Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP202200006 Staff Report 2023-01-23COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE TRANSMITTAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SUMMARY OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA TITLE: SP202200006 Crown Orchard Farm Worker Housing SU BJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST: Farm worker housing, Class B (more than ten occupants or more than two sleeping structures) under section 10.2.2(51) of the Zoning Ordinance, on one parcel of land of 32.37 acres. No dwelling units proposed. SCHOOL DISTRICTS: Red Hill Elementary — Walton Middle — Monticello High School BACKGROUND: AGENDA DATE: January 11, 2023 STAFF CONTACT(S): Filardo, McDermott, Ragsdale, Clark PRESENTER (S): Scott Clark, Natural Resources Program Manager At its meeting on October 25, 2022, the Planning Commission voted 5:0 to recommend approval of SP202200006, with conditions one, two, and four from the staff report. This motion removed proposed condition 3 (regarding the colors of building materials) and proposed condition 5 (requiring van access rather than individual vehicle access for resident workers). The Planning Commission staff report, action letter, and minutes are attached (Attachments A, B, and C). DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission discussed septic requirements, site vegetation, screening of the use, the proposed building -material color requirements, the proposed requirement for site access by shared vans (rather than individual vehicles), and the parking layout. One member of the public spoke regarding this request, neither supporting nor opposing it, but requesting that the Planning Commission consider the historic and visual character of Covesville. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment D) to approve SP202200006, subject to the conditions contained therein. ATTACHMENTS A — Planning Commission Staff Report A.1 —Location Map A.2 — Project Narrative A.3 — Conceptual Plan B — Planning Commission Action Letter C — Final Meeting Minutes from 1/18/2022 PC Public Hearing D — Resolution to Approve SP202200006 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Proposal: SP202200006 Crown Orchard Farm Worker Staff. Scott Clark, Senior Planner II Housing Planning Commission Public Hearing: Board of Supervisors Hearing: TBA October 11, 2022 Owner: Crown Orchard Company LP, LLP Applicant: Crown Orchard Company LP, LLP Acreage: 32.37 Special Use Permit/Zoning Map Amendment for: Farm worker housing, Class B (more than ten occupants or more than two sleeping structures) under section 10.2.2(51) of the Zoning Ordinance, on one parcel of land of 32.37 acres. No dwelling units proposed. TMPs: 10900-00-00-007AO Zoning/by-right use: RA Rural Area, which allows Location: West side of Monacan Trail Road (US 29), agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses, residential approximately 0.35 miles south of the intersection with density (0.5 unittacre in development lots) Henderson Lane Route 805 Magisterial District: Samuel Miller Conditions: Yes EC: Yes School Districts: Red Hill Elementary — Walton Middle — Monticello High School Proposal: Farm worker housing facility for 50 workers Requested # of Dwelling Units: No dwelling units, but and one on -site manager, with one dormitory structure the applicants have proposed to have a manager in the and one kitchen/dining structure. farmworker housing facility year-round for security purposes. DA: RA: X Comp. Plan Designation: RA Rural Area, which allows agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density 0.5 unit/acre in development lots Character of Property: Largely open land, with fields Use of Surrounding Properties: Surrounding in the front portion and recently clearcut forest at the properties include the Crown Orchard fruit packing rear; solar panels that provide electricity to the fruit plant, several residential parcels, and large wooded packing facility (under same ownership, but on a parcels separate parcel) Factors Favorable: Factors Unfavorable: 1. The facility would support agricultural land uses in the 1. The site is directly adjacent to the Covesville Historic County, as recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. District. However, screening, setbacks, and exterior 2. The site raises no significant public safety issues. color control would reduce visual impacts on that District. It is also worth noting that much of the history of the Covesville District is based on the orchard industry that this use would support. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of SP202200006 Crown Orchard Farm Worker Housing with conditions. Planning Commission October 11, 2022 Page 1 of 8 STAFF CONTACT: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: PETITION Scott Clark, Senior Planner II October 11, 2022 TBA PROJECT: SP202200006 Crown Orchard Farm Worker Housing MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT(S): Samuel Miller TAX MAP/PARCEL(S): 10900-00-00-007AO LOCATION: West side of Monacan Trail Road (US 29), approximately 0.35 miles south of the intersection with Henderson Lane (Route 805) PROPOSAL: Farm worker housing facility for 50 workers and one on -site manager, with one dormitory structure and one kitchen/dining structure. PETITION: Farm worker housing, Class B (more than ten occupants or more than two sleeping structures) under section 10.2.2(51) of the Zoning Ordinance, on one parcel of land of 32.37 acres. No dwelling units proposed. ZONING: RA Rural Area, which allows agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots) ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes OVERLAY DISTRICT(S): Entrance Corridor Overlay, Steep Slopes Overlay COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Area — preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources; residential (0.5 unit/ acre in development lots). CHARACTER OF SURROUNDING AREA The surrounding area includes the applicant's existing fruit -packing plant, residential lots, and larger wooded properties. This property and many nearby are in the Entrance Corridor overlay zoning district (US 29). The property abuts the northern edge of the Covesville Historic District, which recognizes a historic community that grew up around the area's orchard industry in the mid- to late 19a' century. PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY None. DETAILS OF THE PROPOSAL The applicants are proposing a Class B farm worker housing facility, meaning that it is designed for more than 10 residents, or includes more than three structures. In this case, the facility is proposed to accommodate 50 workers and one on -site manager in two structures. Those structures include a dormitory structure