HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 06 2009 PC MinutesEm
Albemarle County Planning Commission
October 6, 2009
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing, work session and meeting on
Tuesday, October 6, 2009, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor,
401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Marcia Joseph, Don Franco, Calvin Morris, Bill Edgerton, Linda Porterfield,
Thomas Loach, Vice Chairman and Eric Strucko, Chairman. Julia Monteith, AICP, non -voting
representative for the University of Virginia was absent.
Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner;
Mark Graham, Director of Community Development; Scott Clark, Senior Planner; David Benish, Chief of
Planning; Bill Fritz, Director of Current Development; Francis McCall, Planner; Amelia McCulley, Director
of Zoning/Zoning Administrator and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Strucko called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Committee Reports:
Mr. Strucko invited committee reports.
• Mr. Franco reported that the Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee met last week. A series of meetings
will be held during the next couple of months, which will be timed with the CIP's moving forward
through the County process. The primary focus is to look at the methodology used to create the
proffer policy. Ideally a recommendation will be made during the spring timeframe.
• Mr. Edgerton reported that the ACE Committee met several times over the past couple months and
are in the process of trying to adjust the conditions of the ACE easement to encourage people to do
certain things that will specifically focus on groundwater protection and establish buffers. The
Committee has not resolved it yet and will meet next week.
Mr. Loach reported that the Crozet Advisory Council is working with staff to set up focus area
meetings that will take the community through the master plan revision. A town hall meeting was
recently held with the county, which was very well attended. The Library Committee will meet next
month to look at installing the parking first to address the parking needs for Downtown until the
economy picks up. His other committee, CHART, is meeting tomorrow with a presentation from
VDOT on a Route 29 report.
Mr. Morris reported that the Pantops Steering Advisory Committee met last week to say good bye to
their staff representative Britton Miller. Dick Jennings, a resident of Westminster Canterbury was
selected as the new Chair.
Ms. Joseph reported that the MPO Tech Committee met. VDOT has a modeling program up and
running that the Thomas Jefferson Planning District can help us use. One of the things it does is
provide pollutant outputs. The city and county along with the Thomas Jefferson Planning
Commission are looking at a Hollymead/Downtown Commuter Bike Project. She also noted more
people are riding the Jaunt and CPS buses.
Ms. Porterfield noted that the Historic Preservation Committee met, but she missed the meeting. An
update will be provided next month.
There being no further committee reports, the meeting moved to the next item.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public:
Mr. Strucko invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda. There being none,
the meeting moved to the next item.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 6, 2009
FINAL MINUTES
Consent Agenda:
**taw APPLICANT REQUESTS INDEFINITE DEFERRAL OF THE FOLLOWING:
a. SDP200700083 Anderson Property/Verizon Tier II — Final
b. SDP200700092 Cervenka Property/Verizon Tier II PWSF — Final
c. SDP200700100 Sprouse Property/Verizon Tier II — Final
d. SDP200700135 Fox PropertvNerizon Tier II PWSF — Final
e. SDP200800015 Christian Aid Mission/Verizon Tier II PWSF — Final
f. SDP200800039 Durkin Property — Verizon Wireless/Verizon Tier II PWSF — Final
g. SDP200800075 Easton Estate/Verizon Tier II — Final
h. SDP200800132 Ramland CorpNerizon Tier II — Final
PC Referral Consent Agenda Text
a. SDP-2008-00015 Christian Aid Mission/Verizon Tier II PWSF — Final
Request for approval of a treetop personal wireless service facility with a steel monopole that
would be approximately 85 feet tall (741 feet AMSL) and 10 feet AMSL above the height of
the tallest tree within 25 feet, with a 12'x 30' x 12 (W x L x H) prefabricated shelter/equipment
cabinet. This application is being made in accordance with section 23.2.1.14 of the Zoning
Ordinance, which allows for Tier II wireless facilities by right in (CO) Commercial Office. The
site contains 12.5 acres, and is described as Tax Map 59, Parcel 23G1. The property is
located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District and is zoned CO, Commercial Office. The
Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Commercial Office in Rural Area 1. (Gerald
Gatobu) APPLICANT REQUESTS DEFERRAL TO JANUARY 15, 2010.
b. SDP-2008-00039 Durkin Property — Verizon Wireless/Verizon Tier II PWSF — Final
Request for approval of a treetop personal wireless service facility with a steel monopole that
would be approximately 105 feet tall (664 feet AMSL) and 10 feet AMSL above the height of
the tallest tree within 25 feet, with a 12'x 30' x 12 (W x L x H) prefabricated shelter/equipment
cabinet. This application is being made in accordance with section 10.2.1.22 of the Zoning
Ordinance, which allows for Tier II wireless facilities by right in the (RA) Rural Area. The site
contains 29.27 acres, and is described as Tax Map 34, Parcel 70. The property is located in
the Rivanna Magisterial District and is zoned RA Rural Area. The Comprehensive Plan
designates the property as Rural Area in Rural Area 2. (Gerald Gatobu) APPLICANT
REQUESTS DEFERRAL TO JANUARY 15, 2010.
c. SDP-2008-00075 Easton Estate/Verizon Tier II — Final
Request for approval of a treetop personal wireless service facility with a steel monopole that
would be approximately 85 feet tall (10 feet AMSL above the height of the tallest tree within
25 feet). The ground equipment, which will be placed on a platform, will consist of six
35.4"x32"x72" cabinets containing transmitters and radios, two 30.71"x30.56"x69.17"
cabinets containing batteries, and a stand-alone diesel powered emergency back-up
generator. The monopole and ground equipment will be contained within a 2,500 square foot
lease area on the property. This application is being made in accordance with Section
10.1.22 of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows for Tier II wireless facilities by right in the
Rural Areas. The property is 4.5 acres, described as Tax Map 79A1-C, Parcel 35, is located
in the Scottsville Magisterial District and is zoned RA, Rural Areas and EC, Entrance
Corridor. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Rural Area in Rural Area 2.
(Gerald Gatobu) APPLICANT REQUESTS DEFERRAL TO JANUARY 15, 2010.
d. SDP-2007-00083 Anderson Property/Verizon Tier 11— Final
Request for approval of a treetop personal wireless service facility with a steel monopole that
would be approximately 98.5 feet tall (10 feet AMSL above the height of the tallest tree within
25 feet), with a 12-foot high 360 square foot shelter/equipment cabinet. This application is
being made in accordance with Section 10.1.22 of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows for
Tier II wireless facilities by right in the Rural Areas. The property is 13.68 acres, described as
Tax Map 105, Parcel 46, is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District and is zoned RA,
Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 6, 2009
FINAL MINUTES
as Rural Area in Rural Area 3. (Gerald Gatobu) APPLICANT REQUESTS DEFERRAL TO
JANUARY 15, 2010.
