HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 20 2015 PC MinutesAlbemarle County Planning Commission
October 20, 2015
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting and public hearing on Tuesday, October 20,
2015, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Members attending were Cal Morris, Chair; Richard Randolph, Mac Lafferty, Vice Chair; Thomas Loach, Bruce
Dotson, and Tim Keller. Absent was Karen Firehock. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the
University of Virginia was present.
Staff present was Scott Clark, Senior Planner; Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Francis McCall, Senior Planner;
Ron Higgins, Chief of Zoning; J.T. Newberry, Senior Planner; Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission;
David Benish, Acting Director of Planning; Wayne Cilimberg, Deputy Director of Community Development and
Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Morris, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Other Matters Not on the Agenda from the Public
Mr. Morris invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda.
The following persons expressed concerns regarding potential farm winery events that might occur as permitted
by County provisions, particularly as they might affect Ballards Mill Road.
Nancy Breci, 4051 Ballards Mill Road in Free Union, noted that a serious situation has occurred on our road in the
neighborhood that the County needs to address. They have a neighbor who over the past 25 years has designed
and planted a stunning garden, but this has become a hobby that has gone arise. She is now expecting her
neighbors to support her efforts of becoming a full profit enterprise in a strictly rural noncommercial area of
Albemarle County and expecting us to support her no matter what the consequences will be - loss of tranquility
and incredibly increased traffic on a substandard lane and a half dirt road; potentially decreased property values
and adverse noise pollution. Initially she applied for a special use permit requesting 24 events per year, 150
attendees each, and 250 attendees at 4 events. When she realized the county had overwhelming neighbor
opposition to stifle her ability to conduct an event with a special use permit she threatened the neighbors with
opening a farm winery. By establishing the property as a farm winery she can bypass county controls such as
number of attendees, number of events, noise levels, traffic issues, and inability to use buildings that were built
after 2007. While the county has very diligently worked at maintaining defined commercial development areas
separate from strictly rural areas this runaround will be devastating to the county's efforts and could permanently
affect the rural character for which our county is recognized. Her property is surrounded by conservation
easements with the Virginia Outdoor Foundation and Department of Forestry. In fact, she shares a one mile
property line with conservation easements.
Ms. Breci explained that the neighbors feel that these conservation easements restrict the use of property by the
owners. As you will see in the next video our road is a serious situation. We feel that because it is a lane and a
half it is gauged out by gullies when it rains; it is not big enough for two-lane traffic; and, it is really a 1 1/2 lane
road. We have embankments that are actually taller than a roof of a car and drop offs that if a car went too far
over they would fall off the edge of the road. We also have a serious situation in the lower half of the road
because in the three mile length we have a .9 mile at 15 miles per hour and .6 mile at 10 miles per hour which is
about'/2 the length of our road. The county really needs to reconsider making this a priority. (Ms. Breci started
the video for Ms. Rotach-Hunt. The sound in the video did not work.)
Sibylle Rotach-Hunt, resident of 4110 Ballards Mill Road since 1999, supported Nancy Breci's presentation by
also expressing concern about the safety on Ballards Mill Road. Ballards Mill Road is a narrow gravel county
"\rw road which can accommodate residential and legitimate farm use, but is not suitable for heavy commercial traffic
as you will see in the video. (Video presented by Ms. Breci) Since the sound did not work Ms. Rotach-Hunt
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 20, 2015 1
FINAL MINUTES
pointed out the standard shuttle bus on the road that would be used for the proposed winery use. She pointed out
as you can see the road is very narrow and it is a gravel road. In some places it is very hard for vehicles to cross
particularly larger vehicles. The embankment can be quite steep and in some places it is hard for vehicles t
pass. Basically, they are concerned about the safety on the road since it is used by children walking and riding
bikes and horses.
Bob Breci, of 4051 Ballards Mill Road, apologized for the sound not working in the video. He agreed with the
other speakers about the real hazard and safety issues on the road resulting from the winery events including
weddings.
Elizabeth Neff said for the past 23 years she has lived in Free Union on Ballards Mill Road. She is addressing the
Commission as there is a major flaw in the winery, brewery, and distillery ordinance. The ordinance to allow by -
right events, specifically weddings was created to augment income for wineries, distilleries or breweries. Hosting
events was to help offset some of the expenses incurred with the production of wine, beers or in spirits. The flaw
in the ordinance as it now stands has no formula in which to gauge the income as a result of events versus the
production of alcohol beverages. Why does this concern me? She lives on Ballards Mill Road, a dirt road in Free
Union, which is quite rural with fewer than 20 people per square mile. Across the road from her is Waterperry
Farm owned by Kathleen Cane and Olan West who would like to host weddings on their property with 15
weddings or like events after 200 guests per event a year. They have had a website in the gardens at Waterperry
Farm for close to a year as well as an article in Virginia Livings April issue triumphing Waterperry's gardens as the
ideal wedding venue. When it became apparent the entire neighborhood with owners of 74 properties signing a
petition against Waterperry's special permit for events, and the Cane/West decided to pursue being licensed as a
Class A Farm Winery. Their plan is to rent in Nelson County four acres of wine producing grapes and have an
half acre of hybrid grapes at Waterperry. They will also buy the minimally equipment to qualify. Please note the
Cane/West are not required to actually produce any wine. The website nor the Virginia Living's article mentions
wines nor winery, which is because their intent is not to produce wine but to state wedding events as a by right to
having a Class A Farm Winery license. The farm winery, brewery and distillery ordinance was not created to by-
pass special use permits for events. The ordinance was not created to make events the primary source o`
income. Unless the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors have some criteria to ensure the
ordinance is not abused, then unfortunately it will be. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Steve Blaine, attorney representing Elizabeth Neff, said he has consulted with a number of the neighbors who live
on Ballards Mill Road. You may recall that he spoke to the Commission at a work session earlier this summer
when the topic of tonight's ordinance came up. He thinks it is fair to say as a general proposition my clients are
not opposed to the notion of supporting our Virginia wineries, breweries and distilleries, which he mentioned at the
work session. He represents a number of those wineries. But, he thinks the way to reconcile their views is that
where you have as in their instance in their neighborhood someone's primary intent is to have a wedding events
planning and it is not really at all about the farm winery. What was intended by the legislation that supports these
ordinances is to have these events as ancillary or supplemental to the primary goal, which is to promote the
winery industry, the breweries and other traditionally agriculturally related events. So what are they asking the
Commission to do? He has advised his clients that this statute does say that you must treat these uses in a
certain way. He has sent a memo to Mr. Kamptner and they would ask that the Commission urge the Board of
Supervisors to adopt a resolution to improve upon these ordinances so that we may get to the bonafide uses we
are intending to promote, the bonafide uses being wineries, breweries and in the case of the most recent changes
in the state law, distilleries. But, where we are finding in areas that are entirely inappropriate for this intensive use
he thinks that this law could be applied and abused anywhere in the rural areas. He thinks the Ballards Mill Road
is just an extreme example. But, can you stop the problem before it occurs? We think you can if you try to
address this bonafide use issue. We have some ideas from other localities. Faulquer County is trying to tackle
this. It does not cause you to stop doing what you are doing tonight in adopting this law that is mandated by
statute; but, he thinks a further amendment to the ordinance is in order. So we would ask you to consider this and
as he said if you could use your offices to urge the Board. We would also be speaking to the Board of Supervisors
to look into this. With that he will conclude and submit a petition signed by 70 neighbors. (Attachment: Petition
signed by 70 neighbors)
Mr, Morris asked if he was planning on going to the Board of Supervisors with this presentation, and Mr. Blain
replied yes, sir. 10,04
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 20, 2015
FINAL MINUTES
Neil Williamson, with the Free Enterprise Forum, said he appreciates the concerns that have been raised. He
thinks it is rather important that we recognize that the road is not owned by the county; but, it is owned by the
*AW' state. If the state mandates that the road needs to be updated, the state can update the road. The county actually
can't since it is a state owned road. In addition, the Farm Wineries Act, in my opinion having 20 years of work
with it, is not an easy thing to do in getting a class A farm winery license. In fact, when we were first discussing
the events portion and the other portions of this it was determined that if you jump through the hoops to achieve
that farm winery whether you are utilizing leased vineyards or vineyards on site that was a high enough barrier.
