HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-09-16 FINAL
7:00 P.M.
SEPTEMBER 16, 1'998
MEETING ROOM 241. SECOND FkOOR
1. Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC
5. Consent Agenda (on next sheet'}.
6. SP-98-24. Mtmdie Trucking (Signs #43&44~. PUBLIC HEARING on a request to establish a
Home Occupation Class B for storage of dump trucks in an existing garage. Applicant
proposes to store & perform routine maintenance on dump trucks. Znd RA. Property
located on 4.69 acs at 3061 Bumley Station Road, iust off Rt 641 TM21, P23A,
Rivarma Dist. [This area is not located in a designated development area [Rural Area
2].)
7. SP-98-35. Pantops Texaco (Signs #35&36~. PUBLIC HEARING on a request to establish
drive-thru window on 0.9 acs. Loc in NW corner of inter of Rt 250 ,'Richmond Rd} &
Kt 20 (Stony Point Rd ~. Znd HC & EC. TM78. P4. Rivarma Dist.
8. SP-98-21. CFW Wireless (CVIO0~ Rio Road (Sign #73l. PUBLIC HEARING on a request to
construct personal wireless telecom facility on approx 1.4 acs. Loc on N sd of Fashion
Square Mall approx 0.3 mis E of Rt 29 ~ Seminole Trail ~ & is the location of existing
to,vet. Znd CO. TM61. P129C. Rio Dist. ~This site is recommended for Regional
Service use in Neighborhood 2.)
9 SP-98-36. North Garden Fire Co (Sign #54). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to fill in flood
plain of South Branch Creek (tributary to North Fork Hardware River to allow 3-bay
addition of approx 2.500 sq ft on a 39.00 sq ft pd. Loc on S sd of Rt 692 (Plank Rd),
across from Crossroads Country Store &adiacent to North Garden Post Office Znd
VR. TM99. PSD. Samuel Miller Dist. (This site is not located in a designated growth
10. SP-98-40. North Garden Fire Co. (Sign #54/. PUBLIC HEARING on a request to allow
conforming use of fire station. Loc on S sd of Rt 692 (Plank Road) across frmn
Crossroads Country Store &_ adjacent to North Garden Post Office Znd VR. TM99.
P5D. Samuel Miller Dist. ~This site is not located in a designated growth area.,
11. SP-98-37. Ivy lnvestment Ltd Partnership (Sign#88). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to
establish golf course on approx 250 acs. Loc on S sd of Rt 637 I Dick Woods Rd)
opposite Ivy Landfill. Znd R& TM73, P27G. Samuel Miller Dist. tThis site is not
located in a designated growth area.)
12. ZTA-98-07 Stream Restoration. PUBLIC HEdkRiNG on an ordh~ance to amend Chapter 18.
Zoning, Article III. District Regulations. of The Code of The County of Albemarle.
Virginia, by an~ending §30.3.05.1.1 to allow certain uses or activities by-right within
the Flood Hazard Overlay District and §30.3.05.2.1 to allow certain uses or activities
by special use permit within the Flood Hazard Overlay District.
13. Approval of Minutes: March 13(A). 1995 and September 4. [996.
14. Appointments.
15. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
16. Adjourn.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL:
5.1 Resolution to deny SP-98-03 - 360° Communications (Dudley Mountain/.
5.2 Resolution to deny SP-98-27 - CFW Wireless [CV113] Red Hill.
5.3 Appropriation: Education. $1,000 (Form #980251.
5.4 Draft statement for presentation at virginia Coalition of High Growth Forum.
5.5 Proclamation proclaiming September 17 - 23. 1998. as Constitution Week.
FOR INFORMATION:
5.6 Copies of Planning Commission minutes for June 30. August 18, August 25 and
September 1. I998.
5.7 Copy of letter dated September 2. 1998, to Shelby J. Marshall, Clerk of the Circuit Court,
from the Auditor of Public Accormts, indicating that an audit of the cash receipts and
disbursements of the Cleric's office for the period luly i. 1996 through March 31.1998 has
been conducted.
5.8 Copy of m~utes of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regmnal Jail Authority Board meeting of
July 9. 1998.
5.9 1998 Statement of Assessed Values for Local Tax Purposes for Railroad and Interstate Pipeline
Transmission Companies, as prepared by the Department of Taxation (on file in CleriCs
office ~.
ACTIONS
Board of Supervisors Meeting of September 16, 1998
September 21, 1998
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
¸5.5
SGENDA ITEM
Call to order.
Other matters not listed on
the agenda from the Public.
NONE.
Resolution to deny SP-98-03 -
360° Communications (Dudley
Mountain). ~/DOPTED.
Resolution to deny SP-98-27 -
CFW Wireless [CVll3] Red Hill.
ADOPTED.
Appropriation: Education,
$1,000 (Form #98025).
APPROVED.
Draft statement for
presentation at Virginia
Coalition of High Growth
Forum. APPROVED.
Proclamation proclaiming
September 17 - 23, 1998, as
Constitution Week. ADOPTED.
SP-98-24. Mundie Trucking
(Signs ~43&44). APPROVED WITH
EIGHT CONDITIONS.
SP-98-35. Pantops Texaco
(Signs #35&36). APPROVED WITH
FOUR CONDITIONS.
SP-98-21. CFW Wireless
(CVl00) Rio Road (Sign #73).
APPROVED WITH FIVE CONDITIONS.
SP-98-36. North Garden Fire
Co. (si~n #54). APPROVED WITH
FOUR CONDITIONS.
ASSIGNMENT
The meetin~ was called ~o order at
7:00 p.m. Ail members of the Board
of Supervisors were in attendance.
Clerk: Include in Plaruaing's action
letter.
Clerk: Include in Planning's action
letter.
Clerk: Forward signed form to
finance Department and approprlaue
persons.
Clerk: Include in Planning's acuion
letter.
Clerk: Send to Mrs. George Larie.
~lcrk: Include in Planning's action
letter.
Clerk: Include in Plaruaing's action
letter.
Clerk: Include in Planning's action
letter.
Clerk: Include in Planning's action
letter.
10.
Il.
12.
13.
14.
15.
SP-98~40. North Garden Fire
Co. (Sign #54). APPROVED WITH
FIVE CONDITIONS.
SP-98-37. ivy Investment Ltd
Partnership (Sign #88).
APPROVED WITH ll CONDITIONS.
ZTA-98-07. Stream
Restoration. Ordinance
ADOPTED.
Approval of Minutes:
March 13(A), 1995 and
September 4, 1996.
Appointments. REAPPOINTED
Mr. Frank Kessler to the
Architectural Review Board;
Mr. Tom Trevillian,
Ms. Diane Jackson,
Mr. David Booth and
Mr. Frederick Huckstep to the
BOCA Code of Appeals; and
Ms, Diane Jackson to the Fire
Prevention Code of Appeals.
Other matters not listed on
the agenda from the Board.
Mr. Marshall asked the Board,
at its next meeting, to
discuss beginning Board
meetings at 6:00 p.m. and
limiting applicant's
presentation time.
Distribution list:
Board of Supervisors (6)
County Executive and staff (10)
Kevin Castner
Larry Davis
Clerk: Include in Planning's action
letter.
~ler~: Include in Planning's action
letter.
Clerk: Include in Planning's action
letter. Send m~mo to County
Attorney.
Clerk: Obtain Chairman's signature,
file in minute books.
Clerk: Send appointment letters and
update Boards and Commissions files.
2
I N T E R
0 F F I C E
MEMO
From:
Subject:
Date:
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development
Laurel B. Hall, Senior Deputy Clerk ~
September 16, 1998 Board of Supervisors Meeting
Sepcen%ber 22, 1998
The following actions were taken by the Board au its meeting on
Septermber 16, 1998:
Agenda Item No. 5.1. Resolution to deny SP-98-03 - 360 Commu31ications
(Dudley Mountain), copy attached. ADOPTED, copy attached.
Agenda Item No. 5.2. Resolution Eo deny SP-98-27 - CFW Wireless [CVll3]
Red Hill. ADOPTED, copy attached.
Agenda Item No. 5.4. Draft snatement for presentation au Virginia
Coalition of High Growth Forum. ~I)OPTED, copy attached.
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-98-24. Mundie.Trucking (Signs #43&44). Public
hearing on a request co establish a Home Occupation Class B for storage of dump
trucks in an existing garage. Applicant proposes mo store & perform routine
maIntenance on dump trucks. Znd RA. Property located on 4.69 acs at 3061
Burnley Station Road, just off Rt 641. TM21, P23A, Rivanna Dist. (This area
is not located in a designated development area [Rural Area 2].) APPROVED WITH
EIGHT (8) REVISED CONDITIONS as follow:
No more than two (2) employees other than members of the family
residing on the premises, may be involved in the operation of the
business at this location at any given time;
2. Not more ~han five (5) Class A trucks parked on the property;
No repairs of equipment shall be permitted other than routine
operational maintenance such as, but ~o5 limited to, oil and tire
changes;
VDoT approval of the entrance;
5. No outside storage of equipmenu related uo business;
V. Wayne Cilimberg
Page 2
Septeraber 22, 1998
Maintenance of the current tree buffer .1 mile from Route 641 (see
Attachments D and E [not provided to the Clerk] or equivalent for
as long the Home Occupation is in operation;
Ail truck vehicle trips shall exit the property by way of a left-
turn in the direction of Route 29; and
Truck vehicle trips to and from the property shall not exceed
twelve (12) trips per day~
Further, the Board granted a waiver on the building square footage to
allow 2,600 square feet, which is the size of the existing building with no
enlargement in the future, to lessen the visible impact of the home occupation
on this property.
Agenda Item No. 7. SF-98-3S. Pantops Texaco (Signs $35&36). Public
hearing on a request to establish drive-thru window on 0.9 acs. Loc in NW
corner of inter of Rt 250 {Richmond Rd~ & Rt 20 (Stony Point Rd). Znd HC & EC
TM78, P4. Rivanna Dist. APPROVED WITH FOUR (4) CONDITIONS as follow:
1. No direct access to Route 20 shall be permitted;
Access uo Route 20 through Tax Map 78, Parcel 4A (McDonald's site)
shall be required;
Provision of a raised curb uo separate the drive-thru lane from the
travel lanes; and
Development shall be in general accord with the site plan titled
~Pantops Texaco" dated 7/27/98 (copy attached), excepu as the plan
shall be amended to address the above conditions and the
recommendations of the Site Review Committee.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-98-21, CFW Wireless (CV100) Rio Road (Sign ~73).
Public hearing on a request uo construc~ personal wireless telecom facility on
approx 1.4 acs. Loc on N sd of Fashion Square Mall approx 0.3 mls E of Rt 29
[Seminole Trail) & is the location of existing tower. Znd CO. TM61, P129C.
R10 Dist. {This site is recommended for Regional Service use in Neighborhood
2.) APPROVED WITH FIVE (5) CONDITIONS as follow:
1. Tower shall not be increased in height;
2. Additional antennas may be attached to the uower only as follows:
Omnidirectional or whip antennas shall not exceed twenty (20)
feet in height or seven {7) inches ~n diameter, and shall be
of a color which matches the tower;
V. Wayne Cilimberg
Page 3
Septenlber 22, 1998
Directional or panel anueruaas shall not exceed seven (7) feet
in height or two (2) feet in width, and shall be of a color
which matches the tower; and
Additional satellite and microwave dish antern/as are
prohibited.
Additional antennas may be installed without amending this special
use permit, provided that al/ necessary building permits are
obtained from the building official and the antennas otherwise
comply with these conditions;
The permittee shall submit a reporu to ~he Zoning Administrator
once per year, by mot later than July 1 of that year. The reporu
shall identify each user of the rower and shall identify each user
that is a wireless telecommunications service provider;
The tower shall he disassembled and removed from the site within
ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless telecommumcations
purposes is discontinued; and
Ail antennae added to the tower shall be used for personal wireless
service providers.
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-98-36. North Garden Flre Co (Sign #54). Public
hearing on a request to fill in flood plain of South Branch Creek (tributary
North Pork Hardware River) to allow 3-bay addition of appro× 2,500 sq ft on a
39,00 sq ft pcl. Loc on S sd of Rt 692 (Plank Rd), across from Crossroads
Country Store & adjacenE uo North Garden Post Office. Znd %-R. TM99, PSD.
Samuel Miller Dist. (This sl~e is not located in a designated growth area.)
APPROVED WITH FOUR (4) CONDITIONS as follow:
Albemarle County Engineering approval of an Erosion and Sediment
Control Plan;
Water quality measures shall be provided subject co the approval of
the Water Resources Manager;
The final site plan should reflect any changes to the flood plain
and floodway limits, and the applicant must provide computations
supporuin~ any such changes, as well as copmes of the
correspondence demonstrating FEMA approval of the revised flood
plain; and
In an effort ~o minimize environmental degradation, no soil shall
be removed from the South Branch Creek flood plain to compensate
for any fill.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
Page 4
Septenlber 22, 1998
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-98-40. North Garden Fire Co. (Sign ~54). Public
hearing on a request to allow conforming use of fire station, Loc on S sd of
Rt 692 (Plank Road) across from Crossroads Country Store & adjacent to North
Garden Post Office. Znd VR, TM99, P5D. Samuel Miller Dist. (This site is
not located in a designated growth area.) APPROVED WIT~ F~V~ (5) R~ISBD
CONDITIONS as follow:
Noise generated from subordinate uses and/or fund-raising
activities shall non exceed forty (40) decibels aE the nearest
agricultural or resmdential property line;
No subordinate uses and/or fund-raising activities shall be
conducted between 11:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.,
The expansion of the fire department is limited to 2,500 gross
square feet;
Architectural Review Board Issuance of a Certificate of
Approprmateness; and
Issuance of a building permit ms contingent upon Health Department
approval of primary and secondary drainfields or other adequate
sewage disposal. Should the Health Department granm approval to
allow for connection to the sewage treatment facility, County
Attorney approval of agreements and proof of recordation to allow
for connection must also be obtained, prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
Agenda Item NO. 11. SP-98-37. Ivy Investment Ltd Partnership (Sign
~88). Public hearing on $ request to establish golf course on approx 250 acs~
Loc on S sd of Rt 637 ~Dick Woods Rd) opposite Ivy Landfii1. Znd P~A. TM73,
P27G. Samuel Miller Dist. (This site is not located in a designated growth
area.) APPROVED WITH 13 CONDITIONS as follow:
Engineering Department approval of phasing plan 5o ensure adequane
erosion control;
EngineerIng Department approval of drought and disease tolerant
turf materials;
Engineering Department approval of stream buffer areas including
all activity within stream buffers such as, but not limited
enhanced plantings, fairway/path crossings;
Engineering Department approval of runoff treatment systems,
including monitoring and reporting procedures and approval of any
changes in the systems;
V. Wayne Cilim~erg
Page 5
September 22, 1998
Engineering DeparEment approval of turf management systems,
including monitoring and reporting procedures and approval of any
changes in the systems;
Engineering Department approval of storage and spill containment
systems for all hazardous materials including, but not limited
fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, fnngicides, and fuel;
Engineering Department approval of water quality monitoring
program, and reporting procedures;
The serving of food and refreshments shall be limited to those
individuals utilizing the golf course or driving range;
No grading/clearing or other land disturbing activity above the
900-foot elevation;
10. No residential development shall be permitted;
Planning Commission approval, zn conjunction with site plan review,
of minimum setbacks, landscaped and earthen buffers, and similar
improvements, designed to address visual and noise impacts of the
golf course on, and to respect the livability and historical
significance of buildings on Tax Map 73, Parcel 27;
12.
There shall be no outdoor lighting of the driving range and there
shall be no public address sysuem; and
Engineering Department approval of an Environmental Resources Plan
that addresses the items in the August 24, 1998 memo from David
Hirschman to Bill Fritz, labeled attachment D (copy attached). The
approved plan shall be implemented during construction and
operation of the golf course.
Agenda Item No. 12. ZTA-98-07. Stream Restoration. Public hearmng on an
ordinance to amend Chapter 18, Zoning, Article III, District Regulations, of
The Code of The County of Albemarle, Virginia, by amending ~30.3.05.1.1 to
allow certain uses or activities by-right within the Flood Hazard Overlay
District and §30.3.05.2.1 to allow cerualn uses or activities by special use
permit within the Flood Hazard Overlay District. ORDINANCE ADOPTED (attached).
Agenda Item No. 14 Appointments. REAPPOINTED Mr. Frank Kessler to the
Architectural Review Board, with said term ~o begin November 15, 1998 and to
expire November 14, 2002; Mr. Tom Trevillian, Ms. Diane Jackson,
Mr. David Booth and Mr. Frederick Huckstep to the BOCA Code of Appeals, with
said terms to begin November 22, 1998 and to expzre November 21, 2003; and
Ms. Diane Jackson to the Fire Prevention Code of Appeals, with said zerm to
begin November 22, 1998 and to expire November 21, 2003.
V. Wayne Cilimber~
Page 6
September 22, 1998
Attachmenss: 6
cc: Larry Davis
Amelia McCulley
Bill Mawyer
Bruce Woodzell
Dan Mahon
Sharon Taylor
RESOLUTION TO DENY SP 98-03
WHEREAS, 360 Communications Company (hereinafter "360
Communications") is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission to provide
cellular telephone service in Albemarle County and is an established provider of such
service in the County; and
WHEREAS, 360 Communications filed an application for a special use
permit ("SP 98-03") which would authorize it to erect a wireless telecommunications
facility in Albemarle County on that property identified as Tax Map 89, Pame118, which
is located on the west side of Route 706 (Dudley Mountain Road) approximately 1.5
miles southwest of Route 631 (Old Lynchburg Road) (the "property"); and
WHEREAS, the property is an approximately one hundred (100) acre
parcel zoned Rural Areas ("PA"); the PA zoning district regulations authorize
telecommunications towers and related facilities by special use permit; and
WHEREAS, if approved, SP 98-03 would have authorized 360
Communications to erect and maintain a 100 foot self-supporting lattice tower (the
"tower") and related facilities to provide improved cellular telephone service in southern
Albemarle County; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public
hearing on SP 98-03 on June 2, 1998, whereafter it made its recommendation to the
Board; and
WHEREAS, the Board conducted a duly noticed public hearing on SP 98-
03 on August 12, 1998, at which time oral and written evidence was presented.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby denies 360 Communications's application for SP
98-03 for the reasons set forth below:
1. The proposed tower would be inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed tower would be located at an elevation of approximately
1550 feet above sea level (Record, 5) at or near the ridgeline of Dudley Mountain.
(Record, 6, 53, 82) The tower would extend 40 to 50 feet above the tree canopy.
(Record, 6, 53, 82) The Dudley Mountain area where the tower would be located is
entirely wooded (Record, 6, 82, 93), and in an area that is sparsely populated. (Record,
37) Because of its proposed location and elevation, the proposed tower would be in
the Mountain Resource Area identified in the Open Space Plan, which is part of the
Comprehensive Plan (Record, 5) and would be subject to the Mountain Section of the
Natural Environment Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan adopted August 5, 1998~
The Open Space Plan states that "Mountains are a major open space
system recommended for protection in the Rural and Growth Areas;" (Record, 5) 360
Communications did not submit information which compared the impacts caused by
siting the tower in the Mountain Resoume Area to those caused by siting the tower
outside of the mountain resoume area. (Record, 5) Siting a tower such as the one
proposed in this case in the Mountain Resource Area will permanently alter the quality
of the mountain resource and, therefore, approval of SP 98-03 would be inconsistent
with the Comprehensive Plan. (Record, 6)
The Mountain Section states in part: "Mountains may be said to define
much of the character of Albemarle County... Mountains are a source of concern when
inappropriate development creates unwanted impacts to environmental and aesthetic
resources and public safety." (Record, 67) In discussing scenic resources and their
economic impact, the plan states:
A number of highly visible structures constructed recently have
occasioned public concern about the continued scenic quality of the
mountain landscape. Public expression of concern suggests that the
scenic quality of the mountains is important to County residents. An issue
that is of importance to visual impact is the horizon. In a county with as
much varied topography as Albemarle, the natural horizon becomes very
prominent. Any serious modification of the natural ridge lines in the
County will modify the visual character of an entire area. (Record, 71)
Because the proposed tower would be located at an elevation of
approximately 1550 feet above sea level (Record, 5) at or near the ddgeline of Dudley
Mountain (Record, 6, 53, 82), and would extend 40 to 50 feet above the tree canopy, it
will modify the visual character of the area. (Record, 6.53, 82)
The proposed project will also require the disturbance of 600 linear feet on
critical slopes to improve the access road to the tower site (Record, 42); some of the
slopes disturbed by the project are as steep as 40 percent. (Record, 65) The Mountain
Section states in part: "Concerns regarding disturbance of steep land become
pronounced in mountain areas due to generally shallow soiJs and length of grade on
side slopes. Soil erosion, surface water runoff, and septic system contamination are
amplified in these areas." (Record, 68)
The following design guidelines recommended in the Mountain Section
are also relevant to this proposed project: (1) "Locating... structures to make them
unobtrusive in the landscape"; (2) "Do not build structures taller than the natural tree
canopy"; (3) "Do not locate.., structures where they will be 'skylighted' against the
horizon"; and (4) "Do not alter the continuity of the ridgeline." (Record, 74) The
proposed tower is contrary to each of the above guidelines.
The findings required for the approval of SP 98-03 cannot be
made.
The proposed tower will be a substantial detriment to adjacent
property.
The tower was proposed to be located only 40 feet from the nearest
property line, even though it would have been 100 feet tall and extended 40 to 50 feet
above the tree canopy. (Record, 6, 35, 82) The Planning Commission denied 360
Communications request for a setback waiver. (Record, 61) Although the lease area
for the proposed tower and related facilities was moved (Record 1-2), the proximity of
the tower to the nearest property line did not change. The closest property adjacent to
the tower is Arrowhead Farm (Record, 26, 57) which is in a conservation easement.
(Record, 6, 26, 35, 36, 57)
The proposed project will also require the disturbance of 600 linear feet on
critical slopes to improve the access read to the tower site (Record, 42); some of the
slopes disturbed by the project are as steep as 40 pement. (Record, 55) The owner of
Eagle Crest Christmas Tree Farm stated that any erosion on the property would come
down on his property and on the Wood's property on the other side. (Record, 42)
which is rural.
The proposed tower will change the character of the district,
The proposed tower would be located at an elevation of approximately
1550 feet above sea level (Record, 5) at or near the ridgeline of Dudley Mountain.
(Record, 6, 53, 82) The tower would extend 40 to 50 feet above the tree canopy.
(Record, 6, 53, 82) The Dudley Mountain area where the tower would be located is
entirely wooded (Record, 6, 82, 93) in an area that is sparsely populated. (Record, 37)
There are no tower facilities in the vicinity of the proposed tower site. (Record, 17)
Dudley Mountain was described by citizens as a beautiful mountain (Record, 44A),
which is the "most visually prominent peak in Albemarle County, save Carter's
Mountain," and "the gateway to the City from the south". (Record, 47)
Since the adoption of the Open Space Plan in 1992, no towers have been
approved within the Mountain Resource Area except within the existing tower farm on
Carter's Mountain. and on Piney Mountain, which had two other towers. (Record, 7)
The proposed tower would change the character of the distdct to the extent that it
permits development in the Mountain Resource Area. (Record, 7) As provided by the
Mountain Section of the Natural Environment Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, the
proposed tower would also change the character of the district because it would be a
serious modification of the Dudley Mountain ridgeline. (See, Record, 71 )
c. The proposed tower and related facilities are inconsistent
with sections 1.4.3 and 1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The proposed tower and related facilities may facilitate providing improved
wireless communication service, which would be consistent with the purpose set forth in
section 1.4.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. However, the proposed tower and related
facilities are inconsistent with sections 1.4.3 and 1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Section 1.4.3 states that one intent of the Zoning Ordinance is "To
facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community." Section
1.6 states in part that: "development is not to be encouraged in the Rural Areas which
are to be devoted to preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities, water
supply protection, and conservation of natural, scenic and historical resources."
The project, particularly the tower, does not contribute to an attractive
community because of the proposed tower's visual impact on the entrance corridor and
the surrounding area. (Record, 8) Citizens described Dudley Mountain as "unspoiled"
(Record, 26), "pristine" (Record, 25, 28, 32), a "majestic natural resource" (Record, 32),
and one of the few undeveloped sections of land its size near Charlottesville (Record,
34). Citizens also stated that the proposed tower would destroy the beauty of Dudley
Mountain (Record 30, 57), and objected to the construction of the proposed tower and
related facilities because they are a commercial use. (Record, 26) Finally, citizens also
stated that the proposed access road would be over an existing horse path that is too
steep for horses to maneuver, and that construction of the access road would leave a
permanent scar on the mountain. (Record, 57) A petition signed by 40 persons in
opposition to the proposed tower was submitted. (Record, 65)
For all of the above reasons, and the reasons stated elsewhere in this
decision, the proposed tower and the related facilities are inconsistent with sections
1.4.3 and 1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The applicable provisions of the Telecommunications Act of
1996 have been considered, and the denial of SP 98-03 is in compliance with the
requirements of the Act.
a. Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance
unreasonably discriminates against providers of functionally equivalent wireless
telecommunications services.
The final report of the wireless telecommunications task force concluded
that cellular service and personal communications service ("PCS") are functionally
equivalent. The Zoning Ordinance does not discriminate between the two wireless
telecommunications services. See, for example, section 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning
Ordinance, which authorizes, among other uses in the Rural Areas ("PA") zoning
district, "unmanned telephone exchange centers; micro-wave and radio-wave
transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances." This language, which
appears in the regulations for other zoning districts also, has been construed to include
the facilities for both cellular service and PCS.
Neither the decision of the Planning Commission, the staff report, nor the
evidence presented by citizens indicated an intent to favor another wireless service
provider over 360 Communications. Rather, the staff report was based upon an
analysis of the proposed project's consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and its
compliance with the requirements of section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The
concerns of citizens rested on traditional land use concerns, including visual blight,
erosion, and the proposed tower's proximity to the ridgeline and to an adjoining
property line. (Record, 25-28, 30, 32-34, 43-46, 57)
b. Neither the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, nor
any other regulation or policy of the County prohibits or has the effect of
prohibiting the provision of wireless telecommunications service in Albemarle
County.
The purpose:of SP 98-03 was to authorize a tower with antenna in order
to provide improved wireless telecommunications coverage for southern Albemarle
County: (Record; 4, 35, 82)
Neither the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, nor any other
regulation or policy of the County establishes a ban or policy that has the effect of
prohibiting wireless telecommunications service in Albemarle County. A wireless
service provider is required to obtain a special use permit for the construction and use
ofwireless telecommunications facilities. Applications for special use permits are
decided on a case-by-case basis, and in reviewing such applications, the Board
considers the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and the factors relevant
to the approval of a special use permit set forth in section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Since 1990, the Board has approved 18 applications for special use
permits for wire,ss telecommunications facilities, and denied 4 (other than this
application and the application for SP 97-27, the decision on which is pending):
(Record, 76-77) There was no evidence presented at either of the public hearings that
denial of SP 98-03 would have the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless
telecommunications services in Albemarle County.
c. 360 Communications' application for SP 98-03 was acted upon
within a reasonable period of time.
The application for SP 98-03 was submitted on January 26, 1998. The
public hearing before the Planning Commission, originally scheduled to be held on April
21, 1998 (within the ninety day period provided by section 31.2.4.2 of the Zoning
Ordinance), was deferred to June 2, 1998 at 360 Communications' request. The
Board's decision on SP 98-03 is well within the twelve month pedod to act on the
application, as provided in section 15.2-2286(7) of the Code of Virginia.
d. The decision to deny SP 98-03 was not based on health or
environmental effects.
360 Communications stated that the tower and related facilities would
satisfy FCC standards: (Record, 54) In addition, the staff report states: fin order to
operate this facility the applicant is required to meet the FCC guidelines for radio
frequency emissions." This requirement would have adequately protected the public
health and safety. (Record; 8)
4. There is an existing reasonable use of the property,
A dwelling exists on the property, and forestry activities, could also be
conducted on the property. (Record, 52)
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this decision is based on the wdtten
record of the proceedings of 360 Communications' application for SP 98-03, which
record is identified as the "Record of the Proceedings of the Application of 360
Communications Company for a Special Use Permit for a Wireless Telecommunications
Facility~ which is on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.
~, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true,
correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
__, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on
County by vote of 6 to 0
September 16, 1998.
Aye Nay
~-¢~'~,'~oard of Counfy~ervisors
Mr. Marshall X
Mr. Bowerman X
Mr. Perkins X
Ms. Humphds X
Mr. Martin X
Ms. Thomas X
RESOLUTION TO DENY SP 98-27
WHEREAS, CFW Wireless (hereinafter "CFW") is licensed by the Federal
Communications Commission to provide personal communication service ("PCS") in
Albemarle County and is an established provider of such service in the County; and
WHEREAS, CFW filed an application for a special use permit ("SP 98-
27") which would authorize it to erect a wireless telecommunications facility in
Albemarle County on that property identified as Tax Map 87, Parcel 25B, which is
located on the southeast side of Route 29 South approximately one mile southwest of
Route 708 (the "property"); and
WHEREAS, the property is a 2.071 acre parcel zoned Rural Areas ("PA")
and Entrance Corridor; the PA zoning district regulations authorize telecommunications
towers and related facilities by special use permit; the Entrance Corddor overlay district
regulations impose additional requirements, including design standards and review,
upon structures located in the Entrance Corridor; and
WHEREAS, if approved, SP 98-27 would have authorized CFW to erect
anct maintain a 150 foot self-supporting monopole (the "tower") and related facilities to
provide PCS service ~n southern Albemarle County; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public
hearing on SP 98-27 on July 14, 1998, whereafter it made its recommendation [o the
Board; and
WHEREAS, the Board conducted a duly noticed public hearing on SP 98-
27 on August 19, 1998, at which time oral and written evidence was presented.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby denies CFW's application for SP 98-27 for the
reasons set forth below:
1. The proposed tower would be inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
The property is located in the Rural Areas of the Comprehensive Plan.
(Record, 4) The Comprehensive Plan discourages uses not related to bona fide
agriculture or forestry in areas designated Rural Areas. (Record, 4) The proposed
wireless facilities are commercial in nature.
The Open Space Plan which is part of the Comprehensive Plan, provides
guidance for protecting identified resources ofthe County. (Record, 4) The resource
identified with this application is the Entrance Corridor. (Record, 4) The proposed tower
would be within the Entrance Corridor, only 60 feet from Route 29, and would be highly
visible. (Record, 4) The intent of the Entrance Corridor Overlay district is, in part:
to implement the comprehensive plan goal of protecting the county's
natural, scenic and historic, architectural and cultural resources including
preservation of natural and scenic resources as the same may serve this
purpose; [and] to ensure a quality of development compatible with these
resources through architectural control of development.. (Zoning
Ordinance § 30.6.1)
The proposed tower and related facilities would not protect and preserve
the goals stated above and are therefore inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.
The impact of the proposed tower on the Entrance Corridor is significant
due to its size. (Record, 5) The existing public utility poles and towers in the area were
constructed pdor to the adoption of the Entrance Corridor overlay distdct in 1990.
(Record, 27-28) Therefore, the assertion that the ~mpact is merely incremental to what
already exists (Record, 29, 38) is not persuasive.
made.
The findings required for the approval of SP 98-27 cannot be
property.
The proposed tower will be a substantial detriment to adjacent
The proposed tower is located approximately 1,000 feet from the nearest
dwelling. (Record, 5) Because of the design and height of the proposed tower, the
location of all of the wireless facilities in an open area, the proposed tower and related
facilities would be highly visible from adjacent dwellings and Route 29. (Record, 5)
One of the adjacent property owners objected to the placement of the
proposed tower in the Entrance Corridor, and suggested that CFW find a less obtrusive
site. (Record. 31) He and other citizens stated that the proposed tower would
adversely affect the value of adjacent properties. (Record, 27)
which is rural.
The proposed tower will change the character of the district,
The location of the proposed tower is approximately 80 feet north of
American Electric Power's 230 kilovolt transmission line and 100 feet north of Virginia
Power's 500 kilovolt transmission line. (Record, 3) The proposed tower would be 30
feet taller than the highest public utility structure in the immediate vicinity. (Record, 3)
2
Seventeen houses are located within 2,000 feet of the proposea tower. (Record. 4)
There are no existing wireless telecommunications facilities in the Red Hill area.
(Record, 4)
Although the area is not a pristine viewshed, the tower proposed at a
height of 150 foot. or even at a height of 120 feet, alters the character of the Entrance
Corridor overlay district. (Record, 1, 6) Despite the existing public utility facilities, one
citizen described the Red Hill area as one that "is a very beautiful area which should be
preserved" and urged that wireless facilities "be located so that the character of the
community which the Comprehensive Plan is trying to preserve is maintained." (Record,
31) Citizens also stated that the size, location and visibility of the proposed tower
would alter the character of the district, and requested that CFW consider alternative
locations and strategies. (Record, 31) One citizen stated that the proposed tower
would "be just another eyesore that residents must live with." (Record, 31) Another
citizen stated the impact on the overall community would also be great because a small
lake near the property is used as a community gathering site and there is no screening
between the lake and the proposed tower location. (Record, 27)
A representative of United States Cellular asserted that the "viewshed on
Route 29 is already degraded by the presence of the utility towers" and that the
proposed tower "would have minimal impact on a site where utility towers already
disrupt the view." (Record, 37) The representative went on to state:
Placing towers on developed land ensures that development is compatible
with. and protective of, the scenic resources. Locating a tower to serve
Route 29 at another location in the same area would create a much
greater disruption to the viewshed and to the scenic and natural
resources. (Record. 37)
This argument is rejected because: (1) it ignores the special attention
given by the County to any development in the Entrance Corridor; thus, even though
the existing public utility facilities on and near the property predate the Entrance
Corridor overlay district, their existence does not diminish the scrutiny that new
development in the overlay district requires and deserves; and (2) it incorrectly
assumes that the denial of the proposed tower means that the viewshed in another
area of the county will be disrupted by the wireless facility constructed in its place; there
is no evidence that a wireless facility must be constructed in such a way so as to disrupt
any viewshed; CFW has demonstrated in the recent past that it can develop its wireless
infrastructure in a way with little or no disru priori of a viewshed.
The representative also stated that locating the proposed tower on the
property would preserve agricultural and forestal land by developing land that is already
being used for utility infrastructure. (Record, 38-39) This argument incorrectly assumes
that agricultural or forestal land will be sacrificed for the wireless facility constructed in
its place.
At the Planning Commission hearing, approximately fifteen people rose to
show their opposition to SP 98-27. and citizens submitted a petition signed by almost
100 persons stating their opposition to SP 98-27. (Record, 31, 40-45)
c. The proposed tower and related facilities are inconsistent
with sections 1.4.3 and 1.6 of the Zoning Ordinan ce.
The proposed tower and related facilities may facilitate providing ~mproved
wireless communication.service, which would be consistent with the purpose set forth
sectio~ 1.4.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. However, the proposed tower and related
facilities are inconsistent with sections 1.4.3 and 1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance
Section 1.4.3 states that one intent of the Zoning Ordinance is "To
facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community." Section
1.6 states in part that: "development is not to be encouraged in the Rural Areas which
are to be devoted to preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities, water
supply protection, and conservation of natural, scenic and historical resources."
The project, particularly the tower, does not contribute to an attractive
community because of the proposed tower's visual impact on the Entrance Corridor and
the surrounding area. (Record, 6) A representative of United States Cellular
questioned why section 1.4.3's stated intent to create an attractive community should
prevail over other provisions of section 1.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. Creating an
attractive community is controlling in this case because the property is located in the
Entrance Corridor overlay district. The denial of SP 98-27 does not prevent the service
and economic goals of the Zoning Ordinance from being achieved; they are simply
outweighed in this case by the other stated considerations
For all of the above reasons, and the reasons stated elsewhere in this
decision, the proposed tower and the related facilities are inconsistent with sections
1.4.3 and 1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The applicable provisions of the Telecommunications Act of
'1996 have been considered, and the denial of SP 98-27 is in compliance with the
requirements of the Act.
a. Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance
unreasonably discriminates against providers of functionally equivalent wireless
telecommunications services.
4
The final report of the wireless telecommunications task force concluded
that cellular service and PCS are functionally equivalent. The Zoning Ordinance does
not discriminate between the two wireless telecommunications services. See, for
example, section 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance, which authorizes, among other
uses in the RA zoning district, "unmanned telephone exchange centers; micro-wave
and radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances." This
language, which appears in the regulations for other zoning districts also, has been
construed to include the facilities for both cellular service and PCS.
Neither the decision of the Planning Commission, the staff report, nor the
evidence presented by citizens indicated an intent to favor another wireless service
provider over CFW. Rather. the staff report was based upon an analysis of the
proposed project's consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and its compliance with
the requirements of section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The concerns of citizens
rested on traditional land use concerns, including the proposed tower's size, the visual
impacts of the proposed tower and related facilities, and the in; pact the proposed tower
and related facilities would have on adjacent properties and the district. (Record, 23,
26.27, 30, 31,34)
b. Neither the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, nor
any other regulation or policy of the County prohibits or has the effect of
prohibiting the provision of wireless telecommunications service in Albemarle
County.
