HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-06-11 ACTIONS
Board of Supervisors Meeting of June 1.1,2003
June 12, 2003
AGENDA ITEM/ACTION
ASSIGNMENT
1. Call to Order.
· Meeting was called to Order at 6:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr.
Dorrier. All BOS members were present. Also present were
Bob Tucker, Larry Davis, Wayne Cilimberg and Ella Carey.
4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
· Therewere none.
5.2 Resolution to accePt roads in Lake Reynovia Subdivision,
Phases 4, 5 and'6, into the State Secondary Syste~m of
Highways.
· ADOPTED Resolution.
5.3 Authorize County to proceed with dedication of Mill Creek
Regional Stormwater Pond as Regional Stormwater Facility and
Authorize County Executive to execute plat and deed.
· AUTHORIZED staff to expend funds for preparation of
dedication plat; AUTHORIZED County to accept monetary
contribution to the cost of improvements to the existing pond;
and AUTHORIZED County Executive to execute plat and
deeds for stormwater management facility and access thereto
when County Attorney is satisfied with the documents.
5.4 Set public headng to grant City of Charlottesville gas line
easement at Monticello Fire. Station.
· SET public hearing for July 9, 2003.
5.5 TEA 21 Enhancement Grant Application for Historic Crozet
Stre~tscape Enhancement Project.
· ADOPTED Resolution endorsing TEA 21 Enhancement Grant
for the Downtown Crozet streetscape improvement project,
agreeing to fund twenty percent of the project and to reimburse
VDOT for funds expended by YDOT if the County cancels the
project.
5.6 ACE Program Acceptance of Landowners offers to sell
Conservation Easements.
· ADOPTED Resolution accepting the landowners' offer to see a
conservation easement to the County for the price specified
and subject to the terms and conditions contained in the
proposed deed of easement and AUTHORIZED the County
Executive to sign the final deed of easement for the property.
6. SP-2002-056. Canaan Church (Sign #53).
· APPROVED SP-2002~056. by a vote of 6:0, subject to the eight
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission.
11.
Appeal: SDP-2003-019, Keswick Vineyards Site Plan
Waiver.
GRANTED the ~applicant's waiver request, by a vote of 5:1,
subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission, with the elimination of conditions 2c and 2d.
From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
David Bowerman said he would talk to the County Attorney
about Townwood being a public vs. private road.
]
Clerk: Forward signed resolution to Steve Snell.
(Attachment 1)
County EngineedCounty Attorney: Proceed as
approved.
Clerk: Schedule and advertise public hearing.
Clerk: Forward resolution to Juan Wade.
(Attachment 2).
Clerk: Forward resolution to County Attorney's
office.
Clerk: Set out conditions of approval in Attachment
4.
Clerk: Set out conditions of approval in Attachment
2.
The Board allowed Steve Blaine, representing applicants for
Hollymead Town Center, to provide an update on the
applicant's meeting with VDOT and status of the proffers.
12. Closed Session: Legal and Personnel Matters.
· At 7:20 p.m., the Board went into Closed Session.
13. Certify Closed Session.
· . At 7:30 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session and
certified the Closed Session.
· AUTHORIZED the County Executive to execute on behalf of
the County the Interjurisdictional Agreement between the
County, the City of Charlottesville, and the University of Virginia
for the 800 MHz Public Safety Communications System as
presented to the Board or as modified to appropriately address
the rese lution of the Airport Authority's financial obligations if
they are resolved in a timely fashion.
14. Adjourn.
· At 7:33 p.m., the meeting was adjourned to June 26, 2003,
4:30 p.m., Room 235, for a Joint Meeting with School Board.
County Executive/County Attorney:
authorized.
Proceed as
/ewc
Attachment 1- Resolution - Lake Reynovia Subdivision, Phases 4, 5 and 6
Attachment 2 - TEA 21 Resolution
Attachment 3 - ACE Resolution
Attachment 4 - Planning Conditions of Approval
Attachment 1
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 11th
day of June 2003, adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the streets in Lake Reynovia Subdivision, Phases 4, 5 and 6, described on the
attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated June 11, 2003, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown
on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the
Board that the street meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the
Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors
requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the roads in Lake Reynovia Subdivision,
Phases 4, 5 and 6, as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated June 11, 2003, to the
secondary system of state highways, pursuant to. §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's
Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of~way, as
described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the
recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident
Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
The roads described on Additions FormSR-5(A) are:
1)
Butternut Lane (State Route 1099) from the intersection of Route 1086 (Reynovia
Drive) to the intersection of Route 1097 (Primrose Lane), as shown on plat recorded
11/2/1996 in the office the Clerk of Circuit CoUrt of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1590,
pages 509-515, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.09 mile; and from the
intersection of Route 1097 (Primrose Lane) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded
1112/1996 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1590,
pages 509-515, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.08 mile.
2)
Larkspur Way (State Route 1089) from the intersection of Route 1086 (Reynovia Drive)
to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 6/23/1997 in the office the Clerk of Circuit
Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1557, pages 380-583, with a 50-foot right-of-
way width, for a length of 0.17 mile.
3)
Primrose Lane (State Route 1097) from the intersection of Route 1099 (Butternut Lane)
to the intersection of Route 1098 (Sundrops Court), as shown on plat recorded
12/18/1996 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book
1675, pages 577-581, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0'.10 mile; and
from the intersection of Route 1098 (Sundrops Court) to the intersection of Route 1086
(Reynovia Drive, as shown on plat recorded 12/18/1996 in the office the Clerk of Circuit
Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1675, pages 577-581, with a 50-foot right-of-
way width, for a length of 0.05 mile.
4)
Sundrops Court (State Route 1098) from the intersection of Route 1097 (Primrose
Lane) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 12/18/1996 in the'office the Clerk of
Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1675, pages 577-581, with a 50-foot
right-of-way width, for a length of 0.06 mile.
Total Mileage - 0.55 mile.
PROJECT ENDORSEMENT RESOLUTION
Attachment 2
WHEREAS, in accordance with Commonwealth Transportation Board construction allocation
procedure for a TEA21 Enhancement Grant application, it is necessary that a request by resolution be
received from the local government or state agency n order for the Virginia Department of Transportation
to approve an enhancement project in the County of Albemarle;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, does hereby request the Commonwealth Transportation Board to fund the Historic Crozet
Streetscape Enhancement Project; and
FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Boardof Supervisors hereby agrees to pay twenty (20) percent
of the total cost of this project, and that if the County of Albemarle subsequently elects to cancel this
project, it hereby agrees to reimburse the Virginia Department of Transportation for the total amount of
the cost expended by the Department through the date the De partment is notified of such cancellation.
Attachment 3
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING OFFERS TO SELL
CONSERVATION EASEMENTS UNDER THE ACE PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the County has received offers to sell conservation easements under the ACE Program from the
owners of the following properties:
Tax Map 103, Parcel 31 (Hart Property)
WHEREAS, each owner offered to sell conservation easements on the respective properties to the County fora
fixed purchase price, subject to terms and conditions set forth in the proposed deed of easement
enclosed with the County's invitation to offer to sell, subjec~t to any further revisions deemed necessary by
the County Attorney and agreed to by the owner.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby accepts the offers to sell
conservation easements described above, and authorizes the County Executive to execute all documents
necessary for completing the acquisitions.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby directs the County Attorney to send copies of
this resolution to the owners of the properties identified herein, or their contact persons.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Attachment 3
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-2002-056. Canaan Church (Sign #53). Public hearing on a request to
allow a 200-member church in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.35 of the Zoning Ord. TM 80, P 21, contains 6.903
acs. Loc on Rt 744 (Hacktown Rd) N of 1-64 & E of Rt 731 (Keswick Rd). Znd PA. Rivanna Dist.
The church's improvements and the scale and location of the ~mprovements shall be developed in
general accord with the conceptual plan entitled "Application Plan; Special Use Permit Application
for Canaan Church" revised 12/23/02;
The area of assembly shall be limited to a maximum one hundred fifty (150)-seat sanctuary,
under this special use permit. Commercial setback standards, as set forth in Section 21.7.2 of the
Albemarle Zoning Ordinance, shall be maintained adjacent to residential uses or other Rural Area
zoned properties;
There shall be no day care center or private school on the site without approval of a separate
special use permit;
Construction of the church, as shown on the plan shall commence within five (5) years of the date-
of the approval of this special use permit or this special use permit shall expire;
Minimum sight distance requirements of three hundred fifty (350) feet from the entrance shall be
required prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Any additional seating or other traffic
generating uses shall require an amendment to this special use permit;
Right-of-way dedication of thirty (30) feet from the existing centerline of Hacktown Road (Route
744) along the entire property frontage shall be required prior to the issuance of a building permit;
Health Department approval of a well and septic systems shall be required prior to the issuance
of a building permit; and
The outside play area activities shall be limited to only take place during daytime hours. Lighting
of the play area shall not be permitted. The play area shall be located as far away as possible
from the adjacent residential properties, but in no case shall the play area be located closer than
seventy-five (75) feet from any adjacent property line. The outside play area location shall be
depicted on the site plan.
Agenda Item No. 7. Appeal: SDP-2003-019 - Keswick Vineyards Site Plan Waiver, relief from
Planning Commission conditions of approval.
The site shall be developed in general accord with the attached plans, entitled Keswick
Vineyards Winery Site Plan Waiver, dated April 15, 2003;
The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the mylar of the site plan waiver for
signature until a tentative final approval for the following conditions have been obtained. The plan
shall not be signed until the following conditions have been met:
The existing gravel road shall be surfaced with asphalt within the bus turn around,
employee parking, and service areas. Additionally, the bus turn around area shall be
improved to include a paved bus parking area. The applicant may cover the asphalt with
prime and double seal, if desired;
Screening trees shall be provided in the area behind the fence, between the bio-filter and
the adjacent property to the west. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by
the agent, the applicant shall not remove existing trees and shall plant an under-planting
of shade-tolerant screening trees for a depth of 50 (fifty) feet along the northwesterly
property line to a point measured at the end of the stable building located on the adjacent
property;
Resulting slopes shall be no greater than 4:1;
Architectural Review Board Certificate of Appropriateness; and
?
Engineering Department review and approval to include:
An erosion control plan, narrative, computations, completed application
and fee for erosion control and stormwater;
A stormwater managementJBMP plan and computations. A detention waiver is
approved for this site. Computations shall include water quality requirements;
and
A completed stormwater management facilities maintenance agreement and fee.
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the
11th day of June 2003, adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTI ON
WHEREAS, the streets in Lake Reynovia Subdivision, Phases 4, 5 and 6, described on
the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated June 11, 2003, fully incorporated herein by reference,
is shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia;
and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised the Board that the street meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street
Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors
requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the roads in Lake Reynovia
Subdivision, Phases 4, 5 and 6, as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated
June 11, 2003, to the secondary~system of state highways, pursuant to {}33.1-229, Code of
Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-
way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described
on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident
Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Recorded vote:
Moved by: Dennis Reeker
Seconded by: David Bowerman
Yeas: David P. Bowerman, Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Walter F. Perkins, Dennis S. Reeker,
Sally H. Thomas
Nays: None.
Absent: Charles S. Martin
Copy Teste:
Ella ~f,/. Carey, Clerk, C,M~ ~)
Board of County Sup~
In the County of Albemarle
By resolution of the governing body adopted June 11, 2003
The following Form SR-SA is hereby attached and incorporated as part of the governing body's resolution for changes in the
secondary system of state highway~
Report of Changes in the Secondary System of Stat~ig~ays' '
Form SR-SA
Secondary Roads Division 5/I/99
Project/Subdivision
Lake Reynovia, Phase 4, $ &6
Type of Change:
Addition
The following additions to the Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to the statutOry provision or provisions cited, are
hereby requested, the right of way for which, including additional easements for drainage as required, is guaranteed:
Reason for Change: Addition, New subdivision street
Pursuant to Code of Virginia Statute: §33.1-229
Route Number and/or Street Name
· Butternut Lane, State Route Number 1099
Description: From: Intersection Rt. 1086 Reynovia Drive
To: Intersect/on Rt. t097 Primrose Lane
A distance ~ 0.09 miles.
Rightof Way Record: Filed with the Albemarle County Clerks Office on 11/21/1996, Deed Book 1590 Pg.509-515, with a
width of 50'
Description: From: Intersection Rt. 1097 Primrose Lane
To: Cul De Sac
A distance of: 0.08 miles.
Right of Way Record: Filed with the Albemarle County Clerks Office on 11/21/1996, Deed Book 1590 Pg. 509-515, with a
width of 50'
Larkspur Way, State Route Number 1089
Description: From: Intersection Reynoia Drive Rt. 1086
To: Cul De Sac
A distance of:. 0.17 miles.
Right of Way Record: Filed with the Albemarle County Clerks Office on 6/23/1997, Deed Book 1557 Pg.380-583, wif~h a
width of 50'
Primrose Lane, State Route Number 1097
~ --D~sc~pti~n:--~ro~n: -In~em~ct~n~ut~em~t [-an~ R~.I~9- -- --
To: Intersection Sundrops Rt. 1098
A distance oP. 0.10 miles.
Right of Way Record: Filed with the Albemarle County Clerks Office on 12118/1996, Deed Book 1675 Pg.577-581, with a
width of 50'
- --D~c~pti~n:-- ~ro~n--: -In~em~ct~on ~t. ~0~-8 S~n~ro~ ~OU~ .......
To: Intersection Rt. 1086 Reynovia Drive
A distance oP.. 0.05 miles.
Right of Way Record: Filed with the Albemarle County Clerks Office on 12/18/1996, Deed Book 1675 Pg. 577-581, with a
width of 50'
Page l of 2
Report of Changes in. the Secondary System of State Highways
Form SR-fA
Secondary Roads Division 5/1/99
· Sundrops Court, State Route Number 1098
Description: From: Intersection Rt. 1097 Primrose Lane
To: Culdesac
A distance of:. 0.06 miles.
Right of Way Rec~: Filed with the Albemarle Country Clerks Ofice on 12/18/1996, Deed Book 1675 Pg.577-581, with a
width of 50'
County of Albemarle, Date of Resolution: June 1 i, 2003 Page 2 of 2
The roads described on Additions 'Form SR-5(A) are:
1)
Butternut Lane (State Route 1099) from the intersection of Route 1086 (Reynovia
Drive) to the intersection of Route 1097 (Primrose Lane), as shown on plat recorded
11/2/1996 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book
1590, pages 509-515, with a 50-foot right-of way width, for a length of 0.09 mile;
and from the intersection of Route 1097 (Primrose Lane) to the cul-de-sac, as
shown on plat recorded 11/2/1996 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 1590, pages 509-515, with a 50-foot right-of-way
width, for a length of 0.08 mile.
2)
Larkspur Way (State Route 1089) from the intersection of Route 1086 (Reynovia
Drive) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 6/23/1997 in the office the Clerk
of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1557, pages 380-583, with a 50-
foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.17 mile.
3)
Primrose Lane (State Route 1097) from the intersection of Route 1099 (Butternut
Lane) to the intersection of Route 1098 (Sundrops Court), as shown on plat
recorded 12/18/1996 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in
Deed Book 1675, pages 577-581, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of
0.10 mile; and from the intersection of Route 1098 (Sundrops Court) to the
intersection of Route 1086 (Reynovia Drive, as shown on plat recorded 12/18/1996
in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1675,
pages 577-581, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.05 mile.