He gets very concerned that the idea of the right to farm and the right to move forward with a property owner's
right on their property is hindered by the state's action on a road, which is probably not somewhere that the
county wants to get into. It may prove to be helpful if Mr. Kamptner shares what the State Code suggests. The
idea of an independent enterprise being forced to open their books to determine what portion of their revenue
comes from what, he thinks is simply not right. Thank you very much.
There being no further comments, the meeting moved to the next agenda item.
Review of Board of Supervisors Meeting — October 7, 2015 and October 14, 2015
Mr. Benish reviewed the actions taken on October 7, 2015 and October 14, 2015.
Consent Agenda:
a. Approval of Minutes: August 11, 2015
b. SDP-2015-00035 Old Trail Block 27 — Private Street Request
Request to authorize two private streets with exceptions from sidewalk and planting strip requirements (J.T.
Newberry)
Mr. Morris asked if any Commissioner would like to pull an item from the consent agenda for further review.
Mr. Randolph asked to have discussion about SDP-2015-35 Old Trail Block 27 — Private Street request. Looking
at the streets that are proposed to be private streets the likelihood is there that these streets could experience
traffic that would drive through there. Knowing how children oftentimes gravitate to back streets and alley ways,
as they have also used the term in the Crozet/Old Trail area for discussion. He thinks it is hard for children to
distinguish between what is an alley way and what is, in fact, here a road that will be considered a road that there
should not be traffic on. The only way they can ensure that there will not be traffic on both Fennel Road and
Oldham Drive is to consider having bollards there so emergency vehicles could get through, but it would prevent
through traffic. He was a little concerned looking at this from a public safety standpoint and knowing that there
would probably be children in that roadway.
Mr. Loach pointed out there is open space between the Fennel Road and Oldham Drive. This is the way that Old
Trail has been handling them. The houses on the interior between Oldham and that would be served by that
open space. That is the only reason he did not have much of a problem with it. He has seen them do it before;
everything in Old Trail is handled by alleys and there has not been any problems. If it was not for the open space
that they have, the availability between the two houses on either side of that to move back and forth and to get to
the other areas by sidewalks he would have some concerns. He thinks it is alright for the area.
Ms. Monteith asked if it could be addressed by signage. Depending on the type of retractable bollards used it can
be an investment because you need access for fire access.
Mr. Loach noted those are service lanes, too.
Mr. Dotson noted the packet did not include a letter from engineering explaining their cautions. The first question
is the scope of their caution restricted to Old Trail or is it a larger issue county wide. The second question is if
there were more private streets, what would be the problem with that.
Mr. Newberry replied that engineering staff provided their comments just internally to staff. Their primary concern
with approving private street requests is they note that it can put an onus on homeowners to have to pay to
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 20, 2015 3
FINAL MINUTES
maintain those streets. They felt like if you were taking a strict stance on the ordinance that perhaps in this case it
would not meet the criteria in a way that they would like it to. He thinks planning staff looked at it and felt like
was consistent with the Neighborhood Model. It was allowing private streets that would give rear access to face a`
common amenity, which was a part of the Neighborhood Model that we want to support. One of the conditions of
the sidewalk waiver request is to make sure there is a walkable sidewalk within the open space that connects to
the broader sidewalk network. So there should not be a necessity for anyone to be crossing these streets nor do
we anticipate there being traffic volume at a speed that would be unsafe. But, the default preference is always for
public streets in the eyes of engineering. In order to achieve Neighborhood Model principles in this case planning
staff felt that private streets were appropriate.
Mr. Dotson said in terms of intensity he was taking that the engineers felt like they had a preference for not
granting the private street, but it is not a major issue and just a preference.
Mr. Newberry agreed, noting it meets all the design standards and fire/rescue has no problem with it
Mr. Loach noted that those streets serve as the alley ways into the garages, which are in the back, so that they
are not heavily traveled or used as cut through. It is consistent with what they have done throughout Old Trail and
there have not been any problems that he knows of.
Mr. Randolph noted he thinks Ms. Monteith raises a good question do we need to go the bollard route as. perhaps
being slightly extreme. But, he wanted to raise that for discussion. He would be comfortable if it was a raised
surface there on both of them so traffic would have to slow down and it was alerted that you had to slow down so
that they can't have cars racing through. He thinks it is great that they have put together a plan with open space
and expecting the children will play in the open space. But, the reality that kids with stickball and the soccer, etc.
they may prefer actually being on an asphalt surface. He would just feel a lot more comfortable knowing that kids
could be in what they are calling roads and drives here, which really do function very similarly to an alley way, that
if they have some way to ensure that the traffic cannot speed through there he was comfortable with it. But, he
thinks that is a missing piece and would like to see that considered in the design for this.
Mr. Loach said he heard what Mr. Randolph was saying, but did not think anything else additional is needed. MW
Motion: Mr. Loach moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded for approval of the consent agenda
The motion carried by a vote of (5:1). (Randolph nay) (Firehock absent)
Mr. Morris said the consent agenda was approved, as follows.
SDP-2015-35 Old Trail Block 27 — Private Street Authorization Request
The Planning Commission approved the three (3) requests outlined below:
1. Section 14-233 and 14-434 - Authorization of two Private Streets within the Development Areas (Oldham
Drive and Fennel Road).
2. Section 14-422 (E)(2) - Exception of the sidewalk requirement with conditions.
Conditions of approval for the sidewalk waiver include:
a. No sidewalk will be required for Oldham Drive and Fennel Road, as shown on the final site plan
for Block 27 dated July 1, 2015.
b. A five foot sidewalk across the length of the open space shall be provided, as shown on the final
site plan for Block 27 dated July 1, 2015.
c. Sidewalks shall be provided along Belgrove Street and Orion Lane to connect the sidewalk within
the open space to the sidewalk system on Ashlar Avenue and Golf View Drive.
3. Section 14-422 (F)(2) -Exception of the planting strip requirement with conditions.
Conditions of approval for the planting strip waiver include:
a. No planting strip will be required for Oldham Drive and Fennel Road, as shown on the final siNl
plan for Block 27 dated July 1, 2015.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 20, 2015 4
FINAL MINUTES
cm
b. Planting strips are required for all other roads adjacent to Block 27.
The meeting moved to the next agenda item.
Regular Items
a. AFD-2015-00001 Moorman's River Addition — Rinehart
Notice is hereby given that the Albemarle County Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to receive
public comments regarding the addition of the following parcels to the Moorman's River Agricultural and
Forestal District (Albemarle County Code § 3-222) on October 20, 2015, at 6 p.m., in the Auditorium of the
Albemarle County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. The parcels proposed for
addition (Tax map 58, parcels 65A4, 65E, and 651) total approximately 27.37 acres in size and are located at
1283 Tilman Road. The Albemarle County Agricultural and Forestal Districts Advisory Committee has
recommended approval of this addition. (Scott Clark)
AND
b. AFD-2015-00002 Jacob's Run Addition — Dick
Notice is hereby given that the Albemarle County Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to receive
public comments regarding the addition of the following parcel to the Jacob's Run Agricultural and Forestal
District (Albemarle County Code § 3-218) on October 20, 2015, at 6 p.m., in the Auditorium of the Albemarle
County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. The parcel proposed for addition (Tax
map 19A, parcel 9) is approximately 21.19 acres in size and is located at 1775 Double Eagle Trace. The
Albemarle County Agricultural and Forestal Districts Advisory Committee has recommended approval of this
addition. (Scott Clark)
AND
c. AFD-2015-00003 Blue Run Addition — Carpenter
Notice is hereby given that the Albemarle County Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to receive
public comments regarding the addition of the following parcel to the Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal
District (Albemarle County Code § 3-208) on October 20, 2015, at 6 p.m., in the Auditorium of the Albemarle
County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. The parcel proposed for addition (Tax
map 35, parcel 37A1) is approximately 25.1 acres in size and is located approximately 1,330 feet northwest of
Virginia Route 20 from a point approximately 1,650 feet north of the intersection of Route 20 and Burnley
Station Road (Route 641). The Albemarle County Agricultural and Forestal Districts Advisory Committee has
recommended approval of this addition. (Scott Clark)
Mr. Morris noted the next items for review are three AFD additions. They have asked Mr. Clark to brief all of the
requests and then the Commission would ask questions and open it up for public comment. The three items can
be handled in one motion.