e. SDP-2007-00092 Cervenka Property/Verizon Tier II PWSF — Final
Request for approval of a treetop personal wireless service facility with a steel monopole that
would be approximately 104.5 feet tall (10 feet AMSL above the height of the tallest tree
within 25 feet), with a 12'x 30.42' x 10.58' (W x L x H) shelter/equipment cabinet. This
application is being made in accordance with section 10.1.22 of the Zoning Ordinance, which
allows for Tier II wireless facilities by right in the Rural Areas. The property contains 3.06
acres, described as Tax Map 93, Parcel 47N, is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District
and is zoned RA, Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor. The Comprehensive Plan
designates the property as Rural Area in Rural Area 4. (Gerald Gatobu) APPLICANT
REQUESTS DEFERRAL TO JANUARY 15, 2010.
f. SDP-2007-00100 Sprouse Property/Verizon Tier II — Final
Request for approval of a treetop personal wireless service facility with a steel monopole that
would be approximately 100 feet tall (10 feet AMSL above the height of the tallest tree within
25 feet), with a 12-foot high 320 square foot shelter/equipment cabinet that will be contained
within a 2,500 square foot lease area. This application is being made in accordance with
Section 10.1.22 of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows for Tier II wireless facilities by right in
the Rural Areas. The property is 2.21 acres, described as Tax Map 57, Parcel 8A, is located
in the Whitehall Magisterial District and is zoned RA, Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor.
The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Rural Area in Rural Area 3. (Gerald
Gatobu) APPLICANT REQUESTS DEFERRAL TO JANUARY 15, 2010.
g. SDP-2008-00132 Ramland Corp/Verizon Tier II — Final
Request for approval of a treetop personal wireless service facility with a steel monopole that
would be approximately 99.5 feet tall (10 feet AMSL above the height of the tallest tree within
25 feet), with a 12-foot high 200 square foot shelter/equipment cabinet that will be contained
within a 2,500 square foot lease area. This application is being made in accordance with
Section 10.1.22 of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows for Tier II wireless facilities by right in
the Rural Areas. The property is 3.001 acres, described as Tax Map 42, Parcel 9K, is located
in the Whitehall Magisterial District and is zoned RA, Rural Areas. The Comprehensive Plan
designates the property as Rural Area in Rural Area 3. (Gerald Gatobu) APPLICANT
REQUESTS DEFERRAL TO JANUARY 15, 2010.
h. SDP-2007-00135 Fox Property/Verizon Tier 11 PWSF — Final
Request for approval of a treetop personal wireless service facility with a steel monopole that
would be approximately 115 feet tall (578 feet AMSL) and 10 feet AMSL above the height of
the tallest tree within 25 feet, with a 12'x 30.42' x 10.58' (W x L x H) shelter/equipment
cabinet. This application is being made in accordance with section 10.1.22 of the Zoning
Ordinance, which allows for Tier II wireless facilities by right in the Rural Areas. The site
contains 1.99 acres, and is described as Tax Map 47, Parcel 18. The property is located in
the Rivanna Magisterial District and is zoned RA, Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor.
The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Rural Area in Rural Area 2. (Gerald
Gatobu) APPLICANT REQUESTS DEFERRAL TO JANUARY 15, 2010.
Mr. Strucko noted that there are eight indefinite deferral requests from Verizon for wireless facilities. He
asked if any Commissioner would like to pull an item from the consent agenda for further review.
Mr. Morris asked if there was any specific reason for all of these deferrals being requested at the same
time.
Mr. Fritz replied that the applicant initially requested deferral of all of the requests at the same date.
Therefore, all of the requests are coming due for an extension of the deferral on the same date. It has to
do with the merger of Verizon with Alltel.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Mr. Franco seconded for approval of the consent agenda.
*40, The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 6, 2009
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Strucko noted that the consent agenda was unanimously approved
Public Hearing Items:
AFD-2009-00003 Sugar Hollow
Review of the Sugar Hollow Agricultural/Forestal District: Periodic (10-year) review of the Sugar Hollow
Agricultural/Forestal District, as required in Section 15.2-4311 of the Code of Virginia. The district
includes the properties described as Tax Map 25 Parcels 11C, 12, 13, 14, 14A, 14B, 14C, 18, 18A, 18B,
21, 21A, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28; Tax Map 26 Parcels 5A, 9, 10, 10B, 1 OD, 10F, 11 C, 11 D, 12A, 13, 19, 40B,
40C, 41A, 52, 52D; Tax Map 27 Parcels 8, 8E, 26; Tax Map 39 Parcels 2, 2A, 3, 4, 14, 15, 25, 25A; Tax
Map 40, Parcels 1, 9, 9C, 10, 10A, 10B, 10C, 12131, 22, 22A, 27A, 46C1, 49. The district includes a total
of 4,944.34 acres. The area is designated as Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan and the included
properties are zoned RA Rural Areas. (Scott Clark)
Mr. Clark summarized the staff report, as follows.
+ Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend renewal of the District for another ten-year
period.
The district is located to the west and north of White Hall. The majority of the district is located in the
North Moormans River watershed, which drains to the South Fork Rivanna River and the community's
largest surface drinking water supply. The remainder of the district drains to the Beaver Creek reservoir.
Land cover in the district is largely forested.
The district was created in September, 1989, and originally included 2,546 acres. The following table
shows the history of the district:
Acres
1989 District Creation
2546.007
1990 Addition
697.718
1993 Addition
1590.586
1999 Addition
71.593
1999 Withdrawal
80.83
2002 Addition
156.268
The district now includes 4,901.21 acres.
Landowners may withdraw their parcels from districts by right during a renewal at anytime before the
Board of Supervisors takes final action to continue, modify, or terminate the district. No landowners have
requested withdrawal yet.
Mr. Strucko invited questions for staff.
Mr. Edgerton asked if there had been no requests for additions to this tied to the new land use.
Mr. Clark replied that additions have to be done in a separate process.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the Commission had received the proposed additions as of September 1.
Requests can be made to those additions from persons who received adjacent owner letters. But, the
official deadline has passed of September 1 for this year.
Mr. Edgerton said that the agricultural forestall district designation guarantees land use under the new
interpretation of lands use.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 6, 2009 4
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Kamptner said that it makes the land eligible for land use provided that it is actually used for that use.
It is a prerequisite to qualify for open space land use. It is one of three ways in which land must be held
in order to qualify for land use. It also has to be devoted to open space uses under the tax laws.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that staff will be bringing those additions in two new districts on that list to the
Commission on November 10.
Mr. Morris said that he was really encouraged to see that in the past 20 years that the amount of land in
this particular area has doubled.
Mr. Strucko opened the public comment and invited public comment.
Bob Gossup, resident of Sugar Hollow, said that he had 15 parcels of land in a district in an open space
conservation easement. He questioned since they can't withdraw at any other time except between now
and November, what possible benefits would be lost with withdrawal considering that it is already an open
space easement.
Mr. Strucko replied that the Commission would answer his questions after they get through the public
comment session.
Mr. Gallius asked if the property was sold to a new owner is the new owner committed to the ten-year
period.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Strucko closed the public comment to bring the matter back
before the Commission for further discussion and possible action.
Mr. Strucko asked that the Commission address Mr. Gallius' questions.
Ms. Joseph noted that if he had land under conservation easement that is also in the agriculture/forestall
district does it make any difference that he is in the agricultural/forestall district or not.