Neither the Comprehensive Plan. the Zoning Ordinance, nor any other
regulation or policy of the County establishes a ban or policy that has the effect of
prohibiting wireless telecommunications service in Albemarle County. A wireless
service provider is required to obtain a special use permit for the construction and use
of wireless telecommunications facilities. Applications for special use permits are
decided on a case-by-case basis, and in reviewing such applications, the Board
considers the applicable provisions of the Con; prehensive Plan and the factors relevant
to the approval of a special use permit set forth in section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Since 1990, the Board has approved 18 applications for special use
permits for wireless telecommunications facilities, and denied 4 (other than this
application and the application for SP 98-03, the decision on which s pending).
(Record, 49-50) There was no evidence presented at either of the public hearings that
denial of SP 98-27 would have the effect of prohibiting the prowsJon of wireless
telecommunications services in Albemarle County. CFW did not consider alternative
locations (Record, 24), did not modify its application to reduce the height of the
proposed tower to reduce the visual in; pacts (Record, 1), and did not consider utilizing a
wooden pole with a whip antenna, as it has for several other approved special use
permits.
c. CFW's application for SP 98-27 was acted upon within a
reasonable period of time.
The application for SP 98-27 was submitted on May 18, 1998. The public
hearing before the Planning Commission was held on July 14, 1998, within the ninety
day period provided by section 31,2.4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board's decision
on SP 98-27 is well within the twelve month period to act on the application, as
provided in section 15.2-2286(7) of the Code of Virginia
d, The decision to deny SP 98-27 was not based on health or
environmental effects.
The staff report states: "In order to operate this facility the applicant is
required to meet the FCC guidelines for radio frequency emissions." This requirement
would have adequately protected the public health and safety. (Record, 7)
4. There is an existing reasonable use of the property.
The property is currently used as a substation by American Electric
Power. (Record, 3)
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this decision is based on the written
record of the proceedings of CFW's application for SP 98-27, which record is identified
as the "Record of the Proceedings of the Application of CFW Wireless for a Special Use
Permit for a Wireless Telecommunications Facility" which is on file in the office of the
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true,
correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County by vote of six to zero , as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on
Cler'i~, Board of County~ors
Nay
Mr. Marshall X
Mr. Bowerman X
Mr. Perkins X
Ms. Humphris X
Mr. Martin X
Ms. Thomas X
CFW Cellular
/ 1 ! 90 Shenaadoah villasa Drive
· Waynesburo, VA 22980
In r~ponso to your tnqui~ concerning the attachment of additional equipment to thc gnl~mros
located near the Red I-hlU North C~den area in Charlottesville, 'Virginia Power has cletamtned
that due to the age and praaent loading for any structure that is aa FLT Tower, no additional
equipment can be added. Stmcturea 486 and ,187 on transmission line 553 are FLT Towers and
cannot be considered for your usc,
Please call mo at (804)257-4090 if you have 'aay questions,
RECEIVED
~JUL 2 7 1998
Ptannin9 Dept:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SP 98-27 CFW Wireless at Red Hill
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Petition by CFVV Wireless to construct a 150 foot tall
telecommunication tower with associated ground facilities
on a portion of 2.071 acres zoned PA, Rural Areas, and
EC, Entrance Corridor [10.2.2(6)]. Property, described as
.Tax Map 87, Parcel 25B, is located on the southeast side of
State Route 29 South [Monacan Trail Road], approximately
1 mile southwest of State Route 708. This site is located in
the Samuel Miller Magisterial District and is not located
within a designated Development Area.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Cilimberg, Morrisette
AGENDA DATE:
August 19, 1998
ACTION:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
Yes
CONSENTAGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED_BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission heard the applicant's potiUon to construct a Personal Communications [PCS] Tower at its July
24, 1998. meeting. The Planning Commission recommended denial of SP 98-27 to allow for the construction of a 150
toot tall tower. In the report, staff had identified the possibility of co-loca~n of the communications antennae on the
existing power poles serving the Virginia Power 500 kilovolt transmission line. Since the Planning Commission's action,
the applicant has provided additional information regarding the feasibility of such co-location.
DISCUSSION:
This executive summary serves as additional information for your consideration. In the attached report, staff identified two
alternative options for the proposed tower facility; 1) collocation on the existing power poles serving Virginia Power's 500
kilovolt transmission line. and 2) reduction of tower size to 120 feet. Although less invasive, staff finds a 120 font tower
would negatively impact the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. The applicant has pursued the possible co-location option
with Virginia Power and has determined that the existing structures are incapable of suppo~ng addEional facilities. The
applicant has provided a letter to this affect as Attachment A. It states Virginia Power has determined that, due to the age
and present loading for any structure that is an FLT Tower, no additional equipment can be added.
RECOMMENDATION:
Althougtt co-location on the power poles is no longer a feasible option, staff opinion is that the proposed 150 foot high
tower would have an adverse impact on the Entrance Corridor Oveday District. Therefore. staff recommendation has not
altered in light of this new information.
98.157
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County
Mark Gartley
Project Manager
United States Cellular Corporation
August 19, 1998
Response to Planning Staff's Report on SP 98-27
Application of CFW Wireless for a Communications Tower in Red Hill
The Board of Supervisors ("Board") has before it the application of CFW Wireless
("CFW') for a special use permit to build a cellular tower on property owned by American
Electric Power ("AEP') on Route 29 in the Red Hill section of Albemarle County. On July
14, 1998, the Planning Commission for Albemarle County ("Planning Commission")
considered CFW's application and recommended against it. The Planning Staff of Albemarle
County ("Staff") prepared a report which recommended against granting a special use permit
for the Red Hill site. The Uulted States Cellular Corporation ("U.S. Cellular") believes that
the Staff in fact bases its decision on a single factor, the visual impact of the tower, and does
not give weight to a number of other factors which support CFW's application and are
relevant to the Board's decision.
The Staff report addressed the issues the Board must consider in deciding on a special
use permit. According to § 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, :'[s]pecial use permits for uses
as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the board of supervisors that
[1] such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent proper[y, [2] that the character of
the district will not be changed thereby and [3] that such use will be in harmony with the
purpose and intent of this ordinance, [4] with the uses permitted by right in the district, [51
with additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance, and [6] with the public
health, safety and general welfare."' U.S. Cellular will respond to the Staff's report by
addressing each of these factors.
1. Substantial detriment to adjacent property.
CFW's proposed cellular tower does not create a substantial detriment to the adjacem
property. According to the Staff report, the tower would be located 80 feet from AEP's
power lines, 100 feet from Virginia Power's 500kV transmission lines and 1,000 feet from the
'The numbers in brackets are not in the original. They were added to correspond with the subheadings
m this memorandum and with the Staff's ana/ys~s.
nearest dwelling. The top of the towers supporting Virginia Power's transmission lines would
be 30 feet below the level of the cellular tower. The Staff has expressed concern about the
'*extreme visibility of the tower."
Despite the Staff's concerns about the visual impact of the tower, almost every
property in sight of the proposed cellular tower is also in sight of the power transmission
towers. This location is not a pristine viewshed; thus, the addition of the cellular tower would
result in only an incremental change. It is difficult to believe that a 30-foot increase in height
over the current utility structures would constitute a substantial detriment to adjacent property.
There is no evidence that the proposed tower would have any impact on the proper~y values
of adjacent property. In fact, the proposed tower's only impact on adjacent property is that it
can be seen along with the current utility structures.
2. The character of the district will not be char~ed.
The proposed tower location is in a Rural Areas district and an Entrance Corridor
Overlay district. The Staff has taken the position that the character of the Entrance Corridor
Overlay district would be changed because the proposed tower is 30 feet taller than the power
transmission towers. The Staff was also concerned that allowing a tower on this site might
create a precedent for the addition of more towers on this site and an even greater impact.
Actually, the proposed tower site has a minimum impact on the character of the district
because of its location next to the power transmission lines. This location was chosen to
m/nlmize the effect on the surrounding area. Placing the tower on AEP's property conforms
to the intent of both the Rural Areas and Entrance Corridor Overlay districts.
The Staff suggests that the height of the tower in the Entrance Corridor Overlay
district alters the character of the district. According to the Zoning Ordinance, the Entrance
Corridor Overlay district exists to protect, among other things, "the county's namrak scen'tc
and historic, architectural and cultural resources including the preservation of natural and
scenic resources. . to ensure a quality of development compatible with these resources;
[and] to protect and enhance the county's attractiveness to tourists and other visitors .... "
Zoning Ordinance § 30.6.1.
The c/ear goal of the Entrance Corridor Overlay district is to minimize disruptive
development near major rural highways. Equally clear is the need for cellular service on
Route 29. The proposed location for the tower is consonant with the intent of the overlay
d/strict and the need for cellular service. The viewshed on Route 29 is already degraded by
the presence of the utility towers. A cellular tower on this location would have minimal
impact on a site where utility towers already disrupt the view. Placing towers on developed
land ensures that development is compatible with, and protective of, the scemc resources.
Locating a tower to serve Route 29 at another location in the same area would create a much
greater disruption to the viewshed and to the scenic and natural resources. Tourists and
visitors to Albemarle County are less likely to notice a cellular tower if it is placed next to a
transmission line tower. These visitors would also reap the safety and welfare benefits of
2
quality cellular service in this area. Thus, by locating the cellular tower next to the
transmission lines the character of the Entrance Corridor Overlay district will be preserved
and a public need will be served.
The intent of the Rural Areas District is the "[p]reservation of agricultural and forestal
lauds and activities; . . [and] [c]onservation of natural, scenic, and historic resources .... It
is intended that permitted development be restricted to land which is of marginal utility for
agricultural/forestal purposes." Zoning Ord/nanee § 10.1. By locating the tower on AEP's
property, CFW preserves agricultural and forestal lands by developing land that is already
being used for ut'flity infrastructure instead of land currently being used for agriculture and
forests. The location of the tower on the utility right of way makes only an incremental
impact on the scenic resources of the community, and conserves the natural and historic
resources by limiting construction on undeveloped areas of the county. The Staff admits that
a cellular tower does not necessarily change the character of a Rural Areas district. Instead,
the Staff is concerned about the impact of multiple towers. However, there are not multiple
rowers in this location.
3. The use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ord'mance.
The location that CFW has chosen for the Red Hill cellular tower is in harmony with
the Zoning Ordinance. The Staff, however, believes that the proposed tower would not be in
harmony with § 1.4.3 of the Zoning Ordinance which states that the Ordinance is intended
"[t]o facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community."
According to the Staff, the proposed tower would not contribute to an '~attractive community."
Implicit in this decision is the conclusion that an attractive community is the most significant
provision of the Zoning Ord/nance.
The Staff report concedes that the proposed tower is in harmony with several
subsections of the Intent and Purpose Section of the Zoning Ordinance. For instance, the
Staff states that cellular service provides a needed public service. Fulfilling this need is tn
harmony with §§ 1.4, ~.4.4, and 1.5 of the Zoning Ordinance. As the Staff points out,
increased cellular service also contributes to a convenient community in accordance with
§ 1.4.3.
The proposed tower is also in harmony with provisions of the Zoning Ordinance that
the Staff did not consider. Section 1.4.7 states that another purpose of the Zoning Ordinance
is "[t]o encourage economic development activities that provide desirable employment and
enlarge the tax base." htcreased availability of cellular service encourages economic
development by making the county more attractive for outside investment. Increased
investment in local business and resources enlarges the tax base. The proposed tower would
be in harmony with § 1.4.8 which "provides for the preservation of agricultural and forestal
lands and other lands of significance for the protection of the natural environment." As
discussed in the previous section, the proposed location of the tower would minimize the
impact on agricultural and forestal lands by placing the tower in a utility right-of-way.
Despite the fact that the proposed tower is in harmony with most of the applicable
subsections of the Purpose and Intent section of the Zoning Ordinance, the Staff has argued
that the potential visual impact creates noncompliance with this section of the Zoning
Ordinance. The Staff's conclusion is not supported by the weight of the factors of the
Purpose and Intent section. This analysis re-enforces the idea that the Staff's only concern is
the visual impact of the tower. When all of the factors are considered by the Board, the
proposed cellular site conforms with the purpose and intent of .the Zoning Ordinance.
4. Uses permitted by right.
The Staff found that the rower would not impact by-fight uses of AEP's property or
any other property.
5. Additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this Ordinance.
The Staff proposed changes to the plan to conform zo the provisions of § 5.0 which
deal with rowers. These proposals are not problematic.
6. The public health, safety and general welfare,
The Staff believes that increased cellular service is consistent with public health.
safety, and general welfare.
The Staff's Summary,
The Staff summarized its recommendations and suggested four factors which it
believed were unfavorable m CFW's application. One of those factors was the possibility of
collocation on Virginia Power's transmission towers. This possibility has been ruled out by
Virginia Power, so it can no longer be considered a negative factor. The three other factors
are the same factor expressed three times: (1) the tower's visual impact on the Entrance
Corridor, (2) the tower does not contribute to an attractive community, and (3~ the tower ~s
highly visible from neighboring property. As the previous discussion made clear, the tower
site was chosen to minimize the visual impact and to comply with the intent of the Zoning
Ordinance. The visual disruption should be considered in conjunction with the substantial
impact on the viewshed that the power transmission towers already have, In addition, the
potential visual impact should be only one factor, not three, to be considered by the Board.
When all of the factors are considered and given their appropriate weight, the Board
shot~ld approve CFW's application for a special use permit for the Red Hill site. The
proposed site has a minimally disruptive impact on the viewshed; ss in conformity with the
Zoning Ordinance; and preserves the scenic and natural resources of Albemarle County.
BOARD OF r,v
July 22, 1998
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Devetopmem
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
Larry Ry~n
CFW Wireless
P O Box 1328
Waynesboro, VA 22980
RE: SP-98-27 CFW Wireless (Red ltliii)
Tax Map 87, Parcel 25B
Dear Mr. Ryan:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission~ at its meeting on July 14, '1998, unanimously recommended
denial of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors Please note that this denial was based on
the following:
1. Other possible locations have not been explored which would be less objectionable to the
commumty and tess visible from the Entrance Corridor.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public co~nment at their meeting on August 19, 1998. 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 hearing date.
The Commission also denied a request for a waiver of the drawing ora site plan.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
Eric Morrisette
Plannit
EIV'dj cf ~ . c-
Cc: ~El~aa Carey Jack Kelsey Amelia McCulley
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
ERIC L. MORRISETTE
JULY 14, 1998
AUGUST 19, 1998
SP 98-27 CFW WIRELESS [RED HILL1
Applicant's Proposal:
The applicant is proposing to construct a 150 foot monopole communications tower to provide
PCS. Personal Communication System, coverage for southwestern Albemarle County.
Currently, no PCS service is provided in this area. The specific location of and design of the
proposed tower are shown on Attachment B. Shaffhas indicated the proposed tower location and
access on a topographic map. which is included as Attachment A, A detailed description
prepared by the applicant is included as Attachment C.
Petition:
Petition by CFW Wireless to construct a 150 foot tall telecommunication tower with associated
ground facilities on a portion of 2.071 acres zoned PA, Rural Areas, and EC. Entrance Corridor
[10.2.2(6)]. Property, described as Tax Map 87, Parcel 25B, is located on the southeast side of
;hate Route 29 South [Monacan Trail Road], approximately 1 mile southwest of State Route 708
Attachment D). The proposed tower site is approximately 60 feet from the western side of
Route 29 South. This site is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District and is not located
within a designated Development Area.
Character of the Area:
The location for the proposed tower is at the American Electric Power [AEP] Red Hill
substation, on the southeast side of Route 29 South. The proposed tower location is
approximately 80 feet north of the AEP's 230 kilovolt transmission line and 100 feet north of
Virginia Power's 500 kilovolt transmission line. The 500 kilovolt transmission line is supported
by "T" shaped lattice structures, which are 90 feet hall and approximately 25 feet higher in
elevation than the tower site [One "T" shaped lattice structure is 20 feet higher in elevation and
the other "T" shaped lattice structure is 30 feet higher in elevation]. Taking the elevation and the
lattice structure height into account, the proposed tower would result in a height 30 feet taller
than the highest electrical lattice structure in the immediate vicinity.
The tower site is located at a relatively flat area and will be served by an existing entrance
currently serving the AEP substation. No critical slopes exist on the site. The entrance is located
directly offofRoute 29. Attachment A is a topographic map that shows the location of the
proposed tower and nearby houses. The proposed tower is at an elevation of approximately 630
feet ASL. Tl~e closest dwelling, which is on an adjacent parcel, is approximately 1;000 feet
distant. [This dwelling is also approximately 70 feet higher in elevation than the ground level of
the tower.] Seventeen [17] houses are located within 2.000 feet [0.6 miles] of the proposed
tower. No existing towers are located within the area. The nearest towers are located: 1)
approximately 5.6 miles to the west. on Castlerock Mountain [U.S. Cellular] and 2)
approximately 5.7 miles to the north, at camp Holiday Trails [360 Communications].
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the prowsions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the
Zoning Ordinance and is unable to recommend approval.
Planning and Zoning History:
No planning or zoning history is available for this site. A power substation exists on the site.
Comprehensive Plan:
The impact of the tower has been reviewed for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the
Zoning Ordinance. This property is located in the Rural Areas of the Comprehensive Plan. The
Plan discourages uses not related to bona fide agriculture or foresuT. Currently, the
Comprehengive Plan contains limited review criteria for the siting of telecommunication towers.
The Open Space Plan does provide some guidance for the protection of identified resources of
the County. The only resource identified in the plan and potentially affected by this application
ts the Entrance Corridor. The Architectural Review Board [ARB] currently addresses the
Entrance Corridor Overlay District. This proposed tower and the property exist entirely below
the Mountain Resource Area as identified in the Open Space Plan. Critical slopes do not exist on
the site.
This tower is intended, primarily, to provide service to the Route 29 corridor. Route 29 is
designated as an Entrance Corridor. The tower site is only 60 feet from Route 29 and will be
highly visible from the Entrance Corridor. Therefore, it will require ARB design approval prior
to construction. An antenna location on the existing "T" shaped lattice structures supporting the
500 kv power lines would provide an alternative that would be less invasive to the Entrance
Corridor Overlay District. The applicant has acknowledged this collocation option for PCS, but
has indicated the difficulty of obtaining easements from Virginia Power. United States Cellular,
who seeks collocation with CFW at a later date, has indicated that electromagnetic interference
would occur if they were to :ollocate cellular antennas on top of the lattice structures. The
applicant has also indicated that the tower could be designed to be no taller than the height of the
"T" shaped lattice structures supporting the Virginia Power 500 ky transmission lines [120 feet
total height], but such an option would not allow for collocation at a later date. Staff also finds
this option to be less invasive to the Entrance Corridor Overlay District.
The impact of this tower on resources identified in the Open Space Plan is, in the opinion of
staff, significant due to the size of the tower. As stated previously, the tower would be at a
height of 30 feet taller than the existing lattice structure serving Virginia Power's 500 kilovolt
electrical line.
STAFF COMMENT:
Staff will address the issues of this request in three sections:
Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance;
Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and:
Waiver ora site plan in accord with the provisions of Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning
Ordinance. [Located after the "Recommended Conditions of Approval".]
A. Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance:
Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the fight 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 Xo adjacent property,
The proposed tower is located approximately 1,000 feet fi.om the nearest dwelling. Based on
staffreview of design and height of tkis tower, it will be highly visible from adjacent dwellings
and Route 29. The proposed tower is also located approximately 25 feet from the nearest
property line. Staff has identified that a waiver of side setback is not required, because the
proposed pole is engineered to collapse entirely within the lease area should the structure fall.
Two adjacent property owners have contacted staff to express their concerns with this proposal.
The underlying theme of their concern is the extreme visibility of the tower due to the height and
location in an open area. Staffconcurs with the adjacent property owners regarding this
visibility, which arguably could be considered a substantial detriment to adjacent property.
Lighting of the tower is unlikely to be necessary, as the tower is less than 200 feet in height.
Should the Board of Supervisors approve the applicant's request; staff has included a condition
that prohibits lighting (Condition 2c).
The proposed tower location is on the southeast side of Route 29 South, which is open
pastureland. Virtually no screening exists to provide screening of the equipment at the base of
the tower from the entrance corridor, except for small shrubs along Route 29. The applicant has
indicated that the equipment and shed at the base of the tower will be fenced. Should the Board
of Supervisors grant approval of the applicant's request, staffhas included the condition that the
fence be a screening fence and/or appropriate screemng be planted (Condition 11). The proposed
tower does offer collocation possibilities. The applicant has indicated that U.S. Cellular will be
seeking collocation approval on the proposed tower Iif approved] in the near future.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
Staff has reviewed the impact of the proposed tower relative to the character of the Entrance
Corridor Overlay District and the Rural Areas District. with particular attention to its potential to
establish a precedent for additional future facilities of this nature on this site which might have a
greater impact than this particular installation.
The applicant's request is for a tower 30 feet taller than the "T" shaped lattice structures
Supporting the Virginia Power 500 ky transmission lines, which are only 100 feet distant. Staff
opinion is that the additional 30 feet alters the existing height plane, thus altering the character of
the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. As previously stated, the additional thirty feet is
requested to allow for future collocation. Should the applicant reduce the height of the tower m
120 feet in height, the impact to the character of the district would also be diminished.
Staff has considered this tower as a stand-alone facility. Towers have been permitted in the
Rural Areas in the past, without a fmding of significant change to the character of the district
depending uponthe specific site and its surrounding terrain, land use, etc. However, over time,
increasing tower density may incrementally change the character of the district, possibly
diminishing the aesthetic qualities for which these districts are noted. Staff suggests that site-
specific factors such as size, construction type and site be considered within the larger context of
the pattern of tower location during the special use permit review process. At the present time,
there does not appear m be an excess of tower facilities in this area.
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 as stated Sections 1.4, 1.5,
and 1.6 with particular reference to Sections 1.4, 1.4.4, and 1.5 (Attachment F). All of these
provisions address, in one form or another, the provision of public sen-ices. The use of mobile
telephones clearly provides a public service as evidenced by the expanded and rapid increase ion
use. Based on the provision of a public service, staff opinion is that this request is in harmony
with the purpose and intent of these sections of the Ordinance.
· Section 1.4.3 states as an intent of the Ordinance, "To facilitate the creation of a convenient.
atla'active and harmonious coma-nunity". The provision of this facility does increase the
availability and convenience for. users of wireless phone technology. However, this proposal
may not be contributing to an "attractive community" because of the potential visual impact to
the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. Therefore, staff opinion is that this request does not
comply with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
with the uses permitted by right in the district,
I'he proposed tower will not restrict the current uses or other by-right uses available on this site;
or by-right uses onany other property.
with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance,
Section 5.1.12 of the Ordinance contmns regulations governing tower facilities and appropriate
conditions are proposed to ensure compliance with this provision of the Ordinance.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The provision of increased communication facilities may be considered consistent with the
public health and safety and general welfare by providing increased communication services in
the event of emergencies and increasing overall general communication services. The
Telecommunications Act addresses issues of environmental effects with the followi~ng language,
"No state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement
constructiom and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the
environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with
the Commissions' regulations concerning such emissions". In order to operate this facility, the
applicant is requiredto meet the FCC guidelines for radio frequency emissions. This
requirement will protect the public health and safety.
The Virginia Department of Transportation [VDOT] has reviewed this proposal and provided
comment (Attachment E). The only comment VDOT provided is the requirement that the
entrance adhere to commercial entrance standards (Condition 12).
B. Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of The Telecommunications Act of 1996:
The regulation of the placement, construction and modification of personal
wireless facilities by any state or local government or instrumentality thereof shall
not prohibit or have the ,ffect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless
services.
Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the provisiun'of personal
wireless service. Staff does not believe that the special use permn process or the denial of this
application has the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal- wireless service. The applicant
has not demonstrated that there are no other locations within the proposed area of service
currently available for new tower construction. For this mason, staffdoes not believe thru denial
of this application would have the effect of prohibiting the prOvision of services.
The applicant has indicated that the proposed site location is necessary to fill existing voids in
their service area. As previously stated, staffhad identified the possibility of collocation on the
existing Virginia Power lattice poles. Staff has also discussed, with the applicant, the minimum
height requirements for their PCS operation. The applicant has indicated that a height of 120 feet
would be sufficient, but seeks a height of 150 feet to allow for collocation. Staff reminds the
Planning Commission that approval of the proposed 150 foot tall tower does not ensure
collocation of ott'/er facilities at a later date. No other collocation options have been identified
which would provide coverage in this area.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this request:
[. The tower will provide increased wireless communication capacity, which may be
considered consistem with the provisions of Sections 1.4.4. and 1.5:
2. The tower will not restrict permitted uses on adjacent properties; and,
3. The proposed tower location is in area of other significant structures of height.
Staff has identified the following factors;which are unfavorable to this request:
1. Visually impacts the Entrance Corridor resource identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
Open Space Plan and the Entrance Corridor Overlay District, particularly due to the
additional height above the existing power poles:
2. Alternative pole size exists as well as the possibility of collocation on existing "T"
shaped lattice structures supporting the Virginia Power 500 kv power line; and,
3. The tower will not contribute to an attractive community, which may be considered
inconsistent with the provision of Section 1.4.3.
4. The tower will be highly visible from adjacent dwellings.
Staff has identified the following factor which is relevant to this consideration:
There is an existing reasonable use on the property.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff opinion is that this request is inconsistent with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the
Ordinance and therefore, staff is unable to recommend approval of this request. Should the
Board of Supervisors choose to approve this requesT, staffhas provided conditions of approval.
' In the event that the Board chooses to deny this application, staff offers the following
comment: In order to comply with the provisions of the Telecommunications Act. staff
requests consensus direction from the Board regarding the basis for denial of the
application and instruction to staff to return to the Board with a written decision for the
Board's consideration and action.)
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
The height of the tower shall not exceed 150 feet in height
The tower shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
a. The tower shall be of a monopole, self-collapsing design;
b. Guy wires shall not be permitted;
c. The tower shall have no lighting; and,
d. The tower shall not be painted;
e. The tower material shall be of low reflectivity.
The tower shall be located on the site as follows:
a. The tower shall be located as shown on the attached plan entitled "Tower Site For
CFW Wireless CV-113".
Antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows:
a. Antenna height shall be limited to the maximum height of the tower [150 ft]; and,
b. Satellita and microwave dish antennas are prohibited.
The tower shall be used, or have the potential to be used, for the collocation of other
wireless telecommunications providers, as follows:
a. The permittee shall allow other wireless telecommunications providers to locate
antennas on the tower and equipment on the site, subject to these conditions:
(1) Prior to approval of a final site plan for the site or the waiver of the site
plan requirement, the permittee shall execute a letter of intent stating that
it will make a good faith effort to allow such location and will negotiate in
good faith with such other provider requesting locate on the tower or the
site; and,
(2) The permittee shall provide to the County, upon request, verifiable
evidence that it has made a good faith effort to allow such location.
Verifiable evidence of a good faith effort includes, but is not limited to,
evidence that the permittee has offered to allow other providers to locate
on the tower and site in exchange for reciprocal rights on a tower and site
owned or controlled by another provider within Albemarle County.
Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected
below a horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of
'7
the luminaire. For purposes of this condition, an "Aluminaire" is a. complete lighting unit
consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to
position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. Outdoor
.ighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only;
10.
11.
12.
Prior to beginning construction or installation of the tower or the eqmpmem building, or
installation of access for vehicles or utilities, the permittee shall obtain authorization from
the Director of Planning to remove ex~sting trees on the site. The Director of Planning
shall identify which trees may be removed for such construction or installation. Except
for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning, the pe. rmitree shall
not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the rower, the eqmpment
building, or the vehicular or utility access;
The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the
lease area shall not be required:
The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site withha ninety (90) days of the
date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued:
The permittee shall submit a report to the z~ning administrator once per year, by not later
than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower and shall identify
each user that is a wireless telecommunications service provider;
The fencing of the lease area shallbe constructed to fully screen all associated utilities
and structures. Where deemed appropriate by the Director of Planning and Community
Development, appropriate landscaping may be approved in lieu of the screening fence;
and,
The existing entrance must be upgraded to adhere to VDOT commercial entrance
standards.
Only the Planning Commission must take the following action in order to authorize a site plan
waiver.
A waiver of the drawing of a site plan has been granted in accord with the provisions of Section
32.2.2. subject to the following conditions:
1. ApproVal of an erosion and sediment control plan prior to the issuance of a building
permit; and,
2. Provision of one parking space.
ATTACHMENTS:
B-
C-
D-
E-
F-
Topographic Map
Sketch Map and Construction Diagrams
Application for Special Use Permit
Tax Map
Letter of Opposition. Dated March 20. 1998
Sections 1.4 and 1.5 of The Zoning Ordinance
I ATTACHI~IENT !
/
,/I /
,/× / ~
,
~ / ell ~0~ ~5' A~ ~
/ AEP E~C POWER ~TA~ON ~
/
/
D.B. ~9, ~. 742 /
/
TOWER ~E EO~ /
CFW W~RELES5 /
cv-~3 /
'7
/
qD 6RAVEL
IATTACHMENT BI
WIRELESS
Coun~ of
Aibemnrte
Application for
SPECIAL USE
PERMIT.
Department of Zoning
401 Mclmire Road *Charlottesville, Virginia 22902.4596 * 804 2964875 phone * 804 972-4035 fax
J~ AMENDMENT OF A VALID SP: SP #
.~, EXTENSION OF A VALID SP: SP#
Tax Map/Parcel:
Location: ~L/~ ,,,
~t111~ '
PROJECT NAME:
NEW SP (s~ Zoning Ordinance Section 35.0 for Appropriate Fee)
(SSS.00)
(SSS.00]
Existing Zoning: '~ ~- ~
PROPOSED USE: . ~.~.~;~,oJc;,¢;a.,~ or.e-/cc 4¢~ /-'c' 5 ~'~or~J&, ~/~p/.~..~ . .
O~RN~ .... ~t-~zettea~ ) '
Ad :ss: , , //P /rz,,,:.. ¢= ,',
Phon~: Day T~c Phonc~ ~O-~'- 2~/qb
APPLICANT Nm'nc
Address:,,//% O ,c'/c"° J'd~'a '~,, ~,/.t~-c .',.
Phone/Fax:. ,'~
CONTACT Name (if different from above):
Address:
Phone/Fax:
'. Day Time Phone:. ('~
I hereby disclose that the owner or ownet~ of the subject pmpet~ also have an ownership interest in the
following tax map and parcel numbe~, which abut or am immediately across the st~t or mad from the
aubject pm~:
If ownemhip of the ~ubje~ p~ is in the name of any ~ of legal enti~ or o~anization including, but
n~t limited to, the name ora co.option, pa~ne~hip, or a~sociafion, or in the name ora t~st, or in a
fi~itiou~ na~, the applicant mu~ sumit with this application a document acceptable to the Coun~ which
~es that the ~mon signtng below has the authod~ to do so. If the applicant is a cont~ pu~haser
of the subject pm~, the applicant must submit a document acceptaDle to the Coun~ containing the
owne~s wH~en consent to the applicaEon, ff the applicant is the agent of the ownec the applicant must
subm~ a document accep~ble to the Coun~ that is evidence of the existence and ~cope of the agency.
I hereby ce~ify that the information provided on this application and accompanying infomafion is
accurate, true and correct to the best of my ~owledge and belieL
.,,'~" ~ - · '- ' ~ D4ite
- S~gnature
I ATTACHMI=NT C I2
~STIFICATION: ~lease attach additional into:ation as needed)
OFF[CE USE ONLY
TAX MAP/PARCEL:
MAG. DIST:
REQUESTED UNDER. OP,.DINANCE SECTION: f o. ~. , -2_. 6,
'.~X~S'f~G us'i~:~': .'" '. '" ~.~t.~,,.E ,,
[] ZMAs and Proffers:.
[] Letter of Authorization
ALBEMARLE
COUNTY
ATTACHMENT
86
T.
SAMUEL MILLER DtSTRIGT
I
CFW WIRELESS
RED HtLL
88
SECTION 87
6
SP 98-27
CFW WIRELESS
RED HiLL
o~o
~,TTACHMENT E I
Mr Ron Keeler
July Public Hearings
SP-98-26 Albemarle Firet Bank, Route 29
Page 2
June L2, 1998
The western most encrance on Westfield Road should be closed since it is so
close to turning movements from Route 29. Vehicles parked on site obstruct
the motorist from seeing vehicles approaching.
SP-98-27 CFW - Wireless (C~113), Route 29
The proposed site should be served by an entrance tha= meets commercial
entrance standards.
SP-98-29 CFW Wireless (CV125) Stony Point, Route 20/600
The proposed site should be served by an entrance that meets commercial
entrance standards It appears from the section map that perhaps a private
entrance would serve the site. Due ko a tall wooden privacy fence, sight
distance is only 85 feet to the east,
~-98-30 CFW Wireless (CV134) Keene, Route 712
The proposed site should be served by an entrance that meets commercial
entrance standards.
SP-$8-31 CFW Wireless, Route 53/729
The proposed site should be served by an entrance that meets commercial
entrance standards.
If you have any questions, please advise before releasing comments to the
developer.
HWM/ldw
cc:
Karen Kilby
John Giometti; Irma vonKutzleben
J. H. Kesterson
Assistant Resident Engineer
1.0
1.1
I ATTACHMENT F I
A~OEI-~ ,ESTABLIS~T~ PURPOSg AND O~ICIAL ZONING MAP
AtT~HORITY AND ENACTMENT
This ordinance, to be cited as the Zoning Ordinance of Albemarle
County, is hereby ordained, enacted and published by'the Board of
Supervisors of klb~mmrle County, Virginia, pursuant to the provisions
of Title 15.1, Chapter 11, Article 8, Code of Virginia, 1950, and
amendments thereto.
AMENDMENT TO ADOPT
An ordinance to- reenact and readopt the Alb-mmrle County Zoning
Ordinance and the Albemarle County Zoning Nap.
Be it ordained by the Board of Supervisors of Alb~m=rle County,
Virginia: That the following ordinance knoWl~ as the Zoning Ordinance
of Albemarle County, Virginia, together with the Zoning Map attached
thereto, be and the same are, readopted and reenacte~ effective
immediately upon adoption of this ordinance.
EFFECTIVE DATE, REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES
This Zoning Ordinance of Albemarle County, Virginia, shall be effec-
tive at and after 5:15 P.M., the 10th day of December, 1980 and at the
same time the Albemarle County "Zoning Ordinance" adopted December 22,
1969, as amended, [s hereby repealed.
PURPOSE AND INTENT
This ordinance. ~nsofar as ~s practicable, is ingended to be in accord
with and to Implement the Comprehensive Plan of Albemarle County
adopted pursuant to the provisions of Title ~5.1, Chapter ll, Article
~, Code of Virginia. 1950. as amende~, and has the purposes and intent
set forth in Title 15.1, Cha~t~r 1[, Article ~.
As set forth in section 1%.1-4~7 of the Code, this ordinance ~s
intended to ~m~rove public h~a[th, safety, convenience and welfare of
citizens of Alb-.~r~e County. ~rg~n~a, and ~o plan for the future
development of co:%mAn~%,es ~(, ~he end that transportation systems be
carefully planned; that n~.~ ¢o:~un~ty centers be developed with
adequate highway, utility, health, educational and recreational
facilities; that the ~eeo~ ~,~ agriculture, industry and business be
recognized in futur~ Rro~tn: %nat residential areas be provided with
healthy surroundings for ~an~lv li~e; that agricultural and forestai
land be preserve~; an~ tna~ 'ne growth of the cormmz~nity be consonant
with the efficient and economical use of public funds. (Added 9-9-92)
Therefore be it orCa[nec t,v the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia'. for the purposes of promoting the health, safety,
convenience and general welfare of the public and of planning for the
-I- (Supp. #68, 9-9-92
1.4.!
