HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201900014 Staff Report 2023-02-10 (2)COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
TRANSMITTAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SUMMARY OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
AGENDA TITLE:
SP202000002 MonU Park
SU BJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST:
Request to amend special use permit for an
athletic club with 4 soccer fields and 96
parking spaces, to increase the number of
fields to 7; to extend the hours of operation; to
remove the condition prohibiting games during
July and August; to remove the existing
condition prohibiting irrigation; and to remove
the condition prohibiting games and practice
sessions occurring on the same day as
specified major event at the existing SOCA
facility also located on Polo Grounds Road.
1-7aCy3H:All]II0I
AGENDA DATE:
August 4, 2021
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Scott Clark, Senior Planner II
PRESENTER(S):
Scott Clark
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 20, 2021, recommended approval of
SP202000002 by a vote of 6:0 with the conditions recommended in the staff report, and with the following
additions to the recommended conditions:
a. Requiring the use of eco-friendly pesticides and insecticides with assistance of a professional
(language to be refined by staff before the Board of Supervisors hearing);
b. Requiring applicants to provide a handicapped -accessible portable toilet on the site; and
c. Modifying recommended condition #7 to limit irrigation to time periods within one week of grass -
seed applications.
DISCUSSION:
New and revised conditions drafted in response to the Planning Commission's action are included in the
attached Resolution:
a. New condition #13 has been added to require use of a management plan, and the use of
materials determined to be organic by the Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) or by
another organization found by the Director of Planning to be equivalent. Staff research indicated
that the OMRI was the most active and relevant organization for evaluating organic substances
for pest and weed control.
b. New condition #12 has been added to require provision of a handicapped -accessible portable
toilet.
c. Existing condition #7 has been modified to include a 28-day time limit after grass -seed
applications for field irrigation. The Planning Commission originally recommended a 7-day limit.
However, staff research showed that a 7-day period was too short to ensure full germination and
establishment of new bermudagrass seeds. Therefore, staff recommends a 28-day limit, which is
sufficient for that purpose.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment D) to approve
SP202000002.
ATTACHMENTS:
A — Planning Commission Staff Report
Al — Site Map
A2 — Area Map
A3—Conceptual Plan
B — Planning Commission Action Letter
C — Draft Meeting Minutes from 2/2/2021 PC Public Hearing
D — Resolution to Approve SP202000002
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP202000002 MonU Park
Staff. Scott Clark, Senior Planner II
Planning Commission (PC) Hearing: April 20, 2021
Board of Supervisors (BOS) Hearing: to be determined
Owner: Crockett Corporation
Applicant: Monticello United Soccer Club
Acreage: 79.5 acres
Special Use Permit(s) for: 10.2.2.4 Swim, golf, tennis or
similar athletic facilities reference 5.1.16
Tax Map Parcel (TMP): 04600-00-00-018CO
Zoning/by-right use: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural,
forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unittacre
in development lots); FH Flood Hazard - Overlay to
provide safety and protection from flooding; EC Entrance
Coffidor - Overlay to protect properties of historic,
architectural or cultural significance from visual impacts of
development along routes of tourist access
Magisterial District: Rivanna
Location: Polo Grounds Road, approximately''/< mile east of its
intersection with US 29
School Districts: Hollymead — Sutherland — Albemarle
Conditions: Yes
Development Area: No
Requested # of Dwelling Units/Lots: N/A
Proposal(s): Request to amend special use permit for an
Comp. Plan Designation: Rural Areas
athletic club with 4 soccer fields and 96 parking spaces, to
increase the number of fields to 7; to extend the hours of
operation; to remove the condition prohibiting games
during July and August; to remove the existing condition
prohibiting iffigation; and to remove the condition
prohibiting games and practice sessions occurring on the
same day as specified major event at the existing SOCA
facility also located on Polo Grounds Road.
Character of Property: Floodplain of the South Fork Rivanna
Use of Surrounding Properties: Residential and mixed -use,
River — largely open former agricultural fields with some
riparian open space
wooded areas
Factors Favorable:
Factors Unfavorable:
1. Upgrades to Polo Grounds Road and the US 29
n/a
intersection have addressed the previous concerns about
traffic capacity for this use.
2. The maximum of four games at any one time would still
apply, meaning that the maximum level of use would not
greatly increase.
3. The low -impact character of the use would still allow the
land to be returned to agricultural use.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of SP202000002 with conditions.
SP202000002 MonU Park
Planning Commission: April 20, 2021
Page 1
STAFF CONTACT: Scott Clark, Senior Planner II
PLANNING COMMISSION: April 20, 2021
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD
PROJECT: SP202000002 MonU Park
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 04600-00-00-018C0
LOCATION: Southeast comer of US 29 and Polo Grounds Road (Route 643).
PROPOSED: Request to amend special use permit for an athletic club with 4 soccer fields and 96 parking spaces, to
increase the number of fields to 7; to extend the hours of operation; to remove the condition prohibiting games
during July and August; to remove the existing condition prohibiting irrigation; and to remove the condition
prohibiting games and practice sessions occurring on the same day as specified major event at the existing SOCA
facility also located on Polo Grounds Road.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential
density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots); FH Flood Hazard - Overlay to provide safety and protection from
flooding; EC Entrance Corridor - Overlay to protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural significance from
visual impacts of development along routes of tourist access
SECTIONS: 10.2.2.4 Swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities (reference 5.1.16)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open
space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density ( .5 unit/ acre in development lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
The site is located along the South Fork Rivanna River and Polo Grounds Road, in a narrow portion of the Rural
Areas between the Hollymead development area (to the north) and Neighborhood 2 (across the river to the south).
The portion of the Rural Area containing this site is largely floodplain, and the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir dam is
located approximately one-half mile upstream. The adjacent Development Areas are located on higher land above
the river valley. To the north, the Hollymead area includes existing residential developments. The mixed -use
Brookhill development is directly to the north, across Polo Grounds Road. Neighborhood 2, to the south, includes
residential developments and commercial areas along US 29.
Since the original approval of a special use permit for soccer use on this site (see below), Polo Grounds Road and its
intersection with US 29 have been significantly upgraded to accommodate the volume of traffic from the ongoing
Brookhill development and the existing residences along Polo Grounds.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
On September 12, 2012, the Board of Supervisors approved SP201000036, which permits an athletic facility with
four soccer fields and 96 parking spaces, with several conditions. Staff lists recommended amendments to the
original conditions below. Outdoor lighting and amplified sound were prohibited.
DETAILS OF THE PROPOSAL:
The current proposal is to amend the existing special use permit to alter several conditions of the original approval:
• The number of fields would be increased from four to seven. However, no more than four fields could be
used for competitions at any one time. This would permit the applicants to have warm-ups and non -game
uses on the extra fields without increasing the main level of use on the site, which comes from formal games.
SP202000002 Monti Park
Planning Commission: April 20, 2021
Page 2
Also, it would allow the applicants to rotate uses among more fields, reducing wear in any given location.
(Note that these fields exist only as marks on the grass, and do not include any built infrastructure.)
• The hours of operation for events would be extended from the existing limits (Monday — Friday 11 am to 4
pm, Saturday — Sunday 11 am to 6 pm) to 8 am to sunset daily.
• The existing seasonal limits on operation, including the prohibition on game play during July and August
(imposed to limit traffic conflicts with the SOCA facility on the same road) would be removed.
• The condition prohibiting uses on the MonU site on the same days as specific named SOCA uses would be
removed. (This condition included a section stating that it would no longer apply if the Planning Director
found that it was no longer necessary due to road improvements.)
• The condition prohibiting irrigation of the facility would be replaced with a condition permitting irrigation
with temporary pumps using water from the South Fork Rivanna River.
The Planning Director approved the applicant's request to waive the requirement for a community -input process, due
to the limited scale of the proposed use and the upgrades to the public roads accessing the site.
Staff has not received any public comments on this proposal.
ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST
Section 33.39(B) states that the Commission, in making its recommendation, shall consider the same factors
found in Section 33.40(B):
L No substantial detriment Whether the proposed special use will be a substantial detriment to adjacent
parcels.
No discernible detriment to adjacent parcels is expected from this proposal. Outdoor lighting and amplified
sound would still be prohibited, limiting visual and noise impacts on the surrounding area.
2. Character of the nearby area is unchanged. Whether the character of the adjacent parcels and the nearby
area will be changed by the proposed special use.
The recreational use would remain the same in character, although increasing somewhat in scale. For the
surrounding area, this would still be an undeveloped open -space site.
3. Harmony.
Whether the proposed special use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter,
The purposes of the RA zoning district include:
Preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities;
The property would remain in its current open -space state, and would allow the parcel to return to
agricultural use at any time.
Water supply protection;
The property is located downstream of any public -water supplies located in the Rural Areas.
SP202000002 MonU Park
Planning Commission: April 20, 2021
Page 3
Limited service delivery to the rural areas; and
Neither the approved use nor the proposed amendment requires the provision of public water or
sewer service. Occasional calls for EMT service could be generated by the use. However, as the
number of fields available for games would not change, the proposed amendment would not increase
this demand.
