HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-3-11Tentative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
MARCH 11, 2015
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
LANE AUDITORIUM
3:00 p.m.
1. Call to Order.
2. Work Session: FY 2015/2016 Operating and Capital Budgets – Final Discussion.
6:00 p.m.
3. Call to Order.
4. Pledge of Allegiance.
5. Moment of Silence.
6. Adoption of Final Agenda.
7. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
8. Proclamations and Recognitions:
a. Virginia Festival of the Book, March 18, 2014 through March 22, 2015.
9. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
10. Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
11. PROJECT: SP-2014-00017. NTELOS “CV108” (Piney Mountain) Tier III
Personal Wireless Service Facility (Signs #24&27). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White
Hall. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 02100-00-00-010A1. LOCATION: 5249 Piney Mountain Road.
PROPOSED: Request to replace six (6) existing panel antennas on a single array on an existing
150 foot self-support tower that was previously approved by a special use permit in 1997
(SP9700022), and amended in 2003 (SP200200081). With the proposal two special exceptions are
required to permit the size of the antennas and the mounting distance of the antennas. PETITION:
Section 10.2.2.48 Tier III personal wireless facilities (reference Section 5.1.40). ZONING
CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA, Rural Areas- agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: NO.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Area 1 -preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre in
development lots). (Christopher Perez, Senior Planner)
12. PROJECT: SP-2014-00018. Maxwell Boat Dock (Sign #1). MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT: Jack Jouett. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 04500-00-00-00400, 04500-00-00-004A0. LOCATION:
432 Woodlands Rd. PROPOSAL: Private floating dock on South Fork Rivanna Reservoir.
PETITION: Water related uses such as boat docks and canoe liveries under Section 22.2.2.10 of
zoning ordinance. No dwelling units proposed. ZONING: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and
fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots). FH Flood Hazard – Overlay to
provide safety and protection from flooding. Water related uses such as boat docks and canoe
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2015Files/0311/0.0_Agenda.htm (1 of 3) [10/8/2020 8:34:37 AM]
Tentative
liveries (30.3.11). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Areas – preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/acre in
development lots). (Scott Clark, Senior Planner)
13. PROJECT: ZMA-2014-00004. Old Trail Village (Signs #5,&6&12).
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 055E00100000A1; 055E00100000A2;
055E00100000A3; 055E00100000A4; 055E00100000A5. LOCATION: Old Trail Drive and Rockfish
Gap Turnpike (Route 250). PROPOSAL: To amend Code of Development to add carriage houses
as a use for approved ZMA200400024 (Old Trail NMD). No change to density is proposed.
PETITION: Request to amend Code of Development for ZMA200400024 to allow carriage houses
as a use on property zoned Neighborhood Model District (NMD) which allows residential mixed with
commercial, service and industrial uses at a density of 3-34 units/acre. OVERLAY DISTRICT:
Entrance Cooridor (EC); Flood Hazard (FH); Steep Slopes (SS); Scenic Byways (SB). PROFFERS:
Yes. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Greenspace; Mixed Use- residential (18 units per acre maximum),
commercial, and office uses; Neighborhood Density Residential- 3-6 units/acre; supporting uses
such as religious instituitions, schools and other small scale non-residential uses; Urban Density
Residential- 6-12 units/acre; supporting uses such as religious instiutions, schools, commercial,
office and service uses. (Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner)
Action Item:
14. Evaluation of Solid Waste Alternatives Including a Transfer Station at the Ivy Materials
Utilization Center (MUC). (Doug Walker, Deputy County Executive)
15. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
16. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
17. Adjourn.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL (action required):
10.1 Approval of Minutes: June 4, July 2, July 8, July 9, August 13, August 26, September 3,
September 9, September 10, October 7, October 29, and December 16, 2014.
10.2 Jordan Development Corporation Lease Agreement for the Meadows Community Center. (Bob
Crickenberger)
10.3 Fiscal Year 2015 County of Albemarle & State Health Department Local Government Agreement.
(Doug Walker)
10.4 Final recommendations regarding Places29 Community Advisory Council. (Lee Catlin)
10.5 SDP-2014-00013. Royal Orchard Land Corporation Tier II PWSF – Special Exception. (Sarah
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2015Files/0311/0.0_Agenda.htm (2 of 3) [10/8/2020 8:34:37 AM]
Tentative
Baldwin)
FOR INFORMATION (no action required):
10.6 2014 Fourth Quarter Building Report as prepared by the Department of Community
Development. (Mark Graham)
10.7 2014 Year End Building Report as prepared by the Department of Community
Development. (Mark Graham)
10.8 2014 Fourth Certificate of Occupancy Report as prepared by the Department of Community
Development. (Mark Graham)
10.9 2014 Fourth Quarter Certificate of Occupancy Report as prepared by the Department of
Community Development. (Mark Graham)
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP TO SPEAK AT PUBLIC HEARINGS ONLY
Return to Top of Agenda
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
Return to County Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2015Files/0311/0.0_Agenda.htm (3 of 3) [10/8/2020 8:34:37 AM]
VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK
WHEREAS, Albemarle County is committed to promoting reading, writing, and storytelling
within and outside its borders; and
WHEREAS, our devotion to literacy and our support of literature has attracted thousands of
readers to our VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK, serving as an
economically significant event for this area, while providing the majority of
events free of charge; and
WHEREAS, businesses, cultural and civic organizations, and individuals have contri buted
to the ongoing success of the VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK; and
WHEREAS, the citizens of the County of Albemarle and Virginia, and the world, have made
the VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK the best book festival in the
country;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT, I, Jane D. Dittmar, Chair, on behalf of
the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim
Wednesday, March 18, 2015 through Sunday, March 22, 2015
as the
Twentieth-First Annual
VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK
and encourage community members to participate fully in the wide range of
available events and activities.
Signed and sealed this 11th day of March, 2015.
______________________________
Jane D. Dittmar, Chair
Albemarle Board of County Supervisors
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Jordan Development Corporation Lease Agreement
for the Meadows Community Center
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Adoption of a Resolution to approve an Extension of the
Lease Agreement between the County and the Jordan
Development Corporation for the Meadows Community
Center
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker Davis, Herrick, Crickenberger, and Hughes
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
March 11, 2015
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Crozet Meadows Community Center Building, more commonly known as the Meadows Community Center, was built
in the 1970’s in partnership with the Jordan Development Corporation (JDC). The history of the development is set forth in
the July 14, 2010 Executive Summary (Attachment A) presented to the Board when it approved a Lease between the
County and the JDC for the Meadows Community Center (Attachment B).
The Meadows Community Center is primarily used by the residents of the Meadows/ Meadowlands housing complex, with
weekend and evening use available to the community. With the recent rehabilitation and expansion of the
Meadows/Meadowlands housing complex, the activity in the JDC leasing and management office and the overall use of
the community center by the Meadows/Meadowlands residents has increased. The 2010 Agreement will expire on July
31, 2015 unless renewed for an additional period as agreed upon by the County and the JDC.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Educational Opportunities: Provide lifelong learning opportunities for all our citizens.
DISCUSSION:
The County and the JDC have agreed to extend the term of the Agreement to July 31, 2020. The attached Amended
Agreement of Lease (Attachment B) has been approved as to form and substance by the County Attorney and does not
require a public hearing if the Board approves it before the 2010 Agreement expires, or by July 31, 2015.
In addition to extending the term of the 2010 Agreement, the Amended Agreement provides that the JDC will pay annual
rent in the amount of $6,546.00 to the County in equal monthly installments, to be adjusted annually by the CPI Index. The
rent amount is determined to offset the estimated annual electric, water; sewer and routine maintenance and repairs at the
community center, which will remain the County’s responsibility.
The JDC will continue to maintain an office for the leasing and management of the Meadows/Meadowlands housing
complex and will continue to be responsible for the supervision and operation of the community center during the Monday
through Friday daytime hours while the leasing office is open.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The approval of the attached Amended Agreement of Lease (Attachment C) would result in revenue in the amount of
$6,546.00 in FY 16 and in an amount to be calculated using the CPI Index in subsequent years. Pursuant to the 2010
Agreement, the rent paid to the County in FY’s 11-15 was $6,000 in FY’s 11, 12 and 13, $6,317 in FY 14, and $6,426
in FY15.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment D) approving the Amended Agreement of Lease
between the County and the Jordan Development Corporation and authorize the County Executive to sign the Amended
Agreement of Lease (Attachment C) on behalf of the County.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – July 14, 2010 Executive Summary
B – 2010 Jordan Development Corporation Lease
C – Jordan Development Corporation Amendment
D – Resolution
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Jordan Development Corporation Lease Agreement
for the Meadows Community Center
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearing for the proposed lease agreement
between the County and Jordan Development
Corporation for the Meadows Community Center
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Elliott, Davis, Herrick, White and
Mullaney
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
July 14, 2010
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In 1977, the County of Albemarle entered into an agreement appointing Jordan Development Corporation (Jordan) as
the County’s agent for the construction and management of the Meadows housing project in Crozet. The original
Meadows project included the construction of residential units and a community center on 27.9 acres of property.
Under this agreement, the County maintained ownership of the community center and the land upon which the center
was constructed while the remainder of the property was transferred to Jordan. Upon completion of the community
center, the County was to lease the center to the Jefferson Area Board for the Aging or other appropriate agency
under a separate agreement. Upon completion of the residential units, Jordan assumed sole responsibility for the
management of those units. While no evidence of a formal agreement can be documented, the Jefferson Area Board
for the Aging did originally operate the community center but ceased operations in 1981 due to funding reductions.
Absent any other interested appropriate agency, the Parks and Recreation Department assumed responsibility for the
operation of the community center on January 1, 1982. Jordan has historically maintained an office in the community
center for leasing and management of the Meadows residential units at no cost to Jordan.
During the FY 10/11 budget process, each department carefully reviewed program expenditures and services and
identified potential budget reductions based on those reviews. The Meadows Community Center i s primarily used by
the residents of the Meadows with some weekend and evening use by the community. With the rehabilitation and
expansion of the Meadows housing complex which is currently underway, the activity in Jordan’s leasing and
management office and the overall use of the community center by Meadows residents will be increasing. Therefore
as a budget reduction measure, the Parks and Recreation Director recommended transferring the responsibility for
operating the center to Jordan or closing the center. After review by the Leadership Council, County Executive’s staff
and the Board of Supervisors, this recommendation was ultimately approved and no funds are budgeted in FY 10/11
for the annual operations of the Meadows Community Center.
Discussions between County Parks and Recreation and Housing staffs with representatives of Jordan, Management
Services and the Piedmont Housing Authority have resulted in the proposed lease arrangement between the County
and the Jordan Development Corporation.
Virginia Code § 15.2 – 1800 requires that the Board advertise and hold a public hearing prior to leasing County-
owned property.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Enhance the Quality of Life for all Citizens & Fund the County’s Future Needs
DISCUSSION:
Under the proposed lease agreement, Jordon will continue to maintain an office for leasing and management of the
AGENDA TITLE: Jordan Development Corporation Lease Agreement for the Meadows Community Center
July 14, 2010
Page 2
Meadows housing project. Jordan will assume responsibility for the supervision and operation of the community
center during the Monday through Friday daytime hours the leasing office is open. In addition, Jordan will pay annual
rent in the amount of $6,000 to the County in equal monthly installments. The rent amount was determined to offset
the estimated annual electric, water and routine maintenance and repair costs for the community center building
which will remain the County’s responsibility. Jordan will be responsible for paying for telephone service for the
building. After-hours use of the community center, typically weekends and evenings, will still be managed and
supervised by the Parks and Recreation Department. After-hours use of the community center by Meadows residents
or for the benefit or Meadows residents will be managed and supervised by Jordan. All reservations for after -hours
use of the community center will be requested through the Parks and Recreation Department, who will maintain a
master calendar of building use. Jordan and the County will share trash collection and janitorial expenses based on
use.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Funding for the operation of the Meadows Community Center was eliminated from the Parks and Recreation
Department budget for FY 10-11. This lease arrangement allows the community center to remain open to support the
Meadows housing project and provides for the continued use of the center by the community while providing sufficient
revenue to offset the County’s routine operating expenses.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
After the public hearing, staff recommends the Board approve the lease with the Jordan Development C orporation
and authorize the County Executive to sign the lease on behalf of the County.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Proposed Lease Agreement
FIRST AMENDED AGREEMENT OF LEASE
THIS LEASE AMENDMENT is made this _____ day of ____________________, 2015
by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, Landlord, and JORDAN
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Tenant.
WHEREAS, Landlord and Tenant entered into an Agreement of Lease (the “Lease”)
dated August 1, 2010 for the lease of a portion of the Crozet/Meadows Community Recreation
Building; and
WHEREAS, Landlord and Tenant desire to amend the Lease Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, Landlord and Tenant, for the sum of ten and NO/100 Dollars
($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, agree as follows:
1. Section 3.1 of the parties’ Lease is hereby amended to read as follows:
“Section 3.1. Commencement and Expiration. This Lease shall commence on August 1,
2010 (the "Date of Commencement") and shall expire July 31, 2020. All references to the
“term” of this Lease shall, unless the context indicates a different meaning, be deemed to
be a reference to the term described herein.”
2. Section 4.1 of the parties’ Lease is hereby amended to read as follows:
“Section 4.1. Annual Rent. Commencing August 1, 2015, Tenant agrees to pay to
Landlord annual rent of Six-Thousand Five-Hundred Forty-Six Dollars ($6,546), payable
in equal monthly installments, in advance, on the f irst day of each month during the term
hereof. After July 31, 2016, the rent for subsequent years of the Lease shall be indexed for
inflation and shall be calculated by first establishing a fraction, the numerator of which shall
be the level of the CPI Index (as defined herein) as of the first day of June in the
subsequent years, and the denominator of which shall be the level of the CPI Index as of
the first day of June, 2015. The resulting fraction shall be multiplied by the rent agreed
upon or established above for the first year of the term of the Lease to determine the
annual rent due for the year. The rental figure shall be revised each year based upon this
formula. The CPI Index shall be the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price
Index (all items, all urban consumers, 1982-1984 = 100). If the CPI Index shall be
discontinued, Landlord shall designate an appropriate substitute index or formula having
the same general acceptance as to use and reliability as the CPI Index and such substitute
shall be used as if originally designated herein. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in no event
shall the rent due for any lease year decrease below the rent payable for the first year.”
In all other respects, the parties’ Lease shall remain in full force an d effect as previously
executed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this instrument as of the day
and year first above written.
TENANT
JORDAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
By:
Forrest D. Kerns, President
LANDLORD
This Lease Amendment is executed on behalf of the County of Albemarle by Thomas C.
Foley, County Executive, following approval thereof by the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By:
Thomas C. Foley, County Executive
Approved as to form:
_______________________________
Albemarle County Attorney
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDED AGREEMENT OF LEASE
BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE AND THE JORDAN DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION FOR THE CROZET MEADOWS COMMUNITY RECREATION BUILDING
WHEREAS, the Jordan Development Corporation leases from the County of Albemarle
approximately 2,305 square feet of space in a building located at 5735 Meadows Drive, Crozet, known as
the Crozet Meadows Community Recreation Building; and
WHEREAS, the original Agreement of Lease for the Crozet Meadows Community Recreation
Building was dated August 1, 2010; and
WHEREAS, the current lease term expires July 31, 2015; and
WHEREAS, the attached First Amended Agreement of Lease extends the lease of the Crozet
Meadows Community Recreation Building through July 31, 2020.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
hereby authorizes the County Executive to sign the First Amended Agreement of Lease between the
County of Albemarle and the Jordan Development Corporation to extend the Crozet Meadows
Community Recreation Building lease through July 31, 2020.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as
recorded below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________.
_____________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Ms. Dittmar ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Ms. McKeel ____ ____
Ms. Palmer ____ ____
Mr. Sheffield ____ ____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Fiscal Year 2015 County of Albemarle & State
Health Department Local Government Agreement
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approve FY15 Agreement with the State Board of Health
for the provision of public health services through the
Thomas Jefferson Health District (TJHD)
STAFF CONTACT(S): Foley, Walker, Davis, Herrick
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
March 11, 2015
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.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Operational Capacity: Ensure County government’s ability to provide high quality service that achieves community
priorities.
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. These services are funded
cooperatively by the State, 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 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. The FY15 agreement (Attachment A) 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.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The County appropriated $640,217 in FY15 for the Thomas Jefferson Health District, of which $583,104 was the
County’s required match for Cooperative State and Local Matched Programs and $838 was the local only (unmatched)
funding for the food inspection program in accordance with the agreement, and $56,275 was for a budgeted increase
in the County’s share of building rent. The rent increase did not occur in FY15 and so will be held back by the County
and not spent in the current fiscal year. Increased rent cost is anticipated in FY16 and will be reflected accordingly in
the FY 16 Budget.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on the vital nature of the services provided by the TJHD, staff recommends that the Board approve the FY 15
County of Albemarle & State Health Department Local Government Agreement (Attachment A) and that it authorize
the County Executive to execute that Agreement.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - FY15 Local Government Health Department Agreement
B – Attachment to Local Government Health Department Agreement
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Places29 Community Advisory Council
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Final recommendations regarding Places29
Community Advisory Council
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Davis, Catlin, Kilroy
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
March 11, 2015
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
At its December 10, 2014 meeting, the Board discussed concerns regarding the effectiveness of the Places29
Community Advisory Council in achieving its mission. As a result of that discussion, the Board directed that
operations of the Places29 Community Advisory Council be suspended until staff could do an assessment and
develop recommendations for the Board’s consideration. The Board and County staff stressed the importance of an
effective and well-functioning advisory council given the significant amount of development activity affecting the
Places29 master plan area and the expressed interest by the Council in resuming its responsibilities as soon as
possible. The Board’s preliminary review of staff recommendations during the February 4, 2015 Board meeting
provided further direction to staff on refining the composition of the Places29 Community Advisory Council and the
procedures and administration of all Community Advisory Councils.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Citizen Engagement: Successfully engage citizens so that loca l government reflects their values and aspirations
DISCUSSION:
Following the December 10 Board meeting, staff initiated a review of the Places29 Community Advisory Council. That
review included interviews with staff who regularly engage with the Council, a survey that was circulated to all current
Places29 Council members, and feedback provided by Board members on December 10. During the course of the
review, staff identified several areas where the new Community Engagement Coordinator could reinstate some
services that were originally in place to support all of the Councils and where clarity could be provided to all Councils.
Additionally, some suggested operational changes specific to the Places29 Council were identified in response to
feedback received from the Board and from current Council members.
Further refinements and revisions were incorporated based on direction received from the Board at the February 4,
2015 meeting. The recommendations are included as red line edits to the existing Community Advisory Council Fact
Sheet-Places 29 (Attachment A) and the Community Advisory Council Rules of Procedure (Attachment B). The
highlights of those recommendations are provided below, with the major recommendation being that the Places 29
Community Advisory Committee will be composed of three sub-Committees rather than two, as previously
recommended. The Places29 Committee Structure (Attachment C) provides information regarding the three sub-
Committees.
Community Advisory Committee Fact Sheet (Attachment A)
Recommendations for all Advisory Committees:
Title – changed title of the groups from Community Advisory Councils to Community Advisory Committees .
Background – clarified new role in development review to provide venue for neighborhood meetings.
Charge – clarified role in supporting adopted master plan implementation and clarified that committees do not
play an official role in the legislative process, but they are encouraged to express comments and preferences
with respect to development proposals.
Time Commitment – moved from Places29-specific list to General Committee list because it pertains to all
committees.
Liaison Role – language added to clarify distinction between roles of liaisons and appointed members .
AGENDA TITLE: Places29 Community Advisory Council
March 11, 2015
Page 2
Responsibilities – language added to provide for annual reports to the Board regarding committee activities to
be consistent with Board’s adopted policy and to encourage committees to provide comments and advisory
input to the Board on emerging policies, projects, and programs.
Principles – language added to emphasize committees’ role in supporting elements of adopted Master Plans
Recommendations for Places29 Community Advisory Committee:
Structure – recommend establishing three sub-committees – Places29 North, Places29-Hydraulic, and
Places29-Rio - to provide more productive focus on smaller geographic areas and communities of interest.
Membership – revised membership composition to reflect sub-committee concept and to clarify Board and
Planning Commission assignments.
Liaisons – clarified liaison assignments for the sub-committees.
Joint Meetings – previously part of Time Commitment section; revised to reflect sub-committee and full
committee meetings.
Length of Term – clarified term limits to be in accordance with the Board of Supervisor’s Rules of Procedure
for Boards and Commissions and provided greater discretion for the Board in determining the number of
terms a member may serve.
Community Advisory Committee Rules of Procedure (Attachment B):
Recommendations for all Advisory Committees:
Officer Terms of Office – chairs and vice chairs may not serve more than two consecutive terms to allow for
rotation of leadership.
Orientation – staff requirement to provide timely orientation for all newly appointed members is strengthened .
Establishment of Agenda – staff to maintain a calendar of topics aligned with County priorities and projects in
the Master Plan areas to assist in agenda development with chairs and vice-chairs.
Voting Procedures – noted that approval/disapproval votes for specific development proposals are not
appropriate given that the committees do not have an official voting role in the legislative approval process.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact associated with this item.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the revisions to the Community Advisory Committee Fact Sheet - Places29
and to the Community Advisory Committee Rules of Procedure as proposed in Attachments A and B, and appoint
members to the three sub-committees that will establish the Places29 Master Plan Committee in its reconstituted form
as soon as possible.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Community Advisory Council Fact Sheet – Places29
Attachment B – Community Advisory Council Rules of Procedure
Attachment C - Places29 Committee Structure
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
PLACES 29 COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
FACT SHEET
General Community Advisory Committee Information
Background: Community residents, local government, the business community, and other
organizations play a role in shaping a community. The Master Plans are created with
substantial time and effort from all these groups collaboratively. To continue that
collaboration and communication, the Plan calls for the appointment of a citizen group
that will serve as one of the major vehicles by which the communities will remain
engaged in the plan’s implementation. The Committee can provide a venue for
neighborhood meetings for development projects and for the Master Plan revision
process.
Charge: The Advisory Committees will provide assistance, feedback and input to County staff
and the Board of Supervisors on community and county efforts related to implementation
and support of the adopted Master Plan, in accordance with established county
procedures. Advisory Committee members will communicate with their constituencies to
increase understanding of and support for successful implementation of the Master Plan.
The membership is broad-based to incorporate a variety of perspectives and ideas and
to provide citizens, business people, and representatives of community groups a chance
to be engaged and to be heard in a constructive and meaningful way.
The Committees will be a catalyst for helping foster a sense of community and work
towards effective and efficient Master Plan implementation. Committees are a venue to
discuss and provide comments on program and policy questions and/or proposals.
WhileCommunity Advisory Committees are an important venue for discussion and
Committees can provide feedback and indicate preferences related to development
proposals, although Committees do not have a legislative role in the development
process and are discouraged from taking votes of approval or disapproval. The Advisory
Councils will contribute to public understanding of and support for Master Plan
implementation through enhanced communication and collaboration among all
stakeholders, and will seek to identify, and communicate and collaborate with
unrepresented stakeholder groups.
Timing: The Advisory Committee should be formed immediately after the adoption of the Master
Plan.
Time Commitment: All Committees will meet together as a group annually to focus on issues of common
interest to development area communities and individual committees will meet several
more times during the year as needed based on master plan implementation activity.
Liaison Role: The role of the liaison is distinct from the appointed members. Liaisons should report
back to their Board or Commission at their regular meetings with a synopsis of the
Committee’s meetings/activities, as appropriate. Liaisons may also identify agenda
topics process in order to receive feedback from the Committee on a pertinent topic or
project. Liaisons should provide information or context during discussions as requested,
but should allow appointed Committee members to lead and fully engage in
conversations so they can fulfill their advisory role.
Responsibilities: 1. Serve as liaisons by: 1) contributing to public understanding of and encouraging
support for Master Plan implementation; 2) keeping the community informed of the
needs, purposes, and progress of Master Plan implementation; 3) encouraging interest
and participation in community and county efforts related to the Master Plan and
PLACES 29 COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
FACT SHEET
participation in public meetings; and 4) enhancing collaboration among all community
stakeholders.
2. Gather input from constituencies represented and bring these issues to the attention
of staff and the Committee, and distribute information from the Committee back to
constituents.
3. Stimulate creative thinking in examining implementation issues and identify ways of
using community resources to meet implementation needs and challenges.
4. Provide advisory input, comments, and information to the Board of Supervisors on
new and emerging policies, projects, and programs as requested.
5. Maintain a forward-looking agenda with respect to adopted resolutions Master Plans
and policies of the Board of Supervisors. Committee meetings are not the appropriate
venue to oppose adopted policy.
6. Commit to support and work to implement the adopted Master Plan.
7. Work with Staff to provide an annual report of activities to the Board of Supervisors at
the end of each calendar year in accordance with the Board of Supervisors’ adopted
Rules of Procedure for Boards and Commissions.
Principles: To assist with meeting facilitation thereby ensuring that all members’ voices are heard
and viewpoints considered, all Committee members will:
Familiarize themselves with the Vision and Implementation Plan of the Master Plan and
work in coordination with County staff to provide input on Master Plan implementation.
Act on the basis of information and understanding and in support of the projects,
policies, and programs outlined in the Master Plan.
Focus their efforts strategically to achieve the greatest possible contributions.
Strive to achieve a consensus on actions/recommendations that are important to Master
Plan implementation.
Comment as a council constructively and with appropriate suggestions and offers of
help.
Work toward benefiting Master Plan implementation rather than special needs or
interests
Accept responsibility for the success of the Advisory Committee by contributing
appropriate time and energy.
PLACES 29 COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
FACT SHEET
Places29 Community Advisory Committee Information
Structure: The Places29 Community Advisory Committee will be comprised of two three sub-
Committees, Places29 North, and Places29-South Places29-Hydraulic, and Places29-
Rio. Places29 North will focus on the Piney Mountain and Hollymead Neighborhoods.
Places29-Hydraulic will focus on Neighborhood 1. Places29-Rio will focus on
Neighborhood 2. South will focus on Neighborhoods 1 and 2.
Membership: The Board of Supervisors shall appoint fifteen eleven members to each of the two three
sub-Committees (Places29 North, and Places29 South Places29-Hydraulic, and
Places29-Rio). Each member shall be a resident of or business owner in Albemarle
County. For all representatives, the member’s home or business shall be located within
their appointed sub- Committee’s geographic area. An individual may not serve on more
than one sub-Committee. Each sub-Committee shall have members along the following
representations: with geographically diverse representation from the following:
Large neighborhood representatives/citizens at large (2)
Small neighborhood residents (2)
Development community (1)
Business community (2)
Other potential community representatives (8) ensuring a balance between
community and business representatives
DIA/NGIC
2 large neighborhood
2 small neighborhood
1 development community
2 business community
1 school community, including staff, school board, or PTO parent member
(North only) DIA/NGIC or other light industrial/R&D community
(South only) Urban/Mixed Use Centers community
1 “other” member that cannot be qualified per the above representations (could
include RWSA, CHO Board, or a community group interested in topics such as
open space, water resources, transit, etc.)
Representation P29 North P29 Hydraulic P29 Rio
Large Neighborhood 2 2 2
Small Neighborhood 1 2 2
Development Community 1 1 1
Business Community 2 2 2
School Community – staff,
school board, PTO parent
member
1 1 1
Office/R&D/Flex/Light Industrial
or Heavy Industrial
2 1 1
Urban Mixed Use 1 1 1
Other – RSWA, RWSA, CHO
Board, non-profit or community
group with a focus on open
space, water resources, transit,
etc.
1 1 1
PLACES 29 COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
FACT SHEET
Liaisons: Each sub-Committee will have one Board of Supervisor liaison and one Planning
Commission liaison. Liaisons will be appointed based on magisterial districts within the
Master Plan boundaries for the sub- Committees. For Places29 North, the BOS Liaison
will be appointed from either the Rio or Rivanna District and the Planning Commission
liaison will be appointed from either the Rio or Rivanna District or the At-Large member.
For Places29-Hydraulic, the BOS Liaison will be appointed from the Rio or Jouett District
and the Planning Commission liaison will be appointed from either the Rio or Jouett
District or the At-Large member. For Places29-Rio, the BOS Liaison will be appointed
from the Rio District and the Planning Commission liaison will be appointed from either
the Rio District or the At-Large member.
Staff Resources may include:
PTO members from either the elementary, middle, or high school
Public safety representative
There shall also be a Planning Commission liaison appointed to the council who will
attend meetings, report back to the Commission at its regular meetings with a synopsis
of the Council’s meetings/activities, as appropriate. The liaison, along with other
Commissioners, may identify agenda items or updates that should be provided to the
Council and the greater Master Plan area. The Planning Commission liaison will
represent the same magisterial district as the BOS liaison or be the “at-large” member.
To the extent that County planning staff is available, Staff will coordinate all staff support
to the Advisory Council, ensure meeting supplies, print and copy agenda and meeting
materials.
Time Commitment: All Councils will meet together as a group annually to focus on issues of common
interest to development area communities and individual councils will meet several more
times during the year as needed based on master plan implementation activity.
Joint Meetings: The Places29 sub-Committees will meet jointly two times each year to discuss Master
Plan topics across the planning area.
Length of Term: Members will be appointed for either a 2 or 3 year term to stagger the transition of
new members on and off the council. After initial appointments, terms will be for 2
years. While Members will be generally expected to serve no more than 2 terms,
additional terms may be considered if desired and if the Board of Supervisors
deems appropriate. Members may apply for additional terms after their initial term
expires. Members generally will be limited to serving no more than serve two
consecutive terms. Additional terms may be considered if circumstances
necessitate a need for continuing service.
NOTE: Each committee member will receive the following, some of which will be distributed
prior to the first meeting and some of which will be developed during the first committee
meetings with the committee:
1. Copy of the Master Plan
2. Copy of the Information for Advisory Committee Members
3. Copy of Advisory Committee Procedures
4. Advisory Committee Members List
5. Advisory Committee Meeting Schedule
PLACES 29 COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
FACT SHEET
Cc: Lee Catlin
David Benish
*Also see Albemarle County Community Advisory Council Committee Rules of Procedure (Revised
March 2015).
ALBEMARLE COUNTY COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
RULES OF PROCEDURE
1. Officers
A. Chairman. At its annual meeting, the Committee shall elect a Chairman who, if present, shall
preside at the meeting and at all other meetings during the year for which elected.
B. Vice-Chairman. At its annual meeting, the Committee shall elect a Vice-Chairman, who, if
present, shall preside at meetings in the absence of the Chairman and shall discharge the
duties of the Chairman during his absence or disability.
C. Secretary. At its annual meeting, the Committee shall elect a Secretary, who, if present, shall
record the proceedings of the meeting.
D. Term of Office. The Chairman and Vice-Chairman shall be elected for one-year terms; but
either or both may be re-elected for one or more additional terms. Chairs and vice-chairs may
not serve more than two consecutive terms. The Secretary shall be elected for a one-year term;
but may be re-elected for one or more additional terms.
E. Absence of Chairman and Vice-Chairman. If the Chairman and Vice-Chairman are absent from
any meeting, a present member shall be chosen to act as Chairman.
2. Meetings
A. Annual Meeting. The first meeting following the annual appointment of new members in
January of each year shall be known as the annual meeting. At the annual meeting, the
Committee shall establish the day, time, and place for regular meetings of the Committee for
that year, and shall elect the chairman, vice-chairman, and secretary.
For Places29, the annual appointment of new members occurs in January .
For Crozet, the annual appointment of new members occurs in April .
For Village of Rivanna, the annual appointment of new members occurs in April .
For Pantops, the annual appointment of new members occurs in July.
B. Regular Meetings. The Committee shall meet in regular session at the time and place and on
the day or days established for regular meetings. The Committee may subsequently establish a
different day, time, or place to conduct its regular meetings by passing a resolution to that
effect.
If the Chairman, or the Vice-Chairman if the Chairman is unable to act, finds and declares that
weather or other conditions are such that it is hazardous for Committee members to attend a
regular meeting, the meeting shall be continued to the next regular meeting date. This finding
shall be communicated to the members of the Committee and to the press as promptly as
possible.
Without further public notice, a regular meeting may be adjourned from day to day or from time
to time or from place to place, not beyond the time fixed for the next regular meeting, until the
business of the Committee is complete.
C. Attendance. Two unreported absences from regular meetings within a 12-month period shall be
considered grounds for dismissal from the Committee. Staff will work with the Committee’s
Secretar y to ensure adherence to the attendance policy.
D. Orientation. Staff will schedule a required orientation session for all new members within 4
weeks of their appointment to the Committee.
3. Order of Business
A. Establishment of Agenda. The agenda for each regular meeting shall be established by staff in
consultation with the Chairman. Staff will maintain a calendar of agenda topics to align with
County priorities and projects in the Master Plan area for assistance in formulating the agenda.
Staff and the Chair will approve the agenda before it is circulated to the Committee.
B. Organization of the Agenda. The agenda of each regular meeting shall be organized in
substantially the following order, subject to change at the request of the Chairman and with the
consensus of the other members of the Committee:
(1) Call to order
(2) Announcements
(3) Scheduled presentations
(4) Discussion Items
(5) Community Updates
(6) Other business
(7) Adjourn
C. Deferrals. The Committee may defer any matter at the request of a member of the Committee
or County staff. The request may be either oral or in writing, and may be made at any time prior
to the vote on the matter. The person making the request shall state the reasons therefore. A
motion to defer shall either specify the date to which the matter is deferred or defer the matter
indefinitely.
4. Quorum
A simple majority of the appointed members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum for any meeting
of the Committee. If, during a meeting, less than a majority of the members of the Committee remains
present, no action can be taken except to adjourn the meeting. If, prior to adjournment, a quorum is
again established, the meeting shall continue.
5. Voting Procedures
A. When to Vote. While the Advisory Committees are not expected to take votes of approval or
disapproval on specific development proposals, voting is a tool that the Committee may use to
express support for a program or policy question under consideration by the Board of
Supervisors or Planning Commission.
B. Approval of Motion by Majority. Except for a decision on a motion of the previous question,
each decision of the Committee shall be made by approval of a majority of the members
present and voting on a motion properly made by a member and properly seconded by another
member. Any motion that is not seconded shall not be further considered.
C. Manner of Vote. The vote on a motion pertaining may be either by roll call vote or voice vote, in
the discretion of the Chairman; provided that a roll call vote on such a motion shall be required if
requested by a member of the Committee. For each roll call vote, staff shall record the name of
each member voting and how the member voted on the motion. For each voice vote, staff shall
record the result of the vote.
D. Tie Vote. A tie vote shall defeat the motion voted upon.
E. Abstention. If any member abstains from voting on any motion, he shall state his abstention.
The abstention shall be announced by the Chairman and recorded by staff.
F. Motion to Amend. A motion to amend a motion before the Committee shall be discussed and
voted by the Committee before any vote is taken on the original motion unless the motion to
amend is accepted by both the members making and seconding the original motion. If the
motion to amend is approved, the amended motion is then before the Committee for its
consideration. If the motion to amend is not approved, the original motion is again before the
Committee for its consideration.
6. Amendment of Rules of Procedure
These Rules of Procedure may be amended by a majority vote of the Committee at the next regular
meeting following a regular meeting at which notice of the motion to amend is given.
7. Suspension of Rules of Procedure
These Rules of Procedure may be suspended by the majority vote of the members of the Committee
present and voting. The motion to suspend a rule may be made by any member of the Committee.
Upon a proper second, the motion may be discussed and voted. The effect of the motion to suspend a
rule, if approved, is to make that rule inapplicable to the matter before the Committee; provided,
however, approval of a motion to suspend the rule shall not permit the Committee to act in violation of a
requirement mandated by the Code of Virginia, the Constitution of Virginia, or any other applicable law.
8. Rules of Procedure not Covered by These Rules of Procedure
Any rules of procedure not covered by these Rules of Procedure shall be governed by the current
Robert’s Rules of Order.
Places29 – North
Magisterial Districts: Portions of Rivanna, Rio, and White Hall (CHO parcel) Districts
Recommended liaisons: Rivanna or at-large
5,200 acres
2,717 residential parcels
Industrial land, employment centers (NGIC, UVa Research Park, GE, Airport Industrial Park)
Residential concentrated in 3 large subdivisions (Forest Lakes North, Forest Lakes South,
Hollymead)
Large areas of forested, agricultural, and undeveloped land to the north (Piney Mountain)
Hollymead Town Center
CHO
Places29 – Hydraulic
Magisterial Districts: portions of the Jouett and Rio Districts
Recommended liaisons: Jouett or at-large
1,200 acres (approximately)
3,700 dwelling units (approximately)
Urbanized neighborhood; largely built out
Large areas of commercial development along major roads (Route 29, Hydraulic Road, Berkmar
Drive, Rio Road West)
Route 29, Hydraulic, Berkmar, and Rio are the predominant arterial roads; many subdivisions
along cul-de-sacs with limited internal circulation
Places 29 – Rio
Magisterial Districts: Rio District
Recommended liaisons: Rio or at-large
3,000 acres (approximately)
2,700 dwelling units (approximately)
Residential land use and commercial areas along Route 29, Rio Road West, Berkmar Drive,
“Gasoline Alley” on Rio Road East, Rio Road West
Rio Road, Berkmar Drive, and Route 29 are predominant arterial roads
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SDP201400013 Royal Orchard Land Corporation Tier II
PWSF – Special Exception
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of special exception for waiver of requirements
of County Code § 18-4.2 to allow the disturbance of
critical slopes
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Kamptner, Cilimberg, Benish,
Baldwin and Brooks
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
March 11, 2015
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The County regulates the disturbance of slopes of 25% or greater differently, depending on whether the slopes are within
the steep slopes overlay district under County Code § 18-30.7 (“SSOD”), which is composed of the County’s Development
Areas, or outside of the SSOD, which is composed of the County’s Rural Area. The parcel that is the subject of this
application is located within the County’s Rural Area, and its slopes of 25% or greater are regulated as “critical slopes”
under County Code § 18-4.2. County Code § 18-4.2.3 prohibits a structure, improvement, or land disturbing activity to
establish a structure or improvement from being located on critical slopes unless a special exception is approved by the
Board.
AT&T is requesting a special exception to allow the disturbance of critical slopes for the installation of a proposed Tier II
Personal Wireless Service Facility (“PWSF”) and access road on property owned by Royal Orchard Land Corporation
located on lands currently identified in the County’s tax records as Tax Map Parcel 5300-00-00-00200. Royal Orchard
Land Corporation also owns the adjacent properties, Tax Map Parcels 05300-00-00-00100 and 05300-00-00-001B0. The
request is in conjunction with SDP201400013, which has tentative approval pending action on this special exception. The
request and plans (Attachments A and B) depict a total of 9,653 square feet of critical slopes will be disturbed, of which
7,742 square feet is for the access road, and the remaining 1,911 square feet are located at the base of the PWSF. At the
time the Applicant submitted its justification for disturbing these critical slopes, the access road was exempt from the
critical slopes regulations pursuant to County Code § 18-4.2.6(c). However, on February 11, 2015, the Board adopted the
Phase 2 Wireless ZTA requiring that an access road to a PWSF be subject to the critical slopes regulations, and any
request to waive those regulations must now be approved by the Board as a special exception. Engineering and Planning
staff have reviewed the request to allow the disturbance of critical slopes for both the PWSF and the access road.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Economic Prosperity: Foster an environment that stimulates diversified job creation, capital investments, and tax
revenue that support community goals.