1.4.2
1.4.3
1.4.4
1.4.5
1.4.6
1,. 4.7
1.4.8
1.4.9
1.4.10
1.4.11
1.5
I ATTACHMENT F I
future development of the co~mmity, that the zoning ordinance of
klb~m=rle County, together with the official zoning map adopted by
reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance, is designed:
'To provide for adequate light, air, convenience of access and safety
from fire, flood and other dangers;
To reduce or prevent congestion in the public streets;
To facilitate the creation of a convenzent, attractive and harmonious
co~a~nity;
To facilitate the provision of adequate police and fire protection,
disaster evacuation, civil defense, transportation, w~ter, sewerage,
flood protection, schools, parks, forests, playgrounds, recreational
facilities, airports and other public requirements;
To protect against destruction of or encroachment upon historic areas;
To protect against one or more of the following: overcrowding of
land, undue density of population in relation to the co~mmnity faci-
lities existing or available, obstruction of light and air, danger and
congestion in travel and transportation, or loss of life, health, or
property from fire. flood, panic or other dangers;
To encourage economic development activities that provide desirable
employment and enlarge the tax base~ (Amended 9-9-92)
To provide for the preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and
other lands of significance for the protection of the natural environ-
ment; (Amended 9-9-92)
To protect approach slopes and other safety areas of licensed air-
ports, including United States government and military air facilities;
(Added 11-1-89; ~mended 9-9-92]
To include reasonable prov~stons, not inconsistent with the applicable
state water quality standards to p~otect surface water and groundwater
defined in section 62.!-a~.85(8) of the Code of Virginia; and (Added
11-1-89; Amended 9-9-92~
To promote affordable housing. (Added 9-9-92)
RFL&TIONTO EN%'IRONI~E~
This ordinance ts ~es*~ned tn tree% lands which are similarly situated
and environmentally similar ~ l~Ke manner with reasonable considera-
tion for the ex[sctng use an~ character of properties, the Comprehen-
sive Plan, the suitability of prooerty for various uses, the trends of
growth or Change, the current and future land and water requirements
of the co~i=y for vartou~ purposes as determined by population and
economic studies amd other studies, the transportation requirements of
the community, and the requirements for airports, housing, schools,
parks, playgrounds, recrea[[on areas and other public services; for
-2- (Supp. #68, 9-9-92)
1.6
1.7
[ATTACHMENT F
the conservation of natural resources; and preservation of flood
plains, the preservation 'of agricultural and forestal land, the con-
servation of properties and their values and the encouragement of the
most appropriate use of land throughout the county. (Amended 11-1-89)
RF~.&TION TO COMI~,~NSIVE PLAN
In drawing the zoning ordinance and districts with reasonable consi~
deration of the Comprehensive Plan, it is a stated and express purpose
of this zoning ordinance to create land use regulations which shall
encourage the realization and implementation of the Comprehensive
Plan. To this end: development is to be encouraged in Villases,
Co~u~ities and the Urban Area; where services and utilities are
available and where such development will not conflict with the
agricultural/forestai or other rural objectives; and development is
not to he encouraged in the Rural Areas which are to be devoted to
preservation of a~ricultural and forestal lands and activities, water
supply protection, and conservation of natural, scenic and historic
resources and where only limited delivery of public services is
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
The unincorporated areas of Alb-~rle County, Virginia, are hereby
divided into districts, as indicated on a set of map sheets entitled
"ZoninB Map of Alb-~-rle County, VirginiW' which, together with all
explanatory matter thereon, is hereby adopted by reference and de-
clared to be a part of this ordinance.
The Zoning Map shall be identified by the signauure or the attested
signature of %he Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, together with
the date of adoption of this ordinance.
The zoning administrator shall be responsible for maintainihg the
Zoning Map, which shall De located in his offices, together with the
current zoning status of land and water areas, buildings and other
structures in the county.
The zoning administrator shall be authorized ~o interpret the current
zon%ng status of land and ~ater areas, buildings and other structures
zn the county.
No chan~es of any nature shall be made on said Zoning Map or any
matter shown ~hereon excep~ ~n conformity with the procedures and
requirements of %his ordinance. It shall be unlawful for any person
~o make unauthorized, changes on the official Zonin~ Map. Violations
of this provision shall be punishable as provided in section 57.0.
CERTIFIED COPY, FthING
A certified copy of the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map of Albemarle
County, ~irEinia, shall be filed in the office of the zonin~ admini-
strator and in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albe-
marle County, ¥[rginia.
RECEIVED
July 1, 199g
JUL 0 6
Planning Oept
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director
Albemarle County Planning and Community Developmem
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
RE: Special Use Permit Application SP 97-27
Dear Mr. Cilimberg,
The construction of a tower on the Appalachian Power site on Rt 29 in
North Garden would adversely affect the value of the community in general and
the surrounding properties in specific. North Garden is a lovely area in Albemarle
County and is an old community. I have lived on my small farm for 18 years. Not
only would the communications tower be an eyesore for me it would devalue the
32.75 acres and the 5 division rights allowed.
It saddens me greatly to think the county would consider the location of
this tower adjacent to a lake which has been used by the local community as a tiny
recreational area convenient for local gatherings and fundraising events. The fire
department has used the location for years to host a fundraising BBQ event. In the
years I have lived in the area there have been hayrides along RT 760, a 5k run, and
gospel music evems. Often on beautiful Albemarle days I will see folks fishing,
picnicing and relaxing by the lake.
The safety hazzards presented by that specific location is of great concern
The Appalachian Power facilities at the location involve immense electric power
voltage. I find the possibility ora real disaster to be greatly increased with a com-
munications tower also erected at the site.
I trust your research into this request will confuma the inadvisability of
permking this use not allowed by right and you will take action against the request
for h special use permit.
Sincerely,
Irene Brermeman
3822 Red Hill School Road
North Garden, Virginia 22959
I N T E R
0 F F I C E
MEMO
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance
Laurel B. Hail, Senior Deputy Clerk ~ ~
Appropriations Approved on September 16, 1998
September 21, 1998
Attached is the original appropriation form for the following item which was approved by
the Board at its meeting on September 16, 1998:
1) Appropriation: Education, $1,000 (Form #98025).
Attaahments: 1
cc: Roxanne White
Richard E. Huff, II
Robert Waiters
Kevin Castner
Jackson Zimmerman
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 98/99
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
FUND:
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
NUMBER 98025
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEVV
YES
NO X
SCHOOL
DONATIONS TO MERIWETHER LEWIS SCHOOL FOR CHARACTER COUNTS PROGRAM.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2206 61411 580500 STAFF DEVELOPMENT $1,000.00
TOTAL $1.000.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 2000 18100 181109 DONATIONS $1.000.00
TOTAL $1.000.00
TRANSFERS
REQUESTIN(~ COST CENTER: EDUCATION
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SIGNATURE
DATE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation - Education
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval of appropriation #98025 in
the amount of $1,000.00 for donations to Meriwether
Lewis School
AGENDA DATE:
September 16, 1998
ACTION:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
CONSENTAGENDA:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
STAFF CONTACTfS)- , /~- ~
Messrs. ~ucker, ~;st~er, Breeden . REVIEWED BY: ~;~/ I
BACKGROUND:
At its meeting on August 10, 1998, the School Board approved an appropriation of $1,900.00 for Meriwether Lewis School.
DISCUSSION:
The Junior League of Charlottesville donated $500.00 and Hunter E. Craig Co. donated $500.00 to Meriwether Lewis
Elementary School, These donations will be used for the Character Counts Program at Meriwether Lewis,
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve the appropriations totaling $1 ~000.00 as detailed on appropriation #98025.
BOARD OF SUPERvISoRs
98.189
ALBEMARI~ COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
80ARD OF SUPERVISORS
Memorandum
DATE: August 20, 1998
TO: Robert~r, Jr., County Executive
FROM: Kevin ~s~r/ Division Superintendent
RE: Reques~ppropriation
At its meeting on August 10, 1998, the School Board approved the
following appropriation:
o Appropriation of $1,000.00 for Meriwether Lewis Elementary
School. The Junior League of Charlottesville donated $500.00 and
Hunter E. Craig Co: donated $500.00 to Meriwether Lewis Elementary
School. These donations will be used for the Character Counts
Program at Meriwether Lewis.
2-2000-18100-181109
Donation $1,000.00
Expenditure:
1-2206-61411-580500
Staff Dev. $1,000.00
It is requested that the Board of Supervisors amend the appropriation
ordinance to receive and disburse these funds as displayed above.
xc: Melvin Breeden
Ella Carey
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Keating Commission Information
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
County growth information for the Keating Commission.
STAFF CONTACT{S):
Messrs. Tucker= Cilimberg & Ms. White
AGENDA DATE:
September 16, 1998
ITEM NUMBER:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
/
BACKGROUND:
The Keating Commission is studying ways to address the demands of residential growth on localities and has
solicited testimony from county officials for a public hearing to be held in Richmond on September 25. The
Commission has also requested that Ioca}ifies send them specific demographic and growth information two
weeks prior to the hearing.
DISCUSSION:
The attached material consists of a one page bulleted sheet containing demographic information, the costs and
problems associated with growth, what the County has done to address growth and soroe suggestions on state
assistance in dealing with growth. This will be sent to the Keating Commission today, Friday the 11th. The second
attachment is a roore narrative summary on some of the growth issues facing the County that will be used in
conjunction with the statistical data for the presentation to the Commission.
RECOMMENDATION:
This information is presented for the board's information The Board should review the information to help in
determining the areas that Sally Thomas should emphasize at the September 25t" hearing.
98.191
- OARD OF SUPERVISORS
Growth Impact Presentation to Keating Commission
1) Albemarle County Growth
· Population has grown at 2% annual rate since 1990. Current population is 79,500.
· Population doubled ~om 1.970 m 1996 and is expected to triple by 2010.
· School eurollment bas averaged 2.4% increase each year s'mce 1990 or an average of 240 students every year. With a
600 capac/ty building that equates to a new elementary school every 2-3 years.
· Annual unemployment o/ac of lowest in the state at 1.8%
2) Costs
· Past ten years, Albemarle has built 4 elementary schools, a middle school and a new high school
County spent over $ [00 million in past ten years on new, expanded and renovated school fac'tildes.
· Next five years expect to build 2 more elementary schools and make major expansions to middle school end new high
school
Next five years will spend additional ~;20 m/ilion on school projects.
· County's long term debt per capita has increased from $372 in FY91 to $853 in FY98 (129%)
Debt service was $2. l million in FY90 and projected to be $8.8 million in FY2000
· County pays over 65% of school operating costs
· State share of school operating costs has declined (40% in FYS0 to 33% in FY99)
3) Problems
· Albemarle "quality of life" is magnet for growth
· Rapid urbartization places increasing tax burden on long-time rural homeowners~
High cost of living versus less than state average wages
Growth demands more roads, schools, recreational space and sla'esses nattwal resources and water supply
· Rate ofincrease in property values has declined~ FY93 11%,FY95 5%, FY97 2,3%, FY99 2%
~nenmetaxc~~~ecti~nfr~mAlbemar~ei~creasedby67%inpast~veyears~ravg.~3%ayear($36.8mi~li~nin~99~
to $61.4 million ill 1997). This fastest growing revenue source is not available to localities.
· Vir~inia is lowest in southeastern region in the amount of state aid provided to exhicafion
· Up until th/s year, only three states in southeastern region did not provide fimmcial support for school consmictio~
Virginia, Lomsiena and Arkansas. Virginia's $55 million contribufionis smallbegiunmg.
4) What we have done to control and pay for growth?
· Down-zoned in 1980 to protect natural resources, particularly the county's watershed,
· Delineated growth area boundaries and rural conservation and protection areas
· Adopted Open Space Plan and CommuniW Facilities Plan and Water Protection Ordinance
· Funded infrastmcrure flnprovements through CIP and Secondary Roads Improvement Program
· Restricted public utilities to designated development areas
· Utilized split billing in personal property and real estate for new middle school end high school
· Passed referendm for food and beverage tax
· Fully maxim/zed taxing authority granted by the state, e.g. Wansient, utility
· Ckaren! water rates include purclmse costs for new resercoir
5) VOtat do we need from the State?
· More financial support for school construction
· Impact fees
· Adequate Public Facilities provisions
· Transfer Development Rights
· Shared fimding for Purchase of Development Rights
· More flexibility in VDOT Secondary Road standards
Friday, September 11_ 1998
INFORMATION FOR KEATING COMMISSION
PRESENTATION
SEPTEMBER 25, 1998
Sally Thomas, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
County population and school-age population growth
The county has grown at an approximate 2% annual rate in the 1990's. At the same
time, school-age population gro,a~h has been approximately 1.5% annually. This
difference seems to be representative of the growing in-migration of empty nesters
and retirees to the County. This trend carries its own implicatiuns for types of public
services demanded 'and political willingness to support and pay for impacts such as
schools that are associated with growth in school-age population, Nevertheless,
growth in student population has necessitated construction of two new elementary
schools, one middle school, one high school and numerous other school additions in
the 1990's.
Current County population and school-age population and projections for the
next 10 years
The estimated 1997 population of the County was 79,500 and the estimated school-
age population in 1996 was approximately 11,650. By 2010, the County's population
is projected to increase to 96,500. In the next 10 years the County public schools are
project~l to grow in enrollment by over 2100 students. This is projected to
necessitate the construction of two more elementary schools and several additional
school expansions. In addition to factors that have traditionally influenced growth in
the County such as general employment growth, growth associated with the
University of Virginia and in-migration of retirees, the County will be closely
watching the emerging trend of "tele-commufing" as a growth factor allowing
workers and their families freedom of location.
Problems growth has caused for the County
In a nutshell, it is how to accommodate it and how to pay for it. The County has
acknowledged the inevitability of growth. In a sense we have become a victim of our
own success. To a great extent our attractiveness as place is a by-product of some
success in our growth management efforts. This continuance of growth puts strains
and demands on infrastructure and services, things hke roads and schools, as well as
threats to resources so much a part of the County's her/tage - agriculture, historic
features, open space, scenic views. Major issues, then, include: road improvements
and their location, schools and their cost, protection of natural resources and the
tmplications for property rights, and the long term provision of an adequate water
supply.
Growth Management programs implemented to address growth problems
There is a long history of growth management in the County. Tiffs has been
necessitated by the multitude and complexity of issues that have resulted from growth
and development occurring over the 26+ years since the first comprehensive plan was
adopted in Jannaty, 1971. That plan set La motion the concept of designated growth
areas and rural conservation and protection areas that cont'mues today. But much has
changed in the pattern and distribution of these areas since 1971. The re-adoption of
the plan in 1977 and 1983 served to scale back the so-called growth areas to more
closely reflect significant natural resource features needing protection and represent
those areas for which the County had the resources to provide infrastructure and
services supporting growth. Since the t989 plan's adoption, the County has adopted
new elements of the comprehensive plan intended to more closely address these
matters, including the Commun/ty Facilities Plan in 1991 and t993, andthe Open
Space Plan in 1992. The Open Space Plan has, in turn, led to more specific initiatives
La mountain protection, for which the Board of Supervisors recently adopted
comprehensive plan amendments, and historic preservation, which continues under
development. In addition, other allied efforts have dealt with bicycle planning and
more specific plans for urban neighborhoods and communities.
A very significant implementation measure in support of this comprehensive planning
was a comprehensive dom-zoning m 1980 which particularly focused on restricting
rural development in order to protect natural resources, particularly the approximate
1/3 of the County that serves as watersheds for public drinking water supply
impoundments. This action significantly reduced rural development rights. At the
same time, there is an active protection program for these watersheds that includes
special water protection regulations and watershed management staff. Concurrent
with these measures, the County's CIP and Secondary Roads Improvement Program
have put much greater priority on funding infrastructure improvements in the
designated development arms, The County has also attempted to focus public utility
provisions to the designated development areas through policy direct/on and
jurisdictional decisions that greatly restrict water and sewer provision to the rural
area. The next significant in/tiative in support of the designated development areas is
expected within months when recommendations are expected from a Board of
Supervisors appointed committee that will focus on development standards, zoning
ordinance changes and public investment hoped to promote sustainable, desirable
infill and higher density development in these areas.
Legislation that would assist the County in handling its growth problems
Tools consistent with the County's rural protection/developmem areas approach, yet
helpful in addressing the impacts/costs of growth are critical. While proffers under
conditional zoning can offset the impacts of re-zonings, typical re-zonings in the
County are in the development areas where the County wants growth to occur Rural
development generally occurs by-right, where there is no mechanism to off-set the
impact in such areas where the County does not want growth to occur. An impact fee
program, which addresses the true impact of growth in the particular area it is
occumng, whether or not it is a re-zon/ng, ~s a potential tool to ad&ess th/s inequity.
Also, the ability to coordinate new development with the availability Of adequare
infrastructure ~s important and could be achieved through adequate public facilities
prowsions. As well, the ability to Ixansfer development rights from resource
protect/on areas to development areas would both compensate rural land owners and
create additional development fights for urban development. Neighborhood-friendly
streets are important to attractive, livable development areas and could be possible
with more flexibility in VDOT Secondary Road standards.
State assistance that could be beneficial to County
Funding for PDR's and scenic/open space easements. Pass back of some of state
hacome tax to localities for schools. (This one ! will leave to Roxarme4
our Founding Fathers, h~ order to secure the blessings of liberty fo~ thems~elves and .
their posterity, did ordain and establish a ConStitution for the United States of
America; and
it is of the greatest importance that all dtizens fully understand the provisions and
principles contained in the Constitution in order to effectively support, preserve ~nd
defend it against all enemies; and
the two hundred eleventh anniversary of the Signing of the Constitution provides an
historic opportunity for all Americans to remember the achievements of the Framers
of the Constitution and the rights, privileges, and responsibilities they afforded us in
this unique document: and
the independence guaranteed to American citizens, whether by birth or
naturalization, should be celebrated by appropriate ceremonies and activities during
Constitution Week. September 17 through 23, as designated by proclamation of the
President of the United States of America in accordance with Public Law 915;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Forrest R. Marshall, Ir., Chairman, on behalf of the
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, do hereby proclaim the week of
September 17 through September 23, 1998, as
CONSTITUTION WEEK
in the County of Albemarle, Virginia, and urge all citizens to reflect during that week
on the many benefits of our Federal Constitution and the privileges and
responsibilities of American citizenship.
Signed and sealed this 16th dayof September. 1998.
Chairman, Board ol
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
Auditor of Public /lccounts
September 2, 1998
Shelby J. Marshall
Clerk of the Circuit Court
County of Albemarle
Board of Supervisors
County of Albemarle
We have audited the cash receipts and disbursements of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County
of Albemarle for the period July 1, 1996 through March 31. 1998. We conducted our audit in accordance
with generally accepted auditing standards.
Our primary objectives were m test the accuracy of financial transactions recorded on the Court's
financial management system; evaluate the Court's internal controls; and test its compliance with sign/ficant
state laws, regulations, and policies. However, our audit was more limited than would be necessary to
provide assurance on the internal controls or on overall compliance w/th applicable laws, regulations, and
policies.
The results of our tests found the Court properly stated, in al/material respects, the amounts recorded
and reported in the financial management system; no material weaknesses in the internal controls; and no
instances of noncompl/ance with applicable laws. regulations, and policies. We acknowledge the cooperation
extended to us during this engagement.
WJK:aom
CC:
The Honorable John R. Cullen. CNef Judge
Robert W. Tucker, County, Administrator
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
and
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT of TAXATION
PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON
SP-98-24. Mundie Trucking
(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY)
The following guidelines will be used for this public hearing:
EACH SPEAKER IS ALLOTTED 3 MINUTES.
iNDIVIDUALS CANNOT RELINQUISH THEIR 3 MINUTES TO ANOTHER
SPEAKER.
INDIVIDUALS CAN ONLY SIGN UP ONE PERSON TO SPEAK.
PLEASE GIVE ANY WRITTEN STATEMENTS TO THE CLERK WHO WILL
CIRCULATE COPIES TO BOARD MEMBERS
NAME {Please print clearly) PHONE NUMBER (Optional)
14
15
16
August 13, 1_998
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mctntire Road
Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
Richard E. Carter
414 Park St
Charlottesville, VA 22902
SP-98-24 Mundie Tmcknig
Tax Map 21. Parcel 23A
Dear Mr. Carter:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission. at its meeting on August 11. 1998, by a vote of 3:2.
recommended denial of the above-noted request to establish a Home Occupation Class B for the storage of
dump trucks in an existing garage to the Board of Supervisors.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review tiffs petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on Septemberl6~ 1998. Any new or additional niformation regurding
your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to
your scheduled hearing date.
Please note that the Planning Commission also denied a setback waiver request which would have
permitted the Home occupation Class B accessoxy structure to be located 25 feet from the rear property
line. Also, denied was a waiver which would of allowed the garage to be 2.600 square feet.
ff you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
Juandiego Wade
Transportation Planner
JW/jcf
Cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey Curtis & Deborah Mundie
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
JUANDIEGO R. WADE
AUGUST 4, 1998
AUGUST 12, 1998
SP-98-24- MUNDIE TRUCKING
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant has requested permission to establish a Home Occupation
Class B for the storage of dump trucks ia an existing garage. Presently, three employees arrive m
the morning and depart with the dump tracks and tatum ia the evening. Trucks will be washed and
receive general maintenance on site. (see applicants' proposal - Attachment A).
Petition: Petition m establish a Home Occupation Class B for the s~orage of dump trucks ia an
existing garage. The applicant proposes to store and perform routine ma'mtenance on dump trucks.
The site, zoned RA (Rural Areas), is located on 4.69 acres at 3061 Burniey Station Road. The
property, described as Tax Map 21 Parcel 23A, is located just off State Route 64t on a private road
inthe Rivanna Magisterial District. This area is not in a designated development area (Rural Area
2). (see Attachments B & C)
Character of the Area: The applicant's property is located in a rural sett'mg just off State Route
641. The applicant's house and garage are located approximately 0.2 miles from Route 641. The
front portion of the property is an open field, then becoming wooded before you get to the house and
garage. The house and garage cannot be seen from Route 641. The adjacent parcels can be described
as rural residential and farm land. (see Attachments D & E)
RECOMMENDATION: Staffhas reviewed the special use permit for compliance with provisions
of Section 5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends denial.
Planning and Zoning History_: In 1990 the applicant was denied a Home Occupation - Class B for
a hauliag operation for sand, dirt, gravel with two employees. After the Board's action, the applicant
modified his operation to be consistent with provision for a Class A Home Occupation (one track
and no additional employees on-site). However, the applicant is currently operating with up to five
tracks and three employees on site. This application is an attempt to alleviate the zoning violation
and bring the property into conformance with the County Ordinance. The Department of Zoning and
Inspections has attached a report listiag the history of Mundie Trucldng (Attachment F).
STAFF COMMENTS:
Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4 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 u_non a finding bv the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of
substantial detriment to adjacent property.
C:~DOCS~MUNDIE2.RPT
The applicant presently has three employees that travel to the site and five dump umcks stored on
the property (by Ordinance definition a Home Occupation cannot have more than two employees
who are not family members resid'mg on the premises). The applicant's'brother lives in the house
and also drives a dump track. The applicant has been operating the hauling business since 1990.
When the Home Occupation was denied in 1990, the applicant was under the impression that the
site location and visibility from the public road were the main issue and the garage was built away
from the road at its present site. The house and garage cannot be seen from the road. The garage was
initially built for personal use, but eventually became the storage location for the business dump
tracks. The applicant will not be constructing any new buildings if this application is granted. The
applicant has indicated that he has been operating with up m three employees and five tracks on-site
since 1990. The hours of operation are from 5:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Staff has received a petition
opposing this special use pen-nit request (see Attachment G). Staffhas also received several letters
concerning this request. (see Attachments I-I)
It was staff's opinion in 1990 that the applicant's proposed use was more in keeping with a
contractor's office and equipment storage yard and more appropriate in a commercial or industrial
district and, therefore, staff recommended denial. The Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors agreed with staffs opinion m 1990. Staff still believes the applicant's proposal is best
suited for the classification as a contractor's office and equipment storage yard. However, this is not
permitted in the Rural Areas. Potential impact to adjacent properties includes: visibility and noise
from track operation and maintenance and impact of track traffic on a private road in terms of
maintenance.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
The site is located in the Rural Areas. It is not located in an agricultural/forestry district. The closest
potentially historical site is located at the intersection of Route 641 and Route 600 - Bethel Baptist
Church. Although heavy equipment and trucks are typical comPonems of agricultural and forestry
activity in the Rural Area, such intensity of storage and activity is not anticipated in rumt residential
settings. The Zoning Ordinance states that home occupations should be visibly indisfmguishable
from the residences. Only two (2) of the five (5) tracks canbe parked inthe garage. The remaining
Would have to be parked outside. As noted above, the scale and intensity of tiffs, use are approaching
that of a contractor's office and storage yard, which is not permitted in the Rural Areas district.
and that such use will be in harmony with purpose and intent of this ordinance,
It is staffs op'mion that this request is not in harmony with the purpose and intent, nor the letter of,
the ordinance, and is not in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. This area is designated and
zoned Rural Area and the business use resembles a contractor's office and equipment storage yard.
C:kDOCSWIUNDIB2.RPT
with the uses permitted by right in the district.
This request will not affect uses permitted by right on any adjacent property.
with additional re_rotations provided in Section 5.0 of this Ordinance.
Section 5.2 contains regulations for Home Occupations (Attachment I), which require that "there
shall be no change in the outside appearance of the buildings or premises, or other visible evidence
of the conduct of such home occupation other than one (1) sign." The garage can only hold two
dump tracks at a time. This will leave three dump trucks visible. Staff considers these three tracks
a change in the outside appearance of the premises and evidence of the activity.
In addition, the ordinance states that an accessory structure used for a class B Home Occupation
must comply with the same setbacks as the primary use. The garage is 25 feet fi:om the rear
property line. The ordinance would require that it meet the 35 foot rear setback requirement of the
RA district. The Commission would need to grant a modification of the setback requirements to
permit the Home Occupation Class B accessory smacmre m be located 25 feet fi:om the rear property
line.
The ordinance also states that accessory structures shall not ~xceed one thousand five hundred
(1,500) square feet. The garage is approximately 2,600 square feet. The Planning Commission must
grant a modification for the three above items.
It may also be difficult to enforce the two employee limit on-site with five trucks operating from the
site. Home Occupation, Class B is limited to not more than two (2) employees in addition to family
members residing on the property. With the applicant, his brother (who currently lives in the home),
and the two employees, there would be four people available to drive five tracks. There may be a
tendency to violate the two employee limit on-site in order to operate the fifth truck.
and with the public health, safety_, and general welfare.
Tiffs special use permit will not adversely affect public health, safety, and general welfare. The
proposed home occupation Class B will have minimal additional impact on traffic as this activity
has been occurring for some time. VDOT has commented that the entrance should be improved to
meet commercial entrance standards. VDOT also recommends the sight distance to the west needs
to be improved and the entrance should be paved the length of a vehicle fi:om the edge of the
pavement. (see Attachment J)
C:~)OCSkMUNDIE2.RPT
SUMMARY
Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this request:
1. The location of the garage is located away from the road in a wooded area and not visible
from any public road.
2. Major repairs will be done off-site.
Staff has identified the following factors which are viewed as negative:
1. The number and size dump tracks (5) operating from the property will impact the a r e a
in terms of visibility, noise, and (private) road maintenance.
2. The request exceeds what can be done without modification under Class B, Home
Occupation.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of SP 98-24 Mundie Trucking to establish aHome Occupation Class B
for the storage of dump trucks in an existing garage.
If the Commission chooses to act favorably on the request, staff recommends the following
conditions of approval:
1. The business operations are nor m begin before 7:00 a.m. and end before 6:00 p.m. Business
operations are to include loading and unloading of equipment and the transporting of dump
tracks on and off the property.
2. No more than two employees other than members of the family residing oa the premises,
may be involved in the operation of the business at this location at any given time.
3. Not more than three trucks parked on the property. Two of the three must be parked in the
garage when not in operation.
4. No repairs of equipment shall be permitted other than routine operational maintenance
such as, but not limited to, oil and tire changes.
5. VDOT approval of the entrance.
6. No outside storage of equipment related to business.
C:kDOCS\MLrNDIE2.RPT
County of Albert 'le o:* Department. of Built' g Code and ATTACHMENT A
Application for Special Use Permit
. garage and overnight
*~g ~s~ct
(*s~f will ~st you ~ ~ese items)
Nmb~ of acres to be cover~ by Sped~ Use Pemit (if a ~ it mint ~ deli~ on prat)
~ ~lS an amendment to an e~s~ng Speci~ Use Pe~t?
Are you ~b~tfing a site development plan ~th t~s appli~fion?
Proposed Use mmmo
*Zoning Ordinance Section number requested 10.2.2 (31 ) & 5.2.3
4.69 ~rro~
~ Yes~ No
CI YesCl No
ContactPerson (Whomshould wecMl/writecon¢¢rningthisproject?): P~chard E. Carter
Address 414 Park Street Citfhariottesville State VA Zip 22902
DayfimePhone( ant. ) q77-fllql Fax# 977_t~loR E-mail
~J~"'-' Ownerofland~AslistedintheCounty'srecords): Deborah Susan and Curtis Daniel liundte
i",IAddress 3016.~ Burnley Stati~ Road CityB~bour~i~e State VA Zip 229~
Daytime Phone ( 804) 973-883~ - Fax ~ 973-6369 E-mMI
Address City State Zip
Daytime Phone ( ) Fax # E-mail
Tax map and parcel ~L~ ~ - 7~'~ ~,
east of Route 29.
Physical Address (ifassigned~
Just off State Route 641, 1/10Lb milF=.
Does the owner of this property own tot have any ownership interest in) any abutting property? If yes, please list
thosetaxmapandparcetnumbers Owners~ eorporatton owns 21-27A & 2TB
OFFICE USE ONLY~'--~.
'~story: Fee am°unt $ "~ ~d~ ~'% Date Paid ~'')'~'g
D S~i~ Use Peru:
D V~an~s:
Check # Receipt # tr By:
ZMAs and Proffers:
I-tr~ Otc Cl.~ Or - ~ I~- clO.tto
~ Letter of Authorization
Concurrent review of Site Devetopment Plan? UlYes ~o CP-~0'~7 ]4~'~-t'&~'a~/~)L~Te~,
40t McIntire Road .:' Charlottesville, VA 22902 -:- Voice: 296-5832 .:. Fax: 972-4126
Section 31.2.4.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance states that. "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, that the character of the district
will not be changed thereby and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this
ordinance, with the uses permitted by right in the distric[ with additional regulations provided in section
5.0 of this ordinance, and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The items which follow will be reviewed by the staff in their analysis of your request. Please complete
this form and provide additional information which will assist the County in its review of your request.
If you need assistance filling out these items, staff is available.
What is the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property? Rural area
Howwilltheproposedspecialuseaffectadjacentproperty? The use of the property will not change
from present use so there will be no affect in adjacent property.
How will~e ~oposedspeciatuseaffectthechmacterofthedismctsu~oundingtheprope~y? The property
is screened by woods from surrounding property. The proposed nse~rill have
no affect on surrounding property.
Howistheuseinharmonywith~epu~oseandinmntoftheZoningOrdinance? The Zoning Ordinance
provides for home occupations. Because of the unobtrusiveness of the site,
it ~rill be in conformity wi'th home occupation.
Howis~euseinharmony withtheuses ~rmittedbyfightinthedistrict? This site appears to be rural
and this use will not change that. It is believed that VOOT is considering
constructing an equipment shed.
W~t~difionalregulafions~ovidedinSection5.0oftheZoningOrdinanceapplytothisuse?
ail regulations.
This site meets
How willthisuse ~omote~epublicheal~.sa~,andgeneralwelf~eof~ecommunity? This will allow
the continuation of a small business which has been operated on site for many
years. Small businesses have consistently been promoted in Albemarle County.
2
Describe your request in detail and include all pertinent information such as the numbers of persons
involved in the use, operating hours, and any unique features of the use: Duma truek~ are parked
at the site each evening and removed each morning. The garage is used for
routine maintenance. There is no truck traffic during the day. The number of
trucks is l~m~ted and the grounds are well maintained
ATTACHMENTS REQUIRED - provide two(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 of 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 consent 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.
[ hereby certify that I own the subject property, or have the legal power to act on behalf of the Dwner in
filing this application. I also certify that the information provided is true and accurate to the best of my
knowledge.
Signature
~inted Nme
Date
Daytime phone number of Signatory
C
0
U
"*" · Hall
ATTACHMENT B
SP 98-24
MUNDIE TRUCKING
ALBEMARLE COUNT' ATTACHMENT C
/
/'
il
SP 98-24
MUNDIE TRUCKING
34
$?
WHITE: ~ALL AND
RI-VANNA DISTRICTS
\
/ ~
SECTION
21
ATTACHMENT F
Building Code Information
(8O4) 296-5832
COUNTY OF Al I~1 .E
Department of Building Code and Zoning Services
401 Mclntire Road, Room 223
Charlottesville. Virginia 229024596
FAX (804) 9724126
111~ (804~ 972~]12
Zoning Information
(804) 296.5875
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Juandiego Wade, Senior Planner
Amelia G. McCulley, Zoning Administrator
Curtis Muadie Special Permit - SP-98-24
Home Occupation, Class B - Tax Map 021, Parcel 23A
DATE: July 20, 1998
This is in response ro your several questions related to the review of SP-98-24 for Mundie
Tracking. First let me provide a chronology of this use, as we know it.
July 5, i985 - HO-85-178 was approved for a home occupation, class A on nearby
property. Ruth Ann Mundie proposed a truck hauling business with no employees on tax
map 02lA, parcel El.
April 7, 1989 - A family division created the Mundie parcel subject to this request. It
divided parcel 23 into 4.69 acres with a residue of 7.64 acres.
· A complaint was received in 1990 relating to expansion of the home occupation, class A.
April 4, 1990 - Curtis Mundie applied for SP-90-40 for a hauling operation with 2
employees. This was a request on tax map 021, part of parcel 23A. At this t/me the
applicant was constructing a house and a garage on the property. Activities on site
included the storage of 3 dump trucks, a yard tractor, a bulldozer and trailer. The
bulldozer and trailer are typically left at the job site. The proposed accessory structure
was 2,600 square feet of which parr was proposed for personal use.
On July 18, 1990 the Board of Supervisors denied SP-90-40 for Curtis and Debbie
Mundie.
Letter to Juandiego Wade, Sr.
July 20, 1998
Page 2
On Aug-ast 10, 1990. the Zoning Department notified Ruth and Curtis Mundie of an
investigation of a continuing operation of their home business.
· August 17, 1990 Curtis Mundie filed an appeal of the denial of the special permit.
Subsequent to the appeal, the Mundies and County staffmer to discuss a business
operation for zoning compliance. The result of these discussions was that Mr. Mundie
would modify this operation so as to comply with the requirements of a home occupation,
class A.
While I do not have a copy of the permit itself, I participated in discussions with Mr. Mundie and
other County staff.
Mr. Mund/e agreed that he would meet the definition ora class A, home occupation by not
having an accessory structure and not having employees on site. As is common practice with a
home occupation class A, one or two vehicles involved with that occupation (in this case dump
trucks) could be parked on the property.
January 16, 1992, Albemarle County issued a certificate of occupancy for building permit
90-168NNR for a storage building with shop area. This was in the name of Curtis
Mundie and was for a building on parcel 23A.
Sometime within the past several months, Zoning staff received a complaint that this
business operated without zoning approval ora class B. We contacted Mr. Mundie and
discussed aga'm the zoning requirements and the fact that a class B approval and some
changes on site were necessary for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. As a result,
Mr. Mundie made application for this special permit and'moved equipment and materials
that were outside.
In order to remedy this violation the following is necessary:
t. ~he use may not involve more than 2 employees on site.
Storage of materials and equipment must be limited to meet the requirements of Section
5.2 in terms of maintaining the rural or residential character if it is used as part of the
business.
The location of the accessory s~rucmre does not meet the requirements. The Planning
Commission or Board of Supervisors must modify the setback reqmrement. The
accessory structure is located 25 feet from the rear property line instead of 35 feet for a
main slrucmre.
Letter to Juan Wade
luly 20, 1998
Page 3
The area within the accessory structure which is devoted to business use must be
determined. The Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors must modify it, if the
business exceeds 1,500 square feet.
Equipment and materials including facilities which will be permitted to remain on site as
part of the business.
It must address the use of the accessory sumcture and the activities which may occur
ousite.
C:\CORRESPO\984378.WPD
A~ACIEVI~NT G
County of Albemarle
Board of Supervisors and
Department of Building Code
and Zoning Services
401 Mc/ntire Road
Charlottesville, VA. 22902
June 22, 1998
RECEIVED
JUN 2 3 199:3
Planning Dept.
Re; Special Use Pen'nit Request
Mundie Tracking
SP# 98-28 (your reference)
Gentlemen:
We, the undersigned, are property owners living in the Sandy Branch area of northern
Albemarle County. As such, we join together to strongly oppose the application for a
Special Use Permit requested by Mundie Tracking and Deborah and Curtis Mundie.
The Sandy Branch area offRoute 641 is designated Rural Agricultural in the
Comprehensive Plan, Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance. It is distinctly rural and
residential in use and character. Issuance of a Special Use Permit approving the use of a
site in this district for the maintenance and storage of dump tracks is contrary to the letter
and intent of County Regulations and damaging to the character and quality of life of
residents. It is also a virtual certainty that a dump track depot will tend to depreciate
property values, and that dump trucks entering into, and exiting front a rural road
presents a safety hazard.
The request of Mundie Tracking epitomizes the classic legal definition of"Spot Zoning."
It represents the request for rezoning of a single lot held by a single owner, solely for the
benefit of that party. It is inconsistent with local land use and policies and objectives. It is
not supported by a public purpose, is detrimental to the health, safety and well-being of
the community. It represents the antithesis of planned zoning.
On the face of the Mundie application, a request is being made for the County to reward
the applicant by extension (and perhaps enlargement) cfa non-conforming and illegal use
of the property, which has been ongoing, by the applicant's admission and community
objection, "for many years."
As a final argument, the applicant attempts to justify the request for a Spec/al Use Pennii
on the basis of its business use representing a small business, such as "have consistently
been promoted in Albemarle County." INs is the applicant's response to the request to
demonstrate '~Iow this use will promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of
the community."
PAGE 1
Attempting to equate dump truck maintenance with sewing quilts in a kitchen as a
household occupation stretches credibil~. That there is no public benefit is obvious by the
failure to address the question asked.
