HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinal Minutes PC Meeting 02142023
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - February 14, 2023
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
Final Minutes February 14, 2023
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, February 14, 2023, at 6:00
p.m.
Members attending were: Corey Clayborne, Chair; Fred Missel, Vice-Chair; Julian Bivins; Luis Carrazana;
Karen Firehock; Lonnie Murray.
Members absent: None.
Other officials present were: Kevin McDermott, Director of Planning; Andy Herrick, County Attorney’s Office;
Andy Reitelbach; Alberic Karina-Plun; and Carolyn Shaffer, Clerk to the Planning Commission (via zoom).
Ms. Shaffer was present electronically via Zoom call.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum
Ms. Shaffer called the roll.
Mr. Clayborne established a quorum.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public
Mr. Clayborne asked if anyone wished to speak. Hearing none, he moved to the next item.
Consent Agenda
Mr. Clayborne asked if any Commissioner wished to modify or change the meeting minutes on the consent
agenda.
Mr. Bivins moved that the Planning Commission adopt the consent agenda, which was seconded by Mr.
Clayborne. The motion passed unanimously (5-0).
Public Hearings
a. ZMA202200004 1906 Avon Street
Mr. Andy Reitelbach, Senior Planner in the Albemarle County Planning Division, stated that the property
subject to this rezoning application was composed of three parcels along Avon Street Extended, south of
the City line. He indicated the surrounding properties, which included Mill Creek, Spring Hill Village, and
Avon Park, along with Biscuit Run Park, which was lying very near the subject property but not a direct
neighbor.
Mr. Reitelbach said that the three parcels were currently zoned R-1, allowing for one dwelling unit per acre,
and the acreage was approximately 3.6 acres. He said that the existing use on the property included two
single-family detached houses and accessory structures, and the applicant was using to rezone these three
parcels to R-15 Residential with proffers, allowing for 15 units per acre. He said that with a voluntary proffer
statement, the applicant had proffered a maximum of 38 residential units, which would be a mix of single-
family attached and multifamily units at a density of 11 units per acre.
Mr. Reitelbach said that the three parcels were all zoned R-1 residential, and by right, could have up to
three residential units in total. He said that sev eral overlay zoning districts were in place on this property,
including managed steep slopes and the entrance corridor. He said that the zoning of the surrounding
properties was R-6 residential to the south in Avon Park, PRD to the west in Mill Creek, NMD to the east in
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - February 14, 2023
2
Mill Creek, several parcels zoned R-1 to the southeast, and to the northeast were several parcels zoned
for Light Industrial use.
Mr. Reitelbach said that in the comprehensive plan, this portion of the County was included in the southern
and western neighborhoods master plan, which designated all three of the parcels for Neighborhood
Density Residential, indicated by the yellow color on the map displayed on the slide. He said that the
comprehensive plan recommended residential uses at three to six units per acre, along with several
different supporting uses, as well as a residential building height maximum of no more than three storie s.
Mr. Reitelbach said that in looking at the other land use designations on surrounding properties to the south
and west, they were also Neighborhood Density Residential, the green color indicated parks and open
space, the brown represented Spring Hill Village and Community Mixed Use, the orange was Urban Density
Residential, and the purple was Office/R&D/Flex/Light Industrial.
Mr. Reitelbach displayed a screenshot of the concept plan provided by the applicant for the application. He
said that because this was a conventional rezoning to R -15, it was a concept plan and not an application
plan, however, the applicant had proffered the concept plan as a part of their proffer statement. He said
that in the proffer statement, the applicant had identified several major elements that would be required; if
the rezoning were approved, the construction would be required to follow, and that included the internal
street network and pedestrian connections, the building envelopes, setbacks, a maximum building height
of no more than 40 feet, and a maximum of 38 residential units.
Mr. Reitelbach said that also proposed in the concept plan was a connection with Hathaway Street and
Avon Park to the south; an extension would be through their property up to the nort hern property line with
the Faith Temple Church, two parcels to the north. He said that the other streets and travel ways throughout
the development were proposed to be private streets, and the applicant was proposing a pedestrian
connection from Hathaway Street and Avon Street in the northeastern property because there was no
vehicular connection proposed directly between those two streets in the development.
Mr. Reitelbach said that there were open space areas shown throughout the parcel, and a central
greenspace was where the recreational facilities were proposed. He said that in addition, the stormwater
management facility was proposed for the southeastern portion of the property, and retaining walls were
proposed between the parking envelope and the stormwater management and the greenspace.
Mr. Reitelbach said that the specifics of the proposal included proffers of the concept plan and the major
elements identified, including a maximum of 38 residential units, and affordable housing in the developmen t,
which would be 15% of the total residential units constructed. He said that the school calculation for this
development gave an expected generation of six students total across all three school levels, with about
three students at Mountain View Elementary, two students at Walton Middle, and one student at Monticello
High School. He said that Mountain View was over capacity and Walton and Monticello were both currently
under capacity.
Mr. Reitelbach said that as a part of this rezoning, the applicant had requested two waivers for modifications
to the street standards, including waiving the sidewalk and planting strips in a few portions for the
development. He indicated on the slide the exhibit provided by the applicant, showing in yellow the places
where the sidewalk and planting strip was proposed to be waived, and green where only the planting strip
was proposed to be waived. He said that staff had no objection to these requests, and approval of the ZMA
was recommended, however, staff also recommended one condition be included for each of the requests
if they were approved.
Mr. Reitelbach said that one positive aspect of this application was that it was consistent with the
recommended primary land use for Neighborhood Density Residential for the Southern and Western Urban
Neighborhoods Master Plan due to the primary use of housing. He said that the request was also consistent
or mostly consistent with the applicable neighborhood model principles, and the proposal provided at least
15% affordable housing, as recommended in the comprehensive plan policy currently being enacted.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - February 14, 2023
3
Mr. Reitelbach said that staff had one concern when reviewing this application, which was that the request
was not consistent with the density recommended by the Southern And Western Urban Neighborhoods
Master Plan, which recommended three to six units per acre for the Neighborhood Density Residential land
use designation, and this application proposed a maximum of approximately 11 units per acre.
Mr. Reitelbach said that staff’s recommendation was for denial of ZMA202200004 1906 Avon Street
Extended. He said that staff had no concern with the waiver requests, so if the Planning Commission chose
to recommend approval of the zoning request, staff would recommend approval of the requests for the
modification of street standards for the planting strip and sidewalk requirements, along with conditions that
it would be constructed in accordance with the exhibit shown on the previous slide.
Mr. Bivins asked how many dwellings could be constructed without a zoning modification, or by right.
Mr. Reitelbach said that it would be three units in total.
Mr. Bivins asked how many dwellings would be put there as recommended in the land use plan.
Mr. Reitelbach said that the number was estimated to be about 20.
Mr. Bivins asked if offering affordable units would push that number higher.
Mr. Reitelbach said that it might be more if they used any of the bonus density.
Mr. Bivins asked if, regardless of rezoning or by-right usage, the owner would have access to the project
for Hathaway Street.
Mr. Reitelbach said that under by-right usage, it would be likely that the three dwellings would have access
to Avon Street as there were a few existing driveways onto those parcels, but any type of rezoning would
need access from Hathaway Street.
Mr. Bivins asked if Hathaway Street was a public road.
Mr. Reitelbach said yes.
Mr. Missel asked if the ARB had weighed in on this matter at all.
Mr. Reitelbach said no. He said that this application was submitted during the time period when Avon Street
was not a corridor where ARB guidelines were being applied, so they did not weigh in on the rezoning. He
said that if this rezoning were approved and a site plan were submitted, the ARB would weigh in on the site
plan application.
Mr. Missel said that he understood. He said that regarding buffers and setbacks, the concept plan was not
required but was offered, and if this were approved, they would have to comply with the setbacks.
Mr. Reitelbach said yes. He said that the setbacks were included in the major elements of the concept plan
and the proffers of the setbacks that were identified in the concept plan, and the applicant would have to
meet those setbacks.
Mr. Carrazana asked why staff felt it was acceptable for planting strips to be removed.
Mr. Reitelbach said that in the center, the planting strip would be adjacent to the greenspace, so staff felt
that having the sidewalk right against the street and having a larger greenspace area would be more
appropriate. He said that on the other areas, there was no sidewalk on the west side of Hathaway Street in
the existing Avon Street, so there was no continuation moving to the south, so they were providing sidewalk,
and staff did not see there to be a need for there to be a planting strip in addition to that.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - February 14, 2023
4
Mr. Missel said that the public extension of Hathaway Street dead-ended at the adjoining property
boundary. He asked if staff had any concerns with the fact that the adjoining property was not controlled by
this applicant.
Mr. Reitelbach said that staff recommended inter-parcel connections, and while that parcel was not owned
by this property owner, they were providing that connection up to the property line so that if the church to
the north were to develop their property differently, they could extend that street farther to potentially
connect with Avon Street to the north. He said that there had been concern with fire and rescue services
not having a second point of access into this area. He said that the Fire and Rescue Department reviewed
this application and had no concerns at this time, based on the number and mixture of units, which had
different numbers required for the amount of access road to be provided.
Mr. Clayborne opened the public hearing. He asked if the applicant was available to make their
presentation.
Mr. Justin Shimp said that he was the owner of Shimp Engineering and was representing the owners , who
were also present at the meeting. He indicated on the slide the mixture of townhomes and the smaller
multifamily buildings nearer to Avon Street, and the units they imagined as for -sale affordable products
presented along with rental housing. He said that the County had recently installed sidewalks and across
the street, the developer had installed a path, so the infrastructure was filling out. He said that there was a
proffered pedestrian connection that got them to the sidewalk from the development, but unfortunately, their
road could not be engineered to meet that street according to VDOT standards at the moment.
Mr. Shimp said that the type of townhomes proposed were three-story townhomes, similar to buildings
located across the street. He said that the multifamily buildings would be four stori es tall in the back of the
building and three stories on the side facing Hathaway Extension. He said that these different types of units
allowed for more pricing options.
Mr. Shimp said that the staff report had mentioned positives and a negative, the ne gative being the
comprehensive land use map. He said that he took issue with the map because it was not designating a
form. He said that if they built larger homes, there would be fewer of them, and given the scarcity of land in
the development area, he believed that this sort of location had to be viewed at a higher density, and going
by that six units and leaving units on the table would be a source of regret in the future.
Mr. Shimp said that he would read a summary of the Albemarle County growth management policy, located
on the first page of the comprehensive plan. He said that it stated “we shall promote efficient use of County
resources through a combination of A and B, B stating that promotion of the development areas where a
variety of land uses, facilities, and services existed, and their plan to support the County’s future growth
with emphasis placed on density and high-quality design and new infill development.
Mr. Shimp said that the emphasis on density was present in part B, because in part A, it described that they
were to protect elements that defined the rural area, and they could not do one without the other. He said
that in thinking of his past completed projects and the future decades to come, every opportunity that they
had to put more housing in one place that could be more transit-oriented would be appreciated later.
Mr. Shimp said that he recognized that it did not match the color of the map, however, i f they focused on
this policy and where they were today in discussions of expanding the growth area to accommodate
development, they needed to focus on what that potential was to decide if a higher density brought more
households into this urban circle. He said that historically, they had underdeveloped density -wise. He said
that everywhere on the map that said the density was up to 34 had densities ranging from 8 to 24, so this
particular zone had not achieved the sort of density it was planned for as a whole. He said that they felt that
by putting up this development, the lack of density that was planned for should be taken into consideration.
Mr. Shimp said that in comparing the impacts on schools between the density of 21 single -family detached
homes and 38 single-family and multifamily units, the quantity of students was the same, so the additional
units would not produce any greater impacts on schools. He said that in comparing the traffic impacts
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - February 14, 2023
5
between the two, there was predicted to be more traffic with single-family homes versus the single-family
and multifamily homes. He said that traffic and schools would not be impacted due to the increased density
because of the variety of housing types.
Mr. Shimp said that there was a question raised about if Hathaway Street could be extended. He said that
it was designed to a standard to accommodate 400-2,000 trips per the VDOT standard. He said that there
was a challenge to connecting to Avon that had to do with how the road was built. He said the road profile
was projecting up, and when extending the street, they had to continue the projection upwards.
Mr. Shimp said that there was a 44-foot grade drop that did not allow them to make the connection, but
they could plan for a different connection, which was an extension of Hathaway to a property line that
allowed them to meet the VDOT criteria for a future connection to the church property, allowing for extension
of the street and viable future connectivity. He said that because the street dropped and the distance
shortened, they could not make the other connection.
Mr. Shimp said that UVA had historical photographic maps of the area, which were shown on the slide. He
said that Avon now had 12,000 trips per day, and while he appreciated the concerns of the neighborhood
about the increased traffic through the neighborhood, that effectively was a result of the development area.
Mr. Don Smith said that he and his wife owned the tract of land that they were asking the County to rezone.
He said that for the last 24 years, they had lived off of Avon Street Extended, and purchased the land under
consideration 17 years ago, and their two eldest grandchildren were born there. He said that back then, the
Avon corridor was quite different, as the single-family homes sat where Avon Park was now, Avon Park II
was wooded, and Spring Hill across the street was wooded with an open lot that suffered from people using
it as a dump. He said that those were the days when traffic was nonexistent, even during rush hour.
Mr. Smith said that in the present day, the current County master plan was well on its way to being realized,
with developments popping up everywhere, more traffic, and more kids arriving daily to school. He said that
they called it progress, and while at times it was inconvenient, the amenities and services in the area were
growing to keep up with the pace. He said that the County’s recent sidewalk project was the latest area
improvement that tied the individual developments together, and that 5th Street Station and Biscuit Run
Park were great amenities for the area as well.
Mr. Smith said that he and his wife decided to embrace the change and build out their property similar to
what had been built around them, and they were looking forward to getting skin in the game and making a
lasting contribution to the growth of their County. He s aid that from the Zoom meeting last fall, he realized
that some folks had further reservations about development in that area, and he would simply ask them to
acknowledge the fact that sooner or later, the entire Avon corridor was going to be developed, so the best
route for all of them to take was to work together constructively to make the best outcome.
Mr. Smith said that he was confident that they had a good team of engineers, and he thought that the work
product would be outstanding, and they would strive to create a development in a matter such that all of
their property values continued to increase. He said that they were open to all constructive input and looked
forward to hearing back from the Planning Commission.
Ms. Firehock said that several comments received from the community included concerns that there were
issues with water pressure. She said that that was not mentioned in the presentation, and she did not know
if there were any further explanations for that. She said that people ha d said there were issues with water
pressure in the neighborhood they would be traveling through, and there was concern about the additional
demand put on that line.
