Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
AP202000001 Staff Report 2020-08-04 (2)
COUNTY OFALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4579 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ELECTRONIC MEETING VIA ZOOM AGENDA TUESDAY, AUGUST 4, 2020 at 2:00 P.M. Call to Order 2. Establish a Quorum 3. Request to Extend Deferral: A. Project Number: AP202000001 R. A. Yancey Lumber Corporation 55-111 B, 55-112 Property Owner/Appellant: R. A. Yancey Lumber Corporation 4. Public Hearing: (pending decision from item #3) A. Project Number: AP202000001 R. A. Yancey Lumber Corporation 55-111 B, 55-112 Property Owner/Appellant: R. A. Yancey Lumber Corporation Staff: Bart Svoboda 5. Approval of Minutes A. June 2, 2020 B. July 7, 2020 6. Old Business 7. New Business 8. Adjournment This meeting is being held pursuant to Ordinance No. 20-A(8): An Ordinance to Ensure the Continuity of Government During the Covid-19 Disaster. Opportunities for the public to access and participate in this electronic meeting are (or will be) provided at http://www.albemarle.org/department.asp?department=cdd&relpage=24716. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ELECTRONIC MEETING GUIDELINES Thank you for attending the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) electronic meeting. The following information is provided to help ensure the meeting proceeds as efficiently and effectively as possible. As a courtesy to others, please turn off all unused cell phones during the meeting. General Information: This meeting is recorded and later transcribed into minutes approved at a later meeting date. Each item set for public hearing will begin with a presentation of the staff report. Next, the applicant or appellant for that item will be invited to speak. During the course of the process, the Chairman will open the public hearing to comments from the public. At the end of these proceedings the Chairman will announce that the public hearing is closed. Once the public hearing is closed, no further public comments will be allowed unless the Board asks for additional information from the applicant or appellant. For staff and applicants, there is a 15 minute time limit for presentations and a 5 minute time limit for rebuttal comments. The BZA reserves the right to digress from these guidelines in any particular case. To Members of the Public: If you wish to address the BZA during the public hearing, please follow the instructions below: - Log in/call in early. - Via Web: Use the "Raise Hand" icon to notify the BZA Clerk that you would like to sign up to address a public hearing item. The Clerk will acknowledge you and list your name on the sign-up sheet for the specific public hearing item. When the public hearing is opened, the Clerk will introduce each speaker for comment. - Via Phone: Press '9 to notify the BZA Clerk that you would like to sign up to address a public hearing item. The Clerk will acknowledge you and list your name on the sign-up sheet for the specific public hearing item. When the public hearing is opened, the Clerk will introduce each speaker for comment. If you do not sign up to speak prior to the meeting, an opportunity to sign up will be given prior to the close of the public hearing. When this opportunity is announced, follow the directions above to notify the BZA Clerk that you would like to provide comment on a public hearing item. Time keeping is conducted through a timer. Each speaker is allotted three (3) minutes to comment. The timer will commence when you begin speaking; you will be notified when three minutes has ended, and you are requested to bring your comments to a close as your microphone will be muted after several seconds. In order to give all speakers equal treatment and courtesy, the BZA requests that speakers adhere to the following guidelines: • When called to address the BZA, please state your name. For uncommon spellings, please spell your name for the record. • Address comments directly to the BZA as a whole - open public debate is prohibited. • You may email written statements and other relevant material to BoardofZoninoAppealsCa albemarle.oro to be included in the record. • If you represent a group or organization, you may identify the group to be recognized. • If you exceed your allotted time, you will be asked to end your comments and the microphone will be muted. • If a speaker does not use all allocated time, the unused time may not be shared with another speaker. • Speakers are permitted one opportunity to comment during each of the public comment periods per meeting. Additional Guidelines for Applicants and Appellants addressing the Board: Understand that the Board of Zoning Appeals cannot change County ordinances. The BZA reserves the right to place additional time limitations on speakers, as necessary. V County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Members, Board of Zoning Appeals From: Bart Svoboda, Zoning Administrator Date: July 22, 2020 Subject: AP 202000001 R.A. Yancey Lumber Corporation Request to extend the deferral Virginia Code § 15.2-2312 requires that the Board of Zoning Appeals make its decisions within ninety days of the fling of an application or appeal. However, the 90—day time period for appeals in Code § 15.2-2312 is directory rather than mandatory. The BZA does not lose jurisdiction to render a decision on an appeal of a Zoning Administrator's action after 90 days has passed. Tran v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals of Fairfax Cty., 260 Va. 654, 658, 536 S.E.2d 913, 916 (2000). Under Rule 2(D) of the BZA's Rules of Procedure (attached), an appellant may request a deferral. The above -captioned appeal has been scheduled for the August 4, 2020 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. The appeal (AP2020-001) was originally scheduled for the Board of Zoning Appeals in April 2020. On March 13, 2020, the appellant requested by email that its appeal be deferred to June 2020. Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the deferral was granted in order to plan for an electronic meeting in June 2020. At the June 2, 2020 electronic meeting, the BZA granted the appellant's request for deferral to allow the Board of Supervisors (BOS) to first decide the appellant's pending special exceptions request scheduled for July 15, 2020. The Board of Supervisors (BOS) granted several of the special exceptions requests on July 15, 2020. However, the special exceptions relating to the stacker/sorter were deferred to the August 5, 2020 BOS meeting to allow for staff to clarify in greater specificity the conditions to be written for the remaining special exception requests. Summary: The appellant is moving through the special exception process, with final decisions by the Board of Supervisors expected on August 5, 2020. Therefore, the appellant is requesting an extension of the deferral to the September 1, 2020 BZA Meeting (attached). AP2020-00001 2 August 4, 2020 ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RULES OF PROCEDURE 2. Meetings D. Deferrals. The BZA may defer any matter at the request of a member of the BZA, the County staff, or the applicant or appellant. The request may be made either orally at the meeting, or in writing, and may be made at any time prior to the vote on the matter. The person making the request shall state the reasons therefore. In considering a request for a deferral of a hearing of an appeal or an application for a variance pertaining to a zoning violation, the BZA shall consider the reasons for the deferral if the request is submitted by the appellant or applicant, the recommendation of staff, and the members of the BZA. In making its decision to grant or deny a request, the BZA shall consider the following factors: (1) whether the deferral would promote fairness in the process; (2) whether the deferral would be solely for the convenience or personal benefit of the appellant or applicant; (3) whether the deferral would delay the enforcement or abatement of a violation that is adversely affecting an abutting property, a neighbor, the neighborhood or the public; (4) whether the deferral would allow the appellant or applicant to resolve the underlying issues so that BZA action might be unnecessary; and (5) whether the deferral would allow the BZA to make its decision within ninety days of the filing of the application or appeal, in conformance with Virginia Code § 15.2- 2312. A motion to defer shall either specify the date to which the matter is deferred or defer the matter indefinitely. If the motion to defer pertains to a matter for which a noticed public hearing is required and the motion is to defer the matter to a specific date, the Chair shall either close the public hearing or, if the public hearing was not opened, open and then close the public hearing, before the BZA votes on the motion. AP2020-00001 3 August 4, 2020 From: Long, Valerie <vlong@williamsmullen.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 5:18 PM To: Bart Svoboda <bsvoboda@albemarle.ora> Subject: Appeal 2020-00001 R. A. Yancey Lumber Corporation 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. Bart, In connection with Appeal 2020-00001 R. A. Yancey Lumber Corporation, please accept this communication as the appellant's request to extend the deferral of the appeal to the September, 2020 BZA Meeting, or otherwise until after the Board of Supervisors takes final action on the company's remaining special exception requests. As you know, at its meeting on July 15`h, the Board of Supervisors granted approval of the majority of the applicant's requested special exceptions, and deferred the three special exceptions pertaining to the sorter and stacker buildings to its next meeting, which is scheduled for August 5`h. The purpose of the Board of Supervisors' deferral is to allow time for staff to clarify the conditions of approval for the remaining requests. At the July 15`h meeting I discussed with the Board of Supervisors the challenges involving the sequencing of the two meetings, with the BZA meeting on August 4th and the Board of Supervisors meeting the following day on August 5`h, and that we would need to request that the BZA hearing deferral be extended to accommodate the schedule. As such, the Board of Supervisors is aware of the timing issue and aware that we would be making this request. Because this request would allow the appellant the opportunity to fully resolve the underlying issues such that the BZA's action might be unnecessary, and for similar reasons as stated in my letter to you of May 22, 2020 on this issue, we ask that the BZA extend the matter until after the Board of Supervisors has taken final action on the company's remaining special exception requests. Please let me know if you require anything further to effectuate this request. Thank you, Valerie Valerie Wagner Long I Attorney I Williams Mullen 321 East Main St. Suite 400 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-3200 T 434.951.5709 1 C 434.242.6792 1 F 434.817.0977 1 vlonci(&williamsmullen.com www.williamsmullen.com NOTICE: Information contained in this transmission to the named addressee is proprietary and is subject to attorney -client privilege and work product confidentiality. If the recipient of this transmission is not the named addressee, the recipient should immediately notify the sender and destroy the information transmitted without making any copy or distribution thereof. STAFF: Bart Svoboda PUBLIC HEARING: June 2, 2020 STAFF REPORT: AP2020-00001 PROPERTY OWNER/APPELLANT: R. A. Yancey Lumber Corporation Description of Property: R.A. Yancey Lumber Corporation is located at 6317 Rockfish Gap Turnpike in Crozet, Virginia. The primary use of the property is for the operation of the lumber business. According to current real estate assessment records, Tax Map 55, Parcel I I I B contains +/- 23.24 acres and Parcel 112 contains +/- 12.50 acres, all of which is zoned HI, Heavy Industry. The parcels front on US Route 250 West, Rockfish Gap Turnpike which is an Entrance Corridor. The Comprehensive Plan designates the parcels as Rural Area 3 with a primary designation of Rural Area. (See Attachment A) Determination and Applicant's Appeal: Backeround: On December 20, 2019, the appellant was mailed a Notice of Official Determination of Violation (VI02019-428) on property identified as 05500-00-00-111130 and 05500-00-00-11200. This notice of violation states: The piece of equipment constructed in the VDOT right of way and the new sorter/stacker constructed on these parcels do not meet the required setbacks. The notice of violation served as notice to stop the activity or use immediately, noting that compliance must be achieved by January 19, 2020 in order to avoid court action. Additionally, the standard appeal language was included in the notice to allow appeal within thirty (30) days of the notice. (See Attachment B) On January 17, 2020, an Appeal (AP2020-001) of the Zoning Administrator's Determination of Violation (VI02019-428) was submitted to the Albemarle County Zoning Division. The appeal suggests that the Notice describes activities that are legal non -conforming uses, pursuant to Section 18-6 of the Albemarle County Code. (See Attachment C) The appeal (AP2020-001) was originally scheduled for the Board of Zoning Appeals in April 2020. On March 13, 2020, the appellant requested by email that its appeal be deferred to June 2020. Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the deferral was granted in order to plan for an electronic meeting in June 2020. (See Attachment D) The Appellant's Justification for Appeal: On January 17, 2020, an Appeal (AP2020-001) of the Zoning Administrator's Determination of Violation (VI02019-428) was submitted to the Albemarle County AP2020-00001 2 June 2, 2020 Zoning Division. The Appellant contends that the Notice describes activities that are legal non -conforming uses, pursuant to Section 18-6 of the Albemarle County Code. (See Attachment C) Staff Response: Staff maintains that the findings listed within the Notice of Official Determination of Violation (VIO2019-428) are founded and accurate. The piece of equipment constructed in the VDOT right of way and the new sorter/stacker constructed on these parcels do not meet the required setbacks of Section 18-5.1.15 of the Albemarle County Code. (See Attachments E and F) Also, the sorter/stacker is currently in the process of being installed. A use or structure cannot be considered a legal non -conforming use or structure if the use of the property or structure did not pre-exist the applicable Zoning Ordinance. Summary: The Notice of Official Determination of Violation (VIO2019-428) was issued after site inspections and careful and deliberate review of the use and structure(s) on site. No findings exist that would indicate that the equipment in question are compliant with the Zoning Ordinance. Despite the Appellants' grounds for the appeal, presented above, staff contends that the determination made was correct and that the Board of Zoning Appeals should affirm this determination. Attachments: A — GIS Map of parcels B — Notice of Official Determination of Violation (VIO2019-428) C — Application for Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's Determination of Violation (VIO2019-428) D — Email request for deferral dated March 13, 2020 E — Setback sketch F — Albemarle County Code Section 18-5.1.15 AP2020-001 R. A. Yancey Lumber Corp. Attachment A S 55A-7 55A-5 Slab 55E-01--A3 Legend ys 90, 55A-10 55E-01--R (Mote: Some has on map may not appear In then) 9O'9 55A-11A 55-84C Papl Info 55-91 55A-11 55-103F - Paroets Zoning Info 55A-12 55=104A1 Zoning Classifications SSSq S 13 Rural Areas 'fl2 55A-40 Village Residential R1 Residential 55-102 on N ■ R2 Residential 55-103 R4 Residential w 55-104A ntial ■R6 Rebieni ■ R10 Rebiennial pt ryr D w �p3G u>` 55'.j �� ■ R15ne Unit al Planned Res Development ■ Plannetl Residential Development M` w 55A-33 "� ■ Neighborhood Model District bcoY SS:g3. i 55-103D W y M tI{HI'S13we ^m m Q 55 B-17 ■ Monticello Historic District C1 Commecal ■ Commercial Difice 55-93B 55A-38B :L- 55A-32 Y w °' tr W N w' j w O 55B-1 c m ■ Hghal Commercial ■ Planned Development Shopping m. ■ Planned Development Shop Comm. 55-110 'o © ■ Downtovm Crozet Distinct W ay 55A-36 111 55A-37 T 55 ( D N Light 55-93 r787 P 55-109 c ■ Heavy Industry 55 A'38� 51P ar 55B-15A $5B-2 N 0 Planned Development Insti ial Par ■ Tovm Of Scottsville 55 A,g5A w �, a 55-111A w 55B-3 J Comp Plan Lend Use Info 55A-45 rr 9 � 9 rJor 9 w A'29` i� Ss Co 55B-13 Comprehensive Plan Areas 55A-45B �-' T rwir 55 rn qqY a A y °IP 55B-4 /\ `r U, �!Ylan.