Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAP202000001 Staff Report 2020-06-02 (7)410 ACENTECH October 28, 2019 Donnie Rose President R. A. Yancey Lumber Corporation 6317 Rockfish Gap Turnpike Crozet, VA 22932 Subject Noise & Vibration Survey, Yancey Lumber Mill, Crozet, VA Acentech Project No. 630191— 2019 Update, v1.1 Dear Mr. Rose: 401AL( 2150 wise Street #4875 WX Charlottesville, VA 22905 ` 434 218 0759 acentech.com I, a You are interested in assessing the mill's compliance with the county's noise ordinance. To that end, you have contracted us to perform a noise survey of the property for reporting to the county. For reference, Appendix C includes a brief glossary of terms and some additional information you may find helpful. On Wednesday May 10, 2018 we met with representatives from Albemarle County to discuss the noise survey. During this discussion, the county indicated that you would also need to measure for compliance with the vibration standard also outlined in the county code. On Monday May 21 and Wednesday May 23, 2018, we measured noise and vibration at various points near the Yancey Lumber Corporation's property boundary to get a snapshot of the sound and vibration levels due to typical operations. In the intervening year since this report was originally issued, the mill has refurbished the dust -fired boiler and brought it back online; this boiler was not operational at the time of the initial survey. Additionally, you have taken action to reduce noise levels of the boiler's induction fan, as well as some other equipment around the property. Nighttime sound levels were not measured or reported in the original report, but as the boiler runs continuously, nighttime sound levels are now included. On October 2, 2019 we repeated the noise survey measurements during daytime and nighttime operations. Note that vibration measurements were not repeated, or updated, as there were no apparent changes to major sources of vibration near the property boundaries. This report summarizes the measurement results of our surveys. MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGY Sound The Albemarle County code includes regulations for noise in chapter 18, section 4.18. This section outlines the necessary equipment, measurement procedure, and performance standard. All sound measurements were made using an ANSI Type 1 compliant Sound Level Meters. The most recent sound measurements had laboratory calibration last dates of Nov 5, 2018 and June 4, 2019, both within their calibration period. Field calibration was performed at the start of each measurement day. In accordance with the county ordinance, sound level measurements were made at a height of 56" from the ground with a acoustics av/it/security I vibration R. A. Yancey Lumber Corporation Page 2 of 12 October 28, 2019 duration of five minutes at each location to calculate the equivalent continuous sound level (Leq). You may think of the Leq as the energy -average sound level during the measurement period. The daytime performance standard for sound levels is defined in the county code as 65 dBA for commercial receiving zone boundaries and 60 dBA for all rural, residential, and public receiving zone boundaries. The nighttime performance standard is defined as 65 dBA for commercial and 55 dBA for all other (rural etc.) receiving zone boundaries. Industrial receiving zones, of which there are none at your location, have a standard of 70 dBA for daytime and nighttime. Vibration The Albemarle County code includes regulations for vibration in chapter 18, section 4.14.2. This section defines the performance standards for vibration and the type of measurement needed for comparison to that standard. Measurements were made using three seismic accelerometers mounted tri-axially (three perpendicular directions, one vertical and two horizontal). Laboratory calibrations of the three sensors were last performed in July and August of 2017, which was within their calibration period at the time of the measurements. Measurements were made on a solid and compacted surface to ensure valid readings. The recorded acceleration signals were processed to calculate a vector sum of the vibration waveform, and then time integrated to change acceleration into velocity, and converted into the vector summed Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) levels calculated for each location, per the county code. The performance standard at residential district boundaries is .006 in/sec PPV for impulsive vibration (less than 100 events per minute) and .00 in/sec PPV for continuous vibration. Note that the continuous vibration level of .00 in/sec is the same as zero, or no allowable vibrations; we expect that this is not the intent of the code and it is incorrectly written. The performance standard at all other boundaries including rural boundaries, which represent the majority of the boundary, is .030 in/sec PPV for impulsive vibration (less than 100 events per minute) and .015 in/sec PPV for continuous vibration. Measurement Locations The sound and vibration measurements were conducted at 19 locations at or near the property boundary, including two locations across the Rockfish Gap Turnpike (RT 250) as suggested by the county representatives. The measurement locations are detailed in Appendix Al and Appendix A2. The appendices show the same measurement locations, with Al having a map background and A2 having satellite imagery, both pulled from Google Maps. Best efforts were made to measure at the property line, but some locations were inaccessible. In those cases, the measurements were done at a location closer to the sound and vibration sources of your site. MEASUREMENT RESULTS Due to ongoing activity during business hours at the mill, we were unable to measure ambient sound levels at most locations. However, at many of those locations, we observed the dominant source of sound to be due to mill activity and the measured sound levels are likely to be representative. The locations where we were able to measure ambient sound levels without intrusion from the mill, the ambient sound levels were typically dominant. The weather during all measurements was sunny, with no precipitation, and no noticeable wind. 4i)1oACENTECH acoustics I av/itlsecurity I vibration R. A. Yancey Lumber Corporation Page 3 of 12 October 28, 2019 Sound Levels — Daytime The daytime measurement results are shown in the table in Appendix 131 and reported as A -weighted overall levels, where Leq is the five-minute equivalent continuous sound level as per the county code. Ambient sound levels were only measurable during a 30-minute shutdown at noon and only near the Route 250 where activity and equipment that remains on during the shutdown is inaudible. For the measurement locations away from Route 250 (NVI — NV14) we were unable to make ambient measurements due to site activity. However, site activity generally dominated the sound levels at those locations and the measurements are representative of the source. At these locations, mill operations, forklifts, log loader, and onsite truck activity generally dominated the sound levels, but specific notes for each measurement location are in the table. For measurement locations near the road (NV15 — NV19) we were able to measure ambient sound levels near Route 250 and verify that road noise is indeed dominant, with energy averaged ambient sound levels around 74 dBA without mill operation. The ambient sound levels fluctuate due to the amount of traffic on Route 250, so they may be higher or lower for any given five-minute period. Note that NV15, NV18, and NV19 likely have source sound levels below the 60 dBA criterion, while NV16 and NV17 may have levels above the 60 dBA due to proximity of the debarking activity. The measured sound levels exceeded the daytime criterion defined by the county (60 dBA) at NV1, NV5, NV9, NV10, and NV15 — NV19. However, after adjusting for ambient, we expect that sound levels due to mill operation only exceeded the 60 dBA at NV1, NV5, NV9, NV10, NV16, and NV17. Sound Levels - Nighttime The nighttime measurement results are shown in the table in Appendix B2 and reported as A -weighted overall levels. Again, Leq is the five-minute equivalent continuous sound level as per county code. Ambient sound levels were not measurable because the limited nighttime operations at the mill are continuous. The measured sound levels exceeded the nighttime criterion defined by the county (55 dBA) at NV2, NV9, and NV15 — NV19. NV2 sound levels were dominated by boiler fan noise, while NV9 sound levels were dominated by boiler operations; so these locations need little -to -no ambient correction and do exceed the county's nighttime noise ordinance of 55 dBA. However, we expect that sound levels due to mill operations at NV15 — NV19 would have been in compliance with the ordinance after considering the much higher ambient sound levels of Route 250. Vibration The measurement results are shown in the table in Appendix B3 and reported as Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) levels in units of inches per second. This table shows the maximum PPV, typical PPV, and the continuous PPV during the 5-minute measurement period for each location. For the purposes of reporting the measured vibrations we have defined Max PPV as the highest level, typical PPV as the median level (50'" percentile), and continuous PPV as a lower level that is always present (1s' percentile — the level exceeded 99% of the time, basically the minimum measured level for short duration measurements). Vibration levels are not included for NV8 and NV10 locations because the ground was too soft for an accurate measurement. For non-residential boundaries, all vibration measurements (NV1— NV14, a mix of rural and highway commercial) were within the continuous and impulsive criteria defined by the county. For residential boundaries, the continuous vibration criterion was exceeded at all relevant locations (NV15 — NV19), because the county's criterion is effectively zero. The typical impulsive levels exceeded the residential impulsive criterion only at NV17, while the maximum impulsive levels exceeded the criterion at all 4);10ACE NTECH acoustics I aWit/security I vibration R. A. Yancey Lumber Corporation Page 4 of 12 October 28, 2019 five locations. NV17 vibrations were highest due to the debarking equipment operation, but note that contributions due to traffic were similar to that of NV15 and NV19. To put these vibration levels into perspective we can reference the ANSI standard for human exposure to vibration'. The standard defines the threshold of perception in humans to be roughly equal to the impulsive criterion defined in the county code for residential boundaries at 0.006 in/sec PPV. Comparing the reported levels with the ANSI reference, the continuous and typical impulsive vibration levels generally fall well below the threshold of perception for vibration. Note also that there are no sensitive receivers at the measurement locations and that we would expect additional reductions as vibrations propagate over larger distances to human receivers. For reference at residential boundaries, this ANSI standard also defines a site -multiplying factor to apply for different types of use and times of day. Between the hours of 7AM to 10PM for residential receivers it recommends a site multiplying factor between 1.4 and 4, meaning the suggested limit would move from 0.006 in/sec to between 0.0084 in/sec and 0.024 in/sec, which are greater than all measured levels, with the exception of maximum levels at NV17, which is at the RT 250. NEW EQUIPMENT SOUND LEVELS A new sorting and stacking building is being constructed near NV1 and NV2. We understand that construction of the building has already begun with roughly half of the sorting equipment in place and the stacking equipment already operational. We also understand that this equipment will have a final construction similar to the existing sorting and stacking building on the Southeast side of your site. Because we cannot easily predict the noise due to this future equipment, we are instead relying on sound and vibration radiated from the existing sorting and stacking building to estimate the sound level at NV1 and NV2 once the new building is complete. Using sound levels measured at the multiple distances from the existing building, we estimate the new building would produce sound levels of 66 dBA at NVl and 60 dBA at NV2. The resulting change in sound level would be about 2 dBA higher at both NV1 and NV2, as shown in Table 3. Table 3: Estimated Sound Level after Sorter and Stacker building is complete Measurement Location Current Sound Level Leq (dBA) Estimated Sound Level of New Building, Leq (dBA) Estimated Total Sound Level, Leq (dBA) NV1 -30' to New Bldg.) 69 66 71 NV2 -120' to New Bldg.) 61 60 63 The typical vibration level at the same distance from the building would be 0.0045 in/s at NV1 and 0.0014 in/s at NV2. We do not expect a significant change in typical PPV vibration levels because the typical levels are so similar to current typical levels, as shown in Table 4. Table 4: Estimated Typical PPV Vibration Level after Sorter and Stacker building is complete Measurement Location Current Typical PPV (in/sec) Estimated Typical PPV of New Building (in/sec) Estimated Typical PPV (in/sec) NV1 -30' to New Bldg.) 0.0045 0.0045 0.0045 NV2 -120' to New Bldg.) 0.002 0.0004 0.002 ' ANSI S2.71-1983 (r2006), Guide to Evaluation of Human Exposure to Vibration in Buildings. 4)ACE acoustics I av/ittsecuriry I vibration R. A. Yancey Lumber Corporation Page 5 of 12 October 28, 2019 FOLLOW-UP WORK New Building Verification We previously planned to verify the sound levels of the new building once it is complete. In our initial meeting with the county, they did not believe it would be necessary. Should it become necessary, we are available to complete that task as previously outlined. Mitigation Recommendations Because some of the sound and vibration levels do not comply with the county code, they may require additional information, investigation, or mitigation. We are available to respond to requests from you or the county as additional services. I hope this provides you with the information you need at this time. If you have any questions, please contact me at 434-218-0759. Sincerely, Acentech Incorporated Bill Yoder Senior Staff Scientist 4i);10ACE NTECH acoustics avAttsecurity vibration R. A. Yancey Lumber Corporation Page 6 of 12 October 28, 2019 Appendix Al: Map of Measurement Locations Froehling 8 Robertson V Pro Re Nate Brewery 29 J01$ VaQ P V NV15 225 ds V Cznter NV14 �\ NV13\ .�Ta^�PMilfi r 41k(o ACENTECH acoustics I av/itlsecurity I vibration R. A. Yancey Lumber Corporation Page 7 of 12 October 28, 2019 Appendix A2: Imagery of Measurement Locations 41,1*ACENTECH R. A. Yancey Lumber Corporation Page 8of 12 October 28, 2019 Appendix B1: Daytime Sound Level Measurement Results, 2018 & 2019 Measured Daytime Sound Levels Around the Property Boundary Measurement Location 2018 Measured Leq (dBA) 2019 Measured Leq (dBA) 2019 w/o Amb. Leq (dBA) Conditions Notes for 2019 measurements (Sources given in order of dominance) NV1 68.2 68.8 A, B Forklifts, mill building NV2 59.4 61.5 A, B Mill building NV3 58.6 57.5 A, B Forklifts, truck, mill building NV4 56.5 54.0 A, C Forklifts, Rt. 250 NV5 61.7 62.1 A, B Dust drop motor, forklifts NV6 59.8 66.8 A, B Forklifts, trucks NV7 45.8 48.5 A, C Forklifts, 1-64 NV8 54.7 53.9 A, B Forklifts, motor noise NV9 64.8 64.1 A, B Boiler fan, chipper, dust feed NV10 69.6 63.4 A, B Mill building NV11 59.5 57.9 A, B Debarker, mill building NV12 61.9 56.5 A, B Mill building NV13 55.9 54.0 A, C Truck at mill, 1-64 NV14 64.5 59.3 -- A, B Log loader, truck at mill NV15 70.2 74.1 < 64 D, E Rt. 250 dominates, debarking quieter and intermittent NV16 70.4 72.1 < 62 D, E Rt. 250 dominates, debarking is intermittent NV17 80.5 76.6 < 73 D, E Rt. 250 dominates, debarking is intermittent NV18 71.2 73.8 < 64 D, E Rt. 250 dominates, debarking quieter and intermittent NV19 71.8 71.7 < 62 D, E Rt. 250 dominates, debarking quieter and intermittent A - Ambient was unmeasurable, the mill never shut down or activity never stopped. B - Measured level was observed to be due to the mill, not strongly impacted by ambient. C - Measured level was observed to be due to the mill and ambient. D - Measured level was observed to be due to ambient, not strongly impacted by the mill. E - Applying ambient corrections following the ordinance's correction table. 4)Q,((6 ACENTECH acoustics I av/iUsecuriry I vibratlon R. A. Yancey Lumber Corporation Page 9 of 12 October 28, 2019 Appendix B2: Nighttime Sound Level Measurement Results, 2019 Nighttime Sound Levels Around the Property Boundary Measurement Location 2019 Measured Leq (dBA) 2019 w/o Amb. Leq (dBA) Conditions Notes for 2019 measurements (Sources given in order of dominance) NV1 51.9 A, C Rt. 250 and boiler fan equally dominant. NV2 56.0 A, B Boiler fan, bugs NV3 52.6 A, B Boiler fan, bugs NV4 47.0 A, D Rt. 250, bugs NV5 47.4 A, D 1-64, bugs NV6 50.9 A, C Boiler fan, 1-64, bugs NV7 50.3 A, D 1-64, bugs. NV8 51.3 A, C 1-64, boiler fan, bugs. NV9 61.5 A, B Boiler fan, scroll motor? at the mill building NV10 49.9 A, B Boiler fan, mill building, bugs NV11 50.9 A, B Mill building, 1-64, bugs NV12 52.1 A, C 1-64, bugs, boiler fan NV13 52.0 A, D 1-64, bugs NV14 51.8 -- A, C Rt. 250, 1-64, bugs, boiler fan NV15 63.6 < 54 A, D, E Rt. 250, 1-64, bugs NV16 70.0 < 60 A, D, E Rt. 250, 1-64, bugs NV17 65.2 < 55 A, D, E Rt. 250, 1-64, bugs NV18 66.3 < 56 A, D, E Rt. 250, 1-64, bugs NV19 65.7 < 56 A, D, E Rt. 250, 1-64, bugs A - Ambient was unmeasurable, the mill never shut down or activity never stopped. B - Measured level was observed to be due to the mill, not strongly impacted by ambient. C - Measured level was observed to be due to the mill and ambient. D - Measured level was observed to be due to ambient, not strongly impacted by the mill. E - Applying maximum 10dB correction allowed by the ordinance's correction table since mill is not dominant. 