Scott Clark presented a PowerPoint presentation and individually summarized the staff reports for all three
district addition requests.
AFD-2015-1 Moorman's River Addition — Rinehart
Proposal: It is a very large district is located in the northwest portion of the county. This proposal would add
three parcels to the district totally over 27 acres. The entire 27 acres has high quality soils, which are distributed
on the three parcels and are largely open land.
AFD201500001 Rinehart. This proposal would add three parcels to the District:
Requested Additions
Parcel
Acres
Acres of
Important Soils
Notes
58-651
8.46
8.46
58-65A4
5.00
5.00
58-65E
13.91
13.91
Two dwellings
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 20, 2015
FINAL MINUTES
Recommendation: At their meeting on July 15, 2015, the Agricultural -Forestal Districts Advisory Committee
voted unanimously to recommend approval of this addition to the Moorman's River District.
Mr. Clark moved to the second proposal.
AFD2015-00002 Jacob's Run Addition — Dick
Proposal: This proposal would add one parcel to the District:
Requested Additions
Parcel
Acres
Acres of Important Soils
Notes
19A-9
21.19
17.3
One dwelling
The parcel is approximately half wooded and half open.
Recommendation: At their meeting on July 15, 2015, the Agricultural -Forestal Districts Advisory Committee voted
unanimously to recommend approval of this addition to the Jacob's Run District.
Mr. Clark moved to the third request.
AFD2015-00003 Blue Run Addition — Carpenter
Proposal: This proposal would add one parcel to the District:
Requested Additions
Parcel
Acr
Acres of Important Soils
Notes
35-37A1
125.1125.1
The parcel is approximately two-thirds wooded and one-third open.
Staff Recommendation: At their meeting on July 15, 2015, the Agricultural -Forestal Districts Advisory Committee
voted unanimously to recommend approval of this addition to the Blue Run District.
Based on the Agricultural -Forestal Districts Advisory Committee's actions staff recommends the Planning
Commission recommend approval of all three additions to the Board of Supervisors. He would be happy to
answer any questions.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff. There being no questions for staff, Mr. Morris opened the public hearing
and invited applicants or members of the public to come forward and address the Planning Commission on any
of three four items.
Neil Williamson, Free Enterprise Forum, said the Free Enterprise Forum has no position on these particular
parcels; however, we do want to draw attention to what he would consider to be a policy issue that the
Commission cannot do anything about. He believes it is a state issue. However, he is very impressed that the
county has a committee that considers the agricultural/forestal additions. The districts last 10 years and then
come back and have to go through the committee again, to the Planning Commission and then the Board of
Supervisors. He believes the committee is well published in the district. At the Planning Commission and Board
of Supervisors meeting public input is taken with regard to this because there is a certain tax and community
benefit to having these lands in agricultural forestal districts. None of this happens with a conservation
easement, and it is forever. That is a flaw and he did not know how to solve it. It can't be solved in this room.
But, he really would think that given the import that they are putting on public input to an agricultural forestal
district that is 10 years that something that is in perpetuity probably deserves a little more attention.
Iwo
There being no further public comment, Mr. Morris closed the public hearing to bring it back to the Planning
Commission for discussion and action.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 20, 2015 6
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Morris invited discussion.
Mr. Dotson asked Mr. Keller if he was on the Agricultural Forestal Committee. He was wondering in view of the
fact that these are relatively small additions (20 acres, 5 acres or so) and at least 2 of them are relatively
freestanding and distance from abutting agricultural/forestal parcels if there was discussion of that or whether
this looked such a good thing that it did not require a lot of discussion.
Mr. Keller replied that there was discussion, which actually brings up something that he would bring up in new
business. He thinks they need to have a bit more clarification on the part of staff on the approval and the
disapproval portion of information that is brought forward. In fact, he emailed staff earlier asking if they would
discuss this point and had not received a response to that. There is an ongoing discussion that has been
brought forward by one of the supervisors. It is my understanding that staff is sort of thinking about these
smaller lots and the ramifications of their addition. He asked if staff or Mr. Kamptner would speak to that and
explain where that is in the process right now.
Mr. Benish pointed out Mr. Kamptner would have to speak to that because it is with the County Attorney's office.
Mr. Kamptner said this is an issue that is being studied by the Citizens Resource Advisory Committee. The
small parcel sizes are an issue. The county has some latitude in the State Agricultural Forestal District statute to
require additional information that it deems to be relevant and parcel size is certainly something that could be
considered. The committee is also looking at changing the minimum acreage for qualifying for land use taxation.
Right now they have low acreage requirements for agriculture and horticultural uses as just 5 acres. For right
now he thinks the way the Agricultural Forestal District regulations are set up they are generally consistent with
those other regulations. But, there has been discussion about raising those thresholds up to 25 acres, which is
the minimum size in other localities.
Mr. Keller said to answer Mr. Dotson's question there was a lot of discussion along this line. The reason the
votes went the way they were is because this is under consideration and others had been accepted previously
based on our current understanding. That is why he had asked that staff might speak to this first so that they
could maybe move along on this, but be aware of the fact that it is most likely going to be a forthcoming issues
for discussion. We learned, for instance, that there are counties, such as Louisa, that have elected not to have
forestry as a land use. So there are ways within our state enabling legislation where there can be modifications.
That gets into the whole budgetary issue, which is beyond our preview. But, it is one of those sets of discussions
that are going on in the county right now that would affect agricultural forestal districts and potentially areas
under easement as Mr. Williamson has pointed out as all of this is rethought.
Mr. Dotson said that is very helpful, thank you. He had a couple of minor thoughts. Looking at the map with the
Moorman's River the Rinehart parcel is relatively isolated from the balance of the district. However, he then
looked and there is also an isolated parcel on Barracks Road and one over off Reas Ford Road. So that may be
the kind of precedent that Mr. Keller was speaking about. He did not know if there was anything in our policies or
ordinances that addressed distance or proximity to other properties that might be under a conservation easement
or an agricultural forestal district to sort of give some credence to the notion of being a part of a larger whole.
Mr. Clark replied that there is a very specific policy or requirement about the distance from a district, but none
about parcel acreage. The County Code requires that any parcel that is going to be added to a district be within
one mile of the core of the district. The core of the district is the first set of parcels that were added to the district
when it was first formed and not the later parcels that were added. This keeps the individual districts from
sprawling a long way across the landscape. It also has encouraged having the 20 some districts that they have
now. That is a legal requirement as far as the distance goes and the Rinehart property met that. However, as far
as the acreage or the development potential of a property there is nothing specific in the ordinance about that. It
has been a topic of discussion on the committee and among staff for a long time. It seems the Board has now
requested this report from the County Attorney's office that will begin to address whether or not we should in fact
have a policy about acreage or development potential on top of our rather permissive approach over the last
many years of basically taking all comers to these districts and not questioning them based on acreage.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 20, 2015
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Dotson noted in just looking at the map, which does have a scale on it, it would not appear that the property is
within a mile.
Mr. Clark replied unfortunately you cannot easily show what is core and what is not from here. However, staff
always measures that distance when the applications come in.
Mr. Dotson said he would take Mr. Clark's word for it. The other question he had involved trying to figure out the
motivation since none of the applicants were here. In trying to figure out what the motivation is he suggested
using the Dick proposal as an example. It looks like it is a 21 acre lot perhaps as part of a development, and he
was guessing that it has no further division rights and that no additional development could take place on it. So he
was trying to figure out would this give it a reduction in taxes; and, if so what is the benefit to the county since it
has no further development potential in any case.
Mr. Clark replied that it has been a clear pattern since 6 or 8 years ago when the County Assessor's Office began
doing bi-annual revalidations for land use tax that a lot of people who for a very long time had been qualifying for
the agricultural category or something without having to revalidate would remain in that category over many
years. Once the revalidations came along and because they were less capable of doing farming or qualifying
quite the way we would expect, a lot of the parcels we have seen come to the agricultural -forestal district since
that time have been 21 to 25 acre parcels with no development potential meaning you are correct that Jacob Run
addition is a 21 acre parcel with no further development possible. Again, for 20 plus years they have been taking
all comers and not judging based on development potential. The question they are trying to settle now is should
we, in fact, be doing that.
