HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-1-16Tentative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
JANUARY 16, 2013
AUDITORIUM
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
4:00 p.m.
1. Call to Order.
2. Work Session: Solid Waste Options Update.
3. Adjourn.
6:00 p.m.
1. Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. Adoption of Final Agenda.
5. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
6. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
7. Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
8. ACSA Sales Contract. To consider granting easements to the Albemarle County Service
Authority on and across the East Rivanna firehouse property (Parcel ID 093A1-00-00-00200),
adjacent to Glenmore. The property is jointly owned by Albemarle County and the East Rivanna
Volunteer Fire Department. The easements would allow the ACSA to locate a water storage facility
and water lines on the property to serve the Rivanna Village community, including Glenmore.
9. PROJECT: SP-2010-00049. Howardsville Camping and SP-2010-00050.
Howardsville Canoe Livery. PROPOSALS: SP201000049: Howardsville Camping:
Campground with 48 tent sites; SP-2010-00050: Howardsville Canoe Livery: Canoe-rental livery
on campground site (see SP-2010-00049). ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: 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-2010-
00049 Howardsville Camping: 10.2.2.20 Day camp, boarding camp (reference 5.1.05); SP-2010-
00050 Howardsville Canoe Livery: 30.3.05.2.1 (2): Water related uses such as boat docks, canoe
liveries, bridges, ferries, culverts and river crossings of transmission lines of all types.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/density (.5 unit/acre in development
lots). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No. LOCATION: Baber Lane, Howardsville, at the intersection of
James River Road (Route 626) and Howardsville Turnpike (Route 602). TAX MAP/PARCEL:
139A0000001600, 139A0000001700, 139A0000001900, 139A0000002000, 139A0000002100.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller.
10. 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:
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2013Files/0116/0.0_Agenda.htm (1 of 2) [10/2/2020 1:57:52 PM]
Tentative
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.
11. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
12. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
13. Adjourn.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL:
7.1 Approval of Minutes: November 8 and November 14, 2012.
7.2 SDP-2012-00056. Yves Delorme, Inc - Minor Site Plan Amendment – Critical Slope Waiver.
7.3 SDP-2012-00065. Shifflett Property - Verizon Wirelessy Tier II Personal Wireless Service Facility.
7.4 Resolution Endorsing Nelson County’s Virginia Department of Transportation FY 13-14
Transportation Alternatives Program Application for the Blue Ridge Tunnel
Project.
NEW: CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP TO SPEAK AT PUBLIC HEARINGS
Return to Top of Agenda
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
Return to County Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2013Files/0116/0.0_Agenda.htm (2 of 2) [10/2/2020 1:57:52 PM]
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Solid Waste Options Update
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Background for Solid Waste Work Session
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Graham
PRESENTER (S): Mark Graham
LEGAL REVIEW: No
AGENDA DATE:
January 16, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) met recently to discuss the County's request for the RSWA to provide a no-
cost convenience center at Ivy. Staff has worked with RSWA to understand its proposal made in response to the Board’s
request. Staff has verified that RSWA’s proposal addresses the Board’s expectations and:
Continues to provide services at the Ivy Material Utilization Center (MUC);
Provides municipal solid waste disposal for County residents. This would include routine household garbage as
well as other materials, such as old furniture, demolition debris associated with home improvements;
Provides auxiliary services for County residents, such as disposal of tires and rims, metals, vegetative waste,
clean fill material (e.g. concrete or masonry rubble), appliances with and without refrigerants, and pallets; and
Provides annual or semi-annual household hazardous waste collection, as currently offered and funded by the
County and City.
RSWA staff evaluated options for addressing the Board’s request, and provided information which indicated a no-cost
alternative was not possible given the level of service requested by the County. The RSWA Board of Directors also
discussed the options of (1) contracting out services with RSWA oversight and (2) leasing the current site to the County so
the County could provide oversight of a contracted service. After discussion, a majority of the RSWA Board determined
there was no interest in RSWA providing oversight of a contracted service, but it would consider leasing the site to the
County. Given the discussion and decisions of the RSWA, this item has been scheduled for additional discussion by the
Board of Supervisors on January 16, 2013.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2: Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs.
DISCUSSION:
The County now has two options for consideration, outlined below, which will be discussed further at the January 16,
2013 work session.
Option 1: RSWA as a service provider:
Annual costs to the County have been estimated at $223,900 for the Municipal Solid W aste and
$67,400 for the auxiliary services, for a total cost of $291,300. This cost may be higher or lower
depending on actual operational costs. RSWA is providing this as an estimate rather than an agreed
upon fixed price. Based on experience with RSWA budget estimates since 2001, staff has found
RSWA to be consistently conservative with lower actual costs each year.
This proposal allows RSWA to continue providing the household hazardous waste collection as
historically done.
This proposal allows RSWA to continue with economies of scale in sharing the personnel costs with
the environmental program. It is anticipated those costs will otherwise increase, as described in
option 2.
This proposal allows RSWA to continue with economies of scale in sharing the personnel costs with
the McIntire Recycling Center. A new cost sharing agreement with RSWA and the City is required
for the continued operation of the McIntire Recycling Center.
This proposal requires a new agreement with RSWA for cost reimbursement.
AGENDA TITLE: Solid Waste Options Update
January 16, 2013
Page 2
Option 2: County managed operations at Ivy MUC:
This proposal requires the County to obtain a lease for the property from RSWA. The cost of the
lease has not yet been established.
This proposal requires the County to contract for the operation of the facility The costs cannot be
verified in advance of advertising for bids but, based on interviews and comments provided at RSWA
meeting by private entities, it appears the services can be provided with little or no additional cost to
the contractor.
This proposal results in the County incurring indirect costs associated with managing the contract,
inspections, permits, etc. This cost has not yet been established, but is anticipated to be in the range
of $50,000-$100,000 annually.
This proposal requires the County to obtain operational permits, as required by DEQ, to operate this
facility. Specific permit requirements cannot be verified at this time and may vary depending on
preferences of the selected contractor.
It has been estimated by RSWA that the environmental management cost, which would result from
the loss of economies of scale between solid waste operation and the environmental management
operation when RSWA discontinues its current solid waste operation, will be approximately $35,000.
The draft schedule for this option suggests an interim agreement with RSWA may be needed to cover
services after July 1, 2013 and the beginning of contracted services.
Potential liability issues under a new lease will also need to be considered with this proposal.
BUDGET IMPACT:
(1) If the Board decides to continue to contract with RSWA to handle the County’s municipal solid waste and
auxiliary services as outlined in Option 1 above, the annual cost is estimated to be approximately
$290,000, which staff believes to be a conservative number.
(2) If the Board decides to obtain a lease from RSWA and bid out the private operation of a convenience site
or transfer station as outlined in Option 2 above, the cost is unknown. While some potential bidders have
indicated there would be no cost for the contractor’s operation, that would need to be determined based
on a clear set of requirements by the County in the form of an RFP and after contract negotiation. After
that cost is determined, as is noted above, there will be additional cost for County management and
oversight, permitting, a lease with RSWA and the environmental management cost which would result
from the loss of the economies of scale between the solid waste operation and the environmental
management operation when RSWA discontinues its current solid waste operation. Liability issues are
also important issues to consider when estimating future costs under this option.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This information is provided as background information for the work session.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – RSWA Memo Dated 12-18-12
Attachment B – Project Steps
Return to agenda
RIVANNA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
695 Moores Creek Lane • Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 • (434) 977-2970
4a
T:\Board\RSWA\Board Meetings 2012\December 2012 Special Meeting\County Request.doc
MEMORANDUM
TO: RIVANNA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FROM: THOMAS L. FREDERICK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: ALBEMARLE COUNTY REQUEST REGARDING IVY AND McINTIRE
PROGRAMS
DATE: DECEMBER 18, 2012
Albemarle County has requested the Authority consider operating the Ivy Materials Utilization
Center in one form or another as a self-supporting operation for the benefit of the County without
promise of County financial support. The request we received from the County is transcribed in the
inset below:
Request RSWA to provide services at IVY, but with County support limited to household hazardous waste
and amnesty days. As part of this, the County does not plan to inform RSWA to extend the IVY
Agreement into FY 14. Based on the language in the McIntire Agreement that relies on the Ivy Agreement,
that may also end that agreement. The Board [of Supervisors] further made these points.
IVY MSW
Advise RSWA that County’s interest is addressed with convenience center, but RSWA welcome to run
self-supported transfer station
Industry indicates interest in contracting convenience center supported by fees
IVY Other Services
• Advise RSWA that County interest in continuing current services and determining what fees are needed
to make self-supported
Recycling
• Advise RSWA of County interest in recycling as part of IVY convenience center, but open to fees with
this service
• Industry indicates interest in contracting services at IVY, McIntire, and other.
Finally, as a fallback, County should initiate its own services only if RSWA cannot accomplish the above.
Our initial review of this request identified certain legal and governance issues for the Authority,
requiring our consultation with the Authority’s legal counsel.
Factual Background
RSWA is presently under contract (Local Government Support Agreement) with Albemarle County
to provide solid waste services at the Ivy Materials Utilization Center through June 30, 2013. The
County has an exclusive option to renew that contract for another year, provided it exercises that
option before December 31, 2012. RSWA is also under what was initially a long-term contract with
Waste Management for transportation and disposition of municipal solid waste and construction
debris received at Ivy, which also expires June 30, 2013. Under that contract RSWA has an
2
exclusive option to renew the contract an additional five years, provided notice is given by
December 31, 2012.
Earlier this year Albemarle County retained Draper Aden to help the County Board of Supervisors
make a decision regarding its option. The report was delivered to the Board of Supervisors in
October. The Draper Aden report recommended that RSWA not renew its five-year option with
Waste Management, then gave the County a menu of options from which to choose, depending
upon the County’s own priorities, and attempted to provide the County both the benefits as well as
disadvantages of making changes, recognizing the issue is very complex and all options have both
pros and cons. Draper Aden did not suggest a “self-sustained” convenience center could be
provided and Ivy and its own cost estimates showed a significant deficit. The report also did not
recommend one single option as better than all others.
To further enhance its understanding of what the County is requesting, RSWA staff listened to an
audiotape of the Board of Supervisors’ discussion. At one point in the discussion the County staff
was attempting to persuade the Board of Supervisors that it may need to make some hard choices on
service reductions as a part of the County’s desire to reduce its local government support. For
example, it was discussed that a residential-only convenience center would not only affect Waste
Management and a few other waste haulers who now occasionally use the current transfer station at
Ivy; it would also impact up to between 260 and 300 commercial customers who perform work,
such as remodeling or landscaping, for homes or businesses and then self-haul the wastes from
those projects. At least one Supervisor asked the County staff to challenge RSWA to “accommodate
the 260.” We learned later from the County staff that some Supervisors may support a residential-
only convenience center. Later in this report RSWA staff provides two proposal options: one
includes commercial and a second does not.
Meeting with County and Draper Aden
In an attempt to better understand the County’s request, RSWA staff met with County staff and
Draper Aden on November 1. Some of the information and clarification sought by RSWA staff was
provided and was helpful, but there remain some unanswered concerns. The concerns are
summarized below:
• Neither the County staff nor Draper Aden could identify a single community where a similar
arrangement of a convenience center plus auxiliary services (tires, white goods, vegetative
wastes, clean fill) was being “self-supportive” from user fees without public funding
support.
• Draper Aden was asked about the cost estimates in its report for contracted transportation
($100/pull) and disposition ($30/ton) of the material from the convenience center. The
report further suggested these costs “could be less once negotiated.” Staff referenced that
van der Linde Recycling’s published rates are $125/pull and $52/ton, and based on
information from the City of Charlottesville, van der Linde’s current disposition fee to
receive City-collected residential MSW (obtained through competitive bidding of a much
larger and more financially attractive volume of wastes compared to an Ivy convenience
center) is $39/ton. Draper Aden replied that its information came from a broad database,
admitting the scope of its study for the County was “at 30,000 feet” and was not adequate to
include a significant analysis of the local market.
3
• Draper Aden and the County staff were asked if the study attempted to further validate what
was behind survey responses by private companies stating that they could operate an Ivy
convenience center or McIntire recycling as “self-supportive”, including the further meaning
of reported statements including “would like to expand the convenience center” or “need
control of operation, unrestricted by RSWA or County.” Draper Aden confirmed that there
was no evaluation; the survey responses were simply recorded as stated. This was in very
sharp contrast to the detailed evaluation of the RSWA operations that were in the Draper
Aden report.
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
RSWA contacted the DEQ Valley Office in Harrisonburg with respect to the idea of down scaling
the Ivy Transfer Station to a “convenience center”. DEQ confirmed that “technically” from a
regulatory perspective, a convenience center could be operated without a permit if only for
residential self-haul, but DEQ pointed out that their reasoning for not requiring permits for
convenience centers was based on a standard practice that multiple convenience centers operated
within different areas of a county, each feeding a more centralized county transfer station, landfill,
or MRF that was regulated. DEQ referenced a county operating only a single “convenience center”
as unusual, and consequently, RSWA staff was told that if such a center were unpermitted it would
be watched very carefully by DEQ for violations, particularly if there was a public complaint. DEQ
strongly suggested that RSWA consider retaining its transfer station permit even if the downscaling
is renamed a “convenience center”. DEQ also stated that HHW collections would not be allowed at
an unpermitted convenience center nor under the Ivy Landfill permit that covers only post-closure
care and corrective action for the closed landfill. DEQ confirmed that RSWA’s transfer station
permit is not transferrable to a private company, even if under contract with RSWA; if the current
Ivy MUC is privatized as a convenience center but would provide HHW or services to “for hire”
commercially obtained wastes, the private company would be required to initiate a new permit
application process which must follow all of the required steps, including a public comment period
and a public meeting sponsored through the locality. Finally, the DEQ Valley Region
representative was unaware of any convenience center that was “self-supported” by user fees.
Economic Analysis
Draper Aden’s costs estimates for a convenience center are on page 30 of its report to the County. It
estimates 5,900 tons per year (19.3 tons of waste per day based on 6 days per week with 6 annual
holidays) generating annual revenues (based on current $66/ton) of $389,400. It estimates expenses
of $634,700 for a deficit of $245,300. Note that the consultant’s own estimates suggest the
convenience center would NOT be “self-supported”. Within the $634,700, the expenses just for
the off-site contracted hauling and disposal of the waste equal $324,000, or 83% of total revenue,
meaning to be self-supported all expenses of operating the convenience center site itself must be
limited to the small remaining 17%. RSWA believes Draper Aden’s estimate of 19 tons per day is
as reasonable an assumption as anyone could develop at this point; accordingly, quantity is too low
to reasonably assure a “self-supportive” convenience center. A bigger unknown is how much
tonnage might drop if a significant rate increase were imposed to try to break even; in the very best
case with zero tonnage loss, based on the Draper Aden report, a minimum fee of $108/ton would be
required to break even.
It is also important to note that Draper Aden’s analysis also shows very clearly that the most
important factors in determining the expense of a convenience center are the costs established by
4
contracts with the private sector for hauling and disposition of material, not the internal costs of
operating the convenience center. We have recently made our own contacts to get clues what
current competitive bidding for transportation and disposition may be in our local market and they
are close to Draper Aden’s estimates, but there is no indication they would be dramatically lower
than Draper Aden’s estimates. What is also clear is that both landfilling and “single stream
recycling” must be equal options to insure competitive bidding, as “single stream recycling” in our
market is controlled by a single entity.
RSWA Issues and Concerns
Staff understands the reason why Albemarle County sees the City as having withdrawn support for
the Ivy Materials Utilization Center, and then similarly wishes to withdraw its support. However,
staff does not agree that the County and City are asking for the same. The City cited as its reason
for withdrawal of support that it did not need the services of Ivy. The City’s decision allowed
RSWA to close the Ivy MUC unless the County wished to support its continuation. The County has
asked for both continued operation specifically at Ivy and that it be “self-supported”, though it is
allowing some flexibility in how the operation continues. To be “self-supported” is not a simple
“one size fits all” goal; each case depends on many complex factors, including location, market
potential, condition of current infrastructure, capability and strategy to increase market share, and
similar factors at other locations within the region where the same services are offered by other
public or private agencies. Staff has evaluated the idea of “self-supported” at Ivy and concludes the
tonnages are too low from Ivy, RSWA’s current total infrastructure is too limited, and RSWA’s
ability as a public agency subject to the freedom of information to obtain political acceptance to
build a larger market is too limited and unlikely, to assure it can be “self-supported.”
In a meeting with County staff it was suggested that the 1990 Organizational Agreement required
RSWA to provide solid waste services for Albemarle County without its support. We agree that
was a part of an agreement that also required the City and County to direct all solid waste generated
within its jurisdictions to RSWA facilities. As a whole, the Agreement provided RSWA the
economic power to sustain solid waste programs through user fees and achieve programs directed
by political goals (which are broader than profit-driven goals) reached through City/County
consensus achieved through its Board of Directors, by not allowing its fees to be undercut by other
entities not burdened by those same political goals. As we all know, the provision to deliver all
solid waste to RSWA has not been followed for many years. Without the Agreement’s economic
power or a common consensus by the City and County, RSWA has suffered without a strategic
vision for years and has not been allowed to improve its infrastructure, even though industry waste
and recycling practices have evolved dramatically. In recognition of the fact that neither the City
nor the County wished to abide by the terms of the Organizational Agreement for flow control of
solid waste, RSWA staff suggested a few years ago that RSWA’s role be reduced to providing only
those services that the County and/or City specifically requested and were willing to guarantee
funding support to the extent that user fees in a competitive market were insufficient. The current
Local Government Support Agreements currently in place reflect this refined role. However,
without adherence to the 1990 Organizational Agreement, it is simply no longer economically
viable for RSWA to be the provider of whatever County services are specifically requested without
the local government support on a self sustaining basis.
In its request Albemarle County also mentions “industry indicates” which we understand to be a
way of suggesting that the County’s desired services be contracted to the private sector on publicly-
owned land. This idea also raises questions. Staff understands that the County’s zoning and land
5
use requirements have provided for several years for available land in the County to be developed as
a solid waste convenience center “by right” – if a “self-supported” convenience center were easily
achieved why has no private company already established one in the County? Why is there a need
to induce a private company by offering the use of publicly-owned land? What limits or restrictions
are necessary for a public agency to protect this public investment and the surrounding
neighborhoods? Who pays the cost to develop, issue, evaluate, execute, and enforce the contract,
including both administrative and legal services? If contract enforcement required termination of
service, would the County accept this if it then disrupted service to self-haulers until a new contract
could be found or until RSWA could hire and train new employees to re-start? Who handles the
service and cost to respond to public complaints that may result from a private company’s operation
on public land? If a private company damaged public land and then challenged the insurance or
indemnification protections to mitigate and/or asserted counterclaims, should RSWA assets be at
risk? Should a City Councilor, the City Manager, and the City Director of Public Works share
fiduciary responsibilities as RSWA Board members over a privatization contract that has been
requested only by the County? If a private company is operating on public land, should it be
required to provide open transparency to public agency inspection of its processing facility and
verification that it is recycling what it says it is recycling?
Draper Aden’s report mentions a survey of private companies’ stated interests but offers no
independent analysis. There are important clues, however, including statements such as “would like
to expand convenience center” and “would need control of operation unrestricted by RSWA or
County.” We’re not being critical of these statements; instead we see it as another indication of the
challenge of operating a “self-supported” convenience center at the Ivy location. The statements do
suggest it could be extremely difficult to find a partner to successfully address all of the questions
above and find a “win-win”.
Finally, should RSWA agree to be the contract agent to privatize services, its role in providing
current solid waste programs would be effectively reduced to a contract agent for the County, which
is a further departure from its organization as a regional agency. If the County prefers to privatize
services, staff recommends the County instead of RSWA be the public contract party, or if it
prefers, the County can create its own waste authority. RSWA and RWSA are both presently
administered by joint staff whose present mission is to the common interests of the City and County.