Conservation of natural, scenic, and historic resources.
Other than the existing parking area, the proposed use does not include any built facilities that would
impact the visual character of the Rural Areas or the US 29 Entrance Corridor.
Maintaining the existing requirement for an archaeological survey before any grading occurs would
protect the archaeological value of this site, which (from staff consultation with professional
archaeologists) is likely to include significant resources from past occupation of the site by the
Monacan Nation. (The applicants do not currently expect to carry out any grading, but staff believes
that this condition is important to preventing future impacts.)
with the uses permitted by right in the district,
The low -impact character of the use is not expected to have significant impacts on the potential of the Rural
Areas to accommodate agriculture, forestry, or conservation.
with the regulations provided in Section S as applicable,
Section 5.1.16 contains supplemental regulations for this use ("swim, golf, tennis, or similar athletic
facilities"), but they apply to swimming pools and concessions, and are not relevant to this proposed use.
and with the public health, safety, and general welfare.
During the review of SP201000036, the surrounding community had concerns about the traffic impacts of
this use, due to the limited capacity of Polo Grounds Road, which was a two-lane road whose intersection
with US 29 often created long waits for vehicles accessing US 29. Since that time, the intersection and the
western end of Polo Grounds Road have been significantly upgraded to accommodate the expected traffic
from the Brookhill development, which sits adjacent to the soccer facility to the north. These upgrades added
signalization to the intersection, added three turn lanes to Polo Grounds Road at the intersection and ended
westbound access to Rio Mills Road (which required vehicles to wait to cross both sides of US 29).
Transportation -planning staff have reviewed the proposed amendment against the upgraded traffic facilities,
and has found that the upgraded road and intersection can accommodate this use.
The applicants have found that they could provide better maintenance of the soccer fields if they were
permitted to irrigate the site. The have consulted with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ), which is the agency that controls and issues permits for river -water withdrawals, and DEQ staff has
provided the applicants with guidance on how to remain below the threshold that would require a permit
(10,000 gallons/day — far above any need for field watering). Staff has included a condition requiring that the
applicants follow aspects of that DEQ guidance that would be practical for Zoning staff to enforce, such that
the irrigation uses temporary over -the -bank hoses and does not disturb riverside vegetation.
The site is located approximately one-half mile downstream of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir dam,
which impounds the community's largest reservoir. The Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority (RWSA), which
manages the dam facility and is responsible for maintaining compliance with Federal dam -safety regulations,
SP202000002 MonU Park
Planning Commission: April 20, 2021
Page 4
has recommended that the proposed soccer facility be required to post signage warning of the dangers of a
dam breach and giving safety information. Staff has recommended a condition of approval below that would
impose this requirement.
4. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Whether the proposed special use will be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan,
The County's comprehensive planning goals for the Rural Areas generally support agriculture, forestry,
water protection, and natural and cultural resource protection. While this is a recreational use that does not
directly support those goals, its low -impact nature and lack of built facilities mean that impacts are limited,
and that the site can return to Rural Area uses in the future if needed.
SUMMARY:
After review of this request, staff have identified the following factors of this proposal that are favorable to this
proposal.
Factors favorable to this request include:
1. Upgrades to Polo Grounds Road and the US 29 intersection have addressed the previous concerns about traffic
capacity for this use.
2. The maximum of four games at any one time would still apply, meaning that the maximum level of use would
not greatly increase.
3. The low -impact character of the use would still allow the land to be returned to agricultural use.
Staff did not find any significant unfavorable factors.
Based on the findings described in this report and factors identified as favorable, staff recommends approval of
special use permit application SP202000002 MonU Park with the following conditions:
1. Development of the use must shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan entitled "Concept Plan
for Special Use Permit Application for MonU Park" prepared by Meridian Planning Group LLC, and dated
04-25-12. To be in general accord with the plan, development 5..must reflect the following central
features essential to the design of the development:
a) Numberllds
a) Number and location of parking spaces
b) Absence of structures
Minor modifications to the plan that do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The area used for playing fields must be in general accord with the layout shown on the plan titled "Field
Layout Plan"_ dated "January 22.2020." The total number of playing fields must not exceed seven_ and the
total number of playing fields used for games at any one time must not exceed four.
3 Before establishing a fifth playing field on the site the applicant must shell install flood -safety signage to
the satisfaction of the Rivanna Water &Sewer Authority
SP202000002 Monti Park
Planning Commission: April 20, 2021
Page 5
4. Hours of operation must shall be no earlier than 11:"n 00 a.m. 8:00
a.m. and no later than & n� the time of sunset as calculated by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Administration.
5. No Overnight parking "I be is not permitted on the site. The entrance to the property must shall be
closed by a locked gate when the playing fields are not in use.
6. No Outdoor lighting ism permitted for this use.
7. No aFti fici ,1 if gation shall he-, ....va , .,,.t..nea for ahe , Ar Feu, Any irrigation of the soccer fields
must comply with the following requirements_ as recommended by Virginia Department of Environmental
uali
al Irrigation water must be withdrawn from the Rivanna River utilizing a temporary over -the -bank
he
b) Permanent changes to the riverbank must not be made, and
cl Existing trees along the riverbank must not be removed.
8. The use of amplified sound system(s) is not permitted for this use.
9. No Fill shall must not be placed within the portion of the property within the Flood Hazard Overlay
District.
10. The driveway and parking area shall must -be a pervious surface unless otherwise required by the County
Engineer pursuant to § 4.12.15(a) of the Zoning Ordinance. Upon termination of the playing field use, the
surfacing of the driveway and parking area shall must be removed and the previously -disturbed land surface
shall must be returned to vegetated cover or an unpaved accessway.
11. A Phase I archaeological survey shall must be completed for areas to be graded for this use, followed by
appropriate mitigation measures as approved by the Planning Director, prior to issuance of a grading permit.
SP202000002 MonU Park
Planning Commission: April 20, 2021
Page 6
POSSIBLE PLANNING COMMISSION MOTIONS — SP202000002:
A. If the Planning Commission chooses to recommend approval of this special use permit:
I move to recommend approval of SP202000002 MonU Park with the conditions outlined in the staff report.
B. If the Planning Commission chooses to recommend denial of this special use permit:
I move to recommend denial of SP202000002 MonU Park for (state reasons for denial).
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Site Map
2. Area Map
3. Conceptual Plan
SP202000002 MonU Park
Planning Commission: April 20, 2021
Page 7
SP202000002 MonU Park " o soo 1,000 z,000
A Feet
AlfacMmenf 2
Maid Layout Plan
January 22, 2020
C,4 OF AL
o� County of Albemarle
o COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
May 5, 2021
Maynard Sipe, Esq.
Boyd & Sipe PLC
126 Garrett Street, Suite A
Charlottesville VA 22902
mavnard(cbbovdandsipe.com
RE: SP202000002 MonU Park Action Letter
Dear Mr. Sipe,
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4579
Telephone:434-296-5832
WWW.ALBEMARLE.ORG
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 20, 2021, recommended approval of the above noted
petition by a vote of 6:0 with the conditions recommended in the staff report, and with the following conditions: requiring
use of eco-friendly pesticides and insecticides with assistance of a professional (language to be refined by staff before the
Board of Supervisors hearing); requiring applicants to provide a handicapped -accessible portable toilet on the site; and
modifying recommended condition #7 to limit irrigation to time periods within one week of grass -seed applications.
Listed are the following conditions:
1. Development of the use must be in general accord with the conceptual plan entitled "Concept Plan for Special
Use Permit Application for MonU Park" prepared by Meridian Planning Group LLC and dated 04-25-12. To be in
general accord v%fith the plan, development must reflect the following central features essential to the design of the
development:
a) Number and location of parking spaces
b) Absence of structures
Minor modifications to the plan that do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure compliance
with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The area used for playing fields must be in general accord with the layout shown on the plan titled "Field Layout
Plan", dated "January 22, 2020." The total number of playing fields must not exceed seven, and the total number
of playing fields used for games at any one time must not exceed four.
3. Before establishing a fifth playing field on the site, the applicant must sha# install flood -safety signage to the
satisfaction of the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority.
4. Hours of operation must be no earlier than 11:00 a. Fn. 8:00 a.m. and no later than the time of sunset as
calculated by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration.
5. Overnight parking is not permitted on the site. The entrance to the property must be closed by a locked gate
when the playing fields are not in use.
6. Outdoor lighting not permitted for this use.
7. Any irrigation of the soccer fields must comply with the following requirements, as recommended by Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality:
a) Irrigation water must be withdrawn from the Rivanna River utilizing a temporary over -the -bank hose;
b) Permanent changes to the riverbank must not be made, and
c) Existing trees along the riverbank must not be removed.
8. The use of amplified sound system(s) is not permitted for this use.
9. Fill must not be placed within the portion of the property within the Flood Hazard Overlay District.
10. The driveway and parking area must be a pervious surface unless otherwise required by the County Engineer
pursuant to § 4.12.15(a) of the Zoning Ordinance. Upon termination of the playing field use, the surfacing of the
driveway and parking area must be removed and the previously -disturbed land surface must be returned to
vegetated cover or an unpaved accessway.