-ey j y j 55A j 55-107 ar�f'a Pyy 55-111B a4te0 N55B-11 LLO' 9 Ste) SNIT l FS � O 55-112 �r 9 55B-7 o 55P,2 55-106A4 Q 825 0 wncey MITI- 55-98A 55-100 55-99 55-106A3 55-106A2 7 55-112A / - tterson-Mill-Ln m 55-99A N N 71-42 752 ft 38 71-39 gs°p4f b Geographic Dut vasslba an orygla 7 j✓ ne�omt�(ax)zlaa5s3z My determination of topography or condoms, or any JepiNm M physical Improvements, pmpetly lines or hounarKS a for general Information only an shall not be used for Me design, mnification, or construction M Improvements to real poll or fir Pond plain deters lemon. May 22, 2020 Map elements may scale larger than GIS dims treasured In the map or as provided on Me due combined page due to Me pool used. Map Projection : WGS84 Web Mercator (Auuler, Sphere) (EPSG 3857) .V COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Community Development Department 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia22902-4596 FAX (434) 9724126 TELEPHONE (434) 296-5832 TTD (434) 972-4012 NOTICE OF OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF VIOLATION The Date this Notice of Determination is Aven is December 20 2019 No: VIO-2019-428 R A Yancey Lumber Corp c/o David L. Dallas Williams Mullen 321 East Main Street, Suite 400 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Property: Parcel ID 05500-00-00-111130 R A Yancey Lumber Corp 05500-00-00-11200 Owner of Record Zoning: Heavy Industry [HIj District Dear Mr. Dallas: This notice is to inform you that the above -described Property is in violation of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. This conclusion is based on the following fact that as of today: The piece of equipment constructed in the VDOT right of way and the new sorter/stacker constructed on these parcels do not meet the required setbacks. Because this use of the Property or structure did not pre-exist the applicable Zoning Ordinance, it cannot be considered a legal non -conforming use or structure. Accordingly, the following section of the Zoning Ordinance has been violated: Albemarle County Code § 18-5.1.15 Sawmill, temporary or permanent, planning mills and wood yards. This violation of the Zoning Ordinance is unlawful, and may be subject to civil penalties, criminal penalties, injunctive relief and/or other remedies, pursuant to Albemarle County Code § 18-36. This letter also serves to notify you to stop the activity or use outlined above immediately. Failure to comply with this notice may result in legal action being taken against you and any other owner, tenant or other responsible party. In addition, you must bring the property into compliance by January 19, 2020 to ivoid court action. Future compliance past this date does not preclude the County from pursuing legal action VIO-2019-428 Page 2 December 20, 2019 avoid court action. Future compliance past this date does not preclude the County from pursuing legal action for existing or past violation(s). If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty (30) days of this notice, in accordance with Virginia Code § 15.2-2311; provided, however, that a ten (10) day appeal period applies to appeals of decisions pertaining to temporary or seasonal commercial uses, and such appeals shall be filed within ten (10) days after this decision. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final and unappealable. An appeal may be taken only by filing an appeal application with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals, in accordance with Albemarle County Code § 18-34.3, along with a fee of $258. Additionally, a separate fee is required for the cost of providing notice and advertising of the appeal for a public hearing. Applications for Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's Determination are available at the Department of Community Development located at 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 or online at www.albemarle.org/cdapps. This form applies to appeals of decisions of the zoning administrator or any other administrative officer pertaining to the Zoning Ordinance. Regulations pertaining to the filing of an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals are outlined in Albemarle County Code § 18-34.3, which may be reviewed online at www.albemarle.org/countycodebza. If you have any questions, please contact Keith Bradshaw, Code Enforcement Officer, at 434-296-5832 ext. 3014. r of Cede Compliance of Albemarle 10 AUTHENTICATION OF RECORD/ CERTIFICATE OF MAILING (Code of Virginia § 8.01-390) (Notice of Official Determination of Violation) hereby certify: 1. that I am a Code Compliance Officer and an employee of the Albemarle County Department of Community Development; 2. that on %2, 00 , 20 Ly, I mailed a true copy of the record attached hereto, consisting of a Notice of Official Determination of Violation dated Z T� , 20_Z�' pertaining to that property identified as Parcel ID O 5-S-Z' do ///go Number(s) �y�_ - °�--�__ / / Z bD to the recipient(s) identified thereon at the address(es) specified thereon; and 3. that the copy of such record which is attached hereto is a true copy of the record that was mailed. Dated: ! 2,ZD- Signed: F COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA IT COUNTY OFF (naA(c> a,,' The foregoing Authentication oof-Recoor'd`/Certificate of Mailing was signed, swom to and acknowledged before me by �t �V 1 p�G�S�Gt �N Albemarle County Code Compliance Officer, this `Z&"' day of eW�e-{� , 20 IL . Notary P-6blic My Commission Expires: Notary Registration No. 11 Albemarle Count Planning Application Application #I AP202000001 Community OevelopmentC 401 Mc. : Road Charlottesville, VA2: Voice: (434) 296-5932 Fax:(434) R A YANCEY LUMBER CORP Legal Description I ACREAGE Magisterial Dist. (White Hall Ivl Land Use Primary Industrial wl Current AFD .'Not in A/F District Current Zoning Primary Heavy Industry v Street Address Application Type peal of Zoning Administrator's Determination Project NOTICE OF OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF VIOLATION NO. VIO-2019-428 Received Date Ol/17/20 Received Date Final Submittal Date Closing File Date Submittal Date Final Revision Number Comments Legal Ad Signature of Contractoror Authorized Agent Date Entered By 2]ennifer Smith v 17 2020 Total Fees 258 Total paid 258 12 r FOR OFFICE USE ONLY AP # _(1/f ),g(( ) — ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION: Fee Amount Date Paid ) By whop Receipt # 44 kAty: )S . Application Ins °" PP or IN, ,_. Appeal of Zoning Administrator's Determination m Appeal of Zoning Administrator's Determination = $258 FEES to be paid after staff review for public notice: Appeals of the Zoning Administrator require a public hearing by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Virginia State Code requires that notice for public hearings be made by publishing a legal advertisement in the newspaper and by mailing letters to adjacent property owners. The total fee for public notice will be provided to the applicant after the final cost is determined and must be paid before the application is heard by a public body. Staff estimates the total cost of legal advertisement and adjacent owner notification to be between $350 and $450. This estimate reflects the average cost of public notice fees, but the cost of certain applications may be higher. ➢ Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices $215 ➢ Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50) $1.08 for each additional notice + actual cost of first-class postage ➢ Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public Actual cost hearing) (averages between $150 and $250) Contact Person (Who should we call/write concerning this project?): Valerie W. Long, Williams Mullen Address 321 E. Main Street, Suite 400 City Charlottesville State VA Zip 22902 Daytime Phone (434) 951-5709 Fax # () E-mail vlong@williamsmullen.com Owner of Record R. A. Yancey Lumber Corporation c/o Donnie Rose Address 6317 Rockfish Gap Turnpike City Crozet Daytime Phone (434) 242-8047 Fax # (� State VA Zip 22932 E-mail donnie@rayanceylumber.com Applicant ( Who is the Contact person representing?): R. A. Yancey Lumber Corporation c/o Donnie Rose Address 631,,7��RRockfish Gap Turnpike City Daytime 434) 242-8047 Fax # O Vivo v Crozet State VA Zip 22932 E-mail donnie@rayanceylumber.com MJtJ����C �� oQ� County of Albemarle Department of Community Development ( O_ C. ][ McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126 Revised I I/1/2015 PaF5I oft Project Name: Notice of Official Determination of Violation No. VIO-2019-428 Tax map and parcel: 05500-00-00-111 BO; 05500-00-00-11200 Zoning: Heavy Industry District Physical Street Address (if assigned): 6317 Rockfish Gap Turnpike, Crozet VA 22932 Location of property (landmarks, intersections, or other): Intersection of Route 250 and Interstate 64 The following information shall be submitted with the application and is to be provided by the applicant: 1) Completed application including subject of appeal. 2) Justification for applicant's position, including error in Zoning Administrators determination. You may use the space below to provide this information or submit an attached sheet. 3) If applicable, a copy of the latest deed for the property involved, and the approved and recorded plat. 4) If applicable, the appropriate drawings showing all existing and proposed improvements on the property and any special conditions for the situation that may justify the appeal. 5) Reference to the relevant Zoning Ordinance section or other applicable regulations or case precedence to justify the appeal. 6) Appropriate fee made payable to the County of Albemarle. Explanation of error in determination and justification of applicant's position: R. A. Yancey Corporation respectfully appeals Notice of Official Determination of Violation No. VIO-2019-428 (the "Notice"). The Notice describes activities that are legal non -conforming uses, pursuant to Section 18-6 of the Albemarle County Code. Owner/Applicant Must Read and Sign I hereby certify that the information provided on this application and accompanying information is accurate, true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I/' .zw, �6*m Signature of Owner or Co tract Put aser, Agent Valerie W. Long, Agent Print Name Board of Zoning Appeals Action/vote: Board of Zoning Appeals Chairman's signature: Date: 1/17/2020 (434)951-5709 Daytime phone number of Signatory Fee Received Date eceived By Revised II/1/2015 r2 Marsha Alley From: Bart Svoboda Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 7:26 AM To: Marsha Alley Subject: FW: BZA Meeting - April 7, 2020 - Preliminary Information Attachments: BZA Prelim Memo for 2020-04-07.doc From: Long, Valerie <vlong@wilIlamsmullen.com> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2020 5:37 PM To: Bart Svoboda <bsvoboda@albemarle.org>; Lisa Green <Igreen2@albemarle.org> Subject: FW: BZA Meeting - April 7, 2020 - Preliminary Information 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. Bart and Lisa: as we discussed earlier this week, we hereby request that the hearing on the Yancey Lumber appeal be deferred until June. Please let me know if you require anything further to effectuate this request. Valerie Long Williams Mullen 434-951-5709 From: Marsha Alley <mallev3C�albemarle.ore> Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2020 9:51 AM Subject: BZA Meeting - April 7, 2020 - Preliminary Information Good morning! Attached you will find the preliminary information for the public hearings scheduled for the Tuesday, April 7, 2020 BZA Meeting. Click on the links to view information for each item. Have a nice day! Marsha Alley Community Development Assistant - Zoning 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, VA 22902 (434) 296-5832 ext. 3417 15 _ 2,000 0.000 Feet Attachment E Legend R.A Yancey Lumber Parcels Parcels O600' Maclinery Setback from Dwellings ® Approximate 100' Lot Line Setback See ALTA for Precise Measurements GIS Data and Aerial Photography from Albemarle County 16 Attachment F Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance Supplemental Regulations Sec. 5.1.15 - Sawmill, temporary or permanent, planing mills and wood yards. Each temporary or permanent sawmill, planning mill and wood yard shall be subject to the following a. No structure and no storage of lumber, logs, chips or timber shall be located closer than 100 feet to any lot line. Trees and vegetation within the 100 foot setback shall be maintained as a buffer to abutting properties and uses, provided that during the last three months of operation the trees may be removed. b. 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. c. No machinery used for sawing, planing, chipping or other wood processing shall operate between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. No wood or wood products shall be loaded or unloaded between 12:00 midnight and 7:00 a.m. d. All timbering and milling operations, including reforestation/restoration and the disposal of snags, sawdust and other debris, shall be conducted in accordance with Title 10.1 of the Virginia Code and the regulations of the Virginia Department of Forestry. (§ 5.1.15, 12-10-80; Ord. 01-18(6) , 10-3-01; Ord. 13-18(1) , 4-3-13) 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ELECTRONIC MEETING TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 2020 — 2:00 P.M. Board Members present: Staff Members present: County Attorney: BZA Attorney: Marcia Joseph Ed Robb John Shepherd Randy Rinehart Bart Svoboda, Zoning Administrator Francis MacCall Lisa Green Bill Fritz Marsha Alley, BZA Clerk and Recorder Andy Herrick, Deputy County Attorney James Bowling, IV 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m. by Chairman John Shepherd. He said this is an electronic meeting and asked for patience as they become familiar with this meeting alternative. He read the following statement: This meeting is being held pursuant to and in compliance with Emergency Ordinance No. 20- A(6); An Emergency Ordinance to Ensure the Continuity of Government During the Covid- 19 Disaster The BZA Members who are electronically present at this meeting are John Shepherd, Randy Rinehart, Marcia Joseph, and Ed Robb ([rice Chair). The persons responsible for receiving public comment are the Board of Zoning Appeals of Albemarle County. The opportunities for the public to access and participate in the electronic meeting are posted on the Albemarle County website on the Board of Zoning Appeals home page and on the Albemarle County calendar. 