4)
Sundrops Court (State Route t098) from the intersection of Route 1097 (Primrose
Lane) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 12/18/1996 in the office the
Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1675, pages 577-581, with
a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.06 mile.
Total Mileage - 0.55 mile.
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the
11th day of June 2003, adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the streets in Lake Reynovia Subdivision, Phases 4, 5 and 6, described on
the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated June 11, 2003, fully incorporated herein by reference,
is shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia;
and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised the Board that the street meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street
Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors
requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the roads in Lake Reynovia
Subdivision, Phases 4, 5 and 6, as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated
June 11, 2003, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to {}33.1-229, Code of
Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-
way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described
on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident
Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Recorded vote:
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Yeas:
Nays:
A Copy Teste:
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC
Board of County Supervisors
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1)
Butternut Lane (State Route 1099) from the intersection of Route 1086 (Reynovia
Drive) to the intersection of Route 1097 (Primrose Lane), as shown on plat recorded
11/2/1996 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court'of Albemarle County in Deed Book
1590, pages 509-515, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of O.09 mile;
and from the intersection of Route 1097 (Primrose Lane) to the cul-de-sac, as
shown on plat recorded 11/2/1996 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 1597, pages 509-515, with a 50-foot right-of-way
width, for a length of 0.08 mile.
2)
Lar, kspur Way (State Route 1089) from the intersection of Route 1086 (Reynovia
Drive) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 6/23/1997 in the office the Clerk
of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1557, pages 380-583, with a 50-
foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.17 mile.
3)
Primrose Lane (State Route 1097) from the intersection of Route 1099 (Butternut
Lane) to the intersection of Route 1098 (Sundrops Court), as shown on plat
recorded 12/18/1996 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in
Deed Book 1675, pages 577-581, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of
0.10 mile; and from the intersection of Route 1098 (Sundrops Court) to the
intersection of Route 1086 (Reynovia Drive, as shown on plat recorded 12/18/1996
in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1675,
pages 577-581, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a lengthof 0.05 mile.
4)
Sundrops Court (State Route 1098) from the intersection of Route t097 (Primrose
Lane) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 12/18/1996 in the office the
Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1675, pages 577-581, with
a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.06 mile.
Total Mileage - 0.55 mile.
In the Coun_ _ _ W of Albemarle
By resolution of the governing body adopted June 11, 2003
The following Form SR-SA is hereby attached and incorporated as part of the governing body's resolution for changes in the
secondary system of state highways.
Copy Testee Signed (County Official):
Report of Changes in the Secondary System of State Highways
Form SR-SA
Secondary Roads Division 5/1/99
Project/Subdivision
Lake Reynovia, Phase 4, 5 & 6
Type of Change:
Addition
The following additions to the Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to the statutory provision or provisions cited, are
hereby requested, the dght of way for which, including additional easements for drainage as required, is guaranteed:
Reason for Change: Addition, New subdivision street
Pursuant to Code of Virginia Statute: §33.1-229
Route Number and/or Street Name
· Butternut Lane, State Route Number 1099
Description: From: Intersection Rt.1086 Reynovia Drive
To: Intersection Rt. 1097 Primrose Lane
A distance of:. 0.09 miles.
Right of Way Record: Filed with the Albemarle County Clerks Office on 11/21/1996, Deed Book 1590 Pg.509-515, with a
width of 50'
Description: From: Intersection Rt. 1097 Primrose Lane
To: Cul De Sac
A distance oP. 0.08 miles.
Right of Way Record: Filed with the Albemarle County Clerks Office on 11/21/1996, Deed Book 1597 Pg. 509-515, with a
width of 50'
Larkspur Way, State Route Number 1089
Description: From: Intersection Reynoia Ddve Rt. 1086
To: Cul De Sac
A distance of: 0.17 miles.
Right of Way Record: Filed with the Albemarle County Clerks Office on 6/23/1997, Deed Book 1557 Pg.380-583, with a
width of 50'
· Primrose Lane, State Route Number 1097
Description: From: Intersection Bultemut Lane Rt.1099
To: Intersection Sundrops Rt. 1098
A distance oP. 0.10 miles.
Right of Way Record: Filed with the Albemarle County Clerks Office on 12/18/1996, Deed Book 1675 Pg.577-581, with a
width of 50'
Description: From: Intersection Rt. 1098 Sundrops Court
To: Intersection Rt.1086 Reynovia Drive
A distance oP. 0.05 miles.
RightofWay Record: Filed with the Albemarle County Clerks Office on 12/18/1996, Deed B. ook 1675 Pg. 577-581, with a
width of 50'
Page I of 2
Report of Changes in the Secondary System of State Highways
Form SR-5A
Secondary Roads Division 511199
· Sundrops Court, State Route Number 1098
Description: From: Intersection Rt. 1097 Primrose Lane
To: Culdesac
A distance of: 0.06 miles.
Right of Way Record: Filed with the Albemarle Country Clerks Ofice on 12/18/1996, Deed Book 1675 Pg.577-581, with a
width of 50'
County of Albemarle, Date of Resolution: June 11, 2003 Page 2 of 2
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Mill Creek Regional Stormwater Pond
S UBJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST:
Dedication of the Mill Creek stormwater pond as a
regional stormwater facility; authorize County Executive
to execute the plat and deed.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Kamptner, Graham, Kelsey
AGENDA DATE:
June 11, 2003
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
IN FORMATION:
INFORMATION:
Location Map
BACKGROUND:
The Mill Creek stormwater pond is a 2.6 acre pond constructed in 1987 to provide stormwater detention for a significant portion
of the Mill Creek development, including compensation for areas of the development that drain directly to Biscuit Run. Since
this development predates the Water Protection Ordinance, the pond provides detention for the 10-year design storm only.
Stormwater management for the 2-year storm and water quality were not provided. The pond is located on an un-named
tributary to Moores Creek that lies within the valley immediately upstream of the South ern Parkway (refer to attached map).
The total drainage area is approximately 122 acres. The pond also receives uncontrolled runoff from a portion of the Lake
Reynovia development, discharge from the Cale Elementary 1 O-yr. storm detention basin, and runoff from a portion of the pre-
existing and under-developed properties along the eastside of Avon Street.
Since the mid-nineties, staff has had numerous conversations and meetings with Mill Creek Homeowners Association
representatives regarding the sedimentation occurring in the pond and the potential for County acceptance of the pond as a
regional stormwater management facility. The primary obstacles to dedication have been the lack of permanent
construction/maintenance access to the pond and the condition of the pond. Through the cooperation of the MCHA and the
developer of the proposed Village Homes II site, permanent access will be provided to the pond and monetary contribution
made for the pond restoration/improvement.
DISCUSSION:
Engineering & Public Works supports County acceptance of this pond as a regional stormwater management facility due to the
public benefit including: 1 ) potential to modify the outlet structure to provide 2-year storm detention for the existing upstream
development; and 2) potential for the facility to be retrofitted to provide water quality treatment of stormwater runoff. Upon
authorization from the BOS, staff will hire a surveyor to prepare a plat and work with the County Attorney to prepare a deed of
easement for the dedication of th e pond as a regional stormwater facility.
There are fiscal impacts associated with this regional stormwater basin. It is anticipated that approximately $150,000 in
improvements and upgrades to the basin need to be performed. The basin is not currently designed to provide water qUality
protection and those improvements would be made, as well as improvements to allow for better long-term maintenance. To
this end, the Mill Creek Homeowners Association has offered to contribute $50,000 towards those upgrades in recognition of
the benefits the community will receive. Additionally, it is anticipated that it will cost approximately $5,000 per year to perform
ongoing stormwater basin maintenance as provided with other County basins.
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Staff to expend funds for the preparation of a dedication plat; authorize the County to accept a monetary
contribution to the cost of improvements to the existing pond; and, authorize the County Executive to execute the plat and
deed(s) for the stormwater management facility and access thereto when the County Attorney is satisfied with the documents.
05-04-0~ 21:25
03.077
,Mill. Creek Pond.
MILL CREEK POND
DRAINAGE AREA
.Mill Creek Watemhed = 122 Acres
250 500I 750.' ~,000 w.~
.... ~Feet
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Set Public Hearing to approve Monticello Fire Station Gas
Line Easement
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST:
To set public hearing for the County to grant the City of
Charlottesville a gas line easement at the Monticello Fire
Station.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs Tucker, Davis, Trank, Lilley
AGENDA DATE:
June 11,2003
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACHMENTS:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
Deed of Easement w/Plat
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The City of Charlottesville has requested that the County grant it an easement to enable the placement of a gas line
along the access road serving the new Monticello Fire Station property owned by the County. This is a new gas line
that serves the Fire Station and will serve other properties to be constructed in the future.
DISCUSSION:
The Virginia Code requires that the County hold a publiC hearing prior to authorizing the granting of an easement.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board set this matter for public hearing on July 9, 2003.
03.075 ~ ~4-~33 20:5! I~
Prepared by Charlottesville City Attorney's Office
Albemarle Co. Tax Map 91-2E
THIS DEED OF EASEMENT made this
day of ., 2003, by and
between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, hereinafter "Grantor"; and the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA, a
municipal corporation, hereinafter "City", P. O. Box 911, Charlottesville, Virginia
22902, Grantee.
WITNESSETH:
That for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00), receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, Grantor hereby GRANTS and CONVEYS with SPECIAL WARRANTY unto
the City and its successors and assigns forever the following property:
Permanent natural gas line easement (the singular term "easement" when used
hereinafter to include the plural if applicable) for the installation, maintenance,
operation, repair, replacement, and extension of natural gas facilities and of utility
lines, pipes, and facilities connected therewith, which easement is beneath, upon, and
over strips of land which are shown and designated as a shaded line on a certain plat
entitled, "Plat Showing a Fifteen-Foot Wide Easement Hereby Dedicated to City of
Charlottesville Public Utilities," by Thomas B. Lincoln, Land Survey Inc., dated
August 14, 2002 and revised August 20, 2002, and to be recorded simultaneously
herewith in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, to
which plat reference is hereby made for a more particular description of the easements
hereby conveyed. Said easement and right-of-way cross a portion of the property
conveyed to Grantor by deed of Charles WM. Hurt and Shirley L. Fisher, Trustees
for the Hillcrest Land Trust, and Hurt Investment Company, dated September 18,
1995 of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 1492, page 678.
Grantor further understands and agrees as follows:
1. All facilities, public works, and appurtenances which are installed within said
easement now or in the future by or for the City shall be and remain the property of the City and
no charge shall at any time be made by the Grantor for the use of the property occupied by the
City or for the privilege of constructing, maintaining and operating said facilities and the
necessary or appropriate appurtenances.
2. The City and its agents and employees for the purpose of inspecting, maintaining or
operating its facilities shall have the right and easement of ingress and egress over any lands of
Page 1
the Grantor adjacent to the described easement between public or private roads and the described
easement in such manner as shall occasion the least practicable damage and inconvenience to
Grantor.
3. The City shall have the right to inspect, rebuild, repair, change, alter and install such
additional or substitute lines or facilities within the easement herein granted as the City may from
time to time deem advisable or expedient, and shall have such rights and privileges as may be
reasonably necessary for the full enjoyment or use for any of the aforesaid purposes of the
easement and rights herein granted.
4. The City shall have the right to trim, cut, and remove all trees, limbs, undergrowth,
shrubbery, landscape plantings of any kind, fences, buildings, structures, paving, or other
obstructions or facilities within said easement which it deems in any way to interfere with the
proper and efficient construction, operation, and maintenance of the facilities in or on said
easement.
5. The City shall repair any damage to property or facilities of the Grantor that arises out
of the construction or use of any of the City's facilities. The City shall also repair or replace
ground cover (pavement, gravel, or grass) existing on the said easement which may be disturbed,
damaged, or removed as a result of the construction of any of the City's facilities, remove all
trash and other debris of construction or repair from the easement, and restore the surface thereof
to its original condition as nearly as reasonably possible, all subject, however, to this exception,
to-wit: that the City shall not be obligated to repair or replace ground cover when it would be
inconsistent with the proper operation, maintenance or use of its facilities.
6. Grantor reserves the right to make use of the land subject to the rights herein granted,
which use shall not be inconsistent with the rights herein conveyed or interfere with the use of
the said easement by the City for the purposes aforesaid; provided, however, that all such use
shall be at Grantor's risk unless prior written approval of City is obtained.
7. No third party shall be granted the right to use or shall use any part of the area within
such easement for any purpose or in any manner until after a review and a finding by the City in
writing that such use will not be in conflict with, or inconvenient to, the City's use thereof or the
Page 2
purpose for which such easement was granted.
8. Grantor has seen and carefully examined a copy of the hereinabove-described plat, is
entirely familiar with the quantity of the land covered by this conveyance, and fully understands
the effect that it will or might have on the value of the remaining property.
9. This instrument covers all the agreements between the parties and no representations
or statements, verbal or written, have been made which are inconsistent with the terms of this
deed.
10. To the extent permitted by law, Grantee agrees to indemnify and hold harmless
Grantor, its officials, employees and representatives for any damages, losses or injuries to
persons or property arising out of Grantee's activities covered by this conveyance.
The City of Charlottesville, acting by and through its City Attorney, the City official
designated by the City Manager pursuant to authority granted by resolution of the City Council
of the City of Charlottesville, does hereby accept the conveyance of this easement, pursuant to
Virginia Code 15.2-1803, as evidenced by the City Attorney's signature hereto and the City's
recordation of this deed.
The County of Albemarle, by duly adopted resolution, has held a public hearing pursuant
to Va. Code § 15:2o1800(B), has approved the conveyance of real estate memorialized by this
deed of easement and has authorized the County Executive to execute this deed of easement on
its behalf.
This deed is exempt from state recordation taxes imposed by Virginia Code 58.1-801
pursuant to Virginia Code § 58.1-811(A)(3).
WITNESS the following signatures and seals.
Grantor: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
Accepted by: CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA
By:
S. Craig Brown, City Attorney
Page 3
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY/COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this
2003, by Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, on behalf of Grantor.
day of
My commission expires:
Notary Public
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of
2003, by S. Craig Brown, City Attorney, on behalf of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia.
My commission expires:
Notary Public
Approved as to Form:
Albemarle County Attomey
Page 4
I
!
1
1
!
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
County TEA 21 Enhancement Grant Application - -
Historic Crozet 'Streetscape Enhancement Project
SU BJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Resolution affirming support for TEA 21
Enhancement Grant funds for the construction of
the Historic Crozet Streetscape project.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Benish, Wade
AGENDA DATE:
June 11, 2003
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
×
BACKGROUND:
In 2002, the Board of Supervisors supported a request to apply for a TEA 21 Enhancement Grant for Crozet
streetscape improvements. VDOT did not approve the County's grant application. Staff is proposing to resubmit a
revised TEA 21 grant in 2003 for the same project. The deadline for submittal is July 1, 2003.
DISCUSSION:
The grant proposal is for streetscape improvements along Crozet Avenue. The grant is still under development,
but will incorporate sidewalks and streetscape improvements, in phases, along Crozet Avenue, Three Notch'd
Road and Tabor Street, and may include the undergrounding of utilities. The total project cost is estimated at
$1,322,000 for Phase I. These improvements are recommended in the County's Land Use Plan and in the Crozet
Community Study. The draft Crozet Master Plan also supports these improvements. Staff is working with the
Crozet Community Association, businesses and other community interests for letters of support.