of approximately 4,865 square feet (139 feet by 35 feet) and kitchen/dining structure of approximately 1,400 square feet (40 feet by 35 feet). (These structures are separate because County regulations require that farm worker housing facilities not include all of the elements of a dwelling unit within one structure.) The closest point of the structures to US 29 would be approximately 790 feet from the Entrance Corridor, and located behind an existing tree line that would remain. An augmented screening area would also be added to the existing property -line hedgerow to the south of the proposed facility. (See Attachment 3 for the conceptual plan.) Although the use is exempt, as an agricultural use, from Planning Commission October 11, 2022 Page 2 of 8 the requirement for a site development plan, it will be subject to County review and approval for erosion and sediment control and for stormwater management. Fig. 1: Aerial view of current state of property COMMUNITY MEETING A virtual community meeting was held on April 5, 2022. Attendees expressed concerns about matters including visibility of the facility, including general visibility and the view from the historic district to the south; upkeep of the site; the reasons for locating the facility in Covesville rather than in another community; noise; and traffic. ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST This special use permit, and all special use permits, are evaluated for compliance with the provisions of Chapter 18, Section 33.40b of the Code of Albemarle. Each provision of that section is addressed below. No substantial detriment The proposed special use will not be a substantial detriment to adjacent lots. The seasonal operation of a residential facility is not expected to impact the viability of the adjacent parcels for the existing residential, commercial, or forest -management uses. The facility would be subject to the County's existing noise ordinance, so any noise impacts from residents on the site could be investigated and regulated. The applicants have not proposed any outdoor amplified sound systems. Character ofthe nearby area is unchanged Whether the character of the adjacent parcels and the nearby area will be changed by the proposed special use. Planning Commission October 11, 2022 Page 3 of 8 The proposed use would be located in an area with a mix of residential uses and agricultural properties. The area, including the existing fruit packing facility, has a longstanding tie to the orchard industry. Given the historic and existing agricultural uses in the area, staff does not expect that a seasonal facility for orchard workers would change the character of the area. To reduce visual impacts on the Covesville Historic District to the south, the applicants have proposed an area of augmented vegetative screening between the proposed facility and that district, adding depth to the existing hedgerow along the property boundary. Staff has recommended a condition of approval setting standards for the vegetation to be used in this augmented planting area. To reduce visual impacts on the US 29 Entrance Corridor and residential uses on the east side of US 29, the applicants have proposed to retain an existing wooded area located between US 29 and the proposed facilities. Please see Attachment 3 for the locations of these vegetated areas. Harmony. Whether the proposed special use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter, This district (hereafter referred to as RA) is hereby created and may hereafter be established by amendment of the zoning map for the following purposes: Preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities, This proposed use would support agricultural activities by providing a local residential facility during periods when local orchards have increased seasonal maintenance and/or harvest needs. Water supply protection; The site for the proposed facility is not located in a Water Supply Protection Area, so no impacts to public water supplies are expected. Limited service delivery to the rural areas; and No water or sewer services are being requested for this use. During seasonal periods of occupancy, occasional needs for fire or rescue services may occur. Section 5.1.44(g)(2)(c) requires that the applicants provide written confirmation of fire marshal approval of emergency -vehicle access to the facility as part of the zoning clearance process before commencement of the use. Conservation of natural, scenic, and historic resources. The proposed use would use a significant setback (approximately 790 feet from US 29) and both existing and enhanced vegetative screening to reduce the visual impacts of the use on scenic resources. Planning Commission October 11, 2022 Page 4 of 8 To further limit visual impacts, staff has proposed a condition of approval requiring full - cutoff lighting fixtures, and a condition requiring the use of muted earth -tone colors in exterior building materials. Harmony....with the uses permitted by right in the district The proposed use directly supports by -right agriculture, and would not impede forest management in the area. Any potential conflicts with nearby residential uses would be mitigated by the setbacks and screening features of the use, and by the limits on traffic impacts imposed by the applicants' proposed use of shuttle buses rather than individual vehicles for the resident workers. Harmony....with the regulations provided in section 5 as applicable, Each farm worker housing facility shall be subject to the following: a. Concept plan to be submitted with application for farm worker housing. Before applying for the first building permit for a farm worker housing, Class A, facility, or in addition to any other information required to be submitted for a farm worker housing, Class B, special use permit, the applicant shall submit a concept plan meeting the requirements of section 5.1.44(b). b. Contents of concept plan. The concept plan shall show the following: (i) the boundary lines of the farm (may be shown on an inset map if necessary); (ii) the location and general layout of the proposed structures at a scale of not more than one inch equals 40 feet; (iii) vehicular access, travelways and parking for the facility; (iv) topography (with a contour interval of no greater than ten feet); (v) critical slopes; (vi) streams, stream buffers and floodplains; (vii) source(s) of water for fire suppression; (viii) building setback lines as provided in subsection 5.1.44(g) below; and (ix) outdoor lighting. The concept plan also shall include a written description of each structure's construction and materials used, and the number of persons to be housed in the farm worker housing facility. The proposal has met the general requirements of this subsection. A separate source of water for fire suppression is not shown, as there is no pond on the site proposed for such use. Fire suppression water would be supplied by Fire/Rescue vehicles as normal. c. Notice of receipt of concept plan to abutting owners. The zoning administrator shall send notice of the receipt of a concept plan as follows....: This proposal has met the requirements of subsection (c) through the special use permit notification process, as required in (c)(2). d. Review and action on concept plan. A concept plan shall be reviewed and acted upon as follows: 1. Farm worker housing, Class A, facility Planning Commission October 11, 2022 Page 5 of 8 This section does not apply to this proposal, which would be a Class B facility. 