Mr. Shimp said that he had seen some of those comments. He said that the answer was yes, and they
would have a similar problem, but less so because they were sloping downhill. He said that it was a pressure
issue and not a flow issue. He said that the neighborhood had to install a storage tank behind them to get
water high enough to achieve reasonable pressure. He said that they were located at one of the highest
spots in the growth area, so the water pressure was low, even though the s pigots would run. He said that
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - February 14, 2023
6
the demands for added flow rate for domestic use in the development would not impact the community at
all, but those residents would face the issue of low pressure as well.
Mr. Bivins asked if this project would be served by public water.
Mr. Shimp said that was correct.
Mr. Bivins said that they often heard concerns about groundwater and well water being affected by
developments, but that was not occurring here because they were part of the public service district.
Mr. Shimp said that was correct. He said that they were tied to that service system, and the only fault in
that area was that the pressure of the system was not as high as was desired.
Mr. Clayborne asked if more information could be provided about where the affordable housing was located
within the concept plan.
Mr. Shimp said that as drawn, the affordable townhomes would be located at the north end of the project.
He said that a partner such as Habitat for Humanity or the Piedmont Community Land Trust would buy the
land and build the homes, or they would do so through a different model with the Land Trust. He said that
they could mix them throughout the development, but they had to have six with the full buildout in total.
Mr. Clayborne said that he would like to see the affordable housing distributed throughout, rather than have
affordable housing blocks.
Ms. Firehock said that if they went with the land trust model, it entailed t he land trust owning the land
underneath, which meant that the affordable housing would not disappear in a few decades after it was no
longer required to be affordable. She said that it was a trade-off for putting them in one unit if they used
that model, which she preferred because it avoided temporary affordable housing.
Mr. Clayborne thanked Ms. Firehock. He asked if mass transit was considered when implementing the
increased density.
Mr. Shimp said that he was unsure if the County had adopted an official plan for establishing transit in the
future. He said that there was a lack of transit after 40 years of the comprehensive plan, and he wondered
if part of the problem was that if they had created this area with 30 units per acre, there may have been a
viable bus route. He said that for the future, he saw Avon Street as a wonderful place because it was a
convenient place to run service to and from the City of Charlottesville. He said that when they did the
rezoning of the street, there was a discussion with the County about leaving a place in the plan for a transit
drop-off, and that could still easily be achieved. He said that he knew that the County planners were thinking
about this, and they supported it fully, and the more riders there were to acces s that, the sooner the vision
could come to fruition.
Mr. Clayborne thanked Mr. Shimp. He said that he would now begin the public comment period.
Ms. Robbie Savage said that she was the Chair of the Avon Park Community Association. She said that
not pictured on the map of the property was Avon Park II, which is already connected to Hathaway. She
said that if this took place, there would be a straightaway from Avon Park II all the way through to this
community, and while it was a public street, Tudor Court was not, and they had to take it on themselves.
She said that they were not opposed to the project, but were opposed to the approval for R -15 rezoning.
Ms. Savage said that it was more than twice what was in their communities nearby, and they did not see a
reason for this at all. She said that many people would discuss density, proffers, schools, traffic, and safety
issues tonight. She said that Mr. Shimp mentioned the sidewalks, which had just been installed on Avon
Street, after 15 years. She said that there was no bus service to this community, so while they were looking
at affordable housing, there remained a question of how people would get to and from their destinations.
She said that currently, it was a two-mile walk to the nearest bus stop and was very inconvenient. She said
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - February 14, 2023
7
that the affordable housing should make it possible for low-income residents to work and be a part of the
community.
Ms. Katie Cabelll said that she and her husband, along with their cat, had lived in Avon Park for five years,
and loved the community. She said that specifically, they were grateful that their son could play outside
without having to fear for his safety, as he often used the streets to play ball with their other neighbors, used
the playground, and was able to come and go to the car without concern that he would be hit from an
oncoming car.
Ms. Cabell said that the members of their community were used to seeing children at play and were always
on the lookout for children and pets, but with an influx of people coming into their community from other
areas, they were not as comfortable or confident that their children would remain safe. She said that her
son attended Mountain View, where there was extreme overcrowding, which was a serious concern. She
said that they questioned the validity of the developer’s assessment that the new development would add
only six K-12 students to the schools, and it was suggested that the building of this development was
supported by the fact that there were nearby schools.
Ms. Cabell said that there were currently 14 K-12 in Avon Park I, with additional student population expected
with the construction of Avon Park II; it was therefore inconsistent to claim that the new development would
not attract more families with new students. She said that the Mountain View Administration had sent letters
out to parents outlying their concern about the student population, and like other communities in their area,
they would like the County to address the overcrowding in area schools before appr oving increased density.
Ms. Cabell said that right now, the parking lot was under construction because it was unable to handle the
daily drop-off and pick-up traffic, and whenever there were school events, families parked at the high school
and were bused back and forth to the elementary school for the event. She said that this was currently
impossible to park at the school between the drop-off and pick-up times because there was simply no
space. She said that it had taken nearly 15 years for the installation of sidewalks, and while the sidewalks
were great and much-loved, it had not proven useful for families to use them when coming to and from
school.
Ms. Debbie Smith said that she had been a resident of Avon Park for 15 years and appreciated the
opportunity for them to voice their concerns. She said that she was specifically concerned about safety
issues and the impact the 1906 Avon Extended development would have on their daily living, mainly
because they claimed it was impossible as their plan currently existed for them to create their own entrance
way. She said that currently, Arden Drive was the only way in and way out of Avon Park for both one and
two.
Ms. Smith said that she lived on the corner of Arden Drive and Arden Alley; Arden Drive was an ascending
road with a severe curve that created a blind spot; making a left turn off of Hathaway or Arden Alley did not
allow for adequate sight of oncoming traffic, so it was already a difficult situation. She said that they would
be exceeding over 200 drivers in and out of that one corridor with drivers from the potential new
development. She said that they had proposed an extension of Hathaway from approximately 500 feet to
1200 feet, so they would like for VDOT to check the straightaway length of Hathaw ay Street since they did
not recommend anything over 500 feet.
Ms. Smith said that along Hathaway on the west side, there was a playground and dog park that were
enjoyed by current residents, but they felt that their safety would be at risk with additional traffic coming
through Hathaway. She said that Hathaway was only 32 feet wide, allowing for parking on the east side of
the street, and she did not understand how traffic could flow two ways, because they would have to move
a side, which would cause more congestion and concern for safety. She said that she saw this as a safety
issue and did not see extending Hathaway as a workable solution and overburdening their community with
more traffic. She said that she hoped that they would be able to reduce the number of units or figure out a
way to have another access road to their community.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - February 14, 2023
8
Mr. Nish Dalal stated that he resided at Tudor Court in Avon Park. He said that he would like to reiterate
the safety issue. He said that not shown on the map was the steepness of Arden Drive. He said that he
knew he and his neighbors were careful in going down that street, which had a steep incline, and increased
traffic on that road was of concern. He said that he also felt nervous that there could be danger to the
children who played outside in the neighborhood. He said that he and his partner also wanted to address
the water pressure.
Mr. Dalal said that with all of their units having pumps, they had to perform regular maintenance on them,
and having additional units would be a big burden on their system as well. He reiterated that they opposed
the request to change the zoning, and they would request that the R-15 zoning not be approved, which
would allow for 54 homes on 36 acres, and instead, they would like to request the R -6, which was much
more consistent with the character of the existing neighborhood and comparable to the adjacent
communities.
Ms. Sarah Loach Meister said that she grew up in Charlottesville, where her father was a music professor
emeritus and choir director. She said that twice a week, he came to their house for dinner, which meant
that twice a week, they turned onto Avon Street Extended at Arden with him in the car. She said that when
her husband, Peter, talked about possible fatalities at that intersection, one of the people he was trying to
protect was her 96-year-old father.
Ms. Meister said that she would be talking about quality of life. She said that they understood the need for
more homes in the County, however, their corner of the County should not bear the weight of the extensive
development, and there were areas east of Avon Street Extended that were zoned urban residential, a nd
west of Avon Street Extended, it was considered Neighborhood Density Residential, allowing for three to
six residential units per acre.
Ms. Meister said that they bordered rural areas and Biscuit Run State Park and had been mistakenly
considered urban in these zoning negotiations, because urban settings had amenities that could handle
large numbers of residents, which were sadly lacking in their area. She said that the closest bus to their
neighborhood was two miles away and involved crossing I-64 on a bridge with no sidewalk, and the
proposed future bus route suggested that the bus would come to Mill Creek Drive, over a mile from Avon
Park; even with the proposed future bus route, a trip to UVA using public transit would take at least 75
minutes.
Ms. Meister said that their neighborhood provided and maintained a playground and a dog park, and the
residents of this new development would have access to their amenities, which were paid for with HOA
dues, but the plans did not add sufficient amenities to justify r ezoning. She said that Shimp Engineering
was relying on their R-6 greenspaces to pay for the 38 dwellings proposed. She said that affordable housing
required public transportation, but they had waited 15 years to get a sidewalk, so they were not hopeful th at
they would get the infrastructure needed for these high -density developments.
Ms. Meister said that they appreciated the work done by County planners and leaders and asked that they
focused on infrastructure and needed amenities before allowing R -15 density, which would probably have
off-property management. She said that they had issues with short-term rentals in the past, including loud,
late-night parties. She said that granting an exception to guidelines regarding density could lead to crime.
She said that the week that their neighbors on the other side of the water tower moved in, someone stole
their catalytic converter.
Ms. Meister said that they understood that Arden three would happen, but they wanted it to follow the rules,
particularly with regard to density and access. She said that Avon Park was zoned R -6, and homebuyers
should be able to rely on existing comprehensive plans when deciding on home purchases, and if they
could not, what was the purpose of the comprehensive plan? She said that they requested that the 1906
Avon Street Extended development be zoned no higher than R-6.
Mr. Peter Meister said that he came to Charlottesville to earn his Ph.D. in German. He said that he and his
wife met in 1987, moved to Maryland, then Alabama, then to Charlottesville this past September. He said
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - February 14, 2023
9
that there was a difference between traffic that could induce accidents and fatalities. He said that the curve
on Hathaway at Arden was blind, especially on the downhill side, and it could be dangerous even now
before new traffic began flowing to and from Avon Park. He said that children did frequently play in that
area, but the speeds were residential.
Mr. Meister said that a traffic accident of the worst kind was not likely at Hathaway at Arden, but the danger
came where Arden met Avon Street Extended. He said that cars coming from the right were almost invisible,
but there was likely only one car trying to turn onto that road, and once there were a hundred more cars
joining them from the existing Avon Park II, it would not be unusual for multiple cars to try to make that turn
into a single swoop.
Mr. Meister said that the first two cars may be fine, but with increased traffic in both directions, it was
extremely dangerous for a third car to try to make that turn. He said that this was an issue without regarding
the exceptions for part three. He said that changing Arden and Hathaway to a through -street and adding
more than one hundred cars would almost certainly result in accidents at Avon and Arden, and perhaps
fatalities. He said that they hoped they would vote to keep Avon Park as close as possible to the quiet
subdivision it was zoned for.
Ms. Shelly Pellish said that she had lived on Avon Street for 24 years and 15 years in this community, and
had signed up to be on the board for five years and hardly, because developers walked away in 2007 to
2009, and she learned a lot about bankruptcy law and the joy and hardship of binding together the
community when neighbors also walked away in trying to get the developers to pay the bonds for the roads
and infrastructure.
Ms. Pellish said that they had waited for many years for the infrastructure they had, so as a result of
everything that she had learned in urban planning and architectural history, she was now a financial advisor
and help them steward the land they wished to develop. She said that she also was learning a lot about the
community in that they were in a recession right now—if not officially they soon would be—and she wanted
to know that the developers who were building on the land next to them could pay for it—do what they say,
pay for the roads, pay for the infrastructure they were going to use, and develop the land.
Ms. Pellish said that their community had had to pay for tree replacements for what was done incorrectly,
among other things. She said that they should take them up on the offer for a healthy conversation as a
community to build the community they all needed for Avon Park, which did not mean displacing a Black
church because it was the only way to build a road. She said that they should communicate with the
developers to come up with a plan, because the neighborhood was not a NIMBY neighborhood and knew
that development was coming, and they were thoughtful and good people, so they should take them up on
that offer.
Ms. Leanne Skipper said that she lived on 1644 as well and in the unit that would abut the new
neighborhood. She said that her primary concern was the cut-through to Hathaway and it serves as the
only access in and out of that neighborhood. She said that being in that end unit, there was a benefit of a
cul-de-sac there now because there was no cut-through. She said that in addition, there was a lot of
pedestrian traffic around the neighborhood, so having a long straightway through the neighborhood would
invite faster traffic.
Ms. Skipper said that the use of the dog park and playground by others who were not financially invested
in the amenities was a concern, as it was not mentioned in the plan for the new development. She said that
for most people, the residents did not only live in that neighborhood but also worked remotely and were in
their homes and neighborhood often, so they wanted to make sure it was cared for and constructed
appropriately.
Mr. Andrew Hopun said that he had lived in Avon Park for over one year. He said that when he bought his
home in 2021, he noticed the water pressure was lower than usual, but his house had a water pressure
pump that helped normalize the pressure. He said that he was concerned that with the water pressure
already being so low that further development of the subdivision would affect it, and he supported Avon
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - February 14, 2023
10
Park HOA’s request for a survey to determine whether the water tower could accommodate these new
developments.
Mr. Hopun said that the number of new developments in the Mountain View Elementary district was quite
substantial, and with this growth, he believed their educational infrastructure needed to be updated. He said
that he was not a parent nor had a connection to the elementary school, but as a resident of Albemarle
County, he wanted to ensure that all of their students in this district were provided with a high-quality
educational environment.
Mr. Hopun said he reviewed the subdivision yield analysis report and the Mountain View Elementary Master
Plan recommendation, presented to the Albemarle County School Board in 2021. He said that the findings
were clear that Mountain View Elementary School was overcrowded to the point that a school t hat was built
to hold 624 students had 752 students enrolled in the 2022-2023 academic year. He said that as they
considered zoning for 1906 Avon Street Extended, he asked the County to take into account the fast-paced
addition of students from several new developments, including Spring Hill Estates, Avon Park II, Galaxie
Farms, Southwood, and potentially the 1906 Avon Street Extended project. He said that he was pleased
with the recommendation to build a new elementary school, and he hoped that this conver sation may help
prioritize that project even higher.
Ms. Elke Zschaebitz said that she was a resident of Avon Park II, and had lived there since 2014 when she
moved from Germany. She said that they lived on Arden Drive, adjacent to Hathaway Street, and did not
know that the builders were allowed to build with the permission of the Commission . She said that she also
did not know what a sewage pumper was until she moved here.
Ms. Zschaebitz said that the architects of the neighborhood decided to pump the sewage up instead of
down to the city, so the residents now had a separate issue of sewage infrastructure along with the water
pressure issue on Tudor Court, which she had been unaware of. She said that she walked her dog every
day and children frequently played in the street. She said that there needed to be a speed bump in their
area because people drove so quickly around the curve of the road, and there was a blind spot as well, so
turning Hathaway into one long street would invite more traffic.