11. A Phase I archaeological survey must be completed for areas to be graded for this use, followed by
appropriate mitigation measures as approved by the Planning Director, prior to issuance of a grading permit.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me at
(434) 296-5832 ext 3249 or email sclark(a)albemarle.org
Sincerely,
Scott Clark
Snr Planner II
Planning Division
Cc. Monticello United Soccer Club
Cc. Crockett Corporation
PO Box 7214
435 Park St
Charlottesville VA 22906
Charlottesville VA 22901
monusc(a)embargmail.com
Albemarle County Planning Commission
FINAL Minutes April 20, 2021
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at
6:00 p.m.
Members attending were Julian Bivins, Chair; Karen Firehock, Vice -Chair; Rick Randolph; Daniel
Bailey; Corey Clayborne; Tim Keller; and Luis Carrazana, UVA representative.
Members absent: Jennie More.
Other officials present were William Fritz; Scott Clark; Charles Rapp, Director of Planning; Andy
Herrick, County Attorney's Office; and Carolyn Shaffer, Clerk to the Planning Commission.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum
Mr. Bivins said the meeting was being held pursuant to and in compliance with Ordinance No. 20-
A(16), "An Ordinance to Ensure the Continuity of Government During the COVID-19 Disaster."
He said opportunities for the public to access and participate in the electronic meeting will be
posted at www.albemarle.org on the Community County Calendar, when available.
Ms. Shaffer called the roll. All Commissioners indicated their presence except for Ms. More, who
was absent.
Mr. Bivins established a quorum.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public
There were none.
Item Requesting Deferral
a. SP201900014 & SP201900015 Blue Ridge Swim Club Amendment
Mr. Bivins stated they were asking for a deferral to May 4, 2021.
Ms. Firehock moved to defer to May 4, 2021.
Mr. Keller seconded the motion, which carried with a vote of 6:0 (Ms. More absent).
Mr. Bivins asked Mr. Rapp to inform the applicant that the Planning Commission would look
forward to seeing them on May 41h.
Public Hearings
a. SP202000002 MonU Park
Mr. Clark said that Mr. Maynard Sipe was the applicant's representative, and he would be
available to answer questions. He said that Pat Reilly, who is one of the coaches at MonU, would
also be available to make a presentation and answer questions.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - April 20, 2021
Mr. Clark said that this was a special use permit amendment request. He demonstrated the
location on the map of the Crockett Corporation property that is currently being used by the Monti
Soccer Club. He said they originally applied for a special use permit to use this site back in 2010.
He said they are requesting to amend that permit for the facility that currently has four soccer
fields and 96 parking spaces to increase the number of fields to seven. He said they are not
requesting to change the number of parking spaces on this site, though several Commissioners
had messages saying that was the case, but it was not the case and the 96 would not change.
Mr. Clark said the request included extending the hours of operation and changing some of the
timing conditions and removing existing condition prohibiting irrigation and removing condition
prohibiting games and practice sessions during certain major events at the soccer facility located
to the east also on Polo Grounds Road.
Mr. Clark displayed a topographic map to give an idea of the site. He said this is located between
two portions of the development areas in a narrow strip of rural area along the South Fork Rivanna
in the floodplain of that river just east of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir dam. He said there
was over a 100-foot difference in elevation between the soccer area and the high points of the
surrounding properties to the north and south; the property is entirely in a 100-year floodplain,
and there are some significant slopes surrounding the area but not sitting on the site itself. He
demonstrated a recent aerial photo of the site.
Mr. Clark said the site is designated rural areas in the comprehensive plan, but it is actually
included in some portions of the Places29 plan that has been adopted. He showed the site along
Polo Grounds Road and said there are multiuse path and trail designations in the comprehensive
plan going into Brookhill, going along 29 and then along the river itself. He demonstrated the
original plan for the site which showed the overall layout and showed four soccer field locations
as examples. He displayed the more recent proposal for fitting seven fields on the site. He
stressed that the parking area would not be changing or increasing. He said the seven fields laid
out are meant to be entirely in the existing open area, so they would not be intruding into the
stands of woods, into the streamlet or onto the riparian buffer along the South Fork.
Mr. Clark said that Ms. Firehock had asked earlier in the day about the distance from these fields
to the river. He said that the closest he could find was a corner at about 125 feet. He said these
fields are not dug into the ground; they are just marked down on the grass with chalk and could
shift as needed but that it would roughly be 125 feet. He demonstrated another area that looked
closer only because the river pulls away, and it is about 250 feet down there.
Mr. Clark discussed details of the proposal. He said it would allow the applicants to increase from
four fields to seven; however, they would still be limited to four for the purpose of games. He said
this meant that they would be able to rotate the fields to avoid wear and to manage seeding and
watering without increasing the on -site capacity at any given time. He said there might be a little
bit more use because four fields would still be used for games, and maybe they would have
warmups or a practice on the other ones, but they are still very much limited by the cap on parking.
Mr. Clark said that the hours of operation would change from the existing limits (Monday -Friday
11 to 4 and Saturday and Sunday 11 to 6) to 8 a.m. to sunset daily. He said the current hours are
a difficult situation for the applicants in that they had a very short period each day to fit in all of
their activities. He said the seasonal limits on operation and the condition prohibiting uses on the
same days as specific SOCA uses would be removed. He said the condition prohibiting irrigation
on the facility would be replaced with a condition permitting irrigation with temporary pumps using
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 2
FINAL MINUTES - April 20, 2021
water from the South Fork Rivanna, which is over -the -bank irrigation with a hose and not a
permanent facility. He said there would be no change to the existing prohibitions on lighting or
outdoor amplified sound.
Mr. Clark addressed the standard terms or guidelines for special use permit approvals. He said
that, regarding substantial detriment, as outdoor lighting and sound would still be prohibited and
there would be no structures on the site, staff did not feel that there was detriment to the adjacent
parcels. He said the open -space character of the area would be unchanged; this was a former
farm field being currently used for soccer fields, and that would not really change, and the level
of overall use on the site at any time would not change significantly.
Mr. Clark discussed harmony with the purposes of the ordinance and said that given the low -
impact nature of this use, it could return to agricultural use at any time, so there was no real impact
on concern with protecting rural area agriculture and resources there. He said it is not located in
the watershed of a public water supply and does not create demand for public services, other
than occasional EMS calls, and there are no built facilities because it is in a floodplain.
Mr. Clark said there were three issues to address on public health and safety. He said the original
permit raised a lot of concern in the community, as does this amendment, about the traffic impacts
of this use on Polo Grounds Road and its intersection with US 29. He said that road has
significantly changed since 2010 with added signals and turn lanes, closure of the westbound
crossing to Rio Mills Road and the eastbound crossing from Rio Mills Road, so given the
increased capacity and these design changes at the intersection, transportation planning staff felt
that the significant upgrades to capacity from those road changes that were put in place to
accommodate the Brookhill development across Polo Grounds Road would permit this use to
continue and upgrade slightly without having significant road traffic impacts. He pointed out again
that while the hours of operation and the seasonal operation are being longer, the total amount
for any given moment in a day cannot really increase much because the parking is not being
added to.
Mr. Clark said with regard to removal of the prohibition on field irrigation, the applicants did a
particularly good job on this and contacted DEQ before they even applied and got their guidelines
on how to withdraw river water for irrigation while staying below the standards that would require
a more stringent permit, or any permit, from DEQ, so staff is recommending a condition that
follows those DEQ guidelines.
Mr. Clark said that the site is located about half a mile downstream of the South Fork Rivanna
dam. He said RWSA has recommended the posting of dam breach hazard signage on the site,
and staff has recommended a condition imposing that requirement.
Mr. Clark stated as far as consistency with the comprehensive plan where rural area goals support
agriculture, forestry, water protection, and natural and cultural resource protection, this is a
recreational use that does not directly support those goals, but given its low -impact nature and
the lack of facilities that change the land or cause any grading or excavation, the site can easily
return to other more appropriate rural uses in the future, so staff did not feel that there was any
significant or permanent impact there.
Mr. Clark summarized that factors favorable are the upgrades to Polo Grounds Road and the US
29 intersection; the fact that the maximum of four games would still apply, meaning that the level
of use would not change significantly; and the use is of low -impact design.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - April 20, 2021
Mr. Clark said that the unfavorable factor, if any, was the increase in operational hours and the
additional months that it would be used; however, while there would be more days where the use
had impacts, the total impact at any one time would still be capped by the limits on the parking
area and the number of fields that could be used for games, which are the main generator of
traffic.
Mr. Clark said that staff are recommending approval with these modifications to the previous
conditions: The main changes are that for new condition #2, that seven field layout would now
apply; #3 would be the requirement to add the flood safety signage recommended by RWSA; #4
is just changing the hours; #7 is changing from no irrigation to irrigation that must be withdrawn
from the Rivanna River using a temporary over -the -bank hose, no permanent changes to the
riverbank, and no removal of trees for this purpose. He said that condition 12 was the one that
was originally designed to avoid four specific events at MonU Park, and given that traffic volume
is being accommodated for Brookhill, for the residential development along Polo Grounds Road,
this no longer seemed necessary and permits the MonU use to continue without being under the
control of a different use which they have no say in. He said those are the recommended
conditions and offered to answer questions.