44!*R•ACENT ECH acoustics I av/iUsecuriry I vibratlon R. A. Yancey Lumber Corporation Page 10 of 12 October 28, 2019 Appendix 133: Daytime Vibration Measurement Results, 2018 Measured Tri-axial Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) Vibration Levels Around the Property Boundary Location Max Impulsive PPV in/sec Typical Impulsive PPV in/sec Continuous PPV (in/sec) Notes Non- Residential Boundaries Criterion .030 in/sec Criterion .015 in/sec NV1 0.0077 0.0045 0.0023 Max PPV was due to forklift activity. NV2 0.0063 0.0020 0.0016 Max PPV was due to forklift activity. NV3 0.0070 0.0047 0.0036 Max PPV was due to forklift activity. NV4 0.0041 0.0024 0.0020 No visible activity. NV5, NV6 0.0084 0.0056 0.0044 Forklift and truck activity. NV7 0.0021 0.0011 0.0006 No visible activity. NV8 -- -- -- Ground was too soft for an accurate measurement NV9 0.0037 0.0022 0.0012 Boom lift active at boiler. NV10 -- -- -- Ground was too soft for an accurate measurement. NV11 0.0025 0.0015 0.0008 ivity, idling trucks at weigh station. NV12 0.0030 0.0013 0.0009 ivity, idling trucks at weigh station. NV13 0.0037 0.0022 0.0014 ivity, idling trucks at weigh station. NV14 0.0054 0.0004 0.0003 Log loader activity, idling trucks, traffic pass -by. Residential Boundaries Criterion .006 in/sec Criterion .00 in/sec NV15 0.0157 0.0039 0.0019 Max PPV was due to traffic pass -by. NV16 0.0108 0.0050 0.0030 Max PPV was due to traffic pass -by. NV17 0.0308 0.0099 0.0053 PPV rimaril due to debarking equipment. NV18 0.0070 0.0038 0.0018 Max PPV was due to traffic pass -by. NV19 0.0217 0.0030 0.0016 Max PPV was due to traffic pass -by. 44!*R•ACENTECH acoustics i av/iVsecuriry i vibration R. A. Yancey Lumber Corporation Page 11 of 12 October 28, 2019 APPENDIX C — GLOSSARY & LAY TERMS lei IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII15H[i-T.W0:4L67a0:0 7kIIR0]KiZH'1 We understand that acoustic terminology may confusing. The following is a brief glossary of some acoustical terms used in this report that you may find useful. Accelerometer A vibration sensor that directly measures the acceleration (rate of change of velocity) of a surface. Ambient Sounds The sounds due to environmental, traffic, or other nearby sources that are unrelated to the source(s) being measured. dB = decibels, dBA = decibels, A -weighted Decibels (abbreviated dB) are used to measure the relative loudness of sound, based on a logarithmic scale. For reference, normal human speech is in the range of 65 decibels, painful rock music or aircraft noise may be as loud as 130 decibels. A -weighting filters the sound in a way that is similar to human hearing, and hence dBA levels are often referenced in various acoustical standards. Note that a 10dB increase in sound is associated with a perceived doubling in sound level. Hz = Hertz, frequency The frequency of a sound or vibration in cycles per second. Low frequency is associated with bass and are low pitch, while higher frequencies are high pitched. Leq The equivalent continuous sound level, or energy -average sound level, over a defined measurement period. Note that the sound level may be higher or lower during the measurement period. Receiver The location or person(s) receiving the sound or vibration. In this case, the county s ordinances requires that measurements be made at the receiving property boundaries. Sound Level Meter A device used to measure the sound level at a given location. Often these are required to meet a specific classftype 0, 1, or 2 to indicate a minimum performance of the meter, where O=Lab, 1=Precision, 2=lndustrial. Source The equipment or operations being measured for compliance with the county's ordinances. In this case, the source is the lumber mill and related activity. 41-ACE NTECH acoustics I av/ittsecurity I vibration R. A. Yancey Lumber Corporation Page 12 of 12 October 28, 2019 C2. SOUND IN LAY TERMS The magnitude, or loudness, of sound waves (pressure oscillations) is described quantitatively by the terms sound pressure level, sound level, or simply noise level. The magnitude of a sound is measured in decibels, abbreviated as dB. Decibels are used to quantity sound pressure levels just as degrees are used to quantity temperature and inches are used to quantity distance. The faintest sound level that can be heard by a young healthy ear is about 0 dB, a moderate sound level is about 50 dB, and a loud sound level is about 100 dB. Sound level meters are usually equipped with electronic filters or weighting circuits, for the purpose of simulating the frequency response characteristics of the human ear. The A -weighting filter included with essentially all sound level meters is most commonly employed for this purpose because the measured sound level data correlate well with subjective response to sounds. Sound levels measured using the A -weighting filter are designated by dBA. The frequency of a sound is analogous to its tonal quality or pitch. The unit for frequency is hertz, abbreviated Hz (formerly cycles per second or cps). Thus, if a sound wave oscillates 500 times per second, its frequency is 500 Hz. The normal frequency range of human hearing extends from a low frequency of about 20 to 50 Hz (a rumbling sound) up to a high frequency of about 10,000 to 15,000 Hz (a hissing sound) or even higher for some people. People have different hearing sensitivity to different frequencies and generally hear best in the mid -frequency region that is common to human speech, about 500 to 4000 Hz. An increase or decrease of the sound level by 1 or 2 dB is generally not noticeable. Whereas a change of the ambient sound level by 5 or 6 dB is generally noticeable and a change in the sound level by 10 dB is generally considered to represent a doubling or halving of the perceived sound. C3. VIBRATION IN LAY TERMS Vibration in buildings is often reported in terms of Vibration Velocity, where velocity represents the rate that vibration waves change. The level of vibration velocity is typically reported in micro -inches per second (µin/s) or inches per second (in/s). Unlike sound levels reported using the dB scale, vibration reported in terms of linear units (µin/s or in/s) is simpler to understand when levels change. A doubling of vibration velocity level corresponds to an actual doubling of the vibration. As with sound, the frequency of a vibration is analogous to its tonal quality or pitch. Thus, if a vibration wave oscillates 10 times per second, its frequency is 10 Hz. People have different sensitivity to vibration, though a level of .004 inches per second, root -mean -squared (RMS) is considered a conservative threshold of perception. In some situations, where you may be concerned about damage, vibration is calculated from the peak of the actual vibration waveform, this is known as Peak Particle Velocity (PPV). PPV is typically the metric used during large construction or mining activities that may include blasting, or where vibration may be strong enough to cause structural damage to a building or other object (such as artwork). The relationship between root -mean -squared (RMS) vibration velocity and peak particle velocity is difficult to define for various reasons, but peak particle velocity is always at least 1.4x higher than RMS vibration velocity. 41-ACE NTECH acoustics I Wit/security I vibration WILLIAMS MULLEN Direct Dial: 434.951.5709 vlong@williamsmullen.com March 12, 2020 VIA EMAIL: bfritzflalbemarle.orq Mr. Bill Fritz Director of Special Projects Albemarle County Department of Community Development Re: R A Yancey Lumber Corporation — Special Exception Reauests Dear Bill In connection with the pending application for Special Exceptions on behalf of our client R.A. Yancey Lumber Corporation (the "Company"), I enclose updated exhibits dated March 12, 2020 for inclusion in the package with the staff report for the Planning Commission. As we have discussed, based on feedback from the community generally, from meetings with neighbors adjacent to the Mill, and from you and others in the Community Development Department, we have substantially modified our requests to be far more narrowly tailored; to only request relief in the specific areas where needed, and to only request relief to the extent of any non- conformity. In general, the Company's request is to allow the historic and current conditions at the Mill to continue, with the buildings and structures in their current locations, and to permit the completion and use of the proposed sorter/stacker in its current location. With regard to noise levels, the Company is not proposing to increase sound levels above current levels, but merely to allow the Mill to continue operating at the same levels as it has for many years. The updated exhibits now break out the measured noise levels at specific locations to more clearly demonstrate the Company's commitment to not increasing sound levels over current levels. Regarding the proposed sorter/stacker, if the special exceptions are approved, the sound levels from the Mill as a whole would not increase, even with the addition of the sorter/stacker. Please note that this is a change from the Company's original proposal. The Company has proposed to enclose the equipment in two buildings (one for the new sorter, a separate one for the new stacker), which will substantially reduce the existing sound levels. In addition, the Company will install sound absorbing materials inside the sorter/stacker buildings to further reduce sound levels. If further noise mitigation levels are required to comply with the noise level proposals contained in the enclosed exhibits, the Company will implement such measures until compliance is achieved and demonstrated. Regarding the vibration regulations, we now understand that there is not a mechanism in the County's ordinance to modify these regulations as requested. I have nevertheless included page 13 in our package of exhibits for information, and to demonstrate that the Company substantially complies with the vibration regulations. The only exception is with regard to the area along Route 250 on the far side of Route 250 from the Mill. The Ordinance establishes limits for continuous vibration, and the limits are different adjacent to Residential zoning district 321 East Main Street, Suite 400 Charlottesville, VA 22902 T 434.951.5700 F 434,817.0977 williamsmullen.com I A Professional Corporation WILLIAMS MULLEN March 12, 2020 Page 2 lots than adjacent to other Non -Residential boundaries. The continuous vibration limit adjacent to Residential zoning districts applies on the far side of Route 250 from the Mill because those parcels are zoned Village Residential. As Bill Yoder of Acentech (sound scientist) noted in his report dated October 28, 2019 (previously submitted), the ordinance standard for continuous vibration criteria is effectively zero (0.000 inches per second). Mr. Yoder has advised the staff and the Company that it is effectively impossible to demonstrate compliance with this Residential standard, as it is not possible to measure 0.000 inches per second of vibration. By comparison, the Non -Residential standard is 0.15 inches per second, which is a reasonable limit, and is still half of the threshold of vibration for the most sensitive human. As demonstrated in Mr. Yoder's report, at points 16 and 18 (on the far side of Route 250 from the Mill) the measured continuous vibration levels were 0.0030 and 0.0018 inches per second, respectively. These measurements are well within the Non -Residential standard of 0.15 inches per second that applies at all other boundaries of the Mill. As such, we contend that it would be more reasonable to apply the Non -Residential limit to points 16 and 18 on the far side of Route 250 where the illogical Residential limit applies. This is particularly appropriate given that vehicular and truck traffic along Route 250 contributes to any continuous vibration measurements that are recorded adjacent to Route 250. In fact, with the impossible Residential standard of 0.00 inches per second, even when the Mill is not operating (such as during the thirty -minute lunch break), a single truck driving by would create a continuous vibration in excess of 0.00 inches per second, technically causing the Mill to be out of compliance. Given that unreasonable reality, we contend it is reasonable to apply the Non -Residential standard at points 16 and 18. The Company complies with the Non -Residential continuous vibration limit of 0.15 inches per second at all locations where it applies, which is along the entire perimeter of the Mill property. The vibration ordinance also has performance standards for impulsive vibrations from the Mill. The Company complies with the applicable impulsive vibration standards in all locations. Regarding hours of operation, the Company is not proposing to modify its hours of operation, but merely to continue its operations as it has since at least 1960, well before the applicable regulations were put into effect in 1980. The Company is merely requesting that the regulations reflect the historical operations and procedures, as described on page 14 of the exhibits. Again, I sincerely appreciate your assistance with this request over the many months we have been working with you on these issues. I ask that you please include these updated exhibits and this letter with the staff report to the Planning Commission, so the Commissioners and the public will have the benefit of the current proposal, which we believe is more clear and a more reasonable and appropriate request. The approval of these Special Exception requests, and the location of the sorter/stacker will enable the Company to continue to operate at this location, by enabling it to remain competitive within its industry, to better serve its customers; and to implement safer and more productive manufacturing practices. In addition to allowing the Mill to survive at this location, it will also WILLIAMS MULLEN March 12, 2020 Page 3 support the jobs and tax revenue associated with its continued operation. We appreciate the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors thoughtful consideration of these requests. Sincerely, '.1 v- uVvC Valerie W. Long cc: R. A. Yancey Lumber Company Management 4213➢1r1 410 ACENTECH January 24, 2020 Donnie Rose President R. A. Yancey Lumber Corporation 6317 Rockfish Gap Turnpike Crozet, VA 22932 Subject Noise & Vibration Survey, Yancey Lumber Mill, Crozet, VA Loudest Locations Variability Review Acentech Project No. 630191 Dear Mr. Rose: 401AL( 2150 wise Street #4875 WX Charlottesville, VA 22905 ` 434 218 0759 acentech.com I, a In advance of the resubmission of the mill's special exception request to the county, your team has decided to take a closer look at locations where we previously measured the highest sound levels. The goal was to limit the scale of the sound level exceptions to better align with the typical sound levels due to the mill. This may help to avoid adding a large buffer to the request to account for variability. The previous sound study included measurements at 19 locations at or near the mill's property boundary, as detailed in Appendix Al (map) and A2 (imagery). Due to the highest levels occurring at NVl and NV17, those locations were the subject of additional review. On January 24, 2020, measurements were conducted over a period of about four hours at both NV1 and NV17. As in our previous report, measurements were made in accordance with the Albemarle County noise ordinance, which requires measurement of the A - weighted equivalent continuous (energy average) sound level over a 5-minute period. Since these measurements were made over four hours, we can use this greater number of 5-minute periods to characterize the typical sound level at these two locations and show the outliers. The following table shows the condensed dataset measured at each location on each measurement date. Note that ambient levels are not measurable at NVl because of proximity to ongoing mill based noise sources. However, because the mill has a partial shutdown during lunch, ambient levels are measureable at NV17 during that period when road traffic is dominant. January 24, 2020, Four Hours of Measurements Single Meas. 2018 Single Meas. Highest 5-Min Typical 5-Min Lowest 5-Min Single 5-Min Single 5-Min Location LAeq LAeq LAeq LAeq LAeq NV1 Mill: 75 dBA Mill: 70 dBA Mill: 65 dBA Mill: 69 dBA Mill: 68 dBA Total: 80 dBA Total: 79 dBA Total: 73 dBA Total: 77 dBA Total: 80 dBA NV17 Ambient: 77 dBA Ambient: 74 dBA Ambient: 73 dBA Ambient: 74 dBA Ambient: 74 dBA Mill: 77 dBA Mill: 77 dBA Mill: < 63 dBA Mill: 73 dBA Mill: 79 dBA acoustics av/it/securiry I vibration R. A. Yancey Lumber Corporation Page 2 of 4 January 24, 2020 For areas where there is significant ambient noise, the county's noise ordinance allows you to report source sound levels (the mill) by taking the iowest5-minute total sound level (mill + ambient) and removing the highest5-minute ambient sound level. This will result in a reported sound level that is, in my opinion, too conservative at less than 63 dBA at NV17. We suggest that you instead use the typical (median) total sound levels and typical ambient sound levels where applicable; this will give you a more characteristic source sound level of 77 dBA at NV17 and is shown in bold in the table above. If you plan to use these typical sound levels in your special exception request, we suggest adding language that specifies the process used to determine compliance. Something to the effect of "the typical or median 5- minute source sound level shall not exceed 77 dBA after removal of the ambient sound level." I hope this provides you with the information you need at this time. If you have any questions, please contact me at 434-218-0759. Sincerely, Acentech Incorporated Bill Yoder Senior Staff Scientist 4110ACENTECH acoustics avAttsecurity vibration R. A. Yancey Lumber Corporabon Page 3 of 4 January 24, 2020 Appendix Al: Map of Measurement Locations Froehling 8 Robertson v Pro Re Nate Brewery 29 J01$ VaQ P V NV15 225 ds V Cznter NV14 �\ NV13\ .