HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 07 2003 PC MinutesAlbemarle County Planning Commission
October 7, 2003
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday,
October 7, 2003 at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room 241, Second Floor, 401
McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were William Rieley, Chairman;
Rodney Thomas; Bill Edgerton; Jared Loewenstein; Pete Craddock; and William Finley. Absent
from the meeting was Tracey Hopper, Vice -Chairman, whose resignation was effective at the last
meeting.
Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development;
David Benish, Chief of Planning & Community Development; Tarpley Gillespie, Senior Planner;
Margaret Doherty, Principal Planner; and Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Rieley called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public:
Mr. Rieley invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda. There
being none, he stated that the meeting would move on to the next item.
Consent Agenda:
SUB 03-175 Tucked Away Preliminary Plat - Request for private road approval in conjunction
with a preliminary plat to create 10 lots on 75.35 acres. The property is zoned RA - Rural Areas.
The property, described as Tax Map 55, Parcels 87, 88A and 88A1, is located in the White Hall
Magisterial District on Half -Mile Branch Road [Route # 684] approximately 3/4 miles south from
its intersection with Jarmans Gap Road [Route # 691]. The Comprehensive Plan designates this
property as Rural Area in Rural Area 3. (Yadira Amarante)
Mr. Rieley asked if any Commissioner would like to pull the item off the consent agenda for
further discussion. There being none, he asked if there was a motion.
Mr. Thomas moved to approve the consent agenda as presented.
Mr. Edgerton seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously (6:0). (Hopper — Absent)
Public Hearing Items:
ZMA-03-03 Eckerd Drug Store (Sign #73) — Request to rezone 1.753 acres from R-15 Urban
Density to C-1 Commercial to allow a drug store with a drive through window. The property,
described as Tax Map 78 Parcels 12, 12B and 55A4 is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District
on Rt. 250E (Richmond Road), at the northeast intersection of Route 250 East and Rolkin Road.
The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Urban Density Residential, recommended
for 6-34 units per acre in the Pantops Neighborhood (N3). (Tarpley Gillespie)
AND
SP-03-47 Eckerd Drug Store (Sign #73) - Request for special use permit to allow a drive -
through retail use in accordance with Section 22.2.2.10 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for
drive in windows serving or associated with permitted uses. (Tarpley Gillespie) DEFERRED
FROM THE SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 7, 2003 b 5
Ms. Gillespie summarized the staff report. She pointed out that a handout had been distributed
+' this evening on the proffers and staff comments. She stated that the applicant submitted some
additional materials last week that she wanted to share, but noted that staff had not been able to
review them. The Planning Commission last reviewed this item on July 1st when they reviewed
the conceptual road network for the Pantops Comp Plan Amendment. The Commission asked
staff to expand the scope of that CPA study to include the land use plan designations as they
relate to the road network. Due to contractual obligations the Eckerd applicant has chosen to
proceed with the rezoning request prior to our CPA study. The plan that is before the Commission
tonight is slightly modified from the July 1St plans that you saw. That plan did not meet a required
20-foot side yard setback to the adjacent residential property. Therefore, the applicant increased
the area to be rezoned in order to meet that setback requirement, which was at staff's request.
The property is designated for Urban Density Residential and the Pantops Development Area
profile recommends limiting strip development along Route 250 East by preventing commercial
development along the north side of the roadway from the interstate interchange to the Regional
Service Area, which is just west of this site. Staff analyzed this proposal in relation to the
Comprehensive Plan and found it to be in conflict with the intention of the Land Use Plan and with
the Development Area Profile.
Staff has identified two favorable factors to this request. The first is if the drive -through is
relocated to the rear of the property, which was in response to staff feedback. The second is that
the area to be rezoned has been oriented to accommodate the construction of Rolkin Road
Extended, which staff believes will enhance the connectivity within this development area.
Staff has identified several unfavorable factors to this request at this time. The first is that the
proposed use conflicts with the Land Use Plan designation and with the Development Area
Profile. The second is that at the previous work session, the Planning Commission advised that
zoning changes for this area should be considered after the review of the land use issues as part
of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA). Due to their resubmittal, staff has not yet
reviewed the draft proffers. Further, the applicant has not yet proffered the application plan at all,
but is simply asking for C-1 zoning. Additional information is needed to complete analysis of the
storm water management system. Due to the recent receipt of the traffic study, VDOT has not
had the opportunity to assess what are any transportation improvements that are necessitated by
this development. Staff is also concerned about the vehicle ingress and egress patterns as part
of the internal circulation on the site plan that is presented. As a result of these outstanding
issues, staff cannot recommend approval of the zma or the sp at this time.
Mr. Rieley asked if there were questions for staff. There being none, he opened the public
hearing and asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission.
Susan Whaley, of Mid Atlantic DSD who was the contract purchaser for the parcel, stated that
they were proposing an Eckerd pharmacy at this location. She pointed out that also present were
Katurah Roel representative for North Pantops Townhouses, who was the owner of the property,
and Kelly Strickland, of Rivanna Engineering. Basically, they fell that the Eckerd Pharmacy is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because the current zoning allows for neighborhood
service. There is an existing Eckerd Drug Store in the Pantops Shopping Center to the west of
this site. Their intention was to relocate to provide a larger store with a drive -through window to
expand the customers that they provide to their customers in this area and well as to the
additional residential that is being developed to the north in the Pantops Area. She stated that
Kelly Strickland would address some of the other staff concerns at this time.
Kelly Strickland, with Rivanna Engineering, stated that they had been working with Mid -Atlantic
DSD with this rezoning application. First of all he pointed out that they had gone through several
iterations of the site plan trying to make things work a little better on the site. He noted that they
*4W still had some issues with the parking reductions and working the circulation of the traffic through
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 7, 2003 Gr I
M
the site a little more. He stated that they would love to eliminate the four parking spaces that are
down in the corner next to Route 250 and provide landscaping there instead of the parking. He
pointed out that they would appreciate any help that the Commission might be able to provide
with that. The big question that came up at the work session this summer was the road network
and the master planning of the concept of road network behind this property. This road, Rolkin
Road Extended extends and connects to Avemore Development and Fontana. Avemore
Development is in the final stages of the final site plan approval. Fontana is just finishing its last
stage of development. Westminster Canterbury, which is located up on the hill, is just finishing up
some construction. The Moore property is a rezoning application that the Commission is going to
be hearing at some point in time. Also, there is another piece of property above Fontana that
connects further. What they were showing on sheet # 2 on the far right was a connection to the
existing Olympia Road and the existing Fontana Road. The houses are already built right to the
property line. Therefore, the connections are in place and ready to go. On the lower right side,
they were showing Sarah Road, which connects over near Aunt Sarah's Pancake House. That
alignment has been coordinated with VDOT to allow for a future connection from Stated Farm
Boulevard to come on through. He pointed out that it might be easier to see in the aerial
photograph. He pointed out that they feel that this zoning would be appropriate here because this
intersection on Route 250 at North Rolkin Road that connects all of these neighborhoods, which
makes it a center and makes it appropriate for a use such as Eckerd Pharmacy.
Mr. Rieley asked if there were questions for the applicants. There being none, he closed the
public hearing to bring the matter back to the Commission for discussion and possible action.
Mr. Thomas stated that he would like to ask staff a couple of questions. He stated that the
Planning staff does not recommend the approval of this due to the Comprehensive Plan
Ordinance and the way that it was written.
Ms. Gillespie stated that staff does not believe that this proposal is in accord with the Land Use
Plan designation of Urban Density Residential. Staff believes that this use is a little bit more than
a Neighborhood Service due to the building's 14, 000 square footage and the way the building
was oriented towards Route 250 rather than being an internal service integrated into a residential
neighborhood. Staff was also very concerned about the Development Area profile, which
recommends against allowing commercial development on this portion of Route 250.
Mr. Thomas asked if it was kind of an internal project anyway with the roads going down behind it
and beside it and not coming directly off of Route 250.
Ms. Gillespie stated that you could see it that way, but staff saw it being oriented along the Route
250 strip.
Mr. Thomas stated that there was a term that was talked about years ago on Pantops about no
strip between the Montessori and 1-64.
Mr. Benish stated that this site was more highway oriented than it was oriented to the
neighborhood with this center. He stated that the neighborhood center really appeared to be
across the street at the Giant Food and the shopping center area there. Based on the last work
session, the Commission actually corrected us to begin to evaluating some of the road
connections as they relate to land use issues. That helps to clarify what the expectations are
within these corridors. He pointed out that he was not present at the last meeting, but that was
the approach that staff was taking with this plan amendment.
Mr. Thomas asked if staff felt that these roads are not appropriate with what is there now. He
asked what else they could put in there that would change the road there anyway.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 7, 2003 {
Ms. Gillespie stated that staff does not have a concern about the location of Rolkin Road on this
plan. She pointed out that they had a specific concern about the use and some of the specifics of
%W the plan in the package that is before the Commission.
Mr. Thomas asked what could be built there.
Mr. Benish asked if he was asking under the Comp Plan designation.
Mr. Thomas stated under the Comp Plan designation.
Mr. Benish stated that the Comp Plan designation was Urban Density Residential, which provides
for essentially high -density residential development. The Urban Density Residential does call for
within an urban density area the possibility for some mix, but within the concept that it was
supporting residential development. The zoning designation was R-15.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if this was the only parcel on that side of Route 250 for some distance
that was not already in commercial zoning.
Ms. Gillespie stated that there was a strip just east of this piece that had a setback problem.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that his question was that up to a couple of parcels distance east beyond
this development, everything on that side of the road already carries commercial designations
and this was the only parcel that does not. Except for redevelopment you are not going to
achieve what the profile calls for anyway because they had already gone way beyond that.
Mr. Benish stated that most of the parcels have not been developed at this point of time. He
pointed out that there were some plans that had been approved for the Martha Jefferson
Development and Aunt Sarah's.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that the lots were zoned for commercial use
Ms. Gillespie stated that this was correct, except for the property between Nieguil Gray and this
site.
Mr. Finley asked what was the recommendation of the ARB.
Ms. Gillespie stated that the ARB had recommended approval with conditions.
Mr. Craddock questioned the status of the development of roads, especially the extra roads going
down to Fontana or maybe looping back around to State Farm. He asked if that was dependent
upon how everything else got developed.
Ms. Gillespie stated that staff was reviewing the Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) and
hoped to bring that to hearing within the next several months. There are some development
proposals on the table, which are not in conflict with that process or setting.
Mr. Benish stated that the roads in this general area were going to be developed as part of the
Luxor property. He stated that their general location or at least their connecting points have been
evaluated by the Engineering Department and are deemed to be relatively appropriate. He stated
that he did not think that their question with the CPA was on the Luxor site and the
appropriateness of the concepts that they have in place. That includes the entrance location at
Eckerd at Rolkin Drive is the location for the interconnection and from the Engineering standpoint
that was a viable location for that roadway relative to what has been found. The CPA really talks
about stepping back from the whole Pantops Plan and looking at how some of these roads as
they have been planned, such as the Luxor roads relate to other connections that staff feels like
we need to make. Therefore, as staff gets into working with applicants, they can establish which
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 7, 2003�
connections that they want and how they relate to one another. Also, staff can evaluate the land
use decisions that they have discretion on as to the appropriate use relative to those roadways.