Ms. Firehock asked why it was ever limited to not being able to start until 11, whether it was to
avoid the rush-hour traffic interference.
Mr. Clark responded that it was.
Ms. Firehock asked how much water per day they wanted to withdraw from the river in the months
of July and August and how much water per month. She said she understood it was below the
DEQ permit requirement and was not a major irrigation, but she wanted to get a handle on the
volume.
Mr. Clark responded that the DEQ line is at 10,000 gallons a day, and above that, one would need
a river water withdrawal permit. He said his understanding from the applicants was that they
expect to stay significantly below that. He said the applicants could address this more accurately
than he could, but he recalled they said that 10,000 gallons would be enough for at least a few
days' worth of the irrigation that they do. He said again as discussed earlier, the base flow on the
river here is on the order of 20 million gallons a day, so something like 3,000 to 4,000 gallons a
day is not a significant portion of that.
Ms. Firehock brought up the staff report which mentioned that they have 96 parking spaces. She
asked if there were any sense of how many they currently tend to use. She said she knew some
residents of that area were concerned about an increase in volume, because there would be more
fields available that there would be more use.
Mr. Clark agreed that he had seen that concern as well. He said he did not know what their current
use level is and assumed that Mr. Sipe could address that, but even though it is a gravel parking
area, it was sized so it would fit 96 spaces, and there is not really any room to increase it in that
existing gravel area, so they would have had to come in with a revised conceptual plan showing
a larger area to fit any more spaces in there. He said he knew that some people in the community
had gotten the impression that there were an additional 96 coming in, and that is not the case.
Mr. Clayborne asked if there was anything that stated this site must be used for soccer. He said
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 4
FINAL MINUTES - April 20, 2021
he understood the conditions saying that the fields must be arranged in a certain way but
wondered if anything prevented some other use, as it is just an open field with the lines painted
on.
Mr. Clark replied that the permit is for the single recreational use category in the zoning ordinance
used for athletic facilities, so while that is a catchall for everything and lots of uses could go in
that, he believed that since the conditions and the conceptual plan are so specific to soccer that
they would need a different special use permit in order to establish a different recreational use on
the site.
Mr. Clayborne wondered if they could have a concert out there as a fundraiser for that
organization.
Mr. Clark said that normally they would make room for that in the conditions of a permit if it was
expected to happen. He said that a question he would have for Francis MacCall is at what point
is a fundraiser activity of some sort, accessory to the use and at which point is it a new use such
as an event use. He said he was not sure exactly where that line was.
Mr. MacCall said he was not sure where that line was either. He said they would have to evaluate
a request if they were to want to come in and actually do that to make that decision whether it
would be considered accessory. He said the conditions now are fairly constraining as far as the
use of the fields for what it is as the swim, golf, tennis, or similar athletic facility as the zoning
ordinance identifies it, so there certainly could potentially be something accessory, whether that
is usual and customary, something like that, but that evaluation would have to be done at some
point if they were to request that.
Mr. Clark said that to his knowledge they had never had a request like that for this use.
Mr. Randolph commented in terms of the application that there was no documentation of the traffic
study that was done for Brookhill on Polo Grounds Road's intersection with 29, so that meant they
were taking it on faith that the set of traffic projections done that undergirded the Brookhill
development application approved by the Board with that number (n) would now be (n) plus (x),
which is the potential additional traffic that could occur with more games potentially being played
at this location. He said they really do not know at this point what the cumulative impact would be
without knowing the variables (n) and (x) to determine (y) as a result of this project.
Mr. Clark stated that he had that traffic study available that he could pull up if Mr. Randolph wanted
to see a particular piece of it. He said he discussed this quite a bit with Mr. McDermott, who has
been their transportation planner. Mr. Clark stated that the way Mr. McDermott explained the
traffic analysis and the setup for that intersection was that the counts for that intersection were
expected to accommodate Brookhill, the other residential and recreational users already on this
road, plus some future growth, so given all of the other uses on this road, with Brookhill being
very large and quite a few residential uses along this road, the fairly marginal increase that might
be possible from Monti would not really make a big difference in those overall numbers.
Mr. Randolph said he understood and said it is a timing issue as well because when these games
are played, it is going to be quite different than when the bulk of the commuter traffic will be
accruing to that intersection, either going west or coming then east at the end of the day. Mr.
Randolph recalled having been on the Commission at the time that this was approved by the
Planning Commission and Board and noted that besides the transportation issue, the other issue
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 5
FINAL MINUTES - April 20, 2021
that the Planning Commission addressed was to ensure that there would be a minimal amount of
noise disruption to the residents up in Carrsbrook area because that community had been very
concerned about noise being projected from the soccer games, and the Planning Commission
and Board were trying to ensure that that would not be disruptive to the customary enjoyment of
Saturday mornings and Sundays, etc. Mr. Randolph said he did think noise may well have also
factored into it and told Ms. Firehock that her recollection was correct that the primary discussion
was about transportation.
Mr. Bivins asked Mr. Clark to go back to the slide with the pathway that goes along the Rivanna.
Mr. Bivins said that maybe when the applicant came in, they would describe where this water
would come from that may get drawn. Mr. Bivins asked about the circle all the way to the west on
the map.
Mr. Clark said it was labeled bike/ped vehicle bridge. He said that is the bridge that is now in
place.
Mr. Bivins asked if that was the 29 bridge.
Mr. Clark responded it was not and that it was the one upstream at Berkmar.
Mr. Bivins asked to go back to that to 29. He said that one of the things the Commissioners had
talked about was enlivening the use of the river, particularly the river in these places, so he was
trying to see what was going on there because there were all of these activities that they were
trying to encourage there but then it would go up to the plateau.
Mr. Rapp said that that was the recently constructed access to the river right there, a boat launch
area.
Mr. Clark referred to the map with the boat launch area, and then said they had proposed trails
and multiuse paths around basically all of the edges of this property.
Mr. Bivins asked whether they were there now or were they going to be there.
Mr. Clark stated they are not there now. He said he believed the trails within Brookhill are going
to be done as part of that development, but the connector from Polo Grounds down to the river
and the trail along the river do not exist yet.
Mr. Bivins asked where the water was going to come from.
Mr. Clark said that the water was going to come directly from the South Fork Rivanna itself. He
said that even in a drought when RWSA has to maintain instream flow by pulling off the bottom
of the dam, that is 20 million gallons a day.
Mr. Bivins said that right now, they were planning to have a multimodal path there and that there
is not one there now, so there is some conversation. He said that Brookhill path is going to go in.
Mr. Clark said that has already been approved and is already construction.
Mr. Bivins asked if there was going to be a path on the other side of the river.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 6
FINAL MINUTES - April 20, 2021
Mr. Clark said it looked like the plan is calling for it, yes, though he had no idea where that stood
in terms of acquisition.
Mr. Keller noted that he canoes from Charlottesville to Fluvanna several times each year. He said
he did not really do the upper part of the Rivanna as much, but on the lower part, there are actually
channels where even in the low water time (July, August, into September), there are times when
you have to get out and walk the canoe and let it float in the channel without you. He wondered if
any of the Commissioners had been on the upper reaches in those months to know how low the
flow is and whether the water was going to be extracted from that channel, which is an important
recreation channel. He was curious as to whether the water in the channel could be reduced
enough that it impedes canoes and kayaks during that time.
Mr. Keller said that he had heard nothing about what herbicides and pesticides would be used as
part of the irrigation process and the turf rebuilding process. He said if there is no condition to that
effect, and he did not believe there is, he would hope that they would put a condition in since this
is so close that there are questions about the distance from the edge of the fields to the river to
require ecologically sound herbicides and pesticides if they are to be used as part of the field
regimen.
Mr. Clark said that he did not have any information on what the applicants planned to use and
deferred the question to them.
Ms. Firehock said she did not recall reviewing this application in 2012. She asked staff or
Commissioner Randolph to elaborate on why it was that they did not allow irrigation using the
Rivanna River. She asked whether they simply did not ask for it or whether it was a prohibition
imposed by the Board due to concerns for water quality.
Mr. Clark said that he had gone back to look that up. He said it was not a water issue; it was a
noise issue. Several concerns had been raised by nearby landowners about noise, and in working
through that, in talking with the applicants, outdoor amplified sound had been recommended
against, and they said they did not plan any. Mr. Clark said that they had heard from neighbors
who said if they were going to be putting in fields and irrigate, they would have to listen to the
pumps, and the applicant said that they did not plan to irrigate and so they would volunteer to the
Commission so that they did not have to worry about that. Mr. Clark said since that time, they
have had some problems with not being able to keep the fields in good shape without some water
in, so they have found that they do actually need that. Mr. Clark volunteered to put up some
information about noise levels for a typical portable pump and the attenuation of noise over
distance to give a sense of what that impact might be.
Mr. Randolph said that he looked up the number of gallons in the average swimming pool in a
backyard, which was 13,500, so they were not looking at a huge volume of water here. Mr.