Mr. Clark replied that it would not make any difference. Being under the easement and in the
agriculture/forestall district are both equal qualifications for the open -space tax rate. Easements are
typically more restrictive than districts and are permanent. Once in an easement he did not think being in
the district is much of anything other than just being part of the community. He noted that a new owner
would be committed to the ten-year period.
Motion on AFD-2009-00003 Sugar Hollow Agricultural Forestal District Renewal:
Motion: Mr. Loach moved and Mr. Morris seconded, to recommend approval of AFD-2009-0003, Sugar
Hollow Agricultural Forestal District Renewal for a ten-year period.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Edgerton stated that AFD-2009-00003, Sugar Hollow Agricultural Forestal District Renewal would go
before the Board of Supervisors on November 4, 2009 with a recommendation for approval.
AFD-2009-00004 Chalk Mountain
Review of the Chalk Mountain Agricultural/Forestal District: Periodic (10-year) review of the Chalk
Mountain Agricultural/Forestal District, as required in Section 15.2-4311 of the Code of Virginia. The
district includes the properties described as Tax Map 97 Parcels 21, 21 A, 21 A1, 21 B, 21131, 21 C, 21 D,
22, 22A, 22B, 22C; Tax Map 98, Parcels 1G, 11, 12, 13, 14, 30. The district includes a total of 1,560.6
acres. The area is designated as Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan and the included properties are
zoned RA Rural Areas. (Scott Clark)
Mr. Clark presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 6, 2009 5
FINAL MINUTES
• The district was created in October, 1999. No parcels have been added or withdrawn from the district
since it was created. The district includes 1,560.6 acres.
• There are some requested withdrawals shown in the red cross -hatch. The withdrawal is a total of 575
acres. The remaining district would be 984 acres. This request came in yesterday, which was after
the agricultural forestall committee saw this item.
On August 4, 2009 the Agricultural/Forestal Committee recommended that the Board continue this
District for a ten-year period. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend renewal of
the District for another ten-year period.
Mr. Strucko invited questions for staff.
Ms. Joseph asked if the land was owned by one family owner, and Mr. Clark replied that it was family
ownership and it was sort of overlapping ownership. Several of the family members are considering
going under easement. So it would be a benefit to them to be out at this point.
Mr. Strucko opened the public hearing and invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing
was closed and the matter before the Commission.
Mr. Kamptner noted that several requests for additions are being processed and will come before the
Planning Commission in November.
Motion on AFD-2009-00004 Chalk Mountain Agricultural Forestal District Renewal:
Motion: Mr. Loach moved and Mr. Morris seconded, to recommend approval of AFD-2009-0004 Chalk
Mountain Agricultural Forestal District Renewal for a ten-year period.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Strucko stated that AFD-2009-00004, Chalk Mountain Agricultural Forestal District Renewal would go
before the Board of Supervisors on November 4, 2009 with a recommendation for approval.
Public Hearing Items:
ZTA-2009-00015 Nonconforming Lots
Amend Secs. 2.1.4, Reductions of lot areas below minimum prohibited, 3.1, Definitions, and 6.4,
Nonconforming lots, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would
amend and rename Sec. 2.1.4 to clarify the regulations pertaining to reducing the size, width and
frontage of lots existing on December 10, 1980 below the minimums standards for those lots
under the applicable district regulations; amend Sec. 3.1 to amend the definition of
"nonconforming lot" to expressly add lot frontage, width and the presence of a building site as
elements determining whether a lot is nonconforming, and to cross-reference the lot requirements
of section 4; and amend Sec. 6.4 to change the regulations pertaining to subdivisions, lot
combinations and boundary line adjustments involving nonconforming lots, and to reorganize the
section. A copy of the full text of the ordinance is on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors and in the Department of Community Development, County Office Building, 401
McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. (Francis McCall)
Mr. MacCall summarized the staff report. (See Staff Report) He noted that Ms. McCulley would
handout revisions that have happened since the packets went out. (ATTACHMENT B)
• ZTA-2009-00015, Nonconforming lots amending the definitions and regulations regarding lot
combinations and boundary line adjustments. This amendment deals with some recent
variances that have occurred and that have been coming to the Board of Zoning Appeals with
regards to these nonconforming lots and boundary line adjustments that happen. The
language is being proposed in regard to three different sections. Specifically Section 6.4 is
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 6, 2009
FINAL MINUTES
where the heart of the changes that they are actually going to be discussing is located. The
other changes are grammatical and definition enhancements.
PUBLIC PURPOSE TO BE SERVED: The proposed change would:
1. Allow for the nonconforming lot section of the ordinance to be more easily understood by staff
and the public.
2. Allow the public to adjust the boundary line(s) of their property without the need for variance
granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). This has become a recurring variance;
therefore, we are directed by Virginia Code to review our regulations.
3. In many cases, a nonconforming lot combination or boundary line adjustment better serves a
public purpose. Examples of this public purpose include a) combining two lots that are below
the minimum lot size to create one larger lot; b) adjusting boundary lines to 1) allow the septic
system serving the house to be located on the same lot; 2) allow the house or other structure
which does not meet structure setbacks to be setback further from the property lines and 3)
allow acreage shifts between lots such that property can be placed into conservation
easements or land use.
Zoning Ordinance Section 6.4 allows for boundary line adjustments (BLA) between conforming and
nonconforming lots. Currently there are two ways the Zoning Ordinance allows the property lines of
nonconforming lots to be adjusted. First, there needs to be at least one lot that is a conforming lot
and the "...adjustment does not make the conforming lot nonconforming or the nonconforming lot
more nonconforming." Second, if both of the lots are nonconforming, the adjustment must either
make all lots conforming or must be determined by the zoning administrator to "more substantially
conform to the requirements of section 4.0 (general regulations) of this chapter and the area and bulk
regulations applicable to the district in which the lot is located, and comply with all other applicable
requirements of the Albemarle County Code." This high standard for adjustments to nonconforming
lots has precipitated variance requests. When variances are repeatedly requested for the same
reason, the locality must then look at the regulations that are being varied and determine if those
regulations need to be amended. In addition, the current high standard does not adequately serve
the public interest (see #3 in public purpose to be served by the ordinance amendment). Staff has
reviewed our current nonconforming lot regulations and has determined that the sections proposed
are the appropriate sections for amendment.
The draft ordinance amends Zoning Ordinance Sections 2.1.4, 3.1 and 6.4. This amendment will
establish consistent requirements for combination and boundary line adjustment involving one or more
nonconforming lots.
The proposed ordinance establishes regulations for four different scenarios that can arise when
nonconforming lots are altered: 1) subdivisions that include nonconforming lots, 2) combination of
nonconforming lots, 3) boundary line adjustments between conforming and nonconforming lots and 4)
boundary adjustments between two or more nonconforming lots.
1. A lot is proposed to be divided into new lots. One or more nonconforming lots may be
included in the subdivision provided that the resulting lots fully comply with the
applicable regulations. The nonconformities would no longer exist thus the purpose and
intent of the ordinance is met.
2. Two or more nonconforming lots or a nonconforming lot and a conforming lot are
combined into one. This essentially eliminates a nonconforming lot and makes the
resulting lot more conforming than the individual lot(s).