There are no issues of hardship, no issues of community benefit, no issues of sound
planning advanced here. The contrary is tree. There are many non-residential locations in
northern Albemarle County where the-applicant can establish a dump truck depot in
conformance with law and sound planning practice.
We respectfully and strongly request that the County take action to deny the Mundie
Application for a Special Us~ Permit, and that measures be taken to force discontinuance
of an illegal use.
NAME
ADDRESS
Application for Special Use Permit, SP#98-24, Mundie Tr#cling
PAGE2
Attempting to equate dump truck maintenance with sewing quilts in a kitchon as a
household occupation stretches credibility. That there is no public benefit is obvious by the
failure to address the question asked.
There are no issues of hardship, no issues of community benefit, no issues of sound
planning advanced here. The contrary is tree. There are many non-residential locations in
northern Albemarle County where the-applicant can establish a dump truck depot in
conformance with law and sound planning practice.
We respectfully and strongly request that the County take action to deny the Mundie
Application for a Special Use Permit, and that measures be taken to force discontinuance
of an illegal use.
NAME
ADDRESS
Application for Special Use Permit, SP#98-24, Mundie Trucking
PAGE 3
Due to the very short time allowed for response prior to the July 7th meeting (18 days ~, we were
unable to contact all the interested parties regarding this SUP #43 and #44, however, since these
~rems were deferred to the August 4 meeting, we would like ro add the enclosed items to the
package, including the following signatures to be added to the petition previously submitted: ~3/,t
Name Address
PAGE 4
ATTACHMENT H
5.2
5.2.1
HOME OCCUPATIONS
~L~RAN£E OF ZONING ADMINLSTRATOR REQUIRED
Excepn as herein provided, no home occupation shall be
established without approval of the zoning administrator.
Upon receipt of a request no establish a home occupation,
Class B, the zoning administrator shall refer the same to
the Virginza Deparnmenu of Itighways and Transpornation for
approval of entrance facilities and the zonino administrahor
shall determine the adequacy of existzng parking for such
use. No such clearance shall be issued for any home
occupation, Class B, except after compliance with section
5.2.3 hereof. Amended 3-18-811
5.2.2
REGULATIONS GOVERNING HOME OCCUPATIONS
5.2.2.1
The following regulations shall apply to any home
occupation:
Such occupation may be conducted either within the
Jwelling or an accessory structure, or both, provided
that no~ more than twenty-five (25) percent of the
floor area of the dwelling shall be used Ln the conduct
of the home occupation and in no event shall the no~al
floor area of the dwellinq, accessory structure, or
OOEh, dQvotcd I O ~;/lcb c~ccupal.~[.oIl, exceed o[~
five hundred (1,500/ s~are feet: provided that the use
of accessory structures shall be permitted only in
connection with homc occupation, Class B;
There shall be no change in the outside appearance of
the buildings or prcm~ses, or other visible evidence of
the conduct of such home occupation other than one (1)
sign. Accessory structures shall be similar in facade
~to a single-family dwelling, private garage, shed, barn
or o~ner strucnure normally expected in a rural or
residential area and shall be specifically compatible
· design and scale with other developmen in the a ea
in which located. Any accessory structure which does
not conform no the setback and yard regulations for
main structures zn the district in which it is located
shall no5 be used for any home occupation;
There shall be no sales on the premises, other than
i%ems handcrafted on the premises, in connection with
such home occupauion; this does not exclude beauty
shops or one-chair barber shops:
-70- (Supp.
PAGE 1
5.2.2.2
5.2.3
d. No traffic shall be generated by such home occupation
in greager volumes t~an would normally be expected in
~sidential neighborhood, an~'any need ~or parking--
generat~-d by the conduct of such home occupation shall
be met off the snree~;
e. All home occupations shall comply with performance
standards sen forth in section 4.14;
f. Tourist lodging, nursing homes, nursery schools, day
care cenners and private schools shall not be deemed
home occupations.
ftPrior to issuance of clearance for any home occupation, the~
zonin~ a~ministratoL shall require the aDo]J_cant to sign an
I L~ffidavit stating his clear understanding of and intent to
k~a~bide Dy the foregoing regul~.~ons.. ? ~ ~ /
CERTAIN PERMITS REQUIRED
No home occupation, Class B; shall be established until a ~
permit shall have been issued therefor. The provisions of %
section 5.6.1 of this crdinance shall apply hereto, mutatis
mutandis. ~
PAGE 2
4.14.2
4.14.2.1
4.14.2,2
4.14.3
4.14.5
Mak_mum Permitted Sound Levels (dec~ ~ls)
Preferred Frequency Octave Bands
Location of Measurement
9crave bandt At residential At other lot lines
cycles/second district boundaries within district
31.5 64 72
63 64 72
125 60 70
250 54 65
500 48 59
1000 42 55
2000 38 51
4000 34 47
8000 30 44
Overall for
impac~ noise 80 90
VIBRATION
The produce of displacement in inches times the frequency in cycles per second
of earthborne vibrations from any activity shall not exceed the values specified
below when measured at the points indicated.
METHOD OF MEASUREMENT
Earthborne vibrations shall be measured by means of a three componen= recording
system, capable of measuring vibration in three mutually perpendicular
directions. The displacement shall be the maximum instantaneous vector sum of
the amplitude in the three directions.
MEANING OF TERMS
Vibrations means the periodic displacement of oscillation of the earth.
Type of vibration
At residential At other lot lines
district boundaries within district
Continuous
Impulsivs (100 per
minute or less)
Less than 8 pulses
per 24 hours
.00 .015
.006 .030
.015 .075
GLARE
No direct or sky reflected glare, whether from flood lights or from high
uempera~ure processes such as combustion, welding or otherwise, so as =o be
visible beyond the lot line, shall be permitted excep~ for signs, parking lot
lighting and other lighting permitted by this ordinance or required by any other
applicable regulation, ordinance or law. However, in the case of any operation
which would affec= adversely the navigation or control of aircraft, the curren=
regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration shall apply.
AIR POLLUTION
Rules of the State Air Pollution Control Board shall apply within Albemarle
County.-Such rules and regulations include coverage of: emission of smoke and
other emissions from stationary sources; particulate matter; odor;, particulate
emission from indirect heating furnaces; open burning; incinerators, and gaseous
pollutants.
WATER POLLUTION
Rules of the State Water Control Board shall apply within Albemarle County.
-43- '(Supp. ~82A, 1-3-96)
PAGE 3
4.23.3
4.14
4.14.1
/
4.14.1.1
4.14.1.2
LIMITATIONS ON Pk ,ING OF TRUCKS AND CERTAIN RECREA. 3NALVEHICLES IN .RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS
No truck with a gross vehicle weight of twelve thousand (12,000) pounds or more
or dual wheeled recreational vehicles shall be parked in any residential district
other than the RA (except for purposes of making pickups or deliveries) in any
location other than:
a. Behind the nearest portion of buildings to streets; or
b. In any approved off-street parking area.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
No use shall hereafter be established or conducted in any industrial district
any manner in violation of the following standards of performance:
NOISE
Ail sources of noise (except those not under direct control of occupant of use,
such as vehicles), must not create sound or impact noise levels in excess of the
values specified below when measured an the points indicated. In addition,
before 7:00 a.m, and after 7:00 p.m., the permissible sound levels at anagricul-/
rural or residential district boundary where adjoining industrial districts shall
be reduced by five (5) decibels in each octave band and in the overall band for
impact noises.
METHOD OF MEASUREMENT
Noise shall be measured by means of a sound level meter and octave band analyzer,
calibrated in decibels (re 0.0002 microbar) amd shall be measured at the nearesn
lot line from which the noise level radiates.
MEANING OF TERMS
Decibel means a prescribed interval of sound frequencies which classifies sound
according to its pitch.
Impact nQi~es shall be measured by means of an impact noise analyzer. Impact
noises are those whose peak values fluctuate more than six (6) decibels from the
steady values indicated on the sound level meter set at fast response.
Octave band means a prescribed interval of sound frequencies which classifies
sound according to its pitch.
Preferred frequency octave bands means
prescribed by the American Standards
Frequencies for Acoustical Measurements.
standardized series of octave bands
Association in S1.6-1960 Preferred
Sound level meter means an electronic instrument which includes a microphone, an
amplifier and an output ~eter which measures a noise and sound pressure levels
an a specified manner. It may De used with the octave band analyzer that permits
measuring the sound pressure level in discrete octave bands.
-42- (Supp. ~82A, t-3-96)
PAGE 4
5.2
~.2.1
5.2.2
5.2.2.1
HOME OCCUPATIONS
CLEARANCE OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR REQUIRED
A TTA Cft MF~NT I
Except as herein provided, no home occupation shall be
established without approval of the zoning administrator.
Upon receipt of a request to establish a home occupation,
Class B, the zoning administrator shall refer the same to
the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation for
approval of entrance facilities and the zoning administrator
shall determine the adequacy of existing parking for such
use. No such clearance shall be issued for any home
occupation, Class B, except after compliance with section
5.2.3 hereof. (Amended 3-18-81)
REGULATIONS GOVERNING HOME OCCUPATIONS
The following regulations shall apply to any home
occupation:
Such occupation may be conducted either within the
dwelling or an accessory structure, or both, provided
that not more than twenty-five (25) percent of the
floor area of the dwelling shall be used in the conduct
of the home occupation and in no event shall the total
floor area of the dwelling, accessory structure, or
both, devoted to such occupation, exceed one thousand
five hundred (1,500) square feet; provided that the use
of accessory structures shall be permitted only in
connection with home occupation, Class B;
There shall be no change in the outside appearance of
the buildings or premises, or other visible evidence of
the conduct of such home occupation other than one (1)
sign. Accessory structures shall be similar in facade
to a single-family dwelling, private garage~ shed, barn
or other structure normally expected in a rural or
residential area and shall be specifically compatible
in design and scale with other devetopmen5 in the area
in which located. Any accessory structure which does
not conform to the setback and yard regulations for
main structures in the district in which it is located
shall not be used for any home occupation;
There shall be no sales on the premises, other than
items handcrafted on the premises, in connection with
such home occupation; this does not exclude beauty
shops or one-chair barber shops;
-70- (Supp. ~1, 3-18-81)
No traffic shall be generated by such home occupation
in greater volumes than would normally be expected in a
residential neighborhood, and any need for parking
generated by the conduct of such home occupation shall
be met off the street;
Ail home occupations shall comply with performance
standards set forth in section 4.14;
fe
Tourist lodging, nursing homes, nursery schools, day
care centers and private schools shall not be deemed
home occupations.
5.2.2.2
Prior to issuance of clearance for any home occupation, the
zoning administrator shall require the applicant to sign an
affidavit stating his clear understanding of and intent to
abide by the foregoing regulations.
5.2.3
CERTAIN PERMITS REQUIRED
No home occupation, Class B, shall be established until a
permit shall have been issued therefor. The provisions of
section 5.6.1 of this ordinance shall apply hereto, mutatis
mutandis.
-70.1-
· ATTACHMENT J
DAVID I% GEHR
COMMISSIONER
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
701 VDOT WAY
CHARLOTTESVILLE. 22911
,JUN 1 7 199
Planning Dept.
A. G. TUCKER
RESIDENT ENGINEER
June 15, 1998
Public Hearing Submittals
July 1998
Mr. Ron Keeler
Dept. of Planning &
Community Development
401 MeIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA.
22902
Dear Mr. Keeler:
Please find our comments listed below for July Public Hearing submittals as
follows:
SP-98-20 Chestnut Grove Baptist Church, Route 723
There are cwo (2) entrances that appear uo currently serve the church, however
I believe the northern most entrance is actually a private entrance and the
church has been using it for some time. The southern entrance should be
improved co meec commercial entrance standards. Currently it is only wide
enough for one vehicle at a time. This entrance meets sight distance
requirements for it to be improved co a commercial entrance.
S~-98-~3 Colonial Baptist Church, ~oute 250
Adequate entrance and right cum lane.
SP-98-24 Mundte Truqkinq~ Route 641
This entrance should be improved to meet commercial entrance standards.
Currently it is a wide gravel entrance with only 286 feec of sight distance co
the west. Sight distance needs co mee= 450 feet =o the west as it is to the
east. The entrance is being used by very large vehicles which make sight
distance an imperative for safety. The entrance should be paved the length of
a vehicle from the edge of pavement, as a minimum.
SP-98-25 Virginia National Bank, Route 29
Adequane geometrics of lanes and entrance exist at a traffic signal.
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
PAGE 1
Mr. Ron Keeler
July Public Hearings
Page 2
June 12, 1998
SP-98-26 Albemarle First Bank, Route 29
The western most entrance on Westfield Road should be closed since it is so
close to turning movemenus from Route 29. Vehicles parked on site obstruct
the motorist from seeing vehicles approaching.
SP-98-27 CFW - Wireless (CV1131, Route 29
The proposed site should be served by an entrance that meets commercial
entrance standards.
SP-98-29 CFW WirelDss {CV125} Stony Point, Route 20/600
The proposed site should be served by an entrance that meets commercial
entrance standards It appears from the section map that perhaps a private
entrance would serve the site. Due 5o a tall wooden privacy fence, sight
distance is only 85 fee5 5o the east.
SP-98-30 CFW Wireless (CVt34) Keene, Route 712
The proposed site should be served by an entrance that meeus commercial
eh=fence standards.
SP-98-31 CFW Wirelessf Route 53/729
The proposed site should be served by an entrance that meets commercial
enurance standards.
If you have any questions, please advise before releasing comments 5o the
developer.
HWM/ldw
cc:
Karen Kilby
John Giometti; Irma vonKutzleben
J. H. Kescerson
Mf!ls
Assistant Residen~ Engineer
PAGE 2
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Communitp- Development
401 M¢lntire Road
CharlottesvilkL Virginia 2290~.4596
t804) 296-5823
TO:
FROM:
REF:
DATE:
Albemarle County Planning Commissioners
Juandiego R. Wade, Planner ~
Letters Concerning Mundie Trucking Special Use Permit
August 11, 1998
Please find attached additional letters submitted in reference to the Mundie
Trucking Home Occupation Class -B application.
August 15, 1998
County of Albemarle
Board of Supervisors
40t McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA
22902
RE: Special Use Permit Request
Mundie Trucking (SP# 98-28)
Gentlemen:
We the undersigned do not object t~ the Special Use Permit re-
quested by Curtis and Deborah Mundie for their trucking business.
We strongly urge the County to allow them use of their already
existing garage/shop and be able to continue parking their trucks
on this unobstrusive, hidden location at their home.
NAME
ADDRESS
August 15, 1998
County of Albemarle
Board of Supervisors
401McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA
22902
RE: Special Use Permit Request
Mundie Trucking (SP# 98-28)
Gentlemen:
We the undersigned do not object to the Special Use Permit re-
quested by Curtis and Deborah Mundie for their trucking business.
We strongly urge the County to allow them use of their already
existing garage/shop and be able to continue parking their trucks
on this unobstrusive, hidden location at their home.
NAME ADDRESS
August 15, 1998
County of Albemarle
Board of Supervisors
401McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA
22902
RE:
Special Use Permit Request
Mundie Trucking (SP# 98-28)
Gentlemen:
We the undersigned do not object to the Special Use Permit re-
quested by Curtis and Deborah Mundie for their trucking business.
We strongly urge the County to allow them use of their already
existing garage/shop and be able to continue parking their trucks
on this unobstrusive, hidden location at their home.
ADDRESS
August 15, 1998
County of Albemarle
Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA
22902
RE: Special Use Permit Request
Mundie Trucking (SP# 98-28)
Gentlemen:
We the undersigned do not object to the Special Use Permit re-
quested by Curtis and Deborah Mundie for their trucking business.
We strongly urge the County to allow them use of their already
existing garage/shop and be able to continue parking their trucks
on this unobstrusive, hidden location at their home.
NAME
ADDRESS
/
August 15, 1998
County of Albemarle
Board of Supervisors
401McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA
22902
RE:
Special Use Permit Request
Mundie Trucking (SP# 98-28)
Gentlemen:
We the undersigned do not object to the Special Use Permit re-
quested by Curtis and Deborah Mundie for their trucking business.
We strongly urge the County to allow them use of their already
existing garage/shop and be able to continue parking their trucks
on this unobstrusive, hidden location at their home.
ADDRESS
AUgUSt 15, 1998
County of Albemarle
Board of Supervisors
401McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA
22902
RE: Special Use Permit Request
Mundie Trucking (SP# 98-28)
Gentlemen:
We the undersigned do not object to the Special Use Permit re-
quested by Curtis and Deborah Mundie for their trucking business.
We strongly urge the County to allow them use of their already
existing garage/shop and be able to continue parking their trucks
on this unobstrusive, hidden location at their home.
ADDRESS
ATTACHMENT It
'Richard R. AbRlin
:. !~2'CoventrY~. '.v:.
June 23, l ~8
401 Mcln]
Charlottes
County ofsu rvl//Ors
ire Road
411e, VA 22902
MundiC Trucking Co.
.$peoial O~s~ Permit i#98-28
Tmcking'c
writing req
authorized
Permit that
operation.
~g new ~ thi? ..part of tfi~ county, my. ii, igC, bors ha~'o~.~ca~ed' me ¢~i~ the. ~tory :Of Mutidie
ompany s pmvmus request to operate a tr0cking repah' shed on Rout* 641 ttmt ~as denied. 1 am
~es.O .ng that a~a~.,their r .equest for a $tnCiat Use Permit bo denied and that.ffth~y am operating.an
mtmtenance mcH~ty on their property like they state.they ~ in their ~pti~tion for the Special Use'
the County shut down their operation and make.them locate i! to an area that is appropriate for th,ir
. .Hav~g moved to Cover~try Subdivision iii Debemb~r 1996;'.it' a!~l~g ~itl~ ii~l~i;'ds',~,~.~,,
w~ ~ong goUm 64 t d~ the day Given ~ m~ n~ow ~ ~,adi:_2 _~2 L._.;.~"~ Y'F~
aut°m°bflc ¢~c mos ~e mad- ~e~. you factor ~ ~e rote of sp~ m~ple;:~iv~ 0n ~ ma~ add -
amment to hap~ ~t MI! ~ppm. ~ you en~t~.0ne of tho M~e;s drop ~ ~avel~
dom the m~d, ~ey do not yield ~y of~e roa~ ~d~ m you md at ~mes you ~ m get ~ Side of yo~
veh~le offtbe pavement ~ ~ow ~e rock m p~s. It aP~s ~t ~e ~?rs of ~e ~ have ~e
~ I m ~e big yello ~d ff you d~ not get ?t of ~ way} I ~11. s~p!ym ~u o~ m~'or b~r,,. To
T Mund e.Tm ug nfinu%
ss~ Rou~ 29 at ~ Route ~I.~le~on W~h.m ~:e~mely h~do~
nter~cfion ~s~cially ~ m:t~ ~to ~e so,bored l~s a~ is m a~i~:~fing to h'a~
~ob~y ~ ~ to be r~mible'for ~e loss of~0~er hm~ 1 fe giv~ :~ roll~.m~gmphy of Route 29
~dSlOWW8 ' ...... · .... '' · ;~ ' : . :' ;-<:-~"-'
~ oxme. To ~pmv~ ~s ~uest ~I not o~y ~n ~e mr~;c~lc~S~ics.o~e ~ but ~ ~ ..
PAGE1
Mr. Charles S. Martin
June 23, 1998
Page 2
from a trucking operation not be contained and disposed of property. Sandy Branch stream which crosses not
only the Mundie's property, Sandy Branch Farm and other parcels of land provides a clean and natural resource
to the farms in the area who use it as part of their farming operations, it would be a travesty to one day
see an oil film floating along the top of the slream that could occur from the approval of fids request for this
Special Use Permit
Lastly, there are many small businesses that have thek business located in the appropriately zoned
sections of the county without it being a hardship on the business owner. The people of Route 641 would be
better ,served if this operation were located in the appropriately zoned commercial district along Route 29 where
access to the main roads would be easier for the operators of the vehicles and not present a hazard to the local
commuai~.
I appreciate your understanding of the people's concerns along Route 641 and hope.that you will deny
this Special Use ?utmit when it comes before the Board of Supervisors. Should you have any questions or want
to further discuss fids issue, please give me a call at work at (804) 977-4181.
Sincerely,
Richard R. Abidin
PAGE 2
Richard R. Abidin
5192 Coven,aT Lane
Barboursville. VA 22923
Jane 23. 1998
Mr. Eh'tries S. Martin
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McInlire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
VIA FAX 296-5800
Mtmdie Trucking Co_
Special Ca,ce Permit #98.28
Dear Mr, Martin,
Being new m this part of the county, my neighbors have educated me with the history of Mundie
Trucking Company's previous request to operate a tmclfing repair shed on Route 641 that was denied. I am
writing requesting that again their request for a fp~ial Use Permit be denied and that if they are operating ma
authorized maintenance i~tcility on their proper~y like they state they are in their Application lbr thc Special Use
Permit that the County shut down their operation and make them locate it to an area that is appropriate for their
operation.
Haviaxg moved t~ Coventry Subdivision in December 1996, it amazes me the numbcx of people who
walk along Route 641 during the d~'. Given the roads narrow and winding characteristics, it is unsafe when iust
automobile traffic uses the road. When you factor in the rate ot' speed most people travel on the road. add
families 'a~alking along the side of the road and introduce large 'tandem dttml~ r_tucks tothe road you arc asking
lbr an accident to happen that will happen. When you encounter one of the Mm~die's dump lrucks traveling
down the road, they do not yield any of the roacl~ width to you and at times you have to ge*. ane side or your
vehicle off the pavement to allow the track to pass. It appea.~ that the drivers of these trucks have thc a~titude
that "I am the b~.g vch:~¢l~ and if you do not g~t ou*. of the way, I will simply run you offthc road or over'. To
now inte~ect more ~rucks a~ the Muadie Trucking Company continues to grow to travel these rural roadways
mad to have to deal with them crossing Route 29 at thc Route 6¢~ intersecl:oa which is an extremely hazardo,,s
in'~ersecfion especially trying to turn into the southbound lal~e8 agaR1 is an accident waiIing to happen and
nobody wants m be responsible for the loss of another human life given the rolling topography of R. outc 29
South with limited site distance.
We choo~ to live in this Imrt of the Comrty because of its rural characteristics, bcautiful scenic views
mad slow way of life. To approve this request mil not only rain the rural characteristics of the area but will also
impact significantly me value of our property and possibly create an environmental disaster should the waste
Mr, Charles S. Marfin
June 23, 1998
Page 2
frum a trucking operation not be contained and disposexl of properly. Sandy Branch stream which cro~scs not
only the Mundie's property, Sandy' Branch Farm an~l other parcels ol'land provides a clean and natural resource
to the thrms in the area who u~se it as part of their t~rming operations, it would be a travesty ~ one da5'
see mt oil film floating along the top oFthe stream that could occur from the approval or this request for this
Special Use Permit.
Lastly, there are many small businesses that have their business located in the approprimely zoned
sections of the county without it being a hardship on the business o~aaxer. Thc people of Route 641 would be
better served if this operation were located in the appropriately zoned commercial district along Route 29 where
access t.o the raaln roads would bc ea~sicr for the operarors of the vehicles and not present a hazard to the local
conanunity.
I appreciate your understat~ding of the pot)pie's concerns alonzo Route 641 and hope that you will deny
this Special Usc Permit when it comes before the Board {~£ Supervisors. Sh~mld you have any questions or want
to further discuss this i~sue, please givc me a call at work at (804) ~}77-4181
Sinceroly,
Richard R. Abidin
4955 Watts Passage
Charlottesville, VA 21911
Au~/st 20~ 1998
County of Albemarle
Board of Supervisors
401McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
I am writing in behalf of ~he family of Dan Mundie, who has been.
receiving complaints from people who have residences o~ Burnley
Station Road, where Dan and 'his family also live. The complaints
have arisen because of Dan's trucks. Dan's livelihood depends upon
his trucks. Their purchase price, as you no doubt know, is very high.
Thus he parks them at his home so that they will not be vandalized or
stolen. Bu: ~hey are away from his home from early morning until
afternoon or eveni~g.
Z have known Dan for a ~umber of years, and I al~c know his wife,
Debbie. He has done some work for me and I appreciated his diligence
with the Job but also for his demeanor on the job, which was above
reproach. They have ~wo young childre~ who are certainly being reare~
in a Christian home.
I feel sure that Dan and his ~rivers do nothing with the truck
that should be worrisom~for neighbors. They do no= drive recklessly,
nor .do they make undue noise with them. They are serious drivers and
workers since they are dependent upon ~he trucks for their living.
! hope no solution of this problem will be made that will
adversely affect ~ne family. ! should al~o like to r~mind you tha~
Dan is a lifetime ~esidenu of the communitY, oand from all reports,- he
has always bee~ a reponsible citizen and caren~ neighbor.
Signed by:
Merry Lew~s Allen
June 25, 1998
Albemarle County, Va.
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIt]t~re Road
Charlottesville, Va. 22902-9596
ATTACHMENT H
We OBJECT ho the re-zoning of property owned by Curtis Daniel
and Deborah Susan Mundie described ds Tax ~ap 21, Parcel 23A,
and located just off state Route ~z6~[ in the Rivanna Magiste~iai
District.
It decreases
peace[ut and
the residential desirability and asthetics of
serene rural nei~hborhoed. ~We are adjacent
property owners).
M~rtha B. Bacon
Albert S. Bacon, Ir.
30 Golf Club Circle
Statesboro, Ga- 30458
912-76q-46ql
912-489-1842
Fax: 912-764-56q7
ATTACHMENT H
June 1998
Linda Mancini
5370 Watts Passage
Charlottesville, Va.
22911
Dear Linda
The rezoning issue of property owned by Curtis Daniel &
Deborah Mundie was presented to Albemarle County several years
ago nnd was defeated; because of objections from adjoining
property owners ann neighbors. (Yet they continued operating a
dump Bruck business in a P~raI neighborhood without penalty).
1. Dump trucks are a constant safety hazard on a narro~
windiaQ road.
2. Detez'~at~on of rosc~ :err?ace en a r )ad not ~e~i~l~d or
e~i~neercd [o~ rteJv[ comm~c[al tra£fic.
3. Dump trucks are a nol?e pollution iD a quiet serene
rural area.
d. Danger of comoust~on causing toss of forest & wildlife.
5. Erodes property values fnr present & future residents.
Albemarle County, Va. has h~d national recognition for its beauty and
zoning foresight. We want it ~o coatinue to be one of the ~nos~
peaceful and safe plsc¢'s in the country uo live. fsise our
children and ~etire!
Sincerely,
Martha B. Bacon
30 Golf Club Ciccle
Statesboro, Ga. ~0458
912-764-4641
912-489-18~2
Fax: 912-76d-gsa7
August 24, 1998
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
D~STR~JT~D TO 80AR~)
Albemarle Co. Va. Board of Supervisors
Dept. of Planninc
401 McIntire Road
Chariottesville, Va. 22902-4596
Dear Board of Supervisors:
We object to the re-zoning of property owned by Curtis Daniel
and Deborah Susan Mundie, described as Tax Map 21, Parcel 23A, and
located just off state Route ~641 in the Rivanna Magisterial District.
It decreases the residential desirability and asthetics of a
peaceful and serene rural neighborhood. (We are adjacent property
owners).
The rezonin~ issue of this property was presented to Albemarle
County several years ago and was defe~ted; because of objections from
adjoining property owners and neighbors. (Yet they continued
operatinq a dump truck business in a Rural neiqhborhood without penalty).
1. Dump trucks are a constant safety hazard on a narrow
winding road.
2. Continuing deteriation of road surface on a road not designed
or encineered for heavy commercial traffic.
3. Dump trucks are a noise pollution in a quiet serene rural
area.
4. Danger of combustion causing loss offorest & wildlife.
5. Erodes property values for present and future residents.
Albemarle County, Va. has had national recognition for its beauty and
zoning foresight. We want it to continue to be one of the most
peaceful and safe places in the country to live, raise oure children
an~ retire!
Sincerely,
Martha Bacon
Albert S. Bacon, Jr.
30 Golf Club Circle
Statesboro, Ga. 30458
912-764-4641 (Tel)
912-764-5647 (Fax)
Robert F. and Joanne G. Burkholder
~X~XXXX~ 5894 Spring
Ruckersv/lle, Virginia 22968
Hi 11 Road
September 3, 1998
County of Albemarle
Board of Supervisors
401Mclotire Road
Charlottesville, VA
22902
Re: Special Use Permit Request
Mundie Truckin~ (SP# 98-28)
Dear Board--Ladies & Gentlemen:
I am w~,~tin~ no you to ask you to look favorably on the Special
Use Permit requested by Curtis a,d Deborah Mundie.
Mr. & Mrs. Muodie are good neighbors both on a persona] end
and on a business end. They have their truckios company
tucked away down a long lane off of State Route 64t and
behind a wood line. I have found it to be kept meticulously
and would see no reaso, anyone should object to his Special
Use Permit Request.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Mr. & Mrs. Robert F. Burkholder
Aug. 25, 1998
To whom it may concern:
I have no problem with the Mundie's or any other Trucking Companies on this road
If it wasn't for these Trucking Companies in the winter lime, these roads would not be
cleared of the snow so quickly. I wouM not be able to get to work and so many other
people also. We need to think about people who need mea~cal attention too, how would
they get to you and others. The state has a hard time getting to all the back roads until
last. But of course like I said the Trucking Companies clean the roads for people like us
and our neighbors. Why would someone move in the neighborhood and complain about
people they don't even lmow? These comtmnies have been here all their lbees and the new
people move in and start to complain. Maybe these people should look around and see
what the Trucking Companies offers to the community before complaining. I hope the
County and the Community think about what the Trucking Companies are offering the
neighborhoods. I think the neighhors only think of themselves and not of others.
Joanie Chapman
ATTAC//MENT I~i
Department of Building Code and Zoning Services
Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: Special Use Permit Request
Mundie Trucking
SP#98-28 (your reference)
Sirs;
There are several factors that weigh against granting a special use permit #98-28
for Mundie Trucking Company.
These issues were addressed several years ago when an application for the same
use was denied on another parcel owned by Ruth S. Mundie that is within a few
hundred feet of Parcel X.
The Mundie Trucking Co. simply movea to another parcel, constructed their
maintenance facilities in the woods, and continued operating with the full knowledge
that they were in violation of county regulations. The assertions, to Mr. Juan Wade, that
they were not aware that proper zoning and permits were required, is contradicted by
the fact :hat they went through the process before, encountered vigorous opposition,
and were denied the special use zomng.
There are now even more reasons not to allow such spot zoning: the area is now
much more populated. There are subdivisions within close proximity to the property in
question. They are: Sandy Branch, from which the Mundie property was subdivided;
Coventry, which did not exist when the last ap¢lication was denied: and Sotaris. They
are all within walking distance of the Mundie property and children and families from
those developments frequently bicycle and walk their pets on route 641. Having large
tandem dump trucks using the same road treats a s~gnificant safety hazard. Alt the
traffic from McLane Ridge, Northwoods, and Emerald Hills subdivisions on routes 600
and 64C, must share the route 641 entrance off route 29 with the Mundie trucks.
In addition to those subdivisions which are fully developed and occupied there
are Liberty and Landfall on route 641 which are still in the development chase. With
the move of National Ground Intelligence Center and the University Research Park to
this area there is sure to be additional residential develooment, which is inconsistant
with a commercial trucking operation in its midst.
As a real estate brol~er with 20 years of experience in Albemarle County I can
state with certainty that this application, if granted, will have a negative impact on the
marketability and value of property in the area. There are very nice homes in the area
that bring substantial tax revenues to the county from owners who never anticipated
having a truck maintenance and storage facility in the neighborhood when they
purchased here. The Smith property, from which the Mundie subdMsion was divided,
.ust sold for well over $300,000 and the current owner is making additional expensive
improvements. Half of the parcel shown on your plat as the Danddge property has just
peen listed for sale at ~795.000 with a nouse and 27 acres carrying several
subdivision rights. A trucking company storage and maintenance facility simply is
incompatible with this type of residential neighborhood, and to grant this application
now is poor planning that is sure to create problems in the future. ...
PAGE 1
We checked with VDOT officials and were told there are no plans to build an
equipment shed on route 641in the foreseeable future. If that were to ~)e proposed it
would raise many of the same concerns as the Mundie Trucking Co. and certainly
would be pro~es~ed.
The statement that there is no truck traffic during the day is not accurate. The
trucks frequently travel route 641 in the mornings and evenings when school buses
are picking up and discharging children Additionally, residents are often stopped on
the road morning and evening to pick up newspapers and mail from roadside tubes
and rural mailboxes. These huge, wide bodied tandem trucks require other vehicles to
hug the shoulder or give way whe~ being approached from the opposite direction.
Route 641 is a secondary road that was not built to carry vehicles of that size or weight.
There are also serious environmental concerns. If this commercial facility were to
be constructed on a properly zoned parcel an environmental impact statement would
be required. The Mundie family suudivision is traversed Dy Sandy Branch which feeds
several lakes, farm pond, and cattle operations downstream from that site. The
entrance road to the Mundie trucking facility is an unpaved road that crosses this
branch, which eventually flows into the Rivanna River. All runoff from the property in
question ends up in the Rivanna watershed. There is a potential for oil, diesel fuel,
gasoline, antifreeze and other harmful contaminates to enter tr~e groun(~ water and
watershed from an unregulated facility that does not have to meet the regulatory and
inspection requirements to which suciq facilities are generally subject There are just
too many questions as to disposal ano handling of toxic wastes and used motor oil
which is a known carcinogen. If a major spill or other disaster occurred on the property
how would the surrounding residents ever know until it showed up in their drinking
water or someone became ill as a result?
The application states that "this will allow the continuation of a small business
which has operated on site for many years". What the application fails to mention is
that it was knowingly operated all of those years ~n violation of county regulations, The
county is now being asked to set a precedent, viz. 'e~roactive approval of a matter that
was previously disapproved through due process. No one objects to the Mundie family
personally or their right to operate a business. ~lowever, they should locate it in an
appropriately zoned area just as several of us who own businesses have done. This is
the type of business that belongs in the nearby Northside Industrial Park or Greene
County Industrial Park, but not in a residential neighborhood to the sole benefit of the
operators and to the detriment of the public.
Signed,
PAGE 2
ATT: Ella Carey
Dear Board of Supervisors;
Regarding the meeting scheduled for tonight, Sept. 16, I would like to state my position in writing
because I'm afraid to let my opposition be known to the persons requesting variance of the
zoning in the Rivanna District. Some of the people who spoke against putting the garage
commercial in my residential neighborhood have been threatened by one of the McDaniels. That
very action by a McDaniel, threatening / intimidating the opposition should constitute an illegal
action and the perpetrators should be charged as such. So you will know why I cannot get up in
[he public meeting to voice my opposition to the zoning request change I am sending this Email.
The McDaniel's commercial operation should not be allowed to be CONTINUED and EXPANDED
in a strictly residential neighborhood. I buy gravel from these people and approve of their
business which should be located in a commercial location, not among homes where fresh air.
peace and quiet is of prime importance. Past pollution of the surrounding air should be
considered in your voting denial of this appeal of the Zoning Board's negative vote.
Bonnie M. Drumm. bdrumm(~cstone.net 3104 Burnley Station Rd
804-978-1117
ATTACHMENT H
To Whom It May Concern:
We object, strenuously, to the zoning application of Mundie Trucking. The noise the trucks
make, both in the early morning and evening is very annoying. There is also a tremendous
amount of vibration caused by these very large trucks passing our home.
They travel at a considerable speed, and don't bother to slow down, even when they see children
playing in the yard. They should have some respect for our grandchildren and our property.
We sincerely hope that this application will be rejected.
Mr. & Mrs. Edward Durrer
Route 641
Timothy & Jennifer Falwell
5884 Spring Hill Road
22968
September 3, 1998
Coooty of Albemarle
Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville. VA
22902
Re: Special Use Permit Request
Muodie Trucking (SP# 98-28)
Dear Board--Ladies & Gentlemen:
This letter is in reference to the above stated Special Use
Permit Request by Curtis and Deborah Muodie.
Mr. & Mrs. Mundie are fine people who work hard and are an
asset to Albemarle County. They did our driveway and graded
our yard when we built our new home right over the county ]tne
in Greene County. They are personal friends of ours. They
work very hard and care about their community. They hgve their
trucking business very securing tucked away by a long driveway
and hidden by woods. This business does not obstruct anyone
views and we can assure you it is meticulously kept at all times.
We cannot see why anyone would object to this business. It
also helps to broaden the tax base in Albemarle County.
Please look favorably no their requesr.
Sincerely,
~._~/
Mr. & Mrs.
Timothy Falwel 1
4??2 ~ Station Road
Batbourm,~lle VA 22923
August 9, 199~
To: Alban~teBoard of~uper~iscrs
Sub~e~: Mundic Trucking
! moved to Albemarle County in ~une off 1984 and ~urcha.~d a house and property in the
notther~ part of the county on SK &tO, now C-ilbert Station l~osd, because of the rur~
nature of thc property. ;aflF on I met Curtis Mund[c, now deceasect, and his son Dan
Mundie.
