HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-3-09Tentative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
MARCH 9, 2011
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
9:00 A.M. – 12:00 NOON
ROOM 241
1. Call to Order.
2. Work Session: FY 2011/2012 Operating and Capital Budgets.
a. School Division.
b. Continuing issues from Prior Work Session (if needed).
3. Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
4. Adjourn.
6:00 P.M.
LANE AUDITORIUM
1. Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
5. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
6. Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
7. SP-2010-00020. Century Link Verizon Wireless Tier III PWSF (Signs #50&52).
PROPOSED: Special Use Permit amendment to replace three (3) existing Alltel microwave dishes and six (6) existing
Alltel antennas with new antennas and dishes at various heights on an existing 250 foot tower. The applicant is also
requesting use of existing mounting brackets to allow the mounting of up to twelve (12) antennas within a sectored array
(which requires a waiver/modification of section 5.1.40.C.3). ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: [CO], Commercial
Office; [EC] Entrance Corridor overlay, [AIA] Airport Impact Area. SECTION: 23.2.2 (15) Special Use Permit, which allows
for Tier III personal wireless facilities in the Commercial Office Zoning District COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/
DENSITY: Office Service in Urban Area 2. LOCATION: Tax Map 61, Parcel 129C: south side of Rio Road East [State
Route 631], approximately 1/8 mile east of the intersection with Route 29 North, and near Fashion Square Mall.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio. RELATED APPLICATION: SP-2008-00012.
8. SP-2010-0027. Nichols/Peck Crossing (Sign #5). PROPOSED: Replace an existing
concrete culvert bridge with an engineered bridge that spans the Moormans River. ZONING: RA Rural Areas-Agricultural,
forestal and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 units/acre in development lots). SECTION:30.5.5.2.d.6.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Area in Rural Area 1- preserve and protect agricultural, forestal,
open space, and natural, historic and scenic. resources/density (0.5 units/acre in development lots). ENTRANCE
CORRIDOR: No, [but is in the Scenic Stream Overlay and Flood Hazard Overlay]. LOCATION: 6094 Sugar Hollow Road
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2011Files/Migration/20110309/00_Agenda.htm (1 of 3) [10/7/2020 3:06:15 PM]
Tentative
in Crozet. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 02500-00-00-01800, 02500-00-00-018A0, and 2500-00-00-018B0. MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT: White Hall.
9. SP-2010-00033. Four Seasons Learning Center (Signs #73&74). PROPOSED:
Amend special use permit to increase maximum number of children in daycare from 40 to 64. No residential units
proposed. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PUD Planned Unit Development which allows residential (3 - 34
units per acre), mixed with commercial and industrial uses. SECTION: 20.3.2.1, which allows for child care facilities.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density Residential (6-34 units/acre) in Neighborhood 1.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No. LOCATION: 254 Lakeview Drive, at the corner of Four Seasons Dr. and Lakeview Dr. TAX
MAP/PARCEL: 061X1-00-00-00500. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio.
10. SP-2010-00048. Music Festival (Sign #75). PROPOSED: Five year extension of existing
Special Use Permit (SP200900016) to continue allowing an annual special event at the Misty Mountain Camp Resort
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5
unit/acre in development lots). SECTION: 10.2.2.50 Special events. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY:
Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density
(.5 unit/ acre in development lots). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: 56 Misty Mountain Road, approx. three-
quarters of a mile west of 64E junction. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07100000000300. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall.
11. SP-2010-00043. Brown Collision Center (Sign #6). PROPOSED: To permit an auto
body shop in a Highway Commercial District, no residential units proposed. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: HC
Highway Commercial - commercial and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/ acre).
SECTION: 24.2.2 (17) auto body shops. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Regional Service - regional-
scale retail, wholesale, business and/or employment centers, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) in Neighborhood 1.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: 1590 Seminole Trail, approximately 600 feet north of Berkmar Drive on the
west side of Seminole Trail (US 29). TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061000000120E0. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio.
12. ZTA-2010-00008. Farm Winery Outdoor Amplified Music. Amend Sec. 5.1.25, Farm
wineries, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend Sec. 5.1.25 to amend the
noise standard for outdoor amplified music at farm wineries.
14. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
15. Adjourn to March 14, 2011, 9:00 a.m., Room 241.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL:
6.1 Request by Qwest Communications Corporation for Underground Right-of-Way License for facilities at Darden
Towe Park.
6.2 Approve and Authorize Sublease with the University of Virginia for new Ivy Fire Station.
6.3 Request from the Reentry Steering Committee to Underwrite the 2011 Prisoner Re-Entry Summit.
6.4 Fiscal Year 2011 County of Albemarle and State Health Department Local Government Agreement.
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2011Files/Migration/20110309/00_Agenda.htm (2 of 3) [10/7/2020 3:06:15 PM]
Tentative
Return to Top of Agenda
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
Return to County Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2011Files/Migration/20110309/00_Agenda.htm (3 of 3) [10/7/2020 3:06:15 PM]
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Approval of Underground Right-of -Way License
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request by Qwest Communications Corporation for
Underground Right-of -Way License for facilities at Darden
Towe Park.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Herrick, and Crickenberger
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
March 9, 2011
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In 2006, Qwest Communications Corporation was granted a license by the County and the City of Charlottesville to
install underground fiber optic facilities across a portion of Darden Towe Park. The facilities are exclusively for
governmental use as a part of a Richmond to Charlottesville link. Darden Towe Park is jointly owned by the County
and the City. The installation and initial operation was authorized by a five-year Underground Right-of-Way License
Agreement that ran from 2006 to 2010. Qwest is now requesting a renewal of that license. This new Agreement
must be authorized by both the County and City.
DISCUSSION:
Qwest Communications Corporation is requesting the County and City to approve the renewal of an Underground
Right-of -Way License Agreement permitting continued operation of fiber optic facilities across a portion of Darden
Towe Park. The location of the fiber optic facilities does not interfere with park activities. Qwest agrees that if a
conflict arises in the future, they will relocate the facilities at no expense to the County or City. Because of legal
limitations placed on cities, the term of both the original Agreement and the proposed new Agreement is five years.
The County and City are charging a fair market value annual fee for the license. City Council is considering this
request at its March 7 meeting.
The Director of Parks and Recreation has reviewed the request and does not object to the proposal. The County
Attorney has reviewed the proposed Agreement and finds that it addresses the County’s legal issues and concerns.
BUDGET IMPACT:
This request has no budget impact. The proposed Agreement would continue to generate $840.00 of revenue for
the County in each year of the five year agreement. $1,680.00 has been determined to be the total fair market value
of the license, and the County would receive half of that amount.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to execute the Underground Right-of -Way License
Agreement for Darden Towe Park requested by Qwest Communications Corporation after approval to both form and
substance by the County Attorney.
Return to consent
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
New Ivy Fire Station Sublease
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approve and authorize a Sublease with the
University of Virginia for the new Ivy Fire Station
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis, Herrick, Henry
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
March 9, 2011
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The City of Charlottesville is relocating its Ivy Road fire station to a new facility located on Fontaine Avenue Extended.
This relocation makes it important for the County to establish a fire rescue station to serve the East Ivy area of the County .
A fire rescue station is needed to meet the response time goals in this portion of the County’s development area and to
provide services to the highly populated rural area of the County, particularly the area of the County within five miles of the
existing fire station. Staff has identified an opportunity to enter into a long-term sublease with the Rector and Visitors of
the University of Virginia (UVA) for space to house two fire apparatus and one ambulance in an existing 5,800 square foot
warehouse located on Tax Map Parcel 59-23B1 at 2955 Ivy Road. UVA currently leases that property from Kirtley Family
Holdings (Kirtley) pursuant to a lease and purchase agreement dated May 1, 2007. The Prime Lease expressly permits
the sublease of the property.
DISCUSSION:
Staff has concluded negotiations with UVA and the attached Deed of Sublease (Attachment A) addresses all the
issues identified by the County. The County Attorney’s office has reviewed and approved the Deed of Sublease as to
form. See Attachment B for a m ap of the property to be subleased. The warehouse that will be subleased is
identified as 640 Ivy Road.
The highlights of the provisions of the Sublease are as follows:
1. The term is 20 years from the commencement date of the Sublease.
2. The rent is $1.00 per year or $20.00 total over the 20 year term.
3. The County is responsible for the design, construction and cost of the improvements to the subleased area for
its intended use.
4. The County is responsible for the design, construction and cost of a replacement loading dock, which must be
completed before the commencement of the Sublease.
5. UVA can terminate the Sublease fifteen years after the commencement date provided that UVA has provided
five years prior written notice. Upon early termination by UVA, UVA must reimburse the County for
unamortized costs of County improvements (improvements are amortized over 30 years).
6. The Sublease may be terminated by the County at any time on or before March 31, 2012, or with at least
ninety (90) days written notice to UVA thereafter. The Sublease does not include any provision for the
recovery of the County’s investment costs for improvements made prior to an early termination by the County.
7. The Primary Lease includes a provision that UVA has a right to purchase the Land from Kirtley. In that event,
this Sublease would continue as a direct lease between UVA and the County.
Upon approval of the Sublease, the County will proceed with design, site plan approval and construction of the new
Ivy Fire Station. The target date for occupancy of the facility is November, 2012.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The direct cost to the County of the Sublease itself would be only $20.00 total over the 20 year term. The larger cost
of the design and construction of the new Ivy Fire station is funded in the FY12 CIP. Operation and maintenance of
the facility has been programmed into the Five Year Financial Plan and will be addressed in the FY13 budget.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board approve the Deed of Sublease for the new Ivy Fire Station and authorize the County
Executive to sign the Sublease and associated documents after approval to both form and substance by the County
Attorney.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Deed of Sublease between the County and UVA
B – Map of property to be leased by the County
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
The Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia
County of Albemarle
Lease No. ____
-1-
DEED OF SUBLEASE
THIS DEED OF SUBLEASE (“Sublease”) is made effective as of the ____ day of
__________, 2010, by and between THE RECTOR AND VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF VIRGINIA, an educational institution of the Commonwealth of Virginia (“University”),
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia
(“County”), and KIRTLEY FAMILY HOLDINGS, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company.
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, pursuant to that certain Ground Lease and Purchase Agreement dated as of
May 1, 2007, by and between Kirtley Family Holdings, LLC and Sublessor, as amended (the
“Prime Lease”), University leases from Kirtley Family Holdings, LLC (the “Prime Lessor”)
certain real property, including land and improvements, identified as Tax Map 59, Parcel 23B1,
located on U. S. Route 250 in Albemarle County, Virginia, as shown on Exhibit A (the
“Property”).
WHEREAS, the Prime Lease expressly permits the sublease of the Property and the
improvements thereon without the prior consent of the Prime Lessor.
WHEREAS, County wishes to sublease from University a portion of the warehouse,
containing approximately five thousand eight hundred square feet (5,800 square feet) and
situated on the Property (the “Building”).
WHEREAS, University is willing to sublease to County a portion of the Building
containing approximately five thousand eight hundred square feet (5,800 square feet), as shown
on Exhibit B (collectively, the “Subleased Premises”).
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the terms, conditions, covenants,
promises and agreements herein made and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, University and County agree as follows:
1. PREMISES. University leases to County, and County leases from University, the
Subleased Premises, together with the right of ingress and egress, in the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, subject, however, to all easements, restrictions and covenants of
record.
2. TERM. The term of this Sublease (the “Term”) shall begin on the earlier of (a) the date
on which a certificate of occupancy is issued to County for the Subleased Premises, and
(b) the date which is one (1) year from the date on which all Permits and Approvals (as
defined herein) are issued to County. Such date is referred to in this Sublease as the
“Commencement Date.” The Term shall terminate, if not sooner, on the earlier of (a) the
effective date of termination or expiration of the Prime Lease, or (b) the date which is
twenty (20) years from the Commencement Date (the “Termination Date”). The
Commencement Date shall be confirmed by University and County by the execution of a
written certificate of the Commencement Date following occurrence thereof in the form
attached hereto as Exhibit C, subject to the provisions of this Sublease; provided,
however, the failure of either party to execute such certificate shall not affect the
respective rights and obligations of the parties hereunder.
The Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia
County of Albemarle
Lease No. ____
-2-
University and County acknowledge that, pursuant to the Prime Lease, University has a
right to purchase the Land (as defined in the Prime Lease) from Prime Lessor.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Sublease, in the event
University acquires the Land from Prime Lessor during the term of this Sublease, this
Sublease shall continue as a direct lease between University, as the owner of fee simple
title to the Land, and County, upon all of the terms and conditions of this Sublease.
3. RENT. County shall pay University the sum of TWENTY AND NO/100 DOLLARS
($20.00) as rent (the “Rent”) for the Term. University acknowledges receipt of Rent
from County as of the Commencement Date.
4. USE OF PREMISES.
(a) The Subleased Premises are to be used and occupied by County for the operation
of a fire station, principally housing fire and rescue vehicles (the “Permitted
Use”). County shall not damage the Subleased Premises or any part thereof or
allow the same to be done. County shall not allow the Subleased Premises to be
used for any illegal purpose and shall not do or allow any act which may
unreasonably disturb occupancy of adjoining property (taking into account the
Permitted Use) or cause damage to adjoining property.
(b) County shall enforce in the Subleased Premises such restrictions on smoking and
the use of other tobacco products by persons as University establishes from time
to time for the remainder of the Property, including, without limitation, the
Building and adjoining properties owned, leased or otherwise controlled by
University.
5. ALTERATIONS.
(a) Except as expressly provided in this Sublease, no alterations, additions, or
improvements shall be made to the Subleased Premises without the prior written
consent of University.
(b) County shall make such improvements to the Building, including the Subleased
Premises, and other portions of the Property as it deems necessary and desirable
to make the Subleased Premises suitable for the Permitted Use (the
“Improvements”).
(c) County shall submit all plans and specifications for such proposed Improvements,
including, without limitation, such site plan as is required by the applicable
governmental authorities of Albemarle County, Virginia (collectively, the “Plans
and Specifications”) to University for University’s review and approval before
County commences any such work.
(d) Upon University’s approval of the Plans and Specifications, County, at its sole
cost and expense, shall submit the same to the applicable governmental authorities
The Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia
County of Albemarle
Lease No. ____
-3-
of Albemarle County, Virginia in order to obtain all necessary permits and
approvals for the Improvements (the “Permits and Approvals”). (The date on
which all such Permits and Approvals are issued to County is referred to herein as
the “Approval Date”). County shall diligently pursue all such Permits and
Approvals. University agrees, at no cost or expense to University, to cooperate
with County to the extent reasonably necessary for Seller to obtain such Permits
and Approvals. University and County agree that issuance of such Permits and
Approvals is a condition precedent to County obligations under this Sublease.
County shall provide prompt written notice to University of the issuance of such
Permits and Approvals. In the event that all such Permits and Approvals are not
issued to County on or before March 31, 2012, this Sublease shall terminate
without further notice. Any revisions to the Plans and Specifications required by
the applicable governmental authorities of Albemarle County, Virginia shall be
submitted to University for University’s review and approval before resubmission
of the same.
(e) Upon the issuance of the Permits and Approvals, County shall have the right to
proceed with the construction of all approved Improvements (including, without
limitation, the Replacement Loading Dock), provided (i) such Improvements are
made in strict compliance with the Plans and Specifications, as approved by
University and County, and (ii) County shall not have access to the Subleased
Premises to construct the portion of the Improvements located therein or for any
other purpose until forty-five (45) days after (x) construction of the Replacement
Loading Dock has been completed in accordance with this Sublease, and (y)
University has accepted the same, which acceptance shall not be unreasonably
withheld, conditioned or delayed (or on such sooner date after satisfaction of such
requirements as is designated in a written notice from University to County). All
such Improvements shall be made at County’s expense, either by County or
County’s contractors approved in advance by University. The construction of the
Improvements shall (1) not adversely affect the safety of the Property, the
Building or the Subleased Premises or the systems thereof, (2) comply with all
building, safety, fire, plumbing, electrical, and other codes and governmental and
insurance requirements, (3) be completed promptly and in a good and
workmanlike manner, and (4) not interfere with the use of the Building or the
Property by University or other tenants in the Building, or disturb University or
such other tenants. Such Improvements shall become the property of University
upon expiration or termination of the Term of this Sublease. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the Replacement Loading Dock shall become the property of
University upon the completion of construction in accordance with this Sublease
and University’s acceptance of the same.
(f) In addition to the foregoing, to replace a loading dock inside the Subleased
Premises presently used by University, County, at its election, shall (i) construct,
at its sole cost and expense, or (ii) reimburse University for its actual costs of
construction of, a loading dock adjacent to the Building for the exclusive use of
University (the “Replacement Loading Dock”). County shall make its election
The Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia
County of Albemarle
Lease No. ____
-4-
under this subsection (f) promptly after issuance of the Permits and Approvals.
Such Replacement Loading Dock shall be constructed in accordance with plans
and specifications approved jointly by the parties, in the exercise of their
reasonable discretion, and otherwise in accordance with subsections (d) and (e)
above. The parties expressly contemplate that construction of the Replacement
Loading Dock shall commence prior to the Commencement Date. In the event
County has elected to construct the Replacement Loading Dock, County shall (1)
diligently pursue such construction to completion, using best efforts to complete
construction within twelve (12) months of the date of issuance of the Permits and
Approvals, (2) have access to the Property (but not the interior of the Subleased
Premises) for such purpose, but University and County agree that such access
shall not constitute occupancy of the Subleased Premises or affect the
Commencement Date for purposes of this Sublease, and (3) undertake, at its sole
cost and expense, such temporary site improvements as University deems
necessary in the exercise of its reasonable discretion to maintain complete
vehicular access to the Property, including, without limitation, the Building.
6. QUIET ENJOYMENT. So long as County observes and keeps all the covenants,
agreements and conditions of this Sublease, University covenants that County shall have
quiet and peaceful use and enjoyment of the Subleased Premises throughout the Term of
this Sublease and any renewals or extensions thereof, subject, however, to the exceptions,
reservations and conditions of this Sublease.
7. PERSONAL PROPERTY. All personal property placed in or kept on the Subleased
Premises shall be at the sole risk of County or the owner of such personal property and
University shall have no liability for loss, damage or deterioration of same for any reason.
8. ACCEPTANCE OF CONDITION OF PREMISES. County covenants that it has
inspected the Subleased Premises and accepts the Subleased Premises “as is” without any
representations or warranties by University as to the condition or usefulness of the
Subleased Premises for any purpose.
9. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING. County shall not assign or transfer this
Sublease, nor sublet any part of the Subleased Premises, without the prior written consent
of University, which consent University may withhold in its sole discretion.
10. ACCESS BY UNIVERSITY. University and its representatives may enter the Subleased
Premises at any time to make emergency repairs, preserve the Subleased Premises or to
prevent or abate any nuisance, hazard, or unlawful conditions.
11. INDEMNIFICATION; INSURANCE. To the extent permitted by law, County shall
indemnify, defend and hold harmless University, and its agents and employe es, from all
liability, claims for damage, injury or loss of every kind and nature, whether relating to
person or property, arising on or within the Subleased Premises or incident to County’s
use of the Subleased Premises (including, without limitation, incident to County’s
emergency response from the Subleased Premises). Beginning on the Commencement
The Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia
County of Albemarle
Lease No. ____
-5-
Date and continuing during the Term of this Sublease and any renewals or extensions
thereof, County, at County’s expense, shall keep in force, with an insurance company
authorized to transact business in Virginia, and in a form acceptable to University, a
commercial general liability insurance policy. The insurance policy shall include
University (i.e. The Commonwealth of Virginia, and The Rector and Visitors of the
University of Virginia, its officers, employees, and agents) as an additional insured and
have the following minimum limits and coverage: $1,000,000 per occurrence and
$2,000,000 aggregate for bodily injury and property damage, to include coverage for
premises/operations, contractual, and personal injury. On or before the Commencement
Date, County shall deliver to University a certificate of insurance showing the same to be
in force and effect. The policy shall provide for notification to University in the event of
cancellation.
In the event that County fails to obtain and maintain the insurance required by this
section, University may, at its option, cause the required insurance to be issued and
maintained and County shall pay the premiums for such insurance as additional Rent.
12. COUNTY’S WAIVER. County agrees, to the extent not expressly prohibited by law,
that University, its agents, employees and servants shall not be liable, and County waives
all claims for damage to property, injury to person and damage to business sustained
during the term of this Sublease by County occurring in or about the Subleased Premises
or the Building of which the Subleased Premises forms a part or incident to County’s use
of the Subleased Premises (including, without limitation, incident to County’s emergency
response from the Subleased Premises), arising at any time and from any cause.
13. DAMAGE OR DESTRUCTION.
(a) If the Subleased Premises or the building of which the Subleased Premises forms
a part are damaged or destroyed by fire or other casualty, County shall notify
University immediately.
(b) If the Subleased Premises or the Building, or any portion thereof, are damaged or
destroyed by fire or other casualty and in the reasonable opinion of University,
after consultation with County, the Subleased Premises are thereby rendered unfit
for occupancy, either University or County shall have the right to terminate this
Sublease by notice to the other party within thirty (30) days after the fire or other
casualty. If this Sublease is so terminated, Rent shall abate as of the date of such
fire or other casualty.
(c) If this Sublease is not terminated pursuant to the provisions of Section 13(b), and
University elects, in its sole discretion, to repair and restore the Subleased
Premises to their former condition, there shall be a proportionate abatement of
Rent for the period during which the said repairs and restoration are being
completed for that portion of the Subleased Premises not substantially usable by
County.
The Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia
County of Albemarle
Lease No. ____
-6-
14. CONDEMNATION.
(a) University shall give immediate notice to County of any discussions, offers,
negotiations or proceedings with any party regarding condemnation or taking of
any portion of the Subleased Premises.
(b) If any portion of the Subleased Premises or any portion of the Property is taken by
eminent domain or sold to the holder of such power pursuant to a threatened
taking (exclusive of takings that, in the reasonable discretion of University, do not
materially adversely affect the use and enjoyment of the Subleased Premises by
County), this Sublease shall terminate effective as of the date of the taking. The
date of taking shall be the earlier of: (i) the date on which title vests in the
condemning entity, or (ii) the date on which the condemning entity takes
possession. In the event of a taking, County assigns to University any rights that
County may have in and to any portion of a condemnation award, but such an
assignment shall exclude any portion that may be due for, or attributed to,
County’s fixtures, moving expenses and allowances. If the taking does not
materially adversely affect the use and enjoyment of the Subleased Premises by
County, and so this Sublease is not terminated, Rent shall be equitably adjusted to
compensate County for any adverse affect of the taking.
15. KEYS. On the Commencement Date, County may install new locks or re-key existing
locks on the Subleased Premises; provided County shall deliver to University new keys to
the Subleased Premises. Upon termination of this Sublease, all keys shall be surrendered
to University.
16. MECHANICS’ AND MATERIALMEN’S LIENS. County shall not create, place, or
suffer the creation or filing of any mechanics’ or materialmen’s lien against the
Subleased Premises by reason of labor or materials provided for or at the request or order
of County, or of County’s agents or contractors. County shall discharge any such lien
within twenty (20) days after the date the same was filed.
17. MAINTENANCE, REPAIRS, UTILITIES AND OTHER COSTS. All costs relating
to the possession, operation and maintenance of the Subleased Premises shall be the
responsibility of County, subject to the following:
(a) County shall keep, repair and maintain, at County’s expense, all plumbing,
lighting, heating, ventilation, air-conditioning, overhead doors, electrical and
mechanical devices and appliances of every kind or nature located on or in the
Subleased Premises (whether located on or in the Subleased Premises by
University or County) in good working order and condition, and shall, if
necessary, make such alterations, additions, and/or modifications to the Subleased
Premises and all equipment, electrical and mechanical devices and appliances
thereon or serving same so as to comply at all times with all applicable federal,
state and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations pertaining to health, safety,
fire and public welfare.
The Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia
County of Albemarle
Lease No. ____
-7-
(b) Except as otherwise provided in this Sublease, University shall maintain in good
working order and condition the exterior of the Building, as well as utility
connections to the Building, including, without limitation, the Subleased
Premises. From time to time, but not more frequently than monthly, University
may invoice County for County’s pro-rata portion of expenses incurred by
University in the performance of its obligations under this subsection. University
and County acknowledge and agree that County occupies 21.5% of the square
footage of the Building, and such percentage shall be used to calculate County’s
pro-rata portion of such expenses. County shall pay any such invoice within
forty-five (45) days of receipt. To ensure timely payment of any such invoice,
within thirty (30) days of the Commencement Date, County shall fund a
maintenance account with a balance of Fifty Thousand and No/100 Dollars
($50,000.00) (the “Maintenance Account”). On each anniversary of the
Commencement Date, County shall fund such additional amounts as are required
to maintain a minimum balance of $50,000.00 in the Maintenance Account. The
Maintenance Account shall be maintained by County and shall be used by County
solely to fund its financial obligations under this subsection and for no other
purposes, without the prior, written consent of University. If University expects
annual maintenance expenses to exceed $50,000.00 in any one year, it shall
endeavor to provide written notice of such expenses to County.
(c) County shall pay directly to utility providers or, if a utility service is submetered
to University as additional Rent, all charges for utility services to the Subleased
Premises, including, but not limited to, service charges, connection and
disconnection charges, use charges and taxes. County shall provide such heating
as shall be sufficient to prevent freezing of pipes, plumbing and associated
equipment. No interruption in, or temporary stoppage of, any of the aforesaid
services caused by repairs, renewals, improvements, alterations, strikes, lockouts,
labor controversy, accidents, inability to obtain fuel or supplies, or other cause
beyond the control of University shall be deemed an eviction or disturbance of
County’s use and possession, or render University liable for damages, by
abatement of Rent or otherwise or relieve County from any obligation herein set
forth.
(d) County shall pay all charges and other levies of any nature against the Subleased
Premises and improvements thereon, whether ordinary or extraordinary, foreseen
or unforeseen, including, without limitation, all applicable real estate taxes and
any payments or use charges in lieu thereof, and assessments.
(e) Pursuant to that certain Agreement dated as of October 3, 1979, and recorded in
Deed Book 684, at page 619, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County, Virginia (the “Access Road Agreement”), an easement was
granted to Prime Lessor to use an access road adjacent to the Property (the
“Access Road”) which, in part, provides access from U.S. Route 250 to the
Subleased Premises. Pursuant to the Prime Lease, University enjoys the same
The Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia
County of Albemarle
Lease No. ____
-8-
rights as Prime Lessor to use the Access Road and is responsible for the
performance of Prime Lessor’s maintenance obligations under the Access Road
Agreement. University and County acknowledge and agree that they shall share
responsibility for such maintenance obligations, to include, without limitation,
paving, striping and snow removal, and the costs thereof for which University is
responsible under the Access Road Agreement and the Prime Lease. As of the
Commencement Date, County shall arrange s uch maintenance when and as
required, but upon written notice from University to County, from time to time,
University may change the party responsible for such arrangements. Upon
satisfactory completion of maintenance, the party responsible for such
arrangements shall pay any invoice therefor and forward such invoice, evidence
of payment and other supporting documentation to the other party to this Sublease
and such other parties as share responsibility for the costs of maintenance
pursuant to the Access Road Agreement or any other agreement. Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary contained in the Access Road Agreement, s uch other
party to this Sublease shall reimburse the party responsible for such arrangements
in an amount equal to one-half (1/2) of such invoice within forty-five (45) days of
receipt of such materials; provided, however, in the event parties other than
University and County contribute toward the costs of such maintenance (whether
pursuant to the Access Road Agreement or any other agreement), the
reimbursement obligation hereunder shall be reduced accordingly, such that each
party to this Sublease shall bear equally an amount equal to the difference
between (i) the total costs of such maintenance, less (ii) amounts contributed
toward such costs by parties other than University and County.
(f) County, at its sole cost and expense, shall install and maintain such traffic control
signals and other traffic control devices as are required from time to time by the
Virginia Department of Transportation or applicable governmental authorities of
Albemarle County, Virginia, to facilitate safe and efficient vehicular and
pedestrian access between the Property and U.S. Route 250, at the location of the
current access road. In the event any traffic control signal on U.S. Route 250 in
the vicinity of the Property, including, without limitation, any traffic control
signal installed pursuant to this subsection, is equipped with an emergency vehicle
traffic preemption system, County agrees to use best efforts to make such system
available for use by University vehicles in connection with ingress to and egress
from the Property by such vehicles for delivery purposes.
18. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION.
(a) County shall not engage in or allow any activity on the Subleased Premises
involving: (i) the handling of any toxic or hazardous substances, (ii) the discharge
of toxic or hazardous substances to the air, soil, surface water or groundwater, (iii)
the storage, treatment or disposal of any toxic or hazardous substances (for
purposes of this Sublease, “hazardous substance(s)” shall have the meaning of
“hazardous substance” set forth in 42 U.S.C. Section 9601(14), as amended, and
of “regulated substance” at 42 U.S.C. Section 6991(2), as amended, and shall
The Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia
County of Albemarle
Lease No. ____
-9-
further include “medical waste” and “infectious waste”), or (iv) any other
substances which may be the subject of liability pursuant to any environmental
law of the United States or the Commonwealth of Virginia, except as required in
connection with the Permitted Use in strict compliance with applicable federal,
state and local laws and regulations.
(b) To the extent permitted by law, County shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless
University from any and all claims, suits, judgments, damages, fines, penalties,
liability, costs and expenses (including reasonable fees for costs and expenses for
any required attorneys, consultants and experts) resulting or arising from (i) the
discovery of any toxic or hazardous substance on, in or arising from, or
contamination of, the Subleased Premises, or (ii) the violation of any
environmental law, which is a result of any activity of County, its agents,
employees, contractors or repairmen.
19. PRIME LEASE.
(a) County acknowledges that it has received and reviewed the Prime Lease.
University represents and warrants to County that the Prime Lease attached as
Exhibit D is a true and complete copy of the Prime Lease. County’s rights
pursuant to this Sublease are subject and subordinate at all times to the Prime
Lease and to all of the terms, covenants, and agreements of the Prime Lease.
County shall not do or permit anything to be done in, or in connection with
County’s use or occupancy of, the Subleased Premises, which would violate any
of the terms, covenants, or agreements of the Prime Lease.
(b) University shall have the same rights against County with respect to this Sublease
as the “Landlord” has against the “Tenant,” pursuant to the Prime Lease. County
covenants that it will secure the approval of University for all of its actions for
which University would be required to secure approval as “Tenant” pursuant to
the Prime Lease. University may enforce directly against County any of the rights
and remedies granted to the Prime Lessor pursuant to the Prime Lease. Nothing
in this Sublease shall be construed or interpreted to grant any greater rights than
University has received as “Tenant” from the Prime Lessor pursuant to the Prime
Lease.
20. EVENTS OF DEFAULT; UNIVERSITY’S REMEDIES UPON DEFAULT.
(a) The following events shall be deemed to be an event of default (“Event of
Default”) by County under this Sublease:
(i) The failure of County to pay when due any installment of Rent or any
other payment required to be made by County under this Sublease and the
failure to cure such default within ten (10) days after written notice thereof
to County.
The Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia
County of Albemarle
Lease No. ____
-10-
(ii) The failure of County to comply with any material term, provision,
promise or covenant of this Sublease (other than the payment of Rent or
any other payment required to be made by County hereunder) and the
failure to cure such default within thirty (30) days after written notice
thereof to County.
(b) If University gives written notice to County of a default pursuant to Section 24 of
this Sublease and County does not cure such default within the specified period
following the notification, then at the expiration of said period, this Sublease shall
automatically terminate as completely as if the deadline for curing the default
were the date specified as the Termination Date in this Sublease, and County shall
then surrender the Subleased Premises to University. If this Sublease shall be so
terminated, University may, at its option, without formal demand or notice of any
kind, re-enter the Subleased Premises by any unlawful detainer action or by any
other means and remove County, or any other person who may be occupying the
Subleased Premises, from the Subleased Premises without being liable for any
damages therefor. Upon University’s exercise of such termination, County shall
pay University’s costs and expenses incurred in fulfilling County’s obligations
under this Sublease, including, without limitation, University’s reasonable
attorney fees and court costs, and this provision shall survive termination of this
Sublease.
(c) The failure of University to insist upon the strict performance of any covenant,
agreement, term or condition of this Sublease or to exercise any permitted right or
remedy upon an Event of Default, and/or acceptance of payment of full or partial
Rent or other payment required to be made by County during the continuance of
any such Event of Default shall not constitute a waiver of such Event of Default
or of any covenant, agreement, term or condition of this Sublease.
(d) If County fails to make any payment or perform any act required by County under
this Sublease, University may (but shall be under no obligation to) make such
payment or perform such act. All amounts so paid by University and all costs,
fees and expenses incurred by University regarding such payment or performance
shall be paid by County as additional Rent.
(g) No right or remedy herein conferred upon or reserved to University shall be
exclusive of any other right or remedy, and every right and remedy shall be
cumulative and in addition to any other right or remedy given hereunder or now
or hereafter existing at law.
21. TERMINATION OF SUBLEASE.
(a) This Sublease may be terminated by County at any time on or before March 31,
2012. Thereafter, County may terminate this Sublease at any time during the
Term upon at least ninety (90) days written notice to University.
The Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia
County of Albemarle
Lease No. ____
-11-
(b) This Sublease may be terminated by University effective on a date fifteen (15)
years after the Commencement Date, or thereafter, provided University provides
written notice of such termination to County at least five (5) years prior to the
effective date of termination. In the event this Sublease is terminated by
University pursuant to this subsection, prior to the expiration of the Term of this
Sublease, University shall reimburse County for unamortized costs of the
Improvements, including (for purposes of this subsection) the Replacement
Loading Dock. For purposes of this subsection, the costs of the Improvements
(which shall be furnished by County to University, with detail to University’s
reasonable satisfaction, within thirty (30) days of completion) shall be amortized,
without interest, on a straight-line basis over thirty (30) years.
(c) Agencies of the Commonwealth of Virginia cannot expend funds unless
appropriated by the Virginia General Assembly and may not obligate a future
session of the Virginia General Assembly. Therefore, notwithstanding any
provision in this Sublease to the contrary, if any session of the Virginia General
Assembly fails to appropriate funds sufficient for the performance by University
of its obligations under this Sublease or the federal government fails to
appropriate or allocate funds sufficient for such performance, this Sublease and all
obligations hereunder shall automatically terminate upon depletion of the then
currently appropriated or allocated funds.
(d) Notwithstanding any provision in this Sublease to the contrary, if, by operation of
law, University shall cease to exist or its powers and authority are limited so as
not to permit it to lease the Subleased Premises, then this Sublease and all
obligations of University hereunder shall terminate.
(e) At the termination of this Sublease, County shall deliver peacefully the Subleased
Premises in as good order and repair as the same were on the Commencement
Date, together with the Improvements, reasonable wear and tear excepted.
22. RIGHTS TO USE OF OTHER UNIVERSITY PROPERTY. Pursuant to that certain
Ground Lease Agreement dated October 3, 1997, by and between University, and the
City of Charlottesville, Virginia (the “City”) and County (the “Ground Lease”), City has
constructed a temporary fire station and related improvements on a portion of the
Premises (as defined in the Ground Lease). City has advised University it intends to
construct a new fire station at a location on Fontaine Avenue. Once City completes such
construction and the new fire station is operational, County will vacate and remise its
interest in the portion of the Premises shown on Exhibit E attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference (the “Remised Premises”), and, notwithstanding
anything to the contrary contained in the Ground Lease, remove promptly from such
portion the temporary fire station and related improvements. From the effective date of
this Sublease and notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Ground
Lease, County shall refrain from the further construction of Improvements or Alterations
(as such terms are defined in the Ground Lease) on the Remised Premises. Nor shall
County (whether in its own right, as a member of the Charlottesville-UVA-Albemarle
The Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia
County of Albemarle
Lease No. ____
-12-
County Emergency Communications Center, or in any other capacity) have the right to
establish a fire station or other emergency response facility on any other property owned,
leased or controlled by University. County agrees to execute such amendments to the
Ground Lease as are necessary to effect the terms of this section 22, and to use its best
efforts to secure the execution of such amendments by City.
23. BINDING EFFECT; AMENDMENTS. The covenants, agreements, and rights
contained in this Sublease shall bind and inure to the respective heirs, personal
representatives, successors and assigns of County and University. This Sublease
constitutes the entire, full and complete understanding and agreement between County
and University. Notwithstanding the foregoing, from time to time University and County
may enter into further agreements to permit and coordinate additional uses of portions of
the Property other than the Subleased Premises (without any acknowledgement by
University of any right of County to use such other portions of the Property, except as
expressly provided in this Sublease). All representations, statements, warranties,
covenants, promises or agreements previously made or given by either party to the other
are expressly merged into this Sublease and shall be null, void and without legal effect.
Neither party, nor any agent of either party, has any authority to alter, amend or modify
any of the terms of this Sublease, unless the amendment is in writing and executed by all
parties to this Sublease with the same formality as this Sublease. This Sublease and any
amendments hereto shall not be effective or binding unless and until signed by all parties.
24. NOTICES.
(a) All notices to County required or permitted under this Sublease shall be given by
forwarding such notice by certified U.S. mail, postage prepaid, return receipt
requested, by commercial overnight courier service, or by hand delivery with
signed receipts, addressed to:
County of Albemarle, Virginia
County Executive
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
(b) All notices to University required or permitted under this Sublease shall be given
by forwarding such notice by certified U.S. mail, postage prepaid, return receipt
requested, by commercial overnight courier service, or by hand delivery with
signed receipts, addressed to:
Lease Administrator
Space and Real Estate Management
P.O. Box 400884
575 Alderman Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
The Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia
County of Albemarle
Lease No. ____
-13-
(c) Where a notice is sent as required by this Sublease, such notice shall be deemed to
have been given (i) three (3) days after the date of mailing if sent by certified U.S.
mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, (ii) the date of delivery if sent by a
nationally recognized overnight courier service, or (iii) the date of receipt if sent
by hand delivery with signed receipts. Each party to this Sublease shall notify the
other party of any new address at which to mail notices, which notice shall be
given in the manner provided above, and unless and until such notice of a new
address is given, notices to a party hereto shall be sufficient if mailed to such
party’s address as specified in Section 24(a) or Section 24(b), as appropriate.
(d) Where, under the terms of this Sublease, a notice is required or permitted to be
sent by certified U.S. mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, and such
notice is not sent in such manner, the notice shall be effective if actually received
by the party, or its appointed agent, to whom the notice is addressed.
25. BROKERS. Each party hereto hereby represents and warrants to the other that, in
connection with the leasing of the Subleased Premises hereunder, the party so
representing and warranting has not dealt with any real estate broker, agent or finder.
26. HEADINGS. The heading of the sections of this Sublease are inserted for convenience
only and do not alter or amend the provisions that follow such headings.
27. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS. This Sublease is subject to the following terms,
conditions, modifications, additions and/or deletions provided in the following designated
attachments, exhibits and riders:
Exhibit A—Property
Exhibit B—Subleased Premises
Exhibit C—Certificate of Commencement Date
Exhibit D—Prime Lease
Exhibit E—Remised Premises
[THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
SIGNATURES FOLLOW]
The Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia
County of Albemarle
Lease No. ____
-14-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have affixed their signatures and seals.
SUBLANDLORD: THE RECTOR AND VISITORS OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
By:
Leonard W. Sandridge
Executive Vice President and
Chief Operating Officer
SUBTENANT: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By:
Name:
Title:
The Prime Lessor joins in this Deed of Sublease for the sole purpose of affirming its
assent thereto.
PRIME LESSOR: KIRTLEY FAMILY HOLDINGS, LLC
By:
Name:
Title:
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY/COUNTY OF _________________, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ______, 2010,
by Stephen A. Kimata, acting in his capacity as Assistant Vice President for Finance and
University Comptroller of The Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, an educational
institution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on behalf of the agency.
My commission expires: ____________________
Registration number: ____________________
Notary Public
The Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia
County of Albemarle
Lease No. ____
-15-
STATE OF VIRGINIA___________________
CITY/COUNTY OF _________________, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ______, 2010,
by _______________________ acting in his/her capacity as _________________ (Title) of
County of Albemarle, Virginia, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on
behalf of the county.
My commission expires: ____________________
Registration number: ____________________
Notary Public
STATE OF VIRGINIA___________________
CITY/COUNTY OF _________________, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ______, 2010,
by _______________________ acting in his/her capacity as _________________ (Title) of
Kirtley Family Holdings, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, on behalf of the company.
My commission expires: ____________________
Registration number: ____________________
Notary Public
Reviewed and Approved
as to Legal Form and Sufficiency:
By: __________________________________
Steven L. Rosenberg
Associate General Counsel and
Special Assistant Attorney General
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Parcel Info
Parcels
Ivy Fire Station Location
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources February 25, 2011
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
131 ft
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
2011 Prisoner Re-Entry Summit
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request from the Reentry Steering Committee to
Underwrite the 2011 Prisoner Re-Entry Summit
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott and Davis, and Ms. Ralston
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
March 9, 2011
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Included in the FY 2011 Adopted Budgets for the City of Charlottesville and County of Albemarle are funding
allocations totaling $126,385 ($79,131/City & $47,254/County) for the Offender Aid & Restoration (OAR) Reentry
Services Program.
This program has been in existence for over forty (40) years and represents a collaborative effort between OAR, local
governments and a host of community partners aimed at preparing inmates for successful transition into their
communities upon release from incarceration. It improves opportunities for their treatment, employment and housing
while on probation, parole, or post-release supervision. Services offered through this program address the risk areas
that lead to reoffending and include educational and/or vocational training, financial counseling, basic interviewing and
employment skills training and counseling services to address dysfunctional family/partner relationships.
DISCUSSION:
In July of 2003 the National Governors Association (NGA) Center for Best Practices announced that Virginia was one
of seven states selected to participate in its Prisoner Reentry Policy Academy. Thr ough the Academy, NGA assisted
state teams in developing effective prisoner reentry strategies designed to reduce costly recidivism rates by improving
pre-and post-release services. Charlottesville and Albemarle were selected in Virginia’s program because of OAR’s
successful track record with the Reentry Services Program in this community, because both the County’s and the
City’s Departments of Social Services were seen as progressive and service oriented, and because the Albemarle
Charlottesville Regional Jail (ACRJ) was willing to participate in this program. The Academy set forth a requirement
that the local Departments of Social Services take the lead in establishing a local Reentry Council. The Reentry
Council, comprised of community leaders in the criminal justice, health, mental health, business, employment, social
service and educational sectors, meet at least twice a year to advise, advocate and eliminate barriers to service
integration. The steering committee for the initiative has met on an ongoing basis since 2007 to ensure effective
collaboration for the program, to oversee the work of the committees and to report to the Council. This collaboration
has resulted in many accomplishments that have improved community response to the challen ges faced by men and
women who are reentering society after their release from the ACRJ.
Due to the success of the Prisoner Reentry effort in this region, as well as Governor McDonnell’s emphasis on this
effort, the Reentry Council believes that now is an opportune time to draw the community’s attention to this important
issue. To this end, the Council is planning to hold a regional summit to promote awareness, provide education and
training, and facilitate improved coordination of reentry services to prisoners and ex-offenders in the community.
City Council has appropriated $7,500 to sponsor the summit, and the Reentry Steering Committee requests that the
County allocate $3,000 to assist with the cost of the summit. If the Board dedicates resources to this initiative, its funding
would be used to compensate speakers who will be traveling from outside of the State to participate in the summit.
