proximity of the monopine and limited visibility. Listed below are the recommended
modifications:
1. Section 5.1.40(c)(3)-no antenna to project more than 12 inches from a structure
2. Section 5.1.40(d)(5)-maximum base of the diameter
3. Section 5.1.40(d)(6)-height of the structure in relation to the reference tree
RECOMMENDATION ON SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS FOR TIER III WIRELESS FACILITY:
Staff recommends approval of the following special exceptions of this personal
wireless service facility:
1. Section 5.1.40(c)(3)-no antenna to project more than 12 inches from a structure
2. Section 5.1.40(d)(5)-maximum base of the diameter
3. Section 5.1.40(d)(6)-height of the structure in relation to the reference tree
If the Planning Commission recommends approval of this application, Staff
recommends the following conditions:
Conditions of approval:
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with what is described in the
applicant's request and site plans, entitled “Buckingham Circle Rawland
Monopine,” with a final zoning drawing submittal date of 9/25/12 (hereafter
“Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and Zoning
Administrator. To be in accord with the Conceptual Plan, development and use
shall reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the
design of the development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan:
a. Height
b. Mounting height
c. Antenna type
d. Number of antenna
e. Color
f. Location of ground equipment
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above
may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
11
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Vicinity Map
B. Site Plan
C. Balloon Test Photos
D. Applicant Photo Simulations
Motion One: The Planning Commission’s role in this case (SP201100024) is to make a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this Tier
III personal wireless service facility:
I move to recommend approval of SP 201200024 Virginia Department of
Forestry “Buckingham” Verizon Wireless Tier III PWSF with the conditions
outlined in the staff report.
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of this Tier III
personal wireless service facility:
I move to recommend denial of SP 201200024 Virginia Department of
Forestry “Buckingham” Verizon Wireless Tier III PWSF (Planning
Commission needs to give a reason for denial).
Motion Two: The Planning Commission’s role in this case (SP201200024) is to make a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to approve or deny modifications for
Sections 5.1.40(c)(3), (d)(5) and (d)(6) under the special exception criteria of Section 31.8
of the Zoning Ordinance.
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of the
modifications of Sections 5.1.40(c)(3), (d)(5) and (d)(6).
I move to recommend approval granting the modifications for reasons
outlined in the staff report.
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of the
modifications for this Tier III personal wireless service facility:
I move to recommend denial of the modifications outlined in the staff
report. (Planning Commission needs to give a reason for denial)
Return to PC actions letter
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Parcel Info
Parcels
SP-12-24 Buckingham Verizon Wireless Tier III
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources October 16, 2012
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
501 ft
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT C
ATTACHMENT C
ATTACHMENT C
ATTACHMENT C
PROPOSEDMONOPINE
Buckingham Circle
Comm. # 3036.NNN
ATTACHMENT D
PROPOSEDMONOPINE
Buckingham Circle
Comm. # 3036.NNN
ATTACHMENT D
PROPOSEDMONOPINE
Buckingham Circle
Comm. # 3036.NNN
ATTACHMENT D
PROPOSEDMONOPINE
Buckingham Circle
Comm. # 3036.NNN
ATTACHMENT D
PROPOSEDMONOPINE
Buckingham Circle
Comm. # 3036.NNN
ATTACHMENT D
PROPOSEDMONOPINE
Buckingham Circle
Comm. # 3036.NNN
ATTACHMENT D
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –OCTOBER 23, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
October 23, 2012
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, October 23, 2012, at
6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Members attending were Ed Smith, Bruce Dotson, Thomas Loach, Richard Randolph, Don Franco, and
Calvin Morris, Chairman. Members absent were Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Vice Chairman. Julia Monteith,
AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was absent.
Other officials present were Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner; Scott Clark, Senior Planner; Brent Nelson,
Planner; Amelia McCulley, Director of Zoning/Zoning Administrator; Susan Stimart, Economic
Development Facilitator; Lee Catlin, Assistant to the County Executive for Community and Business
Partnerships, J.T. Newberry, Senior Planner, Francis MacCall, Counter Planner; Bill Fritz, Director of
Current Development; Mark Graham, Director of Community Development; David Benish, Chief of
Planning; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission; and
Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Morris, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
SP-2012-00024 Verizon Wireless Va. Dept. of Forestry "Buckingham Circle" Tier III Personal
Wireless Service Facility
PROPOSED: Request for installation of a 110 foot tall "steath" monopole structure ("monopine") and
associated ground equipment.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: CO Commercial Office – offices, supporting commercial and
service; residential 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: 23.2.2.15 Tier III personal wireless facilities
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood 6; Office Service – office uses, regional
scale research, limited production and marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and
conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: YES
LOCATION: 76 feet SW of Natural Resources Drive on the Forestry Dept. Headquarters TAX
MAP/PARCEL: 07600-00-00-017A0
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller (Sarah Baldwin)
Sarah Baldwin presented a PowerPoint presentation to summarize the staff report.
This is a request for installation of a Monopine=monopole structure designed to look like a pine tree on
tax map 76, parcel 17A, which is roughly 33 acres. It is located near an existing parking lot on the
Department of Forestry site and accessed from Natural Resources Drive. The surrounding area contains
vacant R-1 and CO land.
The proposed PWSF facility will be 110 feet tall with a top elevation of 616 AMSL. The applicant is
requesting three waivers, which staff is supporting.
- There is a request to waive the requirement of the reference tree for the monopine. The
surrounding trees are arranged from 30’ to 50’ lower than the monopine.
- There is a request to waive the diameter of the base of the tower, which will be 54”.
- There is a waiver request since the proposed antennas will be more than 12” from the structure.
Staff is supporting the waiver requests because of the location and the lack of visibility.
Staff inquired about safety standards of the monopine. The applicant has stated that the monopine must
meet all of the regular safety standards all towers must meet including the branches, whi ch also must be
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –OCTOBER 23, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES
2
water proof and have a UV protective coating. The applicant can further speak to that if necessary. The
applicant has submitted an example of a monopine.
Staff attended a balloon test on September 12 and viewed it from various areas. It is slightly visible from
Fontaine Research Park and briefly visible along the I-64 Bridge over the Norfolk Southern Railroad. The
applicant has also provided photo simulations of the monopine. Views include on-site views adjacent to
the parking lot and views from Resources Drive and the I-64 Bridge.
Factors Favorable:
1. The ARB finds that the proposed location of the facility will minimize visibility such that no significant
negative impact on the Entrance Corridor will be created. However, their opinion is specific to this
site and the treatment, and does not endorse this monopine treatment to be used on a wider scale in
circumstances where the pole exceeds the recommended height above the surrounding trees.
2. This facility will provide advanced technology service and support a larger project to provide fourth
generation (4G) services; therefore, contributing to the general health, safety and welfare of the
public.
3. No objection has been received from the adjacent property owner (Fontaine Research Park), which is
where the structure is visible.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy looks unfavorably on mitigating visual impact by
creating more visual impact.
2. The height of the monopine relative to the surrounding trees increases its visibility primarily on site
and from the adjacent property.
It is Staff’s opinion that an artificial tree of this scale could actually draw more attention and generally this
approach should be avoided. However this site is mitigated due to limited visibility at this location.
Recommendation:
o Staff recommends approval of this Tier III Personal Service Wireless Facility with the modifications
(special exceptions) provided herein.
o Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this application to the Board of
Supervisors, staff recommends the conditions as outlined in the staff report.
o Staff recommends approval of the modifications for this personal wireless service facility for
Sections 5.1.40(c)(3), (d)(5) and (d)(6) under the special exception criteria of Section 31.8 of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Loach asked if there is any chance for co-location on this tower since they were going away from a
number of the usual provisos, such as the reference tree.
Ms. Baldwin replied yes, she believed there is a chance for co-location.
Mr. Randolph suggested this be called a Mono Sequoia instead of a Monopine since it is so big. He
pointed out the color of the Mono Sequoia in the pictures is green yet the specifications in Section
5.1.40(d)(7) indicate that each wood monopole shall be a dark brown natural wood color. If approved and
erected the monopine if brown will look like a dead monopine. He questioned if Section 5.1.40(d)(7)
should be revised in some way so each metal monopine shall be a dark green natural wood color, which
would certainly blend in more with surrounding trees. He noted this is a metal structure and not a wooden
structure. He was a little concerned because the brown would really look like a dead tree. However, it is
just an observation.
Ms. Baldwin noted that she had an example of what it would look like. The actual bark, if they want to call
it that, is brown. The limbs are brown. However, the pine needles on it will be green.
Mr. Dotson noted he had a question about our policy that emphasizes visibility. He asked how our policy
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –OCTOBER 23, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES
3
specifies the point from which they would judge visibility. In other words, the images they provided are
from I-64, Fontaine, and the parking lot and does our policy address where they look in order to judge
visibility.
Ms. Baldwin replied it was either in the policy or the ordinance itself and addresses the nearest residential
areas and visibility and then areas of concern such as Entrance Corridor or other scenic areas.
Mr. Dotson pointed out that might explain the Buckingham Circle reference.
Ms. Baldwin noted staff actually did go by Buckingham Circle and it is not visible at all.
Mr. Randolph asked how adaptive this structure is to 5G and other iterations of technology coming down
the pike.
Ms. Baldwin replied that it was for 4G. However, she was sure the applicant can speak to that fact.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commissi on.
Laurie Schweller, attorney with LeClair Ryan, represented Verizon and requested a recommendation of
approval for the special use permit for this first 110’ monopine or mono sequoia in Albemarle County.
She made the following points:
They are requesting this special design for this particular location because the Department of
Forestry requested it. They have never requested one before and understand the Architectural
Review Board is not inclined to see a monopines at every single site. The primary location of
visibility for this site is actually the Department of Forestry land. It is quite visible from that
building and so they wanted it to look like a tree. From the office park parking lot they can see the
top of it. However, otherwise it is pretty much not noticeable. They drove around the surrounding
residential neighborhoods and up and down 20 and I-64 and found the only place they could see
it is the overpass bridge that goes over the Norfolk Southern Railroad. Both westbound and
eastbound it can be seen over the treeline just for a brief moment. Therefore, they think the
visual impact is fairly minimal.
Because of this particular design they are able to do a full array. They have a three sector
antenna array so all of the antennas are on one plane. So they are offering the PCS, the cell and
the LTE all on that one antenna array. That leaves it open for potential co-locators or other
technologies if those were required later on. Their site plan does show three locations for
antennas for the one they will be using and two potential other locations. She would be happy to
answer any questions. In response to Mr. Dotson’s question about the Buckingham Circle
reference she noted the names of the Verizon Wireless sites are arbitrary and selected by their
RF engineers just to give a frame of reference. Therefore, it really was not referring to visibility
from that neighborhood but just for reference.
Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant.
Mr. Smith asked who receives the remuneration for rent this project’s lease.
Ms. Schweller replied she believed the lease is with the Commonwealth.
Mr. Smith asked when the balloon test was done.
Ms. Schweller replied the balloon test was done the first week of October around the 8th.
Ms. Baldwin pointed out the balloon test was done on September 12th.
Mr. Smith asked were the commissioners notified.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –OCTOBER 23, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES
4
Ms. Baldwin replied that she was not positive that the Commissioners were notified. However, she knew
the Architectural Review Board was.
Mr. Smith pointed out he was not notified of the balloon test.
Mr. Morris invited public comment. There being no public comment, the public hearing was closed and
the matter before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Loach noted to be honest he thought this monopine is dumb and they should just put the pole up. He
questioned why the Department of Forestry would want to look outside their window and see a plastic
Christmas tree going up 110’. It kind of puzzles him. However, he did not know how they would craft
language. He thought that it is needed. The visibility is only towards the Department of Forestry , but he
did not want to see a monopine there. He would support the lovely java brown going up, but not a phony
tree.
Mr. Dotson said one of benefits he could see of this is that it might have a tourism value. Since it would
be unique people might want to come and see it. He did not know. He thought they could handle the
traffic impacts. He was concerned about the precedent of the mono pine and was concerned about the
precedent of not complying with or even coming close to the reference tree. The reason he asked about
visibility is that the Department of Forestry and Mines, Minerals and Energy are located there. It is a
public street and people will see this rather huge tower right at the edge of the public street. While it has
limited visibility from more distant sites it has got extreme visibility from the interior. Therefore, he will not
be able to support it.
Mr. Franco echoed Mr. Loach’s comment that it is silly. He thinks they need the service and it is an
appropriate site to have a pole. However, he did think it is silly to have it dressed up like a tree because it
brings more attention to it than a pole would.
Mr. Smith suggested they ask the applicant if it would fly if was not a tree. He asked if the Forestry
Department would approve it if it was not a tree.
Ms. Schweller replied that she can’t say for sure. It was a requirement in part of their lease. Therefore,
they would have to go back with them and discuss it.
Mr. Dotson noted that several of the Commissioners have said there is a facility needed in this general
vicinity. He asked if they have exhausted all other potential locations that might comply with the
ordinance.
Ms. Schweller replied that the way the process works is the RF engineer identifies the general area where
the service is needed. Then our site acquisition people look at lots of different properties and identify
those that would serve basically at that ring. She did not know what the process was for choosing this
particular site. She referred the question to Stephen Waller, zoning consultant.
Stephen Waller, consultant with GDN Sipes, said he had been working with Verizon Wireless, on this site
since 2008. The reason this site is called Buckingham Circle is because there is a huge dead spot for
service providers in there. There is a site on the opposite side of the street called Gold Eagle, which is
the site the Commission approved for an extension of a brown m onopole sometime earlier this year.
Even with that site the service still does not get into the Buckingham Circle neighborhood and on that
back side going out to Fontaine Road Extended. He made the following points:
This location was chosen by the RF engineers because of its height above Buckingham Circle
and its ability to shoot into that neighborhood. The other site is on the other side of I-64 from
Buckingham Circle. W hen they go into the Forestry Department they will notice it is uphill. They
have a site that has good topography and good elevation above the target area that they are
really trying to shoot into and they also have a situation where they have property that is large
enough to set the site away from any property lines and basically be in terior to their property. It
really is a combination of everything. Everything just worked to where this site is the best location
for it. To try to go back down to the Fontaine Research Park and get on to one of the rooftops
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –OCTOBER 23, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES
5
they still have the hill that rises up to the Forestry Department so they are still not getting into that
Buckingham Circle area. Therefore, that site does not really serve its whole purpose of getting
onto that side of I-64 as well.
Personal wireless service facilities are hypothetically allowed in every zoning district. However, if
they really want to plop it down into Buckingham Circle first they would have to find a property
that would be large enough to place a facility and meet the setbacks. Then they also have to deal
with the neighborhood association and things of that nature. Going back and picking up this site
from 2008 with the Forestry Department and having their input is great. This is like a pilot site for
them. They feel if it works and that the design is proper then it could fit in some other areas
throughout their property.
When they went through the ARB process they understood that it is not an end all, be all solution
for Albemarle County. But, it also gave them an opportunity to kind of partner with them. He was
not sure if it is fully explained in the staff report but the design of this particular monopole that
they are proposing is also based off of a design that was put in place on the property of the
Greenbrier Resort in White Sulfur, West Virginia. It is on the National Historic Registry.
The discussion of java brown came up, but the amount of money that is being put into this site
that kind of sets it apart from other monopines you see is taken up in a lot of the design aspects.
Instead of having just a painted pole with fake branches on it, the pole would be wrapped in fake
bark. So it will have the texture of bark. There are some photos that they provided to staff that
did not come across in the staff report. There are several before and after photos where they see
the pole and the branches and all of the parts that go into it lying on the ground. It conveys how
much money and work that is put into this particular design, which again was accepted by the
West Virginia Department of Historic Resources to go on that nationally recognized historic
property.
The Department of Forestry visited five sites. There are others nearby at Mont Pelier, Mount
Vernon, and Colonial Williamsburg. When they visited the site that Verizon Wireless built at the
Greenbrier Resort they decided that was the design they wanted to have. This is where they are
in that part of the process with having a lease where they were told that this is the design they
wanted them to have in order to further the lease. So they are in a situation where they are trying
to please the state by providing the design they basically mandated within the leasing process,
but also trying to provide service in this area to these customers in the Buckingham Circle area
who again happen to have very spotty coverage if any coverage or accessibility to any of the
carriers that are providing locally. This is how they got here.
Mr. Dotson asked if they were approved for a monopole that was not a monopine then would the flat
panel antennas be a possibility as opposed to the type that are proposed here. He thinks it was
necessitated because of the camouflage.
Mr. Waller replied it would be possible to do that. However, any time you can increase the number of
antennas from the flush mount design from a coverage area standpoint with all those aspects of
performance the coverage and level of service provided is going to be better. Right now because they
were looking at doing a design that would have the branches on it to cover up the antennas and then
have the antennas colored to fade away within those branches the Verizon Wireless design was based
off of having a full sector with 9 to 12 antennas. Another part with dealing with flush mounted antennas is
the antennas are set up in sectors. There are three sectors at a standard site. If they have one antenna
pointing in that one direction and it has two types of service combined within that one antenna, then if that
one antenna goes down then they lose both of those services pointing in that direction. Basically, the
beam spreads out like a pie shape to try to connect those three sectors based on those three antennas.
So if one antenna goes out in a standard flush mount there is going to be an amount of time where
everyone who is getting service off of that one antenna is going to suffer a loss of coverage. There are
several reasons why there is a preference for more antennas. With the understanding that they can’t just
go up and do a full array in work ing with the Forestry Department there was an effort to disguise that
array.
Mr. Smith asked how they would climb the tower.
Mr. Waller replied that it would be pretty much the same way that a climber would climb a tree. The
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –OCTOBER 23, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES
6
photos provided with the existing tower shows the different phases of assem bly. It shows the different
places where there are holes in the antennas. Another interesting fact is in the beginning when the tower
goes up the branches on the lower ends because there is no other carrier who has identified that they will
use this tower yet and if another carrier can make use of this location and use of the lower heights he was
sure it was something they would look into using. However, as of right now basically the design that they
are using for three levels is the same as the one that is done at the Greenbrier. Any future carriers would
have to get their own ground lease with the Forestry Department. Verizon Wireless does not make
money off of leasing tower space. They make money by having the best coverage available to their
customers. In the future if someone else did want to come in and co-locate below those denser branches
would be replaced with a wider set of branches so those branches could then cover those lower
antennas. It is pretty much a situation where that is how it is maintained. They would have to pay to
replace those original branches for branches that are planned to provide screening to additional antennas
from theirs.
Mr. Loach asked staff to bring up on the screen Attachment D. It is the picture that shows the monopine
from the Forestry Department. His viewpoint is that is the most important view. He could see if they were
trying to use this monopine to the right in the cluster of trees to make it less visible. However, where the
monopine is proposed right now it just reminds him of something from back from the early science fiction
movies where a tree got a nuclear radiation and not is coming back for revenge. It just looks so
unnatural. With that said he does not mind the pole. He could live with the pole because he thinks that is
reasonable.
Mr. Franco noted with that said his understanding from outside the property it has little to no visual
impact. This picture is from within the property. So while he thinks it is silly he thinks it is the landowner’s
decision.
Mr. Morris agreed with Mr. Franco. It sounds like they are in between a rock and a hard place. They have
really done a lot of research on this. This is what the property owner wants. The ARB has given their
approval. If they go back to just a solid pole they are probably putting them back a good two years. That
was a guess on his part.
Mr. Franco noted he was less concerned about the time period and all of those things. Again, he thinks
service is important. However, if it is only impacting the owner of the property, it is still the state in this
particular case, and then he leaves that up to them. That said he would like to make a motion.
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of SP-2012-00024 Virginia
Department of Forestry “Buckingham” Verizon Wireless Tier III PWSF with the conditions outlined in the
staff report.
Mr. Morris asked to modify the motion slightly that they choose to recommend approval.
Mr. Franco agreed.
The motion passed by a vote of 4:2. (Dotson & Loach voted nay)
Mr. Morris noted that SP-2012-00024 Virginia Department of Forestry “Buckingham” Verizon Wireless
Tier III PWSF would go to the Board of Supervisors on November 14, 2012 with a recommendation for
approval subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report, as follows,
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with what is described in the applicant's request and
site plans, entitled “Buckingham Circle Rawland Monopine,” with a final zoning drawing s ubmittal date
of 9/25/12 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and Zoning
Administrator. To be in accord with the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the
following major elements within the development ess ential to the design of the development, as
shown on the Conceptual Plan:
a. Height
b. Mounting height
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –OCTOBER 23, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES
7
c. Antenna type
d. Number of antenna
e. Color
f. Location of ground equipment
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Smith seconded to make a recommendation to the Board of
Supervisors to approve modifications for Sections 5.1.40(c)(3), (d)(5) and (d)(6) under the special
exception criteria of Section 31.8 of the Zoning Ordinance for SP-2012-00024 Virginia Department of
Forestry “Buckingham” Verizon Wireless Tier III PWSF for reasons outlined in the staff report.
Mr. Kamptner clarified that in looking at the drawing the D5 special exception the staff report noted that it
was going to allow an increase in the diameter of the base. It looks like they also need to be allowed to
expand the diameter at the height of the pole.
Ms. Baldwin pointed out it was her understanding that is okay and within the regulations.
Mr. Kamptner noted the drawing shows 2’ and the regulations put a limit of 18” at the top of the
monopole.
Ms. Baldwin agreed that it needs to be clarified that it needs to meet that.
Mr. Kamptner noted there was one other special exception that was needed for one other provision,
which he did not write down that they discussed.
Mr. Morris pointed out it was the height of the structure in relation to the reference tree.
Mr. Franco noted it was the height and the color.
Mr. Kamptner noted between now and when this goes to the Board staff can work with the applicant
regarding the color of the pole itself, the branches, and the needles so that all of those issues are clear.
Amended Motion: Mr. Franco amended the motion as it stands with an addition to include the two
recommendations as staff works them out to address color and diameter of the pole.
Mr. Smith seconded the amendment to the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 4:2. (Dotson & Loach voted nay)
Mr. Morris noted the modifications for SP-2012-00024 Virginia Department of Forestry “Buckingham”
Verizon Wireless Tier III PWSF would go to the Board of Supervisors on November 14, 2012 with a
recommendation for approval of the modifications for special exceptions of this personal wireless service
facility as proposed with an addition to include the two recommendations as staff works them out to
address the color and diameter of the pole.
1. Section 5.1.40c)(3) – no antenna to project more than 12 inches from a structure
2. Section 5.1.40(d)(5)-maximum base of the diameter
3. Section 5.1.40(d)(6)-height of the structure in relation to the reference tree.
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 November 6, 2012
Stephen Waller
536 Pantops Center - PMB# 405
Charlottesville, Va. 22911
RE: SP201200025 – Verizon Wireless – Piedmont College – Tier III PWSF
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07700-00-00-02500
Dear Mr. Waller:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 23, 2012, by a vote of 6:0,
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Piedmont College Rawland
Monopole (University of VA Real Estate Foundation Property) prepared by Justin Yoon latest revision date
9/25/12 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning
Administrator. To be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the
following major elements within the development essential to the design of the development, as shown on the
Conceptual Plan.:
– Height
– Mounting type
– Antenna type
– Number of antenna
– Distance above reference tree
– Color
– Location of ground equipment and monopole
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
In addition, the Planning Commission recommended approval, by a vote of 6:0, the modifications for special
exceptions of this personal wireless service facility to allow the facility at fourteen (14) feet above the tallest
tree with the conditions outlined, as listed below:
- Section 5.1.40(d)(6)-height of the structure in relation to the reference tree.
View staff report and attachments
View PC minutes
Return to agenda
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on November 14, 2012.
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,
Brent Nelson
Planner
Planning Services
Cc: University Of Virginia Foundation
P O Box 400218
Charlottesville, Va. 22904
1
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP 201200025 Piedmont College -
VERIZON Tier III PWSF
Staff: Brent Nelson, Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
October 23, 2012
Board of Supervisors Hearing:
November 14, 2012
Owners: University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation Applicant: Stephen Waller- GDN Sites;
Verizon Wireless C/O Lori Schweller - LeClair
Ryan
Acreage: 157.49 acres
(Lease Area: 1,600 square feet)
Rezone from: Not applicable
Special Use Permit for: 10.2.2(48) Special Use
Permit, which allows for Tier III personal wireless
facilities in the RA Zoning District.
TMP: Tax Map 77 Parcel 25
Location: 1800 Monticello Road, the parcel under review
is split by the I-64/Route 20 interchange with the proposed
facility located on the northern portion (north of I-64).
By-right use: RA, Rural Area and EC (Entrance
Corridor) zoning, Scenic Byways Overlay, Airport
Impact Overlay, Flood Hazard Overlay District
Magisterial District: Scottsville Proffers/Conditions: No
Requested # of Dwelling Units/Lots: N/A DA - X RA -
Proposal: Request for a Special Use Permit to allow
a new ninety (90) foot VERIZON treetop monopole
and associated ground equipment. The proposed
monopole is approximately 14 feet above the
reference tree.
Comp. Plan Designation: Institutional in Urban
Area 4.
Character of Property: A rural property, adjoining the
southern boundary of the Charlottesville city limits, and
located in the northwest corner of the I-64/Route 20
interchange. The parcel is mostly wooded and is home to
the Piedmont House rehabilitation facility. The lease area
is at the edge of the lawn surrounding the facility.
Use of Surrounding Properties: Adjacent to
the City of Charlottesville, single family,
residential, industrial
Factors Favorable:
1. The monopole is located so that only the top
section of the monopole containing the antennas is
expected to be visible.
2. The Architectural Review Board staff has
recommended approval based on minimal visibility
from the Route 20 and I-64, Entrance Corridors.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The proposal is located within the Route 20 &
I-64 Entrance Corridors.
2. The proposal is located within the Route 20
Scenic Byway.
Zoning Ordinance Waivers and Recommendations:
1. Section 10.2.2 (48) and Section 5.1.4(d) (6) Personal Wireless Facility - Tier III tower and associated ground
equipment at twenty (14) feet above the tallest tree. Based on findings presented in the staff report, staff recommends
approval at the height of fourteen (14) feet above the reference tree.
2
STAFF CONTACT: Brent Nelson, Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION: October 23, 2012
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: November 14, 2012
AGENDA TITLE: SP201200025: Piedmont College – VERIZON Tier III
PROPERTY OWNER: University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation
APPLICANT: Stephen Waller- GDN Sites; Verizon Wireless
PROPOSAL:
This is a proposal to install a Tier III personal wireless service treetop facility (Attachment A).
The proposed treetop personal wireless service facility will contain a steel monopole that would
be approximately 90 feet tall (14 feet AMSL above the height of the tallest tree within 25 feet),
with associated ground equipment contained within a 1,600 square foot lease area. The property,
described as Tax Map 77, Parcel 25, contains 157.49 acres, is located in the Scottsville
Magisterial District and zoned RA, Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor (Attachment B). The
parcel is divided by the I-64/Route 20 interchange, with the proposed facility located on the
northern portion of the parcel.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Institutional in Urban Area 4.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
The proposed facility is to be located on the northern portion of a 157.49 parcel divided by the I-
64/Rt. 20 interchange (Attachment B). The lease area is approximately 165 ft. northwest of the
Rt. 20 right-of-way and located at the edge of the lawn surrounding the Piedmont House
rehabilitation facility. The property is adjacent to the Charlottesville city limits and surrounded
by areas both urban and rural in character containing open agricultural fields, wooded areas,
single family/attached homes and developments that include Piedmont Virginia Community
College.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
SDP200800180: Request to construct a 90 ft. Tier III PWSF, approved.