Mr. Benish said it has not been the role of the Agricultural and Forestal District to adjudicate on whether
something qualifies for use value taxation. It looks to be a benefit of the agricultural forestal district. That had
been less of an issue until the revalidation started. There are obviously policies across these two programs that
need to be rectified. But, that has not been in the past a role of the agricultural district to consider use value.
Also, in terms of 21 acre lots that the way our ordinance is structured we consider a 21 acre lot an agricultural lot
That is why the non -division right lots are 21 acres. In the 30 years he has been at the county they hay.„,,,�
discussed having that be a larger lot size without much success.
Mr. Dotson asked is there time pressure to address these. Does it confer a benefit this calendar year if acted
upon now as opposed to defer it to such time as the report is returned about some of these issues.
Mr. Clark pointed out the people who are using their memberships in the Agri -Forestal Districts to qualify for the
open space tax category for next year need to get into this during this year to qualify. That is obviously a large
part of their motivation.
Mr. Dotson said he would like to hear comments from other commissioners.
Mr. Randolph said just to make an observation that today's outlier might be tomorrow's cluster, and we have to
think about that. Since that little isolated green spot may attract other people in the future and that cluster thereby
one or two outliers can grow and become a cluster. That is something we have to keep in mind.
Mr. Dotson agreed. He noted that an agricultural/forestal district can become a conservation easement in the
future.
Mr. Keller said so many pieces of this have come in. Mr. Blaine spoke about the possibility of bonafide agriculture
or whatever in terms of the winery there comes those kind of issues. Really now the questionnaire is beginning to
be much more specific about what that agricultural/forestal/horticultural use would be. Then there is the open
space. The open space is where it sort of butts up against the easement that someone who is going for an open
space would be putting their land under easement or not. Or, is there some total of everything that they are
getting under some degree of protection looking towards our comprehensive plan's focus on the rural areas and
maybe does not need to be tweaked. But, those are the kinds of discussions that are going on and if it interests
our commission he was sure that the agricultural forestal committee would be glad to have an opportunity to mef
and have further dicussions. He thinks there is a bit of a frustration about where all of these things comb
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 20, 2015 8
FINAL MINUTES
together. Really, we are not in the business of speaking about the fiscal side of things. It is the land use. From a
land use standpoint it seems to be a relatively effective tool possibly because of that review.
Mr. Morris invited further discussion.
Mr. Clark noted staff has been discussing which items and information about these parcels they wanted to bring
forward to the Commission in these public hearings. We do have an assessment of the development potential of
each parcel that is under review. There will be a second round of additions for this year coming to the Planning
Commission next month. If the Commission would like staff can include that in the presentation to say the
acreage and the development potential.
Mr. Morris agreed that information would be helpful.
Mr. Dotson said most of the staff report was about the district in whole and not about the parcel to be added,
which ought to be added.
Mr. Clark pointed out staff has always included acreage and soil information about the individual parcels. If the
Board directs staff and the Committee to consider development potential as well we can easily work that in.
Mr. Keller said there was just one last piece on that. Mr. Dotson asked the question about the involvement. He
knows the committee would like to see representatives who are coming before the committee in person. In the
two meetings he has attended that has not been the case in the majority of cases that we are reviewing it. So if
we thought that was important all the way through the process, then the Commission could make that
recommendation to staff that it go forward to the Supervisors to consider that. But, again that involves more staff
time in finding these folks and inviting them. Then they get into that staff timing issue.
Mr. Dotson noted Mr. Keller said he was going to raise something on this topic under new business. He
suggested the Commission discuss that under new business.
Mr. Keller agreed.
Mr. Morris said he would entertain a motion for the three requests.
Motion: Mr. Randolph moved and Mr. Keller seconded to recommend approval of AFD-2015-00001 Moorman's
River Addition — Rinehart, AFD-2015-00002 Jacob's Run Addition — Dick, and AFD-2015-00003 Blue Run
Addition — Carpenter.
The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 5:1. (Dotson nay) (Firehock absent)
Mr. Morris noted it was recommended the requests for additions to AFD-2015-00001 Moorman's River Addition —
Rinehart, AFD-2015-00002 Jacob's Run Addition — Dick, and AFD-2015-00003 Blue Run Addition — Carpenter go
to the Board of Supervisors on December 2, 2015.
The meeting moved to the next agenda item.
ZMA-2015-00004 Commonwealth Senior Living
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07800-00-00-055A1
LOCATION: 1550 Pantops Mountain Place - approximately 430 feet from the intersection of Pantops Mountain
Road and US Route 250 West.
PROPOSAL: Request to amend proffers associated with ZMA99-01 and ZMA01-011. Proposed uses to include
assisted living and independent units with an increase of units from 100 up to 140 units on 3.85 acres.
PETITION: Request to amend proffers on property zoned PRD (Planned Residential Development) which allows
residential uses at a density of 3 — 34 units/acre with limited commercial uses. Proposed density up to36
units/acre. No change to the building footprint is proposed.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
PROFFERS: Yes
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 20, 2015
FINAL MINUTES
STEEP SLOPES MANAGED: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Urban Density Residential — residential (6.01-34 units/acre); supporting uses such a
religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service uses.
(Claudette Grant)
Ms. Grant presented a PowerPoint presentation regarding ZMA 2015-00004, Commonwealth Senior Living.
This proposal is located at 1550 Pantops Mountain Place. It is located approximately 430 feet from the
intersection of Pantops Mountain Road and US Route 250 West. This existing building is the former Pantops
Place. The property is zoned PRD (Planned Residential Development). The Pantops Master Plan designates this
property as Urban Density Residential. The applicant requests to amend proffers associated with ZMA-99-01 and
ZMA-2001-11. The proposed uses include assisted living and independent units with an increase of units from
100 up to 140 units.
This parcel is part of a larger Planned Residential Development (PRD). Over the years there have been various
rezonings, site plans and subdivisions relating to this PRD making it sometimes hard to follow the various actions
related to each parcel. Ms. Grant apologized for any confusion this may have caused and provided an overview
of the PRD, which included the subject parcel, the parcel dedicated to open space and the two parcels designated
for the cottage units. The property adjacent to Route 250 is the Peter Jefferson Overlook property.
Staff displayed the revised application plan. The footprint of the existing building will not change. The applicant
wishes to convert 86 existing units to no more than 70 independent living units and the balance of units would be
set aside as assisted living units providing up to a total of 140 units. As mentioned in the staff report, the only
change to the site is an expansion of the amenity area which is already approved with a site plan. The amenity
area is a little area near Route 250.
As you may be aware the proffers relate to different actions. Some of the proffers had been completed, some
need to be updated, and some still need to be referenced because the original intent is still applicable. In the star`
report staff had recommended that we keep proffer 8; however, after discussions with the county attorney proffe
8 can be eliminated because it is covered by the revised proffer language. There are technical revisions that
need to be provided to the proffers. Staff has been working with the applicant regarding the needed revisions to
the proffers. Staff recommends the applicant work with staff and the county attorney to fix the technical revisions
needed prior to the Board public hearing.
Factors Favorable:
• The rezoning request remains consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the intent of the original
rezoning.
• The increase in units provides services to a larger segment of the senior population.
• The footprint of the building remains unchanged.
Factors Unfavorable
• The proposed proffer revisions eliminate proffers that address impacts and issues which remain valid and
relevant to this site.
Staff Recommendation
Staff can recommend approval of ZMA-2015-00004, Commonwealth Senior Living, provided that the technical
revisions are made to the proffers, per the applicant, county attorney and staff satisfaction prior to the Board of
Supervisor public hearing.
Ms. Grant offered to answer any questions
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Dotson asked was there a community meeting or was that waived,
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 20, 2015 10
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Morris replied no, Mr. Keller and he were at that meeting that took place about two months ago. There was a
nice turn out and by and large people were in favor of it.
Mr. Lafferty asked what the holdup was on the proffers since staff had made it one of the conditions that they
renegotiate the proffers.
Mr. Benish replied that staff just have not reached final language with the county attorney yet. He did not believe
there was a substantive issue, and the applicant can speak to it. But, they don't have final language.