~hottly aRer I arrived Daa began a hauli~ busines~ from Ms
~l, now Bu~ Station ~. ~ Ms ~s ~ew ~d he p~ l~er ~c~ be
mv~ the l~fion alms g~ge ~ck ~om t~ ro~ m ~ he
~sO~ ~ MS n~rs. ~s ~C ~d ~S ~a ~e ~o~ one ~ da ~lc off
Bu~ Stroh R~d ~ ~W ~e not ~ble ~om the ~ed. ~s ~ ~y leav~
~y in tha ~ ~d ~ not ~m ~tfl l~e in the day. ~ ~v~s ~e ~e~i ~d
~8 ~d ~8 e~ to ~g ~rk ~ b u~dve ~t 8~ive
~nt~ In ~ ~ ~d~t s~ a t~k go ~ or out y~ wo~d
Dan Mmxile is the kind ofoutstandlng srn~ businessman that I fo~ one want to have in
my neighborhood. He has pr~erved the nam setting that ! have corm: to enjoy so much,
I find it hat~ to understand how any one couId object to such a responsibly run business.
Sincerely
Colonel, U.S. Army, Regred
Linda & Vincent Mancim
5370 Watts Passage
Charlottesville, Va. 22911
ATTACHMENT H
July 6, 1998
Zoning Commission
Subject SUP Application #43 and #44
Mundie Trucking
We are representing Mr. & Mrs. Albert Bacon, owners of Lot #24. The Bacons currently reside
in Statesboro, Georgia and have asked us to present their views to this Commission.
As you can see by the enclosed photographs, we are not talking about a couple of small pick-up
type trucks - These are very large dump trucks of the type used by concerns such as Luck Stone.
Although no permission has been granted to Mr. McDaniel, he has been maintaining, cleaning
and storing at least three Of these trucks on property zoned Rural Area, tsee attached
photographs).
I notice on the application for Special Use Permit that, "the use of the property will not change
from present use so there will be no effect in adjacent property." No mention is made of the fact
that the use of the property is illegal and has been since it began.
They further remark that, "the property is screened by woods from surrounding property. The
proposed use will have no affect on surrounding property." To the best of my knowledge they are
not air lifting these trucks in and out of their property. They are driving them back and forth on
a road that was never designed, engineered and constructed to bear this type of heavy-duty
commercial traffic.
This trucking company is trying to slide in under the Home Occupation Class B zoning
ordinance, however, this type of business is certainly not within the spirit of this ordinance.
Referring to Home Occupation 5.2.2.1 Section D "No traffic shall be generated by such home
occupation in greater volumes than would normally be expected in a residential neighborhood."
I certainly don't expect large dump trucks to be considered normal traffic ~n a residential
neighborhood.
In Home Occupations 5._..>, ~t states that a permit lnust be obtained before setting up such a
business, however, Mr. McDaniel has been running his trucking business from his home for at
least five years, without such permit.
PAGE1
There are, of course, several other considerations_ i.e.. have vibration studies and noise studies
been done? Has the impact of Diesel fumes on neighboring homes been studied? Has there been
any exmmnation of the effect ofoil and gas on the local water table?
One of our major concerns is that if you permit Mundie Trucking this SUP, you will have to
allow McDaniel Trucking the same privilege, five years after the fact, and another trucking
company less than one mile further down Route 641 will also have to be allowed, because you
have set this precedent. Within a very short time. our lovely rural residential area will become a
truck stop.
Please look at this as though it was your own residential area z if you wouldn't want this type of
business next door, then don't make us accept it. There are plenty of places zoned for this type of
business in Albemarle County, and that is where they should locate.
PAGE 2
5370 Wa~ts Ea~ag.e
'Ct{arto~t6~ille,:Va 229}1-
Al~em~le.'CoUntyBoar~.f,,S~i~rvisors
401 Mclnti~ Road
Chadg.tteswille,~!Va. 22902~ '
BOI~RD OF SUPERV.'ISORS ' ~
~-~ r.~.,~.~, .... ~ 7^,,,n- Commission o12 A~mnst tl d998,
float of several ~messe~, 'tYou d be~t watch
ma~ nnt'have m~t'~g retook t~ a ~eat, burke ~phcaBon
ve~uabte ~ab~ horses On ~y, prop~, ~.ffa~
to ~v nm of.the ~o~ i~lf,, i how Whch Tfi~ ~ Pm going ~o ~bohng
¢'o~stmcnon and
~ ' ~they
'~ ~ '~4 xx~r,,oim ~s that this ~s not a, f~y stru~n~ to ~e a h~ng~ it ~s a ~oUp 0f ~pte ~0 ~
,, ~- .:' - ~mPletely~om~ t~e dems~on:ofthe-PJ~n~ ~d Z0nmg C~m~ssm9, ~ng ~tt ~11. .
':'~ ', ~, ~ ~t ~6 ~0~g~gi~at°f d6esn'f have'~e ~p&er ~ ~orq,~ ~:~ec~iqns ma~
' ' '~ ' Commisho~d ~ bySnm~&fion td.ke~ ~e fiei~ ~o~ m~g. ~er eompla~aB.
G~. ~ego Wa
- Zomng,~SSlOn
ATTACHMENT H
Post-It~' brand fax ~ransmittal memo ;'~,,,
JUNE 23,1998
TO: MR. JUAN WADE
ALBEMARLE ZONING DEPARTMENT
FROM: BETTY MARSHALL
RESIDENT ON 641 - BURNLEY STATION ROAD
I AM CONCERNED WITH THE REQUEST FOR A REZONING OF A LOT ON 641
(MUNDIE TRUCKING). MR. MUNDIE HAS ASKED FOR A LOT TO BE REZONED ON
641 FOR BUSINESS/RESIDENTIAL WHICH HE WOULD BE PARKING LARGE DUMP
TRUCKS AND DURING REPAIR WORK TO THE TRUCKS. MY MAIN CONCERN IS
THAT IF THIS SETS A PRESIDENCY FOR OTHERS THAT IT WILL LOWER OUR
PROPERTy VALUE AND TARE AWAY FROM THE BEAUTY OF BURNLEY STATION
ROAD. SINCE MR. MUNDIE'S PROPERTY IS SCREENED FROM THE MAIN ROAD
OF 641 .[.SEE NO REASON FoR THIS NOT TO BE .DON.E AS LONG AS IT DOES
NOT SET A PRESIDENCY FOR OTHERS. IF OTHER PERMITS ARE REQUESTED I
WOULD.LIKE FORT HE SCREENING TO HAVE TO BE THE SAME AS-MR. MUNDIE'$
AND NOT TO BE ON THE MAIN ROAD OF 641. SINCE 641 IS ONE OF THE
MOST BEAUTIFUL ROADS IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY I WOULD HATE FOR IT TO
CHANGE.
MR. MUNDIE PROPERTY IS ON A BACK LOT AND IS TOTALLY SCREENED
FROM.THE MAIN ROAD OF 641..AND HIS PRQPERTY IS KEPT_VERY CLEAN'AND
NEAT.
S INCF.~ELY,
BETTY MARSHALL
RECEIVED
JUN 4 199 ,
Planning Dept.
08/Z5/98 TUE 1I:44 FAX 804 977 0198 TAYLOR.ZUNKA,MILNOR~CART [~002
Jlnks and Olgene McDaniel
3073 Burnley Station Rd.
Barboursville, VA 22923
AUgust 17~ 1~8
Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors
401McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA
22902
RE: Special Use Permi~ Request-Mundie Trucking SP~98-28
Dear Sirs:
In November 1973 we bought 20~.73 acres of land from Randall
beane. That was about 25 years ago. A few years ~ater we bought
~2 more acres Joining our property. Then, about 9 years ago,
we gave our daughter, Deborah Mundie and her husband, Curtis
"Dan') Mundie, the 5 acres of property in question, adJoi~ing~
our property..
At this point, they were 'granted a permit by the County and
started constructio~ on their shop and home. We have never
been offended by their trucks, shop, employees or anything else.
In fact, we are quite prou~ of them in this respecte~ trucking
business. They have strived very hard not only to improve their
own lan~ and surroundings, but have also genuinely tried to
make this a better community. They give of their time and error=
to h~lp neighbors in need. Quite often the have pushed driveways
clear of snow in the winter. They have donated gravel and ~irt
to local churches,. Stony Point School, and local ball fields.
They clearly have only been an assmt to this community.
Their trucks and drivers have never bothered us in any way.
Other neighbo~s and I walk daily on 641 and we cTrcte up the
Mundle's private drive and back down. This is a most pleasurable
experience for all of us. They have established quite
serenesurrouDdings and whenever being approached by their trucks,
we have always been treated with utmost courtesy by all of their
trucks.
Also i% has come to my attention, many neighbors further down
641, have been misled to believe a co~lmercial building was going
to be built out front on t~e road on the now vacant field and
also that zoning was going to be =hanged. I believe many of
the people who signed the petition opposing were just simply
misinformed.
The fact is, they simply want to bring their trucks home an~
05/~/28 'T~E 11:45 FA3[ 804 977 0198 TAYLOR,ZUNKA,MILNOR&CART ~oo~
=~l~uu ~;~ ~dq'd?3636~ ~UNOIE TRUCKING CO PA~E
Pg. 2
park them on their own land at night. Their secluded and private
driveway is o~ly l/J0 mile from 29N. Their trucks'are well
hidden and not within sight of Rt 64i]. I~ fact =heir =tucks
only pas~ by one other mailbox befor~ reaching the~r~riveway.
Yo~ coUidn'~ ask for a more perfect place.
We think Albemarle County should ask itself, would they
rather have trucks sprea~ all over ~he county, in fro~t of
9eo~le's. homes and parke~ directly on roads? - which is what
~hey are going to be forcad to do if ~h~s doesn't pass- or would
the County rather have tr~cks placed in an already existing~
well maintained, out of sight, and very close to 29N location?
We sincerely hope this $~ecial Use Request is approved. If
you have any questions, please call us at
Sincerely,
Jinks A, McDaniel
Olgene McDaniel
31~1 Burnley Station Road
Barboursville, VA .22923
August 30, 1998
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Rlbemarle County
Board of Supervisors
401McInttre Road
Charlottesville, VA
22902
RE: Mundte Truck&ng Co.-Special Use Permit
Dear Board:
I am writing this letter concerning my sons, Mark and Dan Mundie.
we moved here in ]973. My husband, Curtis L. Mundie, and our
family have never had amy problems with our neighbors unti~
here lately when these new people moved in. They should have
screened the community before they moved in so they would know
what was going on. I cannot understand how these people can
come iQ and try to run these good children out of business.
Seems like they would love to see young people working and not
in trouble. They have never gave us or anyone else any trouble.
They have always been kind and helpful toour neighbors. Such
as, scraping snow off of their driveways in freezing weather,
free of charge so they could get out of their driveways. How
~%any young people would take their time and risk their lives
to help these people in snow and ice?--Not many. They also
did a big Job for Bethel Church on the corner of Burnley Station
Rd. free of charge--donated gravel, time, and equipment and
gave to them free of charge. They like to help people, Just
like their Dad and I have taught them to do. "Do unto others
es you would'have them do unto you"! Their Daddy ks deceased
now and he left the business to his two sons Mark and Dan Mundie
when he passed away in 198S. He knew they were capable of doing
a good Job and good deedsl Please consider these two young
boys who are trying to make a honest living for their families
plus they help anybody in need. They should be glad they have
good neighbors like them around instead of complaini~g.
Mrs. Walker, who complained ak~ut the trucks driveway directly
across from her house is not true. She lives down the road
from the driveway'of theirs. The tr~%cks never even go by these
people's house.
It looks like they should come under the "Gramdfather's Clause".
We have been here since 1973. So how can these people come
an~ try to push them out of business? We had dump trucks here
when we moved here.
Sincerely,
Ruth Ann Hundie
August 1998
To Whom It ~ay Concern:
It bothers me ~reatly that such few people complain about
the Dum~ Trucks in this area. Why not co~101m/n about the
D~PS, FED-X, TRASH TRUCKS, ~0VIN~ TRUCKS , LO~ TRUCKS,
FU~NI'~'u~ T~CKS a~ld so many other ty~es of tucks and heavy
equi~ment that goes up and down these roads. They pay road
taxes just like you and I. I can't see why people complain
with just trucks. If you would only stop and think ~or a
moment-How would you get gravel on your drive ways if you
didn' t have Dump Trucks? How would you get s~ecial
deliveries if there weren't big trucks? How would you get
those special packages at Chr~s~ time if you didn't have
big trucks? Maybe all Of you have not thought this thing
out clearly. Yes, people do have to make a living! So
please take in consideration that these people are trying to
raise a family fro~heir business.
, · ATTACItMENT H
Members of the Zoning Commission
Re: Items 43 & 44
We are very much against the proposed zoning change requested by Mundie Trucking. Aside
from completely changing the character ofour residential area, and lowering the value of all of
our homes, it would set a precedent that would allow others to apply for the same type of zoning.
The trucks involved are very large commercial dump trucks and are extremely dangerous to
anyone walking, jogging, or exercising their pets along this narrow country road.
Please take this into consideration when studying this proposal.
Darlene, Calvin & Clyde Priche[t -~
ATT Ac~IMENT I-I
Planning and Community Development
Atun Mr. Juan Wade
401 McInfire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
4906 Helios Path
Barbeursville, VA 22923
June 24, 1998
Re: Special Use Permit
Mundie Tracking
SP~ 98-24
Dear Sir;
Thank you for the information you provided during our phone conservation this moming~ I understand.
based on our conversation, that approval of the Mundie application does not email any new construction or
changes in the present operation of the Mundie Tracking business. In effect, it is merely rulYoer stamping a
family t~SineSS that has 13een operating in violation of Albemarle County zoning codes for several years.
However, I have several concerns that shouldbe addressed before action on this request for a special
exception of zoned land use is takev~
The application states that "The number of tracks is limited...' but that statement is very amhiguous. If
this zoning exception is approved, a specific limit should be established to control the number of ~map
macks and other commercial vehicles allowed at this facility. Also, it should be clearly stipulated that this is
not a commercial garage and only equipment owned by Mundie Trucking can be housed or repaired at this
site.
A further concern is that by approving this exception, a precedent will be established for other family
owned commercial operations to be established in the area. thus compounding the potential problems.
I am aware that others have stated concerns about various aspects of allowing a commercial operation in a
residenfial-agrioaltural area, includ/ng traffic safety, affect on property values, and environmental
contamination. I concur with their o~ervations~
In view of these conceru~ I am requesting that this exception be denied.
Sincerely,
RECEIVED
'JUN 2 5 1998
Planning Dept.
0S/2~/98 TUE 11:~$ FAX 80~ 977 O198
?
TAYLOR.ZUAS(A.MILNOR~CART
MUNDIE T~3CKING CO
82
REESE
46J4 ~ilb~rt Station Road
Sarboursville, VA 22~23
804/9
August 21, 1998
~r. Charles S. Martin, vice Chairman
Albemarle County Board of supervisors
401 McIntyre ~oad
Charlottesville, VA 22~01
Rs:
zoning ~ign # 49
M~ndie Trucking - Rt. 641
Rivann& Distric~
September 16, 1998 Meeting
Dear Mr. Martin:
We are sending you this letter to ask for your support o~ Zoning
Sign # 43 for Mundie Trucking. ~his is a family run business in
the'Rivanna District. The Mundies have an existing garage/shop
where dump truek~ are parked overnight. This shop cannot be seen
from Rt. ~41.
.We moved to our home on Rt. 640 (Gilbert Station Road) in 1985
and go by ~his location' every time we go to Charlottesville
(almost every day)- We have never ~nc~untered any problem with
the tru-cks or drivers in 1~ years. As-s matter of fact, they
have been.very courteous and have even waited for us to go by
before pulling ouu on K=. 641. -
We believe the Hu.ndies are planning on inviting you to the shop
location and giving you a tour of the facility before =he
~epte~%ber 16, 1998 mae=lng. We know you will find them to be
courteous, truthful and a strong Chris:laD family that assists
neighbors in need.
Please call either one of us-if you have any questions or
any additional information.
Sincerely.
$~even L. Reeee Martha P. Reese
~09/13/1998 28:41 8849736369 MUNDIE TRUCKING CO PAGE 82
September 04, 1998
Dear Sirs,
Wc arc writing in refcrcncc to thc situation concerning Mundic Trucking
Company located on Burnley Station Road (State Route 641).
We have lived at 3022 Burnlcy Station Road since October 1980. We know thc
Mundic's I~rsonell~ and have never encountered any problems with thc busincss being
located at their residence. The Mundic's property always has anicc appearance. They
take care of maintaining their protx:rty. There is no evidence of the business from the
road.
Sincerely,
Edo~rdo Tironi
corradina Tironi
AnnaMaria Tironi Wood
August 27, 1998
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5828
Paul Sisk
P O Box 1607
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SP-98-35 Pantops Texaco
Tax Map 78, Parcel 4
Dear Mr. Sisk:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 25, 1998, hnanimously
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that
this approval is subject to the following conditions:
l. No direct access to Route 20 shall be permitted.
2. Access to Route 20 through Tax Map 78, Parcel 4A (McDonald's site) shall be required.
3. Provision of a raised curb to separate the drive-thru lane for the travel lanes.
4. Development shall be in general accord with the site plan titled "Pantops Texaco" dated
7/27/98 (copy attached), except as the plan shall be amended to address the above
conditions and the recommendations of the Site Review Committee
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
receive public comment at their meefmg on September 16, 1998. Any new or additionai
information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
William D. Fritz, AICP
Senior Planner
Cc: Ella Carey
Jack Kelsey
Amelia McCulley
Panrops Food & Gas, LLC/Tiger Fuel Co
December 19, 1995
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
Tiger Fuel Company
ATTN: David G. Sutton
P. O. Box 1607
Charlottesville, VA 22902
SP-95-32 Tiger Fuel Company
Tax Map 78, Parcel 4
Dear Mr. Sutton:
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. ar its meeting on December 13, 1995, unanimously
approved the above-noted request to establish a drive-in window on 0.9 acres zoned Highway
Commercial and Entrance Corridor. Please note that this approval is subject to the following
conditions:
2.
3.
4.
No direct access to Route 20 shall be permitted:
Access to Route 20 through Tax Map 78, Parcel 4A (McDonald's site) shall be required;
Provision ora raised curb to separate the drive-thru lane from the travel lanes:
Development shall be in general accord with the site plan titled Pantops Texaco dated
August 14, 1995 [copy attached), except as the plan shall be amended to address the
above conditions and the recommendations of the Site Review Committee.
Before beg~rming this use, you must obtain a zoning clearance from the Zoning Deparrmem.
Before the Zoning Department will issue a clearance, you must comply with the conditions in
this letter. For further information, please call Jan Sprinkle at 296-5875.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above-noted action, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
V. Wayne C~imberg'"v--" ~
Director of Planning & Cc~nm~evelopmenr
cc: Amelia McCulley Jo Higgins
C
~2o
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE Si0MMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SP 98-35 Pantops Texaco
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:.
The applicant is requesting approval ora special
use permit for a drive thru window.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mr. Fritz
AGENDA DATE:
Planning Commission - August 25, 1998
Board of Supervisors - September 16, 1998
ACTION: Yes INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA: No
ACTION: Yes
INFORMATION: No
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The request is for a drive thru window in accord with the provisions of Section 24.2.2(13) of the zoning ordinance
on a 0.9 acre parcel located in the northwest comer of the intersection of Route 20 and Route 250. (This is the
former site of a Texaco Gas station.) The property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 4, is zoned HC, Highway
Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District and is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District. The area
is recommended for Regional Service use in Neighborhood 3 of the Comprehensive Plan.
A special use permit, SP 95-32, for a drive thru was approved by the Board of Supervisors on December 13, 1995.
A preliminary site plan, for the same use currently proposed, was approved administratively on August 13, 1996
Both of these approvals have expired.
DISCUSSION:
Staff has reviewed the current application for consistency with the prior approval. Staffis unable to identify any
significant changes in circumstance or site design. The prior staff report and Board of Supervisors action letter for
SP 95-32 are attached.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of SP 98-35. The recommended conditions of approval are listed below. These
conditions are the same conditions of approval contained in the prior approval of SP 95-32 with the only revision
being to the reference to the site plan.
Recommended conditions of approval:
1
2
4.
No direct access to Route 20 shall be permitted.
Access to Route 20 through Tax Map 78, Parcel 4A (McDonald's site) shall be required.
Provision ora raised curb to separate the drive-thru lane for the travel lanes.
Development shall be in general accord with the site plan titled "Pantops Texaco" dated 7/27/98 (copy attached),
except as the plan shall be amended to address the above conditions and the recommendations of the Site
Review Committee.
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
WILLIAM D. FRITZ
OCTOBER 24, 1995
NOVEMBER 13, 1995
SP 95-32 TIGER FUEL COMPANY
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a fast food restaurant.
convenience store and gas pumps. The fast food restaurant would be served by two drive-thru
windows. The first window would be used as a cash window. The second window would be
used to deliver the food to the customers. A conceptual plan has been submitted. This plan has
been reviewed by the appropriate site review committee members.
Petition: Petition to establish a drive-thru window on 0.9 acres zoned HC, Highway
Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District [24.2.2(13)]. Property, described as
Tax Map 78. Parcel 4 is located in the northwest comer of the intersection of Route 20 and Route
250 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is recommended for Regional Service in
Neighborhood 3.
Character o.f the. Area: This site is the former location ora Texaco gas station. The adjacem
uses include McDonald's (to the north~ and the Wilco gas station (to the west).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staffhas reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the
Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval subject to conditions.
Planning and Zoning History_: This site was used previously as a Texaco gas station. The
adjacent site, McDonald's. has been reviewed for a special use permit for a drive-thru window.
As a condition of approval of the McDonald's development an access-way was required allowing
connection of the site under review and the McDonald's site.
Comprehensive Plan: This site is recommended for Regional Service in the Comprehensive
Plan. This designation provides for the widest range of commercial uses. The comprehensive
plan states as recommendations for Neighborhood Three: "Widen Route 250 East ~o
accommodate increased local traffic. Properties along this corridor are to be accessed through
joint access points, frontage roads, and side streets to maintain roadway' efficiency". With the
use of the access-way on adjacent property, the closing of the entrance on Route 20 (discussed
later in this reporB this application meets this criteria of the Comprehensive Plan.
STAFF COMMENT: Staffwill address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 ofthe Zoning
Ordinance.
The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use
permits t~ermitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance
max, be issued upon a findine bv the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of
substantial detriment to adjacent property,
This property has been developed commercially and all adjacent parcels are developed
commercially. In the opinion of staff use of this site for a drive thru will not result ina detriment
to adjacent property. During the review- of the adjacent site access to this property' was
anticipated and the design of the site accommodates this access. The Planning and Engineering
Departments have reviewed the layout proposed on this site and are of the opinion that it will not
adversely impact the circulation of the adjacent property.
that the character of the district will not be chanzed thereby.
Use of this site as a drive thru will not result in a change in the character of the district.
and that such use will be in harmony With the purpose and intern of this ordinance,
Staff has reviewed the purpose and intent of the ordinance as stated in Sections 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6.
With appropriate conditions the proposed use will no~ be in conflict with the purpose and intent
of the ordinance. The conditions recommended by staff are intended to provide for adequate
circulation and safety in travel. Provision of adequate circulation and safety in travel is
consistent with Sections 1.4.1, 1.4.2 and 1.4.6.
with the uses perrff~tted by right in the district,
This use will have no impact on the permitted uses of this or adjacent property,
with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance.
Section 5.0 contains no additional regulations for this type of use.
and with the public health, safety and ~eneral welfare.
In the review of the site plan for the adjacent McDonald's provision of access to this property
under review was required. This access allows the site under review to access Route 20 at a
point farther from the intersection with Route 250. The property, under review is currently served
by three entrances. Two entrances are located:on Route 250 and one entrance is located on
Route 20. In the review of the special use permit application the Department of Transportation
has provided comments, (Attachment C). The Department of Transportation will require closure
of the Route 20 entrance and recommends consolidation of the two entrances on Route 250.
Staff does not support the Department of Transportations recommendation for consolidation of
the entrances on Route 250. The applicant intends to include gasoline sales as part of the use.
The provision of two entrances allows for superior circulation when gasoline sales are involved.
In this application the provision of two entrances also allows for the flow of traffic generated by
the drive-thru window to be accommodated. Staff is aware that consolidation of the two
entrances on Route 250 would allow for the entrance to be moved farther from the Rt.250/Rt. 20
intersection and would eliminate one entrance on Route 250. Route 20 does not imersect Rt. 250
at a 90 degree angle. This causes the right turn lane on Rt. 20 to function much like a slip ramp
resulfmg in relatively high speeds for turning vehicles and a tendency to not make a full stop
before turning right on red. By moving the entrance farther from this intersection congestion may
be reduced. Staff opinion however. ~s that due to the relatively short frontage of this site on
2
Route 250 that moving the entrance westward would,-have limited benefits and may in fact resuh
in increased on-site congestion and make tanker truck access more difficult. It is due to the
minimal benefits of consolidating the entrance and t~e potential for on-site congestion caused by
the consolidation that staff does not support the Deparunem of Transportation recommendations.
Staff supports the Department of Transportation requirement of closure of the Rome 20 entrance.
This entrance is located in close proximity to the intersection with Route 250. This fact could
result in congestion on site caused by vehicles u'ying to enter Route 20 at a point where blockage
of the entrance can be anticipated due to normal stacking at the Route 20/250 signal. Congestion
could also occur due to north bound Route 20 traffic attempting to mm left to enter the sim.
Staffis also concerned that individuals exiting the site on Route 20 and attempting to travel east
on Route 20 will attempt to cross all lanes of traffic in order to reach the left mm lane on Rome
20 allowing east travel on Route 250. The use of the McDonald's entrance on Route 20 will
provide reasonable Route 20 access for this site and will allow for safe and convenient access.
The McDonald's site plan was reviewed with access to this site in mind.
The applicant' prefers to have an independent access to Route 20 as McDonald's is a competitor.
The applicant has proposed a raised median in Route 20 in order to prevent left turns into and out
of the site. This proposal addresses only a portion of staff and Department of Transportatmn
concerns. In additional the existing pavement design is insufficient to permit the installation ora
raised median. The Department of Transportation has not provided written comments on the
proposal for a raised median, The above comments were prepared with the help of phone
conversations with VDOT.
The applicant has also proposed the use ora right in only for the access m Route 20, Staffhas
discussed this proposal with the Depamnent of Transportation, written comments are nor
available. While an entrance only would reduce the congestion experienced on-site and
potentially on Route 20 caused by turning movements. Any entrance near the intersection of
Rome 250 provides for an increase in congestion and possible conflicts. As the site can obtain
access to Route 20 in a location more desirable from a general transportation viewpoint direct
access to or from Route 20 from this site does not appear warranted.
Based on the corrtments of staff and the Department of Transporranon direct access to Route 20
would not he in harmony with the public health, safety, or general welfare.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This type of use is required by special use permit due to the high level of traffic generated by the
use and the special needs such high traffic volumes generate. The conditions of approval for this
type of use are directly related to and intended to address these features.
Staff has identified the following factors wlfich are favorable to tlms request:
The site Can obtain access to Route 20 and Route 250 which are high volume roadways
capable of handling the traffic generated from this type of use;
2. The use generally complies with the provisions of Section 31.2.4,1.
3
Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorableto this request:
1. Access m Route 20 on the site under review would result in on'site and off-site
congestion.
Staff opinion is that this site can accommodate the proposed use with appropriate conditions.
Therefore. staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. No direct access to Route 20 shall be permitted;
2. Access to Rome 20 through Tax Mal: 78, Parcel 4A (McDonald's site) shall be required:
3. Provision of a raised curb to separate the drive-thru lane ~om the travel lanes;
4. Development shall be in general accord with the site plan titIed Pantops Texac¢ dated
August t4, 1995, except as the plan shall be amended to address the above conditions and
the recommendations of the site rewew committee.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B - Tax Map
C - VDOT comments
D - Site Plan
A:\sPg$32~RPT
October 17 1995
TOM
MOUNTAIN
SP-95-32
STAR ENTERPRISE
C)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
ST~ ENTERPRISE ~.f/ ~
I ATTACH"E~T ?j-
SECTION 78
TTACHML=NT C
Mr. Eon Keeler
October Public Hearings
Page 2
SepneufOer 20,
1995
SP-95-30.Crozen Church of God Route 824
This location was recently improved under a site plan and permit for
daylighting sight distance to new ennrance. The area of sight line to the
east ms hampered by several new locusts that have gro~ since grading was
done. The trees should be cut and stumps sprayed to keep locusts from coming
back
SP-95-31 Wendell Wood Route 29 N.
The two existing ennrances do not meen sight distance requirements as they
currently exist. We recommend than only one ennrance be allowed with nurn and
caper lane provided. The existing lot is 7"-8" below the grade of Route 29
SBL, causing the insufficient sight distance. The sight distance requirement
can be met if grade ms raised. D~ny outdoor snorage should non impede sight
distance or be placed on %~DOT right of way.
SP-95-32 Tiqer Fuel Company, Route 250 E.
Access only through McDonalds site from Route 20. One ennrance ms recommended
off of Route 250. Internal movements should be designed tO meeu proposed
entrances with mlnlmum disruption.
ZMA- 95 IIREF
See SP-95-27, Route 601.
ZM~-95-14 I~ Creek ET~-L. Route 677
Proposal to rezone from PRD to rural areas should lessen impact on local
roads.
Z~-95-15 Peter Easter, Route 631
All access should be no old Route 631 connection where the currenn business
exzsts. As a mznlmum the new connecnion may be allowed along the wesnern
boundary of the property.
ATTACHMENT
Jack Kelsey
Site Plan Review t~ieeting
Page
August
23 1995
SDP-95-065 Blue RidGe Health Alliance & Grand Piano Site Plan Route 29
Revise sine Dian eo coincide with current project plan for Route 29
lmprovemenes, see attached copy of plan)
Panto~s Texaco Route 20 250
Require removal of enerance on Route 20. Access from Route 20 should be
~rovided through McDonalds szse. An eneranee on Route 20 creaees major
problems am the Route 20 & 250 znnersecmmon. Left eurns would, cause
traffic to stack into Route 250 and disrupt the intersection.
Recommend one enmranee on Route 25C with mlnmmum radii of 12.5' Tractor
trai!ez access should be given consideration when adjusting the entrance
and the sloe tc accommodate one ennrance.
if you should have any questions or requmre any additional information, please
advise.
Sincerely,
J. ~. Kesserson
Per & Sub. Spec. Supv.
JHK ldw
2c: Wanda F~oore
i
-? ()
PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON
SP-95-35. Pantops Texaco
(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY)
The follow-hag guidelines will be used for this public hearing:
EACH SPEAKER IS ALLOTTED 3 MINUTES.
INDIVIDUALS CANNOT RELINQUISH THEIR 3 MINUTES TO ANOTHER
SPEAKER.
INDIVIDUALS CAN ONLY SIGN UP ONE PERSON TO SPEAK.
PLEASE GIVE ANY WRITTEN STATEMENTS TO THE CLERK WHO WILL
CIRCULATE COPIES TO BOARD MEMBERS
NAME (Please print clearly) PHONE NUMBER (Optional)
)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
~OARD OP 8UPHRV~$OR8
August 27, 1998
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 M¢Intire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
~g4] 296-5823
Lar~ R~an
CFW Wireless
P O Box 1328
Waynesboro, VA 22980-0909
RE: SP-98-21 CFW Wireless (Rio Road)
Tax Map 61. Prcel 129C
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 25, 1998, by a vote of 4:1,
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that
this approval is subject to the following conditions:
Tower shall not be increased in height.
Additional Antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows:
Omnidirectional or wbap antennas shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height or seven (7)
inches in diameter, and shall be of a color which matches the tower.
Directional or panel antennas shall not exceed seven (7) feet in height or two (2) feet hi
width, and shall be of a color which matches the tower.
c. Additional satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited.
Additional antennas may be installed without amending this special use permit, provided that all
necessary building permits are obtained from the building official and the antennas otherwise comply
with these conditions.
The permittee shall submit a report to the zoning administrator once per year, by not later than July 1
of that year. The report shal~ idenfif~ each user of the rower and shall identify each user that is a
wireless telecommunications service provider.
The tower shall be disassembled and removed fi'om the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use
for wireless telecommumeations purposes is disconfmued.
All antennae added to the tower shall be used for personal wireless service providers.
Page 2
August 27, 1998
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
receive public comment at their meeting on September 16~ 1998. 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 hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please de not
hesitate to contact me
Sincerely,
William D. Fritz, AICP
Senior Planner
Ella Carey
Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey
Central Telephone Company of Virginia
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
William D. Fritz, AICP
August 25, 1998
September 16, 1998
SP 98-21 CFW Wireless (Rio Road)
Applicant's Proposal:
The applicant is proposing to place additional antennas on the existing tower located adjacent to Fashion
Square Mall. At this time it is unknown the type of antenna which are proposed by the current applicant or
future users of the tower. The additional antennas will be for CFW Wireless and Triton Communications.
Both applicants are providers of PCS [Personal Commnnicafion Systems). The existing tower is
nonconforming and requires approval of a special uso permit in Order for additional use to be made of the
tower.
Petition:
Proposal to install a personal wireless telecommunication facility on approximately 1.4 acres zoned CO~
~0mmercial Office in accord with the provisions of section 23.2.2(3) of the Zoning Ordinance. Property,
3eSeribed as Tax Map 61 Parcel 129C is located on the noOtt ~ide of Fashion Square Mall approximately 0.3
miles east of Route 29 (Seminole Trail) and is the location of an existing tower. This site is located in the Rio
Magisterial District. This site is recommended for Regional Service use in Neighborhood 2.
Character of the Area:
The site is developed with a Sprint building and a 250 font monopote tower. This tower is located adjacent to
Fashion Square Mall. The closest dwellings, Squire Hill Apatiments, are approximately 700 feet distant.
The nearest existing personal wireless service facility is located approximately 1.7 miles to the noCda at
R.ivanna Water Tank near the water treatment plant
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance and recommends approval with conditions.
Plannine and Zoning History:
In 1988, a previously existing 150 foot tower was removed and the currant tower was constructed. In 1988
no approvals for the expansion of a non-conforming tower were require& Therefore, no special use permit
was reviewed.
C_omprehensive Plan:
Based on the location of the tower outside any resource areas identified in the Open Space Plan and limited
content of the Comprehensive Plan for the review of such a proposal, staff opinion is that this request is not
inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
STAFF COMMENT:
Staffwill address the issues of this request in fo~ sections:
Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Thc Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits
permitted hereunder. Special use vennits 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
ediacent prooertv.
Approval of this special use permit will permit the attachment of additional antenna to the existing tower.
Currently the tower has a wide variety of the antenna. Staff opinion is that the addition of either panel or
whip type antenna will have limited visual impact. Additional antenna will result in a limited change in the
appearance of the tower. Therefore, staff opinion is that approval would not cause a substantial detriment to
adjacent property. Additional information may be provided by the public during the public hearings on the
issue of potential impacts.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
Based on the limited change in the visibility of this tower staff opinion is that this request does cemply with
this provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Ordinance.
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 as stated in Sections 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 with
patXicular reference to Sections 1.4, 1.4.4, and 1.5. All of these provisions address, in one form or another,
the provision of public services. The use of mobile telephones alearly provides a public service es evidenced
by the expanded and rapid increase in use. Based on the provision of a public service, staff opinion is that
this request is in harmony with the purposo and intent of these sections of the ordinance. Section 1.4.3 states
as an intent of the Ordinance, "To facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmomous
community". ~ provision of this facility does increase the availability and convenience for users of
wireless phone technology.
Staff in prior reviews for telecOmm,mication facilities.has notexl ~at tho visibility of the site may be
inconsistent with the intent of providing an attractive cemm~mity. As approval of this permit will result in
limited change in tho visibility from surrounding areas staff opinionis that ibis request does comply with this
provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Ordinance.
with the uses permitted by right in the district.
The proposal will not restrict the current uses, other by fight uses available on this site, or by right uses on
any other property.
2
with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance,
Section 5.1.12 of the ordinarme contains regulations governing tower facilities and no conditions are
necessary to ensure compliance with this provision of the ordinance as this is an existing facility.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The provision or'increased communication facilities may be considered consistent with the public health,
safety and general welfare by providing increased communication services m the event of emergencies and
increasing overall general communication services. The Telecommunications Act addresses issues of
environmental effects with the following language: %1o state or local government or instrumentality thereof
may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis
of the environmantal effects of radio 15equency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the
Commission's regulations concerning such emissions. In order to operate this facility the applicant is
required to meet the FCC guidelines for radio frequency emissions. This requirement will adequately protectt
the public health and safety.
Section 704(a)(7)0a)(l)flI) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
The regolation of the nlacement, construction and modification of personal wireless facilities by any state or
local government or instrumentality thereof shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision
of nersonal wireless services.
Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the provision of personal wireless
service. Steffdocs not believe that thc special use permit process nor thc denial of this application has the
effect of prohibiting the provision or personal wireless services. The applicant has not demonstrated that
there are no other locations within the proposed area of service currently available for new facility
constmction~ For this reason, staff docs not believe that denial of this application would have the effect of
prohibiting the provision of services.
SUMMARY:
Steffhas identified the following factors which are favorable to this request:
3.
4.
5.