Staff believe to alter that common mission could create an enormous potential for unnecessary and
troubling conflict of interest..
Waste Management
RSWA staff has met with Waste Management (WM) since receiving the County’s request, to
follow up on an interest expressed in Draper Aden’s report that WM was the only private company
to express an interest in building a new transfer station at Ivy. As a result of our follow-up WM
confirmed that they are not interested, citing the limitations of a market for Ivy. To our knowledge
no private company is interested in the transfer station option.
RSWA Staff Proposal for Ivy Materials Utilization Center
Draper Aden’s estimates do suggest that public funding support by the County can be reduced by
“down scaling”, but not completely eliminated. This provides RSWA a positive opportunity to
propose options to the County, even if modified based on the discussion above. RSWA staff
proposes for consideration two options: Option 1 simply offers a very small convenience center for
6
residential bagged trash only using small compactors. Option 2 offers a “convenience center” for
residential and small commercial to include municipal solid waste and construction and demolition
debris, as well as the current auxiliary services of tires, white goods, vegetative debris, clean fill,
and pallets. With Option 2, the continued operation of the McIntire Recycling Center and expanded
source separated recycling at the Ivy Convenience Center can also be negotiated. If the County
expresses a preference for one option over the other, we can negotiate modifications if the County
wants to adjust some service.
Options 1 and 2 are based on the following additional conditions:
• RSWA staff would suggest being open 4 days per week for an average 9.5 hours per day, or
5 days per week for an average 7.5 hours per day, to avoid the overlapping shifts or
overtime in the present 6 day/week operation. The center should close to the public 30
minutes before the end of the employee shift to accommodate proper clean-up without
overtime, and the total employee shift should not exceed 40 hours per week.
• RSWA will give notice to Waste Management (WM) by December 31 that its 5-year option
to extend the existing contract with WM will not be exercised.
• There should be a contract between RSWA and the County governing all Ivy MUC
operation beginning July 1, 2013; it is recommended that RSWA not assume the risks of
continuing to operate the Ivy MUC without such a contract. Such contract may be in the
form of an extension with or without modifications to the current contract, or a new
contract, as the County prefers. A separately executed MOU from 2006 already exists
governing landfill remediation and remediation would continue under its separate terms. In
order to bid and execute new outsourcing contracts and execute decisions with respect to
employees, it is recommended that the concept of future operation be agreed upon by
January 31 and the contract executed no later than April 1.
• Staff recommends that Albemarle County should commit to continue to cover any deficits,
and any surpluses would be a credit against any future deficit or could be refunded to the
County. RSWA’s existing liquidity and other assets are shared by both the City and County,
and it is assumed that the City would see as unfair putting its interest in those assets at risk
solely for services requested by the County.
• The Board would consider and not unreasonably withhold increasing the user fees at Ivy,
provided that the County Board of Supervisors first approves a request to the RSWA Board
with specific requested fee increases. This allows the County to influence adjusting the fees
if it believes higher fees will serve its purposes and reduce or close a gap between revenues
and expenses. As the County would be covering any revenue shortfall, it is appropriately
recognizing any benefit the higher fees may provide and also assuming the risk if revenues
were reduced by lower tonnage.
• RSWA must be allowed to continue to reasonably allocate RWSA administrative overhead
to the Ivy MUC programs, even if it may cause or contribute to a deficit. It is assumed that
both the City and the Albemarle County Service Authority would see as unfair the initiation
of a practice where RWSA would have to pick up the administrative overhead cost through
water and wastewater wholesale rates for Ivy MUC program administration, and the City
would see as unfair shifting those costs to landfill remediation.
7
Further conditions applicable only to Option 1:
• RSWA would retain none of its current 13 full-time positions as RSWA employees. A
single attendant would be provided as contract labor at Ivy, to be supervised by a Manager
or Director at RWSA yet to be determined. This supervision will be a part of the
administrative allocation so that this effort is appropriately charged to the Ivy program.
Significant stranded costs associated with unemployment insurance and/or early retirement,
and the Virginia Retirement System are anticipated associated with employee layoffs; these
costs are not included in the estimates in this memorandum; how these costs would be
shared will need to be negotiated by the County and City. RWSA would do what is
reasonable, consistent with law and qualifications, to assist employees in finding other
employment. We would strongly encourage Albemarle County to direct its Human
Resources staff to partner with RWSA in that effort, which could help reduce these stranded
costs.
• RSWA can retain a transfer station permit to allow it to provide HHW services, but would
require the HHW contractor to provide turnkey services as RSWA would have no personnel
to assist; this may increase the total cost of HHW services. If Amnesty Days are requested,
this service may need to be outsourced as a turnkey contracted service.
• RSWA presently provides landfill remediation to include both RSWA employees (leachate
hauling, mowing, landfill daily inspection, cell maintenance, gas well pumping, and flare
maintenance) and outsourced services (surface and groundwater sampling and other
professional services). RSWA staff has made non-binding, confidential inquiries on the
idea of outsourcing all remediation services should it retain no employees, and we are
receiving feedback that total outsourcing would increase total remediation costs. Staff is
willing to explore an idea of adding 2 employees to an RWSA department and continuing to
charge the present 2.0 FTEs to remediation to retain most of the current economies-of-scale,
but that idea requires more study and the support of the RWSA Board.
Further conditions applicable only to Option 2:
• RSWA would retain its DEQ transfer station permit and be responsible for the appropriate
modifications. After talking with DEQ, RSWA staff finds little to no benefit in cancelling
the permit, and by retaining the permit, RSWA can “serve the 260 to 300” commercial
accounts as the County requested and also continue to provide HHW and CESQG services
as well as amnesty days. Services from commercial waste haulers (e.g., Waste
Management) would no longer be accepted.
• A reduction in force from the current 13 full-time employees would be necessary. Six full-
time employees can perform the combined functions through cross-training that include the
Ivy “convenience center”, Ivy auxiliary services, and landfill remediation, with 2.9 full-time
equivalents1 assigned to the “convenience center”. If RSWA provides internally the off-site
transportation needs for the “convenience center” wastes, a seventh employee would be
needed. If the McIntire Recycling Center is continued, one more employee would be
needed. We have not yet analyzed adding an expanded Recycling Center at Ivy but can do
so.
• Staff retention would be sufficient to maintain the present economies-of-scale for landfill
remediation, HHW, and Amnesty Days.
1 Draper Aden estimated 4.5 FTEs for a “convenience center” based on 6 days per week operation.
8
• Some stranded costs for unemployment insurance, early retirement, and/or VRS costs will
need to be negotiated, though the amount should be less than Option 1 since some
employees are being retained.
RWSA Staff Proposal for McIntire Recycling
With respect to the McIntire Recycling Center and “Paper Sort”, should the County and/or City
desire to extend its service beyond June 30, 2013, RSWA would propose the following:
• The option in the Local Government Support Agreement can be exercised by the City and
County, or the contract can be amended or rewritten as appropriate with similar basic terms.
• If Option 2 is selected for Ivy, RSWA would continue to operate the McIntire Recycling
Center substantially as it is operated today unless there were a consensus of participating
parties (assumed to be both City and County) to make substantial changes. Presently one
attendant, contracted through a local employment agency (not an RSWA employee)
operates the facility. If RSWA continues to provide sorting, baling, and transportation of
material to recycling markets as is presently done, one additional RSWA employee would
be added as mentioned above for Ivy MUC. Cross-training would be maintained as is at
present.
• RSWA would relocate the sorting and baling (“Paper Sort”) to either the former Moores
Creek Compost Yard or the Ivy MUC and eliminate the present annual rental fees of
$32,400 paid for the use of the “Paper Sort” building. A one-time capital cost of
approximately $30,000 would be needed for the relocation and would be financed from
reserves already collected from prior year depreciation expenses. For the fiscal year ending
2012, RSWA Recycling Operations revenues were $268,005 and total expenses were
$286,704, meaning that with the removal of the rental fees, provided public participation
and market rates for recyclable material remain steady, future Operating Revenues can be
higher than Operating Expenses.
• RSWA can further evaluate expanded Recycling Services at Ivy. Operating revenues and
expenses will depend upon public participation, but we are making a preliminary
assumption that operating revenues will track close to operating expenses provided the
global market for quality recyclable material continues its current trend.
• To be fair in the allocation of administrative overhead among the County, City, and ACSA,
a reasonable administrative allocation would be added to the total Recycling expenses for
computing local government support, as is current practice.
• If Option 1 is selected by the County, or the County chooses to privatize Ivy, operating the
McIntire Recycling Center would be more challenging as a standalone operation since the
cross-training economies presently provided by RSWA employees would be lost. In such
case RSWA would not provide the employees for this operation. Options for operating
McIntire could be through a private contract, by the City, by the County, or through contract
with RWSA.
The table on the next page provides preliminary annual budget estimates for Options 1 and 2, based
on existing user charges and our best estimates of tonnages that may be received.
9
Option 1 Summary
Surplus/Deficit
Ivy "Convenience Center"
Tipping Fees 37,600
Metals -
Service Fees -
Transportation & Disposition 31,400
Other Operating Expenses 53,900
37,600 85,300 (47,700)
Depreciation 5,000
37,600 90,300 (52,700)
Admin Allocation 60,800
37,600 151,100 (113,500)
Settlement Payment (FY 2014 Only)120,000
157,600 151,100 6,500
Option 2 Summary
Surplus/Deficit
Ivy Operations (Auxiliary Services)
Tipping Fees 190,500
Wood Mulch & Other 7,900
Service Fees 35,000
Operating Expenses 208,400
233,400 208,400 25,000
Depreciation 15,000
233,400 223,400 10,000
Admin Allocation 77,400
233,400 300,800 (67,400)
Ivy "Convenience Center"
Tipping Fees 409,400
Metals 13,000
Service Fees 35,000
Transportation & Disposition 324,500
Other Operating Expenses 241,500
457,400 566,000 (108,600)
Depreciation 25,000
457,400 591,000 (133,600)
Admin Allocation 90,300
457,400 681,300 (223,900)
Settlement Payment (FY 2014 Only)120,000
577,400 681,300 (103,900)
Revenues Expenses
Revenues Expenses
10
Privatization
If Albemarle County chooses to reject both Option 1 and 2 and desires that Ivy MUC, or Ivy MUC
and McIntire Recycling Services be privatized, RSWA staff recommends that while RSWA may
provide the County technical support, RSWA should not be the issuing or contracting party, based
upon the concerns expressed previously in this memorandum.
RSWA Employees
RSWA staff recognizes that the first priority of all public agencies is to serve the public’s
interest, and it recognizes the County’s right to choose any option provided by RSWA or choose
to privatize service. Toward the effort of representing the public interest, opportunity for public
comment is important. Whatever decision the County chooses, this has been a difficult report to
prepare, and it should be stated publicly that every member of the RSWA Board and the
organizations represented by the Board members owe the employees of RSWA a debt of
gratitude for its continuing outstanding service. I receive more sincere compliments on the
courtesy, professionalism, and service beyond the expected call of duty from citizens with
respect to the Ivy and McIntire operations than from any other department. It is also the direct
result of our RSWA employees and Environmental Standards that the respect from those citizens
who live in the Ivy area has greatly improved in recent years. The difficulties the RSWA now
face are not the result of employee performance or overstaffing; as stated in this report it is the
result of a lack of consensus at the governance level to establish and implement strategic
planning to sustain an organization initially designed with a regional purpose.
Board Action Requested
Staff respectfully recommends the following decisions from the Board of Directors:
1. Notify Waste Management by December 31, 2012 that the current contract for waste
transportation and disposal with RSWA will not be extended for a third term and
therefore will expire on June 30, 2013.
2. Formally offer to Albemarle County Options 1 and 2 as defined in this memorandum,
with a request for the County’s decision by January 31, 2013.
3. Respectfully submit to Albemarle County that should the County not be further interested
in either RSWA Option and prefer services of Ivy MUC (or both Ivy MUC and McIntire)
be privatized, RSWA may lend technical assistance to the County but respectfully
declines to be the organization responsible for the issuance of an RFP or be the contract
party.
County Supervised/Contracted Convenience Center
PROJECT STEPS WEEKS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Board Direction Received X
Prepare RFP (1)
Advertise RFP (1)
Interview and Select Proposal
Negotiate Contract (2)X
(terms, insurance, bonds)
Mobilize (3)
(Note; Assumes site is not available until July 1 &
min 2 months prep)
Permitting (4)X
(may not be required)
RSWA Ivy Lease (5)
Negotiations
RSWA Approval
County Approval X
Begin Operations (6)X
Notes:1. Assumes RFP rather than quote, giving flexibility in design of services. Verify option with Legal.
2. Schedule is aggressive in negotiating contract. Delays may occur here.
3. Assumes minimal site improvements needed for new operation and RSWA retains site control until July 1st
4. Assumes permitting can be started soon after contract negotiations begin and permit within 4 months
A permit may not be required or limited to certain opertions, will define with scope of services in contract negotiations.
5. Assumes parallel lease negotiations with lease and services contract contingent on each other
6. Target is for operations to begin within 8 months of Board direction.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SDP2012-00056 Yves Delorme, Inc – Zoning Ordinance
Waiver
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of the following sections of the Zoning
Ordinance:
1. Section 4.2 Critical Slopes
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mr. Benish, Mr. Perez, and Mr. Greene
LEGAL REVIEW: No
AGENDA DATE: January 16 , 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The County is reviewing a minor site plan amendment which proposes to build a 24’ travel way across TMP 07700-00-00-
040M0 to serve vacant TMP 07700-00-00-040C1. In conjunction with the proposal the applicant seeks to disturb slopes
greater than 25% on both properties. The subject lots are adjacent to each other, are both zoned Light Industrial (LI), and
are currently under ownership by Yves Delorme, Inc. The lots are located on Broadway Street (Rte 1115) near the
intersection of Franklin Street, within close proximity (50 feet) to the City of Charlottesville.
The critical slopes being disturbed are on the Northern portion of the properties fronting Broadway Street. These slopes
appear to have been developed in part through the construction of Broadway Street; however, the grading and
construction of the slopes does not appear on a “valid approved” site plan. County site plan file: SDP1989-086 – Palais
Royal shows the slopes as existing prior to the construction of the existing warehouse on TMP 07700-00-00-040M0.
The current site plan, SDP2012-00056 Yves Delorme, Inc, which proposes to disturb these slopes (and requires a critical
slope waiver) would have previously been reviewed by the Planning Commission; however, due to a recent State
Supreme Court decision, the waiver must now be reviewed/approved by the Board of Supervisors as a Special Exception
under Chapter 18 Section 31.8. Staff is recommending approval of this Special Exception request.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5: Ensure health and safety of the community.
DISCUSSION:
Review of the request by Engineering staff:
Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance: This existing slope is possibly a man-made slope for the
construction of Broadway Street. The applicant is proposing to construct a retaining wall and acce ss road to the rear
parcel.
Areas Acres
Total site 4.145 acres approximately
Critical slopes .86 20.75% of site
Critical slopes disturbed 0.13 15.1% of critical slopes
Exemptions to critical slopes waivers for driveways, roads and utilities without re asonable alternative locations:
This disturbance is not exempt.
Compliance with Zoning Ordinance 18-4.2:
“movement of soil and rock”
Proper slope construction, control of drainage, and vegetative stabilization will prevent any movement of soil.
“excessive stormwater runoff”
Stormwater runoff will be reduced in this area, as a portion of the slopes will be eliminated.
“siltation”
Inspection and bonding by the County will ensure siltation control during construction. Proper stabilization and
maintenance will ensure long-term stability.
“loss of aesthetic resource”
This area is visible from the roads and houses in the neighborhood. Some of the slopes were created with the
roads.
“septic effluent”
This neighborhood is serviced by public sewer.
Based on the review above, there are no engineering concerns that prohibit the disturbance of the critical slopes.
Review of the request by Planning staff:
Summary of review of modification of Section 4.2:
Section 4.2.5 establishes the review process for granting a waiver of Section 4.2.3. The preceding comments by staff
address the provisions of Section 4.2.5(a). Staff has included the provisions of Section 4.2.5(a)(3), along with staff
comment on the various provisions. Under 31.8, the Board of Supervisors may modify or waive any requirement of section
4.2 based on these provisions: (However, no specific finding is required in support of the Board’s decision.)
“A. Strict application of the requirements of section 4.2 would not forward the purposes of th is chapter or otherwise serve
the public health, safety or welfare;”
Granting the modification request could better serve the purpose of this chapter or the public health, safety or
welfare by allowing an existing Light Industrial (LI) parcel, served by water and sewer to be accessed and more
effectively developed.
“B. Alternatives proposed by the developer or subdivider would satisfy the intent and purposes of section 4.2 to at least
an equivalent degree;”
No alternatives have been proposed by the applicant.
“C. Due to the property’s unusual size, topography, shape, location or other unusual conditions, excluding the
proprietary interest of the developer or subdivider, prohibiting the disturbance of critical slopes would effect ively prohibit or
unreasonably restrict the use of the property or would result in significant degradation of the property or adjacent
properties; or”
The state road frontage of TMP 07700-00-00-040C1 consists entirely of critical slopes, which limit
possible access points to the property from the state road. Because of these unusual topographic conditions the
developer is attempting to access the lot through an adjacent parcel. Prohibiting the disturbance of critical slopes
would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property and may cause significant degradation to
the property.
“D. Granting the modification or waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import than would be served by strict
application of the regulations sought to be modified or waived.”
A finding that granting the waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import than would be served by strict
application of the regulations can be made. By allowing the proposed disturbance of critical slopes, the County
would allow the use of a vacant Light Industrial (LI) zoned parcel served by Public Water and Sewer to be
accessed/developed.
Based on the review above, there are no concerns that would cause staff to object to the approval of t he critical slope
disturbance request.
31.8 SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS
The board of supervisors reserves unto itself the authority to consider and act upon special exceptions as follows:
a. Matters requiring a special exception. Notwithstanding any other section of this chapter:
1. Any request for a waiver, modification, variation or substitution permitted by this chapter shall be considered and
acted upon by the board.
2. Any requirement for a decision by the planning commission required by this chapter shall be considered and
acted upon by the board. For the purposes of this section, a decision by the planning commission does not
include the consideration and action by the commission on a preliminary or final site plan under section 32 of this
chapter or any action provided in section 32 enabled under Virginia Code § 15.2-2242(1).
b. Consideration and action. In acting upon a special exception, the board shall consider the factors, standards, criteria,
and findings, however denominated, in the applicable sections of this chapter, provided that the board shall not be
required to make specific findings in support of its decision.
c. Conditions. In approving a special exception, the board may impose reasonable conditions to address any possible
impacts of the special exception.
d. Time for action. A request for a special exception shall be acted on by the board within ninety (90) days after the date
of the request, or concurrently with a zoning map amendment, special use permit, or site plan appeal, whichever is
longer.
e. Request. Each request for a special exception shall be made as provided under the applicable section of this chapter.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s request for a critical slopes waiver.
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SDP2012-65 Shifflett/ Verizon Wireless- Tier II
Personal W ireless Service Facility
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
To install an above-ground emergency power back-
up generator to serve the existing personal wireless
service facility during power outages.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Benish and Nelson
PRESENTER (S):
N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: No
AGENDA DATE:
January 16, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY: T. C. Foley
BACKGROUND:
On May 3, 2005, the Planning Commission approved SDP2005-9, the construction of an 83.75 ft. tall Tier II Personal
W ireless Service Facility wood monopole, and associated ground equipment, at this location. On February 8, 2012, the
Board of Supervisors approved SDP2011-81, an 8.5 foot extension of the existing monopole. The lease area, with the
existing monopole and associated ground equipment, is located on the edge of a heavily wooded area in a rural setting of
large lot, single family dwellings and farms. Another PWSF is located in close proximity, approximately 23 ft to the
northeast.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal: 2: Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs.