Natural Resources: Thoughtfully protect and manage Albemarle County’s ecosystems and natural resources in both
the rural and development areas to safeguard the quality of life of current and future generations.
DISCUSSION:
County Code § 18-4.2.5 authorizes the Board to approve a special exception to waive the requirements of County
Code § 18-4.2.3 to permit the disturbance of critical slopes. The applicant has submitted a justification for the special
exception and, because the subject property is in the Rural Areas, this request has been reviewed for both the
Planning and Engineering considerations pursuant to County Code §§ 18-4.2.5(a)(2) and (3). See Attachment C for
Planning and Engineering staff’s analysis of the relevant factors for the critical slopes waiver request. Based upon this
analysis, staff opinion is that this request favorably satisfies all of the factors in County Code § 18-4.2.5 as further
explained in Attachment C.
BUDGET IMPACT:
No budget impact will result from approving this special exception.
AGENDA TITLE: SDP201400013 Royal Orchard Land Corporation Tier II PWSF – Special Exception
March 11, 2015
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment D) to approve the special exception to
disturb critical slopes for the installation of a PWSF subject to the following condition:
1. The area of land disturbance on critical slopes shall not exceed 9,653 square feet as shown on the
attached plans (Attachment B).
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Special Exception request letter dated February 3, 2015
B – Zoning Plans by BC Architects Engineers last revised on February 3, 2015
C – Critical Slopes Waiver Analysis
D – Resolution
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Direct Dial: 434.951.5701
plloyd@williamsmullen.com
321 East Main Street, Suite 400 Charlottesville, VA 22902 T 434.951.5700 F 434.817.0977 williamsmullen.com
DC NC VA | A Professional Corporation
May 9, 2014, as last revised February 3,2015
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Ms. Sarah Baldwin
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE:SP 20140013 –Tier II PWSF
Royal Orchard Land Corp. /AT&T Wireless Telecommunications Facility
AT&T Site CV 479
Critical Slopes Waiver Request
Dear Sarah:
New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (“AT&T”)is submitting this request to allow
disturbance of critical slopes for the installation of a proposed AT&T wireless
telecommunications facility located on tax map parcel 05300-00-00-0020 (the “Property”),
property owned by Royal Orchard Land Corp. (the “Property Owner”).This letter amends and
restates in all respects our prior letters to yo u dated May 9, 2014, September 2, 2014, and
October 24, 2014.
I.Overview
The proposed facility (the “Facility”) consists of a telecommunications monopole
structure,an 11’5” x 12’equipment shelter and related improvements on a raised metal platform
supported by a caisson foundation, situated at the western end of the Property on a wooded
hillside within an approximately 2,000 square foot piece of land (the “Lease Area”).
The Property consists almost entirely of critical slopes. The total critical slope area that
would be disturbed by construction of the Facility in and around the Lease Area is 1,911 square
feet.
Design features of the proposed Facility are depicted and described on drawings by BC
Architects Engineers PLC (the “Zoning Drawings”), copies of which are attached to this letter as
Exhibit A. The Zoning Drawings attached hereto supersede any versions previously transmitted.
The Facility is intended to improve wireless phone and data coverage to an underserved area in
the vicinity of the Property.
Ms. Sarah Baldwin
May 9, 2014, as last revised February 3,2015
Page 2
II.Exemption of Access Road Pursuant to Section 4.2.6(c)
To provide access to the Lease Area, the Applicant proposes to improve and widen an
existing gravel road from Royal Orchard Drive over adjacent properties owned by the Property
Owner and identified as tax map parcels 05300-00-00-001B0 and 05300-00-00-00100 (the
“Adjacent Properties”), and the Property, and to modify the alignment of the existing gravel road
on the Property (the “Access Road”). Plans submitted to the County initially contemplated the
disturbance of approximately 12,000 square feet of critical slope area resulting from the
construction of the Access Road. In consultation with the County Engineer, AT&T has revised
its plans to reduce the critical slope area impacted by the Access Road to 7,742 square feet.
The Access Road is exempt from the requirements of the County’s critical slope
ordinance pursuant to Section 4.2.6(c) of the Zoning Ordinance as an “accessway… necessary to
allow the use of the parcel” where “no reasonable alternative location or alignment exists.”
III.Request for Waiver Pursuant to Section 4.2.5(c)
Section 4.2.5(a)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance allows the Board of Supervisors to waive
restrictions against disturbing critical slopes upon a finding that the waiver would not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, the orderly development of the area, or to
adjacent properties, and would not be contrary to sound engineering practices. AT&T hereby
requests a waiver of the restrictions applicable to the proposed Facility, as described above and
in the Zoning Drawings. The requested waiver will not be detrimental to the orderly
development of the area, as the small increase of disturbed critical slopes on the Property would
not cause any interference with existing development. Nor would granting the requested waiver
be detrimental to adjacent properties, or contrary to sound engineering practices. Furthermore,
for the reasons set forth below, the Facility would satisfy the Public Health, Safety and Welfare
Factors of Section 4.2.5(a)(1). Therefore, the Board can confirm that granting the waiver will
not be detrimental to those factors.
As the Access Road is exempt from the County’s critical slope ordinance, the analysis in
this Section III relates solely to the Facility.
Consideration of “Public Health, Safety and Welfare Factors” under Section 4.2.5(a)(1):
The five Public Health, Safety and Welfare Factors of Section 4.2.5(a)(1) of the Zoning
Ordinance are addressed as follows:
Ms. Sarah Baldwin
May 9, 2014, as last revised February 3,2015
Page 3
Rapid and/or large scale movement of soil and rock
Improvement of the Lease Area would increase the disturbed critical slope area on the
Property by only 1,911 square feet.
During construction, the Facility site will be geologically stabilized with erosion control
measures as outlined on the Zoning Drawings. These include the installation of silt
fences and a construction entrance, if required, and seeding of any disturbed areas that are
not actively in use. Ground cover and vegetation will permanently stabilize disturbed
critical slope areas. Because of the limited size of the affected critical slope area and
implementation of mitigation measures, the risk of rapid or large scale movement of soil
and rock will be effectively minimized.
Excessive stormwater run-off
The proposed Facility is designed to minimally increase the soil permeability of the
Property and effectively mitigate stormwater runoff.Stormwater runoff resulting from
construction of the facility will travel downhill to the south and will dissipate through the
permeable soils of the existing wooded area. In addition, stormwater will be captured
and treated in a bioretention facility as shown in the Zoning Drawings.
Siltation of natural and man-made bodies of water
There are no natural or man-made bodies of water on the Property, although two streams
and a pond are situated at the eastern end of the Adjacent Property identified as Tax Map
Parcel No. 05300-00-00-00100. Although these water features are subject to a County
Water Protection Ordinance buffer, the buffer area is several thousand feet east of the
Lease Area, and any runoff from the Lease Area would flow downhill to the south.
Moreover, as discussed above, the Facility site will be subject to mitigation measures
during construction, and permanently stabilized with installation of ground cover and
vegetation. Any runoff from the site would dissipate through the permeable soils of the
wooded area south of the wireless facility, or be captured and treated in the proposed
bioretention facility. Therefore, the Facility is unlikely to result in the siltation of natural
and man-made bodies of water.
Loss of aesthetic resource
The aesthetic resources of the Property and surroundings consist chiefly in the
characteristics of the existing woods, vegetation, and slopes.There will be no significant
loss to these resources. Critical slope areas comprise the great majority of the Property,
and the Facility will result in a minimal increase in disturbed critical slopes. The only
Ms. Sarah Baldwin
May 9, 2014, as last revised February 3,2015
Page 4
trees that will be removed are those necessary to accommodate construction of the
facility, as shown on the Zoning Drawings. The remaining trees and topography will
serve to screen the facility from the roadway. Accordingly, disturbance of this small area
will not result in a loss of aesthetic resources.
Greater travel distance of septic effluent
The proposed Facility will be unmanned, with no septic or plumbing systems.The
concerns of this section are not applicable to this request.
Therefore, the five Public Health, Safety, and Welfare Factors of Section 4.2.5(a)(1) are
satisfied.
Additional Required Findings
In addition to the foregoing, Section 4.2.5(a)(3) requires the Board to make at least one of
the following findings (in part):
1.A strict application of these provisions would not forward the purposes of the
Zoning Ordinance or otherwise serve the public health, safety or welfare.
The Zoning Ordinance implements the objectives of the Albemarle County
Comprehensive Plan, including the preservation of natural, scenic and historic resources
in Rural Areas such as the Property. The Comprehensive Plan also includes the Personal
Wireless Services Facilities Policy, adopted in 2000, which “encourages the construction
of [wireless services] facilities that have limited visual impact on the community.” As
noted, construction of the proposed wireless facility would result in a minimal net
increase in disturbed critical slope area on the Property. Moreover, the improvements
will be screened from the roadway by existing tree cover and other vegetation. For the
foregoing reasons, strict application of Section 4.2 would not forward the purposes of the
Zoning Ordinance or otherwise serve the public health, safety or welfare.
2.Alternatives proposed by the Applicant would satisfy the intent and purpose of
section 4.2 to at least an equivalent degree.
As discussed above, the Applicant is proposing engineering measures that will avoid or
mitigate the adverse impacts that are often associated with the disturbance of critical
slopes. Given the limited size of the proposed area of disturbance, the use of these
engineering measures will satisfy the intent and purpose of Section 4.2 at least to an
equivalent degree.
Ms. Sarah Baldwin
May 9, 2014, as last revised February 3,2015
Page 5
3.Due to its unusual size, topography, shape of the property, location of the property
or other unusual conditions, excluding the proprietary interest of the developer, the
requirements of Section 4.2 would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the
use of the property or would result in significant degradation of the site or adjacent
properties.
The proposed Facility site will be located on the western side of the Property on a
hillside,to provide wireless phone and data service to underserved areas in the vicinity.
Siting of the facility in this wooded area will mitigate the visual impacts of the proposed
facility on surrounding roads and properties. It would be impracticable to relocate the
proposed facility on the Property without causing a greater adverse impact to aesthetics
or critical slopes.
In addition, the Property consists of approximately 8.85 acres of land, while the proposed
Facility would result in a net increase of disturbed critical slopes of only 1,911 square
feet, or about 0.04 acres. Therefore, the relatively small scale of the proposed Facility
would have little impact on the Property, taken as a whole.
As the location of the Facility has been chosen to limit critical slope disturbance and
mitigate its visibility, strict implementation of the requirements of Section 4.2 would
unreasonably restrict the installation of a telecommunications facility on the Property.
4.Granting such modification or waiver would serve a public purpose of greater
import than would be served by strict application of Section 4.2.
Reliable wireless phone and data phone coverage for business, education, and
government is a vital public utility. Moreover, wireless telecommunications facilities are
essential for emergency communications. Finally, as discussed above, the critical slope
area affected by this Facility is particularly small, especially when viewed in the context
of the topography of the Property as a whole. Consequently, approval of the waiver will
further the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, particularly the Wireless
Telecommunications Facilities Plan.
IV.Conclusion
Many of the concerns associated with the disturbance of critical slopes and the criteria for
evaluating a critical slopes waiver are considered and addressed generally through the existing
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Ordinance requirements, such as the requirements for tree
conservation plans, finished grades, and sound construction techniques.For that reason, and
the reasons stated herein, we contend that this application satisfies the requirements for a waiver
under Section 4.2.5(a)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Sarah Baldwin
May 9, 2014, as last revised February 3,2015
Page 6
Please contact me if you have any questions or need any additional information.
Regards,
T. Preston Lloyd, Jr.
cc:Ms. Cheryl Taylor, Velocitel
Valerie W. Long, Esquire, Williams Mullen (via e-mail)
25479112_4
Attachment C
Critical Slopes Waiver Analysis
Review of the request by Engineering Staff:
Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance: This is a wooded hillside above Rt. 64. The applicant
is proposing to create a road over an existing path, to a proposed tower site.
Areas Acres
Total site 12.15 acre parcel (per GIS system)
Critical slopes Approx. 100% of site
Critical slopes disturbed Approx. 9600 sf See graphics provided
Compliance with Zoning Ordinance § 18-4.2:
“movement of soil and rock”
Proper slope construction, control of drainage, and vegetative stabilization will prevent any movement of soil.
“excessive stormwater runoff”
Stormwater runoff will be increased in this area, based on the land disturbance and new slopes, although it is isola ted
in this wooded site. The disturbance proposed (including the road) is enough so that this project requires a
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan under the Virginia Stormwater Management Program. This is currently in
process. There are no significant issues anticipated.
“siltation”
Inspection and bonding by the County will attempt to ensure siltation control during construction, and every effort has
been make to limit the area of disturbance. Stabilizing immediately with matting or stone will be needed on steep
embankments. Proper stabilization and maintenance will ensure long term stability.
“loss of aesthetic resource”
This area is close to Rt. 64.
“septic effluent”
Not applicable.
Based on the review above, all engineering concerns have been ade quately addressed.
Review of the request by Planning Staff:
Section 4.2.5 sets forth the factors to be considered in acting on a special exception. Below are the provisions of Section
4.2.5(a)(3), along with staff’s analysis. Under Section 33.9 of the Zoning Ordinance, Special Exceptions, the Board of
Supervisors may modify or waive any requirement of Section 4.2 based on these provisions, however, no specific finding
is required in support of the Board’s decision.
“a. Strict application of the requirements of section 4.2 would not forward the purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve
the public health, safety or welfare;”
Granting the modification request would forward the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance and would better serve the
public health, safety or welfare by allowing construction of a PWSF, which will provide wireless broadband service to the
Rural Areas.
“b. Alternatives proposed by the developer or subdivider would satisfy the intent and purposes of section 4.2 to at least
an equivalent degree;”
No alternatives have been proposed by the applicant.
“c. Due to the property’s unusual size, topography, shape, location or other unusual conditions, excluding the proprietary
interest of the developer or subdivider, prohibiting the disturbance of critical slopes would effectively prohibit or
unreasonably restrict the use of the property or would result in significant degradation of the property or adjacent
properties; or”
The property is approximately 99% critical slopes, which severely limits its use. No alternatives exist which would
not impact the critical slopes. The disturbance at the base of the facility will allow for reasonable use of the property wi th
minimal impact and allow for the siting/provision of service for the fac ility with no visual impacts.
“d. Granting the modification or waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import than would be served by strict
application of the regulations sought to be modified or waived.”
Granting the waiver will serve a public purpose of greater import by providing additional wireless service in this
area of the community. Some of the proposed disturbance will occur at the base of the PWSF, a location that is not sky-
lighted and has minimal visual impacts. The placement of the PWSF at this location will provide a backdrop of trees and
the location will greatly limit the impact of disturbance. Proper slope construction, drainage control, vegetative stabiliza-
tion on this wooded site, along with other measures required by the Water Protection Ordinance, will minimize impacts on
water quality.
Attachment C
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL EXCEPTION
FOR SDP 14-13 ROYAL ORCHARD LAND CORPORATION TIER II PWSF
WHEREAS, Royal Orchard Land Corporation (“Royal Orchard”) is the owner of those lands
currently identified in the County’s tax records as Tax Map and Parcel Number 05300-00-00-00200 (the
“Property”); and
WHEREAS, AT&T leases a portion of the Property and filed a request for a special exception in
conjunction with SDP 2014-00013, Royal Orchard Land Corporation Tier PSWF, to allow the disturbance of
critical slopes, as the Property is depicted on the pending plans under review by the County’s Department of
Community Development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, upon consideration of the foregoing, the executive
summary prepared in conjunction with the application, and its supporting analysis included as Attachment C
thereto, the plans entitled “Site Name CV479, Site Number CV479B” prepared by BC Architects Engineers
and last revised on February 16, 2015, and all of the factors relevant to the special exception in Albemarle
County Code § 18-4.2.5, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby approves the special exception
to authorize the disturbance of critical slopes for AT&T’s installation of a proposed Tier II Personal Wireless
Service Facility on the Property subject to the condition attached hereto.
* * *
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as
recorded below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________.
__________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Ms. Dittmar ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Ms. McKeel ____ ____
Ms. Palmer ____ ____
Mr. Sheffield ____ ____
SDP 2014-13, Royal Orchard Land Corporation Tier II PSWF Special Exception Condition
1. The area of land disturbance on critical slopes shall not exceed 9,653 square feet as shown on the
attached plans.
I. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units (Table I & Chart A)
II. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units by Type (Tables II, III, & IV)
III. Comparison of All Building Permits (Table V)
KEY TO TYPES OF HOUSING REFERRED TO IN REPORT
SF Single-Family (includes modular)
SFA Single-Family Attached
SF/TH Single-Family Townhouse
SFC Single-Family Condominium
DUP Duplex
MF Multi-Family
MHC Mobile Home in the County (not in an existing park)
AA Accessory Apartment
INDEX
Community Development Department
2014
FOURTH QUARTER
BUILDING REPORT
County of Albemarle
Information Services Division
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296-5832
- 2 -
I. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units
Table I. Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Development Area and Rural Area
2014
Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Totals
1st Quarter 81 64 267 57 78 49 38 20 91 24 372 26 70 25 102 26 89 30 119
2nd Quarter 101 80 232 38 86 53 71 26 65 27 58 29 310 25 110 37 83 36 119
3rd Quarter 65 67 73 67 47 47 50 30 358 23 82 37 47 28 71 41 90 48 138
.
4th Quarter 68 49 57 40 28 30 91 13 29 33 62 28 50 33 55 26 61 38 99
315 260 629 202 239 179 250 89 543 107 574 120 477 111 338 130 323 152
Chart A. Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Development Area and Rural Area
2014
During the fourth quarter of 2014, 99 building permits were issued for 99 dwelling units. There was one permit issued for a mobile home in an existing park, at
an exchange rate of $2,500, for a total of $2,500. There were no permits issued for the conversion of an apartment to a condominium.
COMP PLAN
AREA
TOTALS
Quarter
YEAR TO
DATE
TOTALS
339831 418
20132011
575
2012
475650 694 468588
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units
Prepared by the Albemarle County Community Development Dept. Information Services Division
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Dev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural Area2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014Dwelling UnitsNine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units
Other Units SF Unit
Prepared by the Albemarle County Community Development Dept. Information Services Division
- 3 -
4th Quarter 2014
II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE
Table II. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Magisterial District and Dwelling Unit Type
MAGISTERIAL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL
DISTRICT SF SFA SF/TH SFC DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS
RIO 9 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 19 19%
JACK JOUETT 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3%
RIVANNA 12 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 25 25%
SAMUEL MILLER 17 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 18 18%
SCOTTSVILLE 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10%
WHITE HALL 20 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 24 24%
TOTAL 71 6 20 0 0 0 1 1 99 100%
Table III. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Area and Dwelling Unit Type
DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL
SF SFA SF/TH SFC DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 8 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 18 18%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 5 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 18 18%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
17 4 19 0 0 0 0 0 40 40%
CROZET COMMUNITY 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 16%
HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2%
PINEY MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1%
17 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 19%
RIVANNA VILLAGE 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2%
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2%
36 6 19 0 0 0 0 0 61 62%
RURAL AREA 1 6 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 9 9%
RURAL AREA 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6%
RURAL AREA 3 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 11%
RURAL AREA 4 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 12%
35 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 38 38%
71 6 20 0 0 0 1 1 99 100%
TOTAL
DEVELOPMENT AREA SUBTOTAL
RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREA
URBAN AREAS SUBTOTAL
COMMUNITIES SUBTOTAL
VILLAGE SUBTOTAL
Prepared by the Albemarle County Community Development Dept. Information Services Division
- 4 -
4th Quarter 2014
II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE (continued)
Table IV. Breakdown of Residential Dwelling Units by Elementary School District and Dwelling Unit Type
% TOTAL
SF SF/TH DUP MHC UNITS
Agnor-Hurt 7 6 0 0 17%
Baker Butler 4 0 0 0 4%
Broadus Wood 2 0 0 1 3%
Brownsville 18 0 0 0 20%
Cale 7 0 0 0 7%
Crozet 1 0 0 0 1%
Greer 0 0 0 0 0%
Hollymead 0 0 0 0 0%
Meriwether Lewis 3 0 0 0 4%
Murray 6 1 0 0 7%
Red Hill 4 0 0 0 4%
Scottsville 2 0 0 0 2%
Stone Robinson 10 13 0 0 23%
Stony Point 5 0 0 0 5%
Woodbrook 1 0 0 0 1%
Yancey 1 0 0 0 1%
TOTAL
III. COMPARISON OF ALL BUILDING PERMITS
Table V. Estimated Cost of Construction by Magisterial District and Construction Type
MAGISTERIAL NEW *NEW NON-RES. **NEW COMMERCIAL FARM BUILDING
DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL & ALTER. RES. & NEW INSTITUT. & ALTER. COMM.
No. No. No. No. No.
RIO 19 39 1 30 89
JOUETT 3 15 0 12 30
RIVANNA 25 39 1 12 77
S. MILLER 18 33 0 6 57
SCOTTSVILLE 10 14 1 13 38
WHITE HALL 24 41 1 13 79
* Additional value of mobile homes placed in existing parks is included in the Alteration Residential category.
* Additional value of Single-Family Condominium Conversions is included in the Alteration Residential category.
0 0
0
20 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
4 0
2 0
0 0
0 0
SCHOOL
DISTRICT SFA SFC
DWELLING UNIT TYPE
MF AA
0
0
0 0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
2,477,000$
5,019,000$
99
430,793$
3,897,501$
181
8,470,396$
17,511,844$
9,933,011$
11,826,631$
3,773,788$
12,006,372$ 3,009,871$
771,851$
1,420,955$ 4,466,000$
500,000$
Amount-$
1,801,211$
2,545,313$
14,270,000$
6,171,800$
8,509,467$
1,041,244$
0
0
-$
1,100,000$
-$
1,167,000$
0
Amount-$
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
4
3
20
2
7
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
UNITS
23
5
1
1
4
4
860,000$
1
0
1
7
99
0
0
0
0
* Additional value of condominium shell buildings is included in the New Non-Residential category. Additional permitting associated with the
residential component of condominium shell buildings will be necessary and reported in other tables of the Building Report as permitting occurs.
** Additional value of mixed use buildings is included in the New Commercial category. Mixed use buildings are comprised of residential and
commercial uses. Additional permitting associated with the residential component of mixed use buildings will be necessary and reported in other
tables of the Building Report as permitting occurs.
TOTAL
100%
86 3708,624,758$ 63,522,042$
Amount-$
365,995$
1,416,441$
1
2,200,600$
Amount-$
71 6
TOTAL 40,913,267$ 11,137,017$ 4 2,847,000$
80,000$
Amount-$
Prepared by the Albemarle County Community Development Dept. Information Services Division
I. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units (Table I & Chart A)
II. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units by Type (Tables II, III, & IV)
III. Comparison of All Building Permits (Table V)
KEY TO TYPES OF HOUSING REFERRED TO IN REPORT
SF Single-Family (includes modular)
SFA Single-Family Attached
SF/TH Single-Family Townhouse
SFC Single-Family Condominium
DUP Duplex
MF Multi-Family
MHC Mobile Home in the County (not in an existing park)
AA Accessory Apartment
Community Development Department
2014
FOURTH QUARTER
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY REPORT
County of Albemarle
INDEX
Information Services Division
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296-5832
- 2 -
I. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units
Table I. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Development Area and Rural Area
Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural
1st Quarter 91 36 166 36 57 47 92 89 32 22 95 10 104 10 38 20
2nd Quarter 132 75 52 48 52 32 111 22 69 25 108 21 260 22 72 28
3rd Quarter 104 47 57 45 168 30 76 18 52 17 215 22 81 17 77 20
4th Quarter 66 62 65 42 69 63 52 24 268 22 258 23 55 29 70 50
393 220 340 171 346 172 331 153 421 86 676 76 500 78 257 118
Chart A. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Development Area and Rural Area
During the fourth quarter of 2014, 120 certificates of occupancy were issued for 120 dwelling units. There were two permits issued for mobile homes in existing parks, at
an exchange rate of $2,500, for a total of $5,000. There were no certificates of occupancy issued for the conversion of an apartment to a condominium.
2014
Totals
58
100
Quarter 20102009 2013201120072008 20142012
YEAR TO
DATE
TOTALS
484518
COMP PLAN
AREA
TOTALS
97
120
613 511 375578507752
Annual Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Dev
Area
Rural
Area
Dev
Area
Rural
Area
Dev
Area
Rural
Area
Dev
Area
Rural
Area
Dev
Area
Rural
Area
Dev
Area
Rural
Area
Dev
Area
Rural
Area
Dev
Area
Rural
Area
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014Dwelling UnitsAnnual Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units
SF Unit Other Units
Prepared by the Albemarle County Community Development Dept. Information Services Division
- 3 -
4th Quarter 2014
II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE
Table II. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Magisterial District and Dwelling Unit Type
MAGISTERIAL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL
DISTRICT SF SFA SF/TH SFC DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS
RIO 9 6 11 0 0 0 0 1 27 23%
JACK JOUETT 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3%
RIVANNA 18 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 22 18%
SAMUEL MILLER 17 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 21 18%
SCOTTSVILLE 13 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 15 13%
WHITE HALL 27 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 31 26%
TOTAL 88 6 20 0 0 0 5 1 120 100%
Table III. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Area and Dwelling Unit Type
DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL
SF SFA SF/TH SFC DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 3 6 11 0 0 0 0 0 20 17%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 9 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 13 11%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 2%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
13 6 16 0 0 0 0 0 35 29%
CROZET COMMUNITY 19 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 21 18%
HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 4%
PINEY MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3%
27 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 29 24%
RIVANNA VILLAGE 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 5%
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 5%
46 6 18 0 0 0 0 0 70 58%
RURAL AREA 1 13 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 17 14%
RURAL AREA 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 5%
RURAL AREA 3 13 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 15 13%
RURAL AREA 4 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 12 10%
42 0 2 0 0 0 5 1 50 42%
88 6 20 0 0 0 5 1 120 100% TOTAL
DEVELOPMENT AREA SUBTOTAL
RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREA
URBAN AREAS SUBTOTAL
COMMUNITIES SUBTOTAL
VILLAGE SUBTOTAL
Prepared by the Albemarle County Community Development Dept. Information Services Division
- 4 -
4th Quarter 2014
II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE (continued)
Table IV. Breakdown of Residential Dwelling Units by Elementary School District and Dwelling Unit Type
% TOTAL
SF SF/TH DUP MHC UNITS
Agnor-Hurt 3 11 0 0 17%
Baker Butler 9 0 0 0 8%
Broadus Wood 7 0 0 1 8%
Brownsville 19 2 0 1 18%
Cale 2 1 0 0 3%
Crozet 3 0 0 0 3%
Greer 1 0 0 0 1%
Hollymead 0 0 0 0 0%
Meriwether Lewis 4 0 0 0 3%
Murray 9 2 0 0 9%
Red Hill 3 0 0 0 3%
Scottsville 2 0 0 0 2%
Stone Robinson 14 4 0 1 16%
Stony Point 9 0 0 0 8%
Woodbrook 0 0 0 0 0%
Yancey 3 0 0 2 4%
TOTAL
III. COMPARISON OF ALL BUILDING PERMITS
Table V. Estimated Cost of Construction by Magisterial District and Construction Type
MAGISTERIAL #NEW *NEW NON-RES.**NEW COMMERCIAL FARM BUILDING
DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL & ALTER. RES.& NEW INSTITUT.& ALTER. COMM.
No. No. No. No. No.
RIO 27 13 3 14 57
JOUETT 4 14 0 5 23
RIVANNA 22 29 2 3 56
S. MILLER 21 26 2 1 50
SCOTTSVILLE 15 14 5 2 36
WHITE HALL 31 30 1 4 66
* Additional value of mobile homes placed in existing parks is included in the Alteration Residential category.
* Additional value of Single-Family Condominium Conversions is included in the Alteration Residential category.
* Additional value of condominium shell buildings is included in the New Non-Residential category. Additional permitting associated with the residential
component of condominium shell buildings will be necessary and reported in other tables of the Building Report as permitting occurs.
** Additional value of mixed use buildings is included in the New Commercial category. Mixed use buildings are comprised of residential and commercial
uses. Additional permitting associated with the residential component of mixed use buildings will be necessary and reported in other tables of the Building
Report as permitting occurs.
0 0
0 0
0
88 6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Amount-$
253,330$ 5,373,630$
0
SCHOOL
DISTRICT SFA SFC
DWELLING UNIT TYPE
MF
0 0
20 0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0 0
0
10,965,307$
0
750,000$
6,383,956$
0
TOTAL
Amount-$
0
0
Amount-$
1200
25,603,731$
13,996,200$
18,108,265$
175,000$
7,112,050$
10,041,000$
0 0
3
3
TOTAL
UNITS
20
9
9
22
0
0
0
00
AA
0
0
1
6 0
0 0
0
..
100%
29 28825,253,865$ 85,650,298$
19
9
0
5
15
5,316,800$
Amount-$ Amount-$
113,416$
2,928,200$
0
10,368,844$
6,708,756$ 13 13,657,269$
5,120,000$
00
0
0
423,800$
11
3
2
0
0
0
0
21,312,604$
7,388,500$ -$
0
0
1
0
4
2,516,425$
270,000$
TOTAL
9,061,647$ 225,000$
12640,030,408$
0 0
277,000$
480,000$
120
370,450$
1,254,860$
1,788,500$
3,322,081$
Prepared by the Albemarle County Community Development Dept. Information Services Division
I. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units (Table I & Chart A)
II. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units by Type (Tables II, III, & IV)
III. Comparison of All Building Permits (Table V)
KEY TO TYPES OF HOUSING REFERRED TO IN REPORT
SF Single-Family (includes modular)
SFA Single-Family Attached
SF/TH Single-Family Townhouse
SFC Single-Family Condominium
DUP Duplex
MF Multi-Family
MHC Mobile Home in the County (not in an existing park)
AA Accessory Apartment
INDEX
Community Development Department
2014
YEAR END
BUILDING REPORT
County of Albemarle
Information Services Division
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296-5832
- 2 -
I. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units
Table I. Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Development Area and Rural Area
2014
Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Totals
1st Quarter 81 64 267 57 78 49 38 20 91 24 372 26 70 25 102 26 89 30 119
2nd Quarter 101 80 232 38 86 53 71 26 65 27 58 29 310 25 110 37 83 36 119
3rd Quarter 65 67 73 67 47 47 50 30 358 23 82 37 47 28 71 41 90 48 138
.
4th Quarter 68 49 57 40 28 30 91 13 29 33 62 28 50 33 55 26 61 38 99
315 260 629 202 239 179 250 89 543 107 574 120 477 111 338 130 323 152
Chart A. Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Development Area and Rural Area
2014
During 2014, 474 building permits were issued for 475 dwelling units. There were nine permits issued for mobile homes in existing parks, at an exchange rate of
$2,500, for a total of $22,500. There were no permits issued for the conversion of an apartment to a condominium.
COMP PLAN
AREA
TOTALS
Quarter
YEAR TO
DATE
TOTALS
339831418
20132011
575
2012
475650694468588
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units
Prepared by the Albemarle County Community Development Dept. Information Services Division
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Dev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural Area2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014Dwelling UnitsNine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units
Other Units SF Unit
Prepared by the Albemarle County Community Development Dept. Information Services Division
- 3 -
Year End 2014
II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE
Table II. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Magisterial District and Dwelling Unit Type
MAGISTERIAL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL
DISTRICT SF SFA SF/TH SFC DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS
RIO 36 29 34 0 0 0 0 0 99 21%
JACK JOUETT 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 1%
RIVANNA 67 0 54 0 0 0 1 2 124 26%
SAMUEL MILLER 56 2 6 0 0 0 6 0 70 15%
SCOTTSVILLE 33 0 9 0 0 0 1 0 43 9%
WHITE HALL 111 4 11 0 0 0 4 2 132 28%
TOTAL 309 35 114 0 0 0 12 5 475 100%
Table III. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Area and Dwelling Unit Type
DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL
SF SFA SF/TH SFC DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 25 28 34 0 0 0 0 0 87 18%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 33 0 54 0 0 0 0 0 87 18%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 4 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 13 3%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1%
67 29 97 0 0 0 0 1 194 41%
CROZET COMMUNITY 80 4 11 0 0 0 0 0 95 20%
HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 3%
PINEY MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 2%
103 4 11 0 0 0 0 0 118 25%
RIVANNA VILLAGE 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 2%
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 2%
181 33 108 0 0 0 0 1 323 68%
RURAL AREA 1 28 2 6 0 0 0 4 1 41 9%
RURAL AREA 2 24 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 27 6%
RURAL AREA 3 45 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 48 10%
RURAL AREA 4 31 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 36 8%
128 2 6 0 0 0 12 4 152 32%
309 35 114 0 0 0 12 5 475 100% TOTAL
DEVELOPMENT AREA SUBTOTAL
RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREA
URBAN AREAS SUBTOTAL
COMMUNITIES SUBTOTAL
VILLAGE SUBTOTAL
Prepared by the Albemarle County Community Development Dept. Information Services Division
- 4 -
Year End 2014
II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE (continued)
Table IV. Breakdown of Residential Dwelling Units by Elementary School District and Dwelling Unit Type
% TOTAL
SF SF/TH DUP MHC UNITS
Agnor-Hurt 21 34 0 0 18%
Baker Butler 25 0 0 0 5%
Broadus Wood 16 0 0 3 4%
Brownsville 83 11 0 0 21%
Cale 13 9 0 0 5%
Crozet 12 0 0 0 3%
Greer 1 0 0 0 0%
Hollymead 6 0 0 0 1%
Meriwether Lewis 14 0 0 1 3%
Murray 22 6 0 0 6%
Red Hill 8 0 0 2 2%
Scottsville 13 0 0 0 3%
Stone Robinson 41 49 0 2 20%
Stony Point 23 5 0 0 6%
Woodbrook 5 0 0 0 1%
Yancey 6 0 0 4 2%
TOTAL
III. COMPARISON OF ALL BUILDING PERMITS
Table V. Estimated Cost of Construction by Magisterial District and Construction Type
MAGISTERIAL NEW *NEW NON-RES.**NEW COMMERCIAL FARM BUILDING
DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL & ALTER. RES.& NEW INSTITUT.& ALTER. COMM.
No. No. No. No. No.
RIO 99 125 4 145 373
JOUETT 7 60 3 54 124
RIVANNA 124 144 4 65 337
S. MILLER 70 163 3 51 287
SCOTTSVILLE 43 75 9 55 182
WHITE HALL 131 176 6 62 375
* Additional value of mobile homes placed in existing parks is included in the Alteration Residential category.
* Additional value of Single-Family Condominium Conversions is included in the Alteration Residential category.
0 0
0
114 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
29 0
4 0
0 0
0 0
SCHOOL
DISTRICT SFA SFC
DWELLING UNIT TYPE
MF AA
0
0
0 0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0
2
0
11,379,935$
37,070,902$
474
2,720,327$
9,234,507$
743
52,972,789$
40,628,639$
45,125,973$
50,531,945$
47,186,747$
59,225,240$ 4,266,691$
2,324,547$
4,053,327$ 19,860,630$
29,915,659$
Amount-$
6,226,434$
10,510,249$
16,520,100$
29,613,800$
37,267,149$
3,867,708$
0
0
15,549,784$
3,767,000$
430,000$
3,157,400$
0
Amount-$
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
84
25
19
99
13
22
12
0
0
2
6
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
TOTAL
UNITS
93
29
5
10
16
10
5,518,739$
1
0
5
30
475
1
0
0
0
* Additional value of condominium shell buildings is included in the New Non-Residential category. Additional permitting associated with the
residential component of condominium shell buildings will be necessary and reported in other tables of the Building Report as permitting occurs.
** Additional value of mixed use buildings is included in the New Commercial category. Mixed use buildings are comprised of residential and
commercial uses. Additional permitting associated with the residential component of mixed use buildings will be necessary and reported in other
tables of the Building Report as permitting occurs.
TOTAL
100%
432 1,67845,873,282$ 295,671,332$
Amount-$
3,170,826$
25,901,432$
12
4,691,047$
Amount-$
309 35
TOTAL 151,712,516$ 36,612,552$ 29 61,472,983$
8,653,140$
Amount-$
Prepared by the Albemarle County Community Development Dept. Information Services Division
I. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units (Table I & Chart A)
II. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units by Type (Tables II, III, & IV)
III. Comparison of All Building Permits (Table V)
KEY TO TYPES OF HOUSING REFERRED TO IN REPORT
SF Single-Family (includes modular)
SFA Single-Family Attached
SF/TH Single-Family Townhouse
SFC Single-Family Condominium
DUP Duplex
MF Multi-Family
MHC Mobile Home in the County (not in an existing park)
AA Accessory Apartment
Community Development Department
2014
YEAR END
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY REPORT
County of Albemarle
INDEX
Information Services Division
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296-5832
- 2 -
I. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units
Table I. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Development Area and Rural Area
Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural
1st Quarter 91 36 166 36 57 47 92 89 32 22 95 10 104 10 38 20
2nd Quarter 132 75 52 48 52 32 111 22 69 25 108 21 260 22 72 28
3rd Quarter 104 47 57 45 168 30 76 18 52 17 215 22 81 17 77 20
4th Quarter 66 62 65 42 69 63 52 24 268 22 258 23 55 29 70 50
393 220 340 171 346 172 331 153 421 86 676 76 500 78 257 118
Chart A. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Development Area and Rural Area
YEAR TO
DATE
TOTALS
484518
COMP PLAN
AREA
TOTALS
97
120
613 511 375578507752
During 2014, 375 certificates of occupancy were issued for 375 dwelling units. There were eleven permits issued for mobile homes in existing parks, at an exchange
rate of $2,500, for a total of $27,500. There were no certificates of occupancy issued for the conversion of an apartment to a condominium.