�Ta^�PMilfi r 41k(o ACENTECH acoustics I awitlsecurity I vibration l� W Iaw VqPW-gacy Signs & Graphics • O a e ;tapy�' • Q\.Fe GaQ ( s • '.� �s RA Vanceyumber.. Corporabon n i VA is • icnt050 er _ `O PAW I a f +t _on O — \ County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Adam Moore (VDOT) Johnathan Newberry (Economic Development) Margaret Maliszewski (Architectural Review Board) Francis MacCall (Zoning) From: Bill Fritz, AICP Date: February 21, 2018 Subject: R. A. Yancey Lumber Corporation Special Exception Requests The County has received a request for several special exceptions. I would appreciate receiving any comments you may have about the proposal. The R. A. Yancey Lumber Corporation operates a saw mill and lumber yard business on Route 250 near the I-64 interchange at Yancey Mills. This mill and lumber yard has been in operation since 1949. The current zoning ordinance was adopted in 1980. At that time the property was zoned HI, Heavy Industry. At the time of the adoption of the ordinance some of the buildings and yard operations did not comply with the regulations contained in the ordinance. Those features are considered non -conforming. After 1980 new equipment and structures were added. Staff cannot confirm that permits were issued for the equipment and structures and we continue to investigate what features may have been added/modified after 1980. One piece of equipment that strips bark from logs was installed around 1997. This piece of equipment encroaches into the right of way for Route 250 and does not meet minimum setbacks. No permit has been found for this piece of equipment. The applicant is proposing the construction of new equipment that will not meet setbacks. I have attached the applicant's information along with a plan I have marked to show what was constructed in 1997 (approximately) and the proposed construction. The requests consists of the following: - A reduction in the required building setback to allow the installation of new equipment. The required setback from the property line is 100 feet. The applicant is proposing construction approximately 35 feet from the property line. The applicant has requested a comprehensive special exception for setback to a property line. (Reference Chapter 18, Section 4.20(b) of the Code of Albemarle) - A reduction in the required front building setback to allow existing equipment to remain. The required setback from the property line is 10 feet. The applicant has placed equipment zero (0) from the property line. This equipment encroaches 5.86 feet into the right-of-way for Route 250. (Reference Chapter 18, Section 4.20(b) of the Code of Albemarle) - A reduction in the required parking setback for existing parking from 30 feet to zero (0) feet. (Reference Chapter 18, Section 4.20(b) of the Code of Albemarle) - A reduction in the required separation of new equipment from the property line. The required setback from the property line is 100 feet. The applicant is proposing construction of new equipment approximately 35 feet from the property line. The applicant has requested a comprehensive special exception for setback to any lot line. (Reference Chapter 18, Section 5.1.15(a) of the Code of Albemarle) - A reduction in the required separation of existing equipment from the property line. The required setback from the property line is 100 feet. The applicant has placed equipment zero (0) from the property line. This equipment encroaches 5.86 feet into the right-of-way for Route 250. The applicant has requested a comprehensive special exception for setback to any lot line. (Reference Chapter 18, Section 5.1.15(a) of the Code of Albemarle) A reduction in the required separation of new equipment from a dwelling. The required setback from the dwelling is 600 feet. The applicant is proposing construction of new equipment approximately 35 feet from the property line. The applicant has requested a comprehensive special exception for setback to a dwelling. (Reference Chapter 18, Section 5.1.15(b) of the Code of Albemarle) A reduction in the required separation of existing equipment from a dwelling. The required setback from the dwelling is 600 feet. The applicant has requested a comprehensive special exception for setback to a dwelling. (Reference Chapter 18, Section 5.1.15(b) of the Code of Albemarle) Again, I would appreciate any comments you may have. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me. p_ W Z $ / \ Q ^NU 0 `2u�hm 3 tea/ Z 00 H U / m 0 ly / Z W 00 W ? o»o to W /g Q00 ow a a w uu J\ Wn�Q �/°^0^PY�'C i�'y !ar � / 7 / alp m DR Ap RI �'ezra d w 84 AN p l /�n•wwK I rva ecev�wuwovwwa I vw'�vovue iow nnres�nsmoeuuwvlNye✓•n vas w�oXwnn o.a .o'er 4F,aP y 5 All 0�Y Z 4 Q Imo N W aWVZe W Zzo p W I hin W / � N '' 3■E a e Z y�G• _ / / O 2 / /IY W ry yU I � \ r W 11 2 W I a Id V! CSpp¢ O O o \ 4 \ 2 -OHP P W W \ \ W O Nww � M I Ha ece ¢em2e w owwa I •w'aeoe weloop(�namrvmm�vaw.o�riTlwwrf/nw�V esreenauv� M1 EXHIBIT 3B (R/W ENCROACHMENT DETAIL) 1 _ i I MIN SETRa LH\ raxK-x%aL� 1'(W). wAu Z(WEG: RORALARFA E(ECT EXCEPNFIL E VCT \ GGWR PD.. D \ BPoWER Ltt � \ EasEMENr \ O.R MSPC 03Z qa MACHMEFY 0.V cor/c va0 9GW. Xrszs M Sul. LEGEND a Ll(MT PIXE O UTLLRYPDE • ELEcraICMETEF GuvmRE � sTORA1 m9TERGRAi£ ® BTORMWATER MaNNgE FODFORAM RIXURU r Scx ® sPlc°r ® BANITARYSEWERMdVIIpLE ® Aw CONWIIq.MMCU/BT 0 IXEANO? ® E[ECTAIC BOX m TE(EPiLONEPEOE$TAL ASPX ASRfAL VING C0.4G CONCRETE M! OVERHEAD PGWERLpJE P`R GVERREAp CGMMUNICA,]ONB. E(HiEOF g1VEMENT EDGE G£GflAVEL �J TREELM•E RIP RAP 0'00 MGNVMENiS FOUND AS NGIEO MGNUMENISSETASND= 75H GAP TURNPIKE wrorX PUBGxwKanLsxov / ErcEProvar> \ ^ — \ rs¢.w v1RGNU PowER � n fAjALg \\ ry GRAVEL ? '4 mY,�i \ OVERHEA° / ` IR. III (%GffiFTJ J� \ EXCEPTION tlS _ I \ GL 1P CXESAPEaNE ANG Ma- PoTONAC h1EPX C°MYANY E0.5EldENTNT \4P? SMO \� 8 STLWMR/.$I 1 P� 1 1 GRAVEL \ 1 / I \ I �LXPIE /IXRfYED \ / mTxxwEFaof \ 1 � C EA;� 4'3IT 3A (RECENT IMPROVEMENTS) nnRcnu LuvnRsxMESAIo L(BA SEYFAffiNSEYES Q& I�ffi fII dYLR RI.N.<L NtFA ````LiMVIi k 7 14-6% caxc 4y4tb ay, AWL p 9S' ss[ 3N r S LIfORBfY0. IMMG GYlA4 � IIRH9 � ,�.52 S ®� ABPx DfaY£ M.'IIV RpRl1Ai/ NIIG SIAX' S I ldlNbT1 F! • o g / 3 / / / EASEMENT DB1SI9 T¢H / r / / / / L/NE TABLE LINE HEAR/NG LENGTH L1 s>Aa[uw ssE v saz•lo'ae�E nss' L3 N9G6IIW 03%' lJ Nr1'199IF 1S9]' R �� cF�NP/KF °FWgy g ~ � r L,O'M/n sESE UDOTM�EN\ FOUND 00 rMv: ss„B FROE D.R 11 PGE 1 ay. LNC D.R frza PG %s • • ZGNED: HIGXWAY CQUMERCML • • • O SCALEI'=50' 0 5V I wi EXHIBIT SHEET 1OF3 , .s tw 61%ROCKFISNWP, LLC D.B enovc. w ZQVEO: RURAL AFEA 'ALTA/NSPS OF 1 wt� \EA2EPTxANAS¢NI GL IPCHESJPEAI.E ,CVW. TE(EPHO.• CO ASEMEN D.d. D.6 zoe PG ea TAX MAP IQ z It fLE SURVEY' O 2 RNPIKE VIAND 55-112 IL DISTRICT, VIRGINIA le: 1 "=50' 40036 Date:AUGU5TZ 2017 scale, �heet3-vF-4' Drawn by: PN Huber J.N Checked by.JCM Revised: E \ s . CONC EXCEPT/ON#17 15' & 30' VIRGINIA POWER EASEMENT — D. B. 1758 PG. 174 EXHIBIT (3A} SHOWING UPDATED SITE CONDITIONS R.A. Y'ANCEY" LUMBER %CrO€RP0RATIG.' IMP- 5 -111A DAVID R. SWALES AND LISA SEVERSONSWALES D.B. 1553 PG. 122 ZONED. RURAL AREA SCALE 1'=50' 0 50' CQ 1O, F CONC 4' °HP CONC �9!! !��\ \ u a \oyP �IRF 1/NERYON GRAVEL ;. PAD FG\ \ AS : \oHP Z9 \ ZQ ONP /� O OO/c GRAVEL \ \ ASPH. \ CONC s 7 p.\ 411 � \ \ MACHIN€RY ON / ti QiSQ's.�G' CONC PAD\ N GRAVEL \ �/ 6�2T A5 i \ ? F SHED try @ qe�Q 44%1 syFo \ ALUM. SIDING OVERHEAD HT., 21.8' J ASPH. S2S4 o v PIPE �� - (356SQ. FT.) 5.9 J \ i6 EXCEPTION #5 CONC. \ CIL 10' CHESAPEAKE AND J 'Se POTOMAC TELEPHONE TMP. 55-11 i �G \ COMPANY EASEMENT 1, 0 12,750 SQ. �oyT\D.B.209PG. 64 / CONC 23.249ACRI I / T I M M O N S GROUP • • •"' mawawu�raEvnneonrrxE roux VlSIOV ACNIF/E�iXgpo(�gq5, srMlfl�ox AMD MW. .mm�r�cseo�m�s oiesR VwrAiwNGm am DATE: Feb. 2, 2018 SCALE: AS SHOWN SHEET2 OF 3 J.N.: DRAWN BY: 1CM CHECK BY: JCM ISCALE 1 "=50' 0 0 50, 100' I AT PON EXHIBIT (3B) SHOWING 0 a. Q — — — — — — — — — — — — -�- 1 ASPH. l 101M/N. ETBACK\ / \ l EXCEPTION#13 CHESAPEAKEAND 1 I \ I POTOMAC TELEPHONE / ANCHOR GUY EASEMENT / D.B. 443 PG. 18 0 a a / i / DO SALE 4 4LE / k VSE Q oN r^ z -BLOCK WALL K / 4 / c cl l crrconnni aao 'I 1 /L 40' CENTRAL VIRGINIA TANK -HYD. OIL 1' (W) CONC WALL RAVEL l TMP.' 55-112 535,727 SQ. FT. \ \ \ 12.299 ACRES \ / \ 1'(W)CONC WALL �� 0 tic � 56 22'11 E 887.00' F� \ EXCEPTION#15 c CIL VIRGINIA ELECTRIC \ & POWER CO. \ EASEMENT \ D.B. 705 PG. 422 Tq�� TANKS - D/ESEL FUEL MACHINERY ON CONC. CONC. PAD / \ = BLDG. .8' HT.28.8' G, 10. BLDG. HT.- 32.5' ,946 SQ. MILL BUILDING ALUM. SIDING - (21,839Q.FT) B- �F�y �p cy'9i CONC. 40.2' 36.1,E 'O T po (2,103 SQ. FT.) y s �O vy ASPH 121' pig �Q o, 42.2' o >� e122sco�oP 32.2' s/p7 49, ,o `i7. A'G C' O�� CONC. Nq�y%I AS �n - COLIC. �N0 � my 14.0' GF r DATE: Feb. 2, 2018 SCALE: AS SHOWN TIMMONS GROUP 1NL WQGPPE n,VA 2THE 4 • h S "I NOMCE SHEET 3 OF 3 J.N.: YOUR VISION AOIIEVEOIHROIIGM 011115. C,Y 0 TELS4o.885.NM WM .Bn.o�ies'www�mmoR:.mRI DRAWN BY: JCM CHECK BY: JCM c j ! l� \ \ j \ i 1 ,r y PROPERTY LINE RELOCATION REQUIRED TO ACCOMODATE 100' SETBACK. ACRES -:u 554'1.1 .Y,a 1553E !35it EXISTING�G''\ 100' SETBACK. 1 YANCEY LUMBER CORPORATION BOUNDARY I_INIE ADJUS WENT EXHIBIT T SCALE 1"=50' 0 50, 100, T'IMMONS GROUP `:C 2"131__.I ^.D 7HF-: UCH CUP__. Francis MacCall From: Ron Higgins Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 2:20 PM To: Amelia McCulley <AMCCULLECdalbemarle.org> Subject: Yancey Lumber - 250 West Amelia: Here is the chronology of this site and the lumber mill use on the property, along with an analysis/conclusion for the nonconforming status of Yancey Lumber. 1949-1951: Date(s) the lumber mill began on this site (two different dates come from two different staff reports), either of which pre -dates our zoning regulations in Albemarle, including the noise regulations in the zoning ordinance. 1969-1980: Parcel 111B zoned "M-1" industrial, Parcel 112 zoned "Conservation"? & "M-111. 1980-present: Both parcels zoned HI industrial. 1980: Zoning Ordinance adopted that permits sawmills, lumber yards by right in HI and includes supplementary regulations for these (separations/buffers, setbacks from residences, hours of operation, etc.). Yancey Lumber pre -dates these regulations and is legally nonconforming. 2008: A Comprehensive Plan amendment (CPA2008-002) was sought and indefinitely deferred that would have made the mill sites and surrounding land mixed industrial and commercial. There have been no special permits or zoning map amendments found in CV, SPIN or Tracking. There has been one site plan (SDP2003-044) for the log crane, which was denied. There have been two variances for front setbacks, height and other setbacks, which were approved with conditions by the BZA. The variance in 1988 for the front setback for the office building was used for renovation and an addition to the office/storage building on 250. The variance for the crane height and setbacks was never used. There have been a number of building permits for alterations and minor improvements to storage and existing buildings that apparently did not generate the need for any site plans. I believe this use is legally non -conforming and does not have to comply with the supplemental regulations for hours of operation, nor the noise regulations as it is presently ooeratinc. Regarding the addition of a second shift: Under the provisions of our Zoning Ordinance (Section 6.2 Nonconforming Uses, B. Enlargement or extension of a nonconforming use), it is my conclusion that adding a shift which expands the activities on the site beyond the hour of 7:00 p.m. would be a change such that the use would violate the provisions of the zoning ordinance in Section 5.1.15, which prohibits the operation of "machinery used for sawing, planning, chipping or other wood processing ...between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.". The hours of operation expansion would change the "character of the use existing on the effective date of the zoning regulations...". This , of course, is predicated on the belief that there has been no prior "pre-7:00 p.m." shift. ni iaa G u ✓ier WILLIAMS MULLEN Direct Dial: 434.951.5709 vlong@williamsmullen.com November 1, 2019 RE: Community Meeting— R. A. Yancey Lumber Corporation Special Exception Requests Dear Neighbor, On behalf of our client R. A. Yancey Lumber Corporation, we invite you to attend a Community Meeting to be held during the monthly meeting of the Crozet Community Advisory Committee on Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 7.00 pm at the Crozet Library at 2020 Library Avenue, Crozet, VA 22932 regarding Yancey Lumber Company's application to Albemarle County for "Special Exceptions" to obtain relief from certain setback regulations and other regulations associated with new equipment that is planned for the sawmill and lumber yard that the company owns on Rockfish Gap Turnpike (Route 250 West) near the Interstate 64 Interchange. Since 1949, three generations of the Yancey family have been operating the sawmill and lumber yard at this location. The Company sincerely appreciates the patience of its neighbors and the larger Crozet community over the past year while it worked to reduce the noise generated by the new fan installed on the boiler of one of its kilns. With the assistance of numerous consultants and engineering firms, the Company was able to secure and install a custom -designed and custom -manufactured fan modification insert that has successfully reduced the tonal fan noise, which was causing the disruption. The sawmill and lumber yard existed for several decades at the property before the first zoning ordinance was adopted in the County. Although the property is now zoned Heavy Industry which allows a sawmill and lumber yard, there are a number of regulations that were adopted after the business started at the property, and thus are not applicable to the business. To maintain its competitive position in the lumber industry, the Company must invest in new equipment at the property, known as a "Sorter -Stacker" machine, which is allowed in the Heavy Industry zoning district. However, this new equipment is subject to all other regulations in the zoning ordinance, including those specific to sawmills and lumber yards, and regulations regarding noise and vibration. In connection with the proposed construction of the Sorter - Stacker machine, the Company has applied for a number of requests for modification to these regulations to accommodate the new equipment and to address other nonconformities involving the business and the property. These applications are known as "Special Exception Requests." The purpose of the Community Meeting is to provide an opportunity for residents to receive information and ask questions about the proposed project and the Special Exception Requests, County review procedures, and relevant regulations and policies of the County 321 East Main Street, Suite 400 Charlottesville, VA 22902 T 434.951.5700 F 434,817.0977 williamsmullen.com I A Professional Corporation November 1, 2019 Page 2 applicable to the application. Representatives of the Company and a member of the County Staff will be available at the meeting to answer questions about the project and the review process. The Crozet Community Advisory Committee meeting will start at 7:00 p.m. The Community Meeting will include a presentation of the proposed project, followed by a question and answer period. The meeting will be held at the Crozet Library. We look forward to seeing you there. Sincerely, Valerie Long Attorney for R. A. Yancey Lumber Company cc: Supervisor Ann Mallek Planning Commissioner Jennie More County Planner Bill Fritz 41295239_1 Building Evaluation Report Yancey Lumber Manufacturing 6317 Rockfish Gap Highway Crozet, Virginia Prepared by: FPW Architects, PC 113 Fourth Street NE.., Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 3 January 2019 January 2, 2019 Mr. Keith Huckstep, Assistant Building Official County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 RE: Existing Building Evaluation Package R. A. Yancey Lumber Company Dear Mr. Huckstep: By copy of this letter we are transmitting herewith our existing evaluation package for the above referenced site. Per our previous conversations, we have conducted field work and code research to determine to the best of our ability, which structures on site can be retroactively permitted. Our evaluation has determined that 12 of the 28 structures on site can be evaluated as compliant with the 2012 Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code; three additional structures can be brought into compliance with the construction of a rated exterior wall. This leaves 13 of the structures to be addressed. These structures are grouped into three "complexes" and include the sawmill proper, the planning mill, and the maintenance building/fueling station. To assist us in addressing these complexes, we have retained Carson and Associates as our fire protection consultant. Initial field work has been undertaken and we expect to be able to discuss the options for these structures in the near future. We would appreciate your review and, if possible, would like to meet with you to discuss any concerns you may have. 113 FOURTH ST., NE. CHARLOTTESVILLE VIRGINIA 22902 t 434.293.7258 f 434.293.7247 www.fpw.com - We would request that upon the completion of your review of the documentation that follows, these structures be retroactively permitted Regards FPW Architects, PC David L. Puckett President C. Donnie Rose w/o enclosure David L. Dallas, Jr. w/o enclosure file1806 e. Two (2) bound volumes of building evaluation reports. 