The County is not required to conduct another public hearing because the grant application is for the same project.
Staff is requesting the Board of Supervisors adopt the attached resolution to apply for a TEA 21 Enhancement
Grant. This is similar to the resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors on January 16, 2002. The County has
programmed up to $550,000 to be available for match in the FY 2003/04 Capital Improvement Plan for Crozet
sidewalk and streetscape improvements, which will be adequate to cover the anticipated match amount for the first
year of the project.
If the County decides not to complete a project within the time frame specified within the agreement, VDOT can
request reimbursement for all expenditures and any remaining funds will lapse.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors adopt the attached resolution endorsing a TEA 21 Enhancement
Grant for the Downtown Crozet streetscape improvement project, agreeing to fund 20% of the project and to
reimburse VDOT for funds expended by VDOT if the County cancels the project.
03.079
06-C4-05 21:25 iN
PROJECT ENDORSEMENT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, in accordance with Commonwealth Transportation Board .construction allocation
procedure for a TEA21 Enhancement Grant application, it is necessary that a request by resolution be
received from the local government or state agency in order for the Virginia Department of Transportation
to approve an enhancement project in the County of Albemarle;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, does hereby request the Commonwealth Transportation Board to fUnd the Historic Crozet
Streetscape Enhancement Project; and
FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors hereby agrees to pay twenty (20) percent
of the total cost of this project, and that if the County of Albemarle subsequently elects to cancel this
project, it hereby agrees to reimburse the Virginia Department of Transportation for the total amount of
the cost expended by the Department through the date the Department is notified of such cancellation.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is true, correct copy of a
Project Endorsement Resolution duly adopted bythe Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote
of five to zero, as recorded below, at a meeting held on June 11, 2003.
Clerk, Board of Cou~
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGEN DA TITLE:
ACE Program; Acceptance of Landowners'
Offers to Sell Conservation Easements
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Adopt a resolution accepting a landowners'
offer to sell a conservation easement.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Cilimberg,
Kamptner
AGENDA DATE:
June 11,2003
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution
BACKGROUND:
ACE regulations require each landowner who desires to sell a conservation easement to submit a written offer to
the County to sell the easement for a fixed price, determined by an appraisal and subject to an adjustment based
on adjusted gross income. The easement is subject to the terms and conditions contained in a proposed deed of
easement negotiated by the parties. The regulations also require that, if the Board accepts the offer, it must do
so in writing and only after an action by the Board authorizing acceptance. The Board is not required to accept
an offer to sell a conservation easement. Either the Albemarle County Public Recreational Facilities Authority
("PRFA") or the .Virginia Outdoors Foundation ('¥OF") may be co-holders of the easements though none of the
properties from this year's class have designated VOF as an easement co-holder.
The regulations also require the ACE Committee to recommend on which parcels, from an initial pool of
applicants, the board should invite to submit offers to sell conservation easements. In the event a higher ranked
applicant(s) drops out of this initial pool, the Committee may slide down the ranking list and substitute another
parcel(s) that is lower ranked provided it is still eligible.
DISCUSSION:
The County has received an additional offer to sell a conservation easement on the following property:
Owner(s) Tax Map-Parcel Number(s) Price Co-holder
Hart TM 103, Parcel 3'1 (227,030 acres) $182,000 PRFA
At its April 16th meeting, the board adopted a resolution accepting the offers to purchase conservation easements
on the Byrom, Hughes and Pollock properties, all applicants from the 2001-02 pool. On May 7th, the board
adopted a resolution accepting the offer to purchase a conservation easement on the Millwood Land Trust
(Gildea) property, another applicant from the 2001-02 pool.
At its May 7th meeting, the board also approved the ACE Committee's recommendation to slide down the ranking
list and substitute, for purchase, two lower ranked properties from the initial applicant pool - Hart and Scharer.
Though Scharer declined to submit an offer to sell an easement, Hart has submitted an offer. Therefore, the
Committee'S recommendation to the board is to accept the HaWs offer to sell a conservation easement on their
property.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached resolution accepting the landowners' offer to sell a
conservation easement to the County for the price specified and subject to the terms and conditions contained in
the proposed deed of easement, and authorize the County Executive to sign the final deed of easement for the
property.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING OFFERS TO SELL
CONSERVATION EASEMENTS UNDER THE ACE PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the County has received offers to sell conservation easements under the ACE
Program from the owners of the following properties:
Tax Map 103, Parcel 31 (Hart Property)
WHEREAS, each owner offered to sell conservation easements on the respective properties to
the County for a fixed purchase price, subject to terms and conditions set forth in the
proposed deed of easement enclosed with the County's invitation to offer to sell, subject
to any further revisions deemed necessary by the County Attorney and agreed to by the
owner.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby accepts the offers
to sell conservation easements described above, and authorizes the County Executive
to execute all documents necessary for completing the acquisitions.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby directs the County Attomey
to send copies of this resolution to the owners of the properties identified herein, or their
contact persons.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing wdting is a true, correct copy
of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of
fi~ve~ to zero, as recorded below, at a meeting held on June 11, 2003.
Aye Nay
Mr. Bowerman Y
Mr. Dorrier Y
Mr. Martin Absent
Mr. Perkins Y
Mr. Rooker Y
Ms. Thomas Y
PHILIP A. SHUCET
COMMISSIONER
May 28, 2003
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
701 VDOT WAY
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22911
JAMES L. BRYAN
RESIDENT ENGINEER
Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC
Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Project 0691-002-258,C501
Jarmans Gap Rd
Enclosed is a map and description for the public hearing for the proposed improvemems on Route
691 in Crozet. Please provide this information to the Board of Supervisors members prior to the
hearing on July 8, 2003.
Sincerely,
Gerald G. Utz
Contract Administrator
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
Jarman Gap Road/Route 691
Albemarle County
Open house Tuesday, July 8, 2003 5:00 p,m. to 7:00 p.m.
Crozet Fire Department
5652 Three Notclh'd Road, Crozet, Virginia 22932
£ome and see prelimh~ary plans for the proposed widening and
alignment improvements of Jarman Gap Road (Route 691) from
1.1477 mi'les/1.847 km. west of Route 1206 (Orchard Drive) to
0.3262 mile/0.525 km. east of Route 1206 (Orchard Drive).
Find out about tentative construction schedules, property
impacts and relocation assistance.
Review the project information and ~he environmental docu-
ment at the public hearing or at VDOT Culpeper District Office,
1601 Orange Road, Culpeper, Virginia or Charlottesville Resi-
dency Office, 701 VDOT Way, in the communi[y of Shadwell,
located off of Route 250, three miles east of Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Give your written or verbal comments at the hearing or submit
them by July 18, 2003 to Mr. J. Bryan, at 701 VDOT Way,
Charlottesville, Virginia 22911.
VDOT ensures nondiscrimination in all programs and activities
in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. For
special assistance or information call (540) 829-7500 or TDD
(800} 307-4630. Website Virginia DOT.org
Virginia Department of Transportation
Project: 0691-002-258, C501 n~ We Keep
Federal Project: STP-2807 (') Fir~nia Moving
~-" Brownsville "" 9t~°le_ '"' *-
,. , -:..., [j,,...-c~in
....... Yancey ',,.
Midway
.4' "'-'" ,~Or' ,,
I ¢ ..... "' 'x: ........................ ' x / ,'.t.
.'"'. I ~ ', ~ ~' ~'.~
/ "-'----t ~-- - ?- ~ ~ :2'~.~ .~ '-~'"<--. .................... --.
~ iL,-.,..----. .. 'F ', tuG, AY ~RO~~ PRO,CT
~. ,. ....... [~" 'i ..' ~ ..... ',, JARMAN GAP RO~/ROUTE 691
1~ 'x ~ ',._/ ~ ~iller ' ALBEMA~E COU~Y
, ~ / Scho~School
~.~,/ '"---~ (( ~ To: 0.3262 ~/0.525m. E~t of ~t. Route 1206
-' Bat~ville X~ ~ ProJect: 0691-~2-258, C501
Federal Project: STP-2807 ( )
~ng~: 1.474 mi/2.372 km
~OT TO SCALE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Departmer~t of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296 - 5823
Fax (434) 972 - 4012
May21,2003
OIga Morse
5766 Thomas Jefferson Parkway
Palmyra, VA 22963
RE:
SP-2002-056 Canaan Christian Church
Tax Map 80, Parcel 21
Dear Ms. Morse:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 20, 2003, by a vote of 7:0,
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this
approval is subject to the following' conditions:
The church's improvements and the scale and location of the improvements shall be developed in
general accord with the conceptual plan entitled "Application Plan; Special Use Permit Application
for Canaan Church" revised 12/23/02.
The area of assembly shall be limited to a maximum 150-seat sanctuary, under this special use
permit. Commercial setback standards, as set forth in Section 21.7.2 of the Albemarle Zoning
Ordinance. shall be maintained adjacent to residential uses or other Rural Area zoned properties.
There shall be no day care center or private school on the site without approval of a separate
special use permit.
Construction of the church as shown on the plan shall commence within five years of the date of
the approval of this special use peC'mit or this special use permit shall expire.
Minimum sight distance requirements of 350' from the entrance shall be required prior to the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Any additional seating or other traffic generating uses shall
require an amendment to this special use permit. --~
Right-of-way dedication of 25' from the existing centedine of Hacktown Road (Rt. 744) along the
entire property frontage shall be required prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Health Department approval of a well and septic systems shall be required prior to the issuance of
a building permit.
The outside play area activities shall be limited to only take place during daytime hours. Lighting
of the play area shall not be permitted. The play area shall be located as far away as possible
from the adjacent residential properties, but in no case shall the play area be located closer than
75' from any adjacent property line. The outside play area location shall be depicted on the site
plan.
Page 2
May 21, 2003
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on June l'l, 2003. Any new or additional information regarding your
application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your
scheduled headng date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me (434) 296-5823 ext. 3249.
Sincerely,
Principal Planner.'
JM/jcf
Cc: ~ Carey
Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey
Steve AIIshouse
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
Joan D. McDowell
May 20, 2003
June 4, 2003
SP 02-56 Canaan Christian Church
UPDATE:
On May 20, 2003, the Planning Commission recommended changes to two conditions of approval
for SP 02-56, Canaan Christian Church. This summary provides information from the Virginia
Department of Transportation regarding the justification for the conditions and the Planning
Commission justification for the revisions.
DISCUSSION:
The following discussion of two Conditions of Approval for SP 02-56 Canaan Christian Church
consists off our parts: a) the Staff Recommended Condition contains the condition, as
recommended by staff; b) Justification for Condition contains the VDOT reason for the condition;
c) Planning Commission Revision contains the condition as revised and recommended by the
Commission; and d) Justification for Revision contains a summary of the discussion that led to
the revision.
The Virginia Department of Transportation (*/DOT)provided the justifications for their
recommendations. As these issues were not raised until the public hearing, the explanations were
not available at the Commission hearing.
Staff Recommended Condition 7: VDOT approval ora commercial driveway and minimum
sight distance requirements of 350 'from the entrance shall be required prior to the issuance
of a certificate of occupancy. Any additional seating or other traffic generating uses shall
reqm!re an amendment to this special use permit.
Justification for Condition: A commercial driveway entrance will be required with a site
plan. VDOT'explained that they would request that the material to construct the entrance
onto Ifacktown Road (a gravel surfaced road) shouM be the same material used for the
entrance driveway. An approved commercial driveway design ensures that the width, taper,
sight distance, and drainage are addressed. For the occasion when a commercial entrance
connects to a paved road, a commercial driveway design additionally ensures that the
drivewaY transition onto the paved roadway is constructed so that it will not Crumble the
road pavement with use.
Planning Commission Revision: rfr~r~ ........ ~ Ar ........ ;'~ '~; ......... a::d m Minimum
sight distance requirements of 350 'from the entrance shall be required prior to the issuance
of a certificate of occupancy. Any additional seating or other traffic generating uses shall
require an amendment to this special use permit.
Justification for Revision: The Commission did not believe that a commercial entrance for a
church in the Rural Area was necessary and the typical commercial entrance design was
contrary to the rural characteP, particularly for a rural chuPch. Since a "commercial
entrance permit" can be required by I/DOT at the site plan review stage, this condition was
not necessary for the special use permit approval. Therefore, for both of these reasonS noted
above, the requirement of a commercial entrance was removed from this condition.
Staff Recommended Condition 8: Right-of-way dedication of 30' from the existing centerline
of Hacktown Road (Rt. 744) along the entire property frontage shall be required prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
Justification for ConditiOn: The 30' right-of-way dedication would be necessary in order for
VDOT to provide a drainage ditch when the road is paved. If the drainage improvements
were not necessary, a standard 25' right-of-way wouM have been requested.
Planning Commission Revision: Right-of-way dedication of 30' 25 'from the existing
centerline of Hacktown Road (Rt. 744) along the entire property frontage shall be required
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Justification _for Revision: The Commission did not have the information noted above under
"Justification.for Condition" when they reviewed this request. The Commission believed, that
a requirement for a 30, right-of-Way dedication on a rural road thatprimarily served
residential traffic was excessive.
RE COMMENDATION:
Condition 7: As the commercial driveway element in this condition will be addressed
with a site plan, staff can recommend approval of the conditiOn, as revised by the
Planning Commission. The condition contained in the following staff report reflects this
modification.
Condition 8: As the concept plan demonstrates that the church and parking can be
accommodated with the dedication of a 30' right-of-way and as VDOT would need .the
additional 5' width in order to construct adequate drainage when the road is paved,' staff
recommends that the staff recommended condition stand as presented.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant has proposed to construct a one-story 100' X 40' church
building with finished basement (8,000 total square feet with a 2,000 square foot sanctuary) with
150 fixed seats and 55 paved parking spaces on a 6.903 acre property. The number of seats
requested was revised from 200 seats, in accordance with Health Department restrictions due to
drainfield limitations. A structure that was on the site at the time of the submittal of the
application has been since demolished and removed. The anticipated operating hours are 10 A.M.
to noon and 5 P.M. to 8 P.M on Sunday and from 7 P.M. to 9 P.M. on Wednesday.
Also, the applicant has requested that a waiver from Section 31.2.4.4 to be allowed five years
from the date of the approval of this special use permit to commence construction.
The church would be accessed from Hacktown Road (Route 744). The property is located at 860
Hacktown Road in the Rivarma Magisterial District.
2
Petition: Request for special use permit to allow a 150-seat church, in accordance with Section
10.2.2.35 of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows for churches. The property, described as Tax
Map 80 Parcel 21, contains 6.903 acres, and is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District at 860
Hacktown Road (Route # 744) north of 1-64 and east of Keswick Road (Rt. 731). The property is
zoned RA Rural Areas. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area.
Character of the Area: The area along Hacktown Road consists of a mixture of single family
residential dwellings and wooded areas. The properties on the opposite side of Hacktown Road
border the Keswick Club.
Planning and Zoning History: There are no previous planning or zoning applications on this
property.
Comprehensive Plan: This property is designated Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan. The
properties along the road consist of a mixture of single family residential and wooded areas.
Churches provide a service to rural residents and the use is considered to be consistent w/th the
policies within the Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has reviewed these requests for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the
zoning ordinance and recommends approval, based on consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
STAFF COMMENT:
Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance:
The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use
permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance
may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of
substantial detriment to adjacent property.