2. Establish a Quorum The BZA established a quorum, with four members present. Ms. Joseph, Mr. Robb, Mr. Rinehart, and Mr. Shepherd each stated their presence. Mr. Shepherd introduced others in attendance: James Bowling (BZA Attorney); Andy Herrick (Deputy County Attorney); Bart Svoboda, Francis MacCall, Marsha Alley, and Bill Fritz (County Staff); and Valerie Long (Counsel for Yancey Lumber Mill). 18 2 3. Deferral Request 3 A. AP202000001 R. A. Yancey Lumber Corporation — 55-111B, 55-112 4 Mr. Shepherd said in reviewing the background of this issue, he has come to appreciate how 5 difficult and frustrating this has been for all sides. He noted that the application for the special 6 exemptions was submitted on January 26, 2018, almost two and a half years ago. He said the 7 stakes are high for the public, the company, and the process. 8 9 Mr. Shepherd said today, however, there are only two rather narrow issues before the BZA. He 10 said one was a public hearing for the BZA to consider the appeal of the Zoning Administrator's 11 determination that there are two setback violations on this site. He said the other is a request to 12 the defer the hearing on the appeal until the August BZA meeting. He said they will take up the 13 deferral request first, then hold the public meeting if, and only if, the Board denies the deferral 14 request. 15 16 Mr. Shepherd asked participants to understand that their scope was limited to the deferral request 17 and the validity of the violation notice. He said they are not going to deal with the long-term 18 remedies for this situation. He said there is a process in place to do that. He said hearings to 19 consider the requests for special exemptions are scheduled to be conducted by the Planning 20 Commission on June 23, and by the Board of Supervisors on July 15. He said this is where the 21 matter will truly be resolved in the long-term. 22 23 Mr. Shepherd said he would start with the deferral. He noted the discussion of the deferral is not 24 a public hearing, meaning they will not take public comment during this portion of the meeting, 25 but that they will have the right to ask anyone present any questions that would clarify the 26 situation. 27 28 Mr. Shepherd said Mr. Svoboda, Zoning Administrator, would explain the issues of the deferral 29 request. 30 31 Mr. Svoboda said staff made a brief analysis based on the factors to consider out of the BZA's 32 Rules of Order. He said favorable factors in a deferral may promote fairness in the process. He 33 said the applicant has argued that Special Exception requests had been delayed by COVID-19 34 pandemic protocols. He said Consideration #4 is that the outcome of the Special Exception 35 request is uncertain, and any deferral {inaudible}maw the appellant to resolve the 36 underlying issues so that the BZA action might be unnecessary. 37 38 Mr. Svoboda said regarding unfavorable factors, Consideration #2 says a deferral may be 39 considered a convenience or a personal benefit to the applicant. He said Consideration #3 says a 40 deferral may delay enforcement or abatement of the zoning violation that is adversely affecting 41 an abutting property, a neighbor, the neighborhood, or the public. 42 43 Mr. Svoboda concluded staff s remarks, noting there were two proposed motions. 44 45 Ms. Valerie Long, representative for the appellant, asked if she had a time limit on her 46 presentation. 19 2 Mr. Shepherd replied they were using the same time limits for this meeting as they normally 3 would. He said the appellant will have 15 minutes to present, then another 5 minutes to rebut. 4 5 Ms. Long said she was representing R.A. Yancey Lumber Corporation on this matter. She said 6 she was joined by Patrick May (Vice President of the company), who was newly authorized to 7 lead the company's participation throughout the process and work towards bringing the entire 8 site fully into compliance with all regulations. She said several other representatives of the 9 company were participating as well. 10 11 Ms. Long said as stated in her written request, she requests that the BZA grant a short deferral of 12 this matter so that they can continue the Special Exception process that, as Mr. Shepherd noted, 13 they have been diligently pursuing for two and a half years. She said although the original 14 application was submitted in January of 2018, they first met with Mr. Svoboda's predecessor 15 Amelia McCulley (the Zoning Administrator at the time) in December of 2017. 16 17 Ms. Long said in specifically addressing the factors to be considered in considering an appeal, 18 she will reiterate some of the points she made in the deferral request letter and supplement that as 19 appropriate. She said the County has been working diligently with the County staff on the 20 Special Exception requests for two and a half years. She said if not for the COVID-19 delay, 21 those requests would have been heard by now. She said the Board was originally scheduled to 22 take action on the requests in April, and the County staff have been graciously working with the 23 appellant throughout to coordinate the timing of the two hearings so that they have the 24 opportunity to have the discretion of the Special Exception requests prior to the appeal hearing. 25 26 Ms. Long said they were very understanding of the need and importance of having to delay those 27 applications, in light of a worldwide pandemic. She said they also understand that the County 28 needed several weeks to work out the logistics for meeting remotely. She said they were as 29 patient as they could be and did continually request that the County schedule the meetings on the 30 Special Exceptions as the absolute earliest possible time. She said nevertheless, it will end up 31 being a three-month delay by the time the first meeting takes place at the end of June. 32 33 Ms. Long said they were merely asking for the opportunity to continue that process first, since 34 the outcome has the potential to resolve the underlying issue. She said the Special Exception 35 requests were submitted two years before the Notice of Violation was issued by the County. 36 37 Ms. Long said denying the appeal deferral request would ignore the constructive work that the 38 applicant has undertaken over the past two and a half years to address the situation. She said 39 thus, it is only fair to grant a short delay for this appeal hearing in light of the three-month delay 40 in hearing the Special Exception requests. She said it would, in their opinion, promote fairness in 41 the process. 42 43 Ms. Long said similarly, they contend that a short deferral would provide an opportunity to 44 resolve the underlying issue. She said they understand there are no assurances that the Board of 45 Supervisors will grant the Special Exception requests, but that there is certainly the potential. She 46 said those hearings have been rescheduled and advertised, and they are moving forward on that. 20 1 She said if the Board approves the Special Exception application, this appeal would be moot and 2 unnecessary, and it would resolve the underlying issue of the appeal. 4 Ms. Long said the Rules of Procedure do not require the BZA to make a finding that it would 5 absolutely resolve the underlying issue of the appeal, but merely have the potential to do so. She 6 noted the rules say, "may allow the underlying issue to be resolved." She said this would also 7 promote judicial efficiency, avoid wasting the time of the Board, County staff, members of the 8 public, and the appellant unnecessarily. She said if the underlying issue is resolved, hearing the 9 issue that day would be, in her opinion, wasteful of those scarce resources. 10 11 Ms. Long added that granting the appeal deferral would not be solely for the convenience or for 12 the personal benefit of the company. She said it would respect the time and resources that the 13 County staff and other County elected official and representatives have put in on this request 14 over the past two and a half years. She said the County has been extremely cooperative and 15 helpful to the appellant over this time and has expended vast resources in collaboratively 16 working with the appellant, members of the public, and nearby neighbors. She said she thinks 17 that denying the deferral request would be counterproductive to those issues, and thus would not 18 be a personal benefit to the company. 19 20 Ms. Long said deferral would also promote judicial efficiency, which is not a personal benefit of 21 the company, and would avoid wasting the time and resources of the members of the community, 22 since the appeal might be moot and unnecessary upon action of the County Board of Supervisors 23 on the Special Exceptions. 24 25 Ms. Long said similarly, deferral would not unreasonably delay an abatement of the violation. 26 She said the equipment that the Swales have repeatedly cited as creating the noise issue is not 35 27 feet from their property, as has been stated. She said that in fact, the piece of equipment that they 28 have regularly stated is their main source of aggravation is located straddling the line of the 100- 29 foot setback. She said she would present an exhibit of this. 30 31 Ms. Long said there is a partially constructed piece of equipment that is 35 feet from the comer 32 of their property line. She said that piece of equipment is only partially constructed, is not in 33 operation, and is not making a single sound or emitting any noise, and certainly not emitting any 34 vibration. 35 36 Ms. Long noted with regard to vibration, the company is in compliance with the County's 37 vibration ordinance according to their professional consultant, who has studied the issue. She 38 said the appellant submitted a report to the County, to that effect. 39 40 Ms. Long said as the Swales and their counsel are aware, and as stated in materials the appellant 41 has submitted to the public, the company has made numerous commitments to reduce future 42 noise issues upon the approval of the Special Exception. She said they know the merits are 43 substance of the Special Exception requests and are not before the BZA that day but that she 44 wanted to make the Board aware of those issues. 45 4 21 1 Ms. Long said upon others, the appellant has proposed that upon approval of the Special 2 Exception, the equipment that is causing noise will be enclosed within a building, which has 3 always been part of the plan. She said specific noise limits would be adhered to, which are 4 detailed in the application materials. She said there would be sound attenuation materials added 5 to the inside of the walls of the building that will enclose the equipment, which is a stacker to 6 reduce noise. She said the company would add an additional sound barrier wall to further reduce 7 noise levels. 8 9 Ms. Long said she would share an exhibit that references the statement regarding the distance of 10 the equipment to the adjacent parcel. She presented a page from the application materials for the 11 Special Exception to help orient everyone. She said these were unfortunately left out of the 12 BZA's supplemental packet. 13 14 Mr. Bowling said if they were in Ms. Long's email, he had forwarded this along to the BZA 15 members. 16 17 Ms. Long said for everyone's benefit, including anyone watching who had not seen the materials 18 before, she would use the exhibit to help orient everyone. She indicated on the exhibit to Route 19 250, to the main mill building, to the Swales' property line, and a black line that was the property 20 boundary line. She said the red line on the exhibit was the 100-foot setback line for buildings 21 from adjacent parcels. She indicated to a piece of equipment that was labeled "new stacker," 22 noting this is the only equipment in operation currently. She said this was completed prior to any 23 Special Exceptions being submitted, and long before any violation was noticed. She said as they 24 could see, it was not 35 feet from the property line but was straddling the 100-foot line. She 25 indicated to the distance of 35 feet in another location. 26 27 Ms. Long indicated on the exhibit to the new sorter. She said this is the piece of equipment that 28 is under construction and only partially constructed. She said construction was halted when the 29 appellant first met with the Zoning Administrator in December of 2017. She said the company 30 did this voluntarily once it became clear that they needed to cease construction. She said the new 31 sorter is only partially constructed, is not operational, and is not emitting any noise or vibration. 32 33 Ms. Long said although the plans would make it appear that this is a single building (and that 34 eventually, it will look like a single building), currently there is no building between the two, but 35 a concrete barrier wall. She said the stacker is operational, which is the only stacker they have 36 available. She indicated on the exhibit to the old original stacker, which was so dysfunctional 37 and dangerous it was causing numerous employee accidents. She said it was so old, they cannot 38 order new parts for it, which is why a new stacker had to be built. 39 40 Ms. Long said the Special Exception, if approved, would enable the appellant to continue 41 construction of the sorter, complete that sorter, and integrate the two pieces of equipment 42 together (which would, on its own, substantially reduce the noise). She said it will also allow 43 them to build a building to enclose that, build the sound barrier wall that will overlap the wall on 44 the two buildings, and to insert the sound attenuation materials inside. She reiterated that the 45 equipment is not 35 feet from the Swales' property line, as has been regularly stated. 46 22 1 Ms. Long said as such, for all the reasons she has previously stated in the application materials 2 and today, she would respectfully request that the BZA grant the appellant's deferral request. She 3 said it equates to a two -month deferral. She said they endured what will be a three-month delay 4 on the Special Exception hearings through no one's fault. She said they understand it was 5 unavoidable. She said they ask for the BZA's consideration to allow that process to continue and 6 be completed, since they have been working on it for so long and so diligently, and the County 7 has expended extraordinary expense in pursuing that request. She said it would be extraordinarily 8 challenging for this business to continue without the ability to continue operations. 9 10 Mr. Shepherd asked if Mr. Svoboda or anyone on staff wished to use 5 minutes to add to their 11 presentation. 12 13 Mr. Andy Herrick (County Attorney's Office) said that as Mr. Shepherd recognized, the scope of 14 the matter before the Board, at least at this moment on the agenda, is very narrow. He said that 15 the one and only question is whether to grant the applicant's request to defer its appeal. 