Randolph said that he also did not recall that there was any discussion about potential irrigation
here; the two issues before them were sound and traffic.
Mr. Bivins asked to hear from the applicant.
Mr. Sipe introduced himself as a land use attorney in Charlottesville, and he said that he was
representing Monticello United Soccer Club (MonU). He said that Pat Reilly was there also, who
is the administrator for the organization, and he deferred to Mr. Reilly to explain the organization
and answer a couple of the questions that were raised by Commissioners.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 7
FINAL MINUTES - April 20, 2021
Mr. Sipe said that this application is not about any expansion of the use; it is just about allowing
for more flexibility, which they think actually is positive overall on its impacts by reducing them.
He said that the organization had approximately 150 members when the application was originally
filed 10 years ago, and that is what they have today, so they have had a very stable enrollment
and number of participants. He said there was some misunderstanding with the citizens in their
comments, which Mr. Clark addressed. He said there would be no increase in the parking. He
explained the misunderstanding about the use of the fields. He said the restriction is on four fields
in use, so that is for practices and games. He said they originally had anticipated laying out up to
seven fields to maintain turf, and they wanted to be able to rotate through them, and so by rotating,
it would be a positive environmental impact to maintain a good stand of grass. Mr. Sipe referenced
a letter submitted to the Commissioners by Mr. Reilly. Mr. Sipe said that the letter gave a good
brief summary of what they were requesting and why. Mr. Sipe said that on the irrigation, there
have been some questions. He said that going ahead and using the ability to irrigate was to ensure
they could get new grass seed started or perhaps maintain it in a drought. He said they do not
anticipate irrigating regularly; it is just occasionally when these certain events happen, and so he
thought that was actually a positive because it would help maintain the grass turf in a good
condition. He deferred to Mr. Reilly to address herbicides or pesticides.
Mr. Sipe said that traffic was the big concern that neighbors have raised, and he thought a lot of
their concern is about the other developments in the area that have come in since the soccer park
was originally there. He said he thought the traffic concerns are also being addressed by the
increased flexibility they are looking for; by having slightly broader hours, they are in a position to
possibly stagger the games and reduce some of the traffic's peak flows in and out of the site, so
it really should mitigate traffic. He said they were not expanding the use or increasing the number
of people who would be participating, so there was really no new traffic generation.
Mr. Sipe said that MonU was okay with the conditions as presented and set out in the staff report,
and they were asking for approval. He summed up in response to the questions raised that it has
been made clear about the parking that there would be no additional parking. He tried to clarify
that four fields in use means no more than four fields being used at one time, whether games or
practice.
Mr. Pat Reilly introduced himself as the cofounder of Monticello United Soccer Field and also the
club administrator. He gave background that they were a small 5O1(c)(3) nonprofit soccer
organization started in 2003 just to play games and practice at Darden Towe and other county
parks and schools. He said in 2012, the special use permit for MonU Park was approved, and
that became their new home. He said they have most of their activities there, which has been a
big help for them with scheduling flexibility, being able to have makeup games and knowing that
there is an available field to reschedule things. He said when they first moved to MonU 10 years
ago, they had a yearly membership of approximately 150 players, and now 10 years later, they
are still small with membership numbers just below 150 for this season, so they really have not
changed a whole lot in that respect. He said the number of fields is what prompted some concern.
He said 10 years ago with their meetings, they had stated and it was understood that they would
limited to four fields in use at one time with 24 parking spaces per field and the 96 spaces but that
they would have more than four fields there because they would be rotating around to preserve
the field, but that wording never made it into the original special use permit. He said they have
been moving goals, rotating around, and where they have one big area that has a field, when that
field got worn out, they would move over next to it, so this was really to change the wording. He
said when the County did an aerial view, you could see there were seven fields. Mr. Reilly said
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - April 20, 2021
they had explained originally that this was to rotate fields, preserve fields; especially since they
were not irrigating, the only way to keep a field in good shape was to put it into rest. He said they
want to make the wording official that they do have seven fields but are not going to be using
more than four at one time, and over the past 10 years, probably once a year maybe, they use
four at one time; they are more in the line of two or three at a time just because of their small
number.
Mr. Reilly summed up that four fields in use is not changing; the 96 parking spaces will still be 96;
and the traffic generated in and out of the park is not any different than it has been for the 10
years. He said as far as flexibility, they are looking for flexible hours basically just to be consistent
with the operation of other public and private facilities, starting at 8 a.m and ending at dark. He
said that helps them in a number of areas, one being the summer heat; if you cannot start until
11:00, and it was 4:00 on weekdays, they are playing in the heat of the day when they could
schedule something in the morning or later in the evening. He said they could schedule around a
rainy forecast coming in the afternoon to something in the morning, just normal flexibility that one
would expect from a recreational facility.
Mr. Sipe reminded Mr. Reilly to address the question from Mr. Keller about pesticides or
herbicides.
Mr. Reilly said that they use fertilizer; they get all of their fertilizer and seed from Landscape
Supply, who have writeups on top of everything that is ecofriendly. He said he did not have exact
things in front of him, but they are from what he understood one of the leaders in the industry of
supplying an ecofriendly product, and that is why they use them.
Mr. Reilly said that they need the watering for germinating the seed; it is not a year-round watering
of the field. He said it is typically late May/early June and a couple of weeks in September; those
are the normal times that they would want to water to germinate the Bermuda seed right before
summer and then the rye seed right as the temperatures start to get a little cooler. He said they
are limited to 10,000 gallons a day. He said the little pump that they plan to use is 60 gallons a
minute, and three hours of pumping is approximately 9,000 gallons, and that takes care of a field.
Mr. Bailey said he appreciated the description. He said he was in the satellite industry space with
access to a lot of imagery, and that was one of his questions, how the use had practically changed
since roundabout 2016 when it looked like more than the four fields from 2012 had been in use.
He mentioned the misunderstanding in wording and that some of the uses had been there and
said it would be helpful to clarify the definition of what it meant to be in use as current imagery
from the site shows what would be defined as a soccer field with two goals set up across from
each other that would be more than four fields and looked like six. He expressed that he was a
college soccer player and a big fan of the sport and the impacts on youth and team.
Mr. Reilly said it should say four full fields that could be split in two, and it would still be one field.
Mr. Bailey clarified that it would be four regulation size, but other practice areas may be set up to
have goals that could be used by participants or nonscheduled or scheduled practices that would
extend that four in use.
Mr. Bailey said he was trying to understand the impact when talking about traffic with "in use" and
the amount of people and density in the site at a given time, how that related to "in use" and four
fields in use compared to the number of goals and smaller non -legal fields for practices.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - April 20, 2021
Mr. Reilly said they do not have four full-size fields going and then little practice areas. He said
basically a full-size field is split into two with two teams using that and then maybe two practice
areas that are 40 x 30 being used. He said that consistently over the 10 years, they have seldom
(never more than once or twice a year) even been up to the four full-size fields being used. He
said, for instance, right now, they have four teams practicing down there, and they are splitting
two of the full-size fields, and that is typically how it goes.
Mr. Bailey asked operationally if scheduling of use of these four fields, whether per team basis,
runs through Mr. Reilly as the administrator.
Mr. Reilly said that everything goes through him
Mr. Sipe added that looking at an aerial of the site at some point in time, there may be some goals
that are set to the side, and the area is mowed to some extent, but basically it is one large field
with the only designation of these particular fields in use through chalking, so the turfing grass
across the whole site is maintained in good condition and what may appear to be the footprint of
a field may be a field in rest at any given moment.
Mr. Reilly added that there may be goals on it because they are hard to move. He said that if they
have enough goals that they do not have to move them, they just leave them.
Mr. Bailey said he was trying to figure out the operational impact of density use on traffic and
other things as they think about it from how it has been practically used over the last 10 years to
a forecast of more fields with increased hours and water as a separate issue. He said one of the
core issues relates to the density of use, from how it has practically been used to project whether
it is going to increase the use of the site and its impact on traffic and trying to understand how
that works, the definition of four in use and how that is consistent or inconsistent with what has
been in previous.
Mr. Sipe said the in -use restriction is that no more than four full-size fields are in use at one time,
and so that is the limit, and they are not asking for any change in the limits, so there would not be
any additional activity or intensification of the use. He said, in fact, that he would propose that by
having a little more flexibility in the hours, by being able to schedule games perhaps with a little
less of a tight schedule with cars coming in and out, they are really lowering the intensity of the
use and the impacts, lowering the impact on traffic in terms of peak traffic, and allowing more time
really reduces the intensity.
Mr. Reilly said they try to have dedicated game field and practice fields as much as possible just
to keep the game fields in a little better shape. He said if they have games on four full-size fields,
there would not be a fifth practice field going on.
Mr. Bivins asked Mr. Clark if he wanted to talk about enforcement.
Mr. Clark said if they were to hear from somebody with concern about more than four fields being
in use, they are going to look at that as people on the fields at a time, not the fact that there are
seven rectangles in the grass that are part of the facility; it is going to be about people using the
site at any given moment. He said where more than four rectangles might be seen, there certainly
are not four fields in operation at any one time.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 10
FINAL MINUTES - April 20, 2021
Mr. Clayborne asked about league play, whether it is local participants versus local participants
or hosting of tournaments where folks were coming from out of town.