The church and the church community would be a beneficial addition to the area. Staff finds that
the proposed use would have minimal negative impact on surrounding uses. The church would
be located in an area of the property that would require minimal grading that would not include
grading of critical slopes.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
Churches are permitted by special use permit in the Rural Areas to ensure that the impacts from
the use would not have a detrimental impact to the area and the district. The church has agreed to
have a 150-seat assembly area. Churches approved in the Rural Areas have ranged from 435
seats (Albemarle Baptist) to 25 (Cistercians of the Strict Observance). Of the 22 churches that
were approved in the Rural Areas between the years 1981 and 2002, 12 churches were approved
with seating at or less than 150 seats. The size of church and the anticipated hours for regular
services and meetings should not adversely affect the character of the district.
3
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
Staff has reviewed the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, relation to the environment,
and relation to the Comprehensive Plan as stated in Sections 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6, and has found this
application to be in harmony with these sections.
with the uses permitted by right in the district,
The property and the adjacent properties are zoned RA, Rural Areas. Staff opinion is that the
addition of a church would not affect the uses permitted by right in the district.
with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance,
There are no supplementary regulations in Section 5.0 for churches.
and with the public health, safety and general weffare.
An outside play area has been proposed; however, its location has not been determined.
Compatibility of outside play areas and adjoining residences has been a matter of concern for
other churches in the County (noise of children playing). Therefore, a condition of approval to
restrict the play area to be located away from the adjacent properties and for the outside play
activities to be limited to daytime hours (no lighting) has been offered for consideration
(Condition 9).
For a limited time before and after church services, Hacktown Road would experience higher
than normal traffic volumes. The volumes would be reduced from the initial apphcation request
of 200 seats to 150 seats, in order to meet Health Department standards for drainfields. The
reduction in seating capacity affected traffic impacts, as well. The Virginia Department of
Transportation was able to reduce its requirement from a center mm lane (required for a 200-seat
church) to a requirement for a commercial driveway.
The church would be located on an unpaved portion of Hacktown Road. Approximately 1/3 of
the .96 mile road between its intersection with Route 250 to just beyond the 1-64 overpass is
paved. In 1999, traffic counts of the paved road section showed that there were 180 vehicle trips
per day. On the unpaved portion, there were 380 vehicle trips per day.
Comparing vehicle trips generated if this property were subdivided into 3 by-right single family
lots, VDOT assumes that'each single family residence has 10 trips per day and 210 per week for
three residences. With 150 seats, the church would generate approximately 50 trips (three people
per vehicle) during a limited time one day per week. The weekday trips would be considerably
less than the Sunday traffic. Therefore, the trip generation for a church of this size would be less,
on a weekly basis, than that of a by-right subdivision for three single-family residences.
The apphcant has advised that the current typical attendance on a Sunday is 45 people. On
special occasions, the attendance is approximately between 95 and 100 people.
With one exception, all the residents along this unpaved portion of Hacktown Road requested that
it be paved several years ago. As the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) requires
100% of the residents grant rights-of-way to quahfy for paving, the road has remained unpaved.
The resident that would not grant the right-of-way has since deceased, according to VDOT.
4
VDOT has not recommended that the church pave any portion of the road, as a condition of the
special use permit.
According to VDOT, the thp threshold for a taper at this location on Sunday AM is 90 vehicles
per hour making aright mm. The trip threshold for a mm lane at this location on a Sunday AM is
140 vehicles perhour making a right turn. If the anticipated right turn traffic is below this
number, only a commercial entrance will be required. Therefore, a seating capacity of 150 people
(Condition 2) with a trip generation of 50 (150 seats divided by 3 people per car) would warrant a
commercial driveway entrance. VDOT has recommended that the SP and SDP be conditioned
such that the church only seats the number of people their entrance will~accommodate. Condition
number 2 would limit the seating capacity of this church to 150. Expansion of the seating or the
addition of traffic generating uses would require an amendment to this special use permit
(Condition 5).
WAIVER: The applicant has requested a waiver from Section 31.2.4.4 to be allowed five years
from the date of the approval of this special use permit to commence construction. Staffhas no
objections to this request. Condition 5 would permit the requested time extension for this special
use permit.
SUMMARY:
· Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. The proposed use is in harmony with the uses permitted by fight in the district.
2. The church and its related services that would be provided to this area through the church
community would be a beneficial addition.
3. Churches provide a service to rural residents and are considered to be consistent with the
policies within the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff has identified the following factor unfavorable to this application:
1. The church would generate additional traffic on a gravel road. The traffic generated by
this church would be during off-peak hours for the residents along the road.
It is staff's opinion that the traffic generated would not be a substantial detriment to the
area.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on the findings contained in this staffreport, staffrecommends approval of SP 02-56,
subject to the following conditions of approval:
3. The church's improvements and the scale and location of the improvements shall be
developed in general accord with the conceptual plan entitled "Application Plan; Special Use
Permit Application for Canaan Church" revised 12/23/02.
4. The area of assembly shall be limited to a maximum 150-seat sanctuary, under this special
use permit. Commercial setback standards, as set forth in Section 21.7.2 .of the Albemarle
Zoning Ordinance, shall be maintained adjacent to residential uses or other Rural Area zoned
properties.
5
5. There shall be no day care center or private school on the site without approval of a separate
special use permit.
6. Construction of the church, as shown on the plan shall commence within five years of the
date of the approval of this special use permit or this special use permit shall expire.
7. x tricoT. ,-,,_, ~ ~m,-v ......... ~ ,,~^~ ~ ....... v,,..,,~.~,,,,~ ~'5~eway ~ m Minimum sight distance requirements of
350' from the entrance shall be required prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
Any additional seating or other traffic generating uses shall require an amendment to this
special use permit.
8. Right-of-way dedication of 30' from the existing centerline of Hacktown Koad (Rt. 744)
along the entire property frontage shall be required prior to the ~ssuance of a building permit.
9. Health Department approval of a well and septic systems shall be required prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
10. The outside play area activities shall be limited to only take place during daytime hours.
Lighting of the play area shall not be permitted. The play area shall be located as far away as
possible from the adjacent residential properties, but in no case shall the play area be located
closer than 75' from any adjacent property line. The outside play area location shall be
depicted on the site plan.
Attachments:
A
Apphcation Plan rifled Special Use Permit Application for Canaan Church" revised
12/23/02.
Location and aerial maps for TM 80-21
Application for SP 02-56
6
'.%
..... -.. -.. %,, .................x. ~
ATTACHMENT B
N
SP - 2002- 56
CANAAN CHRISTIAN
CHURCH
1 INCH = 700 FEINT
i!
/0
County of Albgmarle
OFFICE
Department of B%aling Code and
0 O_
Application for Special Use Permit
ATTACHMENT
*Existing Use '~7~,~ t~, 7'- Proposed Use C/-/u ~C-./-d
*Zoning District ]t~ *Zoning Ordinance Section number requested
(*staff will assist you with these items)
Number of acres to be covered by Special Use Permit [ir a ~or"o. a must be de:ineatea on p~at) ~N'. ~;}0_ ~
Is this an amendment to an existing Special Use Permit?
Are you submitting a site d~velopment plan with this application?
UI Yes, No
Contact Person (Whom should we call/write concerning this project?'
AddressdS'T&'~' 7'//,~,o~,P_~,J'~-/e/~_ ~ng ~R~)~ity
~ Daytime Phone ( ¢3~ ) ~p ~ ~0 _ F~ g ~gq ~P-~ P ~ E-mail ,
Owner of land <:As listed inJhe C~unty's records): C ,~0'/:) ~ AZ ~,q/~/g~-/%~?,0~'
Address
[D~timePhon~(~ g ) q63-qS~ Fax~ ~ ,E-mail
Applicant (Who is the contact person representing.'? Who is requesting the special use?): ~'~ ~-- ,/:~e:',/~D /,J",~q/-. ,g,~ ~ ~".~'
Daytime Phone (4tg~) .OCA ,- t'/8..q,~ Fax# E-mail
Tax map and parcel ~5~ 0 - -~ / Physical Address ~ifassigned)
Location of property (landmarks inter~cctions, orother)
Does the owner of this property own (or have any ownershi~ interest in) any abutting property? If yes, pleas~e list
those tax map and parcel num6ers
Feeamount$ t~00 0
CI ZMAs and Proffers:
OFFICE USE ONLY
History: UI Special Use Permits:
UI Variances: L~ette O
Concurrent review of Site Development Plan? ~ Yes
401 Mclntire Road + Charlottesville. VA 22902 + Voice: 296-5832 + q~ax: 972-4126
Describe your request-( letail and'include all pertinent informa(', _ .~ such as the numbers of persons
involved in the use, operating hours, and any unique features of the use:
ATTACHMENTS REQUIRED - provide t-wo(2) copies of each:
Recorded plat or boundary survey of the property requested for the rezoning. If there is
no recorded plat or boundary survey, please provide legal description of the property and
the Deed Book and page number or Plat Book and page number.
Note: If you are requesting a special use permit only for a portion of'the property, it
needs to be described or delineated on a copy of the plat or surveyed drawing.
Ownership information - If ownership of the property is in the name of any type of legal
entity or organization including, but not limited to, the name of a corporation, partnership
or association, or in the name o.f a trust, or in a fictitious name, a' document acceptable to
the County must be submitted certifying that the person signing below has the authority
to do so.
If the applicant is a contract purchaser, a document acceptable to the County must be
submitted containing the owner's written con sent to the application.
If the applicant is the agent of the owner, a document acceptable to the County must be
submitted that is evidence of the existence and scope of the agency.
OPTIONAL ATTACHMENTS:
Drawings or conceptual plans, if any.
Additional Information, if any.
I hereby certify that I own the subject property, or have the legal power to act on behalf of the owner in
filing this application. I also Certify that the J nformation provided is true and accurate to the best of my
~-~dge.
Printed N atrne
Date
Daytime phone number of Signatory
PRELIMINARY APPLICATION - SPECIAL USE PERMIT
What is the comprehensive plan designation of this property?
How will the proposed special use affect adjacent property?
To clean up property (including debris from old vehicles, appliances, house
goods, drug paraphernalia, rotting shacks, etc.)
To build a 200 member church
· To design and implement landscaping that will beautify the property
To design and construct a playground/picnic area for fellow church members and
people of the community to utilize and enjoy
· To Rehab an old abandoned dwelling to use it for the pastoral office space
We believe that upon realizing these measures at 860 Hacktown Rd., the current
stagnation and potentially dangerous environment of the property will be greatly
reduced if not eliminated all together. We also believe that in transferring the
ownership from the present one, we will incur a new ownership that, unlike its
predecessor, will be a present, aware, and active participant in the ongoing
cleanliness, and integrity of the proposed project. The new ownership, Canaan
Church, will also extend their creative resources to better help the community as
a whole when ever suitable.
How will affect adjacent property? · Stimulate aesthetically and create a pleasant environment
· Stimulate Property value in surrounding areas by eliminating an eye sore
· Crime rate will be reduced and adjacent properties will be safer. This will be due
to the elimination of the rotting shacks that presently shelter drug users as
evidenced by drug paraphernalia found in them
How will this use promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the
community
The proposed project will enhance the character of the surrounding district in
several ways:
First, by providing a community venue that promotes education and fellowship for
children and adults alike
Second, the venue will be a safe gathering place for fellow worshippers.
Third, in further enhancing the character of the surrounding district, the construction of a
recreational facility will provide a safe haven for children and families to gather and
share time together.
Finally, the removal of trash and rotting shacks sheltering drug users will thwart potential
crime and nearby substance abuse.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT; Describe your request in detail and include all
pertinent .information such as numbers of persons involved in the use, operating hours,
and any unique features of the use:
· Rehabilitation of the old abandoned dwelling to convert it in a pastoral office
· To build adjacent to the house a temple to accommodate 200 persons
· Operating hours will be on Sundays from 10am to12 pm, and 5pm 8pm
Wednesday night from 7pm to 9pm
· We estimate to use 2 acres for the church building and parking
· The existing building occupies approx. 2/3 of an acre
· The rest of the acreage (approx. 4 acres) to be used for recreation (playground and
picnic area)
Attachments required:
Recorded plat or boundary survey of the property. Page book page no., plat book and
page no.
Ownership information-
.Written consent to the application by the owners-
Drawings of conceptual plans, if any
Any other information:
Health Dept. (septic, well, etc.)
Rpr O? 2003 l~:34PH Homes_ Rnd Lands Realtor 434-5_89-7926 p. I
· R~..~jk~ i~T 0,~.~ .,.servi.g ce~lliral Virginia
5766 Thomas Jcffcrson Parkway, Suite 200, Pahnyra VA 22963
Phone number: 434-589-2600
Fax number: 434-589-7926
Mobile: 9604037
Send to: JOAN MCDOWELL From: OLGA F_ MORSE, ASSOCIATE BROKER'
AtLentio n: WITHDRAWAL OF SITE PLAN WAIVER DATE: 4/7/03
Office Location: Office Location:
Fax Number. g72-40 Z2 Phone Number:
Total pages, including cover:
Comments:
DEAR MS. MC DOWELL:
AS PER REQUEST, HERE IS THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION REGARDING THE CANAAN CHURCH '
A. ACTUAL MEMBERS: SEVEN'IY
B. 'rYPICALATFENDANCE: FOUR[Y-FIVE
C. A'FI'ENDANCE ON SPECIAL OCCASSIONS: NINETY-FIVETO ONE HUNDRED
D. SANCTUARY SQUARE FEET: 2,000 (40 X 50)
Thank you,
IOLGA MORSE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: SDP-03-19 Keswick Vineyards Site
Plan Waiver, relief, from Planning Commission
conditions of approval.
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request for a
waiver of the requirements of Section 32, Site Plan to
allow for the construction of 1250 square feet of retail
space within the existing footprint of the Keswick
Vineyards winery building. The parcel is located PA,
Rural Areas. The property, described as Tax Map 66
Parcel 3A is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District
at 6131 Gordonsville Road (Route #231). The
Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural
Areas in Rural Area 2.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Margaret Doherty
AGENDA DATE: June 4, 2003 ITEM NUMBER:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA: No
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY: VWC
BACKGROUND:
The Keswick Vineyards Winery located on State Route 231 would like to convert a portion of their existing winery
building to serve as a retail space. Pursuant to Section 5.1.25, with prior approval of a site plan, one location may
be established on each farm for the on-premise sale of wine and wine consumption, in lieu of a site plan, the
applicant requested a site plan waiver, such that the entire 393 acre parcel would not have to be surveyed for
trees of 6" caliper or more. The site review committee recommended that the Planning Commission approve the
site plan waiver, with conditions as described in the attached staff report (Attachment E). The Planning
Commission amended the conditions to include more screening and noise attenuating mechanisms, and to lessen
the adverse effects on the adjacent property (see minutes of the meeting as Attachment C). The applicant
contends that three of the conditions of approval relate to the existing wi:nery operation, not the proposed retail
operation, and, therefore, should be removed. The applicants request for an apPeal to be relieved of these
conditions is included as Attachment A.
DISCUSSION:
The Planning Commission voted 5:1 (Loewenstein absent) to approve the site plan waiver with conditions, as
described in the attached letter, Attachment B. The commission heard from an adjacent property owner
regarding the noise and other adverse effects of living next-door to a winery. The property owner presented
photographs and a journal of the noise generated by the winery operation, which is included as Attachment D.