BUDGET IMPACT:
If the Board wishes to provide funding for this request, it will be necessary to appropriate $3,000.00 from the 2011
Board Reserve fund. The County’s FY11 adopted budget includes a Board reserve fund of $210,372. On February 2,
2011, the Board approved the use of $3,000 to support legislative services offered by VACO during the 20 11 session
of the General Assembly, bringing the balance of the fund to $207,372.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the appropriation of $3,000 from the FY2011 Board Reserve fund to fund
the 2011 Prisoner Reentry Summit to be held in April 2011.
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Fiscal Year 2011 County of Albemarle & State
Health Department Local Government Agreement
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approve FY11 Agreement with the State Board of
Health for the provision of public health services
through the Thomas Jefferson Health District
(TJHD)
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, and Davis
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
March 9, 2011
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Virginia Code § 32.1-31 allows local governing bodies to enter into contracts with the State Board of Health for the
operation of local health departments. It also requires that these contracts specify the services to be provided in
addition to those required by law and contain such other provisions as the State Board and the governing body may
agree on. The County’s contract specifies both the scope and costs for the services to be provided locally.
DISCUSSION:
The Thomas Jefferson Health District (TJHD), in cooperation with the Virginia Department of Health, is the primary
provider of public health services and programs for Albemarle County and surrounding localities. TJHD offers
specific health programs targeted at preventing and controlling infectious diseases as well as initiatives aimed at
improving the health of low income women, children and infants. In addition, the Health District provides an
inspection and monitoring program to ensure the safety of food and private well/septic systems funded solely by the
County and other neighboring jurisdictions. Non-local funding for these TJHD programs is provided by the
Commonwealth of Virginia, grants and income from local fees charged to individual clients. The localities served by
TJHD provide matching local funds for the allocations made by the state and, as noted above, allocate resources
for Local-Only Programs such as food safety. The Virginia Department of Health requires that local governments
enter into agreements stipulating the scope of health services to be provided by the TJHD to citizens in their
respective jurisdictions. This agreement is provided in “Attachment A” and has been reviewed and approved as to
form by the County Attorney’s Office. Attachment B is an attachment to the Agreement, and sets forth services to
be provided by the TJHD.
Subsequent to TJHD submitting its FY11 funding request to the County in the fall of 2009, several unexpected
increases in its operating budget have occurred that are outside of its control and which have impacted its overall
budget, including:
a. The General Assembly approved a 3% bonus for all of the State’s classified employees. This resulted in an
unbudgeted payment of $60,925.95 in November to TJHD staff. The state allocated $24,020.82 towards
this; however, the remainder was unfunded.
b. The Virginia Information Technologies Agency (VITA) increased its fee structure for TJHD’s information
technology services, which resulted in an increase in costs to the TJHD for VITA’s services in the amount of
$54,115.52
c. The Virginia Department of General Services now manages TJHD’s lease and imposed a 3% fee on
TJHD’s rent, which resulted in an increase in costs to the TJHD for rent in the amount of $1,650.
The above expenditure changes have been partially offset by the General Assembly authorizing increased state
fees for environmental health services, including restaurant and septic system permits. It is expected that this
increase in revenue will compensate for the lost state funding; however, not for the lost local-match funding. The net
result of the
AGENDA TITLE: Fiscal Year 2011 County of Albemarle & State
Health Department Local Government Agreement
March 9, 2011
Page 2
fee increases and unexpected expenditure changes yields a decrease of $24,791 in state assistance ($624,855).
This shift in state funding technically decreases the County’s obligation for state -shared services by $20,431;
however, TJHD continues to need these funds to sustain its current food safety program, an important local-only
funded initiative.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The County’s original FY11 appropriation for the Thomas Jefferson Health District totaled $551,444, of which
$531,676 represented the County’s required match for Cooperative State and Local Matched Programs. The
balance of funds from the County ($19,768) was allocated to the Local-Only (Unmatched) food inspection program
and the City/County Public Health initiative. Due to the state funding reductions noted above, the County’s required
local match for Cooperative State & Local Matched programs decreased by $20,431. The TJHD is requesting that
the County reallocate this ($20,431) to its food program to avoid additional reductions in services to County citizens.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on the vital nature of the services provided by the TJHD, staff recommends that the Board approve the Fiscal
Year 2011 County of Albemarle & State Health Department Local Government Agreement (Attachment A) and that
it authorize the County Executive to execute that Agreement. Staff further recommends that the Board reallocate
$20,431 previously designated as local matching funds to the TJHD’s food safety program ; however, the TJHD’s
total appropriation shall remain $551,444 for FY11.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Health Department Agreement for FY11
B – Attachment to Agreement (services to be provided)
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Attachment A
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
STATEMENT OF AGREEMENT WITH the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle
Under this agreement, which is created in satisfaction of the requirements of 32.1-31 of the Code
of Virginia (1950), as amended, the Virginia Department of Health, over the course of one fiscal year, will
pay an amount not to exceed $624,855, from the state general fund to support the cooperative budget in
accordance with appropriations by the General Assembly, and in like time frame, the Board of
Supervisors of Albemarle County will provide by appropriation and in equal quarterly payments a sum of
$551,444. These joint funds will be distributed in timely installments, as services are rendered in the
operation of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Health Department, which shall perform public health services
to the Commonwealth as indicated in Attachment A(1.), and will perform services required by local
ordinances as indicated in Attachment A(2.). Payments from the local government are due on the third
Monday of each fiscal quarter.
The term of this agreement begins July 1, 2010. This agreement will be automatically extended
on a state fiscal year to year renewal basis under the terms and conditions of the original agreement unless
written notice of termination is provided by either party. Such written notice shall be given at least 60 days
prior to the beginning of the fiscal year in which the termination is to be effective. Any increase or decrease
in funding allocation shall be made by an amendment to this agreement.
The parties agree that:
1. Under this agreement, as set forth in paragraphs A, B, C, and D below, the
Commonwealth of Virginia and the Virginia Department of Health shall be responsible
for providing liability insurance coverage and will provide legal defense for state
employees of the local health department for acts or occurrences arising from
performance of activities conducted pursuant to state statutes and regulations.
A. The responsibility of the Commonwealth and the Virginia Department of Health
to provide liability insurance coverage shall be limited to and governed by the
Self-Insured General Liability Plan for the Commonwealth of Virginia,
established under 2.2-1837 of the Code of Virginia. Such insurance coverage
shall extend to the services specified in Attachments A(1.) and A(2.), unless the
locality has opted to provide coverage for the employee under the Public
Officials Liability Self-Insurance Plan, established under 2.2-1839 of the Code
or under a policy procured by the locality.
B. The Commonwealth and the Virginia Department of Health will be responsible
for providing legal defense for those acts or occurrences arising from the
performance of those services listed in Attachment A(1 .), conducted in the
performance of this contract, as provided for under the Code of Virginia and as
provided for under the terms and conditions of the Self-Insured General
Liability Plan for the Commonwealth of Virginia.
LGA03.doc August 2003
C. Services listed in Attachment A(2.), any services performed pursuant to a local
ordinance, and any services authorized solely by Title 15.2 of the Code of
Virginia, when performed by a state employee, are herewith expressly excepted
from any requirements of legal defense or representation by the Attorney
General or the Commonwealth. For purposes of assuring the eligibility of a state
employee performing such services for liability coverage under the Self -Insured
General Liability Plan of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Attorney General
has approved, pursuant to 2.2-507 of the Code of Virginia and the Self-Insured
General Liability Plan of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the legal
representation of said employee by the city or county attorney, and the Board of
Supervisors of Albemarle County hereby expressly agrees to provide the legal
defense or representation at its sole expense in such cases by its local attorney.
D. In no event shall the Commonwealth or the Virginia Department of Health be
responsible for providing legal defense or insurance coverage for local
government employees.
2. Title to equipment purchased with funds appropriated by the local government and
transferred to the state, either as match for state dollars or as a purchase under
appropriated funds expressly allocated to support the activities of the local health
department, will be retained by the Commonwealth and will be entered into the Virginia
Fixed Asset Accounting and Control System. Local appropriations for equipment to be
locally owned and controlled should not be remitted to the Commonwealth, and the local
government's procurement procedures shall apply in the purchase. The locality assumes
the responsibility to maintain the equipment and all records thereon.
3. Amendments to or modifications of this contract must be agreed to in writing and signed
by both parties.
_____________________________
State Health Commissioner Local authorizing officer signature
Virginia Department of Health
______________________________
Authorizing officer printed name
______________________________
Authorizing officer title
____________________________ ______________________________
Date Date
Approved as to form by the Office of Attorney General on April 26, 2002.
Attachments: Local Government Agreement, Attachment A(1.)
Local Government Agreement, Attachment A(2.)
LGA04.doc July 2003
Revised 3/23/09 1
Attachment B
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGREEMENT, ATTACHMENT A(1.)
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES
BASIC PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES TO BE ASSURED BY LOCAL HEALTH DEPARTMENTS
INCOME LEVEL A IS DEFINED BY THE BOARD OF HEALTH TO BE MEDICALLY INDIGENT (32.1-11)
For Each Service Provided, Check Block for Highest Income Level Served
COMMUNICABLE DISEASE SERVICES
Income
A only
Defined by
Federal
Regulations
All
(specify income level if
not ALL)
Immunizations
As provided for in 32.1-46
X
Sexually transmitted disease screening, diagnosis,
treatment, and surveillance
32.1-57
X
Surveillance and investigation of reportable disease
32.1-35 and 32.1-39
X
HIV/AIDS surveillance, investigation, and
seroprevalence survey
32.1-36, 32.1-36.1, 32.1-39
X
Tuberculosis control screening,
diagnosis, treatment, and surveillance
32.1-49 and 32.1-54
X
Refugee health screening
X
CHILD HEALTH SERVICES
Income
A only
Defined by
Federal
Regulations
All
Children Specialty Services; diagnosis,
treatment, follow-up, and parent teaching
32.1-77, 32.1-89 and 32.1-90
X
Screening for genetic traits and inborn errors
of metabolism, and provision of dietary
supplements
32.1-65 and 32.1-69
X
Well child care up to age (enter year)
Board of Health
X
WIC
Federal grant requirement
X
EPSDT
DMAS MOA
X
Blood lead level testing
CDC
X
Community Education
32.1-11.3 and 32.1-23
X
Pre-school Physicals for school entry
22.1-270
X
Disabled disability Waiver Screenings
DMAS MOA
X
Services for Children with Special health care needs
Title V, Social Security Act
X
Child restraints in motor vehicles
46.2-1095, 46.2-1097
E
Babycare
DMAS MOA – Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, Nelson only
X
Revised 3/23/09 2
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGREEMENT, ATTACHMENT A(1.)
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES
BASIC PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES TO BE ASSURED BY LOCAL HEALTH DEPARTMENTS
INCOME LEVEL A IS DEFINED BY THE BOARD OF HEALTH TO BE MEDICALLY INDIGENT (32.1-11)
For Each Service Provided, Check Block for Highest Income Level Served
MATERNAL HEALTH SERVICES
Income
A only
Defined by
Federal
Regulations
All
Prenatal and post partum care for low
risk and intermediate risk women
32.1-77, Title V, Social Security Act
Louisa - G
Babycare Services
DMAS MOA
X
WIC
Federal grant requirement
X
FAMILY PLANING SERVICES
Income
A only
Defined by
Federal
Regulations
All
Clinic services including drugs and
Contraceptive supplies
Family Planning Population Research Act of 1970,
Title X
X
Pregnancy testing and counseling
Family Planning Population Research Act of 1970,
Title X
X
Revised 3/23/09 3
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGREEMENT, ATTACHMENT A(1.)
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
BASIC PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES TO BE ASSURED BY LOCAL HEALTH DEPARTMENTS
The following services performed in accordance with the provisions of the
Code of Virginia, the regulation of the Board of Health and/or VDH
agreements with other state or federal agencies.
Ice cream/frozen desserts
MOA Agriculture
X
Investigation of communicable diseases
32.1-35 and 32.1-39
X
Marinas
32.1-246
X
Migrant labor camps
32.1-203
X
Milk
3.1-530.4
X
Alternative discharging sewage systems
32.1-163
X
On-site sewage disposal
32.1-163
X
Rabies control
3.2-6500 et seq.
X
Restaurants/eating establishments
35.1.14
X
Sanitary surveys
X
Single home sewage discharge
32.1-164
X
Hotels/Motels
35.1.13
X
Water supply sanitation
X
Wells
32.1-176.2
X
Homes for adults
DSS MOA
X
Juvenile Justice Institutions
35.1-23
X
Jail Inspections
DOC MOA
X
Daycare centers
DSS MOA
X
Radon
32.1-229
X
Summer camps/ Campgrounds
35.1.16-17
X
Revised 3/23/09 4
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGREEMENT, ATTACHMENT A(1.)
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES
OTHER PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES
BASIC PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES TO BE ASSURED BY LOCAL HEALTH DEPARTMENTS
The following services performed in accordance with the provisions
of the Code of Virginia, the regulations of the Board of Health and/or
the policies and procedures of the State Department of Health
Medicaid Nursing Home Screening
DMAS MOA
X
Comprehensive Services Act
2.1-746, 2.1-751, 2.1-752, 2.1-753, 2.1-754, 2.1-747
X
Vital Records (Death Certificates)
32.1-254-255, 272
X
Revised 3/23/09 5
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGREEMENT, ATTACHMENT A(1.)
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES
OPTIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES
For Each Service Provided, Check Block for Highest Income Level Served
COMMUNICABLE DISEASE SERVICES
Income
A only
Defined by
Federal
Regulations
All
Foreign Travel Immunizations
X
CHILD HEALTH SERVICES
School health services
Sick child care
Other:
MATERNAL HEALTH SERVICES
Income
A only
Defined by
Federal
Regulations
All
Funds for deliveries
Funds for special tests and drugs
Diagnosis, treatment, and referral for
gynecological problems
FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES
Income
A only
Defined by
Federal
Regulations
All
Other:
Revised 3/23/09 6
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGREEMENT, ATTACHMENT A(1.)
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES
OPTIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES
For Each Service Provided, Check Block for Highest Income Level Served
GENERAL MEDICAL SERVICES
Income
A only
Defined by
Federal
Regulations
All
Activities of Daily Living
Community Education
X
General Clinic Services
Home Health Services (skilled nursing and
therapy
Outreach
Occupational health services
Personal care
Pharmacy services
Hypertension screening, referral, and
counseling
Respite care services
Other:
SPECIALTY CLINIC SERVICES (List)
Income
A only
Defined by
Federal
Regulations
All
DENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
Income
A only
Defined by
Federal
Regulations
All
Preventive Clinic Services – Children
Preventive Clinic Services - Adults
Restorative Clinic Services
Community Education
Other: Fluoride varnish for pre-school
children – Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, Nelson
E
Revised 3/23/09 7
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGREEMENT, ATTACHMENT A(2.)
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDED
UNDER LOCAL ORDINANCE
Neither the Code of Virginia nor
Regulations of the Board of Health
requires the following services to
be provided by the local health
department
Accident Prevention
Air Pollution
Bird Control
Employee Physicals
General Environmental
Housing - BOCA & local building
codes
Insect control
Noise
Plumbing
Radiological Health
Rodent Control
Solid Waste
Swimming facilities
Weeds
Smoking Ordinances
Other environmental services (identify)
Revised 3/23/09
8
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGREEMENT, ATTACHMENT A(2.)
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDED UNDER
LOCAL ORDINANCES OR CONTRACT WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
OPTIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES
For Each Service Provided, Check Block for Highest Income Level Served
Income
A only
Defined by
Federal
Regulations
All
Employee physicals
Primary care for inmates in local
jails or correctional institutions
Other medical services (List)
Other (please list)
Preventive dental services for children
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
February 28, 2011
Stephen Waller, AICP
536 Pantops Center - PMB #320
Charlottesville, VA 22911
RE: SP201000020 CenturyLink - Verizon Wireless Tier III PWSF
TMP 06100-00-00-129C0
Dear Mr. Waller:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 8, 2011, by a vote of 7:0,
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
Special Use Permit [SP2008-12] Condition Modification
1. Deletion of provision [3] that only flush mounted antennas be permitted [see below].
2. Deletion of part of provision [4(b)] [see below].
3. Deletion of part of provision [4(c)] [see below].
4. Deletion of part of provision [4(d)] [see below].
5. Deletion of part of provision [8] [see below].
6. Deletion of provision [10] [see below].
1. The tower shall not be increased in height;
2. All antennae, dishes and their replacements attached to the tower shall be used for personal
wireless service providers;
3. Additional and replacement antenna arrays may be attached only as follows:
a. Omni-directional or whip antennas shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height or seven (7)
inches in diameter, and shall be of a color that matches the tower;
b. Directional or panel antennas shall not exceed seven (7) feet in height or two (2) feet in
width, and shall be of a color that matches the tower;
c. Only flush mounted antennas shall be permitted; no new antennas shall project from the
structure beyond the minimum required by the mounting equipment, and in no case shall
an antenna project more than twelve (12) inches from the existing structure. The
replacement of omni-directional, whip, directional or panel antennas in existing antenna
arrays shall be subject to this condition;
d. Existing arrays of directional and panel antennas that are mounted with brackets that
separate them by more than (12) inches from the structure may remain. Provided,
however that if any of these arrays are replaced at any time, they shall be flush-mounted
as provided in condition 3c. This condition shall not pertain to the maintenance and/or
replacement of a single panel antenna that malfunctions or is in need of repair.
4. Not more than six (6) satellite or microwave dishes may be attached to the tower at one time, and
only as follows.
a. The existing six (6) foot diameter grid dish that is subject to this request may be replaced
by the specified six (6) foot diameter High Performance dish at a height that is not more
than 95.5 feet;
b. Other existing satellite and microwave dishes may be replaced on the tower by the same
type of dish, provided that the diameter of the replacement dish does not exceed the
diameter of the dish being removed, and the color of the replacement dish matches the
tower. and the mounting height does not exceed that of the dish being replaced;
c. Other existing satellite and microwave dishes may be replaced on the tower by a different
type of dish if the mounting height is not more than 1 foot above that of the dish
being removed. The lowest microwave dish located at a height of 46 feet above
ground level can be replaced and mounted at not more than twen ty nine (29) feet
above its current location on the tower. no less than twenty (20) feet below that of the
dish being removed The diameter of the replacement dish does not exceed that of the
dish being removed, and the color of the replacement dish matches the tower;
d. Other existing satellite and microwave dishes may be replaced by a different type of dish
if the proposed mounting height of the replacement dish does not satisfy the height
requirements of condition 4c with the written approval of the Zoning Administrator. This
approval shall only be granted after the submission of a microwave path survey indicating
that the proposed replacement dish will be mounted at the lowest possible height that
allows the system to function. In such a case, the path survey shall demonstrate the
reason(s) why the proposed height is the lowest possible height. but in no case shall the
replacement be higher than the dish it is replacing;
e. All replacement satellite or microwave dishes shall be mounted as close to the face of the
pole as structurally and mechanically possible and, in no case, shall the distance between
the back of the dish and the face of the pole be greater than eighteen (18) inches; and
f. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for replacing a dish, the applicant shall provide
engineered drawings demonstrating the dimensions of the existing dish to be removed
and its replacement dish, and additional information demonstrating the mounting distance
between the pole and the dish to the Department of Building Code and Zoning Services.
5. The current owner and any subsequent owners shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator
once (1) per year, by not later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the
tower and that each user is a personal wireless communications service provider;
6. The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12c of the Zoning Ordinance; and
7. The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its
use for personal wireless communications services purposes is discontinued. If the Zoning
Administrator determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that the facility will be
removed as required, the permittee shall furnish to the Zoning Administrator a certified check, a
bond with surety satisfactory to the County, or a letter of credit satisfactory to the County, in an
amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type of surety
guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney.
8. All work shall be done in general accord with what is described in the applicant's request and site
construction plans, entitled “Collocate Monopole Tower”, with an issued elevation view
drawing submittal date of 10/15/2010 “Rio Road, Embarq Property”, with a final zoning drawing
submittal date of 3/10/2008;
9. The following shall be submitted to the agent after installation of the antenna and microwave
dishes is completed and prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy: (i) certification by a
registered surveyor stating the height of the antenna and microwave dishes, measured both in
feet above ground level and in elevation above mean sea level, using the benchmarks or
reference datum identified
10. The applicant shall provide landscaping along Rio Road East generally as shown on the
Landscape Plan by J. Thomas Dalton sealed 5-21-08, with a final landscaping plan to be
administratively approved by staff.
The Planning Commission approved three (3) modifications from the following sections of the Zoning
Ordinance as outlined in the staff report. The modifications do not require Board approval.
Zoning Ordinance Modifications
1. Subsection 5.1.40(c)(3) Flush mounting requirement
2. Section 5.1.40 (c)(4)- Requirement for a tree conservation plan to be submitted prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
3. Section 5.1.40 (c)(5)- The installation, operation, and maintenance of the facility to be conducted
in accordance with the tree conservation plan.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on March 9, 2011.
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,
Megan Yaniglos
Senior Planner
Current Development Division
View staff report and attachments
View PC minutes
Return to agenda
1
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP 2010-20 Century Link- Verizon
Wireless Tier III PWSF
Staff: Gerald Gatobu, Margaret Maliszewski
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
February 8th , 2011
Board of Supervisors Hearing:
TBD 2011
Owners: Central Telephone Co of VA Applicant: Central Telephone Co of VA
Acreage: 1.366
(Lease Area: 800 square feet)
Rezone from: Not applicable
Special Use Permit for: 23.2.2 [15] Special Use
Permit, which allows for Tier III personal wireless
service facilities in the CO Zoning District.
TMP: Tax Map 61, Parcel 129C
Location: South side of Rio Road East [State Route
631], approximately 1/8 mile east of the intersection with
Route 29 North, and adjacent to the Fashion Square
Mall.
By-right use: CO, Commercial Office; and EC,
Entrance Corridor Zoning; Property also has a number
of existing Special Use Permits for the location of
additional personal wireless facilities.
Magisterial District: Rio Proffers/Conditions: Yes
Requested # of Dwelling Units/Lots: N/A DA - X RA -
Proposal: Special Use Permit amendment to
replace three (3) existing Alltel microwave dishes
and six (6) existing Alltel antennas with new
antennas and dishes at various heights on an
existing 250 foot tower.
Comp. Plan Designation: Office Service uses in
Urban Area 2
Character of Property: Multiple buildings for personal
wireless facilities and a Century Link switching station
and office. There is also a parking area for the
compound.
Use of Surrounding Properties: Multi- family
Residential, Church, Commercial, Offices and a
Shopping Mall.
Factors Favorable:
1. The existing monopole currently represents an
opportunity site
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The proposal is not consistent with the County’s
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy
Zoning Ordinance Waivers and Recommendations:
Staff Recommends denial of the proposed co-location and replacement of Microwave Dishes at various heights.
2
STAFF CONTACT: Gerald Gatobu; Margaret Maliszewski
PLANNING COMMISSION: February 8th 2011
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD, 2011
AGENDA TITLE: SP 2010-20: Century Link- Verizon Wireless Tier III
PROPERTY OWNER: Central Telephone Co of VA
APPLICANT: Central Telephone Co of VA
PROPOSAL:
A special use permit amendment to replace three (3) existing Alltel microwave dishes and six (6)
existing Alltel antennas with up to twelve (12) new antennas and three (3) new dishes at various
heights on an existing 250 foot tower.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Office Service uses in Urban Area 2.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
The site is located on the south side of Rio Road East [State Route 631], approximately 1/8 of a
mile east of the intersection with Route 29 North near Fashion Square Mall [Attachment B]. The
facility is within a fenced area. The fenced area is by a brick building housing Century Link
Telephone Company‟s switching station and offices.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
SP 2008-12 Verizon Wireless: Approval granted for collocation with flash mounted
antennas [Attachment E] - Conditions proposed to be amended.
SP 2002-040 Alltel: Approval granted with conditions for a request to replace a
microwave dish on the existing monopole
SP 1998-021 CFW Wireless: Approval granted with conditions for request for co-
location on the existing monopole.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed facility requires approval o f a Tier III special use permit amendment. The
applicant is replacing three (3) existing Alltel microwave dishes and six (6) existing Alltel
antennas with up to twelve (12) new antennas, and three (3) new microwave dishes at various
heights on an existing 250 foot tower. The applicant will replace and increase the mounting
height of the lowest existing microwave dish from a height of 46‟ to 75‟ above ground level,
replace and lower the microwave dish currently mounted at 98‟ to 96‟ above ground level, and
replace and increase the mounting height of the microwave dish currently mounted at 100‟
above ground level to 101‟ above ground level. Verizon wireless will replace six (6) existing
Alltel antennas with up to twelve (12) new antennas using existing mounting brackets. The
existing mounting brackets will allow the mounting of up to twelve (12) antennas within a
sect ored array. The new antennas will have a reduced surface area compared to the existing
3
antennas. The existing 250 foot tower currently has five array antennas, some flush mounted
antennas, a lightening rod, a beacon, a mount, and microwave dishes attached to it. [Attachment
A]. The applicant‟s proposal requires an amendment to the conditions of the previous ly approved
special use permit SP2008-12 (Attachment E).
The Board of Supervisors needs to make findings on the appropriateness of the proposed changes
to the tower facility. If the Board of Supervisors chooses to approve the changes to the tower
facility, it will need to amend SP 2008-12 conditions, and approve the requested ordinance
modifications.
ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST:
Section 31.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be reviewed as
follows:
Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property?
The tower currently exists and is not a substantial detriment to adjacent property. It is Staff‟s
opinion that the addition of antennas using the existing mounting brackets at 182 feet above
ground level will not cause a negative visual impact. No increased impact to adjacent property
is expected. The applicant will replace and increase the mounting height of the lowest
microwave dish from 46‟ to 75‟ above ground level. The lowest microwave dish‟s diameter
will be decreased from 8 feet to 6 feet (Attachment A). Staff„s opinion is that increasing the
height of the lowest dish by 29 feet above the its cu rrent location on the tower will make the
dish significantly more visible. This will impact adjacent properties and the entrance corridor
(State Route 631 and State Route 29).
Will the character of the zoning district change with this use?
The addition of antennas and replacement of microwave dishes will not impact the character
of the district. The tower exists. Antenna and microwave dishes are currently attached.
Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance?
Staff has reviewed this request as it relates to the “purpose and intent” that is set forth in
Sections 1.4.4 and 1.4.7 of the Zoning Ordinance, and as it relates to the intent specified in the
Commercial Office chapter of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 23). This request is consistent
with both sections.
Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
Debatable adverse visual impacts on adjacent properties in the district are anticipated with the
replacing and increasing of the mounting height of the lowest microwave dish from 46‟ to 75‟
above ground level. This facility will not be in harmony with the uses per mitted by right in
the district; however, the tower equipment will provide much needed personal wireless
communication services to the uses permitted by right in the district.
Will the use comply with the additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this
ordinance?
The purpose of Section 5.1.40 is to implement the personal wireless service facilities policy.
This proposal does not conform to the County‟s Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy.
Page 21 of the policy states that “Co -location which results in adverse visual impact is not
consistent with the goals of Albemarle County. From a visibility perspective, co -location
should be discouraged.” Additionally, pages 48 and 50 of the Policy state that antenna arrays
4
do not comply with design guidelines, are highly visible, and therefore discouraged. Flush
mounted antennas are recommended. Staff‟s opinion is that although the existing tower is
already a negative visual impact, replacing and increasing the height of some of the
microwave dishes will result in additional adverse visual impact.
Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the
use is approved?
The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community is protected through the
special use permit process. The special use permit process assures that uses approved by
special use permit are appropriate in the location requested. In this case, the proposed facility
will give Verizon the ability to offer another choice of personal w ireless service
communication by providing a full range of voice and data services in addition to the required
E911 call services. This can be seen as contributing to the public health, safety and welfare on
a regional level.
Compliance with Section 5.1.40 of the Zoning Ordinance
The county’s specific design criteria for Tier III facilities as set forth in section 5.1.40 (e)
are addressed as follows.
Section 5.1.40 (e) Tier III facilities. Each Tier III facility may be established upon approval of
a special use permit issued pursuant to section 31.2.4 of this chapter, initiated upon an
application satisfying the requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) and section 31.2.4, and it shall
be installed and operated in compliance with all applicable provisions of this chapter and the
following:
1. The facility shall comply with subsection 5.1.40(b) subsection 5.1.40(c)(2) through (9) and
subsection 5.1.40 (d)(2),(3),(6) and (7), unless modified by the board of supervisors during
special use permit review.
2. The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the special use permit.
Requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) application for approval and section 31.2.4 special use
permits have been met. Compliance with Section 5.1.40(e) of the Zoning Ordinance: The
County's specific design criteria for Tier III facilities set forth in Section 5.1.40(e)(1) and
5.1.40(e)(2) are addressed as follows: [Ordinance sections are in italics]
Subsection 5.1.40(b) (1-5): Exemption from regulations otherwise applicable: Except as
otherwise exempted in this paragraph, each facility shall be subject to all applicable regulations
in this chapter.
The proposed antennas and microwave dishes will be installed on an existing tower. The tower
has attached array antennae, microwave dishes, and ground equipment . Verizon's equipment
shelter meets the required setbacks and all area and bulk regulations including minimum yard
requirements. All site plan requirements set forth in Section 32 of the zoning ordinance have
been addressed.
5
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(2): The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
(i) guy wires shall not be permitted; (ii) outdoor lighting for the facility shall be permitted only
during maintenance periods; regardless of the lumens emitted, each outdoor luminaire shall be
fully shielded as required by section 4.17 of this chapter; (iii) any equipment cabinet not located
within the existing structure shall be screened from all lot lines either by terrain, existing
structures, existing vegetation, or by added vegetation approved by the county’s landscape
planner; (iv) a whip antenna less than six (6) inches in diameter may exceed the height of the
existing structure; (v) a grounding rod, whose height shall not exceed two (2) feet and whose
width shall not exceed one (1) inch in diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be
installed at the top of facility or the structure; and (vi) within one month after the completion of
the installation of the facility, the applicant shall provide a statement to the agent certifying that
the height of all components of the facility complies with this regulation.
The existing monopole contains equipment owned by other companies that pro vide personal
wireless services ranging from whip and panel antennas to large microwave dishes. The
proposed antennas and microwave dishes do not require the installation of guy wires. The facility
has one outdoor light fixture with a motion sensor. The outdoor light fixture will be used by
technical operations staff when night -time maintenance of the site is necessary.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(3): Equipment shall be attached to the exterior of a structure only as
follows: (i) the total number of arrays of antennas attached to the existing structure shall not
exceed three (3), and each antenna proposed to be attached under the pending application shall
not exceed the size shown on the application, which size shall not exceed one thousand one
hundred fifty two (1152) square inches; (ii) no antenna shall project from the structure beyond
the minimum required by the mounting equipment, and in no case shall any point on the face of
an antenna project more than twelve (12) inches from the existing structure; and (iii) each
antenna and associated equipment shall be a color that matches the existing structure. For
purposes of this section, all types of antennas and dishes regardless of their use shall be counted
toward the limit of three arrays.
This request proposes an array of antennas that are not flush-mounted; therefore, a
modification of this provision is required. The proposal consists of a full sectored array
containing six (6) panel antennas with the capability of expanding up to 12 total antennas
[Attachment A]. The applicant is requesting approval of a modification/amendment to allow
array antenna.
A condition of the previous special use permit (SP2008-12) states that only flush mounted
antenna shall be permitted [Attachment E]. Staff recommends denial of the requested
modification of this section based on condition #3(d) of SP 2008-12. Condition #3d specifically
states that if any of the existing arrays of directional and panel antennas are replaced at any time,
they shall be flush mounted as provided in condition #3c. Condition #3c of SP2008-12 states that
“in no case shall an antenna project more than twelve (12) inches from the existing structure.
The replacement of Omni-directional, whip, directional, or panel antennas in existing antenna
arrays shall be subject to this condition”.
6
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(4): Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a tree
conservation plan prepared by a certified arborist. The plan shall be submitted to the agent for
review and approval to assure that all applicable requirements have been satisfied. The plan
shall specify tree protection methods and procedures, and identify all existing trees to be
removed on the parcel for the installation, operation and maintenance of the facility. Except for
the tree removal expressly authorized by the agent, the applicant shall not remove existing trees
within the lease area or within one hundred (100) feet in all directions surrounding the lease
area of any part of the facility. In addition, the agent may identify additional trees or lands up to
two hundred (200) feet from the lease area to be included in the plan.
The applicant is requesting a waiver/modification of this requirement in accordance with Section
5.1 (a). This proposal is for the co-location of antennas and the replacement of microwave dishes
on an existing tower. No onsite trees are impacted. Staff recommends approval of this
modification because no onsite trees are impacted with this application.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(5)The installation, operation and maintenance of the facility shall be
conducted in accordance with the tree conservation plan. Dead and dying trees identified by the
arborist’s report may be removed if so noted on the tree conservation plan. If tree removal is
later requested that was not approved by the agent when the tree conservation plan was
approved, the applicant shall submit an amended plan. The agent may approve the amended
plan if the proposed tree removal will not adversely affect the visibility of the facility from any
location off of the parcel. The agent may impose reasonable conditions to assure that the
purposes of this paragraph are achieved.
The applicant is requesting a waiver/modification of this requirement in accordance with Section
5.1 (a). This proposal is for the co-location of antennas and the replacement of microwave dishes
on an existing tower. No onsite trees are impacted. Staff recommends approval of this
modification because no onsite trees are impacted with this application.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(6): The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within
ninety (90) days of the date its use for personal wireless service purposes is discontinued. If the
agent determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that the facility will be removed
as required, the agent may require that the parcel owner or the owner of the facility submit a
certified check, a bond with surety, or a letter of credit, in an amount sufficient for, and
conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type and form of the surety guarantee shall be
to the satisfaction of the agent and the county attorney. In determining whether surety should be
required, the agent shall consider the following: (i) the annual report states that the tower or
pole is no longer being used for personal wireless service facilities; (ii) the annual report was
not filed; (iii) there is a change in technology that makes it likely that tower or pole will be
unnecessary in the near future; (iv) the permittee fails to comply with applicable regulations or
conditions; (v) the permittee fails to timely remove another tower or pole within the county; and
(vi) whenever otherwise deemed necessary by the agent.
Verizon and/or its assignee(s) will re move the facility within 90 days if use of antennae and
microwave dishes at this location becomes discontinued at anytime in the future.
7
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(7): The owner of the facility shall submit a report to the agent by no earlier
than May or and no later than July 1 of each year. The report shall identify each user of the
existing structure, and include a drawing, photograph or other illustration identifying which
equipment is owned and/or operated by each personal wireless service provider. Mult iple users
on a single tower or other mounting structure may submit a single report, provided that the
report includes a statement signed by a representative from each user acquiescing in the report.
Verizon Wireless will make sure required annual report s accurately account for all equipment
supporting the proposed facility at this site (if the proposed antennae addition and replacement of
microwave dishes is approved and installed).
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(8): No slopes associated with the installation of the facility and accessory
uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other
stabilization measures acceptable to the county engineer are employed.
No slopes associated with the installation of the facility are st eeper than 2:1.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(9): Any equipment cabinet not located within an existing building shall be
fenced only with the approval of the agent upon finding that the fence: (i) would protect the
facility from trespass in areas of high volumes of vehicular or pedestrian traffic or, in the rural
areas, to protect the facility from livestock or wildlife; (ii) would not be detrimental to the
character of the area; and (iii) would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general
welfare.
SP2008-12 approval conditions included a chain link fence and landscaping to screen the tower
shelter from Rio Road. The existing fence and landscaping is not detrimental to the public health,
safety or general welfare or the character of the area.
Section 5.1.40(d)(2): The site shall provide adequate opportunities for screening and the facility
shall be sited to minimize its visibility from adjacent parcels and streets, regardless of their
distance from the facility. If the facility would be visible from a state scenic river or a national
park or national forest, regardless of whether the site is adjacent thereto, the facility also shall
be sited to minimize its visibility from such river, park or forest. If the facility would be located
on lands subject to a conservation easement or an open space easement, or adjacent to a
conservation easement or open space easement, the facility shall be sited so that it is not visible
from any resources specifically identified for protection in the deed of easement.
This proposed co -location and replacement of microwave dishes does not necessitate any
increase in height of the existing monopole. The tower exists and is not located on lands subject
to a conservation or open space easement . The 250 foot tower is not adjacent to a conservation or
open space easement.
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 250 foot tower is located within Urban Neighborhood Two in the Open Space
Plan [Attachment G], and does not adversely impact aesthetic or historic resources.
8
As stated above, the proposed array antenna does not conform to the County‟s Personal Wireless
Service Facilities Policy in terms of visibility. Replacing and increasing the mounting height of
the lowest existing microwave dish from a height of 46‟ to 75‟ above ground level will result in
additional adverse visual impacts [Attachment A].
Architectural Review Board staff has offered the following comment related to the increase in
the mounting height of the lowest existing microwave dish from a height of 46‟ to 75‟ above
ground level:
“The applicant points out that the replacement dish will be smaller than the existing dish, which
will contribute to a decrease in the bulky appearance. The applicant also suggests that it will be
less noticeable because it will be mounted closer to the other antennas. However, the lower
height of the existing dish allows the dish to sometimes be lost in the trees when viewed from the
road. The increase in height to 75' will reduce, if not eliminate, this factor, thus making the dish
more visible. Nevertheless, the facility is already an eyesore. Though an increase in the height of
the dish will increase the negative visual impact, it will be a minimal increase.
It is Staff‟s opinion that the increased mounting height of the lowest microwave dish from 46' to
75' would result in some adverse visual impact.
Section 5.1.40(d)(6): The top of the monopole, measured in elevation above mean sea level, shall
not exceed the height approved by the commission. The approved height shall not be more than
seven (7) feet taller than the tallest tree within twe nty-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 proposed facility will utilize and existing structure for its antenna mount.
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.
Verizon wireless will paint t he proposed antennas and microwave dishes to match the color of
the existing tower. The tower has a galvanized steel finish. Existing vegetation screens the
equipment shelter from adjacent properties and roadways.
9
Section 5.1.40(e)2: The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the special use
permit.
The proposed changes to the tower facility utilize a full-sectored array of antennas and
replacement of microwave dishes at various heights. This request requires amendment s to the
existing special use permit SP 2008-12 as indicated below.
Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of The Telecommunications Act of 1996:
This application is subject to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which provides in part that
the regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service
facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof (I) shall not unreasonably
discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; (II) shall not prohibit or have
the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. 47 U.S.C.
In order to operate this facility, the applicant is required to comply with the FCC guidelines for
radio frequency emissions that are intended to protect the public health and safety. Neither the
Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the provision of personal wireless
services. However, both do implement specific policies and regulations for the sighting and
design of wireless facilities. It is staff‟s opinion that this proposal is not consistent with the
County‟s Personal Wireless Service Facilities policy. The denial of this proposal would not
unreasonably discriminate among providers of equivalent services, or prohibit the provision of
personal wireless services, as the applicant could conform with the previous special use permit
condition, as well as the Policy by proposing flush mounted antennas.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff Recommends denial of the proposed co-location and
replacement of Microwave Dishes at various heights based on the analysis provided herein.
If the Planning Commission chooses to approve this personal wireless facility, it will need to
amend previously approved special use permit conditions. Special use permit conditions to be
amended and applicable ordinance modifications are outlined below:
Zoning Ordinance Modifications
1. Subsection 5.1.40(c)(3) Flush mounting requirement
2. Section 5.1.40 (c)(4)- Requirement for a tree conservation plan to be submitted prior to
the issuance of a building permit.
3. Section 5.1.40 (c)(5)- The installation, operation and maintenance of the facility to be
conducted in accordance with the tree conservation plan.
Special Use Permit [SP2008-12] Condition Modification
1. Deletion of provision [3] that only flush mounted antennas be permitted [see below].
2. Deletion of part of provision [4(b)] [see below].
3. Deletion of part of provision [4(c)] [see below].
4. Deletion of part of provision [4(d)] [see below].
5. Deletion of part of provision [8] [see below].
6. Deletion of provision [10] [see below].
10
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal:
Factors favorable to this request include:
1. The existing monopole currently represents an opportunity site.
Factors unfavorable to this request include:
1. The proposal does not comply with the County‟s Personal Wireless Service Facilities
Policy.
2. Increasing the mounting height of the lowest microwave dish from 46‟ to 75 ‟ above
ground level will result in adverse visual impacts.
In order to comply with Section 5.1.40(d) of the Zoning Ordinance, the Board of Supervisors 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.
Should the Board of Supervisors choose to approve this request, staff recommends the following
conditions; these conditions are the same as those approved with SP208 -12 except as noted.
Conditions of approval:
1. The tower shall not be increased in height;
2. All antennae, dishes and their replacements attached to the tower shall be used for
personal wireless service providers;
3. Additional and replacement antenna arrays may be attached only as follows:
a. Omni-directional or whip antennas shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height or
seven (7) inches in diameter, and shall be of a color that matches the tower;
b. Directional or panel antennas shall not exceed seven (7) feet in height or two (2)
feet in width, and shall be of a color that matches the tower;
c. Only flush mounted antennas shall be permitted; no new antennas shall project
from the structure beyond the minimum required by the mounting equipment, and
in no case shall an antenna project more than twelve (12) inches from the existing
structure. The replacement of omni-directional, whip, directional or panel
antennas in existing antenna arrays shall be subject to this condition;
d. Existing arrays of directional and panel antennas that are mounted with bracke ts
that separate them by more than (12) inches from the structure may remain.
Provided, however that if any of these arrays are replaced at any time, they shall
be flush-mounted as provided in condition 3c. This condition shall not pertain to
the maintenance and/or replacement of a single panel antenna that malfunctions or
is in need of repair.
11
4. Not more than six (6) satellite or microwave dishes may be attached to the tower at one
time, and only as follows.
a. The existing six (6) foot diameter grid dish that is subject to this request may be
replaced by the specified six (6) foot diameter High Performance dish at a height
that is not more than 95.5 feet;
b. Other existing satellite and microwave dishes may be replaced on the tower by the
same type of dish, provided that the diameter of the replacement dish does not
exceed the diameter of the dish being removed, and the color of the replacement
dish matches the tower. and the mounting height does not exceed that of the dish
being replaced;
c. Other existing sat ellite and microwave dishes may be replaced on the tower by a
different type of dish if the mounting height is not more than 1 foot above that
of the dish being removed. The lowest microwave dish located at a height of
46 feet above ground level can be rep laced and mounted at not more than
twenty nine (29) feet above its current location on the tower. no less than
twenty (20) feet below that of the dish being removed The diameter of the
replacement dish does not exceed that of the dish being removed, and the color of
the replacement dish matches the tower;
d. Other existing satellite and microwave dishes may be replaced by a different type
of dish if the proposed mounting height of the replacement dish does not satisfy
the height requirements of condition 4c with the written approval of the Zoning
Administrator. This approval shall only be granted after the submission of a
microwave path survey indicating that the proposed replacement dish will be
mounted at the lowest possible height that allows the system to function. In such
a case, the path survey shall demonstrate the reason(s) why the proposed height is
the lowest possible height. but in no case shall the replacement be higher than the
dish it is replacing;
e. All replacement satellite or microwave dishes shall be mounted as close to the
face of the pole as structurally and mechanically possible and, in no case, shall the
distance between the back of the dish and the face of the pole be greater than
eighteen (18) inches; and
f. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for replacing a dish, the applicant shall
provide engineered drawings demonstrating the dimensions of the existing dish to
be removed and its replacement dish, and additional information demonstrating
the mounting distance between the pole and the dish to the Department of
Building Code and Zoning Services.