Mr. Kamptner explained that proffer 4 deals with maintaining an interconnection and proffer 6 and 7 deal with
buffering. The applicant may have believed that those proffers could be deleted because they are in place right
now. But, the proffers in all three cases are standards that are above and beyond the minimum standards for a
site plan. So it is staff's recommendation that those three proffers continue on.
Mr. Benish pointed out there was some technical work necessary for some updates.
There being no further questions, Mr. Morris opened the public hearing to the applicant and public comment. He
invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Steve Blaine, representative for the applicant, said that Kevin Willis, project manager from Commonwealth
Assisted Living, was also present. He noted that Commonwealth Assisted Living is a locally based company that
has been in business for about 13 to 15 years and has 20 senior living facilities throughout Virginia that they own
or manage. This is the first one that they will actually own and operate in Albemarle County. Their business
model has been to address affordable senior housing and they have been quite successful in repurposing as in
this instance a building that may have suited the market place better 15 or 20 years ago. This is on independent
living. The notion here is to convert these maybe smaller units more affordable, but to address a need for
assisted living and memory care. So those would be uses that we have identified as much needed in the area and
this is to address that. Ms. Grant did a great job describing the application and we are in agreement with the
characterization regarding the proffers. When looking at the proffers they appear somewhat inaccurate because
they talk about improvements that were really constructed or put into place 15 years ago. But, we agree with the
notion that they should remain because future redevelopment may actually come into play with those proffers. So
they are in agreement with the need to update references to tax map/parcels that no longer exist because they
have been consolidated and that type of thing. So they are happy to answer any questions, but would appreciate
a recommendation for approval.
Mr. Morris invited questions.
Mr. Dotson said he was curious about something that the county does not regulate. The units are occupied as
independent living now and some will be converted to memory care and assisted care. He asked what happens
to the people who are in those units now.
Mr. Blaine said that was a very good question because that was a question that folks raised at the neighborhood
meeting. Obviously, the company is not going to evict current residents. So as folks move out the building can be
converted in phases. They are not going to close the existing operations to convert the building all at one time.
There being no further questions for the applicant, Mr. Morris invited public comment.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Morris closed the public hearing to bring the matter back before the
Commission for discussion and action.
Mr. Dotson said he had one thought and perhaps this is helpful redundancy. On the application plan sheet 3
there is a statement that says the applicant reserves the right to adjust the ratio of assisted living to independent
living units for this site based on the parking requirements shown and the proffers associated with this application.
He suggested that it would be useful redundancy to add that to condition 8 at the very end. If someone does not
necessarily pick it up on the site plan, then the applicant has that flexibility to pick it up in the conditions.
*40e Therefore, he offers the suggestion as useful redundancy.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 20, 2015 11
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Morris asked if there were any other comments. There being none, he asked for a motion.
Mr. Randolph moved for approval of ZMA-2015-00004, Commonwealth Senior Living, with a proviso that theme
proffers provided in January 5, 2000 to the previous owner would remain applicable and those proffers are 4, 5, 6,
7 and 8 as amended and recommended by staff.
Mr. Kamptner noted it actually should just be 4, 6 and 7 since proffers 5 and 8 have been addressed and are no
longer applicable.
Mr. Randolph agreed because he had proffer 5 written as done.
Mr. Benish said your comment would just apply to the property and we will incorporate it, and Mr. Randolph
agreed.
Mr. Kamptner said just to be clear does that include Mr. Dotson's addition of the note from sheet 3 of the
application plan.
Mr. Randolph replied yes, it does include Mr. Dotson's addition of the note from sheet 3 of the application plan:
"The applicant reserves the right to adjust the ratio of assisted living to independent living units for this site based
on the parking requirements as described on sheet 3 of the application plan and the proffers associated with this
application plan."
Mr. Keller seconded the motion.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Morris asked for a roll call.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. (Firehock absent)
Mr. Morris noted that ZMA 2015-00004, Commonwealth Senior Living would be forwarded to the Board G*000
Supervisors with a recommendation for approval at a Board of Supervisors meeting to be determined.
The meeting moved to the next agenda item.
ZTA-2015-00002 Farm Distilleries
The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to receive comments on its intent to recommend adoption of
an ordinance amending Secs. 18-3.1, Definitions, 18-5.1.25, Farm wineries, 18-5.1.57, Farm breweries, 18-
10.2.1, By right (Rural Areas district (RA)), 18-10.2.2, By special use permit (RA), 18-11.3.1, By right uses
(Monticello Historic district (MHD)), 18-11.3.2, By special use permit (MHD), and 18-31.5, Zoning clearance, and
adding Sec. 18-5.1.59, Farm distilleries, to Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance
would amend Sec. 18-3.1 by amending and adding definitions pertaining to farm distilleries; amend Sec. 18-
5.1.25 by requiring a special use permit when there may be 200 visitors' attendance in the aggregate at any time
for farm winery events, weddings, wedding receptions, or other similar activities; amend Sec. 18.1-57, by
requiring a zoning clearance when farm brewery events or activities may generate more than 50 vehicle trips per
day or they are on sites less than 21 acres in size and require a special use permit when there may be 200
visitors' attendance in the aggregate at any time for farm brewery events, weddings, wedding receptions, or other
similar activities; add Sec. 18-5.1.59 by establishing regulations applicable to farm distilleries ("limited distilleries"
are required to be permitted by Virginia Code § 15.2-2288.3:2, effective July 1, 2015) by delineating the uses,
events and activities ("uses") allowed by right and by special use permit, the requirements for establishing those
uses, requiring a zoning clearance when farm distillery events or activities may generate more than 50 vehicle
trips per day or they are on sites less than 21 acres in size and require a special use permit when there may be
200 visitors' attendance in the aggregate at any time for farm distillery events, weddings, wedding receptions, or
other similar activities, sound generation from outdoor amplified music, and minimum yards; and prohibiting
restaurants and helicopter rides; amend Secs.18-10.2.1, 18-10.2.2, 18-11.3.1 and 18-11.3.2 by adding farm
distilleries as being allowed by right or by special use permit as provided in Sec. 18-5.1.59; amend Sec. 18-31.5
by requiring a zoning clearance for certain events and activities at farm wineries licensed after the effective datF
of this ordinance, farm breweries, and farm distilleries that may generate more than 50 vehicle trips per day or'1'
they are on sites less than 21 acres in size, and in order to play outdoor amplified music at a farm distillery. A
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 20, 2015 12
FINAL MINUTES
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. McCall presented a PowerPoint presentation regarding ZTA 2015-00002, Farm Distilleries. He handed out a
revision to Attachment E. (Attachment E — Available in the Office of the clerk with the written minutes)
As you are aware, from our previous work sessions this ZTA has come about as a result of Senate Bill 1272 at
the 2015 General Assembly session. It deals with "limited distilleries" or as we have termed them "farm
distilleries". What a limited distillery is permitted to produce per the ABC regulations is 36,000 gallons/year of
distilled spirits on land with agricultural zoning, and must use products grown on the farm. These regulations
went into effect statewide on July 1, 2015.
Background
SB 1272 - Limited Distilleries
• Production, harvesting, manufacturing, sales, storage & tasting protected
• Restrictions shall be reasonable & take into account economic impact, the agricultural nature of activities
& whether they are usual & customary
• Usual & customary activities must be permitted unless there is a "substantial impact' on public health,
safety & welfare
Meetings Held In Past:
• March 17 ROI for farm distilleries
• May 12 PC Work Session
• June 2 Revised ROI to include farm wineries, breweries & distilleries
• July 1 SB 1272 takes effect
• August 11 PC Work Session
The ordinance before the Planning Commission does the following:
First, it adds distilleries as a use in the Rural Areas (RA) zoning district and Monticello Historic District along with
some revised definitions. It also addresses the total number of persons attending one or more events at a single
operation. This may occur if one licensed operation proposes more than one event or if at one site there were
multiple ABC licensed operations where each licensed operation holds an event at the same time.
The 200 person limitation is a longstanding limitation (2009) in the County regulations, on the total number of
persons/guests at a site at one time. As discussed previously with the Commission staff has now revised this
ordinance to clarify that this limitation is to a total of 200 persons onsite regardless of the number of events or
ABC licenses.