Mr. Thomas asked Mr. Benish if he understood him to say that these roads were designed and in
place and this was the location where they were designed to go.
Mr. Benish stated that he was responding in relationship to the CPA that they have under way.
He stated that the CPA was generally going to accept the location of the Luxor Road and their
connecting points conceptually as the appropriateness location. He stated that through this
process and other processes that were started earlier, the Engineering Department has evaluated
these road locations and they do seem to be appropriate road locations and access points. He
emphasized that the question in the CPA was not to pinpoint the exact location of this roadway,
but to understand how the network would link. He stated that the CPA was probably assuming
the linkage between Fontana through Luxor up to Route 250 and how that relates to other
connections that they were going to make.
Mr. Rieley stated that when the Commission looked at this before a few weeks ago that a number
of Commissioners had some misgivings about the current Comprehensive Plan's designation and
how the pieces were fitting together. Some of the points that Mr. Thomas and Mr. Loewenstein
just made were made then as well. For that reason the Commission asked that this current study
of the road locations in that area be expanded into a CPA that would look more fully at the land
uses in that area. That would give the Commission a reassessment so that they would be in a
better position to make this determination. Now the Commission still does not have any more
information than they had at the last meeting. He stated that the proposal was not in compliance
with the Comprehensive Plan. The only way that you could say that it was in compliance with the
Neighborhood Plan was to say that it was a Neighborhood Service and not Highway Commercial.
He pointed out that from the illustration it was very clear that this proposal was oriented to Route
250. This was exactly the kind of development that the Comprehensive Plan says should not be
there. He stated that his misgiving about this was not with the points that Mr. Thomas and Mr.
Loewenstein made, even though they were good points. But, he pointed out that he was
extremely reluctant to support a plan that is categorically a rezoning that is categorically at odds
with both the Comprehensive Plan and the Neighborhood Plan. He stated that the applicant was
here because the current zoning would not allow this use.
Mr. Thomas stated that he liked the plan, the design of the building and the location of the roads.
He pointed out that the property was just not zoned properly.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that was why they were here, which was why he was prepared to support
the request. He pointed out that the rezoning would fix these problems.
Mr. Finley stated that he was prepared to vote in favor of this request.
Mr. Edgerton stated that he felt strongly that this proposal was contrary to the Comprehensive
Plan and there was really no use in having a Comprehensive Plan if they were going to ignore it.
He stated that it was more than a stretch to refer to this as Neighborhood Service. The reason
why they wanted to locate here is to take advantage of the strip development model to be closer
to Regional Service. He doubted seriously if just the residents located behind them could support
the economy of the Eckerd Drug Store. He felt that they would depend on the traffic from Route
250. The applicants have tried with their facade treatment to address both the Route 250 and
Rolkin Road facades. He noted that the reality was that the entrance was still on the Route 250
side and the internal circulation on the site was a total disaster. He pointed out that there was no
way to fix the circulation because it was being driven by the need for the drive -through isle in the
rear of the store, which the ARB wanted. In short of putting the drive -through in the front of the
store there was really no way to make the circulation work because of the steering wheels on
most vehicles was on the left hand side. He felt that the only way the drive -through would work
'%r was to come off of Route 250 at the additional entrance that they had requested. He pointed out
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 7, 2003 21
1
[10
En
that he had hoped that they would have had more information in order to be able to look at this
with a bigger picture. Without the additional information requested, he stated that he could not
support the rezoning request. He felt that it was inappropriate and that the community would be
better served by the existing zoning for the R-15, which would allow 24 residences on this site
rather than an additional strip development.
Mr. Craddock asked if the circulation would be improved if the four parking places were
eliminated towards the front so that they could get a bigger planting median.
Ms. Gillespie stated that she did not think that would help the area in question around the
building.
Mr. Edgerton stated that if one tried to enter off Rolkin Road with a right turn, and then navigate
around to the drive -through window, there really is not way to do it without creating a conflict
between pedestrians and vehicles. If the principles of the Neighborhood Model were used, it was
even more preposterous to make sense out of it.
Mr. Rieley stated that this rezoning plan does not have a proffered plan with it and, therefore, it
does not have any proffers that have been evaluated by staff. He pointed out that he did not
recall a time that the Commission has approved something without a proffered plan particularly
with a plan with so many concerns.
Mr. Edgerton pointed out that in order for the applicant to do this plan they would need three
access points.
Mr. Benish pointed out that if there was a favorable action, it would be advisable the Commission
advise the Board of Supervisors that their actions should be based on submittal and evaluation of
the proffers that would allow the third access point.
Action on Rezonin_g:
Mr. Edgerton moved to recommend denial of ZMA-03-03, Eckerd Drug Store, for the reasons
presented in the staff report.
Mr. Rieley stated that the motion failed for the lack of a second. He asked for another motion.
Mr. Loewenstein moved to recommend approval of ZMA-03-03, Eckerd Drug Store.
Mr. Finley seconded the motion.
Mr. Rieley asked if the Commission would like to see as Mr. Benish suggested that they add
language that requests that the proffers be fully worked out before it goes to the Board of
Supervisors.
Mr. Kamptner asked if that motion includes amending the 1995 proffer dealing with the access.
Mr. Loewenstein agreed that the motion did include both of the suggested conditions to be met
before the Board review.
Mr. Finley agreed to add both conditions to his second.
The motion carried by a vote of (4:2) with the two conditions to be met before the Board review.
(Rieley & Thomas — No)
Mr. Rieley stated that ZMA-2003-003 would go to the Board with a recommendation for approval.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 7, 2003 G 3
Action on Special Use Permit:
Mr. Loewenstein moved to recommend the approval of SP-03-47, Eckerd Drug Store.
Mr. Craddock seconded the motion.
Mr. Kamptner ascertained that there were no conditions of approval of this special use permit.
The motion carried by a vote of (4:2). (Rieley, Edgerton — No)
Mr. Rieley stated that SP-03-47 would go to the Board with a recommendation for approval.
Action on Waiver of Buffer.
Mr. Loewenstein moved for approval of the waiver of Section 21.7.3 buffer of the Zoning
Ordinance as requested by the applicant.
Mr. Craddock seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of (4:2). (Rieley, Edgerton — No)
Mr. Rieley stated that the buffer request was approved.
Mr. Thomas recollected that there was a request to move four parking spaces so that they could
landscape that corner. He asked how they would handle that.
Ms. Gillespie stated that the modification would have to be granted by the Zoning Administrator
and she was in the process of working with the applicant on completing that application.
Mr. Rieley pointed out that the special use permit was obviously conditional upon the Board of
Supervisors concurring with the recommendations of the ZMA. The Board of Supervisors will
hear these requests on November 5cn
The Planning Commission took a 15 minutes break at 6:30 p.m. to move the meeting to the
Auditorium.
The meeting convened at 6:45 p.m. in the Auditorium.
SP-03-19 (Sign #84 & 88) & SUB-03-43 Vineyard Estates Rural Preservation Development
Preliminary Plat - Request for special use permit to allow a Rural Preservation Development of
30 development lots, ranging in size from 4.1 to 7.5 acres with one preservation tract of 328.7
acres, in accordance with Sections 10.2.2.28 and 10.2.2.30 of the Zoning Ordinance which allow
for divisions of land as provided in section 10.5 and permitted residential uses as provided in
section 10.5. The property, described as Tax Map 103 Parcels 3, 7, 8,9,10 and 15, contains
510.6 acres, and is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District on Blenheim Road [Route # 727]
approximately 0.7 miles from the intersection of Routes 727 and 627. The property is zoned RA
Rural Areas and FH Flood Hazard Overlay. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as
Rural Area. (Margaret Doherty) DEFERRED FROM THE AUGUST 26, 2003 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING.
Mr. Rieley stated that when the applicant for this proposal came before the Commission with a
proposal for a farm store a couple of years ago he reclused himself because of consulting work
that he had done for the applicant. Now enough time has passed so that he no longer had any
reason to recluse himself and he would participate fully.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 7, 2003 6 6 LI
En
Ms. Doherty summarized the staff report. This is the Vineyard Estate Preservation Development.
The applicant is proposing to develop 510 acres into a Rural Preservation Development of 28
development lots ranging in size from 4.1 to 7.5 acres with preservation tracts totaling 333.3
acres, in accordance with Section 10.2.2.28 and 10.2.30 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows
for divisors of land as provided in Section 10.5. Three of the existing parcels are currently in the
Lanark Agricultural/Forestal District. A portion of the property is currently being used by the
applicant for vineyards. A National Register property, known as Blenheim, is located on and
adjacent parcel. The proposed development shows areas for vineyards, orchards, meadows and
sheep grazing. The layout does not meet the design standards for rural preservation
developments and does not meet the goals and objectives of the Rural Areas as found in the
Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, staff finds that the purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance
have not been met with this proposal and recommends denial of the special permit for a Rural
Preservation Development. The preliminary plat and private road request rely on the special
permit approval and have not been found to meet the requirements of the subdivision ordinance,
and are therefore not ready for Planning commission action. Should the Planning Commission
favor this proposal in concept, staff recommends further design of the Rural Preservation
Development in accord with ordinance requirements before the special permit is approved.
Mr. Thomas asked how low ground water availability was determined.
Ms. Doherty explained that this was determined by using existing water studies undertaken by the
Water Resource Planner.
Mr. Rieley asked if there were questions for Ms. Doherty.
Mr. Rieley noted that on page 6 of the staff report, there is an analysis by zoning regarding the
determination of allowable lots. It seems that the plans presented by the applicant have a
numbers of lots that are questionable. It seems that is a fundamental a beginning point for this
assessment. Is this correct? If so, why do we have a plan in front of us for which we don't know
the number of allowable lots?
Ms. Doherty stated that this was correct. The applicant decided to pursue the special use permit.
These comments were provided to the applicant earlier, but have not yet been revised. Your
analysis of our analysis is correct. The applicant wanted to proceed with the public hearing to
discuss the concept. This is why we do not have any analysis on the preliminary plat or public
road request because it has not been found to comply with ordinance and is not yet ready for
action. If the Commission favors the special use permit then the applicant would get the
preliminary plat in a position where it could be approved if the special permit was approved.
Mr. Rieley ascertained that he presumes this is the reason that the special use permit is before
the Commission, but the preliminary plat is not. He noted the analysis on the impact of roads
from VDOT that seems to be contradictory.
Ms. Doherty stated that this is Code language and is a standard that has to be met. In other
words they are not meeting these criteria.
Mr. Rieley noted staff's summary of findings on page 17, in which there are nine unfavorable
conditions. Condition # 6 deals with traffic. # 7 deals with the fact that access road falls across a
forested stream valley, #8 deals with the fact that a number of lots would be located in an area of
relatively low ground water availability. And # 9 deals with the effects of interspersing residential
development among working vineyards. Is seems each of these factors would be equally true of
a by -right development as it would a rural preservation development. By definition a rural
preservation development cannot exceed the number of lots that are available to a landowner by
right.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 7, 2003 L � 5
Ms. Doherty stated that #9 speaks to a specific layout proposed so you would need to know the
layout by right and #7 is a specific proposed access road. These could be different in a by -right
scenario.