Staff's recommended conditions and the commission's conditions are included in the entirety as attachments.
Below is an abbreviated summary of conditions from which the applicant is requesting relief.
05-27-0~ 03:'3 IN
Staff's recommended condition #2 (in part) read as follows:
The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the mylar of the site plan waiver for signature until a
tentative final approval for the following conditions have been obtained. The plan shall not be signed until
the following conditions have been met:
The existing gravel road shall be surfaced with asphalt within the bus tum around, employee parking,
and service areas. Additionally, the bus turn around area shall be improved to include a paved bus
parking area;
Screening trees shall be provided in the area behind the fence, between the bio-filter and the
adjacent property to the west;
The Planning Commission voted to amend these conditions to include the following (only new language is
provided)
·.. The applicant may cover the asphalt with pdme and double seal, if desired;
·.. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the agent, the applicant shall not remove
existing trees and shall plant an under-planting of shade-tolerant screening trees for a depth of 50 (fifty)
feet along the northwesterly property line to a point measured at the end of the stable building located
on the adjacent property;
The noise of the chiller units shall be attenuated with a baffling mechanism, subject to the agent's
approval;
The noise of the refrigerated trailers shall be attenuated with one of the following baffling mechanisms,
subject to the agent's approval:
£ The use of electric refrigeration units, rather than diesel;
ii. The loading dock being moved to the opposite side of the building; and/or
iii. A screening wall being constructed on the western side of the loading stall.
The applicant requests that the Board remove conditions numbered 2.a., 2.c. and 2.d. in their entirety. As
stated in their request for an appeal, they believe these conditions relate to the existing winery operation and
should not be imposed on the site plan waiver approval, for the retail use. Staff believes that should the Board
agree with the applicant, condition 2.a. should remain because it relates to the paving of portions of the site
which will be used by employees, service providers and customers of the retail use. The conditions would then
be as follows:
1. The site shall be developed in general accord with the attached plans, entitled Keswick Vineyards Winery
Site Plan Waiver, dated April 15, 2003;
The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the mylar of the site plan waiver for signature until a
tentative final approval for the following conditions have been obtained. The plan shall not be signed until the
following Conditions have been met:
The existing gravel road shall be surfaced with asphalt within the bus turn around, employee parking,
and service areas. Additionally, the bus tum around area shall be improved to include a paved bus
parking area. The applicant may cover the asphalt with prime and double seal, if desired;
Screening trees shall be provided in the area behind the fence, between the bio-filter and the adjacent
property to the west. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the agent, the applicant shall
not remove existing trees and shall plant an under-planting of shade-tolerant screening trees for a depth
of 50 (fifty) feet along the northwesterly property line to a point measured at the end of the stable
building located on the adjacent property;
Resulting slopes shall be no greater than 4:1;
d. Architectural Review Board Certificate of Appropriateness; and
Engineering Department review and approval to include:
An erosion control plan, narrative, computations, completed application and fee for erosion control
and stormwater;
ii. A stormwater managementJBMP plan and computations. A detention waiver is approved for this
site. Computations shall include water quality requirements; and
iii. A completed stormwater management facilities maintenance agreement and fee.
ATTACHMENTS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
Applicant's Request for Appeal
Planning Commission Action Letter
Planning Commission Minutes
Adjacent Property Owner's exhibits
Staff Report for Planning Commission meeting
Tax Ma p
Supplementary Regulations for wineries, Section 5.1.25 Farm Winery
Adjacent Owner's request for public hearing
VDOT approval
Thomas Jefferson Health Department approval
Site Plan Waiver Plans, entitled Keswick Vineyards Winery Site Plan Waiver, dated April 15, 2003.
BRUCS D. RASMUSSEN (VA, V~rA ~ DC)
RONALD R. TWEEL
GARY W, KENDALL
JoriN V. LrrrLE
KE¥1N W. RYAN
ELI~BE~ P, COUGHTER
J~ss P, Cox HI
Ros~ ~, J~c~so~
G~s~ M, SM~
W~M C. Sco~ IV
MICHIE, HAMLETT, LOWRY, RASMUSSEN 8e TWEEL, P,C.
Attorneys at Law
500 COURT SQUARE, SUITE 300 · P.O. BOX z98
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 2.~90 Z-o2,9 8
WEssrm: www.mhlrt.com
434-95x-7zoo
Ms. Margaret Doherty
Principal Planner
FACSIMZLE: 434-95 X-72' 8
E-MAIL-' asmithamhtrt, com
DIRECT FAX.' 804-951-7242
May 16, 2003
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
ATTACH M GNT A
PETER MCINTOSH
ROBERT A. KANTAS
M. BRYAN SLAU~aT~ IVA, ~A)~
PAUL ~ THOMSOn, III (VA,
J. Ga~coa~ W~s (V& ~A)~
Of Counsel
T~OMAS J. Mmm~
EDaa~ E HmsxE~ III (~A
DIRECT DIAL; 806'951'~22
Re: Notice of Appeal:Keswick Vineyards Site Plan .Waiver SDP-03-19 Conditions
Dear Ms. Doherty:.
On behalf of Albert and Cindy Schomberg, owners of Keswick Vineyards, we hereby
appeal the conditions of approval designated 2.a., 2.c. and 2.d imposed on. SDP-03-19,
Keswick Vineyards Site Plan Waiver, as set forth in your letter of May 12, 2003, which
documented the decision of the Planning Commission at its meeting of 6 May, 2003. The
conditions that we appeal require surfacing the existing gravel road and bus turn around area
with asphalt, attenuating sounds produced by existing chiller units, and attenuating sounds
produced by a refrigeration trailers during harvest season using one of three baffling
mechanisms subject to your approval.
The application for Site Plan Waiver was made to authorize the establishment of
retail operations within a pre-existing Farm Winery production facility. During the review
of the site plan waiver, an adjacent property owner suggested that sounds emanating from
the production facility were adversely impacting his property on a seasonal basis. He
admitted that the sounds in question related to an existing production facility, not the
establishment of the retail space. Nevertheless, he expressly requested that the board impose
conditions on the retail site plan waiver to address prior site development activity which had
not been required to undergo site plan review when the production facility was established
early in the year 2002. The sound levels recorded by the'heighboring property owner were
not in violation of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, and created no greater impact
on his property than his own recently installed firing range and waste piles positioned along
the boundary line he says he wants to protect.
The Planning Commission, in considering site plan waiver request referred to this
language: "Ifa site plan waiver is requested, particular consideration shall be given to
provisions for safe and convenient access, parking, outdoor lighting, signs and potential'
CHARLOTTESVILLE · ROANOKE
i
Margaret Doherty, Principal Planner
May 16, 2003
2
adverse impacts to adjoining property, and reasonable standards and conditions may be
imposedas conditions of such waiver. "Zoning Ordinance, Farm Winery, 5.1.25.d. Prior to
the Planning Comrrfittee meeting, Keswick Vineyards complied with staffrecommendations
and requirements relative to "... safe and convenient access, parking, outdoor lighting, signs
... ". A mm and taper lane were added to the entrance from Route 231 per the specifications
of the VDOT; the interior access road will be widened and paved per county engineering;
parking and bus drop-off and pick-up have been addressed per comments from engineering
and planning staff; no outdoor lighting in excess of 3000 lumens is proposed, and; the
location of the existing sign is being adjusted per comments from the VDOT.
Condition 2.a. was recommended by you and imposed to address existing winery has
gravel service drives and work areas. We objected to, and now appeal the condition because
those areas are not,being substantially altered as a result of the proposed retail operation. In
fact, there is a net r~duction of these areas resulting from proPosed changes to the site. All
traffic related to the retail space will be transported over paved surfaces per county
engineering specifications. All potential adverse impact from the retail traffic will be fully
mitigated by the improvements to the public road and parking areas. There will be no
change in the level of service traffic resulting from the addition of the retail use. Paving the
existing gravel service road and work areas will only increase storm water run-off, and has
no connection to any potential impact on the adjoining property owner. The existing gravel
road is much more environmentally friendly and appropriate to its existing agricultural
setting.
Conditions 2.c. and 2.d were imposed to address sound produced by existing
production equipment. Beyond screening vegetation, staffdidnot recommend, and Keswick
Winery did not propose to adopt measures to attenuate seasonal production sound because
the proposed retail space did not threaten to introduce additional sounds or to impose any
"potenti'al" adverse impact on his property.
The adjoining property owner misused the site plan waiver review as a means to
scrutinize an existing agricultural production facility which is now entering its second season
oflawful operations. The adjoining landowners' efforts were a product ofhis long-standing
animosity towards the Shombergs, who refused in 2001 to purchase his property. Where no
potential impacts exist as a result of a proposed improvement, the site plan waiver process
may not be used to mm back the clock and extend the County's regulatory jurisdiction. Nor
should it be co-opted by a feuding neighbor to impose his will on lawful agricultural uses.
Conditions 2.a., 2.c and 2.d are not only unreasonable; but by adopting them, the
Planning Commission exceeded its authority and abused its discretion. For these reasons we
Margaret Doherty, Principal Planner
May 16, 2003
3
give notice of our appeal of those conditions, and ask the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors to remove them.
Enclosure
cc: A1 & Cindy Schomberg
Bob Paxton, AlA
ATTACHMENT B
May12,2003
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
ph (434) 296-5823
fax (434) 972-4012
Joseph Chambers
DEG&P Architects
206 Fifth Street, NE
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SDP-03-19 Keswick Vineyards Site Plan Waiver
Dear Mr. Chambers:
On May 6, 2003,the Planning Commission granted approval of your requests to waive the provisions of
Chapter 18, Section 32, Site Plan, with the following conditions:
The site shall be developed in general accord with the attached plans, entitled Keswick
Vineyards Winery Site Plan Waiver, dated April 15, 2003;
The Planning Department shall not accept Submittal of the mylar of the site plan waiver for
signature until a tentative final approval for the following conditions have been obtained.
The plan shall not be signed until the following conditions have been met:
The existing gravel road shall be surfaced with asphalt within the bus turn around,
employee parking, and service areas. Additionally, the bus mm around area shall be
improved to include a paved bus parking area. The applicant may cover the asphalt
with prime and double seal, if desired;
Screening trees shall be provided in the area-behind the fence, between the bio-filter
and the adjacent property to the west. Except for the tree removal expressly
authorized by the agent, the applicant shall not remove existing trees and shall plant
an under-planting of shade-tolerant screening trees for a depth of 50 (fifty) feet along
the northwesterly property line to a point measured at the end of the stable building
located on the adjacent property;
The noise of the chiller units shall be attenuated with a baffling mechanism, subject to
the agent's approval;
7
ATTACHMENT B
do
The noise of the refrigerated trailers shall be attenuated with one of the following
baffling mechanisms, subject to the agent's approval:
i. The use of electric refrigeration units, rather than diesel;
ii. The loading dock being moved to the opposite side of the building; and/or
iii. A screening wall being constructed on the western side of the loading stall.
e. Resulting slopes shall be no greater than 4:1;
f. Architectural Review Board Certificate of Appropriateness; and
go
Engineering Department review and approval to include:
i. An erosion control plan, narrative, computations, completed application and
fee for erosion control and stormwater;
ii. A stormwater management/BMP plan and computations. A detention waiver
is approved for this site. Computations shall include water quality
requirements; and
iii. A completed stormwater management facilities maintenance agreement and
fee.
Feel free to contact me, at your earliest convenience, if you have any questions or require additional
information.
Sincerely,
Margaret Doherty
Principal Planner
ATTACHMENT C
Regular Item:
SDP-2003-019 Keswick Vineyards Site Plan Waiver - Request for a waiver of the
requirements of Section 32, Site Plan to allow for the construction of 1250 square feet of retail
space within the existing footprint of the Keswick Vineyards winery building. The parcel is located
PA, Rural Areas. The property, described as Tax Map 66, Parcel 3A is located in the Rivanna
Magisterial District on Rt. 231 (Gordonsville Road). The Comprehensive Plan designates this
property as Rural Areas in Rural Area 2. (Margaret Doherty)
Ms. Doherty stated that a letter of support had been received this afternoon from an interested
neighbor, Kat Imhoff. Also, a packet had been received from the adjacent property owner and
had been forwarded to the Commission. She summarized the staff report. She stated that this
was a request for a waiver of Section 32, Site Plan, to allow for the construction of 1,250 feet of
retail space within the existing footprint of the Keswick Vineyards winery building. The Keswick
Winery is proposing to convert a portion of their existing wine production building to sell their wine
on site. The improvements include a new parking area, expanded service area, a couple of bio-
filters and a right-turn and taper on Route 231. As required by Section 5, Supplemental
Regulations for_ Farm Wineries, a site plan must be approved to allow this expansion in the winery
use. Given the-size of the entire property, the applicant has requested to waive the drawing ora
site plan and asks for approval of this waiver plan in its place. The site plan issues have been
resolved through the'Site Review Committee Process. Staff finds that the impacts of converting
the existing space to retail, providing for public parking and expanding the service area have
been reduced by requiring the entrance improvements on the public road, the paving of the
parking and the travel ways and the screening of the objectionable uses as proposed and
expanded in the recommended conditions of approval. She pointed out that there was one
change proposed to the conditions of approval in condition # 2d. She noted that there was a
health department condition, which was redundant to the existing Zoning regulations, and the
Zoning Department asked that the condition be taken out. She pointed out that she took out that
condition and replaced it with the ARB approval. Condition Cf 2d will be that the applicant obtains
Architectural Review Board Certificate of Appropriateness. She stated that if there were any
questions that she would be happy to answer them.
Mr. Rieley asked if there were other q uestions for Ms. Doherty. There being none, he opened the
public hearing and asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission.
Bob Paxton, a partner in a local architectural firm, Dalgiesh, Eichman, Gilpin, & Paxton PC, stated
that he was present with his associate, Joe Chambers, who has been working with Ms. Doherty
and Chdsty Shaft, who is going to be operating the retail space in the fall. The owners of
EdgewoOd Farm, Al and Cindy Schornberg and Keswick Vineyard have asked us to design a
retail space, both interior and exterior, and the adjacent landscaping with the approach road from
Route 231 to the winery for the site plan review process. The reason that the Sornberg's came to
our firm is because of the track record or experience that they have had on Route 231 or the
Keswick Corridor. He pointed out that they did the work at Keswick Hotel and Golf Clubhouse for
the Ashley family, Tally-Ho, Tall Oaks, Kenlock, Castle Hill and Edgewood for the previous
owners. He noted their track record for the Keswick area, which was one the most scenic
Entrance Corridors into the City. He stated that every attempt would be made to do something
consistent and compatible with that road to enhance it. He stated that the Thomburgs were going
to take a 393~acre property and try to maintain an agricultural use for it rather than developing the
area. He pointed out that Mr. Chambers would go over a couple of the details.