113 FOURTH ST., NE. CHARLOTTESVILLE %ARGINIA 22902 t 434.293.7258 f 434.293.7247 www.fpw.com - KEY BUILDING DAl 01 Office Building issued 02A Garage (original) 02B Garage (addition). )of trusses; metal skin 03A Hyd. Oil Tanks (original) beams, wood roof joists, metal roofing 03B Hyd. Oil Tanks (addition) wood roof joists, metal roofing 04 Mill Building Addition prof trusses; metal skin; concrete slab/footings 05 Mill Building Addition prof trusses; metal skin; concrete slab/footings O6 Mill Building prof trusses; metal skin; concrete slab/footings 07A Mill Building Addition pry (frame and skin); concrete slab 078 Mill Building Addition pry (frame and skin); concrete slab 08 Shed 'netal roof & skin 09A Lumber Storage 'petal roof & skin 09B Shed :metal roof & skin 10 Silo Yalls and roof 11 Boiler } (frame and skin); concrete slab 12A Kiln } (frame and skin); concrete slab 12B Shed 1s; concrete slab 13A Kiln 2s; concrete slab 13B Kiln 1s; concrete slab 14 Shed 1s; concrete slab 15 Shed Is; concrete slab 16 Shed 2 (frame and skin); concrete slab 17 Drive Through/Under 1ipiable space) 18 Planer Mill (addition) borjoists and floor 19 Planer Mill (addition) 1 20 Planer Mill (original) 1netal roof & skin 21 Planer Mill (original) 1ietal roof & skin 22 Planer Mill (addition) 2hetal roof & skin 23 Planer Mill (addition) 1'metal roof; open sides 24 Shed 1yd roof trusses, metal roof and skin 25 Shed (former bandsaw) 1 bes; steel roof & skin 26 Stacker (old) 13etal roof & skin 27 Sorter/Stacker (new) (in pn(frame and skin); concrete slab 28 Scale House 1Rnd asphalt shingle roof 0 use il all ti L "12 113 aa Building No: 09A (Refer to Key Plan, Sheet Al00) Building Function: Dry Lumber Storage Date of Construction: 1997 Relevant Building Code: 1996 Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code Evaluated under the 2012 Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code Use & Occupancy Classification: ❑ F1— Factory/Industrial, Moderate Hazard ® S1 — Storage, Moderate Hazard ❑ H2 —High Hazard ❑ U — Utility Building Area: 4440 sf Building Height: 24 ft. Stories 1 Building Construction Type: UB Sprinklered: Yes ❑ No Remarks: Unoccupied storage building. Refer to attached Code Evaluation. 113 FOURTH ST., NE. CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22902 t 434.293.7258 WWW.FPW COM - Code Analysis Project Name: Building 09A Location: 6317 Rockfish Gap Turnpike, spike, Crozet, Virginia Name of Owner: Yancey Lumber Manufacturing. Applicable Codes: Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (1996) Evaluated under the 2012 Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code Description Storage shed of approximately 4,440 sf for a lumber manufacturing company. Building was constructed in 1997 Use and Occupancy Classification — Chapter 3 [Table 311.21 Storage,.moderate hazard — S-1, Lumber Yard General Building Heights and Areas — Chapter 5 [Table 5031 Use Group S-1, Type BB Construction 2 Stories, 55 feet in height, 15,500 square feet Project Complies Construction Type — Chapter 6 Building is constructed of steel columns supporting steel beams supporting steel roof trusses. Columns bear on concrete footings and building is clad in metal siding. Based upon the above the code in effect at the time of construction would classify this building as a Type lIB [Table 601] Fire Resistance Ratings Element Rating Primary Structural Frame 0 hours Exterior Walls (non bearing) Table 602 Roof Construction 0 hours ( [Table 602] Fire separation on three sides .is over 30 feet, fire separation between Building 9A and 9B is 22 feet f Sedion 705.31 Buildings on the same lot Exception: Two or more buildings on the same lot shall either be regulated as separate buildings or shall be considered as portions of one building of the aggregate area of such builidngs is within the limits specified in Chapter 5 for a single building. Where the buildings contain different occupancy groups or are different types of construction, the area shall be that allowed for the most restrictive occupancy or construction. Most restrictive Use Group = FT Most restrictive construction type = IIB Allowable area=15,500 SF Aggregate Area (Building 9A and 9B) 4,440 + 352 = 4,792 SF Project complies taken as an aggregate building Means of Eeress — Chapter 10 Building is open along approximately 45% of the entire perimeter — see photo Travel Distance [Table 1006.51 S-1 Use Group without fire suppression = 200 feet max Occupant Load [Table 1008.1.21 Storage loccupant /300 sf gross 4440/300 =14.8 say 15 occupants by calculation Actual occupants = 0 Accessibility —Chanter 11 [Section 1103.1 Where Required Exception 2 applies R Building No: 09B (Refer to Key Plan, Sheet A100) Building Function: Shed Date of Construction: 2013 Relevant Building Code: 2012 Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code Evaluated under the 2012 Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code Use & Occupancy Classification: ® Fl — Factory/Industrial, Moderate Hazard ❑ S1 — Storage, Moderate Hazard ❑ H2 — High Hazard ❑ U —utility Building Area: 352 sf Building Height: 21.8 ft. Stories 1 Building Construction Type: HIB Sprinklered: Yes ❑ No Remarks: Unoccupied sawdust `hopper' shed. Refer to attached Code Evaluation. 113 FOURTH ST., NE. CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22902 t 434.293.7258 WWW.FPW.COM - C t r r a Code Analysis Project Name: Building 09B Location: 6317 Rockfish Gap Turnpike, Crozet, Virginia Name of Owner: Yancey Lumber Manufacturing. Applicable Codes: Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (2012) Evaluated under the 2012 Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code Description Shed strnoture over a hopper of approximately 352 sf for a lumber manufacturing company. Building was constructed in 2013 Use and Occupancy Classification - Chanter 3 [Table 311.21 Storage, moderate hazard — S-1, Lumber Yard General Buildine Limitations — Chapter 5 [Table 5031 Use Group 571, Type rHB Construction 2 Stories, 55 feet in height, 17,500 square feet Project Complies Construction Type — Chapter 6 Building is constructed of steel columns supporting steel beams supporting wood roof trusses. Columns bear on concrete footings and building is clad in metal siding. Based upon the above the code in effect at the time of construction would classify this building as a Type BIB [Table 601] Fire Resistance Ratings Element Rating Primary Structural Frame 0 hours Exterior Walls (non bearing) Table 602 Roof Construction 0 hours t r [Table 6021 Fire separation on three sides is over 30 feet, fire separation between Building 9A and 9B is 22 feet [Section 705.3] Buildings on the same lot Means of E¢ress — Chanter 10 Exception: Two or more buildings on the same lot shall either be regulated as separate buildings or shall be considered as portions of one building of the aggregate area of such builidngs is within the limits specified in Chapter 5 for a single building. Where the buildings contain different occupancy groups or are different types of construction, the area shall be that allowed for the most restrictive occupancy or construction. Most restrictive Use Group = Fl Most restrictive construction type = IIB Allowable area=15,500 SF Aggregate Area (Building 9A and 9B) 4,440 + 352 = 4,792 SF Project complies taken as an aggregate building Building is not occupied Building No: 10 Building Function: Silo Date of Construction: 1992 (Refer to Key Plan, Sheet A100) Relevant Building Code: 1990 Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code Evaluated under the 2012 Vrginia Uniform Statewide Building Code Use & Occupancy Classification: ❑ Fl —Factory/Industrial, Moderate Hazard ® S 1— Storage, Moderate Hazard ❑ H2 — High Hazard ❑ U — Utility Building Area: 770 sf Building Height: 69.4 ft. Stories 1 Building Construction Type: 1B Sprinklered: Yes ❑ No Remarks: Unoccupied storage silo. Refer to attached Code Evaluation 113 FOURTH ST., NE. CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22902 t434.293.7258 WWW.FPW,COM - I Code Analysis Project Name: Building 10 Location: 6317 Rockfish Gap Turnpike, Crozet, Virginia Name of Owner: Yancey Lumber Manufacturing. Applicable Codes: Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (1990) Evaluated under the 2012 Ph yinia Uniform Statewide Building Code Description Concrete sawdust storage silo of approximately 770 sf for a lumber manufacturing company. Building was constructed in 1992 Use and Occupancy Classification — Chapter 3 [Table 311.21 Storage, moderate hazard — S-1, Lumber Yard General Building Heights and Areas — Chapter 5 [Table 5031 Use Group S-1, Type IB Construction 11 Stories, 160 feet in height, 48,000 square feet Project Complies Types of Construction Classification — Chapter 6 Building is constructed of cast -in -place concrete floor, walls and roof bearing upon concrete foundations. Based upon the above the code we would classify this building as a Type 1B [Table 6011 Fire Resistance Ratings Element Rating Primary Structmal Frame 0 hours Exterior Walls (bearing) Table 602 Roof Construction 0 hours f r f [Table 6021 Fire separation on three sides is over 30 feet, fire separation between Building 10 and 1.1 is 12 feet [Section 705.31 Buildings on the same lot Means of Egress — Chapter 10 Exception: Two or more buildings on the same lot shall either be regulated as separate buildings or shall be considered as portions of one building of the aggregate area of such buildings is within the limits specified in Chapter 5 f6r a single building. Where the buildings contain different occupancy groups or are different types of construction, the area shall be that allowed for the most restrictive occupancy or construction. Most restrictive Use Group = F1 Most restrictive construction type = IIB Allowable area=15,500 SF Aggregate Area (Building 10 and 11) 770 + 2,585 = 3,385 SF Project complies taken as an aggregate building Building is not occupied ( Building No: 11 (Refer to Key Plan, Sheet A 100) ( Building Function: Boiler Date of Construction: 1992 Relevant Building Code: 1990 Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code Evaluated under the 2012 Virginia Uniform Statewide.Building Code Use & Occupancy Classification: ® Fl —Factory/Industrial, Moderate Hazard ❑ S1 — Storage, Moderate Hazard ❑ H2 — High Hazard ❑ U — Utility Building Area: 2585 sf Building Height: 27.6 ft. Stories 1 Building Construction Type: UB Sprinklered: Yes ❑ No Remarks: Unoccupied boiler building. Refer to attached Code Evaluation. 113 FOURTH ST., NE. CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22902 t 434.293.7258 WWW.FPW.COM - 0 Code Analysis Project Name: Building 11 Location: 6317 Rockfish Gap Turnpike, Crozet, Virginia Name of Owner: Yancey Lumber Manufacturing. Applicable Codes: Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (1990) Evaluated under the 2012 Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code Description Boiler plant of approximately 2,585 sf for a lumber manufacturing company. ' Building was constructed in 1992 Use and Occupancy Classification — Chanter 3 [Section 306.21 Factory, moderate hazard — F-1, Boiler works Times of Construction — Chapter 6 Building is constructed of pre-engineered steel framQ, metal wall and roof panels bearing upon concrete foundations. Concrete floor. Based upon the above we would classify this building as a Type 11B. [Table 6011 Fire Resistance Ratings Element Rating Primary Structural Frame 0 hours Exterior Walls (non bearing) Table 602 Roof Construction 0 hours [Table 6021 Fire separation on three sides is over 30 feet, . fire separation between Building 10 and 11 is 12 feet f Section 705.3] Buildings on the same lot rA Exception: Two or more buildings on the same lot shall either be regulated as separate buildings or shall be considered as portions of one building of the aggregate area of such buildings is within the limits specified in Chapter 5 for a single building. Where the buildings contain different occupancy groups or are different types of construction, the area shall be that allowed for the most restrictive occupancy or construction. Most restrictive Use Group = F1 Most restrictive construction type = lIB Allowable area=15,500 SF Aggregate Area (Building 10 and 11) 776 + 2,585 = 3,385 SF Project complies taken as an aggregate building Means of Egress — Chanter 10 [Table 1004.1.2] Occupant Load Industrial Use 1 person/100 square feet (gross) 2585/100 = 25.85 say 26 persons [Table 1016.2] maximum travel distance without sprinkler system F-1 Use Group 200 feet Project Complies Building No: 12A (Refer to Key Plan, Sheet A100) Building Function: Lumber Drying Kiln Date of Construction: 1992 Relevant Building Code: 1990 Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code Evaluated under the 2012 Pirginia Uniform Statewide Building Code Use & Occupancy Classification: ® Fl — Factory/Industrial, Moderate Hazard ❑ S1— Storage, Moderate Hazard El H2 — High Hazard ❑ U — Utility Building Area: 1825 sf Building Height: 26.1 ft. Stories 1 Building Construction Type: 11B Sprinklered: Yes ❑ No Remarks: Refer to attached Code Evaluation. 113 FOURTH ST., NE. CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22902 t434.293.7258 WWW.FPW.COM - Code Analysis Project Name: Building 12A Location: 6317 Rockfish Gap Turnpike, Crozet, Virginia Name of Owner: Yancey Lumber Manufacturing. Applicable Codes: Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (1990) Evaluated under the 2012 Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code DescriptionA lumber drying kiln of approximately 1,825 sf for a lumber manufacturing company. Building was constructed in 1992 Use and Occupancy Classification — Chanter 3 [Table 306.21 Factory, moderate hazard —F-1, Kiln Types of Construction Classification — Chanter 6 Building is constructed of pre-engineered steel frame, metal wall and roof panels bearing upon concrete foundations. Concrete floor. Based upon the above the code in effect at the time of construction would classify this building as a Type HB [Table 6011 Fire Resistance Ratings Element Rating Primary Structural Frame 0 hours Exterior Walls (bearing) Table 602 Roof Construction 0 hours Complies [Table 6021 Fire separation on three sides is over 30 feet, fire separation between Building 12A and 12B is 3 feet [Section 705.3] Buildings on the same lot Exception: Two or more buildings on the same lot shall either be regulated as separate buildings or shall be considered as portions of one building of the aggregate area of such buildings is within the limits specified in Chapter 5 for a single building. Where the buildings contain different occupancy groups or are different types of construction, the area shall be that allowed for the most restrictive occupancy or construction. Most restrictive Use Group = F1 Most restrictive construction type =1)B Allowable area=15,500 SF Aggregate Area (Building 12A and 12B) 1,825 + 420 = 2,245 SF Project complies taken as an aggregate building General Building Limitations = Chanter 5 [Table 5031 Use Group F-1, Type IIB Construction Means of Egress — Chapter 10 2 stories, 55 feet, 15,500 sf Project Complies Not Applicable — Building is Unoccupied ( Building No: 12B (Refer to Key Plan, Sheet A100) Building Function: Kiln Control Shed Date of Construction: 1992 r Relevant Building Code: 1990 Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code Evaluated under the 20.12 Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code Use & Occupancy Classification: ® F1—Factory/Industrial, Moderate Hazard ❑ S1 —Storage, Moderate Hazard ❑ H2 —High Hazard ❑ U — Utility Building Area: 420 sf Building Height: 12.5 ft. Stories 1 Building Construction Type: enter text. Sprinklered: Yes ❑ No Remarks: Control Room for lumber drying kiln. Refer to attached Code Evaluation. 