Goal: 5: Ensure health and safety of the community.
DISCUSSION:
This is a proposal to install an above-ground generator and propane tank in an expanded lease area to serve an
existing personal service wireless facility during power outages. The standard staff report for tower reviews is attached
(Attachment A) and provides a more detailed analysis of this proposal. Staff recommends approval of this proposal.
31.8 SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS
The board of supervisors reserves unto itself the authority to consider and act upon special exceptions as follows:
a. Matters requiring a special exception. Notwithstanding any other section of this chapter:
1. Any request for a waiver, modification, variation or substitution permitted by this chapter shall be
considered and acted upon by the board.
2. Any requirement for a decision by the planning commission required by this chapter shall be
considered and acted upon by the board. For the purposes of this section, a decision by the planning
commission does not include the consideration and action by the commission on a preliminary or final
site plan under section 32 of this chapter or any action provided in section 32 enabled under Virginia
Code § 15.2-2242(1).
b. Consideration and action. In acting upon a special exception, the board shall consider the factors, standards,
criteria, and findings, however denominated, in the applicable sections of this chapter, provided that the board
shall not be required to make specific findings in support of its decision.
c. Conditions. In approving a special exception, the board may impose reasonable conditions to address any
possible impacts of the special exception.
d. Time for action. A request for a special exception shall be acted on by the board within ninety (90) days after the
date of the request, or concurrently with a zoning map amendment, special use permit, or site plan appeal,
whichever is longer.
e. Request. Each request for a special exception shall be made as provided under the applicable section of this
chapter.
Tier II tower reviews were previously approved by the Planning Commission and now must be approved as special
exceptions.
BUDGET IMPACT:
No budget impact
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of this special exception.
ATTACHMENTS:
I – Staff Analysis with attachments
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
1
Attachment I
STAFF CONTACT: David Benish
Brent Nelson, Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION: N/A
AGENDA TITLE: SDP2012-065: Shifflett Property - Verizon Wireless Tier II
Personal Wireless Service Facility
PROPERTY OWNER: Beth M. Shifflett
APPLICANT: Verizon Wireless
PROPOSAL:
This is a request for approval of an above-ground generator and propane tank in a 17’ x 20’
expanded lease area to serve an existing personal service wireless facility (Attachment A). The
existing ground equipment is located in an unfenced 20’ x 20’ lease area. The above-ground
generator and propane tank are to be located in a 17’ x 20’ extension of the lease area. The
proposal includes fencing the entire lease area (37’ x 20’) with a seven foot tall wooden fence
and gate. This application is being made in accordance with Section 10.2.1 (22) of the Zoning
Ordinance, allowing for Tier II wireless facilities by-right in the Rural Areas. The facility is
located on a 1.38 acre parcel, described as Tax Map 87, Parcel 7A1, zoned VR and located in the
Samuel Miller Magisterial District [Attachment B]. No changes are proposed to the tower or
antenna array.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Areas in Rural Area 3.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
The lease area, with the existing monopole and associated ground equipment, is located on the
edge of a heavily wooded area in a rural setting of large lot, single family dwellings and farms.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
SDP200500009: Request to construct an 83.75 ft. Tier II PWSF monopole, approved.
SDP201100081: Request to extend the existing monopole with antennas and associated ground
equipment, approved.
STAFF COMMENT:
Section 3.1 provides the following definitions that are relevant to this proposal:
Tier II personal wireless service facility: A personal wireless service facility that is a treetop
facility not located within an avoidance area.
Treetop facility: A personal wireless service facility consisting of a self-supporting monopole
having a single shaft of wood, metal or concrete no more than ten (10) feet taller than the crown
of the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the monopole, measured above sea level (ASL),
and includes associated antennas, mounting structures, an equipment cabinet and other essential
2
personal wireless service equipment.
Avoidance area: An area having significant resources where the siting of personal wireless
service facilities could result in adverse impacts as follows: (i) any ridge area where a personal
wireless service facility would be skylighted; (ii) a parcel within an agricultural and forestal
district; (iii) a parcel within a historic district; (iv) any location in which the proposed personal
wireless service facility 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; or (v) any location within two hundred (200) feet of any state
scenic highway or by-way.
Section 5.1.40(d), “Tier II facilities” states:
“Each Tier II facility may be established upon commission approval of an application satisfying
the requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) and demonstrating that the facility will be installed and
operated in compliance with all applicable provisions of this chapter, criteria (1) through (8)
below, and satisfying all conditions of the architectural review board. The commission shall act
on each application within the time periods established in section 32.4.2.6. The commission
shall approve each application, without conditions, once it determines that all of these
requirements have been satisfied. If the commission denies an application, it shall identify which
requirements were not satisfied and inform the applicant what needs to be done to satisfy each
requirement.”
The applicant has submitted an application that satisfies the requirements set forth in Section
5.1.40(a).
Section 5.1.40(d)(1): The facility shall comply with subsection 5.1.40(b) and subsection
5.1.40(c)(2) through (9).
Staff has determined that the proposed addition of an above-ground generator and propane tank
complies with all of the exemptions of Section 5.1.40(b) and the proposed equipment meets all
relevant design criteria set forth in Section 5.1.40(c)(2-9). Section 5.1.40(c) 9 identifies three (3)
criteria by which the agent can approve fencing of any equipment cabinet not located within an
existing building. Staff finds that the proposed fencing meets all three criteria: (i) the fencing
would protect the facility (including fuel storage equipment) from trespass, 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.
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 visi ble 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, the facility shall be
sited to so that it is not visible from any resources specifically identified for protection in the
deed of easement.
The existing ground equipment and lease area are not visible from nearby roads or Entrance
Corridors. The proposed above-ground generator, propane tank and fencing are not expected to
3
be visible from nearby roads or Entrance Corridors.
Section 5.1.40(d)(3): The facility shall not adversely impact resources identified in the county’s
open space plan.
Staff’s analysis of this request addresses the concern for the possible loss of aesthetic or historic
resources. The proposed lease area is not delineated as a significant resource on the Open Space
and Critical Resources Plan [Attachment E]. Staff believes there is no significant loss of
resources related to the proposed modifications to the existing facility.
The proposed above-ground generator and propane tank will be located within a 17’ x 20’
expansion of the existing 20’ x 20’ lease area. No trees will need to be removed in order to install
the new ground equipment. The applicant has provided a letter from a certified arborist
indicating that the installation of the proposed generator and propane tank is not expected to
impact existing trees to remain.
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.
There is only one other personal wireless service facility located within an area comprised of a
circle centered anywhere on the ground having a radius of two hundred (200) feet. That facility
is located approximately 23 feet northeast of the facility under consideration.
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).
The proposal under consideration does not involve any modification to the existing monopole.
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.
4
The proposed generator and propane tank shall be painted Sherwin Williams (6090) Java Brown
to match the existing facility.
Section 5.1.40(d)(8): Each wood monopole shall be constructed so that all cables, wiring and
similar attachments that run vertically from the ground equipment to the antennas are placed on
the pole to face the interior of the property and away from public view, as determined by the
agent. Metal monopoles shall be constructed so that vertical cables, wiring and similar
attachments are contained within the monopole’s structure.
The proposal under consideration does not involve any modification to the existing monopole.
Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of The Telecommunications Act of 1996:
The regulation of the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless facilities by
any state or local government or instrumentality thereof shall not prohibit or have the effect of
prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.
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 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 proposed above-ground generator, propane tank and fencing are not expected to be
visible from nearby roadways and properties.
2. The Architectural Review Board staff has recommended approval based on a lack of
visibility from the Route 29 Entrance Corridor.
Factors unfavorable to this request include:
1. None identified.
In order to compl y 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.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request allowing the addition of an
5
above-ground generator, propane tank and fencing based upon the findings in the staff report.
Conditions of approval:
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled
“Crossroads Site, Existing Tier II Generator Addition (Shifflett property)” prepared by
Justin Yoon latest revision date 12/6/12 (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.
Motion: The Planning Commission’s role in this case (SDP201200065) is to make a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this generator
addition to the existing Tier II personal wireless service facility:
I move to recommend approval of SDP 201200065 Verizon Crossroads Site Tier II
PWSF, Generator Addition.
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of this generator
addition to the existing Tier II personal wireless service facility:
I move to recommend denial of SDP 201200065 Verizon Crossroads Site Tier II
PWSF, Generator Addition. (Planning Commission needs to give a reason for the
recommendation of denial).
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Site Plan
B. Vicinity Map
C. Application Justification Letter
D. Site Photo
E. Open Space and Critical Resources Map
Return to exec summary
6
CROSSROADS
SITE
GENERATOR
ADDITIONREV. NO.DESCRIPTION DATEBY
APPROVAL
CONSULTING TEAM PROJECT SUMMARY
10
REV. NO.DESCRIPTION DATEBY
G-1
INDEX OF DRAWINGS
SITE
PROJECT
SITE
PROJECT
EXISTING TIER II INSTALLATION
INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF GENERATOR AND
LPG TANK FOR EMERGENCY SERVICE
SHIFFLETT PROPERTY, EXISTING TIER II - GENERATOR ADDITION
U.S. ROUTE 29
GRAPHIC SCALE(S)
SURVEYOR'S NOTES
CROSSROADS
SITE
GENERATOR
ADDITION
C-1
LEGEND ABBREVIATIONS
LEASE NOTES
ACCESS EASEMENT LINE TABLE
GRAPHIC SCALE(S)
CROSSROADS
SITE
GENERATOR
ADDITION
C-2
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
NOTES
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
LEASE NOTES
GENERAL NOTES
CROSSROADS
SITE
GENERATOR
ADDITION
C-3
ANTENNA NOTES
GENERAL NOTES
ENLARGED VIEW CLUSTER MOUNT
GRAPHIC SCALE(S)
CROSSROADS
SITE
GENERATOR
ADDITION
C-4
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
LEASE NOTES
DEMOLITION NOTES
NOTES
CROSSROADS
SITE
GENERATOR
ADDITION
C-5
SECTION A-A
HORIZ: 1" = 3'
VERT: 1"=2'
CROSSROADS
SITE
GENERATOR
ADDITION
C-6
CONSTRUCTION NOTES GENERAL NOTES
GRAPHIC SCALE(S)
CROSSROADS
SITE
GENERATOR
ADDITION
E-1
ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN NOTES
PROPOSED EQUIPMENTABBREVIATIONS
GENERAL ELECTRICAL NOTES
CROSSROADS
SITE
GENERATOR
ADDITION
E-2
POWER RISER DIAGRAM
POWER RISER EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE
POWER RISER NOTES:
GRAPHIC SCALE(S)
CROSSROADS
SITE
GENERATOR
ADDITION
E-3
INSPECTION PORT DETAIL
GROUND ROD DETAIL
GROUNDING NOTES
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Utilities
Towers
Parcel Info
Parcels
Elevation
Y2007 Elevation Contours
SDP12-65, Verizon-Shifflett, Location Map
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources January 2, 2013
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
259 ft
RESOLUTION
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ENDORSEMENT OF NELSON COUNTY, VIRGINIA’S
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FY13-14 TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM
APPLICATION FOR THE BLUE RIDGE TUNNEL PROJECT
WHEREAS, Nelson County continues to lead the ten-year-long, ongoing regional effort to
advance its Blue Ridge Tunnel restoration project from a “shovel ready” plan to a fully built success story;
and
WHEREAS, being an existing project sponsor of a Transportation Enhancement Project, Nelson
County is eligible to apply for Transportation Alternatives Program grant funds under the newly enacted
MAP-21 Federal Transportation Bill (the former Transportation Enhancement Grant program); and
WHEREAS, Nelson County staff are developing a proposal in response to the Transportation
Alternatives Program grant opportunity announcement by the Virginia Department of Transportation; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County recognizes that this is a very valuable project for Albemarle
County, Nelson County, for the Central Virginia region, and for the entire Commonwealth of Virginia; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County believes it is an important project for numerous community priorities,
including:
• Increasing the local and regional community quality of life, adding to the area's public
recreation amenities, and promoting active and healthy communities;
• Strengthening rural economic development and strengthening the local and regional
recreation tourism, ecotourism, agritourism, and heritage tourism industries;
• Advancing community goals related to historic preservation and cultural landscape
protection; and
• Implementing long-range alternative transportation planning goals.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
endorses the submittal of a Transportation Alternatives Program grant application by Nelson County
seeking a maximum funding award of approximately $750,000 for Phase I construction of the Blue Ridge
Tunnel Project and additionally resolves to continue its support of the proposed project.
*****
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct copy of a
Resolution duly adopted by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors by a vote of ______ to ______,
as recorded below, at a meeting held on _________________________.
Attachments:
Letter from Stephen Carter request support
Detailed Project Budget
Map – Site Vicinity
Map – Regional Context
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Albemarle County Service Authority Sales Contract
– East Rivanna / Glenmore Water Storage Facility
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearing to consider selling easements to the
Albemarle County Service Authority for a proposed water
storage facility to be located on property adjacent to
Glenmore (TMP 93A1-2)
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Davis, Herrick, and Eggleston
PRESENTER (S): Tom Foley
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
January 16, 2013
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Staff has worked in conjunction with the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company (ERVFC) to negotiate the sale of
permanent easements to the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) for a portion of the unused East Rivanna
firehouse property, which is jointly owned by the County and the ERVFC (TMP 93A1-2). The ACSA is seeking to construct
a water storage facility on the property to serve the Rivanna Village community, which includes Glenmore.
The property was acquired by proffer when the Glenmore Planned Development was approved in 1990. The six-acre
parcel was proffered for a fire station and/or other public facilities. ERVFC currently fully utilizes approximately 2.62 acres
for the fire station, leaving a balance of 3.38 acres. The proposed permanent easement for the water tank will utilize
approximately .48 acres of the site.
Negotiations related to this transaction are now complete and staff is requesting Board approval for the County Executive
to execute the three-party sales contract for ACSA’s acquisition of these easements.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2. Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed sales contract (Attachment A) has been reviewed and approved by the ACSA and the Board of
Directors of the ERVFC. The sales contract provides that the County and the ERVFC will receive $100,000 from the
ACSA and will grant several easements related to ACSA’s proposed installation of a water storage tank and/or pump
station, including a perpetual easement for the location of the water storage facility, a permanent access easement
across the existing ERVFC parking lot onto Steamer Drive, and waterline and temporary construction easements. The
proposed location of the easements is shown on the attached sketch (Attachment B). The exact location and
dimensions of the easements will be shown on a final plat to be prepared by the ACSA and approved by the County
Attorney’s Office. The contract also provides for a closing/settlement date no later than December 31, 2014 to allow
the ACSA to complete all necessary plan development and review processes for the installation of the tank and
associated water lines. The County Attorney’s Office has reviewed and approved the proposed sales contract as to
form.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The easements have been valued at $100,000. Proceeds from the sale of the easements are to be dedicated to the
County’s CIP fund, and to be specifically allocated to the ERVFC to complete needed building/facility repairs, in
accordance with County Policy SAP-DEP-018, Volunteer Capital Funding for Facilities (Attachment C).
RECOMMENDATIONS:
After the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment D) to authorize
the County Executive to execute the sales contract and all legal documents, in a form approved by the County
Attorney, necessary to complete the sale of the easements to the ACSA on and across TMP 93A1-2 for the location of
a water storage facility and water lines to serve the Rivanna Village community.
AGENDA TITLE: Albemarle County Service Authority Sales Contract – East Rivanna / Glenmore Water Storage
Facility
January 16, 2013
Page 2
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Sales Contract
B – Sketch of proposed easements
C – County Policy SAP-DEP-018
D – Resolution
Return to agenda
STANDARD ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY
Subject: Volunteer Capital Funding for Facilities
Reference Number: SAP-DEP-018
Effective Date: 7 September 2005
Last Revision Date: N/A
Signature of Approval:
J. Dan Eggleston, Chief
Purpose:
The purpose of this policy is to assist volunteer fire and rescue stations that do not have the financial means to fund
facility or building repairs and minor building renovations.
Background:
Staff has worked with the Albemarle County Fire Rescue Advisory Board (ACFRAB) to develop ways to support the
volunteer fire rescue system through increased operational and capital funding. A primary objective in increasing financial
support was to decrease the amount of fundraising necessary by volunteers so volunteer staff could focus the majority of
their time on running emergency calls and completing necessary training. These efforts resulted in 100 percent funding of
capital funding for apparatus purchases, 100 percent funding of basic operational costs, and forgiving 100 percent of
outstanding debt.
One item not included in these improved funding initiatives was a commitment to provide for the maintenance of volunteer
buildings and facilities, beyond paying for regular minor maintenance costs as a part of the operating formula. Rather
than the County committing to fund these items, discussion centered on focused fundraisers to help maintain an adequate
“Building Fund” that could be used to take care of building maintenance and minor renovations. Many of the volunteer
stations indicated that they still wanted to do some fundraising because it has been an important part of the tradition of
volunteer fire rescue organizations. The County’s assistance would allow fundraisers to focus on building needs rather
than paying operational or apparatus costs. Staff recognized that there may be times when some assistance would be
requested and suggested that those items be considered only on a case-by-case basis. However, the basic principle was
that the maintenance and care of buildings would be the responsibility of the volunteer stations and they would be much
better able to address these needs with operating and other capital needs being paid for by the County.
This policy is based on a grant model from the Virginia Office of Emergency Medical Services. In addition to extensive
justification requirements, the grant model and this policy requires applicants to disclose complete financial information to
help determine need. The attached policy uses a similar approach to determine financial hardship and also proposes that
a five-year maintenance plan and a financial plan be developed with staff. The financial plan requires a payback over
five-to-ten years, but would fund qualified improvements with a 0% interest loan. The program also allows for grants that
would not require repayment depending on particularly difficult circumstances. It is important to note that this policy
proposes that these projects meet typical County requirements for review, procurement, and planning. The entire process
would follow timelines that are coordinated with the normal County budget process, as is noted.
To ensure accountability for the use of taxpayer funds, evaluation of the proposed facility improvements by staff is
required.
This policy was adopted by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on 7 September 2005.
Scope:
This policy applies to any volunteer station requesting capital funding assistance with facility or building repairs or
renovations due to financial hardship.
STANDARD ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY
Page 2 of 3
Policy:
1. Volunteer Station Financial Assessment
A. The intent of the policy is to provide financial assistance to volunteer stations that do not have the financial
means to fund building repairs and minor building renovation projects. Therefore, a volunteer station
requesting assistance will need to show that the station is unable to independently fund the project.
Determining financial hardship requires that the station disclose the station’s financial statements (example
balance sheet and income statement attached) to help demonstrate the station’s financial need.
2. Qualifying Projects
A. Building repairs and minor building renovation projects that help maintain the current facility shall qualify for
consideration.
B. Projects beyond this scope will be addressed on a case by case basis through the normal CIP process.
3. Five-Year Building Assessment
A. Stations requesting financial assistance must conduct a five-year assessment of their building to determine
the long term maintenance needs.
B. The five-year assessment should include a projected and prioritized list of building repairs/renovations, a cost
estimate per repair/renovation, and a narrative outlining the justification for each repair/renovation.
EXAMPLE
Priority Project type FY06/07 FY07/08 FY08/09 FY09/10 FY10/11
High Roof repair 30,000.00$
Medium HVAC replacement 15,000.00$
Medium Bunk room renovation 5,000.00$
Total 30,000.00$ -$ 15,000.00$ -$ 5,000.00$
North River Volunteer Fire
MAJOR BUILDING REPAIRS
C. Staff will work with the volunteer station to assess the projects to help determine needs, eligibility, and timing.
4. Funding Assistance
A. Financial assistance shall be provided through a no-interest loan with a five-to-ten year payback period. In
cases of extreme financial hardship, a grant may be considered.