16 17 Mr. Herrick said that page 12 of the BZA's main package is the Notice of Violation that was 18 delivered to the appellant. He said that the one and only violation was cited in the Notice of 19 Violation is that the piece of equipment constructed in the VDOT right of way, and the new 20 sorter stacker constructed on these parcels, do not meet the required setbacks. He said there are 21 only one or two (depending on how one looks at it) violations that have been noticed, and that 22 this is the only issue that is under appeal, if they even hear the appeal that day. 23 24 Mr. Herrick said that before getting to this issue, however, the applicant has made a request that 25 the appeal be deferred. He said that the appeal is laid out beginning on page 6 of the main 26 package. He said that Ms. Long wrote a letter that articulated why she and her client believe that 27 the appeal should be deferred, Mr. Blaine (on behalf of the neighbors) has responded on page 28 105 of the supplemental package and has laid out the reasons why he and his client believe that 29 the matter should not be deferred today. 30 31 Mr. Herrick said that either way, the basis for the BZA's decision is spelled out in Rule 2D of the 32 BZA's Rules of Procedure, which was included on page 4 of the main package. He encouraged 33 the BZA members to look through Rule 2D for the five considerations when deciding deferral 34 requests. He said that staff, in looking at this issue, honed in on two different considerations of 35 those five that seemed to address the situation. He said that Consideration 43 is whether the 36 deferral would delay the enforcement or abatement of a violation that is adversely affecting an 37 abutting property, a neighbor, the neighborhood, or the public. He said that as the BZA has seen, 38 they have received a number of complaints from affected neighbors complaining about quality of 39 life issues in the neighborhood. 40 41 Mr. Herrick said that, on the other hand, Consideration 44 is about whether the deferral would 42 allow the appellant or applicant to resolve the underlying issues so that BZA action might be 43 unnecessary. He said that as Ms. Long has indicated, the applicant has made various Special 44 Exception requests, which are going to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors 45 and are not before the BZA today. 46 23 1 Mr. Herrick said that it seemed to staff as though those two considerations are the competing 2 considerations for the BZA in whether or not to grant a deferral. He said that at this point in the 3 agenda, they are only looking at whether or not the deferral should be granted , and if the BZA 4 decides to take up the appeal that day, the one and only issue would be whether the Zoning 5 Administrator's determination of a setback violation was correct or not. 6 7 Mr. Shepherd asked if anyone from the County side wished to use the rest of the 5 minutes, if 8 there was time left. Hearing no remarks, he asked Ms. Long if she had any concluding remarks. 9 10 Ms. Long said she appreciated the Board's thoughtful consideration of this request in light of all 11 of the circumstances involved. She said the company is diligently pursuing the Special 12 Exceptions and asks for the BZA's consideration of the reasons stated and the ability to continue 13 the process they have been working on for so many years now. 14 15 Mr. Shepherd directed the discussion to the BZA members, noting that each member would be 16 asked to offer a comment or question, if they choose, then move onto the next member. He asked 17 Ms. Joseph if she had questions or comments. 18 19 Ms. Joseph said in the letter, it states that the letter is to "notify to stop the activity or use 20 outlined above immediately." She said it then offers the fact that there is an appeal process. She 21 asked County staff if, once the letter is written telling someone to cease and desist, and they 22 appeal it, they are able to continue working with the pieces of equipment that are not in 23 compliance. 24 25 Mr. Svoboda replied that under the Code of Virginia, an appeal to the BZA stays enforcement 26 action. 27 28 Ms. Joseph said this means they can continue their operations within these pieces that are outside 29 of the property line, and within the required setback. 30 31 Mr. Svoboda said this was correct. 32 33 Ms. Joseph asked if a deferral until August would allow the company to continue the operation 34 until August, unless they receive the Special Exception. 35 36 Mr. Svoboda replied that it would continue the stay of enforcement action, and that this was 37 correct. 38 39 Mr. Bowling asked if the deferral is set for August or for July 15. 40 41 Ms. Joseph said the applicant has requested the deferral to the BZA August meeting. She said 42 July is when the Board of Supervisors would hear the Special Exception. 43 44 Ms. Joseph said what happens with the appeal process had been her major question. She said she 45 figured, looking at the timeline of the project, that the appeal would allow them to continue using 46 the property and not stop the activities on the property. 7 24 2 Mr. Herrick clarified that this appeal simply delays enforcement of the violation in the courts. 4 Ms. Joseph said it essentially allows production and activities to continue on the site the way it 5 has been. 7 Mr. Herrick said that there was not necessarily a free pass. He said that if the operator continues 8 to operate in violation, additional violations may be incurred. He said that it was not as though 9 the operator was getting a free pass, but simply that State law prohibits the County from seeking 10 enforcement in the courts while an appeal is pending. 11 12 Ms. Joseph asked if there was anything retroactive. She asked about monetary penalties. She said 13 she was trying to figure out why the letter would then be sent asking to cease and desist by a 14 certain date if the company can appeal it and continue operations and not have to cease and 15 desist by a certain date. She asked if this was correct. 16 17 Mr. Herrick replied that it was not that they can continue and be in compliance with the law. He 18 said that in a typical case that is not appealed, if the activity continued unabated, the County 19 would file a warrant in debt and pursue civil penalties in the General District Court. He said that 20 because the applicant filed an appeal in this case, the County is prohibited by State law from 21 seeking that sort of enforcement at this point. 22 23 Mr. Robb said he did not have the letter that Mr. Blaine wrote (dated May 29) in front of him, 24 but that he recalled that the last paragraph stated that Mr. Blaine was representing the Swales and 25 that they would work with the appellant to address the issues and details. He said to him, he took 26 that message to be that the Swales were more than willing to be cooperative. He said the BZA 27 members then received messages from David and Lisa Swales (dated May 31) that they did not 28 agree with the letter that Mr. Blaine wrote, who was representing them. He said this was 29 confusing to him and asked where they should go with this question. 30 31 Mr. Shepherd asked if the question was what to make of the Swales saying they would not object 32 to the deferral and if the Swales would support this deferral if there was no further use of the 33 machine. He said he wanted to make sure the question was right before asking Mr. or Mrs. 34 Swales to respond to that. 35 36 Mr. Shepherd said under the circumstances, it would be fair to allow the Swales to respond to 37 that. He cautioned that he wanted to confine the discussion to the narrow points that are set forth 38 in the Notice of Violation that they are focused on. He said he did not want to get outside of that 39 discussion. He said it would be proper to ask the Swales to respond, however, if they wish to do 40 so. 41 42 Mr. Bowling pointed out that he saw a request on his screen by Steve Blaine for the right to 43 clarify. 44 45 Mr. Shepherd said he did not see that, but he would start with Mr. Blaine if he was present. 46 P 25 1 Ms. Alley said she saw Mr. Blaine's hand raised and asked if they should ask Mr. Swales if he 2 wanted to defer to Mr. Blaine to comment, or for his preference. 4 Ms. Alley informed Mr. Swales that he could choose to talk with the BZA or defer to Mr. Blaine 5 as his representative. 7 Mr. Swales replied that he was happy to defer to Mr. Blaine. 8 9 Ms. Alley asked Mr. Blaine to address the BZA. 10 11 Mr. Blaine said his letter addresses the very narrow point, as the County Attorney has pointed 12 out, that is before the BZA, which is whether or not the delay should be granted. He said his 13 clients and other neighbors have expressed their general displeasure and have noted the problems 14 that the mill has caused for them. He said there have been materials and information about the 15 Special Exception that goes to the merits of the underlying case, which is what the clients and 16 neighbors are focusing on in their objections. 17 18 Mr. Blaine said they hired a lawyer to focus on the procedural matters, which is what his letter is 19 intended to address. He said as a procedural matter, his clients can only get some redress here by 20 at least stopping the operations that are ongoing that would otherwise be in violation of the 21 ordinance. He said he understands reference was made to the sorter stacker, which is 35 feet 22 from the property line. He said the fact of the matter is that the stacker that is operational, as Ms. 23 Long indicates, violates the setback and has been permitted to be operated without any 24 attenuation of the noise all during the time of the Special Exception application. 25 26 Mr. Blaine said their objection is to continue to allow the violation of the ordinance, which is 27 prejudiced to his clients, at the convenience of the company. He said as a compromise, they 28 would offer that rather than litigate the actual notice of the violation, if there is a grant of a stay, 29 at least ask the company to stay their illegal activity until the Special Exception may be heard. 30 He said it seems like a small request but is the time of year when his clients want to enjoy their 31 patio and backyard. He said they want to continue to work with the applicant, and as Ms. Long 32 has indicated, they have reached out to his clients. He said they have not addressed the injuries to 33 his clients, at this point. 34 35 Mr. Blaine said he hoped this clarifies that this is not in conflict. He said he represents his 36 clients, who reviewed his letter before he sent it in. He said it is a difference of a general 37 objection versus his specific objection to the delay and offer of a compromise. 38 39 Mr. Rinehart commented that he was trying to understand why the appellant could not negotiate 40 in the period of time until August and deal with the Board of Supervisors, and why they should 41 stop operation in that short period of time. He said he was sympathetic to the neighbors, read all 42 the letters, and looked at the noise and vibrations. He said he was struggling with why they could 43 not defer this and allow the parties to work it out versus stopping the whole operation and 44 costing people's jobs for several months. He said he was not insensitive to the noise that the 45 neighbors are currently under. He said this was a statement and that he did not have any 46 questions. 0 26 2 Mr. Shepherd said it was a new idea for him to think of the sorter being separate from the 3 stacker. He said he thought this was one machine. He asked what, exactly, is the subject of the 4 Notice of Violation. He asked if it was the new sorter, or the old stacker, or if this is thought of 5 as one thing. He said the Notice of Violation did not clearly identify what, exactly, is being 6 referred to and used rather general terms about the machines. He clarified he was asking if both 7 the sorter and the stacker are in violation by the Notice of Violation, or only the sorter. 8 9 Mr. Herrick replied that the Notice of Violation cites the piece of equipment constructed in the 10 VDOT right of way as one piece. 11 12 Mr. Shepherd asked if this was the debarker on Route 250. 13 14 Mr. Herrick replied that he believed this was the piece of equipment that most closely encroaches 15 into the right of way. He said that the second piece is the new sorter/stacker constructed on the 16 parcels. He said that he would defer to Mr. Svoboda or to Ms. Green, who he understood wrote 17 the letter, to clarify what structures or equipment might be referred to. 18 19 Ms. Alley said Mr. Patrick May had his hand raised, and that she recalled he is with Yancey 20 Lumber Corporation. She said Mr. May may be able to answer and asked if he should be allowed 21 to speak. 22 23 Mr. Herrick said it was his understanding that Mr. Shepherd was looking for clarification on the 24 Notice of Violation and the contents of that. He said he would suspect that either Mr. Svoboda or 25 Ms. Green would be the best ones to answer the question. 26 27 Ms. Alley agreed and said she just wanted to let everyone know that Mr. May's hand was raised. 28 29 Ms. Joseph asked Mr. Shepherd if Ms. Green could be asked to speak, since she wrote the letter. 30 31 Ms. Lisa Green asked if the BZA was asking about the Notice of Violation that was written in 32 2019. 33 34 Mr. Shepherd said yes. 35 36 Ms. Green said this was based on the list of buildings for setbacks that Zoning looked at with all 37 the buildings in total to see what did not meet the current regulations. She said it had nothing to 38 do with the Special Exceptions coming forth. She said anything new that had been built was not 39 deemed as something that had a permit or nonconforming. She asked if this answered the 40 question. 41 42 Mr. Shepherd replied no. 43 44 Mr. Svoboda said the sorter/stacker is multiple pieces of equipment and is one lengthy process. 45 He said when they look at it on the drawings that are labeled, it is one long piece of equipment 46 that Ms. Long had brought up on her drawing. 10 27 2 Mr. Svoboda presented an exhibit and indicated to the long piece of equipment. 4 Ms. Green said based on the current conversation, it seemed to be only about the sorter/stacker, 5 but the violation letter had been written about several other buildings or comers of building for 6 the parcel in total. 7 8 Mr. Shepherd said his understanding was that they were looking at something narrower than an 9 entire nonconformity study of the site and that they were only talking about two pieces of 10 equipment. 11 12 Mr. Herrick said that this was correct and referred back to the Notice of Violation. He said that if 13 they did not defer the appeal, the underlying question is whether the Zoning Administrator was 14 correct in the Notice of Violation letter on December 20. He said that the Notice of Violation 15 letter only cites setback violations as to the piece of equipment constructed in the VDOT right of 16 way and the new sorter/stacker constructed on these parcels. He said that this is the very limited 17 scope of the underlying issue that would be before the BZA if the deferral were not granted. 18 19 Mr. Robb said the day prior, he visited the site, and the sorter and stacker, though in line with 20 one another, are two different buildings. He said one is a metal frame that was under construction 21 and is now halted. He said he wanted there to be the understanding that it was not one building. 22 23 Ms. Joseph said she would also like to ask a question that Ms. Green brought up. She said she 24 wanted to clarify that there was no building permit issued for either of these that are discussed in 25 the official determination, and that neither the equipment that is in the VDOT right of way or the 26 new sorter/stacker ever received any kind of building permit approval from the County. 27 28 Mr. Shepherd asked if there was any disagreement with that from County staff or the appellant. 