The tower will provide increased wireless capacity which may be considered consistent with the
provisions of Sections 1.4, 1.4.4 and 1.5;
The tower will not restrict permitted uses on adjacent properties.
This request complies with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1,
The addition of antenna will result in little change in the tower's visibility.
Approval of this request allows for collocation on an existing tower and may alleviate the need for
the consmaetion of a new facility elsewhere.
Staff has not identified factors which are unfavorable to this request
The following factor is relevant to this consideration:
There is an existing reasonable use of the property.
RECOMMENDED A~'TION:
Staff opinion is that the site will accommodate additional telecommunication facilities without creating
adverse impacts. Therefore, staffis able to recommend approval of this request. Should the Board choose to
approve this request, staffhas provided conditions of approval.
(In the event that the Board chooses to deny this application staff offers the following comment:
In order to comply with the prowsions of the Telecommunication Act, staff reqUest consensus direction fi.om
the Board regarding the basis for denial of the application and instruction to. staff to return to the Board with
a written decision for the Board's consideration and action.)
Reconunended Conditions of Approval:
Tower shall not be herease in height.
Additional Antennas may be attached to the tower only ns follows:
Omnidirectional or whip antennas shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height or seven (7)
inches in diameter, and shall be of a color which matches the tower.
Directional or panel antennas shall n0t exceed five (5) feet in height or two (2) feet in width,
and shall be of a color which matches the tower.
¢. Additional satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited.
Additional antennas may be installed without amending this special use permit, provided that all
necessary building permits are obtained from the building official and the antennas otherwise comply
with these conditions.
3. The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning administrator once per year, by not later than 3uly 1
of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower and shall identify each user that is a
wireless telecommonieations service providec
4. The tower shall be disassembled end removed fi.om the site within ninety (90) days of the' date its use
for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinue&
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B - Tax Map
C -Topographic Map
4
c
0
U
ATTACI-IM~NT A
IAR[ 0 ! ~ES
VII! E
Sp 98-21
¢.F.W. Wireless
O~
6¢
ALBEMARLE
4§
COUNTY
ATTACHMENT B
SP 98-21
C.F.W. Wireless
OF
""7
~ "~= __ .. ~IAGK JOUETT, RIVANNA AND SECTION 6 I
---- GHARLOTTESVILLE DISTRICTS
t
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SP 98-40 North Garden Fire Company, Inc.
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to connect to private sewage
treatment facility in the event of system failure.
STAFF CONTACT{S):
Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Cilimberg, Morrisette
AGENDA DATE:
September 16, 1998
ACTION: X
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY.:
BACKGROUND:
On August 25, the Planning Commission heard the applicant's pe~tion for the conforming use of a fire station in the Village
Residential Dis~trict, to allow for expansion. Since the initial staff reoort, a soils analysis was completed and thus revealed no
suitable s'ite for a reserve drainfield. The Planning Commission recommended approval of SP 98-40, with the revised conditions
to include resolution of the sewage problem prior to issuance of a building permit. Since the Planning Commission's action, the
owner of the adjacent treatment facility [Crossroads Country Store] has agreed to allow the applicant to connect should the
existing septic system fail.
Section 15.2-2130 of the State Code of Virginia (Attachment A) addresses the extension of sewage system service from an
existing facility and references Section 15.2-2126 for procedure. Section 15.2-2126 of the State Code of Virginia requires any
person(s) proposing to establish an extension of any existing system must "notify in writing the governing body of the county..,
and shall appear at a regular meeting thereof and notify such governing body in person" (Attachment B). The applicant's
notification is attached as a draft copy of the appropriate agreements (Attachment C). This draft has been reviewed by the
County Attorney and has been recommended for approval with minor moditications. The final agreement will have to be signed
and recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit.
DISCUSSION:
This executive summary serves as additional information for your consideration of SP 98-40. The Site Review Committee
recognizes the limitations of the existing septic system and finds connection to the sewage treatment facility to be a viable
solution The Health Department has reviewed this request and "...sees no problem using this treatment'plant as a backup for
the existing septic system serving the firehouse" (Attachment D) The Health Department has noted that the Department of
Environmental Quality should also be included in any agreements. Planning staff will require all necessary agreements to be
completed pdor to the issuance of a building permit. Again, connection to the sewage treatment plant, or other approved
methods of disposal, would be required only if the existing septic system were to fail.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommendation has not altered in light of this new information, but Condition #5 should be clarified as follows:
Issuance of a building permit is contingent upon Health Department approval of pdmary and secondary dreintields
or other adequate sewage disposal. Should the Health Department grant approval to allow for connection to the
sewage treatment facility, County Attorney approval of agreements and proof of recordation to allow for connection
must also be obtained, pdor to the issuance of a building permit.
ATTACHMENTS:
A- Section 15.2-213g of The State Code of Virginia
B- Section 152-2126 of The State Code of Virginia
C - Draft Copy of Agreements Dated 1sT Day of September, 1998
D- Health Depar[ment Memo Dated September 4. 1998
98.190
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Legislative Information System
§ 15.2-2130
Page 1 of 1
J ATTACHMENT A I
Extensions To systems
No person, including municipal corporations, which has constructed or installed a sewage system
after having complied with the provisions of this article, shall extend the service in excess of the
number o£counections for which approval was originally given. In case any such extension is
desired, the person shall proceed in the same manner as in the case o£an original application under
this article.
~.Go to (previous section) or (next section) or (General Assembly Home}
http://legl .state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504?000+cod+ 15.2-2130 8/28/98
Legislative Information System
§ 15.2-2126
Page 1 of I
I ATTACHMENT B 1
Notice to governing body required prior to construction
Any person, including municipal corporations, that proposes to establish a sewage system consisting
of pipelines or conduits, pumping stations, force mains or sewerage ~reatment plants, or any of them,
or an extension of any existing system which is designed to serve three or more connections and
used for conducting or treating sewage, as that term is defined in Chapter 3.1 (§ 62.1-44.2 et seq.) of
Title 62.1, to serve or to be capable of serving three or more connections shall, at least sixty days
prior to commencing construction thereof, notify in writing the governing body of the county in
which such sewage system is to be located and shall appear a~ a regular meeting thereof and notify
such governing body in person. However, a town proposing to construct or expand a sewage system
shall not be required to provide notice in writing or in person to a connry if the connry itself does not
operate a sewage system or provide sewerage services.
In any county having a population of more than 70,000 according to the 1950 or any subseqnem
census or a county adjoining a city having a population of 230,000 or more according to the 1950 or
any subsequent census, no extension of an existing system for the purpose of serving three or more
connections shall be made by any person, firm or corporation, other than a municipal corporation,
until a plan of such proposed extension, with proof of capacity to serve, has been filed with, and a
permit for the extension has been obtained from, the sanitation engineer or other county official, if
any, designated therefor by the board of supervisors.
~.Go to (previous section) or (next section.) or (General Assembly Home)
http://leg 1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504?000+cod+ 15.2-2126 8/28/98
flU~=28-g8'FRI 14:49 FEIL PETTIT WILLIAMS FAX NO, 9775]09
AGREEMENT
This A~ecment, dated for identification tiffs lsr day of September, 1998 by and
between NORTH GARDEN VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY. INC. ("NGVFC") and
02/05
IATTACHMENT C I
D AFT
NORTH GAI~EN CROSSROADS. INC. ("Crossroads").
WITNEgSETIt:
Whereas. NGVFC is seeking approval/rom the County of Albemarle, Virginia, for
the expansion of its building located on Plank Road. North Garden. Virginia; and
Wherea~% a condition of such approval is that NGVFC have available to ir an
alternative m the current septic system now in operation, Lu ~c :v:nt the cum:nt system fa~ls
at some time in the future; and
Whereas, Crossroads, located across Plank Road from NGVFC owns and operates a
treatment sewage facility (thc "Facility") on it~ property wl~ch is currently sufticiem to meet
additional demand; and
Whereas, Crossroads is willing to permit NOVFC to tic into t_he Facility, under the
mrms and conditions h¢rc/mafter set forth.
NOW TFrE, REFOKE, in consideration of the foregoing, the premises, and the mutual
promises contained in this Agreement. the parti~ hereto hereby agree as follows:
i. If and when ~f~ septic system utilized by NGFVC no longer meets thc -~J~-'--
standards ~ by the ~-~rle Coun~_I-Ieal~ Dep~ and NGVFC is unable
to
repair or replace the system because of the lack of availability of appropriate soils on i~s
~U~-28-98'FR! i4:49
FEIL PETTIT I, iILLIAiIS FAX NO, 9775109 P. 03/06
]ATTACHMENT
property, Crossroads will permit NGVI~ to ti~ into the Facility. This is ~ Condition
precedent to Croscroad's obiis~fion¢ bereunder and v~l! constitute a non-exclusive license.
2. No portion of the cost of tying into the Facitit7 will tx: ti~ r~sponsibiliry of
Crossroads. Thc entire cost wiIl hc the rcspom'ibility of NGVFC. Crossroads, in itS sole
fliscmtion, may require NOVFC to post a performance bond. with corporate surety, prior to
thc commencement of any such work, NGVFC shall be responsible for obtain~ all
necessary perrm~s and governmental approvals for the work. but the work shall be at the
direction of and under the supervision and sole comrol of Crossraad,~.
3. Commencing the da;/NGVFC's sewage is treated at the Facility (the
~Commencement Date"), NGFVC shall pay Crossroads the sum of ten doll~s ($I0.00) per
moIlth for the use of the Facility (the "User Fee"). The User Fee will be adjusted annually,
on the anniversary of the Commencement Date, by a.u amount equal to thc rate of h~fiation in
Central Virginia for the previous twelve months. The User tee wii! be due and payable to
Crossroad~ on the fifth day of each raonth following thc Commencement Date.
4, In thc cvcnt the Facility rcqmres repah~ or maintenance specifically
ara-ibutablc ro NGVFC's usc, NGVFC agrees [o pay all costs of such repair or maintenance,
within third' (30) days of recelp[ of an itemized bill therefor. An3' repair ot m~inlcnance of
the Facility will be ar the direction of and under the rapervision and sole control of
Crossroads.
~U~-28-98 FR! 14:49
FEIL PETTIT ~tLLI6~$
F~ ~0, 9775109
?. 04/05
I ATTACHMENT C I
5. Nodding herein sha]l bc construed to rcqukc Crossroads, i5 ~C~s~ o:
assi~s, w conic ~c ~tion
i~ c~t l~n. Nor s~ll C~ssroa~
Facility ~ a co~c~cn~ of NO~C's
6. 'IlliS agreement is binding upon the guccessors and assigns of the parties
hereto_ and may not be ~.ssigned by NGVFC without the prior written consent of Crossroads,
which it may for any reason withhold.
7_ Each party hereto warrants that this Agreement has been properly authorized
by its Board of Directors, and its President is authorized to execute this A~eement.
WITNESS the following signatures:
NORTH GARDEN VOLUNTEER
FIRE COMPANY, INC.
By
NORTH GARDEN CROSSROADS, INC.
Its President an~gcnt
~UO.r-28-98'FRI ]4:48
FEIL PETTIT NILLI~HS FGX HO. 9776109
P. 01/05
I ATTACHIflENT C I
FEIL, PETTIT & WILLIAMS, P.L.C.
CATNEl~NE L wOMACK
RICHARD HOWAP, D.SMITH
FRED G. WOOD. lg,
530 E. MAIN STREET
CI-IARI.OTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902
FAX TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM
Greg Kampmer, F~q.
A~s~istant Count' Attorney
TO:
COMPANY:
PHONE:
9724068
David B. Franz~n. Esq.
August 28, I998
5 (hncludirlg this cover page)
North Omx:tca Volunteer Fire Company, Inc.
Draft Agreemenz; Draft Letter to Board of Supervisors
Greg: Please review the attached and let me know your thoughts. Thanlcs.
FROM:
DATE:
NUMBER OF PAGES:
RE:
CONTENTS:
COMMENTS:
CLIENT NO_:
FACSIMILE
(804) 977-5109
YOU HAVE RECF~VED THIS FACSIMILE 1N EP. ROK PLEASE NOTIFY US LMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHON"E AND P~-f ~RN
THE ENTi~E FACSIMILE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VL~ U.S. M~dL. THANK YOU.
flUC,--28-@8'FRI 14:50 FElL PETTIT NILLIfli'~q F/iX HO. 9775109 P. 05/05
Board of Supervisors
Count)' of Albemarle
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville. VA 22901
ATTACHMENT
North Garden Cro~roads, Inc_
Post Office Box [43
North Garden, VA 22959
September 1, 199g
Re: North Garden Volunteer Fire Commnv~ Inc.; Septic
Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors:
I understz~d that the Board is currently considering a request by the North Garden
Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. CNGVFC") [o expand its building located on Plank Road,
North G~, Virginia. I further under~tand that an alternative to NGVFC'a current se-pile
Lvstem is necessary, in the event its current system tails,
This leuer is to eonf'm~ that North Garden Crossroads. Inc. CCrossroads~) is willing
to allow NGVFC to tie into Crossroads' sewage treatment facility, under the terms and
conOidons contained in the enclosed Agreement. I trust this Agreement is satisfactory for
your purposes.
Please let me know if you have an)' questions.
VeD' truly yout's.
D AFT
Werner Hambsch
President
Enclosures
cc: North Garden Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. (wlencl)
09/04/g8, FRI 55:25 FAX 804 972 4310 T J Health Dls~rlat - . . ~00I~
IATTACHMENT D I
COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRGINIA
in Coooerati~n with the
State Department of Health
Office of Environmental Health
Phone (804) 972-6259
FAX (804) 972-4310
Thomas Jefferson Health Distr~ct
1138 Rose Hill Drive
P, O. Box 7546
Charlottesville, Virginia 22906
TO:
FROM:
F~c Morrisette
AIbemarle County Senior Pla.an~
Bnvironm~ntal Health Specialist Senior
DATE:
Septcmb~4,1998
SUBJECT: North Ga.tclgn Fire I)cpamaent
This mctoo is in response to your request from the health dc'pat for the approval of
thc North Garden Fire Department to usc an existing sewage treatment system, presently
serving the North G-arden Shppping Cemer. It is toy understanding that thfs connection
will only take place should there be a failurc of the present septic system serving the
ftreJ~ous¢.
The loea~ health department sees no problem using tbs treaummt phnt as a backup for
th~ existiug septic systeto serving the firehouse, should thc septic system ever ~,
However, this agreement among the two pa~ies involved should also include Dcpartmem~
of Environmental Quality (DBQ) since they are the agency that issued the permit for the
sewage treatment plmt. Likewise, I believe the operator of the sewage plant should l~avc
sufficient capacity for this hook up where considcrin~ future pla~s for expan~i.on of the
shopping center.
i ~ha]l be more tha~ happy to discuss this or any other related matu~rs with you. I can be
reached at (804) 972-6259.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mctntire Road
Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596
{804) 296-5823
August 27, 1998
Brent Nelson
Roudabush, Gale & Associates
914 Monticello Road
Charlottesville. vA 22902
SP-98-36 North Garden Fire Department
SP-98-40 North Garden Fire Department
SDP-8-088 north Garden Fire Department Major Amendment
Tax Map 99, Parcel 5D
Dear Mr. Nelson:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 25, 1998 took the
following actions:
SP-98-36 North Garden Fire Department - Unanimously recommended approval to the Board
of Supervisors subject to the following conditions:
1. Albemarle County Engineering approval of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.
Water quality measures shall be provided subject to the approval of the Water Resources
Manager.
The final site plan should reflect any changes to the floodplain and floodway limits, and the
applicant must provide compmations supporting any such changes, as well as cop~es of the
correspondence demonstrating FEMA approval of the revised floodplain: and,
In an effort to minimize environmental degradation, no soil shall be removed from the
South Branch Creek flood plain to compensate for any fill.
Page 2
August 27, 1998
SP-98-40 North Garden Fire Department - Unanimously recommended approval to the Board
of Supervisors subject to the following conditions
Noise generated from subordinate uses and/or fund-raising activities shall not exceed forty
[40] decibels at the nearest agricultural or residential property line.
No subordinate uses and/or fund-raising activities shail be conducted between 11:00 p.m.
and 8:00 a.m..
3. The expansion of the fire department is limited to 2,500 gross square feet;
4. Architectural Review Board Issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness; and,
5. Issuance of a building permit is contingent upon Health Department approval of primary
and secondary drainfields or other adequate sewage disposal.
SI~P-98-088 north Garden Fire Department Major Amendment - Unanimously approved.
Staff will insure the availability and maintenance of the parking, including appropriate easements,
with the administrative approval of this final site plan.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Superv/sors will review SP-98-36 and
SP-98-40 and receive public comment at their meeting on September 16~ 1998. 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 hearing date
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Eric Morrisette
Planer
EM/jcl
Cc~
Ella Carey Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey North Garden Fire Department
SDP 98-088 North Garden Fire Company, Inc. Maior Site Plan Amendment:
The proposal is for a 2,500 square foot addition to the existing fire station with associated parking
(Attachment A). The Site Review Committee has reviewed the proposed development [SDP 98-
088] and has identified that a modification of Section 4.12.4 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for
cooperative parking requires Planning Commission authorization. With Planning Commission
approval of this requested modification, SDP 98-088 can be approved administratively.
The applicant is requesting to construct a portion of the required parking on an adjacent property
owned by the applicant (Attachment F). The construction of the proposed addition will remove
17 parking spaces on the fire station parcel. The applicant proposes to use the exisfmg parking
spaces on the adjacent post office. The applicant has provided evidence that the parking can be
provided on the adjacent property (Attachment F). The Zoning Department has reviewed this
request and states "Although this addition will remove some parking spaces on the fire company's
parcel, the parking shared with the post office ... will still meet our requirements for the area of
assembly and for the vehicles of the volunteer fire fighters as well as the Post Office requirements"
(Attachment K). Planning Staff agrees that the provision of proposed parking exceeds the
minimum parking requkements for both the fire station and the post office.
Recommended Action:
Staff opinion is that the proposed parking location is consistent with the provisions of Section
4.12.4 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval. Staffwill insure the availability and
maintenance of the parking, including appropriate easements, with the administrative approval of
this final site plan.
Attachments:
A - Site Plan
B - Tax Map
C - Location Map
D - Applicant's Special Use Permit Request and Justification
E - Applicant's Special Use Permit Request and Justification
F - Cooperative Perking Request and Justification
G - Section 30.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance
H - Section 1.4.4 of the Zoning Ordinance
I - Section 5:1.9 of the Zoning Ordinance
J - Engineering Memo Dated August 17, 1998
K - Zoning Memo Dated August 13, 1998
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
Eric L. Morrisette
August 25, 1998
September 16, 1998
SP 98-36 NORTH GARDEN FIRE COMPANY, INC.,
SP 98-40 NORTH GARDEN FIRE COMPANY~ INC., and
SDP 98-088 NORTH GARDEN FIRE DEPARTMENT MAJOR srrE PLAN
AMENDMENT
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL:
The applicant is propos'mg to construct a 2,500 square foot addkion to the exist'mg fire station.
Attachment A is a reduced copy of the site plan.
PETITION:
SP 98-36 North Garden Fire Company, Inc.
North Garden Fire Company, Inc. petitions the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use permit
to allow for fill to be located in the 100 year flood plain of the South Branch Creek, which is a
tributary to the North Fork Hardware River [Section 30.3.5.2.2 of the Zoning Ord'mance]. The
fill is associated with an addition to be constructed on a 39,000 square foot parcel zoned VR,
Village Residential (Attachment D). The addition will provide three additional bays for the
existing firehouse. Property, described as Tax Map 99, Parcel 5D, is located on the southeastern
side of Plank Road [State Route 692], across from the Crossroads Country Store and adjacent to
the North Garden Post Office (Attachment B). This site is located in the Samuel Miller
Magisterial District and is not located within a designated growth area.
SP 98-40 North Garden Fire Company, Inc.
North Garden Fire Company, Inc. petitions the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use permit
to make the existing non-conforming fire station a conforming use in the V'fllage Residential
Zoning District, to allow for an expansion [Section 12.2.2.3 of the Zoning Ordinance]
(Attachment E). Additional description is provided above;
SDP 98-088 North Garden Fire Companw Inc. Maior Site Plan Amendment
Applicant seeks Planning Commission approval to allow for cooperative parking with the adjacent
post office [Section 4.12.4 of the Zoning Ordinance] (Attachment F). Additional description is
provided above.
CHARACTER OF AREA:
The property is located on the southeastern side of Plank Road [State Route 692] (Attachment
C). Adjacent property to the north, across Plank Road, is the location of Crossroads Country
Store zoned C-1, Commercial. Vacant property zoned VR, Village Residential, surrounds the fire
department property and the post office to the east, south, and west.
This site is the location of an exisfmg fire station of approximately 3,500 square feet. The original
site was filled to allow for the construction of the fire station and the adjacent post office. The
prior fill altered the 100 year flood plain of the South Branch Creek, thus placing the existing
structures entirely above the 100 year flood plain. The Federal Emergency Management Agency
[FEMA] flood maps never accurately reflected the alterations to the flood plain. The applicant
has filed an application with FEMA to update the flood maps.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
This area is located in the Rural Areas as designated in the Comprehensive Plan. The Rural Areas
zoning district provides for three general categories of commercial/service uses: 1)
agricultural/forestal uses; 2) tourism uses; and 3) basic support uses. A fire station would fall
under the category of basic support use, which is intended to provide limited support to remote
rural/agricultural populations. It is worth noting that, until themost recent adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan, this area had been designated as a Village [North Garden] and the fire
station was an identified use on the Village Land Use Map.
OPEN SPACE AND CRITICAL RESOURCES PLAN:
This area is class'riled as a Major and Locally Important Stream Valley. Because this area has
been subject to prior filling and the intrusion into the stream valley is limited, stalThas determined
that this proposal will not result in a loss of aesthetic value.
COMMUNITY FACILITIES PLAN 1990-2000:
The Community Facilities Plan recognizes that the "East Rivanna, North Garden, and Scottsville
stations are currently deficient in bay space". The plan thus recommends to "provide additional
bay space at stations based on the standards in the plan". This acknowledgment and
recommendation is consistent with the applicant's expansion proposal. The additional bay space
more than satisfies the recommendations of the Community Facilities Plan.
PLANNING AND ZONING H~STORY:
SDP 294 North Garden Fire House Site Plan - Albemarle County approved a site plan
prior to the 1980 Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the existing station is non-conforming.
The site plan is essentially a "sketch plan" according to current Zoning Ordinance
standards. The approval dates on the plan are illegible. The original building was
2. Consistent with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ord'mance;
3. Consistent with prior use of the facility;
4. Consistent with the Community Facilities Plan 1990-2000:
5. The proposed use will not cause substantial detriment to adjacent properties;
The proposed use is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance
[1.4.4];
7. The proposed use is consistent with the additional regulations in Section 5.1.9 of the
Zoning Ordinance;
8. The provision fire protection promotes increased public safety; and,
9. The proposed use will not change the character of the district.
Staffhas not idenfffied any factors which are unfavorable to this request.
Recommended Action:
Staffrecommends approval to allow for conforming use of a fire station in the Village Residential
District.
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1. Noise generated from subordinate uses and/or fund-raising activities shall not exceed forty
[40] decibels at the nearest agricultural or residential property line;
2. No subordinate uses and/or fund-rais'mg activities shall be conducted between 11:00 p.m.
and 8:00 a~m,;
3. The expansion of the fire department is limited to 2,500 gross square feet;
4. Architectural Review Board Issuance ora Certificate of Appropriateness; and,
5. Issuance of a building permit is contingent upon Health Department approval of primary
and secondary drainfields or other adequate sewage disposal.
constructed in 1971-1972, with the construction of an addition in 1978. The major
amendment under review will adhere to current site plan standards set forth by the
provisions of the Zoning Ord'mance.
VA 98-22 North Garden Fire Department - The Board of Zoning Appeals approved a side
setback variance on August 04, 1998. The eight [8] foot variance allowed for relief of the
15 foot side yard setback [Section 12.3 of the Zoning Ordinance]. With issuance of the
variance, the building and additions can be constructed as close as 7 feet from the side
property line. The proposed addition complies with the standards of the approved
variance.
REASON FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW:
Filling in the flood plain requires special use permit approval by the Board of Supervisors [Section
30.3.2 of the Zomg Ordinance]. Board of Supervisor's approval is also necessary to allow for
the expansion of the fire station in the Village Residential Zoning District [Section 12.2.2.3 of the
Zoning Ordinance]. In accord with Section 4.12.4 of the parking regulations of the Zoning
Ordinance, the Commission must act on the applicant's request for cooperative parl6ng.
STAFF COMMENT:
Staffwill comment on the special use permits and site plan modification request separately.
SP 98-36 Virginia Fire Company, Inc.:
Recommendation:
Staffhas reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the
Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval subject to conditions.
Staff Analysis:
The applicant is requesr'mg to fill in the South Branch Creek 100 year flood plain IA tributat~y to
the North Fork Hardware Riverj to raise the budding pad above the 100 year flood plain, No
structures would exist within the flood plain. The applicant's request and justification are
attached as Attachment D.
The Zoning Department has reviewed this request and recognizes that the filling of the flood plain
"...is the only way this building can expand" (Attachment K). The Zoning Ordinance does not
allow for any building to be ut'dized for human habitation or storage of machinery and vehicles in
the Flood Hazard Overlay District. With approval of SP 98-40 to allow for conforming use, the
Zoning Department supports this request as meeting Zoning Ordinance requirements for this use.
The analysis of the criteria under Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance is provided by Staff
through the review of Section 30.3 of the Zoning Ordinance [Flood Hazard Overlay District].
The intent of the Flood Hazard Overlay District [Section 30.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance] is
attached as Attachment G. It states "These provisions are intended to restrict the unwise use...
which may result in: danger to life and property; public costs for flood control measures and/or
rescue and relief efforts; soil erosion, sedimentation and siltation; pollution of water resources;
and general degradation to natural and man-made environment". The Engineering Department has
reviewed this request in accordance with Section 30.3.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance and has
revealed no substantial detriment to life, property, and public costs for flood control. The
Engineering Department has provided comments regarding the proposed fill in the flood plain
(Attachment J). The Engineering Department states that "...the anticipated improvements/fill
appear to be small in comparison to the channel cross-section of South Branch". Additionally, the
Engineering Department finds the fill to be minor, because the fill is occurring in an area that is
already impervious and the total fill material is only 1,200 cubic feet. Therefore, Engineering
believes that the proposed fill will not significantly affect the floodpla'm limits A complete flood
plain analysis will be required as a condition of the final site plan. An Erosion Control Plan will
also be required, addressing erosion, siltation, and sedimentation (Condition 1). Pollution of
water resourceswill be reviewed by the Water Resources Manager (Condition 2).
Planning Staffagrees with the Engineering Department's analysis that the proposed t511 ',vii1 be
insignificant, because the fill is very small in comparison to the total channel and overbank cross-
section of South Branch Creek. Planning staffaddifionally finds this proposal to be consistent
with the provisions of Section 30.3 of the Zoning Ordinance and Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends approval to allow for grading within the flood plain of South Branch Creek.
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1. Albemarle County Engineering approval of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan;
Water quality measures shall be provided subject to the approval of the Water Resources
Manager;
The final site plan should reflect any changes to the floodplain and floodway limits, and the
applicant must provide computations supporting any such changes, as well as copies of the
correspondence demonstrating FEMA approval of the revised floodplain; and,
In an effort to minimize environmental degradation, no soil shall be removed from the
South Branch Creek flood plain to compensate for any fill.
SP 98-40 North Garden Fire Company, Inc.:
Recommendation:
Staffhas reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the
Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval subject to conditions.
StaffAnalysis:
Staffwill 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,
Staff opinion is that the fire station, with the proposed addition, will not be of substantial
detriment to adjacent property. The exisfmg fire station has coexisted in harmony with the
adjacent Crossroads Country Store and the adjacent Post Office for many years. The fire station
use is a well-established use and has long been a major emergency service provider in the North
Garden area.
The applicant has received a side setback variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals on August
04, 1998. The eight [8] foot variance allowed for relief of the 15 foot side yard setback [Section
12.3 of the Zoning Ordinance]. With issuance of the variance, the building and additions can be
constructed as close as 7 feet from the side property line. The proposed addition complies with
the standards of the approved variance. Stafffmds the construction within the side setback to
have no detrimental impact to adjacent property, as the construction materials will be properly/ire
rated.
that the character of the district w'tll not be changed thereby,
Village Residential areas are characterized by small, compact development that permits related
non-residential development in order to increase the vitality and attractiveness of such areas as a
living environment. No change to the character of the district is expected as a result of the special
use permit, especially since the fire station has been in existence at this location for over 17 years.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
The proposed use is expected to be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning
Ordinance. Staffhas reviewed the Zoning Ordinance as stated Sections 1.4, 1.5, and t .6 with
particular reference to Sections 1.4.4 (Attachment H). Section 1.4.4 of the Zoning Ordinance,
states the purpose and intent is "To facilitate the provision of adequate police and fire protection".
All of these provisions address, in one form or another, the provision of public services. Fire
service clearly provides a public sepace as evidenced by the long history associated with this
facility. Based on the provision ora public service, staffopinion is that this request is in harmony
with the purpose and intent of these sections of the Ordinance.
with the uses permitted by right in the district,
Fire stations are important facilities for all populations and population concentrations. Therefore,
the fire station use would be in harmony with the compact development uses of the Village
Residential District.
with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance,
Section 5.1.9 of the Zoning Ordinance provides additional regulations. The regulations are
attached as Attachment I. Section 5.1.9a states that %.. the Commission shall find that the
proposed service area is not already adequately served by another such fac'flity.' Staffreiterates
that this is an existing facility for which expa~ion is necessary, to continue to adequately serve the
North Garden area.
The applicant does not anticipate events such as bingo, but does allow for occasional community
events such as the community fundraisers. The Zoning Department has reviewed this request and
states that "The accessory use of the building for community groups and fund raising events is
considered a customary incidental activity for a fire company and needs no separate approval"
(Attachment K). Section 5.1.9b provides supplemental regulations that address subordinate uses
and fund-raising activities Conditions are attached to address these provisions (Conditions 1, 2,
and 3).
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The provision of fire service facilities may be considered consistent with the public health and
safety and general welfare by providing increased services in the event of emergencies. The
existing facility has never created an adverse impact to public, health, safety and general welfare.
The Virginia Depa~hnent of Transportation [VDOT] and the Engineering Departments have
reviewed this proposal and have determined that no frontage improvements are necessary with
this proposal. Additionally, the Site Review Committee has identified no adverse affect on public
health, safety, and general welfare.
Summary:
Staffhas identified the following factors which are favorable to this request:
1. Consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan;
l A'PTACHI'4ENT B i
ALBEMARLE GOUNTY
35
......... . SCOTTS~LLE AND
.~__ ~ ..... _ SAMUEL M1LLER DISTRICTS SECTION 99
TOP
SDP 98-36
NORTH GARDEN FIRE DEPT. FIRE STATION
Coun~ of Albe..arle
I AT, TACHIqENT D 1
Department of Builmng Code and Zoning S~ :~
Application for Special Use Permit
*Existing Use FIRE STATION
*Zonin~ District VR
*staff will ~sist you with these items
NORTII GARDEN FIRE DEPARTMENT-PROPDSED B~DIX¢"zr · '~ ADD 17~,.).'::
30.3. ~. 2 .Z~
*Zo~ng Ordinance Set,on number required ~- 1~. ~. ~ .~
Number of acres to be covered by Special Use Permit.rd ~om.., m~ ~....,~m o.p,~,, PORTION OF 2DLv 99-5D
I~ this an amendment to an e.'dstthg Special Use Permit?
Are you submitting a site development plan with this application?
2 Yes2~No
~ Yes3 No
Contact Person (Whom should we c~lb'~nte concerning m~s project? TOM GALE
Address 914 MONTICELLO ROAD City CHARLOTz~SVILLE State VA ZiF 22902
Daytime Phone 804 ) 977-0205 Fax# (80~,3 996-5770 E-mail r_~ainc¢cstone.ne:
Owner of land As lis 6d in the Counry srecor~sK
Address P.O. BOX 38
DavtimePhone 804 971-i583
NORTH GARDEN FIRE ,~0MPANY, _NC.
City NORTH GARDEN State VA Zip
Fax # _E-mail
Applicant rWho Is the conmcz ~erson re~resennng ? Who ~s reauesung the s¢ectal use D:
Address P.O. BOX 33
Daytime Phone 804 971-1583 Fax =
NORTH GARDEN FIRE COM2Ahrt, INC.
City NOR%ii GARDEN State VA Zip22959
.E-mail
Tax map and parcel I242 99-5D
Physical Address lif a~signee~
Locationofproperty¢landmarks. mtemecuons, oromer CROSSROADS. U.S.ROUTE 29 SOUTH
Does the owner of this propert~ own or have any ownership interest mi any a!put!ln~ property? If ye~, please hst
those trax mao and parcei numbers ~P 99-59 ~q-~
I-Iismry: 2 Soecial Use~Pe.nnlts: '~'~ ~' ~'] ZMAs and Proffers: ~'-------~'7
Concurrent review of Site Development Plan?
Letter of Authorization
Yes '~$No
401 Mctntire Road -:' Charlottesville. VA 22902 -:- Votce. _96-~8~_ -:- Fax: 972-4126
I ATTACHMENT Dj
j~age 21
Section 3112.4. I of the Albemarle Coun~ Zoning Ordinance states that. "The board of sup& ,i~arz
hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use perrmts permitted hereunder. Sr~eciai use
permits for uses as provided in th/s ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the board of sune~'isors
that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, that the character of the dismc:
will not be changed thereby and that such use will be m harmony with the purpose and intent of ¢2s
ordinance, with the uses permitted by right in the districu with additional regulations provided in secner.
5.0 of this ordinance, and with the public health, safe .fy and general welfare.
The items which follow will be reviewed by the staff in their analysis of your request. Please complete
tls form and provide additional informauon which will assist the Coun¢' in its review of your request.
If you need assistance filling out these items, staff is available.
What s the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property?
VILLAGE
Howwiiltheproposedspecialuseaffecra{mcentproperty? THE IM[PACT TO THE 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN WiLL BE
INSISNIFICANT IN TER~MS OF INCREASED FLOOD POTENTIAL TO ADJOINING PARCELS.
How will the proposed special use affect the character of the distr/ct surrounding the propert2/?
RELATIVELY INSIGNIFICANT SINCE USE IS NOT CHANGING
HowistheuseinharmonywithrhepurposeandintentoftheZoningOrdinance? THE USE IS ALLOWED BY THE
ZONING ORDINANCE. THE USE SERVES THE PUBLIC.
How is the use in narmony with the uses permitted by r/ght in the disrrict? THE USE SERVES THE PUBLIC.
What addinonal regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this use? RELATIVE TO GF~iDING
ACTIVITY REFEP~RED TO IN 5.I.28a, i A~YD 2, THIS WILL BE DEALT WITH ON THE SITE
REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY ENGINEERING DEP.~RTMENT.
How willthmusepromotethepublichealth, safery_andgeneralwelf~eofthecommumty? BY INCREASING
FIRE PROTECTION CAPABILITY.
t AT, TACHI'qENT D I
Describe your request m detail and include all perunent information such as the numbers c: Fer ..... e 3
involved in the use. operating hours, and any unique features of the use:_
OPERATING HOURS ARE VARIABLE AS zLRE THE NL~IBER OF PEOPLE ON CALL
(APPROXIMATELY 25)
ATTACH~MENTS REQUIRED - provide two(2) copies of each:
~ ~ t., Recorded plat or boundary survey of the property, requested for the rezoning. If there is
'~/~ f'ff'fl~ ~V/ no recorded plat or bound~ su~ey, plebe provide leg~ description of the prope~' ~d
· ~ ~"- '[~ ' ~_~e ~ed Book ~d pa~e number or Plat Book ~d pa~e number.
Note: ~ you ~e requesting a seeciaI use pemr only for a posen of the prope~', k
needs to be described or delineated on a copy of ~e plat or su~eyed ~aw~ng.
~ _. Ownership mfo~ation - If owne~p ef the property is in ~e nme of ~y ~pe of leg~
enti~ or org~izafion including, but not l~ted to. ~e nme of a co~oranon, p~nership
or ~sociauon. or in the nme of a ~st. or in a fictitious nme. a document acceptable ro
~e County must be sub~tted cem~ing ~at the persqn~i~n~elow~ ~e agthofiry
~f the a~Hc~t is a co~ract ~urch~er. a ~ument acceptable to ~e Counw must be
sub~t~ed conta~ the owner's w~mn consen~ to the a~p~cafiom
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:
~ 3. Drawings or conceptual plans, if any.
~ 4. Additional Information. if any.
t 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 information provided is true and accurate to the best of my
knowledge.
Printed Name
Date
Daytime phone number of Signatory
June 23, 1998
ROUDABUSH, GAI.E & ASSOC.. INC.
Albemarle County
]an $ Drinkle. DePuty Zoning Administrator
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville VA 22902
RE:
Special Use Permit Application for North Garden
Volunteer Fire Depar[men[
Deaf lan:
Relative to some issues you brought up in the pre-application meeting that are not specifically
dealt with on the application form, I have the roi]owing comments:
The new building addition will notqncluoe additional rest room facilities.