2014
Totals
58
100
Quarter 20102009 2013201120072008 20142012
Annual Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Dev
Area
Rural
Area
Dev
Area
Rural
Area
Dev
Area
Rural
Area
Dev
Area
Rural
Area
Dev
Area
Rural
Area
Dev
Area
Rural
Area
Dev
Area
Rural
Area
Dev
Area
Rural
Area
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014Dwelling UnitsAnnual Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units
SF Unit Other Units
Prepared by the Albemarle County Community Development Dept. Information Services Division
- 3 -
Year End 2014
II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE
Table II. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Magisterial District and Dwelling Unit Type
MAGISTERIAL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL
DISTRICT SF SFA SF/TH SFC DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS
RIO 31 27 35 0 0 0 0 2 95 25%
JACK JOUETT 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 2%
RIVANNA 56 0 24 0 0 0 2 0 82 22%
SAMUEL MILLER 32 2 5 0 0 0 3 1 43 11%
SCOTTSVILLE 33 0 15 0 0 0 2 0 50 13%
WHITE HALL 89 0 7 0 0 0 2 1 99 26%
TOTAL 246 29 86 0 0 0 9 5 375 100%
Table III. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Area and Dwelling Unit Type
DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL
SF SFA SF/TH SFC DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 13 26 25 0 0 0 0 1 65 17%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 29 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 53 14%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 1 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 16 4%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1%
45 27 64 0 0 0 0 2 138 37%
CROZET COMMUNITY 60 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 67 18%
HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY 15 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 21 6%
PINEY MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY 12 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 16 4%
87 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 104 28%
RIVANNA VILLAGE 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 4%
15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 4%
147 27 81 0 0 0 0 2 257 69%
RURAL AREA 1 25 2 5 0 0 0 1 1 34 9%
RURAL AREA 2 15 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 17 5%
RURAL AREA 3 32 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 36 10%
RURAL AREA 4 27 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 31 8%
99 2 5 0 0 0 9 3 118 31%
246 29 86 0 0 0 9 5 375 100% TOTAL
DEVELOPMENT AREA SUBTOTAL
RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREA
URBAN AREAS SUBTOTAL
COMMUNITIES SUBTOTAL
VILLAGE SUBTOTAL
Prepared by the Albemarle County Community Development Dept. Information Services Division
- 4 -
Year End 2014
II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE (continued)
Table IV. Breakdown of Residential Dwelling Units by Elementary School District and Dwelling Unit Type
% TOTAL
SF SF/TH DUP MHC UNITS
Agnor-Hurt 11 25 0 0 17%
Baker Butler 28 10 0 0 10%
Broadus Wood 16 0 0 1 5%
Brownsville 67 7 0 1 20%
Cale 3 15 0 0 5%
Crozet 7 0 0 0 2%
Greer 2 0 0 0 1%
Hollymead 1 0 0 0 0%
Meriwether Lewis 9 0 0 0 3%
Murray 14 5 0 0 6%
Red Hill 7 0 0 0 2%
Scottsville 11 0 0 1 3%
Stone Robinson 31 24 0 1 15%
Stony Point 31 0 0 2 9%
Woodbrook 2 0 0 0 1%
Yancey 6 0 0 3 2%
TOTAL
III. COMPARISON OF ALL BUILDING PERMITS
Table V. Estimated Cost of Construction by Magisterial District and Construction Type
MAGISTERIAL #NEW *NEW NON-RES.**NEW COMMERCIAL FARM BUILDING
DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL & ALTER. RES.& NEW INSTITUT.& ALTER. COMM.
No. No. No. No. No.
RIO 95 42 12 27 176
JOUETT 6 41 4 19 70
RIVANNA 82 87 12 33 214
S. MILLER 43 82 5 6 136
SCOTTSVILLE 50 39 8 5 102
WHITE HALL 99 101 4 7 211
* Additional value of mobile homes placed in existing parks is included in the Alteration Residential category.
* Additional value of Single-Family Condominium Conversions is included in the Alteration Residential category.
TOTAL
29,351,930$ 2,245,900$
392112,123,461$
0 0
1,554,000$
2,113,861$
375
1,161,850$
5,461,689$
5,666,000$
13,684,561$
00
0
1
459,300$
21
7
12
0
0
0
1
47,774,402$
21,628,461$ 8,328,500$
0
0
3
1
10
2,585,925$
27,256,999$
..
100%
97 90932,988,476$ 229,781,304$
56
33
3
9
59
8,495,300$
Amount-$ Amount-$
3,268,423$
7,315,609$
0
19,121,042$
23,577,001$ 45 61,092,366$
5,520,100$
0 0
18
7
TOTAL
UNITS
63
38
18
76
0
0
0
10
AA
0
0
1
27 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
37,518,819$
0
946,000$
17,932,336$
0
TOTAL
Amount-$
0
0
Amount-$
3750
73,591,316$
31,335,970$
20,474,015$
500,000$
22,591,879$
21,520,361$
SCHOOL
DISTRICT SFA SFC
DWELLING UNIT TYPE
MF
0 0
86 0
2
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
* Additional value of condominium shell buildings is included in the New Non-Residential category. Additional permitting associated with the residential
component of condominium shell buildings will be necessary and reported in other tables of the Building Report as permitting occurs.
** Additional value of mixed use buildings is included in the New Commercial category. Mixed use buildings are comprised of residential and commercial
uses. Additional permitting associated with the residential component of mixed use buildings will be necessary and reported in other tables of the Building
Report as permitting occurs.
0 0
0 0
0
246 29
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
Amount-$
703,430$ 19,454,630$
0
Prepared by the Albemarle County Community Development Dept. Information Services Division
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SP201400017 Ntelos “CV108” (Piney Mountain) Tier III
PWSF
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request to replace six (6) existing panel antennas on a
single array on an existing 150 foot self-support tower that
was previously approved by a special use permit in 1997
(SP9700022), and amended in 2003 (SP200200081). Two
special exceptions are required to permit the size of the
antennas and the mounting distance of the antennas from
the tower.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Benish and Perez
LEGAL REVIEW: no
AGENDA DATE:
March 11, 2015
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 27, 2015, by a vote of 7:0 recommended approval
of the above-noted petition and two associated Special Exceptions. The Planning Commission also directed the applicant
to hold a Community Meeting for the project before the item is sent to the Board of Supervisors for Public Hearing.
The applicant complied with the Commission’s request and held a community meeting on Thursday, February 19th from
5:00pm to 6:30pm at the Hollymead Community Room at the Hollymead Fire Rescue Station located at 3575 Innovation
Drive, Charlottesville, VA 22911. Two citizens attended the meeting, along with County Planning staff, a representative
from Ntelos and their legal counsil, and a representative from the tower owner (Crown Communication INC PMB).
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Economic Prosperity: Foster an environment that stimulates diversified job creation, capital investments, and tax revenue
that support community goals.
Natural Resources: Thoughtfully protect and manage Albemarle County’s ecosystems and natural resources in both the
rural and development areas to safeguard the quality of life of current and future generations.
DISCUSSION:
The applicant and staff responded to questions from the attendees. A prominent concern identified by the attendees is how
the property owner, or future property owners, of the property that the tower is located on would be aware of the 100 feet
tree conservation area around the tower site. To address the attendies concern the applicant has revised the conceptual
plan to provide a note (on Sheet A-0) citiing Section 5.1.40(c)5 of the Albemarle County Ordinance which requires the
tree conservation area. A radius depicting the tree conservation area has also been added to this same sheet. Please
note that one other technical correction was made to note #10 on sheet N-1 of the conceptual plan. Also, the County
Attorney has recommended Condition 5 be deleted from the conditions of approval because it is supplanted by the
procedures in the Zoning Ordinance (5.1.40 modifications are now by special exception, which is how the modifications
with this application were processed).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board: (1) adopt the attached Resolution approving SP 14-17 Ntelos “CV108” (Piney
Mountain) Tier III PWSF (Attachment A); and (2) adopt the attached Resolution approving the special exception for SP
14-17 (Attachment B).
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Resolution
Attachment B – Resolution
View PC actions and attachments
Return to agenda
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE
SP 2014-17 NTELOS “CV108” (PINEY MOUNTAIN) TIER III PWSF
WHEREAS, Crown Communications Inc. is the owner of Tax Map and Parcel Number 02100-00-
00-010A1 (the “Property”) and of the Tier III Personal Wireless Services Facility (the “PWSF”) located
thereon; and
WHEREAS, Virginia PCS Alliance, L.C., d/b/a NTELOS, who leases space on the PWSF, filed an
application for a special use permit to replace six existing panel antennas on a single array on the PWSF, and
the application is identified as Special Use Permit 2014-17 NTELOS “CV108” (Piney Mountain) Tier III
PWSF (“SP 2014-17”); and
WHEREAS, on January 27, 2015, after a duly noticed public hearing, the Albemarle County
Planning Commission recommended approval of SP 2014-17 with the conditions recommended by County
staff and directed the applicant to hold a community meeting for the project before the item was presented to
the Board of Supervisors for its consideration; and
WHEREAS, the community meeting was held on February 19, 2015, and non-substantive changes
were subsequently made to the plan as set forth in the Board of Supervisors March 11, 2015 Executive
Summary, and the changes to the plan did not warrant any changes to the conditions recommended by the
Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, on March 11, 2015, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors held a duly noticed
public hearing on SP 2014-17.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, upon consideration of the foregoing, the staff
report prepared for SP 2014-17 and all of its attachments, the information presented at the public hearing,
and the factors relevant to a special use permit in Albemarle County Code §§ 18-10.2.2(48) and 18-33.8, the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby approves SP 2014-17, subject to the conditions attached
hereto.
* * *
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as
recorded below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________.
__________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Ms. Dittmar ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Ms. McKeel ____ ____
Ms. Palmer ____ ____
Mr. Sheffield ____ ____
SP-2014-00017 NTELOS “CV108” (Piney Mountain) Tier III PWSF Conditions
1. The development of the site, and any modifications to the uppermost array at elevation 146’, shall be
in general accord with the plan titled “Piney Mountain CV108” prepared by Christopher D. Morin,
and dated 12/31/14 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the
Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall
reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the design of the
development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan:
a. Mounting type and distance
b. Antenna type and size
c. Number of antennae
d. Color
e. Location of ground equipment
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to
ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The tower shall not be increased in height.
3. The lowest array of panel antennas may be attached only as follows:
a. All equipment attached to the tower shall be painted to match the color of the tower. The cables
extending from the ground equipment may remain black;
b. The antennas shall not exceed seven (7) feet in height and two (2) feet in width;
c. No antenna shall project from the facility, structure or building 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 facility, structure or building.
d. The antennas and dishes attached to this tower may be replaced without amending this special use
permit, provided that the sizing, mounting distances and heights of the replacement equipment are in
compliance with these conditions of approval and in accordance with all applicable regulations set
forth in Section 5.1.40 of the Zoning Ordinance.
4. The tower shall be limited to a total of four (4) vertical arrays of panel antennas. No additional relay,
satellite or microwave dish antennas shall be permitted on the tower.
Attachment: Conceptual Plan
Return to exec summary
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL EXCEPTION
FOR SP 14-17 NTELOS “CV108” (PINEY MOUNTAIN) TIER III PWSF
WHEREAS, Crown Communications Inc. is the owner of Tax Map and Parcel Number 02100-00-
00-010A1 (the “Property”) and of the Tier III Personal Wireless Services Facility (the “PWSF”) located
thereon; and
WHEREAS, Virginia PCS Alliance, L.C., d/b/a NTELOS, who leases space on the PWSF, filed an
application for a special use permit to replace six existing panel antennas on the uppermost array on the
PWSF, which application is identified as Special Use Permit 2014-17 NTELOS “CV108” (Piney Mountain)
Tier III PWSF (“SP 2014-17”); and
WHEREAS, on January 27, 2015, the Planning Commission recommended approval of SP 2014-17
with conditions, and also recommended approval of a special exception to increase the size of three (3) of the
six (6) panel antennas and to increase the distance for six (6) of the panel antennas from the structure; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County Code § 18-5.1.40(c)(3)(i) establishes a maximum antenna size of
1,152 square inches, which may be modified by special exception; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County Code § 18-5.1.40(c)(ii) requires that antennas be mounted so that
their face extends no more than twelve (12) inches from the structure, which may be modified by special
exception; and
WHEREAS, when the uppermost array on the PWSF was originally approved, the antennas were
authorized to be mounted six (6) feet from the structure.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, upon consideration of the foregoing, the
Executive Summary, the Planning Commission staff report prepared in conjunction with the application, all
of the factors relevant to the special exception in County Code § 18-33.8, and the information provided at the
Board of Supervisors meeting, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby approves the special
exception to authorize the modification of County Code § 18-5.1.40(c)(3)(i) to increase the maximum size
of three (3) of the six (6) replacement antennas from 1,152 square inches to 1,385.83 square inches and the
modification of County Code § 18-5.1.40(c)(3)(ii) to increase the maximum mounting distances of six (6)
replacement antennas from the structure by an additional six (6) inches for the uppermost array from the
previously approved distance of six (6) feet for a total mounting distance of 6 feet 6 inches from the tower
for each antenna.
* * *
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as
recorded below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________.
__________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Ms. Dittmar ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Ms. McKeel ____ ____
Ms. Palmer ____ ____
Mr. Sheffield ____ ____
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 20, 2015
Virginia PCS Alliance, L.C., DBA Ntelos
1150 Shenandoah Village Dr
Waynesboro Va 22980
RE: SP201400017 – NTELOS “CV108” (Piney Mountain) Tier III Personal Wireless Service
Facility
To whom it may concern:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 27, 2015, by a vote of 7:0
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this recommendation is subject to the following conditions:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The development of the site, and any modifications to the uppermost array at elevation 146’, shall
be in general accord with the plan titled “Piney Mountain CV108” prepared by Christopher D.
Morin, and dated 12/31/14 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of
Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan,
development and use shall reflect the following major elements within the development essential
to the design of the development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan:
a. Mounting type and distance
b. Antenna type and size
c. Number of antennae
d. Color
e. Location of ground equipment
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to
ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The tower shall not be increased in height.
3. The lowest array of panel antennas may be attached only as follows:
a. All equipment attached to the tower shall be painted to match the color of the tower. The
cables extending from the ground equipment may remain black;
b. The antennas shall not exceed seven (7) feet in height and two (2) feet in width;
c. No antenna shall project from the facility, structure or building 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 facility, structure or building.
d. The antennas and dishes attached to this tower may be replaced without amending this special
use permit, provided that the sizing, mounting distances and heights of the replacement
equipment are in compliance with these conditions of approval and in accordance with all
applicable regulations set forth in Section 5.1.40 of the Zoning Ordinance.
4. The tower shall be limited to a total of four (4) vertical arrays of panel antennas. No additional
relay, satellite or microwave dish antennas shall be permitted on the tower.
5. This special use permit must be amended to allow the three uppermost arrays of panel antennas
to be: (a) relocated on the structure; (b) modified to increase the number of size of panel
antennas; or (c) modified to increase the distance of the panel antennas from the structure.
In addition, the Planning Commissiopn, by a vote of 7:0 recommended approval of the Special
Exceptions:
1. Section 5.1.40(c)(3)(i) - Modification of requirement to increase the size of three (3) of the six (6)
antennas to 1,385.83 square inches.
2. Section 5.1.40(c)3ii - Modification of requirement to increase the mounting distances of six (6)
panel antennas from the structure by an additional 6 inches for the uppermost array for a total
mounting distance of 6 foot 6 inches from the tower.
Note: The Planning Commission directed the applicant to hold a Community Meeting for the project
before the item goes to the Board of Supervisors for Public Hearing.
Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please do one of the following:
(1) Resubmit in response to Planning Commission recommendations
(2) Request indefinite deferral
(3) Request that your Board of Supervisors public hearing date be set
(4) Withdraw your application
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,
Christopher Perez
Senior Planner
Planning Division
Attachments: Staff report and attachments
PC minutes
Return to exec summary
1
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP201400017 Ntelos “CV108” (Piney
Mountain) Tier III PWSF (White Hall Magisterial District)
Staff: Christopher P. Perez, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
January 27, 2015
Board of Supervisors Hearing:
TBD
Owners: Crown Communications Inc and Phillip Haney Applicant: Jessica Wilmer, NTELOS
Acreage: 62 acres
Rezone from: Not applicable
Special Use Permit for: 10.2.2(48) Special Use
Permit, which allows for Tier III personal wireless
facilities in the RA Zoning District.
TMP: Tax Map 21 Parcel 10A1 and Tax Map 21 Parcel 10
Location: 5214 Dickerson Road
By-right use: RA, Rural Areas
Magisterial District: White Hall Proffers/Conditions: Yes, there are conditions
of approval for SP2002-81
Requested # of Dwelling Units/Lots: N/A DA - RA - X
Proposal: Request to replace six (6) existing panel
antennas on a single array on an existing 150 foot self-
support tower that was previously approved by a special
use permit in 1997 (SP9700022), and amended in 2003
(SP200200081). Two special exceptions are required to
permit the size of the antennas and the mounting distance
of the antennas from the tower.
Comp. Plan Designation: Rural Area in Rural
Area 1.
Character of Property: This property is zoned Rural
Areas, as well as all the surrounding properties. The tower
is an existing previously approved facility located atop
Piney Mountain. The site is located in a heavily wooded
area that provides screening of the ground equipment.
Use of Surrounding Properties: Rural Areas-
single family and vacant residential land.
Factors Favorable:
1. The proposal is on an existing facility and the
modification will not increase or cause any new
negative impacts to adjacent properties or
important resources.
2. The proposal will not increase the negative visual
impact of the existing tower.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. Alternative mounting style which
increases the antenna standoff distance
by 6 inches.
2. Increased antenna size to facilitate 4G
service.
Zoning Ordinance Waivers and Recommendations:
1. Included are special exceptions for Sections 5.1.40(c)(3)(i) and (c)(3)ii. Based on findings presented in
the staff report, staff recommends approval of SP201400017 and all special exception requests, with
conditions.
2
STAFF CONTACT: Christopher P. Perez, Senior Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION: January 27, 2015
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD
PETITION:
PROJECT: SP201400017 – NTELOS “CV108” (Piney Mountain) Tier III Personal Wireless
Service Facility
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 02100-00-00-010A1
LOCATION: 5249 Piney Mountain Road
PROPOSED: Request to replace six (6) existing panel antennas on a single array on an existing
150 foot self-support tower that was previously approved by a special use permit in 1997
(SP9700022), and amended in 2003 (SP200200081). Two special exceptions are required to
permit the size of the antennas and the mounting distance of the antennas from the tower.
PETITION: Section 10.2.2.48 Tier III personal wireless facilities (reference Section 5.1.40)
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA, Rural Areas- agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots);
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: NO
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Area 1 -preserve and protect
agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/
acre in development lots)
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
This property is zoned Rural Areas, as well as all the surrounding properties. The tower is an
existing previously approved facility located atop Piney Mountain. The site is located in a heavily
wooded area that provides screening of the ground equipment. No changes to the ground
equipment are proposed.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
SP9700022 – On August 20, 1997 the Board of Supervisors granted approval of the Special
Use Permit to allow the construction of the existing 150 foot tall self supported tower along with
three (3) antenna arrays (non flush mounted).
SDP199700115 - A site plan waiver was approved.
SP200200081 – On May 7, 2003 the Board of Supervisors granted approval of the Amendment
to the Special Use Permit to allow the co-location of a single array of nine (9) additional
antennas at approximately 93 feet on the existing 150-foot tall tower. Additional ground
equipment was also permitted. The amendment also limited the maximum number of arrays to
four (4).
DETAILS OF THE PROPOSAL:
Request to replace six (6) existing previously approved panel antennas on a single array at
approximately 146 foot on an existing 150 foot self-support tower with six (6) tri-band antennas.
The existing antennas were designed for 3G service and the replacement tri-band antennas will
provide 4G service. Three of the six proposed antennas will exceed the 1,152 square inch
requirement, measuring approximately 1,385.83 square inches. Also, in order to mount these
antennas the minimum distance from the face of the mount to the face of the antenna will be
increased approximately 6 inches. The existing array was approved as a non-flush mounted
array and currently has a mounting distance of 6 feet from the tower. In order to upgrade the
antennas the applicant requests a special exception to increase the distance of the antenna
from the tower to 6 foot 6 inches.
The antenna replacement proposal “substantially changes the physical dimensions of the
existing personal wireless service facility” as that phrase is uses in subsection 5.1.40(f) 2, 4, and
3
6 because the requirements of 5.1.40(c) 31 are not being met with this proposal. The applicant
requests two special exceptions: 1) to allow the size of the antennas to be greater than 1,152
square inches and 2) allow the minimum distance from the face of the mount to the face of the
antenna to exceeds the maximum 12” distance from the facility.
ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST:
Section 33.4 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be reviewed as
follows:
No Substantial detriment. The proposed special use will not be a substantial
detriment to adjacent lots?
The equipment upgrades will not substantially change the visual impact of the existing tower,
nor will the upgrades be of substantial detriment to the adjacent properties. The facility is
existing and no height increase is proposed, and no additional arrays or antennas are
proposed. Additional ground equipment is required with the upgrade and shall be stored in an
existing chain linked fence area in an existing shelter. The small change in antenna size and
mounting distance from the tower will not be discernible from adjacent properties or the
immediate surrounding area.
Character of the district unchanged. The character of the district will not be changed
by the proposed special use?
The equipment upgrades will not substantially change the visibility of the existing tower. The
facility is exists and no height increases are proposed. The color of the proposed antennas
will match that of the existing structure. It is staff’s opinion that the character of the RA, Rural
Area Zoning District will not be impacted by this proposal.
Harmony. The proposed special use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of
this chapter.
Staff finds that this request is consistent with the “purpose and intent” set forth in Sections 1.4
of the Zoning Ordinance, and as it relates to the intent specified in the Rural Areas chapter of
the Zoning Ordinance (Section 10.1).
…with the uses permitted by right in the district.
Since this request involves replacement of six (6) antennas on an existing previously
approved tower this proposal will not affect uses permitted by right in the district.
…with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community is protected through the
special use permit process, which assures that uses approved by special use permit are
appropriate in the location requested. The proposed replacement of antennas will provide
more reliable access to the wireless communication market, to include Rte 29, nearby
schools and residences. This can be seen as contributing to the public health, safety and
welfare. Otherwise, no change to the public health, safety and general welfare is expected
with approval of the request.
…with the regulations provided in section 5 as applicable
The county’s specific design criteria for Tier III facilities as set forth in section 5.1.40(e) are
addressed as follows [Ordinance sections are in bold italics]:
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.
1 “(i) … each antenna proposed under the pending application shall not exceed the size shown on the application, which size shall
not exceed one thousand one hundred fifty two (1,152) square inches; (ii) no antenna shall project from the facilit y, structure or
building 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 facility, structure or building”
4
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 33.4 of this chapter, initiated upon an
application satisfying the requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a), 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) subsections 5.1.40(c)(2) through (8)
and subsections 5.1.40(d)(2),(3) 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 33.4 special use
permits have been met. The County's specific design criteria for Tier III facilities set forth in
Sections 5.1.40(e)(1) and 5.1.40(e)(2) are addressed as follows:
Subsection 5.1.40(b)(1-5): Exemption from regulations otherwise applicable: Except as
otherwise exempted in this paragraph, each facility shall be subject to all applicable
regulations in this chapter.
The wireless facility is existing and meets the required setbacks. Antennae and equipment
specifications have been provided in Attachment B to demonstrate that personal wireless
service facilities (PWSF) regulations and any relevant site plan requirements set forth in Section
32 of the zoning ordinance have been addressed.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(2): The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as
follows: (i) guy wires shall not be permitted; (ii) outdoor lighting for the facility shall be
permitted only during maintenance periods; regardless of the lumens emitted, each
outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded as required by section 4.17 of this chapter; (iii)
any equipment cabinet not located within the existing structure shall be screened from
all lot lines either by terrain, existing structures, existing vegetation, or by added
vegetation approved by the county’s landscape planner; (iv) a whip antenna less than six
(6) inches in diameter may exceed the height of the existing structure; (v) a grounding
rod, whose height shall not exceed two (2) feet and whose width shall not exceed one (1)
inch in diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be installed at the top of facility
or the structure; and (vi) within one month after the completion of the installation of the
facility, the applicant shall provide a statement to the agent certifying that the height of
all components of the facility complies with this regulation.
The proposed changes to the tower do not require the installation of guy wires, nor will it be
fitted with any whip antennas. All other requirements of this subsection have been met.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(3): Equipment shall be attached to the exterior of a structure only as
follows: (i) the total number of arrays of antennas attached to the existing structure shall
not exceed three (3), and each antenna proposed to be attached under the pending
application shall not exceed the size shown on the application, which size shall not
exceed one thousand one hundred fifty two (1152) square inches; (ii) no antenna shall
project from the structure beyond the minimum required by the mounting equipment,
and in no case shall any point on the face of an antenna project more than twelve (12)
inches from the existing structure; and (iii) each antenna and associated equipment shall
be a color that matches the existing structure. For purposes of this section, all types of
antennas and dishes regardless of their use shall be counted toward the limit of three
arrays.
The number of existing arrays exceeds the three (3) that are permitted by the ordinance;
however, the previous Special Use Permit (SP2002-81) allowed for four (4) vertical arrays of
5
panel antennas and allowed the retention of the existing two (2) dish type antennas which were
already located on the facility. The top three (3) antenna arrays were previously approved in
1997 as non-flush mounted and currently have a mounting distance of 6 foot from the tower. As
part of this application the applicant requests a special exception to Section 5.1.40(c)(3)ii of the
ordinance to increase the mounting distances on the uppermost array for the six (6) panel
antennas from the structure by an additional 6 inches for a total mounting distance of 6 foot 6
inches from the tower.
Also, as part of this application the applicant requests a special exception to Section
5.1.40(c)(3)i of the ordinance to increase the size of three (3) of the six (6) antennas beyond the
maximum size of 1,152 square inches, to 1,385.83 square inches, which is 233.83 square
inches beyond that of the allowable size.
The intent of 5.1.40(c) is to insure minimal visibility of antennas on a structure and a
modification of this provision is generally discouraged. For this request, the antennas are
proposed on an existing steel self supported tower with four existing arrays, three of which have
antennas that currently exceed the 12 inch standoff distance by five foot. The proposed
mounting distance and slightly larger sized antenna would allow upgraded service to be
provided on an existing modified array, thereby eliminating the need to add a new array to the
tower. Given the existing visual impact of the tower, the resulting additional impact of the
additional 6 inch standoff distance and additional 233.83 square inches for the proposed
antennas on the existing array is not seen as significant. The proposal supports the use of an
existing structure to provide for service needs, and staff can recommend approval of the special
exception for this particular proposal.
The proposed changes to the tower meet all other relevant design criteria of this subsection.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(4): Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit
a tree conservation plan prepared by a certified arborist. The plan shall be submitted to
the agent for review and approval to assure that all applicable requirements have been
satisfied. The plan shall specify tree protection methods and procedures, and identify all
existing trees to be removed on the parcel for the installation, operation and
maintenance of the facility. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the
agent, the applicant shall not remove existing trees within the lease area or within one
hundred (100) feet in all directions surrounding the lease area of any part of the facility.
In addition, the agent may identify additional trees or lands up to two hundred (200) feet
from the lease area to be included in the plan.
The installation/replacement of the proposed antenna array for this personal wireless service
facility will not require the removal of any trees.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(5) The installation, operation and maintenance of the facility shall be
conducted in accordance with the tree conservation plan. 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 except for those trees identified on
the plan to be removed for installation, operation or maintenance of the facility. Dead
and dying trees identified by the arborist’s report may be removed if so noted on the tree
conservation plan. If tree removal is later requested that was not approved by the agent
when the tree conservation plan was approved, the applicant shall submit an amended
plan. The agent may approve the amended plan if the proposed tree removal will not
adversely affect the visibility of the facility from any location off of the parcel. The agent
may impose reasonable conditions to assure that the purposes of this paragraph are
achieved.
As stated above, this is an existing tower where no changes are proposed that will require the
removal of any trees.
6
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(6): Within thirty (30) days after a facility’s use for personal wireless
service purposes is discontinued, the owner of the facility shall notify the zoning
administrator in writing that the facility’s use has discontinued. The facility shall be
disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for
personal wireless service purposes is discontinued. If the agent determines at any time
that surety is required to guarantee that the facility will be removed as required, the
agent may require that the parcel owner or the owner of the facility submit a certified
check, a bond with surety, or a letter of credit, in an amount sufficient for, and
conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type and form of the surety guarantee
shall be to the satisfaction of the agent and the county attorney. In determining whether
surety should be required, the agent shall consider the following: (i) the annual report
states that the tower or pole is no longer being used for personal wireless service
facilities; (ii) the annual report was not filed; (iii) there is a change in technology that
makes it likely that tower or pole will be unnecessary in the near future; (iv) the permittee
fails to comply with applicable regulations or conditions; (v) the permittee fails to timely
remove another tower or pole within the county; and (vi) whenever otherwise deemed
necessary by the agent.
Should use of this facility discontinue at anytime in the future, nTelos and/or its assignee(s) will
be required to remove the facility within 90 days.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(7): 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.
This is an existing facility. No steep slopes are affected are affected by this proposal.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(8): Any equipment cabinet not located within an existing building
shall be fenced only with the approval of the agent upon finding that the fence: (i) would
protect the facility from trespass in areas of high volumes of vehicular or pedestrian
traffic or, in the rural areas, to protect the facility from livestock or wildlife; (ii) would not
be detrimental to the character of the area; and (iii) would not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or general welfare.
The existing ground equipment is contained in a fenced area and shelter that will also house the
new ground equipment; therefore, this proposal will not be detrimental to the character of the
area, or to the health, safety or general welfare of the public.
Section 5.1.40(d)(2): The site shall provide adequate opportunities for screening and the
facility shall be sited to minimize its visibility from adjacent parcels and streets,
regardless of their distance from the facility. If the facility would be visible from a state
scenic river or a national park or national forest, regardless of whether the site is
adjacent thereto, the facility also shall be sited to minimize its visibility from such river,
park or forest. If the facility would be located on lands subject to a conservation
easement or an open space easement, or adjacent to a conservation easement or open
space easement, the facility shall be sited so that it is not visible from any resources
specifically identified for protection in the deed of easement.
The existing self supported tower has been in place for over 17 years, with the most recent
amendment taking place over 11 years ago. The proposed changes are not expected to
increase the negative visual impact on neighboring properties or surrounding areas.
Section 5.1.40(d)(3): The facility shall not adversely impact resources identified in the
county’s open space plan.
7
The existing self supported tower has been in place for over 17 years, with the most recent
amendment taking place over 11 years ago. The proposed changes are not expected to
increase the negative visual impact on any resources in the open space plan.
Section 5.1.40(d)(7): Each 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.
This is an existing lattice tower and all proposed equipment will comply with the requirements.
Section 5.1.40(e)2: The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the special
use permit.
The facility complies with all conditions of approval of the special use permit (Section 33.4).
Section 704(a) (7) (b) (I) (II) of The Telecommunications Act of 1996:
This application is subject to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which provides in part that
the regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service
facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof (I) shall not unreasonably
discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; (II) shall not prohibit or have
the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. 47 U.S.C.
In order to operate this facility, the applicant is required to comply with the FCC guidelines for
radio frequency emissions that are intended to protect the public health and safety. Neither the
Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the provision of personal wireless
services. However, both do implement specific policies and regulations for the sighting and
design of wireless facilities. In its current state, the existing facilities and their mounting structure
all offer adequate support for providing personal wireless communication services. The
applicant has not provided any additional information regarding the availability, or absence of
alternative sites that could serve the same areas that would be covered with the proposed
antenna additions at this site. Therefore, staff does not believe that the special use permitting
process nor the denial of this application would have the effect of prohibiting or restricting the
provision of personal wireless services.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal:
Factors favorable to this request include:
1. The proposal is on an existing facility and the modification will not increase or cause any
new negative impacts to adjacent properties or important resources.
2. The proposal will not increase the negative visual impact of the existing tower.
Factors unfavorable to this request include:
8
1. Alternative mounting style which increases the antenna standoff distance by 6 inches.
2. Increased antenna size to facilitate 4G service.
In order to comply with Section 5.1.40(d) of the Zoning Ordinance if recommended for denial,
the Planning Commission is required to provide the applicant with a statement regarding the
basis for denial and all items that will have to be addressed to satisfy each requirement.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of SP 2014-00017 nTelos CV108 Piney
Mountain Tier III PWSF with the conditions listed below, and of the requested special
exceptions to Section 5.1.40(c)(3)(i) and Section 5.1.40(c)3ii based on the analysis provided
herein.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The development of the site, and any modifications to the uppermost array at elevation
146’, shall be in general accord with the plan titled “Piney Mountain CV108” prepared by
Christopher D. Morin, and dated 12/31/14 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined
by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with
the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the following major elements
within the development essential to the design of the development, as shown on the
Conceptual Plan:
a. Mounting type and distance
b. Antenna type and size
c. Number of antennae
d. Color
e. Location of ground equipment
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be
made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The tower shall not be increased in height.
3. The lowest array of panel antennas may be attached only as follows:
a. All equipment attached to the tower shall be painted to match the color of the tower.
The cables extending from the ground equipment may remain black;
b. The antennas shall not exceed seven (7) feet in height and two (2) feet in width;
c. No antenna shall project from the facility, structure or building 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 facility, structure or building.
d. The antennas and dishes attached to this tower may be replaced without amending
this special use permit, provided that the sizing, mounting distances and heights of the
replacement equipment are in compliance with these conditions of approval and in
accordance with all applicable regulations set forth in Section 5.1.40 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
4. The tower shall be limited to a total of four (4) vertical arrays of panel antennas. No
additional relay, satellite or microwave dish antennas shall be permitted on the tower.
5. This special use permit must be amended to allow the three uppermost arrays of panel
antennas to be: (a) relocated on the structure; (b) modified to increase the number of
size of panel antennas; or (c) modified to increase the distance of the panel antennas
from the structure.
9
Zoning Ordinance Special Exceptions:
1. Section 5.1.40(c)(3)(i) - Modification of requirement to increase the size of three (3) of
the six (6) antennas to 1,385.83 square inches.
2. Section 5.1.40(c)3ii - Modification of requirement to increase the mounting distances of
six (6) panel antennas from the structure by an additional 6 inches for the uppermost
array for a total mounting distance of 6 foot 6 inches from the tower.
Motions (Two Separate):
Motion One for Special Exceptions: The Planning Commission’s role is to recommend
approval or denial of the Special Exceptions to Section 5.1.40(c)(3)i and Section 5.1.40(c)(3)ii of
the Zoning Ordinance.
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of the Special
Exception to Section 5.1.40(c)(3)i and Section 5.1.40(c)(3)ii
I move to recommend granting the Special Exceptions for the reasons outlined in
the staff report.
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of these Special
Exceptions:
I move to recommend denial of the Special Exceptions outlined in the staff report.
(Planning Commission needs to give a reason for denial)
Motion Two for Special Use Permit: The Planning Commission’s role in this case
(SP20140017) 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 20140017 nTelos CV108 Piney Mountain with
the conditions outlined in the staff report.
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of this Tier III personal
wireless service facility:
I move to recommend denial of SP 20140017 nTelos CV108 Piney Mountain.
(Planning Commission needs to give a reason for denial)
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Parcel and Location Maps
B. Concept Plan
C. Photo Simulations
D. SP97-22 CFW Wireless (Piney Mountain) Approval Letter, dated August 11, 1997
E. SP2002-81 Phillip Haney – Crown Tower Piney Mountain Amendment Approval Letter,
dated May 20, 2003.
Return to PC actions letter
Existing View
CV108 Piney Mountain
5249 Piney Mountain Rd., Charlottesville, VA
LTE Equipment UpgradeSimulation
Existing ViewCV108 Piney Mountain
5249 Piney Mountain Rd., Charlottesville, VA
LTE Equipment UpgradeSimulation
Existing View
CV108 Piney Mountain
5249 Piney Mountain Rd., Charlottesville, VA
LTE Equipment UpgradeSimulation
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES – JANUARY 27, 2015 DRAFT 1
Submitted to PC 2/10/2015
Albemarle County Planning Commission
January 27, 2015
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, January 27, 2015, at 6:00 p.m., at
the County Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Cal Morris, Chair; Karen Firehock, Richard Randolph, Thomas Loach, Bruce Dotson, Tim
Keller, and Mac Lafferty, Vice Chair. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was
present.
Other officials present were Bill Fritz, Manager of Special Projects; Chris Perez, Senior Planner; Amanda Burbage,
Senior Planner; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Sharon Taylor, Clerk to
Planning Commission and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Morris, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Public Hearing Item:
SP-2014-00017 Ntelos “CV108” (Piney Mountain) Tier III PWSF
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 02100-00-00-010A1
LOCATION: 5249 Piney Mountain Road
PROPOSED: Request to replace six (6) existing panel antennas on a single array on an existing 150 foot self -support
tower that was previously approved by a s pecial use permit in 1997 (SP9700022), and amended in 2003
(SP200200081). With the proposal two special exceptions are required to permit the size of the antennas and the
mounting distance of the antennas.
PETITION: Section 10.2.2.48 Tier III personal wireless facilities (reference Section 5.1.40)
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA, Rural Areas- agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential
density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots);
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: NO
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Area 1 -preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open
space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre in development lots)
(Chris Perez)
Staff Presentation:
Chris Perez presented a PowerPoint presentation to review SP-2014-00017Ntelos “CV108” (Piney Mountain) Tier III
PWSF which is an amendment to an existing special of SP-2002-00081. The proposal before the Planning
Commission is a Tier III because they are swapping out an existing array of antennas to a bigger size than w hat was
shown on the previously approved plans as well as changing the mounting distance from what was shown on the
previously approved plans or construction drawing. If the applicant was just sw apping them out with new antennas
that were the same size and distance they would not be here today.
The property is tax map 21, parcels 1A-1 and 10. The property is located on U.S. 29 and has an existing tower on it.
It is heavily wooded and at the top of Piney Mountain. The existing tower is a 100’ self -supported tower. They are
going to be talking about the upper most arrays today. It was previously approved in 1997 with a special use permit
in addition to the following one below it as well as the other one below it. The lowest array was approved in 2003
through a special use permit as well.
As part of the request the applicant requests two Zoning Ordinance Modifications:
• Section 5.1.40(c)(3)(i) - Modification of requirement to increase the size of three (3) of the six (6) panel
antennas to 1,385.83 square inches, which is 233.83 square inches beyond the allowable size in the
ordinance.
• Section 5.1.40(c)3ii - Modification of requirement to increase the mounting distances of six (6) panel
antennas from the structure by an additional 6 inches for the upperm ost array for a total mounting distance
of 6 foot 6 inches from the tower. The mounting distance was previously approved as a non flush mount
array and they were given 5 foot 12 inches, which is a total of 6 foot off the tower previously. They are
asking for a 6 inch addition to that.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES – JANUARY 27, 2015 PARTIAL DRAFT
Partial Draft SP-2014-00017 Ntelos “CV108” (Piney Mountain) Tier III PWSF – Submit to BOS
2
In the review of the existing and proposed tower in the presentation staff pointed out the panel antennas have moved
inwards and are a little bit larger. However, it is hard to notice the 6 inch additions. Again, they are only swapping
out the top array, which is what they are talking about.
Factors Favorable:
1. The proposal is on an existing facility and the modifications will not increase or cause any new impacts to
adjacent properties or important resources.