Mr. Clayborne asked if there were any speakers signed up online.
Ms. Shaffer said that there were two speakers.
Mr. Jaye Urgo said that he lived at 1632 Hathaway Street. He asked why Shimp Engineering was bringing
up the church. He said that it seemed like a cynical plot to take over the church. He asked if they would
hear from the church and if they were willing to do this. He said that they did not know if there would
eventually be a second way to get out because they had not talked to the people at the church, which
seemed very wrong.
Mr. Urgo said that if they altered the site plan and did not go for maximum density, he would have to believe
that they would be able to engineer a second egress from the new development. He said that they showed
a retaining pond and retaining walls, so it could be reengineered to have a second egress. He said that no
top of which, VDOT recommended any straightaway longer than 500 feet to have a traffic-calming measure,
and they had not heard anything about a traffic-calming measure in any proffer.
Mr. Urgo said that they were used to developers disappointing them, the most recent being that Stanley
Martin promised that they would not use Arden Drive as a construction entrance, but every time there was
rain, a steady stream of construction vehicles would go up Arden because the construction entrance was
muddy. He said that he did not see why they should allow it to go from R -6 to R-15 when, despite the 38
proposed units, it could go as high as 54.
Mr. Dave Hudspeth said that he lived at 1118 Arden Drive and had lived there for 16 years. He said that he
had been involved in building affordable housing around the world, which he had been fortunate to do. He
said that the United States may be short of as many as five million houses, so everyone had to do their
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - February 14, 2023
11
part. He said that he would echo a Commissioner’s concern from earlier that they should not sell this out
from under them; it was one thing to be affordable, but it also needed to be dignified.
Mr. Hudspeth said that he asked that the Board scrutinize the square footage in which these units were
built. He said that they also had to look at parking, because when families were stacked into buildings,
parking became an issue, and it was questionable if it was dignified to make a family who was dependent
on public transportation walk along an unlit road for two miles to get to the bus. He said that they had to
look at that and bring public transportation closer , which was especially important when looking at a road
that had increased from 1,000 to 12,000 daily trips.
Mr. Hudspeth said that there were second- and third-order effects associated with that increased traffic,
including safety measures such as speed bumps, lighting, and traffic lights to prevent fatalities at
intersections, which had to be considered to make it not only affordable but dignified and safe moving
forward. He asked if the low water pressure was dignified. He said that they dealt with it because they could
afford it, but putting families in the area who could not afford it was something to be questioned .
Mr. Hudspeth said that the utility infrastructure for Avon one and two was not sufficient, so adding another
development onto the existing infrastructure was not good, and it needed to be studied to ensure that what
was installed could truly handle the burden. He said that he had had to replace both the main waterline and
main sewer line for his property prior to their expected lifespan. He said that he dealt with the toll road
construction of 241 on federal land in California, and at some point, construction came up th at left them
with one unavoidable course of action. He said that they had to look at building Hathaway to the edge of
1906, because there was only one unavoidable course of action for the church.
Ms. Ashley Leidy said that she had lived in the Avon Park c ommunity for two years now, off of Tudor Court.
She said that she had moved to Avon Park because it was a small, safe neighborhood where she could
come and go as her hospital shift work required. She said that as construction began for Avon Park II,
people who did not live in her community began to appear in cars, on bikes, and on foot at all times of day
and night, therefore, she was concerned about the safety of the influx of people who, if the development
proposal went through as, it was, would only have one way in and out of the neighborhood, which was to
drive on Hathaway.
Ms. Leidy asked the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to deny the contractor’s proposal
to rezone the proposed 1906 Avon Street Extended development to R -15. She said that the County’s
comprehensive plan had this area approved for R-6, and she must ask why the County spent so much time
and money preparing a comprehensive plan if they were not going to adhere to it. She asked why the
County allowed developers to apply for and receive a waiver from that plan, especially when a rezone was
completely inconsistent with other neighborhoods in the area.
Ms. Leidy said that R-15 zoning would allow for 54 homes on 3.6 acres, and the developers submitted a
plan that called for 38 homes, but builders and their plans came and went, and history demonstrated that
once zoning was changed, developments and the number of housing units could also change. She said
that their community did not want 54 homes in their neighborhood, not only for safety reasons, but because
using their community as a through-way for Avon Park II and the 1906 Avon Street Extended development
was inconsistent with the communities on either side of Avon Street. She said that a rezoning request to R-
6 was much more consistent with the character of the already-existing neighborhood in comparison to the
adjacent Avon Park I and Avon Park II communities.
Mr. Dennis O’Connor said that he lived at the corner of Hathaway and Arden Drive, at the entrance to Avon
Park II. He said that he was concerned about the proposal to use Arden as the entrance to the new
development. He said that as a result of Avon Park II, they were already dealing with increased traffic on
the steep slope and blind curve of Arden Drive, so adding the additional traffic of construction vehicles for
1906 Avon was of concern.
Mr. O’Connor said that during discussions with the builder for Avon Park II, they were promised that the
construction vehicles would use the road built on that property for emergency vehicles, but unfortunately,
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - February 14, 2023
12
that had not been the case, as for the past two years most construction vehicles had used Arden Drive. He
said that they would like to avoid being subject to this for more years to come, and at some point, they
would like to be able to sit outside and enjoy the neighborhood.
Mr. O’Connor said that in addition, the developer for 1906 Avon Street Extended suggested the
development was too dense to allow for access to Avon Street Extended, instead of creating a less dense
plan that fit into the recommendations of the County, Shimp Engineering had suggested a future access
road through the property of the neighboring church, however, church representatives had not expressed
interest in selling their property, nor in providing access to build a future road.
Mr. O’Connor said that if they allowed builders to continue getting dispensations for projects too dense for
the available space and contrary to the comprehensive pan, they wondered what the value of the
comprehensive plan was. He said that they believed the taking of a small lot and planning for more dwellings
than it could accommodate, resulting in not enough space for access, should not be an accepted practice.
He said that for them as a neighborhood, the bottom line was that they requested this development be
zoned no higher than R-6, in accordance with the comprehensive plan, and the development inclu de an
access road into 1906 Avon directly from Avon Street Extended.
Mr. Shimp said that it was R-15 zoning, but the maximum density was 38, which was not something that
they had decided on their own, but was set at 38 maximum, and was what the calculations for schools and
traffic impacts were based on. He said that Hathaway was a public street, and it was required to extend
and serve a neighboring property, so the creation of the connection to their site was set forth on the approval
of that plan, and for them to have access to a public street, they were required to connect to that street.
Mr. Shimp said that they were further required to extend their road to the adjoining property to the north,
whether or not they had immediate plans to redevelop or not, due to the connectivity requirements of the
State and the County to create roads that served the public at large. He said that it was not decided as a
part of recent processes but was how this plan was laid out from the beginning.
Mr. Shimp said that when seen as a part of the larger development of the area, it would not be seen as
such a large development, and as noted by the staff’s report, there was not a concern about the traffic with
the volume created. He said that he understood the worry in peop le’s minds, but that did not mean it was
not good transportation planning to connect the streets as they had and plan for the future connection. He
said that that was laid out in County and VDOT policy and would continue to be so.
Mr. Shimp said that the comprehensive plan had a land use map, but it also had about 500 pages of other
information about how to manage healthy growth in the community. He said that in looking in the context
of the whole document, the shift in density from 21 to 38 was consistent with that, and if they looked at the
impacts created, they were the same.
Mr. Shimp said that the change would be that the houses built would be more expensive, and he thought it
was a waste of land when they had the opportunity to do something more creative with density that did not
have any impacts higher than what was imagined, which made this an appropriate use of the site.
Ms. Firehock asked if Mr. Shimp could elaborate on the math that resulted in there being 210 vehicle tr ips
per day for 38 units and 240 trips for 21 units. She asked if that was because they were assuming more
single-family residential would have a higher trip generation per unit.
Mr. Shimp said that was correct. He said that the lower density would mean the development of only single-
family units, and those would have a higher trip count than townhomes.
Mr. Bivins asked how the special exception request would connect to the existing community. He said that
he was trying to understand why they did not want trees on the public side of one of the roads.
Mr. Shimp said that the sidewalk on that section bordered the green amenity space, and they thought they
should locate the trees on the other side of the sidewalk. He said that there was no sidewalk on the existing
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - February 14, 2023
13
neighborhood on that side, but would be connected on the righthand side. He said that they were attempting
to maximize the width of the greenspace in that area.
Mr. Bivins asked if the side-yards would be fenced or open to the street.
Mr. Shimp said that the waiver was for the ones adjacent to the greenspace on the other side of the private
street.
Mr. Bivins said that there were three units on their plan, which were not near the greenspace. He said that
he understood the suggestion of the three units in the island in the middle of the development with the
greenspace on the upper half, but they were still making the same argument for the three units that were
closer to the existing community. He said that he could appreciate the upper one but not the lower one.
Mr. Shimp said that he did not think that there was a waiver for this one.
Mr. Bivins said that it said that it was proposed to be waived, and the yellow part was the sidewalk and
planting to be waived.
Mr. Shimp said that there were crosswalks where private road “A” intersected with private road “B” to access
the main sidewalks. He said that they did not see value in having a sidewalk to come around, because it
took away from greenspace that could be better used.
Mr. Bivins said that there was concern that the individuals on this property would use the amenities in the
existing community. He asked how that would be addressed.
Mr. Shimp said that it would fall under the same amenity requirements as the neighbors, so they would
have an equal amount of amenities required per unit, as the County Code stated; however they were not
displayed in this plan. He said that he hoped that in 10 years, it would be recognized as one community
and the amenities could be shared. He reiterated that they would provide their own amenities for the
residents, as required per the County’s ordinance.
Mr. Bivins said that there was also concern over Hathaway Street becoming a straightaway road, allowing
for increased vehicular speeds. He asked what the new length of Hathaway Street was expected to be.
Mr. Shimp said that the addition to the road would be approximately 500 feet.
Mr. Bivins asked what the current length of the road was.
Mr. Shimp said that they would measure it and get back to Mr. Bivins with the result , but he assumed it was
about 700 feet.
Mr. Bivins said that that meant the total length was approximately 1,100 feet. He said that he would ask
staff about this issue.
Mr. Carrazana said that Mr. Bivins had mentioned the exception for the planting strip along Hathaway. He
said that he understood the logic there was because there was greenspace still with a sidewalk, but no
planting strip. He said that the planting strip could provide safety for the sidewalk, which was the same
condition on the east side of Hathaway, and he wondered why they would not keep it for safety and
continuity.
Mr. Shimp said that the central greenspace was a certain width, and they effectively got six more feet with
that width, and they found it more meaningful for that area than the zone between the street and the
sidewalk.
Ms. Firehock asked if the stormwater management feature was a stormwater management pond.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - February 14, 2023
14
Mr. Shimp said that it would likely be a biofilter.
Ms. Firehock said that in another illustration, it was shown as greenspace. She asked if they were to infer
that there would be a walking path or an area for residents to sit near the biofilter and be used as an
amenity.
Mr. Shimp said that it was possible and had been done in the past. He said that it was required to be a part
of the open space, but not part of the active open space, although there was no reason it could not be. He
said that the biofilter would not be very deep and because it dried out, it likely could be used for recreation
and would not be fenced off from the residents. He said that those gener ally were not designed intentionally
for that use, but it would not be unavailable for people to use.
Ms. Firehock said that there was a bioswale in Greenleaf Park that children played in without issue.
Mr. Missel said that there was a hatched area next to Avon Street. He asked if that indicated steep slopes.
Mr. Shimp said that it indicated a managed slope.
Mr. Missel asked if it was a managed critical slope.
Mr. Shimp said yes. He said that they were allowed to disturb it, but there were specific r equirements to do
so.
Mr. Missel asked if there were retaining walls planned for the critical slopes area.
Mr. Shimp said yes.
Mr. Missel asked if they were requesting that those slopes be impacted, or if that were something that staff
would handle at the site plan phase.
Mr. Shimp said that as long as they followed the guidelines for a six -foot maximum retaining wall height,
there would be a staff review of that.
Mr. Murray said that it seemed that there was greenspace split up over several areas of this plan. He asked
if there was a reason why they decided to fracture it into multiple pieces as opposed to consolidating it in
one space.
Mr. Shimp said that there were layout considerations as to where the roads must go and the things they
must have in place. He said that the central greenspace was sufficiently large for the amenities that they
would have such as tot lots, and the other space had a path down the road, then becoming more of a tree-
planting area that was available but not as much of an active space. He said that they picked the central
greenspace as the active greenspace, and the rest was accessory. He said that they sometimes would put
all the greenspace together, but it sometimes was nice to have some zones where trees were planted.
Ms. Kelsey Schlein said that she was a planner with Shimp Engineering. She said that their client, Jenny
Smith, was an architect, so one of the first conversations they had was introducing the idea of small, intimate
spaces throughout the community that could be accessed for their different characteristics. She said that
in addition to the requirements and engineering guidelines to be adhered to, this was an original tenet that
was brought to their group to move forward with design.
Mr. Bivins said that there was some concern about how construction equipment would be brought onto the
site to not be disruptive to the existing community. He asked how that would be addressed.
Mr. Shimp said that there were projects where developers had included a condition for construction traffic
to go offsite, but an issue with that was that it was another thing for the County to enforce. He said that
practically on this site, it could be achieved to some extent, but as the site was developed, the existing
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - February 14, 2023
15
driveway would be filled in and therefore inaccessible, so the construction traffic would largely need to go
through the neighborhood as it was built out, because it was the only access to the road. He said that he
did not think that VDOT would want trucks to pull out at a steep grade on Avon if it were avoidable, and he
knew it may be an inconvenience to people, but he could not make a promise because it would be difficult
to accomplish.
Mr. Bivins said that there were several conversations about the condition of driving from this community
onto Avon Street and potential accidents. He said that he would like to know if they had access to VDOT
information about that driveway and Avon Street.
Mr. Kevin McDermott, Planning Director and Transportation Planning Manager for Albemarle County , said
that he checked the VDOT crash database, which indicated that there had been no accidents at that
intersection at Arden and Avon. He said that in the seven years of data, there had not been a single accident
at that intersection.
Mr. Bivins asked what the requirements were for traffic -calming measures, and if Mr. McDermott had an
opinion on if it was necessary for a public road such as this.
Mr. McDermott said that there was no standard for that in the VDOT road design manual that he was aware
of, but they stated that if they were implementing traffic -calming measures, 500 feet was the distance
between the measures that was recommended. He said that he was unaware of a standard that said that
any time there was a straightaway over 500 feet that a traffic-calming device must be implemented. He said
that he was aware of many other roads over 500 feet that lacked traffic-calming measures.