SP200600007: Request to construct additional parking to serve the pedestrian trail to Monticello,
approved. This approval is on the southern portion of the parcel that is separated by the I-
64/Route 20 interchange
DISCUSSION:
SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR TIER III WIRELESS FACILITY
A Special Use Permit is required for this proposal because it is located within 200 feet of
the Virginia Scenic Byway Overlay District (Route 20). Virginia Byways have been
identified in the Personal Wireless Facilities Policy and Zoning Ordinance as ‘Avoidance
Areas’. Also, the applicant is requesting a special exception to allow a monopole height
3
at fourteen (14) feet above the reference tree, which is greater than the requirement that
the monopole be no taller than seven (7) feet above the reference tree.
The Planning Commission will need to make findings on the appropriateness of the
proposed personal wireless facility and to make a recommendation to the Board of
Supervisors.
ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST:
Section 31.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be reviewed as
follows:
Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property?
The property is adjacent to the Route 20 Virginia Scenic Byway. It is staff’s opinion that the
proposal will not be of substantial detriment to the Scenic Byway and adjacent property. The
facility is located in an area surrounded by wooded vegetation. The monopole will only be
visible just above the treetops, and for a very short duration, along Route 20 (just south of
interchange with I-64), and along I-64 (just east of the interchange with Route 20). The
facility is not visible from Piedmont Community College, Route 53 or Monticello Memory
Gardens.
Will the character of the zoning district change with this use?
It is staff’s opinion that the character of the zoning district will not change with this use.
Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance?
Staff has reviewed this request as it relates to the “purpose and intent” that is set forth in
Sections 1.4.4 and 1.4.7 of the Zoning Ordinance, and as it relates to the intent specified in the
Rural Areas chapter of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 10.1). This request is consistent with
both sections.
Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
No significant adverse impacts on adjacent properties in the RA, Rural Area district are
anticipated. The proposed personal wireless service facility will not restrict any nearby by-
right uses within the Rural Areas district.
Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the
use is approved?
The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community is protected through the
special use permit process, which assures that uses approved by special use permit are
appropriate in the location requested. In this case, the proposed facility will give VERIZON
the ability to offer another choice of personal wireless service communication by providing a
full range of voice and data services in addition to the required E911 call services. This can be
seen as contributing to the public health, safety and welfare on a regional level.
Compliance with Section 5.1.40 of the Zoning Ordinance
The county’s specific design criteria for Tier III facilities as set forth in section 5.1.40 (e)
are addressed as follows.
Section 5.1.40 (e) Tier III facilities. Each Tier III facility may be established upon approval of
4
a special use permit issued pursuant to section 31.2.4 of this chapter, initiated upon an
application satisfying the requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) and section 31.2.4, and it shall
be installed and operated in compliance with all applicable provisions of this chapter and the
following:
1. The facility shall comply with subsection 5.1.40(b) subsection 5.1.40(c)(2) through (9) and
subsection 5.1.40 (d)(2),(3),(6) and (7), unless modified by the board of supervisors during
special use permit review.
2. The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the special use permit.
Requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) application for approval and section 31.6.1 special use
permits have been met. Compliance with Section 5.1.40(e) of the Zoning Ordinance: The
County's specific design criteria for Tier III facilities set forth in Section 5.1.40(e) (1) and
5.1.40(e)(2) are addressed as follows: [Ordinance sections are in italics]
Subsection 5.1.40(b) (1-5): Exemption from regulations otherwise applicable: Except as
otherwise exempted in this paragraph, each facility shall be subject to all applicable regulations
in this chapter.
The proposed wireless facility will meet the required Rural Areas setbacks in addition to all other
area and bulk regulations and minimum yard requirements. Attached site drawings, antennae and
equipment specifications have been provided to demonstrate that personal wireless service
facilities (PWSF) regulations and any relevant site plan requirements set forth in Section 32 of
the zoning ordinance have been addressed.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(2): The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
(i) guy wires shall not be permitted; (ii) outdoor lighting for the facility shall be permitted only
during maintenance periods; regardless of the lumens emitted, each outdoor luminaire shall be
fully shielded as required by section 4.17 of this chapter; (iii) any equipment cabinet not located
within the existing structure shall be screened from all lot lines either by terrain, existing
structures, existing vegetation, or by added vegetation approved by the county’s landscape
planner; (iv) a whip antenna less than six (6) inches in diameter may exceed the height of the
existing structure; (v) a grounding rod, whose height shall not exceed two (2) feet and whose
width shall not exceed one (1) inch in diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be
installed at the top of facility or the structure; and (vi) within one month after the completion of
the installation of the facility, the applicant shall provide a statement to the agent certifying that
the height of all components of the facility complies with this regulation.
The proposed monopole does not require the installation of guy wires, nor will it be fitted with
any whip antennas. The proposed grounding rod complies with the size requirements. Outdoor
light fixtures will be shielded. All proposed lighting is for temporary maintenance and security
use only. All associated ground equipment will be shielded from all lot lines by existing
vegetation and terrain.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(3): Equipment shall be attached to the exterior of a structure only as
follows: (i) the total number of arrays of antennas attached to the existing structure shall not
exceed three (3), and each antenna proposed to be attached under the pending application shall
not exceed the size shown on the application, which size shall not exceed one thousand one
hundred fifty two (1152) square inches; (ii) no antenna shall project from the structure beyond
5
the minimum required by the mounting equipment, and in no case shall any point on the face of
an antenna project more than twelve (12) inches from the existing structure; and (iii) each
antenna and associated equipment shall be a color that matches the existing structure. For
purposes of this section, all types of antennas and dishes regardless of their use shall be counted
toward the limit of three arrays.
The proposed antennae configuration will consist of two arrays with three panel antennas that
measure 94.6” (h) x 11.2” (w) x 3.3” (d), and each antenna shall not exceed 1,152 square inches.
These antennas will be installed using “pipe-mounts” that will allow for any required amount of
down-tilting without exceeding the County’s requirements for flush-mounts (12- inches
maximum between the face of the monopole and the face of the antennae). All antennae will be
painted to match the color of the tower.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(4): Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a tree
conservation plan prepared by a certified arborist. The plan shall be submitted to the agent for
review and approval to assure that all applicable requirements have been satisfied. The plan
shall specify tree protection methods and procedures, and identify all existing trees to be
removed on the parcel for the installation, operation and maintenance of the facility. Except for
the tree removal expressly authorized by the agent, the applicant shall not remove existing trees
within the lease area or within one hundred (100) feet in all directions surrounding the lease
area of any part of the facility. In addition, the agent may identify additional trees or lands up to
two hundred (200) feet from the lease area to be included in the plan.
The installation of the proposed personal wireless service facility and its access from the existing
driveway will not require the removal of any trees. The applicant will provide a tree conservation
plan by a certified arborist prior to the submittal of a building permit for this facility.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(5)The installation, operation and maintenance of the facility shall be
conducted in accordance with the tree conservation plan. Dead and dying trees identified by the
arborist’s report may be removed if so noted on the tree conservation plan. If tree removal is
later requested that was not approved by the agent when the tree conservation plan was
approved, the applicant shall submit an amended plan. The agent may approve the amended
plan if the proposed tree removal will not adversely affect the visibility of the facility from any
location off of the parcel. The agent may impose reasonable conditions to assure that the
purposes of this paragraph are achieved.
In order to ensure that there is no significant impact to any of the trees that are to remain, the
conservation plan will be completed prior to the submittal of a building permit.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(6): The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within
ninety (90) days of the date its use for personal wireless service purposes is discontinued. If the
agent determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that the facility will be removed
as required, the agent may require that the parcel owner or the owner of the facility submit a
certified check, a bond with surety, or a letter of credit, in an amount sufficient for, and
conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type and form of the surety guarantee shall be
to the satisfaction of the agent and the county attorney. In determining whether surety should be
required, the agent shall consider the following: (i) the annual report states that the tower or
pole is no longer being used for personal wireless service facilities; (ii) the annual report was
not filed; (iii) there is a change in technology that makes it likely that tower or pole will be
6
unnecessary in the near future; (iv) the permittee fails to comply with applicable regulations or
conditions; (v) the permittee fails to timely remove another tower or pole within the county; and
(vi) whenever otherwise deemed necessary by the agent.
Should use of the tower site in this location become discontinued at anytime in the future,
VERIZON and/or its assignee(s) will be required to remove the facility within 90 days.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(7): The owner of the facility shall submit a report to the agent by no earlier
than May or and no later than July 1 of each year. The report shall identify each user of the
existing structure, and include a drawing, photograph or other illustration identifying which
equipment is owned and/or operated by each personal wireless service provider. Multiple users
on a single tower or other mounting structure may submit a single report, provided that the
report includes a statement signed by a representative from each user acquiescing in the report.
After the proposed PWSF has been installed, VERIZON will submit an annual report updating
the user status and equipment inventory of the facility in the required time period.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(8): No slopes associated with the installation of the facility and accessory
uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other
stabilization measures acceptable to the county engineer are employed.
No slopes associated with the installation of the facility are steeper than 2:1.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(9): Any equipment cabinet not located within an existing building shall be
fenced only with the approval of the agent upon finding that the fence: (i) would protect the
facility from trespass in areas of high volumes of vehicular or pedestrian traffic or, in the rural
areas, to protect the facility from livestock or wildlife; (ii) would not be detrimental to the
character of the area; and (iii) would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general
welfare.
The proposal includes a 40’x 40’ lease area that will be fenced with a 6 ft. tall wooden privacy
fence and gate. Staff has found that this fence will not be detrimental to the character of the area,
nor the public health, safety or general welfare.
Section 5.1.40(d)(2): The site shall provide adequate opportunities for screening and the facility
shall be sited to minimize its visibility from adjacent parcels and streets, regardless of their
distance from the facility. If the facility would be visible from a state scenic river or a national
park or national forest, regardless of whether the site is adjacent thereto, the facility also shall
be sited to minimize its visibility from such river, park or forest. If the facility would be located
on lands subject to a conservation easement or an open space easement, or adjacent to a
conservation easement or open space easement, the facility shall be sited so that it is not visible
from any resources specifically identified for protection in the deed of easement.
The proposed facility includes a monopole that would have a height of approximately 90 feet
above ground level (AGL) or 488.0 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The height of the
reference tree is approximately 474.0 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) and is located within
25’of the proposed monopole.
A balloon test was conducted on August 29, 2012 (Attachments C & D). During the site visit,
7
staff observed a balloon that was floated at the approximate height of the proposed monopole.
Route 20 and I-64 were traveled to determine the extent of visibility of the proposal. The balloon
was only visible just above treetops, and for a very short duration, along Route 20 (just south of
the interchange with I-64), and along I-64 (just east of the interchange with Route 20). While the
balloon did not have a wooded backdrop, the height of the balloon was such that the lack of
backdrop did not have a negative impact. It is Staff’s opinion that at the fourteen foot height, the
low level of visibility is not expected to have a negative impact on the Entrance Corridors, the
Route 20 Virginia Scenic Byway and nearby properties.
Section 5.1.40(d)(3): The facility shall not adversely impact resources identified in the county’s
open space plan.
The County’s wireless service facilities policy encourages facilities with limited visibility,
facilities with adequate wooded backdrop, and facilities that do not adversely impact Avoidance
Areas (including Entrance Corridors and historic resources). Staff’s analysis of this request
addresses the concern for the possible loss of aesthetic or historic resources. The proposed lease
area is located within the Route 20 Virginia Byways in the Open Space Plan (Attachment E).
However, staff has found that the facilities limited visibility is not expected to have any adverse
scenic impact. The Architectural Review Board Staff has expressed no objection and has
recommended approval for this site.
A tree conservation plan, with measures limiting the impacts to existing trees that remain will be
submitted prior to application for the building permit.
Section 5.1.40(d)(6): The top of the monopole, measured in elevation above mean sea level, shall
not exceed the height approved by the commission. The approved height shall not be more than
seven (7) feet taller than the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the monopole, and shall
include any base, foundation or grading that raises the pole above the pre-existing natural
ground elevation; provided that the height approved by the commission may be up to ten (10)
feet taller than the tallest tree if the owner of the facility demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
commission that there is not a material difference in the visibility of the monopole at the
proposed height, rather than at a height seven (7) feet taller than the tallest tree; and there is not
a material difference in adverse impacts to resources identified in the county’s open space plan
caused by the monopole at the proposed height, rather than at a height seven (7) feet taller than
the tallest tree. The applicant may appeal the commissioner’s denial of a modification to the
board of supervisors as provided in subsection 5.1.40(d)(12).
As mentioned previously in this report, the proposed monopole would have a height of
approximately 488.0 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The height of the reference tree is
approximately 474.0 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). As proposed by the applicant, the
monopole will be fourteen (14) feet taller than the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet. It is
Staff’s opinion that there is no material difference between the seven foot height and the fourteen
foot height and therefore recommends approval at the proposed fourteen feet above the reference
tree. Staff supports the waiver request to allow the tower at 14 feet above the reference tree as
proposed in this location.
Section 5.1.40(d)(7): Each wood monopole shall be a dark brown natural wood color; each
metal or concrete monopole shall be painted a brown wood color to blend into the surrounding
trees. The antennas, supporting brackets, and all other equipment attached to the monopole shall
8
be a color that closely matches that of the monopole. The ground equipment, the ground
equipment cabinet, and the concrete pad shall also be a color that closely matches that of the
monopole, provided that the ground equipment and the concrete pad need not be of such a color
if they are enclosed within or behind an approved structure, façade or fencing that: (i) is a color
that closely matches that of the monopole; (ii) is consistent with the character of the area; and
(iii) makes the ground equipment and concrete pad invisible at any time of year from any other
parcel or a public or private street.
The applicant is proposing the installation of a facility with a steel monopole. The proposed
color for the tower and associated equipment shelter is a brown paint color (SW6090, Java
Brown) to match existing surroundings.
Section 5.1.40(e)2: The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the special use
permit.
The facility complies with all conditions of approval of the special use permit (Section 32.2.4):
Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of The Telecommunications Act of 1996:
This application is subject to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which provides in part that
the regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service
facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof (I) shall not unreasonably
discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; (II) shall not prohibit or have
the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. 47 U.S.C.
In order to operate this facility, the applicant is required to comply with the FCC guidelines for
radio frequency emissions that are intended to protect the public health and safety. Neither the
Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the provision of personal wireless
services. However, both do implement specific policies and regulations for the sighting and
design of wireless facilities. In its current state, the existing facilities and their mounting
structure all offer adequate support for providing personal wireless communication services. The
applicant has not provided any additional information regarding the availability, or absence of
alternative sites that could serve the same areas that would be covered with the proposed antenna
additions at this site. Therefore, staff does not believe that the special use permitting process nor
the denial of this application would have the effect of prohibiting or restricting the provision of
personal wireless services.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal:
Factors favorable to this request include:
1. The monopole is located so that it is only visible right at treetop level and for a short
duration along Route 20 & I-64.
2. The Architectural Review Board staff has recommended approval based on minimal
visibility from the Route 20 & I-64 Entrance Corridors.
Factors unfavorable to this request include:
9
1. The proposal is within the Route 20 Virginia Byways Overlay District. The impact is
mitigated by the limited visibility of the site.
In order to comply with Section 5.1.40(d) of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission is
required to provide the applicant with a statement regarding the basis for denial and all items that
will have to be addressed to satisfy each requirement.
Special Exceptions to the Zoning Ordinance:
Requests for modifications must be reviewed under the criteria established in Section 31.8 taking
into consideration the factors, standards, criteria and findings for each request; however no
specific finding is required in support of a decision. The proposed modifications are for the
height of the structure in relation to the reference tree as per Section 5.1.40 (d) (6).
RECOMMENDATIONS:
RECOMMENDATION ON SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR TIER III WIRELESS
FACILITY:
Staff recommends approval of the special exception for a Tier III personal wireless service
facility at fourteen (14) feet above the reference tree.
RECOMMENDATION ON SPECIAL USE PERMIT
Staff recommends approval of this facility at fourteen (14) feet above the tallest tree with the
conditions outlined below.
Conditions of approval:
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Piedmont
College Rawland Monopole (University of VA Real Estate Foundation Property)
prepared by Justin Yoon latest revision date 9/25/12 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as
determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general
accord with the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the following major
elements within the development essential to the design of the development, as shown on
the Conceptual Plan.:
a. Height
b. Mounting type
c. Antenna type
d. Number of antenna
e. Distance above reference tree
f. Color
g. Location of ground equipment and monopole
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be
made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
10
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Site Plan
B. Vicinity Map
C. Balloon Test Photo
D. Balloon Test Photo
E. Open Space & Critical Resource Map
F. Architectural Review Board Staff Comments
G. Applicant Site Photos
Motions – Two Separate:
Motion One: The Planning Commission’s role is to recommend approval or denial of
modifications for Section 5.1.40 (d)(6) of the Zoning Ordinance.
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of the modification of
Section 5.1.40 (d) (6):
I move to recommend approval granting the modification for reasons outlined in the
staff report.
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of the modification for
this Tier III personal wireless service facility:
I move to recommend denial of the modification outlined in the staff report.
(Planning Commission needs to give a reason for the recommendation of denial)
Motion Two: The Planning Commission’s role in this case (SP201200025) is to make a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this Tier III
personal wireless service facility:
I move to recommend approval of SP 201200025 Verizon Piedmont College Tier III
PWSF with the conditions outlined in the staff report.
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of this Tier III personal
wireless service facility:
I move to recommend denial of SP 201200025 Verizon Piedmont College Tier III
PWSF (Planning Commission needs to give a reason for the recommendation of
denial).
Return to PC actions letter
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Parcel Info
Parcels
SP201200025 VERIZON Piedmont College
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources October 10, 2012
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
1466 ft
ATTACHMENT B
SP201200025, Verizon Piedmont College
August 29, 2012 Balloon Test
Viewed From Route 20, South of I-64 Interchange
ATTACHMENT C
SP201200025, Verizon Piedmont College
August 29, 2012 Balloon Test
Viewed From I-64, Just East of Interchange with Route 20
ATTACHMENT D
ATTACHMENT E
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
MEMORANDUM
TO: Brent Nelson
FROM: Margaret Maliszewski
RE: ARB-2012-106 and SP-2012-25: University of Virginia Foundation (Verizon)
Piedmont College Tier 3 PWSF
DATE: August 29, 2012
A balloon test was conducted for the above referenced proposals on August 29, 2012. Comments on
visibility and recommendations on the proposal are provided below.
Visibility:
• On Route 20, south of the site, just south of the entrance to the Blue Ridge Hospital site, visible
when traveling north
• On Route 20, across from the ramp onto I64E, traveling north
• On I64, east of the site, just east of the westbound exit ramp for Route 20 (looking back when
traveling eastbound)
• On the exit ramp to Route 20 from westbound I64
Not visible from:
• I64 west of the site
• PVCC
• Route 20 north of the site
• Avon Street
• Route 53, Monticello Memory Gardens
Comments:
When the balloon was visible, it was visible just above the trees or beyond the trees. It did not have a
wooded backdrop, but the height of the balloon was such that the lack of backdrop did not have a negative
impact.
Recommendations:
• Regarding the ground equipment: The proposed ground equipment is not expected to be visible
from the Entrance Corridor.
• Regarding visibility of the monopole: Given the limited visibility of the balloon, the proposed
location is expected to sufficiently minimize the visibility of the monopole from the EC.
ATTACHMENT F
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ATTACHMENT G
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –OCTOBER 23, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES –
1
SP-2012-00025 Verizon Wireless – Piedmont College – Tier III PWSF
PROPOSAL: Tier III personal wireless service facility on 157.49 acres. No dwellings proposed .
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots)
SECTION: Chapter 18 Section 10.2.2.48 of the Albemarle County Code, which allows for Tier III personal
wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT: To protect properties of historic, architectural, or cultural
significance from visual impacts of development along routes of tourist access: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Institutional, Neighborhood 4, Institutional uses allow for a range of public
uses including schools, universities and public recreational facilities. LOCATION: 1800 Monticello Avenue
(Route 20)
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07700-00-00-02500
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville (Brent Nelson)
Brent Nelson presented a PowerPoint presentation to summarize the staff report.
This is a proposal to install a Tier III personal wireless service treetop facility on tax map 77,
parcel 75 located at 1800 Monticello Road. The applicant, Verizon, is proposing to install a 90
foot tall Tier III Personal Wireless Service Treetop Facility, along with associated ground
equipment. The top of the proposed monopole will be 14 feet above the 78 foot tall reference
tree, indentified as a 24” caliper Pecan.
The proposed facility is to be located on a 158 acre parcel split by the I -64/Route 20 interchange
with the proposed facility located in the northwest corner, north of I -64. The parcel is mostly
wooded and home to the Piedmont House rehabilitation facility. The wireless facility is to be
located approximately 165 feet west of the Route 20 right-of-way at the edge of the lawn
surrounding Piedmont House. The property is adjacent to the Charlottesville city limits and
surrounded by areas both urban and rural in character with developments that include Piedmont
Virginia Community College. The existing access drive is used to access the proposed facility.
A balloon test was conducted on August 29, 2012. During the site visit, staff observed a balloon
that was floated at the approximate height of the proposed monopole. Routes 20 and I -64 were
traveled to determine the extent of visibility of the proposal. The balloon was only visible just
above treetops, and for a very short duration, along Route 20 (just south of the interchange with I -
64) as shown in the photo taken by staff and along I-64 (just east of the interchange with Route
20) as shown in the photo. While the balloon did not have a wooded backdrop in both locations,
the height of the balloon was such that the lack of backdrop did not have a negative impact. It is
Staff’s opinion that at the fourteen foot height, the low level of visibility is not expected to have a
negative impact on the Entrance Corridors, the Route 20 Virginia Scenic Byway and nearby
properties.
Factors Favorable:
• The monopole is located so that it is only visible right at treetop level and for a short duration
along Routes 20 & I-64.
• The Architectural Review Board staff has recommended approval based on minimal visibility from
the Route 20 & I-64 Entrance Corridors.
Factors Unfavorable:
• The proposal is within the Route 20 Virginia Byways Overlay District. The impact is mitigated by
the limited visibility of the site.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this facility at fourteen (14) feet above the tallest tree
with the conditions outlined in the staff report.
The Planning Commission’s role in this case is the following:
To recommend approval or denial of modifications for Section 5.1.40 (d)(6) of the Zoning
Ordinance.
To recommend approval or denial of the special use permit for this Tier III personal wir eless
service facility.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –OCTOBER 23, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES –
2
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff. There being none, the public hearing was opened and the applicant
was invited to come forward and address the Commission.
Laurie Schweller, representative for Verizon Wireless, said even though this parcel is along the scenic
byway of Route 20 there is such a minimal visual impact that they did not see the one negative impact as
a negative. Therefore, there are only positive factors here. It might help their deliberations to note that
for Alltel in February of 2009 this site was approved as a Tier II treetop facility because by their
measurements they determined that it met the qualifications. When they merged with Alltel and took over
this site Verizon W ireless did another tree survey and determined that the reference tree is actually 14’
taller than the proposed 90’ monopole. Because of that they are requesting a recommendation for a Tier
III approval. That is the only requirement under the ordinance for which they are requesting any
modification. Otherwise, it is perfectly in line with a Tier II personal wireless service facility.
Mr. Morris invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and the matter
before the Planning Commission.
Motion: Mr. Randolph and Mr. Dotson seconded to recommend approval of granting the modification of
Section 5.1.40(d) of the Zoning Ordinance for SP-2012-00025 Verizon Piedmont College Tier III PWSF to
allow the special exception for a Tier III personal wireless service facilit y at fourteen (14) feet above the
reference tree for reasons outlined in the staff report.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Morris noted the modification for SP-2012-00025 Verizon Piedmont College Tier III PWSF would go to
the Board of Supervisors on November 14, 2012 with a recommendation for approval.
Motion: Mr. Randolph moved and Mr. Dotson seconded to recommend approval of SP-2012-00025
Verizon Piedmont College Tier III PWSF with the conditions outlined in the staff report.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Morris noted that SP-2012-00025 Verizon Piedmont College Tier III PWSF would go to the Board of
Supervisors on November 14, 2012 with a recommendation for approval, as follows:
The Planning Commission, by a vote of 6:0, recommends approval of SP-2012-00025 Verizon Wireless –
Piedmont College – Tier III PWSF subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report, as follows,
Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Piedmont College
Rawland Monopole (University of VA Real Estate Foundation Property) prepared by Justin Yoon latest
revision date 9/25/12 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the
Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall
reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the design of the development,
as shown on the Conceptual Plan.:
– Height
– Mounting type
– Antenna type
– Number of antenna
– Distance above reference tree
– Color
– Location of ground equipment and monopole
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
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 October 19, 2012
John Rhett
6065 Turkey Sag Road
Keswick, Va. 22947
RE: SP201100002 – Castle Hill Cider
TAX MAP PARCEL - 049000000018B1
SP201200018 – Castle Hill Cider Pond
TAX MAP PARCEL - 049000000018B1
SP201200019 – Castle Hill Cider Stream Crossing
TAX MAP PARCEL - 049000000018B1 and 049000000018B2
Dear Mr. Rhett:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 9, 2012, recommended the
following actions of the above-noted petitions to the Board of Supervisors:
Regarding SP-2011-00002 Castle Hill Cider - Approved by a vote of 5:1.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan entitled “Special Use
Permit for Castle Hill Cider,” labeled “Index Title: CP1,” prepared by Dominion Engineering, and dated
8/28/12, as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator.
To be in general accord with the plan, development shall reflect the following central features
essential to the design of the development:
Location of the structure (labeled “Event Barn”) used for the events
Location of the entrance and exit (labeled “New Entrance Road” and “Existing Entrance”)
Location of parking
Location of “Event Vicinity”
2. One single-day farm winery event for 201 to 3,000 persons may be held per 12-month period or
calendar year for two years and be re-evaluated at the end of 2014.
a. This event shall not be held without written approval from the Virginia Department of
Transportation of a traffic-management plan for the intersection Virginia Route 231 and
Turkey Sag Road. This plan shall require, and the permittee shall provide, police officers or
other trained personnel approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation to be at the
intersection of Virginia Route 231 and Turkey Sag Road to direct arriving and departing
traffic. This approval shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator no less than three (3)
weeks before the scheduled date for the festival.
b. The permittee shall obtain approval of a zoning clearance by the Zoning Administrator prior to
holding this event. The permittee shall apply for the zoning clearance no less than three (3)
weeks prior to the date of the event. Approval of the zoning clearance will be contingent upon
the Zoning Administrator determining that all conditions of this special use permit have been
satisfied.
c. Admission to this event shall only be by prior reservation or ticket purchase.
3. Before commencing the use, the permittee shall submit, and thereafter comply with, a sound
management plan to be prepared by a licensed acoustical engineer and approved by the Zoning
Administrator. This plan shall include a plan for monitoring sound levels at the property boundaries
and for immediately adjusting amplification equipment to reduce sound levels to no more than the
required maximum. During any event, including those with attendance of 200 or less, the sound level
at the property lines of the site shall not exceed an average of 55 decibels (dBA) for any five-minute
period, or a more restrictive applicable maximum sound level established in the Albemarle County
Code.
4. Amplified sound for all events shall not begin before noon and shall end not later than 11:00 p.m.
5. At every event, traffic-management personnel shall be on site at the exit to direct traffic eastward to
Virginia Route 231. These personnel shall be in addition to the traffic-management personnel required
under condition 3(a) above. All departing traffic shall be directed to go eastward on Turkey Sag Road,
except for those vehicles whose occupants reside westward on Turkey Sag Road.