B. A volunteer station receiving a no-interest loan will work with staff to develop a financial plan to ensure that
the loan will be paid in full over time. The plan will be reviewed and approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) before financial assistance is provided.
5. Other Requirements
A. Volunteer stations that qualify, based on this policy, shall submit a request to the Department of Fire Rescue
by 1 August in preparation for the next fiscal year budget process.
B. Approved projects will be procured and completed according to current County policies and procedures.
STANDARD ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY
Page 3 of 3
EXAMPLE
Station: North River Volunteer Fire Period Ending: June 30, 2005
Assets Liabilities
Beginning Cash Balance Balance of open accounts
Available cash on hand/checking account
Real Estate Notes on mortgages owed
Building/land @ market value
Investments Other indebtedness/obligations
CDs, stock, bonds, savings, etc.Explain in narrative
Equipment, Vehicles, etc.
Equipment not purchased through CIP
Restricted Funds
Explain in narrative
Total Assets 150,000$ Total Liabilities 5,000$
Net Worth 145,000$
total assets minus total liabilities
Receipts/Revenue Expenditures
County contribution 100,000$ Operational expenses 100,000$
Donations, contribution, bequests, etc.5,000$ Capital expenditures -$
Fund raising 15,000$ Other (include transfers to asset accounts)-$
Interest and dividends 2,000$ Non-operational expenses (i.e. - fund raising costs)5,000$
Grants 1,000$
Other income/revenue -$
Total receipts/revenue 123,000$ Total expenditures 105,000$
Cash increase/decrease (receipts minus expenditures)18,000$
-$
5,000$
-$
-$
5,000$
100,000$
15,000$
30,000$
RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE
THE SALE OF EASEMENTS ON AND ACROSS
TAX MAP PARCEL 93A1-2 TO THE
ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, the East Rivanna firehouse property (Tax Map Parcel 093A1-00-00-
00200) is jointly owned by the County and the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company
(“ERVFC”); and
WHEREAS, for and in consideration of $100,000, the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors agrees to grant permanent easements and temporary construction easements on
and across TMP 93A1-2 to the Albemarle County Service Authority (“ACSA”) necessary
for the ACSA to locate and install a water storage facility and water lines to serve the
Rivanna Village community; and
WHEREAS, the ERVFC Board of Directors has approved the sale of the
easements to the ACSA.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby authorizes the County Executive to execute the sales contract and all
legal documents, in a form approved by the County Attorney, necessary to complete the
sale of the easements to the ACSA on and across TMP 93A1-2.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy
of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of
____ to ____, as recorded below, at a meeting held on January 16, 2013.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SP201000049 Howardsville Campground
SP201000050 Howardsville Canoe Livery
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Changes to conceptual plan and conditions of approval
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mr. Clark
LEGAL REVIEW: No
AGENDA DATE:
January 16, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: Yes INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY: Benish
BACKGROUND:
These special use permit requests were heard by the Planning Commission on November 13, 2012, and recommended
approval with conditions. The Commission’s approval of SP2010-00049 was also conditioned on the relocation of
campsites 19 through 26, which they felt were too close to the CSX railroad tracks.
DISCUSSION:
1. The applicant has submitted a revised conceptual plan that that shows the relocation of campsites requested by the
Planning Commission. Five sites have been moved farther from the tracks, and three have been inserted into the row
of sites along the river. The river sites have been made narrower (50 feet rather than 60 feet) in order to
accommodate this change. If the Board decides to approve these permit requests, the conditions of approval sho uld
refer to this new plan (see revised conditions below).
2. After the Commission hearing, during preparation of the Commission’s action letter, staff made the following change
to conditions for each permit:
SP2010-00049:
6. The campground shall be closed and all portable toilets and vehicles shall be removed while a flood warning
or flash-flood warning issued by the National Weather Service is in effect for the portion of the James River
adjoining the site.
SP2010-00050:
3. The canoe livery shall be closed and all portable toilets, vehicles, trailers and other canoe livery equipment
shall be removed while a flood warning or flash-flood warning issued by the National Weather Service is in
effect for the portion of the James River adjoining the site.
Staff made these changes in an effort to make the conditions more clear and specific about closure during flood
events. However, after the action letter had been distributed, staff found out that the notification processes for flood
warnings and flash-flood warnings are not the same. While flood warnings apply to specific sections of rivers and
streams, flash-flood warnings do not—they are issued for larger, more general areas.
Applying the condition as modified by staff in the action letter could require the proposed facility to close down during
flash-flood warnings that do not specifically apply to its location. Therefore staff feels that the reference to flash -flood
warnings, which was not requested by the Planning Commission, should be removed from the conditions of approval.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the special use permit requests (with revised conditions; see action
memo). Staff recommends approval of the special use permit requests with the revised conditions listed below.
SP2010-00049 Howardsville Camping
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Howardsville Canoe Livery and
Campground,” prepared by Gregory A. Watson, and dated August 27, 2012 Dec. 6, 2012 (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:
o location of campsites
o location of parking areas
o location of the access roads for the campsite (no less than 50 feet from the river bank)
o absence of structures
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure compliance with
the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The area north of campsites 16 through 20 and that part of the “Common Area” shown on the Conceptual Plan
that is within the existing tree line shall remain forested. No cutting or removal of trees shall be permitted, except
for dead or broken trees that pose a direct threat to a campsite or as permitted by Zoning Ordinance Section 4.3c.
Gathering of downed wood for firewood is permitted.
3. The portion of the “Common Area” shown on the Conceptual Plan that is outside the existing tree line may be re -
forested. All plantings shall use native tree and shrub species listed in Appendix A of the Riparian Buffers
Modification & Mitigation Guidance Manual, published by the Virginia Department of Conservation and
Recreation; the brochure Native Plants for Conservation, Restoration, and Landscaping: Virginia Riparian Buffer
Zones, published by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Rec reation; and/or Appendix 7 of the
Chesapeake Bay Riparian Handbook, published by the United States Department of Agriculture.
4. There shall be no temporary or permanent amplified sound system permitted for this use.
5. Quiet hours from 9 p.m. to 7:30 a.m. shall be posted and maintained by the applicant.
6. The campground shall be closed and all portable toilets and vehicles shall be removed while a flood warning or
flash-flood warning issued by the National Weather Service is in effect for the portion of the James River
adjoining the site.
7. Consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be prohibited in the campground.
8. No trees located 50 feet or closer to the river bank shall be removed. Trees felled or broken by wind, lightning, or
other natural event may be removed if they pose a threat to a campsite.
9. Compliance with the Virginia State Department of Health regarding water supply shall be verified by the Health
Department prior to issuance of a zoning clearance and the commencement of the special use.
10. The use shall not commence before the subject properties are combined into a single parcel.
11. The number of parking spaces shall not exceed 100 or the number determined by the Zoning Administrator to be
necessary, under County Code § 18-4.12,whichever is greater.
12. A weather radio equipped with an automatic alert system shall be present on the site and in operation at any time
the campground is open.
13. Special use permit SP 2011-00049 shall be valid from January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2014.
14. A campground manager shall be on the premises 24 hours a day when the campground is open.
SP2010-00050 Howardsville Canoe Livery
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Howardsville Canoe Livery and
Campground” prepared by Gregory A. Watson, and dated August 27, 2012 Dec. 6, 2012 (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:
• location of parking areas
• location of boat launch
• absence of structures
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure compliance
with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. There shall be no temporary or permanent amplified sound system permitted for this use.
3. The canoe livery shall be closed and all portable toilets, vehicles, trailers and other canoe livery equipment shall
be removed while a flood warning or flash-flood warning issued by the National Weather Service is in effect for
the portion of the James River adjoining the site.
3. The use shall not commence before the subject properties are combined into a single parcel.
4. The number of parking spaces shall not exceed 100 or the number determined by the Zoning Administrator to be
necessary, under County Code § 18-4.12, whichever is greater.
5. Special use permit SP 2011-00050 shall be valid from January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2014.
Attachments:
A. Revised Conceptual Plan
PC actions letter
Staff report and attachments
PC Mins: October 23 and November 13, 2012
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 26, 2012
James E. Crews
292 Logan Rd.
Scottsville, Va. 24590
RE: SP201000049 Howardsville Camping and Canoe Livery
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 139A0000001600, 139A0000001700, 139A0000001900, 139A0000002000,
139A0000002100
SP201000050 Howardsville Camping and Canoe Livery
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 139A0000001600, 139A0000001700, 139A0000001900, 139A0000002000,
139A0000002100
Dear Mr. Crews:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 13, 2012, by a vote of 7:0,
recommended approval, subject to staff’s recommended conditions and the Commission’s requested
changes.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
The Planning Commission recommends approval of SP-2010-00049 Howardsville Camping with the following
conditions, as amended:
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Howardsville
Canoe Livery and Campground,” prepared by Gregory A. Watson, and dated August 27,
2012 (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:
• location of campsites
• location of parking areas
• location of the access roads for the campsite (no less than 50 feet from the river
bank)
• absence of structures
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to
ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The area north of campsites 16 through 20 and that part of the “Common Area” shown on the
Conceptual Plan that is within the existing tree line shall remain forested. No cutting or
removal of trees shall be permitted, except for dead or broken trees that pose a direct threat
to a campsite or as permitted by Zoning Ordinance Section 4.3c. Gathering of downed wood
for firewood is permitted.
3. The portion of the “Common Area” shown on the Conceptual Plan that is outside the existing
tree line may be re-forested. All plantings shall use native tree and shrub species listed in
Appendix A of the Riparian Buffers Modification & Mitigation Guidance Manual, published by
the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation; the brochure Native Plants for
Conservation, Restoration, and Landscaping: Virginia Riparian Buffer Zones, published by
the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation; and/or Appendix 7 of the
Chesapeake Bay Riparian Handbook, published by the United States Department of
Agriculture.
4. There shall be no temporary or permanent amplified sound system permitted for this use.
5. Quiet hours from 9 p.m. to 7:30 a.m. shall be posted and maintained by the applicant.
6. The campground shall be closed and all portable toilets and vehicles shall be removed while
a flood warning or flash-flood warning issued by the National Weather Service is in effect for
the portion of the James River adjoining the site.
7. Consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be prohibited in the campground.
8. No trees located 50 feet or closer to the river bank shall be removed. Trees felled or broken
by wind, lightning, or other natural event may be removed if they pose a threat to a campsite.
9. Compliance with the Virginia State Department of Health regarding water supply shall be
verified by the Health Department prior to issuance of a zoning clearance and the
commencement of the special use.
10. The use shall not commence before the subject properties are combined into a single parcel.
11. The number of parking spaces shall not exceed 100 or the number determined by the Zoning
Administrator to be necessary, under County Code § 18-4.12, whichever is greater.
12. A weather radio equipped with an automatic alert system shall be present on the site and in
operation at any time the campground is open.
13. Special use permit SP 2011-00049 shall be valid from January 1, 2013 through December
31, 2014.
14. A campground manager shall be on the premises 24 hours a day when the campground is
open.
In moving forward clarify that amplified music would not prohibit the NOA radio from being on
site.
Relocating the camp spaces #19 through #26. [note: this needs to be done on the plan,
rather than by condition]
The Planning Commission recommends approval of SP-2010-00050 Howardsville Canoe Livery with staff’s
recommended conditions, as amended:
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Howardsville Canoe
Livery and Campground” prepared by Gregory A. Watson, and dated August 27, 2012 (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:
• location of parking areas
• location of boat launch
• absence of structures
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. There shall be no temporary or permanent amplified sound system permitted for this use.
3. The canoe livery shall be closed and all portable toilets, vehicles, trailers and other canoe livery
equipment shall be removed while a flood warning or flash-flood warning issued by the National
Weather Service is in effect for the portion of the James River adjoining the site.
4. The use shall not commence before the subject properties are combined into a single parcel.
5. The number of parking spaces shall not exceed 100 or the number determined by the Zoning
Administrator to be necessary, under County Code § 18-4.12, whichever is greater.
6. Special use permit SP 2011-00050 shall be valid from January 1, 2013 through December
31, 2014.
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 (to be determined).
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 Planning
Planning Division
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –OCTOBER 23, 2012
PARTIAL FINAL MINUTES - SP-2010-00049 Howardsville Camping and SP-2010-00050 Howardsville Canoe Livery
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.
Items Requesting Deferral
SP-2010-00049 Howardsville Camping
PROPOSED: Campground with 24 sites for recreational vehicles, 24 tent sites, building for office and
restrooms. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: 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: 10.2.2.20 Day camp, boarding camp (reference 5.1.05)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre in development
lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No LOCATION: Baber Lane, Howardsville, at the intersection of James Riv er
Road (Route 626) and Howardsville Turnpike (Route 602) TAX MAP/PARCEL: 139A0000001600,
139A0000001700, 139A0000001900, 139A0000002000, 139A0000002100 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT:
Samuel Miller (Scott Clark)
AND
SP-2010-00050 Howardsville Canoe Livery
PROPOSED: Howardsville Canoe Livery: Canoe-rental livery with use of campground building for office
and storage (see SP201000049) ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas -
agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in develop ment lots); FH Flood
Hazard - Overlay to provide safety and protection from flooding SECTION: 30.3.05.2.1 (2): Water related
uses such as boat docks, canoe liveries, bridges, ferries, culverts and river crossings of transmission lines
of all types. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect
agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre in
development lots) ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No LOCATION: Baber Lane, Howardsville, at the
intersection of James River Road (Route 626) and Howardsville Turnpike (Route 602) TAX
MAP/PARCEL: 139A0000001600, 139A0000001700, 139A0000001900, 139A0000002000,
139A0000002100 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller (Scott Clark)
APPLICANT REQUESTING DEFERRAL OF THESE SPs TO THE NOVEMBER 13, 2012 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING
Mr. Morris noted the applicant is requesting deferral of SP-2010-00049 Howardsville Camping and SP-
2010-00050 Howardsville Canoe Livery to the November 13, 2012 meeting.
Motion: Mr. Loach moved and Mr. Randolph seconded for acceptance of the applicant’s request for
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –OCTOBER 23, 2012
PARTIAL FINAL MINUTES - SP-2010-00049 Howardsville Camping and SP-2010-00050 Howardsville Canoe Livery
2
deferral of SP-2010-00049 Howardsville Camping and SP-2010-00050 Howardsville Canoe Livery.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Morris noted that SP-2010-00049 Howardsville Camping and SP-2010-00050 Howardsville Canoe
Livery were deferred to the November 13, 2012 meeting.
Return to exec summary
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –NOVEMBER 13, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-49 & 50 HOWARDSVILLE CAMPING & CANOE LIVERY
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
November 13, 2012
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, November 13,
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, Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Vice Chairman; and Calvin Morris, Chairman. Julia Monteith,
AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was absent.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Morris, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Deferred Items:
SP-2010-00049 Howardsville Camping
PROPOSED: SP201000049 Howardsville Camping: Campground with 48 tent sites ZONING
CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: 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: SP201000049 Howardsville Camping: 10.2.2.20. Day camp, boarding camp
(reference 5.1.05)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect
agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre
in development lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: Baber Lane, Howardsville, at the intersection of James River Road (Route 626)
and Howardsville Turnpike (Route 602)
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 139A0000001600, 139A0000001700, 139A0000001900,
139A0000002000, 139A0000002100
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller
DEFERRED FROM THE OCTOBER 23, 2012 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
(Scott Clark)
AND
SP-2010-00050 Howardsville Canoe Livery
PROPOSED: SP201000050 Howardsville Canoe Livery: Canoe-rental livery on site of
campground (see SP201000049)
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: 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: SP201000050 Howardsville Canoe Livery: 30.3.05.2.1 (2): Water related uses such
as boat docks, canoe liveries, bridges, ferries, culverts and river crossings of transmission lines of
all types.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect
agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –NOVEMBER 13, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-49 & 50 HOWARDSVILLE CAMPING & CANOE LIVERY
2
LOCATION: Baber Lane, Howardsville, at the intersection of James River Road (Route 626)
and Howardsville Turnpike (Route 602)
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 139A0000001600, 139A0000001700, 139A0000001900,
139A0000002000, 139A0000002100
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller
DEFERRED FROM THE OCTOBER 23, 2012 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
(Scott Clark)
Mr. Clark presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report for both special
use permits at the same time. He would correct and update a couple items from the staff report
along the way.
- The proposal is for a campground with 48 camp sites for tent only camping. The
previous proposal was for 24 tents and 24 RV’s. It is no longer the case.
- The canoe-rental livery would have no structures of any sort. Staff would explain why in
a few minutes.
- The property is located on the James River in Howardsville and lies entirely in the
floodway of the James River. He pointed out the terrain and location of the property on an aerial
map.
Proposal Summary
• 48 tent-camping spaces
• 8 portable toilets for campground (There are two more portable toilets around the parking
area for the canoe livery.)
• All visitor vehicles to remain in parking area – for campers, campground staff will assist
with moving equipment to sites
• 122 parking spaces for both campers and canoeists, 3 bus spaces
• Fence along railroad tracks
Staff reviewed the Conceptual Plan for the site.
- To address one question that has come up recently about the access to the site and to the
boat ramp as best staff has been able to find out the 30’ easement on old Route 602 is still in
place and is controlled by the Virginia Department of Transportation. VDOT has not found there
is any record of that having been abandoned. The boat ramp area is owned by the Game and
Inland Fisheries Department. He talked to both of those agencies today to clarify the access
situation. Game and Inland Fisheries still uses this site. They don’t particularly advertise it.
However, it is still there and accessible. They expect that it would remain accessible both to
private users and commercial users as long as this right-of-way remains open. Again, there is no
evidence that right-of-way has ever been abandoned. So while the campground and canoe livery,
if they are approved, will be operating on the site there would also be public access to the
existing boat ramp along old Route 602. The campsites can be seen on the northern end of the
site. The common area north of the camp sites are designated to remain wooded. There is an
open common area that is expected to be for any plantings that are required. Staff will go into
more detail.
Major Issues
Public Safety
• This proposal has been reviewed by the Police Department, Fire/Rescue Department, and the
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT).
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –NOVEMBER 13, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-49 & 50 HOWARDSVILLE CAMPING & CANOE LIVERY
3
• No changes recommended or denial of the application; guidance provided for applicants,
particularly from the Police Department, who noted that there is poor cell phone service if
any and it is quite a ways from any emergency service providers. Therefore, they could not
expect a fast response here. However, the Police Department did not feel that was a reason
to deny the permit, but they thought it was worth making sure that the applicant was aware of
that. The Fire Rescue comments largely addressed the treatment of camp fires, which are
standard State regulations that the operation would have to comply with anywa y.
• The plan shows a fence along the railroad tracks to prevent access other than at existing
entrance.
Flooding
• Conditions of approval require closure and removal of equipment/vehicles during flood
warnings.
• Portable toilets would also have to be removed to keep waste from entering the river.
• No structures are permitted or proposed, which is why the proposal no longer contains any
structures to be built on the property.
Stream Buffers
• Staff worked with applicants to reduce impacts of wooded portions of buffers
• Balancing buffer protection with desired campsite locations
• Conditions of approval recommended by County Engineer to prohibit tree removal within 50
feet of riverbank
• Conditions also define wooded areas to be protected. That would mean that the front row of
camp sites would have to work around the existing trees. It also means that the access road
closest to the river will be at least 50’ back from the bank in order to keep that area closest to
the river from being cut. Staff also worked with the applicants to remove sites that were
along part of the property close to the river back onto the edge of the open area just to limit
the amount of river front woods that would be impacted by construction of the product.