3. A conforming lot and a nonconforming lot lines are adjusted (BLA). This is permitted as
long as the nonconforming lot does not become more nonconforming.
NOW 4. The property lines of two or more nonconforming lots are adjusted (BLA). This is
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 6, 2009
FINAL MINUTES
permitted as long as neither lot becomes more nonconforming.
*AW Staff is constantly looking at our language that staff put together with the help of the County's Attorney's
Office. After the packets went out staff was in further discussions and came up with a particular section
that was brought to their attention. That is one reason they have multiple people looking at the text. Staff
found that in Section 6.4, Section D2 and E2 the actual language that was in the packet where it says the
boundary line adjustment does not result in an increase in the number of lots or dwelling units that may
be established. The unintended consequences was when you have zoning districts that are not rural
area districts the potential there is the R-1 or R-2 during a boundary line adjustment may preclude that
from happening because there might be additional lots or dwellings. Staff recommended text
additions to Sections 6.4 D2 and E2, this added "If the lots are in the rural areas zoning district," to the
beginning of the sentences. The change would not increase the development potential of the RA parcels.
Staff recommends adoption of the draft ordinance found in Attachment A.
Mr. Strucko invited questions for staff.
Mr. Edgerton asked if there was a case for a third bullet under each one that would mimic the boundary
lot adjustment for all areas other than rural areas.
Mr. MacCall replied no because the other zoning districts are governed by the density and the rural areas
is governed by density and development rights.
Ms. Porterfield asked if it was four different areas outlined in the country store subsection F. If so, the
four areas should be separated by semi -colons. In addition, side yard should be hyphenated. She would
take out the semi -colon after nonconforming lot in the next line and take out the comma in the second to
last line after "located." She felt that it should all be together. She questioned what would happen if the
country store ceased to exist. She asked if they need to deal with it other than just the ownership.
Ms. Joseph asked to talk about septic sites once more concerning if they are talking about making the lot
more conforming to add suitable soils for septic. Because this lot does not have suitable soils for septic
that by changing this and making it nonconforming thereby they are creating a buildable lot.
Mr. MacCall noted that is the reason they are adding building site to the definition for the rural area. They
were looking at other parts of Section 4.0 where there are other requirements under the 30,000 square
foot definition that talks about Health Department approval. If they don't have suitable soils it makes it
nonconforming and nonbuildable.
Ms. Joseph asked if she did not have suitable soils would they allow a boundary line adjustment to get
suitable soils and thereby making that lot buildable.
Ms. McCulley replied that the two dwellings on the lot is a totally different situation. She felt that this
language would mean that they would need a variance. With the kernel rule they would be achieving an
additional lot by that boundary line adjustment.
Ms. Joseph asked if she had one vacant lot without suitable soils if she would be allowed to do a
boundary line adjustment to get suitable soils to build.
Ms. McCulley replied that the existing nonconforming lot language with regards to building sites would let
you actually build on critical slopes for the first dwelling. But there are no exemptions from the septic
requirement. They would still have to on the nonconforming lot provide septic either on site or off site the
primary and reserve based on a three bedroom house. In that situation there would not be adequate
septic on the existing lot that is nonconforming.
Mr. Franco noted that they could not restrict them from building so would allow them to put the septic field
off site on the adjacent parcel. Therefore he should be allowed to adjust the property line to bring that on
site because he was now taking a nonconforming lot and making it conforming.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 6, 2009 8
FINAL MINUTES
Ms. Joseph questioned if they were doing anything different than what they are doing now. It sounds as
if they can do that boundary adjustment then they are doing what they can now if they can have a septic
site off site with an easement.
Mr. Franco said that they would not be allowing any more building.
Mr. Edgerton said that the adjustment of the language on the handouts really locks it in that within the
rural areas there are a certain number of development rights based on the parcel configuration right now
and they would not get more.
Ms. Joseph noted that there are alternate means of septic that she discussed with Mr. MacCall. So it is
possible that they don't need suitable soils and can provide other means of providing that.
Ms. McCulley said that they could use marginal soils and smaller sites through the engineered systems.
She noted that since there is no definition of kernel rule in the ordinance that makes this amendment very
helpful
Mr. Kamptner noted that they have a consistent and long standing interpretation.
Mr. Strucko invited other questions or comments.
Mr. Kamptner asked to respond to Ms. Porterfield's questions. The term side yard is a defined term in the
zoning ordinance and it does not have a hyphen. For consistency they will leave it as it is. Staff will take it
into consideration when codifying the ordinance. Regarding the country store question if the country
store use ceases that lot would not qualify under subsection F. It would then be subject to the general
nonconforming rules in the other subsections. The country store use in the zoning ordinance is fixed in
time. The lot is entitled to the fairly flexible standards which apply while the lot is used for the country
store uses. So the country store regulations do envision that it is possible that a lot that is used for a
country store has that country store use stop. Country store regulations allow the accessory uses that
have been established, such as the small office uses, to continue for a period of time. For the
nonconforming lots, it is a little simpler. The country store use is in effect and if they do one of these
types of boundary line changes, they qualify under F. If the country store use stops, they no longer are
entitled to proceed under subsection F.
Mr. Strucko invited public comment.
Roger Ray, land surveyor and land planner, said that the present ordinance wording of boundary line
adjustment and division of nonconforming lots is really complicated and unjust to the property owners.
Most of the nonconforming lots are larger parcels out in the rural areas. If two lots are nonconforming
they cannot do boundary line adjustments. It allows the property owners to correct boundary line
adjustments and improve the use on the property. It may allow the moving of the driveway on two
nonconforming lots. He felt that this rule change has been long overdue. He commended the staff on
their rewording of Section 6.4. He supported the ordinance change.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Strucko closed the public hearing to bring the matter before
the Planning Commission.
Motion: Ms. Joseph moved and Mr. Morris seconded for approval of ZTA-2009-00015 Nonconforming
Lots, with the changes recommended by staff and Ms. Porterfield, as follows:
1. PC recommended grammatical changes to Section A2, Section F, and Section H
2. Staff recommended text additions to Sections 6.4 D2 and E2, this added "if the lots are in the
rural areas zoning district," to the beginning of the sentences.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 6, 2009
FINAL MINUTES
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Strucko stated that ZTA-2009-00015 Nonconforming Lots would go before the Board of Supervisors
on December 2, 2009 with a recommendation for approval.
ATTACHMENT 2 of Action Memo — Proposed Zoning Text Amendment Language with changes
ZTA-2009-00015 Nonconforming Lots
ORDINANCE NO. 09-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, AND
ARTICLE 11, BASIC REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18,
Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, and Article 11, Basic Regulations, are hereby amended and
reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
Sec. 6.4 Nonconforming lots
By Amending and Renaming:
Sec. 2.1.4 Reduction of lots or areas below minimum prohibited
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article I. General Provisions
Sec. 2.1.4 Reduction of lots eF areas below minimum prohibited
No 10t OF PaFGel(G) exiStiRg at the time ef passage of this eFdaRaRGe The size frontage and width of anv lot
of record existing on the effective date of this chapter shall = be reduced ;;dimene6911 9F area below the
minimum requirements s^+ F^,+h 1+^rcini. of the zoning district in which the lot is located and section 4 of
this chapter except as a the result
of the dedication of land to public use to or the exercise of eminent domain by a public agenGy tit. .
^. ;e1W created after the effective date of this GFddnaRGe shall meet aafisfy at
least the minimum requirements established by this eFdoRan of this except for lots created for
Usage use by a public ageaGy enW to the extent that the same may be justifiable under the
powers of eminent domain. (Amended 9-9-92)
See.3.1 Definitions
Nonconforming lot: The term "nonconforming lot" means a lawful lot of record existing on the effective
date of the zoning regulations applicable to the district in which the lot is located, that does not comply
with section 4 of this chapter and the minimum applicable size, frontage._ width. building site or other lot
requirements of that zoning district. (Added 6-14-00)
Article 11. Basic Regulations
Sec. 6.4 Nonconforming lots
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 6, 2009 10
FINAL MINUTES
A nonconforming lot may continue, subject to the provisions, conditions and prohibitions set forth
herein.
#eRevµ�
RGRG9Rf9F ir _
SA. Uses allowed on a nonconforming lot. A nonconforming lot may be used as though it
satisfies the zoning regulation that makes it nonconforming, provided that:
1. The use is either a nonconforming use or is a use that complies with the zoning
regulations applicable to the district in which the lot is located; and
2. The zoning administrator determines that the lot may be occupied consistently with the
public health, safety and general welfare.
RORG9494nillg lot may be divided, Gembined with ally etheF let, 9F have Gne 9P FnGFe of its bGURdaFy 16FIes-
dew
4 The re6Wltine let OF letS a my With the ren„iremente applicable to the di6tFint in
2. I the en'nien of the Zenine arlminietrater the resulting let erlets 9
' and GOFAply with all nnlir.able ree„iremente of the Albemarle Ge„nty Code
B. Subdivision that includes a nonconforming lot. A nonconforming Lot may be part of a
subdivision provided that all of the resulting lots comply with the reauirements of the zoning district in
which they are located and all other applicable requirements of the Albemarle County Code.
•11. 1"! i I - •l • 11 1� • • - 1.1 •1 • 11 1! • . • •-� I" -. • •1 <!- • I" - l�
lot is i-tcTeased to-na�,e it cotforuina or -tot more nonconforming,
D. Bounda1y line adj�ustment between a nonconforming IoLand a conforming lot, One or
11• - b• .1d-ry li-tes f"U ""I < /•1 •1 • II 1a lot -1! < conformona lot may be adjusted 12rovdecL
1" •• ,1•.y line a6ustment does not 11-.- the conforming lot nonc •1 • 11 I�2. If the lots are in the rural areas-mtita-district. tWe bouida-ki Hie adiust'ne-it do —
or-tWe or_
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 6, 2009 11
FINAL MINUTES
•"�� "-1 �� • • 11• 1•l •I • 11 1• • 11 •- • '• • • •-•
•./ I • � I.1 •1 • 11 1� • 11. •- •• •-• •11. 1-� � 1 .1 • 1- • • 1. - •1- 1-- M#AF*
11" -11-1 • 1" ! 1 - "•<ll"1
0l• ■ I 1" • _ •1 •
It relrolrelmimllono IM11- 1.1 •11 (eigill 115 • 1&1 ZZA im 1149M teli i UGWIMIN 039 PAzZolato" oten Lei
• •MM1• •- •11" 11• - 1.1 •1 • 11 1!
-11 I 11-1 14o011< 111
sH. Setbacks applicable to a nonconforming lot. The current front, rear and side yard
minimum setbacks applicable to the district in which the lot is located shall apply to a nonconforming lot;
provided; that,, if any such setback is thereafter reduced as a result of an amendment to the setbacks
applicable to the district in which the lot is located; and i-s in effect when an existing structure is extended
or enlarged, then that reduced setback shall apply.
€1. Effect of change of ownership. A change of the ownership or occupancy of a
nonconforming lot shall not affect the status of the nonconforming lot.
(§§ 20-6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.5.1, 6.5.2, 6.5.4, 12-10-80, 4-15-81, 9-21-88, 6-14-89, 9-9-92; § 18-6.4, Ord. 98-
A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 00-18(4), 6-14-00; Ord. 08-18(7), 11-12-08)
State law reference — Va. Code § 15.2-2307.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of to as
recorded below, at a regular meeting held on
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Ave Nay
Mr. Boyd
Mr. Dorrier _
Ms. Mallek _
Mr. Rooker _
Mr. Slutzky
Ms. Thomas
Work Sessions:
ZTA-2009-00001 Wind Turbines
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 6, 2009 12
FINAL MINUTES
Adopt Resolution of Intent and review ordinance proposal prior to drafting an ordinance amendment for
public hearing (Mark Graham)
Mr. Graham presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the executive summary. (See
Executive Summary)
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of this report is for the Planning Commission to adopt a Resolution of Intent and to review
the current ordinance proposal prior to a Planning Commission public hearing scheduled for November
17, 2009.
On May 6, 2009, the Board of Supervisors (Board) and Planning Commission held a joint work session to
consider an ordinance proposal and provide direction on how to proceed. Staff was directed to draft an
ordinance amendment, working in cooperation with Mr. Slutzky, Mr. Edgerton, and Ms. Joseph and to
maintain the previously approved Community Development work program in scheduling this effort. Staff
gratefully notes its appreciation for the help provided by Ms. Joseph, Mr. Edgerton, and Mr. Slutzky in
preparing an ordinance proposal.
Based on the direction at the joint work session and subsequent guidance by the representatives of
the Planning Commission and Board, staff has revised the previous April 2009 proposal. The
revised October 2009 proposal is Attachment A.
Among the changes with this proposal are:
• A simplified administrative process that eliminates the need for a Special Use Permit
associated with height. It was recognized that a modification of Supplemental Regulations
would provide an opportunity for public vetting of any issues associated with modifying the
height without the need for the complex and expensive process required for a Special Use
Permit.
• Allowing small wind turbines in the Development Areas and Entrance Corridors as part of a
Tier 1 use. It was recognized that the proposed setback requirement results in a much
greater restriction on wind turbines than it would for other structures. That assured there is
no increased impact on adjoining properties.
• Restricting the use of wind turbines within County recognized Historic Districts and
Mountain Overlay. By placing this requirement in the Supplemental Regulations, this
assures wind turbines in those areas would be allowed only if a waiver of the Supplemental
Regulations is granted by the Planning Commission.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Advise staff of any additional changes the Planning Commission wishes to see with an
ordinance presented for public hearing.
2. Adopt the Resolution of Intent provided in Attachment B
Wind Turbine Outline
October 6, 2009 Proposal
Definitions:
Small Wind Turbine - A wind energy conversion system used for the generation of power to support an
allowed activity on the property. This includes all components of the system such as the tower, guy wires,
wiring, rotors and turbine blades, generators, and control systems. The small wind turbine may be
connected to a public utility and sell power to that utility provided the power sold is not in excess of that
typically used for the primary use on that property.