Mr. Reilly said they have a local group with young kids, maybe 18 to 20 kids ages 9-10 years old,
and then when they get a little older, they have a travel team; each season, the team will play four
away games and then four home games. He said, for instance, it is lighter in the spring, so for
this March, April, and May, they have 20 home games for that entire period and then 20 away
games. He said the teams practice twice a week for 90 minutes.
Mr. Clayborne said he was trying to get a feel for the 96 parking spaces, whether they were maxed
out. He asked about how the site is used, whether parents drop off their kids or if they stay for a
while.
Mr. Reilly said they do both; some people drop and go, and they do not have any internet there,
and other people stay and walk around the park while the child is practicing. He said the only time
that the parking will get tight is when games are stacked on multiple fields. He said typically they
have two or three games stacked on one game field. He said in the last 10 years, they have
probably used four fields not even a couple of times a year on average. He said game -wise, it is
maxed out at three fields most of the time. He said this season, it is essentially two fields having
games on them at once because they only have four travel teams going whereas they typically
have eight teams.
Mr. Clayborne said there were a lot of concerns about traffic, and so if a lot of folks are dropping
off, it does not even matter if they have 96 spaces. He said he was trying to get his arms around
that piece.
Mr. Reilly said it depends on really the age of the child if they felt they need to stick around or if
they want to leave. He said that most people like the trail that goes around the park, and they like
walking that 1.7-mile trail all the way around the park and then just walk that. He said the older
kids drive themselves. He said it was hard to pin down as far as the spots. He said that nothing
they were doing would be increasing any density of the traffic.
Mr. Sipe added that the activity described about parents dropping off and leaving or choosing to
park and stay he would assume is generally unchanged over the past 10 years.
Mr. Reilly agreed
Mr. Clayborne asked regarding this being inclusive for folks with disabilities. He said he was
looking through the documents and did not see any mention of how any thought has been put into
that, for example, ADA-accessible Porta Potties with this many games for parents or folks with
disabilities. He asked about some of the things they might be implementing.
Mr. Reilly said they do not have the Porta Potties that would be accessible like that. He said they
do have a golf cart to drive people with disabilities over to the sideline to help them out that way.
He said they let them park in a closer area, as they have handicap parking spaces, but when the
field is on the other side, they will basically pull up the cone and let them get closer if they need
to and have them hop on the golf cart and drive them over. He said they have not seen the need
for that yet, maybe just because of their size. He said that he would assume that was something
that Allied portable toilets could accommodate if they needed to.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 11
FINAL MINUTES - April 20, 2021
Ms. Firehock asked since they would not be using more than four fields at a time whether it was
correct to assume then that they would be able to rest their fields for periods of time to allow them
to recover from intensive play.
Mr. Reilly said they do that now and would keep doing that. He said they were a low -budget club,
so that was one of their only means of keeping the fields in good shape. He said it was pretty
sandy soil down there, so the older boys really tear it up. He said they have a dozen field -closed
signs that go up over every field that is closed.
Mr. Bivins said that Mr. Reilly mentioned that there is a trail that goes around the property.
Mr. Reilly said their field maintenance guy makes sure that it is cut all the way around the property.
Mr. Bivins asked if that trail connected or could connect up to the trail that is hopefully going to go
along the river.
Mr. Reilly said he did not know which side of the river.
Mr. Bivins said they were on both sides of the river. He said from the slide that Mr. Clark showed
them, there was an attempt to get a trail that goes from the boat launch on the other side of 29 all
the way down the river there, and a significant piece of it comes right in front of this property.
Mr. Reilly said he guessed it would depend on where it was. He said most of the area had woods
to the river of 100 feet or more and was pretty thick and hilly inside there unlike the other side with
a nice flat right next to the river area.
Mr. Bivins said that for using herbicides, whether or not they were using it twice a year or even
with heavy rains, one of his concerns is how they are mitigating the runoff from this big field
basically back into the river. He said he was trying to figure out whether there was a way to put
some space between the river and the fields and the woods there which would tie into this nice
green buffer that they have running down there. He said that would be helpful to both the quality
of the water and would be helpful to give the parents a place to walk up and down the river if they
needed to and in addition would help to facilitate an accessory on the river. He said they have
riverfront and so he was hoping in a way to mitigate water runoff and to be perhaps thinking of a
way to add an accessory for the parents as they are looking to do something while their kids are
there, that this would be something that the organization would consider being in conversation
with staff about how they might sort of join the waterfront there for what the Commission is trying
to do.
Mr. Sipe added that what Mr. Reilly was describing really is a mowed path around the open area
which is for private use of the parents and people who are there; it is not an improved trail that
the County would ultimately maybe be looking for in the long run. He said that the buffer is very
large already; their use does not intrude into that area that Mr. Clark said was 125 to 250 feet
wide, so there is a natural buffer there now. He said he would add that the use they are making
really has a lower impact than perhaps most agricultural cropping would.
Mr. Bivins said his real point was that this is a community good, and as a community organization,
would they consider entering into a conversation with staff about how they might be able to extend
that path there, trying to increase that path across a piece of property that has waterfront and
would they be willing to engage in that conversation.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 12
FINAL MINUTES - April 20, 2021
Mr. Sipe said they spoke with Mr. Clark about that briefly, and he would let Mr. Clark speak to
that.
Mr. Reilly said the path is at the edge of the woods right at the edge of the field that is mowed. He
also added they are the tenants there, and any trail would need to go through the owner.
Mr. Bivins said that was good to know, and he said he assumed that if the owner said yes, they
would not object to that.
Mr. Reilly said whatever the owner says, they do.
Mr. Bivins asked if there were any lights there now, which could open up the possibility of hearing
about evening soccer matches.
Mr. Reilly said there were no lights.
Mr. Bivins opened up for public hearing.
Ms. Shaffer asked the first speaker to please state his name and address, if he was with a group
or an organization, the group or organization that he represents. She said he had three minutes
to start talking.
Mr. Joe D'Alu stated he owned a property just immediately south of the Rivanna. He said he
appreciated the use of MonU Park; it is a very cool amenity for the club to use, and they do enjoy
seeing the public there using the fields. He said they have very few concerns about the
application. He said, if any, it is a bit about the extended morning hours that are proposed. He
said the game times are pretty limited with the use of only four fields. He asked if there would be
limited hours applicable to field maintenance. He said they do enjoy the early morning solitude
from time to time, and the crowds arguably and understandably can get loud as they are cheering
for their favorite players and so forth, so he would like to understand a little bit about that and if
that 8 a.m. hour has to do with maintenance as well. He said the lighting question had been
answered. He said the trail was an interesting question that was brought up and is a separate
issue, but he said it does seem that the semipublic use of the field might lend itself to that as that
plan gets thought through and considered. He said aside from that, the biggest assurance they
might be able to give the neighbors is about the timing of the field openings, especially on the
weekends, and how noise might be a factor, especially in maintenance if not in use of the field
play.
Mr. Don Long introduced himself as living in Crozet but also the president of the board of SOCA.
He said he wanted to speak up and share their support for the requested changes to the special
use permit. He said that they do not have enough soccer fields in the community; they have a lot
of soccer players and need more fields. He said the County is working to address some of those
issues, but he wanted to be clear that they support the efforts to increase the access to these
fields. He said from personal experience, the changes on Polo Grounds Road have dramatically
improved the traffic flow there, so he wanted to support this proposed change once again on
behalf of SOCA and on behalf of soccer players in general.
Mr. Don Rucker said he and his wife have lived on 1936 Bentivar Farm Road for 10 years. He
said they live right off of Polo Grounds Road and travel it many, many times every day. He said
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 13
FINAL MINUTES - April 20, 2021
one of their concerns every day is going underneath the infamous trestle bridge where traffic
drops to 15 miles an hour and near -miss situations occur almost hourly; despite the beeping back
and forth and despite the mirrors, there is always somebody that did not comply with the rules
and hence the backup. He said traffic is an issue, and he reiterated that he had been there for 10
years. He said his biggest single concern just talking as an individual was traffic and safety. He
said on April 91h, he sent the Commission a letter dealing with this particular matter. (Mr. Bivins
confirmed receipt of that email.) Mr. Rucker said that being on Polo Grounds and being near -
neighbors with Brookhill, they are particularly sensitive in a rural community to changes. He said
that Brookhill originally proposed 600 to 800 household units, but this was bumped up and
doubled to 1,550. He said for those in the immediate area, there were a number of issues
concerning the traffic, traffic projections, densities, assumptions, which they argue with and see
violated every single day. He said they are sensitive to added traffic to Polo Grounds and
particularly when Brookhill is yet to be built out. He said he drove up there about 2 days ago, and
it is probably about a third right now, and so those traffic assumptions made by a consultant have
yet to be validated and verified with actual experience. He said that a new traffic generator is
particularly concerning to them on a road which is basically a two-lane road which is hazardous
itself with the turns and the rest of the stuff. He said that this had been enlightening in terms of
hearing the information about MonU and the plans and the history and the rest. He wanted to
express his single biggest concern right now today is that it specified in the Planning Board staff
report, which he just received today and does not know that anybody else has gotten, that there
would be no community meeting. He said that was concerning, and he queried why information
flow would be restricted and why would they not be simply talking about the issues themselves
and having a frank exchange like they are having today. He reiterated his point about lifting that
particular restriction in the application to let them talk.