Ms. Firehock said that she appreciated the need for more density in the urban ring, and appreciated the
benefits of building densely because she lived in the rural area. She said that in a decision that involved
rezoning of property, they were giving the developer a tremendous amount of benefit because they were
getting a lot more units and serious financial benefit from being able to do that. She said that in exchange
for that, she would like to see some excellent design and a caliber of development that was beyond the
usual, which she did not see in this site.
Ms. Firehock said that she understood the landscape architect’s idea for broken-up greenspaces, but it
could have been a property with green connectivity through the site and much more could be done with that
layout. She said that from a design standpoint, she did not see anything that moved her. She said that in
terms of the density itself, what was in the comprehensive plan was more in keeping w ith the character of
the surrounding neighborhoods. She said that she usually promoted higher density and taller stories, but
she did not feel that it was applicable to this area.
Mr. Missel said that he asked himself the question, “do I believe the application justifies and overcomes the
established comprehensive plan guidelines?” He said that generally speaking, everything said about
density and focusing the density in this area, as well as thinking about maximizing affordable housing was
something that he agreed with. He said that he felt that when looking closely at the plan, without becoming
engrossed in details, it had been offered and helped reveal some of his primary concerns about the density.
Mr. Missel said that with retaining walls that were i mpacting very near managed critical slopes,
understanding that there could be a waiver, understanding that they would need to grade outside of those.
He said that a right-of-way on Hathaway Street that they could see on the property adjacent, if extended
up, would nick the developments that were adjacent to Hathaway Street. He said that the setbacks were
very close to the greenspace.
Mr. Missel said that while this project had not gone before the ARB, the parking was not relegated and
would not be great for the entrance corridor. He said that the road not being able to connect was a by -
product of trying to fit a lot into this plan. He said that he understood and sympathized with the engineer,
because looking at the adjacent property, Hathaway Street was required to dead -end into the adjacent
property boundary, so the pattern that many people spoke against was a characteristic of the community
they lived in.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - February 14, 2023
16
Mr. Missel said that he understood that the interconnected streets were a County and VDOT requirement,
and it was an issue that was important to focus on moving forward, but he was not convinced that there
was capacity on the adjacent land where the church was located to take the extension of that road and
build additional units. He said that he was unsure if it were marketable or if a developer would consider
that.
Mr. Missel said that one of the speakers online mentioned the importance of the comprehensive plan and
the work that they had before them. He said that his general feeling was that this was an opportunity to
discuss if they were in the business of picking off areas that were not designated in the comprehensive plan
ahead of where they should be picking them off. He asked if they should be thinking, as they amended the
comprehensive plan, that they should look at areas like this.
Mr. Missel said that it was an important thing to consider. He said that a statement mad e by the applicant
that he disagreed with was that this did not have any more impacts than what were originally imagined in
the comprehensive plan. He said that in answering his initial question, “Do I believe the application justifies
and overcomes the established comprehensive plan guidelines?” his answer was , “No, he did not.”
Mr. Carrazana said that he held similar sentiments to Mr. Missel, and had asked himself a similar question.
He said that hoped that this discussion would help inform the comprehensive plan for the future. He said
that a comment made was that they had left a lot of density on the table, which had been heard from both
applicants and staff. He said that he had thought if they had not left the density on the table, there would
have been 34 units instead of the 8, 9, 11, and 12 units seen in the area.
Mr. Carrazana said that the schools would be even more overcrowded, more traffic with no bus transit in
the area, and their infrastructure would be lacking even more. He said tha t he was thankful that they had
left some density on the table, and where this began to inform their comprehensive plan amendments was
how they funded infrastructure before they allowed additional density. He said that they were being asked
to allow additional density even beyond the comprehensive plan, so for all the reasons stated previously
and in his comments, he believed that the character of the neighborhood was consistent with the
comprehensive plan.
Mr. Bivins said that the land use worked together as a community of three different parcels, so he also
thought the land use in the comprehensive plan was what he expected to be built there. He said that
affordable housing did not mean poverty, and he continued to be offended by a community that said if
something were affordable, it naturally meant there would be people without any means would be living
there.
Mr. Bivins said that the teachers who worked in the school up that street could not afford the majority of
houses in Albemarle County, and when he last looked a week ago, the median price for a home for sale
was $465,000, which would mean that an affordable house in this community might be $200,000, but this
was not what in the past was referred to as Section 8 housing.
Mr. Bivins said that he would appreciate it if people who came before the Planning Commission did not
conflate the two items; affordable meant that the typical worker in their community could not afford to
purchase a house, which was why they saw tremendous growth in Greene, Fluvanna, and Louisa Counties.
He said that Waynesboro was experiencing growth in their vibrant community because it was an affordable
place to live, and people there had cars or took the shuttle from Waynesboro to Staunton because they
were not making enough money to live in Albemarle County. He said that he would not support this project
at this level, but would at a different level.
Mr. Murray said that going beyond the comprehensive plan density also meant that the design should go
above and beyond, which he did not see in this plan.
Mr. Clayborne said that he had nothing further to add. He asked if a Commissioner had a motion to make
in support or against the item.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - February 14, 2023
17
Mr. Shimp thanked the Commission for their comments. He said that he respected th e Commission’s
opinion but respectfully disagreed. He asked if they could ask for a deferral.
Mr. Clayborne asked if a date could be set for this application.
Mr. Herrick said that it was preferable to set a date but not required.
Mr. Shimp asked if three months could be given to make revisions and coordinate with staff to provide a
report for the Planning Commission.
Ms. Firehock asked if additional dialogue with the community could be held, as there appeared to be an
interest in that.
Mr. Shimp said that they certainly would, as the owners of the property were a part of that community.
Mr. Herrick said that May 9, 2023, was the closest meeting to three months out if it was available.
Mr. McDermott said that he would check to see what date was available.
Mr. Bivins asked if it could be made to be prior to June 1, 2023.
Mr. McDermott said that they would prefer not to have a date so that they could have the time to discuss
and give it appropriate time without having to come back for a second deferral.
Mr. Missel moved to defer ZMA202200004 1906 Avon Street Extended to a date to be determined.
Mr. Herrick asked if that motion included a motion to defer the two related requests for waivers.
Mr. Missel said yes.
Mr. Carrazana seconded the motion.
Mr. Clayborne asked if there was any additional discussion.
Ms. Firehock said that she looked forward to seeing the better proposal.
The motion passed unanimously (6-0).
Recess
The Planning Commission recessed its meeting from 7:51 p.m. to 7:58 p.m.
b. SP202200002 Crossroads Tavern & Inn
Mr. Reitelbach said that this was a special use permit application for the property known as Crossroads
Tavern & Inn. He displayed an aerial map of the location of the parcel that housed the Crossroads Tavern
& Inn, which was in the North Garden community south of Charlottesville on Route 29. He said that to the
west of the property was the Pippin Hill Vineyard and Winery, to the east across Route 29 was the small -
scale commercial center of Crossroads Corner Shops, which included several businesses, including Dr.
Ho’s Humble Pie pizza parlor, a bank branch, a gas station, and a convenience store, as well as several
institutional uses south of Plank Road, across from the Crossroads Corner Shops, including the North
Garden Post Office and the North Garden Volunteer Fire Station.
Mr. Reitelbach said that the current use of the parcel was that it was four acres and the site of the historic
Crossroads Tavern & Inn, which was constructed circa 1820 and was currently operated as an inn with
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - February 14, 2023
18
seven guestrooms and 30 tavern dining seats. He said that the proposed use with the special use permit
was a request from the applicant to expand the inn use with 12 additional guestrooms across four new
cottages, for a total of 19 guestrooms on the property, with the 30 tavern dining seats to remain.
Mr. Reitelbach said that the zoning of the property was rural area (RA) and was located within the entrance
corridor overlay district. He said that the nearby and adjacent zoning districts included RA to the west and
southwest, and village residential (VR) and commercial (C-1) to the east. He said that the applicant was
requesting this use pursuant to §18-10.2.2.27(a) of the zoning ordinance, which allowed for a restaurant,
tavern, or inn located on a site containing a historic structure.
Mr. Reitelbach said that the section of the zoning ordinance related to the request of the applicant said that
location on a site containing a structure that was a historic structure and/or site as defined in Section 3.1 or
located on a site containing a structure that was identified as contributing to a historic structure as defined
in Section 3.1, for which there were several criteria. He said that §18-3.1 defined a historic structure or site
as meaning any structure or site listed on the National Register of Historic Places or the Virginia Landmarks
Register. He said that the Crossroads Tavern & Inn was listed on both of those registers.
Mr. Reitelbach said that because there were not many parcels zoned village residential (VR) in the County,
they were not often seen with rezonings and special use permits , he brought up that the intent of VR was
to encourage residential and other small-scale, compact development within that area, and to encourage
creative design, along with permitting some related nonresidential development. He said that while this did
not directly apply to the proposed use, he felt it applicable to define what village residential zoning was.
Mr. Reitelbach said that the comprehensive plan had this site and all of the adjacent and nearby parcels in
this area designated as rural areas, and rural areas had several recommended uses that included the
preservation and protection of agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic, and scenic resources,
along with dwellings developed at a density of 0.5 units per acre, or one unit per two acres, in designated
development lots.
Mr. Reitelbach said that although the subject parcel was not located within an agricultural-forestal district,
it was located adjacent to the hardware agricultural-forestal district, and those parcels in the AFD were
highlighted in yellow on the screen. He said that it included the property south across Plank Road, and
because it was adjacent to his AFD, County practice was that the AFD advisory committee reviewed the
proposal and decided if it did or did not conflict with the purposes of the AFD. He said that the AFD
committee met on Wednesday, November 9, 2022, and at that meeting, the committee voted unanimously
that the proposal did not conflict with the purposes of the AFD.
Mr. Reitelbach said that displayed on the screen was a screenshot provided by the applicant of the special
use permit application, which was also in the staff report packet. He said that some elements of the plan
included four new cottage structures on the northern point of the parcel, and in the center was a square
portion colored light green, which was what the applicant called the “village green,” which was to serve as
an open space for residents of the inn, as well as the location of the septic fields.
Mr. Reitelbach said that the four proposed cottages were north of that, and each would have three
guestrooms, for a total of 12 guestrooms, as well as associated parking. He said that at the southern portion
of the parcel, the existing structures were the inn and tavern near Plank Road, the schoolhouse and chapel
structure, and the summer kitchen. He said that the applicant also requested to add a porte-cochère to the
schoolhouse and chapel as a use for guestrooms. He said that an employee entrance was proposed in the
southwestern portion of the property, behind the schoolhouse and chapel building structure. He said that
the wells were proposed for the northern tip of the property.
Mr. Reitelbach said that in the analysis of the special use permit and the four factors applied, staff reviewed
multiple parts of the application, which was fully included in the staff report, with one highlight being that
there could be noise generated by guests at the inn, which could be mitigated by a condition recommended
to prohibit outdoor amplified sound. He explained that naturally produced noise such as unamplified human
voices was not regulated in the County and would not be subject to that condition.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - February 14, 2023
19
Mr. Reitelbach said that there was a potential for trespassing on adjacent parcels, so staff recommended
conditions about landscaping and fencing to ensure that guests did not trespass on those nearby parcels,
and signage may be needed to inform guests. He said that he would d iscuss traffic and transportation
separately, and the harmony with the nearby area and character of the nearby area would be unchanged.
He said that it was an area of historical commercial activity and had been operating since 1820.
Mr. Reitelbach said that there were also shops across from Route 29, as well as the fire station and post
office institutional uses, so there were several commercial and institutional uses in the area. He said that in
talking about the supplemental regulations, this applicatio n required review by the Virginia Department of
Historic Resources, and contacts at VDHR did review this special use permit and had no concerns at this
time. He said that staff had also included conditions requiring review by DHR at the site-planning stage to
ensure that the final design of the site did not have any negative effects of impacts on the historic resource.
Mr. Reitelbach said that this site was approximately 300 feet west of the intersection with US-29, a four-
lane divided highway, and Plank Road, which went east-west through this community. He said that this use
was expected to generate an additional 49 trips above what was currently generated by the use, for a total
of 163 trips overall, in comparison to the current 114 trips generated by the current inn and tavern use. He
said that the existing traffic counts for the area were also provided for context; the segment of Route 29
north of Plank Road saw about 16,000 vehicles per day, the segment of Route 29 South of Plank Road
saw about 13,000 vehicles per day, and Plank Road west of Route 29, which was west of the area, saw
about 2,000 vehicles per day.
Mr. Reitelbach said that in the comprehensive plan analysis, there were several chapters of the plan that
related back to this proposed use. He said that in numerical order of the comprehensive plan, those were
historic and cultural resources, economic development, and the rural areas , so he included some of the
objectives and strategies listed in each of those chapters and how they related to this proposed use.
Mr. Reitelbach said the historic and cultural resources chapter indicated the prominence of the historic
resource on the property, the NRHP- and VLR-listed structure, and a strategy was to find ways for the
preservation of historic structures and sites to be financially viable for property owners. He said that the
economic development chapter strategized promoting tourism that showcased and preserved scenic,
historic, and natural resources of the rural areas.
Mr. Reitelbach said that in the rural areas chapter, the protection of the County’s historic, archaeological,
and cultural resources was listed as a strategy , which related back to the historic structure located on the
property.
Mr. Reitelbach said that there were several recommended revisions that staff gave to the applicant to be
included in the concept plan and the application before coming back to the Board of Su pervisors, which
included providing additional fencing or landscaping along the property lines with adjacent properties, as
well as providing more information on the conceptual planting screens depicted, especially along the
western portion of the property, adjacent to Pippin Hill.
Mr. Reitelbach said that there were several positive aspects that staff had identified with the application,
which were the expansion of the tavern and inn allowed for the existing facility that was a historic feature in
the rural areas to maintain its economic vitality and would promote and enhance tourism, which was
supported in the chapters of the comprehensive plan previously mentioned.
Mr. Reitelbach said that the proposed expansion had been designed to maintain the histor ic resources on
the property with review by VDHR, and as mentioned in the staff report, VDHR expressed no concerns after
the conclusion of their review of the application. He said that to ensure that there were no negative impacts
at the site-planning stages, if the Board approved the special use permit, staff had included a condition that
VDHR would be involved in review at the site-planning stage as well. He said that finally, the AFD advisory
committee found the proposal was not in conflict with the purposes of the adjacent Hardware AFD district.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - February 14, 2023
20
Mr. Reitelbach said that the negative aspects identified by staff for this application were that the proposed
expansion could cause noise and additional traffic, for which staff had recommended conditions, and that
the additional water and sewer capacity needed to support the proposed use did not fully comply with the
recommendations of the rural area chapter of the comprehensive plan.
Mr. Reitelbach said that staff recommended approval of the special use permit SP202200002 with the
conditions recommended, provided that the previously mentioned recommended revisions were made to
the application prior to it moving forward to a public hearing with the Board of Supervisors. He continued
that there were seven conditions, including a standard condition put on conditional use permits for the plan
to be in general accord with the concept plan provided and reviewed by staff, outlining major elements that
must be complied with at the site-planning stage, which included for this application the location and number
of buildings and structures, size of the four new cottage structures, including both the enclosed spaces and
open-air spaces, location of parking areas, and landscape screening and buffering.