Mr. Rieley stated that it was important for everyone to understand that typically the benchmark for
rural preservation developments is the by -right development and the degree to which the
arrangement of the development lots is better or not better than that that could be achieved by
right. The number of development rights and whether or not the property can be developed is not
before the Commission at this time.
Mr. Finley noted that #6 states that WDOT finds that the increase in traffic associated with this
development will create unsafe conditions on Rt. 627. VDOT cannot approve the entrance onto
Rt. 795 shown on the concept plan unless improvements are made to the intersection of Rt. 705
and 620." Is it possible to make these improvements and has the applicant indicated a
willingness to do this?
Ms. Doherty stated that is was possible to meet VDOT's requirements; however the applicant has
not done any design work to date.
Mr. Finley stated that #7 speaks to the access road for Lot 24 crossing a forested steam. He
believes this could be relocated.
Ms. Doherty stated that the access road for Lot 24 should be accessed from the same road that
connects to Lot 23.
Mr. Finely stated that # 9 speaks to the public health impacts and asked if there were any facts
provided?
Mr. Doherty stated that the Rural Areas Comprehensive Study provides some information on this.
Staff has asked for more information from the applicant. It is an important issue that has not been
entirely flushed out, but if you were to mix residential with the agricultural use there is a potential
conflict, but it is separated from the agricultural use as a traditional rural preservation
development there is less of an issue.
Mr. Finely stated that he has been in many old farmhouses in his lifetime which were adjacent to
all kinds of pesticides and fertilizers.
Mr. Finley noted that #3 stated that the proposed development does not meet the goals and
objectives for the Rural Area. Residential development is not prohibitive in the Rural Areas.
Should this not read that it does not meet all of the goals?
Ms. Doherty stated that on page 2 of the staff report, notes that the main objective of the Rural
Area Plan is to discourage rural residential development other than dwellings related to a bona
fide agricultural/forestal use. Limited amount of residential development, which is permitted in the
Rural Areas, shall be located in a manner to minimize impact on rural resources and to minimize
conflict with agricultural/forestall activities.
Mr. Benish pointed out that staff does not have any verification as to the number of by -right
development lots, noting that this analysis is an important element of the evaluation.
Mr. Finley noted that it is staff's opinion that the proposed development should be accomplished
without any negative impact to the historic property and it scenic setting. Are there guidelines for
determining what would have diverse effects?
Ms. Doherty stated that this comment comes from the Design Planner who uses the National
%W Guidelines for Historic Properties.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 7, 2003
Mr. Craddock noted that three of the six parcels are in the Lanark Agricultural/Forestal district.
When do they expire? How many lots could be provided?
Ms. Doherty stated that she will provide this information to the Commission.
Mr. Rieley stated that before opening the meeting to public comment, he would like to review the
basic ground rules and make a few requests. The applicant will have 10 minutes for a
presentation of its application. Then each person who would like to speak on the proposal and
has signed in will be called one at a time. Each person has three minutes. After going through
the list, anyone else can address the Commission for three minutes each. After that the applicant
has five minutes to respond to comments/issues that were made by other speakers. The Planning
Commission's action on the special use permit is advisory to the Board of Supervisors. When
and if the preliminary subdivision and private road requests are submitted, they are approved by
the Planning Commission, but can be appealed to the Board of Supervisors. The issues before
the Commission is land use decisions that run with the land and are not with any individual
person. Personal comments about individuals are not pertinent. As one of our speakers stated
we can disagree without being disagreeable. Please do not applaud as it takes allot of extra time
and makes it difficult to hear the next speaker. Some speakers have asked that everyone that
agrees with their points to stand up. Doing this once gives the Commission an idea of the
feelings of the group. Following these basic guidelines will allow us to move forward in a timely
fashion.
Mr. Rieley asked if the applicant had any comment.
Frank Cox stated that he is representing the Kluges on the Vineyard Estates. It is important that
rather than going into a detailed a rationale about lot lines, they present the logic of the
construction. They are trying to ascertain if the preservation approach is better than the by -right
approach. He went trough a series of slides, which gave a general orientation of the 511-acre
property. There is a small amount of frontage on Carter's Mountain Road,
Blenheim Road and Pleasants Road at the south of the property. The terrain of the property in a
rural area is important to determine whether a special use permit is warranted or develop under
the conventional by -right procedures. The organization of this site with respect to its natural
fixtures the 70 acres of critical slopes, valleys, areas that have less than satisfactory ground
cover, highly erodable areas. Basically this site is one that is not conducive for farming operation
or grazing or crops. As we looked at it found some opportunities that fit in with the interest of the
property owner. With that came the Vineyard Master Plan. We fist worked with the Vineyard
horticulturalist at Virginia Tech, who has specialized in this work for 30 years, to identify not only
the soils for aspect of winery and vineyard operation, but also to identify those pockets that would
be conducive to maintaining erosion controls and protect small pockets of prime soils on the site.
One of concept is identify areas outside of those and provide for plantings that will grow and be a
part of the arm store operation that is currently in place. With both the orchards and the vineyards
there is approximately 100 acres of land that can be set aside and preserved. Due to the land
features this land is not contiguous. In combining the meadows, pastures and the orchards, one
of the hopes is to raise goats and sheep in isolated pasture areas. Unfortunately, there are not
many of them. The pastures would be fenced to provide safety and protection for small livestock.
When you combine the vineyards, meadows, orchards and gardens, there is approximately 200
acres of land within the 511 acre property that we feel has been accessed for those particular
agricultural uses. The existing vegetative cover ranges from poor too horrible. The timberland is
on the third and fourth growth. One of the goals we have on particularly on sensitive steep slopes
around the main drainage way is to undertake an extensive reforestation program that would
embrace 175 acres. Added to that is the opportunity to create ponds and water features and to
provide access along the existing farm roads and logging roads; which will be upgraded to be
compatible and comfortable for farm workers into the property. The Carter's Mountain Road
entrance would be the main entrance into the property. One of the design concepts is to create a
private road system. The private road system with the opportunity for gated control will prevent
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 7, 2003 b
through traffic and provide those working within the farm area and those living there with a
heightened level of safety and security. We have an agricultural master plan with vineyards,
' 'ftw orchards, forested areas, garden meadows, water future opportunities; the total preservation area
is over 330 acres. The applicant has tried to reconcile the goals and objectives favored by staff,
with those that represent a more site -specific sensitivity of the land. An issue, which is still
unresolved, is the plan for the estate residence.
Mr. Rieley asked for public comment regarding this petition.
Antoinette Brewster stated that she and her husband own Lanark Farm, which is adjacent to the
Kluge Vineyard proposed development. She noted that there are 500 signed petitions, which
have been presented to the Planning Commission, from both Albemarle County and City
residents, in opposition to this proposal. She noted that Charlottesville residents believe that
granting of this special use permit will have adverse effect on them also. She pointed out that the
petition refers to 33 lots, however, when the Agricultural/Forestal Committee reviewed this it was
noted that this should be 28 lots. It is not the number of lots that is the issue as much as the
intrusion upon the Agricultural/Forestal district. The current application is still dividing lots in an
Agricultural/Forestal district to measure less than 21 acres. Approval of this request could
weaken the agricultural, rural and forestal ordinances. This not about saving the family farm, or
opposing a by -right use of land, or opposing a zoning change, this is about protecting the integrity
of an existing ordinance. This is about keeping the rural area rural.
Kathy Rash noted her concern regarding the flood and storm water control. She noted that last
year there was an enormous amount of rainfall. During that time a levee broke on Wellesley
Farm, which is now owned by the University of Virginia. As that level broke, which is on Carters
Mountain Road, she noted that the road, shoulders and bridges were washed away. VDOT had
to rebuild this area. She questioned what would happen with all of the storm water if this area is
developed. If this project is approved, she questioned what would be done with the road systems
in this area. She presented a copy of the floodplain in this area, noting that Rt. 627 is on a
floodplain. She asked if the topography of the road will change. Will Rt. 627 be taken out of the
floodplain or will the road be raised. She reiterated her concern with the additional traffic and
storm water runoff.
Bob Rash presented a video showing the damage sustained on Rt. 627, Carter's Mountain Road,
during the flood of July 2, 2003. Rt. 627 was washed out; bridges and shoulders had to be
rebuilt. His concern with the project or any change in that area is how it will affect storm water
controls. Rt. 627 was closed for days last year; even emergency vehicles could not get in or out.
If this project is approved, what improvements will be done to Rt. 627?
Nellie Houchens stated that she has lived in this area for 73 years. She has always been fond of
history and has worked at Ash Lawn and Monticello for 45 years. She grew up on a farm
between Ash Lawn and Morven and remembers waling to a one -room school in the area. The
area is rich in history, not only Monticello and Ash Lawn; there are many other unique sites in the
area. One is Slate Hill Baptist Church which dates back before the Civil War period. Another
church in the area dates back to 1879 and was built for slaves and was purchased by Harden
Lewis for $5.62. Blenheim another home in the area was built in 1745 by Robert Charter,
Secretary of the Colonies. This is the home that Thomas Jefferson and his bride stopped in to
warm themselves before going on to Monticello. Morven, which dates back to 1821, is known for
its stately gardens. Along with these homes are many other homes which back to the 1700's. Her
property has been in her family since 1798. There are many concerns in our community
regarding this proposal. It will not only diminish the agricultural/forestal districts in Albemarle
County but would change the character of the community.
Virginia Clump stated that she lives on Keelona Farm, which was purchased by her mother in the
1950's. There have been four generations of her family living here. She pointed out a couple of
things that she feels is difficult in combining a residence and a vineyard. The first one is the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 7, 2003 �6 i�
problem of deer control. Are there barricades or vineyard fencing to keep them out? Will there
be organized shoots with permits from the Department of Inland Game and Fisheries? She noted
that in 2002, 106 deer kill permits were issued and 944 deer were killed in Albemarle County or
harvested under the special permit. In 2003 eighty-eight permits have been issued so far this year
and fifteen of those killed permits are for vineyards. The deer kill or harvesting is normally done
at nights with sharp shooters and spotlights. She wondered on this proposal will fit in with
residential living. She also pointed out that guard dogs, which roam the inside perimeters of the
area, are normally used in vineyards. This is another thing that is in conflict with residential
development. Another is the control of plant diseases like powdery mildew. Agricultural needs to
be able to control diseases, but residential development does not need to be next to the vines.
She also noted that employees use four wheelers to get around in the vineyards and the number
of vehicles needed to transport workers to and from vineyards. Farm living is a lot of work. She
stated that she does not know the answer to these concerns, but pointed out that they are in
conflict with residential development.
Ben Brewster stated that he lives on Lanark Farm, which abuts the Kluge property. In 1988 he
put his farm in the Lanark Agricultural/ Forest District because he felt preserving agricultural and
forestal areas were important to the county and neighborhood. Given the development he has
seen since 1988, he believes more strongly in the benefits of the agricultural/forestal districts.