5. The current owner and any subsequent owners shall submit a report to the Zoning
Administrator once (1) per year, by not later than July 1 of that year. The report shall
identify each user o f the tower and that each user is a personal wireless communications
service provider;
6. The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12c of the Zoning Ordinance; and
7. The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of
the date its use for personal wireless communications services purposes is discontinued.
If the Zoning Administrator determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee
that the facility will be removed as required, the permittee shall furnish to the Zoning
12
Administrator a certified check, a bond with surety satisfactory to the County, or a letter
of credit satisfactory to the County, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the
removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the
Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney.
8. All work shall be done in general accord with what is described in the applicant's request
and site construction plans, entitled “Collocate Monopole Tower”, with an issued
elevation view drawing submittal date of 10/15/2010 “Rio Road, Embarq Property”,
with a final zoning drawing submittal date of 3/10/2008;
9. The following shall be submitted to the agent after installation of the antenna and
microwave dishes is completed and prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy: (i)
certification by a registered surveyor stating the height of the antenna and microwave
dishes, measured both in feet above ground level and in elevation above mean sea level,
using the benchmarks or reference datum identified
10. The applicant shall provide landscaping along Rio Road East generally as shown on the
Landscape Plan by J. Thomas Dalton sealed 5-21-08, with a final landscaping plan to be
administratively approved by staff.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Site Plan
B. Vicinity Map
C. Applicants Justification Letter
D. Photos of Existing Facility
E. SP 2008-12 Conditions
F. SP 2002-40 Conditions
G. Open Space Plan
H. SP 2008-12 minutes
13
Motion: The Planning Commission‟s role in this case (SP2010-20) is to make a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this Tier III
personal wireless service facility:
I move to recommend approval of SP 2010-20 Century Link - Verizon Wireless
Tier III PWSF with the conditions and modifications outlined in the staff report.
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of this Tier III personal
wireless service facility:
I move to recommend denial of SP 2010-20 Century Link - Verizon Wireless Tier III
PWSF. (Planning Commission needs to give a reason for denial)
Return to PC actions
July 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
Attachment H
Agenda Item No. 19. Public Hearing: SP-2008-012, Embarq-Verizon Wireless-Tier III PWSF.
Proposal: Collocation of a personal wireless service facility on an existing tower.
Zoning Category/General Usage: CO, Commercial Office; Industrial
Section: 23.2.2(15) Special Use Permit, which allows for Tier III personal wireless service
facilities in the CO Zoning District.
Comprehensive Plan Land Use: Office Service uses in Urban Area 2.
Location: South side of Rio Road East (State Route 631), approximately 1/8 mile east of the
intersection with Route 29 North, and near Fashion Square Mall.
Tax Map/Parcel: Tax Map 61, Parcel 129C.
Magisterial District: Rio.
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on June 16 and June 23,
2008.)
Mr. Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development, summarized the staff’s report which is on file in the
Clerk’s Office with the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said this is a request for a
special use permit for a Tier III wireless facility on Sprint property on Rio Road near Fashion Square Mall.
He said the existing tower has antenna arrays and some microwave antennas. He showed a photograph
of the existing site and tower which included a simulation of the addition of an antenna array at the 240-
foot level. He said the antennas that were there have been removed, but not the armatures. A Tier III
permit is required because there are more than three existing antennas on the site. He said some ground
equipment would also be installed.
Mr. Fritz said staff reviewed this application to determine whether or not it was consistent with the
Zoning Ordinance. Staff found that it generally met many of the criteria of Section 31-241 which is the
criteria that all special use permits are reviewed against. However, staff also reviews these types of
requests against the criteria for wireless facilities contained in Section 5. This particular facility is a
collocation and it is an opportunity site. It is staff’s opinion that it results in additional adverse visual
impacts and is not consistent with the goals of Albemarle County and the W ireless Policy which says,
“Collocation which results in adverse visual impact is not consistent with the goals of Albemarle County.
From a visibility perspective, collocation should be discouraged.”
Mr. Fritz said staff found that the site has negative visual impacts; it is their opinion that the
additional antenna array would be an additional negative impact. He said it’s the array that’s causing the
staff the biggest concern, the fact that it is not flush-mounted. It is staff’s opinion that flush-mounted
would have less of an adverse visual impact so it would be able to recommend approval of the permit.
Mr. Fritz said in general, the finding of the Planning Commission was that the additional adverse
visual impacts were not that substantial. A number of conditions were proposed by staff, and the applicant
and staff worked together. Since this is an amendment of a prior special use permit, they recommend
deletion of some existing conditions and addition of some new conditions. In recommending approval of
the permit, the Planning Commission added conditions that staff had not included. Condition No. 10
would require some landscaping and Condition No. 11 would limit the offset of the antenna from the tower
to no greater than the offset of the existing array that was up at the top of the facility; they were
recommended by the Architectural Review Board. With that the Planning Commission, by a vote of 4:2,
recommended approval of the special use permit. He offered to answer questions.
Mr. Boyd said if there were no questions for Mr. Fritz, he would ask the applicant to speak.
Mr. Maynard Sipe said he is the attorney representing Verizon Wireless. He works at the firm of
LeClair Ryan in their Charlottesville office. W ith him today are Mr. Matt Winstead, Mr. Nate Holland and
Mr. Steven Waller who are the consultants working on this project. Basically the proposal is to collocate
on an existing tower in an effort to make the best possible use of an opportunity site under the County
policy and to deliver the best possible wireless service to that immediate area. He showed a slide on the
screen of the area in and around Route 29 and Rio Road. He said the policy itself favors use of
opportunity sites. It contains language that disfavors full arrays under circumstances where they have a
visual impact that’s significant; however, they believe the policy does not bar the use of full arrays. The
July 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Attachment H
ordinance has provisions for a special permit so the Board can evaluate sites having unique
circumstances and this is a unique site where they believe it is appropriate to make a request for a full
array.
Mr. Sipe said the technical reason for the full array is that this is an area where there is a high
demand, and that demand calls for a full array. The array would provide the ability to have multiple
antennas facing in each direction defined as sectors being served. By having multiple antennas, Verizon
can get a better quality reception for the handheld unit and the in-home unit and maintain calls longer and
less likely to be lost due to interference and conditions. That is important when providing quality for
broadband service, which is part of the services that Verizon anticipates providing for both residential and
business use.
Mr. Sipe said there are visual considerations; probably no one views the existing tower as
favorable. He thinks it is important to focus on the existing tower that has its own visual impacts and then
judge the Verizon application by the incremental additional amount of impact being added. Under the
Telecommunications Act it is important for the Board to focus on that. They think the additional impact is
not significant. That is borne out by staff’s findings that they meet the criteria for a special use permit.
Staff has acknowledged that it’s not detrimental to the adjacent properties and it’s not negatively or
adversely impacting the character of the area.
Mr. Sipe referred to a graphic of the tower and a schematic that shows the existing arrays. He
said there are five existing arrays similar to the one they are proposing. As to visual impacts, they
provided a series of photos to the Planning Commission along with a letter; these were also furnished to
the Board. He pointed out the existing mounting bracket that Verizon will be removing.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is some reason why that mounting bracket has not been removed. Mr.
Fritz said there was no requirement on the existing special use permit to do that.
Mr. Rooker asked if the Board should request that of the owner of the tower.
Mr. Slutzky asked if it would not come down under Mr. Sipe’s rendering. Mr. Sipe said it is part of
their proposal and they will take on the burden of arranging for it to be removed as Verizon installs its own
array.
Mr. Rooker said regardless of that application, he thinks the Board should require that things that
are on towers, especially visible towers like this, be taken down when they’re no longer used.
Ms. Thomas concurred noting that the County requires that the tower come down when it’s no
longer used. She guesses the County does not require that the brackets come down when an array is no
longer being used.
Mr. Slutzky said if it can’t be required, the Board should ask the party responsible for it to take it
down and remind them that if they choose not to do that it will be reported to the County when they next
come asking for permission to put a different one up. Mr. Tucker said he thinks the County used to do
that.
Mr. Rooker said that obviously Mr. Sipe is not responsible for the existence of the current state of
the tower. Mr. Sipe said he thinks this old tower predated the policy. He thinks the conditions being
imposing by the County now on new towers probably address this issue. He thinks the way to get at it in
this particular circumstance is by letting Verizon remove it as they install their new array.
Mr. Sipe said they do not think it has a significant adverse visual impact, and there are many
factors that mitigate the impact (listed in the letter sent to the Planning Commission), including: it’s in the
midst of a commercial area; all of the adjacent or abutting properties are commercial properties; and, it
has the existing mounts and arrays. He referred to a photo view from the mall parking lot behind the tower
next to a multi-family residential area. The views from the residential area are very limited - almost
July 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
Attachment H
negligible. He said Verizon has agreed to do a landscape plan that will provide screening of some existing
ground facilities that are not a part of the Verizon proposal. They will also add some trees along the
corridor to bring the site up to the standards for entrance corridor sites. Those trees would provide some
additional screening of the existing tower from Rio Road.
Mr. Rooker asked the height of the proposed shrubs. Mr. Sipe said they are to the standard
asked for with the entrance corridor. These trees will obscure much of the tower because of the angle of
visibility from Rio Road. They will provide some visual screening of the base of the tower. They are
intended as an additional amenity for the site as a whole. He said most of the equipment is behind the
brick building; the equipment in the rear is not that visible from the road. There is a utility yard that serves
the building and Verizon is going to provide the shrubbery to screen that better. It is an added amenity
they agreed to provide as part of this special use permit.
Mr. Sipe said there is also an issue of fairness. Verizon is seeking approval for an array like those
the County previously approved on this site. They would like to provide the same quality of service that
other carriers are able to provide to this area. In conclusion, he stated that collocations are an efficient
way to provide quality wireless service to the urban area. They are a way to minimize potential impacts
from having multiple new towers or other sites located in these areas. He then offered to answer
questions.
Ms. Thomas asked if there is significance to the proposed height of this array. She asked if it
needs to be at the very top to get the coverage Verizon needs. Mr. Sipe said the height provides the
ability to cover as much area as possible from this location. The coverage would be approximately the
same as a flush-mount, but capacity is important and height also helps capacity because it provides a
clearer line of sight to a larger area so gets better reception from a handheld unit. Verizon is trying to
maximize the quality of service it can provide from this particular site.
Mr. Boyd said if there were no further questions for the applicant, he would open the public
hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the hearing was closed, and the matter placed
before the Board.
Mr. Slutzky said he really likes the County’s cell tower ordinance; he is proud the County has gone
to the trouble to provide for less obnoxious sighting experiences. In the rural area the Board absolutely
has to rigidly adhere to that. In the growth area, he thinks it’s an important social benefit to have access to
good coverage, but there is a trade-off with the aesthetic impact these things can have. In the growth
area he would not embrace putting up a new tower that wasn’t shrouded with trees and was not compliant
with the ordinance. He said taking an existing tower that’s ugly and making it a little uglier, but improving
the aesthetics at the base, and giving improved coverage favors approval. Mr. Slutzky then moved to
approve this request.
Mr. Rooker requested that there be some discussion before a motion is made.
Mr. Davis asked Mr. Fritz to clarify Condition No. 11. He said that what was shown on the screen
is different from the language in the Planning Commission’s recommendation letter. Mr. Fritz said it is
slightly different; it should be as written in the Planning Commission’s action letter which is: “No antennas
shall project from the monopole to a distance that is greater than that of the narrowest of the five existing
full sector panel antenna arrays on the pole, the existing mounting bracket to be removed as shown on
Attachment A.” He said that last sentence was omitted from the text seen on the screen.
Mr. Davis said the conditions as set out in the Planning Commission’s action letter are the
recommended conditions. Mr. Fritz said that is correct.
Mr. Sipe said the conditions commit Verizon to development in accordance with the plan and
removal of the bracket is noted on the plan, but the Planning Commission wanted to add that simply to be
extra clear that Verizon will remove it. He said Verizon is fine with that.
July 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
Attachment H
Mr. Rooker said the County’s ordinance is considered a model by people around the country who
have looked at cell tower ordinances. Several newspapers out of this area editorialized that their area
should adopt a cell tower ordinance comparable to Albemarle’s. The whole ordinance is based on
reducing the visibility of towers and antenna while still allowing reasonable coverage for the community.
The Board has adhered to that since the ordinance was adopted. He thinks everyone will agree this
existing tower is a visual blight. It is a non-conforming tower magnified. There is no other tower in the
area that is as nonconforming as this tower. The question is whether the Board will allow additional items
to be placed on this tower that themselves are non-conforming. Not only is this tower non-conforming but
the use of array antennas is non-conforming.
Mr. Rooker said the County does not allow array antennas on monopoles that are hidden in trees,
so why would it allow an additional non-conforming antenna at 240 feet, which is about 24 stories high, at
the corner of two entrance corridors. He said there are many opportunity sites in the urban area for cell
towers. If the Board allows an array antenna on this tower as opposed to one flush-mounted it would, in
his view, be setting a precedent.
Mr. Rooker said this is a “slippery slope.” He said Mr. Sipe had exemplified that when he said the
County had set a precedent so Verizon should be able to do this also. He talked about the need for this
unique array at 240 feet, but there is no distinction between the rural areas and the urban areas in the
tower policy. It’s based on visibility. W hat will happen with the next request to put an array on a tower in
the rural area? If the Board starts allowing these things as a matter of course on non-conforming towers,
it will have a bunch of exceptions, but no longer have a policy. He thinks this is wrong and the Board
should not approve it. He concluded by saying that an array antenna at 240 feet is not contemplated by
the policy so shouldn’t be approved.
Ms. Thomas said the last time Verizon came before the Board it was for a fourth tower on a site
on Afton Mountain - she felt that she shouldn’t vote against it because she had voted for the others in that
location. She said she has consistently voted against ugly additions to ugly poles, so she will be totally
consistent in voting against this request. W hen cell towers were first introduced to the County, all the
applicants said they could offer better service if they were allowed to be bigger and taller. She said this
community decided it preferred smaller and less visually obtrusive. The County went all the way to the
Federal Court of Appeals in order to uphold its view that visual intrusiveness was something that could be
considered. For the urban areas, the Board was told it should be talking about panels and not towers.
Panels can be attached to buildings, or existing structures of all sorts. They don’t need tall towers or huge
arrays in order to offer service. Of course, they can offer cheaper, better, quicker service if they have a
huge array high up in the sky.
Ms. Thomas said that a long time ago the Board decided that was not the right direction for this
community. She said this is an old tower and all have agreed it is ugly. She thinks adding that array at the
very top of this tower is a significant visual addition to a significantly visual intrusive pole. The last point
she will make is that each time the Board approves something that it doesn’t like and allows it to go on a
tower because the tower is already there, it makes it much harder for that tower to ever come down - the
tower does not come down until the last user is no longer using it. The more users attached to it the
longer its life is going to be.
Mr. Dorrier said he will support Mr. Slutzky on this. He pointed out that it’s in a commercial
district. It is true that ugly things are not wanted in the commercial district as well as the rural district, but
sometimes you have to compromise. Hopefully, people do not notice it as much because it’s commercial.
He said the 11 conditions are a sign that the applicant realizes he needs to compromise on the issue, and
these conditions help his application. The Planning Commission recommended approval 4:2 so they
agreed it should be a use permitted in the County. He thinks that sometimes the Board has to
compromise and this is one of those times.
Ms. Mallek said she has always objected to towers being in the midst of neighborhoods. She was
struck by something in the applicant’s letters about landowners in the commercial areas being unwilling to
lease their land in urban areas because they review it as restricting their future development. That is
July 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
Attachment H
exactly what the residential neighbors said - it’s going to affect my resale value, I don’t want to have it
nearby. She knows none of that’s really appropriate to this decision. She guesses that she would rather
have collocation than another big pole. Now that the big poles are no longer available, it removes that
concern.
Mr. Rooker said there is a distinction. This pole is at the corner of two entrance corridors. The
County spends a huge amount of money trying to protect the aesthetics of entrance corridors. If there’s
any place where you don’t allow this kind of thing it’s at the corner of two entrance corridors.
Mr. Slutzky said he almost agrees with what the other Board members said, but he has struggled
with the request because he does not want it there. If the Board says “no”, the pole is still there, and it is
still ugly. Is the marginal additional aesthetic affront to that choice location sufficient justification to turn it
down? He thinks it is a nominal additional aesthetic affront and he is glad they will be putting screening at
the ground level. Because of that he is willing to support it. He would not, in any way, be supportive of a
new structure like this anywhere in the County.
Mr. Rooker said there is a distinction between the structure and the antenna array. The County
does not allow, as a matter of policy, antenna that are not flush-mounted, on any tower.
Mr. Slutzky asked why that is the policy.
Mr. Rooker said it is because of visibility. They could have proposed flush-mounted; staff
recommended denial because the request violates the visibility requirements of the County’s ordinance.
The primary reason is that they’re proposing the kind of antenna array the County does not approve. Why
the Board would approve it at 240 feet when it would not approve it at 60 feet is beyond him. He said their
application could have been for all flush-mounted antennas. He said every applicant, for any height, has
the same argument as that given by Verizon. He does not want the Board to confuse the existence of the
tower with the use of this kind of antenna array. The argument that they’re going to be able to provide
better coverage with this kind of antenna array is an argument that’s available to anybody anywhere with
any kind of tower. He does not know how to distinguish between allowing that kind of antenna array, not
the tower which is already there, at 240 feet at the intersection of two entrance corridors – it should not be
allowed when you’re not going to allow it out in the woods.
Mr. Slutzky said he makes the distinction. He would not approve this tower out in the woods
because that experience would be significantly different to him. Having an array on a pole out in the
woods versus this location is the difference between its current condition and the new condition which
would result from the Board’s approval; to him that difference is nominal.
Ms. Thomas said there is a very tall tower at the corner near where the Meadow Creek Parkway
will come in at Melbourne Road near Charlottesville High School. It is pretty obtrusive yet not nearly as
obtrusive as this one. It’s painted red and white, which she presumes is for FAA reasons. She believes
every applicant has asked to have an array, and the Board has said no, it has to be flush-mounted. She
said the flush-mounted stick out a little at the top, but it is not nearly as visually obtrusive as this big set of
arrays. She said the Board has held firm and applicants have made do with the flush-mounted.
Ms. Thomas said the other thing she would like the Board to remember when considering this sort
of thing is that panels can be attached to all sorts of structures, including water towers, and nobody thinks
of them as a tower. There are panels, not well placed, on top of the Monticello Hotel, for example. There
are panels in all sorts of places, and the urban area is exactly the right place to put panels. They do not
give as much coverage because they are not as high up in the air, but a lot of cell phone coverage can be
obtained from panels that are not high up in the air. That is why the telephone pole type of poles in the
rural area work. She does not think the Board has to think it is this proposal or an ugly tower somewhere
else in the neighborhood - because it is this or an array of panels in various locations.
July 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
Attachment H
Mr. Slutzky said for him it’s this pole with this array on the top or not, and he does not see a huge
difference in this case because the existing structure is so ugly. He said that is the only reason he is
willing to support it.
Ms. Mallek asked if the Board could require that it be a flush-mounted array. Otherwise she
cannot vote for it.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks all the Board can do is vote on what’s before it now, and the Planning
Commission recommended denial. Mr. Davis said this is a special use permit request so the Board has
the discretion to put conditions on it. If the Board is inclined to support that concept, he thinks staff would
need to work with the applicant to get appropriate drawings and conditions in place to do that. He does
not know if the applicant would be interested with proceeding with the plan if it was flush-mounted, but that
would be their option.
Mr. Tucker said that on page 10 of the Staff Report, Item 3c shows that condition, but it has been
marked through on flush-mounted.
Mr. Rooker said that condition was actually in existence before, so there was already a restriction
that prohibited anything but additional antenna that were flush-mounted. Today, the Board would be
removing that restriction.
Mr. Boyd asked if the applicant would like to address that point. Mr. Sipe said he would like to
address it because he failed to mention a couple of points that are important. Because of the wording of
the existing condition, they believe they can get the flush-mounted antenna by-right with a building permit.
They were going through the special use permit process with the extra expense and effort because they
believed the array was essential to providing capacity for the area. He said Verizon has done the flush-
mounts in another location – they got a building permit to do them on a site off of Barracks Road slightly
west of the last apartment complex on the north side of the road. In that case the objective was purely to
provide coverage to that area, and it will not have the demand to necessitate an array.
Mr. Sipe said Verizon uses panels on existing structures to the extent it can – it is mounting
panels on the Hilton Hotel which is one of the few tall buildings that can be utilized in that corridor. When
they researched the area, they found few buildings of sufficient height to allow placement of those panels.
Verizon is also placing a panel on the retirement home that’s a multi-story building in Crozet. Verizon
adheres to the policy in everything it does. The policy does not prohibit arrays on this site, although it talks
about their visual impact. They only bring these types of applications to the Board where they have
already carefully considered the visual impact. They think this request is warranted by the technical need,
the necessity for the service, and the impact is mitigated or minimal. They don’t think they need a special
use permit to do the flush-mount antennas because they’re already provided for in the conditions. He
requested support for the Verizon request as requested.
Mr. Rooker asked if there had been a second to Mr. Slutzky’s earlier motion.
Mr. Dorrier offered a second.
Mr. Boyd asked that Mr. Slutzky repeat the motion.
Mr. Slutzky moved that the Board approve SP-2008-00012, Embarq-Verizon Wireless Tier Three
PWSF, with the 11 conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion having been
seconded by Mr. Dorrier, roll was called, and the motion died by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Slutzky.
NAYS: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
__________
July 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
Attachment H
Mr. Fritz said he believes that even putting a flush-mount antenna on this tower requires a special
use permit because it is still a Tier III type facility. There are already three antennae on that particular
tower.
Mr. Davis said Mr. Fritz is correct in that they need a special use permit to do the flush-mounted
tower. If the Board were inclined to support a flush-mounted tower, before adjourning today there is an
opportunity for the Board to reconsider its denial and approve a flush-mounted tower. He noted that after
today, it would require that a new application be filed and the applicant would have to go back through the
Planning Commission process before coming back to this Board.
Mr. Boyd suggested the Board take up other matters and come back to this discussion.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. Back to SP-2008-012, Embarq-Verizon Wireless-Tier III PWSF.
Mr. Sipe said there may be a disagreement of their interpretation of the language of the condition,
but they will certainly accept the recommendation for approval of the special use permit with flush-mounts
that would alleviate any question about that interpretation. He said if they are restricted to flush-mounts,
according to their engineer they will have to build multiple sites to cover the same area.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that those sites would be new sites so they would comply with the
County’s policy.
Mr. Slutzky asked what the Board would do to accommodate that request since it has already
voted. Mr. Davis said there should be a motion to reconsider the previous action on this application, vote
on that motion, and then offer a new motion.
Mr. Slutzky moved that the Board reconsider the Board’s previous action on this application. The
motion was seconded by Ms. Mallek. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
__________
Mr. Davis said Mr. Fritz determined that if the Board members looked at the staff’s report, and
Condition No. 3(c) and Condition No. 3(d) as previously approved were added back, and then Condition
No. 11 eliminated, the Board would have the proper conditions in front of it for their application for a flush-
mounted antenna.
Mr. Slutzky moved that the Board approve SP-2008-012, Embarq-Verizon Wireless-Tier III
PWSF, as amended. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Ms. Thomas said she is still going to vote against it because she is being consistent in her policy
of not adding anything to existing towers that are not wanted because it extends their life.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Slutzky.
NAYS: Ms. Thomas.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. The tower shall not be increased in height;
July 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
Attachment H
2. All antennae, dishes and their replacements attached to the tower shall be used for
personal wireless service providers;
3. Additional and replacement antenna arrays may be attached only as follows:
a. Omni-directional or whip antennas shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height or
seven (7) inches in diameter, and shall be of a color that matches the tower;
b. Directional or panel antennas shall not exceed seven (7) feet in height or two (2)
feet in width, and shall be of a color that matches the tower;
c. Only flush mounted antennas shall be permitted; no new antennas shall project
from the structure beyond the minimum required by the mounting equipment, and
in no case shall an antenna project more than twelve (12) inches from the
existing structure. The replacement of omni-directional, whip, directional or panel
antennas in existing antenna arrays shall be subject to this condition; and
d. Existing arrays of directional and panel antennas that are mounted with brackets
that separate them by more than (12) inches from the structure may remain.
Provided, however that if any of these arrays are replaced at any time, they shall
be flush-mounted as provided in condition 3c. This condition shall not pertain to
the maintenance and/or replacement of a single panel antenna that malfunctions
or is in need of repair;
4. Not more than six (6) satellite or microwave dishes may be attached to the tower at one
time, and only as follows:
a. The existing six (6) foot diameter grid dish that is subject to this request may be
replaced by the specified six (6) foot diameter High Performance dish at a height
that is not more than 95.5 feet;
b. Other existing satellite and microwave dishes may be replaced on the tower by
the same type of dish, provided that the diameter of the replacement dish does
not exceed the diameter of the dish being removed, the color of the replacement
dish matches the tower, and the mounting height does not exceed that of the dish
being replaced;
c. Other existing satellite and microwave dishes may be replaced on the tower by a
different type of dish if the mounting height is no less than twenty (20) feet below
that of the dish being removed, the diameter of the replacement dish does not
exceed that of the dish being removed, and the color of the replacement dish
matches the tower;
d. Other existing satellite and microwave dishes may be replaced by a different type
of dish if the proposed mounting height of the replacement dish does not satisfy
the height requirements of condition 4c with the written approval of the Zoning
Administrator. This approval shall only be granted after the submission of a
microwave path survey indicating that the proposed replacement dish will be
mounted at the lowest possible height that allows the system to function. In such
a case, the path survey shall demonstrate the reason(s) why the proposed height
is the lowest possible height, but in no case shall the replacement be higher than
the dish it is replacing;
e. All replacement satellite or microwave dishes shall be mounted as close to the
face of the pole as structurally and mechanically possible and, in no case, shall
the distance between the back of the dish and the face of the pole be greater
than eighteen (18) inches; and
f. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for replacing a dish, the applicant shall
provide engineered drawings demonstrating the dimensions of the existing dish to
be removed and its replacement dish, and additional information demonstrating
the mounting distance between the pole and the dish to the Department of
Building Code and Zoning Services;
5. The current owner and any subsequent owners shall submit a report to the Zoning
Administrator once (1) per year, by not later than July 1 of that year. The report shall
July 2, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
Attachment H
identify each user of the tower and that each user is a personal wireless communications
service provider;
6. The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12c of the Zoning Ordinance;
7. The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the
date its use for personal wireless communications services purposes is discontinued. If
the Zoning Administrator determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that
the facility will be removed as required, the permittee shall furnish to the Zoning
Administrator a certified check, a bond with surety satisfactory to the County, or a letter of
credit satisfactory to the County, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the
removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the
Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney;
8. All work shall be done in general accord with what is described in the applicant's request
and site construction plans, entitled “Rio Road, Embarq Property”, with a final zoning
drawing submittal date of 3/10/2008;
9. The following shall be submitted to the agent after installation of the antenna is completed
and prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy: (i) certification by a registered surveyor
stating the height of the antenna, measured both in feet above ground level and in
elevation above mean sea level, using the benchmarks or reference datum identified; and
10. The applicant shall provide landscaping along Rio Road East generally as shown on the
Landscape Plan by J. Thomas Dalton sealed 5-21-08, with a final landscaping plan to be
administratively approved by staff.
_______________
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 8, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
February 8, 2011
SP-2010-00020 CenturyLink Tower
PROPOSED: Special Use Permit amendment to replace three (3) existing Alltel microwave dishes and six
(6) existing Alltel antennas with new antennas and dishes at various heights on an existing 250 foot
tower. The applicant is also requesting use of existing mounting brackets to allow the mounting of up to
twelve (12) antennas within a sectored array(which requires a waiver/modification of section 5.1.40.C.3)
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: [CO], Commercial Office-; [EC] Entrance Corridor overlay,
[AIA] Airport Impact Area.
SECTION: 23.2.2 (15) Special Use Permit, which allows for Tier III personal wireless facilities in the
Commercial Office Zoning District
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Office Service in Urban Area 2
LOCATION: Tax Map 61, Parcel 129C: south side of Rio Road East [State Route 631], approximately 1/8
mile east of the intersection with Route 29 North, and near Fashion Square Mall.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
RELATED APPLICATION: SP2008-00012
(Gerald Gatobu)
DEFERRED FROM THE DECEMBER 21, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Mr. Gatobu presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the request.
This is a request for a special use permit for a Tier III tower for an amendment to replace three (3)
existing Alltel microwave dishes and six (6) existing Alltel antennas with up to twelve (12) new antennas
and three (3) new dishes at various heights on an existing 250 foot tower.
The proposed facility requires approval of a Tier III special use permit amendment. The applicant is
replacing three (3) existing Alltel microwave dishes and six (6) existing Alltel antennas with up to twelve
(12) new antennas, and three (3) new microwave dishes at various height s on an existing 250 foot tower.
The applicant will replace and increase the mounting height of the lowest existing microwave dish from a
height of 46’ to 75’ above ground level, replace and lower the microwave dish currently mounted at 98’
to 96’ above ground level, and replace and increase the mounting height of the microwave dish currently
mounted at 100’ above ground level to 101’ above ground level. Verizon wireless will replace six (6)
existing Alltel antennas with up to twelve (12) new antennas using existing mounting brackets. The
existing mounting brackets will allow the mounting of up to twelve (12) antennas within a sectored array.
The new antennas will have a reduced surface area compared to the existing antennas.
The existing 250 foot tower currently has five array antennas, some flush mounted antennas, a lightening
rod, a beacon, a mount, and microwave dishes attached to it. [Attachment A staff report]. The
applicant’s proposal requires an amendment to the conditions of the previously approve d special use
permit SP2008-12 (Attachment E staff report).
The Board of Supervisors needs to make findings on the appropriateness of the proposed changes to the
tower facility. If the Board of Supervisors chooses to approve the changes to the tower faci lity, it will need
to amend SP 2008-12 conditions, and approve the requested ordinance modifications.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff Recommends denial of the proposed co-location and replacement of
Microwave Dishes at various heights based on the analysis provided herein.
If the Planning Commission chooses to approve this personal wireless facility, it will need to amend
previously approved special use permit conditions. Special use permit conditions to be amended and
applicable ordinance modifications are outlined below:
Zoning Ordinance Modifications
1. Subsection 5.1.40(c)(3) Flush mounting requirement
2. Section 5.1.40 (c)(4)- Requirement for a tree conservation plan to be submitted prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
3. Section 5.1.40 (c)(5)- The installation, operation and maintenance of the facility to be conducted
in accordance with the tree conservation plan.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 8, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
2
Special Use Permit [SP2008-12] Condition Modification
1. Deletion of provision [3] that only flush mounted antennas be permitted [see below].
2. Deletion of part of provision [4(b)] [see below].
3. Deletion of part of provision [4(c)] [see below].
4. Deletion of part of provision [4(d)] [see below].
5. Deletion of part of provision [8] [see below].
6. Deletion of provision [10] [see below].
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified factors, which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal:
Factors favorable to this request include:
1. The existing monopole currently represents an opportunity site.
Factors unfavorable to this request include:
1. The proposal does not comply with the County’s Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy.
2. Increasing the mounting height of the lowest microwave dish from 46’ to 75’ above ground level
will result in adverse visual impacts.
In order to comply with Section 5.1.40(d) of the Zoning Ordinance, the Board of Supervisors 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.
Should the Board of Supervisors choose to approve this request, staff recommends the following
conditions; these conditions are the same as those approved with SP-2008-12 except as noted.
The applicant is asking for four changes. The question is raised why staff would recommend denial of the
four changes requested. It is based on Attachment E of the staff report. There is a special use permit that
was approved by the Board in 2008 that talks about if they go to the top level antenna, which are called
an array of antennas. Each side is a sector that can have four on each side with a maximum of 12. That
is as many antennas they can put on each array. The micro wave dishes are also governed by that
special use permit. In #4 there are seven conditions that guide how to take some out or replace. Staff is
not in the habit of ignoring conditions. Some conditions are subjective. On the road, most people don’t
notice the tower. However, people’s opinions varies. It is quite clear in the conditions that the antennas
are to be flush mounted. Condition 3d indicates in any event for replacement the antennas have to be
flush mounted according to condition 3c unless the Board of Supervisors makes a different determination
and decides to amend the conditions. Staff will follow their direction. The applicant will state their case.
The most important principle for towers in the County is visibility. This tower is right in the middle of the
development area and in the Entrance Corridor, Route 631 and Route 29.. It is more about how the
Board of Supervisors feels about visibility and how much they want them to comply with the conditions
they set. The micro dish request is to move it up 29 feet, but it will be made smaller from a 8’ diameter to
6’. The question is what people will be able to see. It is a question whether it i s something that will be
visible or if they should stick with the conditions. As technology, changes dishes tend to get smaller.
Staff really does not have an objection to moving it a foot or two lower, but feels it is left up to the Board of
Supervisors whether they should be allowed to remove those antennas or make them flush mounted.
One question raised by Mr. Loach was when do they have enough in terms of the tower itself because
condition six says only six. A structural engineer will get involved to determine if they can put anything
else on the tower because if it falls it is a liability. In most cases the structural engineer determines
whether they can or can’t. Staff asked the Planning Commission to provide a recommendation to the
Board.
Mr. Zobrist invited questions.
Mr. Lafferty asked if they flush mounted the antennas if they could get 12 on it or would have to go up or
down.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 8, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
3
Mr. Gatobu replied he did not know how they could flush mount the antennas. In most cases for Tier III,
they have three on the pole itself. It would have to be a series. The only drawback of arrays is the
visibility. Flush mounted would be closer to the pole.
Mr. Loach asked if this request would save the number of poles needed to be requested.
Mr. Gatobu replied yes, that the alternative would be there would have to be other Tier II sites. This is
right in the middle of the development area where many people use the service. This tower relays to
Carter Mountain and Heard’s Mountain.
Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited the applicant.
Maynard Sipe, attorney with LeClair Ryan representing Verizon Wireless; and Stephen W aller, Consultant
to Verizon W ireless, presented a PowerPoint presentation to provide a good background for the
requested services. The driving demand for the request is to handle the demand for capacity to handle
the large volume of call and other services. He noted the many types of services provided, which has
expanded since their original request. The evolution of technolog y is a factor, which has increased the
need for services. The request will allow them to be able to provide these other services and calls faster .
To provide these other services separate antennas are needed. The best way is to provide antennas on
different arrays for the different services. To minimize the visual impact they have reduced the size of two
micro dishes. The older antennas on the array will be reduced by 35 percent as noted on the plan. The
array antennas, even though they will be increasing the number of antennas, the surface area of those
antennas will be reduced by over a third. They fell this will reduce the visual impact of the tower. The
proposal would raise the height to what is recommended to provide reliable uninterrupted service to
Heard’s Mountain in order accommodate existing buildings and trees. The engineering firm’s letter was
included in the packet to provide this explanation. He explained the visibility of the existing tower. Staff
noted the need or demand for the request. The proposal is not inconsistent with the Wireless Policy. The
request should be evaluated under the special use permit criteria . Some of the detailed conditions
imposed previously, particularly for flush mounting, are creating the problem. He not ed that the staff
report made many positive statements and asked the Planning Commission to consider those and
recommend approval. Information from the PowerPoint presentation is as follows.
Verizon Wireless Voice and Data Services
In-Car & In-Building:
Cell phone
Texting
Paging
Email
Wireless internet
Downloading documents, streaming video
911 accessibility
Cellular telephone service 800 MHz band (formerly Alltel)
Personal Cellular Service (PCS) 1850-1990 MHz
Third Generation (3G) Standard -- Verizon Wireless uses CDMA (Code Division Multiple
Access)/EV-DO (Evolution Data-Optimized) technology -- enables data transfers 5-10x faster
than earlier systems. Enables efficient web browsing, streaming video, working remotely, GIS
mapping, email/video/picture sharing, downloading large files such as Power Point presentations.
Long-Term Evolution (LTE) Service (PCS) 700 MHz
Fourth Generation (4G) Standard -- Verizon Wireless uses LTE which is approximately 10x
faster than 3G and enhanced penetration; uses spectrum in the 700 mhz band.
Antennas propagating Cellular signal must be separated to prevent signal interference.
Staff Report
Recognizes that tower exists and is not a substantial detriment to adjacent properties (page 3).
States no increased impact to adjacent properties is expected (page 3).
Agrees the addition of antennas and replacement of microwave dishes will not impact the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 8, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
4
character of the zoning district (page 3).
States the request is consistent with the purpose and intent of the commercial o ffice zoning
district (page 3).
Admits that supposed adverse visual impacts perceived by staff are “debatable” (page 3).
Acknowledges proposed facilities will provide much needed personal wireless communications
services, including E911 call services, to citizens and businesses in the area (pages 3 & 4).
Benefits from Approval of Request
Increasing demand for cellular phone services will continue to be met.
New technologies can be fully deployed including 4G high speed data services and broadband
services.
Microwave network will be able to provide consistently reliable connectivity to sites in rural areas
into the future.
Mr. Zobrist invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and the matter
before the Commission.
Mr. Franco noted this tower was in his district Rio and he supported the request because it was there and
not making the situation worse.
Action on SP-2010-00020:
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Morris seconded for approval of SP-2010-00020 CenturyLink Tower
with staff’s recommended conditions.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Action on Waivers (3) Identified on Pages 5 and 6 of Staff Report:
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Morris seconded for approval of the modifications for Sections
5.1.40.c.3, 5.1.40.c.4, and 5.1.40.c.5 as recommended in the staff report.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Zobrist noted SP-2010-00020 would be forwarded with a recommendation for approval to the Board
of Supervisors with conditions, as follows.
Special Use Permit [SP2008-12] Condition Modification
7. Deletion of provision [3] that only flush mounted antennas be permitted [see below].
8. Deletion of part of provision [4(b)] [see below].
9. Deletion of part of provision [4(c)] [see below].
10. Deletion of part of provision [4(d)] [see below].
11. Deletion of part of provision [8] [see below].
12. Deletion of provision [10] [see below].
1. The tower shall not be increased in height;
2. All antennae, dishes and their replacements attached to the tower shall be used for personal
wireless service providers;
3. Additional and replacement antenna arrays may be attached only as follows:
a. Omni-directional or whip antennas shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height or seven (7)
inches in diameter, and shall be of a color that matches the tower;
b. Directional or panel antennas shall not exceed seven (7) feet in height or two (2) feet in
width, and shall be of a color that matches the tower;
c. Only flush mounted antennas shall be permitted; no new antennas shall project from the
structure beyond the minimum required by the mounting equipment, and in no case shall
an antenna project more than twelve (12) inches from the existing structure. The
replacement of omni-directional, whip, directional or panel antennas in existing antenna
arrays shall be subject to this condition;
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 8, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
5
d. Existing arrays of directional and panel antennas that are mounted with brackets that
separate them by more than (12) inches from the structure may remain. Provided,
however that if any of these arrays are replaced at any time, they shall be flush-mounted
as provided in condition 3c. This condition shall not pertain to the maintenance and/or
replacement of a single panel antenna that malfunctions or is in need of repair.
4. Not more than six (6) satellite or microwave dishes may be attached to the tower at one time, and
only as follows.
a. The existing six (6) foot diameter grid dish that is subject to this request may be replaced
by the specified six (6) foot diameter High Performance dish at a height that is not more
than 95.5 feet;
b. Other existing satellite and microwave dishes may be replaced on the tower by the same
type of dish, provided that the diameter of the replacement dish does not exceed the
diameter of the dish being removed, and the color of the replacement dish matches the
tower. and the mounting height does not exceed that of the dish being replaced;
c. Other existing satellite and microwave dishes may be replaced on the tower by a different
type of dish if the mounting height is not more than 1 foot above that of the dish
being removed. The lowest microwave dish located at a height of 46 feet above
ground level can be replaced and mounted at not more than twenty nine (29) feet
above its current location on the tower. no less than twenty (20) feet below that of
the dish being removed The diameter of the replacement dish does not exceed that of the
dish being removed, and the color of the replacement dish matches the tower;
d. Other existing satellite and microwave dishes may be replaced by a different type of dish
if the proposed mounting height of the replacement dish does not satisfy the height
requirements of condition 4c with the written approval of the Zoning Administrator. This
approval shall only be granted after the submission of a microwave path survey indicating
that the proposed replacement dish will be mounted at the lowest possible height that
allows the system to function. In such a case, the path survey shall demonstrate the
reason(s) why the proposed height is the lowest possible height. but in no case shall the
replacement be higher than the dish it is replacing;
e. All replacement satellite or microwave dishes shall be mounted as close to the face of the
pole as structurally and mechanically possible and, in no case, shall the distance
between the back of the dish and the face of the pole be greater than eighteen (18)
inches; and
f. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for replacing a dish, the applicant shall provide
engineered drawings demonstrating the dimensions of the existing dish to be removed
and its replacement dish, and additional information demonstrating the mounting distance
between the pole and the dish to the Department of Building Code and Zoning Services.
5. The current owner and any subsequent owners shall submit a report to the Zoning Administr ator
once (1) per year, by not later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the
tower and that each user is a personal wireless communications service provider;
6. The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12c of the Zoning Ordinance; and
7. The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date
its use for personal wireless communications services purposes is discontinued. If the Zoning
Administrator determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that the facility will be
removed as required, the permittee shall furnish to the Zoning Administrator a certified check, a
bond with surety satisfactory to the County, or a letter of credit satisfactory to the County, in an
amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type of surety
guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney.
8. All work shall be done in general accord with what is described in the applican t's request and site
construction plans, entitled “Collocate Monopole Tower”, with an issued elevation view
drawing submittal date of 10/15/2010 “Rio Road, Embarq Property”, with a final zoning drawing
submittal date of 3/10/2008;
9. The following shall be submitted to the agent after installation of the antenna and microwave
dishes is completed and prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy: (i) certification by a
registered surveyor stating the height of the antenna and microwave dishes, measured both in
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 8, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
6
feet above ground level and in elevation above mean sea level, using the benchmarks or
reference datum identified
10. The applicant shall provide landscaping along Rio Road East generally as shown on the
Landscape Plan by J. Thomas Dalton sealed 5-21-08, with a final landscaping plan to be
administratively approved by staff.
The Planning Commission approved three (3) modifications from the following sections of the Zoning
Ordinance as outlined in the staff report. The modifications do not require Board approval.
Zoning Ordinance Modifications
1. Subsection 5.1.40(c)(3) Flush mounting requirement
2. Section 5.1.40 (c)(4)- Requirement for a tree conservation plan to be submitted prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
3. Section 5.1.40 (c)(5)- The installation, operation, and maintenance of the facility to be conducted
in accordance with the tree conservation plan.
Ms. Porterfield asked if there is a way when Mr. Gatobu takes this item to the Board that he does not
have to be negative since he has worked with the ordinance, the changes in technology, and the needs
considering the fact that it is an opportunity site.
Return to PC actions letter
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
February 28, 2011
Alan Franklin
111 3rd Street SE
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SP201000027 Nichols/Peck Crossing
Tax Map 25, Parcel 18
Dear Mr. Franklin:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 8, 2011, by a vote of 7:0,
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall obtain approval from FEMA for changes to the floodplain, and update the
FEMA maps.
2. The applicant shall obtain County Engineer approval of plans for the bridges and abutments.
3. 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,
regardless of whether the project exceeds the minimum disturbance limits.
4. The applicant shall obtain all necessary federal and state agency approvals prior to construction
(Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Environmental Quality, etc.).