6. The permittee shall provide prior notification of all events for more than 200 persons to all owners of
properties within 1,000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property and to the Zoning Administrator.
A notification letter shall be sent by mail at least 14 days before each event. The letter shall include:
a. The date, starting and ending times, and expected number of attendees for the event
b. A telephone number at which the permittee may be contacted during the event
c. The County’s zoning complaint hotline telephone number (434-296-5834) and identify it as
such.
7. No parking for any event shall be permitted within 200 feet of any stream.
8. Any new 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 her designee
for approval
9. Anything that goes above the requirement of the state law would be applicable to the single
event as opposed to all of the by right events.
View staff report and attachments
Regarding SP-2012-00018 Castle Hill Cider Pond - Approved by a vote of 6:0.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall obtain approval from FEMA for changes to the floodplain, and update the FEMA
maps.
2. The applicant shall obtain all necessary federal and state agency approvals (Army Corps of
Engineers, Department of Environmental Quality, etc.).
3. The applicant shall obtain Program Authority approval of a mitigation plan, and provide mitigation
according to the Water Protection Ordinance.
Staff recommends approval of the Water Protection Ordinance exception with the following conditions:
The mitigation plan shall be revised to include inlet and outlet protection measures, and channel
modifications for those measures, to the satisfaction of the County Engineer.
View staff report and attachments
Regarding SP-2012-00019 Castle Hill Cider Stream Crossing – Approved by a vote of 6:0.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall make improvements to the dam and culvert in order to provide a stable, non -
erosion path for floodwaters, while keeping flood level increases below one foot.
3. The applicant shall obtain County Engineer approval of plans for changes to the dam and culvert prior
to construction.
4. The applicant shall obtain Program Authority approval for an erosion and sediment control plan, and
obtain a land disturbance permit according to the Water Protection Ordinance requirements prior to
the start of construction for any changes, regardless of whether the project exceeds the minimum
disturbance limits.
5. The applicant shall obtain all necessary federal and state agency approvals (Army Corps of
Engineers, Department of Environmental Quality, etc.).
6. The applicant shall obtain Program Authority approval of a mitigation plan, and provide mitigation
according to the Water Protection Ordinance.
7. The applicant shall obtain approval from FEMA for changes to the floodplain, and update the FEMA
maps. This shall include FEMA’s conditional approval prior to the start of construction.
View staff report and attachments
View PC minutes
Return to agenda
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on November 14, 2012.
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
Cc: Castle Hill Management Llc
6132 Gordonsville Rd.
Keswick, Va. 22947
Route 231 Llc
P O Box 10
Keswick, Va. 22947
Humiston, Raymond E III, Trustee & Castle Hill Management Llc
6132 Gordonsville Rd
Keswick, Va. 22902
SP2011-00002 Castle Hill Cider
PC October 9, 2012
Staff Report Page 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP201200002 Castle Hill Cider Staff: Scott Clark, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
October 9, 2012
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
TBA
Owner: Route 231 LLC Applicant: Castle Hill Management LLC
Acreage: 310.47 acres Special Use Permit: 10.2.2.53 Farm winery
uses authorized under section 5.1.25 (c)
TMP: 049000000018B1, 049000000018B2
Location: 6065 Turkey Sag Road, Keswick
Existing Zoning and By-right use:
RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and
fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in
development)
Magisterial District: Rivanna Conditions: Yes
RA (Rural Areas): X Requested # of Dwelling Units: NA
Proposal: Farm cidery with events for up to 3,000
attendees on total of 310.47 acres
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural Areas
- preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open
space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/
density (0.5 unit/ acre)
Character of Property: The property is largely
open pastureland, with two large wooded areas
(see map).
Use of Surrounding Properties: The nearby
properties include large- and small-lot residences,
horse farms, other open land, and forests.
Factors Favorable:
1. The proposed use—in particular the largest
proposed event--would increase promotion
of local agricultural products.
2. The existing roads, not including
Turkey Sag Road west of the site,
are adequate for the traffic that
would be generated by the 15
proposed events for 201 to 500
persons.
3. The traffic impacts of the proposed
cider festival at the intersection of
Turkey Sag Road and Route 231
can be managed with on-site
personnel, and therefore
improvements to the rural highway
would not be required.
4. The applicant would be required to
manage noise impacts to stay within
permitted night-time noise levels at
all times of day.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The use attracts traffic from Route 20 to
Turkey Sag Road, which is narrow and
unpaved where it crosses the ridge of the
Southwest Mountains. Departing traffic
from the site can be directed to Route 231,
but the route taken by arriving traffic
cannot be controlled. The applicant has
stated that they have updated the driving
directions that they provide to attendees to
show routes that do not use Turkey Sag
Road.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this Special Use Permit with conditions.
SP2011-00002 Castle Hill Cider
PC October 9, 2012
Staff Report Page 2
STAFF PERSON: Scott Clark
PLANNING COMMISSION: October 9, 2012
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBA
SP201100002 Castle Hill Cider
Petition:
SP201200002: Special Use Permit for farm cidery with special events for up to 3,000
attendees on total of 310.47 acres
ZONING: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density
(0.5 unit/acre in development lots); FH Flood Hazard – Overlay to provide safety and
protection from flooding
SECTION: SP201200002: 10.2.2.53 Farm winery uses authorized under section 5.1.25
(c)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Areas – preserve and protect agricultural, forestal,
open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre in
development lots)
LOCATION: 6065 Turkey Sag Road, Keswick
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 049000000018B1, 049000000018B2
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
Character of the Area:
Castle Hill Cidery is located northeast of Cismont, on the southeastern slopes of the
Southwest Mountains. It lies within the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District.
The area is largely defined by a pattern of large estates whose lower elevations are in
open pasture. Higher elevations and steep slopes on the Southwest Mountains are
forested. Among the large farms there are clusters of large- and small-lot rural
subdivisions. The Peter’s Mountain AT&T communication facility is located
approximately 2.5 miles north of the site.
The property is adjacent to Route 231, a Entrance Corridor, and to Turkey Sag Road, a
narrow secondary road that connects Route 231 over the Southwest Mountains to Route
20. Turkey Sag Road becomes unpaved and narrower as it climbs toward its highest
point.
See attachments A and B for maps and aerial photographs.
Specifics of the Proposal:
The applicants are proposing to hold 16 events per year—15 events for 201 to 500
attendees and one event for 501 to 3,000 attendees, as permitted by special use permit
under section 5.1.25( c) of the Zoning Ordinance. The largest event is intended to be a
“cider festival” that would promote the products of the cidery.
SP2011-00002 Castle Hill Cider
PC October 9, 2012
Staff Report Page 3
These events would be in addition to the unlimited number of by-right events that a
winery can hold for up to 200 attendees.
The applicant has also offered to condition that the noise level for all events will not exceed 55
decibels (equivalent to the required night-time maximum level for the RA zoning district).
This proposal has been changed from that previously reviewed by staff, which requested 45
events for between 200 and 1,000 attendees, and 1 event for 1,000 to 3,000 attendees. The
applicant has recently reduced the number of requested events to the 16 events described above.
Planning and Zoning History:
For a history of zoning enforcement matters for this property, please see Attachment H.
SP201200018 Castle Hill Cider Pond: This special use permit request, currently under
review and scheduled for the same Planning Commission meeting as SP201100002, is
for the existing pond located near the events building. This pond was built without the
special use permit approval that is required for fill in the 100-year floodplain. (See
separate staff report.)
SP201200019 Castle Hill Stream Crossing: This special use permit request, currently
under review and scheduled for the same Planning Commission meeting as
SP201100002, is for repairs to the existing stream crossing located on the main entrance
road for the property . This crossing was rebuilt without the special use permit approval
that is required for fill in the 100-year floodplain. (See separate staff report).
The property is under a conservation easement held by The Nature Conservancy (TNC).
Staff has consulted with the easement holder throughout the review process. TNC staff
feels that the proposed use could be operated within the limits set by the easement.
Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan: Comprehensive Plan designates the
subject properties as Rural Areas emphasizing the preservation and protection of
agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources as land use
options.
It should be noted that the Comprehensive Plan does not currently provide any measures
or metrics for determining what size or frequency of events would be considered
inconsistent with its goals for the Rural Areas.
The Rural Areas chapter of the Comprehensive Plan contains the following Goal:
“Encourage creative and diverse forms of rural production and support rural land
uses that provide rural landowners with economic viability.”
Farm-winery events can provide additional economic viability for County farms that
qualify. The large cider festival would promote the agricultural product made on this
property. However, like any other alternative commercial use in the Rural Areas, the
SP2011-00002 Castle Hill Cider
PC October 9, 2012
Staff Report Page 4
proposed events should meet the following guidelines from the Comprehensive Plan.
The plan states that such uses should be:
Reversible (so that the land can easily return to farming, forestry, conservation,
or other preferred rural uses);
The proposal would use an existing structure, and parking would mostly be on
grass. No significant improvements would be needed other than the new entrance
road. Therefore the use should be easily reversible.
scaled and sited to cause minimal impacts on their rural surroundings;
The proposed use would increase traffic impacts on the surrounding properties
and on the length of Turkey Sag Road. However, the recommended conditions of
approval would require management of these traffic impacts.
Noise impacts on nearby properties have been an issue with the by-right events
currently being held on the site. To rectify this problem, the applicant has offered
a condition of approval that would require compliance with a sound management
plan designed to limit sound levels at the property lines to 55 decibels during any
event.
Visual impacts are expected to be minimal due to the location of the event
building and its distance from public roads.
minimal in their public health and environmental impacts; and
The site is large enough to provide water and septic fields for large uses, and to
provide space for the minimal new infrastructure without significant water-
quality or erosion impacts. Public-safety impacts could be created by the
increased traffic to the site. The applicant has proposed traffic-management
measures that would reduce these impacts, and these measures have been
approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation. Access to the site is
acceptable to the Police and Fire/Rescue departments.
viable with no increase in public infrastructure or services, either at time of
approval or later.
No new public infrastructure would be needed for the creation of this use.
However, the increased number of customers on the site could increase the need
for Police and Fire/Rescue services.
SP2011-00002 Castle Hill Cider
PC October 9, 2012
Staff Report Page 5
STAFF COMMENT:
Staff addresses each provision of Section 31.6 of the Zoning Ordinance:
31.6.1 Special Use Permits provided for in this ordinance may be issued upon a
finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment
to adjacent property,
The current by-right event operations at the cidery (by-right events can have up to 200
attendees) have led to noise impacts on adjacent and nearby properties, primarily from
the use of sound amplification systems on the site. While such noise impacts are more
dependent on the use of the sound system than on the number of attendees at an event,
the review of the current request offers the applicant and the County an opportunity to
address the outstanding issue of noise impacts from the events held on the site.
Following reports from nearby property owners that amplified sound at the cidery was
audible from their homes, code-enforcement staff in the Zoning division monitored
sound from the cidery on two occasions.
On August 4, 2012, staff arranged with the applicants to be on-site to monitor sound
levels at the property lines (see Attachment D). Permitted maximum sound levels are 60
decibels (dB) during the day (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) and 55 dB at night, with measurements
being taken as five-minute averages rather than momentary maxima. (See attachment E
for examples of typical sound sources by decibel level.) The highest measured sound
level from amplified music was 53 dB, which was approximately the same as the
ambient sound level caused by cicadas and road traffic.
To further address neighboring landowners’ concerns about audibility at their properties,
code-enforcement staff also carried out unannounced monitoring on September 8, 2012.
On this occasion, two readings were below the maximum permitted level, two were less
than 1 dB over the limit, and one was 2.5 dB over the limit (see Attachment F for
locations). Again, these measurements are five-minute averages.
To address this ongoing problem, the applicant has offered the sound-management plan
discussed above. This plan would be developed by a licensed acoustical engineer and
would be submitted for the approval of the County Zoning Administrator. The purpose
of the plan and its associated implementation measures would be to ensure that the noise
levels at the adjacent properties would not exceed 55 decibels at any time. Staff feels
that compliance with the proposed plan would satisfactorily reduce sound levels
generated by the proposed use. The proposal would provide a greater level of noise
protection than currently required by the Zoning Ordinance during the daytime (55
decibels rather than 60), and would match the night-time standard.
SP2011-00002 Castle Hill Cider
PC October 9, 2012
Staff Report Page 6
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and
The number and size of events proposed in this special use permit request are somewhat
larger than those for other large events that have been approved in the Rural Areas
zoning district.
To put such events in context, there are three main types of events permitted in the Rural
Areas:
Temporary events: These events require a special use permit. Each proposal is
reviewed case-by-case, and there are no specific limits on size or frequency in
the Zoning Ordinance.
Special events: This use category permits businesses offering weddings, dinners,
etc., on Rural Area properties by special use permit. Supplement regulations for
this use set a limit of 24 events per year and a maximum attendance of 150
persons. Recent requests have asked to waive the 150-person limit and set a new
limit of 200 persons, which is equal to the *by-right* limit for farm-winery
events (see below).
Farm-winery events
o Farm wineries are permitted to have an unlimited number of events for up
to 200 persons.
o Farm-winery events for more than 200 persons require a special use
permit.
The following table compares the current request with some recent event approvals in
the Rural Areas:
Name Type Attendance Frequency Max. Attendees per Year
SP2010-00026
Pink Ribbon
Polo (held at
King Family
Vineyard)
Temporary 2,000 1 day/year 2,000*
SP2010-00048
Music Festival
Temporary 500 3 days/year 1,500
SP2011-00012
Locally Grown
Temporary 700 1 day/year 700
SP2011-00027
Panorama
Events
Special 200 24 events/year 4,800
SP2011-00002
Castle Hill
Cidery
Farm
winery
200-500 15 events/year 7,500
1,000 – 3,000 1 event/year 3,000
Total 16 events**/year 10,500*
* In addition to attendance from the unlimited number of events for 200 or fewer attendees
** Single-day events – no multiple-day events are proposed
The largest event in the current proposal would be larger than but comparable to
approved temporary events, and would promote an agricultural product made on the site
with produce from the region. Staff believes that the impacts from this event can be
addressed through the proposed conditions of approval for noise and traffic
SP2011-00002 Castle Hill Cider
PC October 9, 2012
Staff Report Page 7
management, and that the event would benefit local and regional agricultural industries
by promoting their products.
With the remaining 15 events for 200 to 500 attendees, the primary concern is the
frequency of activities in the Rural Areas that could generate impacts that change the
character of the district. However, staff believes that these smaller events can be
accommodated on the site without significant changes to the surrounding district, again
provided that the recommended conditions of approval included below are applied.
that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
Section 18, Chapter 10 of the Zoning Ordinance outlines the purpose of Rural Areas
zoning: “This district (hereafter referred to as RA) is hereby created and may hereafter
be established by amendment of the zoning map for the following purposes:
-Preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities;
The proposed use would permit the cidery to promote its agricultural products to
a larger number of people. In particular, the annual cider festival would actively
promote the products of this farm winery and locally- and regionally-grown
produce.
The property is located adjacent to properties that are included in the Blue Run
and Kinloch Agricultural/Forestal Districts (see attachment B). Chapter 3 of the
County Code, which establishes the regulations for Agricultural/Forestal
Districts, states that the County should consider the presence of a district when
making land-use decisions.
On July 9, 2012, the Agricultural/Forestal Districts Committee voted to
recommend denial of this proposal. However, the Committee was reviewing an
earlier version of the proposal that would have permitted 46 events per year
rather than 16, and 22,000 attendees per year rather than 10,500. Committee
members were concerned with the scale of the proposal, the possible impacts of
increased traffic on agricultural activities, and the potential for noise from the
use to disturb horses and other livestock. The Committee has not had the chance
to comment on the reduced level of activity that is currently proposed.
-Water supply protection;
The site is not located in a water-supply protection area.
SP2011-00002 Castle Hill Cider
PC October 9, 2012
Staff Report Page 8
-Limited service delivery to the rural areas; and
Given the size of the property, the use is not expected to create demand for
public water or sewer services. Holding events on the site with large public
attendance could increase the need for Police or Fire/Rescue services.
-Conservation of natural, scenic, and historic resources.
The property abuts an Entrance Corridor (Route 231), but the Design Planner has
found that, given the location of the event facility and its distance from the road,
the proposal would not have significant impacts on that corridor.
Conservation of natural resources on the site is governed by the existing
conservation easement. While the proposed use would not actively promote
conservation of natural resources, the operation of the use would be required by
the easement holder to comply with all requirements of the deed of easement.
with uses permitted by right in the district,
As discussed above, traffic and noise generated by the proposed size and frequency of
events could impact by-right agricultural and residential uses in the district. However,
staff feels that the proposed limitations on the use would ensure that the use would be
compatible with by-right uses in the district.
with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance,
Section 5.1.25 (see Attachment G) establishes the uses that are permitted at farm
wineries, which this proposal would comply with. The applicant has provided the
information that section 5.1.25 requires.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
Access to the events would be from Turkey Sag Road, on the new access road shown on
the conceptual plan. The Police Department has stated the access on Turkey Sag Road is
preferable to the location of the property’s farm road on Route 231, as there have been
several speed-related accidents nearby on Route 231.
The property has an existing farm entrance on Route 231. Although this entrance is not
suitable for event traffic, it does provide a second entrance for emergency vehicles in the
event that they are not able to use the main entrance.
The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has reviewed traffic information
submitted by the applicants, and agrees with the applicant that events of 1,000 persons
or more would normally require right- and left-turn lanes at the intersection of Route
231 and Turkey Sag Road. VDOT supports the applicant’s proposal to use police
officers or other trained personnel to direct traffic for the one day per year when such an
event would happen, rather than building the intersection improvements.
SP2011-00002 Castle Hill Cider
PC October 9, 2012
Staff Report Page 9
Residents along the western portion of Turkey Sag Road have reported increased traffic
related to the winery, including arriving and departing event attendees as well as tour
buses and delivery trucks. Some of those residents have requested that any approval of
this special use permit request include a requirement that “Local Traffic Only” signs be
put out on days when events are held. However, VDOT has stated that signage can only
be added by VDOT at the request of a locality’s Board of Supervisors. Staff has
recommended conditions of approval that would prevent departing traffic from
travelling westbound on Turkey Sag Road. However, this would have no impact on the
route taken by arriving traffic, which cannot be effectively controlled. It should be noted
that the applicant has attempted to address traffic impacts on Turkey Sag Road by
having the directions provided by Google Maps corrected to direct traffic along Route
231 rather than along Turkey Sag Road. They also now provide driving directions to
event clients and vendors stating that Turkey Sag Road should not be used to access the
site.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. The proposed use—in particular the largest proposed event--would increase
promotion of local agricultural products.
2. The existing roads, not including Turkey Sag Road west of the site, are adequate
for the traffic that would be generated by the 15 proposed events for 201 to 500
persons.
3. The traffic impacts of the proposed cider festival at the intersection of Turkey
Sag Road and Route 231 can be managed with on-site personnel, and therefore
improvements to the rural highway would not be required.
4. The applicant would be required to manage noise impacts to stay within
permitted night-time noise levels at all times of day.
Staff has identified the following factors unfavorable to this application:
1. The use attracts traffic from Route 20 to Turkey Sag Road, which is narrow and
unpaved where it crosses the ridge of the Southwest Mountains. Departing
traffic from the site can be directed to Route 231, but the route taken by arriving
traffic cannot be controlled. The applicant has stated that they have updated the
driving directions that they provide to attendees to show routes that do not use
Turkey Sag Road.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of
SP201100002 Castle Hill Cider subject to the following conditions:
1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan entitled
“Special Use Permit for Castle Hill Cider,” labeled “Index Title: CP1,” prepared by
Dominion Engineering, and dated 8/28/12, as determined by the Director of Planning and
the Zoning Administrator.
SP2011-00002 Castle Hill Cider
PC October 9, 2012
Staff Report Page 10
To be in general accord with the plan, development shall reflect the following central
features essential to the design of the development:
Location of the structure (labeled “Event Barn”) used for the events
Location of the entrance and exit (labeled “New Entrance Road” and “Existing
Entrance”)
Location of parking
Location of “Event Vicinity”
2. Up to 15 single-day events for more than 200 persons may be held per calendar year,
with a maximum total daily attendance of 500 persons. Attendance at these events shall
be by prior reservation, ticket sales, or invitation only.
3. One single-day farm winery event for 501 to 3,000 persons may be held per calendar
year.
a. This event shall not be held without written approval from the Virginia
Department of Transportation of a traffic-management plan for the intersection
Virginia Route 231 and Turkey Sag Road. This plan shall require, and the
permittee shall provide, police officers or other trained personnel approved by the
Virginia Department of Transportation to be at the intersection of Virginia Route
231 and Turkey Sag Road to direct arriving and departing traffic. This approval
shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator no less than three (3) weeks before
the scheduled date for the festival.
b. The permittee shall obtain approval of a zoning clearance by the Zoning
Administrator prior to holding this event. The permittee shall apply for the zoning
clearance no less than three (3) weeks prior to the date of the event. Approval of
the zoning clearance will be contingent upon the Zoning Administrator
determining that all conditions of this special use permit have been satisfied.
c. Admission to this event shall only be by prior reservation or ticket purchase.
4. Before commencing the use, the permittee shall submit, and thereafter comply with, a
sound management plan to be prepared by a licensed acoustical engineer and approved
by the Zoning Administrator. This plan shall include a plan for monitoring sound levels
at the property boundaries and for immediately adjusting amplification equipment to
reduce sound levels to no more than the required maximum. During any event, including
those with attendance of 200 or less, the sound level at the property lines of the site shall
not exceed an average of 55 decibels (dBA) for any five-minute period, or a more
restrictive applicable maximum sound level established in the Albemarle County Code.
5. Amplified sound for all events shall not begin before noon and shall end not later than
11:00 p.m.
6. At every event, traffic-management personnel shall be on site at the exit to direct traffic
eastward to Virginia Route 231. These personnel shall be in addition to the traffic-
management personnel required under condition 3(a) above. All departing traffic shall be
SP2011-00002 Castle Hill Cider
PC October 9, 2012
Staff Report Page 11
directed to go eastward on Turkey Sag Road, except for those vehicles whose occupants
reside westward on Turkey Sag Road.
7. The permittee shall provide prior notification of all events for more than 200 persons to
all owners of properties within 1,000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property and to
the Zoning Administrator. A notification letter shall be sent by mail at least 14 days
before each event. The letter shall include:
a. The date, starting and ending times, and expected number of attendees for the
event
b. A telephone number at which the permittee may be contacted during the event
c. The County’s zoning complaint hotline telephone number (434-296-5834) and
identify it as such.
8. No parking for any event shall be permitted within 200 feet of any stream.
9. Any new 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 her designee for approval
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION:
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this special use permit:
Move to recommend approval of SP2011-00002 Castle Hill Cider subject to the conditions
as recommended by staff.
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this special use permit:
Move to recommend denial of SP2011-00002 Castle Hill Cider. Should a commissioner
motion to recommend denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for recommending denial.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Area Map
Attachment B – Site Map
Attachment C – Conceptual Plan
Attachment D – Sound Monitoring Report for 8/4/12
Attachment E – Sound Pressure Level Comparison Chart
Attachment F – Sound Monitoring Results Map for 9/8/12
Attachment G – Section 5.1.25
Attachment H – Zoning Enforcement History
Return to PC actions letter
Report of Inspection and Sound Meter Reading at Castle Hill Cidery August 4, 2012
All readings are based on a 5 minute average and are measured in dBA, per the Zoning
Ordinance.
8:00 – 8:10PM Arrival onsite and coordination with staff on meter reading locations and
protocol.
8:15 – 8:24PM Initial Reading at entrance to Castle Hill Cidery off Turkey Sag Road.
Ambient sound average 39 dBA.
With recorded music average 41 dBA.
The wedding ceremony had taken place and announcements could be heard over an
amplified system. Prerecorded music was then played through an amplified system. At no time
during this period did the 5 minute dBA level exceed 42 dBA.
8:27 – 8:33PM Second reading at property line with parcel 04900-00-00-01800
Ambient sound average 52 dBA.
This property line is over a bluff and is heavily wooded between the sound source and the
property line. There was what appeared to be a cicada presence this evening which was the
largest perceived sound. No music could be heard.
8:39 – 8:44PM Second reading at entrance to Castle Hill Cidery off Turkey Sag Road.
Sound level with band performing average 47 dBA.
At this point in the evening the band had started performing and played throughout the
sound meter test. The levels listed above were consistent during readings taken at points along
the fence line near the entrance.
8:50 – 9:00PM Sound reading at intersection of Castle Hill and parcels 05000-00-00-00900 and
05000-00-00-010000
Sound level with band performing average 51 dBA.
This location was the closest and most direct for a sound meter test. The venue was
easily visible and the sound source was was not obstructed by vegetation.
9:06 – 9:12PM Sound reading at intersection of Castle Hill and parcel 05000-00-00-01300
Ambient sound at property line averaged 54 dBA.
Once again a heavy cicada contingent was the most discernible sound in the ambient
sound level listed above.
9:35 – 9:42PM Follow up sound reading at entrance to Castle Hill Cidery at Turkey Sag Road.
Sound level with band performing 52 dBA
Levels taken when leaving the Castle Hill Cidery.
9:52 – 9:56PM Follow up sound reading taken along Rte 231 Gordonsville Road.
Ambient sound level average 53 dBA.
Ambient sound levels appeared to be generated by wildlife and traffic.
9:42 – 9:47pm
46.15 dBA
10:14 – 10:19pm
55.77 dBA
10:20 – 10:25pm
55.66 dBA
10:51 – 10:56pm
57.56 dBA
10:41 – 10:46pm
53.83 dBA
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
18-5-11
Zoning Supplement #60, 5-5-10
5.1.22 FEED AND SEED STORE
a. All loose bulk storage of seed, grains and feed shall be in enclosed buildings;
b. Provision shall be made for the control of dust during handling of loose bulk storage
materials;
c. No such use shall be established without Albemarle County fire official approval.
5.1.23 (Repealed 9-9-92)
5.1.24 SUBORDINATE RETAIL SALES
This provision is intended to permit retail sales as subordinate to the main use. To this end, the
following regulations shall apply:
a. Retail sales area, including but not limited to showroom and outdoor display area, shall not
exceed fifteen (15) percent of the floor area of the main use except as provided for in section
27.2.2.13; (Amended 2-20-91)
b. Retail sales shall not precede establishment of the main use. Retail sales shall be permitted
only after or simultaneously with the establishment of the main use and shall not continue
after discontinuance of the main use; (Adopted 12-2-81)
c. In approval of any retail sales area the board and/or the commission may limit the areas for
retail sales in both size and location; (Added 2-20-91)
d. Retail sales area exceeding fifteen (15) percent of the floor area of the main use pursuant to
section 27.2.2.13 is intended to allow for uses which by their nature are bulky and require
nonintensive use of the land. The board and/or the commission in approval of such increased
sales area shall be mindful of the intent of this section to provide for only subordinate retail
sales and avoid incompatible land uses. (Added 2-20-91)
5.1.25 FARM WINERY
Each farm winery shall be subject to the following:
a. Uses permitted. The following uses, events and activities (hereinafter, collectively, “uses”)
are permitted at a farm winery:
1. The production and harvesting of fruit and other agricultural products and the
manufacturing of wine including, but not limited to, activities related to the production of
the agricultural products used in wine, including but not limited to, growing, planting and
harvesting the agricultural products and the use of equipment for those activities.
2. The sale, tasting, including barrel tastings, or consumption of wine within the normal
course of business of the farm winery.