Lastly, the ordinance proposes to add the requirement to obtain a zoning clearance for all new farm distilleries,
any new farm brewery or new farm winery established after the date of the adoption of the ordinance amendment
by the Board Of Supervisors if a licensed operation will be on a site that is less than 21 acres in size and wants to
hold events or activities or if an event or activity generates more than 50 vehicle trips per day. This requirement is
already a standard that VDOT uses when requiring commercial entrance improvements, and both of these
requirements are what the County has already adopted for events and activities at Agri operations. The handout
provided was an update to Attachment E that lays out changes to those particular uses, the farm winery and farm
brewery and adding farm distilleries.
Mr. MacCall said he would be happy to answer any questions and Mr. Kamptner would be able to assist in that.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Randolph said his reading of the regulation changes here addresses the multiple same owner operations
contiguous to each other. However, does it also successfully address different multiple owners having contiguous
operations.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 20, 2015 13
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. McCall replied that he did not believe it does right at the moment as far as the cumulative impact of thos
because the ordinance does not specifically address that at this time. He believed staff is going to try to evaluate
that in a second stage, which was discussed at the previous work session.
Mr. Kamptner noted that is one of the phase 2 ZTA's as they continue to look at this. This is something that the
Board is also interested in, which will be discussed at a November meetings when they are going over the
Community Development work plan.
Mr. Randolph said it is very easy for parties on the outside to look at Albemarle County and say Albemarle County
overregulates. But, in point of fact if we don't address this there is a loophole in here large enough to drive the
titanic through sideway. That is a concern that we've all talked about. So he was happy it was going to be
addressed in a second phase
Mr. Keller added that from an economic development standpoint some of this piggybacking that they are seeing is
actually positive. He was thinking of Carter's Mountain that now has added Bold Rock along with Prince Michel
and the orchard part. He thinks that there are many positives to be viewed from that. However, they need to think
about how we deal with contiguous events from multiple owners at one local. He thinks if this is a successful
business model they will see more of it.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing for public comment. He invited public comment.
Neil Williamson, with the Free Enterprise Forum, said when they get to the cumulative impacts and property
owners who happen to be next to each other and are pursuing economic development of their property you can
anticipate that we all be very involved with that discussion. In this case he would like to draw the Commission's
attention to Attachment A, page 3. Perhaps this has already been addressed by staff. The bottom of the page
does not make any sense or there is a tense or something missing. At the last meeting he made a point to say
the core element of this is about the events. This is totally and separate and apart from state permitted an,'
required by -right uses including making the wine. He completely understands the idea. But, in the past it said ar
in attendance at any time. Now it says, "In the aggregate or attend one of more uses allowed. He was kind of lost
by that. It is repeated again on page 6. When you get to page 7, for the purposes of this section the phrase in
the aggregate refers to one or more events authorized under this section or section 5.1.2.5 or 5.1.5.9, which is the
brewery section and the distillery section. He knows the intent is to one event. Quite honestly most of the
wineries that he deals with only one has one event. Frankly, some of them are kind of tired of having events.
But, the reality is that he did not think this language is as clear as it could be. He was hopeful as they move it
forward it can be cleaned up so that it truly does what the intent is.
Mr. Kamptner replied that it will be. He realized this past week that all of the aggregating language that appears
in all three main sections is not as clear as it could be. So he is going to work with that before it goes on to the
Board.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Morris closed the public hearing to bring the matter back before the
Planning Commission for discussion and action.
Mr. Dotson said he thinks this is as good a job as we could do. But, he comes back to the introductory paragraph
that says must be located on a farm. Have we defined that? How would he know whether it was on a farm and
must use agricultural products? It is probably in there, but he could not find it in the ordinance.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out that farm is a defined term in Section 3.1 that has existed in the zoning ordinance for a
number of years. It is a fairly broad term that mirrors the state definition, which is land under the same ownership
within the Commonwealth. Farm wineries are a kind of beast. It is the same thing with farm breweries and farm
distilleries in that the state enabling authority refers to the agricultural products being grown on the farm. The
state definition is as equally broad.
Mr. Dotson said what he is saying is it is a very vague definition, but we are stuck with it.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 20, 2015 14
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Kamptner replied that we are stuck with it. However, he won't say it is a vague definition, it is a broad
definition. It is not what we necessarily think of as the farm. It is not the commonly understood meaning of the
term when we are talking about it.
Mr. Dotson asked what about the use of agricultural products.
Mr. Kamptner noted that we also definite agricultural products. He thinks all the farm wineries in Albemarle
County are Class A license. Therefore, 51 percent of the grapes have to be grown on the farm. Farm breweries
and farm distilleries are required in order for them to obtain a license they have to use agricultural products grown
on the farm. But, there is nothing that establishes a floor amount of agricultural products that have to be used.
Staff met with an ABC agent two weeks ago and they found no regulations. He did not recall there even being
any guidance as to what the minimum threshold is. So it may be a single row of hops or something for a brewery.
They will consider that in their overall evaluation. When they are considering a license application they will look at
the legitimacy of the operation, but recognize there is no minimum amount of agricultural product that has to be
used in the alcohol.
Mr. Dotson asked does the State Code for breweries and distilleries allow for a local definition of a use threshold
paralleling the winery threshold.
Mr. Kamptner replied the licensing requirements are established by the state, and we have no latitude to tweak
those licensing requirements in any way. When you look at the events and activities that we have discretion to
allow we allow those and it has to be either for the purposes of agri-tourism or towards marketing the product. So
if there is very little or no product actually being produced, if there is no real agriculture going on and if it is just a
single vine then we are going to look at whether or not they are actually entitled to engage in those types of
activities. For example, to host wedding events. If it is not promoting agri-tourism or marketing the sale of their
product, then they really are not eligible to engage in these other events and activities.
Mr. Dotson asked how that would come to our attention.
Mr. Kamptner replied it would be by complaint.
Mr. Morris invited other discussion.
Mr. Loach said in 2 respects, one is just to follow up on Mr. Blaine's comments and what Mr. Dotson just talked
about what the definition is of farm. He wanted the definition of bonafide primary agricultural activity. It is
mentioned a couple times in the ordinance. He thinks it goes across the board be it wineries, distilleries or
breweries. He can't believe they couldn't come up with some objective definition on what the underlying
agricultural activity is that you are supporting. In the case that was brought up tonight the operator of the property
basically said I don't want to run a wedding chapel and I couldn't do that. So in order to do that he would put in
one-half an acre of wines and that is my farm. He was not sure under what he would see as the definition that is
a primary agricultural activity for the property. The other thing is the sentence that any regulation of usual and
customary events is allowed only when there is substantial impact on health, safety or general welfare. He thinks
tonight what they saw is a perfect example of a concern of health, safety and the general welfare. It does not
matter whether that road belongs to the state or the county, and it does not matter if the state is responsible. It is
the condition of that road that you have to deal with in its context to where the farm or the applicant is going to be.
It seems they have to recognize there is a big difference between, as an example, the King Family Farm that is on
an asphalt road contiguous to the growth area that has a double yellow line, and you can get traffic in and out. He
would be amazed if they went to the police, fire or rescue and said to them do you not see a problem with this
road. The fact is that when you add to it buses with multiple persons you compound the potential accident injuries
that you are going to have. Imagine trying to get up on that road in a fire truck or trucks, heavy rescue squad,
multiple ambulances and police vehicles. If you think that road is bad now try it at night. It is even worse at night
with dust. He was lucky coming home if there was not another car on that road because like was said you have
to slow down and stop. He saw six deer and one fox, and thankfully did not hit any of them. He would like to
suggest though when we look at substantial impact the sentence reads, "an impact that may arise from an event
or activity." Well my question is when they talked about this in a cumulative nature his problem is what happens if
the situation is that even before that the infrastructure would not support it whether or not there is one of more.
So this is a situation with the one they are talking about. What he thinks we need to do two things, particularly
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 20, 2015 15
FINAL MINUTES
because this is a work session. One, go back and have the county attorney review Mr. Blaine's definitions and
what he wants to do. Second, he would like to see since the only thing the county can do is deal with health an
safety is that we come up with parameters that define whether there are objective reasons why something shoul
not be done and not wait until somebody complains about it or there is an accident. He believes there are
conditions like the one they saw tonight that are contraindicated by their very nature to having large 200 person
events on them. Those are the two things he really would like to see. He would suggest that this does involve
the health and welfare of our citizens and has to be looked at.