The existing volunteer fire c epartment building is not used for other activities sucn as bingo).
The existing stream is more than one nunoreo 10C feet away from the nearest property line.
Relative to me issues for which a special use oermit is being reouestea, ti~e two specific
reouests are so interdeDenuent that I felt one application would De acceptable. Please advise
me if this will not work. Regardless. it is my understanding the fee of S690.00 will cover the
two special use requests and the accompanying site plan filed with Planning;.
Please call if you nave ouestions or neeo additiona mormat]on, I wi[ be out of town from
June 26. 1998 thru july 3.1995. Please call me and ~eave a message with Brent. if you need to reacn
me ourmg this period.
Thank You
Tom Gate. LS.
/kc
Count of Albe~,,arle
OFFICE USE ONLY
s~ ~ - qO
Mag. D~st
I ATTACH I"IENT E
Department of guilumg Code and Zonin.~ S~[~:
Application for Special Use Permit
'etN .... North Garden Fire Deparnment - Proposed Buildin_= Addition
~ExisdngCse Fire Station
Proposed Use No Change
'Zoning District VR *Zoning Ordinance Section number requested
*staff will assist you with these items
Is this an amendment to an existine Special Use Permit?
Are you submitting a site development plan with this application?
2 Yes~e~o
~Yes2 No
12.2.2.3
Colll. actPerson{Whomsnouldwecalbwntecencemmgmmcroject?/ Tom Gale
Address 914 Monticello Road City Charlottesville State VA ~ip22902
~DaytirnePhone 804 ) 977-0205 Fax~(804) 296-5220 E-maiIrga~nc~csr°ne'
[ Owner of land ras listea in the County's recordsi: North Garden Fire Comoanv, Inc.
P.O. Box 33 North Garden
Address City State
VA 2295
Zip __
Da)timePhone 804 ) 971-1583 Fax# E-mail
Appl[Callt(Who~sthecontacrr>ersonreoresenung?Who~srequesungmesoecmluse~!: North Garden Fire Comoanv~ Inc.
Address P.O. Box 33 CityXlortln Garden State VA Zip22959
Daynme Phone ( 804 571-i583 Fax~ E-mail
Taxmapand parcel TM~99-5D
Physical Address d f ~s,gned~
Locationofproperly(lan0ma~ks. mtersecuons, oromcr~ Crossroads, U.S. Route 29 South
Does the owner of this property own or nave an5' ownership ~nrerest in any abutting property? If yes, ptease
those tax map and parcel numbers TMP99-5D
OFFICE USE ONLY
Fee amount~S~Date Prod ~ -- Check;g - Receipt ~ By:
~stoD': 2 Specml Use Permits, 2 ZMAs and Proffe~:
Concurrent revlew of Ske Development Piton'!
Letter of Authohzauon
Yes 21 No
40I Mclmire Road -:- Charlottes file. VA 22902 -:. Voice: 296-5832 ':' Fax: 972-4126
ATTACHMENT E
'Page 2~
Section 31:2.4.1 of the Albemarle County. Zoning Ordinance states that. "The board of superx i'~v.
hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. SDeciat 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 adiacent property, that the character of the dismc;
will not be changed therebl, and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and ~nrem of
ordinance, with the uses perrmtted by right in the district, with additional regulations provided in secnon
5.0 of this ordinance~ and with the public health, safety and general welfare,
The items which follow wilt be reviewed by the staff in their analysis of your request. Please comolete
this form and provide additional information which will assist the CourtLy in its review of your request.
If you need assistance filling out these items, staff is available.
What is He Comprenensive Plan demgnation for this property ? Village ResidenZial
HowwiliHeproposedspecialuseaffectadjacentproperr3? No effect on adjacenc property.
Howwitlmeproposedspec~ useaffectthech~acterof~edisthctsu~oundingHeproperty? No effect other
than to allow fire vehicles to be housed in ~arage rather than parked in
existing lot.
HowistheuseinharmonywithHepu~oseandmtentoftheZoningOrdinance?. Fire stations are allowed
with soecial use permit,
Howls ~euseinharmony wiHHeusespermittedbynghtinHedismct? The use serves the oublic
safety.
What addinonalregulationsprovidedinSection5.0ofrheZoning Ordin~ceapplytothisuse?_Noise restriction
(40 decibels) and hours of activitiy for subcrdina~e uses (no subordinate
activity 11:00 p.m. co 8:00 a.m.)
How willth~s ~epromotethepublichealH, sa~ty, andgencralwelf~eofHecommunity? By enhancin~ f%re
pro~ection for service area.
Describe your request in detail and include all pertinent information such asthe numbers of ce~l~ge 3!
involved in the use, operating hours, and any umque features of the use:
Requesn co expand existing communzrv fire station. Operating hours are .varzable
as are the number of people on call (approximately 255.
ATTACI~IENTS REQL'IRED - provide two(2) copies of each:
Recorded plat or boundary, survey of the property, requested for the rezonmg. If there is
no recorded plat or boundary, survey, please provide legal description of the prepexy mud
the Deed Book and page number or Plat Book and page number.
Note: If you are requesting a special use perrmt only for a portion of the pmpen3.,.
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, parmersinp
or association, or in the name of a trust, or in a fictitious name. a document acceptable
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 consent 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 ATTACHIvtENTS:
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 oehaif of the owner in
filing this application. I also certify that the information provided is true and accurate to the best of my
knowledge.
Printed Name
Date
Dayume phone number of Signatory.
ROUDABUSH. G.A; .F. 8,: ASSOC., INC.
I ATTACHMENT F I
Memorandum
To:
Jan Sprinkle
Department of Building Codes and Zoning Services
From: Brent W. Nelson
Date: June 29, 1998
Subject: North Garden Fire Department
Site Plan
As you will nome on nne szme plan, mhere are 64 parking spaces
currently on this site. Fifteen of these spaces would need to be
eliminated as a resulm of this proposed projecm; ~hereby, leaving
us wlth amota! of ~9 spaces. There are currently only 25
volunteers assocmaned with this departmenm; mammng the 49 spaces
more than adequame - even with mhe posc office branch being
!scaned Dm mhe same sz~e.
We are aware of the facm that the proposed building addition as
in violation of the 15 foot side yard setback; therefore, we will
be applying for a varlance. We will be filing this by the Ju!v 5
deadline, which means that it will be on the BZA agenda for
August 4. This should work ouu Well since the planning commisslon
meeting for our special use oermzt will also be on August 4.
Please call should you have any quesnmons Dr concerns.
RECEIVED
JUN 2 9 199
Pt n, ,, ,g Dept.
30.2.6
30.3
30.3.1
ATTACHMENT G I
agell
Plats or plans of lands within the noise impact area
approved by any Albemarle County official shall prominently
display a disclosure statement that such plat or plan
includes land and or buildings within =h~ AiA noise Lmmact
area.
ACCOUSTICAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Maximum Interior
Land Use Category Noise Levels [dB (a~'
Residential Ldn <45
Public and quasi-public use:
School Ldn <45
Library Ldn <45
Church Ldn <45
Hospital Ldn <45
Auditorium, concert hall, etc. Ldn <45
Parks and recreation, sports arena Ldn <70
Office Ldn <55
Commercial
Retail Ldn <55
Movie theatre Ldn <55
Hotel, motel Ldn <55
Distribution, isdustry Ldn <70
Manufacturing and assembly industry Ldn <70
CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT, BONUS FACTORS
No cluster development or bonus level provisions or
regulations will be permitted unless the commission shall
determine that such development will reduce ~r be equzvaient
to hazard and or noise impacts anticipated under standard
level-conventional development of the underlying zoning
district.
FLOOD HAZARD O'~ERLAY DISTRICT
INTENT
tt is intended that the flood hazard overlay district hereby
and hereafter created shall be for the purpose of providing
safety and protection from flooding. More specifically,
these provisions are intended no restrict the unwise use,
development and occupancy of lands subject no inundatlon
which may result in: danger to life and property; public
costs for flood control measures and/or rescue and relief
efforts; soil erosion, sedimentation and siltation:
pollution of water resources; and general degradation of the
natural and man-made environment.
It is further intended that these provlsions shall be
adequate for qualification and continuation of Albemarle
County on the regular program of the National Flood
-180-
30.3.2
30.3.2.1
I ATTACHMENT
~nsurance Program as administered by the Federal insura~
Administration. To these ends, provzslons have been
developed in accordance with regulations governing 5he
regular program.
APPLICATION
DEFINITIONS--GENERALLY
The flood hazard overlay district shall include all areas
subjecn to inundation by the waters of the one hundred year
flood. The source of this delineation shall be the flood
insurance study for the County of Albemarle. Virginia, as
prepared by the Federal Insurance Administration Federal
Emergency Management Agency, dated June 16, 1980.
The flood hazard overlay district shall be comprised cf
three subdistricts as follows:
Floodway (Fl): That portion of the flood hazard
overlay district re_cfuired to carry and discharge the
waters of the one hundred year flood without increasing
the water surface elevation at any point more than one
(1) foot above ex!sting conditions, as demonstrated in
the flood insurance study referenced above.
Floodway Fringe {F2): Those portions of land within
the flood hazard overlay district subject to inundatlon
by the one hundred year flood, lying beyond the
floodway in areas where detailed study data and
profiles are available.
Aooroximated Flood Plain (F3): Those portions of land
within the flood hazard overlay district subject nc
inundation by the one hundred year flood, where a
detailed study has not been performed but where a one
hundred year flood plain boundary has been
approximated.
Development for the purposes cf this section only,
shall mean any man-made change uo improved or
unimproved real esmate, including but not limited to
buildings or other s=rucuures, mining, dredging,
filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling
operatlons.
Substantial improvement, for the purposes of this
section only, shall mean any repair, reconstruction
or improvement of a s~ruc~ure, the cost of which
equals or exceeds fifty (50) percenn of the market
value of the snrucuure either (1) before the improve-
menu or repair is started, or (2) if the structure
has been damaged, the market value before the damage
occurred. For the purpose of this definition
-181-
IATTACHMENT H !
1.4.1
1.4.7_
1.4.3
1.4.4
! .4.5
1.4.6
1.4.7
1.4.8
1.4.9
1,4.10
1.4.11
1.5
future development of the community, that the zoning ordinance of
Albemarle County, together with the official zoning map adopted by
reference and declared to be a parc of this ordinance, is designed:
To ~rovide for adequate light, air, convenience of access cna safety
from fire, flood and other dangers;
To reduce or prevent congestion in the public stree%s~
To facilitate the creation of a convenienn, attractive and harmonious
community;
To facilitate the provision of adequate police and fire protection.
disaster evacuation, civil defense, transportation, water, sewerage,
flood protection, schools, parks, forests, playgrounds, recreational
facilities, airports and other public requirements;
To orotect against destruction of or encroachment upon historic areas;
To proneot against one or more of the following: overcrowding of
land. undue density of population in relation to the community faci-
lities ex~sting or available, obstruction of light and air. danger and
congestion in travel and transportation, or loss of life. health, or
proper%y from fire, flood, panlc or other dangers;
To encourage economic development activities that provide desirable
emplo.vment and enlarge the tax base; (Amended 929-92)
To provide for the preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and
other lands of s~snificance for the protection of the natural environ-
ment; (Amended 9-9-92)
To protect approach slopes and other safety areas of licensed air-
ports, including United States gove~Tnnent and military air facilities;
(Added 11-1-89; Amended 9-9-92~
To include reasonable provisions, not inconsis~en~ with the applicable
state waner quality sLan~ards %o protect surface water and groundwater
defined in section 52.1-44.85(8) of the Code of Virginia; and (.Added
1!-t-89; Amended 9-9-92
%o oromote affordable housing. (Added 9-9-92)
RFtATION TO ENVIRONMENT
This ordinance is designed to treat lands which are similarly situated
and environmentally similar in like manner with reasonable considera-
tion for the ex~stin§ use and character of properties, the Comprehen-
sive Plan, the suitability of property for various uses, the trends of
growth or change, the current end future land and water requirements
of the community for various purposes as determined by population and
economic studies and other studies, the transportation requirements of
the co.unity, and the requirements for airports, housing, schools.
parks, playgrounds, recreation areas and other public services; for
-2- (Supp. #68, 9-9-92)
5.1.9
5.1.10
5.1.11
Exits and aisles and'passageways shall be Kept
adequately lighted at ali times when open to uno
public. Artificial lights shall be provlded whenever
natural light is inadequate.
FIRE, kMBUL~NCE, RESCUE SQUAD STATION VOLUNTEER
Any such use seeking public funding shall De reviewed
by the commission in accordance with section 31.2.5.
Specifically, the commission shall find that 5he
proposed service area is not already adequately served
by another such facility, in addition, the commission
shall consider: growth pctentiai for the area:
relationship to centers of population and tc hi,h-value
property concentrations: and access to and adequacy cf
public roads in the area for such use. The co~!sslon
may request recommendation from the Albemarle County
fire official and other appropriate agencies in its
review:
Such subordinate uses and fund-raising activities as
bingo, raffles and auctions shall be conducted in an
enclosed building only. Noise generated from such
activity shall not exceed forty [40) decibels at the
nearest agricultural or residential prcperzy line. Nc
such activity shall be conducted between !i:00 p.m. and
8:00 a.m.
JUNK YARDS
All storage and operational areas shall be enclosed by
a solid, !i~ht-tight, sightly fence not less than eight
,8 feet in height or alternative screening and/or
fencing satisfactory to the commission;
b. Storage yards and access to public roads shall be
maintained in a dus~-free surface.
COMMERCIAL KENNEL, VETERINARY, ~NIMAL HOSPITAL
Except where animals are confined in soundproofed, air-
conditioned buildings, no structure or area occupied by
animals shall be closer than five hundred (500) feet to
any agricultural or residential io5 line. For non-
soundproofed animal confinements, an external solid
fence not less than slx (6) feet in height shall be
located within fifty (50) feet cf the animal confine-
ment and shall be composed of concrete block, brick, or
other material approved by the zoning administrator:
IA mended 11-15-89)
-62- (Supp. %52, 11-15-89)
CTTACHM ENT '~
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Engineering & Public Works
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
. ~N
Eric Morriserte, Planner -
Andrd S. Williams. Senior Engineer
17 August 1998
North Garden Fire Department - Major Amendment (& SDP-98-088'.
The Major Site Plan Amendment received 30 July 1998 has been reviewed. The previous
comment has been addressed. Therefore Albemarle County Engineering recommends
preliminary approval of the major amendment.
The applicant shouid be reminded that although the anticipated improvements/fill appear to be'
small in comparison to the channel cross-section of South Branch. detailed analysis of the
channel will be necessary, to confirm the impact m the present or potentially revised floodplain
limits.
Final approval will be subject to review of all relevant final requirements and the following
conditions: [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is ro the Zoning
Ordinance unless otherwise specified]
[32.6. 6] Albemarle Coumy Engineering approval of grading plans. Provide a flood plain
analysis of the additional encroachment impact to the flood plain elevation. (Note: The
building tbtmdation may not be used as a floodwall3
l'32. 7.4.3,] Albemarle County Engineering approval of an erosion control plan, in the
event greater than 10,000 SF is disturbed or required by the Planning Commission.
C. FEMA approval of the LOMA application.
If you have any questions concerning this subject, please contact Jack Kelsey or me at 296-5861.
ASW/
Building Code Information
804~ 296-5832
COUNTY OF ALBEMARI ,E
Deparlrnent of Building Code and Zoning Services
401 McIntire Road. Room 223
Charlottesville. Virgima 22902-4596
FAX 804 972-4126
'FFD 804~ 972.4012
fATTACHMENT K
7onmg lnformauon
804 296-5875
MEMORANDUM
TO: Eric Morrisette. Planner
FROM: Jan Sprinkle. Chief of Zoning Administration ~
DATE: August 13, 1998
RE: SP 98-36 and SP 98-40, North Garden Fire Company, Inc.
SP 98-36: This method of filling an area so that there is a building pad at a higher
elevation than the known flood elevation is the only way this building can expana The
zoning ordinance does not allow construction of any building to be utilized for humar
habitation or storage of machinery and vehicles in the flood hazard overlay zone. This
oermit may be approved separately from SP 98-40. but it would be meaningless for the
fire company since they may not expand the building unless the use of the building
becomes conforming.
SP 98-40: The No,th Garden Fire Corn pany has existed in this ocation anc served the
community for many years. Since the adoption of the current zoning ordinance, the use
has been nonconforming. This special use permit will make the use conform and allow
the desired expansion The addition will allow them to enclose and protect some of the
fire fighting ec~uipmem that is currently kept outside in the parking lot. Although this
acidition will remove some parking spaces on the fire company's parcel, the parking
shared with the Post Office on what appears as one site will still meet our requirement
for the area of assembly aPd for the vehicles of the volunteer fire fighters as well as the
Post Office requirements..The accessory use of the building for community grouos and
fund raising events is considered a customarily incidental activity for a fire company and
nee(~s no separate approval:_ The supplemental regulations (Section 5.1.9) wil control
the volume of noise allowed and the hours of operation to insure that the use is in
harmony with the district. If this permit is approved but SP 98-36 not approved, the fire
company could only expand if it could find land outside the flood olain on which to build.
September 3 1998
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596
804) 296-5823
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Mark Watson
115 Wildflower Drive
Charlottesville. VA 22911
RE: SP 98-37 Ivy Investments Limited Partnership
Dear Mr. Watson:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 1, 1998,
unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of
Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
Engineering Department approval of phasing plan to insure adequate erosion
control;
2. Engineering Department approval of drought and disease tolerant turf materials:
Engineering Department approval of stream buffer areas including all activity within
stream buffers such as but not limited to enhanced plantings, fairway/pail'
crossings;
Engineering Department approval of runoff treatment systems, including monitoring
and reporting procedures and approval of any changes in the systems:
Engineering Department approval of turf management systems. ~ncluding
monitoring and reporting procedures and approval of any changes in the systems;
Engineering Department approval of storage and spill containment systems for all
hazardous materials including but not limited to: fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides.
fungicides, and fuel;
Engineering Department approval of water quality monitoring program, and
reporting procedures;
Mark Watson
Page 2
September 3, 1998
The serving of food and refreshments shall be limited to those individuals utilizing
the golf course or driving range;
9. No grading/clearing or other land disturbing activity above the 900 foot elevation:
10. No residential development shall be permitted:
11.
Planning Department approval, q conjunction with site plan review, of minimum
setbacks, landscaped and earthen buffers, and similar improvements, designed to
address visual and noise impacts of the golf course on Tax Map 73, Parcel 27.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition
and receive public comment at their meeting on September 16, 1998. 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 hearing date.
tf you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please
dc not hesitate to contact me at (804) 296-5823 ext. 3385#.
William D. Fritz, AICP
Senior Planner
WDF/bib
Ivy Investments Limited Partnership
Donald W. Foster
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
William D. Fritz, AICP
September 1, 1998
September 16, 1998
SP 98-37 IW Investment Ltd. Ptrn.
Applicant's Proposal:
The applicant is proposing to consa-uct aa 18 hole golf course with a driving range on proper~ located south
of the Ivy Landfill.
Petition:
Petition to establish a golf course on approximately 250 acres zoned PA, Rural Areas in accord with the
provisions of section t 0.2.2(4) of the Zoning Ordmanco. Property described, as Tax Map 73, Parcel 27G is
located on the south side of Route 637 (Dick Woods Rd.) opposite the Ivy Laadfill in the Samuel Miller
Magisterial District. This site is not located within a designated development areal
Character of the Area.'
The Ivy Landfill is located north of this site. The propcuxy proposed for the golf course is primarily wooded
with some open pasture land. The property rises fi.om Route 637 to the top of Taylors Mountain. The golf
course area is at the base aad side slopes of Taylors Mountain. A single family dwelling, on a parcel not
included in the golf course request, is completely surrounded by the golf course property. Scattered
residential development is on Route 637.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staffhas reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the ordinance and
recommends approval.
Plannine and Zonine History:
There is no history of County action on this site.
Comprehensive Plan:
This site is located in the Rural Areas of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan, notes the
following resources on this site: Critical Slopes, Mountain Resource Area (above the 900 foot contour). This
site is located m the South Fork Rivaana Reservoir watershed. The layout of the proposed golf course is such
that no activity is proposed above the 900 foot contour. Therefore, this proposal is not in conflict with the
Mountain ReSource Area. However, areas of critical slopes will be disturbed by the proposed golf course
This disturbance of critical slopes, particularly in the Reservoir watershed, may be considered inconsistent
with the designation of critical slopes as a resource. At this tune the exact amount of disturbance is unknown.
It is possible that during the site plan review process that, by careful design, aa insignificant area of critical
slopes will be distui-bed. Any disturbance of critical slopes will require a modification of Section 4.2 which
will be reviewed during the site plan review stage. Staff opinion is that during the site plan review process
adequate protection of critical slopes can be insured. Approval of this special use permit in no way implies
anni ...........
approval by the, P1 ug Comnnsslon of any activity on unUcal slopes. All activity on critical slop es, ff any,
will be evaluated by the Planning Commission and staff for compliance with the provisions of Section 4.2 of
the Zoning Ordinance.
The operation of a gnlf course requires the maintenanec of the turf. This maintenance will require the use of
herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers as well as regular watering. The apphcant has indicated that a system of
ponds will be constructed in order to provide imgation water. It may also be feasible to utilize treated
leachate from the Landfill. Use of leachate will require approval from the Engineering Departmant. The
Water Resources Manager has reviewed this request and provided comments. [Attachment D] The applicant
has provided information in support of this application. [Attachment E] It is the opinion of staff that with
appropriate conditions, as recommended by the Water Resources Manager, that water quality issues can be
adequately addressed. Therefore, staff opinion is that this proposal may be considered as not being in
conflict with the designation of the Reservoir Watershed as a resource.
Due to the large land area required for a golf course, it is recognized that such facilities may occur m the
Rural Areas (by special use pen'nit). A golf course does panint use of the land without a complete loss of the
rural and open space character of the site or of the general area. This is due to the fact that a golf course
consists primarily of open field area with isolated wooded areas. This pattern of development is not
inconsistent with the rural character.
Staff opinion is that with appropriate conditions contained either in this special use permit or during site plan
review that the proposed development will not be inconsistent 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 fmding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to
adjacent ~ro~ertv.
The most significant impact this use will have on adjacent property is the increased traffic on the public road.
The portion of Route 637 between the landfill and 1-64 carries approximately 2,035 vehicle trips per day
according to a 1994 traffic count conduct~l by VDOT. Staffhas reviewed the ITE Manual in an cs'Tort to
determine the anticipated trip generation for this proposal. Based on the standard per acre generation rate
contained in the ITE Manual the proposed golf course would generate approximately .1,260 vehicle trips per
day on a weekday and 1,460 vehicle trips per day on a weekend. However, the proposed 18 holes of this golf
course uses more acreage than the typical 18 hole golf course and this results in an inflated trip generation
assessment. Further analysis indicates that a more likely weekday trip generation rate is 500 to 700 vehicle
trips per day and the weekend rate is 500 to 1,000 vehicle trips per day. By-right residential development of
this property could result in 20 lots or 200 vehicle trips per flay. Staffhas included as a condition of approval
that no residential development will occur on this property. Route 637 from 1-64 to the entrance to the
landfill is listed as tolerable and the increase in traffic is not anticipated to cause the road to become
intolerable.
The proposed golf course completely surrounds an existing single family dwelling. [This property is not part
of the golf course application~] The applicant has worked with the owner of the property and no comment has
been received from this property owner. The layout of the proposed golfcunrse is such that areas of activity
are located in such a configuration far enough from adjacent development and property se as to have alimited
impact. The property to the east of thc golf course is in an Agricultural/Forestal District. Staff opinion is
that due to the layout of the proposed golf course no adverse impact on the Agricultural/Forestal District will
OCCur.
Staff opirdon is that the proposed use will not be a substantial detriment to adjacent property.
that the characmr of thc district will not be changed thereby,
Staff has previously commented that thc golf course will result in a pattern of clearing and wooded area
similar to that which exists in most of the Rural Areas of the County. The location of the clubhouse is such
that it will not be visible from the road or adjacent property. No change in the character of the district is
antifflpated due to the open space character of a golf course.
and that such use will be in harmony with the ~umose and intent of this ordinance,
Staff has reviewed the purpose and intent of the ordinance as contained in Sections 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 of the
ordinance. Secfious 1.4.4 and 1.5 state as an intent of the ordinance the provision of adequate recreational
fac'titles. The Director of Parks and Recreation has provided comments on this application. [Attachment C.]
These comments indicate that the provision of a private goff course will help serve the recreational needs of
the County. Staff opinion is that generally this request is consistent with the purpose and intent of the
ordinance.
with the uses permitted bv right in the district,
The proposed golf course will not affect permitted uses on other property in the district.
with additional reexflations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance,
Section 5.1.16 contains regnlatious for Swimming, Gol~ Tennis Clubs. [Attachment D.] Staffhas included
conditions which are consistent with the provisions of Section 5.1.16.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The Department of,Transportation has provided enmments which are included as Attachment E. Comments
I thru 5 of the VDOT comments have been included as recommended conditions of approval for the special
use permit. Comment 6 states "Route 637 between the Ivy Landfill and Route 682 should be widened to a
minimum of eighteen (18) foot surface, since Route 637 will be improved from Route 682 to Route 635".
Those improvements to Route 637 (paving) are currently a project listed in the 6 year secondary road plan
with completion of the project anticipated in December of 1999. Staffhas not included pay'rog of Route 637
by the applicant as a condition of approval as it is not anticip~d that a significant volume of traffic will
access the site from the west.
Staff does note that Route 637 north ofi-64 to IW is listeA as non-tolerable and has substantial vertical and'
horizontal alignment deficiencies. Staff believes while some traffic from Ivy and Route 250 will use this
section of road, most traffic accessing the golf course will come from 1-64 and along Route 637 south of its
intersection with 1-64.
Staff opinion is that this request is consistent with the public health, safety and general welfare.
SUMMARY:
Staffhas idenl/fied the following factors which are favorable to this request:
1. The proposal will help meet golfing needs in the County.
2. Route 637 from 1-64 is expected to be the primmy route of access to the golf course and is of
adequate design to accommodate an increase in traffic.
3. The appearance of a golf course provides relatively undeveloped open space which is compatible
with the Rural Area.
4. No activity is proposed in the Mountain Resource are which are those portions of the properly above
the 900 foot contour elevation
Staffhas identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request:
1. The development of the golf course will l'~kely require activity on critical slopes.
2. Operation of the goff course will require the use of herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers on land
within the Reservoir Watershed.
Staff opinion is that with appropriate conditions the ~mCavorable factors can be overcome. Therefore, staff is
able to support this application. Again, all activity on critical slopes will require a modification of Section
4.2 by the Planning Commission. Approval of this special use permit in no way implies staff support of or
Planning Commission approval of a modification of Section 4.2. The Plaxming Commission may impose
additional conditions of approval should a modification of Section 4.2 be approved. Any conditions imposed
by the Planning Commission would be in addition to those of the special use permit.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff reeommands approval subject to the following conditions:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
Engineering Department approval of phasing plan to insure adequate erosion control.
Engineering Department approval of drought and disease tolerant tuff materials.
Engineering Department approval of stream barfer areas including all activity within stream buffers
such as but not limited to enhanced planfmgs, fairway/path cross'rags.
Engineering Deparmaent approval of runoff treatment systems.
Engineering Department approval of tuff management systems.
Engineering Department approval of storage and spill containment systems for all hazardous
materials including but not limited to: fertilizers~ pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, and fuel.
Engineering Department approval of water quality monitoring program.
The serving &food and refreshments shall be limited to those individuals utilizing the golf course or
driving range
No grading/clearing or other land disturbing activity above the 900 foot elevation.
No residential development shall be permitted;
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B - Tax Map
C - Director of Parks and Recreation Comments.
D - Water Resources Manager Comments.
E - VDOT Comments
F - Applicant's information
ATTACHMENT A
TOP
SDP 98-37
IVY INVESTMENT LTD. PARTNERSHIP
80AZ
MOUNTAIN
ALBEMARLE
COUNTY
ATTACHMENT B
72
SDP 98-37
IVY INVESTMENT LTD. PARTNERSHIP
SAMUEL MILLER AND WHITEHALL
DISTRICTS
SECTION
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
ATTACHMENT C
AUPo 4
Planning De; t
Parks and Recreation Department
County Office Building
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville. Vhr§inia 22902-4596
Telephone (804) 296-5844
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Bill Fritz, Senior Planner
FROM: Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation
DATE: August 4, 1998
Golf Course Near Ivy Landfill
Thank you for the oppommity to comment on the proposal to develop a golf ~se near the
Ivy Landfill. ,z;
Several months ago I talked with the applicant about his proposal. It is my understanding
that he would like to privately build a golf course that will be open to the public. I am very happy
to see someone from the private sector trying m accomplish this. There is certainly a perception
among area golfers that there is a need for a second public,golf course. Whether or not this
perception is tree is beyond my area of expertise and would require a market analysis by a qualified
impartial cons~dtant. 'tv"nile there is only one public golf course in the area, it is difficult to
determine whether the access to private courses reduces the public demand. Several years ago when
the County was offered a gift of land to build a golf course, we requested funding to have such an
analysis performed. That funding was unanimously denied by the Board of Supervisors and there
seemed to be Very little support for a public course owned and operated by the County.
I am sure that the applicant has researched this and feels the need is here. If not now,
certainly in the very near future there will be a need for a second public course. If this can be
provided by the private sector, we can continue trying to meet the many other future recreation
needs. The fees that the County would have to charge to retire the debt and operate a quality course
would be similar to those charged for a privately nm public Course. Since those fees would be out
of reach for many of our citizens, I feel this particular recreation need should be met by the private
sector if at all possible.
I hope we will someday see a high quality privately run public golf course in Albemarle
County. 'If you have any questions or if you feel I can be of further assistance to you in this matter,
please call me.
ATTACHMENT D
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Engineering & Public Works
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Bill Fritz -Senior Planner
David Hirschman - Water Resomces Manager~
24 August 1998 ~
SP 98-37 Ivy Investment Ltd. (Proposed Golf Course)
This site is within the South Fork Rivarma Reservoir watershed, and issues with water quality
and runoff are of utmost importance. The critical issues with the establishment of a golf course
are: (1) erosion and sediment control dur'mg construction (golf courses usually necessitate major
grading operations), (2) surface runoff of sediment, nutrients, and pesticides, and (3) subsurface
contam'mation and subsequent discharge to surface water.
In the past several years, we have evaluated two golf-related proposals: SP-96-17 (Virginia Land
Trust) and SP-97-55 (Riverbend Golf Center). The first of these was in the North Fork Rivauna
River drainage upstream fi:om the raw water intake at Camelot, and the second was directly along
the banks of the Rivanna River adjacent the Pantops Shopping Center. Our eomments on the
current project will build on comments on these two previous proposals.
We understand that the applicant has retained a golf course designer with experience with
environmentally-sensitive design. Rather than detail design specifications or restrictions for this
course, we recommend that the designer's expertise be utilized to develop a water quality plan
for the proposed facility. At a minhnum, the plan should address the following:
1. Providing for advanced erosion control during construction, including the phasing of grading
to minimize the amount of disturbed land at any one time.
2. The selection of turf materials that may be more drought-tolerant and disease-resistant than
typical turf selections.
Retention and/or establishment of stream buffer areas. The Water Protection Ord'mance
reqmres a 100 foot buffer along all streams on the property. The plan should address how
existing stream buffers will be protected or enhanced by additional plantings, streambank
restoration, and/or increased buffer widths, and how fairway crossings will be handled.
4. Conducting a preliminary biological inventory to identify existing sensitive habitats and
biological resources on the site.
ATTACHMENT D
PAGE 2
Treatment of runoff from roadways, parking lots, structures, fair, rays, and greens uutmiig
ponds, bioretention areas, constructed wetlands, or other similar concepts. Runoff treatment
design should strive to surpass the mimmum requirements of the Water Protection
Ordinance. This design can also incorporate stormwater recycling for irrigation, and,
possibly, reuse of treated leachate from the Ivy Landfill (based on a careful evaluation of that
option).
6. Use of integrated pest managemem concepts and control of fertilizer applications.
7. Storage, containment, and spill response of chemicals and hazardous materials.
Water quality monitoring of surface runoff and groundwater, including the establishment of
baseline data, monitoring during construction, and post-construction monitoring for a set
period of time.
The designer undoubtedly has many reference materials on ecological golf course design. One
reference that the County has found helpful with past applications is "Environmental Guidelines
for the Design and Maintenance of Golf Courses," developed by the Baltimore Coumy
Deparunent of Environmental Protection and Resource Management. We recommend that the
applicant make use of this document when developing the water quality plan referenced above.
The requirement to develop and implement the water quality plan should be a condition of
approval of the special use permit. The plan should he,developed in consultation with the
Engineering Department and must be subject to review and approval by the department.
Please let me know if you have any comments or questions.
/djh
cc: Glenn Brooks
File: hirschman\golf course memo
.o 981ThUI 16:23 VD07 TEL 804 979 3'~9 ATTACHMENTE ·
COMMONWEALTH o[ V/RQINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
70~ rOOT WAY
July
Charlotte~ville, 'VA.
~9,8-28 C~W W~R~ESS C'V13~r P~ube 20
eight distance ~ntrancs should be ~mproved to.meet minimum
The'entrance should align, if possible, wi~h gao Dropossd entm~ce to the
county so~¢er
~ight and left turn lan~m will be required.
The aff~ed
mix.
All res=rlpin~ Will be the res~onsibility c~ =he d~v~loper.
TRANSPORTATION FON. THE 21ST C:=NTUMY
.5'98 THU) I~:25 VDOT
P ~g
ATTACHMENT E
PAGE 2
Mr. Ron Keeler
Rouue 637 between the I~Y Landfill and Rouue 602 should be wid~ne~ bo &
project. Ninor modifica~ion~ may be needed ~o =he enuren~e behind the guu=er
pan ~0 fit the si~e as it is
1) The entran=e shall ali~n with Rolkin Drive and the developex will be
responsible for the ura£fic signal modific&tiO~s needed.
2) A minimum Of three [~) lanes for ~ntrauce will be =equlred, howeve~ an
inte=seotion analysz~ should be ~iven to determin~ lane confi~ura=~ons for
north i~termection.
should Be shown.
Route 250 W.
!) This developme~= fronts on a D~ivate road. however a~
analy~£s will need ~0 ~e provided =o d~termine =he Level of
Rou=e 250 ~ Co!Or~na~e
2) ~e existin~ Level of Se~ice should ~e demeaned by doit, at = minim~,
a 12 ~ ~y =~t ~d ~hen overlay ~he m~ti~al ~rojected t~affic.
3) The developer will be responsible iur ~alysis ~d Uraf{i= ai~l
APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT
for
POUNDING BROOK GOLF CLUB
Ivy, Virginia
ATTACHMENT #1
ATTACHMENT
Q. What is the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property?
A. RA / Rural Areas District
Q. How will the proposed special nsc affect adjacent property?
A. The development of a golf course typically increases the value of surrounding property in that il
provides opportunities for views of the course, and that it creates a relatively long-term assurance of the
existence of quiet_ aesthetically appealing open space in close proximity to those propemes. The property.
boundaries abut rural, forested tracts ro the northeast, southeast, and southwest. Little impact is anticipated
in ~hose areas. Along the northwest boundary a small group of modest homes may realize some increase in
market value if and when they are soid~ The Ivy Landfill, directly across Route 637 from the subject site
might anticipate greater support for its potential transformation into a county recreational facility due to its
proximity to the golf course. One other property, an improved five-acre parcel currently owned and
occupied by Mr. James Helvin, is an inholding to the proposed golf course site, and is accessed on an
easement across the proposed golf course site. We have had cordial discussions with Mr. Helvin. and he
has indicated that he wili negotiate a selling price for his home with the course in the near future.
No physical impact is anticipated on any surrounding property, except for the possible control of
sediment rich runoffduring peak storm events.
Q. How will the proposed special use affect the character of the district surrounding the
property?
A. It is our intention to develop the golf course utilizing, to the greatest extem possible, the
"Environmental Principles fbr Golf Courses in the United States" (attached) as developed and endorsed by
a combined group of leading environmental and golf organizations at the "Golf & The Environmem
Conference: Charting a Sustainable Future" at Pineharst, North Carolina in 1996. The mission of the
Principles is to ensure an ecologically sensitive planning, developmem, and maintenance process for all
new golf course projects in the United States. In addition, we will endeavor to design and construct lhe
course in accordance with the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program guidelines for golf courses
~ attachedl We believe that the new course will compliment the rural character of the surrounding area, and
enhance both the hydrologic characteristics and wildlife habitat on the proposed site.
Q. How is the use in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance?
A. We believe that the development ora public golf course in western Albemarle County wilt
"improve the public health, safety, convemence and welfare" I1.4) of the county's citizens by providing a
healthy and affordable recreational activity which can be enjoyed by people of all ages. It will also
"provide healthy surroundings for family life" (1.4) and ensure that our growing community has
"adequate...recreational facilities" { 1.4). In addition_ the golf course will "provide for adequate light and
air". and decrease the danger of flood ( 1.4.1 ); "facilitate the creanon of a convenient, attractive and
harmonious commumty~ (1.4.3); "facilitate the provision of adequate...flood
protection.., parks...forests,...(and) recreational facilities" (1.4.4); encourage economic development
activities the provide desirable employmem and enlarge the tax base" (l.4.7); "provide...for the protection
of the natural environment" (l .4.8); and "to protect surface water and groundwater" { 1.4.10).