29 30 Mr. Herrick replied that he would have to defer to Mr. Svoboda or Ms. Green. 31 32 Mr. Svoboda said there were permits that were applied for in some instances, but not issued, as 33 they went through the process. He said depending on whether or not they were talking about 34 equipment or buildings would depend on whether or not building permits are needed. He said as 35 they go to put buildings around the equipment, the buildings would require permits but not 36 necessarily the equipment. 37 38 Ms. Long asked Ms. Joseph if she could respond to the question. 39 40 Mr. Shepherd said yes. 41 42 Ms. Long said neither piece of equipment has a building around it yet. She said there is a plan to 43 do that, and that the company very much wants to do so. She said in order to construct a 44 building, however, they need a building permit, and in order to obtain a building permit, they 45 need relief from the setback regulations, which is why they applied for that relief two and a half 46 years ago. 11 28 2 Ms. Long said the company has long wanted to enclose the equipment in a building to reduce 3 any noise from them. She said they have repeatedly stated this to the neighbors, but they are not 4 authorized to do this until the Special Exception is granted. She said they are hopeful that this 5 will occur in mid -July. 7 Ms. Long added that there is no longer any equipment located in the VDOT right of way. She 8 said among other measures that the company has undertaken, they spent ten months working 9 with VDOT and purchased 10 feet of land across the entire frontage of the property along Route 10 250 to buy back land from VDOT (which was acquired by VDOT when Route 250 was widened 11 many decades ago). She said it was originally the company's land, and they had to buy it back, 12 which took quite a long time going through the VDOT process. She said that equipment is no 13 longer located in the VDOT right of way. 14 15 Ms. Long also added that the appellant disputes the merits of the zoning violation, which is why 16 they have it on appeal. She requested the BZA grant the appellant the opportunity to continue to 17 work through the Special Exception process, given there is a chance it may allow the underlying 18 issue to be resolved. She said if not, they will welcome the opportunity to come back before the 19 BZA and discuss this violation appeal on the merits. 20 21 Mr. Shepherd asked Mr. Bill Fritz to describe what has been happening between the County and 22 the company since the request was made for the Special Exceptions two and a half years ago, 23 how this process has been progressing, and if he sees any significant effect on that process by 24 anything the BZA might do that day (i.e. deferral or making a ruling on the violation). 25 26 Mr. Fritz said if the BZA were to hold the hearing that day and find that no violation existed, 27 there would be two fewer Special Exceptions the Board of Supervisors would need to consider. 28 He said if the BZA upholds the Zoning Administrator's decision, then those Special Exceptions 29 would go before the Board of Supervisors. He said the BZA acting or not acting that day does 30 not impact the Special Exceptions, as there are numerous Special Exceptions for a wide range of 31 matters. 32 33 Mr. Fritz said the applicant made an initial application. He said they have done sound studies. He 34 said there was also the significant issue that, with the exception of a building permit for an 35 expansion of the office building up front, there have been no building permits for any structures 36 out there. He said all the buildings do not have building permits, so staff has been working to 37 figure out how to retroactively issue those building permits, and that this work has been picking 38 up lately. 39 40 Ms. Long asked if she could weigh in on this. 41 42 Mr. Shepherd replied yes. 43 44 Ms. Long said to the specific question about the delay, in addition to the many challenges with 45 this process, the company spent about one year with the Special Exception request on hold 46 because there was an issue that came up with the company. She said there was a hum or noise 12 29 1 coming from what turned out to be a fan that is part of the boiler of one of the kilns. She said in 2 approximately August of 2018, while the company was diligently pursuing the Special Exception 3 requests, the company undertook routine maintenance and replaced the fan, which unfortunately 4 created a noise at a certain decibel or frequency that was quite loud and disruptive to the 5 community. She said the company figured this out on their own, after some testing, and 6 immediately undertook measures to correct the problem. 7 8 Ms. Long said unfortunately, it turned out to be far more challenging to correct than anyone had 9 ever anticipated. She said they consulted with numerous industry experts and consultants around 10 the country, and expended hundreds of thousands of dollars on silencing mufflers for the stack 11 and other mechanisms to attempt to mitigate the noise. She said during that time, the company 12 scaled back their operations substantially and did not operate the kiln at night so that they could 13 avoid any noise or further disruption of the neighbors. She said they also essentially turned the 14 kiln off during the holidays and on weekends. She said they worked very hard with the 15 community. She said it was a very challenging time for the company and for the community. 16 17 Ms. Long said they did not feel it was appropriate to bring the Special Exception requests before 18 the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors at that time. She said they recognized 19 that the most immediate focus by the company should be on fixing the problem with the fan 20 noise. She said they had thought initially that this might take a month or two, at most, but it 21 unfortunately took nearly a year, perhaps even longer. She said they had three pieces of 22 equipment specially designed, engineered, and manufactured at substantial expense on rush 23 orders. She said one was manufactured and shipped in Canada, and one was manufactured in 24 England. She said the company diligently pursued the issue to its resolution and that it has been 25 fixed. 26 27 Ms. Long said they then immediately resumed work on the Special Exception. She said they did 28 not want to bring the requests immediately before the Planning Commission and the Board, as 29 they knew they needed to take a month or so to allow things to settle out. She said they also 30 wanted to allow some time to have the new fan and new noise cancelling mechanism work and 31 confirm that it would be effective before moving forward with the public hearing. She said other 32 than that, they followed up and had a new round of noise and vibration tests taken to confirm or 33 update any readings that had occurred in the past year. She said they had detailed plans prepared 34 and updated to substantially address the Special Exception requests. 35 36 Ms. Long said Mr. Fritz was correct that there were a number of Special Exception requests but 37 that she wanted to note that the particular reason for that is because it was specifically suggested 38 to the appellant when they first met with the County Zoning Administrator in late 2018. She said 39 they agreed with the suggestion and that it made sense not only to ask for relief from setback 40 regulations from any new equipment they wanted to complete and bring into operation, but that 41 they look at any regulations that the company is essentially grandfathered by and ask for relief 42 from those regulations as well. She said this would result in the entire site being in compliance 43 with all regulations. 44 45 Ms. Long said this mill began operation in this location 71 years ago, in 1949. She said all of the 46 regulations that are at issue were adopted in 1980. She said many of the Special Exception 13 30 1 requests that are pending are essentially to ask for relief from regulations that the company is 2 exempt from as a legal nonconforming. She said that not all, but several, of them are. She said it 3 was suggested that they assemble a comprehensive package of Special Exception requests and 4 submit them all at one time so that there would be no question about the company's compliance 5 in the future. She said that is why there is a package of them. 7 Mr. Shepherd said one issue hanging over the discussion is the suggestion that there is a request 8 that the neighbors would ask the company to suspend certain activities pending the resolution of 9 the Special Exceptions. He asked if this was something the company wishes to pursue or agree 10 to. 11 12 Ms. Alley reminded Mr. Shepherd that Mr. May had his hand raised to speak. 13 14 Ms. Long said Mr. May would like to respond and that she believed it would be appropriate for 15 him to do so. She asked if she could add a few comments first. 16 17 Ms. Long said as noted by Mr. Blaine, she and the company have met with the Swales on a 18 number of occasions. She said Mr. May has been meeting with them regularly. She said the 19 company has had noise studies taken at their property at their request. She said they have worked 20 very hard to better understand their concerns and work with them on compromise options. 21 22 Ms. Long said the company is absolutely willing to compromise and try to address issues 23 anywhere and everywhere they possibly can, so long as they do not require the business to shut 24 down. She said unfortunately, shutting down the stacker would do just that. She said it would 25 shut down the entire business and that they could not continue their operations in any viable 26 fashion without the ability to continue operating the stacker. 27 28 Ms. Long said she wished there were an opportunity to construct a building around the 29 equipment that day. She said today, they would build the sound barrier wall and add the 30 insulating noise attenuation material to it. She said unfortunately, they are not able to do so until 31 the Special Exception is granted, if it is. She said if not, they will have serious issues to contend 32 with. She said the appellant knows this, which is why they are working hard to do it, but that 33 shutting down the stacker is not a compromise position from the company's perspective, 34 unfortunately. 35 36 Ms. Long said in their numerous meetings with the Swales, they have continuously stated they 37 do not wish the mill to have to shut down. She said they are very understanding of the Swales' 38 position and the aggravation they have endured. She said if the stacker shuts down, however, it 39 kills the business, all the jobs that come with it, and all the economic revenue that comes to the 40 County right now. She said they have a study from the County's Economic Development Office 41 that demonstrates that the company contributes $32 million to the County. 42 43 Ms. Long said this delay in having the Special Exception heard by the Planning Commission and 44 Board of Supervisors was not due to the company. She said it was an unfortunate delay they had 45 absolutely no choice in. She said they wish they had been able to continue, but it was a terrible 46 timing situation. She said they were ready to go a week before the first meeting was cancelled. 14 31 2 Ms. Long said this delay was not due to the company. She said they think it is only fair, 3 reasonable, and appropriate that they be granted a one -month or two -month delay. She said they 4 would like two months but would take one if they have to. She said they suffered what would be 5 a three-month delay on the Special Exception request. She said they were just asking that the 6 company not be penalized and prohibited from carrying out that process and given the 7 opportunity for the Board of Supervisors to consider those requests before this hearing on the 8 appeal. 9 10 Ms. Long said she would like Mr. May to weigh in further to address the question. 11 12 Mr. May said Ms. Long summed up the issue well. He said both pieces of equipment are critical. 13 He said everything that the mill does is essentially streamlined from one piece of equipment to 14 another, and they are all tied to one another. He said when one piece goes down, the entire 15 business comes to a stop. 16 17 Mr. May said they are happy to work with the Swales and the neighbors. He said he has slowed 18 down the stacker and is looking at putting in supports that will help dampen the sound, since that 19 seems to be the major issue they have. He said he has tried to get their support so they can put a 20 building around that stacker so that they can dampen the noise and reduce any discomfort it 21 causes the neighbors. 22 23 Mr. May said the main point is that both pieces of equipment are critical to the company's 24 existence and that without them, the company is no longer there. 25 26 Ms. Alley said Mr. Blaine's hand was raised as well. 27 28 Mr. Shepherd called on Mr. Blaine to speak. 29 30 Mr. Blaine said his understanding of the company's position is that they went forward with 31 installing equipment that violates the ordinance. He said their relief requires a legislative act, and 32 they are saying they must shut the entire company down if they are not given that. He asked what 33 they did before they built the new sorter/stacker. He said what the company said is that they had 34 out-of-date former equipment, and either abandoned it or ceased maintaining it to pursue new 35 equipment that cannot be operated legally. He said they made a decision as a company to give 36 the County no choice, as what they are saying is that they must have the Special Exceptions, or 37 they are going out of business. He asked how the County can regulate businesses to go forward 38 in that manner and posture, then leave the legislative organization no choice. 39 40 Mr. Blaine said the company had a choice to go forward with this and did so a year and a half 41 ago while violating the ordinances. He said he realized they were not issued a "cease and desist" 42 until December, but the fact of the matter was that they were giving the County no option. He 43 said this is not the way businesses should be allowed to operate and be regulated. 44 45 Ms. Long asked if she could respond to this. 46 15 32 1 Mr. Shepherd said yes. 3 Ms. Long said she believed that the appellant long ago ventured beyond the question at issue 4 here, which is on the deferral request. She said she realized that as part of the Board's decision- 5 making process, it is very helpful to have additional background information and to answer their 6 specific questions, and that she appreciated the opportunity to provide this background 7 information. She asked to focus on the specific question at issue on the deferral and those factors 8 in the BZA's Rules of Procedure about fairness, the potential ability to resolve the underlying 9 issue before the appeal, and the fact that this is not solely for the convenience of the company 10 because the need for the deferral is in no way due to the company's delay. She said the delay was 11 forced upon them. 12 13 Ms. Long said the company has been working diligently to try to address the concerns. She said 14 they are asking for a delay to complete an expensive, time-consuming process that they have 15 undertaken for several years and have been pursuing diligently. She said she believes this is what 16 is important here. 17 18 Ms. Long said Mr. Blaine may have his own opinions on how the Board of Supervisors should 19 consider the Special Exception and may have the same comments as to how the BZA should 20 handle the appeal itself. She said this is not what the question is at the moment. She said the 21 question is on the deferral request only. 22 23 Ms. Long said the appellant believes it is entirely reasonable to have the ability to continue the 24 same order that this process has continued since the violation was issued, which is to allow the 25 Special Exception process to go forward first. She said it would be inappropriate to not allow 26 that process to continue, given that the delay was not due to the applicant's actions, and certainly 27 was not to any benefit to the applicant. She said every day that goes by makes it more and more 28 challenging for this company, so they have desperately begged to get before the Planning 29 Commission and Board of Supervisors for many months. 