Mr. Reitelbach said that minor modifications to the plan that did not conflict with those elements may be
made to ensure that they complied with the zoning ordinance. He said that if the Board approved this special
use permit, all zoning requirements must be met at the site-planning stage, and there was no way to waive
those requirements.
Mr. Reitelbach said that the other recommended conditions were that the number of guestrooms must not
exceed 19, the number of tavern seats must not exceed the 30 that currently existed, that the four new
cottage structures must not exceed one story in height, and outdoor amplified sound was not permitted.
Mr. Reitelbach said that another condition was that prior to final site plan approval, a plan prepared by a
professional archaeologist for the identification, protection, preservation, and mitigation of archaeological
resources and onsite cemeteries within the project area must be reviewed and approved by the Virginia
Department of Historic Resources, and the plan must account for the possibility of archaeological testing in
sequential phases depending on the results of previous phases of study.
Mr. Reitelbach said that prior to final site plan approval, the Director of Planning must determine, in
consultation with the VDHR, that the submitted materials showed that the project had considered the
appropriate treatment of historic resources, including for the cottages to be low -scale, compatible with
historic resources, the porte-cochère must have a character that was compatible with the historic building
and a subordinate scale, the project must include educational tools distinguishing historic from non -historic
structures, and the project should limit light pollution.
Mr. Bivins said that the recommendations included that the tavern must not exceed 19, but the applicant
was asking for 12 to be added to the existing five rooms.
Mr. Reitelbach said that seven rooms were being operated at the inn.
Mr. Bivins said that the number differed from what was on their website.
Mr. Reitelbach said that there were seven rooms, and they were requesting 12 additional ones, which would
be spread out. He said that 12 were proposed in the cottage structures, two in the schoolhouse and chapel
structure, one in the summer kitchen, and four in the existing inn and tavern.
Mr. Bivins said that mentioned on page 3 of the staff report was that this parcel was split-zoned between
RA and VR.
Mr. Reitelbach said that the parcel that was split-zoned was the one south of Plank Road where the AFD
district was. He said that the parcel to the southwest corner of 29 and Plank Road was split -zoned, with a
jagged line between the yellow and the white colors on the map.
Mr. Bivins asked for clarification as to which parcels Mr. Reitelbach was identifying.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - February 14, 2023
21
Mr. Reitelbach indicated the parcels that were split-zoned on the map.
Mr. Bivins said that that was not where the development was taking place.
Mr. Reitelbach said that was correct.
Ms. Firehock said that the condition that talked about the size of the cottage structures , including closed
spaces and open-air spaces, should be in accordance with the plan submitted. She asked if that referred
only to the massing or also made sure that they were restricted from changing a porch to an enclosure .
She asked if they could not enclose the veranda as the condition was written.
Mr. Reitelbach said that was correct. He said that the condition was meant t o prevent the veranda and
porches identified from being enclosed and becoming air -conditioned spaces. He said that the language
could be more fine-tuned before going forward to the Board of Supervisors to make that clearer or
emphasize the intent that the verandas and porches were not to be enclosed spaces.
Ms. Firehock said that the language could be easily amended to say that the open -air spaces were to
remain open. She said that the way it was read now, it could be only referring to the massing.
Mr. Missel said that on the conceptual site plan, there were faint red dashed lines. He asked if those were
the setbacks.
Mr. Reitelbach said yes, those lines were to depict the setback lines.
Mr. Missel asked if Ridge Road went through there because the setback did not apply to travel ways.
Mr. Reitelbach said that was correct, travelways did not have to follow setback requirements, which were
only meant for structures.
Mr. Missel said that recommended was a five-foot fence along with screening material. He asked if there
was enough room between what was proposed as Ridge Road and the property boundary.
Mr. Reitelbach said that it seemed so from the concept plan, but that was also something that would have
to be determined at site planning, and any sorts of conditions or requirements on that would be reviewed
at the site-planning phase as well to ensure that those could be met.
Mr. Missel said that he understood. He said that Mr. Reitelbach had mentioned village residential and the
split-zoned parcel to the south. He asked what the reference to village residential was meant to achieve.
Mr. Reitelbach said that it was meant to provide details on the village residential zoning, the surrounding
zoning, and what uses potentially could be there—because it was not a zoning district typically seen by the
County.
Mr. Missel asked if an archaeological survey had been done on this site or if it were something brought up
at all.
Mr. Reitelbach said that he was unsure, but the applicant may have better information on that.
Mr. Murray asked what the number of homes that could be built on this parcel for residential use.
Mr. Reitelbach said that for residential use, it would be two permanent residences at four acres due to the
density requirement of 0.5 units per acre, or one unit per two acres.
Mr. Murray said that he understood. He said that in the project narrative, i t mentioned several times the
commitments made to native plants, but that did not appear in the concept plan. He said that in the
recommended conditions, it also specified landscape screening buffering, but did not specify native plants.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - February 14, 2023
22
Mr. Reitelbach said that native plants were recommended in all landscaping plans in the County, however,
the listed plants that were permitted in the landscaping plans were not always native plants, so that was
the list used. He said that there had been discussions about revising that list, but a revised list had not been
approved at this time, so at this point it was a recommendation from staff to use native plants but could not
be required.
Mr. Clayborne opened the public hearing. He asked if the applicant could presen t.
Mr. Matt Lovelady said that he had physical copies of the site plan if anyone would like them.
Mr. Missel asked if they were the same as those provided to the Commission.
Mr. Lovelady said that they were the same. He said that he would focus on the mitigation of effects on the
surrounding landscape because they wanted to speak to the character of the building and do a full
restoration on both buildings. He said that he had worked with E aston Porter Group for over 10 years and
had been on the ground-floor of this project since its inception and was currently running the inn.
Mr. Lovelady said that the buildings themselves were at a point where they were in usable condition, but
they were near a time when they would not be usable. He said that they had created the cottages in this
plan as a way to support a full restoration, as well as provide other small-scale experiences on the property.
He said that they currently were limited to one meal per day, which generally was breakfast for the guests,
so being able to have a small-scale dinner with some of the farm components that they wanted to
incorporate into the property would help to move the entire property into the next generation.
Mr. Lovelady said that the interconnected cottages were four structures, and there were technically 12 keys,
but they were saying 10 keys and 20 guests, as they wanted to add an owner suite into the plan. He said
that they would reduce the inn itself from five rooms to four suites, with eight guests there, and the main
house would have guest check-in and two transient use rooms, which added a possibility of four guests.
Mr. Lovelady said that those rooms could also be used for other small experiences such as a spa for two
guests, and the summer cottage or summer kitchen could also accommodate two guests as well. He said
that the cottages represented a general 5% increase in density on the total property. He said that the
porches and breezeways and verandas were not air-conditioned, and the general height would be no more
than 20 feet, and for water and septic, they would be following all Virginia Department of Health regulations.
Mr. Lovelady said that the owner’s suite would be the same size and scale as the other structures, and the
interior would have additional amenities such as a washer/dryer and a full kitchen. He said that it was one
of the upper halves of the cottages and was marked in the site plan. He said that it would not be rentable
to guests, but in the future, if the owner were to leave, it would be remodeled to match the other cottages.
He said that it would not have its own water and septic and would be a part of the w ater and septic of the
other structures. He said that it was added more recently because the feedback they received about
ownership living onsite was most positive to that mitigation.
Mr. Lovelady said that there would be no up-lighting and everything would be downward lighting for dark
skies, focused on safety when moving around the property at night. He said that for the site line analysis,
which was done by Andrew Walker using GIS to try to inform their plantings for the property to break
sightlines from exterior properties. He said that the analysis would be done for both the lefthand and
righthand sides of the site, showing what the effects were of the possibility of the informed plantings and
how they could break sightlines. He said that these analys es were not an official survey but were meant to
show a planning process as to how these viewshed effects could be mitigated.
Mr. Lovelady said that the traffic assessment had calculations very similar to the calculations provided by
Mr. Reitelbach. He said that because there was some synergy between Pippin Hill and the inn; they
sometimes saw additional bookings at the inn who were visiting for a specific event at Pippin Hill, and they
hoped that that would lessen some of the traffic generation from both properties.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - February 14, 2023
23
Mr. Lovelady said that for the water and septic systems, they were using constructed wetlands that would
be integrated throughout the property, which were able to use plants and their natural processes that treated
water, removed nitrogen, and they were able to give the water back to the land at near-potable levels.
Mr. Lovelady said that they currently used this system with two septic pads at Pippin Hill, and they were
very effective. He said that their engineer had verbiage included for the oversight of water and septic
systems, which was extensive and had grown to be more extensive in his time working in that area. He said
that they had initial findings related to water usage, but all laundry would be taken offsite to a laundry
service.
Mr. Lovelady said that groundwater sourcing and aquifer recharge, an analysis was done through StanTech
engineers, and covered some assumptions on how much water would naturally occur on that landscape
versus their assumed maximum usage. He said that it was a very new analysis that they received yesterday,
and indicated a pie chart that reflected what occurred on the site naturally versus what would be recharged.
Mr. Lovelady said that as they went through this process, they were o pen to further water conservation and
mitigation of that usage. He said that they used very safe chemicals, and with the constructed wetlands,
they had to use certain septic chemicals that did not harm the organisms involved in that process.
Mr. Lovelady said that Mr. Mark Wagner from the VDHR had signed off on this project and was quoted on
the slide, as well as providing educational tours, educational plaques, and research by their team to ensure
that they were not only taking word-of-mouth information but researching historical documents. He said that
those were all included in the plans moving forward. He said that additionally, they wanted to expand the
gardens of the inn, which currently had a few small gardens, but it was desired to have additional classes
and education for the community that a larger garden could provide.
Mr. Lovelady said that they did not feel that this development set a precedent for commercial development
or further expansion of the area, and they felt that they were leaning into the historic uses of the property
as well as limiting plans for late-night events. He said that they wanted to focus the traffic and events to
where they performed successfully, which was at Pippin Hill, and the inn was meant to serve as a place to
quiet down and settle after those events. He said that their team had opened a VDOT study of the
intersection that was on Plank Road, and they supported any adjustments to that intersection to slow people
down or stop them, as they felt the intersection was a danger and some change should be made.
Mr. Missel asked if the applicant had completed an archaeological survey of the site.
Mr. Lovelady said that they had not, and the last one that he knew to have occurred was in the 1980s. He
said that extensive research had been done by Dr. Lei throughout the 1970s.
Mr. Missel asked if that was the previous owner.
Mr. Lovelady said that he was a UVA professor. He said that they would be referencing much of his work
and other historical documents. He said that Mr. Ben Ford was an archaeologist they had consulted who
had expressed interest in surveying the site.
Mr. Missel said that the DHR comments were all focused on the actual inn. He asked if they had considered
the cultural landscape surrounding the structure.
Mr. Lovelady said that he believed the original site plan that they had reviewed raised concern about the
separation from the historic property and the new construction, as well as ensuring the new construction
did not simulate the original construction. He said that they wanted to ensure those two things were separate
and not to be confused for those who visited the site.
Mr. Missel asked what year the structure was built.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - February 14, 2023
24
Mr. Lovelady said that the inn was built in 1820 and the schoolhouse was from 1790.
Mr. Missel said that potentially, enslaved labor built those structures. He asked if that was correct.
Mr. Lovelady said yes.
Mr. Missel said that part of the cultural landscape piece was the potential for burial grounds on the property.
Mr. Lovelady said that historically, what they had heard from the original owner, Jim Stern, and the other
historical documents was that there was not any ongoing slave labor on the property. He said that
additionally, Mary Sutherland had said in her journal that her children were who they relied on to do work.
He said that the cemetery onsite, while it was the Sutherland family cemetery, did have unknown markers,
and if there were any buried slaves, they likely were in that section.
Mr. Missel said that one of the conditions included an educational piece, and if this project went forward, it
was hugely important that the education include that aspect. He asked if Mr. Lovelady could discuss
conversations, he had concerning connectivity to Pippin Hill from this property internally.
Mr. Lovelady said they felt initially that they could limit traffic on Plank Road if they could connect the two
properties with both the walking path and a drivable road. He said that now that they were not connected,
there would likely be some operation that they would have to figure out as far as how guests went to and
from the two locations. He said that it was a perhaps egregious assumption on their part to put it into the
site plan and force admission without going through the proper channels of the BZA and the Woodsons.
He said that in speaking with both parties, it was clear that it was not desired, which was why it was
removed.
Mr. Bivins asked if the owner’s cottage’s entrance to Andrews was to Pippin Hill.
Mr. Lovelady said yes.
Mr. Bivins asked if there was separate ownership between the two properties.
Mr. Lovelady said that it was not separate ownership, but they were two separate operating LLCs.
Mr. Bivins said that the LLC location on this was at Pippin Hill.
Mr. Lovelady said that it was under Pippin Farmhouse, LLC.
Mr. Bivins asked if that was something else.
Mr. Lovelady said yes.
Mr. Bivins said the LLC was the winery.
Mr. Lovelady affirmed this.
Mr. Bivins said that that was the address for this property.
Mr. Lovelady said that Pippin Hill Farm and Vineyards was its own LLC.
Mr. Bivins said that he was asking about only the address.
Mr. Lovelady said that Pippin Farmhouse was a separate address and separate LLC.
Mr. Bivins asked if the address was on Pippin Hill Lane.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - February 14, 2023
25
Mr. Lovelady said it was 5010 Plank Road, the driveway and property right before Pippin Hill. He said that
they were on the same property line.
Mr. Bivins asked if they were under the same ownership.
Mr. Lovelady said that Easton Porter Group owned both LLCs.
Mr. Bivins asked if that was the nexus between Mr. Andrews.
Mr. Lovelady said yes.
Mr. Bivins asked who Mr. Stern was.
Mr. Lovelady said that Mr. Jim Stern was the owner for 20 years, from 2000 until they purchased in August
2022.
Mr. Bivins asked if he was somehow involved in the restaurant.
Mr. Lovelady said that Mr. Stern gave them a lot of historical information about the property and had filled
in the gaps. He said that when they wanted to do their own historical research, he meant that he did not
want to only rely on Mr. Stern’s information.
Mr. Bivins said that in the 1700s, the pathway from Rivanna to the Valley passed through the subject site.
He noted that during that time, there were large plantations that ran from Scottsville to Rockfish Gap. He
said that some of his ancestors may be buried on the property. He suggested that there be a rigorous study
of the land not just around the cemetery. He said that no one cared ab out the people who were not in the
family and about identifying their presence in the 1970s and 1980s.
Mr. Bivins suggested that a condition be added that a study would be performed, which would help devise
a narrative. He clarified that there would not be a road between the event space and the subject location.