2. Farm worker housing, Class B, facility. For a farm worker housing, Class B, facility, the concept plan shall be reviewed and acted upon in conjunction with the special use permit. If the proposal is approved by the Board of Supervisors, that action would satisfy this requirement. e. Farm worker housing facilities; permissible structures. Farm worker housing facilities shall not use motor vehicles or major recreational equipment, as that term is defined in section 4.12.3(b) (1) of this chapter, to provide for sleeping, eating, food preparation, or sanitation (bathing and/or toilets). No such vehicles are proposed for use at this facility. f. Minimum yards. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the minimum front yard shall be 75 feet. The minimum side and rear yards shall be 50 feet. All yards shall be measured from the farm worker housing structures. The proposed facility layout would meet this requirement. g. Zoning clearance. The owner shall obtain a zoning clearance from the zoning administrator as provided in section 31.5 of this chapter before a farm worker housing facility is occupied, subject to the following additional requirements:.... The requirements of subsection (g) apply to the establishment and operation of the use, rather than to the review of a special use permit proposal. If the Board of Supervisors approves this special use permit and the applicants proceed with establishing the use, then the applicants must apply for a zoning clearance before commencing the use. Harmony....and with the public health, safety and general welfare. Public health concerns would be addressed through the Virginia Department of Health's (VDH) requirements for water -supply wells and septic -treatment facilities. Section 5.1.44(g)(2)(a) requires that the applicants show VDH approval of the migrant -labor facility, including well and septic components, as part of the building permit and zoning clearance process before commencement of the use. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) expressed no objections to the proposed use, and stated that the existing entrance was sufficient. Section 5.1.44(g)(2)(b) requires that the applicant show VDOT approval of the site entrance as part of the zoning clearance process before commencement of the use. Section 5.1.44(g)(2)(b) requires that the applicant show written approval of the adequacy of site access for emergency vehicles as part of the zoning clearance process before commencement of the use. Planning Commission October 11, 2022 Page 6 of 8 Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Objective 1 of the Rural Area chapter of the Comprehensive Plan states that the County should "[s]upport a strong agricultural and forestal economy." The proposed facility would support this objective by providing a home for workers needed to meet the peak seasonal labor needs of orchards in the County. Objective 4 of that chapter states that the County should "promote rural and historic landscapes that enhance visitors' experience and give historic sites as authentic a setting as possible." The proposed use would facilitate orchard uses that are traditional to this area while protecting the visual character of the surrounding historic areas through the use of vegetative screening and setbacks. Staff has also recommended a condition of approval that would limit the exterior materials to be used on the facility to muted earth -tone colors, which would further reduce visual impacts. SUMMARY Staff finds the following factors favorable to this request: 1. The facility would support agricultural land uses in the County, as recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The site raises no significant public safety issues. Staff finds the following factors unfavorable to this request: 1. The site is directly adjacent to the Covesville Historic District. However, screening, setbacks, and exterior color control would reduce visual impacts on that District. It is also worth noting that much of the history of the Covesville District is based on the orchard industry that this use would support. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of SP202200006 with the following conditions: 1. Development of the use must be in general accord (as determined by the Director of Community Development, or the Director's designee) with the conceptual plan entitled "Crown Orchard Covesville Seasonal Housing," prepared by Coleman -Adams Construction, Inc., and last revised 07/22/22. To be in general accord with the plan, development must reflect the following major elements: a Location of the farm -worker housing facility, access road, and parking area shown on the plan, and b_The "Wooded Area To Remain" and "Area for Augmented Screen Plantings" shown on Sheet A102. Minor modifications to the plan that do not conflict with that essential element may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Any new outdoor lighting must be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from all abutting properties. 3. Colors of exterior building materials on the structures must be muted earth tones that Planning Commission October 11, 2022 Page 7 of 8 blend with the landscape and are subject to County approval. Application of paint or installation of these materials must not begin before the colors are approved. 4. The area designated as "Area for Augmented Screen Plantings" on Sheet A102 of the conceptual plan must be planted with a mix of native deciduous and evergreen tree and shrub species in a naturalistic pattern. A planting plan must be submitted with a Zoning Clearance for County approval. After issuance of the first building permit for the structures, the plantings must be in place per the plan before the first Certificate of Occupancy for the structures, or a performance bond may be posted to guarantee that the plantings will be planted by the next available planting season. Plant species to be used must be listed in the brochure "Native Plants for Conservation, Restoration & Landscaping: Virginia Piedmont Region," published by the Virginia Department of Conservation & Recreation. Planting densities must be a minimum of 3 large trees, 6 medium trees, and 7 shrubs per 100 linear feet of buffer. Large tree species must be a minimum of six feet in height above ground at the time of planting. 