• Re-plantings requirements for mitigation of stream-buffer impacts will be set during site plan
review
• Conditions of approval require use of native riparian species for re-plantings
• If approved, the request will get more detailed review when the applicant comes back for a
site plan or site plan waiver. The County Engineer has let the applicants know that at that
point they will work in more detail on a mitigation plan for impacts to the stream buffer and
replantings, which would again most likely occur in the open area that is currently label ed as
common area.
Public Access to Boat Ramp
• Design of proposed facility does not block public access
SUMMARY AND ACTION (SP 2010-00049 Howardsville Campground)
Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal:
Factors favorable to this request include:
1. Improvements to the site would be minimal and reversible.
2. Conditions of approval requiring quiet hours and prohibiting amplified sound systems
would limit noise impacts on nearby properties.
3. The recommended requirement to remove portable toilets from the site before major
flood events would keep waste from entering the river.
4. The recommended requirement to notify campers of flood events would benefit public
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –NOVEMBER 13, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-49 & 50 HOWARDSVILLE CAMPING & CANOE LIVERY
4
safety. (The condition was changed to require closure of facility.)
Factors unfavorable to this request include:
1. The location of the campsites and access roads in the wooded portion of the site and close
to the river bank impacts the wooded stream buffers on the site. However, in an attempt
to balance these impacts with the desire of campers to be in shaded sites near the water
rather than in the open, staff has worked with the applicants to limit these impacts and
specify forest-protection areas.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of SP-2010-00049 Howardsville
Campground based upon the analysis provided herein, with the conditions listed in the staff
report with one change. It was a helpful suggestion staff received recently from the County
Attorney’s Office. The change was in condition 6 and 7 to simplify it so that now condition 6
would require removal of the portable toilets, removal of vehicles and equipment, and closure of
the facility rather than saying prior to any flood event. It would make it more specific in saying
during flood warnings issued by the National Weather Service so that they all know what the
source of that information should be.
SUMMARY AND ACTION (SP-2010-00050 Howardsville Canoe Livery)
Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal. The favorable
factors are much the same. There is no actual development of the site other than the parking area.
Again, because all of the equipment would have to leave during flood warnings it reduces the
risk of equipment getting into the river and causing flood hazards.
Factors favorable to this request include:
1. Improvements to the site would be minimal and reversible, and have limited impact on
the Flood Hazard Overlay (100 year floodplain) with the recommended conditions.
2. The recommended requirement to remove the canoe livery’s vehicles and equipment
from the site before major flood events would limit flood damage and prevent pollution.
No unfavorable factors were found.
Staff is recommending approval with conditions as listed in the staff report with changes to
conditions 3 and 4 to a single condition requiring removal of toilets, vehicles, trailers, and other
equipment and closure of the facility during those flood warnings from the National Weather
Service.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Dotson asked if staff had any input from the railroad.
Mr. Clark replied the railroad was notified during the notification of adjacent owners. However,
staff has not heard from them.
Mr. Dotson asked to clarify the easement for Route 602. He thought staff said the land is
privately owned but there is an easement that has been granted to the state in order to maintain a
roadway through the privately held land.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –NOVEMBER 13, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-49 & 50 HOWARDSVILLE CAMPING & CANOE LIVERY
5
Mr. Clark replied that is correct. It has been there for quite some time. That was formerly the
access to the bridge over the river. That bridge was destroyed by Camille in 1969.
Mr. Lafferty asked staff to clarify the use of the board ramp with private or public sources.
Mr. Clark replied that there was some concern that Game and Inland Fisheries might have some
sort of regulations dealing with commercial use of their ramps. So he checked with Inland
Fisheries today and they said the only situation in which they would have an issue with the use of
their ramp by the applicant’s private operation was if that VDOT right-of-way did not exist and
there was no longer any public access to the boat ramp. They would not want an adjacent private
owner using a state owned ramp that nobody else could get to. That does not appear to be the
case as far as anybody can tell that access has gone away. So it does need to remain open to the
public crossing the site.
Mr. Lafferty said it was probably a typo. However, on page 4 the times are from 9:30 to 7 quiet
hours and then on page 7 it is 9 to 7:30.
Mr. Clark replied that is a typo and he was sure the applicants could tell us which one they intend
to use.
Mr. Lafferty asked if amplified sounds included radios.
Mr. Clark replied the intention was to prevent the installation of address systems for the use. He
did not know if that necessarily would cover individual personal radios. However, they could
probably clarify the condition to require that if necessary.
Mr. Loach asked on the issue of flooding do they have any historic data on what the high level
floods would be in that area.
Mr. Clark replied that he did not have data in tabular form that is easy and quick to read. The
site has been inundated many times. The floods in 1969 and 1972 essentially destroyed what
was left of the town of Howardsville. However, those were from very large tropical storms.
Mr. Loach asked to what depth the water would rise in this area.
Mr. Clark replied he did not know exactly.
Mr. Loach said since there was water on the site is there any other methodology to hold waste
water in tanks versus if there is bad weather to have these things trucked in and out.
Mr. Clark replied that the portable toilets were really the only solution largely because the Flood
Hazard Overlay Ordinance does not permit any structures. The Water Protection Ordinance does
not permit septic treatment or storage in this area.
Mr. Loach said he was thinking possibly of having holding tanks versus portable toilets. He still
has the same concerns he had with the soccer stadium. If the water comes up and it floods it is
on a weekend and they can’t get the trucks in to bring these things out, then they become floating
contaminants.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –NOVEMBER 13, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-49 & 50 HOWARDSVILLE CAMPING & CANOE LIVERY
6
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Planning
Commission.
Roger Nelson said he would be the Manager of the Howardsville Canoe Livery and
Campground. He made the following comments.
- He graduated from James Madison University with a Bachelor of Science Degree in
Geology. In addition to traditional geology curriculum he completed course work in soils,
land use, environmental geology, and engineering geology. He participated in JMU’s
Honors Program. He completed a one year research project and Fluvial Terrace
Development along the North River in the Shenandoah Valley. He presented his thesis to the
Virginia Academy of Science.
- He owns and operates a small business, Air, Soil, and Water Environmental. He is certified
by the Virginia Department of Health as an on-site soil evaluator. He is registered with the
Department of Professional and Occupational Registration as an on-site soil evaluator
number 1340. He is licensed to design conventional septic systems and advanced secondary
treatment systems. He worked for VDOT as an Environmental Specialist. There he was
certified as a combined administrator and Department of Conservation and Recreations
Erosion and Sediment Control Program. That is the highest level of certification in the
program. He functioned as a plan reviewer and a plan administrator over a three county area.
He has worked for the Virginia Department of Health as an Environmental Health Specialist.
He performed soil and site evaluations for on-site septic and well permits. He wrote permits,
performed inspections, and investigated environmental complaints. He has worked as a
project geologist in the private sector.
- He has worked under close scrutiny of the United States Environmental Protection Agency
on superfund sites in New Jersey, Iowa and Virginia. He was the current President of the
Virginia Canals and Navigation Society. They are committed to the preservation of our
rivers and waterways all through the Commonwealth. He has participated in the James River
Regional Clean Ups since the mid 1990’s. He was a site captain in Powhatan and Goochland
Counties and he brought these ideas to the middle James River. He has personally sponsored
and funded river clean ups. In that area they have hauled literally tons of tires and household
debris. He has photographs and waste tickets from the transfer station of the tonnage.
- When Mr. Cruz first asked him about a campground he told him that they need to attract a
different clientele and other outfitters that have campgrounds along the James River. They
did not want to put on scores of floaters who have a party as their primary agenda. They
have taken a family oriented and environmental friendly approach to the campground. They
embrace a leave no trace philosophy. When they first started this he looked at RV’s, trailers,
and tent camping for 64 sites. They met with Eric Meyers and Jeff McDaniel with the
Thomas Jefferson Health District. After he worked with them for about a half an hour they
agreed to cut it back to 48 sites. Once he filed the applications for special use permits with
Albemarle County he discovered that the Water Protection Ordinance prohibit ed
infrastructures. Therefore, he went back to the health department and revised the site plan to
primitive camping. He based his model on the James River State Park and two private
primitive campgrounds that are already permitted by the Virginia Department of Health. He
was subsequently informed that since the Virginia Department of Health regulations contain
no provisions for primitive campgrounds any permitting would require specific waivers to
the regulations granted only by the State Health Commissioner, Dr. Karen Remley. He
applied for these waivers. One waiver was for the use of a well that was constructed prior to
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –NOVEMBER 13, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-49 & 50 HOWARDSVILLE CAMPING & CANOE LIVERY
7
the implementation of a 1994 well regulations. The other waiver was for the use of portable
toilets in the floodplain. He has been granted waivers to both of these conditions by Dr.
Karen Rimally, a Virginia State Health Commissioner. Mr. Clark has copies of those letters
in the file.
- He went back to Community Development and met with Scott Clark, Amelia McCulley,
Glenn Brooks and Bill Fritz. He filed Watershed Protection Ordinance waivers, submitted
mitigation plans, and resolved most of the issues related to the campground. He knows he
has considerable opposition to this campground in the neighborhood. He understands their
concerns when anything like this arises. However, he thinks they are found ed on their fears
and he truly believes that they can be dispelled. Their fears include and are not necessarily
limited to the lack of community involvement, adverse environmental impact, public safety,
noise, and future ownership. As far as community involvement goes, when this first started
he went to Gwen Costner, who owns the Howardsville General Store, and discussed it with
her a year and a half ago. She was very enthusiastic. His partner, Jimmy Crews discussed
this with Kathy and Barney Groves who live directly across from the campground a year and
half go. They approved. He introduced himself to Tim Lewis at the Schuyler Soapstone
Quarry a year and a half ago. His comment was totally against it. Since that time no one in
the area has requested any dialogue with them concerning this campground until last week
when Mr. Lewis requested dialogue with Jimmy Crews and requested that he not be present.
- There should be very little adverse environmental impact. He has stated all of the
environmental possibilities in the report to Dr. Remley and she has granted those waivers. It
is all spelled out in conditions from the Virginia Department of Health. As far as public
safety is concerned this site was a disaster and an eyesore when Mr. Crews assumed
ownership in 2003. The field was full of abandoned farm and industrial machinery and
equipment. The parking area was often filled to capacity. The road was often blocked with
theft, vandalism and aggressive personalities fueled by alcohol were not uncommon. Old
buildings lined the road and were littered with empty beer cans, wine bottles, whiskey
bottles, etc. Mr. Crews has removed all of that debris from that site. It is now a beautiful
site. When he cleaned it up he did it without offers for help from the community.
- As far as noise, he contacted Sherry Fritz at 434-263-5696. Her parents own the KOA on
Red Hill Road from 1972 to 1989. Ms. Fritz managed the site from 1985 to 1989. Her view
on it was if there were no vehicles at the camp sites they would not have any noise or any
problems. Mr. Lewis cited peace and quiet was his reason for not approving the
campground. Mr. Lewis purchased a house that was 350’ to 400’ from the CSX mainline
railroad from Clifton Forge, Virginia to Hampton Roads. He stood in his yard Saturday on a
field trip trying to listen to a lecture when a train went by and he could not hear the le cturer
over the train noise from a distance of 20’ nor could he hear the person next to him while the
train went by. Our camp ground will be 600’ to 700’ east of those tracks and 1,000’ to
1,100’ from Mr. Lewis’ house.
- As far as benefits to the community, they will provide a safe environment for civic activities,
church meetings, and community social gatherings. There have been baptisms there recently.
They will have the potential for part time summer employment for high school students and
college aged youth in the area. It will certainly stimulate economic possibility for Gwen
Costner at Howardsville General Store. The public will continue to have safe access to the
James River and continued safe parking. However, their main goal is to provide a safe clean
environment for parents and their children to experience nature at its best on the James River.
They are not planning on opening up a rodeo. It will be a family oriented environmentally
friendly campground.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –NOVEMBER 13, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-49 & 50 HOWARDSVILLE CAMPING & CANOE LIVERY
8
Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant.
Mr. Lafferty asked how he plans to move the portable potties and equipment in the event there is
a hurricane forecast and if a commercial vehicle will pick them up.
Mr. Nelson replied that is part of the contract that has to be on file with the Virginia Department
of Health. An operator has to be on standby to pick up the equipment. The operator is the owner
of the equipment and on standby to pick it up. Since the vendor owns the equipment he does not
want to lose them. They have already spoken to their contractor about that. In addition to that
Mr. Crews has a John Deere tractor with a lift on it that they can work with and remove any of
these.
Mr. Lafferty asked if the vendor is from Charlottesville for the portable toilets.
Mr. Nelson replied no, that their vendor is from Nelson County.
Mr. Lafferty noted they have come up with this before and he could see if bad weather is in the
forecast that they are going to real busy.
Mr. Nelson pointed out they have tried this vendor before.
Mr. Smith asked where he resides.
Mr. Nelson replied that he resides seven miles from the site at Wingina in Nelson County. Mr.
Crews resides approximately two miles across the river from the site in Buckingham.
Mr. Randolph asked if he ever established a community meeting where they would meet with all
of the neighbors collectively to listen to their concerns and try to address them.
Mr. Nelson replied no, sir. It is a small community and talk gets around real quick. He went to
see Gwen Costner because she had the store and she has a vested interest there to help her
business. They visited the people that live directly across from the site. He never anticipated
this kind of opposition. He could not imagine that anybody in the community would not want to
hear children laughing out there in the field. They are not going to run a wild campground. That
is not our goal. They have means to make this happen.
Mr. Dotson said he was interested in what staff management presence will be on the site in what
days, what hours and what their role will be.
Mr. Nelson replied some staff will probably be there all the time. As part of the conditions set
forth management, being one of us or someone in charge, will have to be there all night long. He
will be camping too. They will be there. There is cell phone reception there. It may not be over
the entire parcel, but if they go to specific locations they can get a call out on a cell phone. One
would have to know where those locations are. That is the advantage of living there. However,
they can get out on a cell phone.
Mr. Smith asked the difference in elevation from the river up to the first line of camp sites.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –NOVEMBER 13, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-49 & 50 HOWARDSVILLE CAMPING & CANOE LIVERY
9
Mr. Nelson replied some of the camp sites would be right along the river. It would be
approximately 10 to 12 feet.
Mr. Smith noted it would take the river a while to rise 10 to 12 feet.
Mr. Nelson agreed and pointed out they plan to monitor NORA weather constantly.
Mr. Morris noted in looking at the schematic on the screen sites 19 to 26, which are the ones
closest to the railroad track, just seem a bit troubling. The sites seem to be based on the
schematic extremely close to the railroad track.
Mr. Nelson said site 21 was 100’ to 150’ from the railroad tracks. As they get up to site 26 that
is probably 250’ to 300’ from the tracks.
Mr. Morris asked about site 20.
Mr. Nelson replied judging from the scale he would say it is right on the railroad tracks, which
might be an oversight on our planner’s part.
Mr. Morris pointed out based on the schematic that is why he found it to be troubling.
There being no further questions, Mr. Morris invited public comment.
Tim Lewis, Coordinator of the Howardsville Historical Society, said that he lives in the old bank
in Howardsville. He made the following comments.
- The community is unanimous in its opposition to this camp site and most are in opposition to
the livery as well. He was not expecting to have to refute much of Mr. Nelson’s comments.
However, basically everything he said about meetings with us is not true. Neither Mr. Crews
nor Mr. Nelson made any attempt to consult with the community in the two years. In fact,
they went out of their way to avoid us, to confuse us, to belittle the site and say that it is
going to be a nice quiet little site with maybe 10 to 20 tents. They did not mention their
original RV’s, the 48 tent site, the 16 teepees, and the 125 parking spaces. He felt the 125
parking spaces are outrageous. They made no attempt to consult with us. They had to in the
end go to them and ask for a consultation last Friday. It was the most hostile meeting. Mr.
Crews was standing over him shouting and making threats. He was pointing his finger and
threatening him. He said if they go ahead with this you will all be sorry.
- Mr. Crew’s idea was that this road was his own personal private property and the boat ramp
as well. They have had to alert Scott Clark about this issue. They had to contact VDOT and
the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries to ensure that Mr. Crews keeps the road open.
Mr. Crews repeatedly closes this road against the community and treated it as his own.
VDOT has had to force him to open this road because he puts a gate across it.
- Tom Loach asked the question about how many floods and how high these floods rise. There
have been 39 major floods in the last 30 years. These floods can rise 30 or 40 feet. Mr.
Nelson said that these camp sites along the river are 10’ to 12’ above. However, they are 5’
to 6’ above. The river rises extremely quickly. If they are there in the night time you have
no warning. A river surge comes down.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –NOVEMBER 13, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-49 & 50 HOWARDSVILLE CAMPING & CANOE LIVERY
10
- There are three major concerns: First, the rail line. Secondly, the fact that it is the
confluence of two rivers. It is probably one of the most dangerous sites on the entire James
River. It is highly likely to flood because of the two rivers coming together. They have a
very busy freight line right there with tents abutting right up to the rail line.
Danielle Fuentes Johnson spoke in opposition to the request on behalf of herself and husband,
Sam Johnson. She presented her notes and a petition signed by the majority of members that are
directly affected by the special use permits. (Attachment 1 – Letter dated November 13, 2012
to Albemarle County Planning Commissioners and staff from Sam Johnson and Danielle Fuentes
Johnson, 10889 Howardsville Turnpike, Esmont, VA 22937) (Attachment 2 – Petition to
Albemarle County Regarding SP2010000049 Howardsville Camping and SP2010000050
Howardsville Canoe Livery for the Nov. 13 Planning Commission Public Hearing) (Attachment
3 – Letters from concerned residents responses opposing: SP-2010-00049 Howardsville
Camping and SP-2010-00050 Howardsville Canoe Livery – see index of letters at end of minutes
– files in separate folder)
- For the past three years they have been residents and homeowners in Howardsville. In the
past 20 years they have lived in Washington, DC, Boston, New York City, Las Vegas, San
Diego, and Phoenix, but we chose to purchase our forever home and hopefully ra ise a family
in Howardsville, Virginia. We chose Howardsville due to its history, privacy, serenity and
incomparable access to the magnificent James River. Our home is in part somewhere
between 125-225 years old. Their home is very special and they have spent close to
$100,000 in restoring the home. They are concerned that the campground and livery plans
that the applicant has for his property, next to the James River will drastically and irreparably
alter all that is unique and valuable to this small, historic community.
- Safety concerns for the campers include placing a campground next to a river that routinely
floods, an active train track and a busy, high speed road is a tragedy waiting to happen. It is
her strong opinion that the safety of the campers and current residents of Howardsville have
not been considered in these plans. Neither of the applicants live on the property or within
visual monitoring of the camp site nor does there seem to be any enforceable mandate that
they mandate a 24-hour security staff to ensure the safety of the campers and the community
members.
- She is a resident of Howardsville. There is no cell signal in Howardsville, no pay phone, and
emergency response time is at a minimum, 20-30 minutes. There is a possibility of increased
crime, violence, and vandalism and fire damage from unwatched camp and cook fires to the
adjacent residents and members of the campground. Crossing the railroad tracks is a safety
concern.
- “I implore you to carefully and thoughtfully consider my concerns and those of my fellow
community members and come to the conclusion that there is no place for the campground
and livery proposed by the applicant in Howardsville.”
Sherri Fitzgerald said that she owns and has lived the past three years in an 1830 historic home in
Howardsville.. Her property abuts the James River, which is great for fishing. She made the
following comments in opposition to the requests:
- Around the bend of the river towards the confluence where the James and Rockfish River
meet is where the proposed site is. It is a huge flood zone. They have seen the water level
come up on their property at least 20’. That area is in the floodplain and nobody builds there.