113 FOURTH ST., NE. CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 29902 t 434.293.7258 WWW.FPW.COM - 0 Code Analysis Project Name: Building 12B Location: 6317 Rockfish Gap Turnpike, Crozet, Virginia Name of Owner: Yancey Lumber Manufacturing. Applicable Codes: Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (1990) Evaluated under the 2012 Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code Description A control room for the drying kiln of approximately 420 sf for a lumber manufacturing company. Building was constructed in 1992 Use and Occupancy Classification — Chapter 3 [Table 305.21 Factory, moderate hazard — F=1, Kiln Control Room Types of Construction Classification - Chapter 6 Building is constructed of wood framing, metal wall and roof panels bearing upon concrete foundations. Concrete floor. Based upon the above the code in effect at the time of construction would classify this building as a Type VB [Table 6011 Fire Resistance Ratings Element Rating Primary Structural Frame 0 hours Exterior Walls (bearing) Table 602 Roof Construction 0 hours Complies t [Table 6021 Fire separation on three sides is over 30 feet, fire separation between Building 12A and 12B is 3 feet [Section 705.31 Buildings on the same lot Exception: Two or more buildings on the same lot shall either be regulated as separate buildings or shall be considered as portions of one building of the aggregate area of such buildings is within the limits specified in Chapter 5 for a single building. Where the buildings contain different occupancy groups or are different types of construction, the area shall be that allowed for the most restrictive occupancy or construction. Most restrictive Use Group = F1 Most restrictive construction type = [Table 6011 Fire. Resistance Ratings Element Rating Primary Structural Frame 0 hours Exterior Walls (bearing) Table 602 Roof Construction 0 hours Complies [Table 602] Fire separation on three sides is over 30 feet, fire separation between Building 12A and 12B is 3 feet [Section 705.31 Buildings on the same lot Exception: Two or more buildings on the same lot shall either be regulated as separate buildings or shall be considered as portions of one building of the aggregate area of such buildings is within the limits specified in Chapter 5 for a single building. Where the buildings contain different occupancy groups or are different types of construction, the area shall be that allowed for the most restrictive occupancy or construction. Most restrictive Use Group = F1 Most restrictive construction type = VB Allowable area = 8,500 SF Aggregate Area (Building 12A and 12B) 1,825 + 420 = 2,245 SF Project complies taken as an aggregate building General Building Limitations — Chanter 5 [Table 5011 Use Group F-1, Type VB Construction 1 stories, 40 feet, 8,500 sf Project Complies Means of Egress — Chanter 10 [Table 1004.1.2] Occupant Load Industrial Use 1 person/100 square feet (gross) 420/100 = 4.2'say 5 persons [Table 1016.2] maximum travel distance without sprinkler system F-1 Use Group 200 feet Project Complies Building No: 13A (Refer to Key Plan, Sheet Al00) Building Function: Lumber Drying Kiln Date of Construction: 2012 Relevant Building Code: 2012 Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code Evaluated under the 2012 Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code Use & Occupancy Classification: N Fl — Factory/Industdal, Moderate Hazard ❑ S 1— Storage, Moderate Hazard ❑ H2 — High Hazard ❑ U — Utility Building Area: 1435 sf Building Height: 25A ft. Stories 1 Building Construction Type: H BB Sprinklered: Yes ❑ No Remarks: Refer to attached Code Evaluation 113 FOURTH ST., NE. CHARLOTTESWLLE VA 22902 t 434.293.7258 WWW.FPW:COM - Code Analysis. Project Name: Location: Name of Owner: Applicable Codes: Description Building 13A 6317 Rockfish Gap Turnpike, Crozet, Virginia Yancey Lumber Manufacturing. Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (2012) Evaluated under the 2012 Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code A lumber drying kiln of approximately 1435 sf for a lumber manufacturing company. Building was constructed in 2015 Use and Occupancy Classification — Charter 3 [Section 306.2] Factory, moderate hazard — F-1 General Building Heights and Areas — Chapter 5 [Table 503] ConstructionType — Chapter 6 Use Group F-1,1IB Construction 2 Stories, 55 feet in height, 15,500 square feet Project Complies Building is constructed of a pre-engineered, pre -fabricated metal panel wall and roof system. Walls bear on concrete footings. Based upon the above the code in effect at the tinie of construction would classify this building as a Type IIB [Table 6011 Fire Resistance Ratings Element Rating Primary Structural Frame 0 hours Exterior Walls (bearing) see Table 602 Roof Construction 0 hours [Table 601] Fire Resistance Ratings Element Rating Primary Structural Frame 0 hours Exterior Palls (bearing) Table 602 Roof Construction 0 hours Complies [Table 6021 Fire separation on three sides is over 30 feet, fire separation between Building 13A and 13B is 6 feet [Section 705.31 Buildings on the same lot Exception: Two or more buildings on the same lot shall either be regulated as separate buildings or shall be considered as portions of one building of the aggregate area of such buildings is within the limits specified in Chapter 5 for a single building. Where the buildings contain different occupancy groups or are - different types of construction, the area shall be that allowed for the most restrictive occupancy or construction. Most restrictive Use Group = F1 Most restrictive construction type = DE Allowable area = 15,500 SF Aggregate Area (Building 13A and 13B) 1,435 + 1,411= 2,846 SF Project complies taken as an aggregate building Means of E¢ress — Chapter 10 Accessibility — Chapter 11 Building is not occupiedActual occupants = 0 Building is not occupied r r Building No: 13B (Refer to Key Plan, Sheet A100) i Building Function: Lumber Drying Kiln Date of Construction: 1997 Relevant Building Code: 1996 Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code Evaluated under the 2012 Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code Use & Occupancy Classification: ® Fl — Factory/Industdal, Moderate Hazard ❑ S1 —Storage, Moderate Hazard ❑ H2 — High Hazard ❑ U - Utility Building Area: 1411 sf Building Height: 25.0 ft. Storif Building Construction Type: IIB Remarks: Refer to attached Code Evaluation. 3 1 Sprinklered: Yes ❑ No 113 FOURTH ST.,NE. CHARLOTTESVILLEVA22902 t434.293.7258 WWWFPW.COM - Code Analysis Project Name: Building 13B Location: 6317 Rockfish Gap Turnpike, Crozet, Virginia Name of Owner: Yancey Lumber Manufacturing. Applicable Codes: Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (1996) Evaluated under the 20I2 Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code Description A lumber drying kiln of approximately 1,411 sf for a lumber manufacturing company. Building was constructed in 1997 Use and Occupancy Classification — Chapter 3 [Table 306.21 Factory, moderate hazard — F-I General Building Heights and Areas — Chanter 5 [Table 5031 Use Group F-1, IIB Construction 2 Stories, 55 feet in height, 15,500 square feet Project Complies Types of Construction — Chapter 6 Building is constructed of a pre-engineered, pre -fabricated metal panel wall and roof system. Walls bear on concrete footings. Based upon the above the code in effect at the time of construction would classify this building as a Type RB [Table 6011 Fire Resistance Ratings Element Rating Primary Structural Frame 0 hours Exterior Walls (bearing) see Table 602 Roof Construction 0 hours [Table 6011 Fire Resistance Ratings. Element Rating Primary Structural Frame 0 hours Exterior Walls (bearing) Table 602 Roof Construction 0 hours Complies [Table 602] Fire separation on three sides is over 30 feet, fire separation between Building 13A and 13B is 6 feet [Section 705.31 Buildings on the same lot Exception: Two or more buildings on the same lot shall either be regulated as separate buildings or shall be considered as portions of one building of the aggregate area of such buildings is within the limits specified in Chapter 5 for a single building. Where the buildings contain different occupancy groups or are different types of construction, the area shall be that allowed for the most restrictive occupancy or construction. Most restrictive Use Group = Fl Most restrictive construction type = M Allowable area=15,500 SF Aggregate Area (Building 13A and 13B) 1,435 + 1411= 2,846 SF Means Of Eeress — Chanter 10 Accessibility — Chanter 11 Project complies taken as an aggregate building Building is not occupiedActual occupants = 0 Building is not occupied r r r r Building No: 14 (Refer to Key Plan, Sheet A 100) ' Building Function: Lumber Storage r Date of Construction: 1997 t Relevant Building Code: 1996 Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code r Evaluated under the 2012 Virginia Uniform Statewide Building { Code r Use & Occupancy Classification: ❑ F1—Factory/Industrial, Moderate Hazard N S1 —Storage, Moderate Hazard ❑ H2 — High Hazard ❑ U — Utility Building Area: 10880 sf Building Height: 30.0 ft. Stori Building Construction Type: H B Remarks: Refer to attached Code Evaluation. s 1 Sprinklered: Yes ❑ No 113 FOURTH ST., NE. CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22902 t 434.293.7258 WWW.FPW.COM - f f Code Analysis Project Name: f Location: Name of Owner: t Building 14 6317 Rockfish Gap Turnpike, Crozet, Virginia Yancey Lumber Manufacturing. Applicable Codes: Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (1996) Evaluated under the 2012 Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code Description A lumber storage building of approximately 10,880 sf for a lumber manufacturing company. Building was constructed in 1997 Use and Occupancy Classification — Chapter 3 [Section 311.21 Storage, moderate hazard — S-1 General Building Heights and Areas — Chapter 5 [Table 503] Use Group S-1, IHB Construction 2 Stories, 55 feet in height, 17,500 square feet Types of Construction — Chapter 6 Building is constructed of steel columns supporting steel beams supporting wood roof trusses. Columns bear on concrete footings and building is clad in metal siding. Based upon the above the code we would classify this building as a Type BIB [Table 601] Fire Resistance Ratings Element RatinH Primary Structural Frame 0 hours Exterior Walls (non bearing) see Table 602 Roof Construction 0 hours [Table 6021 Use Group S-1, Construction Type IIB, separation distance more than 30 feet = 0 hour rating Means of Egress — Chanter 10 Accessibility — Chanter 11 Project Complied at time of construction Building is not occupiedActual occupants = 0 Building is not occupied NON 3Hlc- Fila srorAp4q la-O mew zHg. 2.1 Scr/��ap-floral 15. '• ll. 1•F 3�.: 14p-1 DIAGRAM - FIRE SEPARATIONS AT BUILDINGS 14, 15, AND 16 Building No: 15 (Refer to Key Plan, Sheet Al00) Building Function: Stacking and Banding Date of Construction: 1998 Relevant Building Code: 1996 Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code Evaluated under the 2012 Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code Use & Occupancy Classification: ® F1 —Factory/Industrial, Moderate Hazard ❑ S 1— Storage, Moderate Hazard ❑ H2 — High Hazard ❑ U — Utility Building Area: 7173 sf Building Height: 23.9 ft. Stories 1 Building Construction Type: HB Sprinklered: Yes ❑ No Remarks: Refer to attached Code Evaluation 113 FOURTH ST., NE. CHARLOTTESMLLE VA22902 t434.293.7258 WWW FPW.COM - Code Analysis Project Name: Building 15 Location: 6317 Rockfish Gap Turnpike, Crozet, Virginia Name of Owner: Yancey Lumber Manufacturing. Applicable Codes: Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (1996) Description A stacking and banding facility of approximately 13,050 sf for a lumber manufacturing company. Building was constructed in 1998 Use and Occuuancv Classification — Chapter 3 [Section 311.2] Factory, moderate hazard — F-1 General Building Heights and Areas — Chanter 5 [Table 5031 Factory, moderate hazard —F-1, 2C Construction 2 Stories, 30 feet in height, 9,600 square feet Section 506.2 Increase of 21/o in allowable area for every I % of perimeter over 25% Total perimeter= 548 feet; 25%=136 feet Open perimeter = 336 feet 336 feet — 13 6 feet = 200 feet / 548 feet = 36% 9,600 sf x 36%= 3456 sf 9,600 sf + 3.456 sf 13,056 sf Project Complied at time of construction r t Types of Construction — Chapter 6 Building is a pre-engineered structure constructed of steel columns supporting steel beams and roof purlins. Columns bear on concrete footings and building is clad in metal siding. Based upon the above the code we would classify this building as a Type 2C [Table 6011 Fire Resistance Ratings Element Rating Primary Structural Frame 0 hours Exterior Walls (non bearing) see Table 705.2 Roof Construction 0 hours [Table 705.21 Use Group F-1, separation distance 5 feet or less = 3 hour rating Project does not appear to comply where building abuts to Building 14. Wall will need a 3 hour separation see diagram Means of Egress — Chapter 10 Building is not occupiedActual occupants = 0 Accessibility— Chapter 11 Building is not occupied f ilRA 145 .,a .O NEW 9,A?- FIlO sgpapArr fw.1 t4P•1 DIAGRAM - FIRE SEPARATIONS AT BUILDINGS 14, 15, AND 16 Building No: Building Function: Date of Construction: 16 (Refer to Key Plan, Sheet Al 00) Lumber Storage 2003 Relevant Building Code: 2003 Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code Evaluated under the 2012 Vrginia Uniform Statewide Building Code Use & Occupancy Classification: ❑ Fl —Factory/Industrial, Moderate Hazard ® S1 — Storage, Moderate Hazard ❑ H2 — High Hazard ❑ U — Utility Building Area: 11970 sf Building Height: 26.9 ft. Stories 1 Building Construction Type: IIB Sprinklered: Yes ❑ No Remarks: Refer to attached Code Evaluation. 113 FOURTH ST., NE. CHARLOTTESVILLE VA22902 .t434.293.7268 WWW.FPW.COM - t Code Analysis Project Name: Building 16 Location: 6317 Rockfish Gap Turnpike, Crozet, Virginia Name of Owner: Yancey Lumber Manufacturing. Applicable Codes: Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (2003) Evaluated under the 2012 Yuginia Uniform Statewide Building Code Description A lumber storage building of approximately 11,980 sf fora lumber manufacturing company. Building was constructed in 2003 Use and Occupancy Classification — Chapter 3 [Section 311.21 Storage, moderate hazard — S-1, Lumber Yard General Building Heights and Areas — Chapter 5 [Table 5031 Use Group S-1, I1B Construction 3 Stories, 55 feet in height, 17,500 square feet Project Complies Types of Construction — Chapter 6 Building is a pre-engineered structure constructed of steel columns supporting steel beams and roof purlins. Columns bear on concrete footings and building is clad in metal siding. Based upon the above the code ' would classify this building as a Type IlB [Table 6011 Fire Resistance Ratings Element Primary Structural Frame Exterior Walls (non bearing) Roof Construction 113 FOURTH ST., NE. CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22902 t 434.293.7258 Rating 0 hours see Table 602 0 hours WWW.FPW.COM - ,o Fl" srorAp,kT1&0 tjrpw mod ScP�.p�lonl l� DIAGRAM — FIRE SEPARATIONS AT BUILDINGS 14, 15, AND 16 Building No: 24 (Refer to Key Plan, Sheet A100) Building Function: Lumber Storage Date of Construction: 1989 Relevant Building Code: 1987 Virginia Statewide Uniform Building Code Evaluated under the 2012 Vuginia Uniform Statewide Building Code Use & Occupancy Classification: ❑ F1— Factory/lndustrial, Moderate Hazard N S 1— Storage, Moderate Hazard ❑ H2 — High Hazard ❑ U — Utility Building Area: 4050 sf Building Height: 26.9 ft. Stories 1 Building Construction Type: HW Sprinklered: Yes ❑ No ER Remarks: Refer to attached Code Evaluation 113 FOURTH ST., NE. CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22902 t434.293.7258 WWW.FPW.COM Code Analysis Project Name: Building 24 Location: 6317 Rockfish Gap Turnpike, Crozet, Virginia Name of Owner: Yancey Lumber Manufacturing. Applicable Codes: Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (1987) Evaluated under the 2012 Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code Description Storage shed of approximately 4,050 sf for a lumber manufacturing company. Building was constructed in 1989 Use and Occupancy Classification — Chapter 3 [Table 310.21 Storage, moderate hazard — S-1, Lumber Yard General Buildime Heiehts and Areas — Chapter 5 [Table 5031 Use Group S-1, IHB.Construction 2 Stories, 55 feet in height, 17,500 square feet Project Complies Types of Construction Classification — Chapter 6 Building is constructed of steel columns supporting steel beams supporting wood roof trusses. Columns bear on concrete footings -and building is clad in metal siding. Based upon the above we would classify this building as a Type M Construction [Table 6011 Fire Resistance Ratings Element Rating Primary Structural Frame 0 hours Exterior Walls (non bearing) see Table 602 Roof Construction 0 hours [Table 6021 Means of Egress — Chanter 10 [Table 1004.1.2] [Table 1016.2] Accessibility — Chapter l l [Section 1103.2.5] Use Group S-1, Construction Type IIIB, separation distance more than 30 feet = 0 hour rating Project Complies Occupant load — lndustrial Use =1/100 sf 4.050/100 = 40.5 say 41 occupants Actual occupants =1 Travel distance Use group S-1, without sprinklers = 200 ft max. Project Complies Utility buildings exempt Building No: 25 (Refer to Key Plan, Sheet A100) Building Function: Storage Shed (former Bandsaw) Date of Construction: 1982 Relevant Building Code: 1981 Virginia Statewide Uniform Building Code Evaluated under the 2012 Vrginia Uniform Statewide