ATTACHMENT F
PAGE 2
Finally, we believe that the development of an ecologically sensitive golf course in a rural district is in
keeping with the intent of section 1,5 of the Zoning Ordinance. in that it will provide a use which is
"similarly situated and environmentally similar" to that of the surrounding lands, and promote the
developmem of"recreation areas":..."the conservation of natural resources; and preservation of flood
plains".
Q. How is the use in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
A. Other than the specifically designated residential and commercial types permitted by right within
the rural areas district (10.2.1) the proposed golf course is most similar to those uses specified under
numbers:
"Game preserves, wildlife sanctuaries and fishery uses'; and
"Public uses.., such as.. parks".
We believe that the proposed golf course with be uniquely harmonious with those uses intended by the
Zoning Ordinance for the rural areas district.
Q, What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this
A. Section 5.1.16e: "Provision for concessions for the serving of food, refreshments or
entertainment for club members and guests may be permitted under special use permit procedures/'
It is the intention of the course management to serve light fare (hot dogs, hamburgers, soda, etc.) and to
apply for a license to serve beer on the premises
Section 5.1.18.1 a.b & c:
Section 5.1.18.2 a through g:
"Temporary Construction Headquarters": and
"Temporary Construction Yards"
The golf course construction process will require some temporary use areas for construction monitoring,
and equipment and materials storage.
Section 5.1.20a & b: "... Storage of Petroleum Products"
It will be necessary to store fiael for golf course maimenance equipmem on site.
· NOTE: It will'also be necessary to store and mix fertilizers_ pesticides & herbicides on site.
Section 5.1.22:
buildings."
'-... Seed... ": "All loose bulk storage of seed._ shall be in enclosed
It may be necessary to have bulk seed storage on site periodically, however it is anncipated that most seed
delivered to and stored on-site will b'e packaged.
Section 5.1.24a, b & c: "Subordinate Retail Sales"
It is the intention of the golf course managemem to sell appropriate golf equipment to the public in a "Pro
Shop", which will be part of the "club house" complex, and will include, but not be limited to light food
sales, storage, rest rooms, etc.
Q. How will this use promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community?
A. Golf is the lhstest growing recreational activity in the nation_ with over six million new players
joining the already substantial national ranks in 1997. While the number of players has increased in all age
groups, female players and men over the age of forty-five have shown the largest increases. As the counpj
has shown a steady growth rate in both general population and in the percentage of retirees; golf will,
ATTACHMENT F
PAGE 3
undoubtedly, become the recreational activity of choice for the county' s citizenry. However, at present_
there is only one eighteen-hole public golf course (Meadowcreck) available for play within the perimeter of
the county, and that course lies within the City of Charlottesville, and last year recorded 56,000 rounds.
Highly priced Birdwood still requires their players to have some affiliation with UVA in order to play.
Therefore, it is our belief that a new. affordable public course would be a significant addition to Albemarle
County's recreational resources. It would both serve the presem county residents by providing an
alternative to the crowded Meadowcreek Golf Course at Pen Park, and act as a draw for potential new
county residents as they make their decisions as to where to relocate. The completed golf course would
ensure that a significant tract of open space would remain undeveloped. The careful handling of the site's
hydrology would help reduce eroston on the site, and decrease the sedimentation and flood potential of the
coumy's watercourses. The golf course would also provide jobs and an increase in the tax base without
s~gaificant county expenditures for infrastructure improvements
Describe your request in detail and include all pertinent information such as the numbers of persons
involved in the use, operating hours, and any unique features of the use.
This application for a Special Use Permit is submitted for only thal portion of the subject site which lies
below the 900' contour line. where critical slopes and the proposed Mountain Overlay District become an
issue for ecologically sensitive construction. The approximate acreage of the site for which the Special Use
Permit is requested is 250 acres &the total 330 acres contained within the perimeter of the site.
Pounding Brook Golf Cfub will be an eighteen-hole, par-72 public golf ~hcility which will include a small
clubhouse building with a pro-shop/snack bar: a cart storage/maintenance building complex; several
shelter/restroom buildings; parking for approximately 175 vehicles; and a driving range/practice facility.
No range lighting or public address systems xvitl be used at the facility. Memberships will be made
available to give individuals the opportunity to have priority in the choice of starting-times. However,
membership will not be necessary for playing the course.
Since an eighteen-hole golf course can only accommodate a maximum of 144 players at once, and that
starting-times are scheduled in approximately eight-minute intervals, it is amiclpated that traffic arriving
and departing the site will do so on similar intervals at peak-use times. However, me average number of
vehicles per foursome is usually about 2.75~ and the amount of time that the course is at full capacity is
relatively short. Only during late spring and summer weekends is it anticipated that the course will reach
capacity The hours of operation of the golf course will be primarily dictated by available sunlight, with
summer hours being longer than that of the balance of the year. However, play will typically begin about
7:00 a.m. and end around dusk. Play tends to be somewhat more concentrated in the mormng hours, but a
moderate level of afternoon play is expected. The number of staffwiil typically swell in the summer
months, but is not projected to exceed ten to fifteen individuals_ on the average.
Local Golf Course Architect & Ecologist, Mark E. Watson has been retained to design the facility. As his
background is grounded in the environmental sciences, he is a strong advocate of ecologically sensitive
design and akernative, low impacl construction methods. As stated earlier, the course will be designed
using the most upqo-date methods for ensuring the preservation of the ecological health of the site Care
will be taken to protect and enhance the site's natural features, with a special emphasis on hydrology and
native habitat. Indigenous species will be used to the gremest extent possible in the re-vegctating of cleared
areas and the removal and/or control of invasive species will be a particular fbcus.
Finally. Pounding Brook will dedicate itself to a mission of providing a quality golf experience to people of
all ages and gender. Particular attention to juniors_ seniors, and female players wilt be a critical component
of the design and construction process. More equitable design for short hitters, and those with limited time
has been a concern of the architect for a number of years. Pounding Brook promises to be a new, better
type of golf course
POUNDING BROOK GOLF CLUB
IVY, VIRGINIA
HOLE PAR YARDS HOLE PAR YARDS
1 4 390 10 5 486
2 4 410 11 3 200
3 4 363 12 4 330
4 3 230 13 3 180
5 4 433 14 4 350
6 3 170 15 4 447
7 5 473 16 5 567,
8 4 433 17 4 393
9 4 357 18 4 470
OUT 35 3259 IN 36 3423
OUT 35 3259
71 6682
OWNERS:
ARCHITECT:
ENGINEER:
MR. & MRS. DONALD W. FOSTER
MARK WATSON, LANDWARD
BRIAN SMITH, P.E.
Total Acres of Property: 330
Acres Preserved: 62 (all land above 900' contour line)
Remaining Acres: 268
Total Acres in Turfgrass: 85 (fairWays, roughs, driving range)
Total Acres of Green Surface: 3
CRITICAL SLOPE PROTECTION
&
MOUNTAINTOP PRESERVATION
The Pounding Brook site has elevations which start at
approximately 620 feet at its lowest point along Route 637, and
rise to over 1400 feet at the top of Taylor's Mountain. In addition,
much of the site is rich with dramatic topography that includes
prominent ridgelines and plunging ravines. Consequently, detailed
studies of the site's soils and slopes were perfomied to ascerta'm
the viability of the site for golf, and to generate an optimal routing
plan for the .course which would create the least disruption to the
existing ground plane during the construction process. Care was
taken to minimize ravine crossings; decrease the necessity of
extensive grading; and lessen the impact on steep, short slopes by
keeping green and next tee elevations within close proximity to
each other. Where disruption to slopes greater than 4 to 1 is
anticipated during construction, the impact will be minimal, and
special care will be taken to insure long-term slope stabilization
and erosion control on those that are impacted.
The Fosters also have voluntarily excluded that portion of the site
above the 900 foot contour line, due to its critical slopes and
mounta'mtop location. The county had, during its recent
Mountaintop Protection initiative, excluded the same portion of the
site that the Fosters have excluded, Initial contact has been made
with the Nature Conservancy to place the excluded portion of the
site into a conservation easement.
ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES
for
GOLF COURSES
in THE UNITED STATES
Through the combined efforts of many of the nation's most
prominent envh'onmental and golf organizations, a set of principles
was developed in 1995-96 that's mission was to "provide a
framework for environmental responsibility in developing goals
for existing golf courses and for considering issues associated with
new courses. They are designed to educate and inform the public
and relevant decision makers about environmental responsibility,
and to help set goals for environmental performance." "The
principles are meant to be used as a guide to making good
deciSions relative to the planning and siting, design, construction,
maintenance and operation ora golf course. They are voluntary,
and should be interpreted as representing a whole philosophy of
good environmental design and management..."
The basic precepts which directed the development of the
principles were:
· To enhance local communities ecologically and economically.
· To develop environmentally respons~le golf courses that are
economically viable.
· To offer and protect habitat for wildlife and plant species.
· To recognize that every golf course must be developed and managed with
consideration for the unique conditions of the ecosystem of which it is a
part.
· To provide important greenspace benefits.
· To use natural resources efficiently.
· To respect adjacent land use when planning, constructing, mainta/nmg
and operating golf courses.
· To create desirable playing conditions through practices that preserve
environmental quality.
· ]'o support ongoing research to scientifically establish new and better
ways to develop and manage golf courses in harmony with the
enviroment,
· To document outstanding development and management practices to
promote more widespread implementation of environmentally sound
golf.
· To educate golfers and potential developers about the principles of
environmental responsibility and to promote the understanding that
environmentally sound courses are quality golf courses.
Endorsing organizations include:
· American Society of Golf Come Architects
· Audubon International
· Club Managers Association of America
· Friends of the Earth
· Golf Course Builders Association of America
· Golf Course Supe 'rmtendents Association of America
· Ladies Professional Golf Association
· National Association of Counties
· National Club Association
· National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides
· National Golf Foundation
· National Wildlife Federation
· Save the Bay
· Southern Environmental Law Center
· United States Environmental Protection Agency
· United States Golf Association
TI-W. AUDUBON INTERNATIONAL
SIGNATURE PROGRAM
The Audubon Signature Program provides comprehensive
environmental planning assistance to landowners with projects in
the design and development stages. Audubon International staff
work with owners, architects, consultants, and managers from the
design stages through construction. By offering guidance and
technical assistance, Audubon staffhelp to establish a management
program that focUses on wildlife conservation and habitat
enhancement, water quality management and conservation, waste
reduction and management, energy efficiency, and Integrated Pest
Management. Projects that receive the Audubon International's
Seal of Susta'mability are considered internationally significant
environmental demonstration sites for sustainable resource
management,
The focus of Audubon International is to:
· Protect and enhance the quality of the environment by encouraging
responsible stewardship actions specific to wildlife and water
stewardship and ecological restoration.
· Encourage, educate, and motivate individuals to take positive,
constructive stewardship actions based on the Audubon guidance
document, Principles for Sustainable Resource Management.
· Promote environmental planning and sustainable land management
practices based on sound scientifm research.
· Support and expand educational programs, research efforts, and training
to achieve greater understanding and participation in the practice of
sustainable resource management.
WATER QUALITY
Pounding Brook Golf Club lies at the extreme edge of the Rivanna
River watershed, the drinking water supply for many residents of
Charlottesville and Albemarle County. Consequently, Pounding
Brook Golf Club will be utiliZing many natural, as well as state-of-
the-art methods for insuring that the quality of the water both on,
and leaving the site is free of contamination. Riparian buffer zones
along the site' s watercourses will be mainta'med and enhanced, and
where disturbance within the buffer zones is necessary for stream
crossings and/or fairway construction, special attention will be
placed on bank stabilization and erosion/sedimentation control.
Several small earthen dams will be constructed on site to impound
water for irrigation and aesthetic amenities. These ponds will also
serve as flood and sedimentation control mechanisms for the
county watershed, and will create new wetland environments for
the area wildlife. Water from the ponds will be reused for irrigation
purposes to the greatest extent possible, and water quality testing
will be performed on a regular basis to ascerta'm the performance
of the buffers and other water quality control systems on the site.
Pounding Brook will also utilize a new "injection irrigation
system" which assists the course superintendent in achieving
optimal levels of turfgrass fertilization by using a soluble fertilizer
added to the irrigation water. This system increases the efficiency
of the fertilization process by making the fertilizer more available
to the plant than customary surface treatments.
The course will only require two to three wells. Two will be
required for the clubhouse and maintenance facilities, respectively.
One other may be required for a restroom/shelter facility in a more
remote portion of the site. Up to ~three septic fields will also be
required. Base flow will be maintained in all streamcourses.
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION
As part' of their effort to create a truly sensitive facility, the Fosters
have offered to close the Pounding Brook Golf Club for several
hours on one day each week during the school year for the purpose
of allowing school groups to utilize the site for environmental
education. Specific areas of interest' as well as environmentally
sensitive areas will be labeled and/or mapped to assist those groups
in interpreting the site's ecology. Initial contact has been made
with Charlottesville's Environmental Education Center to begin
the process of developing environmental programming for the site.
TURF SPECIES TESTING
Virginia lies in an area of the country known as a '~ansition zone"
which designates the area where the northern limit of warm, season
grasses overlaps with the southern limit of cool-season grasses.
Due to the variable weather patterns of the region, cool-season
grasses might do well one year, and warm-season grasses do well
the next. In an effort to ascertain the optimal turf species type for
use at Pounding Brook, the course will conduct on-going turf
species testing on a designated portion of the driving range, and
make adjustments as necessary.
NATIVE PLANT NURSERY
Several portions of the Pounding Brook site will be set aside for
use in establishing native tree and shrub species for use in
enhancing the natural beamy of the site, as well as in the
establishment of higher quality wildlife habitat.
ALTERNATIVE ROUTING
As golf has become more popular, and the venues for play more
crowded, the length of a round has increased proportionately.
Unfortunately, a four and a halfhour round added to commuting
time to and from the course has discouraged many individuals
from taking up, or continuing with the game. For this reason,
Pounding Brook's holes have been routed to allow for alternative
"loops" of play, instead of forcing individuals to play 9 or 18
holes. While some time-frame restrictions may be necessary to
promote optimal flow of play on the course, at certain times a per-
hole pricing structure may be implemented.
TRANSPORTATION
The game of golf creates one of the most structured traffic patterns
of any development type due to the necessity for "starting times."
At its maximum capacity, a course can hold 144 players. Play can
be accomplished in one of two ways: by gradually filling the
course with "foursomes" of players on a 7 to 9 minute schedule, as
is customarily done; or by filling the course completely with
players who then start playing at the same moment at different
holes, which is usually only done on special tournament days.
Foursomes average approximately 2.7 cars per group, and vehicles
enter and exit the site generally in accordance with the scheduled
starting time period. Rounds of golf last about four and a half
hours, so vehicles begin return journeys that long after play begins
in the morning. Vehicle trips peak at late morning / mid-day and
then gradually drop off as less play is initiated during the heat of
the day. It is estimated that Pounding Brook will generate
approximately 393 vehicle trips per day, over a 13 hour period,
during its busiest season, or 30 vehicle trips per hour.
DEDICATED TO JUNIOR GOLF
The Fosters have been supporters of junior golf for many years. As
many of the nation's public golf facilities have moved towards
high greens fees and a "carts only" mentality, junior golf has
suffered tremendously. It is the intenti°n of the Fosters to make
Pounding Brook the home'venue for as many of the local high
school golfteams as possible. Special junior rates will be
established for non-team events, and junior clinics will be
conducted to promote the game to the county's youth.
WOMEN & SENIOR GOLF
The fastest growing constituencies in the golf industry are women
and seniors. However, most existing courses are merely "retro-
fitted" for these important players, and many of the new courses
have been designed even longer than their older counterparts to
accommodate the "power game" being driven by the recent
improvements in equipment technology. Consequently, women.
and seniors, as well as junior players, are at an extreme
disadvantage when playing most courses. Concessions are made
for shorter hitters on the drive on most holes, but little is done to
create a truly equitable playing field for all players. Pounding
Brook will, therefore, be designed to promote parity between
players of disparate ability levels.
MINUTES FOR THIS ITEM APPEAR ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
THE JAMES HELVIN PROPERTY
Mr. James Helvin owns a 5-acre piece of property, which is an
inholding to the 330-acre Pounding Brook Golf Club site. Mr.
Foster contacted Mr. Helvin in March of this year when Mr. Foster
decided to obtain an option on the Ivy Investment property for the
purpose of building a public golf course. Mr. Foster told Mr.
Helvin at that time that he would like to purchase his property so
that it could be included in the overall project permitting process,
and eventual development. However, since no detailed information
was available at that time regarding the site's inherent constraints,
or how those constraints would effect the eventual course routing,
no further action regarding the purchase was taken by either party.
It was not until August, after the golf course architect had
performed detailed soils and critical slope studies that it became
apparent that the course would, out of necessity, need to surround
Mr. Helvin's property in order to function properly. Mr. Helvin
was shown the proposed routing plan for the course approximately
one week prior to the Planning Commission meeting on September
1st, and he stated at that time that he was surprised by the apparent
proximity of the course elements to his property. However, he also
made it clear that he had felt fortunate to have 330 acres as his
backyard for 29 years, and knew that eventually he would lose his
view to some type of development. At the end of his meeting with
the Fosters, Mr. Helvin said that after seeing the plan, he didn't
think he would like to live in his home if the course was
constructed as presented. He asked for a copy of the plan to
review, and said that he needed time to think about it. At no time,
until during the proceedings at the Planning Commission meeting,
did he ever say that he Would "never sell" the property to Mr.
Foster.
The plan presented to the Board of Supervisors has been altered to
address Mr. Helvin's concerns. The routing for holes 1,2,3,4,5 and
18 have been adjusted to ensure Mr. Helvin's privacy. The driving
range has been moved slightly to the northwest to create a broader
swath of land between his property line and the beginning of the
range. The originally proposed irrigation pond has been removed,
and replaced with two smaller ponds which will have no impact on
Mr. Helvin's property. The proposed parking lot and maintenance
area have not yet been addressed since they are in even more of a
conceptual stage than the golf course and range. No specific
setbacks have/been proposed for any activities around the Helvin
property, since it is felt that through careful design during the site
plan review process that various design solutions can be brought to
bear on the specific issues inherent to the site.
Now that Mr. Helvin has made his intentions clear, Mr. Foster's
design team will endeavor to make Mr. Hetvin's privacy a top
priority. Pounding Brook Golf Club wants to be a good neighbor to
everyone in Albemarle County...including Mr. Helvin.
5114 Dick Woods Rd.
Charlottesville, Va.
22903
September 15,1998.
To: Mrs. Sally Thomas
Albemarle County Supervisor,
Samuel Miller District
Albemarle County Office Building
Charlottesville, Va.,22901
From: W. Brand McCaskill
Subject: Proposed Pounding Brook Golf Course
Dear Mrs. Thomas:
will be unable to attend the Board Of Supervisor's
meeting on Sept, 16 an P.M, but I do have some pointsi
would like to make in connection with the proposed Goi~
Course to be located across Dick Woods Rd. (Rt. 637)
from the Albemarle County/Charlottesville land fill area.
Basically, ~hink ~ golf
property but there needs to be
on the owner before the counmy
restrictions are listed below:
course is a good use for this
some restrictions imposed
grants this permit. These
· the owner/ma%agement of the proposed golf course shou!~
be required to be a~ooperetor~with the Federal Govt. 'Natural
Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). They should agree to
follow Best Management Practices (BMPs), have a neutrient
managemen~ plan and provide buffer zones along all stream_ banks.
point out the above because golf couurses use_ large amounts
of chemicals [fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides).
The golf course mus% be required to provide impounding
ponds from which they cat their irriqation wa~er rather then
usino t~e flow of Pounding Branch. it almost dries up during
the cry periods of summer. I ti~e down ssream from the proposed
golf course and my cattle need drink%rig water durzng dry per~ods
of the year.
_ assume the club house for the golf course ~ill provide
alcoholic beverages for their members and visitors use. You
mus~ therefore be sure that the sheriffs depm. for the counmy
as well as the management of the golf course keep people WhO have
impalree driving ability after the use of alcohol from"d~iving
cn Pt~ ~37 ?~hen ieav!n~ th~ ~roposed f~cility. -T~!s facilitr
w~ll result ~n increased traffic on Rt. 637.
SUPERVISORS
Page 2
If a housing development is included in the ~olf course
property, the Plannlng Commission and County must be sure that the
housing density is such thst ~here is no harm to the envtronmen~
os t~e community.
I leave these thoughts in your hands ano assume you will
see that proper action is 5aken 5o insure the above matters
are looked after.
Sincerely,
W. Brand McCaskili
Michael J. Weber,9/16/98 3:44 PM -0400,Golf Course I
X-Sender: mjw@avery.med.virginia.edu (Unverified)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 15:44:14 -0400
To: David Booth <dwbSf@avery.med.Virginia. EDU>
From: "Michael J. Weber" <MJW@virglnia.edu>
-'~Subject: Golf Course
This is to lend the support of my mother, brother and myself to the
development of the pounding brook golf course on Dick Woods Road. The
construction of a golf course is consistent with our vision for the Ivy
Valley, as a green place with open space and recreational opportunities for
the citizens of Albemarle County. Although there may be some environmental
concerns, the proposal we have seen appears to be very sensitive to
environmental issues. In addition, the golf course is unlikely to be more
of an environmental problem than a residential subdivision would be...or
than a landfill is.
Paul Mclntire is memorialized in Charlottesville in part because he had the
vision to anticipate the needs of the community before they became critical
and too expensive to implement. If he had waited until open recreational
areas were the number one issue on the public agenda, we would not have
Mclntire Park today. There ~s already a shortage of recreational space of
all types in this County, and this is likely to become more acute in the
future. With this golf course you have the opportunity to demonstrate
vision and anticipate a future need before it becomes critical.
Michael Weber
Ivy Steering Committee
www.ivysteer.org
Printed for David Booth <dwbSf@galen.med.virginia.edu> 1
I AM OPPPOSED TO THE GOLF COURSE PROPOSED ON ROUTE 637 IN ALBEMARLE'~Ot)~C'FY
NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER
16 I
17 .
18
19
20
21.
22
24 ;
ORDINANCE NO. 98-18(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE III, DISTRICT
REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGiNIA
BE IT ORDA1NED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that
Chapter 18, Zoning, Article III, District Regulations, of the Code of the County of Albemarle is
amended as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 30.3.05.1.1
Sec. 30.3.05.2.1
By right within the floodway.
By special use permit within the floodway.
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article IH. District Regulations
Sec. 30.3.05.1.1 By right within the floodway.
The following uses or activities are authorized within the floodway as a matter of right:
1. Agricultural uses, excluding structures of any kind, limited to field crops, pasture,
grazing, livestock, raising poultry, horticulture, viticulture and forestry..
2. Recreational uses (excluding structures of any kind and uses involving human
habitation) such as parks; swimming areas, golf courses and driving ranges; picnic grounds;
wildtife and nature preserves; game farms; fish hatcheries; shooting preserves; target, trap and
skeet ranges; hunting, fishing and hiking areas; athletic fields; and horse show grounds.
3. Flood warning aids and devices, water monitoring devices and the like.
4. Fences.
5. Electric, gas, oil and communications facilities, including poles, lines, pipes,
meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a
public utility, but excluding tower structures. (Added 7-1-81; amended 5-12-93)
6. Water distribution and sewage collection lines and appurtenances owned and
operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority, but excluding pumping stations and
holding ponds: (Added 7-1-81)
7. If paragraphs (a) through (d) are each satisfied, projects which: (i) are designed
or directed by the county, a soil and water conservation district, or a public agency authorized
to carry out flood control or environmental restoration measures; or (ii) are reviewed and
approved by the department of engineering and public works in accordance with the water
protection ordinance.
a. The purpose which will be served by the project, as determined by the
department of engineering and public works, is either flood control or environmental
restoration;
b. The amount of fill material placed within the floodway, floodway fringe
or approximated flood plain does not exceed the amount of cut material removed from
the same floodway, floodway fringe or approximated flood plain in which the fill was
placed;
c. No natural streams will be relocated; and
d. The project will.use natural materials such as rock and vegetation, and
will not use engineered structures such as those identified in section 30.3.05.2.1(5).
Sec. 30.3.05.2.1 By special use permit within the floodway.
The following uses or activities are authorized within the floodway by special use permit:
1. Dams, levees and other structures for water supply and flood control.
2. Water related uses such as boat docks, canoe liveries, bridges, ferries, culverts and
river crossings of transmission lines of all types.
3. Sod farming, topsoil, and sand and gravel removal.
4. Pump stations for water or wastewater including power supply and control
devices, holding ponds and other appurtenances.
2
To: Rolisa Smith
From: Laurel B. Hall. Senior Deputy Clerk
Subject: Ordinance Adopted by Board on March 4, 1998
Date: September 21. 1998
Attached for your use ~s a copy of an ordinance which was adopted by the Board of
Supervisors on September 16. 1998:
(1)
An Ordinance to amend Chapter 18, Zoning, Article III. District Regulations, of
the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia.
Attachment
cc: The Honorable James L. Camblos, III
Melvin Breeden
Brace Woodzei1
Amelia McCulley
Wayne Cilimberg
Bob Tucker
Larry Davis
File
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Developmem
40] Mdntire Road
Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596
(804~ 296-5823
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
David Benish, Chief of Community Development
August 21, 1998
ZTA-98-07, Stream Erosion Structure/Uses Permitted By-Right in Floodway
The Albemarle County Planning Commission at its meeting on August 18, 1998,
unanimously recommended approval (5-0) of the above noted Zoning Text Amendment
with the following changes:
Section 30.3.05.1.1 (2) - Adding parentheses to the phrase "Recreational uses
(excluding structures of any kind and uses involving human habitation] such as ....
Section 30.3.05.1.1 (7a) - Amending language to read "the purpose which will be
served by the project, as determined by the Department of Engineering and Public
Works, is either flood control or environmental restoration."
Attached is a copy ofthe August 18, 1998 staffreport and a revised draft of the proposed
text amendment (dated August 20, 1998) which includes the changes recommended by
the Planning Commission.
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
David Benish, David Hirshman
August 18, 1998
September 16, 1998
ZTA- 98-07: TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE AS IT RELATES TO
DEFINITION OF STREAM EROSION STRUCTURE AND USES PREMITTED
BY RIGHT WITHIN THE FLOODWAY
ORIGIN: Board of Supervisors resolution (Attachment A) adopted on July 15, 1998
based on request from the County Department of Engineering and Public Works.
PUBLIC PURPOSE TO BE SERVED:
Provides for further clarity of the Zoning Ordinances by providing a specific
definition of "bank erosion structure" which requires a Special Use Permit in the
Flood Hazard Overlay District
Allows steam bank restoration projects undertaken by public agencies for the purpose
of flood control and environmental restoration to be permitted in a more efficient
manner.
PROPOSAL: To amend Section 30.3, Flood Hazard Overlay District to: 1) provide a
definition of a bank erosion structure (Section 30.3.2.1); and, 2) amend uses permitted
by-right to allow publicly designed or directed flood control and/or environmental
restoration projects which do not include bank erosion structures (Section 30.3.5.1).
The proposed amendment would add the following language:
Add to 30.3.2.1, DEFINITIONS--GENERALLY
g. Bank Erosion Structure: An engineering structure constructed along a channel or
watercourse for the purposes of water conveyance or flood control, including
retaining walls and revetments constructed from non-naUlral materials, such as
concrete and gabion baskets. This does not include soil-bioengineering or similar
measures used for streambank restoration, including rock and boulder revetmentq
and techniques that utilize vegetation to stabilize streambanks.
Add to 30.3.5.1.1, BY RIGHT WITHIN THE FLOODWAY
7. Projects designed or directed by public agencies and/or projects reviewed and
approved by the Department of Engineering and Public Works in accordance with
Chapter 19.3 of the Code of Albemarle, where the purpose of the proiect is flood
control or environmental restoration and where no fill in excess of cut will be
placed within the flood hazard overlay district and no natural streams will be
relocated.
BACKGROUND: The Zoning Ordinance requires a special use permit for "bank
erosion structures" within the Flood Hazard Overlay District. However, the ordinance
does not provide a definition for "bank erosion structure." Recently, there has been some
uncertainly about what types of projects would requke the special use permit.
Particularly, it is uncertain whether stream bank restoration projects designed, undertaken
and/or funded by public agencies would requke the special permit. Also, the County has
recently been asked by the community of Browns Cove for assistance with flood
prevention_ and it is this forthcoming public project that has led to the attempt to amend
the Zoning Ordinance to provide clarification on the permitting issue.
In some cases, the cost and time involved with obta'ming a special use permit would
prohibit certain environmental projects from taking place, particularly in cases where the
practice is cost-shared by the Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water Conservation District, or
another public agency, as a conservation practice promoted by the state. In other cases, a
project will not increase the flood plain elevation, and the project's purpose is to achieve
strictly the public good (such as flood prevention or environmental restoration). Most
often, such projects are designed and partially funded by public agencies, such as the
County, Soil & Water District, Natural Resources Conservation Service, etc.
STAFF COMMENT: The proposed amendment would allow flood control and
environmental restoration projects as by-right uses with the floodway and floodway
fringe in the following cases:
· The project is undertaken, coordinated, or designed by a public agency.
The project receives technical review by the County through the Water Protection
Ordinance. including review for erosion and sediment control.
· The project' s purpose is for the public benefit
· No net increase in fill is placed within the flood plain.
· The practice involves the use of natural materials, such as rock and plant materials.
This would exclude "engineered" structures, such as retaining walls, gabion baskets, and
concrete. Such projects would still require a special use permit.
Purpose and Intent of the Flood ltazard Overlay District - The purpose and intent of
the Flood Hazard Overlay District (Section 30.3.1) states that the district is "for the
purpose of providing safety and protection from flooding. More specifically, these
provisions are intended to restrict the unwise use, development and occupancy of land
subject to inundation which may result in: danger to life and property; public cost for
flood control measures and/or rescue rehef efforts; soil erosion, sedimentation and
siltation; pollution of water resources; and general degradation of natural and man-made
environments."
Staff opinion is that this amendment is consistent with the intent of the district and allows
public agencies to more efficiently address stream bank stabilization, flood prevention or
environmental restoration projects which serve to protect life and property, or restore the
natural environment. Furthermore, these amendments are not inconsistent with the
National Flood Insurance Program
Administration/Review Process - As stated previously in the Discussion section the
report, there has been some uncertainty as to what type of bank restoration and
improvement projects actually require a Special Use Permit as the Ordinance is currently
written. Currently, most any activity within the floodway is subject to a special use
permit. The proposed amendments would clarify the interpretation and review process
for public projects.
The primary impact of the change is the loss of oversight opportunity provided to the
Planning Commission and Board by the special use pernut process. However, the
projects which would no longer require a special use permit would be those focused on
flood control and environmental restoration where no engineered structures and man-
made materials are used and where the natural streams are not being relocated. Under the
current process, the Commission and Board rely heavily on the recommendations of the
Engineering Department in reviewing this type of special use permit. These projects will
still be reviewed, or developed, by the Engineering Department or the Thomas Jefferson
Soil and Water Conservation District, (TJSWCD) and are also subject to review by other
state and federal agencies. Furthermore, some of these projects would probably not be
undertaken at all if a special use permit is required, namely those projects that receive
cost-share assistance from the TJSWCD as state-endorsed conservation practices. In
these cases, the amendment would remove a major impediment to conducting
conservation practices. It is the staffs opinion that the removal of that impediment
would not result in adverse impacts, since the projects are funded and designed by
capable state agencies. The benefit of providing a more expedient review process for
these flood control and stream restoration projects is greater than impact from the loss of
Commission and Board review.
Housing Affordability - The proposed amendment would not affect housing
affordability
Implications to Staffing/Staffing Costs - These amendments are not envisioned to
result ~n any increase in staff numbers, and may serve to reduce staff hours spent
processing approvals for bank restoration projects.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecommends amending the Flood Hazard
Overlay District [FI-I), Section 30.3, as follows:
Add to 30.3.2.1, DEFINITIONS--GENERALLY
o. Bank Erosion Structure: An engineering structure constructed along a channel or
watercourse for the purposes of water conveyance or flood control, including
retaining walls and revetments constructed from non-natural materials, such as
concrete and ~abion baskets. This does not include soil-bioengineering or similar
measures used for streambank restoration, including rock and boulder revetments
and techniques that utilize vegetation to stabilize stream banks.
Add to 30.3.5.1.1, BY RIGHT WITHIN THE FLOODWAY
7. Projects desianed or directed by l~ublic aaencies and/or ~roiects reviewed and
approved by the Department of Engineerin~ and Public Works in accordance with
Chapter 19.3 of the Code of Albemarle, where the purpose of the project is flood
control or environmental restoration and where no fill in excess of cut will be
placed within the flood hazard overlay district and no natural streams will be
relocated.
l~dept\planning~ztastmbnk..rpt
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
Whereas, the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, has
determined in order to serve the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, or
good zoning practices, it does hereby intent to amend the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance to define ~bank erosion structure' and to allow certain uses by right in
the Flood Hazard Overlay District;
Further the Board requests the Albemarle County Planning Commission to hold
public headng on said intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance, and does request that
the Planning Commission forward its recommendation to this Board at the earliest
possible date.
Draft: August20. 1998
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE III, DISTRICT
REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that
Chapter 18, Zoning, Article III, District Regulations, of the Code of the County of Albemarle is
amended as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 30.3.05.1.1
Sec. 30.3.05.2.1
By right within the floodway.
By special use permit within the floodway.
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 30.3.05.1.1 By right within the floodway.
The following uses or activities are authorized within the floodway as a matter of right:
1. Agricultural uses, excluding slractures of any kind, limited to field crops, pasture,
grazing, livestock, raising poultry, horticulture, viticulture and forestry.
2. Recreational uses; (excluding structures of any kind and uses involving human
habitation~ ) such as parks; swimming areas, golf courses and driving ranges; p~cnic grounds;
wildlife and nature preserves; game farms; fish hatcheries; shooting preserves; target, trap and
skeet ranges; hunting, fishing and hiking areas; athletic fields; and horse show grounds.
3. Flood warning aids and devices, water monitoring devices and the like.
4. Fences.
5. Electric, gas, oil and communications facilities, including poles, lines, pipes,
Draft: August 20, 1998
meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a public
utility, but excluding tower structures. (Added 7-1-81; amended 5-12-93)
6. Water distribution and sewage collection lines and appurtenances owned and
operated by the Albemarle County. Service Authority, but excluding pumping stations and
holding ponds. (Added 7-1-81)
7. If paraeraphs (a) through (d) are each satisfied, proiecrs which: (i) are desiened
or directed by the county, a soil and water conservation district, or a public agency authorized
m carry out flood control or environmental restoration measures; or (ii) are reviewed and
approved by the department of engineering and public works in accordance with the water
protection ordinance.
a. The purpose which will be served by the project, as determined by the
department of engineering and public works, is either flood control or environmental
restoration~
b. The amount of fill material placed within the floodway, floodway fringe
or approximated flood plain does not exceed the amount of cut material removed from
the same floodway, floodway fringe or approximated flood plain in which the fill was
placed;
c. No natural streams will be relocated; and
d. The proiect will use natural materials such as rock and vegetation, and
will not use engineered structures such as those identified in section 30.3.05.2.1(5).
Sec. 30.3.05.2.1 By special use permit within the floodway.
The following uses or activities are authorized within the floodway by special use permit:
1: Dams, levees and other structures for water supply and flood control.
2. Water related uses such as boat docks, canoe liveries, bridges, ferries, culverts and
river crossings of transmission lines of all types.
Sod fanning, topsoil, and sand and gravel removal.
Draft: August 20. 1998
4. Pump stations for water or wastewater including power supply and control
devices, holding ponds and other appurtenances.
5. E~r2c crgz:.cx z~c:e,~es. Engineered structures including, but not limited to,
retaining walls and revetments made of non-natural materials such as concrete, and ~abion
baskets, which are constructed along channels or watercourses for the purpose of water
conveyance or flood control.
6. Hydroelectric power generation (reference 5.1.26). (Added 4-28-82)
3
Draft: August 20, 1998
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an
Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of
to , as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on September ,1998.
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Mr. Marshall
Mr. Bowerman
Mr. Perkins
Ms. Humphris
Mr. Martin
Ms. Thomas
Aye Nay
4
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Members of the Board of Supervisors
Laurie Hall, Senior Deputy. Clerk '~
September 15, 1998
Vacancies on Boards and Commissions
I have attached an updated list of vacancies on boards and commissions through
November 30, 1998 on the reverse of this page.
cc: Bol~ Tucker
Larry Davis
To: Members. Board of Superwsors
From: Ella Washington Carey, CMC. Clerk
Subject: Reading List for Se~zem~er 16. 1998
I)ate: September 10. 1998
March 13(A), 995
September 4. 996
Mr. Martin
pages 29 ( rem # 0) - eno - Ms. Hum~hris
/~wc