3. The direct sale and shipment of wine by common carrier to consumers in accordance with
Title 4.1 of the Virginia Code and the regulations of the Alcoholic Beverage Control
Board.
4. The sale and shipment of wine to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, licensed
wholesalers, and out-of-state purchasers in accordance with Title 4.1 of the Virginia
Code, regulations of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, and federal law.
5. The storage, warehousing, and wholesaling of wine in accordance with Title 4.1 of the
Virginia Code, regulations of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, and federal law.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
18-5-12
Zoning Supplement #60, 5-5-10
6. Private personal gatherings of a farm winery owner who resides at the farm winery or on
property adjacent thereto that is owned or controlled by the owner, provided that wine is
not sold or marketed and for which no consideration is received by the farm winery or its
agents.
b. Agritourism uses or wine sales related uses. The following uses are permitted at a farm winery,
provided they are related to agritourism or wine sales:
1. Exhibits, museums, and historical segments related to wine or to the farm winery.
2. Farm winery events at which not more than two hundred (200) persons are in attendance
at any time.
3. Guest winemakers and trade accommodations of invited guests at a farm winery owner’s
private residence at the farm winery.
4. Hayrides.
5. Kitchen and catering activities related to a use at the farm winery.
6. Picnics, either self-provided or available to be purchased at the farm winery.
7. Providing finger foods, soups and appetizers for visitors.
8. Sale of wine-related items that are incidental to the sale of wine including, but not limited
to the sale of incidental gifts such as cork screws, wine glasses, and t-shirts.
9. Tours of the farm winery, including the vineyard.
10. Weddings and wedding receptions at which not more than two hundred (200) persons are
in attendance at any time.
11. Other uses not expressly authorized that are agritourism uses or are wine sales related
uses, which are determined by the zoning administrator to be usual and customary uses at
farm wineries throughout the Commonwealth, which do not create a substantial impact
on the health, safety or welfare of the public, and at which not more than two hundred
(200) persons are in attendance at any time.
c. Agritourism uses or wine sales related uses; more than 200 person at any time; special use permit.
The following uses, at which more than two hundred (200) persons will be allowed to attend at any
time, are permitted at a farm winery with a special use permit, provided they are related to
agritourism or wine sales:
1. Farm winery events.
2. Weddings and wedding receptions.
3. Other uses not expressly authorized that are agritourism uses or wine sales related uses
which are determined by the zoning administrator to be usual and customary uses at farm
wineries throughout the Commonwealth.
d. Information and sketch plan to be submitted with application for a special use permit. In addition
to any information required to be submitted with an application for a special use permit under
section 31.6.2, each application for one or more uses authorized under section 5.1.25(c) shall
include the following:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
18-5-13
Zoning Supplement #66, 3-9-11
1. Information. Information pertaining to the following: (i) the proposed uses; (ii) the
maximum number of persons who will attend each use at any given time; (iii) the
frequency and duration of the uses; (iv) the provision of on-site parking; (v) the location,
height and lumens of outdoor lighting for each use; and (vi) the location of any stage,
structure or other place where music will be performed.
2. Sketch plan. A sketch plan, which shall be a schematic drawing of the site with notes in a
form and of a scale approved by the director of planning depicting: (i) all structures that
would be used for the uses; (ii) how access, on-site parking, outdoor lighting, signage and
minimum yards will be provided in compliance with this chapter; and (iii) how potential
adverse impacts to adjoining property will be mitigated so they are not substantial.
e. Sound from outdoor amplified music. Sound generated by outdoor amplified music shall be
subject to section 4.18, shall not exceed the applicable maximum sound levels in section 4.18.04,
and shall not be deemed to be an exempt sound under section 4.18.05(J).
f. Yards. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the minimum front, side and rear yard
requirements in section 10.4 shall apply to all primary and accessory structures established after
May 5, 2010 and to all tents, off-street parking areas and portable toilets used in whole or in part
to serve any use permitted at a farm winery, provided that the zoning administrator may reduce the
minimum required yard upon finding that: (i) there is no detriment to the abutting lot; (ii) there is
no harm to the public health, safety or welfare; and (iii) written consent has been provided by the
owner of the abutting lot consenting to the reduction.
g. Uses prohibited. The following uses are prohibited:
1. Restaurants.
2. Helicopter rides.
(§ 5.1.25, 12-16-81, 1-1-84; Ord. 98-20(1), 4-1-98; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-3-01; Ord. 10-18(3), 5-5-10; Ord. 11-
18(3), 3-9-11)
5.1.26 HYDROELECTRIC POWER GENERATION
a. These provisions are intended to encourage the use of water power as a natural and
replenishable resource for the generation of electrical power. While serving energy
conservation and natural resource goals, these provisions are also intended to limit such use so
as: not to be objectionable in the area in which it is located; not to unreasonably interfere
with the passage of boats, canoes, fish and other aquatic life; not to unreasonably degrade the
riverine and aquatic habitat or water quality, in general;
b. The applicant shall submit with his application for special use permit, plans, profiles, studies
and other supporting information addressing the issues in (a) above. No such application shall
be approved until comment and recommendation has been received from the State Water
Control Board, the Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries, and other appropriate federal,
state and local agencies;
c. Whether or not a site development plan is required, the applicant shall submit to the county
engineer a certified engineer's report as described in section 4.14.8. In review of such report,
the county engineer shall be particularly mindful of the requirements of section 4.14.1, noise,
and section 4.14.7, electrical interference;
d. Except as specifically permitted in a particular case, no auxiliary or accessory method of
power generation shall be permitted nor shall any pump storage or rechannelization be
permitted. (Added 4-28-82)
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Scott Clark, Senior Planner
From: Francis MacCall, Senior Planner
Division: Zoning
Date: September 26, 2012
Subject: SP 2011-002 Castle Hill Cider – Zoning History Tax Map 49 Parcel 18B1
VIO201000211: A complaint was filed regarding the use of the property for a commercial business. An
investigation found an office for an architecture firm. Professional offices are not a permitted use in the
Rural Areas zoning district. The violation was abated after staff verified that there was no longer an
architecture office located at the large barn.
VIO201200013: A complaint was filed regarding the use of the large barn on the property as an office for
an architecture firm. A notice of violation was issued to this property by the Zoning division, which had
found that an architect’s professional office was being operated from the large barn onsite. The violation
was abated after staff verified that there was no longer an architecture office located at the large barn.
AP201200001: This application was an appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s determination in
VIO201200013 that the operation of an architect’s office on the property was a violation of the Zoning
Ordinance. The appeal was not acted up on, as it was submitted after the deadline for appeals of the
determination.
VIO2012000112: A complaint was filed regarding noise. No violation was found on the Tax Map 49 Parcel
18B1. It was determined that the noise being complained about was from an adjacent parcel that was
having a private party. The violation was abated.
VIO201200113: A complaint was filed that there has been fill in the floodplain for the creation of a pond and
a stream crossing. The applicant has filed special use permit requests to allow these uses in the
floodplain. These applications are currently under review.
VIO201200127: Multiple complaints have been received regarding the number of persons at the by-right
events and the noise generated from the by-right events. Staff has investigated the property on two
separate occasions for noise violations created by outdoor amplified music. The first event remained within
the decibel levels prescribed by the Zoning Ordinance. The decibel levels at the second event were
determined to exceed the prescribed decibel levels, thus creating noise. The applicant has been made
aware of this violation of the Zoning Ordinance and has been given an opportunity to mitigate the noise
impact by providing a plan that outlines how they will mitigate the sound from the outdoor amplified music
to avoid it from becoming noise. This plan and several condition of the special use permit will address this.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP 2012-00018, Castle Hill Cider
Pond
Staff: Glenn Brooks
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
Owners: Route 231 LLC Applicant: Route 231 LLC
Acreage: 185 Special Use Permit (SP 2011-00011): Fill for a
dam, under sections 30.3.03.2, 30.3.05.2.1,
30.3.05.2.2, 30.3.06, 30.3.07 of the zoning
ordinance
TMP: TM 49, Parcel 18B1
Location: Rt. 640
Existing Zoning and By-right use: Rural Areas (RA)
Magisterial District: Rivanna Conditions: Yes
Proposal: To obtain approval for a previously
constructed dam
Requested # of Dwelling Units: NA
Development Area: NA
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural Areas.
Character of Property: Rural estate property with
managed fields and floodplain.
Use of Surrounding Properties: Rural residences and
farms.
Factors Favorable:
Factors Unfavorable:
Impacts to the Turkey Sag Creek floodplain and WPO
buffer
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval with conditions.
STAFF: Glenn Brooks
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 2012
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DATE: 2012
SP 2012-00018 Castle Hill Cider Pond
PETITION
PROJECT: SP2012-00018, Castle Hill Cider Pond
PROPOSED: Special Use Permit for fill for a dam alongside Turkey Sag Creek
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA - Rural Areas, residential and agricultural
SECTION: 30.3.03.2, 30.3.05.2.1, 30.3.05.2.2, 30.3.06, 30.3.07 of the zoning ordinance
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - agricultural and residential
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: Rt. 640, Turkey Sag Road
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 49-18B1
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
CHARACTER OF THE AREA
Estate pasture with creek floodplain, and some forest. Rural agricultural and residential land.
SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL
This proposal is to obtain approval of a dam constructed alongside the creek. A culvert crossing in
the field next to the dam is also included, as it is connected to the dam. These items have already
been constructed.
The dam consists of an embankment built next the creek. It is approximately 9 feet high, with a base
approximately 22 feet wide. It runs for 460 feet alongside the creek. The pond itself, the waters of
which are separate from the creek, covers about 1.4 acres.
There is a small 6 inch diameter plastic pipe that diverts water into the pond from an upstream intake
within the creek. The applicant estimates it takes 20% of normal flow. Water is returned to the creek
through an 8 inch plastic standpipe structure which discharges through the embankment downstream.
The applicant has indicated that the purpose of this pond is to supply water to vegetation planted
uphill on the property.
The culvert crossing next to the dam consists of a metal pipe arch culvert five feet high and twelve
feet wide at the creek. It covers approximately 24 feet of the creek. The pipe ends are mitered to lay
with the slope of the embankment crossing, which consists of mown grass.
This crossing appears to be intended as a convenience to reach the area of the dam from the residence
and hall. There is a twelve foot graded grass path at the top of the embankment. The crossing does
not appear necessary for any functioning of the dam.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY
This special use permit is being heard concurrently with a special use permit for special events on the
property.
CONFORMITY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
An agricultural pond may conform to the comprehensive plan.
STAFF COMMENT
ZONING ORDINANCE CONSIDERATIONS
Regarding the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, staff notes the following;
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, that the character of the district will not be changed
thereby,
The dam has not changed the character of the district from a land use and zoning perspective.
An analysis of the affects on the floodplain shows that impacts are significant, but contained
within the property.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
Ponds are a common feature in the rural area.
with the uses permitted by right in the district,
Ponds are common items in the rural area for agriculture and landscaping.
with additional regulations provided in section 5,
Section 5 does not appear applicable in this case
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The dam and associated crossing have a negligible impact on general public health, safety or
welfare.
30.3.03.2: “No development permit shall be issued for any use, structure, activity, fill,
new construction, substantial improvements or other development which in the
opinion of the county engineer would result in any increase in flood levels during the
occurrence of a one hundred year flood discharge.”
Typically, for stream crossings or dams, this is interpreted to keep flood level increases to a
minimum, and to eliminate any increases on adjacent property. A dam typically changes the
nature and footprint of a stream when built across the channel. In this case, the dam is not
built across the channel, but to one side. Rather than damming the creek, it acts as a levy
during a flood event, pushing floodwater to the opposite side, or splitting floodwaters
between the pond and the channel. It raises flood levels by approximately one foot on the
channel side, and incorporates the pond on the opposite side.
30.3.05.2.1: BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT WITHIN THE FLOODWAY The following uses
or activities are authorized within the floodway by special use permit: (…) 1. Dams,
levees and other structures for water supply and flood control.
The applicant has indicated this dam is used for water supply of upland vegetation. The
ordinance is not specific as to the intent of this section, whether it refers to public projects
and potable water, or to any form of water supply.
30.3.05.2.2: BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT WITHIN THE FLOODWAY FRINGE
1. Uses by special use permit in the floodway.
2. Aircraft landing strip excluding structures and aircraft parking/storage.
3. Landfill permit (reference 30.3.6).
The crossing and the dam would fall under item 1, uses permitted in the floodway, if section
30.3.05.2.1(1) applies as indicated previously.
30.3.06.1 PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
In addition to such conditions imposed by the board of supervisors in approval of a
special use permit, a landfill permit approval by the county engineer is required for
the filling of land in the floodway fringe. No permit shall be issued or approved until
the site development plan for such fill of land shall have been submitted to the county
engineer indicating the following requirements have been met:
[…]
2. The filling of land shall be designed and constructed to minimize obstruction to
and effect upon the flow of water and more particularly that:
a. Such fill will not, in the opinion of the county engineer, result in any increase in
flood levels during the occurrence of a one hundred year flood discharge;
As with section 30.3.03.2 this condition has not been met, but has been liberally interpreted on
past applications as having no significant impact on adjacent property, or the safety and general
welfare of the public.
b. The flood carrying capacity of the watercourse shall be maintained;
The flood carrying capacity of the watercourse has been shifted to the south and east, but
generally maintained.
c. No fill shall be placed in the floodway;
In this case, the fill is within the floodway, effectively shifting it over.
3. Fill shall be effectively protected against erosion by vegetative cover, riprap,
gabions, bulkhead or other acceptable method. Any structure, equipment or material
permitted shall be firmly anchored to prevent dislocation due to flooding;
The earthen embankment placed in the floodway and floodplain does not appear to be adequately
protected from erosion during a flood event . The models provided by the applicant indicate that
floodwaters will spill over the dam and culvert crossing areas, and these fill sections have not been
armored to prevent erosion. Should this special use permit be approved, changes to the dam and
culvert are recommended in order to clarify the path for floodwaters, and to protect this area from
erosion or damage during flooding.
4. Fill shall be of a material that will not pollute surface water or groundwater;
The fill material appears to be local soils. No reports or tests have been made available to verify.
5. Where in the opinion of the county engineer additional topographic, engineering
and other data or studies are necessary to determine the effects of flooding on a
proposed structure or fill and/or the effect of such structure or fill on the flow of water
in flood stage, the county engineer shall require the applicant to submit such data or
studies.
This data has been provided. The results of this data were used to assess the impacts and changes to
the floodplain.
30.3.07 AMENDMENT OF THE FLOOD HAZARD OVERLAY DISTRICT
The delineation of the flood hazard overlay district may be revised, amended and
modified by the board of supervisors in compliance with the National Flood Insurance
Program when any of the following conditions are met:
[…]
3. There are changes indicated by FEMA issuance of letters of map amendment
(LOMA) or letters of map revision (LOMR). (Added 2-5-05)
[…]
All such changes are subject to the review and approval of FEMA.
Documenting changes through FEMA is a recommended condition of approval. Approval of the
Special Use Permit effectively changes the Flood Hazard Overlay District subject to FEMA approval
of a LOMA or LOMR.
WATER PROTECTION ORDINANCE CONSIDERATIONS
The applicant has provided a mitigation plan, WPO 2012-75, showing plantings along Turkey Sag
Creek. This plans mitigates for disturbances of the pond, and the two stream crossings on the
property.
Sec. 17-321 Types of development which may be allowed in stream buffer by program
authority.
Development in a stream buffer may be authorized by the program authority in the
circumstances described below, provided that a mitigation plan is submitted to, and
approved, by the program authority pursuant to section 17-322:
[…]
2. on a lot on which the development in the stream buffer will consist of a lake, pond,
or ecological/wetland restoration project;
3. on a lot on which the development in the stream buffer will consist of the
construction and maintenance of a road, street or driveway that would not satisfy the
requirements of section 17-320(D) and the program authority determines that the
stream buffer would prohibit access to the lot necessary for the lot to be used and
developed as permitted in the underlying zoning district and under the applicable
regulations of the subdivision ordinance, or to establish more than one stream
crossing;
Should the special use permit be approved, the pond and additional stream crossing associated with
the pond may be allowed by the Program Authority within the stream buffer.
SUMMARY
Staff has identified the following factors that are favorable.
1. All impacts have been kept on the property.
2. A pond is an allowable use under the WPO.
Staff has identified the following factors that are unfavorable to this request.
1. Flood levels have increased.
2. The dam and culvert crossing are potentially unstable in a flood event, and could cause significant
sedimentation upon failure.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends approval of the special use permit with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall make improvements to the dam and culvert in order to provide a
stable, non-erosion path for floodwaters, while keeping flood level increases below one
foot.
3. The applicant shall obtain County Engineer approval of plans for changes to the dam and
culvert prior to construction.
4. The applicant shall obtain Program Authority approval for an erosion and sediment
control plan, and obtain a land disturbance permit according to the Water Protection
Ordinance requirements prior to the start of construction for any changes, regardless of
whether the project exceeds the minimum disturbance limits.
5. The applicant shall obtain all necessary federal and state agency approvals (Army Corps
of Engineers, Department of Environmental Quality, etc.).
6. The applicant shall obtain Program Authority approval of a mitigation plan, and provide
mitigation according to the Water Protection Ordinance.
7. The applicant shall obtain approval from FEMA for changes to the floodplain, and update
the FEMA maps.
ATTACHMENTS
A. CastleHillCider_pond_Exhibits -- Document containing site map, plan and photo of the pond.
Return to PC actions letter
SP201200018
Castle Hill Cider, Pond, Exhibits
Site Map, location:
Location map showing floodplain and WPO buffer
Aerial photo 2010
Aerial photo 2009
Aerial Photo 2002
Plan provided by applicant
Photo:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP 2012-00019, WPO 2012-75,
Castle Hill Cider Stream Crossing
Staff: Glenn Brooks
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
Owners: Route 231 LLC Applicant: Route 231 LLC
Acreage: 125.4(B2)+185(B1) Special Use Permit (SP 2011-00011): Culvert
crossing over Turkey Sag Creek, under sections
30.3.03.2, 30.3.05.2.1, 30.3.05.2.2, 30.3.07 of the
zoning ordinance, and sections 320 and 308 of the
Water Protection Ordinance
TMP: TM 49, Parcels 18B1 and B2
Location: Rt. 640
Existing Zoning and By-right use: Rural Areas (RA)
Magisterial District: Rivanna Conditions: Yes
Proposal: To obtain approval for a previously
constructed driveway crossing
Requested # of Dwelling Units: NA
Development Area: NA
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural Areas.
Character of Property: Rural estate property with
managed fields and floodplain.
Use of Surrounding Properties: Rural residences and
farms.
Factors Favorable:
Improved stream crossing for driveway
Factors Unfavorable:
Small impact to the Turkey Sag Creek floodplain and
WPO buffer
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval with conditions.
STAFF: Glenn Brooks
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 2012
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DATE: 2012
SP 2012-00019 Castle Hill Cider Stream Crossing
PETITION
PROJECT: SP2012-00019, WPO2012-75, Castle Hill Cider Stream Crossing
PROPOSED: Special Use Permit for an improved driveway crossing of Turkey Sag Creek
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA - Rural Areas, residential and agricultural
SECTION: 30.3.03.2, 30.3.05.2.1, 30.3.05.2.2, 30.3.06, 30.3.07 of the zoning ordinance
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - agricultural and residential
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: Rt. 640, Turkey Sag Road
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 49-18B1, 18B2
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
CHARACTER OF THE AREA
Estate pasture with creek floodplain, and some forest. Rural agricultural and residential land.
SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL
This proposal is to obtain approval of an improved driveway culvert crossing over Turkey Sag Creek.
The driveway crossing is a low crossing consisting of three metal pipe culverts, each 2 feet in
diameter. Small headwalls have been constructed at the inlet and outlet, without wing-walls. A
cement-stabilized gravel drive crosses over the culverts. The crossing covers approximately 20 feet
of the creek. Shallow gradual banks of mown grass slope to the creek on both sides.
The applicant has indicated that this crossing has replaced a concrete low-water crossing which
consisted of five culverts, each approximately one foot in diameter. The new crossing raised the
elevation of the driveway, reducing the frequency of inundation over the drive, and slightly increasing
floodplain impacts upstream.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY
This special use permit and water protection ordinance exception is being heard concurrently with a
special use permit for special events on the property.
CONFORMITY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
A residential driveway conforms to the comprehensive plan.
STAFF COMMENT
ZONING ORDINANCE CONSIDERATIONS
Regarding the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, staff notes the following;
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, that the character of the district will not be changed
thereby,
The constructed stream crossing has not changed the character of the district. An analysis of
the affects on the floodplain shows that impacts are not significant, and they are contained
within the property.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
The stream crossing is a common uses in the rural area.
with the uses permitted by right in the district,
This residential driveway is permitted by-right.
with additional regulations provided in section 5,
Section 5 does not appear applicable in this case
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The creek crossing has a negligible impact on general public health, safety or welfare.
30.3.03.2: “No development permit shall be issued for any use, structure, activity, fill,
new construction, substantial improvements or other development which in the
opinion of the county engineer would result in any increase in flood levels during the
occurrence of a one hundred year flood discharge.”
Typically, for stream crossings, this is interpreted to keep flood level increases to a
minimum, and to eliminate any increases on adjacent property. This has been done.
30.3.05.2.1: BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT WITHIN THE FLOODWAY The following uses
or activities are authorized within the floodway by special use permit: (…) 2. Water
related uses such as boat docks, canoe liveries, bridges, ferries, culverts and river
crossings of transmission lines of all types.
Culverts are allowed by special use permit.
30.3.05.2.2: BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT WITHIN THE FLOODWAY FRINGE
1. Uses by special use permit in the floodway.
The crossing would fall under item 1 in this section
30.3.07 AMENDMENT OF THE FLOOD HAZARD OVERLAY DISTRICT
The delineation of the flood hazard overlay district may be revised, amended and
modified by the board of supervisors in compliance with the National Flood Insurance
Program when any of the following conditions are met:
[…]
3. There are changes indicated by FEMA issuance of letters of map amendment
(LOMA) or letters of map revision (LOMR). (Added 2-5-05)
[…]
All such changes are subject to the review and approval of FEMA.
Documenting changes through FEMA is a recommended condition of approval. Approval of the
Special Use Permit effectively changes the Flood Hazard Overlay District subject to FEMA approval
of a LOMA or LOMR (Letter of Map Amendment or Revision).
WATER PROTECTION ORDINANCE CONSIDERATIONS
This stream crossing, as an upgrade to an existing crossing, is considered the one by-right stream
crossing for the property according to Water Protection Ordinance section 17-320D. As such it must
meet the provisions set forth in that section.
Sec. 17-320 Types of development authorized in stream buffer.
If otherwise authorized by the applicable regulations of the zoning ordinance, the
following types of development shall be allowed in a stream buffer, provided that the
requirements of this section are satisfied:
[…]
D. Stream crossings of perennial and intermittent streams for roads, streets or
driveways, provided the following requirements are addressed to the satisfaction of
the program authority:
1. Bridges and culverts shall satisfy the following:
a. For crossings of perennial streams, bridges, arch culverts, or box culverts shall be
used for the stream crossing and sized to pass the ten (10) year storm without
backing water onto upstream properties. Bridges or culverts shall either leave the
stream section, consisting of the stream bed and the stream bank, undisturbed or
shall allow the stream to return to a natural stabilized cross-section upon completion
of installation. The lowest interior elevation of the culvert (the culvert invert) shall be
a minimum of six (6) inches below the stream bed. Culvert walls and bridge columns
should be located outside the stream banks wherever possible;
The culvert crossing does not satisfy any part of this condition. The applicant is seeking an
exception to this condition on the basis that this crossing is an improvement over the
previous condition.
[…]
2. Stream stabilization and energy dissipation measures below each bridge or culvert
shall satisfy the standards for stream bank stabilization and outlet control provided in
the county’s design standards manual;
The culvert crossing does not satisfy this condition. The applicant is seeking an exception
on the basis that the crossing has been improved.
3. The stream buffer disturbance shall be the minimum necessary for the lot(s) to be
used and developed as permitted in the underlying zoning district and under the
applicable regulations of the subdivision ordinance. Stream crossings shall not
disturb more than thirty (30) linear feet of stream for driveways and sixty (60) linear
feet for roads or streets, provided that the program authority may allow additional
length of stream disturbance where fill slopes or special conditions necessitate
additional length;
The culvert crossing satisfies this condition. It disturbs less than 30 linear feet of stream.
[…]
5. For stream crossings where any portion of the pre-construction stream buffer is
not fully vegetated as determined by the program authority, and for any portion of a
vegetated stream buffer that is disturbed during the installation of the stream
crossing, buffer vegetation shall be established and maintained within the stream
buffer but outside of the stream crossing at a ratio of two (2) square feet of stream
buffer restored for every one (1) square foot of stream buffer that was either not fully
vegetated or is disturbed during the installation of the stream crossing. Buffer
vegetation shall be established and maintained at the 2:1 ratio to the extent that the
stream buffer is fully vegetated outside of the stream crossing, provided that the
owner shall not be required to establish vegetation outside of the stream buffer in
order to satisfy the 2:1 ratio. The program authority may require that the owner enter
into an agreement providing for the ongoing maintenance of the plantings in the
stream buffer, and may require a bond with surety or other acceptable instrument,
which agreement and bond with surety or other acceptable instrument shall be of a
substance and in a form approved by the program authority and the county attorney.
Stream buffer plantings shall be consistent with guidance supplied by the program
authority;
The applicant has provided a proposed mitigation plan showing a planting area on either
side of the channel downstream of this crossing.
Sec. 17-308 Exceptions.
Except for requests to develop in the stream buffer made pursuant to section 17-321,
a request for an exception to the requirements of this article shall be made and
granted as provided herein: […]
C. A request for exception may be granted provided that:
1. A stormwater management/BMP plan has been submitted to the program authority
for review in accordance with this article; the plan demonstrates that reasonable
alternatives to the exception have been considered and determined to not be feasible
through attempts to meet the provisions of this article, the use of non-structural
measures as provided in section 17-313, the use of a mitigation plan as provided in
section 17-322, or by other means;
Mitigation has been proposed at a ratio of 2:1. Alternatives at this time would be to remove the
constructed crossing and rebuilt it to meet the provisions above.
2. The exception requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief;
The exception request allows the construction crossing to remain as built.
3. Reasonable and appropriate conditions are imposed as necessary to ensure that
the purposes of this article are satisfied; and
It is recommended in the summary conditions that additional outlet and inlet protection be provided,
both to bring the stream bed up to meet the culvert outlets, and to armor the ends of the channel for
expected overflows around the headwalls during a flood event.
4. The basis for the request is not economic hardship, which shall be deemed an
insufficient reason to grant an exception.
While not to the standards of the ordinance for a perennial stream, the basis for this request is that an
existing crossing has nevertheless been improved.
SUMMARY
Staff has identified the following factors that are favorable:
1. The new crossing allows a more stable driveway.
Staff has identified the following factors that are unfavorable to this request.
1. The higher crossing has created a slight increase in flood levels on the property.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends approval of the special use permit with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall obtain approval from FEMA for changes to the floodplain, and update
the FEMA maps.
2. The applicant shall obtain all necessary federal and state agency approvals (Army Corps
of Engineers, Department of Environmental Quality, etc.).
3. The applicant shall obtain Program Authority approval of a mitigation plan, and provide
mitigation according to the Water Protection Ordinance.