5. The applicant shall obtain Program Authority approval of a mitigation plan, and provide mitigation
according to the Water Protection Ordinance.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on March 9, 2011.
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,
Gerald Gatobu
Principal Planner
Current Development Division
cc: Nichols, Michael K or Reba A Peck
6094 Sugar Hollow Road
Crozet VA 22932—2237
View staff report and attachments
View PC minutes
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP 2010-00027, Nichols-Peck
Bridge
Staff: Glenn Brooks
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
Owners: Nichols, Michael K and Reba A Peck Applicant: Nichols, Michael K and Reba A Peck
Acreage: acres Special Use Permit (SP 2010-00027): to allow fill
in the floodplain for a bridge (Section 30.5.5.2.d.6)
TMP: TM 25, Parcel 18A
Location: 6094 Sugar Hollow Road in Crozet
Existing Zoning and By-right use: Rural Areas (RA)
Magisterial District: Whitehall Conditions: Yes
Proposal: To replace the existing concrete and
culvert driveway crossing with a bridge.
Requested # of Dwelling Units: NA
Development Area: NA
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural Areas.
Character of Property: Wooded mountainous
rural property with river and floodplain, used for
residential.
Use of Surrounding Properties: Rural residences and
farms.
Factors Favorable:
1. An improved river crossing
Factors Unfavorable:
Staff has identified no unfavorable factors.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval with conditions.
STAFF: Glenn Brooks
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 4 Jan 2011
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DATE:
SP 2010-00027 Nichols-Peck Bridge
PETITION
PROJECT: SP2010-00027, Nichols-Peck Bridge
PROPOSED: Special Use Permit to replace the existing concrete and culvert driveway
crossing with a bridge
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA - Rural Areas, residential and agricultural
SECTION: 30.5.5.2.d.6 Flood Hazard Overlay
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - agricultural and residential
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: 6094 Sugar Hollow Road in Crozet
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 25-18,18A,18B (Bridge is actually on parcel 18A)
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Whitehall
CHARACTER OF THE AREA
Wooded maintain side, river and floodplain. Rural agricultural land. Scenic Stream Overlay.
A photo of the current driveway crossing is attached.
SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL
This proposal is to replace the existing low crossing, made up of concrete and small
culverts, with a bridge and abutments.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY
SP-80-18 was approved July 13, 1983 to convert a concrete ford to a low culvert crossing.
CONFORMITY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
This residential driveway conforms to the comprehensive plan.
STAFF COMMENT
Regarding the provisions of Sections 31.6.1 and 30.5.5.2d6 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,
This is the replacement of an existing river crossing. It w ill change in character in that a
larger, taller structure will replace the existing one. A photo of the existing crossing is
attached. An analysis of the affects on the floodplain shows that there will be no significant
impacts to adjacent property, and that flood levels will not increase. Attached are a depiction
of the floodplain and bridge, and a plan for the proposed structure.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
The ordinance anticipates this use in 30.5.5.
with the uses permitted by right in the district,
This is a residential driveway 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.
Staff believes that the proposed bridge is an improvement over the existing condition, both
for the safety of vehicles, and for the flow of the river from an environmental and hydraulic
standpoint .
30.5.5.2d6: Bridges, causeways and other similar structures designed for pedestrian
and/or vehicular access; provided that the board of supervisors shall find, by clear
and convincing evidence, in addition to the findings required by section 31.2.4.1, that:
(a) such bridge or other structure is to be located at the site of an existing bridge, ford
or other stream crossing;
This is the site of an existing low culvert crossing.
(b) such existing crossing is regularly used, and such bridge or other structure is to
be used, as to the sole means of access to one or more existing, lawfully occupied
dwellings;
This is the case.
(c) no alternative means of access to such dwellings is physically practicable
No alternative access is practicable.
(d) no such alternative means of access has been abandoned, aliened or otherwise
relinquished by the voluntary act or omission of the owner of the land upon which
such dwellings are located since December 10, 1980;
No other access has been abandoned.
(e) such bridge or other structure is necessary to prevent, eliminate or substantially
alleviate a hazard to the life or property of any resident of the county;
This crossing improves the safety of the driveway, and will alleviate clogging of the culverts
currently in place.
(f) such bridge or other structure is so designed as to pose the minimum practical
disruption of the environment of the stream consistent with the other provisions
hereof; and
This is the case.
(g) such bridge or other structure shall comply with all applicable state and federal
law including, but not limited to, Chapters 3.5, 7, 8, 9 and 20 of Title 62.1 of the Code
of Virginia (1950), as amended, to the extent that any or all of the same may be
applicable in a particular case. (Added 1 -19-83)
None appear to be applicable;
Chapter 3.5 -“Flood Damage Reduction Act”, Chapter 7 -“Water-Power Development,
Conservation of Hydroelectric Power Dams and Works”, Chapter 8 - “Impoundment of
Surface Waters”, Chapter 9 - “Mills, Dams and Certain Other Works on Watercourses”, 20 -
“Miscellaneous Offenses” (such as dumping garbage)
SUMMARY
Staff has identified the following factors that are favorable:
1. The new bridge improves safety by allowing passage during large r flow events.
2. The new bridge allows the river bed to be re -established, and provides less of an
impediment to water, debris and wildlife.
Staff has identified no factors that are unfavorable to this request.
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 County Engineer approval of plans for the bridges and
abutments.
3. 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, regardless of whether the project exceeds the minimum
disturbance limits.
4. The applicant shall obtain all necessary federal and state agency appr ovals prior to
construction (Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Environmental Quality, etc.).
5. The applicant shall obtain Program Authority approval of a mitigation plan, and provide
mitigation according to the Water Protection Ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Photo of current driveway, and Plan of proposed bridge with floodplain changes
Return to PC actions
Existing Bridge
Proposed Bridge
Floodplain
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 8, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
1
Public Hearing Items:
SP-2010-00027 Nichols/Peck Crossing
PROPOSED: Rehab an existing concrete culvert bridge with an engineered bridge that spans the
Moormans River.
ZONING: RA Rural Areas-Agricultural, forestal and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 units/acre in
development lots).
SECTION:30.5.5.2.d.6.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Area in Rural Area 1- preserve and protect
agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic. resources/density (0.5 units/acre in
development lots).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No, [but is in the Scenic Stream Overlay and Flood Hazard Overlay].
LOCATION: 6094 Sugar Hollow Road in Crozet.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 02500-00-00-01800, 02500-00-00-018A0, and 2500-00-00-018B0.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Whitehall
(Glenn Brooks)
Mr. Brooks presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the request.
This is a proposal to build a private bridge at an existing crossing in Sugar Hollow. He presented photos
and explained the proposal. It will be a concrete crossing with a driveway. The culverts currently back up
frequently. The applicant’s plan proposes a standard bridge typically, what would be seen on a public
highway. It will be comparable to what was seen on Rio Road. The bridge will be c onsiderably higher
than the previous crossing. It will have a lot less obstructive to the river. The r iver bed should be
restored below it. The changes to the flood plan have been supplied, which is specific to what the
ordinance speaks to. This is a complicated spot in the floodplain because the FEMA mapping is not very
accurate. The computed darker blue line has topography that is more accurate and their study. He
reviewed the information and found the information to be accurate. It shows changes to the flood plan
that are more attributed to the inaccuracy than the bridge itself. The bridge should help the flooding in
this area.
Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Michael Nichols, owner of property, said they were trying to get rid of something bad that is in the river.
Mr. Loach asked what the rating was.
Mr. Nichols replied that it would be built to militar y specs so it would take any fire truck, concrete truck, or
things like that.
Mr. Zobrist invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and the matter
before the Commission.
Motion: Mr. Loach moved, and Mr. Franco seconded for approval of SP -2010-00027, Nichols-Peck
Bridge, with the conditions recommended by staff .
The motion passed by a vote of 6:1. (Lafferty voted nay)
Mr. Zobrist noted that SP-2010-00027, Nichols-Peck would go the Board of Supervisors on a date to be
determined 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 County Engineer approval of plans for the bridges and abutments.
3. 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,
regardless of whether the project exceeds the minimum disturbance limits.
4. The applicant shall obtain all necessary federal and state agency approvals prior to const ruction
(Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Environmental Quality, etc.).
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 8, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
2
5. The applicant shall obtain Program Authority approval of a mitigation plan, and provide mitigation
according to the Water Protection Ordinance.
Return to PC actions letter
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SP201000033 Four Seasons Learning Center
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Increase enrollment from 40 children to 54
children at 254 Lakeview Drive on TMP 061X-
00-00-00500
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Cilimberg, Echols
AGENDA DATE:
March 9, 2011
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: NO
BACKGROUND:
On February 8, 2011, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this application. At the meeting,
the applicants requested a reduction in the number of new students to be added to the facility. The
applicants lowered the number requested from 64 to 54. The Planning Commission recommended
approval of the SP with this change and with an added condition that the 3 off-site and off-street parking
spaces at the Northwood Apartments would be used for the day care. This condition has been reworded
for clarity and the conditions re-ordered since the Commission’s meeting.
DISCUSSION:
With the change at the Commission’s hearing, the applicant is now requesting only 14 additional students.
This number represents 2 more students than the Commission recommended in 2008. As in 2008, staff
still does not recommend an increase in enrollment at the day care facility due to expected traffic increases
at the intersection of Four Seasons Drive and Lakeview Drive. Staff also continues to believe that, at this
location, an increase in enrollment will create a facility that is out of scale with the neighborhood.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the request for 14 additional students at the day care
facility. If the Board wishes to approve the request as recommended by the Planning Commission, staff
recommends the following conditions (changes from the conditions recommended in the staff report to the
Planning Commission are noted in bold italics):
1. This permit is approved for an office OR nursery school and day-care center.
2. The site shall be in general conformity with the Minor Site Plan Amendment dated June 26, 2000
prepared by Aubrey Huffman, approved July 18, 2000 by the Department of Planning and Community
Development and later approved by Letter of Revision dated December 5, 2000 with the exception that
13 parking spaces are required and are provided on-site and on the allowable street frontage of the
site.
Conditions 3 – 7 below apply to the nursery school and day-care center:
3. The number of children occupying the nursery school and day care center shall not exceed fifty-four
(54) or the number approved by the Department of Social Services, whichever is less, at any time.
4. A twenty foot buffer shall be maintained between the property and TMP 61X1-AA-B.
5. The concurrent use of the property for a nursery/day care center and a residential use is prohibited.
6. All employees of the day care center, including owners and directors, shall park on-site or in other off-
street spaces approved by the Zoning Administrator.
7. The maximum number of employees, including owners and directors who are on-site during hours of
operation, shall be limited to seven (7).
8. The applicant shall provide three employee parking spaces at the Northwood Apartments and
keep in force the agreement with the owner of the Northwood Apartments for these parking
spaces.
Conditions #9 - #11 below apply to the use of the facility as offices:
9. The maximum number of employees shall be ten (10).
10. A twenty foot buffer shall be maintained between the property and TMP 61X1-AA-B.
11. The concurrent use of the property for an office and a residential use is prohibited.
Conditions #12 & #13 below apply to any use of the property:
12. The concurrent use of the property for a nursery/day care center and an office use is prohibited.
13. The small evergreen tree on the Four Seasons Drive frontage at the corner of the parking shall be
relocated toward the building, as recommended by VDOT, a sufficient distance to prevent future line-of-
sight problems.
View staff report and attachments
View PC minutes of January 25 and February 8, 2011
Return to agenda
SP 2010-033
PC January 25, 2011
Page 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP 2010-33 Four Seasons
Learning Center
Staff: Elaine K. Echols, AICP
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
January 25, 2011
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
TBD
Owners: Krzystzof and Barbara Sliwinski Applicant: Krzystzof and Barbara Sliwinski
Acreage: 0.35 acres Special Use Permit for: Request for
expansion of child care facility in accordance
with Section 20.3.2.1 of the Zoning ordinance
TMP: 061X-00-00-00500
Location: At the corner of Four Seasons Drive and
Lakeview Drive in the Four Seasons development
Conditions: Yes
Existing Zoning and By-right use: PUD -
residential (3 – 34 units per acre), mixed with
commercial and industrial uses. By special use
permit, this facility may have up to 40 students.
Magisterial District: Rivanna
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Urban Density
Residential – residential (6-34 units/acre) and
supporting uses such as religious institutions,
schools, commercial, office and service uses.
DA (Development Area): X
RA (Rural Area):
Factors Favorable:
1. There is a need for child care facilities in
Albemarle County.
2. The addition of 24 students and associated
parking requirements can be accommodated
on-site, adjacent to the site, and across the
street.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. Additional traffic from the 24 students
will have a negative impact on the
neighborhood due to the increase in
vehicles and opportunities for traffic
conflict at intersections.
2. The enlarged day car enrollment will
create a use that is out of scale with
this part of the Four Seasons
development.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends disapproval.
SP 2010-033
PC January 25, 2011
Page 2
STAFF PERSON: ELAINE K. ECHOLS, AICP
PLANNING COMMISSION: JANUARY 25, 2011
SP2010-33 Four Seasons Learning Center
Applicant's Proposal: Krzystzof and Barbara Sliwinski are requesting an amendment to their
existing special use permit for a day care facility at the corner of Four Seasons Drive and
Lakeview Drive. Their existing special use permit allows 40 children; they would like to have 24
additional children for a total of 64 children. Attachment A shows their most recently approved site
plan waiver and letter of revision for the facility.
Petition:
PROJECT : Four Seasons Learning Center
PROPOSED: Amend special use permit to increase maximum number of children in daycare from
40 to 64. No residential units proposed.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PUD Planned Unit Development which allows
residential (3 - 34 units per acre), mixed with commercial and industrial uses
SECTION: 20.3.2.1, which allows for child care facilities
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density Residential (6-34 units/acre) in
Neighborhood 1.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes____No X
LOCAT ION: 254 Lakeview Drive (See Attachment A.)
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 61 X1, Parcel 5
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT : Rio
Background: An identical special use permit request was made in 2007. The staff reports and
Executive Summaries for those meetings are found in Attachment B and C. The Planning
Commission reviewed the request on August 19, 2008 and recommended approval for 12 extra
students (for a total of 52 students) and not the 24 students requested by the applicants.
On October 8, 2008, the Board of Supervisors denied the application, including the Planning
Commission’s recommendation for 12 fewer students. The Board said that a larger daycare
enrollment would create a use that is out of scale with this part of the Four Seasons development.
Of particular concern was the additional traffic. The minutes from the Board meeting are included
as Attachment D.
On October 7, 2010, the applicant met with the neighbors at the County Office Building to discuss
a possible resubmittal of the application. There were about a dozen residents in attendance
including Rodney Thomas and the applicants. Existing traffic and driver behavior were the major
concerns of the residents. The applicants indicated they have acquired permission to use three
parking spaces at the apartment complex across the street for employees to help take some of the
traffic off of Four Seasons Drive. The neighbors were asked if this would help with the impacts of
additional children in the center. The neighbors said the additional parking wouldn’t be much help.
SP 2010-033
PC January 25, 2011
Page 3
They stated that existing traffic volumes on Four Seasons Drive as well as the closeness of the
entrance to the intersection and site distance were problems the applicant couldn’t overcome.
Since there are no changes other than the appli cant’s offer to provide off-site parking for three
employees, staff is not repeating the information provided in the prior staff report.
STAFF COMMENT:
31.2.4.1: Special Use Permits provided for in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding
by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent
property,
The single largest impact from the additional students will be traffic. Staff viewed the additional
trips from the increase in enrollment would have a negative i mpact on the neighborhood. The
neighbors believe that additional traffic will be substantially detrimental to the neighborhood. The
Planning Commission reviewed this issue in 2008 and concluded that the traffic from 12 additional
students, which will be up to 24 vehicle trips in the morning and afternoon, would not be a
detriment. The Board of Supervisors at that time did not agree.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
The Four Seasons development was originally developed in the 1960’s. It has a mixture of uses
and dwelling types. The day care facility acts as a transition between the higher density of the
apartments and the lower density of the detached units on Lakeview Drive. In 2008, staff
concluded that i ncreasing the intensity of the day care use at this location by 24 stud ents and
associated traffic would likely affect the character of a portion of the district, specifically Lakeview
Drive as a single-family residential street, although it would not have much effect on the
apartments across the street. The Commission believed that 12 additional students would not
change the character of the district. The Board of Supervisors did not reach the same conclusion.
that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
The purpose and intent of the PUD is to provide for a mixture of uses and housing types.
Commercial uses are intended to be limited to a scale appropriate to the support of the residential
uses within the PUD. However, many institutional uses, including religious institutions draw f rom
the area beyond the geographic boundaries of the development. In this case, the assessment is
whether the scale is appropriate to the district.
When this day care facility was first permitted, it was limited to 32 children. There were two
employee/owners and the facili ty was smaller. Over the last 8 years, it has grown to 40 children
and the building has been expanded . When the project was reviewed in 2008, staff said it
believed that the scale of the operation at 40 students was at the upper end of what should be
allowed. The Commission, however, disagreed and said that the scale of the facility with 12
additional students would be appropriate. The Board of Supervisors at that time did not agree.
with uses permitted by right in the district,
Residential uses are the primary uses allowed by -right in the district. Day care facilities are
SP 2010-033
PC January 25, 2011
Page 4
considered supporting uses to residential uses in all residential districts.
with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance,
Supplementary regulations from Section 5 of the zoning ordinance require conformity with
licensure requirements of the Virginia Department of Social Services and periodic inspecti ons by
the Fire Official. Because of concerns for the safety of children these types of facilities are
inspected regularly by the Fire Official and Social Services.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
Traffic is the biggest concern that exists for an expansion of this use at the corner of Four
Seasons Drive and Lakeview Drive. With the expansion, staff expects another 120 vehicle trips
per day (maximum amount, inclusive of both staff and parent trips). The amount of additional
traffic is of concern as well as poor sight distance at the corner of Four Seasons Drive and
Lakeview Drive. One resident said this,
“Ingress and egress is so close to the corner that it is treacherous to all vehicles
traveling along Four Seasons Drive and especially to those who turn into Lakeview
Drive from the Commonwealth Drive side. The right turn into Lakeview is “blind” to
those vehicles existing the day care parking lot (and vice -versa) and I have seen
dozens of close calls there.”
In 2008, staff reviewed a traffic study and noted that the sight lines and entrances to the facility
meet VDOT requirements.
In 2010, staff observed traffic at the intersection on the morning of October 7 and on the afternoon
of January 7. There were 276 vehicular trips observed in a 1 ¼ hour morning observation and
810 observed trips in a 2 hour period in the afternoon. The data from the traffic observations
reinforces staff’s conclusions in 2008. Intersection improvements, such as the addition of turn
lanes are not warranted by the traffic volumes.
No traffic conflicts were observed, although neighbors have described a number of near -collisions.
From the detailed observation, staff noted the potential for traffic conflicts from turning movements
from Lakeview onto Four Seasons Drive. For both left and right turns, drivers have to drive well
past the stop sign and white stop bar to see if the intersection is clear before turning. Sta ff saw a
few speeders during the observations and could see how the combination of speeding traffic on
Four Seasons Drive and turning movements from drivers on Lakeview Drive could be problematic.
Staff believes that high quality day care facilities at convenient locations in the Development Areas
are needed in the community. However, staff continues to have concerns about the safety at the
intersection with additional cars being added.
SP 2010-033
PC January 25, 2011
Page 5
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors, which ar e favorable to this request:
1. There is a need for child care facilities in Albemarle County.
2. The addition of 24 students and associated parking requirements can be accommodated
on-site, adjacent to the site, and across the street.
Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request:
1. Additional traffic from the 24 students will have a negative impact on the neighborhood due
to the increase in vehicles and opportunities for traffic conflict at intersections.
2. The enlarged day car enrollment will create a use that is out of scale with this part of the
Four Seasons development.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends disapproval of the request for 24 additional students. However, if the Planning
Commission wishes to recommend approval, staff recommends the following conditions
1. This permit is approved for an office OR nursery school and day-care center.
2. The site shall be in general conformity with the Minor Site Plan Amendment dated June 26,
2000 prepared by Aubrey Huffman, approved July 18, 2000 by the Department of Planning
and Community Development and later approved by Letter of Revision dated Decembe r 5,
2000 with the exception that 13 parking spaces are required and are provided on -site and
on the allowable street frontage of the site.
Conditions 3 – 7 below apply to the nursery school and day-care center:
3. The number of children occupying the nursery school and day care center shall not exceed
sixty-four (64) or the number approved by the Department of Social Services, whichever is
less, at any time.
4. A twenty foot buffer shall be maintained between the property and TMP 61X1 -AA-B.
5. The concurrent use of the property for a nursery/day care center and a residential use is
prohibited.
6. All employees of the day care center, including owners and directors, shall park on -site or
in other off-street spaces approved by the Zoning Administrator.
7. The maximu m number of employees, including owners and directors, on-site during hours
of operation shall be limited to seven (7).
Conditions #8 - #10 below apply to the use of the facility as offices:
SP 2010-033
PC January 25, 2011
Page 6
8. The maximum number of employees shall be ten (10).
9. A twenty foot buffer shall be maintained between the property and TMP 61X1 -AA-B.
10. The concurrent use of the property for an office and a residential use is prohibited.
Conditions #11 & #12 below apply to any use of the property:
11. The concurrent use of the property for a nursery/day care center and an office use is
prohibited.
12. The small evergreen tree on the Four Seasons Drive frontage at the corner of the parking
shall be relocated toward the building, as recommended by VDOT, a suf ficient distance to
prevent future line-of-sight problems.
---------------
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Location Map
Attachment B: Staff Report dated June 24, 2008
Attachment C: Executive Summary dated August 19, 2008
Attachment D: Minutes of Board of Supervisors Meeting October 8, 2008
Return to executive summary
SP 2010-033
PC January 25, 2011
Page 7
SP 2010-033
PC January 25, 2011
LOCATION MAP
ATTACHMENT A
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SP 07-01 Four Seasons Learning Center
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Increase enrollment from 40 children to 64
children at 254 Lakeview Drive on TMP 061X-
00-00-00500
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Cilimberg, Echols
AGENDA DATE:
August 19, 2008
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: YES
BACKGROUND:
On June 24, 2008, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Four Seasons
Learning Center request for an increase in 24 children at their facility located at 254
Lakeview Drive. At the meeting, the applicant provided a traffic study for the Planning
Commission’s review which they had not previously been provided to staff. After some
discussion, the applicant requested deferral of the public hearing until staff was able to
review the traffic study. The staff report and minutes of that meeting are contained in
Attachments 1 and 2, respectively. There were also questions concerning the number of
parking spaces needed for the facility and provided by the applicant.
DISCUSSION:
The traffic study provided by the applicant is included as Attachment 2. After reviewing the
applicant’s traffic study, the County Engineer concluded that the appl icant and staff had
performed different kinds of analysis. Staff’s analysis was based on vehicle trips per day
while the applicant’s analysis was performed on peak hour trips. The County Engineer’s
comments are below:
The traffic generation report by Raina Rosado for Four Seasons Learning Center has been
reviewed. I agree with the conclusion that the traffic generated during the peak hour will be
around 52 trip ends. It is also correct that this does not pass the thresholds for a traffic study, as
set by the VDOT 527 regulations.
The conclusion that transportation on Four Seasons Drive and Lakeview Drive will not be
significantly affected is not as easy to agree with. Below I briefly summarize each road situation:
Four Seasons Drive has a traffic count of 4100 average daily trips according to the latest VDOT
counts from 2007. This translates to about 200 trips in each direction during the peak hour. The
entering turning movements for the daycare (52) make about 26% of opposing volume. If the
homes on Lakeview Drive are added, this rises to above 30%. While this appears to fall just
below the VDOT thresholds for a left turn lane volume warrant requirement, I would not say it is
insignificant.
Lakeview Drive is a small cul-de-sac with 19 homes, plus the daycare. It generates about 19
trips on the road during the peak hour (AM or PM, assumed 10%). The daycare generates
about 104 (two times the number of trip ends, for a car comes in, and goes out, passing by twice
for one trip end.). Thus, the daycare generates about 5 times the traffic that this small cul-de-
sac might otherwise experience.
2
I have attached a recent aerial photo of the site. (See Attachment 3.) The frontage is confusing
due to improvements made by the applicant, and on -street parking issues. If this application is
approved, it is my recommendation that curbing be installed to establish the edge and the
turning taper, with parking prohibited in this area.
As an aside, the numbers presented in the previous report might have been a bi t high, as the
particular ITE table referenced is based on the number of employees, rather than the number of
students, which is what the above numbers are based on. It is also comparing apples and
oranges, as the staff report talked about daily totals or averages, and the applicant’s study uses
peak hour only. It is important to distinguish clearly between average daily traffic and peak hour
traffic, and also between trip ends, and trips. Putting numbers aside for a moment, the general
conclusions are that this use is rather large for the small neighborhood. It will be noticed on
Four Seasons Drive, but does not appear to meet VDOT warrants for improvements.
Using the County Engineer’s analysis , the additional 24 students represent a 46% increase in
peak hour traffic. The recommendation for curbing deals with Four Seasons Drive where VDOT
has prohibited parking in any case.
Another outstanding issue at the Commission meeting had to do with parking requirements.
The number of required parking spaces wa s not clear because it was unclear how many staff
members would be working at the facility. The applicant has indicated that there will be 6
employees at the facility, which translates into a total parking requirement of 13 spaces. The
Zoning Division has confirmed that 13 spaces are available either on -site or on-street next to
the property on Lakeview Drive.
Also, since the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has asked staff to verify its
assertion that, if this were a new facility, only 51 students would be allowed. In reviewing the
staff’s calculations, it appears that the infant room was left out of the calculations. Staff now
believes that, if the Four Seasons Learning Center were a new facility, it would be allowed 58
students, not 51 students. Although staff has attempted to verify this conclusion several
times with the Verona office of Virginia Department of Social Services, they have not
provided the information. A letter from Social Services is in Attachment 4. Staff has
received several letters from parents who have children in the day care facility who support
the expansion. They are provided in Attachment 5.
Staff continues to believe that the primary issue involved with this special use permit is scale
and impact. In addition to traffic impacts, the scale issue stands out even more because of
the intensity of the use and the location on a neighborhood street. It is even more apparent
when one looks at the child care facilities that have been approved in the development areas
since 1980.
There have been nine “stand alone” child care facilities (not located in a church) approved in
the development areas since 1980. Of these nine, three have been approved on
neighborhood streets. Two of the facilities using neighborhood street s were approved in the
Four Seasons development. They are the Charlottesville Day School is on Four Seasons
Drive and the Four Seasons Learning Center. The third facility is on Barclay Place off of
Hydraulic Road. The remaining 6 facilities have been app roved on primary streets.
The facilities range in intensity (measured in students per acre) from less than 7 students per
acre to a maximum of 115 students per acre. Four Seasons Learning Center has the
equivalent of 114 students per acre. As such, it is at the high end of the spectrum. With the
additional 24 students it would have the equivalent of 182 students per acre which is greater
than any other facility, with one exception.
In 1987, SP 87-24 was approved for 325 children on 1.395 acres which translates into an
equivalent intensity of 233 students per acre . The special use permit for the facility for 325
3
students expired and the facility kept its approval for only 75 students. It was the same
facility described above on Barclay Place off of Hydraulic Road. The distinction between this
facility and Four Seasons Drive has to do with its setting. Barclay Place provides access to a
multi-unit development and is a short distance off of Hydraulic. Four Seasons Learning
Center is within a mixed single-family and multi-family development on a street which has all
single-family residences. No other special use permit has been approved in a similar setting
with the intensity proposed.
Staff notes that there are no children per acre standards in the zoning ordinance or in state
regulations. Staff just uses this information as a measure of intensity of the existing and
proposed use.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff sympathizes strongly with parents who need affordable, reli able child care and believes
that Four Seasons Learning Center provides these things now. However, staff continues to
believe that the traffic associated with 24 additional students along with the traffic patterns and
volumes already existing on Lakeview Drive will be in excess of an acceptable limit. Staff thinks
that both the traffic and proposed intensity of the use will change the character of this part of the
Four Seasons PUD. For these reasons, staff believes the current restriction of 40 students is an
acceptable limit for the facility and recommends denial of the request.
If the Commission, however, wishes to recommend approval of the request, staff recommends
that this special use permit be approved for an office OR nursery school and day care center
with the following conditions:
Conditions #1 - #5 below apply to the nursery/day care center:
1. The building, parking and access shall be as shown (with noted dimensions) on
the “Plat Showing As-Built Survey Parcel A-Patio House Section Four Seasons
Learning Center 254 Lakeview Drive” by David C. Blankenbaker, L.S., dated July
21, 2008.
2. There shall be submitted, no later than sixty (60) days after the date of approval
of this special use permit, an as-built site plan which meets the requirements of
Zoning Ordinance Section 32.6 Final Site Plan Content, except for those items
waived by the Agent as not applicable. The as -built site plan shall meet all of the
requirements of Section 32.6 and be approved by the County’s site plan agent
prior to occupancy of the nursery/day care center by more than forty (40) children.
3. The number of children occupying the nursery/day care center shall not exceed
sixty-four (64) or the number approved by the Department of Social Services,
whichever is less, at any time.
4. A twenty foot buffer shall be maintained between the property and TMP 61X1-AA-
B.
5. The concurrent use of the property for a nursery/day care center and a residential
use is prohibited.
Conditions #6 - #8 below apply to the use of the facility as offices:
6. The maximum number of employees shall be ten (10).
7. A twenty foot buffer shall be maintained between the property and TMP 61X1 -AA-
B.
8. The concurrent use of the property for an office and a residential use is
prohibited.
Conditions #9 & #10 below apply to any use of the property:
4
9. The concurrent use of the property for a nursery/day care center and an office
use is prohibited.
10. The small evergreen tree on the Four Seasons Drive frontage at the corner of the
parking shall be relocated toward the building, as recommended by VDOT, a
sufficient distance to prevent future line-of-sight problems.
Should the Planning Commission recommend approval, t hese conditions may need additional
“wordsmithing” between the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors’ meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
ATTACHMENT 1: June 24, 2008 Staff Report
ATTACHMENT 2: Planning Commission Minutes
ATTACHMENT 3: Traffic Study by Hurt and Proffitt dated 6-16-08
ATTACHMENT 4: Orthophotography showing Four Seasons Learning Center
ATTACHMENT 5: Letter from Social Services Licensing Division dated July 29, 2008
ATTACHMENT 6: Letters from parents
ATTACHMENT 7: Child Care Special Use Permits from 1980
5
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP 2007-01 Four Seasons Learning
Center
Staff: Elaine K. Echols, AICP
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
June 24, 2008
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
TBD
Owners: Krzystzof and Barbara Sliwinski Applicant: Krzystzof and Barbara Sliwinski
Acreage: 0.35 acres Special Use Permit for: Request for expansion
of child care facility in accordance with Section
20.3.2.1 of the Zoning ordinance
TMP: 061X-00-00-00500
Location: At the corner of Four Seasons Drive and
Lakeview Drive in the Four Seasons development
Conditions: Yes
Existing Zoning and By-right use: PUD - residential (3
– 34 units per acre), mixed with commercial and
industrial uses. By special use permit, this facility may
have up to 40 students.
Magisterial District: Rivanna
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Urban Density
Residential – residential (6-34 units/acre) and
supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools,
commercial, office and service uses.
DA (Development Area): X
RA (Rural Area):
Factors Favorable:
1. There is a need for child care facilities in Albemarle
County.
2. The addition of 24 students and associated parking
requirements can be accommodated on -site or
adjacent to the site.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. Additional traffic from the 24 students will
have a negative impact on the
neighborhood due to the increase in
vehicles and opportunities for conflict,
especially in the morning when children are
being dropped off.
2. The enlarged day car enrollment will create
a use that is out of scale with this part of
the Four Seasons development.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends disapprova l.
6
STAFF PERSON: ELAINE K. ECHOLS, AICP
PLANNING COMMISSION: APRIL 22, 2008
SP2007-01 Four Seasons Learning Center
Applicant's Proposal: Krzystzof and Barbara Sliwinski are requesting an amendment to their existing special
use permit for a day care facility at the corner of Four Seasons Drive and Lakeview Drive. Their existing special
use permit allows 40 children; they would like to have 24 additional children for a total of 64 children.
Attachment A shows their most recently approved site plan waiver and letter of revision for the facility.
Petition:
PROJECT: Four Seasons Learning Center
PROPOSED: Amend special use permit to increase maximum number of children in daycare from 40 to 64. No
residential units proposed.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PUD Planned Unit Development which allows residential (3 - 34
units per acre), mixed with commercial and industrial uses
SECTION: 20.3.2.1, which allows for child care facilities
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY : Urban Density Residential (6-34 units/acre) in Neighborhood
1.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes____No X
LOCATION: 254 Lakeview Drive
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 61 X1, Parcel 5
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
(See Attachment B.)
Character of the Area: The area surrounding the facility is residential with townhouses, apartments, single-
family detached and single family attached units. A recreational facility (ACAC) is nearby. The day care center
is located at the corner of Four Seasons Drive and Lakeview Drive. Lakeview Drive is a cul -de-sac
approximately 400 feet in length.
Planning and Zoning History: The Four Seasons development was approved in 1969 as a conditional use
permit in an A-1 Agricultural District. County appraisal records indicate the building in which the day care
facility is located was constructed in 1968. A conditional use permit was granted for an office in that building in
1969. In 1974, the office use was vacated and a special use permit was requested for the day care facility (SP
412). It was granted with several conditions including a maximum capacity of 32 children. Office uses were still
allowed under the special use permit.
Since that time, several changes have been approved by SP and by SDP. A brief history follows:
SP 89-023 Amendment of SP 412 to reduce the setback of the sign
SDP 00-72 -- changes to circulation approved on site plan
Letter of Revision to site plan approved December 5, 2000
SP 02-06 Amendment to allow for 40 children
SDP 06-55 – changes proposed to address as -built conditions
VIO2004-167 – Notice of zoning violation for failure to build in accordance with approved site
plan
VIO2007-156 – Notice of zoning violation for failure to comply with special use permit conditions
AP 07-02 – Appeal of notices of violation/decision of Zoning Administrator. BZA upheld decision
of Zoning Administrator
Appeal of decision by Zoning Administrator appealed to Circuit Court; decision dated September
24, 2007 for Applicant to abate the zoning violation; civil penalties assessed until conformity was
achieved
December 2007 - Conformity achieved
Attachment C contains the staff report, minutes of the Planning Commission meeting and approved conditions
7
for SP 02-06.
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan shows this area as Urban Density Residential in
Neighborhood 1. Because no changes are proposed to the site, the project has not been assessed for
conformity with the Neighborhood Model. There are no environmental features on the site which should be
preserved, according to the Open Space Plan.
Details of the Proposal: The applicants have requested an increase in students to help meet demand of
families in the community who need day care for their children. No building additions are proposed and the
facility can accommodate the 64 children, according to the licensi ng division of the Department of Social
Services.
The site, with the additional children, requires 13 parking spaces (1 space per 10 children plus 1 space per
employee). Nine spaces are accommodated on –site. The applicant has requested that the additio nal parking
be allowed on-street. The Zoning Administrator has determined that there are 4 spaces adjacent to the facility
on Lakeview Drive which can be used to provide required parking. The site meets requirements of the zoning
ordinance for the expansion and the Zoning Administrator will allow 4 on -street parking spaces to be used.
STAFF COMMENT:
31.2.4.1: Special Use Permits provided for in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board
of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property,
In evaluating whether a use will be a detriment to adjacent properties, the intensity of the use and other impacts
are evaluated. Comments and concerns of neighboring properties are also considered. One measure of the
intensity of the use in relation to nearby and adjoining properties is the traffic impact and the biggest complaint
from neighbors on Lakeview Drive has to do with traffic. Based on the number of students proposed for the day
care facility, the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Traffic Generation Manual, 7 th Edition there are 200 trips generated
by the current facility. An additional 120 trips from the 24 additional students would yield 320 trips per day.
Calculated with 190 trips from the existing residential uses, there will be a traffic increase from 51% to 63% of
the traffic on Lakeview Drive.
The second biggest complaint from the neighbors has to do with on -street parking. In order to keep the parking
lot available for parents picking up and dropping off their children, employees often park on the street in front of
the houses on Lakeview Drive. Occasionally, parking on -street results in blocked entrances to driveways.
From time-to-time employees must be asked to move their cars away from the driveways. Also, residents use
on-street parking at times.
In the County’s designated development areas, on -street parking is expected and encouraged, especially near
“centers”. A distinction which could be made in this setting is the fact that the street is a cul-de-sac, rather than
a through-street. On-street parking is encouraged more often in a “grid network” situation than on cul -de-sacs.
It should be noted, however, that the streets in the Four Seasons development are public streets. Ev en though
property owners often consider the area on the street in front of their house as belonging to their lot, the spaces
are available for public parking if allowed by VDOT. Joel DeNunzio with VDOT has said that the spaces are
available for parking and that on-street parking is not restricted at this location (See Attachment D.)
Noise is the only other possible impact from this use. The noise of children playing outside is expected with this
type of use. No complaints have been received regarding n oise.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
The Four Seasons development is a PUD – planned unit development -- which was originally developed in the
1960’s. It has a mixture of uses and dwelling types. The day care facility i s located on a corner across Four
Seasons Drive from the Four Seasons Apartments. At this location, it acts as a transition between the higher
density of the apartments and the lower density of the detached units on Lakeview Drive. Increasing the
intensity of the day care use at this location by 24 students and associated traffic will likely affect the character
8
of a portion of the district, specifically Lakeview Drive as a single -family residential street, although it would not
have much effect on the apartments across the street.
that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
The purpose and intent of the PUD is to provide for a mixture of uses and housing types. Commercial uses are
intended to be limited to a scale appropriate to the support of the residential uses within the PUD. Of course,
as with most non-residential uses including religious institutions, users of the facility come from beyond the
geographic boundaries of the development. In this case, the asses sment is whether the scale is appropriate to
the district.
When this day care facility was first permitted, it was limited to 32 children. There were two employee/owners
and the facility was smaller. Over the last 6 years, it has grown to 40 children an d the building has been
expanded. The issue in this case is whether the scale is appropriate to rest of the development. Staff believes
that the scale of the operation at 40 students is the upper end of what should be allowed. Expanding the use to
allow for 24 additional children will create a use that is out of scale with neighborhood due to the traffic impacts,
discussed below.
with uses permitted by right in the district,
Residential uses are the primary uses allowed by-right in the district. Day care facilities are considered
supporting uses to residential uses in all residential districts.
with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance,
Supplementary regulations from Section 5 of the zoning ordinance require conformity w ith licensure
requirements of the Virginia Department of Social Services and periodic inspections by the Fire Official.
Because of concerns for the safety of children these types of facilities are inspected regularly by the Fire
Official. Their records indicate the last inspection was in December of 2007.
Staff has also been in touch with the Virginia Department of Social Services and ascertained that the size of the
facility would support up to 79 children, based on the requirement of 25 square feet of area per child. Although
the law recently changed to require 35 square feet per child, this facility is grandfathered because the building
addition allowed under SP 2002- 06 was completed before July 1, 2008. If Four Seasons Learning Center
were just starting out after July 1, 2008, it would only be allowed 51 students.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
Traffic is the biggest concern that exists for an expansion of this use at the corner of Four Seasons Drive and
Lakeview Drive. W ith the expansion, staff expects another 120 vehicle trips per day (inclusive of both staff and
parent trips). As indicated earlier, expansion of this use will make it a larger traffic generator than the rest of the
uses combined on Lakeview Drive. This is of most concern during the mornings when traffic leaving Lakeview
Drive is mixing with parents dropping off children at the child care facility. Added to this are neighborhood
concerns about poor sight distance at the corner of Four Seasons Drive and L akeview Drive.
One resident said this, “Ingress and egress is so close to the corner that it is treacherous to all vehicles
traveling along Four Seasons Drive and especially to those who turn into Lakeview Drive from the
Commonwealth Drive side. The right turn into Lakeview is “blind” to those vehicles existing the day care
parking lot (and vice-versa) and I have seen dozens of close calls there.”
VDOT has indicated (see Attachment D) that there is adequate sight distance at the corner of Lakeview and
Four Seasons Drive. The perception of residents is different.
Another traffic issue relates to driver behavior around day care facilities. Oftentimes parents are in a hurry to
drop their children off and are not always cognizant of the fact that the fac ility is in a residential neighborhood.
All of these factors in combination suggest that increasing the number of children at this location is not
advisable.
SUMMARY:
9
Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request:
1. There is a need for child care facilities in Albemarle County.
2. The addition of 24 students and associated parking requirements can be accommodated on -site or
adjacent to the site.
Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request:
1. Additional traffic from the 24 students will have a negative impact on the neighborhood due to the
increase in vehicles and opportunities for conflict, especially in the morning when children are being
dropped off.
2. The enlarged day car enrollment will create a use that is out of scale with this part of the Four Seasons
development.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Although residents along Lakeview Drive may disagree, staff believes that the current facility operates
adequately within the neighborhood. With 24 additional students and the traffic patterns and volumes already
existing on Lakeview Drive staff believes that the facility will exceed an acceptable limit and change the
character of a portion of the Four Seasons PUD. For that reason staff recommends denial of the request.
However, if the Planning Commission wishes to recommend approval, staff recommends that previous
conditions be carried through with reference to the letter of revision approved in 2000:
1. This permit is approved for an office OR nursery school and day-care center. The conditions below
apply to the nursery/day-care center.
a. Development of the site shall be in general conformity with the Minor Site Plan Amendment
approved July 18, 2000 by the Department of Planning and Community Develo pment and later
approved by Letter of Revision dated December 5, 2000. If modifications are made to the site, a
twenty-foot buffer shall be provided and retained between the property and Lot B shown on the
Minor Site Plan Amendment approved July 18, 2000 and later approved by Letter of Revision dated
December 5, 2000 by the Department of Planning and Community Development.
b. The maximum number of children shall not exceed 64 at any given time or the number approved by
the Department of Social Services, whic hever is less.
c. An outdoor play area with equipment shall be provided and maintained by the applicant. The play
area shall be fenced with a chain link fence.
d. The fence across the front of the property shall be a barrier fence, 4 ½ feet high, set back 25 f eet
from the property line. The fencing on the other three sides of the property is to be chain link.
e. No certificate of occupancy for BP 2000 -01520 (one-story addition with finished basement) and no
zoning clearance for any increase in the number of children more than the 32 allowed under SP 74-
412 shall be provided prior to completion of i.) construction of the building addition, and ii.) parking
lot approved in the Minor Site Plan Amendment approved July 18, 2000 and later approved by Letter
of Revision dated December 5, 2000 by the Department of Planning and Community Development
f. No residential use of the property shall be allowed without abandonment of the special use permit.
1. If the building is to be used for an office, the following conditions shall ap ply:
a. The maximum number of employees shall be ten employees.
b. A twenty-foot buffer shall be provided and retained between the property and Lot B shown on the
Minor Site Plan Amendment approved July 18, 2000 and later approved by Letter of Revision dated
December 5, 2000 by the Department of Planning and Community Development.
c. No residential use of the property shall be allowed without abandonment of the special use permit.
2. No sign shall be located less than five feet from the right -of-way of Four Seasons Drive. It shall be placed
in the general location depicted on the Minor Site Plan Amendment approved July 18, 2000 and later
approved by Letter of Revision dated December 5, 2000 by the Department of Planning and Community
Development. It shall be single-faced and not exceed eight square feet. Materials, color, and lettering shall
be consistent with the photograph initialed RSK and dated May 17, 1989, in the file of SP 89 -23. Any
10
replacement sign shall be of materials, color, and lettering compatible to the Four Seasons Patio Homes
sign, as approved by the Zoning Administrator.