The idea of having 45 camp sites which means there will be 45 camp fires, 120 people, food,
trash, and portable to toilets. There is only one spigot of portable water in the whole site.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –NOVEMBER 13, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-49 & 50 HOWARDSVILLE CAMPING & CANOE LIVERY
11
She could not imagine these families waiting in line for water. They are going to do what
comes naturally, which is to go into the river and dump out their bacon grease or whatever
because there is where else to go.
- Other concerns include the train tracks. Other persons will show the Commission some of
the train disasters that have been in that area. There have been three disasters in that same
spot over the last 30 years. There is an environmental impact and safety impact. It does not
make any sense at all. There is also a financial aspect to this. When individuals come to a
natural disaster that comes their way there is no cell or phone service. The depreciation of
their homes outweighs the value of tax revenue of camp sites. Please consider rejecting this
plan.
A.J. Goode said his only concern is a safety issue. It is an awful lot of camp sites.
Mr. Dotson asked if there is land line service in Howardsville.
Tom Schlesinger, owner of the old Howardsville school house and resident since 2005, spoke in
opposition to the request. In response to Mr. Dotson’s question he noted there is no land line or
pay phone service in Howardsville. He echoed what their neighbors have said about their
concerns regarding the impact of this project on public safety, the environment, quality of life in
Howardsville, and on property values as well as on other considerations. He made the following
comments.
- One of the most troubling features of this proposal is the proximity of the project to the
railroad tracks. They can’t see it from the map, but this is an extremely busy freight track. It
is not unusual for several trains, many of them consisting of dozens of cars, to go through
Howardsville in a course of an hour. Over a course of a day they have many trains barreling
through at full speed. There are no crossing barriers where State Road 602 crosses the tracks.
There are not warnings lights. They don’t have to have a very active imagination to think that
there might be problems putting this sizeable camp site directly adjacent to a rail line of this
proportion. If an accident does happen then these other factors that they have enumerated
come into play. Emergency response time for emergency services is very considerable.
They can get a cell phone service signal in Howardsville if they have Verizon as the provider
and if they go to one place on the bridge spanning the Albemarle/Buckingham sides. Cell
phone reception other than that is either non-existent or real spotty. Those are some of the
factors that make it very expensive to get property insurance such as standard average
property insurance for residences in Howardsville. It seems that it would be extraordinarily
difficult and expensive to get liability coverage that applies to an enterprise like this. If that is
the case, then they have to think about who the next deep pockets are in the event that there is
some kind of an accident or incident where liability occurs. It is probably the county that has
those deep pockets.
- In conclusion, with all the risks that they have been discussing that vastly outweigh the
possible benefit to the intermediate community and to the broader public, he asked that the
Commission reject this application as it is drawn up right now.
Leighten Turner said he had been a resident of Howardsville since 1983 when he retired. His
and his sister really loves this area since their ancestors have been here all generations. They feel
that having that many people so close to their residence would really destroy the character of
Howardsville. They would like to see it as it is. They earnestly ask the Commission to reject this
application. He lives on Route 602, which is Howardsville Turnpike, just behind the old
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –NOVEMBER 13, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-49 & 50 HOWARDSVILLE CAMPING & CANOE LIVERY
12
Methodist Church. He has a picture of his house that he passed around and also some of the
results of the train accident that they had about 20 years ago, which was all over that road.
Those wheels that came off the train were real hot and could not be touched. It was something
that he had never seen and it looked like a war zone. (Attachment 4 – Photographs and articles
on train wrecks)
Mr. Randolph asked if that was in the area of the application for the campground.
Mr. Turner replied yes, it was right there on James River Road or Route 626.
Marvin Ripley, resident of Howardsville since 1948, spoke against the proposal for the camp
site. There are just too many negative. In Howardsville 125 parking spaces are too many. He
passed around some photographs and made the following comments about safety issues.
- There was a train wreck in Howardsville in 1989. Two trains ran together with 23 cars
involved and several engines. The derail was at the site they ar e talking about. Old Route
602 that goes down to the river was closed for about two days. In 1991 there was a single
train derailment at the same location. In 1993 there was a single train derailment a quarter
mile east of Howardsville and 28 cars of shelled corn were dumped.
- The other things he wanted to talk about is flooding. In 1969 Camille came through and
washed away about one-half of Howardsville. In 1972 there was another flood there, which
was 4’ higher than Camille. In 1985 there was another flood there that was the same height
as Camille. It does not take a hurricane to get the rivers up, especially a small river. He just
wanted to mention those.
- One of the other things the applicant mentioned that they thought they are going to control
people’s behavior there – well he visited some sites on the James River where people have
activities and it is more than an eat out it is party time. They talk about they will be able to
control that. Well good luck to them. He could tell them at Foxfield they don’t control it too
well. At the University of Virginia Scott Stadium they don’t do very well. Putting up road
signs that says no littering does not work very well. Furthermore, every county high school
in this county has a police officer or some other name for it. However, it goes to show you
can’t control people’s behavior.
Karen Firehock, a resident of 10955 Howardsville Turnpike, spoke in opposition to the request.
She asked to address a couple of comments that were already made, as follows.
- First, she wanted to talk about public notice. When she moved there over a year ago she did
hear that there had been some talk about having some sort of canoe facilities and some sort of
campground. She did contact the county. All she found out about was that they were
waiting to hear on the health department application for a variance. She contacted the
Planning Commissioner for her area, the Board of Supervisor member and Scott Clark
several times. She never got any information from staff except the application. So the fact
that they made no inquiries is incorrect.
- The applicant talked about contacting Ms. Kathy Groves who lives across the street. Her
husband, Bryant Groves, is currently deceased and is not involved at this point. She has
signed the petition that the Commission received earlier this evening against this.
- She moved to Howardsville for two reasons, the historic quiet solitude of the area as well as
river access. She is very glad that through their own neighborhood’s diligence in contacting
VDOT and the Department of Inland Fisheries that the actual staff report has been corrected.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –NOVEMBER 13, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-49 & 50 HOWARDSVILLE CAMPING & CANOE LIVERY
13
In the staff report she picked up on the table it said that this road and the ramp were owned
by the applicant. She was very concerned about questions of honesty here.
- She held up her brand new Verizon Blackberry. It does not work in Howardsville. There is
apparently one spot on the James River that one can walk to and stand in a specific spot and
perhaps get a signal. In the event of a flood or other emergency situation it was ridiculous to
think that a camper would be able to walk out onto a bridge to make a call.
- The viewshed of this area is impacted. Right now they were looking at a field. They would
have helped to clean up the site if asked since currently she and her husband clean up the
roads.
- Regarding buffer impacts, she noted that they have an ordinance to protect the James River.
A 100’ wooded buffer is required to be maintained. The applicant has put all the tents along
the floodway fringe, which is the highest risk area for them. She reminded them that in
hurricane Camille they had the same sort of ability to notify people at that time and people
were caught off guard. The Rockfish River actually jumped its banks and flooded across and
destroyed homes in Howardsville. So they do not have perfect weather forecasting. When it
rains 6”, 8” or 10” inches in Nelson County they get that flood the next day even though it is
not raining in Howardsville. Thank you for your consideration.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Morris closed the public hearing to bring the matter
before the Planning Commission for discussion. He noted that the applicant would be given the
opportunity for rebuttal.
Mr. Morris noted as a matter of record that Mr. Smith and he drove out there and were on the site
on Route 602 at the top of the ramp actually going down where the camp sites on the river would
be. Mr. Smith tried to contact an associate in Crozet and his communication was grabbled. He
tried to contact his wife on the east end of Charlottesville and it was loud and clear. They both
have Verizon. He was just simply saying at that particular time of day once they got cell phone
service. Therefore, if they were looking to make a phone call at 10 a.m. in that area it was
possible.
Mr. Morris invited comments.
Mr. Franco said there was a reference in the applicant’s earlier presentation about an on-site
manager as one of the conditions. He was having a hard time finding that.
Mr. Clark replied that he believed meant that was a condition of the Health Department permit.
There is not such a condition on our proposal. However, they could add such a condition if the
Commission thought it was necessary.
Mr. Morris invited the applicant to make a five minute rebuttal.
Mr. Nelson made the following comments as a rebuttal.
- There was frequent reference to Camille. After the Camille tragedy the United States
Geologist Survey referred to this as a 100-year flood. Since that time similar events have
occurred in Greene and Madison County. After a lot of extensive research it has been closely
examined and they now wonder if that was more like a 1,000-year or 10,000-year event.
- The opposition comes up and tells him they moved to Howardsville for the peace, quiet and
the serenity. They purchased places next to a CSX Railroad line that has coal trains powered
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –NOVEMBER 13, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-49 & 50 HOWARDSVILLE CAMPING & CANOE LIVERY
14
by two 5,200 horse powered diesel locomotives going down the river. When they come back
up the river they are three or four locomotives pulling an empty train and they are even
noisier. There is nothing quiet and peaceful down there when the trains go through. He
would say on an average 8 to 12 trains go through every day and at night.
- He hears talk about 125 parking spaces. There are already 61 parking spaces that exist.
DGIF may have part of a boat ramp there, but they don’t have any parking. All of that
parking is on Mr. Crews’ property that he maintains. He pays for the insurance, picks up the
trash, keeps the grass mowed, and pays for the portable toilet. It is at his expense.
- They are proposing 48 camp sites. However, they don’t ever anticipate operating at capacity.
Probably the only time when they will operate at capacity is Memorial Weekend, Fourth of
July, and Labor Day. He really expects to operate at about 50 percent capacity on weekends
and he does not anticipate any more than 6 to a dozen camp sites during the week. Nobody is
going to get rich off of this. It is not going to be a problem for the community.
- As far as access to the boat ramp goes, that has always been a contentious topic. DGIF was
there two years ago. They surveyed the site. They argued with Mr. Crews. Their top people
were there. They packed up and went home and said that they are taking this. What they
typically do is go to the Attorney General’s Office. That was three years ago. They have
never been back. What does that tell you? He has a copy of the Virginia Wildlife
Publication produced from the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. This was printed
in 1992 from a reprint from 1983. It states in there that access to the boat ramp was by a
private road and to pay fee at the General Store. He did not know how clearer it could be
when that is printed in their document.
- There is already a camp ground on the Rockfish River right across from them on the point. It
is operated by James River Runners. It is permitted by the Virginia Department of Health.
He did not hear anyone complaining about those people being there. However, they have
been there for 20 years. Down river there is James River Runners and James River Running
and Rafting. They both have camp grounds and access their camp grounds over the railroad
tracks. There have never been any instances with trains there. It sounds like there have been
a lot of problems with trains. So maybe they should focus their attention on CSX and not
undermining a campground that will provide some benefit to the local economy.
- He followed all of the Virginia Department of Health Guidelines and all of Albemarle
County’s Guidelines. He realized it is in a floodplain and there is a Watershed Protection
Ordinance. However, there is a provision for a waiver and he has gone through that process.
He asking the Planning Commission to seriously consider this campground. Thank you very
much. He pointed out that they were not charging for the board ramp.
Mr. Morris invited questions.
Mr. Franco noted the question came up regarding the earlier reference to an on-site manager. He
asked if that was a health department requirement.
Mr. Nelson replied that was something he discussed with Community Development that
somebody would be there 24 hours a day and overnight.
Mr. Franco asked if it was overnight or 24 hours a day.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –NOVEMBER 13, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-49 & 50 HOWARDSVILLE CAMPING & CANOE LIVERY
15
Mr. Nelson replied that they would be there managing the camp ground. However, somebody
would be required to be there overnight. They are going to be at the campground and the canoe
livery. Also, his Verizon cell phone works there.
Mr. Loach suggested that they add it as a condition.
Mr. Smith said the parking lot as you go down Route 602, which they are referring to as a state
road, that is a by fee parking lot.
Mr. Nelson replied that was correct.
Mr. Smith asked how much is it for a day,
Mr. Nelson replied that it was $6.00 per vehicle per day. That money is used for the insurance
policy and for the mowing, the trash and portable toilet. If they look at the volume of traffic
there no income is being generated there.
Mr. Randolph asked if the on-site person would be Red Cross Certified in water safety will they
also be qualified to provide first aid in an emergency.
Mr. Nelson replied that they can provide first aid in an emergency. He has been certified as an
Emergency Medical Tech. He was not certified in water safety. He was not required to by our
insurance other than having to be CPR and First Responder.
Mr. Smith said according to staff Route 602 has not been abandoned by the State Highway
Department.
Mr. Nelson replied that there was an argument there with the DGIF folks.
Mr. Smith noted they were talking about the Highway Department.
Mr. Nelson replied that they never came to the site.
Mr. Clark pointed out that he talked with the resident administrator today. He said he has looked
into this for several years and never found any record of abandonment of this right-of-way. So in
VDOT’s minds this is still an active right-of-way.
Jim Crews asked to clarify that. The road when it crosses the tracks down to the top of the hill
where it goes down to the boat ramp is VDOT property completely. From down there it is DGIF
and I down below.
Mr. Smith reiterated he was saying DGIF does share ownership of the ramp with him.
Mr. Crews agreed they both own ownership in the ramp.
Mr. Smith asked if that includes the turnaround area.
Mr. Crews replied yes, sir.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –NOVEMBER 13, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-49 & 50 HOWARDSVILLE CAMPING & CANOE LIVERY
16
Mr. Smith said he is not showing the turnaround area as his property.
Mr. Crews replied no, sir. He has a 15 foot right-of-way retained by his grandfather inside of
that circle and he also has a 15 foot right-of-way down the side of the ramp. The boat ramp was
built on the Rockfish. So they came in after the flood of 1969 and built it over on his
grandfather’s property is what actually happened. Since then he was with the county for 12
years. When their lease ended he tried to get back with the Inland Game and Fisheries and they
came down and resurveyed it. It did not come out the way they wanted it to come out. So they
just abandoned it and would not sign a lease with him. He furnished the land for the parking area
and they furnish the ramp. However, they could not come to an agreement with him and just
closed it down. In the meantime he has been taking care of it himself personally.
Mr. Smith asked what he means by they closed it down. The sign is still up.
Mr. Crews pointed out on the internet on the list of open and closed ramps it is officially closed.
Mr. Smith asked if the ramp is where the bridge used to be.
Mr. Crews replied that yes that it was approximately where it use to be.
Mr. Smith said that it is probably in the original right-of-way.
Mr. Crews replied yes, if they give and take a little because the board ramp used to be on the
Rockfish. That is where it was supposed to be. Then it was built and then washed out. When
they came back it got over bounds a little bit. It is no big issue with him anymore. He opens it
for the public. He does not charge anybody anything to go down the ramp since it is not his
position to do that.
Mr. Dotson said he had a question for Mr. Nelson. He was curious about the number of parking
places. He said there were 61 parking spaces on the site now.
Mr. Nelson replied since Mr. Crews cleaned that site up and started charging people to park
vehicles he would say that an unsavor y element that hung out down there does not come down
there anymore. In the past it was overflowing and the roads were blocked. It was not a pretty
scene.
Mr. Dotson said when he thinks about 40 some camp sites for tents family oriented like he was
saying he was thinking many families would come together in one vehicle and may occasionally
a teenage child would join them later and in a second vehicle. That seems like a lot less than 120
spaces. He was just wondering why 120 spaces. Has the county required that many.
Mr. Nelson replied when he was working with Community Development their concern was that
there was parking there and they could put 61 cars in there. They asked what they are going to
do with the campground parking. They asked for 48 parking spaces since they have 48 camp
sites. However, they need to have a few more spaces just for the circumstances as just
mentioned of a few additional. That was all that was. They needed to keep that entire parking
area open that already exists strictly for the boat ramp for people accessing the river. In addition
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –NOVEMBER 13, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-49 & 50 HOWARDSVILLE CAMPING & CANOE LIVERY
17
they need 48 spaces plus a few extra for the campground. They are w illing to alter the site plan
in any way that would make everyone happy.
Mr. Dotson said the scale of the parking and the number of spaces basically came from the
county. He asked if that was what he was saying.
Mr. Nelson replied yes.
Mr. Dotson noted the second question was asked before about land line availability in
Howardsville and the gentleman who responded said there are no pay phones. Are there private
land lines in the homes? Can they get a regular old fashion telephone in their home?
Mr. Nelson replied no, that he did not live in Howardsville. They said there was no trunk there.
Mr. Cruz has already investigated that and it would cost $7,000 to have one run under the
railroad.
Mr. Dotson noted he had one other question. He was familiar with the other campgrounds. He
said the others are between the railroad track and the river the way his proposed area is. What is
the scale of those compared to yours in terms of number of cars and number of camping spots?
Mr. Nelson replied that he did not know because he tries not to venture into their arena. He just
knows they are out of control on big weekends. They have a lot of tubing activities. James
River Runners is probably very similar to ours. They have portable toilets right on the river
bank. They have parking right in their camp sites. So they sort of have a recipe for disaster there
already. They are permitted by the Virginia Department of Health. It still flies. He commented
on the concerns about future ownership. If Mr. Crews should sell the place a future owner may
have complete disregard for the neighborhood. He thought he had all of those stops in place. If
they don’t meet the environmental conditions set forth by the Virginia Department of Health they
pull the plug on us. If they don’t meet the noise, the light and all of the other conditions set forth
by Albemarle County Zoning the county pulls the plug on us. It is that simple. He feels that all
of the stops are in place.
Mr. Morris closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the Planning Commission for
discussion and action.
Mr. Smith noted that James River Runners does not have the houses right directly across from
them that this proposal has.
Mr. Morris said that they were worried about this application and not them.
Mr. Lafferty said it seems that most of the hazards that have been cited exist right now without
the campground. He would be discouraged to go into an enterprise like this if the flooding is as
frequent as they are saying. However, that is not my decision. He was most concerned for the
present residents of Howardsville when they say things are so bad that trains are derailing and
the places are flooding all the time.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –NOVEMBER 13, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-49 & 50 HOWARDSVILLE CAMPING & CANOE LIVERY
18
Mr. Morris stated his concern for campsites 19 through 26. He asked that they please just take a
look at those again, especially the ones that close to the railroad. The pictures that they have
seen of the derailments and so on seem to spew off almost to 100 yards on either side.
Mr. Clark asked to address Mr. Loach’s question about flood levels on the site. He could not
find that there is a stream gauge in Howardsville. The closest he could find was in Scottsville.
So it cannot be a direct comparison. However, going back as far as 1871 the flood levels each
year have maxed out anywhere from 10’ to 34’. There is about a 24’ difference the bottom of the
river bank and the top of the railroad tracks. It is entirely possible that a major flood event
would inundate this site essentially to the level of the tracks and possibly beyond.
Mr. Loach pointed out he was not sure they can make the case from what they have heard. He
can certainly make the case against what the campground may be and what effects it might have
when, in fact, it seems that the applicant has made what he would see at least in the application
as a good faith effort with the significant amount of conditions they would have to live with due
to the constraints of the situation. That said he was going to be consistent in his opposition as he
was with SOCCA where they had the same situation of portable toilets in flood areas. Floods
and fecal materials don’t mix and match, which was his concern. After reading the application it
is certainly a significant application with a significant amount of conditions to try and control the
situation.
Mr. Lafferty noted one of the benefits of having the campground there is the traffic. They will
police it and keep it clean so they won’t have the drug and drinking problems that they have
because the campground won’t go if they have that. So it should in fact help clean up the area.
Mr. Randolph supported the request with the following three conditions. 1. Both day and night
the responsible manager on duty and on the premises is trained as a Water Safety person, has a
first aid background, and trained in CPR. Given the distance from the nearest hospital he
thought those three things are absolutely crucial. 2. The riparian buffer needs to be 100’. The
design needs to be redrawn in light of a 100’ riparian buffer. 3. He totally agreed with Mr.
Morris that the sites 19 through 26 are too close to the railroad tracks. They cannot predict
where the train would fall over. Sites 19 through 26 needs to be moved away from the railroad
tracks. On the basis of those three items he would be inclined to support the application.