Mr. Bivins closed the public hearing and asked the applicant if he wanted to respond to anything
that he heard.
Mr. Sipe said that he would briefly just say that he thought the opening hours of 8 a.m. were
largely to be able to open the gate and get prepared for the day and that he would let Mr. Reilly
speak to how he envisions games, but he does not think there would be cheering crowds that
early in the morning. He said he would let staff speak about the community meeting question that
was raised.
Mr. Reilly said that was correct that they typically like to open the gates an hour before their first
game. He said that they would be opening the gates at 8:00 or 8:15 for people to come in and
start the game at 9:00 and that they were not looking for 8 a.m. games. He said the maintenance
guy is coming from Scottsville and is certainly not out there cutting fields or doing anything at 8
a.m. for several reasons; coming from Scottsville, he waits for all traffic to subside coming into
town, and he typically gets in about 10:00, makes sure the dew is dry from the grass because it
is not going to be cut wet, and then he starts in around 11:00 or thereabouts and finishes up
before people come in and is usually done by 4:00, and that is the general maintenance schedule
and that is typically three days a week.
Mr. Bivins closed the public hearing.
Mr. Clark said just to clarify, the community meeting is not to do with discussions between the
applicant and the community after this point. He said there was certainly no restriction on any of
that. He said the community meeting is a step early in the special use permit process where they
typically set up a meeting, on-line lately, for applicants to describe their proposal to nearby
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 14
FINAL MINUTES - April 20, 2021
landowners. He said if they had held one for this permit, it would have been early last year. He
said given the scale of the changes that are proposed which are minimal, they did not hold that
meeting, especially given it was during the peak of changes due to COVID, but again, that is a
step early in the process, and of course information is available for these hearings for people to
read up on the proposal and to have influence on the decision -making, but there is no restriction
on a meeting in the future between the applicants and the community.
Mr. Rapp said that this was brought to them back in April of last year, just as they hit the COVID
transition, and there are some criteria in the code that allow the ability to waive a community
meeting requirement based on the nature of the proposal including its scope and scale. He said
if it is not likely to generate any significant concerns —and as they have stated here, the traffic
improvements were made; there is no increase in usage on the field; this was an approved use
and an existing use already out there —they did not feel that there was going to be any significantly
new information to hash out aside from some of the information discussed tonight. He said as Mr.
Clark mentioned, when they do waive a meeting like that, they do notify property owners and
allow information sharing. He said they can certainly contact the planner and get application
materials and review those and submit comments.
Mr. Keller wondered whether, given the various policies that they either have recently or are in
the process of enacting for the County, they should have a condition about whether the herbicides
and pesticides that are used are ecofriendly. He said as a canoeist for many, many decades, he
knew that when there is something unusual coming across a riverbank, there is often interest and
playfulness about dealing with that object that is not usually there, so while he did not think they
needed to necessarily say anything, he thought that the applicant should be forewarned there
would most likely be interesting things that are done to that hose and that pump unless there is
an individual monitoring from the streambank. He said maybe a fisherman could be enlisted or a
group of fishermen enlisted to be there watching out for it when it is in the water.
Ms. Firehock said that she understood from the applicant that they stated they would be actually
spreading out the impact of the uses by expanding the hours, but she also appreciated the
sensibilities that were entailed in restricting the hours to avoid rush traffic hours in the first place.
She said that she personally would be amenable to letting them open a little earlier, perhaps 10:00
a.m., with the understanding that people would trickle in for a game that might start at 11, but she
was not in favor of moving it to 8 a.m.
Ms. Firehock said that while they want to withdraw less than a swimming pool's worth of water on
certain days when they are seeding, she was still concerned about that because they want to
withdraw that water at precisely the time of year when that portion of the river is extremely low,
and it has impaired benthic life. She said that she happened to be an expert in stream quality,
and one of the reasons those impairments occur is due to low volumes and low flows which reduce
the amount of available oxygen in the river, so she is actually opposed to permitting water
withdrawal during the time of low water flows in that reach, and she has personally both monitored
that reach as well as paddled it multiple times. She stated that she could attest to the challenges
with the flow there as it is. She stated those were her two comments in terms of what she found
objectionable. She said as far as the rest of the application, to have more fields available so that
fields could have rest from intensive use was a good idea. She said that she would like them to
consult with the Soil and Water Conservation District about the management of the field because
even if they use ecofriendly fertilizer, it is common for people to overapply the fertilizer and put
down more than is needed. She said she would have greater comfort if she knew that they were
using advice from a professional that knows about water quality and fertilizer and maybe perhaps
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 15
FINAL MINUTES - April 20, 2021
even do some soil testing.
Mr. Reilly said they have done that through Landscape Supply, as they are a leader in the field
Mr. Bivins interjected and told Mr. Reilly that at this point, they were not inviting his comments.
Mr. Bailey said having played on poorly maintained fields and being seriously injured as a soccer
player due to the poorly maintained field, he was very in favor of safety of the individual players
on the field, so rotating and putting fields in rest was a good idea, and he was supportive of that
part. He said he shared some of the concerns about the watering and the water runoff, although
he was not an expert in the field; he said he would like to understand how the 125-feet buffer
helps maintain or minimize that and if there were other assurances. He said from what he could
discern and from the assurances given by the administrator that the four fields in use does not
practically seem to be affecting the current use of it, the concerns about traffic would relate to the
increased hours, how the increased hours which by nature open up more opportunities for uses
impact the traffic. He said specifically from his understanding, most soccer games are usually
maintained on the weekends or after -school hours, and so one of the questions becomes whether
this is a Monday through Friday and a weekend schedule or is it a Monday through Sunday
schedule of the increase that is necessary to facilitate the practical use of the site, and so he
could understand the use of that, but being sensitive to the neighbors, 8:00 a.m. does seem a bit
early even on the weekends. He said he does not necessarily like to hear a bunch of things at 8
a.m., but 9 a.m. is being a slave to waking up on a normal workday from 9:00 to 5:00 and could
be applicable. He said he would leave it to the fellow Commissioners to think about what the right
timing is and how that is addressed in the special use permit.
Mr. Bivins said that whatever the timing is, he would want the timing to be the same as SOCA; he
would not want to penalize this group or have them have a different opening and closing time than
a field that is less than 300 yards down the road or the next parcel down the road. He said if they
open at 8:00, then he would say that it was fine to open at 8:00, etc. He thinks they should be
parroting and not penalizing MonU, which facilities are not as sophisticated as SOCA's with lots
of permeable asphalt out there, lots of parking out there, lots of fields out there. He said this
organization's fields are not as refined as that organization's fields are, so it is not about the
players but about the installation of all the stuff there, so he for one would not want to penalize
them in any way compared to people that are just a quarter of a mile down the road.
Mr. Bivins said that he would support having a condition around soil and herbicide and pesticide
use so that everyone could speak to that, and so the organization could use that as a speaking
point to say that they have done this, and this is their practice, so he would support a condition if
they approved this that would add that into the approval.
Mr. Randolph said he wanted to echo Mr. Bivins' remarks. He recalled nine years ago that they
got a communication from one resident nearby who expressed her concern about the sound of
laughing children in the afternoon during a soccer game, and she cited that as a reason to oppose
the original application. He said they have to be aware here that this is a critical resource in terms
of a playing surface for soccer, which is in huge demand in this community. He said there are four
potential soccer fields down there opening up, but that will be probably another three to five years
before that project is completed, and in the meantime, the community continues to grow, and
demand for soccer is not slackening. Mr. Randolph said he also echoed about trying to minimize
restrictions on when play can begin here; it is a Saturday morning, and 8:00 a.m. in the morning
is not an untoward hour to have the children out there playing and enjoying soccer. He said he
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 16
FINAL MINUTES - April 20, 2021
did think the condition that was suggested by Commissioner Firehock about herbicides and
pesticides and getting professional advice was a sound recommendation. He said he was not too
worried about the runoff given the distance involved before hitting the river. He said to also be
mindful that while water may be absorbed into the land here if it is withdrawn from the river, in all
likelihood it will end up being redirected back into the river subterranean -wise and end up going
downstream anyway. He said putting the safety of these young athletes first was absolutely
critical, and it was owed to them to have a really good playing surface to enjoy the sport.
Mr. Clayborne said he was certainly in support of the proposal. He said the way obesity is running
rampant in our country, he had a hard time trying to throw a roadblock into trying to have a healthy
community as long as they can be reasonable and respectful to the neighbors. He said he has
been jotting down all of the great things that he has heard regarding the conditions, and he
certainly agreed with Commissioner Firehock and thought that was a really strong one. He said
he actually had the same exact thought as Mr. Bivins that with SOCA right down the street, it
would be unfair to do anything different. He said personally he would like to see something that
says where necessary and where reasonable, they can accommodate those with disabilities. He
said if a Porta Potty were put out there, it should definitely be able to accommodate someone with
a disability. He said he would be prepared to cobble together a motion with the amendments that
his colleagues have said.