Building Code Use & Occupancy Classification: ❑ F1 — Factory/Industrial, Moderate Hazard N S 1— Storage, Moderate Hazard ❑ H2 — High Hazard ❑ U — Utility Building Area: 1824 sf Building Height: 19.2 ft. Stories 1 Building Construction Type: VB Sprinklered: Yes ❑ No Remarks: Refer to attached Code Evaluation 113 FOURTH ST.,NE. CHARLOTTESVILLEVA22902 t434.293.7258 WWW.FPW.COM - Code Analysis Project Name: Building 25 Location: 6317 Rockfish Gap Turnpike, Crozet, Virginia Name of Owner: Yancey Lumber Manufacturing. Applicable Codes: Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (1981) Evaluated under the 2012 1 rrginia Uniform Statewide Building Code Description Storage shed formally housing a band saw of approximately 1,824 sf for a lumber manufacturing company. Building was constructed in 1982 Use and Occupancy Classification — Chapter 3 [Section 309.21 Storage, moderate hazard — S-1 General Buildine Heights and Areas — Chapter 5 [Table 503] Use Group S-1, VB Construction 1 Storey, 40 feet in height, 9,000 square feet Project Complies Types of Construction — Chapter 6 Building is constructed of wood columns supporting wood beams and roof trusses. Columns bear upon concrete footings and building is clad in metal roofing and siding Based upon the above we would classify this building as a Type VB [Table 6011 Fire Resistance Ratings Element Rating Primary Structural Frame 0 hours Exterior Walls (non bearing) see Table 602 Roof Construction 0 hours C [Table 6621 Means of Egress — Chapter 10 [Table 1004.1.2] [Table 1016.2] Accessibility — Chapter 11 [Section 1103.2.3] Use Group S-1, Construction Type VB, separation distance more than 30 feet = 0 hour rating Project Complies Occupant load —Industrial Use = 1/100 sf 1824/100 = 18.2 say 19 occupants Actual occupants = 0 Travel distance Use group S-1, without sprinklers = 200 ft max. Project Complies Employee work area exempt 11 Building No: 26 (Refer to Key Plan, Sheet A100) Building Function: Sorter Date of Construction: 1978 Relevant Building Code: 1975 Virginia Statewide Uniform Building Code Evaluated under the 2012 Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code Use & Occupancy Classification: N F1-- Factory/Industrial, Moderate Hazard ❑ S1 — Storage, Moderate Hazard ❑ H2 — High Hazard ❑ U — Utility Building Area: 1750 sf Building Height: 17.6 ft. Stories 1 Building Construction Type: I1B Sprinklered: Yes ❑ No N Remarks: Refer to attached Code Evaluation 113 FOURTH ST., NE. CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22902 t 434.293.7258 WWW.FPW.COM - Code Analysis Project Name: Building 26 Location: 6317 Rockfish Gap Turnpike, Crozet, Virginia Name of Owner: Yancey Lumber Manufacturing. Applicable Codes: Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (1978) Evaluated under the 2012 Vrginia Uniform Statewide Building Code Description Shed of approximately 1,750 sf formally housing a lumber sorter for a lumber manufacturing company. Building was constructed in 1978 Use and Occupancy Classification — Chapter 3 [Table 306.21 Factory, moderate hazard — F-1 General Building Heights and Areas — Chapter 5 [Table 5031 Use Group F-1, IlB Construction 2 Stories, 55 feet in height, 15,500 square feet Project Complies Types of Construction — Chapter 6. Building is constructed of steel columns on concrete foundations, steel beams supporting steel roof joists. Roof and exterior skin are metal. Based upon the above the code in effect at the time of construction would classify this building as a Type IIB [Table 6011 Fire Resistance Ratings Element Rating Primary Structural Frame 0 hours Exterior Walls (bearing) see Table 602 Roof Construction 0 hours [Table 601] Fire Resistance Ratings Element Rating Primary Structural Frame 0 hours Exterior Walls (bearing) Table 602 Roof Construction 0 hours Complies [Table 602] Fire separation on four sides is over 30 feet, rating for exterior wall = 0 hours. Means of Eeress — Chanter 10 [Table 1004.1.2] Occupant load —Industrial Use = 1/100 sf 1750/100 =17.5 say lb occupants Actual occupants = 3 [Table 1016.2] Travel distance Use group F-1, without sprinklers = 200 ft max. Project Complies Accessibility — Chanter 11 [Section 1103.2.3] Employee work area exempt Building No: 28 Building Function: Scalehouse Date of Construction: 1980 (Refer to Key Plan, Sheet Al00) Relevant Building Code: 1978 Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code Evaluated under the 2012 Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code Use & .Occupancy Classification: ❑ Fl — Factory/Industrial, Moderate Hazard ❑ S l - Storage, Moderate Hazard ❑. H2 — High Hazard N U — Utility Building Area: 60 sf Building Height: 9 ft. Stories 1 Building Construction Type: enter text. Sprinklered: Yes ❑ No N Remarks: Scale facility for log trucks. Refer to attached Code Evaluation. 113 FOURTH ST., NE. CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22902 t434.293.7258 WWW.FPW.COM - Code Analysis Project Name: Building 28 Location: 6317 Rockfish Gap Turnpike, Crozet, Virginia Name of Owner: Yancey Lumber Manufacturing. Applicable Codes: Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (1978) Evaluated under the 2012 Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code Description Scale house of approximately 60 sf formally housing truck weighing equipment for a lumber manufacturing company. Building was constructed in 1980 Use and Occupancy Classification — Chapter 3 [Section 312]. Utility - U General Building Heights and Areas — Chapter 5 [Table 503] Use Group U, VB Construction 1 Storey, 40 feet in height, 5,500 square feet Project Complies Types of Construction — Chapter 6 Building is constructed of wood wall and roof framing with wood panel exterior cladding and corrugated metal roof. Walls bear on concrete footings. Based upon the above the code in effect at the time of construction would classify this building as a Type VB [Table 6011 Fire Resistance Ratings Element Rating Primary Structuml Frame 0 hours Exterior Walls (bearing) see Table 602 Roof Construction 0 hours [Table 602] Means of Eeress — Chanter 10 [Table 1004.1.21 [Table 1016.2] Accessibility — Chanter 11 [Section 1103.2.5] Complies Fire separation on all sides is over 30 feet, exterior wall rating — 0 hours Occupant load —Business Use = 1/100 sf 60/100 = .6 say 1 occupant Actual occupants = 1 Travel distance Use group U, without sprinklers = 300 ft max. Project Complies Utility buildings exempt f PLANT SCHEDULEBEHINNE, UNIT' IRE I. NI NO NS BOB I I OFF F / / IF I�m 10. ^i 'SEE 1 ..:7.,. Ni �i — - 1�.N_ M. _1 EI11­1 E.,rT t FILL L3 .. / 1H N EIAK IIEIPl ��IX -T / .III I — vl EkCYI x / _ r� . w 9�� �.� rEr: ro R .: T , , -1 E NI ,,SISTER AC(FR h I/'LID ',: 1T — VIE, rH(,v FET.1so 77 ARPHITECTS KEY PLAN g a E urn rumires u/sN/H NO NEr iox/mININSI wE R 6 NEW5ERTER ETIFNER ammwc A101 • C APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION v0 Request for a waiver, modification, variation ❑ Variation to a previously approved Planned or substitution permitted by Chapter 18 = $457 Development rezoning application plan or Code of Development = $457 OR ❑ Relief from a condition of approval = $457 Provide the following 3 copies of a written request specifying the section or sections being requestedto be waived, modified, varied or substituted, and any other exhibit documents stating the reasons for the request and addressing the applicable findings of the section authorized to be waived, modified, varied or substituted. Provide the following ❑ 3 copies of the existing approved plan illustrating the area where the change is requested or the applicable section(s) or the Code of Development. Provide a graphic representation of the requested change. ❑ 1 copy of a written request specifying the provision of the plan, code or standard for which the variation is sought, and state the reason for the requested variation. Project Name and Assigned Application Number (SDP, SP or ZMA): �QnC," L.wile r CprQ. Tax map and parcel(s): 56— ►2 "Cl 65— l l I e2 Contact Person \JQkeyie, W . L 0l1.q Address 37-1 1%• Ikmin St., 5u7{t *00 City CtWrL94-1rxCt(Le, State J0. Zip ZZG[OZ Daytime Phone# (434 ) Fax# ( Owner of Record Email Address (o3i'7 R,Ot.i<--�ah Crcte "rel[t City CAWLOACSAlG Stateyot zip 22`13Z Daytime Phone# (4,54 ) S 2 3- At 1 a7 Fax# ( Applicant (Who is the Contact Person representing?) Email aomp&l Paol."M County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126 011IL ■■-Ma APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION Owner/Applicant Must Read and Sign Each owner -initiated application for a zoning map amendment shall be signed by the owner of each parcel that is the subject of the proposed zoning map amendment, provided that: a. An owner whose parcel is subject to proffers may apply to amend the proffers applicable solely to the owner's parcel, provided that written notice of the application is provided to the owners of other parcels subject to the same proffers under Virginia Code §§ 15.2-2204(H) and 15.2-2302. However, the signatures of the owners of the other parcels subject to the same proffers shall not be required. b. An owner within an existing planned development may apply for a zoning map amendment, and the signatures of any other owners within the planned development is required only if the amendment could result in or require: (i) a change in use, density or intensity on that parcel; (ii) a change to any regulation in a code of development that would apply to that parcel; (iii) a change to an owner's express obligation under a regulation in a code of development; or (iv) a change to the application plan that would apply to that parcel. The applicant must submit documentation establishing ownership of any parcel and the authority of the signatory to sign the application on behalf of the owner. SEE PAGE 3 FOR SIGNATURES I 113W61A: APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION Owner/Applicant Must Read and Sign The foregoing information is complete and correct to the best of my knowledge. By signing this application I am consenting to written comments, letters and or notifications regarding this application being provided to me or my designated contact via fax and or email. This consent does not preclude such written communication from also being sent via first class mail. Signature of Owner, Con t Purchascr Agent _mfw Print Name i-- Zro -1 tW' Date �51--5U Daytime phone number of Signatory ***If multiple property owners are required to sign the application per Section 33.2 b (lb) then make copies of this page and provide a copy to each owner to sign. Then submit each original signed page for the Special Exception Application. Tax Map & Parcel Number: Owner Name of above Parcel: FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SDP, SP or ZMA # Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? Receipt # Ck# January 26, 2018 R. A. Yancey Lumber Corporation: Special Exception Request I. Introduction R. A. Yancey Lumber Corporation (the "Company") is the owner of two parcels of land identified as tax map parcels 55-112 and 55-111 B (the "Property"). Members of the Yancey family have operated a saw mill and lumber yard business on the Property continuously since 1949 (the "Mill"). The Mill employs approximately 70 workers. The Property contains 35.74 acres and is zoned Heavy Industry. k'% Figure I The Mill has expanded over time with the growth of its customer base. It periodically invests in the business with the addition or replacement of large pieces of equipment with more modem, safe and efficient equipment to remain competitive within its industry, to better serve its customers, and to implement safer and more productive manufacturing practices. Over the years, changes to the County's zoning regulations have imposed setback requirements that now affect most of the Property. The impact of these zoning regulations serves to hamstring just about any change to the Mill without relief. Compliance with all the currently applicable regulations without relief in the form of special exceptions will arguably leave the Company without room to operate on a sustainable basis — much less to operate safely. The Company was unaware of these regulations when it invested in a new major, multi -million - dollar piece of equipment in the summer of 2017 known as a "Sorter -Stacker." As part of the Mill's core operation, freshly cut lumber of various sizes (2x4s, 4x4s, 6x6s, 2x10s, among others) emerges from the Mill in a continuous stream at a relatively rapid pace. The sorter component of the new Sorter -Stacker equipment sorts lumber from the continuous stream into various sizes using bins based on size of the lumber. The stacker component then stacks, separates, and bands lumber of the same type for drying. The Mill is one of the last of its size that does not have a Sorter -Stacker, as the industry has become increasingly mechanized, making it nearly impossible for the Mill to remain competitive within its industry without it. January 26, 2018 Management of the Mill became aware of setback requirements upon the completion of a current survey by Timmons Group in mid -December. Following the advice of counsel, Management has stopped assembly of the Sorter -Stacker and is hereby seeking, through the special exception application process, to abide by applicable rules and regulations, while also assuring the survival of the Mill, along with the jobs and tax revenue associated with its continued successful operation. On behalf of the Company, we request special exceptions to Sections 4.20(b) and 5.1.15 of the County Zoning Ordinance, as outlined in more detail below. We also believe it would be beneficial to discuss the application in more detail at a meeting with the County staff, and we will contact the staff the following days to schedule such a meeting. II. Special Exception Reauests Special Exception #1: Section 4.20- SETBACKS AND STEPBACKS IN HEAVY INDUSTRY DISTRICTS Properties zoned Heavy Industry (HI) in the County are subject to the setback regulations provided in the "General Regulations" section of the County Zoning Ordinance. The relevant language is listed below. Sec. 4.20(b) Setbacks and Stepbacks in Conventional Commercial and Industrial Districts Minimum Front Setback: 10 feet from the right-of-way, Minimum Side and Rear Setback: In the HI district, if the abutting lot is zoned residential, rural areas, or the Monticello Historic district: (i) no portion of any structure, excluding signs, shall be located closer than 100 feet from the district boundary; and (ii) no portion of any off-street parking space shall be located closer than 30 feet from the district boundary. Figure 2 below depicts the zoning classifications of the Property and properties adjacent to it. R+:rai Areas Village Reside^tia: Highway Comme:c�a, ■ Planned Development Shopping Ctr. Planned Development Mixed comm. N DGW,7town Crozet District Light Industry ■ Heavy Industry Figure 2 Section 4.20(b) requires a minimum setback of 10 feet for structures from U.S. Route 250 (Rockfish Gap Turnpike). In addition, because the Property is nearly surrounded by rural area ("RA") districts as shown in Figure 2 (except for the property zoned Highway Commercial as shown in red), Section 4.20(b) therefore also prohibits (i) any structure from being located closer 2 January 26, 2018 than 100 feet from abutting properties and (ii) any off-street parking space from being located closer than 30 feet from the district boundaries. Because the Property is surrounded by properties with different zoning classifications, the district boundary is the same as the Property boundary lines where it is adjacent to RA land. In sum, the Property is subject to three setback restrictions pursuant to Section 4.20(b): (1) a 10-foot setback from U.S. Route 250 (Rockfish Gap Turnpike), (2) a 100-foot setback from abutting property zoned residential or RA, and (3) a 30-foot setback for off-street parking spaces from the Property line. For purposes of the above regulations, the Zoning Ordinance defines a structure as that which has a permanent location on the ground, which would include certain equipment. Section 3.1 Structure: Anything constructed or erected, the use of which requires permanent location on the ground, or attachment to something having a permanent location on the ground. This includes, among other things, dwellings, buildings, etc. For the purpose of the determination of setback, signs shall be excluded as a structure. There are several existing Mill structures that impede upon the above described setbacks, including the new Sorter -Stacker. An exhibit by Timmons Group depicting the current location of the partially -constructed Sorter -Stacker in relation to the Property boundaries is being prepared and will supplement this written narrative. The County GIS System does not accurately depict the Property's boundaries, which causes confusion, so an updated survey is necessary. In addition, some of the impediments would be considered legally nonconforming, as the Mill was established long before the adoption of Section 4.20(b) in 2015, or other setbacks that were in effect prior to 2015. However, we request a comprehensive special exception, which would provide relief from the three provisions of Section 4.20(b) outlined above regardless of the status of the nonconformity and not specific to any single impediment. In addition to the "General Regulations" of Section 4.20(b) discussed