2. The proposal will not increase the negative visual impacts of the existing tower.
Factors Unfavorable:
The applicant needs the following two modifications:
1. Alternative mounting style which increases the antenna standoff distance by 6 inches.
2. Increased antenna size to facilitate 4G service.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of SP 2014-00017 Ntelos CV108 Piney Mountain Tier III PWSF
with staff’s recommended conditions listed in the staff report, and of the requested special exceptions to Section
5.1.40(c)(3)(i) and Section 5.1.40(c)3ii.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Randolph noted that he was going to ask a series of questions in order to get them on the record and get
everyone on the same page. First, he asked is this a new cell tower.
Mr. Perez replied this is an existing tower and not new. It was originally approved in 1997 with the top three arrays
and the lowest array was approved in 2003.
Mr. Randolph said it is suggested that the access easements will expire in 2017. He asked if that is correct.
Mr. Perez replied that staff does not really get involved with that. He was not sure about the private agreements with
regards to the access easements.
Mr. Randolph asked if it is correct that there is a 200 foot tree maintenance area around this site.
Mr. Perez replied the conditions from 2002 have that condition in there that states no existing trees within 200 feet of
the facility shall be removed for the purposes of installing the proposed antennas or any supporting ground
equipment.
Mr. Randolph asked if that remark thereby is accurate.
Mr. Perez replied currently it does have a 200 foot tree removal buffer for the purposes of installing the proposed
antennas.
Mr. Randolph asked if the trees cannot be removed, and Mr. Perez agreed.
Mr. Randolph asked if this is a nonconforming tower.
Mr. Fritz replied no, it is in compliance with the issued special use permit.
Mr. Randolph asked if legally it was a correct remark that the 2003 special use permit was intended to have been the
last upgrade allowed to the tower.
Mr. Perez replied no, he does not believe so based on the conditions and how they read. Specifically condition #9
states this special use permit must be amended to allow the three (3) existing arrays o f panel antennas to be: (a)
relocated on the structure; (b) modified to increase the number of size of panel antennas; or (c) modified to increase
the distance of the panel antennas from the structure. So if they wanted to come back in they would just need to go
through the procedures.
Mr. Randolph noted the next question would be directed to Mr. Kamptner. He asked should cell towers under any
circumstances be allowed to not upgrade. He asked if it is legal for us as a community to prevent an upgrade of a
cell tower.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES – JANUARY 27, 2015 PARTIAL DRAFT
Partial Draft SP-2014-00017 Ntelos “CV108” (Piney Mountain) Tier III PWSF – Submit to BOS
3
Mr. Kamptner replied as technology changes that could result in a prohibition of services which they are not allowed
under the Telecommunications Act. Prohibiting upgrades also might result in discriminatory treatment among various
types of services, which is also prohibited by the Telecommunications Act.
Mr. Fritz pointed out the way the ordinance reads now that any tower in the county that was approved prior to the
adoption of the existing ordinance or policies that has any sort of condition on it that says no further use of this tower,
that condition no longer has any force. If they can comply with the provisions of the ordinance in effect now they may
be able to use that facility. That was done specifically to allow the use of existing vertical real est ate.
Mr. Randolph said on page 3 of the staff report summary under the no substantial detriment section the statement is
made that the small change in antenna size and mounting distance from the tower will not be discernible from
adjacent properties or the intermediate surrounding area. He asked if that is an accurate remark.
Mr. Perez replied that he feels it is from the photo simulations as well as going out to the site since it is a really large
structure at the top of a mountain. For 6 inches off of the existing setback from the existing tower mounting distance
he did not see how they could see that from adjacent properties.
Mr. Randolph thanked staff for the responses.
Mr. Morris invited other questions from the Commission.
Mr. Kamptner said regarding the question about removing trees within 200 feet based upon the 2003 special use
permit, that has just been replaced by a regulation, which this facility would be subject to, which prohibits removing
existing trees within the lease area or within 100 feet in all directions surrounding the lease area. The 2003 special
use permit preceded the regulations by one year.
Mr. Lafferty asked why is this not in the entrance corridor because you can see the tower from Route 29 easily in any
direction.
Mr. Fritz replied because the property does not front on Route 29 and is more than 500 feet from Route 29.
Mr. Dotson asked are the drawings on the slides to the same scale.
Mr. Perez relied yes, the drawing are in the concept plan side by side as well.
There being no further questions, Mr. Morris opened the public hearing to the applicant and public comment. He
invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Valerie Long, with the firm Williams Mullen and representative for the applicant Ntelos, prese nted a PowerPoint
presentation to explain the request. She thanked staff for their answers to the good questions that were asked. The
Commission has covered a number of the issues that she was going to address. She would be brief because the
Commission has covered a lot of the issues and it sounds like everyone is very familiar with the proposal. However,
just to be safe in case anyone is not she would explain the proposal.
This is a proposal by Ntelos Wireless to swap out their existing panel antennas o n an existing tower, which is owned
by a different company. It is a tower that has been in place since 1997. These are the original antennas that were
put into place in 1997. So they can image the changes in technology and the wireless industry that have taken place
since then. Obviously it has been a very dramatic change. This is the first application of many that Ntelos will have in
Albemarle County to upgrade its panel antennas to provide 4G service to its customer. They are working very closely
with staff and hope that some of those might be Tier I applications so they don’t have to file special use permits for
every one of them. It looks like they are going to have at least 50. However, this request is a special use permit
application because as Mr. Perez noted for two reasons. One, the panel antenna is slightly larger than the maximum
size that is permitted. They think the maximum size is outdated and have been working with staff about trying to
figure out what a more appropriate updated size m ight be. Also, the new technology requires the panel antennas to
be slightly thicker than they were back in 1997. So it is very difficult to achieve the flush mounting requirement or
even to keep it the same distance as it has been. So that explains the 6 inch difference. The tower location with
regard to Route 29 and the winding access road was shown on a GIS map. In the same photo simulation staff
presented she pointed out the close up and far away view recognizing that more folks will see it from Rou te 29 than
who live close by. However, the people will see it both close in and far away.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES – JANUARY 27, 2015 PARTIAL DRAFT
Partial Draft SP-2014-00017 Ntelos “CV108” (Piney Mountain) Tier III PWSF – Submit to BOS
4
In reviewing the coverage or propagation maps Ms. Long pointed out the existing 3G coverage levels from this facility
only, the strongest signal, the existing weaker signal, and the areas with no 3G coverage. She pointed out the
improvement going from 3G to 4G, which is the type of increase in coverage they are looking for . With Route 29
being a heavily traveled U.S. highway and being in very close proximity to the National Ground Intelligence Center
and the Defense Intelligence Agency at Rivanna Center, the large employment centers, and others nearby including
residences many people will benefit from the enhanced 4G service with their data plans, access downloads , help with
access to the internet for students and folks working from home or just otherwise conducting the ir daily business
since it requires access to the internet to do that. In a different view just for information it shows some of Ntelos other
facilities in the general corridor and the existing 3G coverage. She pointed out in the next slide how the entire
corridor will be improved with 4G. The in building coverage will be much broader, which will enable everyone’s phone
to work inside their homes or business. She would be happy to answer any questions. She knows there have been
some concerns raised by some of the adjacent landowners and she would be happy to address those as appropriate
during the rebuttal period at the end.
Mr. Morris invited questions for Ms. Long.
Mr. Loach noted that she had mentioned the 50 upcoming requests The Commission has already approved some of
these additional 6 inches on some of the other monopoles. He asked if they have already done some of those.
Ms. Long replied not for Ntelos. However, they may have approved some for Verizon.
Mr. Loach asked if some of the 50 they have coming up were on monopoles.
Ms. Long replied that the vast majority would be. She assumed when he says monopole that he means sort of a
treetop style pole.
Mr. Loach replied yes, the ones that go 7’ to 10’.
Ms. Long replied that a large number of them will be ones where they have co-located on an existing structure like a
building, water tank, or power line pole. However, again for all of them in order for them to have the technology work
this antenna panel is larger than the maximum size. So even on those tree top poles they won’t be able to meet that
standard. Although as Mr. Fritz will tell you he and I are working closely on collabor ating on ordinance amendments
that would hopefully address that so those co-location upgrades don’t have to be special use permits. They may
recall in early December there was a public hearing for a resolution of intent on a new ordinance to figure out ho w to
implement new FCC regulations that actually anticipated a lot of these system upgrades and that will in many cases
require those co-locations they think to be by right. She appreciates the opportunity to provide that clarity.
Mr. Dotson asked are there no 4G antennas manufactured that would meet the current county ordinance.
Ms. Long replied there may be for other carriers. However, Ntelos essentially has to provide 3G and 4G service at
the same time because some of their customers will elect not to upgrade to 4G phones. Therefore, they always have
to maintain 3G service. Ntelos is also the local provider for Sprint’s network since they have a regional agreement
with Sprint. So anyone who is a Sprint customer in Albemarle County and other places in Virginia, not all but many
others, are actually using the Ntelos network. Although those companies have similar technology that enables that to
work it is not identical now as technology has improved. Sprint has bought some new spectrum in one area to get
more for their customers. Ntelos has had to go and buy a little bit more spectrum in other areas. They are all trying to
get enough spectrums to meet the needs of their customers. In order to do that they need to have signals on all band
widths. So this antenna they are bringing forth tonight is the one antenna that enables them to achieve all of those
goals at once with a signal antenna. Otherwise, they would have to use many more. But, this is the one they feel will
work the best to address all those issues.
There being no further questions, Mr. Morris invited public comment.
Gregory Quinn said it was really funny that national security and cell service depends on Mr. Boldt and him in the
middle of the night sawing up the pines that come down in an ice storm. It makes him feel real important. He pointed
out there is a road maintenance agreement that e xpires in 2017. When he bought the property he realized that he
was responsible as per the deed for 20 percent of the road cost regardless. He has no vote or say so in it. It is just
his stupidity for not listening to his lawyer. However, the b ottom line is the United States government pays a nominal
amount and whatever the cost is every year he pays the rest. He figures by 2017 maybe this agreeme nt will expire
and his cost would go down. He was not saying poor pitiful me, but he does not make the money that the
government does as NGIC, Ntelos and others. So he wants to put a stop to this whole thing until there is a
guaranteed equitable solution to a road maintenance agreement. Furthermore, Comcast bought a 5 acre piece of
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES – JANUARY 27, 2015 PARTIAL DRAFT
Partial Draft SP-2014-00017 Ntelos “CV108” (Piney Mountain) Tier III PWSF – Submit to BOS
5
land right next door, which would give them a deeded access to th e property next door. His property borders both
properties. He did not feel that he should take up the difference in costs. Until this thing is settled on the
maintenance agreement where he does not have to pay for their trucks going up and down, he thinks it should stop.
Inadvertently he is stuck with subsidizing Comcast. He does not have a say in it because he signed the deed. So he
would like them to arbitrate this and they will work it out. He would appreciate if they would want to sit down and work
this out because he did not think it was fair or equitable.
Mr. Loach asked if they were talking about the road into his property.
Mr. Quinn replied it is Piney Mountain Road, which he has to pay 20 percent of the maintenance costs to access his
property. He thinks Mr. Boldt actually owns the land itself and he has deeded access. He has a copy of the deed if
they want to read it. After the United States government pays a nominal amount he has to pay 20 percent of the total
road cost all the way to the top of the mountain. It is not on the little side road that goes over, but to the top of the
mountain. He is stuck paying it and it is the road to his home.
Mr. Randolph asked if there is a manually or electronically operated gate, and Mr. Quinn replied there was.
Mr. Randolph asked if that gate was there when he bought the piece of property.
Mr. Quinn replied yes, but it has been upgraded.
Charles Boldt, resident of 5260 Piney Mountain Road, said he also owns and maintains all of Piney Mountain Road.
The Crown Castle site is accessed from Piney Mountain Road on a shared driveway that was built to construct a
tower in 1997. This tower is on a ridge and not at the top of Piney Mountain Road. An administrative decision was
made that no community meeting would be held for the special use permit , which was an unfortunate act given the
concerns of the neighbors regarding development. Because all of the issues were not addressed in a community
meeting they are here tonight to say they object rather than they support. The community meeting is the forum they
would have been entitled to so their concerns would have been addressed.
In 2003 it was very clear the Board of Supervisors was concerned about this tower and put a bunch of restrictions on
it. What they are being asked tonight to do is modify those restrictions. Crown Castle purchased the adjacent
property to their site. He did not know why, but it does provide a better site for a cell phone tower. Crown Castle also
has two years remaining on their road maintenance agreement to their cell site. However, they are two years in
arrears on the maintenance agreement for the piece of property that they bought. Some of the history is there and
they have talked about it. They are a little concerned about the trees because a number of those trees have died,
and he was not sure that the buffer that was intended has remained. He also is not sure the height that was used to
establish the tower height is the height that would be used today. It is his opinion that the interest of all parties are
best served by deferring action until a community meeting can be hel d with all affected parties and all relevant
documents required. Attorney Long called him at 4:00 p.m. this afternoon and offered such a meeting. He reached
out to Crown Castle on the 9th of January when he became aware of this and until Attorney Long ca lled today he
heard nothing from them about his concerns, which is why he sent the email this morning. He was prepared to
answer any questions. He was probably the most knowledgeable person about Piney Mountain and this road.
Mr. Morris invited questions for Mr. Boldt.
Mr. Dotson said he thinks this is probably a civil matter, but he is curious. He asked if he said they are two years in
arrears on their contributions to the maintenance. He asked if he had a dollar figure in mind.
Mr. Boldt replied Crown in 2003 when T Mobile went on this site agreed to pay an amount of money that escalated
over a year by a nominal amount until the expiration of the easements in 2017. When they purchased the property
adjacent to the Pitts they should have received notice of this meeting and did not. Therefore, he thinks it means this
meeting is invalid. He would like that to be determined. Basically, they bought a piece of land and notice should be
given not to themselves but the next landowner. He talked to Marilyn Pitts at 3:00 p.m. and she had not received
notice. So he has a question about notice. To answer the question he pointed out when they purchased that
property it triggered a maintenance agreement that the previous owner had signed. The previous owner, who was
one of the original Shiffletts from the family division that occurred, agreed she would pay nothing unless she built a
house or sold the land. She sold the land and it triggered the agreement. He did not find out the land had been sold
until Mr. Perez sent him the documents that had been submitted. So there is some confusion. That is the sort of
thing that he feels a community meeting would have resolved. The amount of money is roughly another $700, but he
has not done the calculation. So they would be paying approximately $1,200 for road maintenance.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES – JANUARY 27, 2015 PARTIAL DRAFT
Partial Draft SP-2014-00017 Ntelos “CV108” (Piney Mountain) Tier III PWSF – Submit to BOS
6
There being no further public comment, Mr. Morris closed the public hearing and asked if Ms. Long is she would like
to take advantage of the five minute rebuttal.
Ms. Long pointed out staff’s determination was the maintenance agreement and any expenses associated with that
were really beyond the scope of the Commission’s purview, which she certainly won’t dispute. However, for clarity it
is helpful to know her conversation with Mr. Boldt earlier helped her understand the situation as well as the
conversations she had earlier with Crown Castle, which is the company that owns the tower. As he indicated back in
2003 when Crown, the tower owner, received an amendment to the existing special use permit to add the fourth array
for T Mobile they voluntarily commenced paying maintenance fees to Mr. Boldt. According to Crown’s records, which
she received a copy of today, that started in 2007 and the most recent payments were in October of this year. It was
paid every year in October. It started around $500 and it is now about $680. He is also correct that when they
bought an adjacent parcel to help with their access they did take title to obligations of a maintenance agreement that
was previously recorded as he described. However, no notices have ever been sent to Crown, Ntelos or anyone else
that any maintenance payments were owed much less overdue. So she agrees this is an issue that should be
discussed and handled between Mr. Boldt and other neighbors who have interest in the maintenance of the road and
Crown.
Ms. Long said she wanted to provide clarity to the extent that it reflects on Ntelos as the applicant. First, they are
making the payments already. The parties need to get together and perhaps update their agreements in light of the
fact they have purchased this adjacent parcel and Mr. Boldt was not aware of it. They were u nder no obligation to
notify him of that. Perhaps the prior owner should have in good faith notified them that she had sold the land and thus
triggers that. She just wanted to add that clarification so that nobody thought Crown was not paying to maintain a
road. They are and, in fact, it is a very well maintained road certainly as far as cell towers and others that she has
been on. Otherwise, she was happy to answer any questions. She appreciates everyone taking the time to listen to
our concerns on the proposal.
Mr. Morris agreed this is not a matter the Commission will be taking up. It is a matter that should be clarified before it
goes to the Board and Ms. Long clearly identified that.
Mr. Loach asked Ms. Long about the community meeting.
Ms. Long replied as she told Mr. Boldt she was happy to say to each one that she appreciates his position on the fact
there was not a community meeting. As she told him she thinks staff was looking at it in a narrow fashion about the
Ntelos application. However, she was not saying that was right or wrong. But, having him share his experiences with
other applications nearby and some of the issues that have gone on she can appreciate why he was frustrated that
there was not a community meeting. So she told him if it would be helpful they could help facilitate a meeting with the
neighbors, Crown and Ntelos. At a minimum they can explain the proposal, answer their questions and try to address
their concerns. So they would be happy to do that.
Mr. Loach asked if that could be facilitated by the time it goes to the Board.
Ms. Long replied that she would expect so since the Board meeting has not been set yet. They would be happy to do
that.
Mr. Morris noted the public comment session has been closed and the matter was before the Commission for
discussion and action.
Mr. Randolph asked staff to shed some light on the thinking within the Community Development Department as to
why this particular special use permit did not have a community meeting. He knows that there is a rationale and
explanation under Community Development policy. He asked why that did not happen.
Mr. Perez replied that he did not know the exact reason why. He knows that the Director of P lanning makes that
decision when the special use permit comes in for a pre-application meeting they have for their mandatory pre-app.
He believes he would not require one either based on the fact that it is an existing tower with minimal changes.
Those are the reasons he would not do it if he was making that decision.
Mr. Loach said he would assume if there was a threshold of interest in the neighbors and if he thought it was
problematic that they might facilitate such a meeting.
Mr. Perez noted that staff had not heard anything from any citizens until about a week and a half ago.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES – JANUARY 27, 2015 PARTIAL DRAFT
Partial Draft SP-2014-00017 Ntelos “CV108” (Piney Mountain) Tier III PWSF – Submit to BOS
7
Mr. Fritz said he was not aware of the Community Development Department recommending or requiring a community
meeting for any co-location. If there were a co-location where they were significantly altering the facility he was sure
they would ask for that. He was confirming what Mr. Perez said.
Mr. Loach noted the issue of “valid notification” was raised. The property owner that notified was potentially the
owner. He asked what the parameters are for notification and what action they took.
Mr. Perez replied they notify all abutting property owners where the site is. If that property owner owns a property
next to it then they skip it and then get the next property over that is not owned by them. They would not be notifying
people who are located on an access road. It would have to actually be the parcel next to it.
Mr. Loach asked Mr. Kamptner if the scope of the decision tonight is a recommendation.
Mr. Kamptner replied it was a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for both the special use permit and the
special exception.
Mr. Loach said before he makes a motion he thinks the scope of this request is narrow enough and is consistent to
what they voted for before on leaving the extension of the additional 6” and the thickness. He asked as far as the
2017 renewal on these sites is that renewal of the tower or the access road.
Mr. Fritz replied what he heard is the adjacent property owners are saying that something is going to expire or lapse
with the access easement. If that is in fact the case and the access easement lapses and the power users can longer
use the facility because of a private agreement that is in place and the facility becomes inoperable there are
provisions in the ordinance that would then require the facility to be removed. But, that is a private issue of access.
Mr. Loach said it was not the tower itself that is up for renewal.
Mr. Fritz replied there is nothing in the county regulations that has a renewal.
Mr. Loach said on the motion, again, it is going to be narrowed to the thing he thinks there are issues here. First he
would hope the community meeting would transpire before the Board of Supervisors so if there are any questions or
anything nebulous still hanging over that those answers are there for the Board. On the basis of this he would make
the motion.
Mr. Lafferty asked if the request could be handled together, and Mr. Kamptner replied the special exceptions could be
handled together and the special use permit requires a separate vote.
Motion 1 for Special Exceptions:
Motion: Mr. Loach moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded to recommend granting the Special Exceptions for the reasons
outlined in the staff report.
Mr. Keller asked if he was putting the condition of the community meeting on that prior to it going to the Board.
Mr. Loach asked Mr. Kamptner if he could put that condition on it.
Mr. Kamptner replied that could be direction to the applicant that the Commission expects that there will be a
community meeting.
Mr. Loach pointed out that he had already covered that.
Mr. Morris invited further discussion.
Mr. Kamptner clarified the exceptions that are being granted are to the limits that are stated in the staff report.
Mr. Loach agreed.
Mr. Morris asked for a roll call.
The motion passed unanimously by a vote of (7:0).
Motion 2 for Special Use Permit:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES – JANUARY 27, 2015 PARTIAL DRAFT
Partial Draft SP-2014-00017 Ntelos “CV108” (Piney Mountain) Tier III PWSF – Submit to BOS
8
Motion: Mr. Loach moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded to recommend approval of SP-2014-00017 Ntelos CV108
Piney Mountain with the conditions outlined in the staff report.
1. The development of the site, and any modifications to the uppermost array at elevation 146’, shall be in
general accord with the plan titled “Piney Mountain CV108” prepared by Christopher D. Morin, and dated
12/31/14 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning
Administrator. To be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the
following major elements within the development essential to the design of the development, as shown on
the Conceptual Plan:
a. Mounting type and distance
b. Antenna type and size
c. Number of antennae
d. Color
e. Location of ground equipment
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The tower shall not be increased in height.
3. The lowest array of panel antennas may be attached only as follows:
a. All equipment attached to the tower shall be painted to match the color of the tower. The cables
extending from the ground equipment may remain black;
b. The antennas shall not exceed seven (7) feet in height and two (2) feet in width;
c. No antenna shall project from the facility, structure or building 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 facility, structure or building.
d. The antennas and dishes attached to this tower may be replaced without amending this special use
permit, provided that the sizing, mounting distances and heights of the replacement equipment are in
compliance with these conditions of approval and in accordance wi th all applicable regulations set forth in
Section 5.1.40 of the Zoning Ordinance.
4. The tower shall be limited to a total of four (4) vertical arrays of panel antennas. No additional relay, satellite
or microwave dish antennas shall be permitted on the tower.
5. This special use permit must be amended to allow the three uppermost arrays of panel antennas to be: (a)
relocated on the structure; (b) modified to increase the number of size of panel antennas; or (c) modified to
increase the distance of the panel antennas from the structure.
Note: The Planning Commission directed the applicant to hold a Community Meeting for the project before the item
goes to the Board of Supervisors for Public Hearing.
There being no further discussion Mr. Morris asked for a roll call.
The motion passed unanimously by a vote of (7:0).
Mr. Morris noted that SP-2014-000017 and special exceptions would be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors with
the recommendation for approval to be heard on a date to be determined.
Mr. Lafferty asked does this mean that every other application that comes up for these conditions would be
administratively approved. Otherwise, they might be charged with discriminating against a certain company.
Mr. Kamptner replied they can make case by case decisions based upon land use related issues. But, to simply
adopt a regulation that prohibits a particular service from being provided or a particular provider from entering the
market that would be problematic for the county.
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SP2014-18, Maxwell Boat Dock
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Install a private floating boat dock on the South Fork
Rivanna River
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Clark, Benish and Cilimberg
AGENDA DATE:
March 11, 2015
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
BACKGROUND:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 13, 2015, by a vote of 7:0, recommended
approval of the above-noted petition as recommended by staff.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Development Areas: Attract quality employment, commercial, and high density residential uses into development areas by
providing services and infrastructure that encourage redevelopment and private investment while protecting the quality of
neighborhoods.
Economic Prosperity: Foster an environment that stimulates diversified job creation, capital investments, and tax revenues
that support community goals.
DISCUSSION:
The County Attorney has prepared the attached Resolution reflecting the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
Please note that some technical and non-substantive modications have been made to the language and form of the
conditions contained in the resolution. The original conditions reviewed by the Planning Commission were based on
standard condition language that has been used for boat dock special use permits for a number of years. In drafting the
resolution, the Count y Attorney updated the conditions to be consistent with current practices (ex. lighting vs. luminaire).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Resolution
PC actions and staff report with attachments
Return to agenda
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE
SP 2014-18 MAXWELL BOAT DOCK
WHEREAS, Robin W. Maxwell (the “Owner”) is the owner of Tax Map and Parcel Numbers
04500-00-00-00400 and 04500-00-00-004A0 (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, J. T. Maxwell, the Owner’s husband and acting for himself and as the Owner’s agent,
filed an application for a special use permit to establish a private floating dock on the South Fork Rivanna
Reservoir, and the application is identified as Special Use Permit 2014-00018 Maxwell Board Dock (“SP
2014-18”); and
WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville co-signed the application as the owner of the South Fork
Rivanna Reservoir parcel onto which the dock would extend; and
WHEREAS, on January 12, 2015, after a duly noticed public hearing, the Albemarle County
Planning Commission recommended approval of SP 2014-18 with the conditions recommended by County
staff; and
WHEREAS, on March 11, 2015, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors held a duly noticed
public hearing on SP 2014-18.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, upon consideration of the foregoing, the staff
report prepared for SP 2014-18 and all of its attachments, the information presented at the public hearing,
and the factors relevant to a special use permit in Albemarle County Code § 18-33.8, the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors hereby approves SP 2014-18, subject to the conditions attached hereto.
* * *
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as
recorded below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________.
__________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Ms. Dittmar ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Ms. McKeel ____ ____
Ms. Palmer ____ ____
Mr. Sheffield ____ ____
SP-2014-00018 Maxwell Boat Dock Conditions
1. There shall be no outdoor luminaire installed or maintained within 25 horizontal feet of the
Reservoir, measured from the elevation of normal pool, which is Elevation 382 (above sea
level, based on North American Vertical Datum of 1988, expressed in feet).
2. There shall be no plant removal, other than dead, diseased, or noxious vegetation, or earth
disturbance, within the 200-foot stream buffer associated with the installation of the boat
dock. The stream buffer is measured from the edge of the floodplain, which is Elevation 391
(above sea level, based on North American Vertical Datum of 1988, expressed in feet).
3. Structures and improvements located in the two hundred (200)-foot stream buffer shall be
limited to those shown on the Maxwell Dock Plan, dated 10/21/2014, and a storage rack for
kayaks and canoes. There shall be no other structures, such as decking or stairs,
constructed in the 200-foot stream buffer.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
January 28, 2015
J. T. Maxwell
Po Box 7166
Charlottesville, Va. 22906
RE: SP201400018 Maxwell Boat Dock
Dear Mr. Maxwell:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 13, 2015, 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 lighting within 25 horizontal feet of the Reservoir, measured from the
elevation of normal pool, which is Elevation 382 (North American Vertical Datum of
1988).
2. There shall be no removal of vegetation or earth disturbance with the 200-foot stream
buffer associated with the installation of the boat dock. The stream buffer is measured
from the edge of the floodplain, which is Elevation 391.
3. Structures and improvements located in the two hundred (200)-foot stream buffer shall
be limited to those shown on the Maxwell Dock Plan, dated 10/21/2014, and a storage
rack for kayaks and canoes. There shall be no other structures, such as decking or
stairs, constructed in the 200-foot stream buffer.
Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please do one of the following:
(1) Resubmit in response to Planning Commission recommendations
(2) Request indefinite deferral
(3) Request that your Board of Supervisors public hearing date be set
(4) Withdraw your application
Attachments:
Staff report and attachments
PC minutes
Return to exec summary
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
Scott Clark
Senior Planner
Planning Division
CC: Maxwell, Robin W
432 Woodlands Rd
Charlottesville Va 22901
SP2014-00018 Maxwell Boat Dock
PC January 13, 2015
Staff Report Page 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP201400018 Maxwell Boat
Dock
Staff: Scott Clark, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
January 13, 2015
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
TBA
Owner: Robin Maxwell Applicant: J.T. Maxwell
Acreage: 17.335 acres Special Use Permit: 30.3.11
TMP: 04500-00-00-00400, 04500-00-00-004A0
Location: 432 Woodlands Rd.
Existing Zoning and By-right use:
RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and
fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in
development)
Magisterial District: Jack Jouett Conditions: Yes
RA (Rural Areas): X Requested # of Dwelling Units: NA
Proposal: Private floating dock on South Fork
Rivanna Reservoir
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural Areas
- preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open
space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/
density (0.5 unit/ acre)
Character of Property: Residential, with
wooded and open areas
Use of Surrounding Properties: Reservoir,
large-lot residential uses, agriculture
Factors Favorable:
1. No direct impact to the water supply
or neighboring properties is expected as a
result of this special use permit.
2. No increase in flood levels will result
from installation of a dock.
3. The proposed dock is supported by
the City of Charlottesville Department of
Public Works, and meets the requirements of
the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority for
residential boat docks.
Factors Unfavorable: None found.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this Special Use Permit, with conditions.
SP2014-00018 Maxwell Boat Dock
PC January 13, 2015
Staff Report Page 2
STAFF PERSON: Scott Clark
PLANNING COMMISSION: January 13, 2015
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBA
PETITION:
PROJECT: SP201400018 Maxwell Boat Dock
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Jack Jouett
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 04500-00-00-00400, 04500-00-00-004A0
LOCATION: 432 Woodlands Rd.
PROPOSAL: Private floating dock on South Fork Rivanna Reservoir
PETITION: Water related uses such as boat docks and canoe liveries under Section
30.3.11 of zoning ordinance. No dwelling units proposed.
ZONING: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density
(0.5 unit/acre in development lots). FH Flood Hazard – Overlay to provide safety and
protection from flooding. Water related uses such as boat docks and canoe liveries
(30.3.11).
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Areas – preserve and protect agricultural, forestal,
open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre in
development lots)
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
The surrounding area is a developed rural area largely characterized by large-lot
residential uses.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
None.
DETAILS OF THE PROPOSAL:
A special use permit is being requested in accordance with Section 30.3.11 of the Zoning
Ordinance, to allow a boat dock in the Flood Hazard Overlay zoning district. See Attachment C
for the proposed design. The floating dock would be built in three sections, with a total area of
144 square feet (see Attachment C). No structure would connect the floating dock to the bottom
of the reservoir--the dock would be anchored to the shore by two 6x6” posts. The design has
been approved by the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority, which manages the reservoir.
STAFF COMMENT:
Section 33.8 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors shall reasonably consider the following factors when reviewing and acting
upon an application for a special use permit:
No substantial detriment. The proposed special use will not be a substantial detriment
to adjacent lots.
The proposed dock would be for private use and would only support permitted boating
uses on the reservoir from an existing access point. No new uses or intensified uses
SP2014-00018 Maxwell Boat Dock
PC January 13, 2015
Staff Report Page 3
would impact adjacent lots. Standard conditions of approval (see below) would prohibit
dock lighting that would impact adjacent properties.
Character of district unchanged. The character of the district will not be changed by
the proposed special use.
Construction of a dock at an existing point of access onto the reservoir would be at such
a small scale as to have no impacts on the character of the district.
Harmony. The proposed special use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of
this chapter,
As the dock design meets the standards of the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority, it is
expected to appropriately protect the public water supply, as called for in the purposes
and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and in the Rural Areas Zoning District specifically.
…with the uses permitted by right in the district
A small dock for recreational paddling would be compatible with the open-space and
residential uses permitted by right in the district.
…with the regulations provided in section 5 as applicable,
There are no applicable regulations in section 5.
…and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The dock design meets the standards of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, which
are intended to protect public health and prevent impacts on the reservoir. There would
be no public or commercial use of the dock, so it would remain accessory to a residential
use and not create any new public-safety impacts on the surroundings.
Sections 11-300 through 11-306 of the Albemarle County Code address water supply
reservoirs utilized by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and regulate the use and
activity on each reservoir. Section 11-304 specifically addresses activities on the South
Fork Rivanna Reservoir. Authorized activities are fishing, canoeing, boating (no internal
combustion engines), hiking, bird watching, and picnicking. Swimming is specifically
prohibited under this section. Given those regulations and the proposed use of this
dock—for the launching of non-powered boats only—the dock is not expected to have
negative public-health impacts.
The proposed site for the boat dock would not require earth disturbance or vegetation
removal, and no decking or stairs are proposed. The design therefore has no conflicts
with standard conditions 2 and 3 (see below), which are intended to limit the extent and
impact of docks.
SP2014-00018 Maxwell Boat Dock
PC January 13, 2015
Staff Report Page 4
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The use will be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir as a surface drinking
water supply. The Natural Resources and Cultural Assets chapter of the Comprehensive Plan
contains the following objective for the recreational use of water supply areas:
“Allow and manage recreational uses of drinking water reservoirs and adjacent public
land only as incidental uses to the primary function of water supply and in such a manner
as to prevent cumulative impacts that may impair the primary function.”
This particular request is for a low-impact use that is incidental to the water-supply function of
the reservoir, and that poses no threat to public health.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. No direct impact to the water supply or neighboring properties is expected
as a result of this special use permit.
2. No increase in flood levels will result from installation of a dock.
3. The proposed dock is supported by the City of Charlottesville Department
of Public Works, and meets the requirements of the Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority for residential boat docks.
Staff has identified the following factors unfavorable to this application:
1. If a significant number of these requests are approved, the resulting
proliferation of boat docks could impair the primary function of the
Reservoir as a drinking water supply.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of
SP201400018 Maxwell Boat Dock subject to the following conditions
1. There shall be no lighting within 25 horizontal feet of the Reservoir,
measured from the elevation of normal pool, which is Elevation 382
(North American Vertical Datum of 1988).
2. There shall be no removal of vegetation or earth disturbance with the 200-
foot stream buffer associated with the installation of the boat dock. The
stream buffer is measured from the edge of the floodplain, which is
Elevation 391.
3. Structures and improvements located in the two hundred (200)-foot stream
buffer shall be limited to those shown on the Maxwell Dock Plan, dated
10/21/2014, and a storage rack for kayaks and canoes. There shall be no
SP2014-00018 Maxwell Boat Dock
PC January 13, 2015
Staff Report Page 5
other structures, such as decking or stairs, constructed in the 200-foot
stream buffer.
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION:
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this special use permit:
Move to recommend approval of SP2014-00018 Maxwell Boat Dock subject to the
conditions as recommended by staff.
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this special use permit:
Move to recommend denial of SP2014-00018 Maxwell Boat Dock. Should a commissioner
motion to recommend denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for recommending denial.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Area Map
Attachment B – Site Map
Attachment C – SP 2014-00018 Dock Design
Return to PC actions letter
SP2014-00018 Maxwell Boat Dock
PC January 13, 2015
Staff Report Page 1
Attachment C
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 13, 2015
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2014-18 Maxwell Boat Dock - Submit to BOS
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
January 13, 2015
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, January 13, 2015, at
6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room 241, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Members attending were Cal Morris, Chair; Karen Firehock, Richard Randolph, Thomas Loach, Bruce
Dotson, Tim Keller, and Mac Lafferty, Vice Chair. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the
University of Virginia was present. Ms. Firehock arrived at 6:03 p.m.
Other officials present were Scott Clark, Senior Planner; Meagan Yaniglos, Senior Planner, David Benish,
Chief of Planning; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission
and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Cilimberg, serving as temporary chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and
established a quorum.
Election of Officers: Chairman and Vice-Chairman:
Mr. Cilimberg opened nominations for the election of Chair of the Planning Commission for the upcoming
year.
Mr. Randolph nominated Cal Morris to be Chair for 2015 and Mr. Keller seconded.
Mr. Cilimberg asked if there were any other nominations. There being none, he closed t he nominations
and called for the vote.
The nomination of Cal Morris as Chair of the Planning Commission for 2015 carried by a vote of (5:0:1).
(Mr. Morris abstained) (Ms. Firehock absent)
Mr. Cilimberg turned the meeting over to Mr. Morris.
Mr. Morris asked for nominations for Vice Chair of the Planning Commission for 2015.
Mr. Dotson nominated Mac Lafferty to be Vice Chair for 2015 and Mr. Loach seconded.
Mr. Morris asked if there were any other nominations. There being none, he closed the nomi nations and
called for the vote.
The nomination of Mac Lafferty as Vice Chair of the Planning Commission for 2014 carried by a vote of
(5:0:1). (Mr. Lafferty abstained) (Firehock absent)
Public Hearing Items
a. SP-2014-00018 Maxwell Boat Dock
PROJECT: SP201400018 Maxwell Boat Dock
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Jack Jouett
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 04500-00-00-00400, 04500-00-00-004A0
LOCATION: 432 Woodlands Rd.
PROPOSAL: Private floating dock on South Fork Rivanna Reservoir
PETITION: Water related uses such as boat docks and canoe liveries under Section 22.2.2.10 of
zoning ordinance. No dwelling units proposed.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 13, 2015
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2014-18 Maxwell Boat Dock - Submit to BOS
2
ZONING: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in
development lots). FH Flood Hazard – Overlay to provide safety and protection from flooding. Water
related uses such as boat docks and canoe liveries (30.3.11).
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Areas – preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space,
and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre in development lots)
(Scott Clark)
Scott Clark presented a PowerPoint presentation for SP-2014-00018 Maxwell Boat Dock.
A special use permit is being requested in accordance with Section 30.3.11 of the Zoning Ordinance, to
allow a private boat dock in the Flood Hazard Overlay zoning district on two parcels. The floating dock
would be built in three sections, with a total area of 144 square feet. No structure would connect the
floating dock to the bottom of the reservoir--the dock would be anchored to the shore by two 6’x6’ posts.
There is a small stream valley that goes down to the reservoir. The mouth of that is not really a stream
but more of a gully. In the contour lines you can see there is a path running down that way.
The design has been approved by the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority, which manages the reservoir
and has detailed design requirements for boat docks in the reservoir. The design and dimensions of the
dock have already been approved by the Authority.
• Dock is for private use,
• No lighting is proposed,
• No significant impacts on adjacent properties or the reservoir,
• Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan,
- The Natural Resources and Cultural Assets chapter of the Comprehensive Plan contains
the following objective for the recreational use of water supply areas:
“Allow and manage recreational uses of drinking water reservoirs and adjacent public
land only as incidental uses to the primary function of water supply and in such a
manner as to prevent cumulative impacts that may impair the primary function.”
• This request is for a low-impact use that is incidental to the water-supply function of the reservoir,
and that poses no threat to public health.
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. No direct impact to the water supply or neighboring properties is expected as a result of this
special use permit.
2. No increase in flood levels will result from installation of a dock. It is a floating dock and will move
with the level of the reservoir.
3. The proposed dock is supported by the City of Charlottesville Department of Public Works, and
meets the requirements of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority for residential boat docks.
Staff has identified the following factors unfavorable to this application:
1. If a significant number of these requests are approved, the resulting proliferation of boat docks
could impair the primary function of the Reservoir as a drinking water supply.