Mr. Lovelady replied that that was correct.
Mr. Bivins clarified that the business would not be a function of the event space.
Mr. Lovelady said that was right. He said that they expected that guests staying at the inn would attend
events at Pippin Hill.
Mr. Clayborne clarified that guests of events at Pippin Hill would be expected to stay at the inn.
Mr. Lovelady responded that they held cooking classes at Pippin Hill. He said t hat they asked guests of the
inn whether or not they would be visiting the event space for planning purposes.
Mr. Murray responded that within visual distance of the property, there was a G1 critically imperiled habitat.
He asked for more information about how the applicant would promote biodiversity on the property.
Mr. Lovelady responded that at Pippin Hill, the farm had expanded, and the gardens were four times larger
than 10 years ago. He noted that they now had chickens and an apiary. He said that th ey added a wildflower
meadow for the bees. He said that there were some agricultural operations at the inn, and there were about
10 chickens that were used for eggs. He said that there were four garden beds on the inn property. He said
that they would continue to expand the garden beds.
Mr. Lovelady said that they wanted to use native plantings for viewshed shielding and beautifying the Plank
Road entrance corridor.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - February 14, 2023
26
Ms. Firehock noted that the guest cottage would be 2,064 square feet, and it would includ e the interior
porches and the breezeways. She asked how much space was in the interior.
Mr. Lovelady responded that the interior space was around 1,200 square feet. He said that the rooms at
the inn with queen beds were smaller.
Ms. Firehock clarified that a room would include the bed, bathroom, and couch area.
Mr. Lovelady said that was right. He explained that the dual sections of the cottages could be allowed to
book as a suite. He said that if guests wanted more space, then it was possible.
Ms. Firehock noted that the cottages were one story. She asked how tall the cottages would be.
Mr. Lovelady said that they estimated the cottages would be 16 feet to 20 feet tall. He said that the viewshed
analysis was done at 22.5 feet.
Ms. Firehock asked what type of materials would be used and whether the materials would blend into the
landscape.
Mr. Lovelady said that a neighbor requested that the buildings not be painted white because they were able
to clearly see two white Adirondack chairs on the property. He said that they painted the chairs. He said
that they would agree to not have white or very light-colored cottages.
Ms. Firehock said that it would be important because the development was on a ridgeline and was highly
visible.
Mr. Lovelady said that one of the initial decks included a concept cottage that was white, but it was removed.
Ms. Firehock noted that the water figures were based on 60% occupancy. She asked how the 60% figure
was determined. She asked whether it was based on the average expected capacity.
Mr. Lovelady said that was part of it. He said that the goal was to have two people book a suite rather than
separate rooms. He said that they wanted to sell the rooms that could be separated into multiple rooms as
one suite.
Ms. Firehock noted that a linen service may be used for laundry.
Mr. Lovelady said that they had been considering a linen service, and the recent discussions around water
had convinced them to use a linen service off-property.
Mr. Clayborne asked if there were plans for firepits or kitchens in the cottages.
Mr. Lovelady said that there were no plans for firepits, and the only cottage kitchen would be in the owner's
residence. He said that there would only be kitchenettes, but no heating elements.
Ms. Firehock noted that there was a pedestrian path and a park bench area. She suggested sensitivity to
the neighbor, Mrs. Woodson. She said that the layout would encourage people to congregate at the top of
the ridge, and that was not a good idea. She suggested that the seating should be removed to discourage
congregating at the top of the ridge.
Mr. Lovelady said that they were open to removing the seating. He said that the village green was the
intended location for people to gather.
Ms. Firehock noted that there was a trail between the Pippin Hill property and the inn. She asked if guests
were allowed to use the trail.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - February 14, 2023
27
Mr. Lovelady responded that most guests were driving between the properties. He said that the path was
for the landscaper to cross between the properties. He noted that the listed needed repair, and they had it
prioritized with the contractor.
Ms. Firehock suggested that there should likely be a gate that the maintenance workers could use for
access but which could otherwise be closed and locke d. She said that they should discourage traffic from
passing by Mrs. Woodson's back deck.
Mr. Lovelady said that they were open to additional planting on the property line. He said that he discussed
with the accountant a plan to have additional plantings.
Mr. Clayborne opened the hearing for public comment. He stated the rules for public comment.
Mr. Rob McGinnis stated that he represented the Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC). He said that
PEC supported the proposed preservation and rehabilitation of the Crossroads Tavern & Inn. He said that
PEC opposed the project as proposed. He said that there were three aspects of the project which were of
concern.
Mr. McGinnis said that the concept plan showed a new development area of approximately 1.89 acres, and
it included eight buildings with associated verandas, porches, access drives, parking areas, walkways,
paths, drain fields, rain gardens, screening, and well sights. He said that the approximate area of the historic
structures was about 0.95 acres. He said that the historic area included an entrance drive, access drive,
parking spaces, drain fields, and landscape d areas. He said that the proposed development area was
nearly twice the size of the area of the historic structures complex.
Mr. McGinnis said that the scale of the new development was not proportionate nor subordinate to the
historic inn area as required by County Code § 5.1.61. He said that PEC was concerned about how new
wells and groundwater drawn down would impact existing wells on adjacent properties.
Mr. McGinnis said that if the project moved forward, PEC recommended that a condition be added to require
the appropriate level of hydrologic investigation be undertaken by the applicant. He continued that the
results should be reported to County staff prior to the Board meeting. He said that PEC had concern about
the short-term access between the sites on Plank Road.
Mr. George Abetti, 600 High Top Drive, said that he was in favor of the proposed expansion of the inn. He
said that he drove from Atlanta the night before, and then he spent the next day extricating a tractor -trailer
from a ditch at Lovingston Winery. He said that 19 years ago, Mr. Robert Baldwin, his business partner,
purchased Bundoran Farm. He said that Mr. Baldwin died a few years later on the airstrip, and a few years
after that, the Great Recession happened.
Mr. Abetti said that several years after the Great Recession, they designed and built Pippin Hill. He said
that no matter what they planned, they did not know how it would turn out. He noted that Pippin Hill was a
successful business. He said that it was their job to share it with others.
Ms. Mary Tillman, 5275 Derry Lane, said she had lived on Bundoran Farm for more than 12 years. She
said that she built the first house on Bundoran Farm. She said that the residents of Bundoran Farm only
controlled the two to three acres immediately around their home and outbuildings, and the rest of the land
was under easement. She said that the easements were given to the farm entity to determine how the
pastureland would be used. She said that they had entered into agreements with tenant farme rs to lease
the land for cattle and sheep.
Ms. Tillman said that they enlisted best practices for land management, and they had hired a farm manager.
She said that they monitored the farm for conservation issues, such as dark sky lighting. She said that t hey
partnered with groups, such as the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation and the James River
Association. She said that they planted hundreds of trees around the farm. She said that the comprehensive
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - February 14, 2023
28
plan designation of the subject property was rural area, and the County was supposed to protect agriculture,
forests, open space, natural, historic, and scenic resources.
Ms. Tillman said that there was no plan to safeguard the resources of Bundoran Farm. She said that if the
project were approved, it would go against the definition of “rural area.” She said that the proposed use was
inappropriate for the site.
Ms. Betsey Stuart said she lived on Plank Road. She said that the staff report stated that the conceptual
plan represented the maximum amount of development proposed for the property. She said that the
proposed cottages along the property line were twice the size of the existing Pippin Hill event structure.
She said that the structures would be visible from Plank Road. She said that trespassin g of guests onto
adjacent parcels could be a concern.
Ms. Stuart said that the staff report proposed a condition prohibiting amplified outdoor sound on the
property. She said that loud noise and partying could be expected late into the night. She question ed who
would police the noise levels. She noted that traffic generation reports had been provided by the applicant,
and VDOT did not raise concerns.
Ms. Stuart said that car accidents had not been considered. She said that according to the North Garden
Fire Department, it was one of the most dangerous intersections on Route 29 South. She said that additional
traffic should be of concern for the safety of the community. She noted that screening was proposed.
Mr. Sandy Stuart said that he lived on Plank Road. He said that he was against the approval of the special
use permit to develop a commercial expansion of the property. He said that he was against loud noises and
lights in his viewshed. He said he was concerned about the well water and the impacts on the sewer.
Mr. Mack McKee, Ballyshannon Lane, said that he moved to Bundoran Farms two years ago. He said that
they moved to the area because they assumed the rural nature would be protected because it was
designated a rural area in the comprehensive plan. He said that the Pippin Farmhous e Inn was a
nonconforming and inappropriate use for the neighborhood.
Mr. McKee said that the proposed development was a party venue designed to increase the frequency and
size of events at the adjacent winery. He said that the events were already invasi ve to the community, and
expanding the scope and intensity would be a disservice to the surrounding property owners. He said that
the size of the proposed use was not subordinate to the historical use.
Mr. McKee said that the landscaping buffer along the west property line would not hide the building footprint
nor diffuse the nightlights. He said that the conditions imposed by staff were vague and unenforceable. He
requested that the Commission decline to recommend approval.
Mr. Carter Leake 311 Sutherland Road, distributed presentation materials to the Commission. He said that
the materials included the Fauquier County assessment of the Blackthorn Inn, a size comparison of the
proposed use, a detailed analysis of the square footage calculations, a normal ization analysis, a worst-
case scenario, and an analysis from Pippin Hill related to water usage.
Mr. Leake said that he owned land in Bundoran Farm, and he was a member of that board. He said that
there would be four structures in the proposed use that would total between 9,000 and 11,000 square feet.
He said that he was in the military business utilizing Lidar.
Mr. Leek said that the Lidar map provided by the applicant indicated that the structures would be visible.
He said that they would not be able to plant trees that could block the view. He said that the Pippin Hill lot
was a residential lot. He said that developers should not be allowed to get what they want. He urged the
Commission to reject the special use permit.
Ms. Elise Leaf, North Garden, said she lived a mile from the site of the proposed inn. She said that the
North Garden community was small. She noted that the areas were designated RA, and the community
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - February 14, 2023
29
was designated in the comprehensive plan as a focus of biodiversity. She said that North Garden residents
would be negatively affected by the proposal because of the connection to the land. She said that people
who lived near the proposed expansion already suffered noise, traffic, and light pollution from the Pippin
Hill complex.
Ms. Leaf said that the Bundoran Farm Board of Directors, representing 70 neighbors, had reached out in
opposition. She said that many adjacent neighbors had reached out to oppose the special use permit. She
said that there were concerns about the aquifer, the drain fields, traffic, overbuilding, and noise. She said
that the development was out of place and was unrelated to farming or agritourism. She said that there
would be no space for farming after the expansion.
Ms. Leaf said that loss of water was recognize d as the foremost greatest potential disaster. She said that
recommending the project would indicate tourism was more important than the well-being of the community.
She said that it had been suggested that traffic would not significantly increase, and tha t would indicate tax
revenue would not greatly increase.
Mr. John Shuman, 4944 Plank Road, said that he lived adjacent to the Crossroads Inn. He said that he was
opposed to the special use permit application. He said that he believed the development would have a
substantial detrimental impact on his property. He said he was concerned about having sufficient water. He
said that he objected to the characterization of the project as an inn with cottages.
Mr. Shuman said that County Code § 3.1 defined the word "hotel" to mean one or more buildings with six
or more guest rooms and provided transient lodging. He said that an inn was not defined in the County
Code. He said that the proposed use was a hotel, not an inn. He said that County planning staff frequently
used the term "detached hotel rooms" in communications regarding the project.
Mr. Shuman said that according to County Code and the comprehensive plan, hotels were not to be built
in rural areas. He said that he was concerned about the precedent of approving a hotel in the rural area.
He said that the applicant stated that the Crossroads Inn would not set a precedent for rural commercial
hotel or event venues. He encouraged the Commission to vote against the proposed use.
Ms. Kathy Shuman, 4944 Plank Road, said that she concurred with the previous comments except for those
from Mr. George Abetti. She said that she and her husband owned the parcel of land immediately adjacent
to the Crossroads Inn. She said that her property was also known as the Sutherla nd Property. She said
that the property was on the east side of the inn with the existing house and a cemetery. She said that she
supported the historical renovation of the inn, but she opposed the building of new hotel rooms, porches,
and the required parking areas.
Ms. Shuman said that the water requirement for the hotel rooms could impact her well and others on nearby
properties. She said that the proposed hotel rooms and driveway would run parallel to her property, and it
would negatively impact her. She said that there would be increased lighting, obstructed views, and noise
and traffic pollution. She said that the special use permit would pose a substantial detriment to her property.
Ms. Shuman said that trespassing was a concern. She said that guests at the cottages were likely
celebrating weddings, and young people liked to celebrate after weddings. She questioned whether the
owner, Dean Andrews, would actually live in the owner's cottage.
Ms. Wilda Savarese, 540 Pippin Hill Lane, said she lived next to the Pippin Hill winery. She said that she
used to live in New York and wanted to get away from the density. She said that Bundoran Farm could be
a model for the United States. She said 90% of the Bundoran Farmland would be preserved for as long as
they maintained ownership. She said that when they bought their lot, the County was a proponent of limited
growth and less density.
Ms. Savarese said that Bundoran Farm provided Pippin Hill with a pastoral viewshed. She said that they
provided the viewshed for Pippin Hill, and it aided in their success. She requested that the County protect
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - February 14, 2023
30
the viewshed from Bundoran Farm. She said that the proposed expansion would increase traffic, noise,
and people. She said that a hotel complex would ruin the character of the corridor.
Mr. Matthew Savarese, 540 Pippin Hill Lane, said that the lot was zoned RA. He said that the staff report
suggested a special use permit was requested for the expansion of the inn. He said that what w as actually
requested was the transformation of a historic inn into a large hotel complex. He said that hotels were
defined in the County Code as one or more buildings having six or more guestrooms providing transient
lodging. He said that six rooms were available at the historic inn. He said that the rooms would be increased
to 19 rooms.
Mr. Savarese said that rural areas were not supposed to have small inns. He said that the 2015
Comprehensive Plan explicitly stated that rural areas were not to have hotel uses. He said that the existing
use was uncharacteristic of the rural area. He said that 12 additional units would be added to increase
tourism. He said that recent studies indicated there were more than 2,900 hotel rooms in the County, and
there was a 71% average occupancy. He said that the scale of the proposed development was not
subordinate to the original structure and uses.
Mr. Savarese said that the proposal posed substantial damages to the community and substantially altered
the character. He said that the biggest issue was the viewshed disruption. He said that the proposal added
400 feet of linear structure along a visible ridge. He said that most of the neighboring lots were within the
viewshed of Pippin Hill and the proposed development.
Mr. Savarese said that the structures would significantly alter the character of the area and generate
significant light pollution. He said that the development cluster was 12 units in a motel -style arrangement,
and there was no historical precedent for the design. He said that it would be an eyesore to the area. He
asked why the needs of a developer of a different property were placed over his own needs as a property
owner in the Bundoran Farm community. He said that there were over 70 homes in the Bundoran Fa rm
community, and it was over 500 times the acreage of the subject lot.