above, the Property is also subject to Supplementary Regulations specific to Sawmills, Planing Mills, and Wood Yards contained in Section 5.1.15 of the County Zoning Ordinance. Sections 5.1.15(a) and (b) require the following: (a) No structure and no storage of lumber, logs, chips or timber shall be located closer than one hundred (100) feet to any lot line. (b) No saw, planer, chipper, conveyor, chute or other similar machinery shall be located closer than six hundred (600) feet from any dwelling on any lot other than the lot on which the sawmill, planning mill or wood yard is located. Similar to Special Exception Request #1, there are several existing Mill structures that impede upon the sawmill -specific setbacks, including the proposed new Sorter -Stacker. The exhibit to be provided by Timmons Group will also depict the current non -conformities under these January 26, 2018 Supplemental Regulations. Some of these impediments would also be considered legally nonconforming, as many of the Mill's components existed prior to the adoption of Section 5.1.15 in 1980. We hereby request a comprehensive special exception to Sections 5.1.15(a) and (b). The Zoning Ordinance provides that any requirement of Section 5 may be modified or waived by the special exception process. The specific criteria for when the Planning Commission may grant such modifications or waivers is as follows: "upon a finding that [enforcing] such requirement would not forward the purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the public health, safety, or welfare, or that a modified regulation would satisfy the purposes of this chapter to at least an equivalent degree as the specified requirement." The purposes of "Chapter 18 - Zoning" of the County code is "to promote the public health, safety, convenience, and welfare..." The code continues, "...to these ends, this chapter is intended to ... (G) Encourage economic development activities that provide desirable employment and enlarge the tax base..." The Supplementary Regulations of Section 5.1.15 were adopted in 1980, when the Mill and most, if not all of the closest residences were already in existence, thereby causing the Mill, a business that had been in continuous operation for over 30 years, to become legally non- conforming. This imposition of legal nonconforming status by the amended Ordinance makes it very difficult for the Mill to expand and adapt to the market by installing modern and safer equipment and technology without further violating the setback regulations. The location of new equipment is heavily influenced by the fixed location of the original Mill Building, which was constructed in 1949. For example, due to the location of the original Mill building and the irregular shape of the Property, the Sorter -Stacker could only be installed in the proposed location. Neither that location, nor any other location on the Property, would enable the Sorter -Stacker to comply with the setback regulations outlined herein. Installation of modern equipment of this kind is consistent with industry standards and is required to assure that the Mill remains competitive and technologically current. In fact, few mills of this size lack this kind of equipment. The equipment the Mill currently uses for the same task was constructed in 1978. This old equipment needs to be replaced for the Mill to remain technologically current and competitive within the industry. The current sorting process is physically demanding work conducted outside, in all but the worst weather. The proposed sorter will be enclosed within a building when completed and will alleviate the need to manually stack heavy lumber and thus lessen the occurrence of workplace injuries. Enclosing the machinery is expected to reduce the overall noise level emanating from the Mill as well. Moreover, the Sorter -Stacker is a multi -million - dollar investment, generating large amounts of local tax revenue. Granting a special exception for Section 5.1.15 will help ensure the continued successful operation of the Mill, the continued (and increased) generation of local tax revenue, and increased safety at one of the County's largest industrial operations. By contrast, enforcement of the County's applicable setback requirements would likely impair the ability of the Mill to compete within its industry to such an extent that the business would eventually be unable to continue. Closure of the Mill, which has been a continuous, family -run operation for over 69 years, would be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance's stated purpose in subsection (G) to "encourage economic development activities that provide desirable employment and enlarge the tax base." Therefore, modification of these setback regulations by granting these special exceptions will satisfy the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance to a greater extent than strict enforcement. January 26, 2018 In addition, the 600-foot setback requirement from nearby residences, per subsection (b) of Section 5.1.15, places control over the Mill's compliance with the County Zoning Ordinance in the hands of third parties and outside of the Company's control. For instance, the area surrounding the Mill had been comprised of many residences on small parcels close to the Mill for many years prior to the adoption of the Supplemental Regulations in 1980, making it impossible for the Mill to have ever complied with this large setback. In addition, many of the adjacent residential properties could easily construct new, additional dwellings closer to the Mill's property line, thereby expanding the required 600-foot buffer further onto the Property. The requirements of this regulation would then require the Mill to incur the exorbitant expense of rearranging the Mill based on these newly constructed residences to achieve compliance with the buffer— an unreasonable, impractical, and impossible requirement. For these reasons, and further given the irregular shape of the Property and the functional and operational needs of the Mill, we believe the regulations of Section 5.1.15(b) impose unreasonable restrictions and setbacks on the Mill. To avoid these unreasonable restrictions and ensure the continued successful and safe operation of the Mill, and in furtherance of the public health, safety, welfare and other purposes of the Zoning Ordinance, we contend that granting comprehensive special exceptions to Section 4.20(b) and Sections 5.1.15(a) and (b) is reasonable, necessary and appropriate under the circumstances. The Mill has already invested millions of dollars to keep pace with the industry and enhance the safety of its workers by beginning assembly of the Sorter -Stacker. Upon learning that the assembly of the Sorter -Stacker may violate the setback regulations, the Company's Management halted further work on the new equipment, and took steps to begin to bring the Mill into compliance and to request comprehensive Special Exceptions. The decision was made to halt further assembly on the Sorter -Stacker despite the substantial impacts to the Mill. Among other impacts, the contractor assembling the equipment will redeploy its employees to other projects, while the Company will continue to pay interest financing on the equipment loan without the benefit of the improved efficiencies that the Sorter -Stacker would provide. Despite these impacts, the Company recognizes and appreciates the importance of addressing these issues and working to come into compliance. We believe the special exception process will enable the Mill and the County to work together to ensure the best resolution for all interested parties. 35464177_7 J C f Nqmlmm SmE W. BLAME (434)220-6831 sblaine@woodsrogers.com May 29, 2020 Sent Via E-mail Only Mr. John Shepherd, Chairman Board of Zoning Appeals 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Re: AP 202000001 R.A. Yancey Lumber Corporation Dear Mr. Shepherd and Members of the Board of Zoning Appeals: ROGERS YS AT LAW This firm represents David and Lisa Swales who reside at 6259 Rockfish Gap Turnpike, Crozet, Virginia. Our clients are immediate neighbors to the Yancey Lumber Mill and object to a delay of the Appeal from the Applicant in AP202000001. The appeal stems from the Applicant's installation of mill equipment within set -back areas in a clear at violation of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. The equipment includes a large lumber stacking devise and is being run on a regular basis only thirty-five feet from our clients' property. [The applicable set -back calls for at least 100 feet]. The noise and vibration from this equipment has destroyed the Swales enjoyment of their outdoor patio, garden and backyard at the residence where they have lived for more than 24 years. Rather than cease operating the equipment when the Applicant was issued a cease and desist order from the County, the Applicant has continued running the equipment in violation of the set -back -- pending this appeal. So, while the Applicant has not been impacted negatively by the delay of process due to the COVID-19 protocols, the Swales unfortunately have been. We understand that the BZA may under the appropriate circumstances defer a decision at an applicant's request and that the case of Tran v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals of Fairfax Cty. supports this proposition. We wish to point out that in that case the other parties in interest, the Trans did not object to the deferral request by the applicants to the BZA as have the Swales. In any event, the deferral request here is not appropriate as it does not meet the standards of BZA's Rules of Procedure for deferrals. 1. The deferral will not promote fairness in the process. The Applicant maintains that it should be given time to allow the process of its Special Exception request to conclude. First, the flagrant actions of the Applicant pending this appeal, demonstrate their presumption that the Special Exception, which a legislative act will be granted. Second, it lacks consideration that the running of the equipment in violation of the ordinance is only allowed because the appeal process (2724264-1, 121297-00001-03) P.O. Box 2496, Charlottesville, VA 22902 123 Fast Main Street, 5th Floor, Charlottesville VA 22902 P (434) 220-5685 . F (434) 220-6831 www.woodsrogers.com Charlottesville . Lynchburg . Richmond . Roanoke Mr. John Shepherd May 29, 2020 suspends a cease and desist pending the appeal. The only party to which this has been unfair is the Swales whom have had to endure the running of the equipment not only regularly on week days, but occasionally on weekends. 2. The deferral would be solely for the convenience or benefit of the applicant. The delay will allow the Applicant to continue to operate loud and noxious equipment in this location it could not otherwise under the current ordinances -- this to great disruption of the Swales enjoyment of their property. 3. A deferral would delay abatement of a violation that is clearly adversely affecting the abutting neighbors, the Swales. As the Staff report points out, this standard has not been met. The noise and vibration from only thirty some feet from their property is indeed annoying and disruptive and therefore adversely affecting them. 4. It does not yet appear that the deferral will allow the Applicant to resolve the underlying issues as the intrusion within the set -back area is quite unambiguous. While the Applicant and its representative have reached out to the Swales on several occasions, there has yet to be any meaningful offers of actions that address the Swales concerns. The Applicant has insisted that the equipment cannot be located anywhere else on its property. 5. The deferral will not allow the BZA to make its decision within ninety days of the filing of the appeal. The 90-day deadline has already long passed. It is interesting to note that the Staff report does not report on this standard. Our position is that the deferral may not be granted without violating the BZA's own internal standard, notwithstanding what the Tran case says. The Swales would like to continue their dialogue with the Applicant and are willing to do so if necessary through the balance of process for the Special Exception. In the interest of compromise and in good faith, the Swales could support a deferral of the BZA application if the Applicant will cease and desist from all operations within the current set -back area unless and until a resolution is reached and the Special Exception is granted. The Applicant would not have to remove the equipment now (which it would if the appeal is not granted), but the Swales could have some enjoyment of their property in the meantime. Respectfully, Steven W. Blaine Steven W. Blaine cc By email only: Mr. and Mrs. David Swales Mr. Bart Svoboda Mr. Bill Fritz f2724264-1, 121297-00001-03) sirirrrnurrr®gym - - - tt y '��� WWaim-- Archived: Monday, June 1, 2020 6:48:31 PM From: aice@faintich.net Sent: Mon, 1 Jun 2020 19:44:52 To: BZA Cc: Bart Svoboda; Marsha Alley Subject: Yancey Lumber Mills's request for deferral Sensitivity: Normal CAUTION: This message originated outside the County of Albemarle email system. DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. I'm am writing in opposition to Yancey Lumber Mill's request for deferral of the decision on the mill's appeal of violation, due to be heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals tomorrow (June 2). The mill has demonstrated a blatant disregard for county codes and ordinances for years and has knowingly violated such on numerous occasions. Those living nearby, including those in properties that pre -date the establishment of the mill, are dealing with levels of noise and pollution that no one should be forced to contend with. Sincerely, Alice Faintich Archived: Monday, June 1, 2020 6.48.44 PM Front DebbiMeslar-Little Sent: Mon, 1 Jun 202021:33:09 To: BZA Cc: Bart Svoboda; Marsha Alley Subject: Yancey Lumber Sensitivity: Normal CAUTION: This message originated outside the County ofAlbemade email system DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. Good Afternoon, My name is Debbi Meslar-Little and I live at 6286 Hillsboro Lane within the 600 It setback of Yancey Lumber. I've been a resident of the Yancey Mill neighborhood ofCrozet for 22 years and in that time, Yancey Lumber has been part of the local color, with acceptable levels of dust and noise. In the past few years, due to equipment changes and growth in noise and dust and traffic, the m➢ has become an mwelcome neighbor. When I learned that Yancey Lumber made changes to equipment and iinction without county approval and/or authorization, I, like my neighbors, became very concerned. I believe that the company has been arrogant in their assumption that they could function independently of county regulations for industrial zoning laws. I would ask the Board of Zoning to oppose the deferral of the appeal for any and all exemptions to the couriy zoning ordinances. Thank you Sincerely, Debbi Meslar-L¢tle Archived: Monday, June 1, 2020 6.48:59 PM Front LillianMeaey Sent: Mon, 1 Jun 2020 22:3421 To: BZA Cc: Bart Svoboda; Marsha Alley Subject: OPPOSE deferral of Yancey Lumber's zoning violation hearing Sensitivity: Normal CAUTION: This message originated outside the County ofAlbemade email system DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. Dear Board of Zoning Appeals, Asa resident of Crozet, I am writing in opposition to Yancey Lumber's request for a deferral of the appeal hearing on June 2 regarding it's zoning violations. The Yancey Lumber Mill received notice of a zoning violation in December related to installment of a new sorter/stacker. Given the ongoirg and significant adverse impact on the quality of life of the many neighboring households, the company needs to be held responsible and accountable for it's clear violations. Thank you for your attention to this important community issue. Sincerely, Lillian Mezey 7153 Hampstead Drive Crozet VA 22932 Archived: Monday, June 1, 2020 6.49:10 PM From Ashley Maynard Sent: Mon, 1 Jun 2020 21:5520 To: BZA; Bart Svoboda; Marsha Alley, Lisa Swales Subject: Yancey Mill Zoning Violation Deferral Request Sensitivity: Normal CAUTION: This message originated outside the County of Albemarle email system DO NOT CI LICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. All, Please do not approve the determent request. This process has gone on for more than a year, during which time the mill has utilized the equipment when they deem necessary. Postponing the violation hearing will only allow them to operate as they see fit without regard to the quality of life of the residents surrounding the mill. If they were rat in violation, then, why are they asking for special exemptions? I implore you to take action Do it for the residents that these requirements were established to protect. Respectfully, Terry Maynard, AECS(AW), USN Ret. Archived: Monday, June 1, 2020 2:53A5 PM From David Swales Sent: Sun, 31 May 2020 182325 To: BZA Cc: Bart Svoboda; Marsha Alley; Blaine, Steven; Ann Mallek; swales5@embargmrrail.com; Bill Friv4 Jennie More Subject: RE: BZA-Yancey Lumber Mill Violation Sensitivity: Normal CAUTION: This message originated outside the County of Albemarle email system. DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. Dear BZA, Please note that we fervently object to the Yancey Lumber Mill request