Mr. Dotson pointed out this is not a study session tonight, though, this is for action.
Mr. Morris agreed.
Mr. Loach said if that is the case then he do not think this is by any nature complete. He knows what Mr. Dotson
is saying that a lot of time has gone into it, but he did not think it is the best we can do. He thinks they have an
obligation to the citizens to protect their health and safety. If that is the case, then he would vote no because it
needs another looking at if only for those reasons. It was interesting when they looked at the picture that most of
the properties in this area were under conservation easement. That says that the residents of that area have put
their time, effort and money in what they want to do into defining the character of that community. He thinks that
has to be taken into consideration when they make those decisions. If it is not, then he thinks it is incomplete.
Mr. Keller noted when they had the agritourism round tables there were several people who had been quite
involved with the advisory or spin off committee to the state legislator in trying to think through a definition of what
bonafide agriculture was. As he remembered we could never come up with a definition of bonafide agriculture.
So he wanted to remind the Commission that something that seems so simple has not been able to come to a
definition at the state level where they actually gave us the legislation that we are having to deal with. As a side,
Augusta County has in their efforts come up with a definition of what bonafide agriculture is. But, again, they are
a different kind of agricultural community and county than we are.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out we have a definition that clarifies the term agricultural operation.
On the screen there is the definition of agricultural operation. The zoning ordinance also defines what the phrase
devoted to the bonafide production of crops, animals or fowl. It is a very lengthy definition.
Mr. MacCall noted it applies particularly to agricultural operations.
Mr. Keller said the second point is on these rural roads that we all are concerned with he raised the same issues
on Glendower Church and the daycare center. Because there was not the video the same kind of concerns of
people driving fast on the gravel road and the issues then when they had the presentation by the TJPDC about
the rural roads and the issues of could gravel roads go away because the upgrading through the state's rural road
program if they begin to have a high traffic count. There are a lots of interesting things that come together that
are under our preview that interact and they need to think holistically about all of those. It is not necessarily this
evening, but when they have these different related issues he encourages us all to think broadly about how they
interact. He supports Mr. Loach's concerns on those rural roads.
Mr. Loach noted the difference is the amount of traffic that they are talking about with that being a daycare center
versus 150 people going to a wedding where alcohol would be consumed. The second thing is there are rural
roads and rural roads. Tonight they could see visually that maybe one of the rules that we put into place is that if
you have a road that is only a lane and a half wide that by itself is a reason for not approving farm wineries with
200 people on these roads. He was not saying all of them will be, but he was saying there is a difference in the
roads. That is why he is saying to go back and look at and see if you can define parameters to find what would
not be safe. It is what road conditions in the rural area would be contraindicated to having large events being held
in their proximate location. That is what he is saying.
Mr. Morris asked Mr. Kamptner if the county has the capability of putting that into our ordinance as far as what the
state has mandated.
Mr. Kamptner replied we have the ability to protect public health, safety and welfare. If the events and activitie'
were determined to be usual and customary. He was not sure that any in the list that applies to breweries and
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 20, 2015 16
FINAL MINUTES
distilleries are usual and customary. He thinks those two classes are different from the farm wineries. We can
regulate the usual and customary events and activities only if we first determine there is a substantial impact on
public, health, safety or welfare. That is part of the phase 2 analysis that we will be doing. He would imagine that
will be one that will start pretty quickly to deal with these types of issues. The one reason why this ordinance is a
little easier simpler is because we have this legislation that became effective July 1 and we feel that we do need
to get something in place.
Mr. MacCall noted that to some extent they are addressing some substantial impact by doing the zoning
clearance for 50 vehicle trips and the acreage at least for right now. One thing they are not considering is the
number of events. He believes that Loundon is one that does limit a certain number of events per licensed
operation. That is one thing that is not in the consideration. That would definitely would limit things as far as
certain impacts if that was a limitation.
Mr. Morris said he must agree with Mr. Loach on this that the health, safety and welfare of our citizens has to be
paramount in our minds. My question is this as well as the number of contiguous events and so on going to be
addressed in phase 2 and when will phase 2 hit the street roughly.
Mr. McCall noted that Mr. Cilimberg would be able to speak to that.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that is to be decided by the Board as part of the work program. In fact, several of us have
been working with Mr. Graham just today on the information going back to the Board for their November meeting
to really flush out the final work program particulars and the resources necessary. He cannot give the
Commission a timeline right now, but our understanding has been this is pretty important to the Board as well as
we know it is for you.
Mr. Loach asked if these are approved then they go to phase 2, everything done before this is then by right under
those rules and they are not affected by that.
Mr. Kamptner replied generally that is going to be the case. But, if we hold off this ordinance that is also going to
be the case so that any distilleries that come in will not be subject to any other regulations other then what they
are authorized to do under state law. It is the nature of zoning. Part of it would be based on whether they have
any vested rights associated with any particular regulatory change.
Mr. Cilimberg said it was worth keeping in mind that with these amendments we are clarifying the whole question
of cumulative events on site in one location either because of multiple events or because of multiple operations,
say a brewery and a distillery together which could operate on the same site. It is not addressed right now in the
ordinance and is one area that is getting some new attention by the amendments being proposed. It also
includes the zoning clearance for new wineries as well as distilleries and breweries, which had been only attached
to agri-operations in the prior amendments. So there is some level of additional regulation relating to
health/safety that is a part of these amendments. The larger question may be the more cumulative multi parcel
issue that would be addressed as part of phase 2 along with location. One of the big issues actually is the
question of bonafide agriculture. There is a pretty extensive definition right now that is tied to agri-operations,
which we will also be looking at in terms of wineries, breweries and distilleries and how it could be tied into those.
Mr. Loach pointed out his opinion would be if they can get an operation with a half an acre of grapes as a
bonafide farm, then you got beat.
Mr. Lafferty asked how we currently judge health, safety and welfare without being subjective.
Mr. Kamptner noted that part of it is related to the definition of substantial impact. So as we evaluate impacts we
will look at the effects on abutting lots for the neighborhood, any rural road, natural resource, cultural resource, or
historic resource. We will also look at the generation of traffic, noise, dust, artificial outdoor light, trash, storm
water runoff, excessive soil compaction, the failure to provide adequate traffic controls and sanitation facilities,
cumulative effects of large number of events and activities occurring simultaneously, and events and activities
that are incompatible with existing production of agriculture. So those are the types of impacts that we have
identified that affect public health, safety and welfare.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 20, 2015 17
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Lafferty thanked Mr. Kamptner.
Mr. Keller said he was prepared to support this, but just wants to say that the definition can be tested. It is
series of conditions that would be relatively easy to meet without necessarily having a bonafide agricultural
operation.
Mr. Morris asked if there was a motion.
Motion: Mr. Randolph moved and Mr. Keller seconded to recommend approval of the draft ordinance found in
Attachment A for ZTA 2015-00002, Farm Distilleries.
Mr. Dotson asked is there a way in sending that forward that we can also summarize two or three residual
concerns to be addressed in the phase 2 study.
Mr. Loach said he would just like to make sure that Mr. Blaine's documentation is included with the minutes and
goes forward to the Board.
Mr. Morris asked if this can be done to ensure that.
Mr. Kamptner suggested if the Commission wants to take action on the ordinance itself, then by a separate motion
they can articulate the additional issues that you wish the Board direct staff to examine as part of the next related
phase 2 study.
Mr. Morris noted the first motion was to recommend approval and it had been seconded. He asked for a roll call.
The motion passed by a vote of 5:1. (Loach nay) (Firehock absent)
Mr. Morris noted that the Commission by a vote of (5:1) is forwarding a recommendation for approval of the drat`
ordinance to the Board at a time to be determined. Iwo
Mr. Morris asked if there was an additional motion.
Mr. Dotson said he had a question of the content of this phase 2 study. He asked does that get at the concerns
that Mr. Loach expressed.
Mr. Morris asked Mr. McCall if the phase 2 study gets to the issues that Mr. Loach was bringing up.
Mr. Loach said that was basically to define any parameters that by their very nature would be contraindicated to
having a winery, brewery or distillery in the same local proximity. It would be like the road that we saw today with
those kind of conditions.