30 31 Ms. Alley noted that Mr. May's hand was raised. 32 33 Mr. Shepherd said he wanted to wrap up the hearing soon but that he wanted to hear from Mr. 34 May. 35 36 Mr. May said Ms. Long covered everything he wanted to say and had no extra comments to add. 37 38 Mr. Shepherd said they had heard what they needed to hear. He said he could ask for a motion, 39 or circle through the Board members to make statements and get a general idea of what they 40 would like to do. 41 42 MOTION: Mr. Rinehart moved to defer AP202000001 R.A. Yancey Lumber Corporation 55- 43 11113 and 55-112 to the August 4, 2020 BZA meeting. Mr. Robb seconded the motion. 44 45 Ms. Joseph said she felt that they were just looking at this determination of violation. She said 46 she appreciated that there were so many people from the public that have weighed into this and 16 33 1 hoped that they will be seen and heard at the Planning Commission meeting and the Board of 2 Supervisors meeting. She said the BZA has read letters from the Swales, Tom Goeke, Heather 3 Dickey, Alice Faintich, Debbi Meslar-Little, Terry Maynard, and Lillian Mezey. She said she did 4 read all the letters and was sure the rest of the BZA read them, so they do take these into account. 5 6 Ms. Joseph said this determination of violation, however, only deals with two things, and it is the 7 fact that there is a piece of equipment constructed in a VDOT right of way and the new 8 sorter/stacker constructed on these parcels do not meet the required setbacks. She said what they 9 have heard is that the applicant has purchased property from VDOT, so hopefully this was taken 10 care of, but that they have already heard from Mr. Fritz and Ms. Long that these issues will 11 perhaps be taken care of if they get approval from the Board of Supervisors. 12 13 Ms. Joseph said right now, however, all of the other issues that people are concerned about are 14 the purview of the Board of Supervisors. She said the BZA just cannot do that. She said the only 15 thing the BZA was looking at are the violations stated in the letter of December 20, 2019. She 16 said this is her reasoning for being able to support this deferral request. 17 18 Mr. Robb echoed Ms. Joseph's comments and, as he stated his feelings earlier, had nothing to 19 add. 20 21 Mr. Shepherd said he clearly saw both sides of the issue and that both sides are very compelling. 22 He noted that in general, this matter has been under active discussion for almost two and a half 23 years. He said there is a process undergoing to resolve this once and for all. He said they were 24 only really there at the meeting because of the intervention of the virus, which delayed the 25 timeline that the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors were on to address this, which 26 then brings in the BZA out of the necessity of meeting the 90-day requirement, which he felt was 27 unfortunate. 28 29 Mr. Shepherd said he wanted to allow the process to stay on the track it is on but wanted to make 30 clear to everyone that if this is deferred to the August 4 meeting and is not resolved by then, on 31 August 4 they would take this up again with none of the mitigating circumstances before them 32 and will simply look at the violation itself and take action. He said he could clearly see the power 33 behind both arguments, but with that said, with the history of this, the intervention of the virus, 34 and the opportunity to make a clear and definitive determination in August makes him want to 35 support the motion. 36 37 Mr. Shepherd asked Ms. Alley to call for the vote. 38 39 Ms. Alley called for the vote from each member. The motion passed unanimously (4-0). 40 41 Mr. Rinehart asked a technical question regarding the possibility of a Board of Supervisors 42 outcome that did not please the applicant which resulted in them appearing before the BZA and 43 the legal notice requirements for hearing the time on August 4. He said perhaps Mr. Svoboda 44 could respond to that. 45 17 34 1 Mr. Svoboda said if the hearing is scheduled for August 4, the County would meet whatever their 2 required advertising and notification requirements are under the local ordinance and under State 3 Code. 4 5 Mr. Rinehart asked if this would still give staff enough time, even if they were waiting for the 6 Board of Supervisors' decision. 7 8 Mr. Svoboda replied yes. 9 10 Mr. Shepherd thanked everyone who weighed in on the matter, adding he hoped it would have a 11 good resolution. He acknowledged that not everyone attending was satisfied. 12 13 Ms. Long said she appreciated the Board's support. 14 15 4. Approval of Minutes 16 A. February 4, 2020 17 MOTION: Mr. Rinehart moved to approve the February 4, 2020 minutes. Mr. Robb seconded 18 the motion. 19 20 Ms. Joseph said she would assume where some things were struck out and replaced with 21 different words, these would not be shown in the final minutes. 22 23 Ms. Alley said this was correct. 24 25 Mr. Shepherd said he clearly remembered reading the minutes carefully as they were preparing 26 for the appeal and found that they accurately reflected the discussion and particularly the 27 decisions and findings they made. 28 29 The motion passed unanimously (4-0). 30 31 Mr. Shepherd asked Mr. Herrick to inform the courts that the minutes were approved and valid. 32 33 Mr. Herrick said that Ms. Alley could substitute these now -approved final minutes of February 4, 34 2020 into the record, if this is what the BZA would like her to do. 35 36 Mr. Shepherd said yes. 37 38 Ms. Joseph said she would like Ms. Alley to let her know when the minutes are finished so she 39 can come in and sign them. 40 41 Ms. Alley said she would do this. 42 43 Ms. Joseph said she wanted to interject something regarding the deferral request. She said that as 44 Ms. Long said as she was leaving, she appreciated the Board's support for the item. She noted 45 that she was not offering Ms. Long support for the Special Exception. She said she was simply 46 voting on what was before the BZA. She said she wanted this included in the minutes. 18 35 2 Mr. Bowling expressed that it was too late for this. 4 Ms. Joseph said the minutes had not been done for this yet. 6 Mr. Bowling said he meant it was too late as far as the matter was concerned. He said the 7 statement could appear in the minutes but that the matter was done. 8 9 Ms. Joseph said she just wanted the statement in the minutes. She said the comment was said 10 after she had made the vote, and that she did not want it misconstrued that she was adding her 11 support for the Special Exception. 12 13 5.Old Business 14 A. Training Update 15 Mr. Svoboda said the training was on hold and that he would check with the Circuit Court to see 16 how or where they are, if possible, in the process for the Board's new member. He said they 17 would also try to time the training to be able to train everyone at once, including a new member. 18 He said if this process goes longer, however, they may get together with the current members. 19 20 Mr. Rinehart said he assumed they would be looking at the fall for training rather than 21 encumbering vacations and members or staff going out of town. 22 23 Mr. Svoboda said there was a July meeting scheduled and now one in August. 24 25 Ms. Alley noted that it was July 7. 26 27 Mr. Rinehart referred to the training and asked if Mr. Svoboda's intent was to tie it in with a 28 meeting. 29 30 Mr. Svoboda replied that depending on the item and the timing they have to get prepared for it, 31 training would probably not be in July or August. He said July may not give staff enough time to 32 prepare and that there could be a number of speakers at the August appeal, which could take 33 some time. He said the training was more likely to happen in September or October. He said he 34 would take a harder look at the July agenda and see if they have some time to get started on the 35 training. 36 37 Mr. Shepherd said it was important to include the new member in the training. He said he hoped 38 the court would move quickly on that, as it would be a great way to serve as an orientation for 39 the new member and also allow the Board to get to work together on something before actually 40 getting a hearing. He said it was important to wait for that. He said when they know the new 41 person is on board, they can focus on finding a time that works for everyone. He said it was 42 important to all do the training together, and perhaps this meant waiting until the fall. 43 44 Mr. Svoboda said this was up to the Board. 45 W 36 1 Mr. Shepherd said he didn't plan on anything anymore and that he wanted to meet in person, but 2 they cannot. He said it was hard to make definite plans at this point but that they would do the 3 best they could with this. 4 5 Mr. Rinehart asked if, with as few people that would be in the training, there would be any 6 reason why they couldn't have social distancing in Lane Auditorium so they could be in person 7 for that training. 8 9 Mr. Svoboda replied that he would check on the policy. He said they are currently reviewing 10 moving into Phase II and moving towards normalcy. He said he would check on what they have 11 available per the guidelines. 12 13 Mr. Herrick said that the scheduling of the building is up to the County Executive. He said that 14 immediately before the Board of Supervisors started doing virtual meetings, their final in -person 15 meetings in Lane Auditorium required them to sit in every other seat. He said that the six -person 16 Board of Supervisors was able to meet at the dais. He said that ultimately, this is a question for 17 the County Executive and when exactly the County will reopen the County Office Building. 18 19 Mr. Shepherd said many adjustments were being made these days, and perhaps it would be 20 possible to meet in some other venue where they are in an area outside, for instance. He 21 expressed he was open to ideas and appreciated face-to-face meetings, especially for the training, 22 which would benefit from the flow of give and take and face-to-face conversation and would be 23 stilted in a virtual situation. He said he would like something better than just a PowerPoint. He 24 said they can take this on when they are a full Board, and that Mr. Svoboda had a sense of the 25 Board as he is making the plans. 26 27 Mr. Rinehart asked Mr. Herrick if they could legally have a Zoom training follow-up to this 28 meeting to hone in on how they did and procedurally, how they might modify up and coming 29 hearings. He asked if this was appropriate. 30 31 Mr. Herrick replied that he was happy to provide training or education on whatever topics Board 32 members would like. He said that he always prefers to give training in more general terms rather 33 than reference to any specific applications. 34 35 Mr. Rinehart clarified he was talking about this Zoom hearing, where he saw some things that 36 they need to improve on. He asked if they could have another training session just on conducting 37 themselves on Zoom. 38 39 Mr. Herrick replied yes, noting that he was sure Ms. Alley, IT staff, and others would be happy 40 to provide more Zoom training, especially if they are just focused on the topic of how to conduct 41 Zoom meetings specifically, not considering applications or any other business before the BZA. 42 43 Ms. Joseph asked Mr. Svoboda if he receives any new information about the new BZA member, 44 could he let the members know what is going on. 45 46 Mr. Svoboda replied yes. FTi1 37 2 Ms. Joseph agreed with Mr. Rinehart, adding she would like more of an idea of how to proceed, 3 including who is speaking and not speaking and how they enter into the conversation. She 4 expressed that it seems to follow a looser format than when they are sitting on the dais. She said 5 she would like to work through this also. 7 Mr. Herrick said that as an initial suggestion, there are other public bodies of the County that are 8 meeting via Zoom. He said that evening at 6:00 p.m., he would be involved in another Zoom 9 meeting with the Planning Commission. He said that if members are interested in how other 10 public bodies are handling Zoom, the Planning Commission would be meeting that evening, and 11 the Board of Supervisors would have a Zoom meeting the next day in the afternoon. He said that 12 members are welcome to tune in to those meetings online. 13 14 Mr. Svoboda recommended that when Board members look at those other bodies' meetings, they 15 look at them through the operation of the meeting and not necessarily from the public view of 16 receiving the presentation. 17 18 Mr. Shepherd said he would benefit from that and would take up that suggestion. 19 20 Mr. Robb asked about his technical issues and what he could do to resolve them. 21 22 Mr. Svoboda said he would have Ms. Alley call Mr. Robb to help work out the issues. 23 24 Ms. Alley said she would touch base with Mr. Robb the next day to come up with alternatives. 25 26 7. Adjournment 27 MOTION: At 3:44 p.m., Mr. Rinehart moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Joseph seconded the 28 motion, which passed unanimously (4-0). 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 (Recorded by Marsha Alley and transcribed by Beth Golden) Respectfully Submitted, Marcia Joseph, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals 21 38 1 ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 2 ELECTRONIC MEETING VIA ZOOM 3 TUESDAY, JULY 7, 2020 — 2:00 P.M. 4 5 Board Members: Marcia Joseph 6 Ed Robb 7 John Shepherd 8 Randy Rinehart 9 10 Staff Members: 11 12 13 14 County Attorney: 15 16 BZA Attorney: 17 Bart Svoboda, Zoning Administrator Rebecca Ragsdale Marsha Alley, BZA Recording Clerk Andy Herrick, Deputy County Attorney James Bowling, IV 18 1. Call to Order 19 The meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m. by Chairman John Shepherd. He said this is an 20 electronic meeting, and asked for patience as they become familiar with this meeting alternative. 21 The Chairman read the following statement and asked each member to announce their presence 22 to establish a quorum. 23 24 This meeting is being held pursuant to and in compliance with Emergency Ordinance No. 20- 25 A(8); An Ordinance to Ensure the Continuity of Government During the Covid-19 Disaster. 26 The BZA Members who are electronically present at this meeting are... (each BZA Members 27 stated their name to establish a quorum as noted below). 28 29 The persons responsible for receiving public comment are the Board of Zoning Appeals of 30 Albemarle County. 