Mr. Morris asked if he would like to put that in the form of a motion.
Motion: Mr. Randolph moved to recommend approval of SP-2010-00049 Howardsville
Camping with conditions as recommended by staff, as amended to include the following:
1. Addition of a 100’ riparian buffer;
2. The elimination in proximity to the railroad line of camp sites 19 through 26.
3. Assurance that both day and night 24 hours a day there will be staff trained as water
safety instructors, in first aid and in CPR.
Mr. Smith said he feels for the people of the community. However, he thinks this gentleman has
a right. He disagrees with one thing in the motion about the 100’ riparian buffer. He looked at it
and it was 12’ up to that level. He knows that he spent his fair share of time in a tent and when
my feet get wet he is going to get up and get out. So he di d not think it is not the danger that
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –NOVEMBER 13, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-49 & 50 HOWARDSVILLE CAMPING & CANOE LIVERY
19
some are trying to implicate from flooding. He thought that people were going to know that the
river is coming up because it is going to get loud and people are going to move out. But that is
the only addition he would make to adjust the motion.
Mr. Morris seconded the motion so they could move ahead.
Mr. Franco said he would like to see the number of parking spaces reduced. The quick math
they went through earlier was there are 61 spaces on site now. The campground is adding 48 so
they are up to 109 and then up to 120 with some extra reasoning. Since those 61 spaces serve the
landing itself he thought that could be reduced. He would be in favor of seeing that r educed
from the 120 to something lower. He suggested that they make provision for another 50 percent
off the filled lot, which would be 72 spaces. That does not provide anything for the landing.
Therefore, he thought it needs to be above 72 spaces. He would pick 100 spaces as a round
number just again trying to reduce that down.
Mr. Smith requested to ask the applicant a question. He asked what is the most number that he
can remember having in the livery parking space.
Mr. Crews replied 35 to 40.
Mr. Smith asked how often.
Mr. Crews replied that it would be holiday weekends such as Memorial Day or Labor Day.
Mr. Morris asked if 100 spaces would more than do it.
Mr. Franco agreed that it sounded like 100 spaces would work.
Mr. Randolph amended the motion to add condition #4 The reduction of parking spaces from
120 spaces down to 100.
Mr. Morris noted one of the things they saw on site was once they came up to the current place
where the river front sites are going to be right in back of that there is a berm. When they look at
it and stand at the base of that berm and look back towards the town they can’t see anything but
the very top of the roofs. So if they have that 100’ setback then they are going to put them on
top of the berm. So again it adds to it. The people along the road are going to be able to see
everything. Right now they have the berm that is going to cover almost 50 percent.
Mr. Lafferty added plus they are talking about camp sites. They are not clearing the site. People
want to pitch their tents in the trees. Most of the state parks that have camp sites are in the trees.
Mr. Morris pointed out that a lot of the sites that are along the river are going to be out of the
direct view or the line of sight of the people that are along the road. He was talking about Route
626. However, for the second tiers that are parallel to the railroad track and so on most of those
are going to be out in the open.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –NOVEMBER 13, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-49 & 50 HOWARDSVILLE CAMPING & CANOE LIVERY
20
Mr. Nelson noted that there are no trees. That area will be reforested as part of the mitigation
plan. All those campers will be in that forest and they won’t be visible from Route 626.
Mr. Morris thanked the applicant for that additional information since he did not see that.
Mr. Franco said since they are treating this as a friendly amendment he would also add that in the
staff’s presentation they revised a couple of the conditions. He wanted to make sure that was
part of the condition.
Mr. Randolph agreed with Mr. Franco. He asked to withdraw the second point about the 100’
riparian buffer will go with 50’ especially in the interest of time.
Mr. Kamptner said with respect to the reduction in the parking he thinks between now and the
Board staff is going to have to calculate whether or not they can at least satisfy the minimum
requirements for parking and there is some flexibility within the parking regulations. Staff now
has some additional information from the applicant about the maximum usage. That may play a
role in that determination. So zoning will need to look at that. Therefore, that can be a
recommended condition. However, staff will need to look at it to make sure it will work.
Mr. Dotson asked for two things.
- First, is the addition of a condition requiring that there be a weather radio with an auto alert
feature on the premises. Otherwise, he did not know how they would get the information
that is key to some of the decisions.
- A second question is when they have had situations where there were strong differences and
special use permit they issue that regardless of the owner. Mr. Nelson gave us a lot on his
background, credibility and his intentions. However, the special use permit is not issued to
him. It is issued to the site. Unless otherwise specified it is limitless in terms of its time. He
wondered if this is one of those situations that they ought to entertain the idea of maybe a
two year time period with it coming back for further consideration at that point in time.
That might give the applicant and the neighbors a chance to heal some of their relationships.
It would also give a chance to see how it is working. As he understands the proposal it is
not going to be huge investments on the part of the applicant because of being in the flood
plain. Therefore, having a two-year assurance might be okay economically. He was curious
from other Commissioners whether there would be interest in such an approach.
Mr. Morris asked for an opinion from Mr. Kamptner if that would be possible.
Mr. Kamptner said they have recommended similar conditions for unique types of uses in the
past.
Mr. Dotson pointed out he was thinking about two years.
Mr. Lafferty said he would go along with that. He had a problem with the requirements that he
was putting on the resident person. Why wouldn’t they make him a neuro surgeon? It seems
unreasonable to have all of these requirements for a manager such as they are certified in water
safety and by who are they certified and can give a CPR. Those are desirable type things.
However, they are almost requiring them to have a mini rescue square there. He thinks that is a
bit unreasonable.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –NOVEMBER 13, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-49 & 50 HOWARDSVILLE CAMPING & CANOE LIVERY
21
Mr. Cilimberg noted realistically that could be difficult from a zoning enforcement standpoint.
They have zoning enforcers going out periodically to ask for these credentials and he was not
sure how easy that would be.
Mr. Morris questioned having all staff WSI qualified.
Mr. Franco encouraged that it be removed from the motion.
Mr. Randolph withdrew the conditions regarding certification and the 100’ riparian buffer.
Therefore the recommendation is as staff has recommended with
1. Relocating the camp spaces #19 through #26 and relocating.
2. Reduce the parking spaces from 120 down to 100 spaces or a number staff recommends
to reduce the imprint.
3. Ensure that there is a NOA radio monitor on the facility and on at all tim es in case of an
approaching storm.
4. Day and night responsible manager on duty and on premise.
Mr. Franco said that begs the question that was asked earlier just in moving forward for
clarification that amplified music would not prohibit the NOA radio from being on site.
Mr. Kamptner noted that staff would clarify that condition. He questioned about the condition
requiring the manager on site.
Mr. Morris asked if he included the two year limitation.
Mr. Randolph noted this would be for two years and then it would come back to the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Cilimberg asked if staff should gather from that 2013 and 2014 so that it is by the end of the
calendar year of 2014.
Mr. Morris said that was a good idea.
Mr. Randolph agreed. He hoped the applicant has heard our concern about safety. That is a
concern from the neighbors. It has come across very loudly and clearly. He thought the
applicant and owner would definitely follow through on that and assure a quality of safety for not
only on the site but also for the neighborhood as a result of that.
Mr. Kamptner asked if the motion still includes the condition for a manager, but without the
certification.
Mr. Randolph replied that was correct for 24 hours a day.
Mr. Morris asked Mr. Cruz and Mr. Nelson if these are agreeable.
Mr. Nelson and Mr. Cruz replied yes.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –NOVEMBER 13, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-49 & 50 HOWARDSVILLE CAMPING & CANOE LIVERY
22
Amended Motion: Mr. Randolph moved and Mr. Dotson seconded to recommend approval of
SP-2010-00049, Howardsville Campground with the conditions recommended by staff, as
amended.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Morris noted that SP-2010-49, Howardsville Camping would be forwarded to the Board of
Supervisors with a recommendation for approval subject to the following conditions, as
amended, at a date to be determined.
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled
“Howardsville Canoe Livery and Campground,” prepared by Gregory A. Watson, and
dated August 27, 2012 (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:
• location of campsites
• location of parking areas
• location of the access roads for the campsite (no less than 50 feet from the river bank)
• absence of structures
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be
made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The area north of campsites 16 through 20 and that part of the “Common Area” shown on
the Conceptual Plan that is within the existing tree line shall remain forested. No cutting
or removal of trees shall be permitted, except for dead or broken trees that pose a direct
threat to a campsite or as permitted by Zoning Ordinance Section 4.3c. Gathering of
downed wood for firewood is permitted.
3. The portion of the “Common Area” shown on the Conceptual Plan that is outside the
existing tree line may be re-forested. All plantings shall use native tree and shrub species
listed in Appendix A of the Riparian Buffers Modification & Mitigation Guidance
Manual, published by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation; the
brochure Native Plants for Conservation, Restoration, and Landscaping: Virginia
Riparian Buffer Zones, published by the Virginia Department of Conservation and
Recreation; and/or Appendix 7 of the Chesapeake Bay Riparian Handbook, published by
the United States Department of Agriculture.
4. There shall be no temporary or permanent amplified sound system permitted for this use.
5. Quiet hours from 9 p.m. to 7:30 a.m. shall be posted and maintained by the applicant.
6. The campground shall be closed and all portable toilets and vehicles shall be removed
while a flood warning or flash-flood warning issued by the National Weather Service is
in effect for the portion of the James River adjoining the site.
7. Consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be prohibited in the campground.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –NOVEMBER 13, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-49 & 50 HOWARDSVILLE CAMPING & CANOE LIVERY
23
8. No trees located 50 feet or closer to the river bank shall be removed. Trees felled or
broken by wind, lightning, or other natural event may be removed if they pose a threat to
a campsite.
9. Compliance with the Virginia State Department of Health regarding water supply shall be
verified by the Health Department prior to issuance of a zoning clearance and the
commencement of the special use.
10. The use shall not commence before the subject properties are combined into a single
parcel.
11. The number of parking spaces shall not exceed 100 or the number determined by the
Zoning Administrator to be necessary, under County Code § 18-4.12,whichever is
greater.
12. A weather radio equipped with an automatic alert system shall be present on the site and
in operation at any time the campground is open.
13. Special use permit SP 2011-00049 shall be valid from January 1, 2013 through December
31, 2014.
14. A campground manager shall be on the premises 24 hours a day when the campground is
open.
In moving forward clarify that amplified music would not prohibit the NOA radio from
being on site.
Relocating the camp spaces #19 through #26. [note: this needs to be done on the plan,
rather than by condition]
Mr. Morris said the next request is SP-2010-00059 Howardsville Canoe Livery. He asked if there
was any discussion. There being none, he invited a motion.
Mr. Dotson suggested staff to clarify since they have added a series of conditions to the one
special use permit whether any of those need to be restated or the livery modified in light of what
they have done on the first action.
Mr. Clark replied that they could add the requirement for the 24-hour manager. However, it does
not seem necessary because it is only a daytime operation. The parking requirement would also
apply to the canoe livery operation. If they desire they could also apply the two-year limit to
that.
Motion: Mr. Randolph moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of SP-2010-
00050 Howardsville Canoe Livery with conditions recommended by staff, as amended.
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled
“Howardsville Canoe Livery and Campground” prepared by Gregory A. Watson, and
dated August 27, 2012 (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:
• location of parking areas
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –NOVEMBER 13, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-49 & 50 HOWARDSVILLE CAMPING & CANOE LIVERY
24
• location of boat launch
• absence of structures
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be
made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. There shall be no temporary or permanent amplified sound system permitted for this use.
3. The canoe livery shall be closed and all portable toilets, vehicles, trailers and other canoe
livery equipment shall be removed while a flood warning or flash-flood warning issued
by the National Weather Service is in effect for the portion of the James River adjoining
the site.
4. The use shall not commence before the subject properties are combined into a single
parcel.
5. The number of parking spaces shall not exceed 100 or the number determined by the
Zoning Administrator to be necessary, under County Code § 18-4.12, whichever is
greater.
6. Special use permit SP 2011-00050 shall be valid from January 1, 2013 through December
31, 2014.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Morris noted that SP-2010-00050 Howardsville Canoe Livery would be forwarded to the
Board with a recommendation for approval at time to be determined with conditions as
recommended by staff, as amended.
The Planning Commission took a break at 7:49 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 8:02
pm
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning
Boards)
Note: To view Attachments referred to in minutes - See Separate .pdf file
Howardsville_campsite_and_Canoe_Livery.pdf
Index to Attachments – submitted by Ms. Johnson:
Index to Attachment #3 Concerned Residents Responses Opposing:
Re: SP-2010-000049 Howardsville Camping
SP-2010-000050 Howardsville Canoe Livery
Special Use Permit Applications
Letter dated November 13, 2012 from Karen E. Firehock, 10955 Howardsville Turnpike,
Howardsville, VA 22937
Letter to Supervisor Snow from Cara Eisenberg, The EISENBERG LAW FIRM, 509 South
Beverly Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Letter dated Saturday 10th November 2012 to Members of the Albemarle County Planning
Commission from Marvin and Maxine Ripley, 10789 Howardsville Turnpike, Howardsville, VA
24562
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –NOVEMBER 13, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-49 & 50 HOWARDSVILLE CAMPING & CANOE LIVERY
25
Letter dated Friday 9th November 2012 to Albemarle County Planning Commissioners and Staff
from Sam Johnson, 10889 Howardsville Turnpike
Letter dated Friday, November 9, 2012 to Albemarle County Planning Commissioners and Staff
from Danielle E. Fuentes Johnson, 10889 Howardsville Turnpike, Howardsville, 22937
Letter dated November 8th 2012 to Members and Staff of the Albemarle County Planning
Commission from Charlotte Brody, 10937 Howardsville Lane, Howardsville, VA 22937
Letter dated Thursday 8th November 2012 to Planning Commission from Katherine C. Groves,
3354 James River Rd., Howardsville, VA 24562
Letter dated Nov. 7th 2012 to Commissioners from Karen Firehock, 10955 Howardsville
Turnpike, Howardsville, VA 22937
Letter dated Nov. 7th, 2012 to Mr. Clark from Tim Lewis, Howardsville resident opposite the
proposed campsite, 10955 Howardsville Turnpike, Howardsville, VA 22937
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name:SP2010-00049 Howardsville Camping
SP2010-00050 Howardsville Canoe Livery
Staff: Scott Clark, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
November 13, 2012
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: TBA
Owner/s: Crews, James E, Richard L Crews, John R
Crews & Willie Jones
Applicant: James E. Crews
Acreage: 15.2 acres Special Use Permit:
SP201000049 Howardsville Camping: 10.2.2.20. Day
camp, boarding camp (reference 5.1.05)
SP201000050 Howardsville Canoe Livery:
30.3.05.2.1 (2): Water related uses such as boat docks,
canoe liveries, bridges, ferries, culverts and river
crossings of transmission lines of all types.
TMP: 139A0000001600, 139A0000001700,
139A0000001900, 139A0000002000, 139A0000002100
Location: Baber Lane, Howardsville, at the intersection of
James River Road (Route 626) and Howardsville Turnpike
(Route 602)
Existing Zoning and By-right use: 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
Magisterial District: Scottsville Conditions or Proffers: n/a
RA (Rural Areas) and Flood Hazard Overlay Requested # of Dwelling Units: n/a
Proposal: Campground and canoe livery on parcel adjacent
to the James River
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural Areas -
preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space,
and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density ( .5
unit/ acre in development lots)
Character of Property: Flat, partially-wooded floodplain
at the confluence of the James and Rockfish Rivers.
Use of Surrounding Properties: Residences, farms,
and forests
Factors Favorable:
SP2010-00049 (Campground):
1. Improvements to the site would be minimal and
reversible.
2. Conditions of approval requiring quiet hours and
prohibiting amplified sound systems would limit
noise impacts on nearby properties.
3. The recommended requirement to remove portable
toilets from the site before major flood events would
keep waste from entering the river.
4. The recommended requirement to notify campers of
flood events would benefit public safety.
SP2010-00050 (Canoe Livery):
1. Improvements to the site would be minimal and
reversible.
2. The recommended requirement to remove the
canoe livery’s vehicles and equipment from the site
before major flood events would limit flood
damage and prevent pollution.
Factors Unfavorable:
SP2010-00049 (Campground):
1. The location of the campsites and access roads in
the wooded portion of the site and close to the
river bank impacts the wooded stream buffers on
the site. However, in an attempt to balance these
impacts with the desire of campers to be in
shaded sites near the water rather than in the
open, staff has worked with the applicants to
limit these impacts and specify forest-protection
areas.
SP2010-00050 (Canoe Livery):
No unfavorable factors were found.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of these special use permit requests with conditions.
STAFF PERSON: Scott Clark
PLANNING COMMISSION: November 13, 2012
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBA
PETITION:
PROPOSED:
SP201000049 Howardsville Camping: Campground with 24 sites for recreational
vehicles, 24 tent sites, building for office and restrooms.
SP201000050 Howardsville Canoe Livery: Canoe-rental livery with use of campground
building for office and storage (see SP201000049)
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: 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:
SP201000049 Howardsville Camping: 10.2.2.20 Day camp, boarding camp (reference
5.1.05)
SP201000050 Howardsville Canoe Livery: 30.3.05.2.1 (2): Water related uses such as
boat docks, canoe liveries, bridges, ferries, culverts and river crossings of transmission
lines of all types.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect
agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/
acre in development lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: Baber Lane, Howardsville, at the intersection of James River Road (Route 626)
and Howardsville Turnpike (Route 602)
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 139A0000001600, 139A0000001700, 139A0000001900,
139A0000002000, 139A0000002100
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Rural Area.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
Howardsville is a historic settlement located at the confluence of the Rockfish and James Rivers
that once served as the embarkation point for agricultural goods from the Shenandoah Valley,
which were hauled over the Blue Ridge for shipment to Richmond on the James River. Today
Howardsville is included in the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District, and is a largely
residential village with a country store. In the nearby area, the floodplain of the James includes
many cattle pastures, while the uplands are largely wooded. The CSX railway passes between the
site and Howardsville itself.
The site for this proposal was formerly the central portion of Howardsville, but the structures in
this portion of the town were destroyed by flooding. After the catastrophic floods caused by
Hurricane Camille (one of the strongest hurricanes ever recorded) in 1969 and another major
flood event in 1972, this portion of the town was abandoned. Baber Lane, which provides access
to the site, was the access to a bridge over the James River until Camille, and later served as the
access to a state-operated boat ramp. The access and ramp are now owned by the applicants.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
AP200900005: An appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision that a structure built on the site
was not permitted, as it was a dwelling constructed in the floodway. This appeal was denied by
the Board of Zoning Appeals.
APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL AND JUSTIFICATION
The applicant proposes to construct and operate a 48-space tent campground and a canoe livery
on his property adjacent to the James River in Howardsville. No structures would be
constructed, and the campground would not have individual hookups for water or electricity. As
septic fields are not permitted in this location, sanitary facilities would be provided by portable
toilets.
CONFORMITY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The 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.
The Rural Areas plan recommends appropriately-scaled “alternative uses,” including
commercial recreation, that can operate appropriately in rural settings and that can provide
alternatives to development of rural sites. (However, it should be noted that, as this site is in a
floodway, residential development or buildings of any sort would not be permitted.)
The Plan states that alternative and commercial uses in the Rural Areas should be:
Reversible (so that the land can easily return to farming, forestry, conservation, or other
preferred rural uses);
The development of primitive campsites and a parking area would be easily reversible.
scaled and sited to cause minimal impacts on their rural surroundings;
Potential noise impacts on nearby properties are addressed by recommend conditions of
approval. With no structures and 48 campsites, the scale of the use is not overwhelming
to its surroundings.