This definition effectively restricts small wind turbines to an accessory use of the property. For those
turbines that are an accessory to a single family residence or agricultural use, no site plan is required per
18-32.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. For other uses (e.g. power for a commercial greenhouse), there would
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 6, 2009 13
FINAL MINUTES
still be a site plan requirement to satisfy before a building permit for the small wind turbine could be
issued.
Tier I
A small wind turbine located on property within any zoning district except within a County recognized
Historic District or within the Mountain Contour List as defined in the County's Comprehensive Plan.
A Tier 1 system would be considered a "by right" use, subject to the conditions in the Supplementary
Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance but administratively handled with minimal cost to applicants. These
facilities are anticipated to result in very little or no impact to the community and would have minimal costs
associated with County requirements.
Tier II
A small wind turbine that does not qualify as a Tier 1, requiring the Planning Commission to waive
Supplemental Conditions for the use. This would include situations such as a system within a County
recognized Historic District, reduced setbacks, or height above that allowed for buildings in that zoning
district.
This would require the Planning Commission waiving a condition of the Supplemental Regulations. The
administrative cost for such a system would be considerably higher than a Tier 1.
Supplemental Regulations for Small Wind Turbines
Within Section 5 of the Zoning Ordinance (Supplementary Regulations), establish conditions for wind
turbines. As a Supplementary Regulation, the Planning Commission may waive or modify these
conditions, for a Tier II facility. This provides the simplest oversight for situations where project specific
conditions may require special consideration. The following are the recommended conditions:
vftw 1. Small wind turbines are an allowed use within any zoning district, except within County
recognized Historic District or the Mountain Overlay District.
This makes wind turbines a "by right" use within any zoning district and allows the Planning
Commission to decide if the use is appropriately sited in the overlay district where the
potential for conflict is higher.
2. Require a minimum setback from property lines of the height of the structure, plus twenty
feet. It is recommended this include a provision for an administrative waiver where the
applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Agent and County Attorney that the
adjoining property owner has agreed to restrict development within that part of their
property that would be within this setback distance.
This allows a margin of safety for structure collapse and ice throws from turbines.
3. Prohibit collocation of personal wireless service antenna.
This avoids situations where wind turbines might be constructed to circumvent wireless
facility ordinance requirements rather than being primarily intended for generation of wind
energy.
4. Prohibit all lighting of the wind turbine and tower.
This restriction recognizes the dark skies provisions in the Comprehensive Plan.
5. Prohibit wind turbines within the Entrance within the Mountain Contour List as defined by
the Comprehensive Plan. This assures oversight by the Planning Commission for visual
impacts within the Entrance Corridors and mountains. Within the EC, the Planning
Commission may also request input from the Architectural Review Board before
considering a request.
Height Restrictions
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 6, 2009 14
FINAL MINUTES
rm
Under the Supplemental Conditions for small wind turbines, add a provision for small wind turbines to
meet the height limits within the underlying zoning district. Thus, the Planning Commission could modify
this requirement.
Unlike previous proposals, this eliminates the need for a Special Use Permit, which greatly reduces the
administrative burden for the County and the cost to the applicant while still assuring there is a process
where exceptions are vetted in public.
Administration
A building permit is required prior to the County permitting construction of a small wind turbine. A site
plan may be required before a building permit application is submitted per 18-32.2 of the Zoning
Ordinance for those uses that are not exempted from the site plan requirements. . The following
information must be provided with the building permit application.
1. A plat of the property that clearly shows the boundary lines, location of the proposed small
wind turbine, and setbacks to the property line.
2. Plans that clearly show the total height of the proposed structure and satisfy all provisions of
the Building Code.
3. A signed and notarized affidavit using a County form that demonstrates the small wind
turbine will be used to support an allowed use of the property and assures the small wind
turbine shall be removed if the supported use is ended.
Tier I -
A Tier I small wind turbine is a "by right' use and will typically only require a building permit.
Recognizing administrative costs can be a significant deterrent to use of small wind turbines, this
provision attempts to keep that cost to a minimum.
Tier II -
A Tier II small wind turbine shall require Planning Commission approval of a waiver or modification of the
conditions in the Supplemental Regulations prior to approval of a building permit or site plan. As part of
approving a waiver or modification, the Planning Commission may establish reasonable conditions to
assure the ordinance intent is maintained. If the commission denies an application, it shall identify which
requirements were not satisfied and inform the applicant what needs to be done to satisfy each
requirement.
Recognizing site specific considerations may suggest a small wind turbine should be allowed, the
Planning Commission can waive or modify the requirements as related to setbacks, zoning districts and
overlay districts, collocation of antenna, lighting, and height. Depending on the submission requirements,
the cost of this application may be a significant deterrent to applicants constructing small wind turbines.
Mr. Graham noted that this is a follow up from the joint work session of the Planning Commission and
Board of Supervisors held earlier this year. Staff has been working with Ms. Joseph, Mr. Edgerton and
Mr. Slutzky on this since then. The purpose of this review is for the Planning Commission to adopt a
Resolution of Intent and to review the current ordinance proposal prior to a Planning Commission public
hearing scheduled for November 17, 2009. Staff has had one question since the staff report on whether
an appeal could be made on one of these modification requests. The answer is yes it could be appealed
by the applicant to the Board if the modification is denied by the Planning Commission.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution of intent noting that they plan to bring this back to the
Planning Commission for a public hearing on November 17. If there is any other changes the
Commission would like to see with this advertised ordinance staff will try to incorporate those as well.
Mr. Strucko invited questions for staff.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 6, 2009 15
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Edgerton asked on page 3 in the definition of small wind turbine if the last part of the first paragraph,
"Provided that the power sold is not in excess of the typically used for the primary use of that property"
was necessary. The current net metering system regulation coming down from the State actually says
that. He was hoping that at some future date when Dominion Power is more inclined to be going towards
renewable energy that regulation will be adjusted to allow and encourage private property owners to
generate as much power as they can into the grid. Right now it is kind of a protection. So they have a
regulation right now that will keep it that way regardless of whether it is a solar system or a wind system.
He was wondering if they want to add that extra language in an ordinance because if the regulations in
Richmond change then they would have to come back and adjust this later. He asked if there was some
legal reason that has to be in there.
Mr. Kamptner replied no that there was none that he was aware of. He thought that the reason for this
language is to assure that the scale of the wind turbine was appropriate to the primary use. They can
probably develop some other language that will accomplish the same thing. That is to just assure that the
scale is consistent, but to provide the flexibility that he was referring to.
Mr. Edgerton said if it was to try to keep the scale he felt the high limitation is going to do a rather
dramatic job of doing that anyhow it being limited to the current height regulations in the underlying
zoning district. But if they can leave that language out and achieve what they are trying to do somewhere
else he would prefer to do it that way because this is so specific. Then they go back and look at last
year's electric bill and limit them to what that is. Right now the explanation he has been given on the
limitation is that it is a protection for the power company, which happens to be Dominion Power in
Albemarle, but the power company under law has to credit the individual for electricity that is being
generated into the grid from a renewable source. He thought that this clause in the current legislation
protects them from having to credit the land owner with more than what had been done before. So it is a
protection clause. He was hoping that this changes. There are a number of people working on changing
this legislation in the General Assembly. But if they can leave it out of our ordinance and achieve the
scale or issue that everybody is worried about some other way he felt it would be a healthier way to go
about it.