Joe Chambers stated that beginning at the apprOach from Route.231, they would provide a 100-
foot turn and taper lane to meet the requirements of VDOT. Improvements would also be made
to the internal road according to the comments from the County Engineering Department on the
widening and paving sections. Then as you approach the building, you would transition to a
prime and double seal with a brown stone topcoat parking area. They.have tried to delineate
between the public and the private space by suggesting that the service area be treated with a
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 6, 2003 12
DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED MAY 20, 2003
ATTACHMENT C
prime and double seal surface treatment with gray gravel in hopes that it would maintain the
character of an internal farm road. In front of the building at the public entrance, they have
created lawn space with the building fac~,ade to one side's view and the garden pavilion flanking
the other side. This Is a pre,engineered building that they are using for their production and they
are intending to give it a new fa(;ade with a profile that is derived from an existing outbuilding on
the farm of the original stable building. They intend to use stucco surfacing that will match as
closely as possible the existing finish on the main house. In addition to the creation of the lawn
space and the garden pavilion, they were adding a porch to the building constructed of heavy
timbers with exposed rafters, which would fit well in the rural character of the area. With regards
to the staff's conditions, of.approval, the only one that they want to revisit is that the staff has
recommended that the entire Surface read be paved with asphalt. Primarily for the reason to be
able to delineate between the public and private road and maintain as much of the rural character
of the site as possible, they would, like to transition from asphalt to a prime and double seal. He
stated that their preference would be to maintain the gravel road that is existing on the site. Staff
has raised concerns about the dirt and dust that could be picked up from a standard gravel road
so that they propose the prime and double seal in the service areas with a gray stone surface so
that they can still delineate between the public and private areas and address the issues of dirt
and dust. With regards to the other conditions, the colored site plan that they brought hopefully
would address-the issues concerning the screening trees that Ms. Doherty has noted. He pointed
out that they would revise their grading to make sure that their slopes do not exceed 4:1. They
have been to the Architectural Review Board and have reCeived the Certificate of
Appropriateness; He stated that theywould submit all of their plans for storm water and erosion
control to the Engineering Department.
Mr. Rieley asked if there was anyone who has questions for Mr. Paxton or Mr. Chambers. There
being no further questions, he stated that ther~ were two people signed up to speak concerning
this. He asked that the first speaker, Richard Carter, come forward to address the Commission.
Richard Carter stated that he represented Mr. and Mrs. Art Beltrone that are the neighbors
adjoining this property who have expressed their concerns. He stated that while this is under the
ordinance as "farm use", in reality what they have here. is tourism use, manufacturing use and
then farm use. Therefore, there is a lot that is going on next door to Mr. and Mrs. Beltrone. The
staff and the applicant have been somewhat responsive to some of Our concerns. He pointed out
that the conditions in the staff report are positive, and he would ask that they keep these
conditions. The paving of the existing gravel road is important because it will reduce the noise
and the dust. He stated that they have no problem with the applicant wanting to go from asphalt
to prime and double seal. He pointed out that their concern was the dust that the existing gravel
road would cause. The noise on the gravel would not be heard on the hard surface .road. They
also think it is positive that the bus parking area was moved to the other side of the winery from
where the Beltrone's property is located and that the turn around location for the buses is on that
side. He stated that they think it is positive that VDOT approve the entrance is a condition and a
requirement. In addition, they think it is positive that there has been an increase in screening
trees between the Beltrone's property and the applicant's property. He suggested a few other
conditions. One condition .is the extension of the trees 'in each direction for the complete
screening of the w~nery from the Beltrone's property. As you move in the upper direction on
those trees, there is some wooded area that is probably why those trees stoP there.' They would
like to see a condition that if the wooded area is removed, then screening takes place because
there is nothing that they can do to prevent them from cutting down the woods. He asked that
they do this because it would only enhance the view and reduce the noise. Yesterday the
Commission was given some pictures by Mr. Beltrone of the back of the winery. He pointed out
that they would like to see that the chillers are screened because that will cut down on the noise.
The green utility box is suppose to be screened, and since the chillers were next to that they
would like the screening to continue from the utility box to the chillers. AlsO, there is an opening
for the refrigerator truck. That refrigerator truck stays on all night, which is right beside the
Beltrone's. They would request a condition that at night the refrigerator truck be moved over to
where the bus parking is located on the other side of the winery. He asked that they take a
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -MAY 6, 2003 13
DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED MAY 20, 2003
ATTACHMENT C
tractor and move the refrigerator truck each night and then bdng it back the next moming to
reduce the amount of noise. The Planning Commission is charged with considering adverse
impacts to an adjoining property. He stated that that imposing reasonable standards and
conditions are necessary and that what they have suggested is reasonable. He stated that Mr.
Beltrone would like to speak, and he would be happy to answer any questions after that.
Mr. Beltrone stated that he would like to give a little background on how a Situation like this
happens. Number one, when a person wants to put in a vineyard by right, he can do that
because it is an agricultural use. If he wants to build a winery building, he must first go to the
ABC to get approval. The ABC Commission can turn this down if the building is so located with
respect to any residence or residential area that the operation of such place under such license
will adversely affect the real property values or substantially interfere with the usual quietude and
tranquility of such residence or residential area. This is what the ABC Commission says. They
do not require any plan. They do not require a site plan. They do not require a look at a building.
You just go: in for your application and they grant it. All you have to do is show that your grapes
are in production. Then they will allow you to build a building with no concept with where that
building will be. Then the person with the license goes to the County and gets a building plan and
since he is building an agricultural building and it is not being opened to the public yet, there is no
site plan required at that point. He pointed out that this building at one point would be used as a
manufacturing facility,. It will have chillers and refrigerated trucks operating for two months at a
time twenty-four hours a day with no restrictions because it is an agriculture use. Now that the
public will be welcomed in to taste the wine, they have to submit the site plan, but now they are
requesting a waiver. He stated that he has no objection to that. The objection that he has is the
fact that they were able to place it as close as they did to their property line, and now they were
faced with the noises that they have had over the past year. Now with the increased traffic and
public with. the wine consumption and more refrigerated trucks with the grapes, which they can
bring in from other facilities, is going to allow them to operate even longer. All that they are
asking for is some consideration to address keeping the noise level down in those two areas
where the refrigerator trucks and the chiller units are located and the screening. He pointed out
that he has lived in this residence for twenty years. For the people in this County, since there are
18 existing wineries with more on the way, he suggested that there be some type of change in the
procedure to prevent this from happening in the future.
Mr. Rieley asked if anyone else would like to address this application. There being none, he
closed the public hearing to bring the matter back before the Commission for discussion and
possible action. He asked what the noise limitation was from the property line. He stated that
there have been repeated instances where the noise level was above 60 to 64 decibels.
Ms. Doherty stated that she spoke with Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator, this afternoon
and was sent an email that said that they have determined to date that the noise is exempt from
the Zoning regulations because the sound is generated during lawfully permitted bonafide civil,
cultural or agricultural activities.
Mr, Rieley asked what it would be if it were not exempt.
Mr. Kamptner stated that it would be 60 decibels during the day and 55 decibels at night. The
definition of agriculture in the Zoning Ordinance includes agriculturally related businesses and
processing activities. Therefore, it is not .iust the growing of the crops and the sounds from
livestock.
Mr. Edgerton asked if there was no sound limitation as long as it is deemed agricultural.
Mr. Kamptner stated that was correct under the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Kamptner stated that in this situation you have a site plan waiver request and you are
authorized to address potential impacts on neighboring properties during this process.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 6, 2003 14
DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED MAY 20, 2003
ATTACHMENT C
Mr. Craddock asked if that goes as far as setbacks too when the building is built agriculturally and
then it turns into something beyond that.
Mr. Kamptner stated that here' they have an existing structure which is not being moved any
closer. He stated that the noise attenuation measures that have been suggested are things that
you can impose to address potential impacts to the Beitrone property.
Mr, Thomas stated that he would like to see the screening done around the chillers. He
supported the request to move the refrigerator truck. He pointed out that a diesel or gasoline
fueled refrigeration unit was very loud. He felt that moving the truck would quiet that noise down.
In addition, Mr. Beltrone was looking right across at the dock since it was so close to his property.
He asked if the 64-decibel reading was continuous for a long period of time.
Mr. Kamptner stated that under the County's standards the noise level is measured under a
certain procedure and is taken over a certain period of time. He stated that he did not know how
these noise levels were taken. He stated that Mr. Beltrone had identified several readings that he
taken over a four-week period. He pointed out that the County would not enforce this since the
use was exempt from the noise ordinance.
Mr. Edgerton asked why the refrigerator truck has to run all night.
Christy Shaft stated that the 'refrigerated trucks hold the grapes to keep them cold during the
harvest so that the grapes would not rot before they were processed.
Mr. Edgerton asked if moving the refrigerated truck would be problematic or does it have to be
connected to the dock.
Ms. Shaft stated that it was probably connected for loading and unloading.
Mr. Rieley stated that there was an interesting conflict between what most people think of our
Rural Areas working and functioning in what they offer us in the way they are offering us a quiet
country experience and the ways that the State and our local ordinances are written to give
favorable treatment to agriculture as one of the two blessed uses in the Rural Area. He pointed
out that they would be grappling with this,in the Rural Areas seCtion of the Comprehensive Plan
soon. One thing occurred to him in listening to concerns expressed by Mr. Carter. He agreed
with Mr. Thomas that the attenuation of the noise to whatever extent that they can do it to protect
the neighbors and screening to protect the visual intrusion. He pointed out that the visual
intrusion would improve under the proposed plans by Mr. Chambers and Mr. Paxton, but it
certainly was an industrial looking facility right now. In looking at all of these issues, he felt that a
site plan was probably a good idea and was probably the right place to scrutinize each of these
issues. He stated that they should be looking for ways that would be really effective in dealing
with the issue of the noise as it affects the adjacent property_owner. Similarly, he suggested that
they look very carefully at the screening. If they have the (~apacity to do so, he suggested that
they suggest that there is an area in which trees do not come down. He felt that some
underplanting of some evergreen species would provide a measure of protection. He asked why
the refrigerator truck could not be somewhere else. Even though this use does not fall within the
ordinance provisions, he stated that as a practical matter this was operating at nighttime above
the level of noise that we would permit of any other activity during the daytime. He stated that it is
making more noise at night than we would permit for any other use during the daytime. He
suggested that they look at these in detail and that the site plan is the place to do that.
Mr. Thomas asked what is the proximity of the house to the chillers.
Mr. Beltone pointed out the location of his house to the chiilers on the plan.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 6, 2003
DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED MAY 20, 2003
15
ATTACHMENT C
Ms. Doherty pointed out that on page 11 of the staff report that you can see the Beltrone's house.
Mr. Beitone stated that Bart Svoboda and John Jones of the Zoning Department took several
noise readings. He stated that the house was about 600 feet from the chillers. He noted that he
could not use one of his buildings for show horses because of the noise.
Mr. Paxton stated that they had gotten a clarification on the refrigerator truck.
Ms. Hopper asked Mr. Paxton if he has some addiUonal information regarding the refrigeration
truck.
Mr. Paxton stated that Christy made a cell phone call out in the hall. She found that the tractor-
trailer delivers the trailer to the site and then the tractor leaves. Therefore, the trailer is just there
by itself an d is not something that can be easily moved on a daily basis. In addition, the site plan
setback is 25 feet and they were 125 feet off the line with this building.
Ms. Hopper stated that when the tractor-trailer drops off the trailer, could they leave it at another
location such as where the buses rum around.
Mr. Paxton stated that it could not. The reason is the grapes are picked during the day and they
are in pallets that car~ be moved by a forklift. The forklift can drive right onto the truck if it is at the
loading dock where, the levels are set up for that. If itwas somewhere else, there is no way to
move the grapes from the front of the truck to the back of the truck to get the grapes that they
picked that day. He stated that the grapes are picked as quickly as they can, and they cannot
process all of the grapes that are picked during the day that night. Therefore, they are keeping
those grapes in the refrigeration truck until they get processed. The building contains the tanks
and the press. The chillers control the temperatures of the tanks.
Mr. Craddock asked what would prevent some type of screening being built around the
refrigeration truck for noise abatement.
Mr. Payton stated that it needed fresh air for the refrigeration unit to work.
Mr. Craddock stated that was probably on top of the unit.
Mr. Rieley stated that was a type of question that should be gotten into at the site plan level.
Ms. Hopper stated that if they do not grant the site plan waiver that it seems that they lose all the
opportunity to impose conditions regarding the noise.
Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Kamptner's opinion on that question.
Mr. Kamptner stated that the one thing about the site plan.waiver is that it gives you express
authority to impose conditions to address potential impacts.' On a full site plan, it is ministerial if
the applicant satisfies all of the requirements of the ordinance. Within that there may be some
discretion where the agent can decide to look at the buffer requirements, but here they have
agriculture to agriculture zoned property.
Ms. Doherty stated that the waiver in this case allows you more latitude in terms of safe and
convenient access, parking, outdoor lighting, signs and potential adverse impacts to adjoining
property in Section 32.
Mr. Thomas asked if they would be allowed to require that the decibel level be maintained in the
daytime at 50 and the nighttime at 60.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 6, 2003
DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED MAY 20, 2003
16
ATTACHMENT C
M~'. Kamptner stated that he would prefer noise attenuation measures rather than the site plan
review for a couple of reasons. One of the reasons they adopted the Zoning noise regulations
was to have a standard level throughout the County. The Board has already decided that
agricultural activities should be exempt from the noise levels that are in the ordinance. He stated
that Section 32.7.9.8.c.3 allows screening of objectionable features including but not limited to
certain activities, one of which is a loading area. The agent, as part of the site review process,
can determine whether or not the loading area needs to be screened.
Ms. Doherty stated that what they are showing on the site plan waiver meets the screening
requirements for loading areas.
Mr. Rieley stated that it sounds as if they have a little more latitude if they take these up tonight
and get as specific as they can.' He mentioned that regarding the issue of gravel versus prime
and double seal versus pavement that the benefits of asphalt deal with the duSt, noise and issue
of durability. The only justification articulated by the applicants from going from an asphalt
pavement to a prime and double seal pavement was an aesthetic one. A surface treatment of
prime and double seal can be put on top of an asPhalt pavement and is done all of the time.
Therefore, there is no reason left not to require the asphalt. He proposed that be left and the
applicant decOrating it with prime and double seal if they like.
Mr. Rieley proposed; that they incorporate language that would allow for the extension of the
screenin g to. the northwest. One question is can we attach a condition that puts a 50-foot zone
along that property line for a distance until it clears the stables at least in which there will be a
protected area where the trees will not be cut.
Mr. Kamptner stated yes, that as a means to reduce the noise and the visibility effect that they
could preserve the existing trees. He suggested that they 'use the language that they use for the
wireless facilities that allows them to remove the dead and diseased trees
Mr. Anderson stated that as a non-voting member he thought it should be southwest of the barn.
Mr. Rieley stated that was correct because they were discussing extending the screening in the
northwesterly direction. The second condition is underplanting with a shade tolerant evergreen
species. He suggested that they keep what is there and then supplement it with evergreen trees.
Mr. Craddock stated that it would go past the big barn, which would include the gazebo.
Mr. Rieley stated that the screening should go at least past the big barn. He stated that he would
prefer noise baffling of the chiller. He stated that they could entrust staff to figure out the most
effective way to do that. He stated that the real tough issue was the refrigeration truck that sits
there all night.
Ms. Hopper suggested some type of noise baffling be place.d around the truck. Perhaps some
type of wall could be slide in front of it during the night.
Ms. Doherty stated that there is an open bay. In the report, it talks about using electric
refrigeration trucks versus diesel. She pointed out that she did not know if they could require that
on a winery.
Ms. Hopper suggested that the door be set up so it was more like a screen.
Mr. Kamptner suggested that a baffle fence solid from ground up to above the refrigeration unit
that would keep the noise from moving towards the Beltone property be used. It would still be
open to the air since it would only be on the one site.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 6, 2003
DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED MAY 20, 2003
17
ATTACHMENT C
Ms. Hopper asked if the applicant would be open to a deferral so that they could get better
information about this.