Mr. Clayborne asked Mr. Clark to pull up the motion. Mr. Clayborne moved to recommend
approval of SP202000002 MonU Park with the conditions outlined in the staff report and the
following additional conditions —that the administrator would use ecofriendly pesticides and
insecticides and seek guidance from professionals in this field; that the field- use start time would
mimic that of SOCA; and that where necessary and where reasonably accommodated,
infrastructure can accommodate those with disabilities as well.
Mr. Keller seconded the motion.
Mr. Bivins said that it had been moved by Mr. Clayborne with those additions and seconded by
Mr. Keller and asked for discussion.
Mr. Clark said first on mimicking the SOCA operating hours, he found the two old SP approvals
for SOCA, and there was no reference to operating hours or seasons in those special use permits.
He said the only reference to operating hours is that the site would be gated off and closed outside
of operating hours, and there are no times set.
Mr. Clark said on the handicapped infrastructure, he was concerned about how to apply a
condition like that in a floodplain where anything that needed to be a fixed or permanent structure
would not be permitted, so that could be a real burden for the applicants or something they actually
physically could not meet. He said if the intention was to have the handicap -accessible portable
toilet on the site, then it could just say that.
Mr. Clark said the condition regarding use of ecofriendly herbicides and insecticides is probably
unenforceable unless it is more specific than that, and he did not really know what to suggest. He
said that hopefully they are using something that is EPA -approved, but ecofriendly is such a vague
term that he did not think it would be enforceable.
Mr. Bivins said they would take this one piece at a time. He asked Mr. Clayborne and Mr. Keller
if they were thinking about ADA Porta Potties.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 17
FINAL MINUTES - April 20, 2021
Mr. Clayborne said it was his understanding that there would not be bolted -down infrastructure.
He said he thought he saw something about portable restrooms, and so not to do anything to
make the applicant have an undue hardship, just where if they were going to do that.
Mr. Bivins asked if counsel could address.
Mr. Herrick said that he did not disagree with Mr. Clark's observations and concern about the
ecofriendly pesticide application. He said if Mr. Clayborne's motion was taken as sort of rough
language that could be worked on and refined between here and when the Board considers this
application, that might be best to leave some flexibility for that kind of fine-tuning of the language.
He said he agreed with Mr. Clark that ultimately that language should be probably a little more
specific, measurable, and enforceable. He said he shared Mr. Clark's opinions and thought as
long as that language was refined that it would be an appropriate motion.
Mr. Bivins asked if they could move the motion the way it is with the understanding that it would
be refined before it goes to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Herrick said that it could.
Mr. Bivins asked Mr. Clayborne if he agreed with that modification about having the ADA toilet
put in and the understanding that this is language that is going to be refined before it goes to the
Board of Supervisors, assuming it was passed.
Mr. Clayborne said he was certainly fine with that.
Mr. Keller said he was fine with his second.
Mr. Herrick brought up the hours of operations and making sure that the hours of operations were
uniform among the various soccer organizations and said it would be necessary to the extent that
they want to limit daytime operating hours that those be specified given that SOCA apparently
does not have restrictions.
Mr. Bivins said that they were going to discuss pulling the hours or setting some hours. He said
he would like to give Mr. Clayborne an opportunity since he moved to restart.
Mr. Clayborne said that he wanted input, but given what they had heard from neighbors and so
forth, if they had to set a time, perhaps it could be 9:00. He said that he thought it was a good
point made that starting earlier in the summertime was prudent, especially in the Virginia sun. He
said he had no problems with that but would like to find that balance between being fair and
respecting the neighbors and so he asked for input from his colleagues.
Mr. Carrazana said that it seemed with the applicants asking for an 8:00 start time with SOCA not
having any kind of start time designation in their special approval, keeping the 8:00 that is being
asked seemed fair.
Mr. Randolph agreed with Mr. Carrazana. He reemphasized that he thought putting the least
amount of restrictions on this organization would be well called for because flexibility in operation
is required during the summer months especially.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 18
FINAL MINUTES - April 20, 2021
Ms. Firehock said she was still troubled by the water withdrawal and was trying to get an
understanding of whether the irrigation was only to be done right when new grass seed is put
down and then a couple of times or if this were something where they would water the field
multiple days, multiple weeks, in a row until the grass was established. She said it was a sticking
point for her.
Mr. Clark said he did not have the information on that, and Mr. Reilly would be the one to know
best the applicant's intent.
Mr. Bivins said they were breaking something that they do not typically do. He remembered the
applicant saying that it would only be twice a year, in the early part of the spring and then in the
early part of the fall.
Ms. Firehock said she was trying to understand if they were talking about a week of water
withdrawals or a day. She said it was not enough information for her to say in the fall and in the
spring.
Mr. Reilly said that most of the Bermuda seed, which is the seed in late May/early June is already
established, so that would be extremely minimal. He said if they do overseeding with the rye in
September, it usually comes up within three days. He said what they have done in the past and
which they would continue to do even if allowed to irrigate is wait for the forecast to be favorable
and throw the seed down before the next rains come. He said that is how they have done it up
until now. He said it does not always cooperate, but that has been the way they have gotten it
established so far.
Mr. Bivins reiterated that part of it is using the weather, and if the weather is not cooperating, then
it would be the two seasons as Mr. Reilly said. Mr. Bivins said that they have a motion before
them that has to be crafted in some way. He asked for guidance from Mr. Herrick.
Mr. Herrick said that if Mr. Clayborne would like to amend his motion, he could withdraw that
portion of the motion that dealt with operating hours. He said the conditions as proposed by staff
allowed for hours of operations to begin no earlier than 8:00 a.m. He said it sounded as though
the Commission's consensus was to also allow an 8:00 a.m. start time. He said Mr. Clayborne
could withdraw the additional amendment in his motion and address start time and then proceed
to a vote from there.
Mr. Clayborne agreed. He said the only reason he had backtracked was that he was not sure
what SOCA's relationship was to neighbors. He said after hearing his colleagues, he was on
board with withdrawing and leaving it as is in the staff report.
Mr. Clark said the motion was to recommend approval with the changes to the conditions from
the staff report and with two additions now, one for staff to work with the applicants to develop
language requiring ecofriendly herbicides and insecticides for use on the site and second to
require that the applicants provide a handicap -accessible portable toilet on the site during
operations.
Mr. Keller asked if Mr. Clayborne would be willing to add the water component or whether they
have to vote and Ms. Firehock make a friendly amendment to it. He said they had two options,
one to add that as a third condition and the other that it go as a recommendation to staff to work
through this so that the supervisors would have that information when it comes to them if it were
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 19
FINAL MINUTES - April 20, 2021
not made a condition.
Mr. Rapp said that the SOCA website stated that their games are typically on Saturdays between
9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., and that had been his experience as well with children who play soccer
in the area.
Mr. Bivins said the timing was not an issue as it was close enough.
Mr. Herrick said to the extent that the Commission wanted to make water withdrawals a condition,
that should be in the form of an amendment to the current motion that is on the floor. He said that
should be taken care of now in terms of proposing an amendment to the motion that is on the
floor.
Mr. Clark said they would need that to be fairly specific so that they understand what it is they
would be trying to achieve.
Ms. Firehock said she could add a condition D to #7 that water withdrawal shall only occur during
the week that new seed has been placed on the fields.
Mr. Clark read back, "Adding condition 7(D) stating that water withdrawals for irrigation would only
occur on the site during the week that seeding on the site has occurred."
Ms. Firehock said that would be her amendment to the motion on the table.
Mr. Keller seconded the amendment.
Mr. Bivins reiterated that this was an amendment to Mr. Clayborne's motion and asked for any
discussion on the amendment.
Mr. Herrick clarified that this would be a vote simply on the motion to amend the motion that is on
the floor.
The amendment to the motion on the floor carried with a vote of 6:0 (Ms. More absent).
Mr. Bivins said that they now had before them the amended motion with the ADA bathroom and
the herbicides and pesticides, working with staff and that language would be refined, and now
with the amendment about water.
Mr. Randolph confirmed that Mr. Keller still seconded the motion with the changes in wording.
The amended motion was carried with a vote of 6:0 (Ms. More absent).
Mr. Bivins informed Mr. Reilly that he would be working with staff to refine the language to be
clear with the public and with the Board of Supervisors.
Adjournment
At 9:22 p.m., the Commission adjourned to May 4, 2021, Albemarle County Planning Commission
meeting, 6:00 p.m. via electronic meeting.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 20
FINAL MINUTES - April 20, 2021
Charles Rapp, Director of Planning
(Recorded Carolyn S. Shaffer, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards and transcribed
by Golden Transcription Services)
Approved by Planning
Commission
Date: 5/ 11 /2021
Initials: CSS
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 21
FINAL MINUTES - April 20, 2021