Mr. Tony Savarese, 540 Pippin Hill, said that the Bundoran Farm community was doing its part for the
County economy and agritourism business with the operation of the Pippin Hill vin eyard and event-based
model. He said that the proposed plan represented a clear, retail commercial overdevelopment of the area,
and the Commission should vote against it.
Mr. Savarese said that community protections and restrictions should be put into place before approval of
an application. He said that the main business purpose of the Eastern Porter Group, the concept plan, and
Pippin Hill was to promote the gathering of large groups of people for weddings, parties, and classes. He
said that in addition to guests at the inn, there was a proposed village green and restaurant.
Mr. Savarese said that the commercial events at Pippin Hill already imposed a burden on the Bundoran
Farm property owners. He said that to help mitigate the problem of incoming traff ic, his household was
provided a flag to wave while they drove in the opposite lane to bypass the line of traffic turning into Pippin
Hill. He said that a special use permit should not be granted with items left open for interpretation.
Mr. Savarese noted that there would be eight cottages, not four, given the design of the movable walls. He
said that the concept plan did not address or provide information confirming the cottages were low -scale
and compatible with the historic resources.
Mr. Ken Heimgartner said he had lived on his property for 15 years. He said that the cottages were called
cottages rather than hotel rooms. He said that Pippin Hill would have a restaurant in the old inn, and they
would have a hotel complex. He said that renovating the his toric inn made sense, and it had been a viable
business since 1820. He said that seven luxury suites were offered at the inn. He said that the Crossroads
Inn acreage was zoned rural to maintain the rural nature.
Mr. Heimgartner said that the comprehensive plan stated that new hotels were not considered appropriate
in rural areas due to the wastewater requirements, water needs, and traffic impacts. He said that the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - February 14, 2023
31
Bundoran Farm community was fairly new. He said that there was a lack of a detailed analysis of
groundwater, aquifer, and septic requirements. He said that the impact on the rural quality of life was not
analyzed. He said that approval would ignore the comprehensive plan and benefit one person. He
encouraged the Commission to vote no.
Ms. Ida Heimgartner said that the staff report was incomplete and inaccurate, so the proposal should not
be approved. She said that there were 12 hotel rooms proposed to be located behind the Crossroads Inn.
She said that she was concerned about water usage. She s aid that there was cattle pasture to the west of
the proposed use. She said that Pippin Hill used lots of water, and the proposed development would have
12 bathrooms.
Ms. Heimgartner said that a detailed water study should be done. She said that the repo rt did not mention
that Plank Road was an approved bicycle route. She said that no architectural plans were provided, so the
proposal was incomplete. She said that residents in the area paid taxes and supported the local businesses.
She said that the staff report stated there would be no substantial detriment to neighbors.
Ms. Heimgartner said that she assumed the Commission knew where Heimgartner Farm was, but if they
did not, they should. She said that she would be able to see the proposed development f rom her kitchen,
her breakfast room, her living room, her back porch, her garden, her upstairs rooms, her orchard, and her
berry patch. She said that it was a detriment to the property owners. She said that the proposed
development would look like a Motel 6.
Mr. Chris Hendry, 901 Carpenter Drive, said he was president of the Bundoran Farm Community
Association Board of Directors. He said that there were about 72 lot owners, and they lived on a 2,300 -acre
farm. He said that the board had sent two letters to the County in opposition to the project. He said that the
first letter was sent in October.
Mr. Hendy said that growth had to be appropriate, and it should not be reckless or irresponsible. He said
that the rooms were to be constructed to lodge wedding parties from the event center. He said that if
approved, the noise would continue late into the night. He said that 12 added guest rooms would put
additional stress on the water and sewer capacity. He said that there were groundwater issues, and there
was a limitation to what the area could support. He requested that the Commission decline the special use
permit request.
Ms. Audrey Sidon said she lived off Edge Valley Road in Bundoran Farm. She said that she was opposed
to the construction of a new hotel on the Crossroads Inn property. She said that the location and scale of
the project were too large, and the hotel would be located on a ridge. She said that night-time light pollution
would increase, and traffic would increase. She said that noise pollution would increase, and water and
wastewater would be negatively impacted.
Ms. Sidon said that the comprehensive plan stated that new hotels, motels, inns, and retreat centers were
not considered to be appropriate in the rural area. She said that she wanted south of I-64 to remain rural.
Ms. Mary Gibson, 420 Quartz Hill Lane, said she lived approximately one mile from the inn. She said that
she supported the restoration of the Crossroads Inn. She requested that the Commission vote to reject the
proposal. She said that there was a disconnect between the rural area designation for hotels and the
expansion of Pippin Hill. She said that the development footprint was much larger than the existing inn. She
said that traffic accidents were a concern for the area.
Ms. Gibson noted that fatalities had occurred at the intersection of Plank Road and Route 29. She said that
at the intersection, there were 29 accidents in 2022, 25 accidents in 2021, 26 accidents in 2020, 28
accidents in 2019, and 29 accidents in 2018. She said that the area was already a frequent site of collisions,
and further traffic would exacerbate the situation.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - February 14, 2023
32
Mr. John Dodger said he concurred with the previous comments opposing the special use permit. He said
that the types of accidents at the intersection of Plank Road and Route 29 were devastating, and people
would die in traffic accidents if the development were approved.
Mr. Charles Seilheimer said he was opposed to the special use permit application. He said that the
developer had deep pockets and was trying to fool the County into allowing it to build an otherwise
prohibited use. He said that the developers were marketing bucolic views, dark skies, and abundant natural
resources. He said that the Commission's decision would send a message to future applicants. He said
that Pippin Hill had already changed the character of the area, and the hotel expansion would further the
change. He said that the expansion would pose a substantial detriment to the neighboring parcels.
Ms. Mary Cline said that she lived on High Top Drive in Bundoran Farms. She said that she recommended
that the Commission vote against the special use permit request. She said she had four concerns, and she
had previously sent in comments. She said that the conceptual site des ign was not harmonious with the
Crossroads Inn. She said that she was concerned the low-density, affordable inn would be converted into
a luxurious boutique hotel and short-term homestay complex.
Ms. Cline said that the plan was the wrong brand, size, and design for the rural area. She said that many
North Garden residents and businesses submitted feedback in response to the proposal. She said that
there were 11 responses in support and 37 responses against. She said that there was a potential detriment
to adjacent parcels regarding water use, sewage generation, and treatment. She said that the existing wells
and drain fields were considered adequate for the existing inn use. She said that with the addition of more
showers, bathrooms, and dining capacity, the existing infrastructure capacity was questionable.
Ms. Cline said that the applicant proposed to use four constructed wetland treatment systems. She said
that constructed wetland treatment systems had advantages when properly designed, but they were
constrained by large land requirements. She said that she was concerned that the planning staff summary
report referred to an unexplained central system.
Ms. Cline said that clarifications were needed in the supporting documents. She said that the proposal
narrative had not been updated, and it was not consistent with the conceptual site plan from February 2.
She said that the residents were interested in the love of the land, but the applicant was interested in the
love of money.
Mr. Robert Cline, Bundoran Farm, requested that the Commission vote against the proposal. He said that
new structures should be clearly subordinate to historic structures on the site. He said that the proposed
structures were not subordinate. He said that the development would result in a total of 0.10 miles of building
on a hill. He said that the load of 28 trips from the inn and the load of 77 trips from the proposed use would
result in a 275% increase in the traffic load.
Mr. Cline said that the emergency access road was within the 25-foot boundary. He said that an emergency
vehicle would not be able to use the road if the parking lot was full. He said that the construction entrance
was a concern.
Ms. Connie Hendy, 901 Carpenter Drive, said she had lived in Bundoran Far m for almost 3.5 years. She
said she was opposed to the special use permit. She said that the size and scale of the project were not
consistent with the recommendations in the comprehensive plan. She said that the proposed inn and tavern
expansion was in reality the addition of a detached hotel. She said that the proposed buildings were 300
yards from the existing inn. She said that the inn was only 55 feet wide, and each proposed expansion
building was 92 feet wide.
Ms. Hendy said that County Code § 5.1.16 stated that the location and scale of proposed structures and
additions shall be complementary and proportionate to the existing structures and or site, and additions and
new structures shall be clearly subordinate to the historic structures on the site . She questioned how the
proposed buildings would be considered complementary and proportionate. She said that the proposed
buildings would total nearly three times the size of existing structures. She said that the square footage of
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - February 14, 2023
33
each structure needed to be considered. She said that she bought into Bundoran Farm due to the
preponderance of the rural area.
Mr. Bob Gibson said he and his wife had lived in the County for 42 years, and since 2013, they had lived
on Bundoran Farm. He said that his homesite was approximately one mile west of the Crossroads Inn. He
said that he was strongly opposed to the proposed expansion. He said that his concerns related to the scale
of the proposed expansion. He said that the proposed plan was not proportionate to the existing buildings.
Mr. Gibson said that the plan would have a substantial detrimental impact on neighboring communities. He
said that he was concerned about the water requirements, and existing water wells would be impacted. He
said that the plan would result in noise, light, and smoke pollution. He said that neither the proposed plan
nor the review of the plan by planning staff adequately addressed the issues. He recommended that the
Commission vote no on the proposal.
Ms. Diane Forest said she lived in Bundoran Farm. She said that she was not opposed to the restoration
of the Crossroads Inn, but she was opposed to the expansion proposed with four new structures. She said
that there would be 12 keyed rooms, and the footprint was more than three times the size of the historic
inn. She said that the comprehensive plan stated additions and new structures shall be clearly subordinate
to historic structures on the site, but the proposed structures were not subordinate.
Ms. Forest said that water was a precious resource, and some local areas were already struggling to find
an adequate supply of water. She said that Pippin Hill used a lot of water. She said that the homes in the
area were solely dependent on the wells for water. She said she wa s concerned that the increased water
requirements of the proposed inn expansion would have a negative impact on the water supply and wells
of those who lived near the Crossroads Inn. She noted concerns about sewage management. She said that
she was opposed to the special use permit.
Mr. Bryan Pollack, 1784 Bundoran Drive, said that he was the prior president of the Bundoran Farm
Community Association which represented 144 owners and their collective interests. He said that the
Bundoran Farm Board had expressed opposition to the special use permit. He said that the residential
community was home to Pippin Hill Farm and Vineyard.
Mr. Pollack said that Pippin Hill continued to have a problematic existence with residents living in close
proximity. He said issues related to traffic, late-night lighting, noise, and building construction. He said that
their board had spent hundreds of hours working with Pippin Hill management to address the use. He said
that their experience with Pippin Hill informed them that the development would exacerbate the situation.
He requested that the Commission reject the special use permit.
Mr. John Forest, 670 High Top Drive, said that he opposed the special use permit request. He said that he
wanted to preserve and protect the rural character of the rural area. He said that the proposal conflicted
with the comprehensive plan. He said that the Pippin Hill use had expanded multiple times beyond its
original footprint. He said that the business model was built on growth and expansion. He said that the inn
expansion would be another expansion of the Pippin Hill business, not a separate business function. He
said that the expansion would serve overnight and daytime customers. He said that the proposed use was
not appropriate for the area.
Ms. Nora Seilheimer said that the rural areas of the County were dying a slow death. She said that they
were being carved up, exploited, and marketed into oblivion. She said that they depended on rural areas
for their natural resources. She said that the County's comprehensive plan protected the natural resources
and rural resources. She said that Pippin Hill started as a small farm winery and now hosted over 80,000
visitors annually. She said that Pippin Hill decreased local air quality, increased traff ic flow, and negatively
impacted the quality of life. She said that the scale of the project was not proportionate or subordinate to
the historic inn. She said that the project did not comply with the comprehensive plan. She recommended
that the Commission deny the request.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - February 14, 2023
34
Ms. Becky Woodson, 3514 Monacan Trail Road, said she agreed with the prior statements. She said that
she did not agree with the cottages, but she did support the inn renovations. She noted that she was a
lifelong resident of North Garden.
Mr. Clayborne called a brief recess before the remote public comment.
Mr. Pat Dickson of 620 High Top Drive, participating remotely, said that he would have a direct view of the
proposed hotel structures. He said that he had spent his professional career supporting the development
of small businesses. He said that small businesses had to be good citizens in the communities. He said
that constructing a hotel in a rural community was a bad idea. He said that the proposed development
would make the traffic more dangerous. He said that the impacts to the character of the area would be
significant and permanent. He urged the Commission to not approve the proposal.
Ms. Sandra Dickson of 620 High Top Drive, participating remotely, said that she concurred with the
objections to the permit that had been raised. She requested that the Commission vote no on the permit.
Mr. Lovelady clarified that they were open to further mitigation and adjustments to the plan. He said that
they would agree to a larger fence. He said that they would have a night audit and 24-hour security on the
property. He said guests would be instructed to return to their rooms after events. He said that the staff
entrance was labeled entrance only, so staff would not be exiting from that portion of the property.
Mr. Lovelady said that the plan was conceptual. He said that they were still in the process of refining the
plan. He said that they tried to address feedback and adjust the plan. He said that he struggled with the
idea that the applicant had not been transparent. He said that the viewshed analysis and constructed
wetlands would help mitigate impacts.
Mr. Lovelady said that there was more work to do, but they were happy to agree to a detailed water analysis
and other engineering. He said that they were willing to discuss adjusting the scale of the site. He said that
they were committed to the historic inn restoration, and they supported environmental protection and limited
expansion. He said that mitigations would not stop after the project was approved. He said that he did not
often hear from Bundoran Farm residents even though they had his personal number.
Mr. Clayborne asked if images of the scale, massing, or modeling were displayed at community outreach
events to communicate the size of the new structures.
Mr. Lovelady said that they had not shown a 3D model, but there had been preliminary work. He said that
they could create a model.
Mr. Clayborne closed the public hearing and brought the item back before the Commission.
Ms. Firehock requested Mr. Herrick to explain the principle of precedent and Commission decisions.
Mr. Herrick explained that every determination that came before the Commission involved fact-specific
determinations. He said that they had heard from members of the public who were in favor and opposed to
the project, and they had heard the staff recommendation. He said that it was up to the Com mission to
make a recommendation based on a fact-specific determination.
Mr. Herrick noted that County Code § 18-5.1.61 addressed historic restaurants, inns, and taverns, and it
allowed for those uses under certain conditions in the Rural Areas zoning district. He said that it was staff's
evaluation that this particular proposal met those requirements. He said that that particular section of
County Code had been expanded in 2016 and identified three properties in the Rural Areas which met the
definition at the time—the Michie Tavern, the Clifton Inn, and Keswick Hall.