Staff recommends approval of the Water Protection Ordinance exception with the following
conditions:
1. The mitigation plan shall be revised to include inlet and outlet protection measures, and
channel modifications for those measures, to the satisfaction of the County Engineer.
ATTACHMENTS
A. CastleHillCider_StreamCrossing_Exhibits.doc -- Document containing site map and photo of
driveway crossing.
Return to PC actions letter
SP201200019
Castle Hill Cider, Stream Crossing, Exhibits
Site Map, location:
Location map showing floodplain and WPO buffer
Plan provided by applicant
Photo:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 9, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED ON 11-7-12
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
October 9, 2012
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, October 9, 2012, at
6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Bruce Dotson, Ed Smith, Richard Randolph, Don Franco, Calvin Morris,
Chairman and Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Vice Chair. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the
University of Virginia was present. Members absent were Thomas Loach.
Other officials present were Scott Clark, Senior Planner; Glenn Brooks, County Engineer; David Benish,
Chief of Planning; Francis MacCall, Senior Planner; Amelia McCulley, Director of Zoning/Zoning
Administrator; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Morris, Chairman, called the regular meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. and established a quorum.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public:
Mr. Morris invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda. There being none,
the meeting moved to the next item.
Committee Reports
Mr. Morris invited committee reports. There being no committee reports the meeting moved t o the next
item.
Review of Board of Supervisors meeting – October 3, 2012
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the actions taken by the Board of Supervisors on October 3, 2012.
Public Hearing Items:
SP-2011-00002 Castle Hill Cider
PROPOSALS: SP-2012-00002: Special Use Permit for farm cidery with special events for up to 3,000
attendees on total of 310.47
ZONING: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in
development lots); FH Flood Hazard – Overlay to provide safety and protection from flooding
SECTION: SP-2012-00002: 10.2.2.53 Farm winery uses authorized under section 5.1.25 (c)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Areas – preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and
natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre in development lots)
LOCATION: 6065 Turkeysag Road, Keswick
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 049000000018B1, 049000000018B2
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna (Scott Clark)
Scott Clark presented a Power-Point presentation and summarized the staff report. This is a special use
permit request for events for a farm winery for more than 200 persons as required by the zoning
ordinance as described in the above description.
Specifics of the Proposal:
• 15 events per year – 201 to 500 attendees
• 1 annual cider festival – 501 to 3,000 attendees
• Previous proposal
• 30 events per year – 201 to 300 attendees
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 9, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED ON 11-7-12
2
• 10 events per year – 301 to 500 attendees
• 5 events per year – 501 to 1,000 attendees
• 1 annual cider festival – 501 to 3,000 attendees
The previous proposal was for a total of 46 events per year. That is no longer what is being
requested. The 6 events is the current request.
Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan: Comprehensive Plan designates the subject properties as
Rural Areas emphasizing the preservation and protection of agricultural, forestal, open space, and
natural, historic and scenic resources as land use options.
It should be noted that the Comprehensive Plan does not currently provide any measures or metrics for
determining what size or frequency of events would be considered inconsistent with its goals for the Rural
Areas.
The Rural Areas chapter of the Comprehensive Plan contains the following Goal:
“Encourage creative and diverse forms of rural production and support rural land
uses that provide rural landowners with economic viability.”
Farm-winery events can provide additional economic viability for County farms that qualify. The large
cider festival would promote the agricultural product made on this pro perty.
However, like any other alternative commercial use in the Rural Areas, the proposed events should meet
the following guidelines from the Comprehensive Plan. The plan states that such uses should be:
Reversible (so that the land can easily return to farming, forestry, conservation, or other preferred
rural uses);
The proposal would use an existing structure, and parking would mostly be on grass. No significant
improvements would be needed other than the new entrance road. Therefore the use shou ld be easily
reversible.
scaled and sited to cause minimal impacts on their rural surroundings;
The proposed use would increase traffic impacts on the surrounding properties and on the length of
Turkey Sag Road. However, the recommended conditions of approval would require management of
these traffic impacts.
Noise impacts on nearby properties have been an issue with the by-right events currently being held on
the site. To rectify this problem, the applicant has offered a condition of approval that w ould require
compliance with a sound management plan designed to limit sound levels at the property lines to 55
decibels during any event.
Visual impacts are expected to be minimal due to the location of the event building and its distance from
public roads.
minimal in their public health and environmental impacts; and
The site is large enough to provide water and septic fields for large uses, and to provide space for the
minimal new infrastructure without significant water -quality or erosion impacts. Public-safety impacts
could be created by the increased traffic to the site. The applicant has proposed traffic -management
measures that would reduce these impacts, and these measures have been approved by the Virginia
Department of Transportation. Access to the site is acceptable to the Police and Fire/Rescue
departments.
viable with no increase in public infrastructure or services, either at time of approval or later.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 9, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED ON 11-7-12
3
No new public infrastructure would be needed for the creation of this use. However , the increased
number of customers on the site could increase the need for Police and Fire/Rescue services.
Staff reviewed a table in the presentation to give a context of larger sized events that have been
approved previously in the rural areas. There are three kinds of events: 1. special events, which are
weddings, meetings, dinners that are not related to a farm winery. 2. Temporary events, which are
things like music festivals that typically happen for one weekend a year or something like that, an d the 3.
farm winery events, which they are discussing now.
This is a comparison of some recent events. The Pink Ribbon Polo event was a 2,000 person event. It is
roughly similar in scale to the proposed cider festival. It happens to be held at a farm winery, but it is not
really a farm winery event. It is the same case though that on top of that large event they have the by
right farm winery events happening on the same site.
The Crozet Music Festival, which is three days a year, with 500 people a day that is a total of 1,500 a
year. The Locally Grown Festival is 700 people only one day a year. Then a recent special events
approval was for events at Panorama Farm, which are 200 people 24 times a year. Then there is a
comparison with Castle Hill Cidery, which has 16 events per year with the smaller events being 200 to
500 people. That is 1,000 to 3,000 per year and actually 500 to 3,000 people for the one large event.
The potential maximum attendance for those would be 10,500 people. That is in addition to whatever by
right events for 200 or fewer people to be held on the site. The single day cider festival is roughly
comparable to some of the larger events they have approved in the past. The smaller events, the 200 to
500 person events, are somewhat larger than other approvals they have had in the past.
The two major concerns to discuss are the traffic and noise. They know those are a concern for a lot of
the neighbors. It has definitely been a part of the analysis.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 9, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED ON 11-7-12
4
Traffic:
• Entrance would be located on Turkey Sag Road; Police Department prefers this location to Route
231
• Issue: Traffic generated by cider festival would meet VDOT warrants for turn lanes at Route 231
and Turkey Sag Road
• Proposed solution: Traffic management at intersection by police or other trained personnel on day
of festival
• Issue: Western portion of Turkey Sag Road is narrow and steep, but traffic related to this use can
arrive or depart by that route.
• Proposed Solution:
• All departing traffic would be required to exit eastward toward Route 231 (except for
residents of Turkey Sag Road)
• However, route of arriving traffic cannot be controlled
• Note: Applicant making efforts to instruct vendors and guests not to use Turkey
Sag Road
Noise:
• Winery events typically use amplified sound systems
• Issue: Complaints have been received about audibility of music on this site , outside the property
and neighboring properties
• Zoning personnel have monitored sound in the area twice:
• First event: Sound monitored at property lines; no violation of noise ordinance
(above the 55 decibels that are permitted at the property line at night)
• Second event: Sound monitored at nearby properties; three readings above
permitted levels
• Proposed solution: Preparation and implementation of sound-management plan
• To be prepared by licensed acoustical engineer
• To include self-monitoring to allow immediate control of sound levels
Staff added to the presentation that the proposal is adjacent to several parcels that are in agricultural and
forestal districts, which are two different districts. The Agricultural and Forestal District Committee did
review this proposal. However, when they reviewed the proposal it was at the previous level of 46 events
and not the current 16 events in size. Also, the committee did not know about the sound management
plan. The committee did recommend denial of this application because they were concerned about noise
impacts and traffic impacts on farm properties, and horse operations in the nearby area. However, the
committee did not get a chance to review it at this new reduced level of operation.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
• The proposed use—in particular the largest proposed event--would increase promotion of local
agricultural products.
• The existing roads, not including Turkey Sag Road west of the site, are adequate for the traffic
that would be generated by the 15 proposed events for 201 to 500 persons.
• The traffic impacts of the proposed cider festival at the intersection of Turkey Sag Road and
Route 231 can be managed with on-site personnel, and therefore improvements to the rural
highway would not be required.
• The applicant would be required to manage noise impacts to stay within permitted night -time
noise levels at all times of day according to the sound management plan.
Staff has identified the following factors unfavorable to this application:
• The use attracts traffic from Route 20 to Turkey Sag Road, which is narrow and unpaved where it
crosses the ridge of the Southwest Mountains. Departing traffic from the site can be directed to
Route 231, but the route taken by arriving traffic cannot be controlled. The applicant has stated
that they have updated the driving directions that they provide to attendees to sho w routes that do
not use Turkey Sag Road.
Staff recommends approval of SP-2011-00002 Castle Hill Cider subject to the following conditions:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 9, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED ON 11-7-12
5
1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan entitled “Special Use
Permit for Castle Hill Cider,” labeled “Index Title: CP1,” prepared by Dominion Engineering, and dated
8/28/12, as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general
accord with the plan, development shall reflect the following centr al features essential to the design of
the development:
• Location of the structure (labeled “Event Barn”) used for the events
• Location of the entrance and exit (labeled “New Entrance Road” and “Existing Entrance”)
• Location of parking
• Location of “Event Vicinity”
2. Up to 15 single-day events for more than 200 persons may be held per calendar year, with a
maximum total daily attendance of 500 persons. Attendance at these events shall be by prior
reservation, ticket sales, or invitation only.
3. One single-day farm winery event for 501 to 3,000 persons may be held per calendar year.
a. This event shall not be held without written approval from the Virginia Department of
Transportation of a traffic-management plan for the intersection Virginia Route 231 and
Turkey Sag Road. This plan shall require, and the permittee shall provide, police officers
or other trained personnel approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation to be at
the intersection of Virginia Route 231 and Turkey Sag Road to direct arriving and
departing traffic. This approval shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator no less
than three (3) weeks before the scheduled date for the festival.
b. The permittee shall obtain approval of a zoning clearance by the Zoning Administrator
prior to holding this event. The permittee shall apply for the zoning clearance no less than
three (3) weeks prior to the date of the event. Approval of the zoning clearance will be
contingent upon the Zoning Administrator determining that all conditions of this special
use permit have been satisfied.
c. Admission to this event shall only be by prior reservation or ticket purchase.
4. Before commencing the use, the permittee shall submit, and thereafter comply with, a sound
management plan to be prepared by a licensed acoustical engineer and approved by the Zoning
Administrator. This plan shall include a plan for monitoring sound levels at the property boundaries
and for immediately adjusting amplification equipment to reduce sound levels to no more than the
required maximum. During any event, including those with attendance of 200 or less, the sound level
at the property lines of the site shall not exceed an average of 55 decibels (dBA) for any five -minute
period, or a more restrictive applicable maximum sound level established i n the Albemarle County
Code.
5. Amplified sound for all events shall not begin before noon and shall end not later than 11:00 p.m.
6. At every event, traffic-management personnel shall be on site at the exit to direct traffic eastward to
Virginia Route 231. These personnel shall be in addition to the traffic-management personnel
required under condition 3(a) above. All departing traffic shall be directed to go eastward on Turkey
Sag Road, except for those vehicles whose occupants reside westward on Turkey Sag R oad.
7. The permittee shall provide prior notification of all events for more than 200 persons to all owners of
properties within 1,000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property and to the Zoning Administrator.
A notification letter shall be sent by mail at least 14 days before each event. The letter shall include:
a. The date, starting and ending times, and expected number of attendees for the event
b. A telephone number at which the permittee may be contacted during the event
c. The County’s zoning complaint hotline telephone number (434-296-5834) and identify it
as such.
8. No parking for any event shall be permitted within 200 feet of any stream.
9. Any new 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 her designee for approval
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of SP-2011-00002 Castle
Hill Cider subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 9, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED ON 11-7-12
6
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Randolph commended staff for the time and effort they put into this application. On page 4 of the
materials it says scaled and sighted to cause minimal impacts on the rural surroundings. Mention is made
that there would be increased traffic on surrounding properties on the length of T urkey Sag Road. He did
not see any mention on Route 231.
Mr. Clark replied that he had not mentioned that because that would be the main route to access the site.
Mr. Randolph noted that Route 231 is a narrow road and scenic highway. He questioned given the
volume of potential vehicular traffic dumped out onto Route 231 to a special event, which could involve
5,000 people, he would think that would warrant some kind of traffic impact study. Right below that on
page 4 it says the site is large enough to provide water and septic fields for large uses. He asked if there
is adequate capacity on site with the septic system to handle 3,000 people.
Mr. Clark replied the applicant did a traffic study that was forwarded directly to VDOT. They also had the
police department review the application. The police department, as mentioned, largely wanted to get the
entrance use off of Route 231. They were satisfied with the solution of coming in from Turkey Sag Road.
That addressed their safety concerns. VDOT’s only recommended measure for addressing the impacts
of the use was the traffic management for the large event. Otherwise, they did not recommend any
changes or recommend against the level of use. As for the septic capacity, he did not know . Therefore,
they need to ask the applicant.
Mr. Randolph asked when they look on page 6 at King Family Vineyard if their Pink Ribbon Polo Event is
a charity event for the University of Virginia and Cancer Center.
Mr. Clark replied yes that it was a charity event.
Mr. Morris asked if a traffic impact study has been done for Turkey Sag Road. He thought they have had
one done for 231.
Mr. Clark replied that the applicants can address that in more detail. However, they did provide a traffic
study directly to VDOT that looked at both roads.
Mr. Smith asked to clarify this was a special use permit for a farm winery.
Mr. Clark replied in the supplemental regulations for farm wineries that set the standards for the by right
events there is a subsection that permits events beyond that 200 person maximum by special use perm it.
That is what the applicant is requesting here.
Mr. Smith asked if this is a winery or a cidery.
Mr. Clark replied that it is licensed as a farm winery although they are producing something other than a
grape based wine.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out actually state regulations have a farm winery inclusive of a farm cidery.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing for the public and applicant. He invited the applicant to address the
Planning Commission.
John Rhett, of Rhett Architects and the Director for Strategic Planning for Castle Hill Cider, expressed
their appreciation for all of the good efforts that staff has contributed to this application as well as the input
from concerned neighbors. He made the following comments.
He believed that Castle Hill is in a special place. Two hundred and fifty years ago Thomas
Jefferson called the Southwest Mountains America’s Eden and it still retains that aurora. The
owners of Castle Hill recognize that beauty and placed the property under permanent
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 9, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED ON 11-7-12
7
conservation easement and donated 425 acres on Walnut Mountain to the Nature Conservancy
assuring that there will never be roads or lights visible along the mountain top. The cattle
operation on the property was removed, which reduced run off and non-point source pollution.
Wild life management areas with native plantings were installed along the streams and the
woodland edges further protecting the watershed.
In 2007, the owner of the property engaged Rhett Architects to convert the existing cattle barn to
a residence and create a landscape associated with the residence. An English park landscape
was conceived that included a reflecting pond, a riding trail, and a native hardwood forest.
Working with the Nature Conservancy the pond was designed to collect the runoff and sediment
before they reached Turkey Sag Creek, which still runs uninterrupted through the property.
During times of flooding the pond water backs up into the little valley where it r eturns naturally to
the stream channel. A letter of permission to create this pond was obtained from the County
Office of Erosion and Sediment Control. That letter states that the installation of a farm pond is
an exempt activity; and therefore relieves them from requirements of submitting an erosion
control plan, obtaining a grading permit, and posting a performance bond. This is related to two
other special use permits requests that the Commission will see tonight , which he wanted to give
a little history on. At the same time there was a failed stream crossing of crushed and corroded
metal culverts that they replaced with larger HDPE culverts set in concrete and decorated with
stone walls and with stone paving on top. The camber over this crossing is there to slow down
travelers on the long straight driveway and to create a pause so that a close up connection to the
stream could be made. One often observes blue and green herrings, small hawks, and goldfinch
along this stream. During storm events water does cross the road as before but with less
frequency. There is a section of cement stabilized drive that retains the appearance of a graveled
or state road but does not wash into the stream.
In 2009, the owner decided not to renovate the barn into a home. So the feasibility studies were
made into other uses. Ultimately the decision was made to establish a cidery, which is licensed
as a farm winery. The landscape elements including the pond that have been designed for a
residence were repurposed for the cidery and its event barn. The two special use permits for the
work in the floodplain are thus requested retroactively to bring the cidery into compliance with this
new use. They are happy to comply with the conditions staff has included in their report.
One of the factors in choosing to create a cidery is the recognition of the beauty of the land. An
orchard sets lightly on the land. The blossoms are endearing and there is a three -dimensional
beauty that one can stroll through. There is agricultural beauty within a natural setting and there
is a powerful attraction to Castle Hill Cider as it was to Thomas Jefferson. Every visitor to Castle
Hill comments on it and they are extremely careful to maintain that attraction for cidery clients
many of whom are inspired to get married here. The consequences are that many young people
develop fond memories of the Albemarle country side while enjoying the festive flavor of Castle
Hill cider.
Another factor is the historic connection with the Albemarle Pippin apple, which was introduced to
the county at Castle Hill by Thomas W alker, the original builder of Castle Hill. Of the 20 varieties
of heirloom cider apples the Pippin is the most prevalent in our orchard. It has a s ubstantial
presence in all of our ciders. They are pleased to reestablish it at Castle Hill. Until our orchard
becomes bearing they are obtaining a vast majority of apples from other Virginia growers
throughout the state. Of course, making a living by making cider is important. The g ood news is
that the sales of hard cider in Virginia increased 50 percent from 2011 to 2012 to reach 16,750
cases. The Department of Agriculture and Forestry expects Virginia to sell 33,000 cases annually
within the next five years. As the third commercial hard cider maker in Virginia they are excited
to be part of this revival of an American farm product. All of these factors are effective for fulfilling
the agri-business and the agri-tourism goals that are part of the county’s plan for rural areas.
They believe that everyone who attends an event at Castle Hill Cider will be more supportive of
natural and historic conservation having experienced them both on the most special day of their
lives in a special part of Virginia.
They have made application for a special use permit because there is a demand for an event
venue that can accommodate more than 200 persons and because Castle Hill Cider is
particularly capable to host those events. The nation’s largest wedding magazine ranks
Charlottesville/Albemarle area as third in the nation for destination weddings. When brides look
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 9, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED ON 11-7-12
8
to this area they find few venues in the county large enough to host over 200 person events and
fewer still with the combination of beauty, history and privacy at Castle Hill Cider.
What else qualifies Castle Hill Cider to hold events over 200 . In short, Castle Hill Cider is large,
accessible, private, quiet and safe. The event venue is located on a 600 acre property. The
concept plan demonstrates the existing paddocks can easily accommodate the parking required
at the intense levels they are requesting. The barn itself contains 10,000 square feet on the first
floor and there is a 3,000 square foot loft. Castle Hill is easily accessible since being only 8 miles
from I-64 clients can easily get there from Charlottesville and Richmond using the Route 22 and
231 corridors. The internal roadway has been reconfigured to allow buses to drop people in front
of the barn and park nearby in a holding area. This means there is reduced vehicle trips on
public roads as they are encouraging the use of buses to their larger events.
They have met with neighbors and they are working on ways to prevent their event guests from
travelling on Turkey Sag Road from Route 20. They have contacted the GPS companies to route
people along the Route 231 Corridor whenever feasible. They strongly emphasize the need for
guests to follow the printed directions included with their invitations and as described on their
website. Additionally, the tickets for the one larger agri-business event per year will have
directions printed on them. Currently, the vast majority of vehicles coming to the Castle Hill
Cidery do come from Route 231.
According to the county’s traffic engineer and the police department the i ntersection of Route 231
and Turkey Sag Road can safely accommodate the attendance of up to 1,100 people at Castle
Hill Cider events without a turn lane or other traffic mitigation efforts. After listening to our
neighbors they are requesting only 15 events at less than a half of that attendance level. For
each annual event over 500 they will submit the traffic mitigation plan to the county, which would
include the use of police officers to direct traffic at the intersections of Routes 640 and 231.
Castle Hill Cider is private. The barn is flanked on two sides by forested h ills that are 50’ higher
in elevation than the event barn. To the west are the unoccupied Southwest Mountains. The
closest residence to the event barn is 2,200’ away. There are several large estate properties in
the area. The nearest are Castle Hill Estate at a distance of 2,350’, Cismont Farm at 3,150’ and
Old Keswick Farm at 4,475’, which is a little under a mile away. The event barn or the parking
areas are practically invisible from the adjoining properties owner’s residences.
Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant.
Mr. Randolph asked what percent of the cider currently sold at the facility is in fact grown on site.
Mr. Rhett replied zero percent.
Mr. Randolph said when one uses the term of farm winery usually one understands that to m ean that
there are grapes sold on the premises. In this case there is no cider generated through apples grown in
this facility.
Mr. Rhett replied yes and that is typical of all wineries and cideries. When they start out they obtain their
products from other places.
Mr. Morris asked has Castle Hill Cidery initiated or performed a traffic impact study for Turkey Sag Road.
Mr. Rhett replied yes, Rainy Kemp was the traffic engineer and they did a traffic count during an event at
the intersection of Turkey Sag Road and Route 231. They counted the cars that were coming from both
directions. They also counted cars in front of the entrance to Castle Hill Cider y.
Mr. Morris asked if they did not extend west of the entrance, and Mr. Rhett replied that is correct.
Mr. Lafferty asked if he understands correctly that they have an orchard but it is just not bearing fruit yes.
Mr. Rhett replied yes, they have an orchard of over 600 trees.
Mr. Lafferty asked what percentage of the ciders will come from their own trees eventually.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 9, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED ON 11-7-12
9
Mr. Rhett replied it would be100 percent when the orchards become bearing.
Mr. Smith asked if they will plant more trees than that, and Mr. Rhett replied yes if all goes well.
Mr. Morris said in looking at the map provided is the area that is hatched off around the barn is that large
enough for the events over 1,000. It looks like it would be wonderful for 200 or 300 people. He asked if
they expect to confine the events for the 3,000 persons to that footprint.
Mr. Rhett replied he would suspect the event would spread a little bit more than what that dashed line
shows. He said they were not confining themselves to that footprint.
Mr. Lafferty asked Mr. Rhett to describe the nature of the parking lot.
Mr. Rhett replied that there are two types of parking. In front of the barn there is daily parking, which they
have put a grass reinforcement on the ground so that people can park there without creating erosion or
mud and ruining the landscape. Then to the entrance to the paddocks it also has that reinforcement mat,
but it is just field parking. Some people get married on one side of the barn so that the parking is then
placed in the opposite paddock. Then about 40 percent of the other clients get married on the west side
of the barn so the parking then is place in the east paddock so that the use of each paddock is basically
in half during the year.
Mr. Morris invited public comment.
Melton McGuire said he was hired by Route 231 in 2005 to help them develop the use plan for the
property. They asked him to come tonight and give the history. In 2005, Castle Hill was just under a
1,600 acre estate that included a 400 acre previously approved subdivision on Walnut Mountain that was
on the ridge line overlooking Keswick. It included another 1,200 acres between 231 and the peak of the
Southwest Mountains. An existing resident of Keswick and a person who intended to move there joined
forces when they learned that a developer was looking at the property. The property had some 30 lots on
the mountain and had another nearly 90 lots in that flat area of Keswick. They joined forces as Route 231
and pursued a conservation easement that gave away all but five of those division rights. It also included
giving away the mountain property in its e ntirety. The Nature Conservancy is the easement holder. The
easement itself is more stringent than they would see in the average easement. It is a very long
exhausting easement. The Nature Conservancy has a local office and they are diligent about inspe cting
the property every year. During this process for the SUP they have been consulted on an ongoing basis.
Within the last 60 days he has been on the property with the Nature Conservancy and Mr. Rhett. They
have had the SUP in their hand and walked the property. They have had the ability to ask any questions
they liked. His understanding is that they approve of this SUP application and he believes there is a letter
in the staff’s files to that effect.
Billy Proffit said he had lived on Turkey Sag Road for 80 years. He has been over to Castle Hill when
they have weddings. He has seen the crowd of people they have had and has never seen an excessive
crowd of people. There was not any great loud noise. He did not think you could go to a wedding if they
did not have some kind of noise because it was a celebration. The people do not go into the site at one
time and do not leave at one time. It is not like every car has just one person. There are many times four
to five persons per car and sometimes they have a bus load of people. He did not see where they have
excessive traffic or that there has been any traffic problem. If they need to put in a lake, he thought it
would be good to preserve the water for the wild animals. The creeks are not running like they use to run.
Any improvements would be more money for county and he would ask why they would want to kick
against everything. As far as the traffic on the mountain he would agree with everyone. The traffic has
been more and more all the time but people are going across the mountain to go to Charlottesville to
keep from going the 250 way. He agreed that it has been dusty and it is rough and narrow. However, he
thought it was going to be that way the rest of our time. He supported the request.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 9, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED ON 11-7-12
10
John Henry Jordan said he lived about 3,500 feet away from Castle Hill Cidery and about 2,100 feet from
another winery located in the Keswick area. He is probably unique in that he gets bombarded by noise
from both directions. He made the following comments:
He will agree with Mr. Rhett on one thing that Keswick is a special place. At 10 o’clock on a
Saturday night on his front porch it is not quite as special as it used to be. He can’t sit out there
and listen to the noise from Castle Hill and another winery any more. It has taken away the
peace and quiet. It makes his animals run the fields. It causes his dog to bark and keeps his wife
and him awake. He pointed out that the 16 requested events are in addition to unlimited events
with 200 or more people. So the number up on the PowerPoint of 10,500 that is from what is
potentially one-third of the events that could be held on that property.
Mr. Jordon continued that he wanted to talk about noise. He appreciates the fact that the
applicant had submitted a plan that would reduce the noise that they generate to a 55 decibel
level. He thinks people need to understand how decibels work. In the application that was
submitted there is some information that says the generally accepted noise level for a quiet rural
area is 30 decibels. If they look there is a chart, which he believed was provided by the applicant.
The difference between 30 decibels and 55 decibels is a 16 fold increase in the noise. He would
be willing to bet that anybody sitting in the dais or in the audience if he was told that he would
have to suffer through a 16 fold increase because his neighbors wanted to have more parties, he
did not think they would sit or lay down for that. So they could understand why they were a little
bit upset about that.
The road widths within that property to include the one shown going over the culvert one of the
applications indicates that is a residential driveway. He did not believe there is a residence on
this parcel. That road should be consid ered a commercial road and should be held to those
standards. He found it hard to believe that anybody sitting here knowing and having lived through
as most of us have the willful and continued disregard for the noise ordinances that are already in
place. They are noise ordinances that are essentially unenforceable in the way in which they are
set up. If they grant the SUP’s they should not think for a minute that the owners will comply with
those noise regulations moving forward. He asked that the Comm ission to deny this application.
Charlie Proffit said he was born and raised at Castle Hill and he felt it was just like home. The people are
nice as they can be. He goes up there all the time and has been up there when they had a wedding. He
was really surprised how they handed it. They parked some in the front field when they come in. They
took the rest of them around the barn and parked them in the trees so they could walk right into it. He did
not see where all that noise was when he attended the wedding. He enjoyed the place. His grandfather
worked there. There are a lot of nice people that treat you right. He had heard good things from the
public particularly about and the view. He looks out for that mountain from one end to the other and liv es
up there. He does not understand where the noise and traffic is. He did not know about the water
coming in. Sometimes the stream needs to be opened up. He was interested in the Castle Hill Winery
since it was a nice place to go.