5. Other than the resident manager and his/her immediate family, residents must use shared transportation when accessing the site by motor vehicle. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map 2. Project Narrative 3. Conceptual Plan Planning Commission October 11, 2022 Page 8 of 8 A 0 250 500 1,000 Feet NARRATIVE OF PROJECT PROPOSAL Crown Orchard was started in 1912 by Henry Chiles' two grandfathers. Crown Orchard has been a family- owned and operated business for over 100 years. It has grown and diversified over that time and produces apples, peaches, nectarines, and cherries for both the wholesale and retail markets. They ship to local grocery stores, as well as national chain stores, schools, and Food Banks. The local residents, for sure, enjoy picking apples, peaches and pumpkins at the Crozet Peach Orchard and Carter Mountain Orchard. All this longevity, enjoyment and agricultural production cannot continue to grow and survive to provide this fruit and enjoyment to Albemarle County residents and others without migrant housing. I have enclosed a letter from the VEC which states the importance of farming in Virginia and elaborates on the excellent job Crown Orchard has done in the management of its migrant housing. We are required to answer to the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Virginia Employment Commission and the local Health Department on a yearly basis and are subject to unannounced inspections SEASONAL USAGE PATTERNS This project will be for housing seasonal labor. Given the diversity of Crown Orchard's farming operation, the camp will be occupied most of the year at varying levels of capacity depending on the season. We do propose to have a camp manager live in the camp year round for security and regulatory reasons. IMPACT ON ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES We have 32.37 acres and the only impervious area we have is the roof. We have to have a soil engineer to design the septic and water to be approved by the local Health Department. We deal with our own trash as we have dumpsters near each building and we transport it to the landfill at our own expense. The North Garden Fire Department is 5 miles away from us and all other citizens in the project area. Our house rules control noise, visitors and misbehavior. CONSTRUCTION OF MATERIAL The plan will meet the BOCA code, the VEC and Federal migrant labor housing regulations and the Health Department standards. This Plan is very similar to of a plan that met BOCA standards for migrant camps that were built in Campbell County Virginia several years ago. Fire code sheetrock will be used where code requires. Insulation will be installed according to code. Project plan shows windows, doors, siding and roofing. In addition to the conceptual plan for the proposed labor camp, I am also submitting the plan that was used in Campbell County, as it shows more detail. Both plans are designed and engineered by Custom Structures of Lynchburg, Virginia. PROJECTS REGIONAL CONTEXT AND EXISTING NATURAL AND MAN- MADE CONDITIONS We have no man- made physical conditions on the site. The entire site is only mother nature other than electricity. We do have an entrance to the property on route 29 that use to serve a house trailer. This driveway will be upgraded, as well as a small parking lot, for loading and unloading the migrant workers. The driveway entrance to route 29 southbound has a site distance of approaching vehicles of 1,038' with a speed limit of 60mph. The building proposed will be behind a grove of trees with a mountain on it's backside. There are no buildings on any side of this proposed building. There is an old trailer that will be removed after the existing power is transferred to the new proposed building. PROJECT'S IMPACT ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AND PUBLIC INFRATRUCTURE There will be no children for the county to educate. We deal with all trash through dumpsters and landfill fees We have no need for public water or sewer. The needs will be designed by a soil and water engineer and approved by the Health Department. We cannot see where, if any, that we have a need for public facilities except for fire protection that is enjoyed by all Albemarle County residents. The North Garden Volunteer Fire Department is 5 miles away. NARRATIVE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT'S CONSISTANCY WITH COMP PLAN How do we think we are in keeping with the comprehensive plan? First, the proposal reminds us of the VRD zoning where the density compares to leaving open space. The County Planning Department has a tool to control any further special use development. This leaves the balance of parcel in your hands through a new special use permit or it's development rights that exist by right. DRIVE AND PARKING ENVELOPE The Drive and Parking Envelope is fairly simple. We will use an existing drive onto Route 29 by adding gravel and instaling a small parking lot to house about 3 vans for transport. A parking lot for 50 men and 50 cars is not part of the usage or plan. AREAS TO BE DESIGNATED AS CONSERVATION AND/OR PRESERVATION AREAS Crown Orchard is all about conservation and preservation of the land. We are not developers, we are farmers. Our 110 year track record shows that we have never developed a piece of property that we own, nor do we intend to. Everything Crown Orchard does depends on Mother Nature and the productivity of the land. Not only do we believe in being good stewards of the land, but it is also imperative for our livelihood. The fact remains that in order for Crown Orchard to continue to preserve the natural beauty of Albemarle County, it has to have sustainable living quarters for its worker. The proposed labor camp will be built with energy efficient windows, doors, and insulation, and will have a sustainable water supply system. We hope that we will be able to use the electricity from the solar system we already have in place to power the camp as well. o,t COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA Ellen Mane Hess Commissioner September 16, 2021 To whom it may concern: Virginia Employment Commission 6606 West Broad Street Richmond, VA 23230 This letter is intended for use by Crown Orchard Company as they deem suitable. Post Office Box 26441 Richmond, VA 23261-6441 The Virginia Employment Commission is aware that Crown Orchard Company is in need of additional housing to accommodate their growing migrant