31 32 The opportunities for the public to access and participate in the electronic meeting are posted on 33 the Albemarle County website on the Board of Zoning Appeals home page and on the Albemarle 34 County calendar. 35 36 2. Establish a Quorum 37 The BZA established a quorum with four members present. 38 39 Mr. Shepherd said the BZA members who are electronically present at this meeting are: John 40 Shepherd, Randy Rinehart, Marcia Joseph, and Ed Robb (Vice Chair). Ms. Joseph, Mr. Robb, 41 Mr. Rinehart, and Mr. Shepherd each stated their presence. 42 43 Mr. Shepherd introduced others in attendance: James Bowling (BZA Attorney); Andy Herrick 44 (County Attorney); Bart Svoboda, Zoning Administrator; Marsha Alley, BZA Recording Clerk; 45 Rebecca Ragsdale (County Staff); and Ms. Rebecca Costanzo, Mr. David Mitchell, and Mr. 46 Todd Shallenberger (representatives for the applicant). 39 4 3. Public Hearing 5 A. Project Number: SP202000009 North Pointe Middle Entrance Sign (Property 6 Owner/Applicant: CWH Properties Limited Partnership; TMP: 03200-00-00-02000) 7 Ms. Joseph disclosed that in 2015 or so, she worked with North Pointe to help them negotiate 8 and secure a sewer line easement across a property. She said she has not had any contact with 9 them since then, other than seeing Mr. Mitchell at Mr. Don Wagner's funeral, and that she had 10 worked with Mr. Wagner on North Pointe those years ago. 11 12 Ms. Joseph said at this point, she was sure she was able to consider this matter before the BZA 13 without being influenced by the prior work she had done with North Pointe. 14 15 Mr. Shepherd asked if anyone had comments or concerns about this and heard none. 16 17 Mr. Shepherd said they would start with the presentations, and turned the meeting over to Mr. 18 Svoboda to offer his staff report, noting he could share his 15-minute time allotment with Mr. 19 Herrick. 20 21 Mr. Svoboda, Zoning Administrator, presented the location map, noting the location is just north 22 of Proffit Road. He indicated on the map to Northside Drive and Hall's Auto Body. He explained 23 that directly across from this area is where the entrance road will be. 24 25 Mr. Svoboda presented another map noting the location. 26 27 Mr. Svoboda said the petition has three proposed entrances from Seminole Trail (north, middle, 28 and south). He said the application proposes to erect one sign in the public right of way. He said 29 it is considered the middle entrance to the development. 30 31 Mr. Svoboda said the sign meets all the eligibility requirements for it to be considered for a 32 Special Use Permit and will need final authorization by VDOT. He said VDOT (as both the 33 applicant and the board are aware) provided a preliminary email from Mr. Adam Moore that 34 indicates the location is acceptable. He said VDOT will still have to confirm this as they move 35 through the sign permit stages of the application. 36 37 Mr. Svoboda presented the location drawing, providing more specificity as to where the sign is 38 to be located. He said the right of way currently is not VDOT's, going back into the 39 development, but will be. He indicated to a location on the map labeled "Sign" and "Lights." 40 41 Mr. Svoboda presented a rendering of the sign, noting that it appears to be split, which is fine 42 under the ordinance. He said in Section 4.15.12, there is a section that indicates that if the sign 43 faces are not more than 45 degrees apart, they qualify as just one sign face, meaning they are the 44 same as being parallel or back-to-back. 45 40 1 Mr. Svoboda presented an additional rendering that showed the sign materials and what the sign 2 will potentially look like. 3 4 Mr. Svoboda said the board is not required to make specific findings in support of this action. He 5 said staff has found there is no substantial detriment in terms of whether the proposed Special 6 Use Permit will be a detriment to nearby properties, whether the character of the nearby area 7 remains unchanged, and whether the proposed Special Use Permit will be in harmony with the 8 purpose and intent of this chapter. He presented the list of criteria in Zoning Ordinance 34.5 9 regarding the Special Use Permit and the consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. 10 11 Mr. Svoboda said staff believes the proposal satisfies the goals of the sign regulations and the 12 criteria for issuance of the Special Use Permit. He said staff recommends approval of the request 13 with the following conditions: 1) provide authorization from VDOT for the final location of the 14 sign, and 2) the sign shall comply with approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as 15 approved by the ARB. 16 17 Mr. Svoboda concluded his presentation and said he had the proposed motions available. 18 19 Mr. Herrick said he had nothing to add. 20 Mr. Shepherd asked the applicant for their presentation. 21 22 Mr. Todd Shallenberger (representative for the applicant, Water Street Studio) said he has 23 worked closely with Mr. David Mitchell (applicant/owner and developer of the project). 24 25 Mr. Shallenberger said the location is just north of Airport Road and that the plan is partly to 26 expound on the ideas of Albemarle County and its rural character. He said it is also an Entrance 27 Corridor to the City, and the applicant wanted to expound on that character by having stone walls 28 and piers on both sides, flanking the entrance, as well as native plantings. 29 30 Mr. Shallenberger said they put the sign in the middle of the median to make it visible for 31 northbound and southbound lanes. He said in the elevation facing the property and entrance, one 32 can see how the walls fit in with the sloping grade. He said the piers punctuate and make for a 33 nice entrance sequence for visitors and residents. He said the sign wall or pedestal is in the 34 middle. 35 36 Mr. Shallenberger presented an enlarged view showing more of the overall planting plan, where 37 the applicant is borrowing language from the County, such as "flowering trees" and "shade 38 trees." He said there will be lawn in front of the stone wall, and that farther down Route 29, there 39 will be a series of shade trees, groundcover, and native meadow punctuating the edge all the way 4o down. 41 42 Mr. Shallenberger presented a front elevation, noting it is tapered on the sides to make for easier 43 visibility. He said the applicant started to work with a sign consultant to help select the most 44 visible letters so that it is easily readable. 45 41 1 Mr. Shallenberger said they have received approval from the ARB on this, earlier in June. He 2 said the sign material is intended to look like COR-TEN steel without being COR-TEN, as the 3 applicant worries about COR-TEN rusting and discoloring the pedestal. He said they have 4 worked with a sign supplier that has made aluminum signs that appear like COR-TEN. He 5 presented images of examples of this, adding that the look the applicant is after is to expound on 6 the rural and industrial nature of the County. 7 8 Mr. Shallenberger said the piers have been mocked up onsite and that the size has been reduced 9 slightly from what was seen in the presented image. He said on top of the piers, there will be an 10 anmillary, which is made out of steel or aluminum (which the applicant had yet to determine). He 11 said it is more of a garden element that would help to identify to the community and the project. 12 13 Mr. Shallenberger said they have also battered the walls. He presented an elevation of the walls 14 to demonstrate how they fit with the grade. He said the south wall emerges from the earth and is 15 a straight datum, but the ground plain is sloping slightly, so it starts off at about 1 foot 5 inches 16 and tapers to about 5 feet at the corner of the pier. He said it is the same on both sides, noting it 17 was important to get the engagement with the pier to be similar on both sides so that one is 18 passing through more of a threshold. 19 20 Mr. Shallenberger presented some model shots of what the applicant was proposing, looking at 21 the sign from the northbound perspective as one enters the site during the daytime and showing 22 what the sun would look like, as well as from southbound. He said for the evening, there was a 23 slight modification made after one of the members of the ARB recommended implementing halo 24 lighting. He said the letters will be backlit with halo lighting and that they will still have 25 uplighting from the ground to help showcase the sign. 26 27 Mr. Shallenberger presented an example of the armillary and stone. He said the applicant wants 28 the stone to fit in with some of the other stone walls seen on Route 29, such as the North Fork 29 wall. 30 31 Mr. Shallenberger presented uplighting sheets and concluded his presentation. 32 33 Mr. Shepherd asked if anyone else from the applicant's team wanted to use their remaining time. 34 35 Mr. Mitchell and Ms. Costanzo said they had nothing to add. 36 37 Mr. Shepherd opened the public hearing and asked if there was any public comment. Hearing 38 none, he closed the hearing for public comment. He asked if staff had any remarks. 39 40 Mr. Svoboda said he did not have any closing remarks. He said the applicant had gone through 41 the process and had spoken with all in-house and external agencies to make sure the project stays 42 on the right path. He added that he had the proposed motions available. 43 44 Mr. Shepherd asked if there were further remarks from the applicant and heard none. 45 46 Mr. Shepherd brought the discussion to the board. 42 2 Mr. Rinehart asked Mr. Svoboda if the board would be seeing the same request for the other two 3 entrances down the road. 4 5 Mr. Svoboda said he did not believe so. He said the applicant may be able to answer that 6 question. He said this was the main access and what the request was limited to. 7 8 Mr. Shepherd asked if the applicant would like to speak to that. 9 10 Mr. Mitchell said VDOT has transformed their southernmost entrance into a right -in and right- 11 out, and not allowing a crossover as originally anticipated due to design changes they have made. 12 He said there is a similar landscaping plan approved at that location, but the applicant has not 13 decided and probably won't until they know they have tenants in that corridor. He said the 14 applicant probably will request it at some point and that he would want it to match as it is all one 15 large development. 16 17 Mr. Mitchell said the northernmost entrance is not actually something the applicant controls but 18 is under the control of Mr. Spurzem of Neighborhood Properties. He said Mr. Spurzem has to go 19 through his own separate plan for this which he could not speak to. 20 21 Mr. Shepherd asked if the board, then, may see this request for the southern entrance at a future 22 time. 23 24 Mr. Mitchell replied yes. He said he would want it to match so it would be very similar. 25 26 Ms. Joseph asked Mr. Herrick if he could explain the intent of this particular part of the 27 ordinance. She said it seems as if the ARB reviews this and the ordinance allows for it as long as 28 VDOT has no concern. She asked why this is a Special Use Permit process that the applicant has 29 to go through when the applicant could simply get VDOT approval, adding that it could be 30 written much differently in the ordinance as far as the requirements. 31 32 Mr. Herrick replied that the BZA's responsibilities are usually to hear variances and appeals 33 from Zoning Administrator determinations. He said this is one of the minor areas in Albemarle 34 where the power to grant Special Use Permits is reserved for the Board of Zoning Appeals as 35 well. He said in some jurisdictions, the Boards of Zoning Appeals hear all Special Use Permits 36 but that in Albemarle, this is the one small part of the Zoning Ordinance where special permit 37 authority is reserved for the BZA. He said why this was, and why the standards are as they are, 38 he could not shed much light on. He said the BZAs are allowed to rule on Special Use Permits 39 when authority has been delegated to them. 40 41 Mr. Herrick said these types of sign applications are seen occasionally; although they are not the 42 "bread and butter" of BZAs. 43 44 Ms. Joseph said it seems as if the way the ordinance is written, it is very specific in terms of the 45 information that needs to be addressed prior to approval of the Special Use Permit which was the 46 reason for her question. She said perhaps they could have this conversation some other time. 43 2 Mr. Herrick said he honestly could not shed much light on this but perhaps Mr. Svoboda could. 3 4 Mr. Svoboda said he believed this was less than a variance, and that also, when the governing 5 body adopted this section, they wanted a second look or special look at these as opposed to 6 allowing them everywhere by right. He said he could do some research and follow-up on this. He 7 said he suspected that this was created to offer a second look that a request does meet the criteria 8 as opposed to making it available everywhere. 9 10 Ms. Joseph said one thing that concerned her was in reading the staff report body, it stated that 11 the applicant had received written approval from VDOT and that this was very specific. She said 12 one of the conditions of approval is to receive written approval from VDOT. She asked how 13 many times the BZA, prior to this request, has done this, and if it is always noted that the 14 approval will not be available at the time the BZA hears this. She asked if this were a normal 15 occurrence, as her expectation was that as she was paging through the report, she would see 16 something from VDOT with their seal of approval and an engineer's signature, acknowledging 17 they have received approval. 18 19 Mr. Svoboda replied that this is done in a preliminary fashion. He said when they go to install the 20 road, they want to make sure that the curb and gutter, drainage piping, and other things are set. 21 He said they get a preliminary approval and make sure that as the field conditions develop into 22 the actual construction, the spacing and everything needed there is sufficient. He said they then 23 apply for the sign permit, which VDOT signs off on. He said it is similar to an initial approval 24 for a site plan review, and then the final approval afterwards to make sure that the design holds 25 true throughout the construction. He said VDOT actually accepting the road into the secondary 26 system is involved in this. 27 28 Ms. Joseph said a small paragraph explaining this in the staff report would have been very 29 helpful to her -- that once the road is there, the applicant will receive the final approval from 30 VDOT. She said right now, they are looking at a drawing, and they don't know if they will hit 31 rock, move it over 2-3 feet, or exactly how this will be positioned. She said while they hope the 32 engineering is sound, they never know what will happen once things are punched in. She said she 33 understands this part but that it would be helpful to the BZA to not have to wade through the 34 staff report trying to find information if there was just a paragraph or two explaining this. 35 36 Ms. Joseph said it was a lovely design. She said she was trying to figure out how much she 37 should look at the design (being a former ARB member) or simply look at the simple aspects of 38 this. She said she was trying to figure out how she fits into the process. 39 40 Mr. Robb said he had no questions or comments. 