If the Board approves this special use permit, staff also recommends that the Board require the applicant to
provide a site plan that reflects as-built conditions to better assist staff and the applicants. The approved site
plan waiver is difficult to read and some improvements are not accurately shown. In addition, the prior site plan
will not suffice because this Special Permit allows additional students and therefore requires a dditional parking
which needs to be shown on an approved site plan.
---------------
ATTACHMENTS:
A -- Site Plan Waiver/Amendment (July 18, 2000) and Letter of Revision for the facility (dated December 5,
2000)
B -- Location Map
C -- Staff report, Planning Commission minutes and approved conditions for SP 02 -06
D -- VDOT comments
E -- ACSA comments
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SP 07-01 Four Seasons Learning Center
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Increase enrollment from 40 children to 64
children at 254 Lakeview Drive on TMP 061X-
00-00-00500
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Cilimberg, Echols
AGENDA DATE:
October 8, 2008
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: YES
BACKGROUND:
On August 19, 2008, the Planning Commission held a second public hearing on the Four Seasons Learning
Center proposal to increase enrollment. Although staff did not recommend approval as requested by the
applicant, the Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions recommended by staff modified
to include one limiting the enrollment to 50 (the applicant requested 64) and one requiring that all staff park
on-site in the parking lot. The recommended conditions are in the Action Letter (Attachment 1A). Staff notes
that the applicant’s attorney disputes that the Planning Commission recommen ded approval with the 11
conditions. He believes that the Commission only recommended the enrollment limitation and the condition
for staff parking on-site.
The major concerns of the neighborhood expressed at the Planning Commission meeting were increased
traffic and on-street parking by staff at the day care. The major concerns of the parents of children who
attend the center expressed at the meeting related to higher child care fees if the applicants were not
allowed to expand the facility to bring in more children. The discussions are found in the draft minutes of the
Commission’s meeting (Attachment 2A).
DISCUSSION:
Since the Commission’s public hearing, the applicant has provided an updated traffic study using actual
traffic counts at the site (Attachment 3A). With this information, the County Engineer has accepted the
traffic study as adequate and affirmed that all levels of service are met and no VDOT improvements are
required. It should be noted that two diagrams in the report which identify existing and proposed conditions
suggest that the traffic on Lakeview Drive will approximately double as a result of the increase in enrollment
to 64 students. (The applicant did not provide analysis on the impact of an increase in enrollment to 50
students as recommended by the Planning Commission.) Although persons may agree or disagree on
traffic numbers, ultimately, whatever traffic increase may occur will most directly impact Lakeview Drive and
its intersection with Four Seasons Drive. For residents of Lakeview the current traffic situation is
problematic, so any increase will only worsen the situation in their view. After applicant and public
comment, the Planning Commission concluded that an increase of 10 students was an acceptable level of
traffic increase on these streets.
If the Board accepts the Planning Commission’s recommendation, including conditions for a limitation to 50
students and that all parking spaces for staff members be provided on-site, the County’s parking
requirements can be met provided that there are no more than eight (8) total staff . There are nine (9)
spaces in the current parking lot which will accommodate up to eight (8) staff and at least one (1) student
drop-off and pick-up space. The rest of the student drop-off and pick-up parking can be provided with the
four (4) spaces available on the street. However, if the facility were to have 64 children as requested by the
applicant and more than seven (7) employees, there would be no additional parking on-site and a shared-
parking arrangement would be needed.
Staff does note that the County does not have the means to readily enforce the condition that employees-
only park in the lot on-site. Enforcement would be limited to signage in the lot that would restrict up to eight
(8) spaces for employee-use only. If employees were to park on the street as occurs now, the County could
not take action against the facility since there are no restrictions on who can and cannot park on a public
street.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommended that there be no increase in enrollment at the day care facility due to the impact of
increased traffic to Lakeview Drive. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the special use permit
for a lesser number than requested by the applicant, inc lusive of conditions #1 - #6 and #8 - #12 below. Staff
has added condition #7 to further reflect the Planning Commission’s intent and recommends it be included
should the Board of Supervisors choose to approve this special use permit.
Conditions #1 - #7 below apply to the nursery/day care center:
1. The building, parking and access shall be as shown (with noted dimensions) on the “Plat Showing As -
Built Survey Parcel A-Patio House Section Four Seasons Learning Center 254 Lakeview Drive” by David
C. Blankenbaker, L.S., dated July 21, 2008.”
2. There shall be submitted, no later than sixty (60) days after the date of approval of this special use
permit, an as-built site plan which meets the requirements of Zoning Ordinance Section 32.6 Final Site
Plan Content, except for those items waived by the Agent as not applicable. The as -built site plan shall
meet all of the requirements of Section 32.6 and be approved by the County’s site plan agent prior to
occupancy of the nursery/day care center by more than forty (40) children.
3. The number of children occupying the nursery/day care center shall not exceed fifty (50) or the number
approved by the Department of Social Services, whichever is less, at any time.
4. A twenty foot buffer shall be maintained between the property and TMP 61X1-AA-B.
5. The concurrent use of the property for a nursery/day care center and a residential use is prohibited.
6. All employees of the day care center, including owners and directors, shall park on-site and signage shall
be provided onsite which designates employee spaces.
7. The maximum number of employees, including owners and directors, on-site during hours of operation
shall be limited to 8 and signage shall be provided onsite which designates employee spaces.
Conditions #8 - #10 below apply to the use of the facility as offices:
8. The maximum number of employees shall be ten (10).
9. A twenty foot buffer shall be maintained between the property and TMP 61X1-AA-B.
10. The concurrent use of the property for an office and a residential use is prohibited.
Conditions #11 & #12 below apply to any use of the property:
11. The concurrent use of the property for a nursery/day care center and an office use is prohibited.
12. The small evergreen tree on the Four Seasons Drive frontage at the corner of the parking shall b e
relocated toward the building, as recommended by VDOT, a sufficient distance to prevent future line-of-
sight problems.
ATTACHMENTS:
ATTACHMENT 1A: Action Letter from Planning Commission for August 19, 2008
ATTACHMENT 2A: Draft Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting for August 19, 2008
ATTACHMENT 3A: Plat Showing As-Built Survey parcel A-Patio House Section Four Seasons Learning
Center 254 Lakeview Drive, Albemarle County, July 21, 2008
October 8, 2008 (Adjourned Afternoon a nd Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing: PROJECT: SP-2007-01. Four Seasons Learning
Center. (Signs #10&28).
PROPOSED: Amend special use permit to increase maximum number of children in daycare
from 40 to 64. No residential units proposed.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PUD Planned Unit Development which allows
residential (3-34 units per acre), mixed with commercial and industrial uses.
SECTION: 20.3.2.1, which allows for child care facilities.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density Residential (6-34 units/acre)
in Neighborhood 1.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: 254 Lakeview Drive, at the corner of Four Seasons Dr and Lakeview Dr.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 61 X1, Parcel 5.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 22 and September 29, 2008.)
Mr. Cilimberg reported that the request is to increase the maximum number of children from 40 to
64 children, and there are neighborhood concerns about the on street parking that creates conflicts with
residences, as well as a staff-observed safety concern at the intersection of Lakeview and Four Seasons for
their entrance where there is barley enough site distance. VDOT has confirmed that the intersection does
meet an acceptable level of service, although County staff has concerns with the site distance. Mr.
Cilimberg reported that any addition to the enrollment will increase traffic and generate additional parking
needs. On the other hand, there are concerns of current clients tha t there will be an increase in rates if
enrollment numbers do not increase. This facility is providing affordable daycare, which is a community
benefit and another matter for the Boards consideration.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the Planning Commission had a hearing on this in June, but did not make a
decision because they needed additional traffic information. At the August 19 deferral date, the
Commission made the decision to recommend 50 students instead of 64. They felt that number lessened
the impact of the growth of the school. There was a stipulation of all staff parking on-site. He reported that
staff recommended denial of this request because of concerns related to impact, as it was viewed to be at
the tipping point of a proper fit in a residential area. Mr. Cilimberg said that the Commi ssion recomm ended
approval of 50 students with conditions. Staff modified condition number 6 to further reflect their intent to
stipulate on-site parking. This condition is intended to relieve the impact of employees parking on the
street.
Mr. Slutzky asked if there is any strategy to actually enforce this condition.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that the strategy is that the employee spaces on -site will have to be
designated. He clarified that the conditions limit parking spaces to no more than eight, w ith signage
provided onsite to designate employee spaces. He said this condition will have to be self-enforcing or
complaint-driven.
Mr. Boyd asked if the County can legally tell people where to park.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the street locations are public, but the way staff determines whether a
project has adequate parking is to only count the parking spots that are in front of the facility on the public
street as meeting their parking requirements. Staff cannot restrict them.
Mr. Boyd said the number of parking places is not the issue. He asked if there were sufficient
parking places.
Mr. Rooker said there are only sufficient parking spots if you count the ones on the street.
Mr. Cilimberg said that at this point in time, with 50 students and no more than 8 employees, there
are enough parking both on street, a drop off spot on the site, and enough for the all day employees.
Having 64 students would likely require the school to arrange offsite parking because of employee growth.
October 8, 2008 (Adjourned Afternoon a nd Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
Mr. Rooker asked if at 50 students, they needed street parking now. Mr. Cilimberg answered “yes”.
Mr. Cilimberg added that there are other conditions that are included based on whether there is
only an office there, which is another allowable use under the original special use permit. Also, there are
conditions that address any use of the property.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is any limit on the number of employees that could be there if the building
were used as an office.
Mr. Cilimberg answered that the maximum number of employees would be ten.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that an office space was the original use of the property.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the applicant has nine spaces on-site. Staff’s reason for suggesting no
more than eight for the employees is that they need to keep a space for drop off of students on-site.
Mr. Cilimberg offered to answer additional questions from the Board at this point.
Mr. Slutzky said if the applicant was asked to keep their eight employees on site with nine park ing
spaces, and they happen to have two drop offs at the same time that would force the applicant into a
crowding condition.
Mr. Cilimberg answered that one of the drop off’s could be a parent parking off site and walking the
child to the center.
At this point, Mr. Boyd asked if the applicant would like to address the Board.
The applicant’s representative, Mr. John Simpson addressed the Board, stating that the community
needs daycare and Four Seasons provides an affordable option for families, with costs at about $40 per
month less per child compared to other centers. He explained that the location is right on the corner of
Lakeview and Four Seasons Drive, but the balance of the remainder of Four Seasons Drive is relatively
high-density mixed use, commercial, office, retail, ACAC, etc. The have provided traffic studies as part of
the application. He said he feels there has been an exaggeration about the impact of the traffic. He said
one summary said that 24 additional children would generate an additional 120 trips per day.
Mr. Rooker said that it was later clarified that whenever somebody arrived, it was counted as two
trips. He said that would cause about 4 trips, so the actual number is 96, not t he estimated 120 trips per
day. Mr. Simpson said that is correct.
The second time they were in front of the Planning Commission, the figure was doubled. Because
of this, he had his client videotape the peak hours of traffic, and there are no cars backed up at Lakeview
Drive and at most there are five cars in the school parking lot at any given time. He does not see this as a
traffic problem. He also mentioned that the Charlottesville Day School recently increased their enrollment
from 85 to 250, and the traffic study they did for the special use permit predicted an increase of 175-200
extra vehicles during the peak hours. The staff report for that application indicated that even that level of
increased traffic would not generate a measurable impact.
Mr. Simpson pointed out that the applic ant is asking for an additional 17 trips during the peak hour,
and does not understand why that is a concern, especially when you compare this project with the
Charlottesville Day School numbers.
Mr. Rooker said that he sees the issue as being the traff ic on Lakeview Drive, and noted that the
Charlottesville Day School has a dedicated entrance, and does not use a residential street.
Mr. Simpson said that if the location of the center was interior on the street, that may be a more
significant concern, but the reality is that it is right on the corner. He said there could be a possibility that
other cars may travel down other parts of Lakeview Drive, but there is really no reason for them to do that.
October 8, 2008 (Adjourned Afternoon a nd Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
The video showed no one going down Lakeview Drive, there was always parking available in the parking lot,
so there would be no reason for them to turn around and go all the way down to the end of the cul-de-sac.
The impact on the residents is negligible.
Mr. Simpson said that regarding parking, they need seven staff for 64 students with six parking
spots for daycare which is one per 10 children. He reported that there are nine parking spots on-site, with
four adjacent to the property. The problem with the parking restrictions that have been proposed by the
Planning Commission is that they wanted to compromise with some of the neighbors that do not want the
day care to increase in size, so they required all the staff to park on site. There are nine spots on site, and
that would obviously reduce the on-site parking that is available for parents to drop off their children. That
raises concern, primarily because that will put parents in the position of having to stop on the street and take
the children on the street to walk to the facility. Mr. Simpson said that a pick-up and drop-off area on site is
required in the County Code for daycare and childcare facilities. That is an important safety concern. He
believes that the safety of children should have priority here. A car parked in the street is a car parked in
the street, and it should not matter if it is a parent parking there or a staff person parking there. H e does
have an issue with restricting the parking as proposed.
Mr. Simpson expressed concern about condition 2 in the report requiring his client to submit a site
plan, noting that the center has already been through a long process with the Planning Department and the
Board of Zoning Appeals over the site plan for this property. The site plan was approved in 2000. In 2007,
the site was brought into compliance with the way it was currently configured, and no changes have
occurred since then. He reiterated that there are no physical changes to the property. His concern with
having his client go through the process and submit a site plan unde r the current regulations is that the
County knows that the site plan that has been approved is under the old regulations. For example, the
parking spaces that are currently there would not comply with the current regulations. There is nothing to be
gained by a new site plan. He concerned that this might be a technique that the Planning Department is
using to not allow the increase in children.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the parking requirements could be met if they did not comply with the current
rules.
Mr. Simpson replied that the spaces at the school do not comply with the current ordinance
because they are not wide enough. The applicant just told Mr. Simpson that they are in fact in compliance,
and he is not sure at this point. His concern is still that the original site plan was approved by the County
and that is how the parking is configured now. He does not want to end up in a legal limbo if the plan is
compared to what would be in compliance today.
Mr. Slutzky said his question was that if they were subjected to the current requirements, would
they lose the one parking spot in the back that looks very skinny, and the question is would the applicant
lose another from the remaining eight?
Mr. Simpson replied he does not think they would lose a ny, because under the Code he believes
they are grandfathered in.
Mr. Ron Higgins, Chief of Zoning, said that the applicant would not lose any parking spaces
because it is existing parking from an approved plan. T he County is asking the applicant to document that
and the increase in students and the increase in parking requirement. He stated that the current parking
spaces do meet the size standard, but the one right up against the building crosses the back -up area. For
that reason, a plan like that would probably not be approved today.
Mr. Boyd asked why County staff is asking for a new site plan. He does not understand that.
Mr. Higgins explained that the County Code says that changing or expanding a use that generates
additional parking requirements facilitates the need for a new site plan. Mr. Higgins said that staff
suggested that the applicant provide an as-built plan. The as-built plan builds in waivers by the agent of
anything that is not applicable, which would be virtually everything physical. County staff is looking for an
October 8, 2008 (Adjourned Afternoon a nd Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
accurate, as-built site plan that documents the number of students and spaces, and indicates the spaces on
the street that are counted.
Mr. Slutzky said he is still grappling with scale in the neighborhood. If this item were coming to the
Board today for the first time, he wanted to know if they would have adequate parking under the new
requirement. To him, it sounds like that with the one spot lost, it would be adequate.
Mr. Higgins also pointed out that this set up is a loop system, there is a two driveway access.
Mr. Boyd said that he does understand why a new site plan is needed when all they are doing is
adding students. It seems like a technicality.
Mr. Higgins replied that the Code allows the County to waive a site plan or elements of a site plan,
but does require a site plan if parking requirements ar e increased. In this case, the new student and staff
numbers would create a need.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that the additional parking is off site, and the configuration on site is not
being changed at all.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the plan of record does not reflect the number of students being requested
here, and that is one of the things being submitted in a new as-built plan.
Ms. Thomas said that the numbers seem to be related to the action the Board takes tonight.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the number on any resubmitted as-built site plan would reflect the Boards
action tonight.
Mr. Higgins explained that what the applicant would do wou ld be shown on an as-built plan, which
is essentially the same thing as a site plan. The as-built is in fact more accurate than a site plan. A site
plan is a representation of what is there, and is not an accurate drawing. Staff would simply like to
document everything on the as-built survey. This is not the same as creating an entire new document.
Mr. Tucker added that the survey, which is in the Board’s packet, would essentially just need to be
updated.
Mr. Higgins mentioned that the applicant could make addition to that drawing that would comply
with the site plan requirements of the ordinance, minus the things that would be waved that are not
applicable due to the lack of physical construction that would take place on the site. Staff would like a
clear, accurate, up-to-date, and correct, document so that it can be enforced.
Mr. Simpson said that should not be a problem for the applicant.
Mr. Simpson said they have an objection to condition 3, which limits the enrollment to 50 students.
The applicant also does not agree with c ondition 6, which requires employees to park on site. That
condition dovetails into part of condition 7 which requires parking to be designated or signage for
employees on the property. The other conditions are acceptabl e.
Mr. Boyd said that earlier, Mr. Simpson mentioned that there were state standards the applicant
had to adhere too as far as a certain number of teachers depending on the number of children. Mr.
Simpson clarified that that number is seven.
Mr. Simpson explained that there are state daycare licensing requirements for the number of
employees needed for the number of students. The state licensing authorities have said that the facility can
accommodate 79 children.
October 8, 2008 (Adjourned Afternoon a nd Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
Ms. Thomas asked how many employees there are today. Mr. Simpson answered that there are
five per shift. Ms. Thomas said that she observed for some time there, and noticed there were six cars
parked there. She assumed there were five staff people plus the director.
At this time, the Chairman opened the public hearing for comments.
Ms. Lauren Root addressed the Board, stating that she is the Director of Four Seasons Learning
Center and a Pre-K teacher. Ms. Root said that the need for childcare has increased in the area, as there
are not enough centers in the area to accommodate recent growth. She presented a list of people who had
called in the last few months who had asked to be placed on a waiting list, and the list does not include
callers who need daycare immediatel y. Ms. Root stated that the center offers quality, affordable childcare
in a clean, nurturing environment conducive to learning. She said that the present owners have upgraded
the building and modified the classrooms; it is acceptable for 79 children but they are not asking for that.
Ms. Root pointed out that in 10 years of operation, no accidents have occurred inside the building or the
parking lot. She said that neighbors park in front of the school instead of in their own driveway.
Ms. Martha Wood addressed the Board, stating that she lives at 264 Lakeview Drive. She said she
has no doubt that the learning center offers fine quality daycare and there is a need for it in the community,
but this has to do with increasing the size of enrollment and the traffic associated with expansion. Ms.
Wood said that a parent yesterday parked in front of the no parking sign on Four Season Drive to walk his
child into the center, and asked the Board to deny the special use permit as staff recommends.
Ms. Jan Sprinkle addressed the Board, stating that she is a 21 -year resident of Lakeview Drive.
She said that when the school started there were 32 children and it fit the neighborhood well, with no
problems. Since the current management took over, she said, they ha ve more than doubled the size of the
building and the site has been in construction for seven years – having to rebuild an addition to comply with
the site plan. Ms. Sprinkle reported that the State’s Social Services website shows many violations that the
school has been cited for – both County and State regulations. There is no guarantee that the school will
comply with any restrictions the Board imposes. She said that the center has been hard on the
neighborhood. She said that she appreciates the need for additional daycare, but this residential area is not
the place for an expanded center. Ms. Sprinkle said that a special use permit should be an exception
granted in an area that can accommodate it, and asked the Board to deny the application.
Ms. Linda Terry of 261 Lakeview Drive addressed the Board. She said that she supports the
previous speakers and asked the Board to deny this permit.
Ms. Geraldine Robinson of 263 Lakeview Drive addressed the Board, stating that her home is right
across the street from the learning center – every car makes a turn in front of her house. She said that if
she wanted to sell her house, it would be valued less because of the constant turn around in front of her
property.
Mr. Rafael Columba addressed the Board, e mphasizing the need for affordable childcare in the
area. He also said that the Board has all the facts and the law stipulates how many stude nts are permitted
at the school.
There being no other comments, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Simpson readdressed the Board, stating that visiting the site makes a huge difference, as the
school has little impact on the surrounding neighborhood. He said that the traffic issue has been
exaggerated, and that is why he provided the video tape. Mr. Simpson stated that if the enrollment cannot
be increased, prices will have to go up.
Mr. Rooker commented that the school probably charges what the market will bear.
Mr. Simpson noted that the school is about 20 percent less expensive than similar centers.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Board.
October 8, 2008 (Adjourned Afternoon a nd Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
Mr. Slutzky said that this is difficult for him to consider, as the need for affordable daycare is
significant, and the school does an excellent job. However, he visited the site and it is dangerous to try to
pull out of Lakeview Drive because of the line of site. He stated that given that, and the concerns expressed
by neighbors, he cannot support this application.
Mr. Boyd agreed that this is a difficult decision, but there is an undeniable need for daycare in the
community. He said that he has received a number of letters from parents, and he would be willing to allow
64 students at the school. Mr. Boyd stated that he did not observe a lot of traffic in the video provided by the
applicant.
Mr. Dorrier commented that he knows this area and knows that traffic is a serious issue, adding that
keeping the cap at 40 students is necessary.
Ms. Thomas said that Lakeview Drive is a tight urban cul -de-sac, and the school at its current size
is the right fit for the neighborhood.
Mr. Rooker stated that he jogs by here every week, and there is a difference between a place that
fronts on Four Seasons Drive and a place that fronts o n Lakeview. He commented that staff got it right
when they said that a larger daycare enrollment would create a use that is out of scale with this part of the
Four Seasons development.
At this time, Mr. Slutzky moved to deny SP-2007-001 Four Seasons Learning Center. Mr. Rooker
seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: Mr. Boyd.
ABSENT: Ms. Mallek.
__________________
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 25, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2010-00033 Four Seasons Learning Center
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
January 25, 2011
Deferral Request
SP-2010-00033 Four Seasons Learning Center
PROPOSED: PROPOSED: Amend special use permit to increase maximum number of children in
daycare from 40 to 64. No residential units proposed.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PUD Planned Unit Development which allows residential (3 -
34 units per acre), mixed with commercial and industrial uses
SECTION: 20.3.2.1, which allows for child care facilities
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density Residential (6-34 units/acre) in
Neighborhood 1.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes____No X
LOCATION: 254 Lakeview Drive, at the corner of Four Seasons Dr. and Lakeview Dr.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061X1-00-00-00500
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
(Elaine Echols) (Request for deferral to February 8th due to an error in the notification to abutting owners.)
Mr. Zobrist noted that a deferral has been requested on SP-2010-00033 Four Seasons Learning Center.
He apologized if there was anyone present that did not get the information sent via email. There will be
no action on this item tonight except to approve the deferral.
Mr. Cilimberg asked that the public hearing be opened so staff does not have to advertise the request
again. The error was not in the advertisement, but in the notification to abutting owners.
Mr. Kamptner agreed.
Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited public comment on SP-2010-00033, Four Seasons
Learning Center. He noted the deferral date was February 8. There being no public comment, t he public
hearing was closed and the matter before the Commission.
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Morris seconded to defer SP-2010-00033, Four Seasons Learning
Center, to February 8, 2011.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Go to next set of minutes
Return to PC actions letter
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 8, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
February 8, 2011
Deferred Items:
SP-2010-00033 Four Seasons Learning Center
PROPOSED: PROPOSED: Amend special use permit to increase maximum number of children in
daycare from 40 to 64. No residential units proposed.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PUD Planned Unit Development which allows residential (3 -
34 units per acre), mixed with commercial and industrial uses
SECTION: 20.3.2.1, which allows for child care facilities
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density Residential (6-34 units/acre) in
Neighborhood 1.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: 254 Lakeview Drive, at the corner of Four Seasons Dr. and Lakeview Dr.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061X1-00-00-00500
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
(Elaine Echols)
DEFERRED FROM THE JANUARY 25, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Ms. Echols presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the request.
This is a request to increase the number of children at the Four Seasons Learning Center located at
Lakeview Drive and Four Seasons Drive. The increase would be from 40 students to 64 students.
Background
There has been a use in operation at this location since 1974 although the building was constructed in the
late 1960’s. There have been several special use permits and changes in activities that have taken place
since 1974. There was a special use permit request in 2002 to increase from 32 to 40 children. Then
there were some site plan issues that was successfully dealt with . The request to increase to 64 children
was denied by the Board of Supervisors. Two years have come and gone, which is the time period to
wait before being able to present the same request. Before the applicant submitted a request they asked
for a Neighborhood meeting. Staff held a Neighborhood meeting with mostly the adjacent and nearby
neighbors at the County Office Building in October. Right after that the applicant made their request.
• 1969 – Four Seasons Development Approved; building approved for office use
• 1974 SP 412 Day Care approved for 32 children
• SP- 89-023 Amendment to reduce sign setback
• SP-02-06 Amendment to allow for 40 children
• SDP-00-72 -- Changes to circulation approved
• SP-07- 01 – Request for increase to 64 children
• Dec. 2007 – Violations abated and conformity achieved
• Oct. 2008 – BOS denied request
• October 2010 – Neighborhood meeting at COB
Changes since 2008
There have not been a lot of changes taken place since 2008. There appears to be less conflict between
the staff parking on the street and the neighbors. However, the Commission may hear differently from the
neighbors. There were many concerns back in 2008. There seems to be additional on-street parking by
the residents just because of the nature of the activities on the street. However, the applicant has tried to
deal with some of the on-street parking issues that were occurring back in 2008 by securing three (3)
additional parking spaces at the apartments across the street for staff to use.
Issues that Have Not Changed
It is basically the same request and the following issues have not changed since 2008:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 8, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
2
Increase in students will mean an increase in traffic;
Turns at intersection can be tricky; and
Driveway into day care center is very close to intersection
Staff has talked to VDOT about whether the stop bar is in the right location. VDOT has gone out,
checked, and said this is the best location. It does meet all of VDOT’s requirements. Everything is in
conformity with what VDOT requires.
Factors Favorable
• There is a need for child care facilities in Albemarle County.
• The addition of 24 students and associated parking requirements can be accommodated on -site,
on-street adjacent to the site, or across Four Seasons Drive. There are no outstanding site plan
issues that need to be resolved.
Factors Unfavorable
• Additional traffic from the 24 students will have a negative impact on the neighborhood due to the
increase in vehicles and opportunities for traffic conflict at intersections.
• The enlarged day car enrollment will create a use that is out of scale with this part of the Four
Seasons development.
The conclusion the Board came to last time and staff also agreed with is that the enlarged daycare
enrollment just creates a scale that is out of proportion with the rest of the neighborhood and where it is
not is the appropriate scale.
Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the request for the factors unfavorable.
If the Planning Commission wishes to recommend approval, staff recommends the conditions in the staff
report.
Mr. Zobrist invited questions for staff.
Mr. Smith asked what criteria was used to establish the number that was appropriate.
Ms. Echols replied that the number the daycare started with was 32 students, which was the request in
1974. W hen it was increased by 8 students up to 40 staff looked at what the site could contain and at the
level of traffic that would generate at the time. This is a subjective activity and not something staff can
say at this number something changes. Last time the Planning Commission thought staff recommended
incorrectly. In the Commission’s opinion there was a threshold that was higher than 40 students that was
appropriate. Staff’s threshold was based on what they saw now and if it appeared to be able to
accommodate it without adding any additional traffic. However, adding more traffic was going to be a
problem.
Mr. Lafferty asked if that is what staff means by scale.
Ms. Echols replied yes, that when they start adding more students and more activity at the site that the
level of activity increases and the scale of that activity the way it is now.
Mr. Lafferty asked if it was like when ACAC took over the swimming pool they had more people coming.
Ms. Echols replied yes.
Mr. Loach said the parking problem they had last time has actually been somewhat improved by
additional parking spaces across the street.
Ms. Echols replied that she did not know if they were using those additional parking spaces yet. But, her
impression is that the issues related to parking in front of the mailboxes has been resolved. The re is still
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 8, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
3
on-street parking by employees, but it is not as much of a problem as it was before.
Mr. Loach asked if 40 children was the number staff is comfortable with or is there some threshold above
that below the 24 that is appropriate.
Ms. Echols replied yes.
Mr. Morris asked what is staff’s opinion of the property itself, excluding the traffic, but including the
building to handle the additional children.
Ms. Echols replied that Social Services evaluated the property and said the physical property or building
can accommodate more children than are there now and the daycare can license up to the 64 children.
There may even be a higher number that they can license to.
Mr. Morris said he was hearing staff saying the daycare facility itself is fully able to handle the additional
children. Therefore, they are only talking about traffic.
Ms. Echols replied yes, that is what staff was told by Social Services.
Ms. Porterfield said if the Commission recommends this request, staff did not include a condition asking
the applicant to maintain the three additional parking spaces across the way.
Ms. Echols replied no, because the applicant can meet the requirements right now and having the other
parking spaces across the street just helps.
Mr. Porterfield suggested that a condition be added because the three additional spaces across the street
would free up three spaces for people who are bringing, picking up, and dropping off children, which
would keep them off the streets. She asked if that was doable.
Ms. Echols replied that she would ask Ron Higgins of Zoning to come and speak to that since Zoning
would be enforcing the parking.
Ron Higgins, Chief of Zoning, confirmed that the parking requirement based on the ordinance is 13 with 7
staff and less than 65 children. The parking across the street would be enforced by marking the spaces,
but it would be a very difficult thing to enforce on a daily basis. They would be requiring staff to park in
three spaces every day across Four Seasons Drive. Therefore, he did not know exactly how it would be
enforced.
Ms. Porterfield noted it would be more of an enforcement issue on their end rather than if they can
maintain them. The applicant can self enforce to just free up some spaces.
Mr. Higgins agreed that would help the applicant to maintain the parking spaces, which would make it
easier. He did not know if staff would be going out there every day and checking license plates.
Ms. Porterfield pointed out she was not expecting staff to do that. She was just trying to see if that could
be a condition of approval because that was not offered the last time, but was an additional good point.
Mr. Lafferty asked what was the general reaction when they had the meeting at the County Office
Building.
Ms. Echols replied that the general reaction was that the residents who were here believed that 40
students was enough. Some people thought 40 students was over the limit of what was acceptable in the
neighborhood. There were no residents present who could support a ny additional children at the center.
Ms. Porterfield asked what did they base the 40 students on. She asked if it was on the operation of the
daycare or the traffic.
Ms. Echols replied she believed it was on the traffic, but they are in the audience an d they will be glad to
provide that information.
Ms. Porterfield asked if staff felt it was the traffic and not that the daycare operating with too many
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 8, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
4
children doing it.
Ms. Echols replied that was correct.
Mr. Franco noted in the staff report it talks about 120 additional trips are expected from the 24 students.
He asked where the 120 comes from since it seems like a lot of traffic generation. On page 4 of the staff
report, it says staff expects another 120 vehicle trips per day.
Ms. Echols replied that there are 24 trips if they had 24 students and each had a parent, which would be
48 trips each direction. They would come and go in the morning, which are 2 trips, and come and go in
the evening, which are 2 trips. That gets them close to 100 trips. Then there are the employees who
come and go. She questioned if something was missed.
Mr. Franco said it sounds like many trips being generated.
Ms. Porterfield noted it says another 120, which would be in addition to what is already there.
Mr. Franco noted that would put another 22 trips for staff during the day.
Ms. Echols agreed that 32 trips was probably more than should have been attributed to staff. Therefore,
it would be less than 120 trips.
Mr. Franco asked if ITE has a code for this.
Ms. Echols replied that staff went through all of that last time. The applicant also presented a traffic
study, but she did not have that information in front of her. The applicant hired someone to do the traffic
study to ascertain whether any road im provements might be necessary. Mr. Brooks, County Engineer, is
present and can answer other traffic questions.
Mr. Brooks noted that he did not remember the traffic study results.
Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to addres s the Commission.
Barbara Kalemba-Sliwinski, Director of Four Seasons Learning Center and joint owner with her husband
Krzysztof Sliwinski for the last 12 years of the 36 total years of business, made a presentation as noted in
Attachment A. She noted that no new items would be presented since she only wanted to correct a few
items that have been said incorrectly. She requested the Commission approve the request to increase
the maximum number of children in daycare from 40 to 64 because of the reasons stated in Attachment
A.
- SP-2002-006 is not valid. She referred to Attachment A pages 1, 2 and 3. Four Seasons has
SP-412 from 1974 Zoning PUD R-6 with 8 conditions. One of the 8 conditions give Four Season
Learning Center the right to 64 children. In addition, she referred to Attachment B pages 1, 2, 3,
4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, On top of this, the Department of Social Services has approved 79 children to
attend FSLC. She explained the parking study and traffic situation. Their parking study by Hurt
and Proffit shows no problems with the amount of spaces on Lakeview Drive and there still are a
lot of extra spaces to share.
- She presented the site plan of the property and explained the parking situation. She pointed out
the parking location for employees and parents parking for student pickup and drop off. Just for
reference the total number of available parking spaces is 13, six (6) for parents one for every 10
children and 7 for employees. The site plan was received on August, 2008. They also have an
agreement with Northwood Apartments for the use of extra parking spaces in case they need
even more. This agreement was given to staff on October 9, 2010. (Attachment G)
- In closing, she asked to make one final statement as noted in Attachment A.
“I am a first generation American citizen born in Poland. I have been lucky enough to find
individuals who want to share my passion for the education of children, with the support from our
neighbors and parents. Please see copies of notes from neighbors and parents that could not be
present at the Planning Commission Public Hearing. Today I ask you to please grant me the
ability to pursue my passion with the children. I believe in local businesses and that creating new
jobs it’s critical for us in our county and c ity. I have spent my full American citizenship in
Albemarle County for the last 21 years. I truly hope that your parents and grandparents who
started their lives in this country at one point in time did not have to endure the things we have
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 8, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
5
had to for the durance of these proceedings for the last 5 years. I would like you to know that
based on the way we have been treated and today’s staff report, I feel discriminated against.”
(See Attachment A for full presentation and letters of support from parents.)
Mr. Zobrist invited questions for the applicant.
Ms. Porterfield asked of the 40 children currently enrolled how many have siblings attending the
daycare.
Ms. Sliwinski replied that they have a lot of children and most of the time a family has two children and
sometimes even three. Probably around 15 percent have siblings and some have three children. It is a
lot right now and maybe about one-half of the enrollment have two children and a couple have three
children.
Mr. Zobrist invited public comment. He passed around a list of multiple signatures of parents of students
and neighbors that said they love the school and support the request.
Martha Wood, of 264 Lake View Drive, noted her home is three house lots from Four Seasons Learning
Center a business located at the corner of Lake View Drive and Four Seasons Drive. She asked the
Commission to deny the request now before them for consideration. This is not the first special use
permit request for this business and it sets a poor precedent of granting variances for the zoning plan in
large residential area. The issue is not how good the business is, how great the need since the business
exists, or how much the client values the service delivered. The issue is granting another deviation from
zoning and the impact on the residential neighborhood immediately adjoining. Site lines for exiting Lake
View Drive are short in both directions. Four Seasons Drive is used heavily in the morning and evening.
There are several large townhouse and apartment developments in the area. Others using Four Seasons
Drive as a cut through from Route 29 along with the daycare traffic creates a safety problem for the
residents. Granting additional capacity to this business would add to an already difficult s ituation. The
exit and entrance to this business are very close to that busy intersection. The narrow street with on
street parking along with the increased number of children would create a safety problem for the
residents. She urged the Commission to follow staff’s recommendation to deny the special use permit
request.
Courtney Watson, parent of three siblings at the Center, said she had never had a problem with parking
at the center and supported the request.
Mr. Sasha Ismailov said he lived across from Four Seasons Learning Center. In the past three years he
has never had a problem with the traffic. He has not seen any accidents at the intersection. He had a
child and would need daycare in the future. He fully supports the request for 65 children at the Center.
Cindy McCormick, President of the Four Seasons Homeowner’s Association, said this issue impacts not
only the residents along Four Seasons Drive but the entire community. When the last increase was
approved for an additional eight students, the impact on their community was substantial. She could not
imagine what 24 additional students would do to the traffic and safety of the neighborhood. She
appreciated the Commission’s consideration of that when they take this under advisement.
Ms. Porterfield asked what specific she meant by substantial impact.
Ms. McCormick replied that the traffic increase was substantial. She will allow that having the parking off
site has been helpful. The folks are probably on their best behavior so this matter can be approved for
them. It has been helpful and they appreciate them being good neighbors and appreciate the service
provided. However, it is a narrow street and it is difficult to go up and down Forest Lakes Drive now
without seeing the increased traffic. Folks are coming in quickly and dropping off children. The
neighborhood was not built to handle this amount of traffic and the comings and goings she could not
imagine an increase of this magnitude.
Ms. Porterfield asked if the traffic specifically for this applicant has been helped somewhat by having the
additional parking spaces.
Ms. McCormick replied that the parking on the street has improved somewhat. However, it has not had
an impact on the traffic. Additional parking spaces does not improve the traffic situation.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 8, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
6
Ms. Porterfield said the fact the parents can actually find a place to get in and stop and drop off children is
helpful.
Mr. Lafferty asked if they took a vote or poll of the homeowners.
Ms. McCormick replied that they put information about this in their newsletter. Their community is aware
of it. They have requested comments and input. The people they hear primarily from are residents of
Lake View Drive, which was about eight households. They have 164 residents in Four Seasons.
Mr. Lafferty asked if she received any positive comments from neighbors.
Ms. McCormick replied she had not heard any positive comments from any of their residents.
Mr. Zobrist invited other public comment.
Mr. Sliwinski, owner of Four Seasons Learning Center, noted his wife and he have decided to change
their request or application from 64 to 54 children in consideration of the neighbors and the traffic.
Lauren Root supported the Four Seasons Learning Center.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Zobrist closed the public hearing to bring the matter before
the Commission.
Ms. Porterfield supported expansion of the Learning Center and felt it was good the applicant indicated
they would like to drop the number being requested. Most people who use daycare have more than one
child. Therefore, there was probably less traffic now than when the 40 children were approved. She
suggested that the daycare be allowed to be expanded since there was a great need for childcare and the
closer to home the better. She liked the fact the applicant is willing to take down the request down to 54
children.
Mr. Morris said he had heard this a couple of times. He had been in favor of it every time. They have to
take a look at traffic in the same way they did in approving daycare for the church on Route 250 just
beyond 64. At that time, even though he opposed the request, someone stated correctly that if VDOT
says that it is not a problem, then the traffic is not a problem as far as VDOT. VDOT provides their expert
advice. He appreciated they have reduced the request and was in favor of the request.
Mr. Loach noted in the documentation dated February 7, 2011 regarding traffic that the conclusion was
that the 2008 traffic study indicates sight distance is adequate and the addition of 24 students will not
substantially impact it. He asked if that was consistent with staff’s view.
Ms. Echols replied there is a difference between what a street and neighborhood experiences. The traffic
studies were done to determine if there were any traffic improvements needed. There were no traffic
improvements that were deemed necessary, and the County Engineer agreed.
Mr. Loach noted the second point is that Ms. Wood talked about changes. However, there is a letter
dated 11-4-1974 where the condition was 32 children at any time or 35 feet of floor space. Therefore,
would they meet that condition.
Ms. Echols replied that there have been different conditions set since that time and she did not know.
Mr. Zobrist said it was the condition of the original approval.
Mr. Loach supported the request.
Mr. Lafferty asked if bringing it down to 54 would bring it into scale.
Ms. Echols replied staff did not think so, but it was a subjective determination. If the Commission feels 54
children is right, then staff respects that.
Mr. Lafferty supported the request at the reduced level.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 8, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
7
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Ms. Porterfield seconded for approval of SP-2010-00034, Four Seasons
Learning Center, with the recommended conditions, as amended, in condition #3 at the reduced level
from 64 to 54.
Mr. Kamptner noted that would change condition #3.
Ms. Porterfield asked for an amendment to the motion that the applicants will keep and enforce the
agreement for the three additional parking spaces at the Northwood Apartments.
Mr. Morris accepted the amendment to the motion.
Ms. Porterfield seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Zobrist noted that the request would go to the Board of Super visors at a date to be determined with a
recommendation for approval with the conditions, as amended.
1. This permit is approved for an office OR nursery school and day-care center.
2. The site shall be in general conformity with the Minor Site Plan Amendmen t dated June 26, 2000
prepared by Aubrey Huffman, approved July 18, 2000 by the Department of Planning and
Community Development and later approved by Letter of Revision dated December 5, 2000 with
the exception that 13 parking spaces are required and are provided on-site and on the allowable
street frontage of the site.
Conditions 3 – 7 below apply to the nursery school and day-care center:
3. The number of children occupying the nursery school and day care center shall not exceed sixty-
four (64) fifty-four (54) or the number approved by the Department of Social Services,
whichever is less, at any time.
4. A twenty foot buffer shall be maintained between the property and TMP 61X1-AA-B.
5. The concurrent use of the property for a nursery/day care center and a residential use is
prohibited.
6. All employees of the day care center, including owners and directors, shall park on -site or in other
off-street spaces approved by the Zoning Administrator.
7. The maximum number of employees, including owners and directors, on-site during hours of
operation shall be limited to seven (7).
Conditions #8 - #10 below apply to the use of the facility as offices:
8. The maximum number of employees shall be ten (10).
9. A twenty foot buffer shall be maintained between the property and TMP 61X 1-AA-B.
10. The concurrent use of the property for an office and a residential use is prohibited.
Conditions #11 & #12 below apply to any use of the property:
11. The concurrent use of the property for a nursery/day care center and an office use is prohibited.
12. The small evergreen tree on the Four Seasons Drive frontage at the corner of the parking shall be
relocated toward the building, as recommended by VDOT, a sufficient distance to prevent future
line-of-sight problems.
13. The applicant shall keep and enforce the agreement for the three additional parking spaces at the
Northwood Apartments.
Return to PC actions letter
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
February 28, 2011
Michael D. Leo
56 Misty Mountain Rd
Greenwood, VA 22943
RE: SP201000048 Music Festival
Tax Map 71, Parcel 3
Dear Mr. Leo:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 8, 2011, by a vote of 7:0,
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1.
1. The use shall conform to any existing applicable special use permits, including but not limited
to SP-1994-30, whose terms are hereby incorporated by reference;
2. Development of the use shall be in conformity with the Concept Plan entitled Misty Mountain
Camp Resort SP-2009-16 Music Festival, prepared by Albemarle County Office of
Geographic Data Services, and signed by Mike Leo and dated August 6, 2009, (hereinafter,
the “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning
Administrator;
To be in conformity with the plan, development shall reflect the following central features
within the development essential to the design of the development:
• location of temporary parking areas 1,2, and 3
• location of temporary stage
All activities related to the music festival shall take place within the area of the site bound by
the Rockfish Gap Turnpike, Misty Mountain Road, Stockton Creek and the western parcel
boundary. Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may
be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance;
3. A music festival special event shall be permitted once every twelve (12) month period, for a
maximum of three (3) consecutive days consisting of one (1) week day and two (2) weekend
days. Any increase in the number of special events shall require an amendment to this
special use permit;
4. A maximum of fifteen (15) vendors shall be allowed to operate on any given day during the
music festival;
5. Written approval from the Police Department, Fire and Rescue, and the Health Department
shall be required each year prior to the issuance of a zoning clearance to allow the special
event use;
6. No tree removal, grading, or disturbance shall take place within the driplines of the trees as
shown on the Concept Plan prepared by Mike Leo, and dated March 25, 2009. Any grading
or disturbance within ten (10) feet of any dripline shall necessitate submittal of a "Tree
Protection Plan" in accord with section 32.7.9.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. No grading or
disturbance within ten (10) feet of any dripline shall be permitted until: a) a survey and
fencing have been completed and b) the Planning Director approves a plan which shows the
grading or disturbance and the surveyed dripline of the existing trees;
7. Hours of operation for the music event shall be between 12:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m.
8. Off-site parking shall not be permitted except in authorized parking lots from which people
are transported to the special event by shuttle or comparable vehicles;
9. The maximum number of people allowed on the site for the special event on each day shall
not exceed five hundred (500) persons.