workforce and plans to construct a new migrant housing facility in Albemarle County, pending all the necessary approvals. Crown Orchard Company has been using the H-2A temporary agricultural worker program since approximately 2013. Consequentially the VEC has been inspecting their numerous migrant housing facilities at least annually since that time. We have found them to be diligent in their efforts to maintain camps to meet federal and state standards and responsive to workers' needs and to state agency recommendations regarding camp conditions. Recently a VEC staff member was present when an inspector from the Virginia Department of Health commended the Crown Orchard representative for his work upgrading camp facilities. The VEC is familiar with the design plan that Crown Orchard Company intends to use and has inspected another facility built to nearly the same specifications. That facility is designed in a way that preserves workers' privacy and ensures their comfort and security. The guest workers who labor in Virginia's fields and orchards absolutely appreciate such high standards in employer -provided housing, and so do the state agencies who inspect these facilities. According to Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, agriculture is the state's largest private industry by far, with nothing else coming a close second. Every job in agriculture and forestry supports 1.7 jobs elsewhere in Virginia's economy. Crown Orchard Company and the Chiles Family are significant and valued contributors to Virginia's agricultural sector. Sincerely, Cindy Webb Agriculture and Foreign Labor Program Manager VRC/TDD VA Relay 711 (866) 832-2363 Equal Opportunity Employer/Program E-Mail: CustomerService@vec.virginia.gov q Pp y LEGEND ■ EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT ■ EXISTING STONE DRIVE - NEW STONE DRIVE & PARKING - AREA FOR AUGMENTED SCREEN PLANTINGS - NEW STRUCTURES - WOODED AREAS OVERVIEW 1 " = 100'-0" GENERAL NOTES: 1. PLEASE REFERENCE ADDITIONAL OWNER SUPPLIED DOCUMENTATION FOR FURTHER INFORMATION NOT PRESENTED ON THESE CONCEPTUAL PLANS. 2. NEW STRUCTURES TO BE CONSTRUCTED AS FOLLOWS: CONCRETE FOUNDATIONS WITH CONCRETE SLAB ON GRADE, ALL WOOD FRAME WALLS WITH EXTERIOR WALLS TO BE LOAD BEARING TO SUPPORT PREFABRICATED WOOD TRUSSES, PLYWOOD EXTERIOR WALL AND ROOD SHEATHING FINSHED WITH VINYL SIDING, AND INTERIOR WALLS/CEILINGS TO BE SHEATHED WITH TYPE-X DRYWALL. 3. THERE IS PRESENTLY NO PLANNED SITE LIGHTING. INSTEAD THE AREA AROUND THE BUILDING WILL BE ILLUMINATED WITH WALL MOUNTED LIGHTING NOT TO EXCEED 90W. COLEMAN-ADAMS CONSTRUCTION, Inc. www.coleman-adams.com Office: (434) 525-4700 Fax: (434) 525-4437 DRAWING ACCEPTANCE AGREEMENT THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF COLEMAN- ADAMS CONSTRUCTION, INC. AND IS SUBMITTED IN CONFIDENCE WITH THE UNDERSTANDING AND AGREEMENT THAT IT IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, COPIED, OR LOANED IN PART OR IN WHOLE. IT IS NOT TO BE USED IN ANY MANNER WHICH MAY CONSTITUTE A DETRIMENT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, TO COLEMAN-ADAMS CONSTRUCTION, INC. NOR SUBMITTED TO COMPETITORS THEREOF WITHOUT THE EXPRESSED WRITTEN CONSENT AND APPROVAL OF COLEMAN-ADAMS CONSTRUCTION, INC. ACCEPTANCE OF THIS DRAWING WILL BE CONSTRUED AS AN AGREEMENT OF THE ABOVE. No. Description Date 1 INCREASED SCREEN PLANTING 07/22/2022 DEPTH AND LENGTH, RELOCATED TO OTHER SIDE OF DRIVE CROWN ORCHARD COVESVILLE SEASONAL HOUSING CONCEPTUAL OVERVIEW PARCEL PLAN Project number 222-100-053 Date 05/09/2022 Drawn by JMT Checked by JMT A101 Scale As indicated LEGEND ■ EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT ❑ EXISTING STONE DRIVE - NEW STONE DRIVE & PARKING - AREA FOR AUGMENTED SCREEN PLANTINGS LLH - NEW STRUCTURES M- WOODED AREAS n PROPOSEDLAYOUT U 1" = 40'-0" GENERAL NOTES: 1. PLEASE REFERENCE ADDITIONAL OWNER SUPPLIED DOCUMENTATION FOR FURTHER INFORMATION NOT PRESENTED ON THESE CONCEPTUAL PLANS. 2. NEW STRUCTURES TO BE CONSTRUCTED AS FOLLOWS: CONCRETE FOUNDATIONS WITH CONCRETE SLAB ON GRADE, ALL WOOD FRAME WALLS WITH EXTERIOR WALLS TO BE LOAD BEARING TO SUPPORT PREFABRICATED WOOD TRUSSES, PLYWOOD EXTERIOR WALL AND ROOD SHEATHING FINSHED WITH VINYL SIDING, AND INTERIOR WALLS/CEILINGS TO BE SHEATHED WITH TYPE-X DRYWALL. 3. THERE IS PRESENTLY NO PLANNED SITE LIGHTING. INSTEAD THE AREA AROUND THE BUILDING WILL BE ILLUMINATED WITH WALL MOUNTED LIGHTING NOT TO EXCEED 90W. COLEMAN-ADAMS CONSTRUCTION, Inc. www.coleman-adams.com Office: (434) 525-4700 Fax: (434) 525-4437 DRAWING ACCEPTANCE AGREEMENT THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF COLEMAN- ADAMS CONSTRUCTION, INC. AND IS SUBMITTED IN CONFIDENCE WITH THE UNDERSTANDING AND AGREEMENT THAT IT IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, COPIED, OR LOANED IN PART OR IN WHOLE. IT IS NOT TO BE USED IN ANY MANNER WHICH MAY CONSTITUTE A DETRIMENT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, TO COLEMAN-ADAMS CONSTRUCTION, INC. NOR SUBMITTED TO COMPETITORS THEREOF WITHOUT THE EXPRESSED WRITTEN CONSENT AND APPROVAL OF COLEMAN-ADAMS CONSTRUCTION, INC. ACCEPTANCE OF THIS DRAWING WILL BE CONSTRUED AS AN AGREEMENT OF THE ABOVE. No. Description Date 1 INCREASED SCREEN PLANTING 07/22/2022 DEPTH AND LENGTH, RELOCATED TO OTHER SIDE OF DRIVE CROWN ORCHARD COVESVILLE SEASONAL HOUSING ENLARGED CONCEPTUAL PLAN - PROPOSED LAYOUT Project number 222-100-053 Date 05/09/2022 Drawn by JMT Checked by JMT Al02 Scale As indicated Scott Clark County of Albemarle Community Development Department - Planning ��BGIN�Q' November 4, 2022 LeRoy Yancey PO Box 299 Batesville VA 22924 lebecstoneycreek(cDaol. com Re: SP202200006 Crown Orchard Farm Worker Housing Action Letter Dear Mr.Yancey, sclark(cba Ibemarle. org Telephone: (434) 296-5832 ext. 3249 The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 25, 2022, recommended approval of the above -noted petition by a vote of 5:0 with the conditions listed below: 1. Development of the use must be in general accord (as determined by the Director of Community Development, or the Director's designee) with the conceptual plan entitled "Crown Orchard Covesville Seasonal Housing,' prepared by Coleman -Adams Construction, Inc., and last revised 07/22/22. To be in general accord with the plan, development must reflect the following major elements: a. Location of the farm -worker housing facility, access road, and parking area shown on the plan, and b. The "Wooded Area To Remain" and "Area for Augmented Screen Plantings" shown on Sheet At02. Minor modifications to the plan that do not conflict with that essential element may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Any new outdoor lighting must be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from all abutting properties. 