People choose to live in Albemarle County for many reasons. One of which is its historical
integrity. Farms and forests are lost in other parts of the state. This integrity enhances the value
of our historical assets and helps generate revenue for the county. The County's Comprehensive
Plan amended in July 10, 2002 appears to share the same feelings when it says on page 3
"agricultural and forestall resources have been identified as the most critical county resources in
the desired primary land use in the rural area. It goes on to say that lost of these resources to
development is irreversible and irreplaceable." We were willing to limit development rights in
exchange for protection against non-agricultural development. We are opposed to the special
use permit, which would allow residential development in an agricultural/forestal district. The
area currently contains vineyards, meadows and forests so that clearly are not the cause of our
concern. It is the development of 28 houses that causes our concern, which is aggravated by the
fact that the development does not conform to the exiting development's cluster rules. We
believe that such a development is in opposition to the rural area codes which state that
residential development not related to agricultural use shall be encourage to locate in the
designated growth areas where services and utilities are available and where such development
will have minimal impact on rural resources and agricultural/forestal activities. From a broader
perspective, granting the special use permit would weaken the agricultural/forestal ordinance
countywide and set a precedent for other development.
Svaha Woodward stated that three generations of her family has lived at Colle on Route 53.
Sixty years ago her father-in-law saw the possible loss of farm and forestland in the County. As a
result of this, he placed all of his farm and forestland under easement. His actions have been
beneficial to the county, wildlife and to the tourist who visit our area. According to the last forestry
assessment Albemarle County has lost 21,400 acres of forest to the government in the last nine
years. Most will agree that the country roads through this valley are some of the prettiest, if not
the safest in the county. Any increase in traffic would require the roads to be widened which
would destroy the scenic character of the area. She asked the Commission to consider
commitments made by landowners in the area to preserve the character of the area. This
proposal sets a bad precedent for the agricultural/forestal district and goes against what so many
people in the area have worked for.
Pat Payne asked the Commission to put themselves in their shoes. In the neighborhood, which
she lives in the residents, have been there for many years. The average cost of their homes is
$85,000 to $175,000. The homes in this proposed development are higher, which means that
taxes will be increased. She noted that middle income people do not want to be taxed out of their
homes. Twenty-eight new homes will have a substantial impact on the roads as well as schools
in the area. She also noted that there was a quarry in this area. Another concern was the impact
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 7, 2003 r
to natural resources in the area. She asked that the Commission take into consideration
concerns such as increased taxes, water resources, roads, schools, etc.; and not just increased
revenue for Albemarle County. She noted that the road but could not handle increased traffic.
She again asked the Commission to put themselves in their shoes and reminded them that they
are the voters.
Marcia Joseph representing the Southwest Mountain Coalition stated that the decision the
Commission makes tonight will affect development in agricultural/forestal districts in other parts of
the County. We understand the legal argument that approval of this application does not set
precedent for development in other parts of the county; however, it will be very hard for the
Commission to deny a similar request in the future if you approve the Vineyard Estates. We are
also concerned that this application might set a standard for cluster development in the County.
As you are aware, the arrangement of lots does not allow for preservation tract that is removed
geographically or factor ally and visually from the residential lots. As a former employee of the
Albemarle County Zoning Department, I know that folks on adjacent residential lots perceive
many agricultural uses as nuisances. There are other factors that make this development difficult
to accept. One is the argument that the lot placement has been done to preserve prime vineyard
land. According to the staff report, saving the suitable vineyard elevation and soils is not the
overriding element in the design as presented. The applicant proposes a private road that uses
21 acres of the site; which equates to 3/4 of an acre of road per lot. One of the benefits of
clustering to a community is to minimize the length of impervious roadways, thereby minimizing
the runoff and construction into existing fields and woodlands. This particular subdivision road
does not ride like a like ribbon on the landscape. There are bridges, and streams with 25' of fill.
It is not a gentle intrusion in the environment. This gated community with sheep pastures and
attention to architectural detail, may be an attractive area to drive through but does not present a
cluster development that should be approved or replicated in Albemarle County. As the
representative for the Southwest Mountain Coalition, I would like to ask the Commission to deny
the request for Vineyard Estates. She asked that all those opposed to this development stand
and be recognized.
Annette Patterson, representing Wanda Collier who could not be here tonight. We are very
concerned about development in the community. We as well as other residents in the area are
concerned with increased taxes, which will create a hardship for many in the area. She noted
that this development could dramatically change the character of the area. It has been a dream
of Ms. Collier to own this home for many years.
Karen Collier stated that she resides in the Blenheim Road area and is opposed to this
development. If the Commission approves this special use permit, you will be adding to the
destruction of the agricultural district within in Albemarle County and will open doors for other
major developments. This development will not only have an impact on roads and the natural
beauty of the area, it will raise taxes and have an adverse effect on wildlife in the area. This
project not only goes against the agricultural/forestal district, but is not in compliance with several
sections of the Zoning Ordinance and does not meet the goals for the rural area outlined in the
Comprehensive Plan. As to roads, VDOT has stated that increased traffic will create unsafe
conditions on the already strained roads in the area. Half of the lots will be located in an area of
relatively low groundwater availability. Not only is this a problem, but this community has been
told that the project would benefit the community. This is a gated community, not an open door
policy. As natives of this community we would not enjoy the native gardens and walking paths of
this development. In closing, I would ask the Commission to deny this request.
Scott Smith stated the developer is aware that the County is reviewing the Comprehensive Plan
with an eye to limiting the density of rural development. The developers must also be aware of
the County's on -going ground water study and its impact on the subdivision ordinance. The
special use the applicant seeks would cease to be in existence once the land ceases to be an
exception once the land ceases to be under state protection as an agricultural/forestal district. It
is not clear that the vineyard can be sustained as part of a residential development or productive
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 7, 2003 (r r7
agricultural land. Special permission now is in the interest of the developer since is ensures that
the interfering interest of the public will not have a chance to manifest. To grant the special
permission sought by the developer would not be the same thing as allowing them to break the
law, but by effectively removing the publicly sponsored protection enjoyed by agricultural land
would ensure that the law would be broken, useless and stripped of its power to protect the public
still required to pay for it.
Jim Lark stated that he lives in the Buck Mountain area of Albemarle County and is here tonight
to ask the Commission to approve the special use permit for Vineyard Estates. His main reason
is philosophical, he believes people have the right to use their property as they see fit unless that
use violates the rights of other. As far as he can see, the applicant's plans do not violate rights of
others. He felt the concerns he has heard tonight should be addressed through means other than
those of land use restrictions.
David Hamar stated that he lives on rural property in the southwest mountain district. He is
concerned with the rapidly changing character of Albemarle County and feels that this proposal
will have a direct impact on the degradation of the vernacular quality of the county. This parcel is
in one of the few remaining rural areas of the county. Several parcels are in the
agricultural/forestal district and I urge the Commission too not to do anything to decrease the
protection afforded by the agricultural/forestal districts. He questioned the economic viability of
this project. He questioned where the agricultural activities would be in a relatively short period
of time. He urged the Commission to deny the special use permit.
John Grisham stated that he lives in the southern part of Albemarle County. Ten years ago he
brought a 200-year-old estate between North Garden and Covesville. He moved here in 1994
and has been here every since. He moved here from an area where zoning, comprehensive
plans, conservation easements, and agricultural/forestal districts were virtually unheard of. The
folks who lived there believed strongly that a man can build anything he wants to on his own
property. No permits, inspections or approval were required except for hog farms or nuclear
reactors. What is special about Albemarle County is that people care deeply about their land.
We elect leaders who believe in zoning, comprehensive plans and will enact ordinances that
place residential developments where it belongs in growth areas, not in agricultural district. In the
past five or six years I have been fortunate to work with Piedmont Environmental Council and the
Virginia Outdoors Foundation and we have placed 1800 acres in the conservation easement. We
are now working to place this land in the agricultural/forestal district program. To grant an
exception here, and another one tomorrow, soon you have no ordinance. For those of us who
care deeply about the preservation of land, this makes us very nervous.
Brian Rogers represents Defenders of Property Rights, the nation's only national public interest
foundation dedicated to protect private property rights. Defenders believe that the Vineyard
Estates request is exactly the type of development Albemarle County should encourage. Zoning
by definition is designed to serve as a model for development and local jurisdictions. It is not a
one size fits all code, because if it were houses and businesses would all look alike. The
Commonwealth of Virginia has granted Albemarle County authority over land use and
development. The County has seen fit to allow certain types of development by way of a special
use permit. This is not a request to withdraw from the current zoning; rather to ask that a special
permit that will not set a precedent. The current zoning law allows approximately 30 homes to be
built on the 511-acre parcel each on its own 201-acre lot with its own infrastructure. The owners
want to scatter 28 homes over meadows and forests. Over 65%of the land would be placed in a
preservation tract on which no development will ever take place. This project would lead
Albemarle County into the profitable and environmental sustainable wine industry. This project
serves as a role model for integrating agricultural land use and profitable development striking
exactly the kind of balance between property rights, economic growth and environmental
protection. Defenders encourage this Commission to set an example of smarter growth and
development by approving this special use permit.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 7, 2003 (0 7
Harold Olinger stated that he is a retired forester living in the Scottsville district. As a forester he
was trained to manage forestland to root products, wildlife habitat, and quality of water, recreation
and aesthetics values. The priorities for these values may vary with individual owners. The way to
accomplish this is to maintain biological diversity on a landscape basis. Fortunately an
experienced forester can maximize any one of these values without seriously minimizing any of
the other values. He noted the large amount of Virginia forestland being lost to development
every year. Sixty-four thousand acres of forestland is lost in Virginia every year. Much of this is
concentrated in a few small areas, one of which is Albemarle County. Since 1992, twenty-one
thousand acres of forest have been lost in Albemarle County. The Kluge proposal comes close
to being the ideal model for development n a forestal setting. The Kluge plan does include 300
acres to be managed with forest. The diversity of forest, meadow, vineyard and water, will be the
ideal habit for deer and other animals. Several of the species in this habitat may become over
populated and become a potential management problem. Large home sites are often a big
problem to foresters. Economy, scale and proximity to houses preclude most management
practices. The Kluge Vineyard plan calls for 6-8 acres lot which are widely spaced. The Kluge
proposal is a forested eco-system.
Joe Rinkevich, representing the Earlysville Area Residents League, stated that they support
development consistent with the preservation of the quality of life and environment as articulated
in the County's Comprehensive Plan. Each year they conduct a survey of the Earlysville
residents to get feedback on development, quality of life, and the state of public feelings in our
area. The 2003 survey produced some interesting feedback. Relative to today's discussion our
survey indicated that residents in the Earlysville area favored the rural attributes of open space,
agricultural activities and county roads as most worthy of preservation. It is because these value
features of Albemarle County are currently threatened by developments such as the Vineyard
Estates that we ask the Commission to deny the rural preservation development request. He
noted that the staff report clearly and eloquently list many reasons why this development should
not be approved. The negative impacts on the rural character of the area will far outweigh any
potential benefits. We ask that the Commission deny this request.
Karla Miller, lives on Milton Road, stated that "government like fire is our most useful servant, if
controlled by us —it's citizens. And government, exactly like fire, becomes our most destructive
master if not fully controlled by the open majority of its constructive working citizens." Tonight
these majorities of constructive working citizens have signed petitions, emailed, phone, and came
to a Tuesday night meeting. You our representative government body, please listen to their
voices. Deny the special zoning permit to Vineyard Estates to development. Thank you.