This is about the fifth request over the entire reservoir. The last request was in 2009. So there has not
been a rapid increase in the number of docks.
Staff recommends approval of SP-2014-00018 Maxwell Boat Dock subject to the conditions
recommended by staff and listed in the staff report.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Randolph said his understanding is in this body of water there is a prohibition against any motors.
Mr. Clark replied yes, except for motorized boats run by State Agencies for official purposes.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 13, 2015
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2014-18 Maxwell Boat Dock - Submit to BOS
3
Mr. Randolph asked if water quality does deteriorate in the future how is the county going to be able to
differentiate between the upstream pollution. He asked if normally one of the conservation organizations,
like the RCA, are testing water quality as it comes into the South Reservoir. Then they would know the
level of the water coming in. Then if they also test it as it leaves they would have those two
measurements to go by to keep a handle on the level of pollution potentially that could develop in this
body of water with time.
Mr. Clark replied that he was sure they do have some programs . However, he did not know exactly what
testing programs they have in place. The main impacts for the reservoir have to do with siltation and non-
point run off. The difference between the main problems for the reservoir versus these docks would be
with the materials that are in them since the materials could potentiall y be a problem for the reservoir.
However, Rivanna has standards for the materials they will allow, which is how they address minimizing
the impacts of the docks themselves. In addition, the design of the floating docks if they do break or there
is a problem they are usually removed from the reservoir. He thinks most of the pollutions impacts that
are coming into the reservoir are not related to uses like docks, but related to larger scale nonpoint
source problems.
Mr. Randolph expressed a concern about an increase in the number of docks requested in the future, the
potential pollution, and the need for testing the water quality. In the future it would be easy from a
regulatory standpoint to say it is the proliferation of docks that are directly related to the increased
pollution in the South Rivanna Reservoir. So what they need to do as a county is put a cap on the
number of docks. He did not have a problem with the application, but it is just looking down the line at
accretion over time of additional docks. It might be an excellent idea for the county to actually have a
discussion with the Rivanna Conservation Society because they ar e doing water quality testing along the
reach of the Rivanna River both the South and the North Fork to see if they could actually test water as it
is coming in directly to the reservoir from the major tributary of the Rivanna and then also test as it is
leaving so that they have a way of assessing this over time so that in fact they can’t turn around as a
county in 10 to 15 years and say it is the docks that have done it. It may be because of the expansion of
humans recreationally using this body of water that has caused pollution problems when they may have
nothing to do with it. The other side of things is they have more recreationalists who could be doing
things that they should not be doing. This is just a concern and suggestion about pollution and testing.
Mr. Lafferty said he would like to see the condition that if the dock is broken up or abandoned that the
owner be responsible for removing it.
Mr. Clark replied that may be part of the dock agreement.
Mr. Benish pointed out that he was pretty sure that was part of the dock agreement. .
Mr. Kamptner noted that was part of the agreement with the Water and Sewer Authority. These kinds of
applications are kind of unique because the county has a number of regulations in a non -zoning chapter
of the County Code that puts a lot of restrictions on the activities that can take place. The boat dock
requires a separate permit from the Water and Sewer Authority and they can impose conditions. The
burden of monitoring the quality of the water in the reservoir is pretty much put on the Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority (RWSA).
Mr. Benish said he was pretty sure that is covered, but the applicant might know from looking at the
permit and maybe able to answer that.
There being no further questions for staff, Mr. Morris opened the public hearing for applicant and public
input. He invited the applicant to address the Commission.
J.T. Maxwell, owner and applicant, said he recently bought this piece of land and the environment was
one of the reasons why they wanted to live there. The questions that have been brought up are very
much in keeping with his philosophy on life in what they want to do when they are there. So it is real
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 13, 2015
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2014-18 Maxwell Boat Dock - Submit to BOS
4
important. To answer the question about the dock, there is a permit required by the RWSA. The RWSA
inspects the dock every year. He does not remember the language, but he thinks it is a part of the
approval process. If there is a problem with it, the owner has to take care of it. The focus is to be able to
enjoy the surroundings in a safe manner. Right now it is hard to get the kayaks into the water, and the
dock will help do it in a safe manner. The big dock at the University of Virginia is very low profile. Our
goal is to keep the serenity of the area so that when somebody is out on the water that even if they are
only a couple hundred yards away they really won’t see the dock because of its low profile.
Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant.
Mr. Dotson asked if the RWSA has a requirement in the event of dredging.
Mr. Maxwell replied that he had not seen anything about that. But, that is a good point. His neighbors
who have been there a number of years were talking about how they have noticed the silt building up . It
does not seem like it is much of a topic now, but the dredging could happen at some point and there
might need to be some temporary remediation if that happened. He does not remember seeing anything
in the RWSA plans. However, the RWSA and the City own the land and so they obviously could come to
us at any time and say they need to do this and that is a part of the permit.
Mr. Clark pointed out paragraph 7 of the agreement actually says the use of the dock cannot interfere
with the operation of the reservoir, and if the Authority needs to they can temporarily shut down the use
of the dock while they are carrying out work in the reservoir as needed for safety purposes.
Mr. Keller said the owner showed 22’ of length into the water with some of that spanning land into the
water. He asked if he was just going to be doing canoes and kayaks why does he need to go so far.
Mr. Maxwell replied the first number of feet is real shallow water. So what they don’t want to do is create
a situation when you are getting in and out you are mucking up the water. You have to trudge onto the
land for a few feet. Some of kayaks they have are pretty long. The other thing is in designing it they have
to go with the floats that are available. There are certain sizes of floats that are available. That was just
like fitting the puzzle together to fit it together. One of his kayaks was 17’ long.
Mr. Lafferty asked if the floats are made out of a Styrofoam.
Mr. Maxwell replied that certain plastics are very specifically in the RWSA standards so that it does not
leach any chemicals. It is a very specific type of wood that needs to be used ; very specific types of
couplings and aluminum so it does not rust; and the plastic does not deteriorate. Hopefully, it will be
there for a long time without leaching and affecting the water quality and deteriorating.
Mr. Morris invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and the matter
before the Planning Commission for discussion and action.
Motion: Mr. Loach moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded to recommend approval of SP-2014-00018 Maxwell
Boat Dock subject to the conditions as recommended by staff.
The motion passed unanimously by a vote of (7:0).
Mr. Morris noted that SP-2014-00018 Maxwell Boat Dock would be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors
with the recommendation for approval on a date to be determined with the following conditions.
1. There shall be no lighting within 25 horizontal feet of the Reservoir, measured from the
elevation of normal pool, which is Elevation 382 (North American Vertical Datum of 1988).
2. There shall be no removal of vegetation or earth disturbance with the 200 -foot stream buffer
associated with the installation of the boat dock. The stream buffer is measured from the
edge of the floodplain, which is Elevation 391.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 13, 2015
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2014-18 Maxwell Boat Dock - Submit to BOS
5
3. Structures and improvements located in the two hundred (200)-foot stream buffer shall be
limited to those shown on the Maxwell Dock Plan, dated 10/21/2014, and a storage rack for
kayaks and canoes. There shall be no other structures, such as decking or stairs,
constructed in the 200-foot stream buffer.
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZMA 201400004 Old Trail Village – Carriage
Houses
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Amend code of development and proffers to include
carriage houses as an allowable use.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Yaniglos, Benish and Cilimberg
AGENDA DATE:
March 11, 2015
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
BACKGROUND:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 13, 2015, by a vote of 7:0, recommended
approval of the above-noted petition as recommended by staff.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Development Areas: Attract quality employment, commercial, and high density residential uses into development areas by
providing services and infrastructure that encourage redevelopment and private investment while protecting the quality of
neighborhoods.
Economic Prosperity: Foster an environment that stimulates diversif ied job creation, capital investments, and tax revenues
that support community goals.
DISCUSSION:
The County Attorney has prepared the attached Ordinance No. 15-A(1) reflecting the recommendation of the Planning
Commission.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment – Ordinance No. 15-A(1)
PC actions letter and staff report and attachments
Return to agenda
Draft: March 2, 2015
ORDINANCE NO. 15-A(1)
ZMA 2014-00004 OLD TRAIL VILLAGE – CARRIAGE HOUSES
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP FOR TAX MAP AND PARCEL NUMBERS
055E0-01-00-000A1, 055E0-01-00-000A2, 055E0-01-00-000A3, 055E0-01-00-000A4 AND 055E0-01-00-000A5
WHEREAS, the application to amend the zoning map for Tax Map and Parcel Numbers 055E0-01-00-
000A1, 055E0-01-00-000A2, 055E0-01-00-000A3, 055E0-01-00-000A4 and 055E0-01-00-000A5, collectively, “the
Property”, is identified as ZMA 2014-00004, Old Trail Village – Carriage Houses (“ZMA 2014-00004”); and
WHEREAS, the Property is zoned Neighborhood Model District – NMD, subject to the proffers, a code of
development, and a general development plan (the “Application Plan”), all of which were adopted on September 15,
2005 in conjunction with ZMA 2004-024; and
WHEREAS, the Property was subsequently amended by ZMA 2008-05 on November 12, 2008, which
amended the code of development and the proffers; and
WHEREAS, a number of variations to the code of development have been approved since 2005; and
WHEREAS, ZMA 2014-00004 proposes to amend the proffers and the code of development applicable to
the Property in order to include carriage houses as an allowable use; and
WHEREAS, on January 13, 2015, after a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission
recommended approval of ZMA 2014-00004, provided that technical revisions were made to the proffers, and such
revisions have since been made.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that upon
consideration of the staff report prepared for ZMA 2014-00004 and their attachments, including the proffers revised
after the Planning Commission public hearing, the information presented at the public hearing, the material and
relevant factors in Virginia Code § 15.2-2284, and for the purposes of public necessity, convenience, general welfare
and good zoning practices, the Board hereby approves ZMA 2014-00004 with the proffers dated February 9, 2015,
and the code of development, which is hereby amended to include the “Old Trail Village Addendum to Code of
Development, Carriage Houses,” dated November 17, 2014, and the zoning map for Tax Map and Parcel Numbers
055E0-01-00-000A1, 055E0-01-00-000A2, 055E0-01-00-000A3, 055E0-01-00-000A4 AND 055E0-01-00-000A5
are amended accordingly.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Application Plan, not amended by this zoning map amendment,
shall remain in full force and effect.
* * *
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 ____ ____
Ms. Dittmar ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Ms. McKeel ____ ____
Ms. Palmer ____ ____
Mr. Sheffield ____ ____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
January 28, 2015
Bill Ledbetter-Roudabush, Gale & Assoc
914 Monticello Road
Charlottesville, Va. 22902
RE: ZMA201400004 Old Trail Village
Dear Mr. Ledbetter,
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 13, 2015, by a vote of 7:0, with
the proffers as recommended by staff This matter will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors to be
heard on a date to be determined.
Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please do one of the following:
(1) Resubmit in response to Planning Commission recommendations
(2) Request indefinite deferral
(3) Request that your Board of Supervisors public hearing date be set
(4) Withdraw your application
Attachments:
Staff report and attachments
PC minutes
Return to exec summary
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
Planning Division
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: ZMA 2014-04 Old Trail Village-
Carriage Houses
Staff: Megan Yaniglos
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
January 13, 2015
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
TBD
Owners: March Mountain Properties Applicant: Valerie Long, Williams Mullen; Bill Ledbetter,
Roudabush, Gale, & Associates
Acreage: approx. 372.326 acres Rezone from: No change of zoning designation is
sought. This application seeks to amend ZMA200400024
Code of Development to allow carriage house units as an
allowable use.
TMP: 055E00100000A1; 055E00100000A2;
055E00100000A3; 055E00100000A4;
055E00100000A5
By-right use: Residential and commercial uses.
Magisterial District: White Hall Proffers: Yes
Proposal: Amend Code of Development and
proffers to include carriage houses as an
allowable use for approved ZMA200400024 (Old
Trail NMD)
Requested # of Dwelling Units: No change in dwelling
unit numbers is requested.
DA (Development Area): Crozet Comp. Plan Designation: Greenspace; Mixed Use-
residential (18 units per acre maximum), commercial, and
office uses; Neighborhood Density Residential- 3-6
units/acre; supporting uses such as religious institutions,
schools and other small scale non-residential uses; Urban
Density Residential- 6-12 units/acre; supporting uses such
as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and
service uses.
Character of Property: The subject property is
located on the north side of Route 250 West,
approximately 2,000+ feet west of the intersection
of Miller School Rd. and Route 250. (Attachment
A)
Use of Surrounding Properties: The surrounding
property is primarily residential. Henley Middle School and
Brownsville Elementary School are adjacent to the subject
property. The property located to the west of the subject
site is the Old Trail Golf Course, and across the street is
Western Albemarle High School.
Factors Favorable:
1. The rezoning amendment is consistent
with the Crozet Master Plan.
2. The addition of carriage houses as an
allowable use provides variety to
residential unit types.
3. Accessory attached units are currently an
allowed use within Old Trail Village NMD,
this amendment would allow that use to
be detached from the main unit.
Factors Unfavorable:
Staff has identified no factors unfavorable to this request:
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of ZMA 2014-00004 Old Trail Village, with
amended Code of Development (inclusive of addendum) and provided technical revisions are made to
the revised proffers prior to the Board of Supervisors m eeting.
ZMA 14-04 Old Trail Village Carriage Houses 2
STAFF PERSON: Megan Yaniglos
PLANNING COMMISSION: January 13, 2015
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TBD
PETITION:
PROJECT: ZMA201400004 Old Trail Village
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 055E00100000A1; 055E00100000A2; 055E00100000A3;
055E00100000A4; 055E00100000A5
LOCATION: Old Trail Drive and Rockfish Gap Turnpike (Route 250)
PROPOSAL: To amend Code of Development to add carriage houses as a use for approved
ZMA200400024 (Old Trail NMD). No change to density is proposed.
PETITION: Request to amend Code of Development for ZMA200400024 to allow carriage
houses as a use on property zoned Neighborhood Model District (NMD) which allows residential
mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses at a density of 3-34 units/acre.
OVERLAY DISTRICT: Entrance Corridor (EC); Flood Hazard (FH); Steep Slopes (SS); Scenic
Byways (SB)
PROFFERS: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Greenspace; Mixed Use- residential (18 units per acre maximum),
commercial, and office uses; Neighborhood Density Residential- 3-6 units/acre; supporting uses
such as religious institutions, schools and other small scale non-residential uses; Urban Density
Residential- 6-12 units/acre; supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial,
office and service uses.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA
The properties adjoining the parcel vary in their level and type of development. To the north of
the property single and multifamily units are developed. These parcels are also known as
Ballard Field and Upper Ballard Field. Located to the east of the property are residential
developments as well as Henley Middle School and Brownsville Elementary School. The
property located to the west of the subject site is the Old Trail Golf Course, and to the south,
across Route 250 is Western Albemarle High School. The southern boundary of the subject site
is Route 250. The area located across the Route 250is zoned rural area, and highway
commercial.
SPECIFICS OF PROPOSAL
The applicant would like the opportunity to provide carriage houses within the Old Trail
development. The units would be provided above the detached garages in the back of the units.
This use is currently not included nor allowed as a detached unit in the Code of Development.
However, accessory apartments within an existing house are permitted. The applicant wishes to
add an addendum to the Code of Development that was approved with ZMA 2004-024 (dated
September 15, 2005) to add carriage houses as an allowable land use (See Attachment C for
the addendum). The proffers are also being amended to allow carriage houses as an affordable
unit type (See Proffer 2 in Attachment D). The allowable overall density of Old Trail Village will
not change.
APPLICANT’S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST
The applicant has indicated that the public benefit to this request will allow greater diversity of
options of affordable housing unit types within Old Trail Village (Attachment B).
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY
ZMA 14-04 Old Trail Village Carriage Houses 3
The subject tax map and parcel (TMP: 55E1-A1) was created from the combination of several
other parcels. ZMA 2004-024 was a rezoning from Rural Area, and Residential - RA, R1, and
R6 zoning districts, to Neighborhood Model District - NMD for a combination of residential and
commercial uses that was approved September 15, 2005. A rezoning was approved in 2008 for
the assisted living facility within Block 2. Subdivisions and site development plans have
occurred that relate to the development of Old Trail Village.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The existing zoning approved for Old Trail Village is consistent with the Crozet Master Plan land
use designations of Mixed Use Residential which includes commercial, and office uses,
Neighborhood Density Residential which includes supporting uses such as religious institutions,
schools and other small scale non-residential uses, and Urban Density Residential which
includes supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service
uses. This rezoning request does not propose to change the land uses previously approved for
Old Trail Village in ZMA200400024. As previously stated in this report
The proposed carriage house units will provide another form of affordable units within the
Crozet Community.
A Neighborhood Model analysis is not provided for this project since conformity with the
Neighborhood Model was previously assessed with ZMA 2004-024.
Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning
district
The purpose and intent of the Neighborhood Model (NMD) district is to establish a planned
development district in which traditional neighborhood development, as established in the
County’s Neighborhood Model, will occur. The NMD provides for compact, mixed-use
developments with an urban scale, massing, density and an infrastructure configuration that
integrates diversified uses within close proximity to each other within the development areas
identified in the comprehensive plan.
The only change proposed is for an additional use in the Old Trail development. Staff believes
the request is consistent with the intent of the district and will provide an additional type of
residential and affordable option in this development.
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services
Analysis of impact to streets, utilities, schools, stormwater management, fire, rescue, and police
were assessed with ZMA 2004-024. No additional impact is expected by adding this use as an
option. The addendum to the Code of Development includes additional requirements that
address the impacts.
Streets:
The addendum includes a requirement that all access to the units be at least 20 feet in width,
and that the units be accessed from the rear of the property.
Schools:
Students living in this area would attend Brownsville Elementary School, Henley Middle School,
and Western Albemarle High School.
Fire and Rescue:
ZMA 14-04 Old Trail Village Carriage Houses 4
Fire and Rescue service is provided through the Crozet Volunteer Fire Station. The addendum
to the Code of Development also states requirements that address fire access to the units.
Utilities:
This project is in the water and sewer service jurisdictional area and both services are available.
The Authority has not identified any capacity issues or constraints with this proposal.
Cash Proffer Policy:
No changes are being proposed to the existing Cash Proffer that was provided with ZMA2004-
024.
Anticipated impact on cultural and historic resources
Impacts on cultural and historic resources were reviewed with ZMA 2004-024. There are no
changes or known cultural and historic resources on the site.
Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties
Staff does not anticipate the addition of a carriage house use to the Code of Development to
have any significant impact on nearby and surrounding properties.
Public need and justification for the change
This rezoning amendment will provide the possibility of additional residential, and affordable unit
types to the community.
Economic Vitality Action Plan
The primary goal of the County’s Economic Vitality Action Plan is to:
Increase the County’s economic vitality and future revenues through economic development by
expanding the commercial tax base and supporting the creation of quality jobs for local
residents. This Plan is developed for the benefit and economic well being, first, of current local
residents and existing local businesses.
The proposed amendment would support the Plan by providing a new affordable unit type for
employees of existing and potential businesses in the County.
PROFFERS
The applicant has provided amended proffers. (Attachment D). The proffers are in need of
grammatical and technical fixes.
Besides the changes to the proffers, and the addition of an addendum at the end of Section IV
of the Code of Development, the General Development Plan and the rest of the Code of
Development remains unchanged.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to the rezoning amendment requested:
1. The rezoning amendment is consistent with the Crozet Master Plan.
2. The addition of carriage houses as an allowable use provides variety to residential
and affordable unit types.
ZMA 14-04 Old Trail Village Carriage Houses 5
3. Accessory attached units are currently an allowed use within Old Trail Village
NMD, this amendment would allow that use to be detached from the main unit.
Staff has identified no factors unfavorable to this request.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of this rezoning amendment ZMA201400004, Old Trail Village with
amended code of development and provided technical revisions are made to the revised proffer
s prior to the Board of Supervisors meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION—Zoning Map Amendment:
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this zoning map
amendment:
Move to recommend approval of ZMA 2014-00004, Old Trail, with technical and
grammatical changes to the proffers as recommended by staff.
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this zoning map
amendment:
Move to recommend denial of ZMA 2014-00004, Old Trail based on the following
identified by the Planning Commission. Should a commissioner motion to recommend
denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for recommending denial.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Location Map
Attachment B: Applicant Narrative
Attachment C: Addendum to the Code of Development dated November 17, 2014
Attachment D: Revised Proffer Statement dated November 17, 2014
Return to PC actions
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 13, 2015
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZMA-2014-4 OLD TRAIL VILLAGE - Submit to BOS
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
January 13, 2015
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, January 13, 2015, at
6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room 241, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Members attending were Cal Morris, Chair; Karen Firehock, Richard Randolph, Thomas Loach, Bruce
Dotson, Tim Keller, and Mac Lafferty, Vice Chair. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the
University of Virginia was present. Ms. Firehock arrived at 6:03 p.m.
Other officials present were Scott Clark, Senior Planner; Meagan Yaniglos, Senior Planner, David Benish,
Chief of Planning; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission
and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Cilimberg, serving as temporary chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and
established a quorum.
Election of Officers: Chairman and Vice-Chairman:
Mr. Cilimberg opened nominations for the election of Chair of the Planning Commission for the upcoming
year.
Mr. Randolph nominated Cal Morris to be Chair for 2015 and Mr. Keller seconded.
Mr. Cilimberg asked if there were any other nominations. There being none, he closed t he nominations
and called for the vote.
The nomination of Cal Morris as Chair of the Planning Commission for 2015 carried by a vote of (5:0:1).
(Mr. Morris abstained) (Ms. Firehock absent)
Mr. Cilimberg turned the meeting over to Mr. Morris.
Mr. Morris asked for nominations for Vice Chair of the Planning Commission for 2015.
Mr. Dotson nominated Mac Lafferty to be Vice Chair for 2015 and Mr. Loach seconded.
Mr. Morris asked if there were any other nominations. There being none, he closed the nomi nations and
called for the vote.
The nomination of Mac Lafferty as Vice Chair of the Planning Commission for 2014 carried by a vote of
(5:0:1). (Mr. Lafferty abstained) (Firehock absent)
Public Hearing Item
b. ZMA-2014-0004 Old Trail Village
PROJECT: ZMA201400004 Old Trail Village
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 055E00100000A1; 055E00100000A2; 055E00100000A3; 055E00100000A4;
055E00100000A5
LOCATION: Old Trail Drive and Rockfish Gap Turnpike (Route 250)
PROPOSAL: To amend Code of Development to add carriage houses as a use for approved
ZMA200400024 (Old Trail NMD). No change to density is proposed.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 13, 2015
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZMA-2014-4 OLD TRAIL VILLAGE - Submit to BOS
2
PETITION: Request to amend Code of Development for ZMA200400024 to allow carriage houses as
a use on property zoned Neighborhood Model District (NMD) which allows residential mixed with
commercial, service and industrial uses at a density of 3-34 units/acre.
OVERLAY DISTRICT: Entrance Cooridor (EC); Flood Hazard (FH); Steep Slopes (SS); Scenic
Byways (SB)
PROFFERS: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Greenspace; Mixed Use- residential (18 units per acre maximum),
commercial, and office uses; Neighborhood Density Residential- 3-6 units/acre; supporting uses such
as religious instituitions, schools and other small scale non -residential uses; Urban Density
Residential- 6-12 units/acre; supporting uses such as religious instiutions, schools, commercial, office
and service uses.
(Megan Yaniglos)
Megan Yaniglos presented a PowerPoint presentation to summarize the staff report for
ZMA-2014-0004 Old Trail Village.
Proposal:
The request is to amend the Code of Development and proffers to include carriage houses as
an allowable use for approved ZMA2004-024
The carriage house use is requested for those blocks that have not been developed to date
which include blocks 5, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33,
and 34.
The carriage house units will be only permitted on a single family residential lot. Typically
these are apartments above a garage. They have carriage house units in Belvedere at the
moment. Also Cascadia, which has not been fully developed, allows carriage house units.
Old Trail is located off of Route 250. In the presentation highlighted on the rezoning application plan are
the blocks that are asking for this new use.
Summary:
Factors Favorable:
The rezoning amendment is consistent with the Crozet Master Plan.
The addition of carriage houses as an allowable use provides a variety of residential unit types.
Accessory attached units are currently an a llowed use within Old Trail Village, NMD, and this
amendment would allow that use to be detached from the main unit.
Factors Unfavorable:
None Identified
Staff recommends approval of ZMA-2014-004 Old Trail Village, with the amended Code of Development
(inclusive of addendum as provided in the staff report) and provided technical revisions are made to the
revised proffers prior to the Board of Supervisors meeting.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Loach asked on the carriage house itself will that count as part of their 15% of affordable housing.
Ms. Yaniglos replied yes, they did amend their proffers to have carriage houses as one of the unit types
for affordable housing.
Mr. Loach said he noticed the parking, and if it is three parking spaces off-site off the road.
Ms. Yaniglos replied yes.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 13, 2015
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZMA-2014-4 OLD TRAIL VILLAGE - Submit to BOS
3
Mr. Loach asked if that was enough parking in her estimation. He thought most people in a single -family
house are going to have two parking spaces, which means there would be one space left for the
apartment.
Ms. Yaniglos replied she would let the developer answer that question. However, her understanding is it
will be one bedroom apartments or one person living in them. One space would be required under the
ordinance so that they are providing that one space.
Mr. Keller said he had a number of comments.
Ms. Firehock said the potential motion A says move to recommend with the technical and grammatical
changes to the proffers as recommended by staff. She found some grammatical concerns with the
proffers, but did not know what the staff recommended since it was not included.
Ms. Yaniglos replied they are from Mr. Kamptner’s comments, which are minimal comments the applicant
needs to address. Therefore, she did not think it was necessary to include them since they are minor.
Ms. Firehock noted she would save those questions for the applicant.
Mr. Randolph said on page 2 under the specifics of proposal in the third boldface from the bottom staff
indicates the allowable overall density of Old Trail Village will not change, but she does not tell them what
the allowable overall density of OTV is. He asked what that is.
Ms. Yaniglos replied it is 1,600 to 2,200 units.
Mr. Randolph asked if those are livable units.
Ms. Yaniglos replied yes.
Mr. Randolph said on page 3 under streets it says the units to be accessed from the rear of the property.
He asked if the rear of the property will be accessed by what is defined in here as alleys.
Ms. Yaniglos replied it would be the alley or a private street.
Mr. Randolph said when an alley expands to 20’ so that a fire vehicle can access it is it still an alley.
Ms. Yaniglos replied yes.
Mr. Randolph asked if it was because one calls it an alley.
Ms. Yaniglos replied it was because it is not curb and gutter, sidewalks, or named a private street as
defined in the ordinance.
Mr. Randolph asked do we have streets in the county that are 20’ and don’t have sidewalks and curbs on
them that they call streets.
Ms. Yaniglos replied yes, actually it is in Old Trail Village where they have asked for a waiver of those
requirements because they needed frontage for the lots. When the lots front on a green or open space
amenity area but they gain their technical frontage from a private street that is in the rear of the lot it does
not have curb and gutter, sidewalks and street trees.
Mr. Randolph said that is helpful to know. He appreciates that definition. On B2 under C. proposal
description it says however, the Code of Development and proffers do not allow the construction of
accessory apartments as a component of a detached structure located on the same parcel as the single
family residence. He asked staff to explain the rationale for why that is in the Code of Development and
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 13, 2015
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZMA-2014-4 OLD TRAIL VILLAGE - Submit to BOS
4
why it has been standard operating procedure for the county to not allow the construction of accessory
apartments as a component of a detached structure.
Ms. Yaniglos replied the actual definition of an accessory apartment includes that it is within the main
dwelling and not detached. So the codes of developments and proffers replicated that definition that is in
the zoning ordinance to have the accessory apartments to be contained within a single family dwelling
unit only.
Mr. Randolph asked were there no other considerations from the standpoint of the proximity of the
detached unit to the primary unit and the implications for two different families living in units so close to
each other.
Ms. Yaniglos replied the units still need to adhere to the Building Code requirements as far as fire, safety,
and things of that nature. Zoning has determined in the past for these accessory structures that it has to
be attached in some way. There have been instances where single-family houses have been proposed
and an accessory unit that has been attached by a breezeway, but the physical detachment is a different
use and is not defined in the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Randolph asked to go to Attachment C2 under carriage houses in the last section J. It states any
single-family dwelling containing a carriage unit shall be provided with a minimum of 3 off-street parking
spaces arranged so that each parking space shall have reasonably uninhibited access to the street or
alley. He asked is a minimum of 3 units adequate when they are talking about a single-family dwelling in
the front and a carriage house in the back. If the single-family dwelling in the front has 2 people living in
it, wage earners needing 2 cars, and potentially a teenager thereby an additional car or a mother -in-law,
then it would require 3 cars. He asked if the assumption here with the alley and the carriage house is that
they are going to have no cars.
Ms. Yaniglos replied no, the carriage house would have one. The developer can explain this. However,
the way the carriage houses work at Belvedere is the garage is underneath and the apartment is above.
So there would be 2 spaces in the garage for the single-family residence and 1 space off to the side for
the accessory apartment or carriage house above the garage. This is what is required in our zoning
ordinance right now for parking. If there is a larger discussion of is this sufficient it may not be. Now is
the time to have that discussion. But, with the zoning administrator this is adequate parking that is in the
zoning ordinance requirements for single-family dwellings.
Mr. Randolph said they are going to assume there is just one car for the carriage house. However, if there
is more than one car where are those additional cars going to go but on the 20’ alleyway.
Ms. Yaniglos noted there was on-street parking on the public streets as well.
Mr. Benish pointed out there would be parking on one or two sides of the roadways. At build out they are
going to have areas that are other parking areas serving commercial areas and other civic spots. So on
balance they believe there is space that is going to be provided within the overall development. What
does tend to happen, and they have experienced this in Belvedere, is that during development they don’t
have built out streets with all the parking. There are some side issues with Belvedere that are creating
some extra issues. But, during development they can’t have without full development some of those on -
street spaces and parking spaces in commercial areas and centers that are not going to be available.
Mr. Randolph said he was just concerned because he had an occasion over the holidays to be at a social
event in Dunlora and the roads there are a little bit wider than 20’, but when they have enough cars
parked along the side of the road, even on one side, it can be fairly tight.
There being no further questions, Mr. Morris opened the public hearing for the applicant and public
comment. He invited the applicant to address the Planning Commission.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 13, 2015
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZMA-2014-4 OLD TRAIL VILLAGE - Submit to BOS
5
Valerie Long, with Williams Mullen, said she represented for the applicant, March Mountain Properties,
LLC, who are the owners and developers of Old Trail Village. She introduced David B rockman who is the
Development Manager for Old Trail Village. Mr. Brockman has been on board for about two years and
they have been working very hard on everything at Old Trail. Mr. Brockman has been the driving force
behind all of that making a tremendous amount of progress over the years. They also have Leslie Tate
who is a land planner with Roudabush, Gale, & Associates, which is the civil engineering and land
planning firm that has been working on the project with Mr. Brockman over the past several years. So
Ms. Tate has been working with us on a lot of the land use and zoning issues. She thanked Ms. Yaniglos
for her explanation.
In the PowerPoint presentation Ms. Long showed some brief slides to provide some framework
and background about Old Trail. This is actually the first of two rezoning applications that they
will bring forward for review. This one is very limited in scope, which Ms. Yaniglos has already
explained. They have a broader more comprehensive rezoning that they are just about ready to
submit next week. Hopefully, it will be before the Commission in a few months. They thought it
might be a good opportunity just to show the Commission some of our exhibits as a brief
introduction and also to help orient and show what they are talking about so this application
makes sense.
Old Trail as a whole has many components. T he Village Center is a portion of Old Trail Village.
The original rezoning was done ten years ago in 2005. There were some portions of Old Trail
that were already zoned R-6. All of Old Trail was shown in a slide. In the upper left corner of the
slide is Creek Side, along with Lower Ballard and Upper Ballard. Those areas were all by-right
zoning and zoned R-6. The Village Center area was rezoned in 2005, which is the only portion
of the community that our rezoning will apply to. She referred to a map of the Village Center
area, which they used for realtors and marketing folks. She then referred to a slightly updated
plan which was approved as part of the original rezoning, but maintains all of the original features
and elements. She referred to the block plan that was approved as part of the 2005 rezoning.
The areas highlighted in green are those that would be subject to this particular carriage house
rezoning. The reason it does not include all of the blocks within the Village Center is because
some of those are now owned by third parties, the families, the lodges in there and swimming
pool. They wanted it not to be retroactive and impact anybody’s existing properties. So it only
applies to those blocks that the developer still owns. So those are our sites.
The simple explanation regarding the scope of this application is that it eliminates a distinction
between the ability to have a carriage house unit above an attached garage, which is already
allowed. They can even have an accessory dwelling unit inside of an attached unit, such as a
basement apartment. That has always been allowed under the definition of an accessory unit.
The only difference is that this rezoning application would clarify that a carriage house unit is also
allowed above a detached garage. She thanked Ms. Yaniglos for her explanation of how it was
really the driving force in the definition of accessory unit. To answer Mr. Randolph’s question she
explained that she was actually involved with the 2005 rezoning and she can tell them there was
no discussion at the time about attached versus detached. It was really all about accessory units
are good because they help provide affordable housing. They see this change as a way to
further that goal of providing additional oppor tunities for affordable housing. So that is what they
are hoping to achieve here.
She would address some of the questions for Mr. Loach and Mr. Randolph about the parking .
One, they are using the standards the zoning ordinance requires. However, there were a few
other things they want to clarify. As Mr. Benish mentioned, there was also parking on the street.
Mr. Benish has been working very carefully to make sure that all of the new roads within the
Village Center are actually built a little bit wider than some of the first roads to accommodate
parking on both sides of the streets as well as sidewalks. So the roads are wider now and there
is ample parking on the streets. Finally, again these units are intended to be for affordable
housing purposes. So it is hoped, particularly as some of the commercial space develops that
they will be particularly attractive to lower income folks who might be working or employed by
some of the businesses in the commercial areas such that they might not need a vehicle. They
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 13, 2015
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZMA-2014-4 OLD TRAIL VILLAGE - Submit to BOS
6
would be able to work at one of the commercial businesses and not worry about needing a
vehicle because they could walk right to their carriage house apartment in the neighborhood.
She would be happy to answer questions.
Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant.
Mr. Dotson asked would this allow someone to have an accessory unit both over the garage and as part.
So it is one of the other, but not both.
Ms. Long replied that is correct. In the attachment that is the addendum to the Code it says not more
than one carriage unit is permitted per detached family dwelling. But, she thinks it also says that you
can’t have more than one accessory unit per dwelling unit.
Mr. Dotson pointed out he did not see it, but was guessing that was t he case. He finds it very confusing
and understands that this will not change the cap of 1,600 to 2,200 units yet there is reference to
increasing the density and the term additional is used several times. He finds it very confusing and asked
if she could give him the simple version
Ms. Long replied yes, she would try because his confusion is warranted because there was an error in the
original Code of Development. There is a table in the original Code that talks about the density permitted
for each and every block, and it varies. Then there is a footnote at the bottom of that chart. For example,
most of them allow either 6.5 dwelling units per acre or 8.5. Then there is a footnote at the bottom of that
chart that says in addition any blocks with accessory units shall have 6.5 dwelling units per acre. So it
might have said for block 23 you can have 6.5 dwelling units per acre. Then the footnote said in addition.
The footnote was intended to say you get additional density for a block that has carriage house units.
Because a carriage house unit is a unit and if they have those by definition they add to the density. But,
the footnote left the critical work additional out. So it did not make any sense because it said again, using
my example, block 23 you can have 6.5 dwelling units per acre. The footnote says in essence in addition
for any block that allows accessory units you can have 6.5 dwelling units per acre. It does not make any
sense. It was intended to say you can have an additional 6.5 dwell ing units per acre because that makes
more sense because you would have one additional dwelling unit for each residence within that block that
had an accessory unit. What they have done is just clarify that in this addendum.
Mr. Dotson asked if the 1,600 to 2,200 assumes that there will be some accessory units. He said what
she is proposing is a technical clarification and not a change in the density.
Ms. Long replied that was exactly right. She misspoke when she said the proffers require a certain
number of accessory units. That is not quite accurate. The proffers speak to accessory units. They are
limited in the number of overall affordable housing units that can be accessory. Therefore, she asked that
they scratch that comment. She agreed Mr. Dotson was right that they are not increasing the overall
number of dwelling units permitted within the Village Center. It is currently 2,200 and they are leaving it at
that. For what it is worth, they think it is unlikely they will get anywhere near 2,200 at full build-out
because they are, among other things, what David Brockman is doing is in response to the market over
the past ten years making the lots a little bit larger, and adding much more green space and community
space to the Village Center. It is just not enough space for all 2,200 of those units. But, what they did was
fix what was to us an obvious error in what was intended. It does not make sense otherwise to say your
density can be up to 6.5 dwelling units per acres and you can do accessory units and get the same
amount of density. It just does not make sense otherwise. So they just clarified that to say in theory you
could have 1 additional dwelling unit for each single -family house on that block. The chances of them all
having carriage house units they think are small. But, they have had a few builders who have had an
interest in building detached garages with carriage houses above them. What they learned was
technically it is not allowed if it is detached, only if it is attached. Th ey could have built a breezeway and
made it work sort of detached, but they did not want to do that. They wanted it to be clear that it was
allowed.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 13, 2015
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZMA-2014-4 OLD TRAIL VILLAGE - Submit to BOS
7
Mr. Dotson asked if one of these carriage house units was built and he was looking at it he was assuming
he would see about 400 square feet above a two-car garage. He would see kitchen appliances installed,
a bathroom and maybe it would be a studio type open space or it might have a walled in bedroom. He
asked if it would be a fully capable housing unit. It would not be an unfinished bonus room, but it would
be a dwelling unit.
Ms. Long pointed out in order for it to qualify as an accessory unit and thus for it to qualify as an
affordable unit so they can meet our affordable housing requirements it would have to be a dwelling unit.
Mr. Kamptner can chime in if she missed any of the elements. But, the term dwelling unit is specifically
defined in the zoning ordinance to include some of the other things Mr. Dotson mentioned. It has to have
living facilities, restroom facilities, cooking facilities, and dining facility. The key is usually does it have a
kitchen by having a stove or not. These would have to meet that definition of a dwelling unit in order to
count.
Mr. Dotson asked in terms of cash proffers for school projects and park projects he did not see accessory
units mentioned there. There is a fee for single-family, townhouses and so forth. He asked would these
be contributing units to school projects and park projects.
Ms. Long replied that affordable housing units are generally exempt from the cash proffer requirements.
So if they qualify as an affordable unit under the proffers they would not be required to make those cash
payments.
Mr. Randolph asked who owns the carriage house.
Ms. Long replied the owner of the single-family dwelling unit would own the garage structure with the
dwelling unit above it.