3. The area designated as "Area for Augmented Screen Plantings" on Sheet At02 of the conceptual plan must be planted with a mix of native deciduous and evergreen tree and shrub species in a naturalistic pattern. A planting plan must be submitted with a Zoning Clearance for County approval. After issuance of the first building permit for the structures, the plantings must be in place per the plan before the first Certificate of Occupancy for the structures, or a performance bond may be posted to guarantee that the plantings will be planted by the next available planting season. Plant species to be used must be listed in the brochure "Native Plants for Conservation, Restoration & Landscaping: Virginia Piedmont Region," published by the Virginia Department of Conservation & Recreation. Planting densities must be a minimum of 3 large trees, 6 medium trees, and 7 shrubs per 100 linear feet of buffer. Large tree species must be a minimum of six feet in height above ground at the time of planting. Should you have any questions regarding the above -noted action, please contact me. Sincerely, Scott Clark Natural Resources Manager Cc: Crown Orchard Company LP, LLP PO Box 299 Batesville VA 22924 WWW.ALBEMARLE.ORG 401 McIntire Road, North Wing, I Charlottesville, VA 22902-4579 Albemarle County Planning Commission Regular Meeting FINAL Minutes October 25, 2022 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, October 25, 2022, at 6:00 p.m. Members attending were: Karen Firehock, Chair; Julian Bivins; Fred Missel; Luis Carrazana; and Lonnie Murray Members absent: Corey Clayborne Other officials present were: Charles Rapp, Director of Planning; Andy Herrick, County Attorney's Office; Scott Clark; Kevin McCullum; Rebecca Ragsdale; Alberic Karina-Plun and Carolyn Shaffer, Clerk to the Planning Commission. Call to Order and Establish Quorum Ms. Firehock said opportunities for the public to access and participate in the hybrid meeting were posted on the County's website, on Planning Commission's homepage, and on the County Calendar when available. She said participation would include the opportunity to comment on those matters from which comments from the public would be received. Ms. Shaffer called the roll. Ms. Firehock established a quorum. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public There were none. Consent Agenda No items from the Consent Agenda were commented on nor pulled. Mr. Bivins moved to adopt the Consent Agenda. Mr. Missel seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). Public Hearings SP202200006 Crown Orchard Farm Worker Housing Mr. Scott Clark said the special use permit request was for a farm worker housing facility in the Covesville area. He noted that the site was located on US Route 29 South and was designated TMP 109-7A. He said that the site was located across the road from the existing Crown Orchard apple packing facility. Mr. Clark said that the parcel was adjacent to the Batesville historic district. He explained that the historic district reflected the history of the growth of Covesville around fruit growing and packing industries and associated railroad improvements in the early 19th century. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - October 25, 2022 Mr. Clark noted that there was an existing line of pine trees at the back of the site. He said that the new facility would be west of or behind the tree line relative to Route 29. He said that there was an entrance to the site on Route 29 along with a line of trees blocking the view of the interior of the property. Mr. Clark explained that a Class B farm worker housing facility was proposed. He explained that the facility would host more than 10 people or have more than three structures. He said that 50 workers and one onsite manager would use two structures. He explained that the reason there would be two structures was because the ordinance was designed to ensure a farm worker housing facility did not shift into becoming a regular dwelling unit for non -farm use. Mr. Clark explained that they required facilities to be separated in some manner. He said that the applicant chose to separate the facilities by locating the sleeping and bathing facilities in the larger dormitory structure and the kitchen and dining facilities in the other structure. He noted that workers for the facility would arrive and depart by vans and not by individual vehicles except for the onsite manager. Mr. Clark said that the site would use the existing entrance. He said that the larger dormitory structure was about 130 feet long and the kitchen and dining area structure was about 40 feet long. He said the boundary of the property closest to the structure was adjacent to the Batesville historic district, so they worked with the applicant to increase screening. He noted that a thin tree line existed, but they added an additional 20 feet of screening. He said that the front wooded area would remain to screen the site from Route 29. Mr. Clark said that a condition of approval required the use of muted, earth -tone colors on the structures to further reduce their visibility. He said that staff did not have any particular concerns with the consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. He said that harmony with the ordinance was assured through the review of the supplemental regulations for the use. Mr. Clark noted that the parcel was large and within an agricultural area and historical district. He said that staff believed farmworker housing was consistent with the longstanding agricultural uses in the area. He said that there were two favorable factors —the facility would support agricultural uses in the RA, and there were no significant safety concerns with the entrance. Mr. Clark noted that the site was directly adjacent to the Covesville historic district, however, between screening, setbacks, and color control, staff believed that the impacts would be minimized. He said that staff recommended approval with the conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Murray asked how septic would be handled on the site. Mr. Clark explained that VDH and the regulatory bodies had strict controls for the standards for larger residential facilities. He said that such requirements were not within the County regulations because there was a higher -level state regulation. He explained that the applicant would have to go through a detailed VDH review to get appropriate wells and septic fields permitted for the higher level of occupancy on the site. Ms. Firehock clarified the applicant would have to receive permission from the Virginia Department of Health before they could occupy the site. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 2 FINAL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - October 25, 2022 Mr. Clark said that was correct. Mr. Carrazana mentioned an object on the conceptual map that was south of the proposed buildings. He asked what that object was. Mr. Clark explained that the object was the augmented screening area where an extra 20 feet of trees and shrubs would be added to screen the edge of the property. Ms. Firehock clarified that the location was where more trees would be planted. Mr. Carrazana asked where the property line was. Mr. Clark noted on the map where the property line was. He noted that the property line was along the tree line. Mr. Carrazana asked what the line north of the augmented buffer was. Mr. Clark responded that it was a setback. He said that it was 75 feet according to the farmworker housing regulations, and it was more than the standard required for regular residential facilities. Mr. Bivins asked if the housing was single sex. Mr. Clark said the applicant could speak to that question. Mr. Bivins asked what the rationale was for requiring the building to use muted, earth -tone colors when it was located behind tree cover and far off the road. He said that he would not support the proposal with that condition. Mr. Clark said that they received feedback from neighbors at the community meeting —people living across Route 29 and the former owner to the south in the historic district —expressing concern about the visibility of the new structures. Ms. Firehock said that they perhaps were concerned about the winter when the structure could be seen through the trees. Mr. Clark said that people requested as much visual control as could be supplied. Mr. Bivins said it was not the County's role to dictate what color structures should be painted. He noted that when he drove through the area, he saw homes that offended his sensibility of color choices. He noted that it was neighbors requesting the screening. Ms. Firehock clarified they requested the maximum screening potential including the color choice of the buildings. Mr. Bivins mentioned that the plan stated that 14 worker vehicles could fit in the parking lot. Mr. Clark responded that was not due to a request from the County but was a note offered by the applicant. He said that he doubted that there would be more than 14 vehicles present most of the time. He said that staffs main concern was to locate the parking behind the trees and behind the structure to minimize visibility. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - October 25, 2022 Mr. Bivins asked why the County was invested in requiring workers to only enter and leave the property via shared worker vehicles. Mr. Clark said the applicant had that in the description of the use, and it was how they had operated other facilities in the past. He said that the applicant planned to continue the practice and that they believed they had minimal traffic impacts. He said that because residents expressed concern about increased traffic, it was included as a condition to ensure the mode of operation would remain in place for the long term. He said that it was typical for seasonal farmworker housing in that part of the County. Mr. Bivins noted that it was an operational decision by the owner. He questioned why the County was involved in a business operations decision. He mentioned that Potters Cidery should have vans or shuttles because of the traffic. He asked why the County was stipulating how the business should operate the vans. Mr. Clark said from the planning perspective, if VDOT believed the proposal was safe, then that was all staff needed to know. He said that because the applicant describes the proposal in such a way and because the issue was of concern to neighbors, it was included in the proposal. Ms. Firehock asked for the applicant to provide their presentation. Mr. Huff Chiles said his family owned and operated Crown Orchard, and they had been in the fruit business for over 100 years in the County. He noted that agriculture was a big part of the County, and in the past, there were several local employees able to do the work. He said that currently, few locals wanted to participate in growing apples. He noted that there was a lot of work to be done by hand. He said that they had a tremendous need for the building to meet the needs of its workers. Ms. Judy Chiles said at the public input hearing, there were questions as to why the Covesville location was selected. She explained that there were two main reasons. She said that the first reason was they currently operated farmworker housing in Covesville on a leased property. She stated that the lease would end soon, so they needed an alternate location to house their workers. Ms. Chiles said that the Covesville location was optimal because it was across from the packing and storage facility and was close to several of the orchard locations. She said the housing would be same -sex and was currently all male. She said that they would take advantage of the H2A program under which they provided housing and transportation for the workers. Ms. Chiles said without the workers or a place to house them, agriculture was kaput. She said that they had been in business for a long time, and there were three generations of the Chiles family working in the operations. She noted that they operated Chiles Peach Orchard and Carter Mountain Orchard as well. She said that they wanted to provide agritourism and educational opportunities. Ms. Firehock noted that the main purpose for workers was to pick apples. She asked about the outdoor space that would be available at the housing facility and whether the applicant planned to provide any type of outdoor space or patio. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 4 FINAL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - October 25, 2022 Mr. Chiles said that there was room on the parcel for such amenities. He said that they would have a grassy area to play sports. He noted that several of the workers liked to play soccer. Mr. Murray said that he was less concerned about the color of the building and more concerned about the quality of life for the workers. He said that the applicant should do whatever was possible to improve the quality of life. Mr. Chiles said that transportation was provided to the workers to take them into town twice a week. He said that they were able to get out some. He noted that most of the workers were at the farm for a specific amount of time, and they came to the farms to work. Ms. Chiles explained that the facility would have washer and dryer units. She noted that many workers returned year after year, and many were long-term employees. Mr. Carrazana said that he assumed the building would be only one story. He noted that there was a predominantly south -facing wall of the