Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinal PC Minutes Regular Meeting 10252022ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - October 25, 2022 1 Albemarle County Planning Commission Regular Meeting FINAL Minutes October 25, 2022 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, October 25, 2022, at 6:00 p.m. Members attending were: Karen Firehock, Chair; Julian Bivins; Fred Missel; Luis Carrazana; and Lonnie Murray Members absent: Corey Clayborne Other officials present were: Charles Rapp, Director of Planning; Andy Herrick, County Attorney’s Office; Scott Clark; Kevin McCullum; Rebecca Ragsdale; Alberic Karina-Plun and Carolyn Shaffer, Clerk to the Planning Commission. Call to Order and Establish Quorum Ms. Firehock said opportunities for the public to access and participate in the hybrid meeting were posted on the County's website, on Planning Commission's homepage, and on the County Calendar when available. She said participation would include the opportunity to comment on those matters from which comments from the public would be received. Ms. Shaffer called the roll. Ms. Firehock established a quorum. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public There were none. Consent Agenda No items from the Consent Agenda were commented on nor pulled. Mr. Bivins moved to adopt the Consent Agenda. Mr. Missel seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). Public Hearings SP202200018 St. Paul’s Ivy Preschool Ms. Rebecca Ragsdale, Planning Manager, said the application was a special use permit request for St. Paul’s Ivy Preschool which was to be located within an existing church building. She said the site was located at 851 Owensville Road, and the property was accessed from Neves Lane. She said the site was about 15 acres and was designated as rural area (RA) in the Comprehensive Plan but was zoned residential. She noted that there were nearby commercial uses along Route 250. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - October 25, 2022 2 Ms. Ragsdale said that the existing church building would be used for the preschool. She noted that the entrance for student drop-off would be at the back of the building. She said there was an existing entrance on Owensville Road and an exit on Neves Lane. She explained that the lower level of the building would be used for the school and that there were existing classrooms that would be utilized. She noted that there was a playground. Ms. Ragsdale said that there was a cemetery, that the edges were primarily buffered with trees, and that beyond the trees to the north was lower-density residential zoning. She said that the school only proposed an enrollment of 24 students. She said the concept plan was provided, and it labeled the locations of play areas and parking areas. She said that there would be plenty of parking available to staff. Ms. Ragsdale explained that the hours of operation would be from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m., Monday through Friday, with an extended day option to 2 p.m. She said that the application had been reviewed by staff to consider the pick-up and drop-off and that VDOT had reviewed the application with no objections to the request. Ms. Ragsdale said that the application had been analyzed against the criteria in the ordinance for special use permits, and staff believed that there would be no detriment to abutting properties. She continued that staff believed there would be no transportation safety concerns and that the proposal was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan given the size and scale of the use. Ms. Ragsdale noted that the Comprehensive Plan mentioned that there was a need for those types of services in the rural area, so staff believed that the proposed site would be a good location for the use. She noted that the proposal only used existing facilities and was limited in size. Ms. Ragsdale noted that a community meeting was held, and a few individuals attended. She said that many had questions about the school program, and some brought up traffic concerns. She said that an email was received from one of the neighbors that expressed concerns regarding Neves Lane primarily related to maintenance. She continued that staff would follow up with VDOT on the maintenance. Ms. Ragsdale said that the staff recommendation was for approval. She noted they had covered the conclusions as to the reasons why and that they did not have any concerns about the proposal. She said that there were conditions included with approval and that those conditions addressed the hours of operation, pick-up, and drop-off, and fencing requirements for safety. Ms. Firehock noted there were no questions from the Commission. She invited the applicant to present. Ms. Firehock explained the rules for the applicant’s presentation during the public hearing. Ms. Allison Kretlow said she was one of two directors for the proposed preschool. She introduced Ms. Audie Barlow, Director of Children and Youth Ministries at St. Paul’s. She said she would speak on behalf of the preschool and that Ms. Barlow would be able to answer questions related to the church. Ms. Kretlow said Ms. Melissa Kelly was the other co-director of the proposed preschool, but she was not present. She introduced the church Rector, Father Justin McIntosh, and noted that he was present in the audience. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - October 25, 2022 3 Ms. Kretlow said that her entire 19-year-long career had been focused on early-childhood learning. She said that her undergraduate degree, master’s degree, and doctorate were all in early elementary and special education. She stated that she had taught preschool and elementary school, provided teacher development for local counties, and worked in early intervention. Ms. Kretlow explained she stopped working full-time in the field after she became a mother. She continued that her break allowed her to see firsthand the needs of western Albemarle County families in terms of preschool-aged children. She said as the population in that part of the County had grown exponentially over the last 10 years, the preschool offerings had not been able to keep up with the increased demand. Ms. Kretlow said that almost all of the Christian and secular preschools in the area had extensive waitlists and that families with children only a few months old were pressured to secure enrollment for children who were two years away from attending preschool. Ms. Kretlow said that she never planned to open a preschool and noted that she and Ms. Kelley had recently reentered teaching in preschool settings. She said reentering the teaching setting inspired them to open a preschool in their church. Ms. Kretlow explained that she and Ms. Kelley reached out to the church, and they eventually prepared a proposal that was approved by the governing board of the church, the Vestry, the prior spring. She said that they embarked on the special use permit process afterward. Ms. Kretlow said that the preschool would be an extension of the church’s ministry. She said that they did not embark on the venture to create a profitable business but rather intended to create a small, Christian-based education experience that prepared children for kindergarten. She said they would focus on Bible stories taught through the Montessori curriculum, “Godly Play,” social and emotional learning, literacy, math, music, and art. Ms. Kretlow said that they were committed to providing evidence-based, early-childhood education experiences that included small staff-to-student ratios and regular opportunities for families to interact in the school and in the community. She said she was able to answer specific curriculum questions. She said that there would be a maximum of 24 students across three classrooms, four teachers, and a half-day program from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. with an optional stay- and-play for lunch and additional childcare. Ms. Kretlow stated that they estimated about 20% of the families would opt to use the stay-and- play. She said that they intended to serve families in the hyper-local area of Ivy and Crozet. Mr. Bivins noted the demand for preschool and childcare in the County. He asked why the applicant had limited enrollment to 24 students and why the schedule was limited to a half-day. Ms. Kretlow responded that one of the reasons for the decisions was that the Sunday School classroom space at St. Paul’s had to be kept separate. She noted that the “Godly Play” curriculum had a lot of expensive materials that took effort to set up. She said that it would be difficult to share the space on a daily basis. Ms. Kretlow said that they had two dedicated classrooms that could serve students that came two days, three days, or five days a week. She explained the half-day was in accordance with the ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - October 25, 2022 4 suggestions in the literature in terms of the attention span and activities that could be accomplished. She noted that in most preschools, the second half of the day was lunch, sleep, and play. She said that they wanted to encourage family involvement and did not want to only provide daycare services because they were focused on education. Ms. Firehock said she attended the community meeting. She noted that there was already space in the existing building and that there was a