Ms. Firehock said on page 3 under clause H, which Mr. Dotson was just referring to, in the middle of the
paragraph it says in addition this additional density allowed with accessory units is consistent with the
core of values of new urbanism to incorporate green spaces or parks in some blocks. So they are
reducing density to achieve this and transferring that density, etc. She asked Ms. Long if she is definitely
saying that there will be lots then undeveloped because they can’t go over the density. She asked if that
was a given because the development might not develop out to its full density anyway. She asked was
this a proffer or a principal. What is this paragraph intending to tell us.
Ms. Long said what they were trying to say she would answer by referring to a slide, which was a good
example. This is, again, a slightly modified plan from the approved master plan. They are going throu gh
and amending this plan kind of on a block by block basis as part of subdivision plats. One of the things
Mr. Brockman identified when he came on board was that the original zoning block plan had almost no
green space in the areas. There is obviously a very large park that has land already dedicated to the
county and hopefully one day will be developed as a full county park. Right now it is really just open
space. Other than that park there was very little green space within the area. It is a very tight urban
development. When they had the first set of very small blocks of houses built, which was about five in the
Village Center, they did not sell very well. It was because the lots were so small and they were finding
that people really wanted a little bit more. Once Mr. Brockman came on board in his years of experience
and developing similar communities all around the country and the world he realized that one of the first
things that they needed was more open space. So they hired Nelson W olfe Landscape Architects to
come up with a plan. Among other things they have included a number of linear parks throughout the
area. An example is in the slide presentation that shows an area that is all green space on the new plan.
There is another one that spans three or four blocks. Those did not exist on the original plan. They are
there now and the one shown on the right is being developed and it has been an incredible amenity to
that area. But, as a result those areas used to be lots in essence. They are now additional green space,
which means by definition there is less space for lots. They are making the lots larger now. So they can
have slightly larger houses and still have a little bit of your own lot left and have a little bit more space
between homes. It is still very dense. But, by definition that means less density. In addition, the original
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 13, 2015
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZMA-2014-4 OLD TRAIL VILLAGE - Submit to BOS
8
plan had a lot more apartment units in it than they think there is a market for. There will definitely be
multi-family apartments, but probably not to the extent that was originally envisioned.
Ms. Firehock said her next question is on the next page. This goes a little bit to what Mr. Randolph was
talking about. These are obviously all affordable rental units. On top of page 4 it says the proposal will
provide affordable housing units in a higher income neighborhood. She was just wondering what sort of
market analysis they have done to support that. If she put a cynical twist on it she would say that the
accessory apartments would be inhabited by college aged students who could not get jobs, whomever or
grandma if she can walk the steps to the top. She was just not convinced and would like to hear a little bit
more about that you know that these higher income families living in the main house will indeed want to
rent out their units and that really happens. She guessed what is the example or corollary.
Ms. Long replied that it is hard to know for sure and they certainly can’t make any of the owners of the
houses rent them out for affordable units. But, for one thing the proffers do require that 15% of the
dwelling units of the entire village be affordable. So they have to meet that goal. So part of this rezoning
is to make that process a little bit easier by adding just one more type of dwelling unit that would count as
an affordable unit. There is a large area of commercial. If they have been out to the Village Center above
Trailside Coffee, DeLucas and ACAC those are all apartments. Some of them are studio apartments.
Some of them are one-bedroom. Some of them count as affordable units. She asked Mr. Brockman to
tell her if she was wrong, but she thinks all of those are booked up and leased. She lived there for a while.
She moved to Old Trail. She told everyone when she helped with the original rezoning in 2005, but it just
took a while to convince her husband to move out there. They lived in the apartments for ten months
while they built a new house. They obviously did not count as affordable. But, it was really hard to get in
there because there are not any other options certainly in Old Trail and very few other options within
Crozet. So there is a continuing demand for there are a lot of seniors who live in those units. There are
some folks that like it. She knows one woman who lived down the hall and has lived there for years. She
is elderly and just loves living in the apartment. She was not ready for the lodge, but she did not want to
deal with any maintenance. She did not want to rent a townhouse since she did not need it. The
apartments work great for her. She has talked to her about these carriage house units and she says that
is exactly what she wants since she needs less space than she has and that would be even more
affordable. So they don’t have hard market data, but there are definite examples of demand and interest.
These are the types of units that in working with Ron White, the County Housing Director, he particularly
likes because it uses the term affordable based on their size as opposed to their rent. They can only rent
an accessory unit like this for so much because it is so small. It is roughly a 400 square foot apartment.
So that helped keep them affordable. Whereby contrast one of the continuing challenges they have with
affordable housing proffers is how to ensure that this unit stays affordable, especially if it is a for sale unit.
But even though rental units the proffers have all sorts of language about how long you have to keep
them affordable and sometimes it is 5 years and sometimes it is 10. But, these types of units are so small
that they are always going to roughly be affordable for folks. So they hope that as more of them are built
and available that more qualifying affordable families will have the opportunity to live there.
Ms. Firehock said she appreciates the response, but still is not convinced that they will be rented out to
people who are not somehow associated with the family that is living there. Some will, but in thinking
about the location and income levels of folks who tend to buy and build houses in Old Trail she
questioned it.
Ms. Long pointed out part of it is to increase that diversity. Again, one of the goals of the neighborhood
is to have a variety of housing types and this is yet again another type. In order to have it not be just all
upper middle income families they really want a variety there. But, they have to be able to create those
dwelling units first in order to even attract them. So they see this as the f irst step of hopefully if they build
it folks will come. But, certainly there is no guarantee.
Ms. Firehock suggested if possible maybe 5 or 10 years from now she can come back and tell us how
that worked out. She asked Ms. Long for her help as an attorney in interpreting what a sentence means.
She has read the sentence over and over and just cannot unpack it. In the proffer statement attachment
D, on page 2 at the top of the page the last sentence in that paragraph is 97 words. It begins with
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 13, 2015
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZMA-2014-4 OLD TRAIL VILLAGE - Submit to BOS
9
notwithstanding the foregoing whoever the owner may carry over her ba nk credits for affordable units in
the event the individual subdivision, plat or site plan designates affordable units that in the aggregate
exceeds the 15% minimum for such subdivision plat or site plan and such additional affordable units may
be allocated towards the 15% minimum on any future subdivision plat or site plan provided however that
the maximum number of those affordable units that may be carried over a bank shall not exceed 15% of
the total units on any subdivision plat or site plan. She asked what this is trying to say.
Ms. Long noted that she most likely wrote that language with Mr. Kamptner ten years ago.
Mr. Kamptner noted it was developer requested language.
Ms. Long asked to explain since it is actually a really easy explanation. W ith the affordable housing
requirements the basic rule for a rezoning that includes residential units is that 15% of the units must be
affordable. By way of background Old Trail Village was actually if it was not the first rezoning that was
subject to that policy it was one of the first. She would start by saying that a ll of these rules and
procedures they were literally figuring them out as they were working on the rezoning and writing the
proffers. Ms. Grant and Mr. Kamptner worked with us on the original rezoning since they did not have
anything to start with. They had to sit down and create the affordable housing proffers as they went.
They are now sort of the standard form. This is a little bit different because they have evolved since then
a little bit. However, part of the goal of this provision among other things particularly at the time Old Trail
was first reviewed and approved was the strong desire that affordable housing be disbursed within a
community and not all located in one area. So there was a request that the proffers require not only15%
of all of the units within the community, but that you spread those out. The way they figured out to do it
was by including the proffer provision that said with each subdivision or site plan that came in 15% of the
units on each site plan or subdivision plat would be affordable. It was in there. But, then they realized
what if they have a block where you have 20% of the units that are affordable, do you lose that 5% or
could you have a block where you have 20% affordable units in one block and 10% affordable on the
block next door. Sure, as long as you reasonably disburse them. So that language that Ms. Firehock
read is what they call the banking provision or the carry over provision. So this language prior to that
says in essence you have to have 15% of each plat and plan; however, you can bank them. You can
carry over credits. So using her example, if you have a block that had 20% of the units on that plat was
affordable you can carry over that 5% credit to your next plat. You just have to maintain a running tally on
your site plans and subdivision plats to demonstrate that you are always at the 15% requirement. So that
is a long winded way of explaining it, but that is what that means. She asked if that helped. She offered
to give another example. At one point there was a proposed developer that was going to build a single
apartment building with all affordable units right in the Village Center. It was going to be a great project
and was something they wanted to be able to do. It was going to be really hard to comply with that. But,
they could have at least sort of carried over and banked up a bunch of those. But, that is what it is
intended to do is provide a little bit of flexibility to say they can carry over some credits, but it caps them.
You cannot carry over or bank more than 15%.
Mr. Lafferty asked how many units in Old Trail as it presently stands are affordable.
Mr. David Brockman, Development Manager of Old Trail, said he belie ves they have currently built about
10 or 12 affordable units. They have planned and platted for a number of more which could be up into
the 20 or so range. The challenge has been in trying to bring builders in that can find an economic way to
build those. So they have been working with Ron White and the county in trying to find ways that they
can stimulate affordable growth and affordable development. So this is kind of one of the other ways that
they have looked at that.
Mr. Lafferty noted that all of these are affordable rental units and they won’t be for sale. He asked how
they can tell an owner of one of these units that they have to rent them out at an affordable price.
Ms. Long replied that was somewhat what she was mentioning earlier. Someone might try to rent them
for $3,000 a month, but no one is going to pay that under a market rate for something so small. So that
helps keeps them affordable. But, there is also language in the proffers that regulates how the affordable
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 13, 2015
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZMA-2014-4 OLD TRAIL VILLAGE - Submit to BOS
10
units are priced and what their rental rates are. She will spare them the details, but there is a whole
paragraph that talks about the rent rate shall not exceed the then current and applicable maximum net
rent rate approved by the County Housing Office. So in order for the developers to obtain credit for these
units as affordable units they have to comply with the proffer guidelines.
Mr. Lafferty asked does that definition define affordable.
Ms. Long pointed out Mr. Brockman was telling her they would not apply for these.
Mr. David Brockman said he would stick around so he could answer questions, too. There are two
different categories of rentals that quality for affordable. A rental within an apartment building does need
to adhere to what is a HUD standard for affordable rates. That is a posted rate that the county also uses
for all their affordable products. You go through a qualification process. They have to submit income
qualification, salary and other things to qualify in our apartment building. They were able to do that. They
did that for the past five years. Again, going back to what Ron White brought up and what they have
worked with him on. Let’s say for simple math apartments rent for about $1 a square foot. Generally, you
cannot get much more than that for rentals. So by square footage size, as was mentioned earlier by Mr.
Dotson, the carriage units are only going to be about 400 to 500 square feet. That is about the biggest
you can put on top of a garage. So by virtue of that adding the market rate of $1 or so per square foot or
even $1.50 a square foot you are in an affordable range. A one-bedroom apartment under current HUD
standards rents for $820 a month. You could not get more than $600 for something like this. So you are
even below affordable standards under a normal market rate apartment. One of the reasons this has
become very desirable in what they have heard in the county is because they have been successful at
capping rental rates and not having them get too high so that for the life of the product it is always there
as affordable. So even if, for instance, they don’t get rented 10 or 20 years from now they are still an
affordable apartment. So they never go away as an affordable apartment. So the law of averages over
20 years if they can rent them for 10 of those years and 10 of those years the units were used for a
homeowner’s son or grandmother to live in, that even those are affordable needs. But, by virtue of
offering affordable to the market the law of averages will hopefully brin g that to the market more often
than it would if it was not there. So that is why it is difficult to do market studies and other types of thin gs.
They are looking at a lifetime law of averages as opposed to the next five years of demand studies. They
just don’t have those kinds of market data out there. He hoped that that will tread some light.
Mr. Loach pointed out he looks at this from a different perspective. One is from the Neighborhood Model.
As far as Old Trail this completes a variety of housing types that they have been building with a wide
range of costs. So they would now have affordable housing with two million dollar homes in the same
development, which he did not think they are going to find anyplace in Albemarle County. He would go
on record to say as far as the 15% to him it is a joke . As they know they have been sitting around
approving development after development where the developer has just paid the 15 percent , whereas he
has just paid his way out of providing affordable housing. From the community’s perspective rental units
are one of the things that they do need in Crozet. They are very hard to find in Crozet; especially with this
type of unit for our young people just getting started off. For the community he thinks this is a good thing.
As for Old Trail, they have a strong neighborhood association. When he attended the community meeting
when Mr. Brockman presented this to all the neighbors he thinks there was some apprehension, but he
thinks there was support for it. He thinks if there is a parking problem that Mr. Brockman will hear about it
pretty quick and it will be up to them to solve it. Again, he thinks this is good for the community.
Mr. Keller said he thinks he has done a great job with his fellow Commissioners in asking the questions
and you all responding. He thinks that it really shows as well as this dream in this system is working that
there are a lot of issues that need to be discussed on the housing front. He was going to introduce under
new business some suggestions for pieces that he thinks really have been spotlighted by this kind of case
study that he is providing us with. He would hope that they would have an opportunity for dialogue and
that then maybe folks could come back not from Old Trail but from the experiences that you have had.
He particularly appreciated the discussion about market rate for housing. He heard an interesting radio
show talking about that and how a lot of that is just being proven completely invalid as the housing market
has closed down the rental market is going up and the real issues for people who need affordable
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 13, 2015
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZMA-2014-4 OLD TRAIL VILLAGE - Submit to BOS
11
housing getting it. They all know that this is really not going to be an answer on the true affordable
housing level. Some units yes, but across the board no. Serving on the Fiscal Impact Committee and in
these discussions of proffers and seeing that the developments are not being built out anywhere near
what the initial plans are showing and therefore the incomes that are coming for the proffers to the county
are diminished. There are just a lot of issues here with the shared economy. One of the pieces in the
draft Comprehensive Plan is to encourage more ancillary buildings for exactly the kind of purposes that
they are all talking about and yet they are seeing all over the country that folks are able to get three times
the amount renting the supposedly affordable rental units that way over weekends. When they think of
Old Trail and its proximity to national parks and national forest he thinks that besides the fam ily
membership. So he thinks that there will be a great deal of diversity here, but not again what was really
envisioned. He thinks they need to think about these things and not hold these folks hostage with it. He
certainly agrees with the density. He agrees that the improvements they are talking about are significant
in this case. He thanked the applicants for their candor in their answers.
Mr. Dotson asked one last question about Attachment D on page 3. There is a paragraph reporting rental
rates. He guessed Mr. Brockman said there are two kinds of rental units. Would the rental rates for these
carriage house/accessory units be reported under this paragraph? If so, as a source of data that over a
few years they would actually be able to find out how many there are. He shares his skepticism. If he
owned a unit it would be my home office. However, maybe in ten years he would be happy to have some
additional income.
Mr. Brockman replied again, it kind of is over the life of it, which would be difficult to track. He thinks it will
have different phases. At times it will be a home office. At times it will be a rental. He thinks that is what
the appeal of it is. So it is a desirable way to kind of maintain your house over life as you age and can
use it for different versatilities.
Mr. Dotson asked does this paragraph apply.
Mr. Brockman replied because again the way the county originally established these accessory units he
believes that is consistent throughout the county that those automatically qualify for affordable and are
not reported individually. So it would not fall within that sort of qualified category.
Mr. Dotson said this refers to apartment buildings.
Mr. Brockman agreed that is correct that this refers to apartment buildings.
Mr. Dotson said that was too bad.
Mr. Keller asked if he had the magic wand and could make the adjacent auxiliary structure rental unit be
up or below would he like that option. When he thinks about the aging boomer population and having
friends who bought a house with a mother-in-law apartment above the garage and the mother-in-law
broke her hip it does not work very well as a mother-in-law apartment.
Mr. Brockman agreed that is true. However, our Code of Development allows for that accessory unit in
the basement and in other ways. It allows for it in an attached. So those are currently in place for Old
Trail right now. For multiple reasons they wanted to add the category of a detached carriage unit. You
can’t have them both. For example, you can’t rent the basement and rent the apartment over the garage.
You would only be able to pick one of the two. So the option is available to us to offer that versatility
throughout the community. Personally, he wanted to have the detached because he believed when it
was attached to the house it is a lot more likely to become the home office and not the apartment. He
preferred to have it detached because he believes he has a better chance of it becoming an apartment as
a detached unit. So that was the other reason they kind of pushed for that. They felt that was a better
option for that carriage unit.
Mr. Firehock said when they are getting ready to build the lot the person chooses that they want the one
with the carriage house or they do not.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 13, 2015
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZMA-2014-4 OLD TRAIL VILLAGE - Submit to BOS
12
Mr. Brockman replied that was right. Under this scenario they would have say, for instance, a block of 18
house and they would not do them all as carriage units. They would only offer potentially in this case that
they started this they wanted only about half of them to be carriage units. So, yes someone could go in
and say they like that house, but would rather have it with the carriage unit. So they would have that
availability through the builder.
Ms. Firehock said similarly if she was the neighbor nex t door and she picked one because she knew the
one next door did not have a carriage unit and she liked the view and did not want it objected, and then
her neighbor next door could not come in later and say they would like to add the carriage house option.
Could they stick carriage houses in later if they were not originally there?
Mr. Brockman yes, he believed they could. It would actually be a zoning application they would have to
make to the county. Our specific desire to do them is to limit it to within the 15% so they would only be
orchestrating those to be built through builders on a set number of them. But, yes it could be something
someone could come later and ask.
Ms. Firehock asked if every lot could have a carriage house built in the back yard.
Mr. Brockman pointed out if someone wanted to construct the carriage house unit they would have to get
a building permit.
Ms. Firehock said anyone who was buying into this, let’s say that you only have 5 units out of 15 with
carriage units, but ever yone who would buy a house would be appraised and every single backyard could
be carriage houses if the owners so chooses. The person buying the house would be informed of that.
Ms. Firehock asked if they approved this tonight could every single backyard have a carriage house.
Then would the people buying the house without carriage houses in their backyard or their neighbor’s
backyard be apprised that all of the backyards could be filled with carriage houses.
Mr. Brockman replied under current zoning they could come and build that over their garage today
without any action done today. The only difference is that what they would be approving or agreeing to is
allowing them to do it in a detached garage as opposed to an attached garage. They can actual ly go
there today and do it right now. Anybody can do it today as long as they get a proper permit. They can
put the unit in their basement or over the garage as long as there is some sort of attachment to the main
house. The only difference is that our lots are so small; quite frankly, they are about 40’ X 90’. So they
get a little 4’ space between the garage and the house. Well under current Code and zoning there is
going to be walls in that little 4’ space. If they agree today they will take those walls away from that 4’
space. That is all they are really talking about today.
Ms. Firehock said he was saying that there is not that much difference in terms of the backyards.
Ms. Long said it was a good thing to make that point. That is what it is really all about. It is a simple
distinction or an arbitrary distinction. They can do it right now as long as it is attached. Even if it looks
detached but is technically attached, they can still do it. This just eliminates that arbitrary distinction and
says you can do them in a detached garage as well. For what it is worth, Mr. Brockman works hard in the
homeowner’s association to make sure all of our residents in all of our community meetings are aware of
these things. They talk all the time that they moved here to Old Trail for a reason, this is a different
community. This is not Dunlora, Glenmore or Forest Lakes. It is d ifferent. Not that everybody who
moves to the neighborhood understands all the nuances. But, they generally do. They work hard to
cultivate that this is a different community and they are all here for a reason and it is a good thing As Mr.
Loach said, generally, since not everybody agrees about everything, but they do work hard to
communicate the differences and the unique characteristics about the neighborhood to everybody all of
the time.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 13, 2015
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZMA-2014-4 OLD TRAIL VILLAGE - Submit to BOS
13
Mr. Randolph said his one final point is he works with Habitat and affordability is something that is really
important. He has to say that despite Mr. Loach’s optimism and the optimism of the community he has to
echo Ms. Firehock and Mr. Keller, and what Mr. Dotson has already submitted, that he will be very
surprised if these carriage houses over time are truly affordable. He thinks part of the motivation will be
for some people in constructing it to actually upgrade it as much as they can to enhance the appearance
and the amenities and while one would assert that there probably will be a limitation of a $1 or $1.50 per
square foot given the location and the value of the location that the really nicely built small
environmentally sustainable low energy costing unit will be very appealing and will carry a premium in the
community. That is his concern about this. He was not so sure that one of the goals will be met by
carriage houses in this location at this time. He hoped he was wrong.
Mr. Loach said he would just go back and say that this gets back to the master plan and the
Neighborhood Model. What they are doing is providing another range in affordability of housing types.
He thinks that is what is most important about it. He would also say they talked about affordability but left
out the fact that having a carriage house might be the difference between somebody being able to afford
that house and not being able to afford it. It is just as important if you have 3 or 4 kids and want them to
go to the 3 schools right next door that they could afford to build a house there as anything else as far as
he was concerned. It helps with the mortgage.
Ms. Long pointed out it provides a stream of rental income to the owners that can be very valuable.
Mr. Morris invited public comment. There being no public comment, the public hearing was closed and
the matter before the Planning Commission for discussion and action.
Mr. Morris said it was an excellent discussion.
Mr. Keller noted that he was going to bring it up under new business.
Motion: Mr. Loach moved and Mr. Dotson seconded to recommend approval of ZMA-2014-00004 Old Trail
Village, with technical and grammatical changes to the proffers as recommended by staff.
Mr. Morris invited discussion.
Ms. Firehock said she did not see this as true affordable housing because of its location. She has in her
past life as a city planning commissioner approved these types of units in developments. She was going
to support this primarily because after Ms. Long’s explanation about the difference between what you can
do there now and what this does she does not see a huge difference in what is currently allowed. But,
she would just take issue with coaching it as affordability because she was not convinced that is really
going to be providing affordable
housing for people working in the retail establishments, etc.
Mr. Keller said he supports it as well. He thinks that even beyond that is the issue that they have
developed a system that is getting credit for affordability when it is not really affordable housing.
Ms. Firehock pointed out she thought that was a separate issue.
Mr. Morris invited a roll call.
The motion was approved by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Morris noted ZMA-2014-0004 Old Trail Village would be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors with a
recommendation for approval to be heard on a date to be determined.
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Evaluation of Solid Waste Alternatives Including a
Transfer Station at the Ivy MUC
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Evaluation of solid waste alternatives and
consideration of a transfer station at a specific site
at the Ivy MUC
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Graham
PRESENTER (S): Doug Walker
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
March 11, 2015
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Over the past year, the Board has supported the evaluation of both the near term options regarding the current transfer
station facilities and operation at the Ivy Materials Utilization Center (MUC), and the long term solid waste solutions for the
County generally. Regarding the use of Ivy MUC for near term solid waste solutions, the Board, at its meeting on August 6,
2014, determined that it would not pursue County control of transfer station operations at the Ivy MUC at this time, but left
open the option to either work with the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) to close the transfer station and revert the
facility to a convenience center or to work with the RSWA to bring the transfer station into compliance with the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) regulations. The Board understands that under both options, the RSWA
owns the Ivy MUC property in its entirety and holds the VDEQ permit governing the operation of the transfer station. The
August 6, 2014 Executive Summary and background materials are attached (Attachment A).
At its meeting on October 8, 2014, the Board approved retaining Draper Aden Associates (DAA) and Gershman Brickner
and Bratton (GBB) to address two specific questions: 1) is the Ivy MUC location an economical place for an upgraded
transfer station; and 2) what are the primary factors influencing the determination of economic viability for this location.
The resulting report, provided as Attachment B, was received by the Board at its meeting on December 3, 2014.
At its meeting on December 10, 2014, the Board authorized staff to enter into a contract with DAA to:
A - Conduct a high level evaluation and comparison of possible collection and transport system alternatives,
including a transfer station at Ivy, with an estimate of capital and operating costs, for consideration by the Board of
Supervisors no later than March, 2015. This evaluation will include a review of previous studies conducted by the
RSWA and the County; and
B - As a part of the comparison of possible collection and transport system alternatives, immediately begin a
detailed analysis of the Ivy MUC site specific to the construction of a new transfer station on one or more suitable
locations on the property. Analysis will include an environmental assessment to determine site suitability and
more detailed cost estimates for design, construction, and operations.
At its meeting on February 4, 2015, the Board directed that there be no further consideration at this time of a transfer
station at any location in the County other than at the Ivy MUC.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Critical Infrastructure: Prioritize, plan and invest in critical infrastructure that responds to past and future changes and
improves the capacity to serve community needs
DISCUSSION:
This iteration of an evaluation of alternative solid waste solutions is focused primarily on a more detailed analysis of a
specific site located at the Ivy MUC that has been determined to be suitable for site development and construction of a
new transfer station to replace the existing facility. In performing this analysis and developing a conceptual plan, DAA
met with RSWA staff and its environmental engineering consultants to verify that site development and construction
could occur on this site without impact prohibitive to the current and on-going operations. The resulting report,
provided as Attachment C, includes the identification of a viable site plan and estimate of probable costs for site work
and construction of a transfer station with enhanced recycling operations and services. This option, which includes a
tipping floor, loading area and additional interior space for recycling operations, was developed to illustrate the
AGENDA TITLE: Evaluation of Solid Waste Alternatives Including a Transfer Station at the Ivy MUC
March 11, 2015
Page 2
maximum reasonable development potential of this particular site with an emphasis on flexibility, operational efficiency,
and a more extensive recycling operation including material recovery. This option can also accommodate a broad
array of self-haul, self-sort recycling services on the Ivy MUC property.
A second option specific to this site was first presented to the Board as part of the DAA/GBB November 17, 2014
report (Attachment B, Figure 1). This option is addressed in the most recent report with a conceptual building floor plan
and estimate of probable costs for a basic 7,800 sq ft transfer station, without enhancements. This option reflects a
more modest capital investment that would allow for continued transfer station operations under the existing permit.
This option can also accommodate a broad array of self-haul, self-sort recycling services at the Ivy MUC.
A third option, not specifically evaluated but available for consideration is the full development of the site with only the
construction of the smaller, basic transfer station. This scenario would allow for an initial, targeted capital investment
in a basic transfer station to replace the current transfer station operations and still reserve opportunity to expand the
building and services with additional capital investment at any point in the future. This option would also accommodate
a broad array of recycling services at the Ivy MUC.
A companion report identified as Comparison of Alternatives is provided as Attachment D. This report identifies
specific facility scenarios and highlights major factors that inform the cost of construction as well as implications for on-
going operations. Because of the number and variety of alternatives already considered by the Board for the Ivy MUC,
staff views this compiled information as important primarily as a frame of reference as part of the Board’s discussion.
Staff acknowledges that the Board has indicated its interest in the continued operation of a transfer station at the Ivy
MUC and that this decision was made, in large part, to allow the facility to continue to receive waste from small
commercial haulers. To this end, a primary determination for the Board to make is whether to proceed with the
construction of a new, permanent transfer station (basic or expanded) at the Ivy MUC at this time, or whether to
pursue another alternative, such as a canopy to cover the existing facility and thus retain the DEQ permit for a more
limited period of time. The timing of this decision has been driven largely by a DEQ Letter of Agreement with the
RSWA specifying April 1, 2015 as a hard deadline for submittal of a definitive solution to address the non-compliance
of the current Ivy facility. It is important for the Board to know that while official action has not occurred, County staf f
and RSWA representatives have received verbal support from VDEQ officials regarding an extension of the Letter of
Agreement to the end of the calendar year. This extension would allow RSWA the opportunity to evaluate and
respond to the Board preferences for a transfer station at Ivy. This extension would also allow time for the completion
of the work by the Long Range Solid Waste Solutions Advisory Committee, which may inform the Board’s final
determination.
As the Board is aware, the Ivy MUC is owned and operated by the RSWA and any action regarding its utilization,
including the construction and operation of any and all new facilities, must ultimately be supported by the RSWA.
Further, the most recent letter report from DAA identifies several environmental issues that may be meaningful to the
RSWA if there is to be land disturbance and new construction at the identified new transfer station site. Finally,all
identified transfer station facility alternatives have corresponding operational impacts that will determine total one-time
and on-going costs. Before making an informed decision, the Board will need the RSWA’s professional analysis and
recommendation regarding these factors, particularly because RSWA is the property owner, holds the DEQ permit,
and currently manages the entire operation.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The impact on the budget will depend on the options selected by the Board. Based on the information provided, it
is reasonable to assume that capital costs will range from about $150,000, plus soft costs, for the construction of a
canopy to cover the existing transfer station operation; to approximately $1.5 million, plus soft costs, for site
development and construction of a basic 7,800 sf. transfer station at the specified site; to approximately $1.75
million, plus soft costs, for site development and construction of a basic 7,800 sf. facility with room for future
expansion; to approximately $2.4 million, plus soft costs, for site development and construction of a 15,530 sf.
building with room for a transfer station, as well as materials recovery and more extensive recycling services. It is
reasonable to assume operating costs associated with the canopy option would be similar to the cost of current
RSWA operations. However, it is impractical to estimate operating costs for the other scenarios without further
development of service assumptions for each alternative. The recommended FY16 FY20 CIP includes $1.2
million for a project identified as Solid Waste and Recycling Solution. Staff assumes the County would also pursue
depreciation funds set aside in recent years by the RSWA to pay for construction costs.
AGENDA TITLE: Evaluation of Solid Waste Alternatives Including a Transfer Station at the Ivy MUC
March 11, 2015
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff acknowledges that the Board has determined an interest in providing a transfer station at the Ivy MUC at least in
part to allow for its continued use by small commercial haulers. Staff also understands that in authorizing a more
detailed evaluation of a specific site at the Ivy MUC, the Board has expressed a preference for the construction of a
new, permanent facility to replace the existing non-compliant facility in order to maximize operational efficiency and
potentially allow room for future expansion. If the Board concurs with this direction, staff recommends that the
identified transfer station alternatives be submitted to the RSWA, as the property owner and permit holder, for its
further evaluation of environmental impacts so that the Board can make a more informed and actionable decision.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – August 6, 2014 Executive Summary with Attachments
Attachment B – Ivy Transfer Station Economic Viability Evaluation Preliminary Report dated November 17, 2014
Attachment C – Transfer Station Phase 2 Evaluation: Western Transfer Station with Site Plan, Building Elevation,
Opinion of Probable Costs; March 3, 2015
Attachment D – Comparison of Alternatives, Ivy Transfer Station; March 3, 2015
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Ivy Materials Utilization Center (MUC) Solid Waste
Service Options
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of near-term solid waste services
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Graham, Shadman, Reges
PRESENTER(S): Walker
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
August 6 2014
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On April 2, 2014, the Board considered solid waste options and provided three directions :
Consensus that staff prepare and provide at a future meeting additional information and options regarding
costs for construction and operation at Ivy, as well as services to be provided, to assist the Board in
determining which approach is the most desirable.
Consensus that staff bring back to the Board for further consideration viable alternatives for providing
increased recycling opportunities for County residents in the near term, to include cooperation with public,
private and regional entities.
APPOINTED, by a vote of 5:0:1(Boyd-abstained), the County appointees to the Rivanna Solid Waste
Authority Citizens Committee to a separate advisory committee to the Board to do initial work on long-term
solutions for solid waste.
This executive summary is presented to address the first two directions.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2. Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs
DISCUSSION:
Solid Waste Services at Ivy MUC
Staff has focused on providing near-term solid waste options that assure a continuation of important solid waste
services while enhancing current recycling efforts. The expectation is that the Board will adopt more permanent solid
waste solutions following recommendations from the Albemarle Long Range Solid Waste Solutions Advisory
Committee. Staff estimates that the near-term services will be needed for a period of three to five years, beginning on
July 1, 2015, which is the anticipated closure date of the Materials Utilization Center’s (MUC) transfer station. Staff
has focused on continuing to use the MUC site as directed by the Board, recognizing time.
Staff has determined that two levels of service can be provided at the MUC site through the following operations: 1) a
transfer station, which would largely continue current services; or 2) a convenience center, which would reduce the
current service level primarily to commercial haulers, but would provide as much service as possible without triggering
the need for a DEQ transfer station permit. The distinction between these two operations is key and is described in
detail as part of a report from Draper Aden Associates (DAA) in Attachment A. It is important to note that as part of
this report, DEQ addressed the distinction between a transfer station and a convenience center specifically in the
context of the Ivy MUC site. This DAA report further provides three options regarding the utilization of the site as a
convenience center including advantages and disadvantages with each option. This report provides for better
evaluation overall of the service opportunities and challenges related to the Ivy site. In addition, staff has identified
two possible management structures for the operation of the facility: 1) RSWA operation or 2) County operation by
overseeing the management itself or by contract with a third party. Note that the County operation of the existing
transfer station is deemed non-viable at this time, due in-part to the fact that the DEQ permit is currently held by the
RSWA and any material change would require DEQ permit modification, modification of internal agreements, and
additional environmental liability.
AGENDA TITLE: Ivy Materials Utilization Center (MUC) Solid Waste Service Options
August 6, 2014
Page 2
Consequently, staff has identified three scenarios for consideration to determine a preference for the continued
operation of a transfer station or the conversion of the transfer station to a convenience center to be operate d by
either the RSWA or the County in Attachment B, which provides a comparison of these three scenarios, including
assumed favorable and unfavorable factors, cost comparisons and qualitative aspects of each.
Enhanced Recycling
Staff has identified some specific areas in which the County’s overall recycling efforts may be enhanced in the near
term. First and foremost, with any of the three scenarios above, additional or enhanced recycling services can be
incorporated. Second, the County’s current program with the RSWA, in which the County pays for the collection of
paper at three different locations in the County, can be modified in order to implement a pilot project intended to
expand materials collected at a reduced cost. However, the Long Range Solid Waste Solutions Advisory Committee
has requested more time and opportunity to consider and evaluate “enhanced” recycling options, including any pilot
programs, so that any proposed changes can best inform their work in advising the Board next Spring/Summer.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Budget impacts depend on the selection of a preferred option as described in Attachment A and Attachment B.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board direct staff to pursue the conversion of the existing Ivy transfer station to a
convenience center operated by the RSWA as summarized in Scenario 2 above for the following primary reasons:
1) Maximizes levels of service for residences and businesses with an emphasis on re -use and recycling without
the need for a transfer station permit (note that under this scenario the transfer station permit is terminated).
2) Maintains operational efficiency associated with the compaction of bulky material using the existing
hopper/conveyor/compactor system , thereby reducing cost. Alternatives for any required replacement
equipment for this type of convenience center would be less expensive due to the type of equipment needed
to handle such a small amount of municipal solid waste (MSW ).
3) Reduces up-front capital investment and specifically eliminates the need to upgrade the current transfer
station to meet DEQ requirements while taking advantage of existing leachate/stormwater facilities on site.
4) Avoids additional liability/risk tied to control (ownership/lease) of a portion of the former Ivy landfill pro perty.
5) Continues high quality service with a proven partner in the RSWA.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Draper Aden Associates Letter Report dated July 30, 2014 (with 7 attachments)
Attachment B – Summary Comparison of Ivy MUC Solid Waste Scenarios
Ivy MUC Solid Waste Scenarios
Summary
Scenario 1
Scenario 1 is a transfer station operated by RSWA. This scenario assumes an upgrade to the current facility such
that it meets DEQ permit requirements. In doing so, significant capital investment in the facility would be
necessary which may not be reasonable in a near term planning horizon. However, this would enable the RSWA
to retain its transfer station permit and would enable continued use of the facility by commercial haulers and
others bringing in waste from more than one property. This scenario would require the RSWA to maintain a
contract for hauling and disposal. Other valuable re-use and recycling services such as the disposal of clean fill
and large load vegetative waste and mulching would continue. It is assumed that fees would be charged for the
use of the facility in a manner similar to current practice.
Factors assumed favorable:
With approval of amended DEQ permit, retains ability to operate a transfer station in the County at this
specific location
Continues to allow waste from commercial haulers, multiple properties, dead animals
Factors assumed unfavorable:
Transfer station permit amendment required by DEQ
Estimated cost of capital investment needed is between $580,000 and $615,000
Estimated annual operating cost to County is estimated at $394,947
Commercially hauled waste is declining as a percentage of total MSW
Timing of Next Steps
A decision to continue use of Ivy MUC as a Transfer Station to be operated by RSWA would require:
Formal request by County to RSWA in December, 2014 to extend Operating Agreement for a transfer
station for a specific time period
Satisfaction of DEQ Letter of Agreement by April 1, 2015 by RSWA and County
Design of facility improvements and procurement for one-time capital by RSWA
Consideration of budget amendment/appropriation for capital investment by RSWA and County
Scenario 2
Scenario 2 is a convenience center operated by RSWA. This scenario assumes the facility is converted from a
transfer station such that a DEQ permit is not required for operation. In doing so, the facility would not accept
any waste from commercial haulers, others hauling in waste from multiple properties, or dead animals. Many
of the current re-use and recycling services would be continued including the disposal of clean fill material and
large load vegetative waste. It is also understood that residential waste and commercial waste from a single
property would be accepted at such a facility. It is assumed that fees would be charged for the use of the facility
in a manner similar to current practice except that fees would not be charge for any source-separated
household recycling. This scenario would require the RSWA to maintain a contract for hauling and disposal.
This scenario takes full advantage of the proven high-quality service delivery performed over time by the RSWA
and the positive relationships established with neighbors and customers. This scenario requires some up-front
capital investment and relies heavily on the ability to continue to use the hopper/conveyor/compactor system
to accommodate unloading and compacting of bulky material for efficient handling and transport. This scenario
was evaluated by Draper Aden Associates in Option 1 and Option 2
Factors assumed favorable:
Does not require a DEQ permit
Continues most current services including waste from individual residential and commercial properties,
clean fill, large load vegetative waste, mulching, white goods, tires
Estimated initial development cost, estimated between $209,000 and $386,000, is less than transfer
station scenario
Estimated annual operating cost of $328,000 is slightly less than transfer station
Maintains continuity of operation
Maximizes existing positive relations with customers and neighbors
Enables continued use of current stormwater/leachate collection system
Factors assumed unfavorable
Excludes all waste from commercial haulers, multiple properties, dead animals
Terminates DEQ transfer station permit
Timing of next steps
A decision to convert Ivy MUC from Transfer Station to Convenience Center to be operated by RSWA can be
authorized immediately
County/RSWA would commence work on the following:
o Amendment of Operating Agreement for BoS and RSWA Board Action by December, 2014
o Identification of budget amendments/appropriations as necessary for capital and operations
o Design of facility improvements and procurement of one-time capital by the RSWA
o Satisfaction of DEQ Letter of Agreement prior to April 1, 2015
Scenario 3
Scenario 3 is a convenience center operated by the County. In this scenario, the County will assume control of a
small portion of property at the Ivy MUC facility to allow for optimal operation of a convenience center. Services
would be limited to what is more typically seen at a convenience centers including source-separated household
recycling, bagged trash and open-top bins for bulky waste. Such a facility could still allow waste from residential
and commercial individual properties but would not be able to take advantage of the grade-separated
hopper/conveyor/compactor system for convenience and operating efficiencies. This scenario would exclude
specifically the disposal of clean fill material, large load vegetative waste and mulching. This scenario may allow
for other types of recycling such as white goods and tires if space and resources are available. Similar to
Scenario 2, such a facility would exclude waste from commercial haulers, others bringing in waste from multiple
properties and dead animals. This scenario assumes that the County would operate the facility with its own
forces or contract the operation to a third party. In either case, this scenario would require County staff
resources not currently available for management and oversight at minimum. This scenario would require the
County to maintain a contract for hauling and disposal. An important aspect of this scenario is that any control
of property at Ivy MUC by the County by any means would create additional liability/risk for the County. This
scenario was evaluated by Draper Aden Associates in Option 2 and Option 3.