Patty McGraw stated that she is representing Ben & Antoinette Brewster. There has been a great
deal of discussion and still unresolved confusion about what the applicant can do by -right with
these parcels. The staff report concludes that, it is safe to say, that the applicant can develop by
right up to 30 lots on these parcels, one more than the 29 proposed. Which fact the applicant
used to argue that this proposed development is not more intensive than that allowed by right.
That argument assumes that intensity is measured solely in terms of number of lots with no
consideration given to the size or the configuration of those lots. An assumption, which flies in
the face of the Code itself, which does not simply count lots when looking at a proposed
development. The fact is the question of what the applicant would do by right is a diversionary
one. The 30 lots the applicant could allegedly have by right are not by any means the measure of
the same 29 lots the applicant wants. This is why we have this application for a special permit
rather than a by -right development. And the question is should the special permit be granted. As
the staff report eloquently explains the answer to that question is no. This development does not
qualify as a rural preservation development. The applicant candidly admitted that in the process
calling the guidelines for such developments antiquated, fundamentally flawed, and inconsistent
with the new paradigm, which is allegedly been created by contemporary vineyard planners of
mixing up scaled residential estates with producing vineyards. Whether such a new paradigm
has been, in fact, been created elsewhere is not the question. The fact is not the paradigm that
this County has chosen after much thought and deliberation. Nor does this development qualify
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 7, 2003 6 1,,Z.
for a special use permit. It is not consistent with the purposes of either the rural area district or
`* the agricultural/forestal district. Nor does it comport with the precepts of the rural area plan.
Even though the granting of a special use permit does not necessarily constituent binding
precedent in the strictly legal sense, the request still constitutes a radical departure from the
policy set forth in the County Code and would send the wrong signal to future applicants all of
whom, I think, you can expect will undoubtedly cite this precedent, if granted, loudly and often.
So my clients along with the other 400 signatories of petitioners opposing this petition ask that the
Commission defend and protect the property rights which are really at issue here. And these are
not the property rights of the applicant, which acquired land subject to strictures, which it now
seeks to have lifted pursuant to a special use permit. A special use permit for which it does not
qualify. Instead the rights that need to be protected are the rights of the adjacent landowners
such as my clients. Not to mention the inchoate rights of all those citizens of Albemarle County
who are interested in protecting and preserving the rural areas. Those are the property rights,
which are in danger here, and those are the rights, which must be protected. We ask that you
deny the special use permit.
John Marquis voiced his support for the Vineyard Estates project. He has lived in the area more
than 20 years and his late father, John Marquis, Sr., actually owned the Blenheim tract that is part
of this project. He and his father started a vineyard in 1980 at Blenheim Farm. Personally he
finds the reasoning of lack of water to be unfounded as he can personally state that the area
around Blenheim Farm has an abundant source of water. There are three wells at Blenheim
Farm with roughly a 50-gallon per minute flow. Water was used to water and spray grapes and
for different farm operations. This project is appealing as it serves the rural environment by
devoting roughly 65% or more than 300 acres to vineyards, orchards and lakes. His complaint in
the past on rural development in general is that so little land remains once all the houses are
built. He hopes that more developers will emulate this type of project and preserve more land.
This project can only benefit the community. He asked the Commission to support the project.
Mr. Rieley reiterated that outbursts from the audience will not be tolerated. If this happens again
you will be asked to leave.
Wren Olivia stated that she lives on a farm in southern Albemarle County where she and her
husband raise sheep on a farm, which has been in her family for almost 150 years. She is
speaking in opposition to the Vineyard Estates proposal. In a recent survey of County residents,
a sizeable majority supported preservation of open spaces and protection of natural resources.
This proposal does neither one of these things. It would be a sprawling, gated suburb in the
midst of an agricultural/forestal district meeting only some of the design standards established for
any allowable development in such an area. The residents of our county, as well as our county
government officials, must work diligently to prevent such developments from desiccating our
natural resources. A healthy eco-system is essential for all of us humans and non -humans to
survive. I urge you to vote no to this proposal.
Madison Spencer stated that did not think the irony of this should all go unnoticed. This is a
situation where a couple is committed to actually returning a thriving agricultural enterprise back
to the County. To deny them the opportunity to continue their success with what they have
already established as one of the most important vineyards in our State I think is foolhardy. This
is an opportunity to take into account a precedent setting strategy that does what it should do.
That is returning a thriving, re -enforce the agricultural enterprise. I also have to say that the two
people behind it, Bill Moses and Patricia Kluge have done nothing but conduct themselves in the
most forthright manner in terms of philanthropy or commitment to agricultural undertakings. It has
been success after success. If there was an operation that we should be embracing in terms of
setting a new standard by how we build and combine agricultural enterprises in this community, I
think this is it. I have not seen anything before the Commission that speaks to the heart of the
matter in the way this project does. It is a project we should embrace more than anything.
really do. I will leave it at that.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 7, 2003 ' '7
Don Gilberg stated that he is living with the smart growth imposed on us in Middleburg, where I
live. I live next to a 53-acre parcel of land where we now have 50-acre minimum growth. I am a
contributor to PEC. My wife lived in Preston County, West Virginia where she grew up on a farm.
We were impressed with the smart growth when we went to Middleburg, but little did we know we
would have a neighbor who could take advantage of an open space easement for a tax
advantage. What the Kluge's are doing caught my interest because I felt this would be great —we
could have some smarter growth. After walking through the project with the Kluge's he felt this is
what they wanted to do. This looked like the kind of place where we wanted to bring up out twin
daughters. He put down a land hold on two of the lots. If this goes to by -right development I
have no interest in moving into this neighborhood. I've seen the by right neighborhoods around
Loudoun County. You are talking about development that brings nothing to a County. That is
what you are looking at. What I've heard tonight from deer, flood, to groundwater stories. He
would like to know how will this be corrected by a by right community. I keep two documents on
my desk every day — the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.
I think these owners have done far more than you would expect for a property owner. They have
every right to do it, but they've gone beyond the by right to make it a very special place for people
like me who can see what can be done by the "smart growth in PEC."
Tom Olivier stated that he lives in the Scottsville district. In the judgment of staff the Vineyard
Estate proposal does not meet a range of requirements for rural residential development. As
designed it would burden the sources on the surrounding landscape. Public roads in the vicinity
are narrow and winding. VDOT has stated that additional traffic would generate unsafe
conditions on Rt. 627. Part of the proposed development lies in an area classified as generally
low in ground water. As a biologist I'm particularly dismayed by the sprawling layout of the
proposed residential lots. Fragmentation of habitats by sprawl is recognized in the Albemarle
County Comprehensive Plan as a major threat to survival of vital biological resources. To quote
briefly from the Natural Resources Chapter of out Comprehensive Plan, Page 70, Paragraph 1,
Sentence 1 "the decline of many plant and animal species in Albemarle can be attributed to large
scale tree clearing or by development activities such as woodlands, subdivisions, power lines and
roads. The clustering of development is a strategy developed by the County with wide public
support to help protect essential natural resources." I have concern that if this project is approved
it will set a precedent that undermines County efforts to protect rural resources that are essential
to the long term well being of our community. In short, I think this project would be a detriment to
the Scottsville District's rural areas and I urge the Commission not to grant the special permit
needed for it to proceed.
Tony Vanderwarker, representing the Albemarle Smart Growth Initiative and the Piedmont
Environmental Council. We were delighted to hear of the applicant's desire to start a new
vineyard in the area because we are most interested in economically useful and productive use of
rural lands. Vineyard culture in Albemarle County is turning out to be very lucrative. Some fine
wines are being produced. I saw a huge opportunity to create a compromise that was necessary
because we saw a neighborhood basically set against this proposal. Is there a way to go down
the middle? Is there a way to have everyone win? We hired McKee Carson to prepare an
alternative scheme of that development. The development as planned requires about two million
dollars worth of roads. They have 28 lots they will sell at $300,000 and $400,000 apiece. Our
concept was to save the money on the infrastructure of the road, take a huge tax deduction and
put the whole thing in conservation easement divided into five lots. Each lot could be sold for one
million dollars or more. We went around the neighborhood and asked owners if they would
consider putting their land under conservation easement if the Kluge's development was less
intensive. Everyone said they would. We now have an aggregate of well over 2,000 acres
committed to be put under conservation easement in return for less intensive development of
Vineyard Estates. I hope that this possibility of compromise is not lost for this project.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 7, 2003
Cheryl Longnecker lives on Bishop Hill Road, which abuts Ashlawn. Her well did go dry last year
and the well, which was 100 feet deep, is now 300 feet deep. I went from 20 gallons per minute
to 2 Y2 gallons per minute. Groundwater is definitely an issue. I also have a question, is it correct
that you don't necessary have to get a permit that you can ask for land to be taken out of
agricultural/forestal use?
Mr. Rieley stated that staff can provide answers to this question. Typically, the Commission does
not engage in question and answer.
Ms. Longnecker asked if staff could let her know why this was not done in this case.
Gabriele Rausse stated that he came to Virginia in 1976 to start the first commercial vineyard.
One of the first places he considered for a vineyard was Blenheim. He started the Barboursville
Vineyards and since has moved to Seminole Vineyard. He is in favor of the Vineyard Estate
proposal.
Ann Mallek stated that her family has resided for the last twenty years on a farm in Earlysville.
She is lucky to be one of the county residents who live with the peace provided by open space,
forests, narrow country roads, and animals. Their farm was the core farm for the Jacob's Run
Agricultural/Forestal District. Neighbors within a specified radius have joined the Jacob's Run
district and made a commitment to open space preservation and reduction in development in
return for a reduction in County tax assessment. The project before the Commission, Vineyard
Estates, proposed to take land, 330 acres of which is in an agricultural/forestal district and
develop it as if it were not under restriction. 4-8 acre lots are far below the 21-acre minimum
called for in the Comprehensive Plan for the 330 acres of the project in the Lanark
Agricultural/Forestal district. It would seem that the larger minimum size would better achieve the
stated goal of the rural area, "to discourage rural residential development." These acres of the
project would only allow ten 21-acre lots by right. The staff report describes obstacles preventing
the approval of the project. (1) According to VDOT, the roads are inadequate for the projected
traffic and the presence historic Blenheim district presents a desire to retain the narrow and
scenic nature of Rt. 627. (2) To paraphrase Senator Lloyd Benson, I know what a Rural
Preservation Development looks like, since I live next to one, and this plan does not show one.
The rural preservation lot in this plan does not meet the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan
by shape or protection of prime soils. Winding throughout a U shaped parcel interspersed with
houses, the prevention tract does not constitute a large uninterrupted and useable tract of land in
one place. This arrangement might work for vineyards, but what if some other agricultural use is
needed in the future? Growing a crop, which is tended, mowed, fertilized, or harvested with
machinery, would be difficult on small sloping areas of odd shapes with houses up close. The
interaction of houses and farming throughout the project increases the possible hazard to
residents, their children and pets, from machinery, chemicals, and the constant interruption that
farming entails. (3) This project is not consistent with the land use around it. According to the
staff report 82% of the land within one mile of the project is under active agricultural or forestal
taxation. This is not a developed rural area. (4) The Comprehensive Plan states that "highest
priority in the rural area is to preserve agricultural and forestal activities rather than encouraging
residential development." Therefore, extra houses in the area should not be allowed to put strain
on the water resources in an area of poor water availability, highway resources in a historic
district, and scenic resource. There are residents in the County who do not agree with land use
assessment and the special benefits that farmers receive from lower taxes. To me it is imperative
that all farmers in the district take their responsibility very seriously to protect their land and to
conserve the a open space as much as possible. I hope the County will keep agricultural/forestal
land agricultural and forestall, not intensively residentially. I urge you to deny the petition.