Mr. Paxton stated that a deferral would be a tremendous hardship because they were trying to
get the retail space open for the fall picking. He pointed out that they were behind the gun already
on it.
Mr. Rieley stated that he would run though the items to include in the agreement. The paving will
be all asphalt and there shall be no prime and double seal. The prime and double seal can be in
addition to the asphalt. Extension of the trees as an underplanting where there are existing trees
in conjunction with a tree protection zone of 50 feet from the property line and at least up to the
northwestern most extent of the long stable building on the site plan. A baffling system for the
chillers to attenuate the noise and a wall/baffling system with the approval of the agent to
attenuate the noise of the refrigerator trucks. He stated that the screening or the baffling
mechanism for the chiller unit is with the approval of the agent. He added as an altemative that
they could add or relocate the loading dock to achieve the same effect.
Ms. Hopper as.ked to put something in there that whichever way the agent finds it to be superior.
Mr. Rieley stated that he was hesitant to put that in there because one could cost $20,000 as
opposed to $250, which would delay them for the season. He noted that he would be happy to
leave it at the agent's discretion.
Mr. Doherty stated that the applicant asked if they could do the electric truck if that could be one
of their options.
Mr. Rieley added a third option as the limitation to electric powered refrigeration trucks.
Mr. Finley opposed the motion because it looked like they should have addressed these issues
under a site plan. The site plan process would have given the neighbors an opportunity to
discuss this instead of. trying to patch and remedy the situation this after the fact.
Ms. Hopper moved for approval of the site plan waiver for SDP-2003-019, Keswick Vineyards
Site Plan Waiver, subject to the following conditions as modified:
!. The site shall be developed in general accord with the attached plans, entitled Keswick
Vineyards Winery Site Plan Waiver, dated April 15, 2003;
The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the mylar of the site plan waiver for
signature until a tentative final approval for the following conditions have been obtained. The
plan shall not be signed until the following conditions have been met:
The existing gravel road shall be surfaced with asphalt within the bus turn around,
employee parking, and service areas. Additionally~ the bus turd around area shall be
improved to include a paved bus parking area. The applicant may cover the asphalt with
prime and double seal, if desired;
b. Screening trees shall be provided in the area behind the fence, between the bio-filter and
the adjacent property to the west. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by
the agent, the applicant shall not remove existing trees and shall plant an under-planting
of shade-tolerant screening trees for a depth of 50 (fifty) feet along the northwesterly
property line to a point measured at the end of the stable building located on the adjacent
property;
c. The noise of the chiller units shall be attenuated with a baffling mechanism, subject to the
agent's approval;
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 6, 2003 18
DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED MAY 20, 2003
15-
ATTACHMENT C
d. The noise of the refrigerated trailers shall be attenuated with one of the following baffling
mechanisms, subject to the agent's approval:
£ The use of electric refrigeration units, rather than diesel;
ii. The loading dock being moved to the opposite side of the building; and/or
iii.A screening wall being constructed on the western side of the loading stall.
e. Resulting slopes shall be no greater than 4:1;
f. Architectural Review Board Certificate of Appropriateness; and
g. Engineering Department review and approval to include:
i. An erosion control plan, narrative, computations, completed application and fee for
erosion control and stormwater;
ii. A stormwater management/BMP plan and computations. A detention waiver is approved
for this site. Computations shall include water quality requirements; and
iii. A completed stormwater management facilities maintenance agreement and fee.
Mr. Edgerton'seconded the motion.
The motion carried dnanimously (5:0). (Finley - No) (Loewenstein - Absent)
Mr. Rieley stated that this item would go to the Board of Supervisors on June 4th.
Old Business
Mr. Rieley asked if there was any old business. There being none, the meeting proceeded.
New Business
Pete Anderson, Planning Commission Liaison for the University of Virginia, stated that this would
be the last meeting that he would ever attend with this group since he would be retiring in eight
days and moving to another state. He thanked the Commission for the special privilege of
allowing him to be a part of this group.
Ms. Hopper thanked Mr. Anderson for his contribution to the DISC Committee.
Mr. Riel.ey congratulated Mr. Anderson on his retirement and expressed the Commission's
appreciation for his services.
Adjournment
With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:05 p:m. to the next meeting on May 13,
2003.
V. Wayne Cilim berg, Secretary
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon Claytor Taylor, Recording Secretary.)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -MAY 6, 2003
DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED MAY 20, 2003
19
ATTACHMENT D
ATTACHMENT D
BROOK HOLLOW FARM
6057 GORDONSVILLE ROAD
KESWlCK~ VA 22947
434-296-1288
~Iay 2, 2003
TO: ALBEMARLE COUNI~ PLANNING COMMISSION
Rodaey S. Thomas
Wffiiam~Pete' Craddock
William W. Finley
C. Jared Loewenstein
Bffi F, dger~on
T~acey Hopper
William Do RJeley
Greg Kamp~er
V. Wayne Cilimberg
~M rincipal Planner, Albemarle County Dept. ogPlanuing &
Community Development
The at~ached handwritten log copy, from Thursday, Sept. 12 (2002) to Sunday, October 20,
2002, represent notes made by myseff, Arthur A. Beltrone, and my wife, Lanenne L.
Beltrone, in relation to on-going noise generated by Keswick Vineyards and Keswick
W~nery. Our farm, B~ook Hollow Farm, 6057 Gordonsvflle Roads Keswick~ VA 22947, is
located adjacent to Keswick Vineyards and Kesw~ck Winery, 6131 Gordonsv~lle Road,
Keswick, VA 22947.
Keswick Vineyards has filed a Site Plan Waiver (SDP-2003-019) which is to be heard at the
May 6, 2003 Albemarle County Planning Commission Meeting. We have met several times
with Margaret Doberty and she has been most belpgul in considering our noise experiences
These continuing incidents have also been experienced by Bart J. Svobeda (296-5832 Ext.
3243), the Albemarle Couynty Manager of Zoning Enforcement~ and John Jones, (296-5832
Ex~ 3427) Albemarle County Zoning Inspector. The no, se has become a problem because of
the close proximity Keswick Vineyards decided to locate its winery building to our :property
and residence.
Our at~orney~ l~ck Carters will represent us at the May 6 public comment session of the
Site Plan Waiver consideration by the PIanuing Co~n~n[~s~Ono Please note Section 5.1.25
Farm Winery section "d.", which states in part "If a site plan waiver is requested, particular
consideration skull be given to provisions for safe and convenient access, parking, outdoor
lighting, signs and potential adverse impacts to adjoining property, and reasonable standards
a~d conditions may be imposed as conditions of such waiver;'; This is found on page 6 of ther
packet d~stributed to yon by Margaret Doberty~ Planning Commission principal planner..
We provide the log to you as a matter of information about this specific noise situatiom
Thank you for your consideration.
Ar~ Beltrone
Enclosure
o 5 2oo
17
ATTACHMENT D
ATTACHMENT D
ATTACHMENT D
ATTACHMENT D
ATTACHMENT D
ATTACHMENT D
ATTACHMENT D
ATTACHMENT D
ATTACHMENT D
ATTACHMENT D
ATTACHMENT D
ATTACHMENT D
ATTACHMENT D
ATTACHMENT D
ATTACHMENT D
ATTACHMENT D
ATTACHMENT D
ATTACHMENT E
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
Margaret Doherty
May 69 2003
SDP-0349 KESWlCK VINEYARDS SITE PLAN WAIVER
APPLICANT*S PROPOSAL:
Request for a waiver of the requirements of Section 32, Site Plan to allow for the construction of
1,250 square feet of retail space within the existing footprint of the Keswick Vineyards winery
building.
CHARACTER OF AREA:
The parcel is zoned RA, Rural Areas. The property, described as Tax Map 66 Parcel 3A is
located in the Rivarma Magisterial District at 6131 Gordonsville Road (Route #231). The
Comprehensive.Plan designates this property as Rural Areas in Rural Area 2. The property is
surrounded by residential and agricultural uses.
REASON FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW
Pursuant to Section 32.2.2, only the commission may waive the drawing of a site plan. However,
staff normally places these items on the commission's consent agend,a. In this case, an adjacent
property owner requested that the item be heard as a regular item.
STAFF COMMENT:
Section 32~ Site Plan
Pursuant to Section 32.2.2, the commission may waive the drawing of a site plan in a particular
case upon a finding that the requirement of such plan would not forward the purposes of this
chapter or otherwise serve the public interest.
The Site Review Committee reviewed the submittal materials and recommends approval of the
waiver request, finding that the proposed plan satisfies the intent and purpose of the site plan
ordinance in that it encourages the use of agricultural activity in the Rural Area. Further, staff
fmds that the drawing of a site plan, in this case, would not forward the purposes of this chapter
or otherwise serve the public interest.
The impacts of converting existing space to retail and providing for publiC parking and
expanding the service area, have been reduced by requiring the following:
· entrance improvements at the public road intersection,
paving of the parking and travelways, and
screening of the objectionable uses as proposed and expanded in the recommended
conditions.
ATTACHMENT E
Section 5, Supplementary Regulations
Each farm winery shall be subject to supplementary regulations found in Section 5.1.25 of
Chapter 18, the Zoning Ordinance, which is included in its entirety as Attachment C. There are
specific uses and activities permitted at a farm winery only through the approval of a site plan, or
in this case, as. part ora site plan waiver, approved by the Planning Commission. Staffhas
reviewed the proposal for conformity with these regulations as follows:
bJ
The following uses and activities are permitted at a farm winery with the prior
approval of a site plan as provided in subsection (d). Special events and festivals are
also subject to the additional requirements set forth in subsection (e): (Added 4-1-98)
On-premise sale of wine and wine consumption. One location may be established
on .each farm for the on-premise sale of wine and wine consumption. The
aggregate total floor area for such sales and consumption shall not exceed fifteen
hundred,(1,500) square feet. A special use permit issued pursuant to section
31.2.4 of this chapter may authorize the aggregate floor area to exceed fifleen
hundred (1,500) square feet; (Added 12-16-81, Amended 1-1-84, Amended 4-1-
98) The proposed aggregate floor area is 1,250, therefore, this provision is
satisfied.
2. Daily tours. Daily tours of a farm win~ry shall be permitted; (Added 1-1-84,
Amended 4-1-98) Approval of this site plan waiver allows for this activity.
Special events. Special events shall be permitted up to t~velve (12) times per year.
For purposes of this section, a special event is an event conducted at a farm
winery on a single day for which attendance is allowed only by invitation or
reservation and whose participants do not exceed one hundred fifty (150)
persons; special events include, but are not limited to, meetings, conferences,
banquets, dinners, wedding receptions, private parties and other events
conducted for the purpose of marketing wine. Approval of this site plan waiver
allows for this activity and it shall be enforced by the Zoning Department.
A special use permit issued pursuant to section 31.2.4 of this chapter may
authorize the number of special events per year to exceed twelve (12), or the
number of allowed participants at any event fo exceed one hundred fifty (150),
or both; (Added 4-1-98) A special permit is not being requested.
Festivals. Festivals shall be permitted up to .four (4) times per year. For
purposes of this section, a festival is an event conducted at a farm winery for up
to three (3) consecutive days which is open to the general public and conducted
for the purpose of marketing wine. (Added 4,1-98) Approval of this site plan
waiver allows for this activity and it shall be enforced by the Zoning
Department.
ATTACHMENT E
A use or activity identified in subsection (c) is authorized only with the prior
approval of a site plan. Prior to approval of the site plan, the owner shall obtain
from the Virginia Department of Transportation approval of a commercial entrance
to the farm winery, and any required approval from the local office of the Virginia
Department of Health. See attached, VDOT~s approval of the proposed entrance
improvements, and approval of the proposed use from the Thomas Jefferson
Department of Health (TJDI-I). As required by the TJDIt, staff has included a
condition that there shall be no food handling or preparation. Ifa site plan
waiver is requested, particular consideration shall be given to provisions for safe
and convenient access, parking, outdoor lighting, signs and potential adverse
impacts to adjoining property, and reasonable standards and conditions may be
imposed as conditions of such waiver; (Added 4-1-98) In giving consideration to
safe and convenient access, parking and potential adverse impacts to the
adjoining property, staff recommends that the existing gravel road be surfaced
with asphalt within the bus tarn around, employee parking, and service areas.
This_ will reduce the dust and noise associated with vehicle traffic. Additionally,
tour buses need a place to park, therefore, a bus parking area is necessary.
Staff recommends that the bus tarn around area~ which is currently graded and
adjacent an existing vehicle maintenance area, be improved to include a paved
area for the buses to park. This will allow the buses to keep their engines and
air-conditioners running far enough away from the adjoining property that the
noise and exhaust does not become a nuisance.
RECOMMENDATION:
Finding that the purposes and intent of Chapter 18 have been met with this request, staff
recommends approval of the Site Plan Waiver, with the following conditions:
The site shall be developed in general accord with the attached plans, entitled
Keswick Vineyards Winery Site Plan Waiver, dated April 15, 2003;
The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the mylar of the site plan
waiver for signature until a tentative final approval for the following conditions have
been obtained. The plan shall not be signed until the following conditions have been
met:
a. The existing gravel road shall be surfaced with asphalt within the bus mm around,
employee parking, and'service areas. AdditiSnally, the bus mm around area shall
be improved to include a paved bus parking area;
b. Screening trees shall be provided in the area behind the fence, between the bio-
filter and the adjacent property to the west;
c. Resulting slopes shall be no greater than 4:1;
d. The following note shall be added: "There shall be no food handling or
preparatiOn without prior approval of the Health Department."; and
e. Engineering Department review and approval to include:
i. An erosion control plan, narrative, computations, completed application and
fee for erosion control and stormwater;
ii. A stormwater management/BMP plan and computations. A detention waiver
ATTACHMENT E
lll.
is approved for this site. Computations shall include water quality
requirements; and
A completed stormwater management facilities maintenance agreement and
fee.
Attachments:
A - Tax Map
B - Supplementary Regulations for wineries, Section 5.1.25 Farm Winery
C - Adjacent Owner's request for public hearing
D - VDOT approval
E - Thomas Jefferson Health Department approval
F - Site Plan Waiver Plans, entitled Keswick Vineyards Winery Site Plan Waiver, dated April
15, 2003.