Factors assumed favorable
Does not require a DEQ permit
May be less expensive to operate. Competitive procurement of contract services would be necessary
to determine costs.
Factors assumed unfavorable
Initial development costs estimated at $585,000
Excludes all waste from commercial haulers, multiple properties, dead animals
Terminates DEQ transfer station permit
May exclude other current services provided by the RSWA such as clean fill, large load vegetative waste,
mulching, pallets, white goods
Requires County control of property via lease or purchase
Creates additional liability/risk to County due to property control
Requires staffing or operations and/or management and supervision
Limits full utilization of facility as allowed by DEQ for a convenience center including the existing
hopper/conveyor/compactor system
Requires specific amendments to the RSWA Agreement related to property control and costs (i.e. lease
terms)
Timing of Next Steps:
A decision to convert Ivy MUC from Transfer Station to Convenience Center operated by County would require:
County would commence work on the following:
o Issuance of RFP for contract services by October, 2014 for Board consideration/action by
December, 2014
o Determination to proceed with County forces or contract operations
o Development of a contract for services to operate facility if needed\
o Recruitment/hiring of operational staff if/as needed
o Identification/filling of resources to provide County management and oversight as needed
o Negotiation/execution of Lease between RSWA/County and other amendments to the RSWA
Agreement
o Satisfaction of DEQ Letter of Agreement by April 1, 2015
Solid Waste Scenarios
Cost Comparisons (estimated)
RSWA Operated
Transfer Station
(Scenario 1)
RSWA Operated
Convenience Center
(Scenario 2)
County Operated
Convenience Center
(Scenario 3)
Estimated Development
Costs
$580,000 - $615,000(1) $209,000 - $386,000 (2) $585,000 (2)
Estimated Operating
Costs to County (net
expenses over revenues)
$394,947 (2) $328,000 (3) Undetermined (competitive
pricing and specific
modifications to RSWA
Agreement required)
Notes:
(1) Draper Aden Associates estimate - 2012
(2) Draper Aden Associates estimate – 2014
(3) RSWA Staff estimate – 2014
Solid Waste Scenarios
Other Decision Factors
RSWA Operated
Transfer Station
(Scenario 1)
RSWA Operated
Convenience Center
(Scenario 2)
County Operated
Convenience Center
(Scenario 3)
Other Factors
Location/Site Continue at current location
with major modifications
Continue at current location
with minor to moderate
modifications
Continue at current location
with moderate to major
modifications
Commercial
haulers/others
Allows continued use by
commercial haulers, waste
from multiple properties, dead
animals
Excludes commercial haulers,
waste from multiple properties,
dead animals
Excludes commercial haulers,
waste from multiple haulers,
dead animals
Other Services Continues current services
including household hazardous
waste days
Continues current services
including household hazardous
waste days. Excludes waste as
indicated above.
Eliminates current vegetative
waste/mulching and clean fill
services. May eliminate other
services depending on
contracted service arrangement
Recycling Services Continues current services.
May provide for enhanced
recycling
Continues current services.
May provide for enhanced
recycling
Provides for typical household
type recycling services. May
provide for enhanced recycling
such as tires, batteries,
oil/antifreeze, etc. depending
on contract services. Excludes
clean fill, pallets, large load
vegetative waste, mulching
Timing Detailed plan for continued
operation of transfer station
beyond July 1, 2015 submitted
to DEQ no later than April 1,
2015
County commitment needed by
December 2014
RFP issued no later than
October, 2014 for
consideration in November and
decision in December.
Coordination No issues, RSWA provides all
services
No issues, RSWA provides all
services
Significant issues, requires
coordination with RSWA.
Lease and county resources to
be put in place.
Intangibles RSWA has an excellent
reputation for quality service
with citizens and commercial
waste haulers, regularly
engages and works with the
neighborhood, is accountable
as a governmental entity and is
valued by the County as a
partner with County
representation on its Board.
RSWA has an excellent
reputation for quality service
with citizens, regularly engages
and works with the
neighborhood, is accountable
as a governmental entity and is
valued by the County as a
partner with County
representation on its Board.
County either elects to provide
services directly which would
require staffing, management
and internal support, or
contracts with a private third
party in which the relationship
is unproven. Supervision
required in either scenario.
Liability No additional liability with
continued RSWA operation.
No additional liability or risk,
continues current operation
Significant additional
liability/risk. Property control
via lease or purchase puts
County in ownership chain if
problems later found on facility
that predates regulations.
2206 South Main Street 8550 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 304
Blacksburg, Virginia 24060 Fairfax, Virginia 22031
(540) 552-0444 • Fax (540) 552-0291 (703) 573-5800 • Fax (703) 698-1306
www.daa.com www.gbbinc.com
November 17, 2014
Mr. Douglas Walker, Assistant County Executive
Albemarle County, Virginia
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: Ivy Transfer Station Economic Viability Evaluation
Final Report
Draper Aden Associates Project No.: C11123R-07
Dear Mr. Walker:
Draper Aden Associates and Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. (GBB) are pleased to
provide Albemarle County with the following report in accordance with our scope of services
dated October 7, 2014. As described in that scope, the purpose of this project is to support the
County’s further evaluation of the economic viability of the continued use of the Ivy Transfer
Station in the context of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ)
requirements.
As you are aware, VDEQ has indicated to the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA)
that the Ivy Transfer Station must either close, be actively engaged in upgrades through an
approved schedule by April 1, 2015 or revert to convenience center status by July 1, 2015.
Reversion to a convenience center would require rescinding the Ivy Transfer Station Permit and
commercial waste haulers could no longer use the facility.
As indicated, the County’s current discussions are focusing on the economic viability of
the continued use of the Ivy Transfer Station and the required expenditures to upgrade the
transfer station operations at Ivy to the regulatory standards. The County’s two immediate
questions of interest which must be answered for continued planning purposes were framed as
follows:
1. Is the Ivy Material Utilization Center location an economical place for an
upgraded transfer station; and
2. What are the primary factors influencing the determination of economic viability
for this location?
This letter report addresses these two questions by considering them from the technical
perspective (Draper Aden Associates’ work) and from the analytical/planning perspective
(GBB’s work).
Mr. Douglas Walker
November 17, 2014
Page 2 of 20
I. CONTINUED OPERATION OF EXISTING SYSTEM
Key to the on-going discussion is the determination of the technical requirements for
maintaining the existing Ivy Transfer Station in operation beyond July 1, 2015. As indicated in
previous reports, the existing operation relies on mechanical equipment that is older, requiring
significant maintenance. The compactor system no longer is manufactured by Marathon and
Marathon’s equivalent compaction system is significantly larger and more expensive. Thus, any
modification to the existing system had to be considered in light of the future probability that the
equipment would cease to function and not be replaced.
VDEQ (Mr. Graham Simmerman and Mr. Justin Williams) were consulted on October
24, 2014 and agreed that if the existing operation (hopper, conveyor, compactor and lower
loading dock area were covered to reduce or eliminate exposure of the waste to stormwater, the
transfer station could remain in operation beyond the current specified closure date. Draper
Aden Associates worked with their architect, Reynolds Architects Incorporated, to develop a
conceptual layout for a canopy cover for the existing facility. The concept has been provided to
the RSWA and they consider the concept to be viable with some minor, recommended
modifications if the canopy were to be constructed.
Attachment 1 includes the proposed layout of the canopy and the preliminary cost
estimate. The design considered the necessary height of the canopy for roll off trucks unloading
into the hopper (hence the 28’-0” height of the structure) and is generall y centered over the wall.
The structure is not fully enclosed but has sufficient panels to protect the operation from typical
rain events. Key to the final cost of the structure will be the provision of information on the
subsurface conditions for the footer design. It is possible that some waste is present beneath the
asphalt and a thorough geotechnical evaluation would be needed prior to final design.
Site work for the installation of the canopy would be essentially limited to the footer
installation and an upgrade to the trench drain/leachate collection system on the lower loading
area may be needed.
Based on the preliminary cost estimate, the construction of the canopy would cost
approximately $100,000, to which an additional $30,000+ should be added for the site work for a
total of $130,000 (assuming significant issues with existing waste and footer design are not
encountered). An additional allowance for engineering design, engineering construction
management, legal and financing costs, and contingency should be added; for this small a
project, this may add an additional 30 to 50 percent to the above cost.
To the capital costs for the canopy and site work, additional survey and geotechnical
work would need to be added as well as the A/E costs for final design, preparation of the
construction documents and submittal of a minor permit modification to VDEQ.
Mr. Douglas Walker
November 17, 2014
Page 3 of 20
II. TECHNICAL EVALUATION – A NEW TRANSFER STATION
Draper Aden Associates previously considered the construction of a new transfer station
at the Ivy Material Utilization Center (MUC) in our report dated October 1, 2012. This report
outlined certain capital and operational costs associated with a modified transfer operation in the
context of the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) operating such a facility and considered
the overlapping ancillary operations. The sizing of the concept facility in our 2012 study would
support the maximum allowable permitted tonnage under the existing Permit by Rule of 150 tons
per day.
Capital Costs for a New Transfer Station
During recent discussions with the Long Range Strategic Planning Committee interest
was expressed in consideration of a facility at Ivy that could handle additional tonnage whether
as waste for transfer or as recycling. To put a perspective on the relationship of tonnage to sizing
of transfer facilities and material recovery facility (MRF) space, the table provided below
summarizes information taken from the document entitled, “Managing Transfer Station Design
and Operations – A Training Course,” Publication # MSW-D2360, as prepared by the Solid
Waste Association of North America (SWANA), dated 1996:
TABLE 1
TRANSFER STATION/MRF
FLOOR SPACE REQUIREMENTS
OPEN TOP LOADING FACILITIES
(Table I-F SWANA)
TONNAGE MINIMUM RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL
SPACE FOR MRF
50 2,400 3,600 1,200
100 3,600 6,400 1,200
200 6,400 8,000 1,600
300 8,000 12,000 3,200
400 12,000 16,800 4,000
500 15,000 20,400 4,000
750 18,000 24,000 4,000
1,000 26,400 33,600 7,200
The previous report completed by Draper Aden Associates in 2012 considered two
different layouts for the conceptual transfer stations at the Ivy location. One facility design was
based on the assumption that all tonnage entering the facility would be transferred to a single
disposal facility. The other design considered segregating the waste stream by major waste
stream type (MSW and CDD) and direction of the two waste streams to different
disposal/handling facilities. In general these facilities averaged 7,000+ sf in size.
The estimated concept cost per square foot of construction for the two facilities in the
2012 report ranged from $80 - $100/square foot exclusive of site work, A/E fees, and permitting.
With site work, both facility types were anticipated to cost approximately $1.0M dollars which
Mr. Douglas Walker
November 17, 2014
Page 4 of 20
equates to a unit cost of $143/sf at the average of 7,000sf. The capital costs from the previous
report are still viable for the smaller facilities.
As background relative to a larger facility, Draper Aden Associates assisted Henrico
County with the design and construction of their new transfer station in 2012. This station was
designed to handle 400 – 500 tons per day and the size was set at 18,600 sf. The low bid for this
facility was $2,255,000 or $121/sf including the site work. The average of the 8 bids received
was $2,760,000 or $148/sf. Additional costs for A/E and permitting fees could add an additional
$250,000.00.
Location of a New Transfer Station
The RSWA property at Ivy consists of significant acreage most of which was used for
landfill disposal. The disposal areas are east of Axe Creek and north of Dick Woods Road as
illustrated on the attached vicinity map contained in Attachment 2. In addition, the RSWA is
also responsible for operating a significant monitoring and remediation system at the Ivy
disposal area per VDEQ requirements and also uses some acreage for their mulching operations
and clean fill storage. Thus, there are limited areas at the Ivy site for the construction of a new
open top load transfer station.
In the previous 2012 Draper Aden Associates’ report two locations were considered for
the smaller transfer station concepts with the assumption that a new transfer station should be
located near the existing infrastructure of the current operation and allow the existing facility to
operate during construction of a new facility. One location placed a new transfer station between
the Ivy Transfer Station offices and the existing Ivy Transfer Operations; the other location
considered placement of a facility to the west of the office and scale operations. The locations of
these facilities are further discussed below.
As background for the discussion, it should be noted that an open top loading transfer
station has the unique requirement that there be a 16’ drop between the tipping floor where the
garbage trucks off load the waste and the base where the haul trailers are placed to receive the
waste. This creates challenges in the site design for traffic flow and management of the larger
haul trailers. The grade break is typically created by a combination of cut and fill.
Figures for the following discussion are also contained in Attachment 2.
Original Eastern Transfer Station (Previously evaluated site)
The original concept for this location reduced the 16’ grade break to 14’ and required an
internal wall and lifting of waste into the haul trailer, not an ideal operation. While the original
eastern concept continues to be a potentially viable area for a smaller facility it would not be
suitable for a larger facility. The RSWA has also expressed some concern that there may be
older and unmapped waste units in this area although there has not been any investigation into
this that would directly support this concern. This site also poses some unusual requirements for
traffic flow of the haul trailers as illustrated in the 2012 report. In the context of this report, this
option is not considered in any further detail due to the site constraints.
Mr. Douglas Walker
November 17, 2014
Page 5 of 20
Site 1 – Western Transfer Station (Previously evaluated site)
The western area (termed Site 1 for the current discussion) seems most promising for
development as it is considered to be a greenfield site with limited potential for impact from
older waste units in the area. It also provides a natural grade break which could improve site
design and could support a larger structure. The previous 2012 report only addressed the
potential viability of placement of a transfer station in this area and did not include a detailed
analysis of traffic flow into the site. For the current economic viability analysis, Draper Aden
Associates revisited this site to consider traffic flow and the potential placement of a larger
facility whether for waste disposal or recycling.
The challenge to use of the western area is related to the traffic flow of the larger haul
trailers. Traffic exiting the existing scales into the site must clear the scales before beginning
their turn. Using topography provided by the RSWA and an AutoTurn program, traffic flow was
considered to the western facility. Figure 1 (see Attachment 2) illustrates the issues in trying to
exit the scales and immediately turn to the west to enter the facility. The turn would require a
significant road extension but this needed extension would be over a closed and capped waste
cell. Disturbance of the cover over the waste cell would be unacceptable to VDEQ and RSWA.
Figure 2 (see Attachment 2) considers an alternate route to the western facility which
would require the haul trailers to bypass the scales and to travel through the site to the east and
back around to the western facility. Outbound exit across the scales would be difficult requiring
potential road work on the landfill cell. Traffic could also be routed directly onto the entrance
road. Trailers would need to be pre-weighed and the full haul trailers would need to be weighed
at the transfer station. The installation of scales would add additional costs to the project
($50,000 - $75,000).
Based on this work, the limiting factor to the development of a western transfer station
becomes the use of the existing scales and the traffic flow of the trailers. While some
consideration could be given to the re-location of the existing scales, there is limited room to do
this given the slope of the incoming entrance and re-location would add significant cost to the
project. The sizing of the facility is not critical as expansion would occur in an east/west
direction and the facility could be sized to accommodate material recovery.
Site 2 – New Stand Alone Facility (New Concept)
Given the challenges of placement of a transfer facility near the existing infrastructure,
Draper Aden Associates also considered the location of a transfer station on RSWA property to
the east of Broad Axe Creek as illustrated on the vicinity map. This concept considered use of
an additional RSWA parcel (TP 73/30D).
After consideration, it was determined that for this evaluation a separate entrance off of
Dick Woods Road should be evaluated instead of routing traffic through the existing
infrastructure and RSWA operations. One advantage to this consideration is that should the
County wish to operate or privatize operation of this transfer station, the operation would be
segregated from the RSWA’s operation and a lease or purchase agreement for the property made
simpler as impact from previous waste disposal operations improbable.
Mr. Douglas Walker
November 17, 2014
Page 6 of 20
Figure 3 (see Attachment 2) illustrates a concept layout recognizing that there are many
factors that would determine the final site layout including VDOT entrance requirements,
consideration of sight distances along Dick Woods Road, County’s stream protection and buffer
requirements, and subsurface conditions to name a few. Review of this figure indicates that
there is significantly more site work required when compared to the other options and additional
costs associated with additional infrastructure including the construction of a new entrance
($100,000), scales ($85,000), scale house ($75,000), utility installation ($20,000), and an
allowance for A/E and permitting costs ($25,000). Costs are general and conceptual only and not
meant as an opinion of probable construction costs. The site appears to be viable although an
expensive alternative.
Summary of Capital and Site Work Costs
Table 2 below provides concept summary costs for the three options discussed above
including the original eastern transfer station, the “Site 1” western transfer station and the “Site
2” standalone operation. For the evaluation below all three options consider the “Option B”
building design from the 2012 report which consisted of one loading bay and a 7,800 sf building
including the loading area with an original estimated capital cost of $612,700. The costs
presented use a combination of information from the previous 2012 report (with costs inflated at
2 percent for 2 years) and provides some concept costs for newer design elements.
TABLE 2
CONCEPTUAL CAPITAL COSTS TRANSFER STATION ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVE BUILDING
(15%
contingency)
INFRASTRUCTURE
(20% contingency)
SITE WORK
(15%
contingency)
TOTAL
Original eastern
facility
$733,000 Use existing $230,000 $963,000
Site 1 - Western
facility
$733,000 $102,000
(Loading scales)
$318,000 $1,153,000
Site 2 – stand-alone
facility
$733,000 $336,000 $900,000
$1,969,000
Table 3 provides a summary of the advantages and disadvantage of each of the options
discussed above.
Mr. Douglas Walker
November 17, 2014
Page 7 of 20
TABLE 3
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
TRANSFER STATION ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVE ADVANTAGE DISADVANTAGE
Original eastern facility Can use existing infrastructure
and limits site requirements.
Least expensive option.
Leaves other options available
as market matures and future
demands are better understood
Accommodates small transfer
facility only which could limit
future expansion or recycling
activities.
Potential for waste materials
underlying area which may
impact design and construction
costs.
Difficult to accommodate
traffic flow for trailers.
Site 1 - Western facility Can use existing infrastructure
but requires circuitous route for
the transfer trailers to access
facility.
Can accommodate a larger
facility.
Haul trailers must be routed
through the existing operational
area. For limited traffic this is
not problematic but for a larger
transfer facility this would be
difficult.
Significant site work required
but not as much as Site 2.
Potential neighborhood impacts
including increased visibility of
new facility from residences
and increased traffic.
Site 2 – stand-alone facility As a stand-alone facility, the
operations could be transferred
directly to the County if this
was desired by the County.
Can be designed to
accommodate any size waste
stream and recycling
operations.
Provides the best traffic flow
pattern.
Significant site work and
infrastructure construction
costs.
Potential issues with entrance
on Dick Woods Road that may
require improvements. VDOT
entrance permit required.
Does not take advantage of
overlapping operations of
RSWA.
Potential neighborhood impacts
including increased visibility of
Mr. Douglas Walker
November 17, 2014
Page 8 of 20
ALTERNATIVE ADVANTAGE DISADVANTAGE
new facility from residences
and increased traffic.
VDOT concerns with safety of
new commercial entrance on
Dick Woods Rd.
Summary of Capital and Operation Costs of Transfer Station
The costs associated with the operation of a new Ivy Transfer Station were also explored
in the 2012 Draper Aden Associates’ report. Review of the information in the report as related
specifically to a new transfer station and exclusive of the ancillary operations indicates that the
original assumptions are still generally valid and have not been modified in the discussion below
except to incorporate inflation at a rate of 2 percent per year for two years.
Under this scope of services, three tonnage rates were requested to be evaluated, 50 tpd
(15,000 tons per year), 100 tpd (30,000 tons per year), and 150 tpd (45,000 tons per year)
assuming an average of 25 days per month of operation. For this range of tonnage, the general
size of the structure and personnel costs are similar and hence variation between the specific
requirements for each tonnage not considered. Table 4 provides a summary of operation and
transfer and disposal costs using the assumptions identified.
Summary
In summary, the technical evaluation determined that the original assumptions in the 2012
Draper Aden Associates’ report remain generally valid. We have considered a third option (Site
2) that would move the facility away from the existing RSWA operations and create a standalone
operation with the advantages outlined above. This would facilitate the consideration of a
County owned and operated facility, unless the City of Charlottesville was to commit to
participate to make it a regional facility, although the capital investment is significant.
Ultimately, the economic viability of replacement of the existing Ivy Transfer Station with a new
state of the art facility is a function of available tonnage and the market place which is the
subject of the next sections of this report.
Mr. Douglas Walker
November 17, 2014
Page 9 of 20
TABLE 4
TRANSFER STATION OPERATIONS COST ASSUMPTIONS
BUDGET ITEM ESTIMATED
COST
COMMENTS
Personnel and operations $337,700 2012 report inflated - includes manager, scale
house operator and clerk, and 2 equipment
operators. Total 4.5 FTE.
Building Debt Service $68,900 Capital cost at $1.2M financed at 3% over 25
years.
Equipment Debt service $58,600 One loader assumed to cost $350,000 and financed
at 3% over 10 years. Added Bobcat at $150,000
financed over the same.
Allocation for RSWA $90,214 Administrative oversight – FY 2015 RSWA
budget.
TOTAL $555,414 Does not include costs for transport and disposal,
summarized below.
MSW Input Total, $/ton 25 days per month of operation
50 tpd $37.03/ton (15,000 tons per year)
100 tpd $18.51/ton (30,000 tons per year)
150 tpd $12.34/ton (45,000 tons per year)
Transport $26.31/ton RSWA FY 14-15 costs – Thompson Trucking -
$420.99/load at average 16 tons per load
Disposal Costs $18.35/ton RSWA FY 14-15 – Waste Management, Inc.
(WMI) renewal
TOTAL COSTS
50 tpd $81.69/ton
100 tpd $63.17/ton
150 tpd $57.00/ton
III. MARKETABILITY OF IVY TRANSFER STATION
Previous usage of Ivy MUC
The following section discusses the previous and current usage of Ivy Material
Utilization Center (MUC). The Ivy MUC was permitted in 1998 by the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality to handle 150 TPD, or 45,000 tons annually, assuming 300 working days
per year.1 In FY 2011 the transfer station handled 42,301 total tons, operating at 95 percent of
capacity. In FY 2015, the Ivy MUC is projected to handle 16,768 tons of waste and operate at
only 37 percent of its capacity (see Figure 4).
1 RSWA considers this permit stipulation to be for all waste processed at the transfer station, including
C&D, and not just MSW. If modifications are to be made, this should be clarified with DEQ.
Mr. Douglas Walker
November 17, 2014
Page 10 of 20
FIGURE 4
TOTAL ANNUAL TONNAGES AT IVY MUC
Attachment 3 shows more detailed historical and projected tonnages at the Ivy MUC.
Tonnage is received by the Ivy MUC in three ways: self-haul “tag-a-bag,” self-haul
tipping, or commercial tipping.
1. The “tag-a-bag,” program allows citizens to self-haul garbage bags to the Ivy MUC.
RSWA sells stickers to citizens, who mark their loose garbage bags and self-haul them to
a designated 20 CY roll off. The citizens pay $24 for a roll of 12 stickers (Note: For
comparison, Charlottesville currently charges $2.10 for a 32 gallon bag sticker).
2. Regular self-haul allows businesses or citizens to self-haul waste with offload directly
into the hopper or transfer trailer (if in use) with the help of an attendant.
3. Commercial haulers that tip at Ivy MUC have included WMI, Republic Service, and
other private haulers. WMI had a contract with RSWA, which expired in 2013, to tip
waste collected in their service area at the Ivy MUC. This contract stipulated that WMI
will transfer the waste generated at Ivy MUC to the Amelia Landfill. After the contract
expired, WMI ceased using the transfer station on a routine basis, resulting in significant
reduction in tonnage processed.
Figure 5 shows the type of vehicles that made use of the Ivy MUC during FY 11-12
through FY 13-14. WMI also used the facility routinely during FY 11-12 and FY12-13, but did
not use the facility on a routine basis in FY 13-14 as explained above; for clarity of comparison,
WMI vehicles are not included.
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015Tons Year
Total tons MSW only
Mr. Douglas Walker
November 17, 2014
Page 11 of 20
FIGURE 5
VEHICLES USING IVY MUC
Source: RSWA, Communication with Lonnie Wood, RSWA, 11/3/14.
0
100
200
300
400
500
Rear
Loader
Roll Off Dump
Truck
Pickup
Truck
Car/Van Not
ClassifiedNo. Transactions Vehicle Type
FY 11-12 Weekly Transactions by Vehicle Type
0
100
200
300
400
500
Rear
Loader
Roll Off Dump
Truck
Pickup
Truck
Car/Van Not
ClassifiedNo. Transactions Vehicle Type
FY 12-13 Weekly Transactions by Vehicle Type
0
100
200
300
400
Rear
Loader
Roll Off Dump
Truck
Pickup
Truck
Car/Van Not
ClassifiedNo. Transactions Vehicle Type
FY 13-14 Weekly Transactions by Vehicle Type
Mr. Douglas Walker
November 17, 2014
Page 12 of 20
The notable majority of transactions have been pickup truck drivers, who have
consistently delivered waste over 300 times per week for the past three years. Second to pickup
trucks are cars/van drivers, who have about 100 transactions at Ivy MUC per week. Third are
dump truck drivers, who have maintained 50 transactions per week. Based on this information it
is obvious that the large commercial haulers are no longer using this facility on a routine basis.
The Budget Summary by Program from the FY 2015 RSWA budget is included as
Attachment 4, excerpted from the RSWA Budget Fiscal Year 2014-2015, Adopted May 27,
2014. The table shows both the adopted budget for FY 2014 and the adopted budget for FY
2015.
The Ivy MUC is not currently financially self-sustaining because the significant reduction
of tonnage generates too little revenues at current tipping fees to spread across the significant
fixed costs as are necessary to properly operate the facility. Nevertheless, Albemarle County has
supported providing these services for the benefit of the small haulers and self-haulers. As such,
the County continues to contract with RSWA to keep the Ivy MUC open with the County
responsible for payment of deficits. For FY 2015 revenues for all services at the Ivy MUC were
projected at $855,780 with expenses projected at $1,058,778 resulting in an operating loss of
$202,998, before adjustment for administrative allocations. RSWA administrative services are
provided through the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority with costs recovered by allocation to
all programs served. RSWA allocated administrative costs for FY 2015 for the transfer station
operations alone, revenues were projected at $517,200 and expenses at $778,452 with a deficit of
$351,466 when the administrative costs are allocated to the operations.
The RSWA tipping fees remained unchanged from FY 20142; charges for both MSW and
CDD tipping are set at $66.00 per ton. Total tonnage projected by the RSWA for all operations
for FY 2015 is 16,045 tons; tonnage for transfer operations only is projected to be 6,700 tons.
Thus, on a per ton basis, the transfer station at the Ivy MUC is projected to require a subsidy
equivalent to $52.46 per ton. The costs of running the entire Ivy MUC operations are
approximately $24.00 per ton with administrative costs included.
Future Usage of Ivy Transfer Station
The 2013 U.S. Census population estimate of Albemarle County (excluding the City of
Charlottesville) is 103,000, and the City of Charlottesville population is 44,349, for a total of
147,349. The U.S. EPA estimates waste generation to be 4.5 pounds per capita per day (pcd).
Several Virginia localities have calculated actual generation rates in excess of 6 pounds pcd.3
For this analysis, a per capita waste generation rate of 6 pounds pcd4 was used to estimate the
2 Under a Local Government Support Agreement between Albemarle County and RSWA, the County
requires RSWA to continue to operate the Ivy MUC on behalf of the County and the County agreeing to pay any
deficit of expenses over revenues. The contract includes a provision that the RSWA Board must strongly consider
any request by the County for adjustment of tipping fees; over the time that the contract has been in effect, no such
request has been made.
3 The 2004-24 Fairfax County Solid Waste Management Plan reports 6.30 pcd, and recent consulting work
by GBB for Prince William County calculated 6.06 pcd.
4 Virginia Performs, a state reporting and measuring effort, reports that in 2013 Virginia ranked 10 th
nationwide for per capita income, and that the Central Virginia region was just slightly below the state average. This
Mr. Douglas Walker
November 17, 2014
Page 13 of 20
total tonnage within Albemarle County including the City (the Region). The combined
residential and commercial sectors were estimated to generate 155,977 tons per year. In 2005,
SCS estimated that the City of Charlottesville generates 39 percent of the Region’s waste, and
Albemarle County generates 61 percent of the waste.5 Based on 300 working days per year,
Charlottesville generates 202.8 TPD, and Albemarle County (excluding the City of
Charlottesville) generates 317.2 TPD. The Ivy MUC is only receiving an estimated 6,700 tons
per year or 6.2 percent of the County’s tonnage. See Table 5 below.
TABLE 5
ESTIMATED TONNAGES IN THE REGION
Total RSWA Population 147,349 people
Albemarle County 103,000 people
City of Charlottesville 44,349 people
Total Waste Generated (Calculated based on 6 pounds pcd) 161,347 TPY
Total Tons of Waste Generated Per Working Day in RSWA 537.8 TPD
Tons Per Day Generated by the City of Charlottesville 161.8 TPD
Tons Per Day Generated by Albemarle County 375.9 TPD
Source: 2013 U.S. Census Data and GBB analysis
For the Ivy MUC to reach its permitted tonnage of 150 TPD, almost 40 percent of the
waste generated in Albemarle County (excluding the City of Charlottesville) would have to be
received at the facility. The sources of MSW generated within Albemarle County are difficult to
identify, as neither the RSWA, the County, the Thomas Jefferson PDC nor the VDEQ capture
this data. However, as shown in Figure 6, the majority of the population of Albemarle County is
in the outskirts of the City of Charlottesville and along the corridors of Highway 29 and
Highway 250. It is probable that a significant portion of the waste generated in the County is
located in this area which is closer to the Ivy facility than alternative facilities discussed below.
indicates that Central Virginia residents, on average, have a per capita income much higher than the national
average. By the same reasoning, such residents likely generate more solid waste pcd than the national average.
5 RSWA Utility Fee Study – Task 2 Report, SCS Engineers, 2005.
Mr. Douglas Walker
November 17, 2014
Page 14 of 20
FIGURE 6
POPULATION DENSITY OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY – 2010 CENSUS
Currently, it appears that upwards of 90 percent of the tonnage generated in the County
and City of Charlottesville is being transported elsewhere outside of the County for final
disposal. Most of the public landfills accept residential MSW only from in-county residents and
businesses. Some sources indicate WMI may be using the Greene County Transfer Station for
waste previously delivered to Ivy MUC, although this has not been verified. It is also likely that
waste from Albemarle County is going to a privately operated transfer station. The two privately
operated transfer stations in the region are located in Fluvanna County at Zion Crossroads—van
der Linde and the Republic Transcycle facility. Table 6 shows the landfills and transfer stations
in the region and their most recently-reported MSW tonnages.
Figure 7 (next page) shows the location of landfills and transfer stations within a 50 mile
radius of Charlottesville. The radius of 50 miles helps illustrate the linear distance to each site.
Some sites will not accept any commercial haulers, and these are shown with a strikethrough of
their names on the map.
TABLE 6
TONNAGES ACCEPTED AT FACILITIES IN THE REGION
Location MSW Accepted (tons)
Madison County 4,738
Greene County 12,548
Orange County 13,345
Louisa County 12,924
Republic Transcycle 28,867
Augusta Regional 57,163
Rockingham County 69,921
Zion Crossroads - VDL 81,297
Source: DEQ Staff and correspondence of October 2014
Mr. Douglas Walker
November 17, 2014
Page 15 of 20
FIGURE 7
MAP OF FACILITIES IN THE REGION
Source: GBB
Options to increase tons delivered to Ivy MUC
In order to increase the tonnage directed to the Ivy MUC and minimize or eliminate the
need for subsidization by the County, there are several approaches that could be considered:
1) Enact regulatory flow control of waste from one or more areas to the Ivy MUC. Such action
is allowed under Virginia law, and should not constitute displacing a provider of processing
or disposal. To stay within the permit limit, RSWA could close the gates when daily/weekly
capacity is reached and allow trucks to divert to the other facilities in the region.
Enforcement will be needed to reach the 150 TPD level.
Virginia law provides for localities to enact flow control in order to protect the public
interest. As stated in §15.2-931, a subsection of the Code of Virginia’s law regarding the
powers of Cities, Counties, and Towns:
It has been and is continuing to be the policy of the Commonwealth
to authorize each locality to displace or limit competition in the
Mr. Douglas Walker
November 17, 2014
Page 16 of 20
area of garbage, trash or refuse collection services and garbage,
trash or refuse disposal services to provide for the health and
safety of its citizens, to control disease, to prevent blight and other
environmental degradation, to promote the generation of energy
and the recovery of useful resources from garbage, trash and
refuse, to protect limited natural resources for the benefit of its
citizens, to limit noxious odors and unsightly garbage, trash and
refuse and decay and to promote the general health and welfare by
providing for adequate garbage, trash and refuse collection
services and garbage, trash and refuse disposal services.
Accordingly, governing bodies are directed and authorized to
exercise all powers regarding garbage, trash and refuse collection
and garbage, trash and refuse disposal notwithstanding any anti-
competitive effect.
The stated regulatory function of §15.2-931 is to allow localities to enact ordinances
directing some or all of the garbage, trash, or refuse generated therein to specific disposal
publicly owned facilities, either within or outside the locality. Therefore, it is a power of
counties in Virginia to enact regulatory flow control. §15.2-931 does require a public hearing
and findings that there is a need for the regulation. The locality must find that the other
facilities are unavailable, inadequate, unreliable, or not economically feasible; and, that the
ordinance is needed to for provide adequate financing for the construction, expansion, or
closing of its own facilities. While GBB recommends that further legal analysis and opinions
on the matter at hand are needed, Virginia law does explicitly allow flow control for the
purposes of financial needs.
2) Enact a system benefit charge or utility service fee. This would be a set fee charged some or
all of the residents and businesses for having Ivy MUC available for their use. This
incentivizes haulers collecting from customers who paid the fee to bring the waste to Ivy,
because the disposal has been prepaid and they can tip for little or no additional cost. Ideally,
the haulers then reduce their prices for collection accordingly.
The facility would be open only to waste from fee payers. The charge/fee could be adjusted
annually to reflect actual costs. There is an opportunity to create a sliding scale that rewards
payers for recycling more and reducing waste, especially for businesses. To stay within the
permit limit, RSWA could close the gates when daily/weekly capacity is reached and allow
trucks to divert to the other facilities in the region.
An example of a system benefit charge in a Virginia county (Prince William) is provided in
Attachment 4.
3) Create a special collection district and direct waste collected within it to Ivy MUC. There are
two ways this could be accomplished:
a) The first option is to create a special service district and provide the collection. This
would likely be considered displacement of the local service provider(s) and activate
what is known in Virginia as the “Five Years’ Notice Rule.” The rule, provided for in
Mr. Douglas Walker
November 17, 2014
Page 17 of 20
§15.2-934 of the Code of Virginia, states that a locality or combination of localities can
displace the current haulers operating in an area for the purpose of providing the service
with its own forces or via a contract with one or more private sector vendors.
The rule requires a series of public notices and hearings; written findings by the
locality(ies) that service provided by the private sector is lacking, harmful, or absent; and,
giving the private sector notice that in five years the locality(ies) will begin service,
displacing the private sector vendor. As an alternative to waiting five years, the
locality(ies) can pay the vendor an amount of money equal to the company’s preceding
12 months’ gross receipts as compensation for the taking.
The “Five Years’ Notice Rule” is generally considered to be quite onerous on the locality
that would enact the displacement. The locality must make a written finding of at least
one of four failings by the private sector, all of which are significantly objective.
b) The second option would be to focus on engaging residents to petition the County to
create one or more sanitary districts. This is an option whereby residents petition the
County to provide them a service such as trash and/or recycling collection. The County
would need to be prepared to provide service that would convince residents to switch,
either due to the offered service level, or the price, or both. Because the initiative arises
from the residents, it does not constitute a taking. It is specifically noted in §15.2-934 of
the Code of Virginia that creation of a sanitary district does not qualify as displacement,
and it does not activate the Five Years’ Notice Rule.
An example of sanitary districts in a Virginia county is provided in Attachment 5.
4) Manipulate the economics of tipping at Ivy MUC. In this tactic, RSWA would lower the fees
at Ivy MUC to be competitive in the marketplace. This could include spot pricing as needed.
The County would need to be prepared to provide funds to cover possible RSWA shortfalls
as necessary—to do so, monthly transfers could be necessary.
Making the Ivy MUC More Marketable
Economics of a waste customer
For an individual, business, or hauler to bring waste to any facility, one or more of the
following conditions must compel them to do so:
5) Costs: Use of the facility must cost less than other options such as paid collection service or
going to other facilities.
a) With Albemarle County ready to help cover shortfalls, Ivy MUC could manipulate
pricing to attract customers.
6) Service: The facility must offer more services, better services or an enhanced overall
experience. Residents and businesses prefer a “one-stop-shop” where they feel safe and can
complete their activity rapidly. Haulers will be focused primarily on ease of use and how
quickly they can tip and get going. Automated payment services and a variety of payment
options will appeal to all customers.
Mr. Douglas Walker
November 17, 2014
Page 18 of 20
7) Location: The facility must have a location that is easy to find, easy to access, and easy to
exit. Residents and haulers will have slightly different attitudes toward distance, but both will
consider it a priority.
a) The existing Ivy MUC is not in an ideal location for access for all residents of the County
but the RSWA has made traffic flow as efficient as possible given the multiple uses and
existing infrastructure.
b) As indicated previously, however, a significant portion of the County’s population is
closer to the Ivy facility than any alternate facility.
Economic viability of Ivy MUC
For the Ivy MUC to be economically viable without subsidization from the Albemarle
County or additional utility fees, the customer fees must support its operations. As shown in
Table 4, the estimated cost to operate Ivy MUC as a PBR transfer station at 150 TPD is $57 per
ton, while private facilities in neighboring localities currently have lower fees. If the current data
on incoming waste is extrapolated to 150 TPD and the current rate schedule is paid, there would
remain a shortfall in adequate revenue to cover costs.
Additional analysis would be needed to project the system benefit charge and the number
of collection customers that would be required to support a financially sustainable operation at
Ivy.