10. The maximum number of vehicles allowed to be parked on the site for the special event on
each day shall not exceed two hundred twenty four (224).
11. A minimum of twenty (20) private security, parking, and traffic control staff members shall be
required on site each day of the music festival;
12. Overnight camping outside the designated camping areas shall be prohibited;
13. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from all
abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than
0.3 foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval;
14. The maximum level of noise shall not exceed sixty-five (65) dBA as measured from an
adjacent property;
15. The applicant shall reseed and restore the parking area site(s) as required by the zoning
administrator within thirty (30) days of the last day of the special event; and
16. The site shall be restored and cleared of all trash, debris, and temporary structures
associated with the special event within two (2) days after the final day of the special event.
17. Special use permit 2009-16 shall be valid until June 30, 2011. Special use permit 2010-48
shall be valid for five years until June 30, 2016.
Action on Two (2) Waivers: Waivers were approved from Section 5.1.43(e.1) and Section 4.18.04
of the Zoning Ordinance.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on March 9, 2011.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
Eryn Brennan
Senior Planner
CC: 1906 LLC
30 Tupelo Road
Hilton Head Island, SC 22928
View executive summary and attachments
View PC minutes
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SP 2010-48 Music Festival
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Extension of the existing Special Use Permit
(SP2009-16) to continue allowing an annual special
event at the Misty Mountain Camp Resort
STAFF CONT ACT(S):
Cilimberg, McDowell, Brennan
LEGAL REVIEW: No
AGENDA DATE:
February 8, 2011
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
SP2009-16 was approved by the Board of Supervisors on September 9, 2009 allowing one three -day music festival
per year at the Misty Mountain Camp Resort. (See Attachment A, Board Action Letter, Attachments B and C, site
characteristics and event layout, and Attachment D, prior staff report.) The applicant is requesting a five year
extension of this special use permit. One of the conditions of approval in 2009 was that the special use permit
would only be valid for two years to allow for a trial period for the event (Conditio n 17).
DISCUSSION:
For the last two years Misty Mountain Camp Resort has been the venue for an annual music festival. The 2009 and
2010 three-day events featuring live music and local food and wine vendors were held without incident. The number
of persons in attendance averaged 400 each year; hence, the events have not exceeded the 500 person limit
stated in Condition 9 of SP2009-16. Tickets were sold in advance to ensure that the number of people on the site at
any given point for the special event would be managed.
The applicant obtained all required permits and approvals from the Police Department, Fire and Rescue, and the
Heath Department prior to each event and complied with all of the cond itions of approval for SP2009-16. As a
safety measure, the Rescue squad was set up on the site for the duration of the event each year; however, no
incidents required their services. County staff conducted baseline sound measurements during the October 2009
event and confirmed that the levels complied with the conditions of approval. No complaints from adjacent
neighbors were received throughout the duration of the events in either 2009 or 2010.
As the request to allow 500 people exceeds the number of participants allowed by special use permit for a special
event in the Rural Areas, the applicant has again requested a waiver for Section 5.1.43-(e.1) of the Zoning
Ordinance (Attachment E). Condition 9, however, should be retained to continue to limit the number of persons
allowed for the special event to 500.
As the noise would exceed sound levels allowed in the Rural Areas (60 dBA during the day and 55 dBA during the
night), the applicant has also again requested a waiver for Section 4.18.04 of the Zoning Ordinance (Attachment E).
Again, Condition 14 should be retained to continue restricting noise levels to no higher than 65 dBA during the
event as measured from an adjacent property.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Special Use Permit 2010-48 Music Festival with the conditions of approval
associated with SP2009-16, except Condition 17 (conditions listed below). The applicant has requested a five
year extension, but staff supports eliminating an expiration date for the special use permit as the music
festival has operated without incident for two years. Staff also recommends approval of waivers from Section
5.1.43-(e.1) and Section 4.18.04 of the Zoning Ordinance.
PROJECT: SP-2009-016. Music Festival – Conditions of Approval
1. The use shall conform to any existing applicable special use permits, including but not limited to SP-
1994-30, whose terms are hereby incorporated by reference;
2. Development of the use shall be in conformity with the Concept Plan entitled Misty Mountain Camp
Resort SP-2009-16 Music Festival, prepared by Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data
Services, and signed by Mike Leo and dated August 6, 2009, (hereinafter, the “Conceptual Plan”), as
determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator;
To be in conformity with the plan, development shall reflect the following central features within the
development essential to the design of the development:
• location of temporary parking areas 1,2, and 3
• location of temporary stage
All activities related to the music festival shall take place within the area of the site bound by the
Rockfish Gap Turnpike, Misty Mountain Road, Stockton Creek and the western parcel boundary.
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance;
3. A music festival special event shall be permitted once every twelve (12) month period, for a maximum
of three (3) consecutive days consisting of one (1) week day and two (2) weekend days. Any increase
in the number of special events shall require an amendment to this special use permit;
4. A maximum of fifteen (15) vendors shall be allowed to operate on any given day during the music
festival;
5. Written approval from the Police Department, Fire and Rescue, and the Health Department shall be
required each year prior to the issuance of a zoning clearance to allow the special event use;
6. No tree removal, grading, or disturbance shall take place within the driplines of the trees as shown on
the Concept Plan prepared by Mike Leo, and dated March 25, 2009. Any grading or disturbance
within ten (10) feet of any dripline shall necessitate submittal of a "Tree Protection Plan" in accord
with section 32.7.9.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. No grading or disturbance within ten (10) feet of any
dripline shall be permitted until: a) a survey and fencing have been completed and b) the Planning
Director approves a plan which shows the grading or disturbance and the surveyed dripline of the
existing trees;
7. Hours of operation for the music event shall be between 12:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m.
8. Off-site parking shall not be permitted except in authorized parking lots from which people are
transported to the special event by shuttle or comparable vehicles;
9. The maximum number of people allowed on the site for the special event on each day shall not
ex ceed five hundred (500) persons.
10. The maximum number of vehicles allowed to be parked on the site for the special event on each day
shall not exceed two hundred twenty four (224).
11. A minimum of twenty (20) private security, parking, and traffic control staff members shall be required
on site each day of the music festival;
12. Overnight camping outside the designated camping areas shall be prohibited;
13. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from all abutting
properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than 0.3 foot candles
shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval;
14. The maximum level of noise shall not exceed sixty-five (65) dBA as measured from an adjacent
property;
15. The applicant shall reseed and restore the parking area site(s) as required by the zoning
administrator within thirty (30) days of the last day of the special event; and
16. The site shall be restored and cleared of all trash, debris, and temporary structures associated with
the special event within two (2) days after the final day of the special event.
17. Special use permit 2009-16 shall be valid until June 30, 2011.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Board of Supervisors Action Letter, September 9, 2009
B – Site Characteristics
C – Concept Plan
D – Staff Report for SP2009-16 Music Festival
E – Waiver Requests
Return to PC actions
R O C K F IS H G A P T P K E
MI
STY MOUNTAI
N RDB
U
R
C
H
S C
R
E
E
K R
D
s 0 110 220 330 440
Feet
Misty Mountain Camp Resort - Site Characteristics Attachment B
Legend
Critical Slopes
Stream Buffers
Conservation Easement
Attachment D
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP2009-16 Music Festival Staff: Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
August 18, 2009
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
September 9, 2009
Owner: 1906, LLC Applicant: Mike Leo
Acreage: 47.11 acres Special Use Permit: 10.2.2.50 Special
events
TMP: Tax Map 71 Parcel 3
Location: 56 Misty Mountain Road,
approximately three-quarters of a mile west of I-
64E junction
Existing Zoning and By-right use:
Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre); Entrance
Corridor Overlay District
Magisterial District: Whitehall Conditions: Yes
RA (Rural Areas): X Requested # of Dwelling Units: N/A
Proposal: Special Use Permit to allow a special
event at the Misty Mountain Camp Resort
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Rural Areas – preserve and protect agricultural,
forestral, open space, and natural, historic and
scenic resources/residential density (0.5
unit/acre)
Character of Property: The camping area for
the Misty Mountain Camp Resort is located in the
northeast portion of the parcel closest to Rockfish
Gap Turnpike. The recreation center and store,
and the main house, are located in the northwest
portion of the parcel. An open field lies south of
the recreation center, and the entire southern
portion of the property is densely wooded.
Use of Surrounding Properties: The properties
surrounding the parcel are included in the Rural
Area Zoning District, and are characterized by
large farms and single-family residential lots.
Factors Favorable:
1. The proposed use would minimally impact the
character of the site, given that the festival is a
temporary special event and not permanent.
2. There are no anticipated detrimental impacts
on adjacent properties resulting from the
proposed use.
Factor Unfavorable:
1. The use does not directly contribute to the
goals outlined in the Rural Areas section of
the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The use would increase traffic in the area
during the three days of the festival.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this Special Use Permit, with conditions.
Attachment D
STAFF PERSON: ERYN S. BRENNAN
PLANNING COMMISSION: AUGUST 18, 2009
SP 2009-16 Music Festival
Petition:
PROJECT: SP200900016 Music Festival
PROPOSED: Special Use Permit to allow a special event at the Misty Mountain Camp Resort
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots)
SECTION: 10.2.2.20 Day camp, boarding camp; 10.2.2.50 Special events
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect
agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/
acre in development lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: 56 Misty Mountain Road, approx. three-quarters of a mile west of I-64E junction
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07100000000300
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Whitehall
Character of the Area:
The 47 acre parcel where Misty Mountain Camp Resort is located is bifurcated by Misty
Mountain Road. The camping area is located in the northeast portion of the parcel closest to
Rockfish Gap Turnpike (see Attachment A). The Community Building and bathhouse, are
located in the northwest portion of the parcel, also along Rockfish Gap Turnpike. A large, open
field is located south of the Community Building and bathhouse. Stockton Creek passes through
the property approximately 70’ south of the field. The entire parcel south of the Creek is densely
wooded, and large swaths of critical slopes exist adjacent and perpendicular to the Creek in this
area. The properties surrounding the campground are designated Rural Area in the
Comprehensive Plan, and are included in the Rural Area Zoning District. These properties are
generally characterized by large farms and single-family residential lots. Several parcels north of
Rockfish Gap Turnpike are under conservation easement, and the parcel directly northwest of
Misty Mountain Camp Resort is located in the Yellow Mountain Agricultural/Forestal District.
Specifics of the Proposal:
The applicant is requesting a special use permit for a special event that would allow one three-
day music festival per year. The festival has already been scheduled to be held this year from
October 2 – 4. The music festival would have no more than 500 people in attendance per day
and tickets would be sold in advance, in order to ensure that the number of people on the site at
any given point for the special event would be managed. Any unsold tickets would be sold at the
gate the day of the event. As the 500 person request exceeds the number of participants
allowed by special use permit for a special event in the Rural Areas, the applicant has
requested a waiver for Section 5.1.43-(e.5) of the Zoning Ordinance, which has been included
with the application.
The hours of operation for the music festival would be from noon to 10:00 pm. The primary
stage would consist of a semi-truck that converts into a stage, and it would be located in the
open field south of the proposed parking area behind the structure labeled #50 on the concept
plan (Attachment B). A building permit would not be required for the temporary stage. A second
stage would be located in the Community Building labeled #56 on the concept plan. As the
noise would exceed sound levels allowed in the Rural Areas (60 dBA during the day and 55
dBA during the night), the applicant has requested a waiver for Section 4.18.04 of the Zoning
Attachment D
Ordinance, which is also included with the application. A condition has been offered to restrict
noise levels to no higher than 65 dBA during the event as measured from an adjacent property
(Condition 14). Fifteen vendors selling food, wine, beer, and souvenirs would set up the first day
of the event and would be dismantled and removed from the property the Monday following the
festival.
All festival parking would be on-site, and no off-site parking would be allowed. A condition has
been offered to restrict parking to on-site (Condition 8) in order to avoid unsafe traffic conditions
on Route 250. Three separate parking areas have been identified on the concept plan
(Attachment B), as well as a handicapped parking area. The available space on the site can
accommodate up to 224 cars, which equals a maximum of 560 participants according to the
calculation of 2.5 participants per one car, as determined in Section 4.12.6 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
The applicant has contracted for trash removal and recycling, and a total of 10 portable
bathrooms would be available for festival participants. The campground bathroom facilities
would be closed to the general public and keys would be given to those staying in the
campground to access those facilities. The Health Department has no issues with the event, but
has stated that the applicant would need to obtain a permit at least 14 days prior to the event,
ensuring that the vendors are licensed and the number of portable toilets is adequate.
Staff held a meeting with the police department and fire and rescue to discuss safety issues
related to the music festival. As in the past, the police would be notified of the event and
encouraged to drive through the park during the event. The applicant would have 12 private
security staff members on site to assist with parking and regulate the gates and entrance. An
additional 10 private security staff provided by the festival organization would be stationed in the
festival area. Camping outside the designated camping areas would not be allowed, and this
rule would be enforced through signage in the parking areas and private security personnel
monitoring the venue. Emergency exits for Fire and Rescue have been identified on the concept
plan, and the Fire and Rescue Division has issued a fire inspection report approving the
proposed layout of the emergency ingress and egress (Attachment C).
Staff has offered a condition to limit the validity of the special use permit to allow a trial period
consisting of two events (one in 2009 and one in 2010) in order to monitor impacts of the music
festival, and to ensure that no unforeseen impacts arise that would jeopardize the health, safety,
and welfare of the general public (Condition 17). The time limit for the special use permit would
also allow the opportunity for Albemarle County to recommend additional conditions, if the
applicant should chose to extend the special use permit, should unforeseen issues regarding
the music festival arise during the trial period.
Planning and Zoning History:
In 1969, Conditional Use Permit 116 was approved by the Board of Supervisors to allow a
campground on the site (see Attachment D).
In 1982, SP-82-61 was approved to expand the number of camping sites allowed on the
parcel to 112 (see Attachment E).
In 1994, SP-94-30 was approved to construct ten tourist cabins (see Attachment F).
Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan: The land uses supported by the Rural Areas
chapter of the Comprehensive Plan include agriculture, forestry, and conservation. The
proposed special event does not directly contribute to these land uses, but also does not
negatively impact these land uses. The proposal is temporary in nature and will occur over a
Attachment D
very limited timeframe. The activity would occur on an existing developed site (campground)
and there are no permanent improvements proposed to the site to accommodate the eve nt. The
agricultural activities and properties under conservation easement located nearby and the
adjacent Agricultural/Forestal District would not be significantly impacted by the activity as
proposed and with the conditions recommended by staff. In summary, the scale and duration of
this proposal is such that it is not detrimental to the important elements that define Rural Area
(agricultural/forestal resources; land preservation/conservation; water supply resource;
natural/scenic/historic/cultural resources). There are no provisions in the Comprehensive Plan
regarding areas of assembly or number of people assembling in the Rural Area.
Staff Comment:
Staff will address each provision of Section 31.6 of the Zoning Ordinance as follows:
31.6: 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,
Staff does not anticipate any detrimental impacts to adjacent property. The music area is
completely buffered by a dense forest to the south. The nearest residences are located north
and east of the music area, the closest of which is 700 feet away and the farthest of which is
1200 feet away (see Attachment G). Other residences to the west are located approximately
one-half mile from the site.
The Virginia Department of Transportation has determined that the proposed use would not
have a detrimental impact on traffic in the area because: 1) the special event is proposed only
once per year, and 2) since the existing traffic on Route 250 in this location is only
approximately 8000 vehicles per day, the addition of up to 224 more vehicles arriving and
leaving on the days of the operation would constitute only a 3% increase in the number of cars
on the road per day.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and
There will be no site development changes or permanent new construction on the property;
therefore, the use would have no long-term impact on the character of the district. The one
stage proposed to be assembled outdoors for the event would be temporary and removed the
day following the music festival. The ARB staff has also determined that since no permanent
structures are associated with the proposed use, there would be no permanent impacts to the
Entrance Corridor.
that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
The purpose of the Rural Areas Zoning District is the preservation of agricultural and forestal
lands and activities; water supply protection; limited service delivery to the rural areas; and
conservation of natural, scenic, and historic resources. The proposed use does not directly
promote the purposes of the Rural Areas Zoning District; however, special events are allowed
by special use permit in the Rural Areas. Given that the requested use would be a temporary
event, it is not discordant with the goals and intent of the Rural Areas Zoning and would have no
permanent or detrimental impact on the district. The proposed special event also would have no
adverse impact on the water supply in the area since portable toilets are being used for the
event.
with uses permitted by right in the district,
The subject property and the surrounding adjacent properties are zoned Rural Areas. The uses
permitted by right under RA zoning directly support agriculture, forestry, and conservation of
Attachment D
rural land. The special event would not adversely affect the permitted by right uses in the Rural
Area zoning district.
with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance,
The additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance address zoning
compliance and special event structures and operations.
Staff will address each provision of Section 5.1.43 of the Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Each special event authorized by section 10.2.2(50) shall be subject to the following:
a. Eligibility and applicability. Special events may be authorized on those parcels
in the Rural Areas (RA) zoning district on which there is an existing and ongoing
by-right (section 10.2.1) primary use. A special event special use permit issued
under section 10.2.2(50) and this section shall not be required for special events
associated with farm wineries or historical centers, or for events determined by
the zoning administrator to be accessory to a primary use of the parcel.
The proposed special event does require a special use permit, as determined by
the zoning administrator.
b. Information to be submitted with application for special use permit. In addition
to any information otherwise required to be submitted for a special use permit,
each application for a special use permit shall include the following:
1. Concept plan. A preliminary schematic plan (the “concept plan”)
satisfying section 32.6. The concept plan shall identify the structure(s) to
be used for the special event, include the area of the structure(s) in which
the proposed special events will be conducted, the parking area, and the
entrance to the site from the street. The concept plan shall address, in
particular, provisions for safe and convenient access to and from the
street, the location of the parking area, the location of portable toilets if
they may be required, proposed screening as required by this section for
parking areas and portable toilets, and information regarding the exterior
appearance of the proposed site. Based on the concept plan and other
information submitted, the board of supervisors may then waive the
requirement for a site plan in a particular case, upon a finding that the
requirement of a site plan would not forward the purposes of this chapter
or otherwise serve the public interest.
A concept plan identifying the proposed stages, parking areas, entrance, and
portable toilets has been submitted (Attachment B). Images showing the
exterior appearance of the site have also been submitted (Attachment H & I).
The zoning administrator has suggested that a site plan requirement be
waived.
2. Information from the Virginia Department of Health. The applicant shall
submit written comments from the Virginia Department of Health
regarding the private water supply and the septic disposal system that
will serve the proposed special event site, the ability of the water supply
and the septic disposal system to handle the proposed events, and the
Attachment D
need to improve the supply or the system in order to handle the proposed
events.
The use of permanent bathroom facilities on the site would be restricted to
campers at the Misty Mountain Camp Resort. Ten portable toilets would be
available on-site for the festival participants. The Health Department has no
objection to the proposed event, but has stated that the applicant would need
to obtain a permit at least 14 days prior to the event ensuring that the vendors
are licensed and the number of portable toilets is adequate.
3. Building and fire safety. The building official and the county
department of fire and rescue shall review and comment on the
application, identifying all Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and
Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code issues and requirements.
Building Inspections has no objection to the application. The Fire and Rescue
Division has issued a fire inspection report approving the site for the proposed
use (Attachment C).
c. Zoning compliance clearance. The applicant shall obtain a zoning compliance
clearance prior to conducting a special event. A single zoning clearance may be
obtained for one (1) or more such special events in a calendar year as follows:
1. The zoning administrator may issue a single zoning compliance
clearance for more than one (1) special event if: (i) the application
submitted by the applicant includes the required information in subsection
5.1.43(c)(3) for each special event to be covered by the zoning compliance
clearance: (ii) the zoning administrator determines that each special event
is substantially similar in nature and size; and (iii) the zoning administrator
determines that a single set of conditions that would apply to each such
special event may be imposed with the zoning compliance clearance.
2. The applicant shall apply for a zoning compliance clearance at least
thirty (30) days prior to the date of the first special event to be authorized
by the zoning compliance clearance. The application shall be submitted to
the zoning administrator, who shall forward copies of the application to the
county police department, the county building official, the county
department of fire and rescue, and the local office of the Virginia
Department of Health. As part of his review, the building official shall
determine whether the structure(s) proposed to be used for the special
events satisfies the requirements of the Virginia Uniform Statewide
Building Code for that use.
3. The application shall describe the nature of each special event to be
authorized by the zoning compliance clearance, the date or dates and
hours of operation of each such special event, the facilities, structures to
be used, and the number of participants and support staff expect to attend
each special event.
4. Upon a determination that all requirements of the zoning ordinance and
all conditions of the special use permit are satisfied, and imposing all
conditions of such approval required by the offices identified in subsection
5.1.43(c)(2), the zoning administrator shall issue a zoning compliance
clearance for one or more special events. The validity of the zoning
compliance clearance shall be conditional upon the applicant’s compliance
Attachment D
with all requirements of the zoning ordinance, all conditions of the
approved special use permit, the approved concept plan or site plan, and
all conditions imposed by the zoning compliance clearance.
The applicant would be required to obtain a Zoning Clearance prior to the event,
if the special use permit is approved. A condition has been offered to ensure this
procedure is required (Condition 5).
d. Special events sites and structures. In addition to all other applicable
requirements of this chapter, special events sites and structures shall be subject
to the following:
1. Structures used for special events. Each structure used for a special
event shall satisfy the following: (i) the structure shall have been in
existence on the date of adoption of this section 5.1.43, provided that this
requirement shall not apply to accessory structures less than one hundred
fifty (150) square feet in size; (ii) the structure shall be a lawful conforming
structure and shall support or have supported a lawful use of the property;
and (iii) modifications to farm buildings or farm structures as those terms
are defined in Virginia Code § 36-97 shall allow the structure to revert to an
agricultural use, as determined by the building official.
There are no permanent structures proposed for the special event.
2. Minimum yards. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the
minimum front yard shall be seventy-five (75) feet. The minimum side yard
shall be twenty-five feet (25) feet. The minimum rear yard shall be thirty-five
(35) feet. All yards shall be measured from structures and off-street parking
areas. These minimum yard requirements shall apply to all accessory
structures established after the effective date of this section 5.1.43 and all
tents, parking areas and portable toilets used in whole or in part to serve
special events.
The minimum yard requirements for the portable toilets would be met according
to the concept plan dated March 25, 2009.
3. Parking. The number of off-street parking spaces for a special event
shall be as required in section 4.12.6. Notwithstanding section 4.12.15(a)
through (g), the additional parking area(s) for special events shall consist
of or be constructed of pervious materials including, but not limited to
stabilized turf, approved by the county engineer. Asphalt and impervious
materials are prohibited. If the parking area is on grass or in a field, the
applicant shall reseed and restore the parking area site as required by the
zoning administrator. In addition to the requirements of section 4.12.5, the
parking area shall be onsite and screened from abutting parcels by
topography, structures or new or existing landscaping. Notwithstanding
section 4.12.16(d) and (e), the delineation of parking spaces and the
provision of bumper blocks shall not be required.
Only on-site parking in grassy areas is proposed for the special event, and the
applicant would be required to reseed and restore the parking area site as
required by the Zoning Ordinance. The locations of the three proposed parking
Attachment D
areas would be obscured from abutting parcels by the topography of the site and
existing landscaping.
4. Water and sewer. The private water supply and septic disposal system
serving a special event shall be approved by the Virginia Department of
Health.
There would be no impact on the private water supply or septic disposal system
since portable toilets and bottled water would be used for the special event.
5. Streets and access. Streets serving the site shall be adequate for
anticipated traffic volume for a special event. Access from the street onto
the site shall be adequate to provide safe and convenient access to the
site, and applicant shall install all required improvements and provide
adequate sight distance in order to provide safe and convenient access.
The Virginia Department of Transportation has determined that the street and
entrance drive are adequate for the proposed special event.
e. Special events operations. In addition to all other applicable requirements of
this chapter, special events operations shall be subject to the following:
1. Number of participants. The number of participants at a special event at
any one time shall not exceed one hundred fifty (150) persons.
The applicant is requesting that up to 500 participants of the music festival be
allowed on the site each day, and hence, is requesting a waiver for this
supplementary regulation. Currently, approximately 600 people are allowed on
site under the auspices of the special use permit for the campground. Staff
recommended that no more than 500 additional people be allowed on the site for
the music festival (for a total of 1100 people allowed on the site for both the
music festival and campground) to ensure the safety and manageability of
campers and festival participants.
2. Number of special events per year. The special use permit shall identify
the number of approved special events per calendar year, which number
shall not exceed twenty-four (24).
The current special use permit application is for only one three-day special event
per year.
3. Signs. Permanent and temporary signs advertising a special event shall
be permitted as provided in sections 4.15.4 and 4.15.8.
No additional signage advertising the special event would be posted on the site.
4. Food service. No kitchen facility permitted by the Virginia Department of
Health as a commercial kitchen shall be allowed on the site. A kitchen may
be used by licensed caterers for the handling, warming and distribution of
food, but not for cooking food, to be served at a special event.
Attachment D
The food vendors would distribute food at the special event, but they would not
utilize a kitchen facility on the site. The Health Department has determined that
the applicant would need to obtain a permit at least 14 days prior to the event
ensuring that the vendors are licensed.
5. Portable toilets. If required, portable toilets are permitted on the site,
provided that they comply with the yard requirements in section
5.1.43(d)(2) and shall be screened from that parcel and any street by
topography, structures or new or existing landscaping.
The portable toilets would be screened from any street view by the topography of
the site and existing landscaping.
f. Prohibition of development to a more intensive use. A parcel subject to a special
events special use permit shall not be subdivided so as to create one or more
parcels, including the parent parcel, of less than twenty-one acres in size without
first amending the special use permit to expressly authorize the subdivision. If a
parcel is so subdivided without first amending the special use permit, special
events shall thereafter be prohibited on the resulting parcels unless a new special
use permit is obtained.
The applicant has not proposed to subdivide the property.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community are protected through the
special use permit process which assures that the proposed uses are appropriate in the location
requested. The Building Official has offered no concerns about the proposal.
The Health Department has no objection to the proposed special use permit application, but has
stated that the applicant would need to obtain a permit prior to the event to ensure that the food
vendors are licensed and the number of portable toilets is adequate. The Fire and Safety
Department has conducted and approved a fire safety inspection report for the special event
(Attachment C).
The Virginia Department of Transportation has no objection to the proposed special use permit.
However, the proposed use would generate 224 more vehicles per day on Rockfish Gap
Turnpike and, therefore, would have some impact on traffic in this area.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. The proposed use would minimally impact the character of the site, given that the
festival is a temporary special event and no permanent structures or improvements
would be constructed.
2. There are no anticipated detrimental impacts on adjacent property resulting from the
proposed use.
Staff has identified the following factors unfavorable to this application:
1. The use does not directly contribute to the goals outlined in the Rural Areas section
Attachment D
of the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The use would increase traffic in the area during the three days of the festival.
SP 1994-30 Conditions for Misty Mountain Campground
The conditions approved with SP 1994-30 have been italicized and included below for your
information.
1. No more than a total of 112 camping sites on property described as County Tax Map 71,
Parcel 3, Samuel Miller Magisterial District, consisting of 47.11 acres zoned RA Rural
Areas. Not more than six of these camp sites may be used for cabins which are to be
located on the south side of Stockton Creek in existing camp sites. Not more than four of
these cabins may qualify as dwelling units. Any cabins constructed as dwelling units
shall comply with the provisions of Section 10.2.1.1. No cabins shall be utilized until all
appropriate Building Code and Health Department requirements have been met;
2. No new camping sites shall be located in the flood plain, as determined by the Army
Corps of Engineers;
3. All such uses shall conform to the requirements of the Virginia Department of Health
Bureau of Tourist Establishment Sanitation and other applicable requirements;
4. Provisions for outdoor cooking, campfires, cooking pits, ect., shall be subject to
Albemarle County Fire Official approval;
5. Conditions one and six of Conditional Use Permit #116 shall be met to the reasonable
satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator;
6. No new camping sites or additional storage of parked trailers, campers and recreational
vehicles within the 150-foot setback. New and additional vehicles shall be in compliance
with a 150-foot setback from the edge of the Route 250 right-of-way;
7. The cabins would not be used from November 15 to March 15.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of Special Use
Permit 2009-016 Music Festival, subject to the following conditions of approval.
1. The use shall conform to any existing applicable special use permits, including
but not limited to SP 1994-30, whose terms are hereby incorporated by
reference.
2. Development of the use shall be in conformity with the Concept Plan entitled
Misty Mountain Camp Resort SP2009-16 Music Festival, prepared by Albemarle
County Office of Geographic Data Services, and signed by Mike Leo and dated
August 6, 2009, (hereinafter, the “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the
Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator.
Attachment D
To be in conformity with the plan, development shall reflect the following central
features within the development essential to the design of the development:
location of temporary parking areas 1,2, and 3
location of temporary stage
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above
may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
3. A music festival special event shall be permitted once every twelve (12) month
period, for a maximum of three (3) consecutive days consisting of one week day
and two weekend days. Any increase in the number of special events shall
require an amendment to this special use permit.
4. A maximum of fifteen (15) vendors shall be allowed to operate on any given day
during the music festival.
5. Written approval from the Police Department, Fire and Rescue, and the Health
Department shall be required each year prior to the issuance of a zoning clearance
to allow the special event use.
6. No tree removal, grading, or disturbance shall take place within the driplines of
the trees as shown on the Concept Plan prepared by Mike Leo, and dated March
25, 2009. Any grading or disturbance within ten (10) feet of any dripline shall
necessitate submittal of a "Tree Protection Plan" in accord with section 32.7.9.4
of the Zoning Ordinance. No grading or disturbance within ten (10) feet of any
dripline shall be permitted until a) a survey and fencing have been completed and
b) the Planning Director approves a plan which shows the grading or disturbance
and the surveyed dripline of the existing trees.
7. Hours of operation for the music event shall be between 12:00 p.m. and 10:00
p.m.
8. Off-site parking shall not be permitted.
9. The maximum number of people allowed on the site for the special event on
each day shall not exceed 500 persons.
10. A maximum of 224 vehicles shall be allowed to be parked on site on any given
day of the music festival.
11. A minimum of 20 private security, parking, and traffic control staff members shall
be required on site each day of the music festival.
12. Overnight camping outside the designated camping areas shall be prohibited.
13. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light
away from all abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all
property lines to no greater than 0.3 foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning
Administrator or their designee for approval.
Attachment D
14. The maximum level of noise shall not exceed 65 dBA as measured from an
adjacent property.
15. The applicant shall reseed and restore the parking area site(s) as required by the
zoning administrator within 30 days of the last day of the special event.
16. The site shall be restored and cleared of all trash, debris, and temporary
structures associated with the special event within two days after the final day of
the special event.
17. Special use permit 2009-16 shall be valid until June 30, 2011.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Map of the Site
Attachment B – Concept Plan
Attachment C - Fire and Rescue Inspection Report
Attachment D – Board of Supervisors Action Letter, CUP 116
Attachment E – Board of Supervisors Action Letter, SP-82-61
Attachment F – Board of Supervisors Action Letter, SP-94-30
Attachment G – Map of Area
Attachment H – Images of the site from Rockfish Gap Turnpike
Attachment I – Images of the proposed festival area
Misty Mountain Camp Resort
56 Misty Mountain Road
Greenwood, Virginia 22943
For the past three years, Misty Mountain Camp Resort has been the venue for an annual music festival
benefitting local area vendors and the Albemarle County Rescue Squad. Featuring live music from
several local musicians and multiple food and wine vendors, each festival has run from start to finish
without incident. The festivals have all been a huge success and have brought much revenue to these
participating musicians and vendors in the area.
Misty Mountain Camp Resort respectfully requests to extend the current special use permit (
SP200900016-Music Festival ) for a period of five years, dating from 2011-2016. Upon approval of this
permit, Misty Mountain is certain to continue a family oriented festival that will support local musicians,
vendors, and our community.
Thank you
Michael D. Leo
Attachment E
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 8, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
February 8, 2011
SP-2010-00048 Music Festival
PROPOSED: Five year extension of existing Special Use Permit (SP200900016) to continue allowing an
annual special event at the Misty Mountain Camp Resort
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots)
SECTION: 10.2.2.50 Special events
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre in development
lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: 56 Misty Mountain Road, approx. three-quarters of a mile west of 64E junction
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07100000000300
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Whitehall
(Eryn Brennan)
Ms. Brennan presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the request.
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Extension of the existing Special Use Permit (SP2009-16) to continue allowing an annual special event at
the Misty Mountain Camp Resort
SP-2009-16 was approved by the Board of Supervisors on September 9, 2009 allowing one three -day
music festival per year at the Misty Mountain Camp Resort. (See Attachment A, Board Action Letter,
Attachments B and C, site characteristics and event layout, and Attachment D, prior staff report.) The
applicant is requesting a five year extension of this special use permit. One of the conditions of approval
in 2009 was that the special use permit would only be valid for two years to al low for a trial period for the
event (Condition 17).
DISCUSSION:
For the last two years, Misty Mountain Camp Resort has been the venue for an annual music festival .
The 2009 and 2010 three-day events featuring live music and local food and wine vendors were held
without incident. The number of persons in attendance averaged 400 each year; hence, the events have
not exceeded the 500 person limit stated in Condition 9 of SP2009 -16. Tickets were sold in advance to
ensure that the number of people on the site at any given point for the special event would be managed.
The applicant obtained all required permits and approvals from the Police Department, Fire and Rescue,
and the Heath Department prior to each event and complied with all of the conditions of ap proval for
SP2009-16. As a safety measure, the Rescue squad was set up on the site for the duration of the event
each year; however, no incidents required their services. County staff conducted baseline sound
measurements during the October 2009 event and confirmed that the levels complied with the conditions
of approval. No complaints from adjacent neighbors were received throughout the duration of the events
in either 2009 or 2010.
As the request to allow 500 people exceeds the number of participants all owed by special use permit for
a special event in the Rural Areas, the applicant has again requested a waiver for Section 5.1.43 -(e.1) of
the Zoning Ordinance (Attachment E). Condition 9, however, should be retained to continue to limit the
number of persons allowed for the special event to 500.
As the noise would exceed sound levels allowed in the Rural Areas (60 dBA during the day and 55 dBA
during the night), the applicant has also again requested a waiver for Section 4.18.04 of the Zoning
Ordinance (Attachment E). Again, Condition 14 should be retained to continue restricting noise levels to
no higher than 65 dBA during the event as measured from an adjacent property.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Special Use Permit 2010 -48 Music Festival with the conditions of approval
associated with SP-2009-16, except Condition 17 (conditions listed below). The applicant has requested
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 8, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
2
a five year extension, but staff supports eliminating an expiration date for the special use permit as the
music festival has operated without incident for two years. Staff also recommends approval of waivers
from Section 5.1.43-(e.1) and Section 4.18.04 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Zobrist invited questions for staff.
Mr. Morris asked how was the compliance with the sound level determined.
Ms. Brennan replied the base line measurements were taken from the property lines. She asked Mr.
Higgins to answer that question since she did not attend the music festival.
Ron Higgins, Chief of Zoning, replied that Code Enforcement Officers went out and took base line
measurement from several adjacent property lines. It was under the 65 decibel level right behind the
stage on the adjacent property. At the time the new equipment had been calibrated, which has to be
done each year. They have a base line in case it came up in the future.
Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Mike Leo, owner and manager of Misty Mountain Resource, noted one correction that the festival has ran
for three years without incident. The first year they ran under a zoning variance and the second two
years under a special use permit.
Mr. Zobrist invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and the matter
before the Commission.
Mr. Loach supported the five-year extension so it can be looked at again. He thought it is better to have
something out there that they can relook at it again and maintain the good neighbor status.
Motion: Mr. Loach moved and Mr. Morris seconded for approval of SP-2010-00048, Music Festival with
the recommended conditions, as amended, to add the condition for the five-year extension.
Mr. Cilimberg asked to clarify that was also inclusive of the condition that Ms. Brennan read that is
referencing the waivers, which was not in the report.
Mr. Loach and Mr. Morris agreed.
The motion was approved by a vote of 7:0.
Ms. Brennan noted that the next issue was the waivers. The first request is to allow 500 people, which
exceeds the number of participants allowed by special use permit for a special event in the rural areas.
Approval of the waiver Section 5.1.4.3.(e-1), which the applicant has requested is required. Condition 9,
however. does limit the number of people for the event to 500. Only 150 is allowed. The applicant is
requesting a waiver, but condition # 9 has already put a cap on the maximum number of people to attend
the event to 500. In addition, the noise would exceed the sound levels allowed in the rural areas, which is
60 dba and 55 dba during the night. Approval of the waiver Section 4.18.04, which the applicant is
requesting, is also required. Condition 14 of the special use permit restricts the noise levels to no higher
than 65 dba during the event as measured from adjacent prop erties. So again, conditions have been put
in the special use permit conditions of approval that address, cap and limit these waiver requests.
However, none the less the waiver requirements are required. Staff recommends approval of the waivers
of these sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
Action on Waivers:
Motion: Mr. Loach moved and Mr. Morris seconded for approval of the two waiver requests for Sections
5.1.4.3.(e-1) and 4.18.04 as stated by staff with conditions.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Zobrist noted that the matter had passed.
.
Return to PC actions
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
February 28, 2011
Michael E. Derdyn, Esq
530 East Main Street
Charlottesville, Va 22902
RE: SP201000043 Brown Collision Center
Tax Map 61, Parcel 120E
Dear Mr. Derdvn:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 8, 2011, by a vote of 7:0,
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. There shall be no storage of parts, materials or equipment except within an enclosed building.
2. No vehicle awaiting repair shall be located on any portion of the property so as to be visible from
any public road or any residential property, and shall be limited to locations designated on the
approved site plan.
3. The site plan (SDP2010-62, Sheet 1 of 1, dated 8/2/10, and prepared by Daggett & Grigg
Architects) shall be amended with a Letter of Revision to update the parking space labels and to
show all of the previously approved/required landscaping on the plan, and to show the relocated
area where vehicles awaiting repair are kept from public view.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on March 9, 2011.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832.
View staff report and attachments
View PC minutes
Return to agenda
Sincerely,
Claudette Grant
Senior Planner
CC: S & B Realty Venture Llc C/O Brown Toyota
960 Hilton Heights Road
Charlottesville, Va 22901
Brown Collision Center
PC Public Hearing 2//8/11
1
ALBEMARLE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
Proposal: SP 2010-043 Brown Collision Center Staff: Claudette Grant
Planning Commission Public Hearing: February 8, 2011 Board of Supervisors Hearing: To be determined.
Owners: S & B Realty Venture, L.L.C. Applicant: Brown Charlottesville Motors, Inc.
represented by Michael E. Derdeyn,
Acreage: Approximately 3.17 acres Special Use Permit for: Auto Body Shop in HC
Highway Commercial district
TMP: TM: 61, P: 120E
Location: 1590 Seminole Trail, approximately 600 feet
north of Berkmar Drive on the west side of Seminole Trail
(US 29) (Attachments A & B)
By-right use: Commercial establishments oriented to
highway locations.
Magisterial District: Rio Conditions: Yes EC: Yes
Proposal: To permit an auto body shop in a Highway
Commercial District. Requested # of Dwelling Units: 0
DA (Development Area): Neighborhood 1 Comp. Plan Designation: Regional Service –
regional-scale retail, wholesale, business and/or
employment centers, and residential (6.01-34
units/acre).
Character of Property: The property is developed with
office, auto body work space and related parking located on
it.
Use of Surrounding Properties: Surrounding
properties are primarily commercial uses, including
restaurants, gas station, bank and shopping mall.
Factors Favorable:
1. The use is consistent with the Land Use Plan.
2. The special use permit will provide an opportunity
for the auto body service to expand and
accommodate additional business in this portion of
the Development Area.
Factors Unfavorable:
None
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of SP 2010-043 Brown Collision Center with approved
conditions.
Brown Collision Center
PC Public Hearing 2//8/11
2
STAFF PERSON: Claudette Grant
PLANNING COMMISSION: February 8, 2011
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: To Be Determined
SP2010-043: Brown Collision Center
Petition:
PROJECT: SP20100043/Brown Collision Center
PROPOSED: To permit an auto body shop in a Highway Commercial District, no residential
units proposed.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: HC Highway Commercial - commercial and
service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/ acre)
SECTION: 24.2.2 (17) auto body shops
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Regional Service - regional-scale retail,
wholesale, business and/or employment centers, and residential (6.01 -34 units/acre) in
Neighborhood 1.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: 1590 Seminole Trail, approximately 600 feet north of Berkmar Drive on the west
side of Seminole Trail (US 29)
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061000000120E0
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
Character of the Area and Adjoining properties:
The subject property lies at 1590 Seminole Trail, approximately 600 feet north of Berkmar
Drive on the west side of Seminole Trail (US 29). The surrounding area consists primarily of
commercial development, including a bank, gas station, restaurant and shopping mall.
Background:
The property is zoned HC-Highway Commercial and was used as an automobile dealership,
from 1987-2007 which included a body shop as an accessory use. In 2007 the use on this
property became a body shop for automobile and truck repair and new car sales were no
longer conducted at this location. The applicant submitted a site plan (SDP2010-062) in order
to build an addition onto the existing building. Upon review of this site plan, it was discovered
that an auto body shop was not allowed in the Highway Commercial district. This property was
in violation and in need of remediation. On January 12, 2011 the Board of Supervisors
approved a Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA 2010-00007) that allows the use of an auto body
shop in a Highway Commercial district with a special use permit.
Applicant’s Justification for the Request:
The applicant currently operates the existing body shop and is anxious to begin using the
additional space that was recently built with SDP2010 -062 to accommodate additional
business.
Planning and Zoning History:
The property was zoned HC-Highway Commercial prior to 1980. Over the last 25 to 30 years a
variety of zoning clearances, variances, signs, and building permits have occurred on the site.
SDP 2010-062 was approved on September 7, 2010 regarding a building expansion on the
rear of the existing building.
Brown Collision Center
PC Public Hearing 2//8/11
3
Comprehensive Plan:
The Land Use Plan designates this area as Regional Service in Neighborhood One (1). The
Comprehensive Plan supports regional-scale retail, wholesale, business and/or employment
centers such as auto body uses in areas designated as regional service. A body shop is most
appropriate when located in the Development Area. The site will not be used for residential
purposes.
The proposed Places 29 Master Plan designates this area as Urban Mixed Use (in areas
around Centers). This designation allows a range of community and regional retail, commercial
service, office, and other employment generators, with a mix of residential types. Auto
commercial service uses are examples of uses that are appropriate in this land use
designation. The request is in accord with both the existing and proposed comprehensive plan
designations.
An analysis for consistency with the Neighborhood Model was not done for this project since
site changes are not proposed. It is an expansion of an existing use at the site.