Lee Beltrone said she lived at Berke Hollow Farm across from historic Castle Hill which was adjacent to
Castle Hill Cider. Castle Hill Cider has requested this special use permit to have one event for up to
3,000 persons a year and 15 events for up to 500 persons per year. This is in addition to their by right
ability to hold events for up to 200 persons every day of the year. In fact, they can have even more than
one 200 person event on any given day. Their request for the added larger events offers no explanation
for what these events would be. The chart on page 6 of the staff report, which they are considering,
compares other venues and their approved special use permits. These permits are temporary events and
include the King Family Vineyard Pink Ribbon Polo Event for up to 2,000 persons and the music festival
for 500 persons three days a year for a total of 15,000 people. All residents living around Castle Hill Cider
have a right to know what each large event will specifically be. It is the responsibility of Albemarl e County
to require this information so that each event request can be carefully considered so that it does not affect
the welfare of local residents. Castle Hill Cidery if granted permission to hold 15 undefined 500 person
events plus the 3,000 person event could have a profound effect on the entire Keswick area. Please
consider this request with great care since it has far reaching implications not just for Keswick but all of
Albemarle County.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 9, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED ON 11-7-12
11
Art Beltrone, resident of 6057 Gordonsville Road in Keswick directly across from Castle Hill, mentioned
again that one of the primary issues that really dates back to the outdoor amplified music regulation that
was passed. That is enforcement. There is no enforcement that is handy for a resident who is
experiencing noise beyond the levels. Keep in mind these events happen during the evening usually on
weekends. There is not staff available from the county to address a problem. The only option is to call
the county zoning hotline, which he did Memorial Day a year ago to register a complaint and he has yet to
hear a response from that particular call. He raised a question with staff about something in the way of
music that was not amplified. He asked where that is that to be considered. He asked if that is to be
considered under the farm winery legislation or somewhere else. He went to the police department to
pose the same question. If the music is not amplified but it is permeating a house what is the redress for
a citizen. Is it zoning or is it the police. The police have no idea and they have not even been informed
about the regulations and who is to do the enforcing. He still does not know the answer to that question.
So enforcement, enforcement, enforcement – that is the key to this. There has to be some way for
enforcement to take effect.
Stuart Madany, the cider maker at Castle Hill Cider, wanted to take a couple of moments to describe what
the 3,000 person event might look like. There are currently two large cider events in the United States.
One is in Franklin County, Massachusetts and one is in Michigan in the Great Lakes region. The one in
Massachusetts is much more established and is in its 18th year and has grown to have 35 events at 13
locations for two days with about 2,000 attendees. This event includes many events within it such as an
amateur cider competition, workshops, talks and tastings on orchards, cider making, cooking, cheese
paring, cider appreciation, etc. They have heritage apple tastings, sign wood exchange, etc. Cider
producer enthusiasts from all over the United States and even from some foreign countries come and
attend this. The primary draw of it is what they call the cider salon where over 100 ciders can be tasted in
one place. The Great Lakes Cider and Berry Festival in Michigan is similar but only in its fourth year, not
as large and pretty much just all in one farm right now. More recently several apple growing and cider
producing regions are having cider weeks. Virginia will have its first cider week from November 9 to 17.
They will have 25 events with many of them being in store tastings. However, they are looking to grow
this cider event for the mid-Atlantic region of apple production. If they were approved for this, it would
give them a chance to have a center piece event at Castle Hill while still having many events in the area.
They think that this would be an amenity to the county, local residents and be an economic boom to the
county as well.
Tony Vanderwarker, Chairman of the Piedmont Environmental Council, said they love wineries. They
have a local newsletter that goes out quarterly and they strongly support 78 of them across the Piedmont
region. However, they also have noticed with a great sense of alarm when these agricultural operations
veer off the track from being a pure agricultural organization and become a tourism business with
helicopter rides and paint ball venues. That is the issue the Planning Commission faces. Is this a valid
winery or a cidery? Do they grow their own apples? Is it a ge nuine agricultural operation or is it almost an
agricultural operation and really masquerading as a tourist operation? They can’t make that decision.
Then they have to find as many other counties have done a bright line or a balance between the welfare,
health and safety of the neighbors and citizens of the area and for the matter the whole county and
agricultural and commercial interest. They need to have that bright line so when this situation comes up
again, which will come up again and again, they can say well this is our established bright line.
He thinks they have one at 200 with unlimited events. He strongly encouraged the Commission to
prevent the kinds of excesses that they have seen in Fauquier and Loudoun to hold this 200 person limit.
It makes sense and they have it. Therefore, they should not leave it.
Ann VandeWalker, a long time resident of Keswick, said her mother moved to Keswick as a two year old,
which would have been 93 years ago. Her father helped develop the Southwest Mountain H istoric
District. She strongly objects to this proposal because they moved there first. A lot of the families have
been in the neighborhood for over 100 years. She did not think it was fair that all of a sudden they should
be subjected to this assault from noise and traffic.
Susan Forsehler, a Keswick resident for 13 years, said she lived within a mile of the cidery and was very
negatively impacted by the noise. Almost every Saturday they can count on hearing the live music. They
can hear the boom of the base in their back yard. They can even make out lyrics of songs that are being
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 9, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED ON 11-7-12
12
played. They moved to Keswick because it is such a beautiful tranquil area. It has completely changed
their weekends. They have to think twice about parties in their own bac kyard. The traffic is a concern.
They love to walk on Turkey Sag Road. On occasions they took their puppy for a walk and unfortunately
happened to coincide with a large event last fall. There was traffic continually going back and forth down
the road. Many people did not know where it was so were stopping and asking. Apparently this is a big
problem with people not knowing where they are going. Going over the gravel on Turkey Sag is very
dangerous. She has experienced first-hand coming over the mountain in the dark there is not enough
rooms at points for two cars to pass safety. It is extremely dangerous. They hope the Commission will
seriously consider noise impact, the safety impact and will deny the request for this special use permit
application.
Cathy Eberly, resident on Turkey Sag Road since 1987, said her family lives over the mountain from
Castle Hill Cider approximately one mile from Route 20. They live on the gravel portion of the road that
crosses the Southwest Mountains. Frankly, it has always been unsafe. The road is rough, steep, dusty
and narrow with only a single lane in places. It is challenging to navigate in good weather and
treacherous in bad. At times over the years she has felt protected by the condition of our road precise ly
because it is rough and dangerous some people choose not to use it. That keeps some speeding traffic
off of the mountain. It is the m ain reason her family has not pushed to have it paved. However, now
everything has changed. Since Castle Hill Cider opened they have seen a significant increase in traffic
traveling to the cidery over their section of the road. As a farm winery this cidery can a lready host an
unlimited number of events for up to 200 guests. They believe some of the commercial vehicles they see
are vendors servicing the cidery. They know others are guests. Many of them unfamiliar with the area
are brought to their road via their GPS devices on their way to weddings or other special events. When
some of these travelers reach the gravel section of the road they want to turn around but there is no place
to safety do so. Turkey Sag Road is already challenged accommodating current levels of cidery traffic.
She could not imagine what will happen should Castle Hill be granted permission t o open its doors to
much larger events. One of her neighbor’s concerns was the special use permit would remain with the
property forever. In the report prepared for tonight county planner, Scott Clark, recognizes it would be
impossible to control the traffic approaching Castle Hill Cider from the Route 20 end of Turkey Sag Road.
To put it bluntly adding more traffic to our road would make an already unsafe situation even worse. For
this reason she urged the Planning Commission not to recommend approval of this special use permit.
Dave Paulson said he had been associated with the cidery since its inception and actually works for the
owner. First he would like to acknowledge the concerns and comments for both people on the other side
of Turkey Sag Road over the mountain as well as those along Keswick. All voices should be heard and
all opinions considered. He would like to point out some of the factors. In this special use perm it they are
actually going to improve and mitigate those concerns to a great er extent than leaving it to status quo.
One, with respect to the traffic while he can acknowledge that there can’t be a condition that says people
can’t access Turkey Sag off of Route 20; the right hand turn only for those departing the events will
certainly have an impact. He would also like to point out that they are ta lking about 15 days per year of
incremental increased traffic above the 200 again and often times coming with several people to a car.
They have talked to the neighbors and are actively trying to figure out ways to make sure they are vigilant
in making sure the invitations do in fact imply a warning. They do not want their guests coming over that
any more than they do. On the sound 55 decibels is the level of a speaking voice and not his amplified
speaking voice. A couple walking along the boundary line talking to one another is 55 decibels. The
ordinance currently is at 60 decibels up to 10 p.m. and then 55 decibels after that. They have set it at 55
decibels at all times. So that should actually improve the level of sound. They are going to engage an
acoustical engineer to come up with a plan. That plan has got to be approved by the zoning administrator
and it will include compliance measures to make sure the sound at our property lines is no higher than
conversational speech. It is not the number of attendees that increase the sound. It is the band or the
D.J. They have a mechanism or sound limiters and various other things, such as panels they can put up,
that can assure compliance with that. The notion that the special use permit is going to increase the
sound level just does not make any sense.
Tim Edmond said he would address the Commission as a competitor of Castle Hill Cider. He was the
owner of the fourth active cidery in the state. He speaks not as a competitor but as a partner. He would
speak to them as a neighbor and how they have conducted business as a competitor. Beyond that what
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 9, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED ON 11-7-12
13
they are doing on a day in and day out basic he thought they need to look at the broader implications of
the economic revitalization of this area and what the industry at large is doing by allowing them to hold
events with marginally more people through the year with to 200 to 500 people. He did not think they are
going to see any major impacts for those marginal amounts of people. When they look at the wedding
venues they are a perfect venue. It makes sense for a lot of reasons. He did not think the marginal
increase in the number of people at that venue is going to materially impa ct traffic or noise patterns. He
agreed with the recommendations of the staff and with the measures they have laid forward to preserve
noise and protect traffic patterns. Lastly, he would like to address the event that they have mentioned.
Lending to the point that they are a good neighbor they on behalf of our industry have supported we as a
cider making community to use their space to do things like apple tastings and educational events
through the course of that larger event that they are proposing. He thought the economic aspects of what
they are doing are important. He thinks the approval and conciliatory gestures they have laid forward with
regards to the reduction of the number of events they are going to have over the course of the year are
important to consider. He agreed that they should be granted this approval.
Bart Page was not present to speak.
Al Schornberg, owner of Keswick Vineyards, suggested that the Commission should accept the staff’s
recommendation. He wanted to address the issue of noise because their name did come up. A couple of
weeks ago he was forwarding an email that was written to the Board of Supervisors. He received this
email during an event. He thought it would be a good idea if he called the Albemarle Police if the y were
not doing anything of an emergency basis to come out and give a listen. Officer Joseph Richards came
out and positioned himself at a couple different spots on the property. He would be happy to tell you that
what he heard would not even violate residential standards. He has his contact information if the
Commission would like it.
Ken Heimgartner said he was asked to read a statement by Judith Sommer who lives adjacent to Castle
Hill. In the interest of time he submitted the statement to the Pl anning Commission for the record. (See
Attachment A at the end of the minutes – Statement to Albemarle County Planning Commission, Oct. 9,
2012 re: Castle Hill Cider SP-2011-0000-02) Basically it is two years of documentation of noise issues.
There is a lot of heart and emotion in this piece. He really feels for her because she is torn by the lack of
the rural identity that they have all come to love about Virginia. He lives on Plank Road in North Garden
near the Crossroads. When they bought the property there a few years ago it was everything that they
dreamed about when they came to Virginia. He was in the Navy for 32 years and 18 years were in
Virginia. It is just a delightful state. The rural character is what attracted him. He was appalled that
under the thin veneer of agriculture they have let ourselves endorse what basically are event centers or
commercial entities that export noise and traffic. Here they are in the agricultural heart of the country and
they are putting commercial entities out in the neighborhoods. If he knew then what he knows now in
terms of living adjacent to a so called winery he would not have bought the property. He would offer to
the Commission that they are going to have trouble in the future getting people that want to buy this
property so that event centers can locate themselves next to our property. He thinks they should say
within the 200. If they grant this to Castle Hill they need an enforcement mechanism for the noise. Ms.
Sommer has two years of inability to enforce noise regulations. He flew airplanes off carriers and he
would tell them that 55 decibels is dependent on the atmospherics. It can be really loud one day and very
quiet the next. It seems really questionable to have a decibel measurement since it is what the neighbors
hear. If it is ruining their quality of life then they need to be heard.
Pam Moran said she was a neighbor of Cathy Eberly and lived right where the gravel meets what use to
be her paved road, which was no longer maintained very well, on Turkey Sag Road on the west side.
They also have an annual event. Their annual event happens several times a year are floods that come
down off the mountain. So one of the things she would offer is that Turkey Sag Road in no way, shape or
form can support the traffic that is every increasing on our side of the mountain going over to the cidery.
This past week end her family was out for a walk. They were stopped by a young couple coming down
from D.C. wanting to get over to the cidery driving their beautiful BMV. She told them that she would not
drive her car over the mountain to 231 because the road is not safe or really particularly drivable for cars
going across that road. She advised them to turn around, which they did, to go back to Barbou rsville to
come around 231. She asked the Commission to think very carefully about what are the issues that are
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 9, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED ON 11-7-12
14
going to face people trying to get over Turkey Sag Mountain on a road that looks like that several times a
year.
Steward Hummelston said she lived at Castle Hill Farm. They co-authored the easement with John Carr
who is their next door neighbor. She was very disappointed in John Carr because he wrote this
easement with them because that land is precious. She thought that they have not been good
neighbors. On Saturday and Friday nights they are inundated with cars coming onto their property
looking for the cidery. She has been shocked during the weekends how the traffic has increased. She
knows for a fact that they frequently have events already that are over 200 people and nothing ever
seems to happen to them. So they already don’t follow the rules. She hoped the Commission elects not
to permit this to happen. They love the area and this land that was so previous to Thomas Jefferson. He
has no right to come in here and do this.
Robert Levers, resident on Turkey Sag Road, said he lived on the segment that was between where the
cidery entrance is and 231. Obviously he was in a situation where he gets the benefit of all the traffic that
comes there. Therefore, he has a personal involvement there. He wanted to bring something to the
attention of the board. If they were not familiar with Route 231, he would point out it was a scenic byway.
He was not a traffic expert, but when the number 3,000 came up he was thinking about what was going to
go on along 231. VDOT has already said this is all going to be fine. However, could they imagine on a
day with 3,000 people on Route 231. He wanted the county to be aware that on a day with 3,000 people
on 231 there was going to be a real mess. They need to take extra precautions just for the safety of the
general public. He would hate to be driving from Gordonsville to Shadwell or vice versa on a day when
there was going to be that much traffic involvement. His own personal feelings aside, he was also close
enough to hear the music. However, it has not been so much of an issue for him. The traffic is a real
concern due to the character of that stretch of 231 and he hoped they take that into th eir overall
consideration.
Peter Hallock, resident of Keswick, pointed out that Sheriff Bailey called Route 231 one of the most
dangerous roads in Albemarle County and no one has improved it. The traffic has gotten worse. For all
of the glorious tax revenue they think they are going to get off of this they use it up on road
improvements. He suggested that if they do have to improve this that they put a year limitation on it
where they come back and discuss it again with the neighbors and let the neighbors know whether it is a
success or not. They made a lot of promises, but they have no way to enforce them. If they came back a
year later they could see if they lived up to what they say they are going to do.
Jeff Werner, with Piedmont Environmental Council, said that PED is opposed to the expansion of
nonagricultural events at the Castle Hill Cidery. They have long supported local agriculture in their nine
county regions. But, there is a growing tension within some of their counties relative to w ineries. Some
wineries have adopted business plans that in part rely on wineries becoming event venues. The debate
about wineries now has little to do with agricultural activities. Instead it is about the i mpacts of these
nonagricultural events that are hosted at the wineries. PEC believes that these nonagricultural events
should be accessory to the winery operation and not its primary focus. Castle Hill Cidery, which is by the
regulations a winery, is within the state and nationally registered Southwest Mountains Historic District.
The conservation efforts of private landowners allow this landscape to look today pretty much as it did
several hundred years ago. Almost 16,000 of the 37,000 acres in the district are under voluntary
conservation easement. As they know Route 231 is designated state and national scenic by way. In
short this is a very special part of Virginia and of Albemarle County.
Mr. Werner continued noting that in emails that they have received and comments tonight they have
heard concerns expressed by local residents about both the impacts of additional events at the cidery and
also about the impacts that are already being experienced by the by-right activities that are occurring
there and nearby at Keswick Vineyards. So before any consideration of this special use permit the
county needs to resolve how it is going to enforce the regulations that already govern the current activities
at these wineries. The concerns raised tonight are not about late night field work or late night harves ting.
The issues are about nonagricultural related parties, which general non -agric related noise and traffic.
None of these contribute to the rural character of that area. There are 15 wineries in Albemarle County.
If the county approves this special use permit for a winery located in a historic district while on a scenic by
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 9, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED ON 11-7-12
15
way that is in conservation easement and surrounded by land in conservation easement and it is opposed
by nearby neighbors under what possible circumstances would the county deny a similar request from
another winery in the county. Approval at any scale here creates a slippery slope by which all residents
of the county who happen to live near wineries are going to face the same negative impacts of potentially
additional non agric activities nearby. These are activities that every year seems to be increasing in scale
and scope. So the Planning Commission should recommend denial of this special use permit and at the
very least any consideration of approval should include a one-year limit like the Crozet Music Festival that
comes back every year. They should allow the community to come back and talk about this every year.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Morris invited the applicant for rebuttal.
Mr. Rhett said he would yield the floor to Dave Paulson.
Dave Paulson said that he wanted to spend a minute rebutting some of the claims, concerns and
comments, many of which were very good and expressed opinions that need to be heard. However,
there were some comments of which he would like to address.
The notion of are they a legitimate farm winery or just an event venue he thought has been
applied across the board at other wineries. They are unequivocally a farm winery. They have an
orchard planted and John Rhett gave the statistics and the number of trees. They are going to be
using 100 percent of their own fruit to produce and bottle the cider. The State law that created
licensed farm wineries specifically allowed for events because they allow for the economic
viability of what is otherwise tends to be a money losing proposition.
There is a tremendous investment in land, labor, and equipment to get a farm winery started and
to sustain it. Nobody is getting rich in the farm winery business. In order to be economically
viable they have got to have events. That is why the state requires that. That is why the county
requires that. The state then allows the county to put certain restrictions for the health, safety and
other welfare. The county has said those events should be 200 in general, but very explicitly
says that there are customization opportunities through the special use permit process. Not
every venue is the same. There are different traffic implications. There are different sized
venues and whether there is available on site parking, how close they are to the neighbors and
other public health and safety considerations.
The notion that all of them are the same and they have some slippery slope he did not think is
correct. He thinks that each venue is very different where uniquely situated to handle the
moderate amount of increased traffic that they are requesting for the events 200 to 500.
Unequivocally the event that would be up to 3,000 would have a traffic impact. However, they
have a traffic mitigation plan that has been approved by the County Traffic Engineer and the
Police Department to handle that. That is one day per year that they might have if they are lucky
that many people at a cidery festival. That would mean that the industry has grown , which would
be a good thing for Albemarle County and the State of Virginia.
With respect to the other side of Turkey Sag Road, he gets it and they d on’t want their guests
coming that way anymore than those residents do. They are going to everything they can to try
to prevent that. They can go on to Google Earth and change that around. That can actually have
an impact by having these GPS put a warning saying gravel road or whatever. They will do
whatever they can to prevent that by the use of just more vigilance in making sure that they follow
the written directions or the directions that are on the website.
One final point is that they have been having events since April, 2010 and did not receive a single
complaint directly to us. Perhaps somebody else received a complaint. However, they never
received a complaint for nearly 18 months. Now all of a sudden there are all kinds of noise
complaints. He did not think the band or D.J. was playing any softer at the events that they had in
2010 and 2011 than events that they have had recently in 2012. That said people are hearing the
events and they have a mitigation strategy to make sure that they comply with the county
ordinance, once again, that conversational speech level at the property line.
Mr. Morris noted that he would like to ask a couple of questions. He asked if this were approved for the
3,000 venue could an apple cider festival be held in calendar year 2013 on their property.
Mr. Paulson replied yes in 2013, but not 2012. That is exactly what they would like to do.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 9, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED ON 11-7-12
16
Mr. Randolph asked what the permitted level of participants was currently on site for any activity.
Mr. Paulson replied 200.
Mr. Randolph asked if he could explain how on the website, Lifestyle, Home and Gardens and Internet
Brands and Incorporated Property, somebody in their organization indicated that the maximum capacity
of their venue is 1,000. He asked if that is a typo.
Mr. Paulson said it is not a typo and he did not have a good answer for that quick frankly. They do have a
1,000 person capacity. However, they have not had a 1,000 person event.
Mr. Randolph asked what the largest event was they have had on that property so far.
Mr. Paulson replied to their knowledge, and they have gone back and looked at the records, they have
had two events that they can say were over 200. One was an event for an association, the CFA Institute.
It was over the course of an afternoon and he believed there were 450 people o n that invitation list.
However, they came and went at different times. But, it is entirely reasonable to assume that at certain
points during that period there was over 200. They had a wedding that he thinks was in the 350 range.
But besides that of the roughly 50 events that they will have through 2012 they d on’t know of any others
that have been in excess of 200. Most events at Castle Hill typically are over 100 because it is a big
venue. However, the great majority of the events are 100 to 200.
Mr. Lafferty asked in the 3,000 event are they going to send invitations to each of the 3,000 people.
Mr. Paulson replied that it would not be by invitation, but it would be by tickets sold in advance. On those
tickets would be the directions.
Mr. Morris closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the Commission. Before they get into the
discussion the Commission would take a 5 minute break.
Julia Monteith left the meeting at 7:44 p.m.
The Commission took a break at 7:44 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 7:50 p.m.
Mr. Randolph said when he did admissions work there was a common adage that the thicker the folder
the thicker the applicant. In this case he thinks that has to apply because there is no other application
that has come before the Commission that there was the degree of documentation of neighborhood
concerns as he has received directly in this application. He made the following comments.
He would like to know the track record certainly in communications he received that began on
May 26, 2012 with noise complaints. He looked up the definition of a nuisance and it is anything
that interferes with the use or enjoyment of property, endangers person nel, health or safety or is
offensive to the senses. Certainly from the testimony this evening he had heard a great degree of
concern about traffic and noise that would constitute a nuisance. He would also like to point out
that they did permit a firing range in the south of Albemarle County and that had a public benefit.
They understood there that the applicant was doing everything possible, which was the county
itself to ensure that there would be a minimal amount of noise. That was something that was
agreed upon in advance here and discussed with 20’ berms, etc. Unfortunately, there has been a
track record of a lack of performance on the noise level for the people affected.
The Comp Plan makes it very clear that this land is zoned rural. Again, the question that was
proposed by one of the speakers this evening is the question of whose rights are paramount. Do
the rights of a commercial enterprise trump the property owners that are contiguous, adjacent or
affected by the commercial enterprise. In his definition of rural the people that are the neighbors
that are living in the community that have lived there in some cases for multiple generations and
certainly for decades, their interests and needs are paramount. Therefore their needs should
trump the commercial interest. He was very concerned about the precedent in this case. He
thinks as Jeff Werner has correctly identified that there is a slippery slope here that they as a
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 9, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED ON 11-7-12
17
Commission need to proceed very carefully. He was not persuaded that there is a justification to
go beyond the 200 level that is already the common standard for events at wineries. The King
Family Vineyard event, as he pointed out earlier, relates to a fundraiser and therefore for a
charitable organization whereas the event that was projected here for 3,000 as far as he knows
the beneficiary of this event would be cidery itself. Therefore, he cannot v ote for this special use
permit.
Mr. Lafferty suggested that they hear from our attorney to try to clarify some of this and what the State
law says.
Mr. Kamptner clarified that farm winery licenses issued by the state come in two classes, Class A and
Class B. Class B licenses do not require that any of the produce for the wine actually be produced on the
farm. There is a minimum threshold that has to be produced within the Commonwealth for the Class B
license. The Class A license does require that a certain percentage be produced on the farm – 51
percent. A farm is defined as all of the land owned or leased by the farm winery licensee located within
the Commonwealth. So it is a very expansive definition of farm. However, someone can get a farm
winery license without producing the product that is used in the wine on the farm itself. That probably
exists in part to allow operators to start the farm winery business before their trees or vines are ready to
actually go into production. He made the following comments.
Getting to the state law, those who have been attending the farm winery related public hearings
over the last few years know the General Assembly expanded the law on the state’s authority
over local zoning regulation a few years ago with respect to farm wineries and the types of
activities that they allow by right. W hen the Board adopted the regulations staff, the Board and
the Commission at the time studied the usual and customary activities that were held at farm
wineries. They are required to allow the use by right if they are usual and customary. They
looked at our regulations and what other localities are doing and 200 seemed to be the threshold
which took us beyond what was usual and customary. So that is why they require the special use
permit for these larger sized events.
State law also regulated how they can deal with noise from these events. If there is any noise
produced by something other than outdoor amplified music they are required to regulate that
noise the same way they regulate any other noise. In the zoning ordinance if it is a land use in
the rural areas it is the 60 decibels during the daylight hours and 55 decibels at night. Outdoor
amplified music is the exception. They can regulate that. What the State law says is that in
authorizing outdoor amplified music at a farm winery the locality shall consider the effect on
adjacent property owners and nearby residents. The Commission has heard that tonight.
The other thing is they are prohibited from imposing any regulations on the usual and customary
activities. There is an exception. They started in 2010 with our new regulations as having no
regulations. However, they can regulate once the county has identified there being a substantial
impact on the health, safety, or welfare of the public. So they are mindful of the issues that are
being generated even by the smaller scale activities. Admittedly, they have not received very
many complaints from the other farm wineries in the last two years since the regulations were
adopted.
Mr. Morris invited questions.
Mr. Lafferty asked if outdoor amplified sound implies that the speakers are outside of the building or if
they had the doors open.
Mr. Kamptner replied they think the common sense interpretation of that is if the structures w ithout doors
or with doors and windows wide open that those should be considered to be outdoor amplified music. In
looking at the localities around the country that have bothered to define that term they have defined it that
way.
Mr. Lafferty asked if weddings would be usual activities.
Mr. Kamptner replied yes, that the research was that weddings and wedding receptions were usual and
customary at farm wineries around the Commonwealth.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 9, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED ON 11-7-12
18
Mr. Smith said as Mr. Randolph so eloquently spoke he agreed with him, but feared that they might be
trying to close the barn door and the horse has already escaped. They are already there with the noise.
One thousand people talking is loud if they live in the country. He thought they were caught between a
rock and a hard spot and they will do another one.
Mr. Dotson opposed the special use permit because it was a question of scale and frequency. He might
be the only one here that actually has fewer problems with one event of 3,000 because it was just one
event. It is special and everyone can acknowledge it, avoid the area and close the windows that day. He
was comfortable with a single event of 3,000. Where he has h eart pain is in that 200 to 500 range. He
was concerned if they did this here then they would experience a rush of others to also request 500. The
unique thing about this site is the large barn that could accommodate 500 people inside it. However, with
tents he was sure other venues could do the same thing. If they don’t have a barn just like this, they could
still accommodate them. It is a question of scale and frequency and compatibility. So for those reasons
primarily he will not support approval.