Jeanie Rausse stated that she lives on Rt. 627. She agrees that there should be more vineyards
in Blenheim, but not a development. It is one of the most beautiful rural areas in Albemarle
County. The road is so narrow and gorgeous that if it were widened it would destroy the whole
character of the road. I urge you to not encourage a development of any type in this area, which
should be historically preserved as well as agriculturally preserved.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 7, 2003
1
Elizabeth Muse lives on Rt. 727 at Quandary Farm. She is here tonight to express her concern
over the request for the special use permit by Vineyard Estates and the implications it has not
only for this neighborhood, but for the entire County. She and her family are recent members of
the community. They have loving and painstakingly restored an 1860's farmhouse and become
stewards of the surrounding acreage. What drew us to the property was the agriculture and rural
nature of the area. With narrow roads, loose cows that you often run into and the farms and
homes of significant beauty and heritage. The proposed Vineyard Estates with the request for a
special use permit promises to forever change the nature of the area in Albemarle County as a
whole. I say this because when one development is given special consideration other
landowners will be able to follow suit. Houses will spring up in areas not designated for growth
and subdivisions will be created in patterns not foreseen by planners. Control over Albemarle
County structure will be lost. As my husband and I look towards a conservation easement
quandary farm, it is important to us that the surrounding community remains as it has been. A
rural agricultural district. I hope you will consider the ramifications that the request for a special
use permit will have not only on my immediate neighborhood, but the entire community.
Nick Carter stated that he has been asked to give a brief overview of the historic houses within
this district. The district begins at Monticello Mountain and runs down to the Hardware River
where it takes a left turn and intersects Blenheim Road and makes a loop. Within this area, there
are no less than 14 houses. Those houses are 200 years old. All of them are working farms.
Two others are over 150 years old. This is a very unique area and it is our feeling that it should
be an historic district. I do not believe that it is duplicated in any other area in the State of Virginia
where a number of houses at this age are confined to this region.
Tim Morris stated that he just recently relocated to this area. He is in support of this particular
project due to its harmonious blend that will be utilized within the environment. Instead of doing
by right where you have a large area and each individual landowner has the ability to do what he
wants on his particular property. This is a flowing project which will have less of an impact, better
utilization of tax dollars. I just really support it.
Benjamin Ford, representing Preservation Piedmont, which is a local preservation organization,
composed of several hundred members who all live in the Central Virginia Piedmont. The
applicant's proposal as presented tonight is only beneficial to the applicant. It is not beneficial to
the majority of the county citizens. It is not beneficial to the local environment. It is not beneficial
to the areas historic resources. And it is clearly not beneficial to the residents who live in the
area. Preservation Piedmont has two main concerns regarding the proposed development. First,
any development within the view shed of the Blenheim property will have an adverse impact on
the property's integrity and significance. As you know, Blenheim was nominated to the National
Register of Historic Places in the mid 1970's for its significant 18th and 19th century architecture
and archeological resources. The view shed of Blenheim southeast of the majority of the
proposed development area is a significant part of the property's integrity. The current view shed
of Blenheim is predominately forested and agriculture land. Uses which are similar to how the
larger area was once used in the 18th and 19 h century. The County has expended a significant
amount of time and energy over the last decade discussing view shed issues. Particularly, the
Monticello View shed. I do not need to lecture you on the importance of a view shed and its
association with historic properties. The proposed development in addition to constructing a
number of residential units will require the clearing of untolled acres of wooded land. I would ask
the Commission to consider what the construction of a residential subdivision and the clearing of
many acres of forested woods would do to the Monticello view shed. I would also urge the
Commission, if you have not done so, to visit Blenheim and see the magnificent view shed that
extends over the property. In addition, if the integrity of this significant property is adversely
impacted it might also impact the tax benefits the property owner now enjoys or may apply for in
the future. Secondly, we would like to emphasize the very real threat to the rural nature of the
local area if this development is allowed to proceed. In particular, we are concerned about the
preservation of the single lane roads that surround and wind through the area. These public
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 7, 2003 7 L,
resources, resources that are owned by the people in this audience tonight, would very likely
disappear. Road would be widened by the demand of increased traffic. Magnificent tree lined
*#A' boulevards that now link many of these road would suffer. Fences, rock walls and other small-
scale cultural features would also disappear. These rural county roads are a significant feature to
Albemarle County that most of us have the pleasure of enjoying. Their loss or any change to
them would be a tragedy. In conclusion, we believe that there is nothing rural or preservation
about the applicant's proposal. We strongly urge the Commission to deny the special use permit.
Cindy Patterson stated that she lives in the Blenheim neighborhood. I would like to tell you a little
bit about the water out there. Eighteen years ago we brought our home. The first weekend we
were living in the home I turned the water on and out came mud. We have had about eight wells
dug before we hit good water on our land. It is not just a problem with my section of the road.
The area is predominant with water problems. She has talked to countless people who have had
to have wells dug. These are extremely deep wells-300 to 400 feet deep and still not a great
water supply. Half of the land that is proposed to be developed falls in a category 3 which by the
County standards is the lowest level water grade you can have in the county. The rest of the
property that is proposed for development is in category 2 zone, which is a medium. C R Moore
Well Drilling has records dating back past the 70's in this area noting water problems. Morven
Farm gets 3/4 of a gallon per minute. One house in the area had to have a tank system, where the
well is constantly pumping into the tank to store the water because there was not enough
available water in the ground to the home. Frankly this has nothing to do with a water issue, but
you need to know that we have terrible where we live. To us who live here and love the area, it is
an issue. It is a major issue when you don't have water. The main issue of this tonight is the
special use permit. When we were put in the agricultural/forestal district we took pride in it. We
felt it afforded our area some protection. To grant this is really infringing on the
agricultural/forestal district and the integrity that it stood for over the year. I want to ask the
Commission to deny this request so that it will not open the county to development.
y Kevin Fletcher stated that he lives in the Scottsville district and has lived in Albemarle County for
13 years. He realizes that he can not expect Albemarle County to remain frozen in time, but we
should consider the components that are in the combination to make Albemarle County such a
special place. This includes preserving the rural areas. I want to quote from the vision statement
in the proposed Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan "civil aspects of this vision were
reflected in the input received from citizens during four public meetings held during the winter of
2002 and 2003. The strong majority of the attendees, over 70% in each case, felt that the visual
character of the Rural Areas should be made up of farms, forests and natural areas. Note this
statement does not include subdivisions. Stream buffers and habitat corridors should be common
throughout the Rural Areas. Once again, note that there have not been any proposed buffers for
the stream proposed. Growth should be limited and well managed to maintain the rural character
of the County." I don't think that the people responding to the questionnaire expected the rural
character would include a gated residential community. Residential development should be
directed into the designated development areas. This is clearly not a designated development
area. Agricultural and forestall lands are critical county resources. Agricultural and forestry are
the designated primary land uses in the rural areas. I think it is clearly revealed in the staff report
when it points out that 7 to 8 of the proposed lots are on prime vineyard locations. That is that the
residential uses proposed are the primary objective of the proposal. The input stated above
came from the citizens participating in the Comprehensive Plan's public meetings. It is clear that
the public would like the rural areas to remain primarily for agricultural and forestry use, not for
residential development. I urge the Commission to vote to deny the request for the special use
permit for Vineyard Estates.
April Fletcher stated that she does not have a great deal to add to what the Commission has
already heard tonight. She lives in southern Albemarle County together with her husband she
manages over 4,000 acres of farmland and wildlife preserve. 1900 acres are under conservation
easement. 1261 more will be before the end of this year. She manages orchards, vineyards,
pastures, equestrian facilities, wildlife preserve, etc. The only difference between the 4000 acres
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 7, 2003
that they manage and the proposal before the Commission tonight are the residences. Clearly
the focus of the proposal is the residences. Otherwise, the applicant would not be before the
Commission. As a farmer and a resident of Southern Albemarle, I can tell you that the
residences are not critical to the agricultural component and I ask the Commission to deny the
application.
David van Roijen stated that he is a member of the Agricultural/Forestal Committee; however, he
is before the Commission solely as a concerned citizen and not a spokesman for that group. This
application has given me a lot of sleepless nights because in the past rural areas have had to
defend themselves against commercial developers and residential developers chipping away at
the character of the county. He was afraid that a new force to defend against was ruling its ugly
head. That of a vineyard development. I was wrong. This is not a proposed from a new foe; it is
simply a residential developer in disguise. Mrs. Kluge has stated that they must develop the
property because only a portion of the acreage is ideal for vineyards and the cost to establish the
vineyard is very high. The costs are high because the best land for vineyard is not being used
and the layout is designed for best residential return rather than an agricultural one. At this point I
would refer you to the report and file developed by the County staff. The letter from Tony Will,
Professor of Horticulture at Virginia Tech describes the current property and proposal. He states
these vineyard locations are generally located on elevations of 500 to 600 feet above sea level.
Although, higher elevations would be preferable (i.e. 800 to 1500 feet above sea level). As may
be seen on the map provided by Virginia Tech there are also many excellent locations for
vineyards as such in Albemarle County though this area is only classified as good. I ask you why
someone of Mrs. Kluge's character would settle for second best unless agriculture was not the
prime motive. Further, Dr. Will states the negatives which Bill Moses and other are no doubt
aware of, are the irregular nature of the vineyard parcels means that most of the parcels will have
not more short rows and that adds to their establishment cost. Here we have the answer to the
high cost of the Kluge Vineyard. Further it is stated that numerous independent parcels of
vineyard mean the cost of deer exclusion fences if used would be greater than if the vineyards
were consolidated. Again, we find evidence that the motive of pursuant of agriculture appears
secondary. In this regard, you will note that the staff report indicates that 7-8 of the lots occupied
prime vineyard areas. Again, I ask you if Mrs. Kluge wants to produce great wine why is she
purposely adding to her costs and not using the best lands. I propose that this special application
for a subdivision decorated with the words of agriculture be rejected as an unnecessary
development of the rural areas. Most of the people in this county would be only too pleased to
see Mrs. Kluge establish a great vineyard and I would be only too glad to help her locate an
excellent site for one. Only a developer could love a project like this. However, if you approve a
plan like this, I as a citizen of the county recommend that you ask the County Attorney to prepare
a disclaimer by the County to be attached to the deed of each parcel or lot such that the
purchasers are clearly warned that chemicals will be sprayed in the immediate areas of the
houses for up to four months of the year and that the County will in no way be obligated to pipe
water to them should their wells be uprooted.
Jim Ballheim stated that he lives in Albemarle County and has land in an agricultural/forestal
district. He feels this is a bad project for all the reasons listed in the staff report and what has
already been said tonight. He asked the Commission to deny this request.