Mr. Graham replied that Mr. Kamptner had it right. The intent was just to assure that this was not turning
into a small commercial wind farm with someone putting up 30 or 40 for the purposes of making money
by selling electricity.
Ms. Porterfield asked if there was a limitation on how many wind turbines can be placed on a piece of
property.
Mr. Graham replied not as proposed. That was the important part of limiting the power that could be sold
to no more than the use of that property. That was the intent so that it remains accessory to that use on
the property.
Ms. Porterfield asked if it would be possible that somebody would not want to sell the power but would put
more turbines on their property.
Mr. Graham replied absolutely. One of the things that they were trying to recognize is that the state of the
art is changing so quickly and for example one of the things that is happening is people are putting many
turbines along the edges of certain buildings. They may be a foot in diameter and may have 30 or 40
wind turbines setting on the parapet of the building and that is what generates their power. The question
is raised in how they regulate the number and still not impact the state of the art as it is moving forward
here.
Mr. Morris noted that many of those he just described are not propeller driven.
Mr. Graham agreed because there are egg beaters and all sorts of different shapes and sizes.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 6, 2009 16
FINAL MINUTES
Ms. Porterfield pointed out that wind turbines would be allowed in the Entrance Corridor without any
review.
Mr. Graham agreed that was the way it was being proposed right now. As proposed right now the wind
turbines would have to meet the setback requirement as discussed.
Ms. Porterfield questioned wind turbines in the Entrance Corridor not having to meet other regulations.
Ms. Joseph noted that cell towers on commercial buildings and multi -family residence in the Entrance
Corridor required review by the Architectural Review Board.
Mr. Graham summarized the concerns as follows:
Leave the proposal for the EC District the way staff has presented it and PC can discuss it after
receiving public input at the public hearing;
+ Need to have a provision for removal of derelict or abandoned wind turbines;
Regarding Tier II, staff needs to provide for a notification of adjacent property owners on
modifications or waivers; and
Regarding ridgelines, as alluded to by Mr. Kamptner, staff will need to more clearly define what those
areas are.
Mr. Franco noted that he did not hear Mr. Edgerton's proposed modification in the list to relook at the
language.
Mr. Edgerton agreed and noted that it was in regards to the scale issue and taking out the limitation on
how much is being produced. He asked that this be encouraged. In discussion with Ms. Joseph they felt
the fair way to do this would be to model it after the cell tower ordinance. But that is such an onerous
thing that it could only happen with a huge commercial investment, which a private land owner that
wanted to stipulate more use of renewal energy would not be able to afford to participate. That would in
fact kill it. That is why they are where we are. He thought that the conversation going around amongst
the Commission and the concerns expressed are certainly valid and he thought that they ought to be
vetted in a public hearing. They need to hear if there are other concerns.
Ms. Porterfield suggested that additional thought be given to regulations for wind turbines in the Entrance
Corridor.
Motion: Mr. Edgerton moved and Mr. Franco seconded for adoption of the resolution of intent for ZTA-
2009-00001 Wind Turbines.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Strucko said that the resolution of intent for ZTA-2009-00001 Wind Turbines has passed. Staff would
proceed to set the public hearing and incorporating the Commission's and public's comments and
suggestions to the draft.
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, wind turbines have been determined to not be accessory to primary commercial,
industrial and residential uses in Albemarle County because, historically, they have not been customarily
incidental to those primary uses; and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle desires to promote renewable energy sources such as wind
turbines; and
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 6, 2009 17
FINAL MINUTES
WHEREAS, it is desired to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to permit wind
turbines that provide energy for the primary use or uses to which they are accessory in various zoning
districts under appropriate regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience,
general welfare and good zoning practices, the Planning Commission hereby adopts a resolution of intent
to add to and amend the appropriate sections of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to achieve the
purposes described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the
zoning text amendment proposed by this resolution of intent, and make its recommendation to the Board
of Supervisors, at the earliest possible date.
The Planning Commission took a break at 7:33 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 7:40 p.m.
Work Sessions:
ZTA-2009-00017 Zoning Fees
Review Board Direction on Zoning Ordinance Fees. (Mark Graham)
Mr. Graham presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the executive summary. (See
Executive Summary)
The purpose of this work session is to review the County Board of Supervisor's (Board) direction on staff
recommended changes to Zoning Ordinance ("Ordinance") fees prior to a Planning Commission public
hearing. Proposed changes to fees in the Zoning Ordinance were discussed with the Board at an August
5th work session and a Resolution of Intent to amend these fees was adopted by the Board on September
2"d The August 5th report to the Board and Resolution of Intent are attached to the executive summary.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5: Fund the County's Future Needs.
DISCUSSION:
At the August 5th Board work session, staff provided several attachments to help understand the issues
with the fees. Those include:
Attachment B provides a comparison of the current fees and County costs associated with each
item. As noted, many of the fees represent a very small percentage of the costs.
Attachment C provides a comparison of staffs proposed fees and the Fee Study's
recommendation. This also includes new fees recommended by the Fee Study or as a result of
staffs analysis.
Attachment D provides a comparison of current fees, staff's proposed fees, and fees imposed by
several other localities for certain services. For consistency, staff has used the same localities as
previously used when Subdivision Ordinance fees were considered.
• Attachment E provides an estimate of revenues generated from current fees.
Attachment F provides an estimate of revenues generated from staff proposed fees.
As noted at the August 5th work session, there were several fees considerations where the proposed fees
differed from those initially recommended in the fee study. Those included:
1. Special Use Permits (SPs) - In considering SPs, staff determined it was appropriate to simplify
the fee structure into two groups. Minor SPs, which are those uses listed under a.1. and Major
SPs, which are all other special permit uses listed under a.2. In addition, staff determined it was
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 6, 2009 18
FINAL MINUTES
appropriate to recognize that many SPs do not require numerous reviews. As such, staff
recommends a base fee, which includes the submission and resubmission to address
comments, then a separate fee for those complex applications that require multiple
resubmissions. Attachment D shows these fees would be lower in some circumstances and
higher in others. Overall, staff believes they are comparable.
2. Zoning Map Amendments (ZMAs) — Staff used a similar approach for ZMAs to that for SPs,
recognizing that both larger and more complex applications will involve a higher cost to the
County. Attachment D shows the very wide range of fees for these applications. In considering
these fees, staff determined that it would be more appropriate to charge on a per review basis
rather than trying to estimate the average number of reviews and charging everyone the same.
Applicants who view a submittal as a negotiation point can still make a number of submittals, but
the County will recover the costs of the additional reviews necessitated by this approach.