Summary – Marketability of Ivy MUC as a Transfer Station
Over the past several years, the use of the Ivy MUC use has diminished significantly to
the point where today it is primarily a convenience center for pick-up trucks and residences in
vans and autos. There is also some use by smaller waste haulers serving residences in the
general vicinity of the Ivy MUC. Past deliveries of MSW and CDD by larger haulers has
essentially disappeared as they use other lower cost and convenient locations outside of
Albemarle County. During this time, subsidies by the Albemarle County have increased. At this
time, the VDEQ requires that the Ivy MUC either be upgraded with additional enclosure
infrastructure if it is to continue to provide transfer station services to haulers who collect waste
from several sources, i.e. now the smaller waste haulers.
The County plus the City of Charlottesville generate approximately 500 tons per day of
MSW. In FY 2015, the Ivy MUC is projected to receive approximately 56 tons per day for all
operations or 27 tons per day MSW through the transfer station. If the County/RSWA decides to
make the necessary improvements to the existing facility so that the transfer station permit can
be retained, the County will need to consider methods to increase tonnage to the facility. Several
methods for doing this have been outlined above. The effort may need to be significant as 150
TPD is the equivalent of 46 percent of waste in the County or 28 percent of the generated
tonnage when Charlottesville is included.
Alternative revenues or additional subsidies will be required for RSWA to receive these
added tons. Because of space constraints and the relatively small tonnages involved, doing more
than consolidating separated recyclables and transferring MSW and CDD is not possible, even
after the outlined modifications are made presented earlier. Having more waste materials
Mr. Douglas Walker
November 17, 2014
Page 19 of 20
directed to the Ivy MUC will not provide for any significant increase in recycling, unless the
materials are transferred to other processing facilities located elsewhere. If transferred out,
higher costs can be expected as compared to the very low charges the RSWA has with it current
transfer and disposal contractors.
In our opinion, the location of the Ivy MUC is not ideal for serving the entire waste
management needs in the County. Its location on the west side of the center of population is
remote and far from the MRFs and landfills transferred to by other facilities or used by those
collecting in the County. The main facilities used are located just outside Albemarle County on
the east side. One of these facilities offers processing of both MSW and CDD materials for
recycling, which Ivy MUC does not.
Nonetheless, despite the above, the benefits Ivy MUC offers are:
It is a place where residents, businesses, and small haulers can bring their waste and tip
safely and, with some changes, easily.
RSWA can add or remove materials that are accepted in accordance with public demand; in
so doing, may require additional subsidy.
There is the potential to stage special collection events at the location as needed, and also to
have the facility as a resource in times of crisis or emergency, both natural and manmade.
The facility already has a “stake in the ground” to serve the community on the west side of
the County. Going back later to try and site a facility would be with great difficulty.
Our conclusion is that if the County wants to provide for a facility that small waste
haulers can continue to use, while providing convenience center services to self-haulers, the
County will need to be prepared to either provide additional subsidies and create economic flow
control for the significant amount of waste in the County to find its way to the Ivy
MUC. Additionally, if the County is interested to see more recycling occur with the waste
materials are received at the facility, it should provide additional processing. Processing would
increase the costs.
Sincerely,
DRAPER ADEN ASSOCIATES
Lynn P. Klappich
WRE – Program Manager
GERSHMAN, BRICKNER & BRATTON, INC.
Harvey W. Gershman
President
Mr. Douglas Walker
November 17, 2014
Page 20 of 20
Attachments:
Attachment 1 – Canopy Design and Preliminary Cost Estimate
Attachment 2 – Vicinity Map and Transfer Station Location Options (Figures 1 – 4)
Attachment 3 – Historical and Projected Tonnages at Ivy MUC
Attachment 4 – RSWA Budget Summary FY 2015
Attachment 5 – Case study of a system benefit charge – Prince William County, VA
Attachment 6 – Case study of sanitary districts – Fairfax County, VA
cc: Mark Graham, Albemarle County
Tom Frederick, Rivanna Solid Waste Authority
506 SOUTH MAIN STREET, BLACKSBURG, VIRGINIA 24060
October 29, 2014
IVY TRANSFER STATION – ROOF CANOPY
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
Preliminary Cost Estimate
General Requirements ..................................................................................... $8,000
Demolition (concrete removal) ......................................................................... 2,500
Concrete Foundation........................................................................................ 2,400
Pre-engineered Metal Building Structure .......................................................... 33,500
Metal Roof Panels ............................................................................................ 19,832
Metal Siding Panels ......................................................................................... 13,120
Electrical (lighting only) .................................................................................... 10,500
________
Subtotal $89,852
10% Contingency 8,985
________
Total $98,837
- Does Not Include Equipment and Professional Services
• BLACKSBURG 540/552-7575 • ROANOKE 540/387-3374 • FAX 540/552-6310 •
FORMERLY ROGERS & REYNOLDS ARCHITECTS, INC.
KPEJ HV
+0(''6
)4#2*+%5%#.'
2 >%>>%4>%4Ä>%#&>%4ÄÄ&50>2TGNKOKPCT[4CFKK5VWF[Ä1RVKQPFYI1EVQDGT 2/5%#.'
241,'%6
&'5+)0'&
&4#90
%*'%-'&
'%4Ä
+8;.#0&(+..64#05('456#6+10
%*#4.166'58+..'8+4)+0+#
(+)74'Draper Aden Associates
Engineering Surveying Environmental Services
5QWVJ/CKP5VTGGV
$NCEMUDWTI8#
ÄÄ(CZ ÄÄ
4KEJOQPF8#
%JCTNQVVGUXKNNG8#
*CORVQP4QCFU8#
24'.+/+0#4;.#;176Ä126+10#,*
#,*
.2-
KPEJ HV
+0(''6
)4#2*+%5%#.'
2 >%>>%4>%4Ä>%#&>%4ÄÄ&50>2TGNKOKPCT[4CFKK5VWF[Ä1RVKQPFYI1EVQDGT 2/5%#.'
241,'%6
&'5+)0'&
&4#90
%*'%-'&
'%4Ä
+8;.#0&(+..64#05('456#6+10
%*#4.166'58+..'8+4)+0+#
(+)74'Draper Aden Associates
Engineering Surveying Environmental Services
5QWVJ/CKP5VTGGV
$NCEMUDWTI8#
ÄÄ(CZ ÄÄ
4KEJOQPF8#
%JCTNQVVGUXKNNG8#
*CORVQP4QCFU8#
24'.+/+0#4;.#;176Ä126+10#,*
#,*
.2-
KPEJ HV
+0(''6
)4#2*+%5%#.'
2 >%>>%4>%4Ä>%#&>%4ÄÄ&50>2TGNKOKPCT[4CFKK5VWF[Ä5GEQPFCT[.QECVKQPFYI1EVQDGT 2/5%#.'
241,'%6
&'5+)0'&
&4#90
%*'%-'&
'%4Ä
+8;.#0&(+..64#05('456#6+10
%*#4.166'58+..'8+4)+0+#
(+)74'Draper Aden Associates
Engineering Surveying Environmental Services
5QWVJ/CKP5VTGGV
$NCEMUDWTI8#
ÄÄ(CZ ÄÄ
4KEJOQPF8#
%JCTNQVVGUXKNNG8#
*CORVQP4QCFU8#
24'.+/+0#4;.#;176Ä126+10#,*
#,*
.2-
ATTACHMENT 3: IVY MUC HISTORICAL AND CURRENT TONNAGES
RIVANNA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
Material Analysis Report - Waste Tonnages - Fiscal Year 2011-2015
FY
2011
FY
2012
FY
2013
FY
2014
FY
2015*
Ivy Waste Tonnage Categories
Clean Fill Material 10,763 6,648 10,489 9,087 5,916
Construction Demolition Material 0000 0
Grindable Vegetative Material 2,912 1,877 3,714 2,016 2,626
Pallets 89 88 81 71 55
Glass 413 357 0 0 0
Sludge 1,231 878 0 0 0
Tires, Split 0000 0
Tires, Whole 142 158 131 92 12
White Goods (non-Freon) 9864 0
Total Non-MSW 15,559 10,014 14,420 11,270 8,609
MSW Tonnages
Ivy MSW TS 8,933 8,066 7,437 6,864 8,159
Contract Loading-UVA 4,459 344 0 0 0
Contract Loading-County 13,350 13,108 10,686 0 0
Total MSW 26,742 21,519 18,124 6,864 8,159
Total 42,301 31,533 32,544 18,134 16,768
*FY2015 Q1 data used for annual projection
Source: Rivanna Solid Waste Authority FY 2014-2015 Budget
ATTACHMENT 4: RSWA BUDGET SUMMARY BY PROGRAM, FY 15
Draper Aden Associates – GBB Attachment 5 Draft 11/7/14
ATTACHMENT 5: EXAMPLE OF ECONOMIC FLOW CONTROL
PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, VA
All residents 1 of Prince William County pay a system benefit charge called the Solid
Waste Fee, which “pre-pays” for disposal of their waste. The ability to use the County landfill
for “free” creates de facto flow control for waste generated and collected in Prince William
County. The intention of the Solid Waste Fee is to ensure the solid waste management system is
adequately funded without the need to import waste from other jurisdictions, thereby meeting the
disposal needs of the locality and preserving landfill space as a resource for Prince William
County.
The residential fees vary based on the type of home, as shown in the table below. The
charges are not arbitrary. As detailed in previous consulting work, they are calculated using a
complex formula that considers pounds of waste generated per square foot, an 80 percent “full”
rate on containers, home type, and average home size.2
ANNUAL RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE FEES, 2013
FEE CLASS FEE PER UNIT
Single Family Home $70
Town House $63
Mobile Home $56
Condominium / Apartment $47
Businesses also pay a Solid Waste Fee, but it is based on either facility square footage
and use or actual generation. All businesses are by default charged based on the facility square
footage and use (warehouse, retail, etc.). Businesses can appeal to have their fee based on their
projected actual waste generation. Both methods use a County-provided formula. Currently,
approximately 40% of businesses have appealed and overridden their solid waste fees to pay
based on actual generation.
All collection in Prince William County is done by the private sector. Many customers
who live with Homeowners’ Associations (HOAs) receive service via a shared contract, while
other have direct subscriptions with a hauler. The haulers charge their customers for collection
service only since the disposal has been pre-paid by the customers via the Solid Waste Fee on
their annual property tax bills.
The County owns and operates a sanitary landfill, which is the primary disposal facility
for the County. The landfill is open daily for commercial disposal of in-county waste.
Commercial recycling processing is open Monday through Friday. On a daily basis, County
residents can self-haul trash and recycling at no cost. The County also owns and operates a
facility called Balls Ford Road. This facility is used primarily for the processing of yard waste
and also accepts trash and recycling from self-hauling residents and town and city residents on a
daily basis. In addition to the permanent facilities, recyclables collection trailers operate as drop
off centers at sixteen additional locations around the County.
1 Residents and businesses inside the towns and the cities do not pay a Solid Waste Fee, and waste
collected from these sources is charged a per-ton landfill tipping fee. Town and City residents who self-haul to the
County landfill can dispose of up to 200 pounds of waste for $5.00.
2 RSWA Utility Fee Study – Task 2 Report, SCS Engineers, 2005
Draper Aden Associates – GBB Attachment 6 Draft 11/7/14
ATTACHMENT 6: EXAMPLE OF REGULATORY FLOW CONTROL
SANITARY DISTRICTS IN FAIRFAX COUNTY, VA
Creation of a Solid Waste Collection Area, or Sanitary District, is a state provision which
requires a petition made by a resident and supported by at least 55 percent of the residents within
the proposed area. The area must consist of 50 homes or more.1 The petition chairperson must
contact the resident or owner of each home in the proposed area. Only the signature of the legal
homeowner is acceptable on the petition.2 Once the signed petitions are verified by the County,
the petition must go to a public hearing of the Board of Supervisors. The public hearing is the
opportunity for those who support or oppose the petition to be heard.
If the proposed area is approved as a Sanitary District by the Board of Supervisors, the residents
will be notified by mail, assigned a trash collection service day, and service will begin according
to a standard timetable—usually, the following January 1 or July 1. Participating households are
charged a user fee on their real estate tax assessment for the service.
In Fairfax County, there are three service levels for which residents can petition: Refuse
only, Leaf only, or Refuse and Leaf. “Refuse” service includes collection of recycling, seasonal
yard waste, and a certain amount of bulky items. Refuse service is charged at a flat per-customer
rate, evaluated during the annual budgetary process to be at or near a “break-even” price point.
“Leaf” service means curbside vacuum collection of loose leaves. Leaf service is charged on a
“mills” basis, a certain cost per $1,000 of assessed value.
Most residential and nearly all commercial customers in Fairfax County, which has
approximately 1,200,000 residents, have private service. The longstanding policy of the County
solid waste management program is to neither encourage nor discourage expansion of the
sanitary districts. Partly as a result, the sanitary districts are concentrated chiefly in the portions
of the county which were suburbanized earliest. This is generally attributed to two factors: when
the areas were first developed, there were no private sector providers available; and, these older
neighborhoods tend to have more mature trees and landscaping, making low-cost, practically
limitless collection of yard waste and the possibility of vacuum lead collection very attractive to
residents.
County forces provide the collection service in sanitary districts; however, the service
could be contracted to a private vendor, and the past this was the case with the recycling
collection. Either way, the County exercises functional flow control over the areas in the sanitary
districts by either being directly responsible for where the collected material goes or stipulating
its destination in a contract.
1 If the area is near to an existing sanitary district, only the homes necessary to enlarge the existing district
in a contiguous manner need to be canvassed—there don’t need to be 50 or more added.
2 Renters do not have the authority to sign petitions since they are not responsible for the real estate taxes
on which the future service charge would be placed.
March 3, 2015
Mr. Douglas Walker, Deputy County Executive
Albemarle County, Virginia
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
RE: Albemarle County – Transfer Station Phase 2 Evaluation
Western Transfer Station – conceptual design
Draper Aden Associates Project No.: C11123R-07
Dear Mr. Walker:
As requested by Albemarle County (the County) and as described in our proposal dated
January 23, 2015, Draper Aden Associates has focused attention on the optimum development of
the western transfer station site at the Ivy Material Utilization Center. To complete this endeavor,
Draper Aden Associates enlisted the assistance of Reynolds Architects to provide a conceptual
design for the transfer station facility. In addition, to the meeting held with the County and
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) on February 3, 2015 to discuss building programming
with the architect, Draper Aden Associates also met with Environmental Standards (Mr. Gerald
Kirkpatrick), the County and RSWA on January 27, 2015 to discuss the potential environmental
concerns with the development of the western site. Our findings and efforts under this proposal
are provided below.
A. SITE LAYOUT AND BUILDING PROGRAMMING
Our direction to the County as determined by the Board of Supervisors was as follows:
“As a part of the comparison of possible collection and transport system alternatives, immediately begin a
detailed analysis of the Ivy MUC site specific to the construction of a new transfer station on one or more
suitable locations on the property. Analysis should include an environmental assessment to determine site
suitability and more detailed cost estimates for design, construction, and operations.”
To initiate the analysis, it was critical that Draper Aden Associates and Reynolds Architects
understand the County’s vision for the facility and the RSWA’s operations. To that end, a meeting
was held on February 3, 2015 to discuss the design elements that should be considered. During
this discussion, it was indicated that the design should maximize the potential of the site
considering flexibility, future usage and operational efficiency. Recycling was a key component
of the discussion.
Mr. Douglas Walker
March 3, 2015
Page 2 of 9
After the meeting, Draper Aden Associates and Reynolds Architects spent time with the
RSWA on-site reviewing the existing operations and discussing improvements that would be
needed to accommodate a transfer operation on the western site. Key concerns included the
following:
Traffic flow with the larger trailers in particular the steep slope up from the office
area into the western site;
Trailer storage and the time and personnel required to switch out the transfer trailers
if the current storage area is used;
Improvements for citizen usage that would consolidate existing operational areas
to facilitate their usage and improve oversight by RSWA (e.g. tag-a-bag, recycling,
and reuse areas).
If the recycling opportunities are maximized, efficient material handling and
storage become critical; and
Ability to handle additional wastes in the future or to segregate incoming wastes by
type (e.g. CDD from MSW) if such services were to be required.
Based on the information received on February 3, 2015, the project team developed a
conceptual site plan (Figure 1) included in Attachment 1 and a building floor plan and elevation
included in Attachment 2. For comparison, the original smaller transfer station floor plan is
included in Attachment 3 along with an updated opinion of probable cost for this older option.
The following operations or facilities are included in the new facility layout and illustrated
on the site plan:
A drop off center for citizens with their bagged trash (upper north roll offs) segregated
from the transfer station traffic;
A shed for collection of the resalable products (e.g. sinks, toys etc.) located on the far
western side;
Four trailers (western side) for live loading “recyclables” which could be any number of
materials – cardboard, newspaper, tires, etc.
Transfer station (basic 10,000 tipping floor plus 1,530 sf loading area) plus an additional
4,000 sf for recycling operations including a loading dock. The recycling area is large
enough that it could in the future accommodate some processing equipment (e.g. baler) and
the loading dock is large enough to accommodate 3 trailers; and
Trailer storage on the upper level and trailer storage on the lower level;
This layout is very different from the previous option considered as the design addresses the key
concerns expressed above and builds in flexibility for future operations and maximum efficiency
for RSWA. The usage of the facilities and the needed equipment would be determined by the
chosen operations. As an example, the drop off center could utilize small 20 cy open top roll offs,
rear loading receiving trailers, or compactors.
To accommodate these facilities, the site plan expanded the overall working area (area of
disturbance is approximately 4 acres) and included the necessary grade breaks to handle the various
loading docks. This layout allows personnel at the transfer station to observe many operations
Mr. Douglas Walker
March 3, 2015
Page 3 of 9
relative to citizen usage and recycling, and allows them to move materials and equipment more
efficiently. The enhanced operations could be phased in over time, but the site work for the general
footprint would need to be completed in conjunction with the transfer station construction.
To address the road requirements for vehicles entering the transfer station (e.g. reducing
the slope of the road into the transfer station tipping floor and improving the slopes of the road for
the transfer trailers into and from the lower loading area) and to enhance the function of the site
by increasing available land usage, the proposed site required a significant cut on the north side of
the site. Under this concept, a cut of approximately 10 feet is required.
It is recognized that the viability of this cut is a function of the edge of waste which has
been identified in the field via existing bollards/edge of pavement and on drawings provided by
Environmental Standards. The source of the information used to make the edge of waste
identification is not known and the location of the edge of waste from these two sources is in
conflict. Prior to any final design, additional work would be required to verify with greater
certainty the edge of waste in this area. As may be needed, the site can be shifted slightly to the
south to modify the location of this cut or the inclusion of the drop off facility eliminated from the
development.
All roads illustrated on the site plan are assumed to be paved with an industrial grade
asphalt pavement. The entrance area to the transfer station (80’ x 100’) is assumed to be heavy
duty concrete given the amount of vehicle maneuvering in this area. This pad in the final design
will be sloped away from the building to assure that stormwater does not enter the building from
runoff from this area. Washdown water and a fluid collection system within the building will be
incorporated into the final building design but is not indicated on the provided drawings. The final
disposition of this wastewater has not been determined. Gates on the two primary access and exit
roads (into and from the station) have been included but a full perimeter fence has not.
The transfer station will be a pre-engineered metal building placed on a concrete slab
designed to handle the heavy equipment loads placed on it. The slab can be constructed of high
strength concrete and/or enhanced with various strengthening materials. In addition, the facility
will require push walls, ventilation, doors on the upper and lower operational areas, loading scale
and appropriate signage. A small office with a handicap accessible bathroom is also illustrated on
the floor plan. The grade break to the loading area is 16 feet. A covered loading dock is also
included on the eastern side of the building. The grade break at the loading dock is 4 feet. The
tipping floor is illustrated to be 9,000 sf, the recycling area 5,000 sf and the loading area 1,530 sf.
B. OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS
Utilizing the concepts developed for this report (See Attachments 1 and 2), opinion of
probable construction costs (conceptual only) were developed for the site work and for the building
construction. Attachment 4 includes this information. The opinion of probable construction cost
for this alternative include a 15% contingency and can be summarized as follows:
Mr. Douglas Walker
March 3, 2015
Page 4 of 9
TABLE 1
OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS*
(CONCEPTUAL ONLY)
ACTIVITY OPINION OF PROBABLE
COST
(Includes 15% contingency)
Site work $971,600
Building $1,426,900
TOTAL $2,398,500
*Does not include equipment, A/E fees, permitting or environmental mitigation activities
C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
The site plan has been provided to Environmental Standards, Mr. Gerald Fitzpatrick, and
comments have been received. In addition to noting the need to verify the edge of waste and to
assure that no waste is exposed, other comments provided include the following:
Landfill gas: The site is immediately adjacent to an unlined landfill. Because of this, it
is anticipated that the foundation of the transfer station will need to be provided with a
venting system to vent possible landfill gas from beneath the facility. In addition, a vapor
barrier may need to be added to the design if other volatile organics are thought to be
present.
Storm water: Storm water will require management and permitting under the modified
VSMP regulations and careful consideration should be given to the discharge point(s).
Ground water: The site plan is a combination of cut and fill. There are two monitoring
wells in the general vicinity of the site development. MW-45 is on the eastern side and
MW-44 is on the southwestern side. Groundwater in both wells based on 2005 data is
between 30 and 37 feet below the ground surface at an estimated elevation of 690 to 700.
The deepest cut is set at approximate elevation 720, well above groundwater. Direct
contact with groundwater is not anticipated.
However, the surficial grading activity and the construction of impervious surfaces as well
as storm water management could change the groundwater regimen. As indicated by Mr.
Fitzgerald, “Because so much of the groundwater flow at this site is in fractures, the impact
the change in slope and cover type will have on the groundwater flow system beneath the
cells is unpredictable (modeling this is not practicable). The project is located in a
hydraulically “background” position and a local groundwater recharge location for the
landfill’s underlying groundwater system. What impact that change will actually have to
our existing groundwater remedy is, and will be, uncertain until the project is finished.”
Mr. Douglas Walker
March 3, 2015
Page 5 of 9
Based on our experience we believe that these items can be addressed during final design
but additional investigations may be necessary. We concur with Mr. Fitzgerald that the potential
impact to groundwater will remain unpredictable and would suggest that prior to initiation of any
additional design activities, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality be consulted about
this project.
We look forward to discussing this work with the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
at their March 11, 2015 meeting. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Sincerely,
DRAPER ADEN ASSOCIATES
Lynn P. Klappich, CSI, CCCA
Program Manager
Attachments:
Attachment 1 – Proposed Concept Layout
Attachment 2 – Conceptual Floor Plan – New concept – 15,530 sf building
Attachment 3 – Conceptual Floor Plan – Original concept – 7,800 sf building
Attachment 4 – Opinion of Probable Construction Cost (Concept)
cc: Mr. Mark Graham, Albemarle County
ATTACHMENT 1
PROPOSED CONCEPT LAYOUT
P:\C11\100\C11123C\C11123C-07\CAD\C11123R-07 - DSN\15 0213 - Preliminary Grading - Fig 4.dwg February 26, 2015 7:47:42 AMSCALE:PROJECT:DESIGNEDDRAWNCHECKEDDATEC11123C-08CIVY LANDFILL TRANSFER STATIONCHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIAFIGUREDraper Aden AssociatesEngineering Surveying Environmental Services700 Harris Street, Suite ECharlottesville, VA 22903434-295-0700 Fax: 434-295-2105Blacksburg, VARichmond, VAHampton Roads, VA CONCEPT LAYOUTECBAJHJWS1" = 60’102/26/20151 inch = ft.( IN FEET )GRAPHIC SCALE06060 1206030
ATTACHMENT 2
CONCEPTUAL FLOOR PLAN
NEW CONCEPT
15, 530 SF building
ATTACHMENT 3
CONCEPTUAL FLOOR PLAN and OPC
ORIGINAL CONCEPT
7,800 sf building
506 SOUTH MAIN STREET, BLACKSBURG, VIRGINIA 24060
February 24, 2015
Ivy Transfer Station
Albemarle County, Virginia
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE FOR 7,800 S.F. TRANSFER STATION
General Requirements.................................................................................... ...... $ 61,267
Concrete / Reinforcing Steel ............................................................................. 329,870
Miscellaneous Steel / Hopper ............................................................................... 94,723
Pre-Engineered Metal Building ........................................................................... 149,635
Plumbing ............................................................................................................ 15,015
Ventilation ........................................................................................................... 4,805
Electrical ............................................................................................................. 18,619
_________
Subtotal $673,934
15% Contingency 101,090
__________
Total $775,024
(Does not include sitework or equipment)
• BLACKSBURG 540/552-7575 • ROANOKE 540/387-3374 • FAX 540/552-6310 •
FORMERLY ROGERS & REYNOLDS ARCHITECTS, INC.
ATTACHMENT 4
OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST
CONCEPT ONLY
(New Concept)
506 SOUTH MAIN STREET, BLACKSBURG, VIRGINIA 24060
February 24, 2015
Ivy Transfer Station
Albemarle County, Virginia
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE FOR 15,530 S.F. TRANSFER STATION
General Requirements.................................................................................... .... $ 112,796
Concrete / Reinforcing Steel ............................................................................. 543,620
Concrete Loading Area ..................................................................................... 18,400
Miscellaneous Steel / Hopper ............................................................................. 169,960
Pre-Engineered Metal Building ........................................................................... 268,520
Canopy over Loading Area ................................................................................ 23,800
Overhead Doors and Controllers ........................................................................ 34,500
Plumbing ............................................................................................................ 27,020
Ventilation ........................................................................................................... 8,680
Electrical ............................................................................................................. 33,460
__________
Subtotal $1,240,756
15% Contingency 186,113
__________
Total $1,426,869
(Does not include sitework or equipment)
• BLACKSBURG 540/552-7575 • ROANOKE 540/387-3374 • FAX 540/552-6310 •
FORMERLY ROGERS & REYNOLDS ARCHITECTS, INC.
Opinion of Probable Cost:
Date: February 24, 2015
Location: Albemarle County
Owner: County of Albemarle
Preparer: DRAPER ADEN ASSOCIATES
Item Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Total Category Sub-Total
Demolition
Remove Trees & Grubbing 3.82 acre $5,000.00 $19,100.00
Demo asphalt 630 SF $7.00 $4,410.00
Demo building 1 Ea. $1,500.00 $1,500.00
$25,010.00
Earthwork
Fine Grading 18482 S.Y. $2.00 $36,964.00
Cut and Haul on site 28870 C.Y. $6.00 $173,220.00
Fill if using cut 3570 C.Y. $6.00 $21,420.00
Cut if hauled out 0 C.Y. $10.00 $0.00
Fill If hauled in 0 C.Y. $10.00 $0.00
$231,604.00
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Construction Entrance 1 Ea. $2,000.00 $2,000.00
Silt Fence 1100 L.F. $3.50 $3,850.00
Seeding/Mulching/Topsoil 1.87 AC. $5,000.00 $9,350.00
Dust Control 3.82 AC. $1,000.00 $3,820.00
Blanket Matting 2480 SY $2.00 $4,960.00
$23,980.00
Hardscape Construction
Heavy Duty Asphalt Pavement
Supply, Place and Compact 8" VDOT 21B 2525 Tons $25.00 $63,125.83
Supply and Place 4" VDOT BM-29 Asphalt 1457 Tons $85.00 $123,823.75
Supply and Place 2.5" VDOT SM-9.5A Asphalt 910 Tons $85.00 $77,389.84
Heavy Duty Concrete Pavement
Supply, Place and Compact 8" VDOT 21B 449 Tons $25.00 $11,228.75
Supply and Place 8" Hydraulic Cement Concrete 1536 SY $100.00 $153,555.56
$429,123.73
Site Items
Security Gate 2 L.S. $4,000.00 $8,000.00
Pavement marking 1 L.S. $2,000.00 $2,000.00
$10,000.00
Utility Construction
4" Sanitary Sewer 380 L.F. $40.00 $15,200.00
Sanitary Sewer Manhole 1 Ea. $4,000.00 $4,000.00
Sanitary Sewer Clean Out 1 Ea. $500.00 $500.00
2" Waterline 385 L.F. $30.00 $11,550.00
Conduit 360 L.F. $5.00 $1,800.00
Lights 3 Ea. $1,500.00 $4,500.00
Light pole foundations 2 Ea. $750.00 $1,500.00
$39,050.00
Project: Albemarle Convenient Center - Ivy Transfer Station
Stormwater Management
Stormwater Management Facility 4 Ea. $10,000.00 $40,000.00
$40,000.00
Structures
4' Retaining wall 1056 S.F. $20.00 $21,120.00
$21,120.00
Landscaping
$0.00
Miscellaneous
Mobilization & Stakeout 1 L.S. $25,000.00 $25,000.00
$25,000.00
SUBTOTAL FOR ALL PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION $844,887.73
15% CONTINGENCY $126,733.16
TOTAL OPINION OF PROBABLE COST $971,620.89
March 3, 2014
Mr. Douglas Walker, Deputy County Executive
Albemarle County, Virginia
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
RE: Albemarle County – Comparison of Alternatives
Ivy Material Utilization Center
Draper Aden Associates Project No.: C11123R-08B
Dear Mr. Walker:
As requested by Albemarle County (the County), Draper Aden Associates has prepared Table 1
(attached) summarizing the various scenarios provided to the Board of Supervisors relative to
modifications to the Ivy Material Utilization Center (MUC) transfer operation. The discussion on these
various scenarios was triggered when the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality established a time
frame with the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority for upgrade or closure of the existing transfer operation.
The table includes information presented by Draper Aden Associates in our July 30, 2014 letter
discussing convenience center alternatives, information from our November 17, 2014 letter presenting
information on transfer station configurations at the Ivy MUC and additional information currently under
preparation relative to a more detailed analysis of the western transfer station site.
The table outlines the elements of each scenario, provides capital costs previously presented or
modified as appropriate and as noted, narrative information on operational costs in relationship to existing
costs, and the advantages and disadvantages of each scenario. While the purpose of the table is to allow a
quick overview of previously presented information, it is suggested that the root documents be consulted
for additional details.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
DRAPER ADEN ASSOCIATES
Lynn P. Klappich, CSI, CCCA
Program Manager
Attachment: Table 1 dated 3/3/15
TABLE 1
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
WASTE HANDLING EVALUATION
COMPARISON OF SCENARIOS
3/3/15
p:\c11\100\c11123r\c11123r-08b\corresp\comparison of scenarios\summary table - 15 0303 - scenarios - lpk - final.docx
Page 1 of 5
SCENARIO DESCRIPTION
/SOURCE OF INFORMATION
CAPITAL
COSTS
OPERATION
IMPACTS
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
1A Western transfer station
Without enhancements:
7,800 sf building strictly used
for waste collection and
transfer.
Trailer storage in same location
as existing operations.
See DAA letter dated 11/17/14 –
Site 1
$1,463,000 (*)
+ A/E fees
+environmental
mitigation
(*) Value has
been modified
since 11/17/14
letter based on
further review by
architect,
discussions with
RSWA, and site
plan work.
Increased by
$310,000.
RSWA – costs not
yet determined.
Can use existing scales but
requires circuitous route for the
transfer trailers to access facility.
Top loaded trailers – compaction
equipment not required.
Existing permit will need to be
transferred to this facility or a
new one developed.
Potential additional costs for
environmental mitigation
activities may be required.
Haul trailers must be routed
through the existing operational
area.
Operations are fragmented
between many different areas
of the site and inefficient.
Significant site work required.
Questions of risks and
liabilities must be addressed
with RSWA.
1B Western transfer station
With enhancements:
15,800 sf building including
4,000 sf for recycling
operations within building.
Loading dock for recyclables
provided at building.
Relocation of convenience
center for citizens, reuse area
and recycling operations to
same vicinity as transfer
station.
Trailer storage provided.
See DAA letter pending
$2,398,000
+ A/E fees
+environmental
mitigation
RSWA costs not yet
determined.
Can use existing scales but better
traffic flow than Scenario 3.
Top loaded trailers – compaction
equipment not required.
Consolidates operations for the
transfer station with enhanced
recycling into one area.
More user friendly for customers.
Recycling can be accommodated
in multiple operations from
citizen drop off to larger loading
of trailers, to internal segregation
of materials on transfer station
floor.
Potential additional costs for
environmental mitigation
activities may be required.
Significant site work required.
Most expensive option.
Questions of risks and
liabilities must be addressed
with RSWA.
TABLE 1
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
WASTE HANDLING EVALUATION
COMPARISON OF SCENARIOS
3/3/15
p:\c11\100\c11123r\c11123r-08b\corresp\comparison of scenarios\summary table - 15 0303 - scenarios - lpk - final.docx
Page 2 of 5
SCENARIO DESCRIPTION
/SOURCE OF INFORMATION
CAPITAL
COSTS
OPERATION
IMPACTS
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
Consolidation will promote
efficiency.
Design flexible and can be
phased in.
Traffic flow more efficient.
Existing permit will need to be
transferred to this facility or a
new one developed.
2 Ivy transfer station – construction of
canopy
See DAA letter dated 11/17/14 –
Section I
$130,000
+ A/E fees
Continue as is by
RSWA
Allows operations to remain
unchanged and to meet VDEQ
requirements.
Equipment old and difficult to
replace. Unknown how much
longer it will function.
Does not add any
enhancements to system.
3A Ivy Transfer Station reversion to
convenience center:
Use same equipment
No changes to recycling
See 7/30/14 DAA letter
None Transfer and
recycling –similar to
existing costs.
Probable reduction
in waste tonnage
which would reduce
transfer costs.
No capital costs or land
disturbance required.
Continues to support private
citizens.
System can continue to handle
bulky wastes in an efficient
manner.
No change in traffic patterns
required.
With use of the larger trailers, the
waste materials can be
transported more effectively.
No solid waste permit from
VDEQ needed.
Commercial haulers can no
longer use facility.
Transfer Station permit must be
rescinded.
Existing equipment is at the end
of its useful life and may not
continue to operate much
longer.
3B Ivy Transfer Station reversion to
convenience center:
Use same equipment
$209,000 + A/E
fees
Transfer – similar to
existing costs.
Probable reduction
System can continue to handle
bulky wastes in an efficient
manner.
Commercial haulers can no
longer use facility.
TABLE 1
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
WASTE HANDLING EVALUATION
COMPARISON OF SCENARIOS
3/3/15
p:\c11\100\c11123r\c11123r-08b\corresp\comparison of scenarios\summary table - 15 0303 - scenarios - lpk - final.docx
Page 3 of 5
SCENARIO DESCRIPTION
/SOURCE OF INFORMATION
CAPITAL
COSTS
OPERATION
IMPACTS
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
Enhanced recycling:
o Compactors
o Box containers
See 7/30/14 DAA letter – Option 1
in waste tonnage
which would reduce
transfer costs.
Recycling –
additional costs for
handling additional
materials.
With use of the larger trailers, the
waste materials can be
transported more effectively.
Limited land disturbance is
required and development costs
reduced.
Minor changes are required in
existing traffic patterns.
Sufficient space is available to
enhance recycling while
continuing to collect waste
materials in the current operation.
No changes are anticipated in the
operations other than enhanced
recycling.
No solid waste permit from
VDEQ needed.
Transfer Station permit must be
rescinded.
Existing equipment is at the end
of its useful life and may not
continue to operate much
longer.
Revenues from the enhanced
recycling may not offset the
additional costs of handling.
3C Ivy Transfer Station reversion to
convenience center:
Major modification to
operations.
New convenience center at
trailer storage area.
Use of new compactors and
open top roll offs.
Enhanced recycling included.
See 7/30/14 DAA letter – Option 2
$585,000 +A/E
fees
Major changes in
operational costs
associated with
personnel and use of
smaller haul
vehicles. Tonnage
may decrease.
Recycling costs will
increase with
collection of
additional materials.
All activities confined to one area
for ease of control.
Equipment is new and facility
designed to maximize efficient
traffic flow.
No solid waste permit from
VDEQ needed.
Commercial haulers can no
longer use facility.
Transfer Station permit must be
rescinded.
The site layout is impractical
for potential site and requires
significant grading that would
disturb underlying materials
and damage the site buffers.
Utilities would need to be run
to the site.
Storm water control measures
would need to be designed.
TABLE 1
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
WASTE HANDLING EVALUATION
COMPARISON OF SCENARIOS
3/3/15
p:\c11\100\c11123r\c11123r-08b\corresp\comparison of scenarios\summary table - 15 0303 - scenarios - lpk - final.docx
Page 4 of 5
SCENARIO DESCRIPTION
/SOURCE OF INFORMATION
CAPITAL
COSTS
OPERATION
IMPACTS
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
Use of smaller trailers will
increase hauling costs.
Location is well away from the
scales or office requiring
additional oversight.
Major changes in traffic
patterns would be required.
Area will need to be fenced.
Questions of risks and
liabilities must be addressed
with RSWA.
May limit tonnage that can
move through system given
loss of compactor and use of
larger trailers.
Revenues from the enhanced
recycling may not offset the
additional costs of handling.
3D Ivy Transfer Station reversion to
convenience center:
Replace existing compaction
equipment with newer
compactor system in same
general location.
New system compact into roll
offs not large trailers.
Enhanced recycling:
o Compactors
o Box containers
See 7/30/14 DAA letter – Option 3
$386,000
+A/E fees
Transfer costs will
increase given use of
smaller trailers but
tonnage may
decrease.
Recycling costs will
increase with
handling of
additional materials.
Equipment will be new.
Operations confined to a single
localized area matching current
use and traffic patterns.
Limited land disturbance is
required.
Storm water can be handled in
existing system.
Sufficient space is available to
enhance recycling.
No solid waste permit from
VDEQ needed.
Commercial haulers can no
longer use facility.
Transfer Station permit must be
rescinded.
Significant amount of new
equipment required.
Use of roll offs reduces tonnage
transported per load.
Efficiency of handling bulky
waste may be compromised.
TABLE 1
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
WASTE HANDLING EVALUATION
COMPARISON OF SCENARIOS
3/3/15
p:\c11\100\c11123r\c11123r-08b\corresp\comparison of scenarios\summary table - 15 0303 - scenarios - lpk - final.docx
Page 5 of 5
SCENARIO DESCRIPTION
/SOURCE OF INFORMATION
CAPITAL
COSTS
OPERATION
IMPACTS
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
Revenues from the enhanced
recycling may not offset the
additional costs of handling.
3E Typical convenience center
Located away from Ivy
Includes:
o 2 – MSW compactors
o 2 – bulk waste open
tops
o 7 – recycling boxes
o Waste shed
o Attendant’s shed
See 12/30/13 Mill Creek Due
Diligence Report
$652,600
(includes
equipment)
+A/E fees
+land costs
+land use
permitting
To be determined Equipment will be new and
location convenient.
Transfer station may not be
needed.
Operations could be privatized.
No solid waste permit from
VDEQ needed.
Will not accommodate
commercial haulers.
Will require property purchase
and land use permits.
Difficult to collect fees for
usage.