Andrew Carter stated that he is a landowner on Rt. 627. He thanked the Commission for serving.
He is opposed to this development. The area is such a gem and without exaggeration for people
living in the area, Carters Mountain Road is the best Sunday drive in the County. He is employed
as an environmental scientist and has done a number of groundwater and environmental projects
in the region. He would like to respond to statements made in the Progress about the consultants
for the developer regarding groundwater availability. The statement indicted that because of
fracture trace analysis, which a tool to use to look at fracture density in an area, that because of
this the acceptable analysis was that it would yield good groundwater results. This area in the
County would be expected to good fractures. However, fractures are not the total picture when
you are considering long term sustainable groundwater volume and availability. The fractures
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 7, 2003
are negligible volume compared to the water stored in the soil above the rock. In other words, the
actual apertures and volumes of the fractures themselves are very small in relation to the
apertures and void spaces in the soil over top of the rock. It is that soil thickness that can be a
determining factor in long term ground water availability. Carters Mountain Road tends to lie on
the contact between Carters Mountain and the canyon which is to the east of there. Manteo soil is
known for being a very thin, very poor soil. His data is consistent with the soil survey data. The
technical problem with groundwater availability here is not the fractures but the thinness of the
soil that dominates that area. I can't speak to the site itself, as I have not done a walk around the
property. He suggested that more investigation be done regarding groundwater availability.
Jeff Werner representing the Piedmont Environmental Council. PEC was created in 1972 to
protect the rural landscape of the Piedmont. In 31 years, we have worked to place approximately
174,000 acres under permanent conservation easement. Of that, almost 37,000 acres are here
in Albemarle County. The PEC urges the denial of this special use permit. Among the reasons
for this position are: (1) the subdivision runs counter to the provisions of the Agricultural/Forestal
District Ordinance. (2) The proposed "cluster' is not consistent with the criteria in the Rural Area
Ordinance. (3) The proposed residential component is not related to a bona fide
agricultural/forestal use of the land. (4) Approval could provide a precedent and weaken the
agricultural/forestal and rural area ordinances. (5) The County's Agricultural/Forestal District
Committee recommended that approval "would create a serious conflict" with the
Agricultural/Forestal Ordinance. No land use decision can be viewed in isolation from the County
as a whole. No doubt, there are arguments in favor of this proposal that cannot be refuted. In
fact, no one is here to refute the proposed agricultural uses. However, when we take a step
back, as we must, we cannot ignore the potential for establishing a precedent with the approval of
this request. One may argue that the unique nature of a special use permit precludes it from
being a precedent. We suggest that the unique nature of land use law in Virginia and of local,
subjective politics offers little assurance that approval here would not establish a "general"
precedent by which other similar proposals would be governed. For example, the proposal seeks
permission to relocate development lots from one parcel to another. This s is not proposed in
order to facilitate a cluster but to further disperse the proposed lots throughout the landscape. A
precedent establishing such mobility of development lots is contrary to the provisions of the
cluster ordinance. The applicant argues for a favorable review of the proposed 65% set aside for
the preservation tract. Is this amount worthy of sanctioning with a special use permit? 65% is not
remarkable compared to other cluster proposals in the County and it is well below the target 75%
suggested in the proposed revisions to the County's Rural Area Plan. In fact, were this a by -the -
book cluster proposal, it is theoretically possible —with twenty-eight 2-acre lots —to create a
preservation tract of almost 455 acres, about 89%. Though the PEC remains dubious of clusters
as a Rural Area solution, an 89% set aside might certainly be viewed as remarkable. So, what
advantages do landowners and the residents of the County gain? If it is that they will get road
improvements, I would suggest these are not for the current resident but for those that ill move
into the new estates. To argue these road improvements could not be required by right
development and thus it would be advantageous to approve the special use permit is an
indictment of the County's regulations, not an argument for this special use permit. If land is
being developed that will require road improvements, that work should be required with or without
a special use permit. Is this proposal in the best interest of the residents of Albemarle County?
The PEC joins the hundreds of other County voices in stating we do not believe it is.
Mary Cole Marquis stated that Albemarle County Water Resources Manager notes in a memo
dated in an August memo "that the project in an area considered to have the County's lowest
groundwater availability." What is this person's name and where and when was this memo
published? I am not a report, however, as a person trained with a scientific venue I would
certainly want substantiation of the writer of this mystery memo as well as what specific type of
data was used to gather this information. As the geologist explained Albemarle County's water
supply scarcity issues over the wells that were drilled before the technology was available to
reach the plentitude of water underneath the red rock. In simple terms, since we are able to drill
further into the ground we are able to locate and utilize plentiful underground water resources,
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 7, 2003 vJ I
which are referred to as aquifers. In the previous summer a lot of Albemarle County wells were
drilled prior to this technology, hence these wells are depending on the rainwater/groundwater
supply rather than the under ground aquifers. I would appreciate in the future that all the
scientific facts are presented as we all know our community has a responsibility to present the
most accurate and scientifically based information rather than hearsay. In responding to the
inability to find water for the Blenheim area of Albemarle County, I personally find this statement
puzzling. As a resident of Blenheim Farm for several years as well as being involved in a farming
operation, I never had a problem with the water supply. In fact, the opposite was true. I
personally used Blenheim Farms numerous groundwater spring sources as well as the enormous
aquifer supply. As a scientific persona and personal resident of Blenheim I would like to have the
answer to this reported water supply issues. I have a challenge to each of you on the
Commission —Instead of talking the talk, let's walk the walk. Let's put our boots on and go out to
Blenheim and I'd be more than happy to show you where these wells and aquifers are located.
Diane Krunk, lives on President Road and has been a resident there for 17 years. In that 17
years she has walked out her door and have never seen anyone watering lawns every week,
washing cars twice a week, because each and everyone of us knows that whether we are on an
aquifer source or whatever they want to call it we are all sharing the same water. We all take
pride in the fact that we are working together to preserve that water for each and everyone's use.
I recently was invited to one of the audience member's homes for a meeting and that had
hundreds of acres. I was astonished at the views that they had. I looked around my two -acre
property and thought "this is my little piece of heaven". My husband has worked very hard to get
a garden and flowers in. He is out there every weekend. It's my piece of heaven and when
someone comes in and says they are going to cut through our road, they are going to build 28
more homes, take away from our water, they are going to make me move out of my home
because I can't afford the taxes; it gets personal.
Mark Holmes stated that he just moved to the area from Crozet. One of the biggest things I like
about the property is the fact that when you stop and you look around what you hear is nothing;
which means it's quiet. When you are in Crozet, you stop and listen; you hear many cars
whizzing by. As for the issue of the well, we just had a well dug with 1 gallon per minute. I would
also like you to think about the winding country road, which is quiet. If this is made a straight
road, you will have the racecar drivers, people cutting through, etc. I hope you make sure that
everything stays the way it is; which is nice and quiet.
Glen Gibson stated that he moved into Albemarle County 22 years ago. I have a well that is 150'
deep that was producing just enough water for the house and slowly going down hill. Three years
ago, it gave out. It took six months for the well drillers to finally get there. I have a well now that
is 320' deep that is producing enough water for my house and my family. However, I live one
mile below Blenheim Farm, so I am not getting ten gallons a minute as it is on Blenheim Farm.
The County has lot millionaires; we also have many people that are poor like me. Therefore, you
cannot compare this person with that person. Same thing with wells. This is a very poor area.
Mrs. Patterson said she had to drill eight wells before they got water. She is only about 300 yards
from Blenheim Farm
Francena Eldridge speaking for her father, James Monroe, who lives in the Blenheim area. We
go to Midlobe Baptist Church, this area is a historical site and I would hate to see this change.
My father's family has lived here for over 200 years. I would not to see the old people who would
come back and see this property changed to area where cars are up and down the highway, the
trees are cut away. These old people worked hard for their property. They left it to their children
and their children's children. I think it is a shame when people can come in and do what they
want to do and the little person is standing back like they can't do anything. I ask you, please
don't let this project go through. I'm asking for all the old ones who have gone, who have worked
hard for their families.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 7, 2003
Cory Miller stated that her father is in the army and she has lived in ten different places over the
years. Of all the places that she has been, this is one the most beautiful places. I'd hate to see
the beautiful woods and wildlife get wasted by development.
With no further comment, Mr. Rieley pointed out that the applicant has five minutes to speak to
these concerns.
Steve Blaine, representing the applicant. He expressed on behalf of his client's appreciation for
all of the remarks heard tonight. We have had some town meetings where we have tried to
interact with neighbors. We have heard some of the same concerns and questions raised here
tonight. We'd like to see this as a continuation. I know there were some specific questions the
Commission had and I would like to take the opportunity to address some of those. Mr. Rieley, I
think you asked the client why the by -right plan did not address some of the zoning concerns.
We chose to come before the Commission and get a sense of what the policy implications were
of this approach to a RPD. As we know, the RPD analysis requires us to do a comparison on
what can be done under the permitted zoning. We used this as a baseline to analyze the
proposed zone. That is why when you hear about the permitted zoning-30 lots —we do a
comparison of the impacts of the proposal versus the permitted zoning. Sometimes the reaction
when the developer or property owner says "I can do this by right" tends to sound arrogant. Had
this come across in this process, I want to apologize for that that is not the intention of the
applicant. It is part of the relative analysis. When we talk about traffic we are not comparing the
traffic that will be generated by this site to no traffic, we are comparing making relative
comparison of what the proposal will have to the permitted uses. When we talk about other
impacts we are talking about the number of houses. We have a model, we are not suggesting
that it is going to replace the current model for the RPD. We are asking the Commission to
consider a new innovative model, one that combines a profitable and vital agricultural use. What
we have experienced in some of the rural analysis going through the Comprehensive Plan, we
are seeing a loss of farmland. We are seeing less and less farm use every year. This is partly
because of the economics. What we have in Albemarle County and actually experiencing across
the state, is actually increase in vineyards for wine producing. In Albemarle County from 2001-
2002 an increase of 16% of this crop has occurred. What we propose is a model combining the
RPD recognized residential development with a viable crop. We are not suggesting it will replace
traditional agricultural, but we are asking to try this to see if we cannot promote agriculture. In the
end, the analysis does not promote agriculture. Here we have a way to respond and supply the
growth that we know is occurring
To conclude, we take issue with staff on a number of issues noted in the staff report, but we feel
we can work with staff to address to those issues. We did not conduct a complete by right plan,
we were focusing on the plan that we planned to pursue. We felt we had established sufficient
alternative use with the division rights. If we need to demonstrate that we can do another plan,
we will do this. We will, if necessary, have a hydrologist meet with staff and satisfy the concerns
related to ground water. The reason why Blenhem has 10 gallons per minute and only a gallon a
minutes on adjacent properties is the nature of the groundwater in the community. We would not
propose this development without conducting on site testing. There is a way to test for adequate
ground water and is not necessarily from aerial photographs or from maps. We are prepared to
do it on the ground.