facility. He suggested that the applicant install some type of shade, such as through a porch or screen, to help with the energy use. He said that there were passive solar designs that could be used to save on energy costs. He said that a porch extending from the southern wall would provide shade and comfort for the workers. Mr. Bivins noted that quality of life was a concern of his and that people had been displaced from their homes even if they immigrated for economic opportunities. He said that the goal was to provide the workers a space where they could rest and relax. He said that he was put off by the colors of the building and that they should be enlivened. Mr. Bivins said it was the decision of the property owner how they move people to and from the property. He noted that the owners currently used the H2A program to bring workers to the farm, but it was not guaranteed that would be the only way people would come to work at the farm in the future. He said that he did not want another time like "The Grapes of Wrath," but there may be a time when people need to work for the farm, and they have their own vehicle. He said that it was not appropriate for the government to instruct the business on how to move staff off the property. Mr. Chiles said that he agreed with Mr. Bivins' comments. He noted that was the way they had operated in the past. He said that when they met with the planner, those were the conditions they had discussed. Mr. Bivins asked the applicant if they would be offended if the condition related to transportation to and from the site was removed. Mr. Chiles responded that they would not. He stated that the building would also have solar power. Ms. Firehock opened the hearing for public comment. She explained the rules for comments. Mr. Sandy Tucker said he was a resident of Colesville. He said that he was not speaking in opposition to or in support of the proposal, but he was speaking for the Village of Colesville. He stated that he had lived in the village for 60 years and that he had seen few changes. He said that his house was directly across the road from the property. He said that from his house, he could see the solar panels and the logging operations, and now he would be able to see the housing facility. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - October 25, 2022 Mr. Tucker said that the Commission should be aware of what could happen, but he did not know what that was. He noted that Covesville was a small community and he wanted to keep it that way. He said that he was not opposed to the project because he understood the business needs. He said if there was screening, then he may not be able to see the buildings. He noted that there was a neighboring property owner south of the proposed site. He said Covesville should not be turned into another Crozet. Ms. Firehock noted that there were no more comments from the public. She closed the public hearing and brought the item back before the public hearing. Ms. Firehock noted that the comments did not address the concerns about the muted colors because she was unsure whether the building would still be visible. She noted that some of the foliage would be off the trees in the winter. She asked if more information could be provided. Mr. Clark said that as far as he knew, the building would not be visible from Route 29. He said that they had not done a GIS analysis, but he believed it was not visible. He said that it was possible if the pine trees were to die or burn down, then visibility would increase, but there would still be the deciduous trees along the highway. Mr. Clark noted that a lot of the concern with the color of the building was not from Route 29 where the facility was nearly 800 feet away from the road, but from the adjacent historic district. He noted that they were trying to decrease visibility from the historic district and that they were to increase plantings and have setbacks of 75 feet. He said that the colors were an attempt to decrease the visibility. Ms. Firehock said that the building seemed to be fairly well screened. She said that the nearest house appeared to be far. Mr. Clark responded that the nearest house was in the historic district to the south and that it was about 350 feet away from the property line. Mr. Carrazana echoed Mr. Bivins' comments that the conditions he had mentioned were not appropriate. He mentioned that earth tones could be Virginia clay red. He said that it was not appropriate for the County to impose a particular color. He said that he agreed with the point made regarding transportation. He said that if the applicant wanted to change the method of transportation, then they would have to undergo the same process again. Ms. Firehock said that there seemed to be support for the application, but some Commissioners did not support the inclusion of conditions 4 and 6. She said she supported the exclusion. Mr. Herrick noted that there was a discrepancy in the numbering of the conditions between the slide on the screen and the numbers of the conditions in the staff report. He said that condition 2 on the slide was included as part of condition 1 in the staff report. He said that if there was a motion to approve with certain conditions excluded, they should be clear as to which conditions were to be excluded. Ms. Firehock clarified the conditions were three and five. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - October 25, 2022 Mr. Herrick said that conditions three and five in the staff report had been the ones up for discussion, and those were conditions four and six on the slide. Ms. Firehock said she would go with conditions three and five from the staff report. Mr. Herrick said he believed that was preferable. He noted that Mr. Clark corrected the numbering on the slide. Ms. Firehock moved the Commission to recommend approval of SP202200006 Crown Orchard Farm Worker Housing with conditions one, two, and four from the staff report. Mr. Bivins seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (5-0). Ms. Firehock noted that it was important to provide safe, sanitary, and attractive housing for the migrant workers in the community. She said that there were no other options for migrant workers in the rural area, and it was a problem the County needed to address because of the need. Adjournment At 8:15 p.m., the Commission adjourned to November 22, 2022, Albemarle County Planning Commission meeting, 6:00 p.m. via electronic meeting. A 4/ Charles Rapp, Director of Planning (Recorded by Carolyn S. Shaffer, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards; transcribed by Golden Transcription Services) Approved by Planning Commission Date: 11 /22/2022 Initials: CSS ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - October 25, 2022