41 42 Mr. Shepherd said his questions had all been answered. He emphasized the points Ms. Joseph 43 made, noting that in this case, the VDOT process sounded very logical and that his job was to be 44 simple as far as looking for ARB approval and VDOT approval. He said in not actually seeing 45 the VDOT approval, it was confusing to review, which prompted him to ask for more 44 1 information about that. He said he wanted to underline that concern moving forward and that the 2 clarity that would come from that would be good. 3 4 Mr. Shepherd asked if this discussion had prompted any further questions or concerns and heard 5 none. 7 MOTION: Mr. Rinehart moved to approve SP202000009 with the conditions outlined by staff: 8 1) provide authorization from VDOT for the final location of the sign, and 2) the sign shall 9 comply with approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness as approved by the ARB. Ms. 10 Joseph seconded the motion which passed unanimously (4-0). 11 12 4. Approval of Minutes 13 A. June 6, 2020 14 Ms. Joseph remarked that the word "diligently" was said at least seven times and that nearly six 15 pages out of fifteen were devoted to Ms. Long and her speech. 16 17 Ms. Joseph said there is a part on page 2 where Mr. Svoboda is speaking that noted he was 18 "inaudible." She asked if Mr. Svoboda may want to review this and determine what it was he 19 thought he may have said. 20 21 Ms. Joseph said on page 3, the first paragraph's last sentence said there is the opportunity to have 22 the "discretion" of a Special Exception. She said it might need to say "decision" instead but 23 wasn't sure and wanted to check on that. 24 25 Ms. Joseph asked if whoever completes the minutes could also number the lines so that when 26 they are referencing these minutes, they will know what page and line they are looking at as this 27 would make it easier to do so. 28 29 Ms. Joseph said she was sorry for being tough on Ms. Long, but it was something that gave her 30 pause that perhaps the board could talk about. 31 32 Mr. Shepherd asked Mr. Svoboda if he was able to look into Ms. Joseph's question about the 33 "inaudible." 34 35 Mr. Svoboda asked for the page number. 36 37 Ms. Joseph replied it was on page 2, in the sixth paragraph, in the second line to the bottom of 38 that paragraph. 39 40 Mr. Svoboda said he would have to try to listen to the tape. 41 42 Mr. Shepherd asked, assuming everything else was sufficient, to approve the minutes with the 43 provision that Ms. Golden or staff will go back and listen to the tape to try to discern exactly 44 what Mr. Svoboda said to make the correction, without any further action from the board. 45 45 1 Mr. Herrick replied that unless there was a pending need to get these minutes approved 2 immediately, his suggestion would be that this outstanding matter would be resolved first before 3 this would be up for approval. He said that way, any remedy that would be made to the minutes 4 could come back before the BZA to make sure this is what the BZA had in mind. 5 6 Mr. Shepherd suggested to move forward with that. 7 8 Mr. Rinehart asked if this needed to be on the record. 9 10 Mr. Herrick replied that if someone wanted to make a formal motion to defer consideration of 11 the June 2 minutes until the next meeting, this would be the way to do it formally. 12 13 MOTION: Mr. Rinehart moved to defer consideration of approval of the June 2, 2020 minutes 14 until the next BZA meeting. Ms. Joseph seconded the motion. 15 16 Mr. Rinehart said, in terms of what Ms. Joseph said about there being six pages of Ms. Long's 17 statements, what the BZA had talked about is that they would convey their feelings toward the 18 Chairman and that he did so on the topic Ms. Joseph brought up. He said going forward, there 19 needs to be more discipline in channeling in the comments of the representatives of the applicant 20 to be more succinct. He said he appreciated Ms. Joseph pointing out that it was six pages long. 21 He said he had conveyed his feelings to Mr. Shepherd after the meeting. 22 23 Mr. Shepherd said he appreciated this from Mr. Rinehart and Ms. Joseph. He said he understands 24 the concern there and will take this on and be aware of it in the future. He said he would not 25 comment further on the substance of it but that the message was received. 26 27 The motion to defer approval of the minutes was passed unanimously (4-0). 28 29 5. Old Business 30 Mr. Svoboda said that earlier, Ms. Joseph had requested an update on the open BZA position. 31 32 Ms. Alley said she chatted via email with Mr. Travis Morris in the Board of Supervisors Clerk's 33 Office, and he has been forwarding any applications to the Circuit Court. She said Mr. Morris 34 has not heard anything. She said the court is in possession of the applications, and now it is a 35 matter of waiting until the court notifies the board. She said they have not heard anything from 36 the court at this point. 37 38 Mr. Shepherd said the board is anxious to fill the seat as it makes the board much more effective. 39 He said decisions made with ties are unsatisfactory to everyone so they look forward to having 40 full complement with an odd number of members. 41 42 Mr. Shepherd said he wanted to talk about training. He said he did not know exactly what form 43 the board's training would take, but he would like to add to the training a segment that will 44 address the expectations and formatting of staff reports. He said this is apropos following the 45 discussion that day about the confusion with the exact approval and situation of VDOT. He said 46 1 he would like to be able to talk about that generally, in the future, with an open back -and -forth 2 discussion which would be helpful. 3 4 Mr. Shepherd said initially, he would like to make the request that if a document is referred to in 5 the staff report, he would like to see a copy of it. He said if an ordinance section is referenced, he 6 would like to see a copy of the ordinance. He said the basic idea behind this is that it is almost a 7 matter of customer service to the board. He said he was not exactly sure, formally, what their 8 relationship is. He said the board does not supervise the staff, but what he is asking for is, as a 9 board member, being able to concentrate on the issues in front of him. He said if an ordinance is 10 referenced but is not included, it means he has to look it up to double-check it. He said he is 11 meticulous, and if the ordinance is referenced, he has to go back and read the whole thing. He 12 said rather than this, he would rather see it in front of him. 13 14 Mr. Svoboda said staff could do that. 15 16 Mr. Shepherd said part of this was that he wanted to give the theory behind the practice, and boil 17 it down to if something is referenced, it is provided. He said he wants to reduce the searching and 18 trying to put the puzzle together so he can focus on the issues. He said he would appreciate this 19 being considered as it would make things better for everyone. 20 21 Mr. Svoboda said he had a quick question, which could be followed up with a brief work session. 22 He asked if they wanted to have the references in a hard copy form, or if a link was better. He 23 said he would try to include the links in the report but that he also realizes that at times, it is more 24 helpful to have the copies in hand. He asked if the board wanted one or both. 25 26 Ms. Joseph indicated she wanted a hard copy. 27 28 Mr. Shepherd agreed. He said this was more of a key than the maps. He said there is a lot of 29 information, but there are a few things that are critical to decision making. He said when in 30 doubt, the hard copy should be provided of the section that is being referred to. 31 32 Mr. Svoboda said staff could do this. He said as they grow together and understand the 33 information the board needs, they would get this down. 34 35 Mr. Rinehart said in thinking about this topic, he was curious about this being a thick packet of 36 redundancy, and what the board was really approving. He said he would guess they could have 37 had one sheet of paper for the site plan, and one sheet of paper of what the sign will look like. He 38 said that was all the board needed that day. He asked if he was looking at this too simply as he 39 would much rather follow what Mr. Shepherd just said as far as having the backup material for 40 an ordinance versus the many pages that were provided. 41 42 Mr. Svoboda said generally, staff sends everything that the applicant sends in. He said what they 43 don't want to do is determine, from what the applicant submits, what is important and what is 44 not. He said they will keep an eye on what staff duplicates and try not to duplicate those efforts. 45 He said if the applicant, for instance, sends in two pages, staff will send the board two. He said if 47 1 the applicant sends in 50 pages, staff will send the board 50 pages as staff wants the board to 2 have all the information the applicant sent in. 3 4 Mr. Rinehart asked if his request to cut down the pages was being petty, and for Mr. Shepherd 5 and Ms. Joseph (with their prior experience) to weigh in. 7 Mr. Shepherd said in his opinion, he understands the need to send everything to avoid precluding 8 something that might be crucial but that his request would be to highlight and focus on what is 9 important. He said these are basically, to him, appendices. He said in this particular case, as far 10 as he could tell, the board had to make sure they were not out of conformance with the general 11 findings that must be made for a Special Use Permit. 12 13 Mr. Shepherd said in this case, there were two things they had to see: ARB approval and VDOT 14 approval. He said with that, he thinks this was the board's job. He said qualitative analysis of the 15 appearance of the sign was, to him, interesting, but not to the point. He said to bring the board's 16 attention to the reason they are there, and the decisions they have to make, is the key to a good 17 staff report, which leads to a good decision, and perhaps also good analysis on the part of the 18 staff to begin with. 19 20 Mr. Rinehart said he always subscribes to the notion, "less is more." He said it is a shame to 21 waste all the paper that would be thrown away. 22 23 Ms. Joseph said what Mr. Rinehart was saying was important. She told Mr. Svoboda that an 24 explanation of what was happening would have been helpful, as she spent a lot of time looking at 25 the graphics, and the graphics she received where somewhat dark. She said there was reference 26 to a wall, and the only thing she could see was an enormous wall. She said it was actually a 27 building, but they didn't label it. She said in looking at that, it took her a while to figure out what 28 was going on. She said a simple explanation of what the applicant was doing and the elements 29 were needed. 30 31 Ms. Joseph said she understood what Mr. Rinehart was saying, as she got herself 32 discombobulated looking for the dimensions of the wall. She said finally, she found it on a 33 certain page. She said an overview of what is going on would be helpful. She encouraged staff 34 not to think this kind of explanation would be too basic for her as she needs all the information 35 they can provide her. She encouraged staff not to make assumptions that she knows anything 36 about what is going on as she was just stepping into this. 37 38 Mr. Shepherd said he was encouraged by this conversation and that it would lead to a positive 39 outcome. 40 41 6. New Business 42 Mr. Shepherd thanked Mr. Bowling for his good service to the BZA thus far. He said Mr. 43 Bowling is defmitely helping and that he both appreciates and enjoys this. He said for the record, 44 he wanted to say that Mr. Bowling has done a good job helping the board. He said Mr. Bowling 45 did not ask him to say this but that Mr. Bowling donated almost $1,000 worth of earnings as his 48 1 time he put into his work on the board so far exceeded what had been allocated by the Board of 2 Supervisors. 3 4 Mr. Shepherd said this has been a complicated time and that part of this timing included Mr. 5 Bowling guiding and helping the board with its response to appeals of board actions in the 6 Circuit Court. He said he wanted to acknowledge Mr. Bowling's approach, as far as the billing 7 goes, and his good work in the larger scheme of things. 8 9 Mr. Shepherd said he looked forward to more work with Mr. Bowling in the future as it has been 10 of great service to the BZA. 11 12 Mr. Bowling thanked the board. He said after meeting in executive session, they had talked about 13 a barn with a room full of people. He said "worse" is not the right word, but as far as controversy 14 goes, that may have gotten worse. He said things seemed to have calmed down and that he 15 suspected this was the normal evolution or flow of the BZA's job. He said it has been a pleasure 16 to work with the board. 17 18 Mr. Shepherd remarked that the board does not typically see easy cases with the exception of 19 what they reviewed that day. 20 21 Mr. Rinehart asked Mr. Svoboda when they would know when the board will meet in August. 22 He asked if the Board of Supervisors (BOS) meeting on Yancey Lumber was taking place on 23 August 17. 24 25 Mr. Svoboda replied yes and hesitated stating that he would have to check on the BOS meeting 26 date. 27 28 Mr. Rinehart said he wanted to ask this question before making the motion to adjourn, as he 29 wanted clarification as to if the BZA were to hear that case in August, if it would be too short of 30 a time between the Board of Supervisors (if it didn't go the applicant's way) to meet in August 31 and that Mr. Svoboda had indicated `yes." 32 33 Mr. Svoboda asked if it was correct that the BZA's deferral was to August. 34 35 Mr. Rinehart replied this was correct, and asked if there was enough time between the Board of 36 Supervisors meeting and the August meeting to have a legal notice. He said Mr. Svoboda had 37 implied before that there was. 38 39 Mr. Svoboda replied this was still true. 40 41 Mr. Rinehart asked if they did not yet know if the BZA will be meeting in August. 42 43 Mr. Svoboda replied that the BZA has a meeting scheduled in August and that currently, he 44 would plan on that. He said he would double-check the dates but that he knew they had enough 45 time to make the legal notice. He said it would happen quickly, within a number of days after the 46 Board of Supervisors meeting, if not actually the next day. He said this was the deferral date and 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 that they would be having that meeting to either hear the appeal, withdrawal, or an additional deferral, which were all still options on the table. Mr. Shepherd said he had trouble imagining what would be left for the BZA to decide after the Board of Supervisors had heard it, but they would take it as it comes as it is still a pending matter. Mr. Svoboda said this was correct. Mr. Shepherd said he doubted there would be much staff would have to add to the staff report from before. He said the issues from that that were deferred (the two setback issues) are narrow and confined. Mr. Svoboda said yes. 7. Adjournment MOTION: At 3:02 p.m., Mr. Rinehart moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Robb seconded the motion which passed unanimously (4-0). (Recorded by Marsha Alley and transcribed by Beth Golden) Respectfully Submitted, Marcia Joseph, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals 50