proposed circulation pattern for the traffic. She noted that several schools in the area closed which increased the preschool demand. Ms. Firehock noted there were no comments from the public. She closed the public hearing and brought the item back before the Commission. Mr. Bivins noted that there was a need in the County. He mentioned a proposal from two weeks prior that had an enrollment of 35 students. He noted that the present proposal only had a 24- student enrollment. He encouraged the church to find a way to make a dent in the 24-student enrollment. Ms. Firehock said that they could in the future after the program had been launched. Mr. Bivins noted that St. Paul’s was a church with talented individuals who could figure out how to solve multiple problems. Ms. Firehock said that was not a request the Commission was making of the applicant this evening. Ms. Firehock moved to recommend approval of SP202200018 St. Paul’s Ivy Preschool with conditions as recommended in the staff report. Mr. Murray seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). SP202200019 Keswick School Mr. Kevin McCollum, Senior Planner, said that the proposed special use permit amendment was for a private boarding school in Keswick, Virginia. He stated that the subject property was located at 4075 Keswick Road, near the intersection of Keswick Road and Route 22. He said that the property was nearly 22 acres and zoned rural areas (RA). Mr. McCollum said the property had been home to a private boarding school, known as the Keswick School, since the 1960s. He noted that the property had several buildings and structures associated with the school, including dormitories, classrooms, a gym, a pond, a playfield, offices, and associated parking. He said the character of the surrounding area includes RA uses, such as low-density residential uses, agricultural uses, farmlands, a blacksmith, and nearby churches. Mr. McCollum explained that the most recent special use permit for the school was approved in 2007 and that the school had an approved site plan. He said that the maximum enrollment for the school was set at 35 students. He stated that the applicant had requested an amendment to the Keswick School’s existing special use permit to modify the conceptual plan to include a new arts center, a storage building, and a horse barn. He noted no increase in student enrollment was proposed. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - October 25, 2022 5 Mr. McCollum said that the applicant had indicated a need for the new structures as a result of a recent fire that destroyed one of the school’s multi-purpose buildings and to meet the needs of the student population. Mr. McCollum said that the conceptual plan provided an overview of the entire campus, including existing buildings and what was proposed to be built. He said that the special use permit application was reviewed under the factors for consideration as outlined in the zoning ordinance. He said staff believed the proposed new buildings would not be detrimental to adjacent parcels nor would they change the character of the nearby area. He said that the school would be kept in harmony with the rural area zoning district and that the proposal was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. McCollum said that staff found the positive aspects of the application included that the use was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Rural Area plan, the proposal had no increase in student enrollment, and there were no anticipated detrimental impacts to adjoining properties. He said that staff did not identify any concerns associated with the application and that staff recommended approval with the conditions as recommended in the staff report. Mr. Bivins asked why the applicant had to come before the Commission if they were only requesting to replace buildings from a fire in 2021. He asked why applicants had to go through the process to replace buildings that had burned down if there was no change of use. Mr. McCollum said that there were two parts—what was shown on the conceptual plan and what was shown on the approved site plan. He said one of the conditions of the previous special use permit was that the site had to be in accordance with the conceptual plan. He said that the applicant was amending the special use permit conceptual plan and that they would have to come forward with a site plan amendment to develop the buildings. Mr. Murray noted that he had emailed comments to staff. He mentioned that the conceptual plan indicated several sewage disposal areas within the stream buffer and within 100 feet of the stream. He said that currently, the stream was not vegetated to the 100-foot buffer the County would normally require. He noted that the size of the barn would be increased. He asked what mitigating factors were included and what the stocking size of the horses would be. He asked how the impacts to the stream would be mitigated. Mr. McCollum said that the comments had been shared with the applicant and with engineering. He stated that engineering had responded that animal waste associated with agricultural uses was exempt from the water protection ordinances. Mr. Rapp responded that that was accurate. He said that the water protection ordinance would apply to any of the new areas on the conceptual plan, but it would not be applied retroactively to previously existing structures on the site. He said it was a measure the applicant could offer, but it was not required as part of the process. Mr. Murray said in 2014, the water protection ordinance would have applied. He said that the Bay Act required that if the buffer did not exist, then it would have to be restored. Ms. Firehock explained the rules for the applicant’s presentation. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - October 25, 2022 6 Mr. Mark Columbus, Head of Keswick School, stated that he had been Head of School for 30 years. He introduced Ms. Donna Stewart from Abrahams and Company. He stated Abrahams and Company had helped with the restoration of the Keswick Depot. He said the company was the applicant’s preferred contractor for the arts building. Mr. Columbus said that Keswick School was known as a therapeutic special education boarding school. He said it would be their 60th year of operation. He said that boys came from all over the United States and from abroad—Hong Kong, Norway, Sweden, Egypt, and Peru. He noted that they were nationally recognized for their work as a therapeutic special education boarding school. Mr. Columbus explained boys were enrolled at the school between the ages of 9 to 15. He said that they did not usually graduate, and that the usual length of stay was two years. He said that they had a strong clinical program. He noted the students may have diagnoses of ADHD, anxiety, learning difficulties, or neurodivergence. He noted a former student recently graduated from the UVA School of Engineering. Mr. Columbus said that the special use permit focused on the replacement of a building that burned down in March 2021. He explained that the replacement would be a one-story building. He explained that the building that burned down housed the art center, the woodshop, the ceramic studio, the drama center, a therapist's office, and storage. Mr. Columbus said many of the boys’ first successes came from within the arts studio or the drama program. He said that the County helped renovate a garage with an expansion of about 15 feet. He said a temporary shop was housed in the garage, and art classes were held in the library. He noted that the proposal was a replacement project, and that the enrollment would not increase. Mr. Columbus explained the school staff received a call about the fire at 3 a.m., and they worked with the County to respond. He stated that they could not find the cause of the fire and noted that the building was old. Mr. Columbus said that the new building would not be located in the same location as the building that burned down because it would be located in the floodplain. He noted that 10 feet of the prior building had been in the floodplain, so they were paying about $20K a year for flood insurance. He said that the site was moved and that it was outside of the water protection ordinance buffer. Mr. Columbus said that there would be an arts center, a ceramics studio, a multi-purpose STEM room, and a drama and assembly room in the new building. He said that when they lost the barn, they lost storage space. He said that they were creating storage for residential equipment because they did a lot of biking and canoeing. He stated that they did not plan to increase enrollment and that it would remain at 35 students. Mr. Columbus said the footprint of the proposed barn had increased by a few square feet from the previous structure. He said that the special use permit was done out of necessity because the footprints of the proposed buildings were different from those of the previously constructed buildings that burned down. He said that the school only had seven horses. He noted that they leased two fields, and the only time the horses were brought into the site was when it was time to ride. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - October 25, 2022 7 Mr. Columbus said the barn was not a place for the horses to stay and that they instead stayed in the field. He said that horse manure would be mitigated because the horses would not be kept in a large, stalled area. He said that the construction of the depot was started when prices tripled. Mr. Columbus said that the new building would include a wood shop, a multi-purpose STEM room in the center, and an arts center. He noted that many of the students played violin, cello, guitar, and other instruments. He said that they would restart the ceramics program and also have a drama facility. He said that they were just replacing buildings and not increasing enrollment. Mr. Missel asked what the depot was used for. Mr. Columbus responded that in 1992, the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Department owned Stokes of England and the Depot. He continued that the fire department sold it to Bob and Libby Wilson who owned the school privately. He said that they had been a nonprofit for six years. He said that the depot was used by the school as a dining facility and meeting place. He said that a donor helped with the repairs. Mr. Murray said that his concerns were addressed. He encouraged the applicant to work with their extension agents and the local conservation district on best management practices for the horse. Mr. Columbus responded that a few years ago, they had a 4H club to help the students. He said that Southern States had an extension agent that was helping the school. Mr. Murray noted that there were great programs. Mr. Bivins suggested the applicant correct the date of the fire in the documents before going before the Board. He noted that in the applicant’s letter, it stated the fire occurred in 2020—when it actually occurred in 2021. Mr. Columbus said that was correct. Ms. Firehock noted there were no comments from the public. She closed the public hearing and brought the item back before the Commission. Mr. Missel noted that the conditions mentioned planting Leyland cypress, but those trees were notoriously disease-ridden. He recommended a more native species, such as cedar, that would be more likely to survive. Ms. Firehock said that Mr. Missel was correct. She said that adapting the recommended tree planting list would be part of the ordinance update. Mr. Missel moved to recommend approval of SP202200019 Keswick School with conditions as stated in the staff report. Mr. Carrazana seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - October 25, 2022 8 SP202200006 Crown Orchard Farm Worker Housing Mr. Scott Clark said the special use permit request was for a farm worker housing facility in the Covesville area. He noted that the site was located on US Route 29 South and was designated TMP 109-7A. He said that the site was located across the road from the existing Crown Orchard apple packing facility. Mr. Clark said that the parcel was adjacent to the Batesville historic district. He explained that the historic district reflected the history of the growth of Covesville around fruit growing and packing industries and associated railroad improvements in the early 19th century. Mr. Clark noted that there was an existing line of pine trees at the back of the site. He said that the new facility would be west of or behind the tree line relative to Route 29. He said that t here was an entrance to the site on Route 29 along with a line of trees blocking the view of the interior of the property. Mr. Clark explained that a Class B farm worker housing facility was proposed. He explained that the facility would host more than 10 people or have more than three structures. He said that 50 workers and one onsite manager would use two structures. He explained that the reason there would be two structures was because the ordinance was designed to ensure a farm worker housing facility did not shift into becoming a regular dwelling unit for non-farm use. Mr. Clark explained that they required facilities to be separated in some manner. He said that the applicant chose to separate the facilities by locating the sleeping and bathing facilities in the larger dormitory structure and the kitchen and dining facilities in the other structure. He noted that workers for the facility would arrive and depart by vans and not by individual vehicles except for the onsite manager. Mr. Clark said that the site would use the existing entrance. He said that the larger dormitory structure was about 130 feet long and the kitchen and dining area structure was about 40 feet long. He said the boundary of the property closest to the structure was adjacent to the Batesville historic district, so they worked with the applicant to increase screening. He noted that a thin tree line existed, but they added an additional 20 feet of screening. He said that the front wooded area would remain to screen the site from Route 29. Mr. Clark said that a condition of approval required the use of muted, earth-tone colors on the structures to further reduce their visibility. He said that staff did not have any particular concerns with the consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. He said that harmony with the ordinance was assured through the review of the supplemental regulations for the use. Mr. Clark noted that the parcel was large and within an agricultural area and historical district. He said that staff believed farmworker housing was consistent with the longstanding agricultural uses in the area. He said that there were two favorable factors—the facility would support agricultural uses in the RA, and there were no significant safety concerns with the entrance. Mr. Clark noted that the site was directly adjacent to the Covesville historic district, however, between screening, setbacks, and color control, staff believed that the impacts would be minimized. He said that staff recommended approval with the conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Murray asked how septic would be handled on the site. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - October 25, 2022 9 Mr. Clark explained that VDH and the regulatory bodies had strict controls for the standards for larger residential facilities. He said that such requirements were not within the County regulations because there was a higher-level state regulation. He explained that the applicant would have to go through a detailed VDH review to get appropriate wells and septic fields permitted for the higher level of occupancy on the site. Ms. Firehock clarified the applicant would have to receive permission from the Virginia Department of Health before they could occupy the site. Mr. Clark said that was correct. Mr. Carrazana mentioned an object on the conceptual map that was south of the proposed buildings. He asked what that object was. Mr. Clark explained that the object was the augmented screening area where an extra 20 feet of trees and shrubs would be added to screen the edge of the property. Ms. Firehock clarified that the location was where more trees would be planted. Mr. Carrazana asked where the property line was. Mr. Clark noted on the map where the property line was. He noted that the property line was along the tree line. Mr. Carrazana asked what the line north of the augmented buffer was. Mr. Clark responded that it was a setback. He said that it was 75 feet according to the farmworker housing regulations, and it was more than the standard required for regular residential facilities. Mr. Bivins asked if the housing was single sex. Mr. Clark said the applicant could speak to that question. Mr. Bivins asked what the rationale was for requiring the building to use muted, earth-tone colors when it was located behind tree cover and far off the road. He said that he would not support the proposal with that condition. Mr. Clark said that they received feedback from neighbors at the community meeting—people living across Route 29 and the former owner to the south in the historic district—expressing concern about the visibility of the new structures. Ms. Firehock said that they perhaps were concerned about the winter when the structure could be seen through the trees. Mr. Clark said that people requested as much visual control as could be supplied. Mr. Bivins said it was not the County’s role to dictate what color structures should be painted. He noted that when he drove through the area, he saw homes that offended his sensibility of color choices. He noted that it was neighbors requesting the screening. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - October 25, 2022 10 Ms. Firehock clarified they requested the maximum screening potential including the color choice of the buildings. Mr. Bivins mentioned that the plan stated that 14 worker vehicles could fit in the parking lot. Mr. Clark responded that was not due to a request from the County but was a note offered by the applicant. He said that he doubted that there would be more than 14 vehicles present most of the time. He said that staff’s main concern was to locate the parking behind the trees and behind the structure to minimize visibility. Mr. Bivins asked why the County was invested in requiring workers to only enter and leave the property via shared worker vehicles. Mr. Clark said the applicant had that in the description of the use, and it was how they had operated other facilities in the past. He said that the applicant planned to continue the practice and that they believed they had minimal traffic impacts. He said that because residents expressed concern about increased traffic, it was included as a condition to ensure the mode of operation would remain in place for the long term. He said that it was typical for seasonal farmworker housing in that part of the County. Mr. Bivins noted that it was an operational decision by the owner. He questioned why the County was involved in a business operations decision. He mentioned that Potters Cidery should have vans or shuttles because of the traffic. He asked why the County was stipulating how the business should operate the vans. Mr. Clark said from the planning perspective, if VDOT believed the proposal was safe, then that was all staff needed to know. He said that because the applicant describes the proposal in such a way and because the issue was of concern to neighbors, it was included in the proposal. Ms. Firehock asked for the applicant to provide their presentation. Mr. Huff Chiles said his family owned and operated Crown Orchard, and they had been in the fruit business for over 100 years in the County. He noted that agriculture was a big part of the County, and in the past, there were several local employees able to do the work. He said that cur rently, few locals wanted to participate in growing apples. He noted that there was a lot of work to be done by hand. He said that they had a tremendous need for the building to meet the needs of its workers. Ms. Judy Chiles said at the public input hearing, there were questions as to why the Covesville location was selected. She explained that there were two main reasons. She said that the first reason was they currently operated farmworker housing in Covesville on a leased property. She stated that the lease would end soon, so they needed an alternate location to house their workers. Ms. Chiles said that the Covesville location was optimal because it was across from the packing and storage facility and was close to several of the orchard locations. She said the housing would be same-sex and was currently all male. She said that they would take advantage of the H2A program under which they provided housing and transportation for the workers. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - October 25, 2022 11 Ms. Chiles said without the workers or a place to house them, agriculture was kaput. She said that they had been in business for a long time, and there were three generations of the Chiles family working in the operations. She noted that they operated Chiles Peach Orchard and Carter Mountain Orchard as well. She said that they wanted to provide agritourism and educational opportunities. Ms. Firehock noted that the main purpose for workers was to pick apples. She asked about the outdoor space that would be available at the housing facility and whether the applicant planned to provide any type of outdoor space or patio. Mr. Chiles said that there was room on the parcel for such amenities. He said that they would have a grassy area to play sports. He noted that several of the workers liked to play soccer. Mr. Murray said that he was less concerned about the color of the building and more concerned about the quality of life for the workers. He said that the applicant should do whatever was possible to improve the quality of life. Mr. Chiles said that transportation was provided to the workers to take them into town twice a week. He said that they were able to get out some. He noted that most of the workers were at the farm for a specific amount of time, and they came to the farms to work. Ms. Chiles explained that the facility would have washer and dryer units. She noted that many workers returned year after year, and many were long-term employees. Mr. Carrazana said that he assumed the building would be only one story. He noted that there was a predominantly south-facing wall of the facility. He suggested that the applicant install some type of shade, such as through a porch or screen, to help with the energy use. He said that there were passive solar designs that could be used to save on energy costs. He said that a porch extending from the southern wall would provide shade and comfort for the workers. Mr. Bivins noted that quality of life was a concern of his and that people had been displaced from their homes even if they immigrated for economic opportunities. He said that the goal was to provide the workers a space where they could rest and relax. He said that he was put off by the colors of the building and that they should be enlivened. Mr. Bivins said it was the decision of the property owner how they move people to and from the property. He noted that the owners currently used the H2A program to bring workers to the farm, but it was not guaranteed that would be the only way people would come to work at the farm in the future. He said that he did not want another time like “The Grapes of Wrath,” but there may be a time when people need to work for the farm, and they have their own vehicle. He said that it was not appropriate for the government to instruct the business on how to move staff off the property. Mr. Chiles said that he agreed with Mr. Bivins’ comments. He noted that was the way they had operated in the past. He said that when they met with the planner, those were the conditions they had discussed. Mr. Bivins asked the applicant if they would be offended if the condition related to transportation to and from the site was removed. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - October 25, 2022 12 Mr. Chiles responded that they would not. He stated that the building would also have solar power. Ms. Firehock opened the hearing for public comment. She explained the rules for comments. Mr. Sandy Tucker said he was a resident of Colesville. He said that he was not speaking in opposition to or in support of the proposal, but he was speaking for the Village of Colesville. He stated that he had lived in the village for 60 years and that he had seen few changes. He said that his house was directly across the road from the property. He said that from his house, he could see the solar panels and the logging operations, and now he would be able to see the housing facility. Mr. Tucker said that the Commission should be aware of what could happen, but he did not know what that was. He noted that Covesville was a small community and he wanted to keep it that way. He said that he was not opposed to the project because he understood the business needs. He said if there was screening, then he may not be able to see the buildings. He noted that there was a neighboring property owner south of the proposed site. He said Covesville should not be turned into another Crozet. Ms. Firehock noted that there were no more comments from the public. She closed the public hearing and brought the item back before the public hearing. Ms. Firehock noted that the comments did not address the concerns about the muted colors because she was unsure whether the building would still be visible. She noted that some of the foliage would be off the trees in the winter. She asked if more information could be provided. Mr. Clark said that as far as he knew, the building would not be visible from Route 29. He said that they had not done a GIS analysis, but he believed it was not visible. He said that it was possible if the pine trees were to die or burn down, then visibility would increase, but there would still be the deciduous trees along the highway. Mr. Clark noted that a lot of the concern with the color of the building was not from Route 29 where the facility was nearly 800 feet away from the road, but from the adjacent historic district. He noted that they were trying to decrease visibility from the historic district and that they were to increase plantings and have setbacks of 75 feet. He said that the colors were an attempt to decrease the visibility. Ms. Firehock said that the building seemed to be fairly well screened. She said that the nearest house appeared to be far. Mr. Clark responded that the nearest house was in the historic district to the south and that it was about 350 feet away from the property line. Mr. Carrazana echoed Mr. Bivins’ comments that the conditions he had mentioned were not appropriate. He mentioned that earth tones could be Virginia clay red. He said that it was not appropriate for the County to impose a particular color. He said that he agreed with the point made regarding transportation. He said that if the applicant wanted to change the method of transportation, then they would have to undergo the same process again. Ms. Firehock said that there seemed to be support for the application, but some Commissioners did not support the inclusion of conditions 4 and 6. She said she supported the exclusion. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - October 25, 2022 13 Mr. Herrick noted that there was a discrepancy in the numbering of the conditions between the slide on the screen and the numbers of the conditions in the staff report. He said that condition 2 on the slide was included as part of condition 1 in the staff report. He said that if there was a motion to approve with certain conditions excluded, they should be clear as to which conditions were to be excluded. Ms. Firehock clarified the conditions were three and five. Mr. Herrick said that conditions three and five in the staff report had been the ones up for discussion, and those were conditions four and six on the slide. Ms. Firehock said she would go with conditions three and five from the staff report. Mr. Herrick said he believed that was preferable. He noted that Mr. Clark corrected the numbering on the slide. Ms. Firehock moved the Commission to recommend approval of SP202200006 Crown Orchard Farm Worker Housing with conditions one, two, and four from the staff report. Mr. Bivins seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (5-0). Ms. Firehock noted that it was important to provide safe, sanitary, and attractive housing for the migrant workers in the community. She said that there were no other options for migrant workers in the rural area, and it was a problem the County needed to address because of the need. SP202200004 Scottsville Substation Expansion Project Mr. Clark said that the special use permit request was for an existing substation that predated the zoning ordinance. He said that for the substation to expand, it had to come into compliance with the ordinance. He said that the site was located on James River Road west of Scottsville. Mr. Clark noted that there were two parcels, and the southernmost parcel was the current substation. He said the parcel to the north, until recently, had been a separate residential parcel. He said due to the need for space for stormwater requirements from the state, the applicants had acquired the parcel to combine into the existing substation facility. Mr. Clark noted that several pieces of equipment would be replaced in the substation due to their age. He said that there was screening vegetation to the east, and to the west screening vegetation would be added. He said that there would be stormwater channeling to be carried under the existing road. He said that to address a site distance issue at the northeast corner, there would be a new entrance, and the entrance would be used by maintenance and construction vehicles to enter the substation facility. Mr. Clark said that the existing road providing access to the residential lots to the west would remain and continue to be used by the residents. He noted the locations of grading and additional vegetation. He said that some vegetation would be removed in the rear of the parcel for the channeling of the stormwater flow. He said that there was a staggered row of trees that would be included to restore the visual screening for the properties to the west. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - October 25, 2022 14 Mr. Clark said at the north, there were the entrance and stormwater facilities. He said that staff did not believe there was an impact to the adjacent properties or on the character of the area. He noted that the facility fed all the uses in the area and was a longstanding use, so there was no conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Clark said that staff found the proposed upgrades met the utilities' need for upgrading without creating significant new impacts on the rural area. He said that they did not find unfavorable factors for the proposal. He said that they recommended approval with one condition— compliance with the substation conceptual plan. He said that the condition specifically referred to the new screening vegetation and the vegetation to remain. Mr. Murray noted that the proposed landscaping plant guide addressed the screening vegetation, but it did not address the stormwater retention facility. He asked whether there was a planting list for that. Mr. Clark said that he did not know if the applicants had performed the final engineering for the site to that level of detail. He said the applicant would likely be able to answer the question. He said that his main concern with the vegetation related to the screening areas and the replacement where there would be grading. He said that it seemed there needed to be final engineering for the stormwater areas. Mr. Murray said that he assumed staff would work closely with the applicant. Mr. Clark said that the applicant had worked with the County Engineer in reviewing the conceptual plan. Mr. Missel mentioned screening from the road. He asked if the screening was from the right. Mr. Clark said that they had discussed screening with the applicant and whether there was a way to screen. He said that the substation facility was already close to the road, and there was a slope from the pad area to the road. He noted that it was difficult to install screening that would be maintainable over time. He said that an issue for the applicants related to safety—either with screening vegetation, animals getting into the substation, or with members of the public being able to access the substation. Mr. Missel clarified that there was a double row of vegetation. Mr. Clark said that would be new vegetation the County requested the applicant plant. Mr. Missel said within the limits of disturbance, there was enough distance to contain a single row of shrubs and screening material. Mr. Clark said that staff had made the same point, but the applicant expressed concerns the screening would be too close to the fence for the electrical safety and security on the site. Ms. Firehock said that the applicant was welcome to present. Mr. Daniel Frasier, Power Engineers, said they were the engineering and environmental consultant supporting Appalachian Power with the Scottsville substation expansion project. He said that other members from the project team were present to answer questions. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - October 25, 2022 15 Mr. Frasier said that he would address what the project expansion covered. He said that the access road would be relocated to address safety concerns and that they would construct a stormwater retention pond to manage water from the new access road and existing substation site. Mr. Frasier said that there were three reasons for the project mentioned at the community meeting. He said the first reason was that the expansion would enhance reliability by replacing aging equipment that had reached the end of its useful life. He noted that the substation had been on the property for at least 80 years and replacing the transformers and distribution banks from the 1950s with modern equipment would result in a more reliable electric grid. Mr. Frasier said that the expansion would accommodate future growth in the County. He said that customers were served from the substation, and they would be increasing the capacity of the substation with the upgrade and expansion. He said that the expansion would improve safe access to the site. He said that it was important for the safety of the employees servicing the sites. He said that they worked with VDOT and the County to address the applicant’s safety concerns and the concerns related to site distance. Mr. Frasier said that multiple options were considered for the project. He said that the entire substation expansion would be completed on the existing site. He noted that there was an adjacent parcel to the north that was needed to address the access road modification and the stormwater from the site. Mr. Frasier said that there were two expansion areas on the site that would be included within the substation fence. He said that there was a 45-foot by 55-foot expansion fronting James River Road to the east. He said that on the west side, there was a 40-foot by 180-foot expansion area. Mr. Frasier said that within the expanded substation fence, there would be three new transformers, a new distribution bay, and the control building. He said that the access road currently intersected James River Road at an angle that posed a safety concern while entering or exiting the access road. He said that the access road would be shifted by about 350 feet north and that they would be able to have a 90-degree approach to the road using the additional parcel. Mr. Frasier mentioned the stormwater management pond and the infrastructure used to manage water from the site. He said that there would be vegetation areas that would be undisturbed during construction. He mentioned that those vegetation areas provided screening buffers. He mentioned the areas where vegetation was proposed. He noted that they worked with County staff to provide as much screening as possible. Mr. Frasier said that the southern portion of the parcel was a steep slope with a 10-foot elevation difference between the road and the substation pad. He said that there was a grounding grid surrounding the substation that extended outside of the substation fence by three feet. He said that there needed to be a buffer, so animals did not gather around the substation fence. Mr. Frasier noted the elevation difference on the grading plan. He mentioned that there was a question about planting around the stormwater management pond. He said that the design was not detailed and that there were items to still work through in the civil engineering. He mentioned there was a right-of-way crossing over the pond for an electrical line, and plantings within the right-of-way were another consideration. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - October 25, 2022 16 Mr. Frasier provided images of the existing substation. He noted that there would be a small expansion to the substation on the left, and the majority of the expansion area was on the backside of the parcel. He provided an image of the access road onto Bryant Road and noted the safety concerns. He said that following construction, the access road would be replanted as part of the vegetation plan. Mr. Frasier mentioned that the substation was well screened from James River Road. He noted that the elevation grade was a challenge to providing screening along the hillside. He said that from Bryant Lane, there was an opening in the screening where transmission lines egressed from the site. Mr. Frasier said that the process began in 2018. He said that they met with the community in spring, and construction was expected to begin in 2024. Mr. Missel said that he did not understand how a line of evergreen shrubs could not be planted to screen the higher elevations. Mr. Scott Markwell, Project Manager, said that the grounding grid had to be moved out of the station by three feet. Mr. Missel clarified that a grounding grid was a metal grid that was put under the ground. Mr. Markwell responded that was correct and that it would use up the first three feet. He said that there needed to be a maintenance buffer as well, and those buffers essentially extended up the slope. He said that if they added additional buffers onto the slope, then they risked destabilizing it. He noted that there was some natural growth on the slope already. Mr. Missel asked if the maintenance buffer was a walkable access. Mr. Markwell responded that the maintenance buffer would be a walkable area. Ms. Firehock noted that there were no comments from the public. She closed the public hearing and brought the item back before the Commission. Ms. Firehock noted that she drove by the substation every day as part of her commute. She said that the area was unsafe and messy. She said that the new proposed access was safer. She noted that the slope was steep and fallen trees were a common problem. She asked whether the substation would improve Scottsville’s power grid reliability. She confirmed that it did. Mr. Missel moved that the Commission recommend approval of SP202200004 Scottsville Substation Expansion Project with the condition recommended in the staff report. Ms. Firehock seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). SP202200021 Dominion Hollymead Substation Expansion Project Ms. Ragsdale said that she was the Planning Manager who would present this item. She said that this was a project for the Hollymead substation. She showed the Commission the location map that indicated the site was located off of Worth Crossing, near the Forest Lakes commercial area to the north. She said that surrounding the rest of the property were residential areas of Forest ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - October 25, 2022 17 Lakes or the Forest Lakes north clubhouse and lake and trial amenity. She said that it was approximately 6.72 acres in size and had split zoning, but utilities were allowed in any zoning district, and this was given the Urban Density Residential that was expected for utilities in any district. Ms. Ragsdale showed an aerial view of the existing conditions of the property, displaying the proximity of one of the newer sections of Forest Lakes to the north and east, the lake and trail amenity, and the wooded areas on the property that provided screening to the Forest Lakes area and residents. She indicated that there was an area that had visible impacts as an existing condition. She said that the proposal was to expand toward that lake and amenity area. She said shown on the map was the existing facility and entrance off of Worth Crossing, proposed stormwater management, and a retaining wall that was necessary. She said that it was a 6.72- acre site, the existing facility was about 1.46 acres, and the expansion would give it another 1.66 acres for a total of 2.28 acres. Ms. Ragsdale said that the expansion would add some additional equipment that the technical team would explain to the Commission was necessary for the existing system, and would not expand capacity, but would allow the system to run more efficiently. She said that after the special use permit process, there would be a site development plan that would include the final details about landscaping and stormwater management, but with stormwater management, the County engineers indicated that Virginia and Dominion Power had their own program authority, so they would not go to the County for that review. Ms. Ragsdale said that staff analyzed the detriment of this project to other properties, with concerns around visibility, screening, and what to expect with sound impacts. She said that at the time they wrote the report, they did not have as much information, and the applicant had provided additional information on what the existing facility sounded like and the expected sound from the expansion, which would have to meet ordinance standards and decibel levels. She said that at the community meeting that was held, attendees said that there had been no noise impacts from the existing facility. She said that people had questions about what it would look like, and the applicant had photograph simulations that were shared at the meeting and would be shared with the Commission. She said that screening and noise were the primary discussions at the community meeting, but there were also nearby neighbors who needed additional information about the electromagnetic fields due to the effect on pacemakers. Ms. Firehock asked Ms. Ragsdale to repeat her last comment. Ms. Ragsdale said that she mentioned pacemakers. She said that people were working directly with Dominion Power since they had moved to the area. She said that information came up during the review process. She said that there were specific regulations in the ordinance with regard to Section 5, which they went over in the staff report as being met, so there were no concerns. She said that the final details on the screening and noise would be taken care of prior to site plan approval or prior to the installation of the new equipment. She said that the proposed upgrade would improve electric transmission without creating any new impacts, and staff thought that it would not be worse than the existing visual impacts. She said that staff had mentioned that there was not as much information as they would have liked at the time the report was published, but that information had been acquired, so staff recommended approval. She said that the conditions of approval were related to the sound study and establishment of the major elements such as the location of where the improvements would be and where the existing trees would remain. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - October 25, 2022 18 Ms. Firehock asked if there were any questions for staff from the Commissioners. Mr. Murray said that there had been concerns expressed by the public over pesticides being used to maintain the right-of-way. He asked what the answer to that was. Ms. Ragsdale said that the applicant would have to handle that. She said that they would look into that with a different division at the time of the community meeting and was not something regulated locally. Mr. Murray said that it was very near a body of water. He asked if the expansion would encroach upon the 100-foot buffer of the lake. Ms. Ragsdale said that there was not a stream buffer required around the lake. Ms. Firehock asked if it was a stormwater pond. Mr. Rapp said that was correct. He said that it was one of many retention ponds. Mr. Murray said that it was only a retention pond. Ms. Firehock said that it was a stormwater facility and not a water of the United States. Mr. Missel asked for the total area in acres of the existing facility. Ms. Ragsdale said that the applicant had indicated it was 1.46 acres as part of the disturbed area, and an additional 1.6 acres to be added. She said that the applicant also provided the square footage. Mr. Missel said that the details of the proposal and the staff report mirrored the previous Scottsville Substation and had 1.2 acres and 5.2 acres listed. Ms. Ragsdale acknowledged Mr. Missel’s comment. Mr. Missel said he assumed that those areas were not exactly the same. Mr. Carrazana asked if there were any details on the retaining wall that would be required for the expansion. He asked if there were details on the height or expansion. He asked if the entire red line was the wall. Ms. Ragsdale said that it was not the entire red line, but the corner of the parcel, which she indicated on the slide. She said that the wall would not be very tall, perhaps 6 or 10 feet. Ms. Firehock asked if there was anything further. Ms. Ragsdale said the other thing was the level spreader. Mr. Carrazana asked if there was any additional proposed vegetation for the area beyond the retaining wall. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - October 25, 2022 19 Ms. Ragsdale said that there was a lot of existing vegetation in the area of the site. She said that during the site planning process, staff would ensure that existing vegetation was adequate, examine tree health, and the applicant would supplement where necessary based on the ordinance standards. She said that would either be with all the landscaping they could in the areas available and potential fencing to screen the equipment. Ms. Firehock said the Planning Commission was ready to hear from the applicant. Mr. Joe Leachman greeted the Commission and said that he was joined by Craig Murphy, and they were both members of GI Consultants, supporting Dominion as civil engineers on this project. He said that there were several Dominion team members present today as well who could help answer the Commission’s questions. He said that this project would add equipment to the existing substation to improve its reliability. He said that there were essentially large copper coils that would regulate the current and assist in producing reliable power, as well as helping the equipment last longer. He said that they were expanding on a property that Dominion currently owned and that was originally developed as a substation, and they had done one expansion previously. Mr. Leachman said that the slide shown was a cleaned-up design from the information that was submitted, so what was shown was a zoomed-in area of the light gray, existing pad area, and dark gray, proposed pad area. He said that mentioned before, the existing parcel was 6.72 acres. He said that based on survey information they had, the existing gravel pad area and access coming into the pad was 1.59 acres of the existing gravel area. He said that the proposed expansion area of the gravel was another 0.77 acres, making the entire pad area 2.35 acres of gravel area, as seen on the plat. He said that the design and grading had all been done to ensure it was stable and maintainable, and that all the hill slopes on the outer edges of the pad were three-to-one, so they were mowable. He said that the expansion allowed for the opposing retaining wall to extend to the retaining wall on the south side of the existing pad, preventing encroachment onto the neighboring parcel while maintaining a ten-foot setback off the parcel with the wall. He said that based on the design, the project resulted in no changes to access, there were no increases in traffic on the site based on normal operation, no new utility needs such as water or sewer, no floodplain impacts, and no impacts to wildlife. He said that the impact study was completed and there was no threat to endangered species as a result of this expansion. Mr. Leachman continued that the southern area of the site showed the existing stormwater detention system, and with the existing pad, there was a subsurface detention system with a storm drain, so they were proposing to modify this system and extend it along the southern side of the pad to capture runoff, which would be discharged through the existing outfall that was there presently and along the existing drainage easement, so there would be no increase in flow and was at or below existing conditions as they improved the stormwater runoff from that point. He said that runoff to the east would be captured by level spreaders and spread at or below existing levels, so there would be no impact to the neighbor or the pond as a part of that plan. Mr. Leachman said that the slide shown was similar to the one in the package submitted. He said that they highlighted the tree canopy coverage of the site. He said that the existing parcel had 3.44 acres of existing tree canopy cover, and the proposed tree canopy cover after expansion was 2.92 acres, so they were removing approximately .5 acre of trees on the site, highlighted in the yellow on the slide. He said that they tried to maintain a buffer between the property line and the expansion, and the area near the retaining wall would be within that area that they had to ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - October 25, 2022 20 clear to the property line. He said that they would work with the County to supplement that with plans to add screening along that area. Mr. Leachman said that there were existing trees off of Dominion’s property as well, and the depth of those to their project was a minimum of about 20 feet, and the height of the retaining wall was about seven feet maximum, similar to the existing retaining wall along the southern limit of the project. He said that as mentioned by Ms. Ragsdale, some simulations had been completed. He said that those showed some of the areas where the views were taken from. He said the slide showed the first, with the top of the slide showing the conditions, and the bottom picture showed a simulation of what the reactors would look like, with an additional structure within the fencing and the fencing was a little closer in view there under the proposed. Mr. Leachman said that the second simulation showed a different view from across the lake, and there was not much difference between the existing and the proposed structures. He said that the trees blocked the view from that side. He said that the image showed what the substation looked like through the trees, with the gray color being the existing structure and the green color for the expansion. He said as they had discussed already, they were working to minimize environmental impacts. He said that they would comply with state standards on erosion control and stormwater. He said that it was mentioned that that was run through Dominion as a third-party reviewer, an existing sound study had already been completed, and another study would be done after the system was online, but currently, all sound levels were within the ordinance limits and were what was anticipated for the proposed project. He said that the wildlife and bat survey had been mentioned, and there were no impacts indicated there. He said that landscaping was something they had worked on, and Dominion had to provide concepts for landscaping, which they would continue to do with input from the County and through the site approval process. Mr. Leachman said that the project was approved by PJM in early 2022 and the process with the County had commenced that summer, anticipating that through the 2022 meetings they would be approved for permits for construction to begin in the spring of 2023, and completion of construction scheduled for fall of 2023. Ms. Firehock asked if there were questions for the applicant. Mr. Murray asked if they knew if they would be maintaining the rights-of-way with mowing or spraying. Mr. Leachman asked if Mr. James Young from the environmental team could answer. Mr. Young introduced himself as James Young with the Dominion environmental. He said that typically, in the existing utility corridors there would generally be mowing, but if they were to do spraying, it was generally EPA-approved for spot-spraying rather than broadcast spraying, with rotation of levels of spraying to reduce the likelihood of targeted species becoming reactive to the spray. He said that they had also agreed, within and around adjacent aquatic resources, to use specific sprays in regard to comments from the SEC associated with DEQ. He said that typically, they would mow before spraying, and spraying would be reduced to a minimum. He asked if that was helpful. Mr. Murray said yes. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - October 25, 2022 21 Mr. Bivins asked if the applicant could provide information about the noise generated by an electric transmission air core series reactor. Mr. Craig Murphy greeted the Board. He said that they had the manufacturers of the air core reactors give them plots for sound generation. He said that the sound would vary with the amount of current passing through the device, so they got sound generation values associated with the average loading on the device, day-to-day current peak, or the maximum amount of current they projected the device to see in the next five years, and maximum permissible, or the device’s maximum permissible current capability. Mr. Murphy said that the plot seen above was associated with the average current, so the green line indicated 10 dB at that distance, and 20 dB in red, which was directly around the substation. He said that the distance where people would be located would render the facility effectively silent. He said that the next was the peak seasonal value they saw in the five-year projected calendar, which showed the green color as 35 dB, and to compare, ambient noise was in the 40 dB range. He said that this would be a less-than-ambient experience. He showed a graphic that he said was the maximum that the device could see before it would have to be forced out of service to protect it. He said that 50 dB would still be within the property lines in that scenario. Ms. Firehock said she would like to see the aerial image again to see the areas to the west. She said that there were residences. Mr. Murphy said that it should be noted that the study done initially when they were looking at these found that the noise associated with the substation would be below ambient noises for most of the sites analyzed, and the noise modeling had indicated levels at the residences located to the north of the location were within 1 dB of ambient noise measure. Ms. Firehock said that was helpful. She asked if there were any other questions for the applicant. Hearing none, she asked if there were any members of the public who wished to speak on this matter. Hearing none, she asked if there were any online members of the public. Ms. Shaffer said there were not. Ms. Firehock said that she would end the public hearing portion and bring the matter before the Commission for discussion. She asked if there were any points anyone wanted to make. She said that it was a straightforward application with good materials that were well organized. She asked if there was a motion. She said the Commissioner whose district this was in was not present this evening. Mr. Carrazana moved to recommend approval of SP202200021 Dominion Hollymead Substation Expansion Project with the conditions as recommended in the staff report. Mr. Missel seconded the motion, which passed unanimously (5-0). Committee Reports Mr. Missel said that Pantops Community Advisory Committee met last night. He said that redistricting was happening, and it was now part of the Scottsville District. He said that a 60-unit development was presented to the group that was located behind the Giant on Pantops, which was adjacent to a stormwater pond and designated by the Comprehensive Plan as “open space and park.” He said that the proposal was for 60 units. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - October 25, 2022 22 Ms. Firehock asked what type of buildings they were planning to be. Mr. Missel said that there was very little detail, only known to be a strip of units and a strip of parking. He said that there was quite a bit of comment from the public, and a misunderstanding and belief that the previous owners, Dr. Hurt, had promised to maintain it as public parkland, but that was clarified that it was something in the Comprehensive Plan but not something the applicant had put forward. He said that there was concern about access, concern about traffic, concern about habitat loss for deer and eagles. He said that it was only the beginning of that process. Ms. Firehock said this clarified his previous mention of a big community meeting. Mr. Bivins said that his CAC met and went on a bus tour. He said there were several new CAC members, and a reconfiguration of the group itself, so they and Supervisor McKeel took a JAUNT bus to show the basic outline of the CAC and the different projects related to the work. He said that they were joined by Kevin McDermott, who did a very nice job identifying to people the various traffic improvements in the County and the number of sidewalk improvements that should be coming to the district. He said that people appreciated being able to see parts of the district they had not seen before. Mr. Murray said that they had a follow-up on a previous question about the Montclair stream. He said that a consultant had been hired to make a stream determination, and the determination had been received and confirmed that it was indeed an intermittent stream, so the 100-foot buffer of the Water Protection Ordinance would apply to that stream. Ms. Firehock said that for the record, this was for a proposal in the Crozet area that they did not have a hearing about because there was conflict about the status of the stream, which was investigated. Mr. Murray said that one of the original issues was that the stream and its buffer were shown in the Crozet Master Plan but were removed. He said that there was a lot of concern from the public that there was no public engagement about why or how that determination was made. He said that in a lot of public interest, they were putting the stream and buffers back on the map. He said he believed it had now been done. He asked if that was correct. Mr. Rapp said that he was not aware of it being made official. Mr. Herrick said that it either had been done or would be done. He said that a related application was still technically pending before the Planning Commission, so they should probably save the more extended discussion about the proposal for when it came back before the Commission. Ms. Firehock said that to answer the email question she had received, she had not received that information until it was sent to her, so she appreciated receiving it. Mr. Murray said that he would forward her all-relevant information. Mr. Bivins said that he preferred not to receive that information. He said Mr. Murray had an inside track for this, which was good, but he would rather hear about this from staff. Mr. Murray said absolutely. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - October 25, 2022 23 Ms. Firehock said that she had no report, because for the fourth consecutive month, the Historic Preservation Committee had not met quorum, and she personally lamented that, because she came to the County Office Building for the meeting and then lounged around for two hours before being able to talk about zoning. She said that each time, staff thought that there would be quorum, and she did not understand what was going on with that. Review of Board of Supervisors Meetings, October 5 and 19, 2022 Mr. Rapp said that on October 5, the Board approved the Scruby cell tower that came before the Commission, and on October 19, the Board endorsed the framework for Phase 1 of the Comprehensive Plan that the Commission had also seen, so they would begin discussing Phase 2 over the next few months, and they would discuss it as soon as possible. New Business a. Draft Planning Commission Rules of Procedure Ms. Firehock asked if a presentation was necessary. Mr. Herrick said no. He said that he would make brief remarks. He said that he had drafted some revised Rules of Procedure that updated the remote participation policy to track recent changes to state law. He said that those were reflected in new provisions in Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure. He said that there was not much substantively that had changed other than tracking changes to state law. He said to address the quorum situations that had occurred recently, as state law required, a quorum must be physically assembled, so there must be at least four Commissioners physically present to have a meeting. He said that state law did not allow for Planning Commissions to meet all virtually. He said there could be some members participating remotely, but the rules they had before them were the maximum of what state law currently allowed. Mr. Murray moved for the Planning Commission to adopt the Rules of Procedure. Mr. Carrazana seconded the motion, which passed unanimously (5-0). b. November meeting dates Mr. Rapp said that when reviewing the dates, staff realized that the first meeting in November fell on election night. He said that they had a couple of public hearings which would be highly attended and wanted to make sure that they did not have any barriers to attendance on that, so they had coordinated with the applicants and recommended for the meeting to be scheduled for November 29 to allow them enough time to run advertisements and meet requirements. Mr. Missel asked if there would be a work session on November 29. Mr. Rapp said that there would not be. He said that there would be no work session in November. Ms. Firehock asked if it would be a long meeting. She said this evening’s meeting was stacked, but they were straightforward applications, whereas there was potential for a very long meeting. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - October 25, 2022 24 Mr. Rapp said that was correct. He said that November 29 would include Old Ivy Residences part 2. He said they had the meetings staggered so there was one large item each night for the next few meetings. Mr. Bivins said that staff held their time for the work sessions, so they had someone in the office to take them off. Mr. Rapp said that they confirmed today with their Comprehensive Plan consultant; they had also just gotten approved by the Board and were not prepared for Phase 2 work, and it would be nice to have a month to do planning so they could come back more prepared. Ms. Firehock asked if the meeting on November 29 would begin at 6:00 p.m. Mr. Rapp said that it would be on November 22. He said that there would be an additional meeting on November 29. He said that he would also recommend that they cancel the December 27 meeting because he had heard of two Commissioners who would be unable to attend. Mr. Carrazana asked what the first meeting in January was. Ms. Firehock asked what the question was. Ms. Ragsdale said that it was when the first meeting in January was. Mr. Rapp said that the date for the meeting was January 10. He said they would meet on December 13 and then on January 10. Mr. Carrazana said that he would be out of the country from December 26 to January 9, which was very close to that meeting. Ms. Firehock said it would be a problem if he missed a flight. She said that she also would be out of the country from December 22 until January 1. She said there were no meetings scheduled, but she would be unavailable to discuss work. Mr. Herrick said that what was required was a motion to amend the calendar because the calendar had been previously approved. He said that Mr. Rapp had suggested that the calendar be amended to add a meeting on November 29 and to delete the meetings on November 8 and December 27. Mr. Rapp said that was correct. Mr. Missel motioned for the Planning Commission to amend the calendar to add a meeting on November 29, 2022, and to delete the meetings scheduled for November 8, 2022, and December 27, 2022. Mr. Murray seconded the motion. Ms. Shaffer asked who made the motion. Mr. Missel clarified that he was the motion-maker. The motion passed unanimously (5-0). ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - October 25, 2022 25 Old Business There was no old business. Items for Follow-Up There were no items to discuss. Adjournment At 8:15 p.m., the Commission adjourned to November 22, 2022, Albemarle County Planning Commission meeting, 6:00 p.m. via electronic meeting. Charles Rapp, Director of Planning (Recorded by Carolyn S. Shaffer, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards; transcribed by Golden Transcription Services) Approved by Planning Commission Date: 11/22/2022 Initials: CSS