Mr. Murray asked whether the by-right residential use would have a greater or lesser impact than the
proposed use. He said that it was clear the residential use would be far less. He said th at there would be
fewer buildings. He said that the proposed use was more intensive than the residential use.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - February 14, 2023
35
Mr. Clayborne said that a large house could be constructed that was the same square footage as proposed.
Mr. Murray noted that the average family used 300 gallons of water per day. He said that the approximate
by-right water usage would be 600 gallons per day for the two possible homes. He said that the proposed
use was much higher than 600 gallons per day.
Ms. Firehock said that the neighborhood included houses of various sizes. She noted one speaker said
they lived in a house that was 1,500 square feet, and there were much larger houses in the viewshed. She
said that they could not assume the by-right house would be a modest dwelling.
Mr. Bivins noted the comments regarding traffic and accidents at the intersection of Plank Road and Route
29. He asked if staff had data regarding accidents at the intersection over the past seven years.
Mr. McDermott clarified that VDOT data showed approximately three to four accidents per year at the Plank
Road and Route 29 intersection. He said that they would like to decrease the number, but it was not what
a commenter cited as the data. He said that there were several areas near the intersection that were
significant concerns for VDOT. He said that Plank Road was not on the list of intersections of high concern.
He said that Red Hill, north of the intersection, was on the list. He said that there had been fatalities near
the intersection, but VDOT data did not show any at the intersection. He noted that Route 29 was a
dangerous corridor.
Mr. Bivins said that when the County reviewed the comprehensive plan in 2015, a number of crossroad
communities withdrew from the designation. He said that Bundoran Farm was a pastoral place, but there
were now several 15,000-square-foot houses on the farm. He said that area was not a place of modest
cottages. He said that there had been a rupture in relationships between the Bundoran Farm property
owners and the Eastman Porter Group. He said that if there was a different type of relationship, then there
may have been a different conversation.
Mr. Bivins noted that the site was historically a place for travelers to stop for food and a break from their
journey. He said that the proposed use was in keeping with the time. He said that on Route 250, there was
a multitude of wineries. He said that they had to find ways to keep guests in the County and from going to
other localities. He said that the applicant's business could not be sustained from wine and beer sales.
Mr. Carrazana noted the number of mitigations for the proposal, and the applicant had proposed even more.
He said that they could agree to all of the proposed requirements, but they had to consider whether they
were trying to make a project work in an area where it did not fit. He said that the inn appeared to become
subordinate to the proposed function, and the new development would become the primary function.
Mr. Missel said that at one point, the landscape was wide open. He said that the trip generation from the
homes at Bundoran Farm was about 684 trips per day, which was far greater than the proposed
development. He said that the application came down to appropriateness and whether the use was
subordinate, complementary, and proportionate. He said that there was no archaeological basis for the
proposal.
Mr. Missel said that sensitivity to the historical landscape and history of the site was critical, and the
applicant should explore ways to memorialize history. He said that the benefit of the historic structure was
lost when it became subordinate. He said that he lived near the area, and he had witnessed horrific
accidents. He said that any additional traffic was an issue and a concern, but the propos ed traffic generation
was less. He said that he had seen Pippin Hill increase in size over the years.
Ms. Firehock said she had drafted several other additional conditions of approval. She said that they needed
a condition for an archaeological investigat ion. She said that they could require a fence and a locked gate
along the western border. She said that they could require the structures to be painted a darker color to
blend into the landscape. She said that they could propose a maximum structure height of 16 feet.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - February 14, 2023
36
Ms. Firehock said that the proposed use for the ridgetop was too great for the property. She said that the
development would be highly visible from multiple points, and that made it difficult to mitigate the viewshed
impacts. She said that the applicant was not required to provide a site plan at this stage of the application
process, and they were not required to show the massing of the buildings. She said that the applicant had
met the requirements for the hearing and had provided more information. She said that she was leaning
against the proposal because it was too much for the property and it was too visible.
Ms. Firehock said that in terms of viewsheds, the Bundoran Farm property owners had their complaints
about the viewshed, but other people had to look at their homes which had been recently built and did not
exist previously. She said that everyone who built a house on a landscape visible from the road had
impacted the landscape. She said she objected to the argument that it was okay to look at the houses in
Bundoran Farm but not the proposed development.
Ms. Firehock said that they had all had an impact. She noted that they all had to drive in that part of the
County. She said that staff shared data regarding the impact of cars from the Bundoran Farm development,
and the development generated about 450 vehicle trips per day. She noted that the proposed use only
generated about 50 trips per day.
Ms. Firehock said that proportionately, the Bundoran Farm development had a greater impact on the Plank
Road/Route 29 intersection. She said that they should own their contributions to the impacts on the
landscape. She said that she supported the conservation of the landscape at Bundoran Farm. She said
that the Bundoran Farm residents should look in the mirror and think about how they came across.
Ms. Firehock said she liked the design and layout of the proposal, but the location on the ridge was not
appropriate. She said that the impact on other residents was potentially too great.
Mr. Clayborne said that he wanted to see a version of the project move forward. He said that they had to
address the issue through an economic development consideration. He said that the current proposal did
not meet the requirements to move forward.
Mr. Bivins said that they should consider when history began and wha t was considered valuable when
something was considered historic. He said that they had to consider whether the historic designation still
made sense today and whether they still held the same considerations for what was historic.
Mr. Murray said that there was an issue with the size of the parcel and the intensity of the use. He said if
the parcel were larger, he would not have an issue, and if the use was less intensive, then he would not
have an issue.
Mr. Carrazana said that the Commission was not setting a precedent. He said that if a number of factors
were different, the proposal could work and help with economic development. He said that the proposed
parcel and density were not compatible.
Ms. Firehock said that the Commission seemed to agree that the layout was not appropriate.
Mr. Lovelady requested a deferral with a date to be decided. He said that several items were brought up,
and they wanted more time to take them into consideration.
Ms. Firehock said that this was her district and she was a menable to that. She said that there had been
times when they had not accepted a deferral request from an applicant because they felt that there was
nothing that could be done. She said that she would not belabor the point or suggest anything further as
she assumed they had taken copious notes this evening. She asked what the consensus of the Commission
was.
Ms. Firehock moved to accept the applicant’s request for a deferral for SP002200002 Crossroads Tavern
& Inn to a date to be determined. Mr. Bivins seconded the motion, which passed unanimously (6-0).
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - February 14, 2023
37
Ms. Firehock commented that she had read every single comment that was submitted, and some that were
submitted three or four times she read again just to make sure they were not edited. She said that ther e
was even new information presented tonight that could not be fully digested on the dais, so there was an
advantage to having more time to investigate some of these claims or concerns, find more facts, and have
a fuller discussion, hopefully with a better application.
Ms. Firehock said that she believed it was a good outcome, although some of the audience wished that
they could just end this for now. She said that even if they had voted to deny it tonight, it still would go
forward to the Board of Supervisors, because the Commission was not the last say in this matter. She said
that they would take some more time to try and come up with something that worked.
Committee Reports
Mr. Murray said that the Crozet CAC met and discussed the comprehensive plan. He said that it was an
interesting discussion because there was a lot of frustration in the room about past master planning in
Crozet, and a lot of the community wanted reassurances that past promises of infrastructure would be met,
and that the same sort of things that happened with previous plans would not happen again.
Mr. Bivins said that he did not understand the circle that they were in about citizens in Crozet feeling like
they were not listened to. He said that the perception that just because something was said, the outcome
would change, was new to him. He said that he had never been in a space where he felt that everything he
said was going to matter and also change results. He said that he remained hopeful that he would
understand that at some point.
Mr. Murray said that an important point brought up, which was also brought up earlier in this meeting by a
Commissioner, was the idea that infrastructure needed to come first, and it was clear that in many cases,
infrastructure had not come first, so there were major stresses on the community from that lack of
infrastructure and made those people reluctant to have more density in addition to that. He said that they
should get the infrastructure right so that people felt comfortable with the additional densi ty.
Mr. Bivins said that the ethos here was that the Supervisors would not go to CIPs before something
happened, and the school system would always come at a point where it was just-in-time planning. He said
that he also did not believe that people would be willing to see a substantial reserve in the County through
taxes because they did not have enough businesses, and a reserve was necessary to do those kinds of
projects before they happened. He said that even suggesting a modest tax increase made people very
upset here.
Mr. Carrazana said that he lived close to Crozet and had many friends and neighbors who lived there. He
said that through the master planning process, looking at the infrastructure developments and talking about
mitigation to the growth, but once they put the growth out there, developers were suddenly very interested
in that site, and it would then be developed. He said that there was a mechanism about how they looked at
infrastructure, incentivized developers, and the County to unlock that extra development, because once
they had that, they had a financial incentive. He said that if they were able to incentivize the developers,
they could add the increased density without issue, and those were the conversations that the County must
have in earnest, and not only rely on past precedent.
Ms. Firehock said that she had mentioned four years ago, when she thought they would be beginning the
comprehensive plan process, that she wanted to see an analysis of the impacts of developing the area so
that there was some acknowledgment somewhere that the growth in the urban ring was being related to
the impacts on infrastructure. She said that there should be a published expectation that the taxes in the
County were going to increase so that everyone cou ld have a good education in the County.
Mr. Bivins said that by setting a different expectation with developers, they would be able to discuss how
to make this the type of place that people felt a desire to live in. He said that it had a different type of
partnership than what he had experienced with the commercial developers here.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - February 14, 2023
38
Ms. Firehock said that every developer knew that overcrowded schools with under-educated students would
hurt them, and that was where they were headed with too much growth.
Mr. Clayborne said that the partnership was important. He asked if there were any other committee reports.
Mr. Murray said that the mix of residential and commercial uses was important because a lot of the
residential would cost more in terms of infrastructure than they would receive back in tax revenue, but the
commercial would add to it. He said that achieving the mix of uses was important, especially since one of
the points brought up during the CAC meeting was that many people in Crozet were just dri ving to jobs in
Charlottesville, and changing that dynamic to ensure that Crozet was a place where people worked and not
just lived was a large piece for this as well.
Mr. Clayborne said that remote work affected that need as well.
Ms. Firehock said that they were going to modernize their zoning with respect to working at home.
Review of Board of Supervisors Meeting: February 1, 2023
Mr. McDermott said that at the February 1 Board of Supervisors meeting, they held the public hearing for
Willow Glen, which was before the Planning Commission a while ago, and was approved by the Board of
Supervisors with a unanimous vote. He said that there was a good discussion with Dr. Pethia about housing
grants as developer incentives and potentially offering such a program, and it appeared that they would
continue to move forward with that concept.
Ms. Firehock asked if Dr. Pethia could come back to talk to the Planning Commission as had been
requested over a year ago.
Mr. McDermott said that they were currently trying to schedule with her, but there was a very full Planning
Commission agenda with work sessions. He said that he hoped that they would have slightly shorter
meetings coming up, and he could add an AC44 update to the Commission agenda so that he could brief
them on the current status. He said that Phase 2 was just kicked off a few weeks ago, and there were topic
area reports on the website, along with a public survey.
Mr. McDermott said that last night, they held the first working group meeting for Phase 2, which was well-
attended. He said that those folks would be reaching out to their communities to gain information by asking
questions and conducting meetings. He said that they would be doing pop -ups across various parts of the
County to get feedback from different areas of the community on those major topics in the comprehensive
plan, such as transportation, land use, community facilities, parks and recreation, economic development,
and housing.
Mr. McDermott said that as a part of Phase 2, they would be developing toolkits to look at land use and
how to make recommendations for land use, which would include continued evaluation of potential growth
strategies that were introduced in the first phase. He said that as a part of that, there were three work
sessions planned with the Planning Commission in April, June, and August 2023. He reiterated that he
would add an AC44 update to the agenda so that he could discuss the plan further.
Mr. Clayborne thanked Mr. McDermott for the update and said that a standing agenda item would be
appreciated.
Ms. Firehock said that the County was going out to get community input on each topic, and staff was doing
research on various things, as were consultants, and they were putting forward facts that people were
reacting to, but at some point, this would come back to the Planning Commission to have more than a
reaction to what people said, and allowed them to have their own deliberations. She said that she had heard
from multiple Commissioners that there was concern a bout when they were going to actually talk about
specific topics.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - February 14, 2023
39
Ms. Firehock said that they had talked about how they should talk more about that, so as it was all rolling
forward, she would like to know that it was all coming back to the Planning Comm ission. She said that the
Board of Supervisors were updated on the comprehensive plan more than they were, but the Commission
was supposed to be the entity that prepared the comprehensive plan to give to the Board of Supervisors.
Ms. Firehock said that she understood there were staff shortages and the schedule was not followed as
originally envisioned, and she understood that they were behind in the Planning Commission’s engagement
with the project. She said that she would like to be clear that all of this was coming back before the Planning
Commission so that they could have robust and in-depth conversations about each of these topics.
Mr. McDermott said that they would not come with a specific topic for specific meetings, but the three work
sessions were expected to have the Commission’s input on what was researched and put together thus far
so that they would help drive the process.
Ms. Firehock said that she did not feel that the Commission would just react to whether or not they liked or
did not like this statement, which was what had been done so far. She said that they had original ideas that
had not been on the list presented by the consultant. She said that she did not mind reacting to things, but
they had their own opinion of things based on their representation of the districts that they wanted to bring
forward, and they had been in the backseat waiting.
Mr. McDermott said that it was noted. He said that he would make sure that when they came back for the
work sessions, the opportunity was given for the Commissioners to provide ideas and feedback.
Ms. Firehock said that it was not only feedback but “feed.”
Mr. Bivins said that the Commissioners had big opinions and bigger ideas, and they wanted to be engaged
and wrestle with these topics so that they could own the comprehensive plan when it went out with their
approval.
Mr. Carrazana said that the timing that they had been getting materials for work sessions had been a
marked improvement, but he would reiterate that the sooner they could get it, the more they could digest it,
and they would like to have that conversation when they had the work session.
Mr. Missel said that he would like to see an overall road map of what was coming and the sequence of
events.
Mr. Carrazana said that it had changed since they had last received one.
Mr. Missel asked for an updated version.
Ms. Firehock said that the diagram did not have the Planning Commission in it.
Mr. McDermott said that he could provide that. He said that he highly recommended the Commission see
the website, where a lot of information was contained and there was more detail on the schedule, but the
future phases remained conceptual at this time. He said that there was a solid road map for the next year,
and the Board said that that was where they wanted them to work, and he would ensure the Commissi on
received that information.
New Business
There was none.
Old Business
There was none.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL MINUTES - February 14, 2023
40
Items for Follow-Up
There were none.
Adjournment
At 11:45 p.m., the Commission adjourned to February 28, 2023, Albemarle County Planning Commission
meeting, 6:00 p.m. in Lane Auditorium.
Kevin McDermott, Director of Planning
(Recorded by Carolyn S. Shaffer, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards; transcribed by Golden
Transcription Services)
Approved by Planning Commission
Date: 03/14/2023
Initials: CSS