Mr. Franco said he had been torn by this whole application. Similar to what Mr. Dotson said he felt it had
been more a question of scale than anything else. He looks around at the rest of the community and
sees they do have events that seem to be of this scale such as Fox field. They have events and are able
to handle events like that. It seems that there are ways to address some of the impacts like noise and
traffic similar again to the example of Fox field where instead of increasing the numbers of parking spaces
reduce the number of parking spaces. They forced the users to come in car pooling or b uses and other
ways to reduce the traffic impacts on the adjacent roads. Noise, again, they could limit it being just inside
the building and help to mitigate the noise. He was less concerned about some of those impacts. He did
not think they were there yet having mitigated them. However, the scale is the question. He goes back to
a lot of things that they do.
Mr. Franco continued that they don’t have all of the Commissioners present tonight since Mr. Loach is
missing. The quote he often uses is “First do no harm.” So any time they draw these bright lines of 200 it
has always been safe. They know it is safe at 200 and are willing to look at exceptions above that under
certain cases. He did not know of any other venue that has this sort of scale that could handle this kind of
event. Again, there are some impacts that need to be dealt with. The 3,000 once a year does not bother
him. He has questions about increasing that size on a regular basis from 200 to 500. It seems there
could be some sort of balance of giving up other days. One of the complaints he heard from the public a
lot has been that they could have 200 every day of the year. So what happens if they gave up some of
those days in order to have the bigger event. So three weeks before the big event when they are
applying for the zoning clearance and other things that during that three week period there could be no
other events. That would seem to be a way to mitigate that as well. He was not sure they were there yet.
However, he was still open to hearing what the other Commissioners have to say.
Mr. Morris noted that he had the same problem as Mr. Franco and Mr. Dotson with the 15 events that are
requested between 200 and 500. He thought they have established the level of 200 as the norm for
events. He liked the idea of the Cider Fest and 3,000 does not bother him for one time a year. However,
what he would like to see is that they c ap it at either one or two years and then revisit it to evaluate what
they have before they go on and just say this is in perpetuity.
Mr. Lafferty agreed since he did not have a problem with the 3,000. He thought it would be good for the
county economically and sort of to educate people about the cidery. They don’t have that opportunity very
often and endorsement by the other cidery in the county he thinks is helpful. In addition, they will give
notice to all the neighbors before the event happens. He has a problem with going over the 200 because
they have set that standard. Other wineries could come to us and say they had set a precedent and they
will take advantage of it. Basically he was in agreement with Mr. Morris, Mr. Dotson and Mr. Franco.
Mr. Dotson noted a question for staff that he was not clear on regarding the distinction between a special
event and a temporary event. In other words, if this special use permit were simply denied could the
applicant come back and seek either a special or temporary event for a one day cider festival or is it
important that is included in the special use permit.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 9, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED ON 11-7-12
19
Mr. MacCall, representative with Zoning, replied he believed they could because it is a separate event
and could call it something different. There is nothing that would preclude multiple uses on a particular
property. They have the agricultural uses that go on now as well as the farm winery use that is
specifically identified. However, it is a special use permit he believed in the rural areas as well. He did
not think there was anything that would preclude them from asking for another special event.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out another option could be that they recommend if the Commission so desires to
the Board approval of this special use permit for only the one event and not the other 15. The applicant
might not be agreeable to that, but certainly the Commission could make that recommendation along with
the conditions that go with that.
Mr. Morris said just taking his point as it is could they put a two year limit on that to be revisited.
Mr. Cilimberg replied yes, the Commission could make that recommendation.
Mr. Morris noted that it may not be what the applicant wants and they can say absolutely not.
Mr. Franco added that putting the time limit does make him feel better by saying let’s do it for two years
and try it out. If they were to come back in two years and had a track record that there was not an issue
at 200, he would be more willing to entertain more events that might bump up the extra 15 that go to 500.
The increase could be permitted if there was a better track record of performance.
Mr. Morris suggested that the two years would give them an opportunity to not only have an initial year
which is going to be shaky, but then the second year and at the end of calendar year 2014 revisit it. But,
that is just a thought.
Mr. Lafferty asked if Mr. Franco was including the special event with 3,000 people in that two year
suggestion.
Mr. Franco replied yes, he was saying they scratch the other 15 events that were 200 to 500 and move
forward with the special use permit for the 3,000 person single event.
Mr. Morris said he thought the Commission was all in agreement with that.
Mr. Randolph asked if the applicant agreed.
Mr. Morris asked if the applicant would like to address that, and Mr. Paulson replied no.
Mr. Franco pointed out they were realizing, of course, that this is just a recommendation for the Board of
Supervisors.
Mr. Morris agreed that they have a chance to take it before the Board for the original request.
Mr. Benish noted that essentially they are eliminating condition 2. Condition 2 is the one that cites the 15
events.
Mr. Franco suggested reworking condition 3 to say 201 to 3000.
Mr. Benish asked if he wants to cite the two-year time limit.
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of SP-2011-000002 Castle
Hill Cidery subject to the conditions as recommended by staff, as amended, eliminating condition 2 ;
amending condition 3 to say 201 to 3,000 people and to make the special use permit good for two years.
Mr. Morris invited further discussion.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 9, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED ON 11-7-12
20
Mr. Kamptner said just to clarify for the special use permit being good for two years they can have two of
these events one per calendar year.
Mr. Morris said that is correct.
Mr. Kamptner said or one per 12-month period if the Board of Supervisors approves it.
Mr. Morris added it would be re-evaluated at the end of calendar year 2014. It gives the applicant two full
years plus whatever is left of 2012 for two events.
Mr. Benish noted staff will cross check the conditions to make sure they have captured the intent of the
Commission’s recommendation.
Mr. Randolph said he had a question of the consistency for Mr. Franco with the 2,000 versus 3,000 in that
they have 2,000 out already at King Family Vineyard. Does that number of 3,000 affect him in any way
since they are going beyond what is already the largest event at a winery in the county.
Mr. Franco said that it does not bother him. Again, he goes back to there are conditions in here that deal
with traffic m anagement. They do have other events. He does not remember what Monticello is allowed
in their historic district. However, he believed it was much more than 2,000. It was more about 5,000 at
Mont Alto. Again, it was not just the site conditions of the area, but also the traffic management plan. He
thought they will have a traffic management plan that will be submitted and approved by the county.
Therefore, he was comfortable with 3,000 attendees once a year.
Mr. Randolph said he just wanted to ask for consistently.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Morris asked for a roll call.
Mr. Paulson asked to comment on two things. One, they were not talking about two years from now but
2013 and 2014. Second, without the opportunity of events from 200 to 500 he was assum ing that all of
the things that they proffered or conditioned with respect to the events at 55 decibels as opposed to 60
decibels would go away just for the 200 because there would be no change with respect to the events
that they would have as a normal farm winery.
Mr. Morris said he brings up an excellent point. It would seem that the requirements as set forth by the
state would apply.
Mr. Paulson said to all the other events the standard requirements under the existing county ordinance
and state law would apply to the unlimited number of 200.
Mr. Franco said it was appropriate that anything that goes above the requirement of the state law would
be applicable to the single event as opposed to all of the by right events. He would make that part of the
motion.
Mr. Smith seconded the amendment to the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 5:1. (Randolph nay)
Mr. Morris said the request would be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for
approval at a time to be determined with the following conditions.
1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan entitled “Special Use
Permit for Castle Hill Cider,” labeled “Index Title: CP1,” prepared by Dominion Engineering, and
dated 8/28/12, as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator.
To be in general accord with the plan, development shall reflect the following central features
essential to the design of the development:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 9, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED ON 11-7-12
21
Location of the structure (labeled “Event Barn”) used for the events
Location of the entrance and exit (labeled “New Entrance Road” and “Existing Entrance”)
Location of parking
Location of “Event Vicinity”
2. One single-day farm winery event for 201 to 3,000 persons may be held per 12-month period or
calendar year for two years and be re-evaluated at the end of 2014.
a. This event shall not be held without written approval from the Virginia Department of
Transportation of a traffic-management plan for the intersection Virginia Route 231 and
Turkey Sag Road. This plan shall require, and the permittee shall provide, police officers
or other trained personnel approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation to be at
the intersection of Virginia Route 231 and Turkey Sag Road to direct arriving and
departing traffic. This approval shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator no less
than three (3) weeks before the scheduled date for the festival.
b. The permittee shall obtain approval of a zoning clearance by the Zoning Administrator
prior to holding this event. The permittee shall apply for the zoning clearance no less than
three (3) weeks prior to the date of the event. Approval of the zoning clearance will be
contingent upon the Zoning Administrator determining that all conditions of this special
use permit have been satisfied.
c. Admission to this event shall only be by prior reservation or ticket purchase.
3. Before commencing the use, the permittee shall submit, and thereafter comply with, a sound
management plan to be prepared by a licensed acoustical engineer and approved by the Zoning
Administrator. This plan shall include a plan for monitoring sound levels at the property
boundaries and for immediately adjusting amplification equipment to reduce sound levels to no
more than the required maximum. During any event, includi ng those with attendance of 200 or
less, the sound level at the property lines of the site shall not exceed an average of 55 decibels
(dBA) for any five-minute period, or a more restrictive applicable maximum sound level
established in the Albemarle County Code.
4. Amplified sound for all events shall not begin before noon and shall end not later than 11:00 p.m.
5. At every event, traffic-management personnel shall be on site at the exit to direct traffic eastward
to Virginia Route 231. These personnel shall be in addition to the traffic-management personnel
required under condition 3(a) above. All departing traffic shall be directed to go eastward on
Turkey Sag Road, except for those vehicles whose occupants reside westward on Turkey Sag
Road.
6. The permittee shall provide prior notification of all events for more than 200 persons to all owners
of properties within 1,000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property and to the Zoning
Administrator. A notification letter shall be sent by mail at least 14 days bef ore each event. The
letter shall include:
a. The date, starting and ending times, and expected number of attendees for the event
b. A telephone number at which the permittee may be contacted during the event
c. The County’s zoning complaint hotline telephone number (434-296-5834) and identify it
as such.
7. No parking for any event shall be permitted within 200 feet of any stream.
8. Any new 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 her
designee for approval
9. Anything that goes above the requirement of the state law would be applicable to the
single event as opposed to all of the by right events.
SP-2012-00018 Castle Hill Cider Pond
PROPOSALS: SP-2012-00018: Request to permit fill in the floodplain for an existing pond and stream
crossing on 185.06 acres. No dwellings proposed.
ZONING: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in
development lots); FH Flood Hazard – Overlay to provide safety and protection from flooding
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 9, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED ON 11-7-12
22
SECTION: SP-2012-00018: 30.3.05.2.1(1), which allows for dams, levees and other structures for water
supply and flood control
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Areas – preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and
natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre in development lots)
LOCATION: 6065 Turkeysag Road, Keswick
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 049000000018B1, 049000000018B2
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna (Glenn Brooks)
AND
SP-2012-00019 Castle Hill Cider Stream Crossing
PROPOSALS: SP-2012-00019: Request to repair existing stream crossing in the floodplain and repair
culverts.
ZONING: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in
development lots); FH Flood Hazard – Overlay to provide safety and protection from flooding
SECTION: SP201200019: 30.3.05.2.1(2), which allows for water related uses such as boat docks, canoe
liveries, bridges, ferries, culverts and river crossings of transmission lines of all types.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Areas – preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and
natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre in development lots)
LOCATION: 6065 Turkey Sag Road, Keswick
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 049000000018B1, 049000000018B2
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna (Glenn Brooks)
Mr. Brooks noted that he had two special use permits on the same Castle Hill Cider property and asked if
the Commission wanted to hear the two items at the same time.
Mr. Kamptner said the two special use permit could be presented in one public hearing.
Glenn Brooks summarized the staff reports starting with the stream crossing of the driveway for SP-2012-
00019, Castle Hill Stream Crossing. He pointed out the stream crossing in question on the exhibit in the
staff report. The entrance drive to the property passes over Turkey Sag Creek, which is a perennial
stream with an approximated FEMA floodplain. This is a replacement of an existing crossing. In the
photo there were some remnants which he believed might have been part of the original crossing.
However, he never saw it, but the applicant has indicated that was part of the original crossing. Normally
the Commission would not see something like this since it would be considered as a replacement of an
existing crossing which had failed or deteriorated.
In this case it was raised so that floodplain impact necessitates obtaining a special use permit. The other
wrinkle is that two years ago the W ater Protection Ordinance was changed. This is not particularly under
the Planning Commission’s preview, but it will go to the Board of Supervisors. It is pertinent because for a
perennial stream the Water Protection Ordinance now requires either a bridge, an arch, or a boxed
culvert and not circular pipes like this. So there is some gray area of when you apply that. For a new
crossing it would be applied. For a replacement crossing it would probably not be required. If they
enlarge a crossing as you replace it he questioned if it should be applied or not. It is not too clear, which
is why he is taking that to the Board of Supervisors.
The preview of the Planning Commission is the floodplain. Since the road was raised a bit it does
increase the floodplain slightly in this area. The zoning ordinance is very strict in the way it is written and
it calls for no increases in flood levels, which is not always possible at a crossing or a bridge, and would
be interpreted to mean it has no impacts on adjacent properties or the larger environment picture. This is
very minor and increases it a bit in front of the drive, but it does not impact any other properties and does
not have a sufficient impact on the floodplain profile or plan view.
Staff recommends approval with the following standard conditions:
1. The applicant shall obtain approval from FEMA for changes to the floodplain, and update the
FEMA maps. This shall include FEMA’s conditional approval prior to the start of construction.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 9, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED ON 11-7-12
23
2. The applicant shall obtain all necessary federal and state agency approvals (Army Corps of
Engineers, Department of Environm ental Quality, etc.).
3. The applicant shall obtain Program Authority approval of a mitigation plan, and provide mitigation
according to the Water Protection Ordinance.
Mr. Dotson questioned condition 1 that says prior to start of construction. Since construction has already
taken place should that last sentence be stricken?
Mr. Brooks replied yes, the last sentence can be stricken The other condition requires all necessary
state and federal permits. The applicant may have gotten those, but he did not see copies at the time he
wrote the report.
Mr. Randolph asked if this application was coming to the Commission for a bridge to be designed and
built as was constructed here would this be approved by the Engineering Department of the county.
Mr. Brooks replied that they would probably have asked for a box or arch culvert in compliance with the
new Water Protection Ordinance By Right Crossing Criteria. That would have probably improved the
floodplain situation slightly, but it does not make a lot of difference in this case.
Mr. Lafferty asked if the approach to the bridge raised the roadway. When you go over the hump it looks
like it was at regular grade.
Mr. Brooks replied that he can’t tell at this point. It does look very close to the original grade, but he could
not tell since all of it is new grass at this point. He suggested that perhaps the applicant could tell us.
Mr. Morris invited further questions. There being none, staff was requested to move on to SP -2012-
00018 Castle Hill Pond.
Mr. Brooks Glenn summarized the staff report for SP-2012-00018 Castle Hill Pond. The proposal was to
obtain approval for a previously constructed dam.
Normally on an agricultural property the Commission might not see an application for a pond because
agricultural properties are typically exempt from our erosion and sediment control regulations, storm water
management regulations, and those sort of things. However, this is a floodplain and a perennial stream
so FEMA regulations apply. The FEMA regulations ar e not clear because the county allows ponds both
in the Water Protection Ordinance and Erosion Control. However, in the Zoning Ordinance they allow
ponds for water supply or public projects. The applicant has indicated this is for a water supply for their
agricultural operations and therefore is an allowable use.
He would move to the floodplain itself. The applicant has submitted a plan and a study for the floodplain.
He had a few differences with this study, which he discussed with Mr. Myers of Dominion Engineering.
He believes that the floodplain would include the pond and spill over in the area somewhere on the
embankment itself, which runs next to the stream or at the arched culvert. That is an area of a little
uncertainty. Regarding the way this pond is built typically on an engineered structure they would see a
rather large spillway system for larger storms to clear the embankment without eroding soils which are not
natural to the area or not as compacted or as tight and are resistant to erosion. If they did pass waters
over an embankment or an area that they knew might be vulnerable they would in some way reinforce it
so it would not erode during a large flood event. That was his one concern with the pond itself and the
way it was built. Mr. Myers did not have any objections to that analysis so he did add a condition so that
would be looked at if they did approve the pond considering the other factors.
Again, the Zoning Ordinance is rather strict in that it does not allow an increase in flood levels. This does
increase flood levels by a foot or there about. However, it does not change the flood profile on the lay of
the land except in the area of the pond. It does expand into the pond. Where it comes out is debatable.
However, he hopes to clarify that with improvements to the embankment or the spillway area where the
culvert is.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 9, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED ON 11-7-12
24
Staff’s recommends approval of SP-2012-00018 Castle Hill Cider Pond with the following conditions.
1. The applicant shall make improvements to the dam and culvert in order to provide a stable, non-
erosion path for floodwaters, while keeping flood level increases below one foot.
3. The applicant shall obtain County Engineer approval of plans for changes to the dam and culvert
prior to construction.
4. The applicant shall obtain Program Authority approval for an erosion and sediment control plan,
and obtain a land disturbance permit according to the Water Protection Ordinance requirements
prior to the start of construction for any changes, regardless of whether th e project exceeds the
minimum disturbance limits.
5. The applicant shall obtain all necessary federal and state agency approvals (Army Corps of
Engineers, Department of Environmental Quality, etc.).
6. The applicant shall obtain Program Authority approval of a mitigation plan, and provide mitigation
according to the Water Protection Ordinance.
7. The applicant shall obtain approval from FEMA for changes to the floodplain, and update the
FEMA maps. This shall include FEMA’s conditional approval prior to th e start of construction.
Most of the conditions are standard conditions except for 1 and 2. Condition 1 and 2 says there should
be further study and an improvement to the dam or culvert in order to provide a stable non -erosion path
for floodwaters and to keep the flood level increases below that foot margin. The current study indicates
the flood levels increase by about a foot. But, on the other side of the pond the property rises fairly
steeply to the barn and it does not spread in that direction. The rest of the conditions are fairly standard –
approval for an erosion sediment control plan, federal and state approvals, mitigation plans and the
FEMA approval. This again mistakenly says approval prior to the start of construction. But, in this case
he would leave it in so if they do make any improvements to the dam that would apply.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Lafferty asked on the auxiliary spillway would it be sufficient that they put down the netting or the
matting that they use for the parking lot.
Mr. Brooks replied that could do it, but he would probably leave that up to the design engineer. He did
not specify. He was not quite sure where it would spill over. That is a very long berm that goes next to
the creek. It is fairly unusual. Usually they would see a dam right across the creek being much shorter
and easier and they know generally where it is going to spill over. This one is not as clear to him.
Mr. Randolph said staff specifies on page 2 that the applicant estimates that the pond is taking out 20
percent of the normal flow of Turkey Sag Creek. He asked has an assessment been done on the impact
on the water quality downstream as a result of the reduction in the quantity and temperature of the water
downstream.
Mr. Brooks replied no, there has not been a study that he knows of. Those questions do come up. There
was a recent email by a neighboring property owner who had raised some of that. However, his review is
limited to just the floodplain impacts.
Mr. Randolph asked how he would characterize the pond since it is the opposite of a detention pond. In
looking at the definition of a detention pond generally the outlet side is larger than the inlet side and in this
case it is the exact opposite. He asked how he characterizes this pond and is the pond described as
being ornamental.
Mr. Brooks replied that he carefully does not describe it and lets the applicant do that. There is always
doubt in our minds, especially when they get complaints. It is hard for staff to draw a line between what is
an agricultural pond and what is a landscape amenity since it could be both. He has not really made that
call. He would clarify his characterization that the inlet is greater than the outlet. If he looks at this pond
from an engineering perspective it is really an off line pond that is unfortunately built within the floodplain.
He would say that it really does not have an inlet or an outlet appreciably. It has some small plastic pipes
6” to 8” in diameter that they might see on a farm pond that was not engineered. Those are not big
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 9, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED ON 11-7-12
25
enough to really make a difference in a storm event. So what really happens here is the floodplain rises
in the creek and it rises above the pond level and floods it in and then it has to come out somewhere
down stream.
Mr. Lafferty said he looked at the day to day operation in that once a pond is filled the 20 percent it is
taking out of the creek it is putting it back into the creek. He asked if that was correct.
Mr. Brooks replied that he could not say. That is during normal events and not flooding events. So he
was not really worried about that. The water use questions in the past they have passed them on to DEQ
because they are really a matter of environmental quality and water quality and not having to do with the
floodplain.
Mr. Smith noted in his words he said the pond was in the floodplain. He asked do we know if it is in the
floodplain.
Mr. Brooks replied yes that it is specifically in the floodplain and the floodway. I t is right next to the creek.
It is in the FEMA designated floodplain. When they look at the applicant’s detailed study he is drawing
the proposed new floodplain in what it will look like now that the pond is built.
Mr. Smith said what he is suggesting for the pond as the emergency spillway is to armor it somehow or
another.
Mr. Brooks replied it was to define where floodwaters will spillover and then armor it if necessary.
Mr. Smith asked if it would be the same thing for the three culverts.
Mr. Brooks replied that the three culverts were approved without any sort of extra conditions.
Mr. Dotson asked if this was a repair and replacement of an existing crossing.
Mr. Morris suggested that they hold that question for the applicant.
There being no further questions, Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to
address the Planning Commission on the Castle Hill Pond and then on the Stream Crossing.
John Rhett, of Rhett Architects and the Director for Strategic Planning for Castle Hill Cider, said they
basically agree with the county in terms of their recommendation. He was here to answer questions.
One question he heard was about the water quality. This was a c attle operation. Those cattle are no
longer there. So he thinks having a pond and landscape there is actually an improvement to the water
quality. The use of that pond is integral to their business. Since they are licensed as a farm winery the
pond is important from an aesthetic point of view. They did plant on a hillside a hardwood forest, which
did need water to get established. They planted large tree there and used that pond for a water use. He
asked what the question was about the existing culvert.
Mr. Dotson said it was mentioned earlier that they had a letter from the county that from his judgment led
him to believe they had no need for this special use permit in order to proceed with the construction of the
pond. He asked if that was the reason they have proceeded, but are now coming in after the fact.
Mr. Rhett replied yes that was a correct understanding. He had a letter that said they were exempt and
he took that as a way to go forward with the pond.
There being no further questions for the applicant, Mr. Morris invited public comment.
John Henry Jordan said that he finds it a little hard to believe that an applicant who puts as much horse
power behind their architect and design elements that they are sitting here telling the Commission that
they have improved the quality of that parcel of property without employing somebody knowledgeable
enough to know that this type of an impact in a floodplain was going to require little things like soil type
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 9, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED ON 11-7-12
26
testing, soil compaction testing, overflow armoring, and correct pipe sizing in addition to the other things
like approval from the DEQ, FEMA and Corps of Engineers. He finds it a little hard to believe that
somebody who puts as much horse power behind their efforts is asking for forgiveness and not
permission.
Mr. Morris noted that the next two individuals who signed up were Billy Proffit and Charlie Proffit who
were not present. There being no further public comment, he invited the applicant for rebuttal.
Mr. Rhett pointed out his understanding when he was working on the project was basically it was not
licensed as a farm winery, was going to be a residence and an agricultural pond. The other thing he
wanted to point out is that they worked very hard with the Nature Conservancy to design and construct
this pond. In fact, they approved the design of this pond after many meetings. It does not look like a
normal pond with a concrete spillway or a trash rack or those kinds of things. He could tell them how this
pond operates. The water comes down the hill to actually go into the pond and then in a flood event it
backs out the uphill side of that pond and goes back into the stream where it was headed to begin with.
Mr. Morris closed the public hearing on that particular matter and shifted their attention to SP-2012-19
Castle Hill Cidery Stream Crossing. He opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address
the stream crossing.
John Rhett, of Rhett Architects and the Director for Strategic Planning for Castle Hill Cider, said yes that
the level of the culverts did raise the level of the road in that particular section. However, on the downhill
side of that is the area that was not changed and that was the cement stabilized area of the drive. So
actually if during a flood event it needs to get around that crossing it goes like it use to do across the road
over the cement.
Mr. Morris invited public comment on the stream crossing.
John Henry Jordan said he had one other comment besides his prior comment concerning forgiveness
rather than permission. He had a conversation with a senior administra tor out of the Albemarle County
Fire Department about this crossing. Despite what was on the board here earlier that police and fire
rescue see this access as acceptable, he was told specifically that the fire department cannot respond to
emergency events at this barn with normal fire department vehicles. The comment given was about the
three metal culvert pipes, which he believed was HDPE material. He had been told that there was sign of
failure in one of those three pipes that constitutes this crossing. They don’t know what the engineering
road structure was for this crossing. He knows that a standard response EMS fire truck weighs between
12,000 and 14,000 pounds, which happened to be about the same size as a loaded passenger tour bus.
If the fire department has concerns about taking a 12,000 to 14,000 pound fire engineer across this
crossing, then what type of liability does the county assume if they are aware of a potential failure here
and they don’t shut this operation down until that structure is fixed. What kind of liability do they assume
for those passenger buses for that weight and for the 84 people on that bus during every crossing.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Morris invited rebuttal by the applicant.
John Rhett, of Rhett Architects and the Director for Strategic Planning for Castle Hill Cider, said there
have been fire department vehicles across that crossing and it was reviewed with them after the fact.
However, they have also had tractor trailers in there delivering 35 foot long pieces of steel channel with
no problem. He believed that the access question is settled.
Mr. Morris asked if anyone has identified any deterioration for any one of the three pipes in there.
Mr. Rhett replied no, not to his knowledge.
Mr. Smith noted in the applicant’s defense there has been a tractor trailer in there with a right good size
track hoe on it
Mr. Morris closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the Planning Commission.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 9, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED ON 11-7-12
27
Motion on SP-2012-00018 Castle Hill Cider Pond
Motion: Mr. Dotson moved and Mr. Smith seconded for approval of SP-2012-00018 Castle Hill Cider
Pond Crossing with the conditions as recommended by the staff.
1. The applicant shall make improvements to the dam and culvert in order to provide a stable, non-
erosion path for floodwaters, while keeping flood level increases below one foot.
3. The applicant shall obtain County Engineer approval of plans for changes to the dam and culvert
prior to construction.
4. The applicant shall obtain Program Authority approval for an erosion and sediment control plan,
and obtain a land disturbance permit according to the Water Protection Ordinance requirements
prior to the start of construction for any changes, regardless of whether the project exceeds the
minimum disturbance limits.
5. The applicant shall obtain all necessary federal and state agency approvals (Army Corps of
Engineers, Department of Environmental Quality, etc.).
6. The applicant shall obtain Program Authority approval of a mitigation plan, and provide mitig ation
according to the Water Protection Ordinance.
7. The applicant shall obtain approval from FEMA for changes to the floodplain, and update the
FEMA maps. This shall include FEMA’s conditional approval prior to the start of construction.
Mr. Lafferty noted the conditions need to be cleaned up a little bit because some of them require it to be
approved before construction.
Mr. Brooks said he would clean up that condition.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Morris said the request for SP-2012-00018 Castle Hill Pond would be forwarded to the Board of
Supervisors with a recommendation for approval at a time to be determined conditions.
Mr. Morris noted the next action was for the SP-2012-000019 Castle Hill Stream Crossing.
Mr. Kamptner asked Mr. Brooks about the design standard for the stream crossing. He asked if there is a
minimum structural load that they have for this particular type of improvements.