Staff Comment:
Section 31.6 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be assessed as
follows:
Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property?
There is no record of impacts to adjacent property from the a uto body shop that has
operated at this location for a number of years. No detriment to adjoining properties is
anticipated from the requested expanded use because all auto body activities will
continue to be inside the building.
Will the character of the zoning district change with this use?
The character of the district has not been changed by the existing a uto body shop and
it is not anticipated that the character will change with the additional space located at
the rear of the existing building.
Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance?
The HC zoning district is intended for commercial uses oriented to the highway. Auto body
shops are allowed by special use permit in this district depending on the location.
Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
As previously stated, the HC district allows a variety of commercial uses by-right as well as
those that are permitted by special use permit. The existing auto body shop has operated in
harmony with by-right uses at this location for a number of years. The proposed use will
continue to operate from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. The proposed
expansion of the auto body use continues to be compatible with the other permitted uses in
this district.
Will the use comply with the additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance?
Section 5.1.31 is applicable to the proposed auto body shop use and each regulation is
addressed below:
a. There shall be no storage of parts, materials or equipment except within an enclosed
building.
Brown Collision Center
PC Public Hearing 2//8/11
4
Storage of parts, materials or equipment is within the building and shed located on the
property.
b. No vehicle awaiting repair shall be located on any portion of such property so as to
be visible from any public road or any residential property, and shall be limited to
locations designed on the approved site plan.
Vehicles awaiting repair are limited to locations designed on the approved site plan. (See
Attachment C)
c. Nothing herein shall be construed to limit the authority of the governing body in the
review of any special use permit, including, but not limited to, the regulation of hours of
operation, location of door and/or windows and the like. (Added 12-7-88)
The hours of operation will remain from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday.
Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the
use is approved?
The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community will be protected through the
special use permit conditions that specifically address this use at this location. There is no
safety concern with the auto body shop use.
Summary:
Staff finds the following factors favorable to this request:
1. The use is consistent with the Land Use Plan.
2. The special use permit will provide an opportunity for the auto body service to
expand and accommodate additional business in this portion of the Development
Area.
Staff finds no factor(s) unfavorable to this request.
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends approval of SP 2010-043, Brown Collision Center with the following
conditions.
1. There shall be no storage of parts, materials or equipment except within an
enclosed building.
2. No vehicle awaiting repair shall be located on any portion of the property so as to
be visible from any public road or any residential property, and shall be limited to
locations designated on the approved site plan.
3. The site plan (SDP2010-62, Sheet 1 of 1, dated 8/2/10, and prepared by Daggett
& Grigg Architects) shall be amended with a Letter of Revision to update the
parking space labels and to show all of the previously approved/required
landscaping on the plan, and to show the relocated area where vehicles awaiting
repair are kept from public view.
Brown Collision Center
PC Public Hearing 2//8/11
5
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Tax Map
Attachment B – Vicinity Map
Attachment C – Special Permit Site Plan, prepared by Daggett & Grigg Architects, dated
11-08-10
Return to PC actions
SEMINOLE TRL£¤29
Prepared by Albemarle CountyOffice of Geographic Data Services (GDS). Map created by Elise Hackett, January 2011.
Note: The map elem ents depicted are graphic representations and are not to be construed or used as a legal description.This map is for display purposes only.
Aerial Imagery 2009 Comm onwealth of Virginia
Parcels shown reflect plats and deeds recorded through December 31, 2009
0 100 20050Feet
SP 2010-043Brown Collision Center
10' Contour
Roads
Driveways
Buildings
Streams
Water Body
Parcels
Parcel of Interest
61-120E
±
SEMINOLE TRLRI
O R
D
EEARLYSVILLE RDHYDRAULIC RDRIO RD WWOO DBURN RDHUNTINGTON RDCOMMONWEALTH DRDUNLORA DRWOO
DLA
N
D
S RDHILLSDA L E D R
¡743
¡768
£¤29
Prepared by Albemarle CountyOffice of Geographic Data Services (GDS). Map created by Elise Hackett, January 2011.
Note: The map elem ents depicted are graphic representations and are not to be construed or used as a legal description.This map is for display purposes only.
Aerial Imagery 2009 Comm onwealth of Virginia
Parcels shown reflect plats and deeds recorded through December 31, 2009
0 2,000 4,0001,000 Feet
SP 2010-043Brown Collision Center
Roads
Streams
Water Body
Parcels
Parcel of Interest
City Boundary
61-120E
±City ofCharlottesville
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 8, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
February 8, 2011
SP-2010-00043 Brown Collision Center
PROPOSED: to permit an auto body shop in a Highway Commercial District, no residential units
proposed.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: HC Highway Commercial - commercial and service uses; and
residential use by special use permit (15 units/ acre)
SECTION: 24.2.2 (17) auto body shops
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Regional Service - regional-scale retail, wholesale,
business and/or employment centers, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) in Neighborhood 1.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes X No
LOCATION: 1590 Seminole Trail, approximately 600 feet north of Berkmar Drive on the west side of
Seminole Trail (US 29)
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061000000120E0
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
(Claudette Grant)
Ms. Grant presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the request.
Proposal: To permit an auto body shop in a Highway Commercial District.
Factors Favorable:
1. The use is consistent with the Land Use Plan.
2. The special use permit will provide an opportunity for the auto body service to expand and
accommodate additional business in this portion of the Development Area.
Factors Unfavorable:
None
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of SP 2010-043 Brown Collision Center with the
conditions outlined in the staff report.
Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Mike Deardane, present on behalf of Brown Collision Center, said it was a use that has been in place for
a number of years. This body passed resolution of intent some time ago to add the body shop as a
special use in Highway Commercial District, which has been passed by the Board of Supervisors. This is
the follow on the special use permit application to enable Brown to continue essentially its operation so
that it can continue its operation in its existing building.
There being no questions for the applicant, Mr. Zobrist invited public comment. There being none, the
public hearing was closed and the matter before the Planning Commission.
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Morris seconded to recommend approval of SP-2010-00043 Brown
Collision Center subject to staff’s recommended conditions.
1. There shall be no storage of parts, materials, or equipment except within an enclosed building.
2. No vehicle awaiting repair shall be located on any portion of the property so as to be visible from
any public road or any residential property, and shall be limited to locations designated on the
approved site plan.
3. The site plan (SDP2010-62, Sheet 1 of 1, dated 8/2/10, and prepared by Daggett & Grigg
Architects) shall be amended with a Letter of Revision to update the parking space labels and to
show all of the previously approved/required landscaping on the plan, and to sh ow the relocated
area where vehicles awaiting repair are kept from public view.
The motion was approved by a vote of 7:0.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 8, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL
2
Mr. Zobrist noted that SP-2010-00043 Brown Collision Center would go to the Board on a date to be
determined with a recommendation for approval.
Return to PC actions
1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZTA 2010-008 Farm Winery Sound Regulations
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Amend Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance Section
5.1.25, relating to the Noise Standard for Outdoor
Amplified Music at Farm Wineries
STAFF CONTACT(S):
McCulley, Cilimberg, Newberry, Kamptner
AGENDA DATES:
Planning Commission: March 1, 2011
Board of Supervisors: March 9, 2011
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
BACKGROUND:
On May 5, 2010, the Board amended the zoning regulations relating to farm wineries to bring our local regulation into
accord with the Virginia Code. Zoning Ordinance Section 5.1.25 (e) established the following standard for sound from
outdoor amplified music:
Sound generated by outdoor amplified music shall not be audible: (i) from a distance of one hundred (100) feet or
more from the property line of the farm winery on which the device is located; or (ii) from inside a dwelling unit.
In accordance with the limitations imposed by the Virginia Code, the current regulations are applicable only to sound
generated by outdoor amplified music. The sound regulations relating to farm wineries prior to the May 5, 2010
amendment applied to all farm winery events and activities involving the public and utilized the standard Zoning
Ordinance maximum decibel levels for the Rural Areas of 60 daytime and 55 nighttime.
Issues relating to the new sound regulation arose last summer and fall with an Albemarle winery’s wedding events. On
December 2, 2010, staff held a public roundtable to receive input from representatives of the f arm winery industry, the
public and others as to how the new regulations were working after the first season in effect. The participants requested
that we revisit the sound standard, its implementation and enforcement (Attachment A within attachment to Planning
Commission Staff Report). On January 5, 2011, the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution of intent to revisit these
sound regulations (Attachment B).
The Planning Commission held a work session and took public comment on January 18, 2011. The Commission asked
staff to provide further information to address a) the need for more immediate and direct enforcement , including through
the Police Department; and b) a lower sound level than the current Rural Areas decibel levels that would better limit
nuisance noise. On February 8th, the Planning Commission directed staff to proceed to public hearing with an audibility
standard that would be enforced by the Police Department. This would be accomplished by reference to the general
noise standards in Chapter 7 of the County Code rather than from within the Zoning Ordinance. On February 9th, the
Board discussed having a decibel-based enforcement ordinance and set a public hearing date of March 9th. The County
Attorney indicated that they would draft text amendments for both an audibility standard that would be enforced by the
Police Department (Attachment D) and a decibel-based enforcement ordinance (Attachment E).
PUBLIC PURPOSE TO BE SERVED: Establish a sound standard that is reasonable, effective and efficient in its
administration and enforcement. This standard and process should better address both the needs of the farm winery
industry to preserve its economic vitality and the effect of outdoor amplified music on residents living near farm wineries.
DISCUSSION:
While there are some benefits to an audibility standard and Police enforcement of outdoor amplified music at farm
winery events, these benefits do not overcome the costs and difficulties. Staff opinion is that the most appropriate,
effective and efficient way to enforce this regulation is using a decibel -based standard with Zoning enforcement in a
civil process. The issues pro and con, are outlined in Attachment C, a matrix about sound standard and type of
enforcement.
2
Staff will address the three criteria to consider for all Code amendments:
Administration / Review Process:
An audibility standard is more difficult for a winery to determine if they will be in compliance and to obtain compliance
(because it is a higher standard). Police enforcement of an audibility standard is consistent with their enforcement
under the general noise standards in Chapter 7.
Changing to a decibel-based sound regulation restores consistency with other land-use sound regulations and it will
be easier for Zoning to administer and for a winery to follow. As with the other land-use sound regulations, an
applicant’s engineer can evaluate a proposed site for compliance prior to commencing the outdoor amplified music.
Housing Affordability:
There are no identifiable impacts on housing affordability caused by either of the attached amendments.
Implications to Staffing / Staffing Costs:
Changing the enforcement to the Police further burdens a department that is currently understaffed and whose priority
is public safety even above public welfare.
Because a decibel-based standard is less restrictive than an audibility standard, we expect fewer violations of this
standard – resulting in lower staffing costs for administration. Zoning already has the necessary equipment to
measure decibel levels, so this is not a new cost.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Staff does not have projected costs for the budget impact of transferring this enforcement responsibility to the Police
Department. The result could be a slower response time for higher priority calls, due to limited Police staffing.
There are no new or additional costs associated with Zoning enforcement of a decibel-based ordinance. We currently
own the sound meter and have associated requirements for regular calibration and training as a result of the existing
land-use sound regulations.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of ZTA 2010-08 as provided in Attachment F, which establishes a decibel standard enforced
by Zoning. Should the decision be to instead utilize the audibility standard enforced by police, the necessary text
amendment language is provided in Attachment E (revised as noted in the Planning Commission meeting). If the Board
chooses the latter approach, this item will need to be deferred until the Chapter 7 amendment can be heard.
ATTACHMENTS:
ATTACHMENT A: Staff Report for January 18, 2011 PC Work Session, including Public Input
ATTACHMENT B: Resolution of Intent
ATTACHMENT C: Comparison Matrix – Sound Standard and Enforcement Pros and Cons
ATTACHMENT D: Draft Ordinance –Audibility Enforced by Police
ATTACHMENT E: Draft Ordinance –Revised Audibility Enforced by Police and recommended by Commission
ATTACHMENT F: Draft Ordinance – Decibel Standard Enforced by Zoning
View PC minutes of January 18, 2010 and March 1, 2011
Return to regular agenda
1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: ZTA 2010-08 Farm Winery
Sound Regulations – Work Session
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Work Session
to Discuss Farm Winery Regulations Relating to
Outdoor Amplified Music
STAFF: McCulley, Cilimberg,
Newberry and Kamptner
BACKGROUND:
On May 5, 2010, the Board amended the zoning regulations relating to farm wineries to bring our local
regulation into accord with the Virginia Code. Zoning Ordinance Section 5.1.25 (e) established the following
standard for sound from outdoor amplified music:
Sound generated by outdoor amplified music shall not be audible: (i) from a distance of one hundred
(100) feet or more from the property line of the farm winery on which the device is located; or (ii) from
inside a dwelling unit.
In accordance with the limitations imposed by the Virginia Code, the current regulations are applicable only to
sound generated by outdoor amplified music. The audibility standard was used to be consistent with Chapter 7
of the County Code that relates to sound generation from similar uses and sources. In addition, it can be
enforced by citizens swearing out a summons based on their own observations without the requirement that a
Police Officer be the witness and take the action. The sound regulations relating to farm wineries prior to the
May 5, 2010 amendment applied to all farm winery events and activities involving the public and utilized the
standard Zoning Ordinance maximum decibel levels for the Rural Areas of 60 daytime and 55 nighttime.
Issues relating to the new sound regulation arose this summer with an Albemarle winery’s wedding events. As
a result, staff sent a letter to Albemarle wineries and interested parties, soliciting input on the new regulations
in general and on the sound regulations in particular. We received numerous responses expressing concerns
about either the regulations themselves or the enforcement of those regulations (Attachment B).
On December 2, 2010, staff held a public roundtable to receive input from representatives of the farm winery
industry, the public and others as to how the new regulations were working after the first season in effect. The
participants requested that we revisit the sound standard, its implementation and enforcement (Attachment C).
On January 5, 2011, the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution of intent to revisit these sound regulations
(Attachment A).
DISCUSSION: The development of a sound standard must consider the needs of the farm winery industry
to preserve its economic vitality and the effect of outdoor amplified music on residents living near farm
wineries, in the need for a standard that is reasonable, effective and efficient in its administration and
enforcement. The current sound standard does not adequately meet this need in several respects. The
Virginia Code requires us to consider the impact of the outdoor amplified music on the neighbors. The
sound rises to the level of a nuisance with impacts on neighbors based on how loud it is, not simply based
on if it is heard. There is a practical understanding and expectation that sound does not recognize property
boundaries and that we will hear sounds that are generated from off of our property. However, there is a
2
Page 2
Planning Commission Work Session Farm Winery Sound Regulation
January 18, 2011
normal expectation that we will not have to hear unreasonably loud noises generated off-site.
Section 4.18, Noise, of the Zoning Ordinance utilizes a decibel level sound regulation that considers the
zoning of the receiving property and the time of day. A decibel is a unit for measuring the volume of a
sound. Section 4.18.04 Maximum Sound Levels establishes a daytime (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) maximum of 60
decibels and nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) maximum of 55 decibels in the Rural and Residential receiving
zones. This standard is applied to all uses, including those of an industrial character such as sawmills.
Staff recommends that we amend the ordinance relating to outdoor amplified music at farm wineries to
utilize the maximum sound levels for the Rural Areas as stated in Section 4.18.04. This amendment will
address several issues in the current regulations as follows:
1. It will establish an objective standard that is measurable as opposed to a subjective standard that is
debatable;
2. The standard will better address nuisance noise rather than prohibit any sound from farm winery
events;
3. This standard will allow wineries to self-enforce by checking their own compliance on their property;
4. This standard has been found to be reasonable and appropriate as a maximum sound level in this
zoning district;
5. This is a time-based standard which requires lower sound levels during the nighttime when
residents can reasonably expect a quieter enjoyment of their property.
6. This standard is measured at the property line. We received input that the current point of
measurement (a distance of 100 feet from the property line or inside a dwelling) is problematic. The
current standard could arguably require the winery owner to get permission to go onto the adjoining
property to determine compliance.
Staff received input about how enforcement of outdoor amplified music violations is currently
problematic and therefore frustrating to the public. One of the difficulties that is not based on the type
of sound standard used (audibility versus maximum decibel level), arises from the fact that these farm
winery events are typically held at night and on weekends when the Zoning office is not open. Even
though they are not currently expressly authorized to enforce these sound regulations, the Police
Department has teamed with Zoning to assist with complaints as they arise. Their assistance does not
extend to initiating enforcement action; instead, they can serve as witnesses and mediators. The
audibility standard offers the advantage of not requiring any specialized equipment or training to
measure. Use of a decibel standard will eliminate the Police from serving as a witness because they
do not typically have sound meters and the necessary training for the same. However, this result is no
different than the current situation with enforcement of any other complaint relating to a zoning
ordinance sound regulation. As with many matters, the Police are called on nights and weekends and if
they are available and able to respond, they will attempt to mediate disputes. Regardless of the type of
regulatory standard, Zoning takes the lead in the enforcement process. While neither the Police nor
Zoning can close down a farm winery event, when there is a recurring or unresolved compliance case,
Zoning staff will work a schedule that allows us to be the witness and enforcement case lead to resolve
the issue. For example, if we know that there is an ongoing unresolved sound complaint and there is
an upcoming wedding (or other event involving outdoor amplified music) scheduled, a Code
Enforcement Officer will plan to be there to witness and address a sound violation, should it occur.
In summary, we recognize that while there are advantages to the current standard, it does not
adequately address the issue of nuisance noise. Staff suggests that use of the maximum decibel level
sound standard better meets the goal of a reasonable, effective and efficient regulation to administer
and enforce.
3
Page 3
Planning Commission Work Session Farm Winery Sound Regulation
January 18, 2011
PUBLIC PURPOSE TO BE SERVED: The proposed new standard for outdoor amplified music generated
by a farm winery will better meet State Code provisions and County goals of preserving the economic
vitality of farm wineries while considering the effect of outdoor amplified music on adjacent properties and
residents.
ADMINISTRATION/ REVIEW PROCESS: By better addressing administration and enforcement of this
regulation, the resulting amendment is expected to make the administration and review under this
regulation more efficient.
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY: There are no identified impacts to housing affordability.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends we proceed to public hearing with an ordinance amendment. The Planning Commission
public hearing is tentatively set for February 8th and the Board public hearing for March 2nd.
ATTACHMENTS:
ATTACHMENT A: Resolution of Intent and Executive Summary
ATTACHMENT B: Input – Emails, Letters, Etc. Outside of Roundtable
ATTACHMENT C: Input from Roundtable
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Resolution of Intent – Farm Winery Sound Regulations
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Resolution of Intent to Amend Zoning Ordinance
Regulations Relating to Outdoor Amplified Music at Farm
Wineries
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, and Cilimberg;
and Ms. McCulley
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
January 5, 2011
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On May 5, 2010, the Board amended County Code § 18-5.1.25, pertaining to the regulation of farm wineries. County
Code § 18-5.1.25(e) established the following standard for sound from outdoor amplified music:
Sound generated by outdoor amplified music shall not be audible: (i) from a distance of one hundred
(100) feet or more from the property line of the farm winery on which the device is located; or (ii) from
inside a dwelling unit.
On December 2, 2010, Staff held a public roundtable to receive input from representatives of the farm winery industry,
the public and others as to how the new farm winery regulations were working after the first season. Staff received
significant public input during the December 2, 2010 roundtable and the standard for outdoor amplified music ended
up being the primary focus of the roundtable. The participants requested that the County revisit the standard for
sound from outdoor amplified music and, in particular, its implementation and enforcement, even though complaints of
noise from outdoor amplified music during the past season were limited to a single farm winery.
DISCUSSION:
The audibility standard in County Code § 18-5.1.25 is borrowed from the audibility standard for certain regulated
sounds in the County’s general noise regulations in Chapter 7 of the County Code. The audibility standard, however,
is a unique standard within the Zoning Ordinance, which otherwise uses decibel-based standards for noise generated
by various regulated land uses (County Code § 18-4.18). For example, if the Rural Areas or a residential zoning
district is the receiving zone, the permitted noise level (in decibels) is 60 dBA during the day (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.)
and 55 dBA at night (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). Noise levels are measured using a sound level meter under prescribed
procedures.
The attached resolution of intent (Attachment A) would initiate the study of a new standard for outdoor amplified music
at a farm winery. The development of a recommended standard would include considering the needs of the farm
winery industry to preserve its economic vitality, the effect of outdoor amplified music on residents living near farm
wineries, and the need for a standard that is reasonable, effective and efficient in its administration and enforcement.
The Planning Commission has scheduled a work session for this issue on January 18, 2011.
BUDGET IMPACT:
By better addressing administration and enforcement of this regulation, the resulting amendment is not expected to
have a negative budget impact and may result in minor staff time savings over the administration of the current
regulations.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution of Intent.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Resolution of Intent to Amend the Zoning Ordinance Regarding Farm Winery Sound
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, County Code § 18-5.1.25(e) establishes the standard for sound generated from
outdoor amplified music at a farm winery, which is based on the audibility of the sound by a person of
normal hearing from specified locations; and
WHEREAS, the standard is unique among the noise standards for land uses regulated under
the Zoning Ordinance, which are otherwise decibel-based standards in County Code § 4.18; and
WHEREAS, it is desired to consider a new standard for outdoor amplif ied music at a farm
winery considering the needs of the farm winery industry to preserve its economic vitality, the effect of
outdoor amplified music on residents living near farm wineries, and the need for a standard that is
reasonable, effective and efficient in its administration and enforcement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience,
general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
adopts a resolution of intent to amend County Code §§ 18-4.18, 18-5.1.25 and any other regulations
of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the County Code deemed appropriate to achieve the purposes described
herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on
the zoning text amendment proposed by this resolution of intent, and make its recommendation to the
Board of Supervisors, at the earliest possible date.
* * * * *
Return to attachment
ISSUE PROS CONS COMMENTS
ENFORCEMENT
1. By Police Citizens can call on nights &
weekends when an issue
arises.
Consistency with enforcement
for private noise violations
Police, who are understaffed,
have higher priority calls.
Police enforcement can be
considered excessive for the
issue.
Generally, some Judges may
be more reluctant to impose
criminal conviction for this
type of violation.
Requires BOS action through
Code amendment and it must be
a criminal offense.
Police enforcement if decibel-
based standard will require Police
to purchase equipment &
undertake training.
2. By Zoning Consistent with enforcement
for other land use sound
regulations.
The civil process is efficient
and effective for compliance
when voluntary compliance
does not work.
Staff available on nights &
weekends only when pre-
arranged.
Civil penalty can be seen as
“cost of doing business” due
to the amount of the penalty.
Zoning staff are currently those
authorized to enforce land use-
based sound violations.
Civil process can involve fines
adding up to $5,000 and / or
injunction.
SOUND
STANDARD
1. Audibility
Does not require special
equipment.
Most substantially limits the
outdoor amplified music such
that it cannot be heard.
Can arguably be debated
given different hearing and
lack of objective equipment.
More difficult to self-enforce
for winery.
Creates a more restrictive
standard that could be
difficult to meet.
Creates inconsistency in
land-use sound regulation
because all other land-use
sound regulations are
decibel-based.
This is the only audibility-based
sound standard in the Zoning
Ordinance for land uses.
Cannot justify why farm winery
events should have a higher
standard than other RA land uses
such as sawmills, etc.
ISSUE PROS CONS COMMENTS
2. Decibel-
based
Is a measurable standard,
which can avoid different
opinions (audibility).
Is an objective standard.
Is a time-based standard
which requires lower noise
levels during night hours.
Is consistent with existing
sound regulations for land
uses.
Is more consistent with other
localities’ sound regulations.
Allows winery to take sound
measurements to avoid
noncompliance.
Allows an engineer to
determine if a proposed
location will meet the sound
standards, before it is
established for outdoor
amplified music.
Zoning staff have the
equipment and training.
None identified, given the
fact that this standard
currently exists and Zoning
has the equipment and
experience to enforce it (see
Comments).
To properly enforce, requires
maintaining equipment and
training, and regular calibration of
equipment. However, imposing
this standard for farm winery
events creates no greater
requirement than already exists
under the current ordinance
sound standards. Zoning staff
have the equipment and the
experience with a sound meter.
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, County Code § 18-5.1.25(e) establishes the standard for sound generated from
outdoor amplified music at a farm winery, which is based on the audibility of the sound by a person of
normal hearing from specified locations; and
WHEREAS, the standard is unique among the noise standards for land uses regulated under the
Zoning Ordinance, which are otherwise decibel-based standards in County Code § 4.18; and
WHEREAS, it is desired to consider a new standard for outdoor amplified music at a farm
winery considering the needs of the farm winery industry to preserve its economic vitality, the effect of
outdoor amplified music on residents living near farm wineries, and the need for a standard that is
reasonable, effective and efficient in its administration and enforcement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity,
convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
hereby adopts a resolution of intent to amend County Code §§ 18-4.18, 18-5.1.25 and any other
regulations of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the County Code deemed appropriate to achieve the purposes
described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing
on the zoning text amendment proposed by this resolution of intent, and make its recommendation to the
Board of Supervisors, at the earliest possible date.
* * * * *
Return to exec summary
ISSUE PROS CONS COMMENTS
ENFORCEMENT
1. By Police Citizens can call on nights &
weekends when an issue
arises.
Consistency with enforcement
for private noise violations
Police, who are understaffed,
have higher priority calls.
Police enforcement can be
considered excessive for the
issue.
Generally, some Judges may
be more reluctant to impose
criminal conviction for this
type of violation.
Requires BOS action through
Code amendment and it must be
a criminal offense.
Police enforcement if decibel-
based standard will require Police
to purchase equipment &
undertake training.
2. By Zoning Consistent with enforcement
for other land use sound
regulations.
The civil process is efficient
and effective for compliance
when voluntary compliance
does not work.
Staff available on nights &
weekends only when pre-
arranged.
Civil penalty can be seen as
“cost of doing business” due
to the amount of the penalty.
Zoning staff are currently those
authorized to enforce land use-
based sound violations.
Civil process can involve fines
adding up to $5,000 and / or
injunction.
SOUND
STANDARD
1. Audibility
Does not require special
equipment.
Most substantially limits the
outdoor amplified music such
that it cannot be heard.
Can arguably be debated
given different hearing and
lack of objective equipment.
More difficult to self-enforce
for winery.
Creates a more restrictive
standard that could be
difficult to meet.
Creates inconsistency in
land-use sound regulation
because all other land-use
sound regulations are
decibel-based.
This is the only audibility-based
sound standard in the Zoning
Ordinance for land uses.
Cannot justify why farm winery
events should have a higher
standard than other RA land uses
such as sawmills, etc.
ISSUE PROS CONS COMMENTS
2. Decibel-
based
Is a measurable standard,
which can avoid different
opinions (audibility).
Is an objective standard.
Is a time-based standard
which requires lower noise
levels during night hours.
Is consistent with existing
sound regulations for land
uses.
Is more consistent with other
localities’ sound regulations.
Allows winery to take sound
measurements to avoid
noncompliance.
Allows an engineer to
determine if a proposed
location will meet the sound
standards, before it is
established for outdoor
amplified music.
Zoning staff have the
equipment and training.
None identified, given the
fact that this standard
currently exists and Zoning
has the equipment and
experience to enforce it (see
Comments).
To properly enforce, requires
maintaining equipment and
training, and regular calibration of
equipment. However, imposing
this standard for farm winery
events creates no greater
requirement than already exists
under the current ordinance
sound standards. Zoning staff
have the equipment and the
experience with a sound meter.
Draft: 02/14/11
1
ORDINANCE NO. 11-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, OF THE
CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning,
Article II, Basic Regulations, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 5.1.25 Farm winery
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 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.
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.
Draft: 02/14/11
2
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:
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.
Draft: 02/14/11
3
e. Sound from outdoor amplified music. Sound generated by outdoor amplified music shall not be audible:
(i) from a distance of one hundred (100) feet or more from the property line of the farm winery on
which the device is located; or (ii) from inside a dwelling unit be subject to the standard in County Code
§ 7-105(B)(5), shall be enforced as provided under County Code §§ 7-107 and 7-108 rather than under
this chapter, and shall not be considered an exempt sound under either section 4.18.05(J) or County
Code § 7-106.
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)
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as recorded
below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________.
__________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Mr. Dorrier ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Mr. Rooker ____ ____
Mr. Snow ____ ____
Mr. Thomas ____ ____
Draft: 03/03/11
1
ORDINANCE NO. 11-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, OF THE
CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning,
Article II, Basic Regulations, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 5.1.25 Farm winery
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 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.
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.
Draft: 03/03/11
2
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:
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.
Draft: 03/03/11
3
e. Sound from outdoor amplified music. Sound generated by outdoor amplified music shall not be audible:
(i) from a distance of one hundred (100) feet or more from the property line of the farm winery on
which the device is located; or (ii) from inside a dwelling unit not be regulated under chapter 18.
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)
Return to exec summary
Draft: 02/14/11
1
ORDINANCE NO. 11-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, OF THE
CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning,
Article II, Basic Regulations, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 5.1.25 Farm winery
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 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.
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.
Draft: 02/14/11
2
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:
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.
Draft: 02/14/11
3
e. Sound from outdoor amplified music. Sound generated by outdoor amplified music shall not be audible:
(i) from a distance of one hundred (100) feet or more from the property line of the farm winery on
which the device is located; or (ii) from inside a dwelling unit 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)
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as recorded
below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________.
__________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Mr. Dorrier ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Mr. Rooker ____ ____
Mr. Snow ____ ____
Mr. Thomas ____ ____
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 18, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2010-0008 FARM WINERY OUTDOOR/AMPLIFIED NOISE REGULATIONS
SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW BOS
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
January 18, 2011
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, January 18, 2011, at
6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room #241, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Members attending were Duane Zobrist, Chair; Ed Smith, Thomas Loach, Linda Porterfield, and Don
Franco. Absent was Russell (Mac) Lafferty and Calvin Morris, Vice Chair. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior
Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was present.
Other officials present were Lindsay Harris, Budget Analyst; Trevor Henry, Manager of Office of Facilities
Development; Amelia McCulley, Director of Zoning/Zoning Administrator; Elaine Echols, Principal
Planner; Glenn Brooks, County Engineer; David Benish, Chief of Planning; and Greg Kamptner, Deputy
County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Zobrist, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. and established a quorum. He noted
there would be no presentation on Willow Lake tonight since it would be heard next week. Two
Commissioners Mr. Lafferty and Mr. Morris were absent. Mr. Morris gave his input to him on tonight’s
items.
ZTA-2010-00008 Farm Winery Outdoor/Amplified Noise Regulations
Work Session - Discuss Farm Winery Regulations Relating to Outdoor Amplified Music.
(Amelia McCulley)
Purpose of Work Session: A work session was held to discuss the farm winery regulations relating to
Outdoor Amplified Music.
Ms. McCulley noted staff was informed this afternoon that a letter written by Patrick Crushing, Director of
Virginia Wine Council, was left out of the staff report packet The letter suggests elements of the farm
winery noise ordinance including they need to address where it is measured, when it is measured and
that it needs to be objective. Staff has noted the letter in tonight’s presentation and has provided extra
copies on the table. (Attachment: Letter from Patrick Crushing) (PowerPoint Presentation - ZTA 2010-
08 Farm Winery Sound Regulations Planning Commission Work Session)
At the end of the presentation staff is going to do a very quick demonstration generating some sound and
measuring it so they can have a sense of what different decibel levels sound like. It is something abstract
unless one really knows what numbers are associated with that sound level.
She presented a Power-Point presentation, as follows.
Background
May 5, 2010 – Board of Supervisors amend zoning regulations relating to farm wineries to be in
accord with Virginia Code;
Sound standard is also amended and relates only to outdoor amplified music (per
Virginia Code). (If sound is not outdoor and amplified and music – no sound regulation
applies).
Sound standard is changed from the decibel-based standard for RA and Residential
districts to audibility. This change was: a) to be consistent with Chapter 7 of the Code
for similar uses and sources, and b) to allow citizens to swear out summons and take
action.
Issues relating to sound levels arose last summer with an Albemarle winery’s wedding events.
To determine the extent of interest in the issue, staff sent a letter to wineries and interested public
soliciting their input.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 18, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2010-0008 FARM WINERY OUTDOOR/AMPLIFIED NOISE REGULATIONS
SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW BOS
2
The input led to a public roundtable held on December 2, 2010. Participants requested that we
revisit the standard, its implementation, and enforcement.
On January 5, 2011, the Board adopted a resolution of intent to revisit the zoning sound
regulations. That is what staff is doing in this process.
Discussion - Intro
Sound standard must consider the needs of the farm winery industry to preserve its economic
vitality and the effect of outdoor amplified music on residents living nearby.
Sound standard must be reasonable, effective , and efficient in its administration and
enforcement.
Sound rises to a nuisance based on how loud it is, not based on if it is heard.
There is a practical expectation that we will hear some sounds generated from off -site, including
sound generated by our neighbors. However, neighbors should not have to hear unreasonably
loud noises generated by farm winery events.
Discussion – Sound Standard
Staff recommends that we (amend the ordinance to) impose the decibel-based maximum sound
levels that currently apply to the Rural Areas (60 dB day 7 a.m. – 10 p.m. and 55 dB night
measured at property line). This standard has already been established as one that is
reasonable in the RA and Residential districts.
Discussion – Proposed dB Sound Standard
1. Establishes an objective standard rather than subjective and debatable standard;
2. Better addresses nuisance noise;
3. Allows wineries to self-enforce by checking compliance on their property;
4. This is a longstanding standard deemed appropriate for the RA district. Other RA uses, such as
sawmills, must comply.
5. Uses a time-based standard for lower levels allowed during nighttime;
6. Measured at property line. Current standard could arguably require someone to get permission
to go onto adjoining property to determine compliance.
Discussion – Sound Enforcement
Currently problematic and frustrating to public. Based partly on when these events are held –
nights and weekends. Also based on fact that Police are not currently authorized to enforce
these regulations and cannot take enforcement lead.
Zoning will continue to partner with Police on these. Farm winery events, such as weddings are recurring
and not one-time events. Zoning will plan to be present, even on a night or weekend, to make
observations and take action in the case of an unresolved sound violation.
Also frustrating to some members of the public is that zoning violations, such as this, are pursued
through civil penalties. We have received input suggesting that to be more of a deterrent, these
should be made criminal violations.
In 2000, we switched from criminal to civil penalties for zoning violations. The criminal process
(previously used) led to a protracted compliance timeline with numerous court dates and limited fines The
use of civil penalties has proven to be a more expedient means for penalty and compliance with zo ning
violations.
Summary and Recommendation
While we recognize advantages of the current sound standard, it does not appropriately address
nuisance noise and is not easily self-enforced by wineries.
We recommend imposition of the maximum sound standard (per Section 4.18.04) for farm winery
events using the decibel levels that are currently established in the Zoning regulations.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 18, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2010-0008 FARM WINERY OUTDOOR/AMPLIFIED NOISE REGULATIONS
SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW BOS
3
Recommendation
Proceed to public hearing with an ordinance amendment.
Tentative dates: PC on February 8th and BOS on March 2nd.
Staff did a brief sound demonstration with the assistance of J.T. Newberry, Code Enforcement Officer I
and John Jones, Code Enforcement Officer II. The purpose is to generate some sound and to tell them
the decibel level they are hearing that sound at. They are at a very short distance from the sound source,
which is typically not the case in an event at a farm winery in a tent or outdoors. This is not realistic in
that respect. In order to meet the ordinance and properly measure the noise they need to take a five
minute long measurement and average the decibel levels. They are not going to take the time to do that
tonight. Staff took two brief readings with the sound meter and advised the public when they were at 55
decibels and 60 decibels. Staff has a sound meter to enforce the sound regulations that are in the
ordinance for all kinds of uses.
A member of the audience asked if there were 200 people talking with music what would be the noise
level, and Mr. Jones replied that was not amplified music.
Ms. McCulley noted that was not music, so it does not apply. It has to be outdoor . Tents are considered
outdoors by staff’s interpretation. It has to be amplified and it has to be music. If any of those three
components do not exist, then the sound regulation does not apply. This is how our legislators adopted
the law and our hands are tied.
Mr. Zobrist invited questions from the Commission.
Mr. Loach asked if the County adopted locally Virginia Code Section 5.1.25.
Mr. Kamptner replied that reference is to the County Code. Our ordinance was adopted to comply with
the State Code Section 15.2-2288.3.
Mr. Loach asked if the State Code was adopted at the same time they adopted the ordinance for the
wineries,
Mr. Kamptner noted what Section 5.1.25 of the County Code implements is the State law that deals with
farm wineries and locality limitations on how they are to regulate them through their zoning regulations. It
is all encompassing and includes how localities regulate outdoor amplified music. It is really the one area
where localities have some discretion as to how they are going to regulate. The standard that was
adopted in the County Code mirrors the standard that is in Chapter 7, which is the general noise
ordinance that deals with audibility.
Mr. Loach said when Ms. McCulley first started she was talking about a noise ordinance that would apply
to loud parties. This morning in court he spoke with one of the deputies that was a police officer and he
asked what would happen if there was a loud party. The police officer said that they would go and give a
warning, but after the second time they had the authority to shut down the loud party. However, later in
the discussions it sounded like the Police don’t have the authority to enforce, which was confusing.
Ms. McCulley replied that a private party that is not a farm winery event is subject to Chapter 7 that the
Police enforces. A farm winery event that involves a party is subject only to the sound regulations that
are in the Zoning Ordinance. It is considered an agricultural use, and therefore is exempt from the
Chapter 7 sound regulations that the Police enforce.
There being no further questions, Mr. Zobrist opened the matter for public comment. He invited the first
speaker on the sign-up sheet, Mr. Burt Page, to come forward and address the Commission.
Bert Page, adjacent property owner, made the following comments.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 18, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2010-0008 FARM WINERY OUTDOOR/AMPLIFIED NOISE REGULATIONS
SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW BOS
4
- He noted that the Planning Commission met last year in February on this same issue. Mr.
Kamptner was at that meeting and noted that if there were violations to the noise standards that
were adopted at that time that the Police would respond. At that very same meeting, he stated if
somebody heard outdoor amplified music, they could complain to the Police Department and get
it stopped. His point is as they discuss the standards, audibility, decibels or whatever, if they do
not have an effective enforcement mechanism in place, then the standard will be meaningless as
it has been for them during the last six months. He lived next door to a winery. He has been
subjected to repeated violations of the ordinance.
- The Zoning office took jurisdiction of the matter and was able to accomplish relatively little. The
fines passed out were insufficient costs of doing business and the sound violations continue.
When they tried to call the Police as reflected in last year’s meeting the Police told them that they
were not allowed to respond only because it was a winery involved. If it had been anything else,
they would be able to. What they were saying is that if he was to produce noise at the same level
that his neighbor did he would be able to call the Police and they could respond and cite him with
a criminal offense. Yet when his neighbor creates the noise, bec ause he is a winery hosting a
wedding, he would have no recourse. That does not sound like a consistent standard.
Furthermore, what is happening in the process is that he and his family are being deprived of
their protection, which is afforded to every resident of Albemarle County by Chapter 7 in the
Noise Ordinance. They are being deprived of that protection simply because they live next door
to the winery. He asked where is the justice to that.
- He proposed that serious consideration be given to an enf orcement mechanism, which serves as
a detriment to the offender and should be at the same level, as it exists in the Noise Ordinance. If
it is good for the Noise Ordinance, it should be good enough for the wineries. Perhaps that will
serve as a deterrent. Absent any deterrent the winery in question will continue. At the last
wedding around 10:00 p.m., there was a tremendous noise that brought him up out of bed to
make another telephone call to the Police to get the same answer as he got before.
- He would ask that the Planning Commission give some consideration to equity and to the
legitimate interest of adjacent property owners of these wineries who are insisting on holding
these events. The other factor that is germane is these events happen on such a recurring basis
and are a business. The event holders are going to hold as many events as they can possibly
pack into their calendar. That means the adjacent property owners are subjected to this, not like
the samples that were shown, but on a recurrin g basis weekly. At the present time, the winery
next door is planning on scheduling or holding three weddings on Memorial Day weekend.
Phillip Strother, legal counsel for Keswick Vineyards and the Schornberg family, said his practice based
out of Richmond focuses mainly on land use and zoning law with a particular emphasis on Virginia wine
law. He was involved in the development of 15.2.22.88.3 in the General Assembly and helped draft part
of the language. His client agrees with the well thought out recommendations of the staff and believe
particularly that when they are talking about amplified music that by the very nature of the term amplified
they are talking about how loud it is. He made the following comments.
- This is an issue of determining how loud the amplified music is that can be regulated. They
would concur that a reasonable standard is the 55-60 decibel level that is applied to other uses in
the rural district. That is fair and equal. Farm wineries should not be treated any differently. His
clients, contrary to what the last speaker said, have been very proactive in their efforts. He went
to the site today and looked at some of the locations and the state of the art equipment that they
are putting in place by having their sound engineer design a decibel breaker system. This is a
system that will cause the sound to shut off if it goes above the said decibel level. They have
proactively had members of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors come out to the
site and walk the ground to listen to hear what an acceptable sound level is. Contrary to what is
being presented, they are being very proactive. They are very aware they live in a community
with neighbors nearby and want to make sure they live in a peaceful environment.
- In terms of the language of the previous ordinance, he would bring to the Planning Commission’s
attention that there is a Virginia Supreme Court case. It is a recent case decided in 2009, which
is out of the Virginia Beach area, that takes issue with a sound ordinance. That particular
ordinance that the Supreme Court struck down as being unconstitutionally vague. The language
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 18, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2010-0008 FARM WINERY OUTDOOR/AMPLIFIED NOISE REGULATIONS
SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW BOS
5
that was in that particular ordinance dealt with a reasonable person’s standard. If a sound were
so unreasonable as to disrupt the quietude and tranquility of the neighbors, then that would be
something that would violate the ordinance. The Supreme Court found that was
unconstitutionally vague. He would suggest to the Board that a standard that is simply based on
audibility is equall y as vague.
Al Schornberg, owner of Keswick Vineyards, noted there were a few things he would like to point out
about the sound demonstration. One, his iPod was registering about ten decibels higher than Mr. Jones.
Secondly, a true test has to take place in a field where they have the ambient sound or at least they do
based on the sound studies they have. He had a report he could give to the Commission. It was a low of
37 decibels to a high of 60 decibels if there is a breeze. When there is no breeze w ith just crickets and
tree frogs, it is at 47 decibels. When they have an ambient noise of 47 decibels and they hear music at
55 or 60 decibels, it is not going to sound as loud as it did here tonight. The other point he wanted to
make was that some Comm issioners visited their site when they were testing the new in-house system.
They stood at the property line and listened to it and everybody agreed they could not hear amplified
music. That system was being monitored by a BOSE engineer and he should hav e come to the hearing
to testify that he kept it at 82 decibels on the dance floor, which was not audible at the property line.
Therefore, whatever his neighbor heard was not amplified music.
Cindy Schomberg, owner of Keswick Vineyards, pointed out in reg ards to the third wedding, it stopped at
quarter to 10. So for their neighbor to say he was woken up at 10 o’clock the party had already stopped
at 10. There were a few guests left who were vacating their possessions. By quarter of 10 the music had
stopped. They had Supervisors out to the site so they could witness the steps they had undertaken to try
to fix the problem. They agreed it could not be heard at the property line. At times when traffic was not
going by they could faintly hear it. Again, it is the ambient noise outdoors such as the crickets, birds,
airplanes, and cars that affect their neighbor’s ability to hear any sound projecting from their property.