Mr. McCall replied that he believed that would be the definition of substantial impact and they should be able to
roll that into it.
Mr. Loach said it seemed to indicate substantial impact from the activity and what if the condition exists prior to
even initiating activity that would have an event.
Mr. McCall said that would probably take a change in the definition, but that could be evaluated.
Mr. Loach agreed that was what he was trying to get at.
Mr. Dotson suggested maybe nothing is needed or maybe a second motion would be to convey to the Board of
Supervisors the importance of proceeding as rapidly as possible with the phase 2 study.
Mr. Loach agreed.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 20, 2015 18
FINAL MINUTES
Motion: Mr. Dotson moved and Mr. Loach seconded to convey to the Board of Supervisors the importance of
proceeding as rapidly as possible with the Phase 2 Study for ZTA 2015-2, Farm Distilleries
Mr. Keller said there are two areas that they have really highlighted, the one that Mr. Loach brought up about the
transportation safety and the second one that Mr. Blaine brought up which is getting at this issue of what
constitutes a bonafide operation. Maybe they can't get there, but it would be worth a bit more exploration on that
one.
Mr. Morris invited further discussion. There being none, he asked for a roll call.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. (Firehock absent)
Mr. Morris noted that ZTA 2015-2, Farm Distilleries would be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors with a
recommendation for approval to be heard at a time to be determined.
The Planning Commission took a break at 7:45 p.m. and reconvened at 7:52 p.m.
Mr. Morris noted the next item was ZTA-2015-00010 Sign amendments to address the Reed Supreme Court
Ruling
Work Session
ZTA-2015-10 Sign amendments to address Reed Supreme Court Ruling - Work Session 2
In a work session Mr. Higgins, with input from Mr. Kamptner, presented a PowerPoint presentation on ZTA-2015-
00010 SIGN ORDINANCE ZTA to comply with U.S. Supreme Court Decision of June 18, 2015 in Reed v. Town of
Gilbert, Arizona.
Purpose of this Work Session
The primary purpose of this session is to get feedback and answer questions from the Planning Commission on
the proposed draft sign ordinance changes.
Mr. Higgins provided a brief review of the first work session held on October 6.
BEFORE AND AFTER REED
Before Reed:
• Signs that were viewpoint neutral were deemed to be content neutral.
After Reed:
• Sign regulations pertaining to noncommercial signs are content based if the laws that apply to particular
signs depend on the topic discussed or the idea or message expressed
• Viewpoint neutrality is no longer the relevant consideration
Staff has drafted changes to assure content neutrality.
What will not change:
• Requirements for sign permits.
• Most regulations pertaining to "time, place, and manner" (size, number, height, location). (1)
• Special Permits for certain signs by BZA (off -site signs, electronic message signs).
• ARB review of signs in the Entrance Corridors.
• Regulation of commercial signs. (2)
- Heights for temp signs have been standardized to 12 feet, instead of 10' or 12'.
- Maximum numbers of signs allowed have been added for signs not requiring a sign permit.
- Commercial speech is not really addressed in Reed.
Proposed Reed Changes:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 20, 2015 19
FINAL MINUTES
• Main objective is to remove content -based elements from the current sign ordinance.
• Secondary objective is to reorganize and simplify the sign ordinance in order to make it easier to
understand and use.
The major differences were reviewed in the chart in the executive summary.
Content Based Sign classifications
Many of these are being deleted or amended in the definitions to assure content neutrality (other such signs:
Farm, Private Drive, Real Estate, Residential, Subdivision)
Consolidated sign types
- More to come on these.
< 4 Sq. Ft. signs exempt from permits
- Private warning signs. Others include: Commemorative plaques, estate signs, Home Occ. signs,
incidential.,
< 32 sq. ft. signs exempt from permits
- Noncommercial speech sign and public sign.
Temporary Sign heights
- Sign height on left 5 feet ± (For Lease sign 7 feet) , sign on right 8 feet ±
Temporary Wall sign heights
- Varying heights
Wall signs in the rural areas
- Sign on left 15 sq. ft. Sign on right 30 sq. ft.
Warning/incidential signs — exempt
- Public and private examples.
Real estate signs — exempt
- Sign on left 9.5 feet tall. Sign on right 11 feet tall.
Construction signs — exempt
- Signs on the right 8', 6', 9' & 8'.
Ag product/farm signs — exempt
Sandwich Board Signs
- Commercial area and rural area examples.
Next steps in the schedule
- November 17, 2015 --Planning Commission public hearing on ZTA-2015-00010.
- December 2015 — BIDS Public Hearing.
Staff will review this draft before the public hearing to further address some content neutrality.
Prohibited sign
- "Floating" and "roof' sign.
The Planning Commission held a discussion on the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Morris invited public comment.
Public comment received from the following persons:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 20, 2015
FINAL MINUTES
20
• Travis Pietila, with the Southern Environmental Law Center, noted the following concerns:
- Concerned that a number of the proposed changes go well beyond what Reed requires and could
undermine existing protections. He highlighted a number of areas that would mean a substantial increase
in what is currently allowed including a jump from 20 to 40 square feet to wall signs in lower density
residential areas. Numbers 6 and 7 contain similar changes to existing size related regulations. Having
different size limits for different zoning district are exactly the type of content neutral standards that should
not implicate the Reed case at all. It does not appear that Reed requires many of the changes being
proposed and that they are instead focused on making the ordinance easier to administer. He urged
avoidance of unnecessarily weakening the ordinance by keeping this process focused on those
amendments that are in fact necessary to comply with this case.
• Neil Williamson, with the Free Enterprise Forum, noted the following concerns:
- With regard to real estate sign on page 10 the language suggests a sign used to advertise the sale,
lease, rental (needs the word "or") development of the lot on which the sign is located. Later in the
ordinance there is language that speaks of structure. This would eliminate commercial real estate signs
because they are not on a lot. It is a parcel and it is a part of what is going on the property. Farm signs
are equally questionable. Lots are defined elsewhere in the ordinance, and that clarification can be made.
- In regard to noncommercial flags, on page 31, it speaks to up to 3 noncommercial flags per lot provided
the flags shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign. It should be each flag. He asked if this reflects
American flags as well as other noncommercial flags. He noted there has been some Code that has
been put forward on that.
Mr. Morris asked if there was anyone else that would like to address this. There being no one, the public
comment was closed and the matter before the Planning Commission for discussion.
The Planning Commission discussed the proposed ordinance and were in agreement with staff's proposal with
the following suggestions and concerns:
- Proliferation of flags (particularly large flags) used for commercial purposes.
- Advertising vehicle paragraph — suggestion to change inoperative vehicle to operative vehicle and add
advertising vehicle could not be located closer to a street than would be allowed for a sign for the same
business.
Staff to work on the draft ordinance for the November 17 Planning Commission public hearing taking in
consideration the comments and concerns.
The meeting moved to the next agenda item.
Old Business
Mr. Morris asked if there was any old business.
Old Business
• Provide in staff report staff's opinion on favorable and unfavorable comments.
• Existing standards in zoning ordinance that apply to certain areas or aspects of development.
• PC request to provide input on Economic Development effort on industrial needs.
There being no further old business, the meeting proceeded.
New Business
Mr. Morris asked if there was any new business.
Request to include information on community meetings in staff report.
October 26, 2015 Joint meeting with the 3 Sub -Committees of The Places29 Community Advisory Committee
at 7:00 P.M. in Lane Auditorium
There will be no Planning Commission Meeting on Tuesday October 27, 2015 and Tuesday November 3,
2015.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 20, 2015 21
FINAL MINUTES
The next regular Planning Commission meeting will be held on Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. in
Lane Auditorium.
There being no further new business, the meeting moved to adjournment.
Adjournment
Mr. Randolph moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded to adjourn to the Joint meeting with the 3 Sub -Committees of The
Places29 Community Advisory Committee at 7:00 p.m. in Lane Auditorium.
With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 8:38 p.m. to the Places 29 Committee Meeting on October 26 at
7:00 p.m. at the County Office Building, Second Floor, Lane Auditorium, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
"/VSAA(2
David Benish, Secretary
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 20, 2015 22
FINAL MINUTES