Mr. Finley stated that the report explains clearly why the applicant is not meeting the zoning and
planned requirements for a rural preservation development. He asked if the applicant felt they
could prepare a plan that would meet County requirements for a rural preservation development,
particularly clustering
Mr. Blaine stated that the applicant feels they can meet the requirements of the ordinance. The
ordinance does not have one -design criteria. It does have design criteria that have been
implemented as a tradition in the community. The ordinance actually says that the Planning
Commission, where practical, should follow these criteria. What we are proposing is a practical
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 7, 2003
li ) I
alternative. It is actually impractical to pursue the agricultural development and apply a traditional
clustering because you would be intruding on what is planned for agricultural, the orchards and
the open spaces. We take issue with the staff in identifying, based on soils, not all of the aspect
in elevation and other criteria that are used to identify appropriate vineyard properties. Again, we
have a vineyard culturist who has actually been on the site and located these prime vineyard
sites. We would be happy to take staff to the site and show them that we are intruding on prime
vineyard land. So, yes, can we do an alternative plan? Certainly, but this is a plan that meets
both the agricultural component and meets the clients vision to create a vineyard community.
Mr. Thomas asked what portion of the proposed development is in the agricultural/forestal district.
Mr. Blaine stated that approximately 378 acres are in the agricultural/forestal district. He pointed
out that no property is being removed from the agricultural/forestal district. The client was guided
by the County and the County Attorney to the RPD process. It happens that the RPD with this
level of development requires a special use permit. There is an exception to the smaller than 21-
acre development in an agricultural/forestal district where a special use permit is required. The
notion that this will set a precedent, the small lot zoning is the precedent. That is what we are
experiencing around the County. The County is trying to find ways to the alternative of the small
lot zoning and the RPD is one that staff in review of the Comprehensive Plan Amendments would
like to encourage. As you can see from the process that we are going through there is a reason
why not many people are pursuing the RPD. Obviously, you not have to produce your plan and
show that it complies with the zoning, you also have to do a by right plan all the way though to
final engineering. So there is a disincentive to our traditional RPD. We felt this was the only way
to develop the preservation tract approach to the plan that we are seeking. The preservation tract
will have over 313 acres of permanently preserved land.
The Planning Commission took a ten-minute break at 9:26 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 9:48 p.m.
Mr. Rieley asked if anyone else present would like to speak on Vineyard Estates. There being
none, he closed the public hearing to bring the matter back before the Commission for discussion
and possible action.
Mr. Craddock stated that his grandparents went to went to Slate Hill Church and used to live on
Morven. Living at Milton, he is very aware of historic areas and what a development next door
can do. His first thought was that this proposal was in an agricultural/forestal district. After
reading the report, he noted that 378 acres of the 511 acres are in agricultural forestal. The
report also notes that there are 18 lots that are in the agricultural/forestal district, but we are not
sure of the exact number of lots this development will have. The report also states that the
preliminary plat and private road requests to allow a special use permit approval to meet the
requirements of the subdivision ordinance and are therefore not ready for Planning Commission
action. He felt this is not ready for Planning Commission action because it is in an
agricultural/forestal district, much less the subdivision ordinance and so forth. He recommends
denial of this permit.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that he was puzzled as to how this petition got this far, it is really not
ready for prime time. First of all he commended staff for preparing a very detailed staff report
which has made this difficult job slightly easier. How did we get here? This issue is approved
would conflict with the agricultural/forestal provisions; which was the opinion of the
Agricultural/Forestal Committee. It does not meet the rural area goals from the Comprehensive
Plan. It does not meet the current design standards for RPD's. VDOT has suggested that
increased traffic can cause unsafe conditions on Rt. 627. There is a potential for low
groundwater availability among other things. There is an enormous amount of citizen input
regarding this application. The vast majority of citizen input has been in opposition to this
request. He pointed out that he has been on the Commission for four terms and never in his
experience has he seen this much citizen input about any application. During his for terms, he
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 7, 2003
has operated on the principal that the Commission should do the greatest good for the greatest
,,: number of citizens in this community. As the at -large commissioner he is very focused on this
goal. Having said this, he is unable to recommend approval of this special use permit. Echoing,
Mr. Craddock, he would vote for denial of this request.
Mr. Finley stated that he lives on a farm in the rural area. He values his development rights and
respects them as rights. He has a constitutional right to own private property and feel that his
property rights starts at his property line although he may wish otherwise. There are
approximately 30 development rights on this property and one way or the other something will be
done with them. As the Commission, knowing this will happen, we need to decide what route to
take. Is a rural preservation development the best way to go? By right? Or just close our minds
and let it lie dormant —those rights will never spring up. He is not ready to vote yes for the
project, but he is not fully ready to vote denial. He recognizes the enormous amount of work that
has been done. He reiterated that something will happen, the Commission can not take away
those rights, what is the best way to go?
Mr. Edgerton stated that the proposed subdivision really is the issue here. In revising the
application and the plan, there is no question that the subdivision as proposed is not allowed in
the agricultural/forestal district. It is actually asking for more lots than would be traditionally
allowed in a RPD. Having worked on several RPD's he is familiar with the ordinance and this
request does not approximate the RPD standards. Personally, he has problems with the model
that is being proposed by the applicant. He deeply values the agricultural/forestal ordinance and
can not support granting the special use permit for a project that is working counter to what the
ordinance stands for.
Mr. Thomas stated that he agrees with Mr. Edgerton on the fact that this is not a project that is
incompliance with anything in the agricultural/forestal district. He supports property rights and is
being pulled left and right on making a decision. He is an avid fan of property rights. I believe
the applicant has all the rights to develop their land. In order to support the vineyard, he feels this
is a creative way to utilize the property rather than just a by right development. It is neat the way
it is tucked into the vineyards. Even though 313 acres will remain untouched, it still is not in
compliance with the agricultural/forestal district; which he also supports. The decision is whether
it is worth giving up the land to a by right development or save it for a vineyard or some other
purpose. The terrain is roughed in certain places. At this time he is not ready to vote he would
like to hear more discussion from the other commissioners.
Mr. Rieley stated that he would like to thank all of the speakers who are remaining for tone of the
comments tonight. This hearing was one in which, he felt, the substance could be heard. He
agrees with the comments made by Mr. Craddock, Mr. Loewenstein and Mr. Edgerton. The staff
builds an irrefutable argument against the passage of the special use permit. He takes issue with
items #6, #7, and #8 in the staff report, because he feels they apply equally to a by right
development as they do to a rural preservation development. The fact that this is in an
agricultural/forestal district is the overwhelming issue. If this were approved by special use
permit, which would not be approvable administratively if it were less than 20 acres, because it
would require a special use permit. He felt the agricultural/forestal district essentially governs
this. A scheme whatever its lure, is directly contradictory to the objectives of the Comprehensive
Plan. The mosaic of residential and agricultural land locked together served by a huge amount of
roadway. In looking at the schemes which the applicant said were to establish a baseline, the
amount of roads in the by right scheme looked like there were not as many as in the cluster
developments. Certainly, they were very comparable. The by right scheme is more clustered
than the proposed scheme, which is spread out all over the entire property. There may be 30
development rights, to be at this stage to have a special use permit before the Commission and
we don't know how many development rights we are talking about is incredible. It is appalling. It
is an incomplete application. The plan does not comply with the Zoning Ordinance. For all of
those reasons, but primarily because of the agricultural/forestal district I certainly could not
support this special use permit.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 7, 2003
Mr. Finley stated that the residences proposed in this request are not in the agricultural/forestal
district.
Mr. Rieley stated that the residences were in the agricultural/forestal district
Mr. Finley asked why in 2008 there may be more parcels.
Mr. Rieley stated that in 2008 the property could be voluntarily withdrawn from the
agricultural/forestal district.
Mr. Finely stated that they are not talking about the additional ones that may become available in
2008. Does the request for a special use permit include the property that may be withdrawn from
the agricultural/forestal district in 2008?
Mr. Rieley stated that this was a different level of development in 2008. The parcels that are
within the agricultural/forestal district are, in fact, included in this proposal.
Mr. Finley ascertained that out to the 28 parcels, 18 are in the agricultural/forestal district.
Mr. Thomas stated that he would like to know the number of development rights on this property.
Mr. Rieley stated that this was required by the applicant as part of the application process; which
has not been done yet.
Ms. Doherty stated that a determination can be made by the Zoning Administrator. The applicant
can request a determination of the number of development rights or he can show the number of
division rights you have and staff will do the research to determine whether or not this is correct.
In this case they went with the later, but they were not shown correctly according to our
ordinance. This is why we can not definitely say that they met the ordinance requirements.
Division rights are different from how many potential lots they could create because of the
agricultural/forestal district. With the agricultural/forestal district at least 30 development rights
and up to 43 development rights is the agricultural/forestal district goes away.
Mr. Craddock moved for denial of SP-03-19 The Vineyard Estates.
Mr. Loewenstein seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Finley stated that he found, on page 15 of the staff report, as Mr. Craddock had previously
said that part of these parcels were in the agricultural/forestal district and for that reason he would
vote aye.
Mr. Rieley stated that the motion to deny SP-03-19 would go to the Board of Supervisors and this
will be heard by the Board at their December 10th meeting. He asked if there was any old
business.
New Business:
Vice- Chairman: Mr. Loewenstein stated that because of the unexpected retirement of Tracey
Hopper from the Rivanna District and because apparently that seat will not be filled until the end
of the calendar year, he would suggest since she was serving as vice-chairman of this committee
that they elect another vice -chair for the remaining weeks that they have in this year. He
nominated Mr. Thomas for that position.
Mr. Craddock seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of 6:0.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 7, 2003 L�
Mr. Rieley stated that Mr. Thomas was the Vice -Chairman.
Conflict of Interest Act. Mr. Kamptner distributed a memorandum to the Commission prepared by
Mr. Davis, County Attorney for the Board of Supervisors that summarizes the changes to the
Conflict of Interest Act that became effective this summer. He asked that the Commissioners
take a look at it this week and if there were any questions that they contact the County Attorney's
office.
Rural Area Work Sessions: Mr. Benish stated at the last Commission meeting they attempted to
set some dates for future work sessions in the Rural Areas and the Crozet Plan. He stated that
there was an agreement on the Crozet Plan to go to October 281h. At the 6:00 o'clock meeting
the Commission opened up and closed a public hearing on the Meadows and deferred that to
October 21st. That is the only item on that meeting and the applicant will be requesting, again, a
deferral. He pointed out that the Commission would have to convene just on one item just to
open and close the public hearing for another deferral. Therefore, he proposed that they take the
Crozet work session from October 28th and move it to October 21 st to give the Commission more
items to cover and make the October 28th meeting a little shorter.
Mr. Rieley stated that sounded like a good idea.
Mr. Thomas asked if there was a work session scheduled for October 4th
Mr. Benish stated that there will be a joint City/County work session on the 14th. Topics of
discussion include the Avon Street — Fifth Street Extended Comprehensive Plan Amendment for
that property and also the CHART recommendations. That meeting will start at 4:00 p.m. The
proposal is to actually do both of those from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m.
Adjournment:
With no further items, the meeting adjourned at p.m. to the October 14, 2003 meeting at 4:00
p.m.
c
V. Wayne Cilimfrg, Secretary
(Recorded by Sharon Taylor, Recording Secretary and transcribed by Janice C. Farrar,
Department of Planning & Community Development Assistant)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 7, 2003
X