3. Appeals — Under the Board of Zoning Appeals and Final Site Plan fees, staff has listed fees
associated with appeals. Staff is recommending a much lower fee recovery than proposed in
the Fee Study. After consulting with the County Attorney, staff believes there may be due
process issues associated with these fees and those fees should reflect the administrative cost
of processing the application, but not any of the costs associated with reviewing or preparing
staff reports for those applications. Costs associated with required advertising would be
handled separately as a new fee.
4. Notices and Advertisements — Staff has included new fees for both required notifications and
advertisements. The recommended fee for notifications is identical to that recently adopted in
the Subdivision Ordinance. For required legal advertisements, staff is recommending the
County recover the actual cost of advertising the application. While those advertisement costs
can vary a little, they appear to average around $200-$250 each time the advertisement runs in
the newspaper. As such, if an application requires two notices for the Planning Commission
public hearing and two for the Board of Supervisors public hearing, the cost of advertising is in
the range of $800 to $1,000. If an applicant chooses to request deferral after an advertisement
has run, the applicant would be responsible for the additional advertising cost.
5. Architectural Review Board - These are also new fees proposed by staff. With respect to
revisions to a Certificate of Appropriateness or a Certificate of Appropriateness required for a
building permit, staff concurs with the Fees Study's recommended fee. With respect to Site Plan
reviews, staff has simplified the fee structure to include only reviews requested by an applicant
or required for a Certificate of Occupancy. Staff's recommended fee is a compilation of several
fees in the Fee Study, but lower than the Study's recommendation. The staff -recommended fee
reflects staffs assessment of costs for these reviews and recently proposed changes that staff
believes will lower review costs.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
Budget impacts were discussed in the August 5th Executive Summary. No changes or additional
information are included at this time.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The purpose of this work session is to review the Board's direction in advance of a proposed November
10, 2009 public hearing. The Board was content with the proposal and asked that it be brought forward in
a public hearing.
Mr. Strucko invited questions for staff.
Ms. Porterfield asked what percentage of costs staff estimates will be recovered across the board.
Mr. Graham replied that as an aggregate it would be around 35 percent of the costs. In looking at
comparables they found that other localities were not able to recover a significant part of the costs
for zoning fees. The one exception was Stafford County who operates as an enterprise. The
proposal is scheduled for public hearing on November 10 by the Planning Commission.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 6, 2009 19
FINAL MINUTES
Ms. Joseph said that if people are abiding by the rules that the community sets up does the
community have some responsibility in helping to pay for the review of it because they want their
community to look a certain way.
Ms. Porterfield supported the applicant paying more than 75 percent, but at least 50 percent.
Mr. Graham noted that what was before the Commission was what he brought before the Board in
August and they did not make any changes on it.
Mr. Morris said that they have two different sets of figures.
Mr. Graham replied that was correct. As he noted with zoning fees a lot of localities are all over the
map, but there seems to be a lower level of cost recovery than with other ordinances.
Ms. Porterfield said that government can't pay it all.
Mr. Strucko supported what the Commission recommended initially on this for the 75 percent and
then the Commission could lower it.
Mr. Graham noted that they could recommend higher fees in the advertisement and the Board
could adopt a lower amount, but could not go up.
Mr. Kamptner noted that one of the reasons the Board agreed to the 35 percent is that they are
recognizing that a lot of the things the County requires through the public process has a public benefit as
well. It is not just the developer's benefit to get the approval, but the public's benefit that comes about
through architectural review, the development of wireless regulations and things like that. So that was
kind of the counter balance to a different type of fee structure.
Mr. Strucko noted that there would be some discussion about this issue at the public hearing.
Mr. Graham noted that this work session was to review what happened at the Board meeting.
Mr. Edgerton noted that the Commission agrees that the fees need to be raised and comparable to other
localities. He asked that the Commission go on record saying that they don't think the fees are high
enough. In order to provide more support for staff he felt that the fees should be increased.
Mr. Loach said that from what he has seen the public within Albemarle County feels the development
should do more to pay for itself.
Mr. Franco noted that they have discussed limiting the review so to keep that cost low. He asked what
level of review they want to associate with requests. He was necessarily pushed to see a higher level
come forward.
Mr. Graham noted that the Board did not specify a percentage.
Mr. Strucko said that this would be a debate at the public hearing.
Ms. Porterfield asked if it has to be advertised for a specific percentage.
Mr. Kamptner said based on what he had heard when they drafted the advertisement they will set the
possible fees high enough so that the Commission has the flexibility when they make their
recommendation.
Mr. Strucko asked if they have to determine those levels tonight.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 6, 2009 20
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Kamptner replied no. When the public hearing is held they will have to determine those levels. When
staff prepares the advertisement it will not be based simply on the ordinance that he has been working
on. Some flexibility will be built into it to go up or down.
Ms. Porterfield noted that last time they set it at 75 percent so they would have a lot of wiggle room. She
suggested that they set it at 75 percent.
Motion: Ms. Porterfield moved and Mr. Edgerton seconded to draft the advertisement for the fees to be
75 percent.
Mr. Franco said that they were not making a motion. Staff was going to move forward to draft an
ordinance that will be going through for public hearing based on this work session.
Ms. Porterfield noted that it has to be advertised.
Mr. Strucko asked when it would be advertised.
Mr. Kamptner replied that the advertisement for the Planning Commission meeting will be going out next
week. The content would identify the fees and probably list an amount not to exceed. It will be pretty
high and probably 75 to 100 percent.
Mr. Strucko asked if the Commission could determine what the advertisement level would be this evening
through a motion.
Mr. Kamptner acknowledged that they need to build flexibility into the advertisement.
Mr. Strucko asked for the sake of clarification if the Commission feels comfortable with at least a 75
percent level. The Commission wants to make sure that the fees are high enough.
Mr. Graham noted that staff could come up with fees that are comparable to recovering 75 percent of
cost.
Ms. Porterfield noted that there was a motion on the floor and asked,if they could make it official.
Mr. Strucko said that they could proceed. He asked for a vote. It has been moved and seconded that
the advertised rate be at least recovering 75 percent of staff processing cost. He asked for a roll call
vote.
The motion passed by a vote of 4:3. (Mr. Franco, Mr. Morris and Ms. Joseph voted nay.)
Mr. Strucko noted that he had not asked for public comment. Therefore, he invited public comment.
There being none, he noted that staff would proceed to the public hearing incorporating the Commission's
comments.
Old Business:
Mr. Strucko asked if there was any old business.
Ms. Porterfield thanked the Commission for handling the Luck Stone issue.
There being no further old business, the meeting moved to the next item.
New Business:
Mr. Strucko asked if there was any new business.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 6, 2009 21
FINAL MINUTES
The Commission asked staff to email the Resolution of Intent regarding the Route 29 Corridor Study if
passed by the Board in order that the Commission can consider passing a resolution of intent at next
week's meeting.
There being no further new business, the meeting moved to the next item.
Adjournment:
With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 8:18 p.m. to the Tuesday, October 13, 2009 meeting at
6:00 p.m. at the County Office Building, Second Floor, Auditorium, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
V. Wayne CilirAberg, Secretary
(Recorded by Stephanie Mallory and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to tanning Commission &
Planning Boards)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 6, 2009 22
FINAL MINUTES