to defer their zoning appeal of the violation that was served to them on December 20th 2019, as their 90 day deadline has passed. As you are probably aware, we have owned the house and property that abuts the Mill since 1996. Over the past 24 years, we have raised our 3 children in Albemarle County and all of them were educated at our local public schools. Our oldest son attends UVA, our middle son is a rising sophomore at 1MU and our daughter is a rising senior at Western. Furthermore, we have located the main office of our business in Albemarle County since 1997 and we employ over 150 staff locally. As a business owner and resident of Albemarle County we have always abided by all the required rules and regulations whether we were building a new structure at our business or adding on an extension to our home. We are proud to consider ourselves established Albemarle residents, contributors to our local community and economy. Due to the location of our house, we are obviously the most impacted by the current Mill's Violation as it relates to the unpermitted construction of their new sorter/stacker, which is currently 35ft from our property line and approximately 300ft from our home. As the Board knows, the County introduced a new Zoning Ordinance in 1980 (40 years ago) regarding Heavy Industrial Districts specific to Saw Mills, which the Lumber Mill has continually ignored over this period as it expands its operation. While the Mill is under new leadership, next generation, unfortunately the behavior has not changed with constant disregard of county rules and regulations. When challenged the excuse of "I didn't know" is hard to believe. In 2008, Will Yancey even made reference to the strict 1980 zoning ordinance that the Mill was subjected to, during his application for a light Industrial land use for the surplus land the Yancey Family owned behind Yancey Lumber. Rules and regulations are in place for a reason and all citizens alike are expected to abide by them. However, to simply ignore them orto think if caughtjust ask for forgiveness is wrong. The zoning ordinance for saw mills has been in place for 40 years and for the Mill to continually expand their operation over that time within the set -back area needs to be addressed and STOPPED. Since 1980, Yancey Lumber has had sufficient time to restructure its operation to be in compliance, but instead has chosen to continually expand within the 600ft setback, creeping closer towards their neighbors ratherthan creating distance. Recognizing that the lumber business is noisy and dirty, the county passed regulations specific to saw mills, recognizing that there needed to be adequate distance between mills and residential dwellings to coexist. Since moving to our home in 1996, the noise from the Mill has increased significantly as the operation moves closer and closertowards our property to the point where we can't enjoy spending time outside any longer. Furthermore, the Mill has virtually cleared all the trees and brush up to our property line making the Mill more visible while removing our natural buffer zone. At our initial meeting with the Mill Management/Counsel, one of our first questions as a business owner was what's your Plan B if your application gets denied, after a short but obvious blank stare between lawyer and management the answer was "we don't have one"! How can a business purchase a multi -million -dollar piece of equipment prior to gaining approval, obviously their hope was that no one would challenge their new equipment installation until the famous HUM occurred? In wrapping up, I would ask the Board to put themselves in the shoes of the neighboring residents and or the Swales Family and think how you would feel if this was the behavior of your neighbor. Is it okay for your neighbor to ignore the 600ft setback zoning ordinance and to start building 35ft from your property line with no permit or County approval? I think we can all agree that the answer would be NO. It's time to start holding the Mill accountable fortheir actions and forthem to adhere to the County's rules and regulations like the rest of the community. David Swales Archived: Monday, June 1, 2020 2:15.45 PM From David Swales Sent: Sun, 31 May 2020 18:18:30 To: BoardofZonmgApeals@albemarle.org Cc: Bart Svoboda; Marsha Alley; Blaine, Steven; Ann Mallek; swales5@embargmadcom; Bdl Friv4 Jennie More Subject: BZA-Yancey Lumber Mill Violation Sensitivity: Normal CAUTION: This message originated outside the County of Albemarle email system. DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. Dear BZA, Please note that we fervently object to the Yancey Lumber Mill request to defer their zoning appeal of the violation that was served to them on December 20th 2019, as their 90 day deadline has passed. As you are probably aware, we have owned the house and property that abuts the Mill since 1996. Over the past 24 years, we have raised our 3 children in Albemarle County and all of them were educated at our local public schools. Our oldest son attends UVA, our middle son is a rising sophomore at 1MU and our daughter is a rising senior at Western. Furthermore, we have located the main office of our business in Albemarle County since 1997 and we employ over 150 staff locally. As a business owner and resident of Albemarle County we have always abided by all the required rules and regulations whether we were building a new structure at our business or adding on an extension to our home. We are proud to consider ourselves established Albemarle residents, contributors to our local community and economy. Due to the location of our house, we are obviously the most impacted by the current Mill's Violation as it relates to the unpermitted construction of their new sorter/stacker, which is currently 35ft from our property line and approximately 300ft from our home. As the Board knows, the County introduced a new Zoning Ordinance in 1980 (40 years ago) regarding Heavy Industrial Districts specific to Saw Mills, which the Lumber Mill has continually ignored over this period as it expands its operation. While the Mill is under new leadership, next generation, unfortunately the behavior has not changed with constant disregard of county rules and regulations. When challenged the excuse of "I didn't know" is hard to believe. In 2008, Will Yancey even made reference to the strict 1980 zoning ordinance that the Mill was subjected to, during his application for a light Industrial land use for the surplus land the Yancey Family owned behind Yancey Lumber. Rules and regulations are in place for a reason and all citizens alike are expected to abide by them. However, to simply ignore them orto think if caughtjust ask for forgiveness is wrong. The zoning ordinance for saw mills has been in place for 40 years and for the Mill to continually expand their operation over that time within the set -back area needs to be addressed and STOPPED. Since 1980, Yancey Lumber has had sufficient time to restructure its operation to be in compliance, but instead has chosen to continually expand within the 600ft setback, creeping closer towards their neighbors ratherthan creating distance. Recognizing that the lumber business is noisy and dirty, the county passed regulations specific to saw mills, recognizing that there needed to be adequate distance between mills and residential dwellings to coexist. Since moving to our home in 1996, the noise from the Mill has increased significantly as the operation moves closer and closertowards our property to the point where we can't enjoy spending time outside any longer. Furthermore, the Mill has virtually cleared all the trees and brush up to our property line making the Mill more visible while removing our natural buffer zone. At our initial meeting with the Mill Management/Counsel, one of our first questions as a business owner was what's your Plan B if your application gets denied, after a short but obvious blank stare between lawyer and management the answer was "we don't have one"! How can a business purchase a multi -million -dollar piece of equipment prior to gaining approval, obviously their hope was that no one would challenge their new equipment installation until the famous HUM occurred? In wrapping up, I would ask the Board to put themselves in the shoes of the neighboring residents and or the Swales Family and think how you would feel if this was the behavior of your neighbor. Is it okay for your neighbor to ignore the 600ft setback zoning ordinance and to start building 35ft from your property line with no permit or County approval? I think we can all agree that the answer would be NO. It's time to start holding the Mill accountable fortheir actions and forthem to adhere to the County's rules and regulations like the rest of the community. David Swales Archived: Monday, June 1, 2020 2:15:58 PM From: Dennis Hogberg Sent: Mon, 1 Jun 2020 15:56:18 To: BZA Cc: Bart Svoboda; Marsha Alley; Tom Goeke Subject: Yancey Lumber -Zoning Violation Sensitivity: Normal CAUTION: This message originated outside the County of Albemarle email system DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. To Albemarle Co. Board ofZonmg My name is Dennis Hogberg my wife is Judith Belew Hogberg and my mother-orlaw is Mary Maupin Belew towner of house). We live at 6337 Hillsboro Lane, which is right across Highway 250 from Yancey Lumber Company. We are very concerned about the overbearing noise from the debarker" machine at Yancey Lumber. The "debarker" machine was installed between 1998- 2001. 'Die noise level then increased significantly. There was also a marked increase in vibration (heard and felt). 'fhe continuous bud noise and dust coming across Rt. 250 from the hunber company is unacceptable, as is the fact that this equipment does not meet zoning regulations. We are strongly opposed to Albemarle County allowing Yancey Lumber to continue to operate in violation ofexisting zoning codes and regulations. It is a flagrant safety and legal concern in our community, one that should be addressed accordingly. Sincerely, Dennis Hogberg txstatebobcats& icloud.com Archived: Monday, Jute 1, 2020 2:16A5 PM From Dennis Hogberg Sent: Mon, 1 Jun2020 12:39:59 To: BoardZoningAppeals@albenwle.org Cc: Bart Svoboda; Marsha Alley Subject: Yancey Lumber -Zoning Violation Sensitivity: Normal CAUTION: This message originated outside the County of Albemarle email system DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. To Albemarle Co. Board of Zoning, My name is Dennis Hogberg, mywife is Judith Belew Hogberg and my mother-in-law is Maryk9aupin Belew (owner of house). We life at 6337 Hillsboro Lane which is right across Highway250 from Yancey Lumber Company. We are very concerned about the "noise" from the "debarker machine at YanceyLumber. The "debarker" machine was installed between 1998-2001 .The noise level at that point increased significantly. There was also a marked increase in vibration (heard and felt). Painters and construction workers doing work on our house over the years have commented on the continuous "loud noise" and dust coming across Rt. 250 from the Lumber Company. We are stronglyopposed to Abemarle County allowing YanceyLumber to continue to operate in violation of eristing zoning codes and regulations . Sincerely, Dennis Hogberg bstatebobcats Gill cl oud.com Archived: Monday, June 1, 2020 2:16:18 PM From Heather Dickey Sent: Mon, 1 Jun 2020 1128:14 To: BZA Subject: Fwd: Yancey Lumber Corporation Sensitivity: Norm11 CAUTION: This message originated outside the County of Albemarle email system DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. Dear Board ofZonmg- My name is Heather Dickey, I moved to Old Trail with my husband Bill in September of last year. We do not support the zoning request or the exceptions being requested by Yancey Lumber. This zoning request should be voted against now. Thank you for working hard for our community. Heather Dickey Dear Members of the Board of Zoning Appeals, I would ask that you address the issue of Yancey Lumber's Zoning Violation. We have owned our historic house, Five Oaks, since 1996 and as the closest residents to Yancey Mill, my family has had to endure the excessive noise emanating from the running of their stacker which was installed in our buffer zone, in violation of longstanding county zoning regulations. In addition to being an eyesore just behind our barn, when running, the crashing of wood can be heard from all living spaces inside our house, including our kitchen/family/dining rooms as well as my bedroom and bathroom, and this is with all of our windows shut. In fact, the noise is such that we can no longer open our windows or doors during working hours. Furthermore, the noise from the running of the stacker renders our yard unbearable. The noise was so loud that I purchased a factory -calibrated sound meter and routinely get readings over 70 decibels. For a family who has always spent the bulk of their time in their backyard, it is a bitter pill to swallow that we can't enjoy our yard, whenever we want to. Through no fault of our own, we have been denied the right to enjoy our property. This has been even more obvious during the pandemic. Yancey Lumber's location and installation of the sorter/stacker is clearly in violation of Albemarle County's zoning codes, codes designed "to promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community, to protect and conserve the value of buildings, and encourage the most appropriate use of the land." The installation of this equipment in the setback area neither promotes our health or safety nor does it protect and conserve the value of our house. Why should we have our quality of life compromised when lumber mill specific regulations passed in 1980, forty years ago, clearly state "No saw, planer, chipper, conveyor, chute or other similar machinery shall be located closer than 600 feet from any dwelling on any lot other than the lot on which the sawmill, planing mill or wood yard is located"? How is it that there is any basis for appealing the violation, when Yancey Lumber installed their new sorter/stacker 35 feet from our property line and less than 300 feet from our house? Again, our rights as Albemarle County property owners to enjoy our house, yard, and land have been compromised. As business owners, they have a responsibility to abide by the same rules and regulations that all county citizens and businesses must do. Yancey Mills is a historic community that long predates Yancey Lumber. Despite being surrounded by residents, there has been little regard on the part of the mill for how its business decisions and actions affect the quality of life for those living around them. As Crozet's population grows and new developments are built, it is even more important for Yancey Lumber and all Crozet businesses and residents to be held accountable for their actions and for the county to enforce its own zoning regulations to ensure the common good of the community. Thank you for your consideration, Lisa Swales Archived: Monday, June 1, 2020 2:1627 PM From: Tom Goeke Sent: Sun, 31 May 2020 12:31:34 To: BZA; Bart Svoboda; Mally3@albenwie.org Cc: debcnml997@gmaicom; Lucy Goeke; ash armuk@yahoo.com; wtatebobcats@icloud.com; hmdickey@gmail com; swales5@embargmai-corn Subject: Project Number: AP202000001 R A. Yancey Lumber Corporation 55-11113, 55-112 Property Owner/Appellant: R A. Yancey Lumber Corporation Sensitivity: Normal CAUTION: This message originated outside the County of Albemarle email system DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. Dear Bart and members of the BOZ, My name is Tom Goeke, I live at 6254 Hillsboro Lane In Yancey Mills. We, my wife Lucy and 4 children, moved here in 1998 to live and enjoy Crum and the surrounding area. I do not support the zoning request or the exceptions being requested by Yancey Lumber. They bought and installed equipment that doesn't meet the regulations set in 1980. They are professional and experienced operators who know the rules and they chose to violate them The question isn't what we do as a community to allow them to operate, the question and requirement is what is Yancey Lumber going to do to bring their operations into compliance. The zoning request should be voted against now and not deferred. I worked at Kloeckner Pentaplast in Gordonsville for 22 years, 12 years as President and CEO of the company. We followed federal, state and local laws and regulations. We knew the laws and regulations and acted accordingly. It is the responsibility of business and business leaders to act within the law. This is a case of Don't ask for permission, ask for forgiveness". This is not acceptable. Yancey Lumber needs to do the following 1. Acknowledge and agree with the county to all the regulations and laws that are being violated 2. Provide the county remedies that will put the Lumber mill in compliance with the regulations 3. Negotiate solutions that work for both the community and the company if required, and Ignited to remedies that do not affect community quality of life, property rights or health and safety. The county can not accept ths; 1. they are blatant violations of the county regulations and 2. this will set an unmanageable precedent for the couriy. Thank you very much for your service to the community and the couriy and for listening to my position Ifyou have any questions please contact me. Tom Goeke 434-981-7642 tomeoeke com