Mr. Brooks replied no, the county does not have a standard for something like this.
Mr. Franco asked do they have liability in approving this.
Mr. Kamptner replied no.
Mr. Brooks noted that he was present when a steel truck delivered. Therefore, he could attest to its
capacity.
Mr. Benish said he did not have the fire official’s comments an d Mr. Clark has left. This farm does have a
farm access directly to Route 231, which provides for an emergency access alternative other than the
crossing.
Mr. Smith asked if the access is okay from Route 231.
Mr. Benish noted the staff report says the property has an existing farm entrance although the entrance is
not suitable for event traffic. It does provide a second access for emergency vehicles in the event they
are not able to use the main entrance.
Mr. Morris pointed out when he was out there he was taken on that alternative route because they exited
on Route 231. So it exists even though it is a little bumpy.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 9, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED ON 11-7-12
28
Motion: Mr. Dotson moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded to recommend approval of SP-2012-00019 Castle
Hill Cider Stream Crossing with staff’s recommended conditions, as amended.
1. The applicant shall obtain approval from FEMA for changes to the floodplain, and update the
FEMA maps.
2. The applicant shall obtain all necessary federal and state agency approvals (Army Corps of
Engineers, Department of Environmental Quality, etc.).
3. The applicant shall obtain Program Authority approval of a mitigation plan, and provide mitigation
according to the Water Protection Ordinance.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Kamptner clarified that the Commission’s recommendation pertains only to the special use permit and
not the WPO item. That is something exclusively for the Board.
Mr. Cilimberg noted staff would confirm the staff report application numbers were correct.
Mr. Morris said the requests would be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for
approval at a time to be determined.
Old Business
Mr. Morris invited old business. There being none, the meeting moved to the next item.
New Business
Mr. Morris asked if there was any new business.
No meeting on Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Next meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 23, 2012.
No Planning Commission meeting will be held on Election Day.
There being no further business, the meeting proceeded.
Adjournment
With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 8:49 p.m. to Tuesday, October 23, 2012 at 6:00 p.m.,
Auditorium, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 9, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED ON 11-7-12
29
Return to PC actions letter
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Ordinance to Amend the Open Burning provisions in
Chapter 6, Fire Protection, of the County Code
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearing to consider an ordinance to amend Section
6-403, Definitions; Section 6-404, Prohibitions on Open
Burning; Sec. 6-406, Permissible Open Burning; and
Section 6-407, Permits, of Chapter 6, Fire Protection, of
the County Code
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Eggleston, Brown, Oprandy
and Lagomarsino
PRESENTER (S): Mr. Howard Lagomarsino
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 14, 2012
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On July 11, 2012, the Board received an executive summary on the issue of open burning of household refuse by owners
and tenants of property in the County (Attachment A). The Board instructed staff to draft an ordinance prohibiting such
open burning of household refuse for its consideration. On September 5, 2012, staff presented a draft ordinance
(Attachment B) to the Board for its consideration and to be set for public hearing.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5. Ensure the health and safety of the Community.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed ordinance:
1. prohibits the open burning of household waste throughout the County; and
2. updates the definitions in Section 6-403 to be consistent with the definitions set forth in the applicable sections
of the Virginia Administrative Code.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Should the Board adopt the proposed ordinance, staff expects only a minor increase of 10-20 hours of Court time
annually if the County continues to follow a complaint-driven model, and believes this is manageable within current
budget and staffing, as set forth in the July 11, 2012 Executive summary (Attachment A).
RECOMMENDATIONS:
After the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board reach consensus on the proposed attached draft ordinance
(Attachment B) and authorize staff to submit a proposed ordinance to the Air Pollution Control Board for its approval.
After such approval the ordinance will be presented to the Board for final consideration and adoption.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Executive Summary dated July 11, 2012
B - Proposed Ordinance
Return to agenda
ATTACHMENT A
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Open Burning of Household Waste & Refuse
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Prohibit Open Burning of Household Waste & Refuse
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Brown, Eggleston, Oprandy
&and Lagomarsino
PRESENTER (S): Howard Lagomarsino
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
July 11, 2012
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
This agenda item concerns the ability of citizens within certain parts of the County to continue to legally burn their
household refuse. Currently, Chapter 6, Article IV of the County Code permits the burning of household refuse by
homeowners and tenants when there is no regularly scheduled public or private refuse collection service available at the
adjacent street or public road. The Board has the authority, subject to certain procedural requirements described below, to
amend the County Code to prohibit all burning of household refuse in the County.
Open burning in Virginia is regulated by a complex combination of federal and state statutes and regulations and local
ordinances. For purposes of this agenda item, the Board can focus on two bodies of law; Article 1, Chapter 13, Title 10 of
the Code of Virginia and Chapter 6, Article IV of the County Code.
Several definitions set out in Section 6-403 of the County Code are critical to the discussion of open burning laws in the
County.
1. Open burning is defined as “the burning of any matter in such a manner that the products resulting from the
combustion are emitted directly into the atmosphere without passing through a stack, duct or chimney.”
2. Household refuse is defined as “waste or refuse normally accumulated by a household during normal day to day
living.”
3. Garbage is defined as “rotting animal and vegetable matter accumulated by a household in the course of ordinary
day to day living.”
State regulations use the term household waste instead of household refuse. 9 VAC-130-20 defines household waste as
“any waste material, including garbage, trash and refuse derived from households.” This executive summary will use the
term household refuse.
Article 1, Chapter 13, Title 10 of the Code of Virginia establishes the Air Pollution Control Board (the APCB) and
authorizes the APCB to implement regulations governing open burning in Virginia. The APCB has enacted regulations
starting at 9 VAC 5-130-10. These regulations generally prohibit all open burning of refuse in Virginia, but create certain
exceptions to this prohibition. Relevant to this agenda item is 9 VAC 5-130-40(A)(6), which permits open burning for the
on-site destruction of household waste by homeowners or tenants in areas which do not have regularly scheduled public or
private refuse collection services at the adjacent street or public road. The County Attorney’s Office and the APCB both
interpret “regularly scheduled public or private refuse collection service” to mean regularly scheduled public or private
collection service provided by entities such as the County or a property owners association.
9 VAC-130-100 permits any locality to adopt an ordinance regulating open burning within its jurisdiction. Localities may
adopt a model ordinance developed by the APCB. The County adopted APCB’s then model ordinance in 1988 as Article
IV, Chapter 6 of the County Code. Note that animal carcasses, animal waste and garbage, as defined above, may not be
openly burned in the County.
ATTACHMENT A
AGENDA TITLE: Open Burning of Household Waste & Refuse
July 11, 2012
Page 2
A locality has the option of adopting an open burning ordinance which is stricter than the APCB model ordinance, but to do
so must first obtain approval of the ordinance by APCB.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5. Ensure the health and safety of the Community.
DISCUSSION:
Since 2008, citizen complaints have generated approximately 37 investigative actions for the County Fire Marshal’s
Office, which involved the officers opening a file and/or taking some enforcement action. The open burning of
household trash and refuse has been of particular concern to certain residents for two reasons: (1) they don’t like
smoke and (2) the fear of plastics and other materials that may be included as “household refuse” and burned.
Twenty-seven of the citizen complaints were related to the open burning of household refuse. Three of those
investigations led to charges being filed in court. There was one investigation of open burning of household ref use
that led to a notice of violation, essentially a warning, but this was related to the violation of County Code provisions
regarding leaving the fire unattended and not to the materials being burned.
Concerns about the open burning of household refuse have led at least two citizens to contact members of the Board.
This prompted the Board to request additional information from the Fire and Rescue Department on this issue.
The Virginia Code and County Code prohibit the open burning of waste materials that are hazardous or injurious to the
environment and air quality. There are a number of items listed, which include hazardous materials, wastes
associated with construction materials, such as wood products impregnated with chemical treatments, and petrole um-
based products. Although open burning of hazardous materials, including petroleum and many petroleum based
products, is prohibited, it is legal to open burn all items that are considered “household refuse”. Citizens are surprised
to find out that certain materials fall under the definition of household refuse and may legally be burned.
Additional research examined what similar jurisdictions are doing about open burning of household refuse.
Comparable jurisdictions used in this research included Chesterfield County, Hanover County, Henrico County,
Roanoke County, Rockingham County, Stafford County, and Spotsylvania County. The research found that none of
these localities allow the open burning of household refuse under any circumstances.
Staff considered the option of restricting or limiting open burning in certain geographic areas of the County as a way to
address the problem. A logical idea would be to prohibit open burning of household refuse in the designated growth
areas. This is not a viable option as the urban/growth areas are a relatively small area of the County and limiting
burning in those areas would do little to address the issue. Further, data shows that complaints are overwhelmingly
associated with the rural areas.
Staff also considered the option of the Board amending the Code to completely ban the open burning of household
refuse and waste in the County. This ban would not include the open burning of natural wood, leaves, yard waste,
wastes associated with land clearing, forest management, and government firefighting training. Such a ban would be
the easiest to manage and enforce. This option would ban the open burning of all household waste or refuse, making
violations clear, as anyone burning trash would be in violation of the Code. This would provide the avenue to ensure
compliance and to sustain an enforcement action if needed.
Should the Board decide to amend the Code to include a complete ban on the open burning of household refuse in the
County, staff must first submit the ordinance proposed by the Board to the APCB for approval before adoption of the
ordinance. Because the County would be strengthening its ordinance beyond the requirements of the Virginia
Administrative Code, the request would be handled administratively by APCB staff rather than require approval of the
full APCB.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Currently Fire and Rescue staff is already responding to open burning related incidents.
Other jurisdictions have adopted a “complaint driven” model. This means they do not actively search out violations or
utilize any type of patrol to identify violations. They respond to and handle complaints as they are received. Therefore,
those jurisdictions did not experience an increase in workload. If the Board amends the Code to ban all open burning
ATTACHMENT A
AGENDA TITLE: Open Burning of Household Waste & Refuse
July 11, 2012
Page 3
of household refuse, staff proposes following a similar model, and therefore does not anticipate an increase in
complaint volume or investigative workload.
Workload will increase regarding court time for violations. If charges are filed, court time requires approximately two to
four additional hours per incident. Due to the approach that the Fire Marshal’s office will take, the number of court
cases annually is predicted to be less than five. The Fire Marshal’s office, in all enforcement cases, seeks compliance
through education. More often than not, a simple discussion or notice of violation is enough to achieve compliance.
Court action is reserved for those rare cases where compliance is not being achieved. Based on the history of
complaints and investigations, staff expects only a minor increase of 10-20 hours of court time annually if the Board
adopts an ordinance to prohibit the open burning of all household refuse that follows a complaint driven model. This is
manageable within current budget and staffing.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This Executive Summary was prepared in response to requests by Board members and is presented for informational
purposes. If the Board decides to proceed, staff will present a draft ordinance to the Board for its consideration and for
Board authorization to submit the ordinance to the APCB for its approval.
ATTACHMENTS:
A- Albemarle County Code Section 6 Article IV
B- Virginia Administrative Code 9VAC5-130-30
C- Virginia Administrative Code 9VAC5-130-40
D- Virginia Administrative Code 9VAC5-130-20
E- Stafford County Open Burning Guidelines
F- Albemarle County Land Use Map
Return to exec summary
Draft 8/23/12
ATTACHMENT B
1
ORDINANCE NO. 12-6(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 6, FIRE PROTECTION, ARTICLE IV, BURNING OF BRUSH,
ETC., OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 6, Fire
Protection, Article IV, Burning of Brush, etc., is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 6-403 Definitions
Sec. 6-404 Prohibitions on open burning
Sec. 6-406 Permissible open burning
Sec. 6-407 Permits
Chapter 6. Fire Protection
Article IV. Burning of Brush, etc.
. . .
Sec. 6-403 Definitions.
For the purpose of this article and subsequent amendments or any orders issued by Albemarle County,
the words or phrases shall have the meaning given them in this section.
(1) Automobile graveyard. The term “automobile graveyard” means any lot or place which is exposed
to the weather and upon which more than five motor vehicles of any kind, incapable of being operated, and
which it would not be economically practical to make operative, are placed, located or found.
(2) Built-up area. The term “built-up area” means any area with a substantial portion covered by
industrial, commercial or residential buildings.
(23) Clean burning waste. The term “clean burning waste” means waste that which does not produce
dense smoke when burned and is not prohibited to be burned under this ordinance and that consists of only (i)
100% wood waste, (ii) 100% clean lumber or clean wood, (iii) 100% yard waste, or (iv) 100% mixture of only
any combination of wood waste, clean lumber, clean wood or yard waste.
(4) Clean lumber. The term “clean lumber” means wood or wood products that have been cut or
shaped and includes wet, air-dried, and kiln-dried wood products. Clean lumber does not include wood products
that have been painted, pigment -stained, or pressure-treated by compounds such as chromate copper arsenate,
pentachlorophenol, and creosote.
(5) Clean wood. The term “clean wood” means uncontaminated natural or untreated wood. Clean
wood includes, but is not limited to, byproducts of harvesting activities conducted for forest management or
commercial logging, or mill residues consisting of bark, chips, edgings, sawdust, shavings or slabs. It does not
include wood that has been treated, adulterated, or chemically changed in some way; treated with glues, binders
or resins; or painted, stained or coated.
(6) Commercial waste. The term “commercial waste” means all solid waste generated by
establishments engaged in business operations other than manufacturing or construction. This category
includes, but is not limited to, waste resulting from the operation of stores, markets, office buildings, restaurants
Draft 8/23/12
ATTACHMENT B
2
and shopping centers.
(37) Construction waste. The term “construction waste” means solid waste which is produced or
generated during construction, remodeling, or repair of pavements, houses, commercial buildings and other
structures. Construction waste consists of lumber, wire, sheetrock, broken brick, shingles, glass, pipes, concrete,
and metal and plastics if the metal or plastics are a part of the materials of construction or empty containers for
such materials. Paints, coatings, solvents, asbestos, any liquid, compressed gases or semi-liquids, and garbage
are not construction wastes and the disposal of such materials shall must be in accordance with the regulations
of the Virginia Waste Management Board.
(48) Debris waste. The term “debris waste” means wastes resulting stumps, wood, brush, and leaves
from land clearing operations. Debris wastes include but are not limited to stumps, wood, brush, leaves, soil and
road spoils.
(59) Demolition waste. The term “demolition waste” means that solid waste that which is produced by
the destruction of structures, or and their foundations, or both, and includes the same materials as construction
waste.
(610) Garbage. The term “garbage” means readily putrescible discarded materials composed of rotting
animal, and vegetable or other organic matter accumulated by a household in the course of ordinary day to day
living.
(711) Hazardous waste. The term “hazardous waste” means a “hazardous waste” as described in 9
VAC 20-60 (Hazardous Waste Management Regulations). Refuse or combination of refuse which, because of its
quantity, concentration or physical, chemical or infectious characteristic may:
(a) cause or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible
or incapacitating illness; or
(b) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when
improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed, or otherwise managed.
(812) Household waste refuse. The term “household waste refuse” means any waste material,
including garbage, and trash and normally accumulated by a refuse derived from households in the course of
ordinary day to day living. For purposes of this regulation, households include single and multiple residences,
hotels and motels, bunkhouses, ranger stations, crew quarters, campgrounds, picnic grounds and day-use
recreation areas. Household wastes do not include sanitary waste in septic tanks (septage) that is regulated by
other state agencies.
(913) Industrial waste. The term “industrial waste” means any solid all waste generated on the
premises of by manufacturing and or industrial process that is not a regulated hazardous waste operations such
as, but not limited to, those carried on in factories, processing plants, refineries, slaughter houses, and steel
mills. Such waste may include, but is not limited to waste resulting from the following manufacturing
processes: electric power generation; fertilizer/agricultural chemicals; food and related products/byproducts;
inorganic chemicals; iron and steel manufacturing; leather and leather prod ucts; nonferrous metals
manufacturing/foundries; organic chemicals; plastics and resins manufacturing; pulp and paper industry; rubber
and miscellaneous plastic products; stone, glass, clay and concrete products; textile manufacturing;
transportation equipment; and water treatment. This term does not include mining waste or oil and gas waste.
(14) Junk. The term “junk” means old or scrap copper, brass, rope, rags, batteries, paper, trash, rubber,
debris, waste, or junked, dismantled, or wrecked automobiles, or parts thereof, iron, steel, and other old or scrap
ferrous or nonferrous material.
Draft 8/23/12
ATTACHMENT B
3
(1015) Junkyard. The term “junkyard” means an establishment or place of business which is
maintained, operated, or used for storing, keeping, buying, or selling junk, or for the maintenance or operation
of an automobile graveyard, and the term shall include garbage dumps and sanitary fills.
(1116) Landfill. The term “landfill” means a sanitary landfill, an industrial waste landfill, or a
construction/demolition/debris landfill. See Part 1 (9 VAC 20-81-10 et seq.) of 9 VAC 20-81 Virginia (Solid
Waste Management Regulations) (VR 672 20 10) for further definitions of these terms.
(1217) Local landfill. The term “local landfill” means any landfill located within the jurisdiction of a
local government.
(1318) Open burning. The term “open burning” means the burning of any matter in such a manner that
the products resulting from combustion are emitted directly into the atmosphere without passing through a st ack;
duct or chimney the combustion of solid waste without:
1. Control of combustion air to maintain adequate temperature for efficient combustion;
2. Containment of the combustion reaction in an enclosed device to produce sufficient
residence time and mixing for complete combustion; and
3. Control of the combustion products’ emission.
(1419) Open pit incinerator. The term “open pit incinerator” means a device used to burn waste for the
primary purpose of reducing the volume by removing combust ible matter. Such devices function by directing a
curtain of air at an angle across the top of a trench or similarly enclosed space, thus reducing the amount of
combustion by-products emitted into the atmosphere. The term also includes trench burners, air curtain
destructors and over draft incinerators.
(1520) Refuse. The term “refuse” means all solid waste products having the characteristics of solids
rather than liquids and that are composed wholly or partially of materials such as garbage, trash, rubbish, litter,
residues from clean up spoils or contamination or other discarded materials garbage and other forms of solid or
liquid waste, including, but not limited to, wastes resulting from residential, agricultural, commercial, industrial,
institutional, trade, construction, land clearing, forest management and emergency operations.
(1621) Salvage operation. The term “salvage operation” means any operation consisting of a business,
trade or industry participating in salvaging or reclaiming any product or material, such as, but not limited to,
reprocessing of used motor oils, metals, chemicals, shipping containers or drums, and specifically including
automobile graveyards and junkyards.
(1722) Sanitary landfill. The term “sanitary landfill” means an engineered land burial facility for the
disposal of household waste that is so located, designed, constructed, and operated to contain and isolate the
waste so that it does not pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the envi ronment. A
sanitary landfill also may receive other types of solid wastes, such as commercial solid waste, nonhazardous
sludge, hazardous waste from conditionally exempt small quantity generators, construction, demolition, or
debris waste and nonhazardous industrial solid waste. See Part I (9 VAC 20-81-10 et seq.) of 9 VAC 20-81
Virginia (Solid Waste Management Regulations) (VR 672 20 10) for further definitions of these terms.
(1823) Smoke. The term “smoke” means small gas-borne particulate matter consisting mostly, but not
exclusively, of carbon, ash and other material in concentrations sufficient to form a visible plume.
(1924) Special incineration device. The term “special incineration device” means a an open pit
incinerator, conical or tepee burner, or any other device specifically designed to provide good combustion
Draft 8/23/12
ATTACHMENT B
4
performance.
(25) Wood waste. The term “wood waste” means untreated wood and untreated wood products,
including tree stumps (whole or chipped), trees, tree limbs (whole or chip ped), bark, sawdust, chips, scraps,
slabs, millings, and shavings. Wood waste does not include:
1. Grass, grass clippings, bushes, shrubs, and clippings from bushes and shrubs from
residential, commercial/retail, institutional, or industrial sources as part of maintaining yards or other private or
public lands.
2. Construction, renovation, or demolition wastes.
3. Clean lumber.
(26) Yard waste. The term “yard waste” means grass, grass clippings, bushes, shrubs, and clippings
from bushes and shrubs that come from residential, commercial/retail, institutional, or industrial sources as part
of maintaining yards or other private or public lands. Yard waste does not include (i) construction, renovation,
and demolition wastes or (ii) clean wood.
(Code 1988, § 9-21.3; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
Sec. 6-404 Prohibitions on open burning.
A. No owner or other person shall cause or permit open burning or the use of a special incineration
device for disposal of refuse except as provided in this ordinance.
B. No owner or other person shall cause or permit open burning or the use of a special incineration
device for disposal of rubber tires, asphaltic materials, crankcase oil impregnated wood or other rubber or
petroleum based materials except when conducting bona fide fire fighting instruction at fire fighting training
schools having permanent facilities.
C. No owner or other person shall cause or permit open burning or the use of a special incineration
device for disposal of hazardous waste or containers for such materials.
D. No owner or other person shall cause or permit open burning or the use of a special incineration
device for the purpose of a salvage operation or for the disposal of commercial/industrial waste.
E. No owner or other person shall cause or permit open burning or the use of a special incineration
device for disposal of household waste or garbage.
EF. Open burning or the use of special incineration devices permitted under the provisions of this
ordinance does not exempt or excuse any owner or other person from the consequences, liability, damages or
injuries which may result from such conduct; nor does it excuse or exempt any owner or other person from
complying with other applicable laws, ordinances, regulations and orders of the governmental entities having
jurisdiction, even though the open burning is conducted in compliance with this ordinance. In this regard
special attention should be directed to § 10.1-1142 of the Forest Fire Law of Virginia, the regulations of the
Virginia Waste Management Board, and the State Air Pollution Control Board's Regulations for the Control and
Abatement of Air Pollution.
FG. Upon declaration of an alert, warning or emergency stage of an air pollution episode as
described in Part VII of the Regulations for the Control and Abatement of Air Pollution or when deemed
advisable by the State Air Pollution Control Board to prevent a hazard to, or an unreasonable burden upon,
public health or welfare, no owner or other person shall cause or permit open bu rning or use of a special
Draft 8/23/12
ATTACHMENT B
5
incineration device; and any in process burning or use of special incineration devices shall be immediately
terminated in the designated air quality control region.
(Code 1988, § 9-22; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
Sec. 6-406 Permissible open burning.
A. Open burning is permitted for the disposal of leaves and tree, yard and garden trimmings
located on the premises of private property, provided that the following conditions are met:
1. the burning takes place on the premises of the private property; and
2. the location of the burning is not less than 300 feet from any occupied building unless
the occupants have given prior permission, other than a building located on the property on which the burning is
conducted.
B. Open burning is permitted for the disposal of household refuse by homeowners or tenants,
provided that all of the following conditions are met:
1. the burning takes place on the premises of the dwelling;
2. animal carcasses or animal wastes are not burned;
3. garbage is not burned; (and)
4. the location of the burning is not less than 300 feet from any occupied building unless the
occupants have given prior permission, other than a building located on the property on which the burning is
conducted; and
5. no regularly scheduled public or private collection service for such refuse is available at the
adjacent street or public road.
CB. Open burning is permitted for disposal of debris waste resulting from property maintenance,
from the development or modification of roads and highways, parking areas, railroad tracks, pipelines, power
and communication lines, buildings or building areas, sanitary landfills, or any other from another clearing
operations which may be approved by the fire official, provided that all of the following conditions are met:
1. all reasonable effort shall be made to minimize the amount of material burned, with the
number and size of the debris piles approved by the fire official;
2. the material to be burned shall consist of brush, stumps and similar debris waste and
shall not include demolition material;
3. the burning shall be at least 500 feet from an occupied building unless the occupants
have given prior permission, other than a building located on the property on which the burning is conducted;
4. the burning shall be conducted at the greatest distance practicable from highways and
air fields;
5. the burning shall be attended at all times and conducted to ensure the best possible
combustion with a minimum of smoke being produced;
6. the burning shall not be allowed to smolder beyond the minimum period of time
necessary for the destruction of the materials; and
Draft 8/23/12
ATTACHMENT B
6
7. the burning shall be conducted only when the prevailing winds are away from any city,
town or built-up area.
DC. Open burning is permitted for disposal of debris on the site of local landfills provided that the
burning does not take place on land that has been filled and covered so as to present an underground fire hazard
due to the presence of methane gas provided that all of the following conditions are met:
1. the burning shall take place on the premises of a local sanitary landfill which meets the
provisions of the regulations of the Virginia Waste Management Board;
2. the burning shall be attended at all times;
3. the material to be burned shall consist only of brush, tree trimmings, yard and garden
trimmings, clean burning construction waste, clean burning debris waste, or clean burning demolition waste;
4. all reasonable effort shall be made to minimize the amount of material that is burned;
5. no materials may be burned in violation of the regulations of the Virginia Waste
Management Board or the State Air Pollution Control Board.
The exact site of the burning on a local landfill shall be established in coordination with the regional
director and the fire official; no other site shall be used without the approval of these officials. The fire official
shall be notified of the days during which the burning will occur.
(Code 1988, § 9-22.1; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
Sec. 6-407 Permits.
A. When open burning of debris waste (section 6-406(CB)) or open burning of debris on the site of
a local landfill (section 6-406(DC)) is to occur within Albemarle County, the person responsible for the burning
shall obtain a permit from the fire official prior to the burning. Such a permit may be granted only after
confirmation by the fire official that the burning can and will comply with the provisions of this ordinance and
any other conditions which are deemed necessary to ensure that the burning will not endanger the public health
and welfare or to ensure compliance with any applicable provisions of the State Air Pollution Control Board's
Regulations for the Control and Abatement of Air Pollution. The permit may be issued for each occasion of
burning or for a specific period of time deemed appropriate by fire official.
B. Prior to the initial installation (or reinstallation, in cases of relocation) and operation of special
incineration devices, the person responsible for the burning shall obtain a permit from the fire official, such
permits to be granted only after confirmation by the fire official that the burning can and will comply with the
applicable provisions in Regulations for the Control and Abateme nt of Air Pollution and that any conditions are
met which are deemed necessary by the fire official to ensure that the operation of the devices will not endanger
the public health and welfare. Permits granted for the use of special incineration devices shall at a minimum
contain the following conditions:
1. all reasonable effort shall be made to minimize the amount of material that is burned.
Such efforts shall include, but are not limited to, the removal of pulpwood, sawlogs and firewood;
2. the material to be burned shall consist of brush, stumps and similar debris waste and
shall not include demolition material;
3. the burning shall be at least 300 feet from any occupied building unless the occupants
have given prior permission, other than a building located on the property on which the burning is conducted;
Draft 8/23/12
ATTACHMENT B
7
burning shall be conducted at the greatest distance practicable from highways and air fields. If the fire official
determines that it is necessary to protect public health and welfare, he may direct that any of the above cited
distances be increased;
4. the burning shall be attended at all times and conducted to ensure the best possible
combustion with a minimum of smoke being produced. Under no circumstances should the burning be allowed
to smolder beyond the minimum period of time necessary for the destruction of the materials;
5. the burning shall be conducted only when the prevailing winds are away from any city,
town or built-up area;
6. the use of special incineration devices shall be allowed only for the disposal of debris
waste, clean burning construction waste, and clean burning demolition waste; and
7. permits issued under this paragraph shall be limited to a specific period of time deemed
appropriate by the fire official.
C. An application for a permit under section 6-407(A) or 6-407(B) shall be accompanied by a
processing fee as set forth in the fee schedule maintained by the fire official, as may be amended from time to
time.
(Code 1988, § 9-24; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
. . .
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as recorded
below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________.
Return to exec summary