9~
· ~}t ATTACHMENT
x
\
D~ STR i CT
SDP-03-19 KESWICK Vi~' ..... ' -- ; -
~.o_...-:_ .: NEYARDS SITE PLAN WAIVER
~-.~)~ : x,,.~,, .~ .:;~...,', x ~, . .- ,. //'
' x x'-:<X.' / " / /
'" :-~:~ ..... EIVANNA DISTRICT
ATTACHMENTG
$.1.25 FARM WINERY
E~ch farm winery shall be subject to the following:
The owner shall obtain a farm winery license from the State Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. At least fit~-one (51) pement
of the fresh fruits or agricultural products used by the owner to manufacture the wine shall be grown or produced on the farm,
unless the State Alcoholic Beverage Control Board waives such requirement; (Added 4-1-98)
b. Facilities for fermenting md/or bottling wine shall not be established until the vineyard, omhard or other growing area has been
established and is in production; (Added 12-16-81)
c, The following uses and activities are permitted at a farm winery with the prior approval of a site ptan as provided in subsection
(d). Special events and festivals are also subject to tho additional requirements set forth in subsection (e): (Added 4-1-98)
On-premise sale of wine and wine consumption. One location may be established on each farm for the on-premise sale of
wine and wine consumption. The aggregate total floor area for such sales and consumption shall not exceed
ilfteen hundred (1,500) square feet. A special use permit issued pursuant to section 31.2.4 of this chapter may authorize
the aggregate floor area to exceed fifteen hundred (1,500) square feet; (Added 12-16-81, Amended 1-1-84, Amended 4-1-
98)
2. Daily tours. Daily tours of a farm winery shall be permitted; (Added 1-1-84, Amended 4-1-98)
Special.eyents. Special events shall be permitted up to twelve (12) times per year. For purposes of this section, a special
event is an event conducted at a farm winery on a single day for which attendance is allowed only by invitation or
reservation and whose participants do not exceed one hundred fifty (150) persons; special events include, but are not
limited to, meetings, conferences, banquets, dinners, wedding receptions, private parties and other events conducted for the
purpose of marketing wine. A special use permit issued pursuant to section 31.2.4 of t~tis chapter may authorize the
number of special events per year to exceed twelve (12), or the number of allowed participants at any event to exceed one
hundred fifty (150), or both; (Added 4-I-98)
Festivals. Festivals shall be permitted up to four (4) times per year. For purposes of this section, a festival is an event
conducted at a farm winery for up to three (3) consecutive days which is open to the general public and conducted for the
purpose of marketing wine. (Added 4-1-98)
A use or activity identified in subsection (c) is authorized only with the prior approval ora site plan. Prior to approval of the site
plan, the owner shall obtain i¥om the Virginia Department of Transportation approval of a commercial entrance to the farm
winery, and any required approval from the local office of the Virginia Department of Health. Ifa site plan waiver is requested,
particular consideration shall be ~ven to provisions for safe and convenient access, park/rig, outdoor lighting, signs and potential
adverse impacts to adjoining property, and reasonable standards and conditions may be imposed as conditions of such waiver;
(Added 4-1-98)
e. Special events and festivals shall be also subject to the following: (Added 4-1-98)
The owner shall obtain a zoning clearance prior to conducting a festival at which more than one hundred fifty (I 50)
persons will be allowed to attend. A single zoning clearance may be obtained for one (I) or more such festivals as
provided herein: (Added 4-1-98)
The owner shall apply for a zoning clearance at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of the first festival to be
authorized by the zoning clearance. The application shall be submitted to the zoning administrator, who shall
tbrward copies of the application to the county police department, the county fire and rescue division, and the local
office of the Virginia Department of Health; (Added 4-1-98)
The application shall describe the nature of each festival to be authorized by the zoning clearance, the date or dates
and hours of operation of each such festival, the facilities, buildings and structures to be used, and the number of
participants allowed to attend each festival; (Added 4-1-98)
Upon a determination that all requirements of the zoning ordinance are satisfied and upon receiving approval, and
any conditions of such approval, from the other county offices receiving copies of the application, the zoning
administrator shall issue a zoning clearance for one or more festivals. The zoning clearance shall be conditional upon
the owner's compliance with all requirements of the zoning ordinance and all conditions imposed by the zoning
clearance; (Added 4-1-98)
The zoning administrator may issue a single zoning clearance for two (2) or more festivals iff (i) the application
submitted by the owner includes the required information for each festival to be covered by the zoning clearance: (ii)
the zoning administrator determines that each such festival is substantially similar in nature and size; and (iii) the
zoning administrator determines that a single set of conditions that would apply to each such festival may be imposed
with the zoning clearance. (Added 4-1-98)
18-5-1
Zonin~ Supplement ~16, 10-3-01
ATTACHMENTG
2. No kitchen facility permitted by the Health Department as a cormnercial kitchen shall be allowed on the farm~ A kitchen
may be used by licensed caterers for the handling, warming and distribution of food, but not for cooking food, to be served
at such special event or festival; (Added 4-1-98)
3. An outdoor amplified sound system shall be prohibited; (Added 4-1-98)
4. (Added 4-1-98; Repealed 10-3-01)
(§ 5.1.25, 12-16-81, 1-144; Ord. 9840(1)s 4-1-98; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-3-01)
18 -5 -2
Zoning Supplement ~16, 10-3-01
ATTACHMENT H
BROOK HOLLOW FARM
6057 GORDONSVILLE ROAD
' KESWICK, VIRGINIA 22947
(434) 296-1288
April 9, 2003
Ms. Margaret Doherty
Principal Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, VA 22902-5823
Dear Mso Doherty;
As Albemarle County property owners adjacent to Keswick Vineyards on State
Route 231 in Keswick (our property at 6057 Gordonsville Road and Keswick
Vineyards at 6131 Gordonsville Road) we request that "SDP 2003-019 Keswick
Vineyards Site Plan Waiver, Tax Map 66~ Parcel 3A' be placed on the public
agenda of the Albemarle County Planning Commission meeting scheduled for
Tuesday, May 6, 2003.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Arthur A. Beltrone
Klz: [q. eswlcK V~neyards S~te i-'lan Waiver ATTACHMENT I
Margaret Doherty
From: Grimes, MatthewC. [Matthew. Grimes@VirginiaDOT. org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 4:31 PM
To: 'Margaret Doherty'
Subject: RE: Keswick Vineyards Site Plan Waiver
the applicant is showing a 100' mm lane and 100' taper.
Chuck Proctor says this will be adeqate and will meet our requirements.
Matt Grimes, EIT
Transportation Planning Engineer
VDOT Charlottesville Residency
434.293.0011 ext 19
"Every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public
welfare may require it."
--Theodore Roosevelt
..... Original Message .....
From: Margaret Doherty [~_h__e. rt~_..f.r.~3_l.._b__e.~.~.._9~g]
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 3:59 PM
To: Matthew Grimes
Cc: 'Joseph Chambers'
Subject: Keswick Vineyards Site Plan Waiver
Hi Matt,
I'm wr/tmg my staff report for the May 6th Planning Commission meeting,
which is due today to my boss and then next Tuesday ro the PC.
Section 5.1.25 specifically states that the on-premise sale of wine and wine
consumption is authorized only with the prior approval of a site plan.
Prior to approval of the site plan, the owner shall obtain from the Virginia "-
Department of Transportation approval of a commercial entrance.
So, I need to know that VDOT is ready to grant approval (with conditions to
be satisfied prior to CO) in order to make a favorable recommendation to the
Planning Commission. If this is going to take a while, I'll need a request
for a deferral of the hearing date from Joe.
Let me know,
Thanks,
4/24/2003
ATTACHMENT
Mar~laret Dohert~
~1:
Subject:
Bill Craun [bcraun@vdh.state.va.us]
Thursday, April 03, 2003 8:13 AM
Mdoherty@albemarle.org
Keswick Vineyards Site Plan Waiver
SDP 2003-019
The existing drainfield should be suitable for the retail space.
However, this is assuming them will be no food handling or
preparation. Please give me a call if you have additional questions.
William Craun
Field Advisor
Thomas Jefferson Health Department
/
t
/
0
ALB~LE COUN1Y EN~INEESlNO
GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES FOE SITE PLANS
- %
/' ./ ~ ~Na O~ ~
S~E~ W~L ~ T~x ~p ~ P~ce[ TH OGGO0 P~c~ N~
II ~c~ - --- ~ ' % ~ ~
/ S~EEN ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ' Yard Reqd~ents Front 75', S~e ~3. ~r 35' ~x. ~, 35 )
' + (18) SCORNING ~ DOU~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~O J~y Cust~e~d~ bl ~5 = ~
/ ~ N. ~, 5'. ~RN WHI~ PIN[ ( u ~ ~ I P ~ Y l
~ ~ poyees N~x N~er Enpayees 7 (~ Re~ $ ~r )
~'J~ ~. ~ R-~ ~ ~ TO BE SURFACED [O / WE~ -- ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ R~ ~aln .......
/--- ~ . + 7+. -- , .. ,.
.- , ~XI~IN~ $~e[ ARC'TO B~ I *~ ~ [ '"
~L* ~ SURFACED Ws MIN..~, ~.,~ "~ ~ 0 ~ - --
~ WITH PRIME ~O DOUBL~S~ ~ -~ (m ' & , ~ ~ldmng S~pe Foob~ ~uldl~ Footpr~t U~ged -
' '~'~ :~ ~; "; ' '"'"':': '" : 0 -- -- ~ ~ ~ rr~ M Resld~ht
-, . - ~ ~ ~ ~ P~ .
- ~ ~ ~ -- ~ ~',~~ x~x, x~~_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ X/~ ~_ ~ ·
DEER FENC~--~ ' ..... ~',~" '~~ '~ ~ ~ /~ ~ ~ ~ ~'~ k~ DATUM EL~ATION CORRECTED TO
--- ~* ~~.~ %>- ~. ~ -. '8. ~ ~ -~. ,-~ .~~ ,,,~ ,,, ~'~ ~,~ ~o~o~H~
JJElehma.
jJPaxten
Date By
4/15/o~ ...VC
~m,, WINERY
~ =~ 5125 FARM WEI'ERY
(~o4) ~r~..~so [~'JQ¢~ ~
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
,/
/
/
u.mqol~[ll
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
o/
~ ONOd
~ ONII$1X3 ,,
/
\
\
\
\
\
\
J
/
1
/
/ \ /
/ %'.....
\
\
\ \
\ ',,
\ \
\ \
\ \ //
/
% \ /
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
STATE ROUTE 731
! I
TAPER LANE \
TURN LANE
OGPCPHY SHEET A103 FROM GROUND SURVEY PROVIDED BY STEVE 6¢RRETT, TRUEUNE if,
IRLOTTES'VlLLE, VIRGINIA. CONTOUR INTERVAL l'.
JDalgliesh
JJElehman
[Paxton
(~.)
VINEYARDS
/
\
\
&t~ PL4N WAIVER
5.L2¢ FARM ~RY
/
SHEET a~o4 (%dr s)
F MATCH
~ ....] ::i' ~:; '
· '~ ~1:1 - ~ ~I~NOZ
.... .,, ; ,, ::--~>----
.~----'
,!
_~-~ ;~ ,~.. . : ~ "' ..-'~,.
.__~ : - __. --% ... _ ~" ,
-" /'"' ..... _i ...... --' , I~ ~_--~' ~ /"
..... '" '--'"
' ' "' I-
-" ' '
~' I i ¢ [-"k '"'
. i'lJ ,, - ......-,.~
..... "
I '~.~!~! '"" %
i '"- .... ~ f .....
x/ // .+'//.--.,.,, .- ',
,. /~ , . .
j,.,,.' _ ,. '......]',....., ' : ...- / , , .'-, ...... . / / --,
?/'-" ' / .' " .... / .... - .... - ..... " " '" --.~-:;
~" J'*" "' "*"'*
John W. Zunka
Richard H. Milnor
Richard E. Carter
H. Robert Yates, III
Alvaro A. Inigo
TAYLOR, ZUNKA, MILNOR & CARTER, LTD.
Attorneys at Law
414 Park Street
P O Box 1567
Charlottesville VA 22902
Telephone 434-977-0191
Real~ Estate 434-977,5060
Facsimile 434-977-0198
MAGRUDER DENT, JR.
1919-1994
ROBERT E. TAYLOR
1906-1998
June 17, 2003
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville VA 22902
Re: SDP 2003-019 Appeal of Keswick Vineyard Site Plan Waiver Conditions of Approval
Dear Board of Supervisors:
This office represents Mr. and Mrs. Arthur Beltrone. We were delivered a copy of
Keswick Winery, L.L.C.'s Memorandum in Support of Appeal of Conditions of Approval. I
have reviewed this document and would like to make the following comments:
1. This is a legal brief. The Board will have to rely upon advice of their counsel as to its
legitimacy. The appellant has chosen to take portions of the Albemarle County Code and
selected cases out of context in order to put their case in its best light.
2. A complete reading of the brief shows that the primary objection to the Planning
Commission's decision tums on the word "potential" when describing potential adverse
impacts to adjoining property, and reasonable standards and that conditions may be
imposed as conditions of such waiver. The appellant argues that the noise which Mr.
Beltrone complains is already present and, therefore, any effort to quiet that noise goes to
lessening a noise that is already in existence as opposed to a potential noise. This is an
imposition of conditions, what the appellant should do as a matter of taking into account
the adverse impact on neighboring property.
4. As to the parking, there are no busses now, but there will be busses when the winery is
open to the public. Parking and bus drop off and pick up should be paved in order to
reduce the dust. The Planning Commission and staff have both recognized this.
Unfortunately, the appellant does not.
5. It is unfortunate that the appellant has taken to personal attacks upon Mr. Beltrone. I will
not drop to the same level by citing a litany of broken promises from the appellant to Mr.
Beltrone.
This is a matter that came before The Planning Commission with a full report from the
staff. It was analyzed and debated by The Planning Commission with full advice and counsel
from the County Attorney present at the meeting. The Planning Commission realized the
present, potential and continuing problem that the winery presents to the neighbors, and it took
such reasonable actions as are necessary to address it. These are actions that the appellant could
have taken. It refused to do so, thereby, forcing the Planning Commission to do the right thing in
compliance with the Ordinance. The Planning Commission did not act arbitrarily and
capriciously but after sound and considered study. The minutes of the meeting attest to this.
I ask you to uphold The Planning Commission's decision.
Very truly yours
Richard E. Carter
REC/kmt
cc: Garrett M. Smith, Esquire
LE~OY R. HAMLETT, JR. (RETZK~D }
EDWARD B. LOWRY
BRUCE D. P~SMUSSEN ~VA, WVA & DC)
RONALD R. TWEEL
GARY W. KENDALL
JOI~N V. LZTTLE
KEVIN W. RYAN
ELIZABETH E COUGHTER
Jm~t~s P. Cox Ill
ROEERT X~ JACKSON
GARI{ETT M. SMITH
W~LLZAM C. SCOTt IV
434-95~-7zoo
PETER MCINTOSH
MICHIE, HAMLETT, LOWRY, RASMUSSEN & TWEEL, P.C. P. OEER'r^.r~.,TAS
M. BKYA~ S~uGmm~ (VA, WVA)
Attorneys at Law PAULR. THOMSON, III(VA, WVA)
J. GP. EOOR'Z W~E VA,~qA)
500 COURT SQUARE, SUITE 300 · P.O. BOX 298
O£ Counsel
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA Z Z90 Z-O Z9 8 T~o~axs J. VICINE
WE~SrrE: www. mhlrt.com EDGAR F. HE~SRELL III WVA ONLYI
FACSIMILE: 434-95~-7zz8 DIRECT DIAL: 434-951-7222
E-MAIL: gsmJ th@mh l rt.com
D~x~cx FAX: 434-951-7242
June 2, 2003
Ms. Ella Carey, Clerk
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re'
SDP 2003-019
Appeal of Keswick Vineyard Site Plan Waiver Conditions of Approval
Tax Map 66, Parcel 8
Dear Ms. Carey:
As you requested, please find attached an original and eight copies of the
memorandum and exhibits I file with Board of Supervisors in connection with
this appeal.
Thank you very much for your assistance. If you have any questions at
all, please don't hesitate to contact me.
GMS:jrh
Enclosures
cc: Albert and Cindy Schornberg
Richard E. Carter, Esq.
Greg Kamptner, Esq.
Robert Paxton, AIA
CHARLOTTESVILLE · ROANOKE