They are trying to fix the problem by working with their neighbor and communicating wit h them what was
going on. They already had booked the three weddings and there was nothing they could do. The
weddings could not be cancelled since there had been such a large investment made to it. She thought
the County weighed who was going to have t he greater damage. That was why they did not shut down
that event that night. They did come out and let them know they were in violation, which would be dealt
with later. However, they never asked them to shut down the music or party. They continued th e party
and never meant to offend anybody. Regarding the cost of business, they have invested over $50,000
already to fix this problem. Therefore, she felt they were going way out of their way to fix it and make it
something that everybody can live with as part of their business. They are trying to work with their
neighbors in many different ways.
Art Beltrone, an adjoining landowner for over 25 years, made the following comments.
- Eight years ago, Al Schornberg wrote the surrounding neighbors saying, “Keswick Vineyards
intends to be a good neighbor in all of its future practices. Our current plans call for the winery to
include a limited tasting room for a small number of visitors. We do not anticipate to be a
disruptive increase in traffic throughout the neighborhood. Keswick Vineyards is not planning any
activities that will in any way violate the tranquility of the neighborhood.” Several years ago the
vineyard began utilizes loud outdoor amplified music at the winery building. This is before the
2010 change. This was just 125’ from their joint property line. In May 2010, they were relieved
when the outdoor amplified noise restriction, which was developed by the Planning Commission
and the Board of Supervisors, was approved. The Virginia Wine Council on May 11 posted the
changes including amplified music is permitted, but not be audible 100’ from the property line.
The County had the right to regulate outdoor amplified music and did so. The Virginia Code
states in authorizing outdoor amplified music at a farm winery the locality shall consider the effect
on the adjacent property owners and nearby residents. They did that to safeguard.
- A Keswick Vineyard official, Mr. Bernard, commented after that posting by the Wine Council they
were really excited by this passing. In fact, in anticipation of this passing they started looking into
putting up a semi-permanent events tent to begin hosting weddings and other events at Keswick
Vineyards. Now that this is passed, they are officially going ahead with their plans and have
already booked their first wedding for the summer.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 18, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2010-0008 FARM WINERY OUTDOOR/AMPLIFIED NOISE REGULATIONS
SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW BOS
6
- Three weddings that they have heard about plus several other events were held and during all
three, the outdoor amplified music noise was heard by adjacent neighbors some more t han 500
feet away. Noise violations were reported to County officials and the Police. The Vineyard
received a citation from the County for being in violation. The Police told them they could not
respond. Now just 7 months after the enactment of that am plified noise ordinance the Keswick
Vineyard owner has asked for a change in the ordinance that will diminish its strength and make
enforcement more difficult. The suggestion that the winery monitor itself using its own decibel
meter is not viable.
- They just learned that Keswick Vineyards is offered for sale by the Piedmont Office of Frank
Hardy Realtors. This raises further questions and concerns about how the vineyard will continue
to be operated during these events.
John Henry Jordan said his propert y was 500’ or more away from the property. He had been able to hear
music from events at Keswick Vineyards on more than one occasion. Several things are troubling with
this entire discussion, as follows.
- First, these proposed revisions are being pushed by one industry, wineries. They want
permission to be louder than anybody else in the County. He was not sure why the Zoning
Department notified the Police via email not to respond to noise complaints at vineyards, but to
refer them to the Zoning Department. It is troubling since it smacks a preferential treatment to
one industry at the sufferance of all of the surrounding neighbors.
- The second issue is enforceability. The current standards are perfectly enforceable. It requires
no interpretation, it is not subjective, and it needs no special equipment. It takes two ears and a
measuring tape. If the noise can be heard 100’ over the property line, it is too loud. The
amplified music issue is not new either. As they have heard, it has been addressed numerous
times prior and supposedly, language was put into the May 2010 ordinance to protect them from
the amplified music. However, that protection has not been forthcoming. Interestingly, the noise
ordinance itself specifically states, “these supplementary regulations are in addition to all other
requirements of this chapter, the Code, and all other applicable laws. He asked what grounds
and what authority does the Zoning Department have to instruct the Police not to respond to
noise issues at vineyards. Why are the Police not already enabled to respond to that under
existing Code.
- The proposed change to the winery ordinance being discussed tonight is to go to a self regulating
standard decibel meter measurement. Personally, he finds that ridiculous. What makes the
County think that someone who is already chosen to disregard a theoretical enforceable
regulation will attempt to comply with self regulation. Zoning is only open from 8 to 5 p.m. on
Monday through Friday. He asked who is going to verif y compliance. Still the proposal being
considered is to change the current enforceable ordinance to an unenforceable self regulation
ordinance. He lived in the County because he likes the peace and quiet of living out in the
County. He has a right to quiet enjoyment of his home. The County through its past and
proposed actions has effectively placed the rights of a business above the rights of a land owner
and has permitted the taking of the right of quiet enjoyment from dozens of its rural citizens.
Keswick Vineyards can have an event that blasts the doors off the homes that surround it and
nothing can be done. He can have a party with 50 people at his house and he can be arrested
for it. Somehow, the balance is out of skew here. He asked that they leave the ordinance alone,
enable the Police, and enforce it.
Sissy Spacek, nearby landowner, said she would not repeat the things her neighbors have so eloquently
talked about. She moved here in 1978 to get away from noise pollution. She very carefully chose a
location 25 miles outside of Charlottesville in a place they could occasionally hear a train and usually just
bugs, birds, frogs, and geese. She loved to walk outside at night, look at the stars, and listen to the
natural sounds. She appreciates so much Ms. Schornberg’s position. She loves Virginia wine. The
Schomberg’s have done a beautiful job with the winery. She sends Virginia wine to all her California
friends every Christmas just so they know what great industry they have here. She feel s their pain, but it
feels like there should be some kind of compromise so that they are not at odds with each other. She
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 18, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2010-0008 FARM WINERY OUTDOOR/AMPLIFIED NOISE REGULATIONS
SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW BOS
7
appreciates their willingness to listen to their concerns and complaints . She hoped that they could
continue to do that. She finds it unfair that there is a double standard between a private citizen and
business. She has paid taxes here for more than a quarter century. They build barns for our cattle and
horses. Why can’t they put build some kind of sound proof buffer to protect t he neighbors from outdoor
weddings, particularly those right across the property line. It seems like they should be able to work
something out where they can all live harmoniously in one of the most beautiful counties in the country.
James Kelly said he had nothing to add.
Nanette Derkac, adjoining landowner, said her concern was the long term. The gentleman representing
the wine industry noted that all of the other counties are looking to Albemarle as the example. Here they
have an opportunity to show what they are all about. They can work together and find a compromise.
There is no reason the land owners have to give up their quality of life . That is why they all moved to that
area. They want the ability to go outside and listen to natural sounds. They all love music, but she did
not think there was anyone here this evening who could actually live with the thought that every day of the
year, as the law is written, that the wine industry has the ability to have as many functions as they want
on any day of the year. She would hate to think that they would have to live with the fact that every
weekend they would have to endure this. All they are asking is to be treated fairly. She agreed with Ms.
Spacek they have done a wonderful job of trying to work this out in the wine industry. What is going to
happen with the other ones that might not be willing to go along to make the changes to deal with the
neighbors. In addition, it was obvious it was not just the matter of the amplified music, it is the matter of
the noise. They were listening to songs. What happens when everybody starts singing and talking.
That is the kind of noise that will be carried, which she thinks needs to be addressed. It can’t just be
amplified music since obviously it is the noise factor.
Stephen Barnard, winemaker at Keswick Vineyards, said that first they have done everything possible to
appease the neighbors and work with them. When they did the three events, the barrier was not up.
They have gone to great expense and length to ensure that they are within a compliance standard
whatever that may be. If they want to talk about noise pollution, they live next to Art Beltrone who over
the years has done nothing but try to aggravate. He was threatened when he went to his property. What
stops a man from putting up plastic chairs and a wood chipper and running a chipper until 6 or 7 p.m. or
firing a gun or playing Rolling Stones music throughout the night. He knows the neighbors are playing a
sympathy card. As a winery, they just want to conduct business and want to do it in a fair way for
everybody. They are taking into account their thoughts and processes . They have approached several
neighbors, but he did not think it would go anywhere. They have spent a lot of m oney.
Kathleen Jump, former neighbor of a winery, said she had spent most of the last decade living next to a
winery in Albemarle County. She made the following comments:
- She was surprised when she saw the old alfalfa field at her property line replaced b y a
winery. Events there included weddings, auctions, raffles, and benefits all held in an open air
tent in the evenings and on weekends. There is nothing more crushing than coming home on
a Friday evening after a week of work and finding several hundred people under an open air
tent at your property line having an open air party. What changed her situation was that the
winery built an event barn. This is not that hard for wineries to do. They are not required as
an agricultural business to submit plans or seek permits. They can build a barn. This made
a world of difference to the amplified sound noise that she could hear . Basically, after that
she heard none.
- There are other ambient noises that come with these gatherings. In 2007, the State gutted all
the authority that you have as a locality to regulate wineries, except for amplified music .
Changes that occurred with that legislation in 2007 included no restrictions on the number of
events that a winery can hold or on the number of persons who can attend these events.
Neighbors from this county, Fauquier and others throughout the state fought very hard to
maintain the amplified music component. This is the one aspect of wineries that they can
help regulate. She asked the Commission to consider the impact and the noise associated
with these events, including noise of the cars, etc., to consider the effect of outdoor amplified
music on adjacent property owners and nearby residents in the context of the noise, that is
already a part of this agricultural industry. She hoped that they would use the one piece of
enforcement that is left to them with wineries.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 18, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2010-0008 FARM WINERY OUTDOOR/AMPLIFIED NOISE REGULATIONS
SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW BOS
8
Barbara Lundgren, of Keswick Vineyards, clarified that at Keswick Vineyard they have not had any events
beyond 200 guests. They are not allowed to have more than 200 guests and will not be hosting any
events over 200 guests.
Pierce Derkac, son of Nanette Derkac, asked to speak on the facts he had heard from the meeting in
December and tonight. It says in the packet that there is a need for a s tandard that is reasonable,
effective, and efficient. It is being proposed that wineries are self enforcing bodies. There is no Police
enforcement and nobody can close down a winery event, which is how it is stated in the law. Police don’t
have sound meters, but wineries do. He questioned how much training is really needed and how much
do the sound meters cost. He asked if that is really a problem for the Police Department. His high school
had a sound meter for a competition to see how loud certain groups could be for a pep rally. He did not
think it was that hard to be used from his point of view. However, as has been said before how do they
separate the amplified music compounded with 200 people talking, screaming, and having a great time.
It should not be just music because it is noise that can be a nuisance . Albemarle County is being looked
at as a standard as his mom said. In the last meeting in December, there was a man from Richmond who
talked about bordering counties, such as Louisa and Fluvanna, that are looking at how Albemarle County
is doing this. Then they are going to react accordingly. Therefore, they should recognize it should be
treated with a greater sense of responsibility. It is not just Albemarle County, but the Commonwealth of
Virginia that is being affected. The problem is they now allow it to be less enforced and there should be a
result that it is reasonable, effective, and efficient for all parties involved. It is obvious who wins in the
recommendations being proposed currently. He did not doubt that wineries are being proactive with
putting in decibel regulators. However, members of the Planning Commission are not at the actual
events. He believed that most winery owners are treating the law in the correct manner. Nevertheless,
the County needs to protect its citizens from those who do break the law . A law is a law and people can
spoil and break it. It needs to be addressed. The issue is that it should not just be ampli fied noise. If any
noise is a legitimate nuisance, then it should be enforced as such. It needs to be taken seriously that
there has to be an enforcement body. Right now, there is no way of enforcing it. There should be a
compromise that is reasonable, effective, and efficient.
Judith Sommer, nearby landowner, noted that most of her comments had already been stated. With
regard to the decibel meter, she would like to know when measuring the noise level if it can separate out
the noise of the music versus the noise of the conversation and anythi ng else going on. From the
neighbor’s point of view, there is a total amount of noise. Her experience has been that as the noise level
rises from conversation the level of the music rises, too, in order to compete. Also, as people can a few
more drinks and the evening wears on the music tends to get louder. Therefore, if they measure the
noise at 7 p.m. and at 10 p.m., it could well be different. She was appalled that enforcement of the noise
ordinance if she had a private party the farm winery next door can call the Police and send them to her
house. However, if the winery has a loud party she cannot call the Police and have them sent to the
winery. With the regard to the bride and groom, enjoying their wedding event she did not think loud music
is necessary at a wedding. If the party is indoors, they can turn up the volume as loud as they can stand,
and she would care less. However, as a homeowner and farm owner she asked if she had to build a little
cidery on her property so she could blast back at them. She did not think they should all build cider
facilities or wineries in order to blast our neighbors. She did not believe that Albemarle County wineries
have to cave to every demand of respective clients to operate successfully as event menus nor did she
believe that all events will go elsewhere and wineries will fail simple because Albemarle controls outdoor
amplified noise for the benefit of local county residents. By informing respective clients that Albemarle
wineries operate in a climate of mutual respect with their neighbors and by promoting civility in this
segment of the hospitality industry, not the agricultural industry, she believed that wineries can prosper. If
Albemarle County is to set the precedent for noise control at Virginia wineries, then she suggests they
keep in place the very simple audible outdoor noise standard.
Jeff Werner, of the Piedmont Environmental Council, said tonight the Commission was discussing an
ordinance that will affect the entire County. His comments were about that and not just the specific
situation in Keswick. He made the following comments.
- The proposal is with some subjectivity and certainty that can be achieved by definitely measuring
the decibel level of amplified music coming from the activity at a winery. Piedmont Environmental
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 18, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2010-0008 FARM WINERY OUTDOOR/AMPLIFIED NOISE REGULATIONS
SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW BOS
9
Council believes it is important to have regulations that protect the interests of rural residents.
They also understand that the wineries are looking for some criteria that they can rely on.
Reasonable people on both sides of the discussion will agree that it is important Albemarle be
proactive in keeping the rural area rural. That is why people come to wineries for wedding.
- The problem with the proposal for an objective measure of decibels is it sounds easy, but it is
nothing of the sort. He was not a sound engineer . Today he spent some time today talking to
two PEC colleagues who have dealt with this in other counties. Two of them said the exact same
thing. The equipment to do this is extremely expensive. They are talking tens of thousands of
dollars. There needs to be someone qualified to use that equipment. The equipment has to be
regularly calibrated. The first thing a lawyer will ask County staff in a court room are they
qualified to use that and if so, when was the last time the equipment was calibrated. There will be
a cost involved to enforce this. That needs to be discussed not just in measuring this but in
upholding the enforcement in courts. Given the level of attorneys already involved in this, he
would have to assume that is where some of these will go. March 11, 2009 was when the Central
Virginia Grinder came to the Board of Supervisors. The first reading for the ambient noise level
without the machine on was 4 to 6 decibels. When it was running various at places, it was
between 65 and 78 decibels.
- Someone indicated that the ambient noise out there was 47 decibels. In Chapter 7 of the County
Ordinance under 7.100.d it describes how the County sees these things and describes certain
decibel above ambient noise and whether they are intrusive, which is 5 to 10 decibels above
ambient. Very noticeable is 10 to 15 decibels above the ambient. They are talking about 60
decibel at night and 55 decibel during the day standard, which is something to think about with
the ambient at 47 decibels. The cost of enforcement is a big consideration.
Tim Hulbert, of the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce, noted that out of 1,000 enterprises
there were about 10 wineries. They very much support the growth and development of the wine industry
in greater Charlottesville. They support staff’s recommendation that there needs to be a reasonable
measureable standard by which this group of enterprises can comply. They have an industry saying they
want to comply. They have some irate neighbors, which he understands. He grew up on a commercial
horse farm. He remembers those wonderfully quiet nights with 25 below weather. He also remembers
the noise that 30 teenage girls can do when they have an equestrian school. Back then, it was a different
time and they did not check with neighbors, but tried to be good neighbors. He thought that was what this
industry was trying to do to be good neighbors by saying give them a standard and they will meet it.
There should be some reasonable enforcement. Zoning can do some spot enforcement. He
acknowledged that zoning and planning staff do work 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., but they can have some spot
enforcement. It is a reasonable thing. They are trying to come to a compromis e here. He applauds
staff’s effort and analysis.
Joe Hall, resident of Albemarle County for 21 years, said he had learned to keep things very simple , but
unfortunately, things change. Albemarle County has changed a lot in that time with some good and s ome
bad. However, with change there have to be rules. He thought that the wineries from what he had heard
tonight want a rule and to have something measurable. To go to a property line, listen, and say that is
too loud he would disagree with. He thought that coming up with a measurable standard makes sense.
Coming up with enforcement makes a lot of sense. That is one of the issues they need to be talking
about tonight. He thought that many of the things being talked about are not relevant to the iss ue. The
emotions being expressed by the land owners and wine makers is an issue. However, ultimately
everybody wants to solve the problem. They don’t want noise interfering with their regular lives and the
wine makers don’t want their events imposing on them. They want to come up with a measureable
standard so they know how to enforce it. Once they get beyond the emotion that is the Commission’s job
to think about. He wanted to see the County move forward in the right direction, which is with rules th at
are measureable and punishment for people who break the rules. He asked that they make the rules
objective and not subjective to enforce and the punishments for enforcement.
Kris Schornberg, of Keswick Vineyards, said that they really do want to compl y as wineries in Albemarle
County. That really is their goal, which is the only reason they are asking for an enforceable standard at
the property line so they don’t have to intrude on their neighbors to do that. They are not asking to self
regulate, but just to be able to make sure themselves. Someone else can come out to check it.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 18, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2010-0008 FARM WINERY OUTDOOR/AMPLIFIED NOISE REGULATIONS
SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW BOS
10
However, they need to be able to check on their own property whether or not they are in compliance.
Otherwise, they don’t know. They just want to have a standard that they can check.
Charlotte Shelton, of Albemarle Ciderworks, said that the way they got the Ciderworks is they live in
southern Albemarle County, which once was the center of orchards throughout. They got interested in
applies. She asked what do you do with apples. They have about 1,500 apple trees. If they are going to
have a sustainable farming operation in southern Albemarle County, one has to be able to generate some
income from it. That is where wineries came from. Tonight’s discussion is focusing on one situation.
She just would like to hope they wouldn’t generalize from that particular winery. They don’t have a single
issue about noise and she did not expect to. This is something when they tried to justify the expense of
the hundreds of thousands of dollars that it takes to produce a wine or a cider, which is the same process,
realized some kind of support for that investment is important. That is where these events came from.
This is an ancillary product of the farm wineries, but it is a legitimate business for that. However, keep in
mind that what this does is justifies planting grape vines and apple trees instead of subdivisions. When
you get back to that point, they could have a little less grief and a little reason. She appreciates the
Commission’s consideration.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Zobrist closed the public hearing. He thanked everyone for
their comment. The Planning Commission would take a break and come back for further discussion.
The Planning Commission took a ten minute break at 7:36 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 7:46 p.m.
Mr. Zobrist called the meeting back in session noting this matter is before the Commission. He would like
to make a couple of comments for the benefit of those present. First, this is a work session and the
Commission will not take any formal action tonight. The Commission will study this matter and continue
doing so until the Commission feels comfortable to make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
The Commission’s job is to make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors . The Commission will
do their very best to work through these very difficult issues. One thing he wanted to point out to the
adjacent property owners is that the County is bound by a State statute. They are allowed to regulate
one thing with farm wineries, which is outdoor amplified music in general. That is the only thing they can
look at in the statute. They recognize that people are looking at Albemarle County to see what they ought
to do. He was a part of this Commission back when they were allowing 12 events a year at wineries, etc.
The wineries did not like it and they went to Richmond and got their own statute passed. Many of the
complaints they heard tonight are matters that they cannot do an ything about because they can only do
something about the amplified sound. The Commission are willing to take the time and work their way
through the issue. They had heard the public comment and now would discuss the matter.
Mr. Franco asked Ms. McCulley to explain Chapter 7, the Police Enforcement Code that was being
referred to earlier. What is the standard in that applied to.
Ms. McCulley replied that is the same standard that currently applies to farm winery events , which is an
audibility standard within 100 feet of the property line or within a dwelling on an adjoining property. That
applies to events that are not land uses covered under the zoning regulations , which covers mostly
private events. Mr. Kamptner can fill in any missing pieces.
Mr. Kamptner said the Chapter 7 regulations were amended in December 2009 in response to the
Virginia Supreme Court decision in Virginia. That county had a standard like most other Virginia localities
that based their general noise violation on noise that is to a level that would unreasonably disturb, annoy,
or harass the individual. They moved this ordinance in Chapter 7 that establishes a more objective
audibility standard. That ordinance is very specific to several different types of noise sources. Gen erally,
they are noise sources that may be either transcend in nature, noises from loud music coming out of cars,
loud parties, and things like that. The general standard in short is if it is audible 100 feet from the
property or within a dwelling unit. Those are the Chapter 7 noise standards. When the farm winery
regulations were being developed the one area where localities do have authority is to establish a
standard for outdoor amplified noise. The original drafts of that ordinance, including the version that
went to the Planning Commission in February 2010 really cross reference to a corresponding provision in
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 18, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2010-0008 FARM WINERY OUTDOOR/AMPLIFIED NOISE REGULATIONS
SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW BOS
11
Chapter 7. That was eventually changed. By the time it went to the Board of Supervisors it became
purely a self contained standard in the farm winery regulations of the zoning ordinance. That standard
was the 100’ from the property line or audible within the dwelling unit. One reason why that standard was
selected was so that citizens would have the ability to enforce under Chapter 7. If they had the ability or
they were a victim of the noise, they could go to the magistrate and swear out a summons. With the
standard in the zoning ordinance because they recognize that some of these activities happen after
normal business hours for the county, the citizen may not be able to go to swear out a complaint for a
zoning violation. However, they would at least be able to be the witnesses and could testify if there was a
zoning enforcement action. Then they could contact zoning and say they had h eard this noise inside their
house at such and such time on such date. That was one of the reasons that standard was selected.
Mr. Franco said for example the standards that would apply for concrete manufacturers would not be
applicable. If this was a farm activity, such as tractors running, he asked if that would apply or not apply
to this.
Mr. Kamptner replied generally in both the Chapter 7 noise regulations and in the Zoning Ordinance noise
standards for agricultural activities are exempt. By State law the activities that take place at farm
wineries, including weddings and receptions are deemed to be agricultural in nature. The outdoor
amplified music standard is an exception to the otherwise applicable exemption for agricultural activities.
Mr. Franco asked to make sure he was clear. There was a lot of comment about crowd noises and
conversations and that background. There is nothing they can do about that because the State has said
there is nothing they can do about that.
Mr. Kamptner replied from a farm winery standpoint that would be correct. However, both the general
noise regulations and Zoning Ordinance regulations exempt protected expressions. Therefore, people
talking and yelling don’t violate the noise ordinance as long as it is unamplified.
Mr. Franco said if he had a private party next door to the winery and they have loud conversations going,
then they are under the same rules. That is where he got confused.
Mr. Kamptner replied there is a distinction. If he had loud blasting outdoor amplified music at his house
and and he was at a farm winery he would probably fall under the Chapter 7 noise standard. If he was a
farm winery, outdoor amplified music is connected to a land use activity. It is different and subject to the
noise standards that would apply in this case. Right now it is the audibility from 100’.
Mr. Franco asked what would happen with a party next door with just loud people.
Mr. Kamptner replied that would not be a noise violation, but disturbing the peace or s omething like that.
He was not a criminal lawyer and did not know what the standards are. It would not be a violation of the
noise ordinance.
Mr. Franco said regarding the enforcement process Chapter 7 is something the police can enforce.
However, the zoning is similar to if he had too many trucks parked on his land or something like that, the
police don’t respond to that and don’t have the authority to do anything about too many trucks even
though it is a zoning violation.
Ms. McCulley replied that is correct.
Mr. Franco noted that is what makes this a challenge that it stays in the zoning. There is really not a
shared responsibility with the Police force. It will strictly be a zoning action in this type of situation.
Mr. Kamptner replied that is correct, but staff will look at that to see if it becomes an issue as far as
getting the police to respond. They have done a preliminary check a couple of months ago and it looked
like the Police could not step in and enforce the zoning ordinance. They will look at that again as they
work through this ordinance. If somebody does call 911, even if it is a zoning violation, the Captain, since
retired said that they do respond because they are required to respond if dispatched. They won’t enforce
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 18, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2010-0008 FARM WINERY OUTDOOR/AMPLIFIED NOISE REGULATIONS
SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW BOS
12
the ordinance. In the one situation where that did happen, there was a zoning inspector that was called
and was also on site.
Ms. Porterfield noted when the Commission did the original ordinance they were told that the Police were
going to respond. She asked why they are not responding.
Mr. Kamptner replied at the time he told the Commission that the Police would be responding the draft
ordinance referred to the noise standard in Chapter 7, which is enforced by the Police. The ordinance
was amended after that and by the time it was adopted by the Board it was a zoning standard that was
within the farm winery regulations itself.
Ms. Porterfield asked if the Police couldn’t respond unless it is a 911 call.
Mr. Kamptner replied they may respond and may talk to the alleged violators, but they don’t enforce the
Zoning Ordinance. The zoning inspector would have to process the complaint.
Ms. Porterfield asked if that is true with the current and potential new ordinance.
Mr. Kamptner replied yes.
Ms. McCulley replied that is something staff can look into with the County Attorney’s Office. What she
was talking about is specifically adding language that would delegate authority to the Police to work on
their behalf in a case so they could take a call, be a witness, and follow through on a violation relating to
sound. Therefore, it is something staff will look into. It would take an ordinance amendment.
Mr. Zobrist said that it seemed like an incorporation of Chapter 7 ordinance, which she was proposing,
into this ordinance would allow the Police to intercede.
Ms. McCulley noted actually staff was proposing referring to the standards in Section 4.
Mr. Franco said several speakers referenced that this is self regulating. The idea is that wineries would
have the ability to understand where they are in compliance, but it is not up to them to regulate
themselves. He asked if they would have zoning authority to regulate it.
Ms. McCulley replied absolutely.
Mr. Franco said he heard a lot on the measureable standard. He asked if it had come out in the
discussion the ambient noise. He thought Jeff Werner was the one who referred to the 10 to 15 decibels
above background that is out there. If background is 47 decibels it sounds like at night time that 5 to 10
above that at 55 decibels sounds reasonable. He asked what happens when the ambient is less.
Ms. McCulley replied that there is a correction factor based on high the ambient level is. They have to
start by taking a reading of the ambient level. They were taking readings for the new quarry on the west
side of 29 near the Reservoir Dam first. The ambient noise was so high because of the planes that staff
had to take the correction level in consideration. It is set up in the ordinance that if there is a hig h enough
ambient then they correct the final reading for the ambient.
Mr. Smith asked if staff is qualified to take reading from the noise meter.
Ms. McCulley replied that every code enforcement officer is trained to and expected to take sound
readings with the sound meter. They get it calibrated as frequently as they can. It is supposed to be
calibrated every year and it is calibrated before they use it. It costs almost $200 to calibrate it. Before
they go to court, they would have to calibrate it. Before they go in the field, they would have to use the
self calibrator that comes with the kit.
Mr. Smith asked if the testers have some kind of certificate that says they are certified.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 18, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2010-0008 FARM WINERY OUTDOOR/AMPLIFIED NOISE REGULATIONS
SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW BOS
13
Ms. McCulley replied no, they don’t have a certificate, but have r ead the manual and worked with the
senior officer before doing it on their own.
Mr. Smith noted he had a problem with the word audible means. He asked what is the definition and if
that means they can’t hear it.
Mr. Zobrist noted that last May when the ordinance language was drafted that the Commission was
comfortable that the neighbor would not be able to hear the music. He questioned if that was what the
Commission did in May 2010 by using the word audible. The problem is audible is different to different
people. Obviously, there is an issue. The winery is saying they are abiding by the word audible, but the
neighbors are saying they can hear the music. He questioned how they could do this in order to comply
with the State statute, even if they don’t agree with it. Secondly, how do they help the neighbors with
their complaint of hearing too much of this noise from this operation.
Mr. Smith asked once it is passed are there still alternatives to change it if the decibel meter is not
satisfactory.
Ms. McCulley replied that there are always alternatives to revisit regulations. It is not final. There are
opportunities They could reconsider and take additional input. This is a fairly short term of experience
so far with this new regulation.
Mr. Zobrist pointed out Ms. McCulley noted this is the only complaint in the County since the regulation
was adopted.
Ms. Porterfield noted her basic problem was they have only had one bad situation and the ordinance as it
stands has not had enough time to test to see if it works. At this point they only have one complaint. It is
only one winery and one segment of the population. She has a problem with rewriting an ordinance after
only one year. She was concerned with the current ordinance and suggested they need to look into the
enforcement of it. She was concerned unless there is going to be an on call person from zoning for all
the days that the staff is not working, which in this last week was four (Friday through Monday), She felt
they need to figure out how to enforce this. Then it stops a he said/she said because there is actually
enforcement at the time that there is a complaint. Personally, she would like to see this ordinance as it
stands to simply start being enforced and let’s let it ride for the time being and see if it is really isn’t
broken.
Mr. Loach agreed with Ms. Porterfield. First, if they ask most citizens in the County if the way the
enforcement is set up is equitable they would probably say no because the Commission has heard that
from the citizens. He was not sure that m ost citizens in the County would think amplified music at a
wedding is an agricultural use. In some ways the winery industry has become a victim of its own success
because now they can hold as many events as they can and they are getting into the practicality of how
the industry itself is going to implement the use of amplified music . The enforcement needs to be looked
at. If it goes to the same degree as driving under the influence, it will become more of a problem. It
would be good if they could agree on a general standard. The winery would bring out their decibel meter
and show it to the police officer that it is compliant. If there was no decibel meter the police officer then
could use the 100’ rule and his ability what he considers to hear the amplified music. He thought the 55
decibels was fairly loud for his own taste. He agreed they have one situation and hopefully it has been
rectified and they stay with what they have currently. In the mean time, that they look for a better
solution than staff has come up with.
Mr. Franco asked to follow up with one thing he heard earlier that in Virginia Beach having a subjective
standard was hard to defend in court. So if this were to go to court is our standard harder to defend
versus a decibel level.
Mr. Kamptner replied that if he had answered that question a year ago he would have said the
unreasonable noise standard has been upheld across the country. However, the Virginia Supreme Court
has struck that down. The audibility standards as well has been upheld throughout the country as
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 18, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2010-0008 FARM WINERY OUTDOOR/AMPLIFIED NOISE REGULATIONS
SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW BOS
14
objective. Audibility is based upon a person with normal hearing and the range of normal hearing is very
broad. So just about anybody could testify whether or not they could hear something and that would
satisfy that particular standard. He thought Mr. Loach’s point about decibel meters and what has
happened with drunk driving tests in bringing in experts to testify about equipment has some merit. The
audibility standard would be defensiveable.
Ms. McCulley noted she wanted to make sure the Commission recognizes if they make no amendment to
the current regulations, even to add the authorization to the Police Department to enforce it, they will still
be stuck in the enforcement concern they are hearing from the neighbors. Therefore, it may be that they
would like them to go forward, explore that one amendment, and take that forward to public hearing.
They have the option of imposing an even lower decibel level. That is something they have not explored
here tonight. They have decibel levels in the ordinance that apply to all the land uses that come before
them in with special use permits and other applications. Those are things they are currently enforcing
with the sound meter through the decibel regulations and ordinance. Adding this would not be new and
they have the option of imposing a lower standard if they wish.
Ms. Monteith agreed that enforcement is an issue here. However, also having dealt with some of these
things personally in other places she thought timeliness is a real issue. The fact that one could be
disturbed but really can’t get any enforcement on that in the same sequence of time seems like a real
issue. They have not come up with a resolution for that, but . She thought that was part of what should
be looked at.
Mr. Zobrist asked to make a few comments. When the ordinance was passed originally the
Commission’s discussion and intention was that the neighbors would not have to hear it. Th at is where
the audibility standard came from. He did not think they should abandon that because it was a good
standard. He lives on a farm and doesn’t appreciate the neighbors putting a boom box on the swimming
pool since the noise carries a long way. He was at the winery event with two members of the Board of
Supervisors and they could not hear anything at the property line. However, the property line is at the
bottom of a hill. He thought that sound travels by the line of sight. Mr. Page’s house ma y be in the line of
sight as opposed to where they were standing was not. However, he did not know because there was a
decent level of noise. The partiers did not seem to be concerned about the noise level. At the border, the
noise level seemed to be fine. What they need to do is translate this into an objective standard if this
really is an issue. Not acting because enforcement is difficult is not relevant to him. Litigation is an
option. He would guarantee they could build a building with sound controls cheaper than they litigate this.
He questioned how much it would cost to take this to the Virginia Supreme Court. He asked Mr. Strother
to respond to his question.
Philip Strother, attorney for Schornbergs, replied that they had serious concerns w ith the constitutionality
and there were serious problems. The current ordinance as written requires the winery to trespass onto
somebody else’s property in order to determine whether or not they are in violation. It needs to be
changed.
Mr. Zobrist noted that it is expensive to litigate. It is bothersome the way it is now because he did not
think the neighbors should have to hire a lawyer and go in to try to get a nuisance complaint. He knows
what that costs. The Planning Commission’s job is to come up with a recommendation. The Board of
Supervisors has spoke and wants the Commission to come up with an objective standard. He agreed
with Mr. Franco and Ms. Porterfield that they don’t have a lot of experience with this, but have a very
nasty situation right now. By letting it percolate and boil longer would not be helpful to them . The Board
of Supervisors has moved this very quickly by requesting a recommendation from the Commission so
they can think about it. The Commission should do that if they can. He would like to see a decibel level
set at a lower level and the enforcement capability given to the police. He would like to see that
enforcement have enough teeth in it so it is not putting an onerous burden on the neighbors to have to
hire counsel and go to the court to do it.
Ms. Porterfield suggested that they keep the current ordinance and add in the ability for the police to
enforce it. Then they can see how that runs because they have never had that opportunity with this
ordinance.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 18, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2010-0008 FARM WINERY OUTDOOR/AMPLIFIED NOISE REGULATIONS
SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW BOS
15
Mr. Loach agreed, but that what he had heard was that the police do not have that ability.
Ms. Porterfield said she understood from staff that they could write an amendment to the current
ordinance that would give them that ability.
Mr. Kamptner noted that staff would have to look at that. Another thing they need to know about is the
speed in which enforcement takes of any zoning violation. The process is set up in a way that it just
takes time for the zoning enforcement for these type of violations. There is a Notice of Violation issued
and the violator has 30 days to appeal that decision. If an appeal is filed by State law the enforcement
stops until the Board of Zoning Appeals considers the appeal unless there is an imminent threat to the
public health or safety. An example would be if there were a spill that required intermediate clean up or
something like that. Therefore, the standard may change. Who actually is in the field citing the violation
or telling people to come into compliance may change, but as long as it is a zoning standard it will have
to go through this process.
Ms. Porterfield asked if it is a zoning violation either way in the new or old ordinance.
Mr. Kamptner replied it would be if only the standard is being changed.
Ms. Porterfield asked if he was saying if they went from the current one to the decibel standard.
Mr. Kamptner replied that was correct.
Mr. Zobrist said to get the police out there only gives them a uniform on the spot as an assistance to the
zoning.
Mr. Kamptner replied yes it is still going to be a zoning violation.
Ms. McCulley noted unless they amend it by referring to Chapter 7 as they originally intended to do and
don’t put the standard within the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Kamptner noted there had been a Board decision not to have that particular standard enforced that
way.
Mr. Zobrist suggested they go back to the Board and tell them it is time since it did not work that way in
taking it out.
Mr. Zobrist noted it is not working now. There is no resolution for either side right now and neither side
knows what to do.
Mr. Loach pointed out the vineyard noted they added sound equipment. He suggested they could go the
other way to say they would have to add these sound measures to produce this effect at the property line.
They could use those values to look at it another way to see what they would have to do to comply
technically since those abilities are there and then include it in the ordinance as far as being compliant for
the outdoor amplified music if it was different than the King Vineyard where the music was inside.
Mr. Zobrist noted the problem is the statute only applied to the outdoor amplified music. The vineyard
could put it inside a building. He asked if it was the consensus among the Pl anning Commission that
neighbors should not have to hear it or some of it
Mr. Franco noted that in the music being heard there are peaks and valleys. It was difficult for him to say
the neighbors should not be able to hear anything at all.
Mr. Loach questioned what the expectation was inside the house.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 18, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2010-0008 FARM WINERY OUTDOOR/AMPLIFIED NOISE REGULATIONS
SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW BOS
16
Mr. Franco noted he lived next to or near an airport. He would prefer not to hear the noise, but preferred
not see a subdivision come in next door. If they preserve the agricultural use, he would be willing to put
up with some nuisance. He was willing to give some on his side in order to preserve that use.
Mr. Franco questioned if they could have a lower decibel standard, He asked if they could have a
standard that was different for different places. Is there a way to monitor what background noise is and
then establish that as a standard.
Ms. McCulley said that would be difficult because they would have to say they could not exceed the
ambient. The ambient varies so much based on transient sounds and things like that. They would have
to take many readings, which would vary depending on the time of day and the activities in the area.
Mr. Zobrist noted that the only time they would measure the noise is at the time of the complaint.
Ms. Porterfield asked how they would get someone out there at the time of the complaint. That seems to
be the crux of the issue.
Ms. McCulley said that is actually the crux of the problem with any zoning violation that occurs on nights
and weekends. They really have to work with many things later and plan to be there the next time it
happens.
Ms. Monteith said it does seem in terms of timeliness to Chapter 7 they ought to be thinking about this
differently. Timeliness is important or otherwise it is not enforceable.
Mr. Franco said that he did not think it was any less enforceable than any other zoning ordinance they
have. There is a time aspect in being able to see the violation.
Ms. McCulley said she could ask someone with an engineering background, such as Mark Graham or
Glenn Brooks, to come and talk further about the use of ambient sound as a decibel level to measure by.
Mr. Zobrist agreed with the 100’ within the boundary line. He suggested they could add as a condition of
enforcement that neighbors have to grant permission to come over to check the noise level. That is a
problem with the existing statute. The only way to check for compliance is to go on the complaining
party’s land.
Mr. Smith questioned if they could lower the level.
Ms. McCulley noted that staff’s recommendation or suggestion was to stick with the current standards.
They could go lower than the standards of 55 and 60 decibels, but it had to be higher or at ambient..
Mr. Kamptner noted in regards to the question of whether the Co unty could grant a license that they can’t
do that through their regulations.
Mr. Zobrist asked if a County officer could go on the adjoining property and measure.
Mr. Kamptner replied only with permission can they go on the adjourning property if it t he property was
occupied. They follow the 4th amendment standards. It is measured form 100’ on which the device is
located on the other side.
Mr. Smith asked why would the adjacent property owner object to someone coming on their property if
they are making the complaint.
Mr. Zobrist pointed out the issue raised by the winery was in order for them to make sure they comply
they have to go over the property line to make sure they were measuring correctly.
Mr. Smith said it was like letting the fox guard the hen house.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 18, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2010-0008 FARM WINERY OUTDOOR/AMPLIFIED NOISE REGULATIONS
SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW BOS
17
Mr. Zobrist noted that they were not talking about self regulating. The zoning regulations were regulated
by Ms. McCulley’s department and not by any applicant.
Mr. Smith question why the winery needed to go next door.
Mr. Kamptner noted the genesis of that idea came up at the Round Table in December. A number of the
farm winery representatives said the decibel standard would allow the farm winery operators to go to the
property line to allow them to determine if the beginning event was at an acceptable decibel level and
then proceed with the event. If necessary, they could tell whoever was controlling the sound system to
turn the volume down if necessary and then proceed with confidence they are going to be in compliance
with the ordinance.
Mr. Zobrist suggested they change the 100’ to be the property line of the farm winery.
Mr. Kamptner noted that is a pretty tough standard.
Mr. Zobrist replied that they have not set the decibel level, which sounds like what they have asked for .
Ms. McCulley noted the reason Mr. Kamptner was saying it was a tough standard and they were using
the 100’ was it is very difficult to know where the property line is located unless it is marked clearly. T hey
could lose the case and was why it was 100’ feet or less.
Mr. Franco noted that it was a work session. He asked if staff had enough information.
Ms. Porterfield suggested that they are not ready for staff to write the ordinance. The Commission is
ready for staff to come back again if they want to on February 8 with the answers to some of these
questions. The Commission could then possibly come up with a consensus whether to change the
ordinance and what they want to change it to. It would be helpful to do the following:
bring in the County Engineer;
have staff find out exactly what the Police can and cannot do;
trying to do exactly what Ms. Monteith has been saying concerning the timeliness of enforcement,
i.e. when somebody calls with a complaint how do they get it looked at right then and not a week
or month later when another event comes up; and
other pieces of that type of information.
Mr. Loach suggested staff go back and do more investigation on what that lower decibel reading would
be. Staff could possibly speak to the winery people to see if enforcing that lower decibel level would be
seen as something they would object to and what the result of that would be.
Mr. Franco said it sounds like it is basically better enforcement or more direct enforcement opportunities .
There was also a lot of debate on the measurement standard. He thought those were the two things for
staff to come back to the Commission on.
Ms. McCulley noted that input was fine, but she did not have time before February 8 th to be able to seek
input from the wineries. Therefore, there will be no public hearing on February 8th. She would like to
have time to meet with some wineries and then bring back that input to the Commission along with
answers to their other questions.
Mr. Zobrist agreed that was a good idea. This is winter time and there are not a lot of weddings going on
outside. He asked that the wineries allow the Commission to work their way through this. The
Commission wants to come up with something so everybody feels like they have been heard and their
concerns have been responded to. That will make us a better County.
Ms. Schornburg noted that they are trying to book for this year.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 18, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2010-0008 FARM WINERY OUTDOOR/AMPLIFIED NOISE REGULATIONS
SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW BOS
18
Mr. Zobrist replied that he would not stop booking because nobody said that they couldn’t have weddings.
They know there can be music, but it just depends on how loud it can be. They will have this worked out.
Mr. Franco noted if it was amplified music.
Mr. Zobrist agreed it was just for amplified music.
Mr. Beltrone asked if they had Cal Morris’ input.
Mr. Zobrist replied that Cal Morris is exactly where they all are. Mr. Morris indicated that the standards
should be ambient noise and felt very strongly that they need to put teeth in the enforcement side.
However, Mr. Morris can speak for himself at the next hearing.
Ms. Porterfield noted as far as this particular winery goes there is an ordinance on the books. The secret
is to try to meet the current ordinance for their scheduling and things like that.
Mr. Zobrist thanked everyone for coming. No official decision on the ordinance language will be made
until a Planning Commission public hearing, which has not yet been scheduled.
In summary, the Planning Commission discussed the matter, taking into consideration the comments
from the public and staff. The Commission requested staff to bring back additional information to address
the following basic concerns regarding outdoor amplified music noise levels before drafting the ordinance
language or scheduling the public hearing:
1. The need for better enforcement or more direct enforcement opportunities;
2. The fact that there appeared to only be a noise problem with one County winery; and
3. The appropriate measurement level.
Other suggestions made that would be helpful include the following:
bring in the County Engineer;
have staff find out exactly what the police can and cannot do;
try to do exactly what Ms. Monteith has been saying concerning the timeliness of enforcement,
i.e. when somebody calls with a complaint how do they get it looked at right then and not a week
or month later when another event comes up; and
other pieces of that type of information.
Staff to investigate what lower decibel reading would be and then get input from the wineries to
see if enforcing that lower decibel level would be seen as som ething that they would object to in
being treated differently and what the result of that would be.
No formal action was taken.
Return to exec summary