The main visual impact would be parked vehicles belonging to campers and canoeists.
minimal in their public health and environmental impacts; and
The floodplain location of the proposed use raises health and environmental concerns.
Staff feels that the recommend conditions of approval requiring removal of portable
toilets and canoe-livery equipment before major floods are necessary to address those
concerns.
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.
STAFF COMMENT:
Section 31.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be reviewed as
follows (staff comments address both Special Use Permit requests):
Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property?
The expected impacts of a campground on adjacent properties could include noise and
light impacts. The fact that the proposed campground would be a tent-only facility with
no electrical hookups limits the potential impacts compared to an RV campground or a
facility with power. In order to address noise impacts from voices, the applicant has
offered to enforce “quiet hours” from 9:30 p.m. to 7 a.m., and to prohibit the
consumption of alcohol at the campground.
Will the character of the zoning district change with this use?
The improvements to the site would be minimal and reversible. The canoe livery would
add more activity, especially on weekends. No change to the overall character of the
Rural Areas and Flood Hazard Overlay zoning districts is expected.
Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance?
While the use is not directly supportive of any particular aspect of the purposes of the
zoning ordinance, its minimal nature and reversibility mean that it is not contrary any of
those purposes.
Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
The proposed campsite and canoe livery are not expected to create significant impacts on
agriculture or forestry in the area. Noise and light impacts on nearby residences are
possible, but the primitive nature of the campsites and the absence of electrical power and
amplified sounds systems would limit those impacts.
Will the use be in harmony with additional regulations provided in section 5?
5.1.05 DAY CAMP, BOARDING CAMP
a. Provisions for outdoor cooking, campfires, cooking pits, etc., shall be subject to
Albemarle County fire official approval whether or not a site development plan is
required;
The Fire/Rescue Department has reviewed this request, and has informed the
applicants of the fire-management standards that they must comply with.
b. All such uses shall conform to the requirements of the Virginia
Department of Health Bureau of Tourist Establishment Sanitation and
other applicable requirements.
The request has been reviewed by the Virginia Department of Health,
which will be responsible for monitoring compliance.
There are no additional regulations in section 5 for boat liveries.
Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the
use is approved?
As this site is in the floodplain of a major river, the potential for flood impacts is a
significant concern. Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring notification of
campers on the site in advance of any predicted flood events that could inundate the site.
In order to prevent river pollution, staff recommends a condition of approval that would
require that portable toilets be removed from the site before predicted flood events that
would inundate the site. A similar condition is recommended for the canoe livery, so that
vehicles, trailers, boats, or other equipment would not be caught up in a flood and cause
damage or pollution.
In order to protect the effectiveness of stream buffers on the site, the County Engineer has
recommended a condition requiring that trees within 50 feet of the riverbank not be
cleared. Staff has worked with the applicants to establish other areas of the site that
would remain forested, and to establish planting standards requiring the use of
appropriate native species for any reforestation of open areas. If the review of the
eventual site development plan for this use reveals the need for a mitigation plan under
the Water Protection Ordinance, the applicant plans to use the open areas of the site for
any required plantings.
The site has an existing well for water supply. To ensure safety for customers on the site,
staff recommends a condition of approval that would require approval of this water
supply from the Virginia Department of Health.
The facility would use an existing entrance to the formerly state-owned boat ramp on the
site. The Virginia Department of Transportation will not require any changes to the
entrance to the site..
A site development plan will be needed for this use before it can commence.
SUMMARY AND ACTION (SP 2010-00049 Howardsville Campground)
Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal:
Factors favorable to this request include:
1. Improvements to the site would be minimal and reversible.
2. Conditions of approval requiring quiet hours and prohibiting amplified sound systems
would limit noise impacts on nearby properties.
3. The recommended requirement to remove portable toilets from the site before major
flood events would keep waste from entering the river.
4. The recommended requirement to notify campers of flood events would benefit public
safety.
Factors unfavorable to this request include:
1. The location of the campsites and access roads in the wooded portion of the site and close
to the river bank impacts the wooded stream buffers on the site. However, in an attempt
to balance these impacts with the desire of campers to be in shaded sites near the water
rather than in the open, staff has worked with the applicants to limit these impacts and
specify forest-protection areas.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of SP2010-00049 Howardsville
Campground based upon the analysis provided herein, with the following conditions:
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Howardsville
Canoe Livery and Campground” prepared by Gregory A. Watson, and dated August 27, 2012
(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:
location of campsites
location of parking areas
location of the access roads for the campsite (no less than 50 feet from the river bank)
absence of structures
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to
ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The area north of campsites 16 through 20 and that part of the “Common Area” shown on the
Conceptual Plan that is within the existing tree line shall remain forested. No cutting or removal
of trees shall be permitted, except for dead or broken trees that pose a direct threat to a campsite
or as permitted by Zoning Ordinance Section 4.3c. Gathering of downed wood for firewood is
permitted.
3. The portion of the “Common Area” shown on the Conceptual Plan that is outside the existing
tree line may be re-forested. All plantings shall use native tree and shrub species listed in
Appendix A of the Riparian Buffers Modification & Mitigation Guidance Manual, published by
the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation; the brochure Native Plants for
Conservation, Restoration, and Landscaping: Virginia Riparian Buffer Zones, published by the
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation; and/or Appendix 7 of the Chesapeake Bay
Riparian Handbook, published by the United States Department of Agriculture.
4. There shall be no temporary or permanent amplified sound system permitted for this use.
5. Quiet hours from 9 p.m. to 7:30 a.m. shall be posted and maintained by the applicant.
6. Portable toilets shall be removed from the site prior to any flood event that is forecast to
inundate the site.
7. The campground operators shall notify all campers on the site in advance of any flood event that
is forecast to inundate the site.
8. Consumption of alcohol shall be prohibited in the campground.
9. No trees located 50 feet or closer to the river bank shall be removed. Trees felled or broken by
wind, lightning, or other natural event may be removed if they pose a threat to a campsite.
10. Compliance with the Virginia State Department of Health regarding water supply shall be
verified by the Health Department prior to issuance of a zoning clearance and the
commencement of the special use.
11. The use shall not commence before the subject properties are combined into a single parcel.
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION—Special Use Permit:
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this special use
permit:
Move to recommend approval of SP 2010-00050 Howardsville Canoe Livery with
conditions as recommended by staff.
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this special use permit:
Move to recommend denial of SP 2010-00050 Howardsville Canoe Livery. Should a
commissioner motion to recommend denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for
recommending denial.
SUMMARY AND ACTION (SP2010-00050 Howardsville Canoe Livery)
Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal:
Factors favorable to this request include:
1. Improvements to the site would be minimal and reversible, and have limited impact on
the Flood Hazard Overlay (100 year floodplain) with the recommended conditions.
2. The recommended requirement to remove the canoe livery’s vehicles and equipment
from the site before major flood events would limit flood damage and prevent pollution.
No unfavorable factors were found.
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Howardsville
Canoe Livery and Campground” prepared by Gregory A. Watson, and dated August 27, 2012
(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:
location of parking areas
location of boat launch
absence of structures
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to
ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. There shall be no temporary or permanent amplified sound system permitted for this use.
3. Portable toilets shall be removed from the site prior to any flood event that is forecast to
inundate the site.
4. Any equipment associated with the canoe livery, including but not limited to vehicles, canoes,
and trailers, shall be removed from the site prior to any flood event that is forecast to inundate
the site.
5. The use shall not commence before the subject properties are combined into a single parcel.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of SP2010-00050 Howardsville Canoe
Livery based upon the analysis provided herein, with the following conditions:
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION—Special Use Permit:
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this special use
permit:
Move to recommend approval of SP 2010-00050 Howardsville Canoe Livery with
conditions as recommended by staff.
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this special use permit:
Move to recommend denial of SP 2010-00050 Howardsville Canoe Livery. Should a
commissioner motion to recommend denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for
recommending denial.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Vicinity Map
Attachment B – Site Map
Attachment C – Conceptual Plan
Return to exec summary
!
!
MOUNT ALTO
HOWARDSVILLE
JAMES RIVER
ROCKF ISH RI VER
ROCKFISH RIVER
GRE EN CREEK
JAMES RIVER RDMT ALTO RDHOWARDSVILLE TPKE
WOLF MTN LNLEWISTON FORD RDTHREE PINE LN
TA N B A R K L N
SP20 10-49 -50 Howardsv ille ¯0 0.5 10.25 Miles
Attachment A
!
HOWARDSVILLE JAMES RIVER RDBABER LN
SP20 10-49 -50 Howardsv ille ¯0 250 500125Feet
Attachment B
Attachment C
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –OCTOBER 23, 2012
PARTIAL FINAL MINUTES - SP-2010-00049 Howardsville Camping and SP-2010-00050 Howardsville Canoe Livery
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.
Items Requesting Deferral
SP-2010-00049 Howardsville Camping
PROPOSED: Campground with 24 sites for recreational vehicles, 24 tent sites, building for office and
restrooms. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: 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: 10.2.2.20 Day camp, boarding camp (reference 5.1.05)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre in development
lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No LOCATION: Baber Lane, Howardsville, at the intersection of James Riv er
Road (Route 626) and Howardsville Turnpike (Route 602) TAX MAP/PARCEL: 139A0000001600,
139A0000001700, 139A0000001900, 139A0000002000, 139A0000002100 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT:
Samuel Miller (Scott Clark)
AND
SP-2010-00050 Howardsville Canoe Livery
PROPOSED: Howardsville Canoe Livery: Canoe-rental livery with use of campground building for office
and storage (see SP201000049) ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas -
agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in develop ment lots); FH Flood
Hazard - Overlay to provide safety and protection from flooding SECTION: 30.3.05.2.1 (2): Water related
uses such as boat docks, canoe liveries, bridges, ferries, culverts and river crossings of transmission lines
of all types. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect
agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre in
development lots) ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No LOCATION: Baber Lane, Howardsville, at the
intersection of James River Road (Route 626) and Howardsville Turnpike (Route 602) TAX
MAP/PARCEL: 139A0000001600, 139A0000001700, 139A0000001900, 139A0000002000,
139A0000002100 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller (Scott Clark)
APPLICANT REQUESTING DEFERRAL OF THESE SPs TO THE NOVEMBER 13, 2012 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING
Mr. Morris noted the applicant is requesting deferral of SP-2010-00049 Howardsville Camping and SP-
2010-00050 Howardsville Canoe Livery to the November 13, 2012 meeting.
Motion: Mr. Loach moved and Mr. Randolph seconded for acceptance of the applicant’s request for
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –OCTOBER 23, 2012
PARTIAL FINAL MINUTES - SP-2010-00049 Howardsville Camping and SP-2010-00050 Howardsville Canoe Livery
2
deferral of SP-2010-00049 Howardsville Camping and SP-2010-00050 Howardsville Canoe Livery.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Morris noted that SP-2010-00049 Howardsville Camping and SP-2010-00050 Howardsville Canoe
Livery were deferred to the November 13, 2012 meeting.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SP2012-00002 Castle Hill Cider
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Special use permit under County Code § 18-5.1.25(e)
to allow events at which more than 200 persons may
attend
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Benish, Clark, Davis, Kamptner
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
January 16, 2013
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
This special use permit was heard by the Planning Commission on October 9, 2012. The Commission recommended
approval of this special use permit with the conditions shown in the action letter (Attachment 1). Those conditions would
permit the proposed 3,000-person annual event for two years, with review at that time to determine if it should continue.
However, the Commission did not recommend permitting the proposed 15 events per year of up to 500 persons as
requested by the applicant at that time.
DISCUSSION:
Since the Planning Commission hearing, the applicants have submitted a revised proposal that they would like the Board
to consider. The purpose of this report is to inform the Board of the details of the new proposal and to provide conditions
that could be approved should the Board choose to approve this request.
The applicants’ new proposal requests four changes:
1. Reduce the permitted maximum attendance for the large annual event from 3,000 persons to 1,000 persons.
This change would reduce the attendance to a level below which the applicants’ traffic study (with which VDOT
concurs) indicates would necessitate traffic-management personnel at the intersection of Route 231 and Turkey Sag
Road. However, the applicants have stated that they will still provide such traffic management for any event at which
the attendance exceeds 500 persons. This change is reflected in revised Condition 3(a) below.
2. Permit eight events (weddings or similar functions) per year for 201 to 350 persons. This request is less than the 15
events for up to 500 persons that were presented to the Planning Commission. Staff recommended approval of the 15
events, but the Planning Commission recommended against any number of smaller of events.
In order to be consistent with the Planning Commission’s action, s taff has added the same 2-year time limit to this
condition that the Commission recommended for the large annual event. The applicants did not specifically request
the addition of this time limit.
The applicants, after consulting with neighboring property owners, have offered to limit these events to “weddings,
business events, or fundraisers for local non-profits and/or schools.” However, staff does not support adding this
restriction, as such use categories are not specific enough to establish clear stan dards for effective zoning
enforcement.
Staff has also revised Condition 6 to require traffic management at the site’s exit to all events, rather than just the
annual large event. The condition applying this requirement only to the annual event was a result of the Planning
Commission’s recommendation, which only recommended approval of one annual event. In staff’s original report to
the Commission, this requirement was recommended for all of the events on the site. Again, the applicants did not
specifically request this change, but traffic impacts on the western portion of Turkey Sag Road were of great concern
to nearby residents.
3. Change the sound-management requirements:
a. Apply the 11:00 p.m. ending time for outdoor amplified sound on the site only to the large annual event, and not to
the eight smaller events also now being requested.
b. Require that any amplified sound systems be used conducted in the Event Barn, except for small outdoor
systems during daylight hours.
c. Require that the sound management plan include the installation of glass panels to fully enclose the northeast
side of the barn, which currently has large screen panels.
a.) The 11:00 p.m. limit was recommended by staff in an attempt to meet the concerns of nearby residents who could
hear the music from the event. The applicants volunteered, and the Commission recommended approval of, a
condition requiring that sound generated by the use not exceed 55 decibels at the property lines, which would meet or
exceed the current Zoning Ordinance requirements. Staff recommended the additional 11:00 p.m. limit to prevent late-
night disturbances created by sound levels that met the letter of the law, but were inconsistent with typical Rural Areas
sound levels.
b.) This change would ensure that only sm all amplification systems would be permitted outdoors (during daylight
hours), and that all other systems would be contained in the Event Barn. For zoning enforcement purposes, “small
systems” must be defined. Based on research on public address systems, s taff recommends that such systems be
limited to amplifiers of no more than 200 watts RMS output. This appears to be a typical size for events of the type
proposed by the applicants.
c.) The applicants have volunteered to fully enclose the Event Barn, and have stated that their sound engineer
identified this as the most effective sound-abatement measure. Please note that they request that this requirement not
be applied if the Board chooses to approve only the large annual event, as the enclosure would not be economical for
one event per year.
4. Change the requirement for notification of adjacent property owners of upcoming events to require notification of
property owners with dwellings within one-half mile of the event.
The applicants feel that basing the notification on distance to the dwelling rather than the adjacency of parcels would
be more appropriate to the character of the potential noise impacts. This change is reflected in revised Condition 7.
As proposed, approximately 8 property owners would have to be notified. The original approach (notifying all parcel
owners within 1,000 feet of the property boundaries) would require that approximately 20 property owners be notified.
Revised 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:
o Location of the structure (labeled “Event Barn”) used for the events
o Location of the entrance and exit (labeled “New Entrance Road” and “Existing Entrance”)
o Location of parking
o Location of “Event Vicinity”
2. Up to 8 single-day events for more than 200 persons may be held per calendar year for two years and be re -
evaluated at the end of 2014, with a maximum total daily attendance of 350 persons. Attendance at these events shall
be by prior reservation, ticket sales, or invitation only.
3. One single-day farm winery event for 201 to 1,000 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 for any event whose attendance exceeds 500 persons. 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. As part of the implementation of this plan, the use shall
not commence before the screened openings on the northeast side of the barn are replaced with glass panels
approved by the licensed acoustical engineer. Sound levels 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 the farm winery event permitted under condition 3 shall not begin before noon and shall end not
later than 11:00 p.m. Outdoor amplification systems shall not use amplifiers with more than 200 watts RMS output,
and shall not be used after 6:00 p.m. All other amplified sound systems shall be contained within the Event Barn.
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 occup ants
reside westward on Turkey Sag Road.
7. The permittee shall provide prior notification of each event permitted under conditions 2 or 3 above to all owners of
properties that contain dwellings within one-half mile of the Event Barn 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 the 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.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommended approval of one 3,000-person annual event with the conditions that follow.
Should the Board choose to approve the applicants’ request for the one annual 1,000 -person event and eight 350-person
events per year, staff recommends the conditions listed in the “Discussion” section above.
Planning Commission’s Recommended 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:
o Location of the structure (labeled “Event Barn”) used for the events
o Location of the entrance and exit (labeled “New Entrance Road” and “Existing Entrance”)
o Location of parking
o 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 fr om 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 Virg inia 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 the annual event, 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 the event shall not begin before noon and shall end not later than 11:00 p.m.
5. At the annual 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 the event 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 the 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
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Planning Commission Action Letter
SP-2011-0002 Staff report and attachments
SP-2012-00018 Staff report and attachments
SP-2012-00019 Staff report and attachments
PC minutes
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 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 the annual event, 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 the event shall not begin before noon and shall end not later than 11:00 p.m.
5. At the annual 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 the event 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 the 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
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.
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 exc eeds 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.
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,
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: SP201100002 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 exec summary
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.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 9, 2012
FINAL MINUTES
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
FINAL MINUTES
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
FINAL MINUTES
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
FINAL MINUTES
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
FINAL MINUTES
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
FINAL MINUTES
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
FINAL MINUTES
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
FINAL MINUTES
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
FINAL MINUTES
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 Proffitt 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 runn ing 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 tim e 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
FINAL MINUTES
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 considered 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 Commission to deny this application.
Charlie Proffitt 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 l ives
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 Brook 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 Albema rle 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
FINAL MINUTES
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 Novemb er 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 genuine 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 Vanderwarker, 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 Mountai n Historic
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 Forschler, 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
FINAL MINUTES
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 backyard. 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 prec isely
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 to 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 gr eater 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 prope rty 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
FINAL MINUTES
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 impact 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 they 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 Planning 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 t hat
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 Bar boursville 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
FINAL MINUTES
14
going to face people trying to get over Turkey Sag Mountain on a road that looks like that several times a
year.
Stewart Humiston 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 Leffers, 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 tha t
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 3,00 0 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 their 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 M ountains 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 harv esting.
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
FINAL MINUTES
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 economic ally
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 gro wn, 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 th ey 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 exactl y what they would like to do.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 9, 2012
FINAL MINUTES
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 Interne t
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 don’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
FINAL MINUTES
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 without 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
FINAL MINUTES
18
Mr. Smith said as Mr. Randolph so eloquently spoke he agreed w ith 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 buses 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
FINAL MINUTES
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
FINAL MINUTES
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 th e 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 ass uming 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
FINAL MINUTES
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. T his 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 perm ittee 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 approv ed 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 b efore 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
FINAL MINUTES
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
FINAL MINUTES
23
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.
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 are 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
FINAL MINUTES
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 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.
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. T he 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
FINAL MINUTES
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 wat er 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. It 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 Cas tle 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
FINAL MINUTES
26
testing, soil compaction testing, overflow armoring, and correct pipe sizing in addition to the other thing s
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 administ rator 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
FINAL MINUTES
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, no n-
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 mit igation
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 and 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
FINAL MINUTES
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.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 9, 2012
FINAL MINUTES
29
Return to exec summary
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 exec summary
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 exec summary
SP201200019
Castle Hill Cider, Stream Crossing, Exhibits
Site Map, location:
Location map showing floodplain and WPO buffer
Plan provided by applicant
Photo: