HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-10-11N F I N A L
OCTOBER 11, 1995
7:00 P.M.
ROOM 241
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
lo)
il)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
Call to Order.
Pledge of Allegiance.
~gment of Silence.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC.
Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
SP-95-20. Centel Cellular. Public Hearing on a request =o construct a
cellular communication tower & support buildings on approx 43 ac
zoned RA & EC. Located in SW corner of inters of 1-64 & 637. TM74,
P14A. Samuel Miller Dist. (This site is not located in a desig-
nated growth area [Rural Area 3].)
SP-95-26. Paul McGill. Public Hearing on a request for a Home Occupa-
tion-Class B for blacksmith shop on 2.0 ac zoned RA. Located on S
sd of Rt 250 E approx 600 ft E of Rt 616. TM94,P28. Rivanna
Dist. (This site is not located in a designated growth area.)
SP-95-28. Church of God. Public Hearing on a request to expand
existing church on approx 1.6 ac zoned RA. Located on S sd of Rt
663 approx 0.7 mi E of Rt 810. TMg,P4&6A. White Hall Dist.
(This site is not located in a designated growth area.)
ZMA-95-10. Crozet Moose Lodge No. 2164. Public Hearing on a reques= to
rezone approx 3 ac zoned RA to HC. Located on S sd of Rt 250
approx 0.7 mi E of 1-64. (This site is not located in a designat-
ed growth area [Rural Area 3]). TM55,P109B. White Hall Dist.
ZTA-95-03. Farm Sales. Public hearing on an Ordinance to amend Section
10.0, Rural Areas District, RA of the Zoning Ordinance, =o permit
by special use permit the sale of merchandise not necessarily
produced on the premises, but directly related and accessory to
agricultural or horticultural produce which is grown by the owner
or his family on their farm.
ZTA-95-04. Farmers' Market. Public Hearing on an Ordinance to amend
Section 22.0, Commercial, C-1, and Section 24.0, Highway Commer-
cial, HC, of the Zoning Ordinance, =o permit farmers' market by
right; and to amend Section 10.0, Rural Areas District, RA, of the
Zoning Ordinance, to permit farmers' market by special use permit.
ZTA-95-05. commercial Stables. Public Hearing on an Ordinance ro amend
Section 10.0, Rural Areas District, RA, of the Zoning Ordinance,
to permit commercial stables by right, and to include all neces-
sary supplementary regulations related thereto.
Adopt~VPSA Bond Resolution approving issuance of school bonds of
Albemarle Coun=y in the estimated maximum amount of $7,850,000.
Approval of Minutes: June 7 and September 13, 1995.
Cancel Regular Meeting of October 18, 1995.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
Adjourn to October 30, 1995, 5:15 p.m., McIntire Room of the Main
Library Building.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR /~PROV~L:
5.1 Adopt Resolution requesting acceptance of Moubry Way in Forest Ridge
Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways.
.5.2 Adop= Resolution requesting acceptance of Austin Drive and Wren Court in
Briarwood Subdivision, and the relocated portion of State Rou=e 606 int~
the State Secondary System of Highways.
5.2a Adopt Resolution requesting acceptance of Stoney Creek Drive and
Starcrest Road in Mill Creek Subdivision into the State Secondary System
of Highways.
FOR INFORMATION:
5.3 Copies of Minutes of the Planning Commission for August 15, August 29,
September 12 and September 19, 1995.
5.4 Copy of the following Statements showing the Equalized Assessed Value as
the beginning of the First Day of January, 1995, for the follows
properties (all Statements on file in the Clerk's Office):
a) Telecommunications Companies;
b) Water Corporations;
c) Gas and Pipeline Distribution Corporations; and
d) Electric Light and Power Corporations.
5.5 Copy of FY 1996-97 Proposed Budget Calendar.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596
1'804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
MEMORANDUM
~ S. Martin
Walter F Perkins
Sally H Thomas
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Rober= W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
Ella W. Car ey, Clerk J~ ~ ~'fi~'~/
October 13, 1995
Board Actions of October 11, 1995 (Night)
The following is a list of actions taken by the Board of Supervasors at its
meeting on October 11, 1995 (Night meeting):
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. Meeting was called to order at 7:00
P.M., by the Chairman. ALL PP~SENT.
Agenda I=em NO. 4. other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC.
Karen Dame, representing citizens for Albemarle, was present to express
concern about the current review process being followed by the Planning
commission on the update of the Comprehensive Plan. It was suggested that the
Planning commission's public hearing on the Plan should be no closer than three
weeks to the date when the actual written plan is released for public scrutiny.
Mr. John Carter was presen~ ro express concern about the Board's approval
of additional funding =o research the possibility of constructing a sustainable
high school. He expressed concern tha= there had been no public hearing on the
subject at which citizens could make comments, and also suggested that the Board
had taken on the powers and duties of the School Board in this matter.
Mr. Roland Stan~on was present =o say that a sustainable high school will
save only $80,000 a year an operating costs, and that the money (which has no=
yet been included in the CIP) will take 20 to 25 years to pay back. He thinks
there are a lot of unanswered questions. Also, a lot of money Ks being spent is
certain areas of education without considering alternatives. He said that not
all children in Albemarle County receive a quality education. In the future,
before spending money on the education system, he would like mo see what the
education sys=em really needs.
Agenda Item No. 5.1. Adop= Resolution requesting acceptance of Moubry Way
an Forest Ridge Subdivision in=o the State Secondary Sysmem of Highways.
ADOPTED. Resolution sent to Engineering.
Agenda Item No. 5.2. Adopt Resolution requesting acceptance of Austin
Printed on recycled paper
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
October 13, 1995
(Page 2)
Drive and Wren Court in Briarwood Subdivision, and the relocated portion of State
Route 606 into the state Secondary System of Highways. ADOPTED. Resolution sen~
to Engineering.
Agenda Item No. 5.2a. Adopt Resolution requesting acceptance of Stoney
Creek Drive and Starcrest Road in Mill Creek Subdivision into the State Secondary
System of Highways. ADOPTED. Resolution sent to Engineering.
Agenda Inem No. 5.5. Copy of FY 1996-97 Proposed Budget Calendar.
ACCEPTED along with other items on the Consent Agenda.
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-95-20. Centel Cellular. public Hearing on a
request to construct a cellular communication tower & suppor~ buildings on approx
43 ac zoned RA & EC. Located in SW corner of in=ers of 1-64 & 637. TM74, P14A.
samuel Miller Dist. (This site is not located in a designated growth area [Rural
Area 3].) (Public hearing 7:30 to 10:05 p.m.) DENIED 6/0.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-95-26. Paul McGill. Public Hearing on a request
for a Home Occupation-Class B for blacksmith shop on 2.0 ac zoned RA. Located on
S sd of Rt 250 E approx 600 ft E of Rt 616. TM94,P28. Rivanna Dist. (This site
is not located in a designated growth area. ) APPROVED SP-95-26, with the four
conditions recommended by the Planning Staff, adding No. 5 to read "Hours of
operation shall be week days between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m."; and adding No. 6
to read "The use of a hammer mill is prohibited.". The conditions of approval
read as follows:
1. Use shall be limited to the accessory structure identified in
Attachment C (on file);
2. No employees other than family members residing on the premises;
3. No signage shall be permitted;
4. All oundoor activities, including storage of materials, shall not be
permitted;
5. Hours of operation shall be week days between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m.;
6. The use of a hammer mill is prohibited.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-95-28. Church of God. Public Hearing on a request
to expand existing church on approx 1.6 ac zoned RA. Located on S sd of Rt 663
approx 0.7 mi E of Rt 810. TM9,P4&6A. White Hall Dist. (This site is not
located in a designated growth area.) APPROVED with the four conditions of the
Planning Commission. The conditions of approval read as follows:
1o Relocation of the existing sign in order to achieve a minimum of 350
feet of sight distance;
2. Paving of the entrance to the right-of-way limits;
3. Development shall be in general accord with the site plan titled
"Addition to the Nortonsville Church of God" dated June 2, 1995.
Modifications to the site plan to address the requirements and
recommendations of the Site Review Committee shall be permitted;
4. Approval of this permit shall not constitute approval of a day
care/nursery school.
Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-95-10. Croze= Moose Lodge No. 2164. Public
Hearing on a request to rezone approx 3 ac zoned RA to HC. Located on S sd of
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
October 13, 1995
(Page 3)
Rt 250 approx 0.7 mi E of 1-64. (This site is not located in a designated growth
area [Rural Area 3]). TM55,P109B. White Hall Dist. DENIED 6/0.
Agenda I=em No. 10. ZTA-95-03- Farm Sales. Public hearing on an
Ordinance to amend Section 10.0, Rural Areas District, RA of the Zoning
ordinance, =o permit by special use permit the sale of merchandise not
necessarily produced on the premises, but directly related and accessory to
agricultural or horticultural produce which is grown by the owner or his family
on their farm. ADOPTED the amendment as advertised. Copy of ordinance attached.
Agenda Item No. 11. ZTA-95-04. Farmers' Market. Public Hearing on an
Ordinance to amend Section 22.0, Commercial, C-l, and Section 24.0, Highway
Commercial, HC, of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit farmers' market by right; and
=o amend Section 10.0, Rural Areas District, RA, of the Zoning Ordinance, to
permit farmers' market by special use permit. ADOPTED the amendmen= as
advertised. Copy of ordinance attached.
Agenda Item No. 12. ZTA-95-05. Commercial stables. Public Hearing on an
Ordinance to amend Section 10.0, Rural Areas District, RA, of the Zoning
Ordinance, to permit commercial stables by right, and ~o include all necessary
supplementary regulations related thereto. DEFERRED this amendment until
November 15, 1995.
Agenda Item No. 13. Adopt VPSA Bond Resolution approving issuance of
school bonds of Albemarle County in the estimated maximum amount of S7,850,000.
ADOPTED.
Agenda Item No. 15. Cancel Regular Meeting of October 18, 1995. CANCELED.
Agenda Item NO. 17. Adjourn ro October 30, 1995, 5:15 p.m., McIntire Room
of the Main Library Building. ADJOURNED to October 30, 1995.
LEN/
Attachments (5)
cc: Richard E. Huff
Roxanne White
Jo Higgins
Bruce Woodzell
Amelia McCulley
Larry Davis
Wayne Cilimberg
File
ORDINANCE NO. 95-20(3)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 20, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL
PROVISIONS, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE III, DISTRICT ~EGULA-
TIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the Coun=y of Albemarle,
Virginia, that Chapter 20, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Article II,
Basic Regulations, and Article III, District Regulations, are hereby amended
and reordained by amending Section 3.0, Definitions, Section 5.0, Supplementa-
ry Regulations, and Section 10.0, Rural Areas District, RA, as follows:
3.0 DEFINITIONS
5.0
5.1.35
Farm Sales: The sale of agricultural or horticultural produce or
merchandise produced on the farm, with subordinate sales of
produce or merchandise not produced on the premises~ Merchandise
no= produced on the premises shall be companion items intended to
be used with (for planting, caring for, displaying, combining
with, canning, or preserving) the agricultural or horticultural
produce which is produced on the farm, but shall not include farm
machinery and equipment (except hand =ools), building materials,
furniture, or other like items. Examples: Canning 3ars, pumpkin
carving kits, wreath making supplies, floral arranging supplies,
potting soil, pots, packaged fertilizer, mulch, peat moss, pruning
shears, gardening gloves, Christmas tree decorations~
SUPPLEMENTARy REGULATIONS
FARM SALES
ac
One (1) farm sales structure may be established per farm.
In addition to displays and sales of agricultural or horti-
cultural produce or.merchandise which is produced on the
farm, it may include companion items not produced on the
premises, but intended ~o be used with the agricultural or
horticultural produce which is produced on the farm. The
farm sales structure shall no~ be established until the
agricultural or horticultural produce growing area has been
established and is in production. Such growing area shall
be reestablished on an annual basis.
The total retail sales area in the farm sales structure
shall not exceed fifteen hundred (1,500) square fee=.
Greenhouses shall not be counted as part of the total retail
sales area, unless one is designated as the farm sales
structure. At all times, at least fifty (50) percent of the
retail sales area inside the farm sales structure shall be
agricultural or horticultural produce or merchandise pro-
duced on the premises. The remaining fifty (50) percent
area may be companion items. Displays outside the farm
sales structure shall be limited =o agricultural and horti-
cultural produce only.
A preliminary schematic plan in accordance with sec-
tion 32.4.1 shalt be submitted along with, and become ~ part
of, the special use permit application. The plan shall
include the area of the farm sales structure, parking and
entrance. The plan shall address, in particular, provisions
for safe and convenient access from and to the public road,
adequacy of delineation of parking, and general information
regarding the exterior appearance of the proposed site.
10.0
10.2.2
eo
Based on the submitted information, the board of supervisors
may then waive the requirement for a site development plan
Ln a particular case, upon a finding that the requirement of
a site development plan would not forward the purposes of
this ordinance or otherwise serve the public interest. No
such use shall be established without Virginia Department of
· ransportation approval of commercial access to the site.
The farm sales structure and parking area shall not be
located closer than fifty (50) feet ~o any adjoining proper-
~y not under the same ownership. The farm sales s~ructure
shall meet front yard setbacks for a primary structure. The
parking area shall not be located closer than ten (10) feet
5o any public or private street right-of-way.
Farm machinery and equipment (excep~ hand ~ools), building
materials, furniture or other like items, shall not be
offered for sale.
Ail farm sales structures shall meet all applicable require-
ments of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code.
BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
45. Farm Sales (reference 5.1.35).
I~ Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a
true, correct copy of an ordinance unanimously adopted by the Board of County
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held .on
October 11, 1995.
Clerk, Board of County S~rv~sors
ORDINANCE NO. 95-20(4)
A~ OPd~INANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 20, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS,
ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS AND ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE C~DDE OF THE
COUNTY OF ALBEF~RLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia,
that Chap=er 20, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Article II, Basic Regulations, and
Article III, District Regulations, are hereby amended and reordained by amending Sec-
tion 3.0, Definitions, Section 5.0, Supplementary Regulations, Section 22.0, Commercial,
C-l, and Section 24.0, Highway Commercial, HC, as follows:
3.0 DEFINITIONS
5.0
5.1.36
Farmers' Marke=: An existing parking area used periodically by two (2) or more
farmers only for the seasonal sale of agricultural or horticultural produce or
merchandise produced on their farms. A farmers' market shall not include the
sale of commercially manufacuured products which the farmers have not grown or
produced on their farms.
SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS
FARMERS' MARKET
A site plan shall be required, unless waived in accordance with section
32.2.2.
22.0
22.2.1
eo
Farmers' markets shall be limited to a maximum of =wo (2) days per week,
during daylight hours, between May 1 and November 30 only. Days and
hours of operation shall be only those specified on the site plan.
The parking area for all farmers' and customers' vehicles shall not be
located closer than =eh (10) feet to any public street right-of-way.
The applicant shall make adequate arrangements for the removal of trash
and debris and general restora=ion of the site following an event. The
zoning administrator may establish and require the posting of a bond in
a~ amount deemed sufficient for such purpose.
No permanent structure shall be established.
COMMERCIAL - C-1
BY RIGHT
22.2ol.b
24.0
24.2.1
25. Farmers' Market (reference 5.1.36).
HIGHWAy COMMERCIAL, H~
BY RIGHT
24.2.1.43 Farmers' Market (reference 5.1.36).
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a =rue, correct
copy of an ordinance unanimously adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle
CounEy, Virginia, a= a regular meeting held on October 11, 1995.
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County,
ia, in regular meeting on the llth day of October, 1995,
the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
Virgin-
adopted
W~EREAS, the streets in Forest Ridge Subdivision described
on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated October ~, 1995,
fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department
of Transportation has advised the Board that the streets mee~ the
requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements
of the Virginia Department of Transportation°
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation to add the roads in Forest Ridge Subdivision as described
on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated October ll, 1995, to
the secondary system of sta~e highways, pursuant to §33.1-229,
Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Re-
quirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and
unrestricte~ right-of-way, as described, and any necessary
easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the
recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
Recorded vote:
Moved by: Mrs. Humphris
Seconded by: Mr. Martin
Yeas: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman,
Mrs° Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
Nays: None.
A Copy Teste:
Ella W. Carey, Cl~c
o
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County,
ia, in regular meeting on the llth day of October, 1995,
the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
Virgin-
adopted
WHEREAS, the streets in Mill Creek Subdivision - Section 8
(SUB-90-025) described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A)
dated October 11, 1995, fully incorporated herein by reference,
are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's office of the Circuit
Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department
of Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the
requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements
of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation to add the roads in Mill Creek subdivision Section 8
(SUB-90-025) as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A)
dated October 11, 1995, to the secondary system of state high-
ways, pursuant to ~33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Depart-
ment's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and
unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary
easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the
recorded plats; and
FI/RTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this
forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia
Transportation.
resolution be
Department of
Recorded vote:
Moved by: Mrs° Humphris
Seconded by: Mr. Martin
Yeas: Mr. Martin, FLr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas,
M_rs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
Nays:
Mr. Bowerman,
A Copy Teste:
Ella W. Carey, Cle~C'
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgin-
ia, in regular meeting on the llth day of October, 1995, adopted
the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the streets in Briarwood subdivision described on
the attached Additions Form SR-5[A) dated October llt 1995, fully
incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in
the Clerk's office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County,
Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department
of Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the
requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements
of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation to add the roads in Briarwood subdivision as described on
the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated October ll, 1995, to
the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229~
Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Re-
quirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and
unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary
easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the
recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this
forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia
Transportation.
resolution be
Department of
Recorded vote:
Moved by: Mrs. Humphris
Seconded by: Mr. Martin
Yeas: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr.
M_rs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
Nays:
Bowerman,
A Copy Teste:
Ella W. Carey, C~rk, CMC~
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle
ia, in regular meeting on the llth day of October,
the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
County, Virgin-
1995, adopted
WHEREASr the streets in Forest Ridge Subdivision described
on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated October ll, 1995,
fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats
recorded in the Clerk's office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department
of Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the
requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements
of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation to add the roads in Forest Ridge S~bdivision as described
on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated October l~, 1995, to
the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229,
Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Re-
quirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and
unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary
easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the
recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
Recorded vote:
Moved by: Mrs. Humphris
Seconded by: Mr. Martin
Yeas: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman,
Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
Nays: None.
A Copy Teste:
Ella W. Carey, CleriC
'1
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgin-
ia, in regular meeting on the llth day of October, 1995, adopted
the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the streets in Forest Ridge Bubdlvlsion described
on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated October l~, 1995,
fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department
of Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the
requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements
of the Virginia Department~of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation to add the roads in Forest Ridge S~bdivision as described
on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated Ootober ~, X995, to
the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229,
Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Re-
quirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and
unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary
easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the
recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
Recorded vote:
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Yeas:
Nays:
A Copy Teste:
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1)
Moubry Way from Station 0+10, right edge of pavement of
State Route 649, 1158 lineal feet to Station 11+68,
back of the cul-de-sac as shown on plat recorded
12/7/94 in Deed Book 1444, pages 422-425 in the office
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County,
showing a 50 foot right-of-way, for a total length of
0.22 mile.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Ella Carey, Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Mark B. Henry, Civil Engineer I1~)~
October2, 1995
Forest Ridge Subdivision (SUB-94-044)
The road serving the referenced subdivision is substantially complete and ready for a
VDO T acceptance inspection. Attached is the completed SR-5(A) form for a resolution,
which I request be taken to the Board for adoption at your next opportunity. Once the
resolutions have been adopted, p/ease date and sign the SR-5(A), and provide me with
the o/~ginal and four copies.
Thanks for your assistance. P/ease contact me ff you have any questions.
MBH/ctj
Attachment
mari(~forelO._2, res
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902~96
~804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S Martin
Waker F. Perkins
Sa]]~ H. Thoma!
MEMO TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Jo Higgins, Director of Engineering
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMO
October 13, 1995
Road Resolutions adopted on October 11, 1995
Attached is the original
the Board on October 11,
following roads:
1)
2)
3)
resolution (plus four copies) adopted by
1995, requesting acceptance of the
Forest Ridge Subdivision
Mill Creek Subdivision - Section
Briarwood Subdivision
EWC:len
Attachments (3)
Printed on recycled paper
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgin-
ia, in regular meeting on the 11th day of October, 1995, adopted
the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the streets in Briarwood subdivision described on
the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated October 11, 1995, fully
incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in
the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County,
Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department
of Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the
requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements
of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation to add the roads in Briarwood Subdivision as described on
the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated October 11, 1995, to
the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229,
Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Re-
quirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and
unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary
easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the
recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
Recorded vote:
Moved by: Mrs. Humphris
Seconded by: Mr. Martin
Yeas: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas,
Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
Nays:
Mr. Bowerman,
A Copy Teste:
Ella W. Carey,~ C~rk~, CMC/f
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County,
ia, in regular meeting on the llth day of O~tober, 1995,
the following resolution:
Virgin-
adopted
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the streets in Briarwood B~]~division described on
the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated Ooto~er 11, 1995, fully
incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in
the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County,
Virginia; and -
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department
of Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the
requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements
of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation to add the roads in Briarwood S%~]~division as described on
the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated October ~1, 1995, to
the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229,
Code of Virginia, and the Department,s Subdivision Street Re-
quirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and
unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary
easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the
recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
Recorded vote:
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Yeas:
Nays:
A Copy Teste:
Ella W. Carey~ Clerk, CMC
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1)
Austin Drive from Station 11+26.80, 1066 lineal feet to
Station 21+93 as shown on plat recorded 9/6/83 in Deed
Book 775, pages 587-590 in the office of the Clerk of
the Circuit Court of Albemarle County showing a 50 foot
right-of-way, with drainage easement recorded 9/26/95
in Deed Book 1494, page 136, for a total length of 0.20
mile.
2)
Wren Court from Station 0+19, left edge of pavement of
Austin Drive, 727 lineal feet to Station 7+45.96, left
edge of pavement of Austin Drive as shown on a plat
recorded 9/6/83 in Deed Book 775, pages 587-550 in the
office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County showing a 40 foot right-of-way with additional
right-of-way recorded 12/27/90 in Deed Book 1134, pages
16-18, for a total length of 0.14 mile.
3)
Relocated portion of State Route 606 from Station
3+15.79, 976 lineal feet to Station 12+92.12 with a
right-of-way varying from 60 feet to 70 feet as shown
on plat recorded 9/6/83 in Deed Book 775, pages 587-
590, in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County with drainage easement recorded
9/26/95 in Deed Book 1494, page 136, for a total length
of 0.18 mile.
Total length 0.52 mile.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
[~oARD OF~
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Ella Carey, Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Mark B. Henry, Civil Engineer II ~
October2, 1995
Briarwood Subdivision (SUB-90-023)
The road serving the referenced subdivision is substantially complete and ready for a
VDOT acceptance inspection. Attached is the completed SR-5(AJ form fora resolution,
which I request be taken to the Board for adoption at your next opportunity. Once the
resolutions have been adopted, please date and sign the SR-5(A), and provide me with
the odginal and four cop/es.
Thanks for your assistance. Please contact me if you have any questions.
MBH/ctj
Attachment
mark~bdalO_2, res
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle
ia, in regular meeting on the llth day of October,
the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
County, Virgin-
1995, adopted
WHEREAS, the streets in Mi-ll Creek Subdivision - Section 8
(SUB-90-025) described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A)
dated October 11, 1995, fully incorporated herein by reference,
are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's office of the Circuit
Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department
of Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the
requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements
of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation to add the roads in Mill Creek Subdivision - Section 8
(SUB-90-025) as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A)
dated October 11, 1995, to the secondary system of state high-
ways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Depart-
ment's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and
unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary
easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the
recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
Recorded vote:
Moved by: Mrs. Humphris
Seconded by: Mr. Martin
Yeas: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas,
Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
Nays:
Mr. Bowerman,
A Copy Teste:
Ella W. Carey,
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County,
ia, in regular meeting on the llth day of October, 1995,
the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
Virgin-
adopted
WHEREAS, the streets in Mill Creek Subdivision - Section 8
(SUB-90-025) described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A)
dated October 1~, 1995, fully incorporated herein by reference,
are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit
Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department
of Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the
requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements
of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation to add the roads in Mill Creek Subdivision - Section 8
(SUB-90-025) as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A)
dated October 11, 1995, to the secondary system of state high-
ways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Depart-
ment's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear
unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary
easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the
recorded plats; and
and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
Recorded vote:
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Yeas:
Nays:
A Copy Teste:
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC
The
1)
2)
roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
Stoney Creek Drive from Station 15+87, 1275 lineal feet
to Station 64+62, rear of the cul-de-sac as shown on
plat recorded 6/30/94 in Deed Book 1414, pages 600-608,
in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County with a 50 foot right-of-way, with
drainage easement shown on plat recorded 9/28/95 in
Deed Book 1495, pages 449-452, for a total length of
0.24 mile.
Starcrest Road from Station 10+10, right edge of pave-
ment of Stoney Creek Drive, 795 lineal feet to Station
.18+05, rear of the cul-de-sac as shown on plat recorded
6/30/94 in Deed Book 1414, pages 600-608, in the office
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County
with a 50 foot right-of-way, with drainage easement
shown on plat recorded 9/28/95 in Deed Book 1495, pages
56-59, for a total length of 0.15 mile.
Total length - 0.39 mile
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Ella Carey, Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Mark B. Henry, Civil Engineer Il ~
October 6, 1995
Mill Creek Subdivision - Section 8 (SUB-90-025)
The road serving the referenced subdivision is substantially con3plete and ready for a
VDOT acceptance inspection. Attached is the completed SR-5(A) form for a resolution,
which t request be taken to the Board for adoption at your next opportunity. Once the
resolutions have been adopted, please date and sign the SR-5(A), and please provide
me with the original and four copies.
Thanks for your assistance. Please contact me if you have any questions.
MBH/ss
Attachment
File: mark',rni~llO_6.res
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUM?vIARY
AGENDA T1TLE:
FY 1996-97 Proposed Budget Calendar
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Proposed Schedule for the Board's FY 1996-97
Budget Review Process
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mr. Tucker, Ms. White
AGENDA DATE:
October 11, 1995
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION:
ITEM N-~ E R:/~
I~[ORMATION:
INFORMATION: X
DISCUSSION:
Attached for your information and review is the proposed budget schedule for the FY 1996-97 budget review
process. The process follows the same time line as last year with the exception of moving the first public hearing
on budget initiatives from Octoher to November. With the sparse public attendance in the past few years, moving
the public heating closer to the beginning of the actual budget preparation and review process may elicit more
participation. It will also allow the Board to receive pubhe input after the Board has had the opportunity to review
revenues and set budget guidelines on November 1.
The highlighted dates on the cale~xlar are those which involve Board members either in meetings or public hearings.
RECOMMENDATION:
If the Board concum with the attached schedule, these dates will he advertised as the official budget review process
for FY 1996-97.
95.170
October 1995
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
$ 2 10 11 t2 13 14
15 16 17 t8 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
293031
SMTWTFS
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 $ 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
272829 30
December 1995
S M T W T F S
I 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22
23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
FY
1995-1996
1996-97 Budget Calendar
October
18 Revenue Projections Submitted by Finance
27 Program Review Applications Sent to Agencies
November
BPS Roll-Over
10 Budget Instructions Distributed to Departments
27 Program Review Applications Due
28 Planning Commission Hearing on CIP (if Desired)
December
Personnel Budget Sheets Due
gubmitted by Today
Exec. Staff B~gins Reviewing Department Requests
January
16- Begin Depaxtmental Work Sessions
February
2 General Fund Balanced
April 1996
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
282930
May 1996
S M T W T F S
I 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31
June 1996
S M T W T F S
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
3O
January 1996
S M T W T F S
I 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31
February 1996
S M T W T F
I 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
~1 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29
March 1996
S M T W T F S
I 2
(~ 4 5 6 7 8 9
t 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
14 School Budget Submitted to County Executive
15 Co. Exec. Begins Review of School Budget
23 Finalize Proposed Operating Budget
26 Print Proposed Operating Budget
28 Proposed Budget Distributed to Board
March
26 Board of Supervisors Advertises Proposed Budget
April
July
July 1996
SMTWTFS
123456
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 12 17 18 19 3O
21 22 23 ~ ~ 3O 27
~3O31
August 1996
S M T W T F S
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
September 1996
S M T W T F S
I 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 ~9 20 2~
2~ 23 24 25 26 27 28
30
10/6/1995
September 14, 1995
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
40t McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-45,96
(804) 296-582:3
Centel Cellular Company of Charlottesville
C/O M. E. Gibson, Jr
P. O. Box 1585
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SP-95-20 Center Cellular
Tax Map 74, Parcel 14A
Dear Mr. Gibson:
~he Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 12, 1995, by a vote of
' 3-1, recommended denial of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. The Planning
Commissmn also recommended denial of the modification of Section 4. t0.3.1. Please note that
the Board of Supervisors is schedule to review this petition at its October 11, 1995 meeting.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
William D. Fritz
Senior Planner
WDF/jcw
~. Lettie E. Neher Verulam Farm Limited Ptm
Amelia McCulley Jo Higgins
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
WILLIAM D. FRITZ
SEPTEMBER 12, 1995
OCTOBER 11, 1995
SP-95-20 CENTEL CELLULAR COMPANY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to locate a cellular tower and support facilities
near 1-64 as shown on attachment C The tower design is unusual in that branches are proposed
which are intended to imitate a tree. The applicant has provided photographs of the proposed
tower site (Attachment C). The proposed location of the tower is approximately 0.6 miles east of
the Ivy Rest Area and is approximately 75 feet from the right of way for 1-64. This tower will
provide increased coverage in the western portion of the County and along the 1-64 corridor
This site will provide coverage for areas which are not currently adequately covered by the Bear
Den (Camp H61iday Trails) site and the Crozet site.
Petition: Petition to construct a communication tower/antennas and support l~uildings on 43
acres zoned RA, Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District [10.2.2(6)]. Property,
described as Tax Map 74, Parcel 14A, is located in the southwest corner of the intersection of
Route 637 and 1-64 in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is not located within a
designated growth area (Rural Area 3).
Character of the Area: This tower is proposed to be located near 1-64 within an area of mature
hardwoods. An access road will need to be constructed through the farm. The nearest dwellings
to this site are approximately 1000 feet distant. (These dwellings are located on Route 637 and
on the opposite side ofi-64 in the Langford Farms subdivision.)
Recommendation:
Staffhas reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the
Zoning Ordinance and recommends denial.
Planning and Zoning History:
No history is available. The applicant has made application on this sae in response to the recent
denial of the application for a tower at the landfill.
Comprehensive Plan:
A stated design standard of the Comprehensive Plan is "design public utility corridors to fit the
topography. Corridors should be shared ay utilities when possible. Distribution lines should be
placed underground." The intent of this statement is to consolidate locations_ The
Comprehensive Plan contains no specific recommendations for the placement of cellular
communication facilities. No other towers are currently located on this site. Therefore, this
request is not consistent with past efforts to locate new towers in existing "tower farms". The
travelling public is one of the main users of cellular telephones. Therefore, this request may be
considered as serving the Rt. 64 corridor.
Otl~er cellular towers have been approved and serve the Rt. 64 corridor (as well as other sections
of the County). However, the opportunity to cluster cellular telephones to serve large areas and
long lengths of corridors is limited by both technology and topography. Staff'has included in this
report discussion on the nature of cellular telephone technology.
STAFF COMMENT:
Staff will address the issues of this request in three sections:
1. Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Section 4,10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. Characteristics of Cellular Telephone Technology.
Section 31.2..4.1 oftIte 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 right to issue all special use
permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance
may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of
substantial detriment to adjacent property,
The nearest dwelling to the proposed tower site is located approximately 1000 feet distant. This
tower is approximately 75 feet from the edge of the right of way for 1-64. The tower will be
visible from dwellings located in the Langford Farms, Colston, Rosemont, and Peacock Hill
subdivisions The tower will be visible from 1-64. (The equipment building will be substantially
screened from 1-64.) Lighting of the tower is unlikely due to the fact that the tower is under 200
feet in height. Should this special use permit be approved, staff has recommended as a condition
no lighting except as required by the F.A.A. or.other federal agencies.
Staff. opinion is that the proposed tower will not directly limit the use of a~y adjacent private
property. However, the visibility of the tower from residential areas may be considered a
detriment to those properties.
that the character of the district will not be chan~ed thereby,
This tower will be a stand alone facility. This will result in a change in the appearance of the area.
Towers have been permitted in the Rural Areas and have not in the opinion of staff resulted
in a change in the character of the Rural Areas to this point. Staffopinion ~s that this tower will
not change the character of the Rural Areas district due to limited traffic volume, limited road
construction, no new utility corridors (electric, phone, etc.), and no impact on use of this or other
property for any by-right uses including agricultural/forestall use. Staff. does recognize this
introduces a new tower to a location at which no towers exist. Multiple stand alone tower
locations could ultimately have the cumulative effect of changing the character of the Rural Areas
District.
ThdARB has reviewed this request and recommended denial by a vote of 3 to 1 based on the
comments contained in the staffreport to the ARB (Attachment C). Based on the comments of
the ARB staffopinion is that this tower does represent a change in the character of the Entrance
Corridor District.
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 particular reference to Sections 1.4., 1.4.4, and 1.5 (Attachment D). All of these
provisions address, in one form or another, the provision of public services. The use of cellular
telephones clearly provides a public service as evidenced by the expanded and rapid increase in
use Sprint Cellular is a public utility as identified by the State. Based on the provision ora public
service, staffopinion is that this request is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the
ordinance. Section 1.4.3 states as an intent of the Ordinance "To facilitate the creation ora
convenient, attractive and harmonious community". The provision of this facility does increase
convenience roi- users ~of cellular phone technology. However, based on the comments of the
ARB this facility does not provide for a attractive community and approval of.this request may be
considered inconsistent with this stated intent of the ordinance.
with the uses permitted by right in the district.
The proposed tower will not affect the current uses, other by-right uses avail'able on this site or
by-right uses on any other property.
with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance,
Section 5.1.12 of the ordinance contains 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 con, sistent 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.
Section 4.10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance
Section 4.10.3.1 states:
"The height limitations of this chapter shall not apply to barns, silos, farm buildings,
agricultural museums designed to appear as traditional farm buildings, residential
chimneys, spires, flag poles, monuments or transmission towers and cables,: smokestack,
water tank, radio or television antenna or tower, provided that except as otherwise
permitted by the commission in a specific case, no structure shall be located closer in
distance to any lot line than the height of the structure; and, provided further that such
structure shall not exceed one hundred (100) feet in height in a residential district. This
height limitation shall nor apply to any of the above designated structures now or herealter
located on existing public utility easements".
3
By '~he requiremems of this provision the proposed tower would need to be located a minimum of '.
134 feet from the edge of the property. The proposed tower is located approximately 75 feet
from the edge of the right-of-way ofi-64. This location was determined by the topography of the
area.
Staffopinion is that this provision is designed to prevent undue crowding of the land and to
prevent safety hazards should a tower fall. The Virginia Department of Transportation was
contacted regarding this request and has stated no opposition as the tower will be required to be
located such that even in the event of collapse the tower will not extend beyond the ditch line ofi-
64. Historically, towers reviewed by the County are approved subject to a condition requiring
approval of a tower designed to collapse in the lease area in the event of structural failure (such a
condition is proposed by stafffor this request). This condition protects the public safety.
Relocation of the tower is an option, however, this may result in a taller tower. Staffis able to
support this request should the special use permit be approved.
Characteristics'of Cellhlar Telephone Technology
The Board has previously requested staffresearch future tower needs in the C~unty as related to
communication trends or technology. Although staff.is still researching technology and demand,
staff can provide the following information regarding cellular technology. The technology of
cellular phones results in a demand for tower locations unlike the demands of other users of the
airwaves. The public has general familiarity with commercial broadcast on A.M., F.M_ and
Television, including wireless cable. A.M. stations generally require a cluster of towers in low
locations. This is due to the fact that this type of broadcast relies on ground modulation for the
transmission of the signal. F.M. and television, including wireless cable broadcast utilize single
towers for broadcast. Towers for thistype ofuse are generally found at the highest available
location. These broadcast are generally only receivable in a line of sight with the tower.
However, with the use of large wattage for the transmission (in this area up to 5,000,000 watts)
small obstructions will not block the signal. This characteristic allows a single broadcast location
to serve a broad area
All of the commercial broadcasts listed above are received in a single direction That is, the
broadcast is made from the tower and received by the individual with no return of information.
Cellular use differs from standard coinmercial broadcasts in several ways which results in a
different demand for tower locations.
Cellular broadcast rely on line of sight for the transmission and reception of signals. This results
in the need to locate towers at higher elevations. The broadcast power at the cellular tower is
limited to 100 watts, effective radiating power. At this low power small obstructions, including
but not limited to foliage, can block signals. Even if the transmission power could be increased,
(the signal strength is limited by the F.C.C.), transmission range is limited by the power of the
hand held or car phone unit. The power of the personal units ranges from approximately 0.6 to 3
watts. This low power limits the broadcast range and increases the potential ofobstructlon of the
signal from small obstructions. Alone these two transmission power limitations result in the need
for multiple tower locations.
Another factor resulting in increased demand for tower locations is the limitation on the number
of calls which can be processed at each tower location at a given time. Currently, one cellular
provider has indicated that on one given hour, peak hour, up to 4,000 blocked calls were
4
recorded. These blocked calls are due in part to the limitation on the handling capacity of the
existing cellular towers. Increases in technology may enable each tower location to accommodate
more calls at on time. However, the limiting factor will be and is the number of channels available
for celhilar telephone use. Using multiple towers effectively increases the number of available
channels in the system. This is due to "handing off" of calls which occurs automatically within the
cellular system. That is, when an individual places a call, the nearest tower receives that call and
utilizes a channel to complete the call. (As an individual moves away from the original tower
another tower takes over the call ) The fewer number of towers within the system the fewer
number of calls which can be handled. As the system matures the coverage area for each tower is
reduced due to the placement of new towers These new towers, by virtue of their reduced
coverage area may be constructed at lower elevations
Cellular use requires uninterrupted service, particularly for data transmission, such as faxes and
computer connections. This sets a high standard of reliability and quality. Technology to reduce
the need for multiple towers, such as satellite technology, currently is unavailable. The use of
monopole, gus/ed or flee standing lattice towers is possible. The use of existing structures for the
provision of cellular coverage is preferred by the County and the service providers, due to
reduced cost. However, as has been stated previously the nature of cellular cc~mmunication is
such that limited opportunities to use existing structures exists.
SUMMARY:
The hilly to mountainous terrain of Albemarle County, which results in "dead spots" in a cellular
system, has resulted in a number of requests for cellular towers. This tower request is due to both
terrain and a need to increase the coverage provided by the system. This request is not located
within a "tower farm" as is encouraged by the County. No existing structures were found that
could provide the needed coverage. The applicant has been working with emergency service
providers to accommodate their needs. This tower is located along an existing highway corridor
and serves, in part, the users of that corridor. Due to the character of cellular technology,
additional stand alone towers are likely.
Staffhas identified the following factors which are favorable to this reques, t:
The tower will provide increased cellular coverage which may be considered
consistent with the provisions of Sections 1.4, 1.4.4 and 1.5;
The tower will not affect permitted uses in the Rural Areas District on adjacent
properties.
Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request:
1. Approval of this tower will change the character of the EC district;
The visual impact created by the tower may be considered a detrimem to existing
dwellings in the area.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff`opinion is that the change in the character of the district and the impact on dwellings in the
area outweigh the convenience provided by cellular phones. Therefore, staff`does not
recommended approval of the special use permit. Should the Board choose to approve this
request, staff`has provided conditions of approval Should the Board choose to approve the
special use permit staff supports the modification of Section 4.10.3.1
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Tower height shall not exceed 140 feet;
2. Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance;
There shall be no lighting of the tower unless required by a federal agency. All tower
lighting'shall bt shielded so as to minimize visibility from the grou/qd;
Staff`approval of additional antennae installation. No administrative al~proval shall
constitute or imply support for or approval o£ the location of additional towers, antennae,
etc., even if they may be part of the same network or system as any antennae
administratively approved under this section;
The tower must be designed and adequate separation provided to property lines such that
in the event of structural failure, the tower and components will remain within the lease
area;
Tower shall be located within lease area shown on Attachment C. Provided that
relocation of the tower to insure that in the event of tower collapse the tower would not
extend to the ditch line ofl-64:
The tower shall be disassembled and removed fi'om the site within 90 days of the
discontinuance of the use of the tower for cellular communication ,purposes
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B - Tax Map
C - ARB StaffRepor~
D ~ Sections 1.4, 1.5 & 1.6
E - Applicant's Information
F - Letters from the public
G - Site Plan
I:\GENERAL\SHAREXFRITZ\SP9520.RPT
6
TOM
SP-95-20
Centel Cellular
ALBEMARLE COUNTY IATTACHIflENT BI
58
SP-95-20
Centel Cellular
SECTION
74
SAMUEL MILLER DISTRICT
I TTACHMENT
STAFF PERSON: Marcia Joseph
PUBLIC MEETING: September 5, I995
Request for a Preliminary Conference
ARB-P(SDP)-95 Sprint Tower Site at Bloomfield//2
DESCRIPTION
Tax Map 74 Parcel 14A, Samuel Miller Magisterial District, Zoned,RA Rural Areas, total
acreage leased 0.069 acres.
LOCATION
Located on the south side of Route 1-64 just west of the Ivy exit.
PROPOSAL
To place a cellular tower measuring 129' in height, building and fencing vigible from the 1-
64 Entrance Corridor.
SITE CONDITIONS
The land is currently covered with large deciduous trees
STAFF REPORT
The applicant requests approval for a radio-wave transmission tower. Under section 10.2.2.6
a special use permit is required. The ARB is requested to provide a recommendation to the
Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission for this proposed use. The location
proposed for this use also requires a modification by the Planning Commission for the height
of the tower because the distance from the property line is not equal to its height (Section
4.10.3.1~.
The location of the tower is approximately 177 feet from the pavement of Route 1-64. Th~
tower will be visible from Route 1-64. The proposal includes a 12' x 28' building, a
generator and a 129' monopole. The leased area measuring 3,000 square feet is located in
an area that is currently covered with vegetation. The trees in this forested area rfieasure
between 60' to 100' in height.
The pole proposed for use resembles a tree with branches removed from all but the top
portion. The branches have been arranged on the pole to screen the smaller vertical antennae
circling the top of the pole.
I Page 2]
Sprint Tower Site at Bloomfield Landfill
September 6, 1995
Staff can not support the request for the following reasons:
1) The distance from Route 1-64 is minimal, this will make a significant visual impact on
the corridor. The pole because of its height will stand above the existing trees. As
the photograph of the pole illustrates, the height and the branching arrangement make
the pole visually obvious above the natural tree top limits.
The .existinl~ area designated for the building and the monopole will be cleared, this
effectively multiplies the visual impact that the proposed corIstructiOn will have.
The building design has not been submitted. It should resemble an agricultural
building.
2)
3)
~5~.~1~t~b"~- A LBEMA RLE,.
GOUNTY
iATTACHMENT C 1
IPage 31
AUg ~8 I~95
ZON1N9 DEP~-
iPage 51
1.0
t.1
1.2
t.3
1.4
IATTACHMENT D I
ARTICLE I.
GFAIERAL PROVISIONS
AUTHORITY, BSTABLISiIMENT, PURPOSE AND OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
AUTHORIZer AND ENACTMENT
This ordinance, no be cited aa the Zoning Ordinance of Albemarle
County, is hereby ordained, enacted and published hy the Board of
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, pursuant to the provisions
of [itle I5.1, Chapter 1l, Article 8, Code of Virginia, [950, and
amendments thereto.
AMENDMENT TO ADOPT
An ordinance to reenact and readopt the Albqmarle. County Zoning
Ordfnanc~and the Albemarle. County Zoning Map. '
Be it ordained by the Board of Supervisors of A~bemarle County,
Virginia: That the following ordinance known as the Zoning Ordinance
of Albemarle County, Virginia, together with the Zoning Map attached
thereto, be and the same are, readopted and reenacted effective
immediately upon adoption of this ordinance.
EFFECTIVE DATE, REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES
This Zoning Ordinance of Albemarle County, Virginia, sh~ll be effec-
tive at and after 5:15 P.M., the 10th day of December, 1980 and an the
same time the Albemarle County "Zoning Ordinance" adopted December 22,
1969, as amended, is hereby repealed.
PURPOSE AND INTENT
This ordinance, insofar as is practicable,
with and to'implement the Comprehensive
adapted pursuant co the urovis~ons of Title 15.1,-~hapter 11, Article
~, Coda of Virginia, [950, as amended, and has ~he purposes and intent
sen forth in Title 15.[, Chapter 11, Article 8.
is intended to be in accord
Plan of Albemarle County
As set forth in section 15.1-427 of the Code, this ordinance ia
~atended to improve pnblic health, safety, convenience and welfare of
citizens of Albemarle County, Virginia, and to plan for the future
development of communities ~o the end that transportation systems be
carefully planned; that new community centers be developed with
adequate highway, utility, health, educational and recreational
facilities; that the needs of agriculture, industry and business be
~ecognized in future growth; that residential areas be provided with
healthy surroundings for family life; that agricultural and forestal
land be preserved; and that the growth o~ the community be consonant
with the efficient and economical usa of public funds. (Added 9-9-92)
Therefore be it ordained by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, ¥1rg~nia, for the purposes of promoting the health, safety,
convenience and general welfare of the public and of planning for the
-1- (Supp. 1;68,
!NT D Page 2
future development of the community, that the zoning ordinance of
Albemarle County, together with the official zoning map adopted by
reference and declared go be a part of this ordinance, is designed:
[.4.1
To provide for adequate light, air, convenience of access and safety
from fire, flood and other dangers;
1.4.2 To reduce or prevent congestion in the public streets;
! .4.3
To facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious
community;
1.4.4
1.4.5
To facilitate the provision of adequate police and fire protection,
disaster evacuation, civil defense, transportation, water, sewerage,
flpod p~otection, schools, parks, forests, playgrounds, recreational
facilities, airports and other public requiremen~s~
To protect against destruction of or encroachment upd~ historic areas;
1.4.6
To protect against one or more of the following: overcrowding of
land, undue density of population in relation to the -community 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;
1.4.7
To encourage economic development activities that provide desirable
employment and enlarge the tax base; (Amended 9-9-92)
1.4.8
1.4.9
1.4.10
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, inclu~ing United Stat~s government and military air facilities;
(Added 11-1-89; Amended 9-9-92)
To include reasonable provisions, not Inconsistent with the applicable
state water quality standards [o prorecn surface water and groundwater
defined in section 62.1-44.85(8) of the Code of Virginia; and (Added
11-1-89; Amended 9-9-92)
1.4.11 To promote affordable housing. (Added 9-9-92)
1.5
RELATION 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 existing use and character of properties, the~qomprehen-
sive Plan, the suitability of property for various uses, the trends of
growth or change, the curren~ and future land and water requirements
of the community for various purposes as determined by population and
economic studies and o~her studies, the transportation requirements of
the community, and the requiremenrs for airports, bousing, schools,
parks, playgrounds, recreation areas and other public services; for
_o_ (Supp. #68, 9-9~92)
-- ATTACHMENT D
1.6
1.7
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)
RELATION TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
In drawing the zoning ordinance and districts with reasonable consi-
deration of the Comprehensive Plan, it is m stated and express purpose
of this zoninR ordinance no create land use regulations which shall
encourage the realization and implementation of the Comprehensive
Plan. To this end: development is no be encouraged in Villages,
Come, unities and the Urban Area; where services and utilities are
available and where such development will non conflict with the
agricul~ural/forestal or other rural objectives; and development is
no~ go be encouraged in the Rural Areas which ,are no be devoted to
preservation of agricultural and forestal lands ~nd activities, water
supply protection, and conservation of natural, scenic and historic
resources and where only limited delivery of public services is
intended. (Amended 11-1-89)
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
The unincorporated areas of Albemarle County, Virginia, are hereby
divided into districts, as indicated on m sen of map sheens entitled
"Zoning Map of Albemarle County, Virginia" which, together with all
explanatory matter thereon, :s hereby adopted by reference and de-
clared to be a part of this ordinance.
The Zoning Map shall he identified by the signature or the attested
signature of the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, together with
the date of adoption of this ordinance. ·
The zoning' administrator shall be responsible for maintaining the
Zoning Map, which shall be located in his offices, together with the
current zoning status of land and water areas~buitdings and other
structures in the county.
The zoning administrator shall be authorized no interpret the current
zon:ng status of land and water areas, buildings and other structures
in the counny.
No changes of any nature shall be made on said Zoning Map'or any
manner shown thereon except in conformity with the procedures~ and
requirements of this ordinance. It shall be unlawful for any pemson
~o make unauthorized changes on the official Zoning Map. Violations
of this provision shall be punishable as provided in section 37.0.
CERTIFIED COPY, FILING
A certified copy of the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map of ~lbemarle
County, Virginia, shall be filed in the office of tha zoning admini-
strator and in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albe-
marle County, Virginia.
-:½- (Supp. #68, 9-9-92)
978 1221
TREe. LA1- & SMITH
~O02/OOg _
LAW OFFICES
TREMBLAY & SMITH, LLP
HO, Box ~ss~
CHARLOTTEgVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902-1585
105,109 EAST HIGH STREET
TELEPHONE (a~4) 977-44s5
FAC$1MILI~ (804) 979,12Zl
VIA FACSIMILe. TRANSMISSION
972-4060
August 7, 1995
William D. Fritz, senior Planner
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
Coun=y of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 2290~-4596
RE:
$P-95-20 CENTEL CELLULAR
Bloomfield II, Albemarle County
Dear Bill:
PursuaNt to your reguest,
coverage/capacity information
received from sprint:
I am providing you with the following
about the captioned project which I
Coverage Obiectiye - This site is part of sprint's general effort
to provide portable coverage along 1-64 from Bear Den Mountain west
toward the Albemarle-Nelson County boundarieS. More specifically, this
site is needed to fill a significant gap in.portabl~ coverage between
Bear Den Mountain and the existing Crozet cell site.
Capacity Obiective - There is no capacity objective per se; the
subject site is being proposed on a coverage objective basis only. In
other words, the purpose of this site is not to off-load the existing
1-64 and Crozet sites. Sprint's focus is: principally to overcome
adverse topography west of the existing i~64 site (e.g., Bear Den
Mountain) ~%ich has created the above mentioned gap in portable
coverage.
Please let me know if you require any additional information.
Best personal regards.
Very truly yours,
M. E. Gibson, Jr.
MEG/sp
CC: Clifford I. ihaffer aa\s~t~¢rltz. O~i
M. E. GmSON,
PATRICIA D. McGraw
LAW OFFICES
TREMBLAY & SMITH, LLP
P.O. Box ~58s
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902-1585
105d09 EAST HIGH STREET
TELEPHONE (804) 977-4455
FACSIMILE (804) 979-1221
R. LEE LIV1/qGSTON
CHRlSTOPHF. R L. McLEAN
E. GERALD TRFA4BLAY
LLOYD T. SMITH, JR.
HAND DELIVERY
August 31, 1995
Marcia Joseph, Design Planner
Albemarle County Zoning Department
County Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
REC;IVED
RE:
SP-95-20
Sprint/Centel Cellular
Bloomfield II Cell Site
Dear Marcia:
I received your letter regarding the scheduling of the ARB
meeting and a copy of the Staff Report. I wouId like to address
for your consideration your stated reasons for not supporting the
application as follows:
1. The distance from Route 1-64 is minimal as you suggest,
and it is minimal because of suggestions by several of the members
of the Planning Commission at the hearing for the first Bloomfield
site that the tower be located near 1-64 where it will be seen by
those using the service it provides rather than away from 1-64
where it may be seen by residents.
To address this issue and to minimize the visual impact;
Sprint can add more branches between the existing tree line and the
branches on the tower in the photograph to screen the view of the
pole. Please also note that the pole will have a bark treatment on
the surface. Finally, please note that a single tree protruding
above an existing tree line is not an unusual occurrence in
Albemarle County. This is especially true of single evergreens in
a deciduous thicket. In fact, there is a very large evergreen
which protrudes above the tree line on 1-64 East a few miles east
of the 250 exit.
2. I submit that the clearing of the area for the building
and monopole will not multiply the visual impact because Qf the
existing dense vegetation which will continue to exist between the
J Page 3]
TREMBLAY & SMITH, LLP
Page 2
Joseph
August 31, 1995
improvements and 1-64. The Side View Profile on the site plan and
the aerial photographs demonstrate this. The building will be more
than 180' from the edge of the pavement and it will be below eye
level from the pavement. There is a dense stand of trees between
the building and the edge of the pavement which is approximately
150' deep.
3. The Duilding is Sprint's standard equipment shelter and
is like the one proposed for the Bear Den [ARB-P (SDP)-93-09
project]. I am enclosing a copy of the-relevant approval language
-forthe-~equipment~shelter~fo~tkeBea~Den,~-site. --~f-visibitity of
the building is an issue Sprint would agree to modify the standard
equipment shelter consistent with the Bear Den shelter approval
terms.
Thank you for your consideration of these points.
Very truly yours,
M. E. Gibson, Jr.
MEG/sp
Encs.
CC: Clifford I. Shaffer
Mike Vega
Larry Bickings
28\$\Alb\dose~. 022
RECFIV'EO
I ATTACHFIENT E I
IPage 4 J
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning
401 Mclntir¢ Road
Charlottesville. Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5875
May 17, 1993
RECEIVED
Centel Cellular
c/o Trembly & Smith
P.O. Box 1585
Charlottesville, VA 22902-1585
Re;
ARB-P(SDP)-93-09 Centel Cellular (The Rocks)
Tax Map 74 Parcel 23
Dear Mr. Gibson:
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board at its meeting on Mon/lay May I7, 1993
reviewed the above noted item. The ARB voted to grant administrative approval of a certificate
of appropriateness. The approval is subject to the following:
l) The road stakeout is approved (in the field) by staff;
2) Replacement of vegetation if any major trees must be removed;
3)
Access road not to measure greater than the fourteen (14) foot width as indicated
on the typical section and the clearing for the access road not to exceed twenty
(20) feet in width;
4) This approval is limited to one tower;
5)
6)
7)
The building is placed on the site with the lesser dimension/visible f~om 1-64;
The color of the tower to be earth-tone brown and the tower should not be lit;
The building design should resemble a farm building, should have a peaked roof,
and should be painted to match the tower;
8)
The area cleared within the leased area (50' x 50') should be confined to the
minimum space required for placement of the building and tower, this aspect shall
be field verified by staff;
0~/30/9~ 14:49 '~'804 979 1221 TREIfl~LAY & S~ITH ~ ALBEIta. RLE COUNTY ~002/003
REC NED
I ATTACHMENT E I
LAW OFFIC~S
TREMBLAY & SMITH, LLP
~ C;OORTY RO. Box ~sss
Jo~S g. TAC=~AFi', ll~k~D~~ CHARLOT'~$VILL~ VIRGINIA 22902-tSS5
~oS.~o~ F. AST Hlou $'II~.~
T~I~PHONI~ (8o4) 977.4455
VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
972-4035
R. L~= Lv,~=sto~
Cag~ron-~ L. McL~:-~
F~ G~u) T~
Ll,mm T. 8~lrm, Jr.
August 30, 1995
Marcia Joseph, Design Planner
Albemarle County Zoning Department
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
RE:
SP-95-20
Sprint/Centel Cellular
Bloomfield II Cell Site
Dear Marcia:
I.am writing to provide you with certain i~format±on and to
summarize information which I previously provid&d to you.
1. Revised Site Plan. On August 28, 1995, I delivered to
you eight copies of the revised site plan prepared by J. K. Timmons
& Assoc., ]?.C2, dated August 25, 1995. The site plan shows the new
location of the lease area which is approximately adjacent to the
old lease area.
2. Aerial Photos. I previously delivered to you several
aerial photos. On August 28, 1995, I delivered to you a group of
aerial photos on foam core board depicting the lease area from all
directions. I will need this back from you after the ARB meeting
on September 5, 1995.
3. y*-ibilit. .tud_. I also delivered to you on August 28,
1995 photographs depicting a balloon test which I will also need
back from you after the ARB meeting. The balloon was launched from
the old lease area site. It would be located further away from 1-
64 if launched at the new site; however, in our jud92nent the small
distance between the old and new sites would not justify a new
balloon test, even though the results of the test would slightly
favor Sprint.
4. Tree Tower. As I discussed with you on August 28, S~rint
is offering the concept of a tree tower for consideration by the
County. I left you copies of photographs to illustrate this
14:50 ~/~04 979 1221
TREMBLAY & SMITH, LLP
Page 2
Joseph
August 30, 1995
TRE}IBLAY & S~{ITH ~-~ ALBEF~ARLE COUNTY ~003/003
concept and will have the originals of those photographs available
to show to the ARB. The tree tower is a relatively new concept and
only several have been installed in the country. They are
significantly more expensive than conventional monopoles; however,
Sprint wishes to offer a tree tower for the Bloomfield II site in
an effort to satisfy the concerns of the County and the neighbors.
I will have .~ore information about the tree tower at the ARB
meeting and will endeavor to answer any questions~heARB may have.-
If you can think of any questions prior to the meeting, please let
me know and I will obtain answers for you.
5. Structure HeSqbt. The overall height of the structure as
originally submitted was 121'. The site was moved so that all
structures would be located 75' from the property line. The
elevation of the new site is 8' less than that of'the old site.
The overall height of the structure has been increased by 8' to
129I to make up for the loss of elevation. Conceptually the
additional height i~ added to the bottom of the structure such that
the relative top elevation of the old and new structures are the
same.
6. ~mber of Sites Within the Entrance Corridor~. You
previously requested information on this. iSprint presently
contemplates the need to develop four additional'sites (in addition
to Bloomfield II) over the next two years along all directions of
U.S. 250 and Interstate 64.
Please let me know if you have any questions or require
additional information.
Best personal regards.
Very truly yours,
M. E. Gibson, Jr.
MEG/sp
CC: William D. Fritz
Clifford I. Shaffer
Danielle Anderson
Larry' Bickings
ZSks~tb\J=se~.021
505 ROSEMONT DR.
CHARLOTrESVILLE, VA 22903
t AT'TACHMENT F I
Aug. 8, 1995
Mr. Bil'l FriBz
Albemarle Planning Commission
County Office Building
401McIntire rd.
Charlottesville, Va. 22901
Dear Mr. Fritz:
As a homeowner in the Rosemont area, I write to object most
strongly to the e~ection of a cellular tower being ~ropo'sed
near the intersection of Interstate 64 and State rt. 637. Such
a structure would be an eyesore to those who live near'the proposed
site and would be a terrible shock to those approachin§ the
Ivy Valley from the west.
The proposed structure would rise well above the tree line and
stand ouu dramatically against the skyline from almost any direction.
Its proposed placement at this site is inappropriate andinconsiderate.'
I urge the Planning Commission to reject the Centel proposal
for a tower at this site.
Sincerely,
Sara M. Fishback
cc: Mrs. Sally Thomas
1995
I~ICHARD H. AULEBACH
FOXCI3TE
? DEEI~ PATH ROAD
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VlRBINIA 229rl]
AUGUST 5, 1995
MR BILL FRITZ~ SR. PLANNER
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
401 MC INTIRE ROAD
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA. 22902
RE~ CENTEL CELLULAR TOWER INTERSECTION
iNTERSTATE 6~ AND ROUTE 637
DEAR MR FRITZ:
OF
WE ARE WRITING YOU AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO
EXPRESS OUR STRONGE~ST OPPOSITION TO THE ERECTION OF
A CELLULAR TOWER LOCATED AS ABOVE,
JUST THIS WEEK MRS. AULEBACH AND I COMPLETED CONST-
RUCTION OF A BEAUTIFUL NEW HOME IN THE ROSEMONT SUB-
DIVISION ( ~0S0 BRANHAM PLACE). GREAT CARE WAS GIVEN
BY US TO CONSERVE THE EXISTING NATURAL AMENITIES AND
TO ENHANCE THE NATURAL BEAUTY OF THE COUNTRY SIDE.
TIlE PROPOSED TOWER WOULD NOT PRESERVE AND ENHANCE
PROPERTY VALUES tN THE IVY VALLEY. THE TOWER WOULD BE
A BLIGHT ON THE NATURAL TOPOGRAPHY AND WOULD BE COMPL-
ETLY OUT OF HARMONY WITtt THE HOMES IN OUR COMMUNITY.
CENTEL'S t~TERESTS ARE TO SERVE TRANSIENT INTERSTATE
~ TRAVELERS,AT OUR EXPENSE, AS TAX PAYING RESIDENTS
OUR INTERESTS SHOULD TAKE PRIORITY OVER TNIS COMMERCIAL
ATTEMPT TO DEFACE THE IVY VALLEY WE TRUST CENTEL~S
APPLICA-rION WILL BE REJECTED PLEASE NOTE THE ATTACHED
PHOTOGRAP~ I
RICHARD H. AULEBACH
IRTT. CH?ENT F I
Harry Bowen, Jr.
1008 Kimberwicke Road
McLean, Virginia 22102
(703) 356-1722
August 19, 1995
Mr. William Fdtz
Albemarle Planning Commission
County Office Building 401
Mclntire Rd.
Cha,dottesvilie, VA 22901
RE: Application by Centel Cellular for tower on West side of Rt. 637.
Dear Mr. Fritz:
This is a letter of strong protest against the county's approval of Centel Cellular's
proposed cellular tower near the intersection of Interstate 64 and Rt. 637.
Three years ago my wife and I made a large investment, virtually a lifetime of savings, in
our retirement property located in the Rosemont development. Our lot is located in
section II near the top of the mountain, Lot 46, and was selected pdmadiy because of the
view(s) of the predominately pristine countryside. In other words, we selected Albemarle
County and this location to escape as many-man made eyesores as possible, and
because Albemarle County has the good reputation of having worked diligently to control
and prevent this type of encroachment. In selecting Rosemont, one of the compelling
reasons to balance the cost of the very high real estate tax, compared to other areas
within Albemarle County, is the property protection provided by the extraordinarily dgid
and comprehensive covenants which literally protect every worthwhile tree in the
development.
The proposed Centel Cellulsr cellular tower at the i~tarsection of Lqterstate 64 and Rt.
637 (Dick Woods Rd.) is totally inconsistent with previous planning and future planning
for this area. Because of its 750 foot height, it will basically destroy the visual panorama
for those having invested in the higher lots in Rosemont in that it will become the forced
wsual focal point of the views. This will inevitably lower the real estate value of these lots
and, therefore, lower their tax assessment. I assure you that I would not have purchased
Lot 46 in Rosemont if this cellular tower were in place, and if it is constructed, will strongly
challenge the Albemarle tax assessment.
We strongly urge you to reject this application and have Centel Cellular conside¢'a~
alternative site for their tower.
Mr. ~William D.. Fritz
Senior Planne~
Department-el Planning
county-of AIbemarle
401 McIntire Road
BEUE
August 30, t995
community .Development
Charlottesville, VA 22902'-4596
Re:' SP 95-20-Centel. (Sprint) CeIlular
Dear Bill:
I am writing to re ister'o' osi~ion to the 'Ce "" '~"
_ , . g . PP ntel (Sprlnt
uellu±ar proposal to constr~ct .a Cellular cbmmunication' tower
support buildings on Tax Map 7'4 Parcel 14~A ~ear the intersection
of Route 6~7 an.d. Ihterstate' 6~ in" ivY. ~Blue springs Land- · ~ ' ·
Corporation/ which my husband and! I own, 'is %he d~vei0Per!Qf the
Blue Springs Farm s%~bdivision, immediately adjacentlto ,the
subject 'pr0perty. . ~
The' general location' at whioh .the,~cellular~ t0wer is to be
~onstructed is in-the direc~ line Of'sight .of 'two hundred or more
. - . r~si'dential.building-lots~ communic'ation~towers, whilenecessary
for the community, crea~e a substantial hardship for the
individuals whose properties .are near.by~ Based on the',~cel!ular
%ower erected 0n"the ..Camp- Hol±da!~. Trails ~..property, the. P~opOsed
towe~ will be a tremendous eyesore and.~Wili adversely affe~.t.' the
val~ues of the nearby properties..
My understanding is that ,the'applicant has nbt yet submitted
a plat ~showing the exact' location' o~ the tower and'that ~the .exa~t
height"of the tower and ~he exact elevati0.n above the ~reeline
have n~ yet been determined. Although it~ls posSibi~ tha~ the
final site and elev'ation.. . Will. hide t~,e .~,ower fr~m the nearby
properties, the burden of establishing 'that 'fact to the near,by
residents has not ~een met by the apPlicant. ' '
It was my' understanding that the .ra%ionale for approving the
~amp Holiday Trails site for the sprint Cellular tower~ was that
it 'was neoessary to Serve the iI~y area. 'N°w that Such'~si~e has
been approved and the'tower Constr,ucted, Sprint-Cellular is-
seekin~ approval Of' yet 'another tower. Prior to approving ~another
tower, site~ Sprint Ce!lu!ar..shouldl be~ ~equired to submit aiong
range plan Showing all planned tower sites ~in ~lbemarl~ cQun~y~.
so that .the Planhing'Commission, Board 'of Supervisors and ~the
' ~ubilc can. See'how'.many~0f ~hese towers are actually '
- - 202 East High Street ~ Charlc~ttesville, ~/i~gi~ia 22902
1804) 979'-2174 ~ Fax 979-63.~[ 1
Mr. Wil-tiam D. · Fritz
August 30, 1995
Page· Two
contemplated.
·-'The issue is not whether a tower.,'f~r.'the i~y]~r~a.'.should be
const~u6tea;'b~t ~her~ it Should:be 16cat~d. The ide~I l~datioh
.-would.be in a sparsely.populated area, like the Camp Holiday
Trails. site; not right ih the middle o~.~a cluster of developed
lots. Surely another l~cation can- be found,· ahd undoubtegly .will
~f0und~ i.f the'Planning Commis~0~ and.'Boa~d.of:supervis~rS'act
ih the best interests of the residents of Iv~ and·~deny SP 9~-20.
Blue. Sp~ings'Landl.Corpo~ation has invested ·~ubstantial
amounts of money devel6ping m=s property in an environmentally
sensitiveand aes~heticall~.pleasingmanner. M~ny~many..o~her
c~tizens of .the c0unty'Jh~ve ~hosen {his area-of Ivy to
their· homes and raise their.families. It~w0uld .be a shame to ruin
the character o'f :this area~of Ivy.by permitting the construction.
of this eyesore in the sight line of so many preperties. ' . ..'
Sincer~lyyours~
. Diane Edgerton Miller, President " '
DEM/la~
Ferid Murad, M.D., Ph.D.
JATT CH"ENT Ft
Eage_7]
142l Lake Road
Lake Forest, IL 60045
August 24, 1995
Mr. William D. Fritz
Senior Planner
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902496
Dear Mr. Fritz:
Regarding your recent letter about a proposed Centel cellular tower (SP-95-20) off
of Route 1-64 in Ivy, as a nearby landowner I am very opposed to the approval of this
proposal. A tower visible from adjacent residential communities would si~cantly detract
from the areas that were acquired by landowners and homeowners because of the country
setting and surroundings. I suspect that a visible tower would also decrease future
property values and tax assessments.
I will also encourage the Langford Farms Homeowners Association to oppose the
proposal.
C.E. Miller, Secretary
Langford Farm Homeowners Association
Sincer~ely,
Ferid Murad, M.D., Ph.D.
ROSEMONT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
cio Haley, Chisholm & Morris, Inc.
P. O. Box 550
Earlysville, VA 22936
(804) 978-1000
August15,1995
Mr. Tom Blue
Chairman
Albemarle Planning Commission
401 Mclnfire Road
Chadottesville, VA 22902-4596
Dear Mr. Blue:
The board of directors of the Rosemont Homeowners Association have met to discuss
the proposed cellular tower off of Route 637 near Rosemont Farm. We oppose the
construction of this tower in the proposed location. It will detract from the beauty of the
area and it would be a very unattractive introduction to Albemarle county for those
people coming east on Interstate 64 from Alton mountain.
Sincerely~.-~ _
David F. Thacker
ECE ¥ED
/
/
ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS
SPRINT -- BLOOMFIELD #2 SITE
$At~q3EL MD'.r.~R D./STRICT * ALBEMARLE COUNTY. V~RGINIA
--. SITE PLAN
PLANNERS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
SP-95-20 Centel Cellular - Petition to construct a cellular communication tower and
support buildings on approximately 43 acres, zoned PA, RuralAreas and EC. Entrance
Corridor Overlay District [10.2.2(6)]. Property, described as Tax Map 74, Parcel 14A is
located in the southwest corner of the intersection of 1-64 and Route 637 in the Samuel
Miller Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated growth area IRural
Area 3).
The applicant was requesting deferral to September 12, 1995,
MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that SP-95-20 be deferred to
September 12, 1995. The motion passer] unanimously.
SP-95-20, CENTEL CELLULAR
SEE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12,
1995, ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
Sprint Cellular
1746 Rio Hill Center
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: ALBEMARLE COUNTY TOWER PROJECT
Dear Customer:
In order to provide you with the level of service ro which Sprint Cellular is committed, we must
cons~uct towers for cell sites throughout our service area. Most of these towers must be approved by the
govermng bodies of the jurisdictions in which they are located.
For-th~-~ost part, Sprint Cellular has received the cooperation of the governing bodies and has received
approval for almost all of the towers proposed. Unfortunately, we are facing a significant challenge in Albemarle
County for a proposed tower off 1-64 west of the Ivy interchange. Sprint Cellular needs to install a tower
between the Camp Holiday Trails tower and the Buck's Elbow Mountain tower in order to provide coverage in
an area approximately 2 to 3 miles east and west of the rest stop just west of the Ivy interchange. Mobile phone
coverage in that area is scratchy and portable phone coverage is poor to non-existent. The tower will be 118' in
height, with an overall height of 129' including antennas and lightning rod. and will extend 30' - 40' above the
dominant tree line. It will be in a densely wooded area 180' from 1-64.
In order to address the concerns of Albemarle County and of the residents in the area near the proposed
tower, we have offered to install a "tree tower", which is a monopole disguised to look like either a loblolly pine
or a cedar tree. Sprint Cellular has one other tree tower in its system in Charleston. South Carolina. and it has
been well received by the government and the historic trust which owns land near the tower
The residents near the proposed tree tower site have attended the public hearings and have sent letters
to the Albemarle County officials protesting the tower. Sprint Cellular needs your help to appeal to the
Albemarle County officials to help convince those officials that the tower is needed in order to provide
coverage for our customers.
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing on Sprint Cellular's application
fo~fthe tower on Wednesday, October 11, 1995 in the Albemarle County Office Building, second floor. Room
241. Sprint Cellular requests that you attend that meeting and let the Supervisors know that you support Sprint's
efforts to construct towers in order to provide better service to its customers. If you are not able to attend the
meeting, I ask that you sign the enclosed pre-stumped postcard and drop it in the mail. This will also let the
Supervisors know that sprint Cellular's customers support its efforts to construct towers to/reprove cellular
phone service.
Thank you for your support of Sprint's efforts on behalf of its customers and for your business.
Very truly yours.
Kelly Tmax
General Manager
TO: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Sprint/Centel Cellular Company/Bloomfield
Cell Site/SP-95-20
The undersigned customer of Sprint Cellular Company supports
Sprint's application for Special Permit 95-20 to construct a cellular
telephone tower in order to improve cellular telephone coverage, and
requests that you approve Sprint's application.
Thank you,
Signature:
Print name & address:
Date:
JOHN PETERSON M~-ERS
5006 Break Heart Road
White Hall, VA 22932
OF stmav o
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
30 September 1995
Greetings:
I am a~resident of Albemarle County and a customer of Sprint Cellular I received a
communication from Sprint in the mail asking me To support their application for a new
cellular telephone tower (the Bloomfield II Cell Site/SP-95-20). Their letter included a
post-paid postcard to be returned to them but addressed to you.
Rather than have you hear from me indirectly, I thought it more appropriate to write you
myse~ I oppose any new cellular towers unless Sprint consults fully with the local
neighborhood upon whom they will inflict the eyesore and satisfies that local community
as to its impacts.
Based on the fact that they have resorted to a county wide mailing (one paid for,
ultimately, by the exhorbitant prices I and other customers pay for their services) I can
only assume that the people living in the area of the proposed tower do not wish to have it
become a neighborhood ornament I therefore request that you do not approve Sprint's
application.
Sinc~e,)~ yours,
J.P. Myers ~t
voice: 804-823-7090 e-mail: jpmyers~aol, com Fax: 804-823-7091
S tint
Martin J-I. Bococ~ Jr.
Vice President & General Manager
October 9, 1995
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County Office Building
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
RE: SprinffCentel Cellular Company/Bloomfield II
Cell Site/SP-95-20
Dear Albemarle County Board of Supervisors:
This letter is to support Sprint Cellular ~:ompany's. application to construct a
cellular telephone tower in order to provide better service to their customers. The quality
of service in the area of the proposed tower sight needs to be improved.
While Sprint Cellular is an affiliate of Sprint-Centel, we offer our support on behalf
of all who use cellular communications, not only those in this commumty but also those
traveling through our area.
Thank youfi , , ,~ ; ~+ .t,- ..
or 3 our a,~,mtlo~ ,o ,,ns ma, Jer.
Sincerely,.
2211 Hydraulic Road P.O. Box 6788. Charlottesville. Virginia 22906
Telephone: (8IM1971-2201 Fax: (804) 971-2609
WE THE UNDERSIGNED REGISTERED VOTERS IN THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, REQUEST THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS TO REJECT THE PROPOSAL BY SPRINT CELLULAR FOR THE E~LOOMFIELD TOWER,
Name
Address
Phone
STOP
WE THE UNDERSIGNED REGISTERED VOTERS N THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE. REQUEST THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS TO REJECT THE PROPOSAL BY SPRINT CELLULAR FOR THE BLOOMFIELD TOWER.
Name
Address
Phone
WE THE JNDERSIGNED REGISTERED VOTER-c
SUPERVISORS TO REJECT THE PROPOSAL Bh
Name
IN THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, REQUEST THE BOARD OF
SPRINT CELLULAR FOR THE BLOOMFIELD TOWER.
Address
Phone
~37- Lq&/
WE THE UNDERSIGNED REGISTERED VOTERS IN THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, REQUEST THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS TO REJECT THE PROPOSAL BY SPRINT CELLULAR FOR THE BLOOMFIELD TOWER.
_Name Address Phone
~¥ 4,~,~C~.~ pi.
Virginia G. Barber. M.D,
916 East High Street, Suite C ° Charlottesville- Virginia 22902 · 804) 977-9900
October 11, 1995
Dear Board of Supervisors:
I recently learned about the proposed Sprint Centel cellular
phone tower to be placed near 1-64 in the heart of the Ivy Valley.
Although the tower would not be visible from my home, such an
unnatural tall structure in such a central location is bound to
change the aesthetics of the whole surrounding area. Having
commuted into Charlottesville for 10+ years, I have often thought
about how unsp_oiled andbeautiful the valley must have been before
1-64 was built. -Now, with the proposed tower in mind, I fear the
valley will be "up for grabs" industrially. I do own a Sprint
Centel cellular phone that I use frequently. However, I would
rather have less perfect reception for a few miles than impact the
beauty of a whole region.
If this tower were completed, what would the precedent then
be for US Cellular and other companies? I'd hate to consider it.
Perhaps the solution is to place the tower high enough to serve the
whole area, in a much less visible place. I hope this will be
seriously considered.
It is also worth mentioning that the tower would be sure to
change the breath-taking view seen by tourists as they pass through
the Ragged Mountain pass and catch their first full view of the
Blue Ridge Mountains. What kind of advertisement for the area
would~i~ be to see the tall tower str%ctur~ smack in the middle Of
the valley?
Sincerely,
V±rgin'ia G. Barbor, M.D.
Edwin L. Strange ~ -
P.O. Box 6084 - Broa~ Axe Road
Charlottesville~ Va.- 22906 - 6084
October 11, 1995
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, ,,Va. ,22901
Dear SupervisorS,
I am concerned thatAlbemarle County is in the process of approving a new
type'of urhan sprawl. Sprint has come before the Planning Commission time after
time to get approval for more towers. Most are uncontested by the citizens, as most
are being placed in an unobtrusive locations. But even these towers raise the
question inmy mind, how many are :we going to end up with ? Does anyone here
tonight KNOW.how many Sprint towers Albemarle County will end upwith ?-
Where they will be placed ? Or how many competitors willals0 want towers, of their
own ? '! urge the Board to consider each of these questions before.approving ~
more towers for ANY company.
I would llke So sa.~ggest-a few things. (1) That Sprint or any of it's competitors
be required tO present a Master Plan detailing the proposed/ocation of all the
towers they want in Albemarle County. (2) That no,approval begiven to any tower
that is not made available to~competing-c0mpanies at Board of Supervisors
approved rates, if found necessary. It~is reasonable that ail who usethese towers
should share in the cost and maintenance. What is not reasonable is that we should
have competitors-towers in.dose proximityperfo~mingduplicating functions, when
one tower Would serve themboth~-The cellular tower located near I~64 between the
Ivy and U.S. 29 exits is a good example. I am told it is owned by Cellular One. It
appears they didn't place their tower in the best position either as it is about a third
of the way down the hill but if they had and ithad been made available to Sprint
then we would have one tower suppling "seamless service" for two companies. As
more competitors appear and I have heard of at least one more, all they would have
to do is rent tower space. How many towers should the citizens be subjected to look
at, literally in their back yards, when most Of these towers can be placed on
mountain tops, OUt of site of the general population ? If you want to see what
Albemarle County will look like in a few years, if we don't stop this now, just ride
down 1-64 to the Tidewater area and see if you can go i'pge miles without spotting a
cellular tower.
The site that we are here discussing tonight is at the foot of Ivy hill near the
Ivy exit ofi-64, on the west side. If you drive to the top of Ivy hill you Will see as you
start your descent towards Charlottesville, the highly visible tower on the east side I
referred to. If this tower had been strategically located on the top of the ridge it
would not have been as visible andit could have served both the east and west sides.
Further, we would not be sitting here tonight discussing the merits of "seamless
service" versus the will of the neighborhoods to not have the resulting intrusion of
visual pollution for a technology;that will be:outdated in the next few decades. The
technology will be replaced but the towers, once built, WlLL REMAIN. It appears
that we already have more than enough towers to supply this "seamless service" had
they just been placed properly in the first place. If the different companies involved
shared strategically located towers, we probably have more towers right now than
we need.
I am not opposed to "seamless service" but not at the expense of more and
more neighborhoods. I believe that ,seamless service" is presently available to those
whouse car antennas and have units thatare poveerful~enough. The underpowered
hand held. units without benefit of a car antenna seem to be the~problem.
What we are here for tonight is not just abouta tower in Ivy. Look at the
number of expertsSPrinthas imported for this occasion. Consider the money
already spent,just on mailing out letters andpostage paid postcards soliciting the
support ~of it's customersEin this'matter by Sprint. Or,the money they are willing to
spend on a metal "tree" tower just to get this ONE tower approved. This. tower has
already cost Sprint more than it in itself is worth. Ask yourself WHY would a
compa~y in business to make a profit be willing, to. do this ? The only answer that I
can comeup with is that.they hope to recoup the loss with the ease with which they
will be able to get the other.towers, they will,surely want, approved..After,ali~ if the
most contested.tower in the county is~pushed throughsuccessfully, what,hope do
other citizens have of stopping One in their back yards?
It is indeed a test of wills~ If Ivy loses tonight, all of Albemarle will lose
tomorrow, when the next batch of tower applications is presented from Sprint or
one of it's competitors~ . ~ ~
Sincerely?
Edwin L. Strange
E DAILY PROGRESS Charlottesville, Va. Wednesday; October4 1995
AT&T , others Seeka ro
:tb,r _ ,planned?._ SateH te networks
AT&T m~de its fili~ fl~rou
~ :~pm~ zts op~ons ,o~n ?. for A h~~ of o~er ~mp~ ~y~ ~ ~e FCC's approv~
'~S CO ' ' ' ~
~ ~ ~er ap~s m ~ong ~en ~ner~ AT&T could b
..... . .~ E!~; ~d .~n. pro~dmg
the ~!~t ~n~, ~ ~ng f~er~ ~ ~ ~
~ ay~ ~ b~d a ~esa~slo~. ~ - ~ b~m~ ~d ~d~'
~o~ Com~,sion d~ ~'~ ~ nme ~.
:te~ecommumcahons 'ant- has ~d,;~ly'~kother~_
~-~up~o'12~s,' ? ~ ~for~esa~o~. ~oT'~ ~m~s for ~ of ~e~
~e' FCC h~- O~v ~e'au~ 'i_ .~o~ . ," [..,' voz~; ~d~ ~d ~ comm~.
to approve such a seradce in: the
United States. But the band of sta-
tionary-orbit satolUtbs ~ould also
provide service to Other counties
Ts~pey, ~lledh/s.c6mpany's ~]~ng
~dt~h_the FCC the first, step in. a
ed~'lln~ ]an '
,~ o P , saying financing
and the selection :of services to be
with appropriate authorization put on ~e~network axe y~t to be
from them. finalize&
AT&T has,s~id previously it
planned to enter the satelli~
delivery m~ket. Just how much it
would continue to rely on f~ vast
network of copper wire and fiber-
optic cables is ~ot known.
_ The de~d!i~e for companies to "It's not si1 hypotheQcal, but .
~e. applications to the F~C for uti- a
lot of v/o.rk h~s ~. go on with ~..me e.~x~_.,rts contend that with
,hZ. rog a newly released high- deter.mmzng buszness pl. ans,
eft"the suchKa'bandsatoll/~esf°r ]~uncingwas.~ Ocr.Signals29: -z' _arvey smd. 'We didn't:make a b/g' fe .a. ,m~, ~-~le. to. bypass such land t/ne~
. - deal out of it because a lot ofthln~ entirely. ' .
HarmerS:.
~ an eyesore on the
48-aore-aide near Interstate ~4 and
Rout~6B < ~. .' ' ~
interi~i~g' idea,~ said-. . p
~emmissioner 'A; Bruce
Dotsom"But for me, it cemes down
to a balance te~t Of the needs Of the
I~ reaid~nt~ versus the needs f~r~
cellular phone coverage.,.l don't
th;n~x it quite passes that tes~.'.:
Co,~,;~sioner Katherine Imheff
' agse~!!.~ :-"I 'find: the. tre~ tower idea
· the rura[~S for the cenvenie~{ce
Of a portion Of the population.'
. - Spr/nt Cellular wants ~ to plant
the tower along 1-64 in Ivy to get
rld of dead spots in_ cellular coy;
ersge caused by the'moun~e, luens
,..~ betwean. Cro.~..t and the
,-' Nelson-- ComityZ lin~; ~:~d: Dick
; Gibson, 8p~mt Cellular attorney.
"0OVerage i~ that[ area- is
aby~,~I, if even ~,e Gibson
said.. :; .
The company has be~n l{~i+~cl in
finding a aito for the tower by the
t0p~aphy and ~tyia~p6aiti6n
to ~s~e ~ ~': the
' ": ,see-pl..A~ On B2
Continued from B1
li~hed "tower. fa'-m~" to limit t~e
spread of the towers.
The tower pLan~ also axe con-
s~dned in I~y on one side by the
1-64 entrance corHder, a spedal
district where development ia mon-
itored by the Amhlteckn*l Review
Board, and on the other aide by
housing, GiMon said.
'~Iffa really a. Oatoh-22 for
Gibson told the commissioners
T~eatay. ~If you move away from
the en~rsnce core, der, you
closer to the neighbors." By
proposing the tree disguise for the
tower, Sprint is going a more
expen~ve route to please residents
and ast~y counky a,~hiteeturai
review, Gibson said. The ~reeJAke
towers cost about tha'ee times wha~
other t~wers cost, he sad&
The e~y other Sprint ~ee tower
is locaf~l in Charlestor~ S.C., he
said. There a~e only t~"ee such
tow_ers in the counn-y, Gibson ~ald.
S~ref~ng more than 80 feet
above the tree line, the tower
would be visible frera several sub-
divisions in Ivy, includ~n8 Peacock
Hill, Resemont. Colston and Lang-
ford Farnm, said Will~,m Fritz,
county planr, o~. [t ~ would be
vls~le from 1-64, Fritz said.
County of[icials denied a request
by Sprint Cellular earlier tiffs year
to build a tower on the nearby Ivy
Landfill property on Route 687
Sprint is going a more
expensive route to please
residents and Satisfy
county archffectural
review, the company said.
The treelike towers cost
about three times what.
other towers cost, he said.
south of Intersfa~
The towe~ pro~nsal h~ sohheduled
~ ~ he~ by the
~ Bo~d of Su~-i~m on
0~. 11, ~tz ~&
P~g ~on
~om~ Blue vo~ ~ fa;~r of
p~j~. ~is~on~ Ja~ue]~
Hu~e, W~ N~t~hm~ ~d
Mo~ Vau~ ~d not a~end ~e
m~t~g.
Sprmt Cellular
1746 Rio Hill Center
Charlottesville VA 22901
RE: ALBEMARLE COUNTY TOWER PROJECT
Dear Customer:
In order to provide you with the level of service to which Sprint Cellular is committed, we must
construct towers for cell sites throughout our service area. Most of these towers must be approved by the
gove~ing bodies of the jurisdictions in which they are located.
For the most part, Sprint Cellular has received the cooperation of the governing bodies and has received
approval for almost all of the towers proposed. Unfortunately, we are facing a significant challenge in Albemarle
County for a proposed tower off I~64 west of the Ivy interchange. Sprint Cellular needs to install a tower
between the Camp Holiday Trails tower and the Buck's Elbow Mountain tower in order to provide coverage in
an area approximately 2 to 3 miles east and west of the rest stop just west of the Ivy interchange. Mobile phone
coverage in that area is scratchy and portable phone coverage is poor ro non-existent. The tower will be 118' in
height, with an overall height of 129' including antennas and lighming rod, and will extend 30' - 40' above the
d%minant tree line. It wlli be in a densely wooded area 180' from 1-64.
:~ In order to address the concerns of Albemarle County and of the residents in the area near the proposed
rower, we have offered to install a "tree tower", which is a monopole disguised to look like either a lobtolly pine
or a cedar tree. Sprint Cellular has one other tree tower in its system in Charleston. South Carolina. and it has
been well received by the government and the historic trust which owns land near the tower.
The residents near the proposed tree rower site have attended the public hearings and have sent letters
to the Albemarle County officials protesting the tower. Sprint Cellular needs your help to appeal to the
Albemarle County officials to help convince those officials that the tower is needed in order to provide
coverage for our customers.
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing on Sprint Cellutar's application
for the tower on Wednesday, October 11. 1995 in the Albemarle County Office Building, second floor. Room
241. Sprint Cellular requests that you attend that meeting and let the Supervisors know that you suppor~ Sprint's
efforts to construct towers in order ro provide better service to its customers. If you are not able to attend the
meeting, I ask that you sign the enclosed pre-stamped postcea'd and drop it in the mail. This will also let the
Supervisors know that Sprint Celhilar's customers support its efforts to construct towers to improve cellular
phone service.
Thank you for your support of Sprint's efforts on behalf of its customers and for your business.
Very tmly yours.
Kelly Truax
General Manager
Ivy steering Conunittee
,~,.~.. tg reed_age is for dis~bu~on over the Steering CommiRee Telephone
Tree system:
TELEPHONE TREE NOTICE
Sprint Cellular has sent a pre-stamped postcard requesting ali Sprint Cellular
r2stomer support in the construction of a cellular tower at the Ivy and 1-64
interchange.
Langford. Rosemont and other area neighbors have requested our support in
ltheir effort to disallow the placement of this ~[29' high "tree tower", which is a
monopole disguised to look like either a loblolly pine or a cedar tree, extending 3~'-40'
above the dominate tree tine, in this area,
Neighborhood support in the form of letters to the Board of Supervisors and
physica! presence at the October 11, 1995 BOS meeUng at 7:00 PM in the County omce
,,_gu!tding_.is requested.
TO: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
SprintJCentel Cellular Company/Bloomfield II
Cell Site/SP-95-20
The undersigned customer of Sprint Cellular Company supports
Sprint's application for Special Permit 95-20 to construc~ a cellular
telephone tower in order to improve cellular telephone coverage, and
requests that you approve Sprint's application.
Thank you.
Signature:
Print name&address:
Date:
09/20/95 08:22 FAX 18049747008 SPRINT CELL[IL3~R ~002
%
AlbcmarI¢ County Planning Commission
Board vf Supervisors
County. Office Building
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
9/12/95
Dear Sirs:
][ am writing in regards to Sprint Cellular's proposed tower in the Ivy/Bloomfield area.
As a Sprint Cellular Customer who depends on my phone, and an Ivy (Glenaire~' resident, I feel
qualified to express the need _For improved coverage in ~:his arez.
I rely on t~e commm~ications link and feeling of security that my phone provides for
me, but I also hmw that the link is weak in the area in which I live. I travel late at night
l~equenfly for my home-ha, ed business and I would fee[ much better about my safety and
availability ftc. overage was improved with au Ivy tower.
Thank you,
09/20/95 08:22 FAX 18049?4?008 SPRINT CELLULAR ~003
Real
Slmint ~
l?a6 Rio wm Shepp~ Cedar
rmar~-l:~svill=, VA 72.001
To Whom It Ma~j ~
'P.O. J~x I~ilg~. Cbarlort=svill=. Virginia
0§/12/~S I6:67 TX/RX N0.342~ P.003
09/20/95 08:2~ FAX 18049747008 SPRINT CELLUL..~.R ~004
This I., a va~ iralxnamt ar~a fo~ ~ compar~.r. Howler, the r~_ :e~,~ion gl along
l~x, aeks Rind vdIl be greatly enlmmm/by this aaklition.
~/12/9fi ~6:07 TX/~[ N0.3427 P,O02
09/20/95 08:22 FAX 18049747008 SPRINT CELLULAR ~005
VIRGINIA : TUDENT AID FOUNDATION
TO:.
FROM:
DATE:
Planning Commission
Board of Supervisors
Dirk P. Katstra
September 12, 1995
Sprint Cellular Bloomfield Tower
I am currently in a position with the Virginia Student Aid Foundation that reqmres a great
deal of travel by em- in order to raise over $4 million :mnually for scholarsl,Jps at the
University of Vh'gi~ia. I depend on and appreciate ri e service of Sprint Cellular as many
of my business phone calls are made from my car.
It is difficult to conduct business conversations La a~d around areas that have l:mor
reception. Ir is also irritating to donors to have a phone conversation terminated due to poor
service areas in the Charlottesville area. Most donor_~ appreciate phone calls rammed in a
timely fashion and due [o my travel I frequently make those calls with my celb~lar phone.
Fund raising is a sensitive business mad good phone ,onversafions are essential to the
success of our scholarship fund.
It would be extremely beneficial to have improved set,ncc areas in the Charlottesville area.
I hope that the proposal for a new cellular tower in th; Bloomfield/Ivy area w/il be
accepted_ It would be very beneficial to my business as I am sure it would be to many
othea's in the Chariottesville area.
Ann T. Wood Real Estate
September 27, 1995
TO: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
RE: Spring/Contel Cellular Company/Bloomfield II
Cell Site/SP-95-20
I am a Spring Cellular customer, and have on a number of occasions
experienced difficulty with cellular transmissions in this area;
having my conversations cut-off, heavy static, and have been unable
to call for appointments when showing property in this area.
Sometimes a few negative voices seem much louder than the passive
majority~ who tend to go about their day-~o-day business ra~her
than organize to make them~elvea heard~ ~hls appears to be one of
those s~tuations where, mD matter what the proposal might be~
someone will o~gan~ze opposition against it.
In this day and age it is unrealistic 'to prevent
of this tower in this location. It is the worst
phone service anywhere in a wide area, yet close
%he presence of many mountains.
the installation
void in cellular
to to~n, due to
It appears Sprint Cellular has bent over back%~ard to install t]~is
to~er in a location that will not bring harm to anycne~ and has
_proposed unusually accommodating measures to provide for a pl~.s ..... ng
aesthetic environment.
I believe many of those opposing this to,er would regret it later
if it were not installed. I realize you are in a difficult
position trying to do w~at ~s best, and I sincerely hope you will
look at the need for ~hls ~echnology now, add in the future.
I r~gret I have a previous commitment at a VDOT meeting in Hanover
County on October 11 and cannot at~nd'~ - this hearing° Thanking you
for your consideraticnt I am
Slnceze=y yours,
Ann T. Wood
322 Dover Road
Charlottesville,
VA 22901
1132 East High Street · Charlot}esv Ile. Virginia 22902
· 804~ 979-8020
007-i1-95 ~E~ 12:24 Ohr~s~fa. ~id ~fssfo. ?~X ~0. 88429568~4 ?.03
3960 D~c~ Wood~
Cha~lott~v~le. ~A 22903
October 11, 1995
Kelly T~uax
$1~ r/nt Cetlul~
Dear Kelly:
This ia regarding the proposed tower I'~o~, theintersoe~/on of ~iok Woods
Road and 1-64.(State Route 637).
I support the building of the tower. It seems unreasonable to me that
people w~t to oppose tee~olo~c~ pro.ess witch our community.
I was bo~n in Albem~te County and Hved o~~ a farm wilh. bo~de~s
lo wlt~n t000 feet of the tower site more than 60 years ago. When 1-64 was
b~t it sp~t that farm in two, but the advantages of hav~g ~he highway there
seem lo m~ to o~lweigh the boise it creates fo~ comm~iiy ~eside~ls.
many tho~sand~ of our fellow citizens who ~e bene~tted by th~ highway.
Like~e. we sh~ld happily accept ~he presence of SD~I's towe~ for
benefi~ el many thousands of persons who w~ have better phone se~ce
a
My vote is for teohnologto~l p~og~ess. Build the tower. It's p~esenee
won't bother us in the lea~t.
Sincerely yO1trS,
i0/11/95 12:27
TX/RX NO.3878
P.O03
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
OCTOBER 11, 1995
Board of Supervisors
Kyle J. Denzel:~
Sprint Cellular Bloomfield Tower
I attended the planning commission meeting on September 12, 1995 in which
Sprint Cellular presented a proposal to construct a cellular tower in the Ivy area.
I felt that Sprint Celk~lar presented a feasible plan and it appeared to me they
spent a lot of time and money researching the differ'ant alternatives.
I was extremely dissspointed that the commission voted to deny the tower.
Three commissiOners vo~l to deny the tower, one of which appeared to be
indifferent and one voted in favor of the tower_ What happened to al! the other
commissioners? Why v~ere there only four commissioners present?.
I addressed the Commission on September 12tri and I would like to again state
for the record my interest in a tower Jn the Jvy area.
I am currently the General Manager of Virginia Sports Marketing, which requires
me to be on tile road e iot~ For business and Personal reasons, i' rely on cellular
communications. For the safety issue alone, I implore you to approve a tower
so there is continuous coverage along Interstate 64. As a customer of Sprint
Cellular, I have asked for three years for better COverage in the ivy area. From
what I understand, Sprint has had no luck getting a tower approved, it wou~d be
extremely beneficial to me and the associates in my ofrme to have improved
coverage throughout Charlottesville and t hope that you will vo~ in favor of the
tower this time. Thank you.
TOTAL P.01
10/11/95 15:59 TX/EX N0.3883 P.001 ·
JOHN K. TAGGART. iii
M. E. GIBSON, JR.
THOMAS E. ALBRO
CHRISTINE THOMSON
PATRICIA D. MCGRAW
LAW OFFICES
TREMBLAY & SMITH, LLP
EO. Box ~s85
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902.1585
105-109 EAST HIGH STREET
TELEPHONE (8O4) 977.4455
FACSIMILE [804) 979.1221
VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
972-4060
August 15, 1995
William D. Fri~z, Senior Planner
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
RETIRED
E. GERALD TRE~LAY
Lro~ T. Smz~, J~.
RE: SP-95-20 CENTEL CELLULAR
Bloomfield II, Albemarle County
Dear Bill:
This will confirm that since a setback variance will probably be
required for the captioned project, the Planning Commission meetinc
will need to be deferred until after the Board of Zoning Appeals ha~
acted on the variance application. It is anticipated the BZA will hold
a special meeting on September 12, 1995 to consider this setback
variance and other unrelated matters. You confirmed the matter will be
scheduled before the Planning Commission on September 12 1995 after
the BZA meeting. ,
In view of these changes, and because of another scheduling
conflict, I request that the Board of Supervisors hearing on the
special use permit be changed from September 13, 1995 to September 20,
1995. I am sending a copy of this letter to the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors to request that the matter be moved ~
~~.~m the ~ ~ ~
~ep~mb~r 13
agenda to the September 20 agenda.
Please confirm to me the new Planning Commission date.
Thank you. Best personal regards.
Very truly yours,
M. E. Gibson, Jr.
MEG / s p
CC: Ella Carey, Clerk,
of Supervisors
28\S\A[ b\Fr i tz. 032
Board
LAW OFF~CtS
TREMBLA¥ & SMITH, LLP
P.O. Box ~ss~
CHARLOI'rESVILLE, V1RGiNL% 22uoLl~s~
~0~,1o9 EAST HIGH $?gEF'r
FACS~IL~ (~4) 9¢9-12Zl
VIA PACSlMIL~ ~SMIggION
July 26, 1995
William D. Fritz, Senior Planner
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
County of Albemarle
401 McIntirs Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
RE: S.~-95-20 CENTEL CELLULAR
Bloomfield II, Albemarle County
Dear Bill:
· 50. ~RD OF SUPEr¢,, % ~,
I have just been informed that a matter I am handling on behalf of
a client in Hampton, Vi~ginia, has been deferred to the September
1995 Hampton City Council meeting. As you know, the captioned matter
is scheduled for the Albemarle County BOard of Supervisors for
september 13, 1995. I obviously cannot be both places at once.
Would it be possible to reschedule ·
20, 1995 Board of Supervisors meeting? t~s ~atter ~% the September
zu ~s possible the Hampton
matter may be resolved prior to the City Council meeting; however, in
the event it is not, I will need to request a rescheduling of the
Albemarle Board of Supervisors hearing.
Please let me know if it is possible to ~esohedule the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors hearing on this matter to September 20,
1995 and, if so, what is the latest date by Which you WOUld need to
know that it will need to be rescheduled.
I look forward to hearing from you. Best personal regards.
Very truly yours~
MES/sp
Gibson, Jr.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
2 5
~ 80ARD
September 22, 1995
Paul K. & Julie Kate Trammel-McGill
4918 Richmond Road
Keswick, VA 22947
. RE: SP-95~26 Paul McGill
Dear Mr. & Mrs. McGill:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 19, 1995,
unanimously recommended denial of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
receive public comment at their meeting on OCTOBER 11._1995._ 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~¢ / ~ ~'~
William D. Fritz
· Senior Plar~r
/
cc: Lede E. Neher
Amelia McCulley
Jo Higgins
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zonin~
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 29~$875 FAX (804) 9724060
TDD I804) 972-4012
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development
Amelia G. McCulley, Zoning Administrator
October 3, 1995
On-site observations of proposed Home Occupation
.(Special Use Permit #SP-95-26)
This is to forward my observations of this based on an October 2nd field visit. The
purpose of this visit was to have a better understanding of the operation of the use to
provide comments regarding performance standards (i.e. noise, etc.).
The building proposed for this use has the exterior appearance of a barn. It is
constructed of cinder block and wood. Efforts to attenuate noise which have been
undertaken uy Mr. McGill include sealing the windows adjacent to the side property
line, and using double panes in the windows. A portion of the ceili ng has been
insulated, and vermiculite has been packed in the walls.
Equipment that was observed includes hand tools, power tools, and the forge. Specific
equipment and tools include the coal forge, a hand grinder, 2 anvils, arc welder, and
drill press.
Smoke from the vent pipe was similar in amount and appearance to that generated by a
wood stove. Smoke is mostly observed while the forge is beginning to heat.
The sound level readings taken during operation did not exceed zoning ordinance
regulations. Please be advised that these readings were taken ~n a single day with few
samplings on a base model sound meter. It was a clear day with no significant wind.
Page 2
Memo to Wayne Cilimberg
October 2, 1995
Please refer to the following chart:
Activity Reading [dBa)
Ambient (Background) 40 (40- 45)
Guinea Hens 44
Traffic 50
Walking in Woods 55
Talking 60
(Note:
Hand Grinder
Hammering Hot
Welding Torch
Hammering Cold
The following readings were taken at the side property line.)
40 - 45
40
Cannot detect
5O
The hammering activity would be regulated as an impact sound, It may not exceed 80
dba. According to Mr. McGill, hammering, grinding, and other activities which generate
the most noise occur sporadically and not continuously throughout the day or everyday
of the week.
If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me
AGM/st
CC:
,-'Board of Supervisors Clerk
Paul McGill
SP-95-26
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
WILLIAM D. FRITZ
SEPTEMBER 12, 1995
OCTOBER 11, 1995
SP 95-26 PAUL McGILI,
A .licant's Pro osal: The applicant is proposing to establish a blacksmith business in an
accessory structure located as shown on the attached plat. (Attachment C) The applicant has
provided information for this application which is provided as Attachment D. No employees,
other than family members, are proposed. There will be no sign for this use and any public visits
to the site will be limited to commissioning works or picking up finished works. No sales are
proposed from the site. All activity will occur in the accessory structure, including storage.
Equipment used in the occupation will include, but is not limited to: forge, hard tools, drill press,
hacksaw and grinder,
· Petition: Paul McGill petitions the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use permit for a
Home Occupation Class B for a blacksmith shop on 2.0 acres zoned PA, Rural Areas.
[10.2.2(31)]. Property, described as Tax Map 94, Parcel 28D, is located on the north side of
Route 250 approximately l/2 mile feet east of Route 616 in the Rivarma Magisterial District.
This site is not located in a designated growth area. (Rural Area 4).
Character of.the Area: This site is developed with a single family residence and an
outbuilding. The enumnce to this property also serves another property. This area of Route 250
has a number of residential units and is not used for agriculture.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the
Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval.
Planning and Zonine History_: The plat creating this parcel was signed on February 1, 1980.
Corn rehensive Plan: This area is recommended as a Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan.
The plan states the following as an objective on page 203:
"All decisions concerning the Rural Areas shall be made in the interest of the four major
elements of the Rural Areas, with the highesl priority given to preserving agricultural and
forestal activities rather than encouraging residential development. The four major
elements are: (1) preservation of agricultural and forestall activities; (2) water supply
protection; (3) limited service delivery to the Rural Areas; and (4) conservation of
natural, scenic, and historical resources."
This site is not used for agriculture and no additional development is needed m accommodate the
use. This site is not located in a watersupply watershed. No increase in service demands is
generated by the proposed use. The Open Space plan does not identify any resources in this area.
Due to the lack of additional development needed to accommodate this use staff is unable to
identify any conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan.
STAFF COMMENT:
Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use
permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance
may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that su,c) use will not be of
substantial detriment to adjacent property_,
The blacksmith shop will make use of a structure which is located in close proximity to an
adjacent property line ( 16 feet) and 80 feet from the nearest structure on adjacent property. The
location of the structure used for the blacksmith shop will require a modification of Section
5.2.2.1 Co) of the ordinance which is discussed later. Traffic generated by this use will be
minimal as no employees are proposed and customer use of the site will be limited. Adequate
parking does exist to accommodate customer traffic which may occur. The primary impact this
use may have on adjacent property is noise generated by working with the iron. Equipment used
in the occupation will include but is not limited to: forge, hand tools, drill press, hacksaw and
grinder. All activity will occur inside of the existing shed. Staff has reviewed similar operations
for a past application (SP-94-05 Peter Goebel). Based on staffs observation of similar
· operations, limited impact on adjacent property is anticipated.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
No change in the physical appearance of the site ~s proposed and the requested use is of limited
scale and intensity. Therefore, no change in the character of the district is anticipated.
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 ordinance as contained in Sections 1.4, 1.5 and
1.6. No conflict with the intent of the ordinance has been identified.
with the uses permitted by riaht in the district
This use will have no impact on permitted use of this site or adjacent property.
2
with additional regulations orovided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance,
Staff has reviewed Section 5.2.2.1 which regulates Home Occupations. This request satisfies all
requirements of that Section except for Section 5.2.2.1 (b) which states:
"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 then 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 the other development 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."
As previously noted, the structure proposed to house the blacksmith shop, sho~m on Attachment
C, is approximately 16 feet from the property line. The required side yard setback for main
- structures in the Rural Area district is 25 feet. The Planning Commission may modify the
setback required by Section 5.2.2.1 (b) in accord with the prowsions of Section 5.1.
The existing structure is visible from the house located approximately 80 feet away on the
adjacent property, but is separated from the house by a treeline along the property line. All
activities for the Home Occupation will occur inside the accessory su'ucmre. The limited activity
which will occur with this occupation coupled with the distance to the house will limit the
potential of adverse impact. Staff does not view the reduction of the setback for this use by
approximately nine (9) feet as being inconsistent with the ordinance nor does it increase the
potential for negative impacts .on adjacent property. Based on field observations and the
comments stated above, staff is able to support a modification of the setback required by Section
5.2.2 1 Co).
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
Approval of this request will not impact the public health safety or welfare. The Depamnent of
Transportation has provided comments addressing this request, Attachment D. Staff has not
required the recommended improvements contained in the VDOT letter due to the low level of
traffic anticipated to be generated by this use and staffs field observations.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff review of this application has determined that the use is generally ~n accord with the
provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and Section 31.2.4.1. The only issue identified b~y staff is
the need to modify the required setback for the use ora structure in the conduct ora home
occupation. The required setback is 25 feet and the existing structure is located approximately
16 feet from the property line. Staffhas visited the site and is of the opinion that the reduction in
setback does not increase the potential impact on adjacent property. Staff therefore is able o
support this request subject to the following conditions:
1
2.
3.
Use shall be limited to the accessory structure identified in Attachment C;
No ?mployees other than family members residing on the premises;
No signage shall be permitted;
All outdoor activities, including storage o£materials shall not be permitted.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B - Tax Map
C - Sketch of Property
D - VDOT Comments
A:\SP9526.RPT
September 22, 1995
JNTAIN
MTN
c
o
U
IATTACHMENT AJ
EARLYSVILI
6
Store
I ~HARLOTTES-
::::VILLE i~
!/
SP-95-26
PAUL McGILL
I--
Z
0
I--
Z
0
Z
I--
0
0
(/)
Z
LOT ~
PIer Showing
LOTS 1,2, 13, ~- A DIVISION OF THE
R. W. COUCH. JR. PROPERTY IN THE
Wm UORRIS FOfirER
Paui K. McGitl
4918 Richmond
t',e~w~uk, VA 22947
To Whom it May Concern, and the Zoning Department,
To ~e best of my knowledge and belief, the accessor'y,
struct ute ~n whicr~ t hope to conduct bus,ness under tdome Occupation Class
B, nas a side yard setback of s~x~een feet. I consequently request a waiver
of nine feet to comply with Section 5.~.~,l,bO'~ with the following
conditions:
t. That this accessory structure not be expanded or added to
now or in the future.
2 That I employ no individual to WOrk in the structure now or
~n the future, other than one member of my family residing onthe
premises.
3. That this speclai use not extend beyond my ownership of this
property to another individual or other entity.
Sincerel y,
Paul K. McGill
DAVID R. GEHR
COMtv~IS$iONER
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIOI~
P. O. BOX 2013
CHARLOTTESVILLE, 22902-2013
ATTACHMENT D I
A. G. TUCKER
August 11, 1995
Mr. Ronald S. Keeler
Dept. of Planning &
Communluy Developmenu
401 McIntire Road
Charlouuesville, VA.
22902
Submittals For September
Public Hearings
Dear Mr. Keeler:
Please find listed below our comments for September Rezonings:
SP-95-26 Paul McGill, Route 250 E.
The existing entrance meets sight distance requirements. The enurance is
rather obscure and acuually difficult uo see. We recommend that the landing
area au Route 250 be raised up uo allow for better ingress and egress. It is
our perception that this would not be a heavy usage, however if you have
informatxon of heavy traffic generation, we may recommend a wider enurance to
allow for two. (2) lanes.
SP-95-28 Church of God, Route 663
We have questions of what the plans for expansion acuually entail. Is this to
be a Day Care? If so, we would like to see traffic generation figures. The
church, sign in front of church needs uo be relocated uo,~eeu, sight distance
requlremencs co the South (350 feet minxmum) (existing ~ feet) The
existin~ enurance width of 50 feet is satisfacEory, however we recommend the
paving of enurance back uo the right of way as a minimum uo allow for
acceleration into the flow of traffis.
If you have any quesulons, please advise.
HWM/ldw
Cc: Wanda Moore
J. R. Kesuerson
Assisuan~ Resident Engineer
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
October 4, 1995
My name is Paul McGiil, and t have applied for a special use permit
~ operate a s~,~l~ .. shop on
~,~ ,; ack~..,i~h my rural property. My business
would consist of a small workshop which i have made of an accessory
structure. There is no road or driveway access (o this structure, an~ work
conducted within the building would consist of the light forging and
fabrication of small ornamental items such as wine racks, pot racks,
lamps, plant stands, firescreens, small weathervanes and the like.
Typicall~, these items would be custom made to specifications rather than
produced in quantity. In addition, this building would serve as a base of
operations from which t would depart to engage in site work on farms or
area homes to install or repair ironwork or agricultural equipment.
t have worked in this building for some time on a hobby basis and
have never disturbed even my closest adjoining neighbor. Because of the
limiteo scope and intensity of the work, i am confident that i can continue
to have no adverse affect on neighboring properties.
Individuals from Planning Staff and Zoning have made field
obserYations of my property and intended use, and Planning Staff has
recommended approval of my application. Because of the unexpected
objections raised by an adjacent neighbor, however, the Planning
Comm;ssion voted to recommend denial, i have included data and
arguments in this report whi ch show that my neighbor's concerns are
unfounded and not shared by my other adjoining neighbors.
i realize that an adjacent neighbor's objections can be a strong
argument to recommend denia: of this petition. ! can show, however, that
my neighbor's concerns are based upon fears rather than the reality of the
facts. Although my proposal is for a very small business, the attempt to
initiate this business has involved a large personal inves(ment of effor:
and resources. I feel this business wilt be an asset to Albemarle County
ano my neighborhood, and t hope you will consider this proposal with the
gravity which it deserves and approve based upon the evidence I have
supplied. The targest portion of this report consists of a rebuttal of my
neighbor's objections as reported in the minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting of September ! 9th, ! 995, supplemented by
photographs, lists, and letters
/.~,~r..,_.(~n ce r e 1 y yours,
Paul K. McGill
Paul McGili
SP 95-26
October 3. 1995
The following is from the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of
September 19th, i995. The information in bold t~oe is new info~mnation
supplied by the applicant for the Board's consideration.
SP 95-26 Paul McGill-Petition to establish a Home Occupation Class B for
a blacksmith shop on 2.0 acres zoned R~, Rural Areas [I0.2.2:~3I)].
Property.. described as Tax Map 94, Parcel 28 is located on the south side
of Route 250 approximately 600 feet east of Route 616 in the Rivanna
Magisterial Oistrict. This site is not located in a designated growth area.
The property is Parcel 28D, located on the north sJ.~e of
Route 250 approxJmatel§ 1/2 n~ile east of Route 616.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval suoj~.ct
to condi tions.
The applicant, Mr. Paul McGJil, addressed the Commission. He said h:s
neighbor, Mr. Huntsr, has expressed concerns about th~ request. He asked
to be able to address those concerns after Mr_ Hunter's comments. Ms.
· ,~..,~_~h,.,, ~.,~..K..u ,.. ~1,..G, ,~ m,u~. ~.~pe u, .~uloe 1._-¢ produced by "-. ..... ~-i ~-
Mr. McGill said work with the iron would be the only noise-praducing
aspect of the work. He said he has taken steps to address noise outside
the structure through additional insulation. He dio not think the noise
wouid be noticeable on adjacent property. He said his nours of operation
would be between the hours of 8 a.m_ to 5 P.m., with ne business work
occurring on weekends. He pointed out that some of his work is performed
off site. He described his wcrk as being primarily "ornamental items" and
repmrs. He said he does not do farmer work.
Mr. Fritz said much of Mr. McGitl's work falls under the heading of
Agricultural Service Occupation, which does not require a special permit.
8ut enough of his work does not fit that description so as to "push it over
into the Home Occupation Class
Public comment was invited.
Page 2
Mr. Bruce Hunter, an adjacent property owner, ~ddressed the Commission.
He read a prepared statement wherein he expressed his opposition to the
request. His ressons were as fo!lows:
--The use will change the ch~sracter of the district_ This is a ,
residential neighborhood. The use proposed is of an industrial natur~ and
the applicable performance st,sndards are those of an industrial district.
This area i§ zoned rural agricultural. Despite residences an
lots of two acres ar more, the area is generally rural in
appearance and character.
The accessory structure to be used has been in existence for
many gears and is in keeping with the character of the area.
There are several small businesses in the immediate
nei ghborhaod.
The proposed use is not of an industrial nature, but is on the
order of a single craftsman working in a small shop. Th9 scale
and intensity of the proposed use is limited. There is no
driveway or road access to the structure. The building contains
under eight hundred squar~ feet of floor space. Only four
hundred and s~venty square feet of space would be
and of t~at space sixty square feet is occupied bg stationary
tools and work bpnches interspersed among the remaining-area.
Similar ~r more ambitious types of businesses--including
fabricators, agricultural service, and ~rnamental iron-
works have bepn operated in this district and
neighborhood without incident or problem.
Contrar~ to Mr_ Huntpr's asseveration, the performance
standards are a~licable to regulate mg pro~osed usp~ an~
designed to protect residential or agricultural ar~as whic~ -
adjoin industrial districts.
IMf. Hunter]--The structure proposed for the activity ts oniy 80 feet from
his dwelling.
My shed faces away from Mr. Nunter's property, and a ~tree
line and a storage shed intervene between the structure and Mr_
Hunter's residence_ Mr. Hunter's house includes an attatched
garage which is the closest part of his house to my property.
Page 3
[Mr...~,.Hunter]--He, .-.~ _ . quoted, from section 5.2.2(b) of the Zoning Ordinance: ?he
~y,~e ~::~ati~ The requir~d setback is 25 fe~t: the structure to be
used for the ~ctivity is only ~6 f~t frem th~ prope:~ tine.
The Planning Staff, ~asod an field observations was at~te to
support a modification of the setback. Staff was of t,~e opinion
that '... the re~ucti~ i~ set~ack does ~ot iocreas~
Potential impact on adjacent property.- The building is suited
to the proposed use because the wails of the area to he
in are cinderblock and facilitated the attenuation of noise_ tn
~rd~r to further protect Mr. ~unter*s property and in respens~ to
bis conc~s these further conditions have been placed upon
allowable under the special use permit:
1. Use shall be limited to the accessory structure.
Premises.
3_ No signage shall be Pe~tted_
~- Ail outdoor activities., including storag~ of materials shall
not be permitted.
5. Hours of epera~ion shall be wee~ days between 8 a.m. and 5
~ropertg and lifestgle than many private and unregulated as~s.
Other operations of ~is nature ~ave ~een condacted much
closer to adjacent property lines and structures
incident or
a~,o** p., ,ut on fram,-omok~-o and pa~culate~ ' matter.
blacksmitb*s forge burning clean coke breeze or coke produced
from soft coal around the blast ef the fire; these forges
typically produce tess smoke than woodstoves and home
fireplaces which are common in this area.
Page 4
I have spoken with the inspector at the pollution control
center in Palm§rd. His opinion based upon similar uses which he
has had experience with in the past, was that net enough fuel
would be consumed to warrant a per, it or his involvement. Mr.
Hunter would not be without recourse te Environmental Qualit§~
however, should mg forge prove an annoyance.
I worked for a blacksmith who did much bea~ forging, and
it t~ok thr~e years for two of us to burn six tens of coal. l
to make ~g coal forge merely a supplement to a goo~ ~ropane
forge. The forge would get intermittent use in any case, and
since ~g intent is to work with light mate~al 1 do not believe i
woul~ burn o~er three quarters of a ton of fuel in a year. This
fuel consumption would be approximately equivalent to that
the winter ~se of a residential wood stove_
[Mr. Hunter]--Concerns about no,se. He do~bted ~hat the b~Pe of insulation
.... ' damoen the inordinate level
being ~u~ would ~e sufficient to ~,Qn,ficantly
- -' · -~ with a force
of noise which will result when steel hammers :~b ~ke J,, ....
sufficient to work it into a product.
Since agplging f~r this special use I have spent over.fiv~
hundred dollars on materials and many personal hours of labor
attenuating n~ise. Amelia HcCulley of the Zoning Department
t~ok s~und level readings on October 2nd and can attest to my
success. Much of my work would not involve forging; however,
even the hammering of hot metal do~s not produce inordinate
levels gf noise, as the material is in a plastic state an~ the
~iow is absorbed bg the material and the large mass of an anvil.
Occassionalty, c~id metal would be struck to flatten or
straighten it, b~t t~is wo~Id not be gersistent and has been
~ffectivelg attenuated. Scrolls for ornamental work would
tb~ primary element forged. This w~uld only involve
drawing d~wn of the ends of light stock and t~en bending~he
stock around a jig.
[Mr. H~mter]--The p~-formance Standards which address noise
based on what can reasonably be expected in a residential neighborhood.
The Standards at-e based on a level of no,se that is acceptable in an
industrial district. He quoted from Section 4. t.4 of the Ordinance:
Page 5
levels at ~' ~cultm-al m-~ntial ~trict bom~a~:~, ~:e ~:~L~
~;~s~lstrial ~t~:Zcts s~5~l be ~:ed ~q : de~&~el~ L~ eaoh oct~be >~nd a:~
in t~ o~t~:~Z b~:d for itz~act noise~ Based on these performance
standards, he said approval of tills pe~it wo~ld mean "industrial levels of
noise 8re permitted 80 feet from my home between the hours of 7 o'clock
a_m. and 7 o'clock p.m., ~even days a week, 365 days a year." He thought
this was "an absolutely unacceptable standard for a residential
neighborhood."
Mr. Hunter is in error regarding his understanding of the use,
intent, and degree of proscription of the standards of
performance stated in Section 4.1. These standards were not
instituted to protect one industry from another industrg's noise,
but to protect residential and agricultural districts which
adjoin an area with commercial or industrial use. These
standards are extrernei§ stringent, and are the onlg standards in
use aver the county ta proscribe the impact of activities by
industrial, commercial, or agricultural service uses. Any
individual operating as an agricultural service occupation and
meeting these performance standards can operate by right on a
rural agricultural property ouch as mine.
Since 1 have agreed to limit rn§ hours and days of operation,
Mr. Hunter's concern about 365 days of noise a gear is academic.
Much of ~y work would not create any noise, and the noise w~ich
would be created bas been attenuated to the a~bient level of the
neigbbor~ood. Mr. Hunter would always have recourse to the
performance standards which were designed and are in effect to
protect his welfare.
H,.,n~.~, t , ,,u%n not preoentl~ p, ,~puoeo, the fear that, pow.~, no,,:., ....
could be added to the operation at some future time.
Mr. Hunter suggested that a machine called a "hammer milt'
might be used, in which metal is placed in a special vise and is
then heat on by this machine persistently and repetitively while
PaQe 6
~-~--~* h
blac~o,.,~L,, gOeS about other tasks. This is an image whici~
would t~rrify any peace-lo¥iag individual, ~ut no such ~ac~i~e
exists in blacksmithing. Metal heated in a forge remains
~atlea~ie for only a few seconds and requires t~e co,plate and
i~diat~ ~ten~,on of a blacksmit~. No blow is struck unless
it accomplishes a task such as drawing down or t~ick~ning,
cutting oF punching th~ hot metal. Metal is never hammered
wantonly. There are machines which hammer ma~e~al ~el~ by a
s~it~. T~se ~achines hav~ ~een made in ~any sizes and can
reduc~ the physical efforts of a blacksmith. Becaus~ of the
small size of my shop and the light nature of t~e work I intend
t~ do, however, I do not feel suc~ a tool would be j~stified_ In
any ewnt its operation would still have to ~eet t~ st~ct
performanc~ standards for vi~ration and noise, and could not
adversely impact my neighbors.
It is an important point that I will be ~h~ only individual
wor~ing in this ~uilding. While I operate any tool all other tools
in the building are idle. If ! am welding, or attending a d~ilt
press, or doing many other noiseless tasks there will be no
nois~ ~oduc~d ~ all. ~
--Decline in oroper~y value.
Mr. Hunter said the aoDiicant has conscientiously attempted to belay his
concerns arid fears and he wishes him success in his attempt to earn a
living as a blacksmi~.h. However, he said he has no desire to "finance tha-?.
~nitiative by a decrease i~s value in his family's assets, and a decrease in
t. he quality of life in his neighborhood."
Mr. 5ordon Wheeler. a local real estate ~
properties m t,,e r,~,s!,bor
I ~ave been a good neig~bor to Mr. Hunter, and
continue to be a goad neighbor in the future while operating a
s~all business on my property. I am making the most of my few
resources attempting to initiate an ente~rise from which ! can
earn a livelihood. My wife and I have made improvements to
our property and are committed to increasing the value of our
property and the property of our neighbors_ Work ~ hove done
improving the appearance and quiet of my shed because of this
application con only hove i,mproved the val~e of Mr. H~n~er's
Mr_ Wheeler is a respected realtor and member of
Hunter's congregation. Although ! cannot argue professionall~
with Mr. Whe~ter, I must point out that he has no first-hand
knowled~ of my proposed uo~, he has never contacted
visite~ my property~ or sought a demonstration by me of what I
intend to
I have researched property val~es in the neighborhood and
can offer this example involving neighho~ng property. The
Hunter's was owned bg Gertrude and Haman Daile~ from 1979
until ~ ~'~'~, =~.. During that time a metalworking business ~,n~o,~,n~'
the fabrication of fire escapes was operatad on this
Mr. Hunter's prope~y was not deyetop~d u,,,,, 1988, but my
appreciated steadil~ in value regardi~ss o~ th~ existence or
non-existence of this industrial shop which event~]iB
larger quarters in a neighbo~ng
Man~ factors mag affect the value of a propertg in a ~rai
8~FiCUi[~rGI zoning, but because of what is permissible in this
zoning I think the greatest asset an~ neighbor can bare is the
~o,,~lu.ra_~on an,~oodwt,, ~, his adjoining_ neighbors.
Hr. Hun~er ~as Jnitiotlu supportive ~f mg plans, and 1
~ ~as ~ermJtted *~ -
,,~ ,,,e advice of Hr_ Wheeler and fears of the ~sks
~f change to influe~ce his ~est iastincts. It is impedant to me
,,a,e ,h,s small business on my property, but I am also
concerned about my neighbor's welfare and have limited mB
proposal to secure the quality ~f life in the neighborhood and
,,,e va!ua of prope~ies in the area. I feel this limite~ special
use permit would create less impact than an agricultural
service occupation which I could pursue as a use by right for
only the cost of a zoning clearance. Consequently I feel Mr.
Hunter's ~bjections are unwarranted and not in his best
interests.
rag~ o
Mr. McGi!i addressed some of Mr. Hunter's comments. He said he had. not
been aware of the extent of Mr. Hunter's concerns until this meeting: He
pointed out that the area is zoned RA and the same occupation has been
approved twice previously within 4 miles of his oroperty. He thought it is
unfair to describe his work as being industrial. He conceded that
industMal type processes are used in his work, but he stressed that they
are limited in scope. He said he has no plans to ever use a power hammer
in his operation and he was not opposed to such a restriction being placed
on the permit. He explained he has worked in the proposed structure, on a
hobby basis, for some time. He said the process uses a coal fire which
does not produce voluminous smoke. He said wood stoves and trash bumming
produce much more smoke. He stressed he was committed to maintaining
the existing quality of life in the neighborhood.
Although the Commission members expressed sympathy for
my proposal they voted unanimously for a motion to recommend
denial based upon the objections of Mr. Hunter. I have now
supplied data which shows that Mr. Hunter misunderstood and
misrepresented m§ intended use, the Performance Standards, and
the character of the area. 1 have also included information
which shows the limited nature of my proposed use, the support
of m§ other adioining neighbors, and n~y ability and intent to
~ave no adverse impact on Mr_ Hunter or ~is property.
R_o~e~t, ~lly subrnitte~d,
Paul K. McGill
Richard and ~thleen Diaraond
Route l, Box 327
Kes~ick, VA 22947
(804) 971-7273 days
(804) 979-9756 evenings
October 2, 1995
Board of Supez~visors
County of A/3o~-0m3cle
harlo~tesv~lle, Virginia
Re: ~plication of Paul McGill for Special Use Permit
To '~-hom it n~y concern:
Our f~m~ly resides d/rectly behind Paul and Julia McGiil on
Route 250 in the County. In fact, we share the same drivews, y.
The McGills else excellent neighbors. They are extremely
considerate and we feel fortunate to have th~ living close to us.
Paul McSilt has ~xplained his plans to us and we do not
believe that they will cause any problem to us or our neighborhood.
~e both s~D~ort Paul in his plan to operate his blacksmith shop
from the accessory structure on his property.
We urge you 'to approve his application for the special use
Sincerely yours,
Richard & Kathleen Diamond
Mildred and Robert Couch. Jr.
4886 Richmond Road
Keswick. VA 22947
October 1, 1995
To whom it may concern:
Paul McGill has been a very good neighbor for over 2 years. I think he is an asset to the
neighborhood. Since there are several businesses already in the area, we have no
objection to his owning a business. He is very considerate of other people and is always
there if you need a helping hand. He would never do anything to annoy his neighbors or
do anything that would depreciate the value of their property or his own.
We will be surprised if there are any objections and want to give our support to Paul in
anyway possible. If you have any questions concermng our opinion on this matter, please
feel free to contact us at (804) 296-3713.
Sincer.ely,
Mildred and Robert Couch, Jr.
PROPERLY
ti; ! [ I
EXAMPLES OF THE TYPES OF THINGS WHICH COULD BE MADE
SP 95-26 PAUL McGILL
EXAMPLES OF THE TYPES OF THINGS WHICH COULD BE MADE
SP 95-26 PAUL McGILL
EXAMPLES OF THE TYPES OF THINGS WHICH COULD BE MADE
SP 95~26 PAUL McGILL
CHARACTER OF AREA
AERIAL PHOTO MAP-1990
SP 95-26 PAUL McGILL
SP 95 26 PA[ [ blc(;,r[ [
Paul
RE: Noise Attenuatian in Workshop
The shop area to be worked in has interior dimensions of 22'I0=
hg 20' 8-. The floor of the workshop is concrete, and the walls
are cinderblack and seven and a half feet high_ There is o truss
roof system and asphalt shingiing. The front of the building has
a single door and a set of plywood double doors. Two windows
approximately 30' bg 37' are set in each of the three remaining
sides_ The north side of the building is enclosed b§ a storage
oreo.
Attenuation Improvements
*The enclosure and insulation of the east and north windows
*Double-glazing of south windows
*Enclosure and insulation of eaves
*Enclosure and insulation of a large portian of overhead space
*The addition of vermiculite insulation into the back block wall
*installatian of a baffle system to block a gable vent
*lnsulatian of double doors with dow sheathing and plywood
*Enclosure and insulation of single door window
*Insulation and enclosure of the east wall above block with
insulating sheathing, plgwaod~ and gypsum board.
in addition, tools in the shop which might absorb impact such as
vise stands, anvil and stand, and workbench have been securely
bolted to the concrete floor so that no movement will occur and
shock will be transferred to the ground.
and a tew ~hi~h ~ ~-h,~ . ' ~" ~' ,~zul~ locally
u,,~ .,~, ...... ~ -~,~,~,,y . .. - , and ~re common m nome
i7" swing, 5/8 ....':,,
L.,_..p.ct,.:_~ drill Dress
bu.,--,, gnnder
---,- ,-, ,,ahd d,
.... hand -/~d
Portable k--
Bench shear
Rod o'-~ -
Anvil
5;:zlal] n..nd tools
dig~ and Fixtures
Shop furniture
...-b!
taps and dies
scriber
'-'~; ' '- ~ f i-"-~
punches and dri,,.~'~
@tc.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Developmem
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22909-4596
(804) 296-5823
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS~
September 22, 1995
Nelson Morris
David Allison
Trustees of Church of God
1506 Simmons Gap Road
Dyke, VA 22935
RE: SP-95-28 Church of God
Dear Sirs:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 19, 1995,
unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
Relocation of the existing sign in order to achieve a minimum of 350 feet of sight
distance;
2. Paving of the entrance to the right of way limits;
Development shall be in general accord with the site plan tided "Addition to the
Nortonsville Church of God" dated June 2, 1995. Modifications to the site plan to
address the requirements and reconm~endations of the Site Review Committee shall be
permitted;
4. Approval of this permit shall not constitute approval of a day care/nursery schook
Page 2
September 22, 1995
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
receive public comment at their meeting on OCTOBER Il, 1995. 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,
William D. Fritz
Senior Planner
cc: Lettie E. Neher
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
WILLIAM D. FRITZ
SEPTEMBER 12, 1995
OCTOBER 11, 1995
SP 95-28 CHURCH OF GOD
Applicant's Proposal:
The applicant is proposing to construct an expansion to the church to provide for additional
sanctuary area, classrooms, and kitchen. The expansion will allow the existing sanctuary area to
be used for a fellowship hall
Petition: The Churcl~ of God located in Nortonsville petitions the Board' of Supervisors to issue
a special use permit to allow the expansion of the existing church on 1.6 acres zoned RA, Rural
Areas [10.2.2(35)]. Property, described as Tax Map 9, Parcels 4 and 6A, is located on the south
side of Route 663 approximately 0.7 miles east of Route 810 in the White Hall Magisterial
District. This is the site of the Nortonsvitle Church of God. This site is not located in a
designated growth area (Rural Area 1).
Character of the Area:
This site is developed with the existing church, parsonage (used for storage only), picnic shelter,
and parking lot. The proper~y to the east of the site is used as the parsonage.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the
Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval.
Planning and Zoning History:
The church was constructed in the late t940's. A site plan was approved by the Planning
Commission for an expansion of the church (resulting in existing size) on January 19, 1977
other history is available.
No
Comprehensive Plan:
This area is recommended as a Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan The plan states the
following as an objective on page 203:
All decisions concermng the Rural Areas shall be made in the interest of the four major elements
of the Rural Areas, with the highest priority given to preserving agricultural and forestal activities
rather than encouraging residential development. The four major elements are: (1) preservation
of agricultural and forestal activities; (2) water supply protection; (3) limited service delivery to
the Rural Areas; and (4) conservation of natural, scenic, and historical resources.
.This site is not used for agriculture. The increased development on this site will not affect
agricultural use of other property in the area. This site is located in the watersupply watershed for
the water intake located on the North Fork of the Rivanna River. Approval of the site plan will
require engineering department approval of a runoff control permit to mitigate the impact of the
development. The proposed expansion provides additional services in the area and is in response
to the existing demands placed on the facility. Staff opinion is that the expansion of the church
will not represent a substantial increase in demand of public services.
Staff opinion is that approval of this request does not conflict with the major elements of the
Rural Areas.
STAFF COMMENT:
Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use
permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance
may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of
substantial detriment to adjacent property,
The adjacent property is owned by the church. The major impact of the church expansion will be
a visual impact on Route 663. No detrimental impact is anticipated by this expansion as it ~s
located adjacent to the existing church and central to the overall development of the church
property.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereb~
Staff typically views expansion of existing uses as having a minimal impact on the character of the
district. While approval of this request will result in a sizeable church complex at this site, it is not
out of character or scale as compared to other churches in this portion of the County.
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 ordinance as stated in Sections 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6.
Staff opinion is that this use is in harmony with the ordinance and in particular with the provisions
of Section 1.4.3, and 1.4.4.
with the uses permitted by right in the district,
Approval of this request will not affect permitted uses on adjacent property.
with additional reeulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance.
Section5.0 conta'ms no additional regulations for this type of use.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
A site plan has been submitted in support of this application. Approval of the site plan will
insure adequate protection of the public health and safety. In order to obtain and maintain
adequate sight distance at the entrance to this facility the existing sign needs to be relocated. The
applicant is aware of this requirement and will relocate the sign.
SUMMARY:
Staff opinion is that this request is in compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the
Zoning Ordinance. No negative factors have been identified in the review of this application.
Approval of the site plan (the plan will be approved administratively) will insure that all
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance are met to insure the public health and safety.
Recommended Action:
Based on the above comments staffis able to recommend approval of this request subject to the
following conditions:
i. Relocation of the existing sign in order to achieve a mimmum of 350 feet of sight
distance;
2. Paving of the entrance to the right of way limits;
3. Developmem shall be in general accord with the site plan titled "Addition to the
Nortonsville Church of God" dated June 2, 1995. Modifications to the site plan to
address the requirements and recommendations of the Site Review Committee shall be
permitted;
4. Approval of this permit shall not constitute approval of a day care/nursery school.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B - Tax Map
C - Site Plan
I:\GENERAL\SHARE\FRITZ\COG.RPT
!
IATTACHHENTAJ
MTN
GIBSON
MOUNTAIN
SP-95-28
CHURCH OF GOD
~ 3EMARLE COUNT'~
ATTACHMENT Bl
J / /
SP-95-28
CHURCH OF SOD
~ ....... '~ W H I T E
HALL DISTRICT
SECTION 9
/
/
/
II II Il |1
CQUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept, of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
5 995
August 24, 1995
Richard E. Carter
414 Park Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
· RE: ZMA-95-10 Crozet Moose Lodge
Tax Map 55, Parcel 109B
Dear Mr. Carter:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 22, 1995, by a vote
of 3-2, recommended denial of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please bd advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
receive public comment at their meeting on OCTOBER 11 1995. 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 shmdd have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Ronald A. Lilley
Senior Planner
P. aMc
cc:JalaCarey
Jo Higgins
Amelia McCulley
Crozet Moose Lodge No. 2164
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
RON LILLEY
AUGUST 22, 1995
SEPTEMBER 20, 1995
ZMA 95-10 Crozet Moose Lodge
Applicant's Proposal: Crozet Moose Lodge desires to have the zoning on their property
better reflect the existing use of the property and the HC zoning of adjacent parcels
(Attachments A and B indicate location and area zo,ning). The lodge has not provided any
proposal for development of this property other than continued use by the Crozet Moose
Lodge.
Petition: Crozet Moose Lodge petitions the Board of Supervisors to rezone 3.18 acres from
RA (Rural Areas) to HC (Highway Commercial). The property, described as Tax Map 55,
Parcel 109B, is located on the south side of Route 250, about 1/2 mile east of the Yancey
Mills interchange at Interstate 64, in the White Hall Magisterial District. This site is within
Rural Area 3.
Character of the Area: This site is mostly cleared, with the present Crozet Moose Lodge
building located near the front of the parcel. The surrounding area contains a'variety of land
uses, with businesses and residential uses in the immediate vicinity, and other commercial and
agricultural uses nearby.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance
with the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and recommends denial.
Planning and Zoning History: There have been no rezoning or special use permit
applications for this property to date. The property was originally zoned B-l, Business in
· 1968 and was used for a commercial garage. The property was transferred to the Crozet
Moose Lodge in 1975 and was zoned RA, Rural Areas as part of the 1980 Comprehensive
rezoning.
Comprehensive Plan: This property is outside of the Crozet Community Growth Area, is
within the water'supply watershed, and is designated Rural Areas. In general, the
Comprehensive Plan calls for directing growth into designated growth areas. This site is
within l/2 mile of the Yancey Mills/I-64 interchange, which is not one of the interchanges
recommended for more intensive development.
STAFF COMMENT:
The major issue for this rezoning is its conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Closely
related issues are the impacts of th~ proposed zoning and potential uses on the area and the
adequacy and viability of the present zoning.
As noted above, this site is outside of the designated growth area and is within the South Fork
Rivamm Water Supply Watershed (Stockton Creek sub-basin). While the immediate vicinity
has commercial and industrial type uses with commercial and industrial zoning designations,
these existing commercial and industrial designations were based on uses existing prior to the
current growth management approaches reflected in ,the Comprehensive Plan. Unless there is
a compelling distinction between this property and other properties outside the designated
growth areas and within the water supply watershed, allowing this rezoning may set a
· precedent that would make similar rezoning requests difficult to deny, compromising the
effectiveness of the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors have denied requests to establish commercial/industrial zoning in the P(ural Areas
in the past, only allowing commercial and industrial rezonings outside of growth areas and
within the water supply watershed where such uses already existed (see attached list of
rezomngs considered -- Attachment C).
Staff opinion is that there are some distinctions between this property and other properties
outside the growth areas and within the water supply watershed, but that those' distinctions are
not compelling enough to support this rezoning. Unlike most other Rural Areas sites, this site
is in the midst of other commercial and industrial uses and zoning designations. However,
this site's setting does not limit the use of the site to commercial and industrial uses. The
existing lodge is allowed by special use permit in the RA district (the lodge is legally
nonconforming and does not need a special use permit). There are also single family homes
and agricultural uses in the immediate vicinity. Though not ideally suited to residential use, a
residential use of this parcel would appear to be as compatible with surrounding uses as the
existing dwellings in the area are. While the Rural Areas district is intended primarily for
agricultural uses and this site does not appear to be suited to such uses, reasonable uses of the
property, including the current use, exist with the current zoning, especially with the other
uses potentially available by Special Use Permit. In fact, several of the commercial and
industrial uses in the immediate area could be allowed under the Rural Areas designation by
special use permit (including sawmills, counn:y stores, and public garages).
As noted, the site is within 1/2 mile of the Yancey Mills/I-64 interchange, which is not one of
the interchanges recommended for intensive development.
The Architectural Review Board has not commented on this rezoning request since no change
in the physical development of the site is proposed at this point..
The Comprehensive Plan does include undeveloped area within the Crozet Community
designated for Commercial uses· Also, the Comprehensive Plan objectives for Crozet include:
2
"Strengthen the downtown as a shopping area and the focal point of the Crozet
Community by encouraging all new commercial uses to locate in the downtown as
opposed to Route 250."
Further, the Crozet Community Sttt'dy states:
"To ensure that downtown Crozet remains a viable shopping area and the Community
center, it is critical that commercial development along Route 250 be limited to parcels
currently zoned. There should be no additional commercial zoning on Route 250.
Recommendation: Encourage all new commercial uses to locate in the downtown as
opposed to Route 250 to ensure the area remains the cultural and economic heart of
the Community.'
The impacts of the proposed zoning and use on the ~trea are difficult to determine. No
limitations of allowed uses have been proffered. The Virginia Department of Transportation
comments on the request note that highway commercial is normally a high traffic generator
and that a traffic ~mpact analysis would be needed to fully assess the request. -.
A fiscal impact analysis has not been performed for this proposal since it does not involve
residential development.
3
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified some positive factors and several negative factors for this request, which
can be summarized as follows:
Positive factors
Existing commercial and industrial uses and zoning designations nearby make the
proposal generally compatible with the character of the area.
Due to surrounding uses, potential for uses of this property, to meet the primary intent
of the Rural Areas district is limited.
Negative factors
The proposed zoning is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan (outside of Growth
Area and within the water supply watershed).
Approval of rezoning for this proposal would be inconsistent with past actions on
rezoning requests of a similar nature (to commercial/industrial designation outside a
Growth Area and within the water supply watershed when the pre-existing use does
not require rezoning) and may set a precedent for consideration of future requests as
there ~s not a compelling distinction between this property and other Rural Area
properties.
Reasonable uses for this property are still available.
The Crozet Community has area available for Commercial uses.
The possible impacts to the character of the area and the infrastructure, based on the
character of development, are not clear.
Staff opinion is that the negative factors, primarily the lack of conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan and the ramifications of the precedent that would be set by allowing this
rezoning, outweigh the positive factors, and staff therefore recommends denial of this
rezoning request.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B - Zoning Map
C - List of Rural Area/Watershed Rezonings Considered
i:\general\share\lilley\zma95 - 10
ALBEMARLE
COUNTY
46
O
84
CR0:
MILLS
\/
ZMA-95-10
2164
SAMUEL MILLER AND
WHITE HALL DISTRICTS SECTION 55
ALBEMARLE
COUNTY
I ATTACHMENT B I'
5
./
8O
YANCE'
84
RS ,,
/
56
...... ~,, - /SAMUEL MILLER AND
"'--" ....... ;" WHITE HALL DISTRICTS SECTION 55
PAGE NUMBER 18
~ATTACHMENT C I
Rezoning Requests (from non-urban to urban designations)
for Properties Outside of Growth Areas
and Wittdn the Water Supply Watershed
Application
ZMA 81-07, Reid/Hop-In
ZMA 81-16, Brown
ZMA 81-17/18, Spangler
ZMA 81-21, Chisolm
ZMA 81-25, Hochman
ZMA 82-10, Faulconer
ZMA 83-20, Murray Mfg
ZMA 84-26, Elder
ZMA 85-12, Green Acres
ZMA 86-08, Campbell
ZMA 88-22, Grt. Eastern
ZMA 89-03, Stallings
ZMA 89-21, Mechum River
ZMA 94-18, Robertson
Acres Request
1.3 RA to C1
2.4 RA to CO
3.6 VR to HC
10 RA to LI
8.3 RA to LI
28 RI to CO
8.3 RAto LI
1.0 PA. to C1
2.4 RA to CO
5.5 RA to CO
1.8 RA to HC
1.6 RA to PD-SC
2 RAto HC
56 RA to PRD
4 RA to L1
Action ~oasis)
Approved
(to replace pre-existing use)
Den/ed
Approved (pre-existing)
Approved (pre-existing)
Withdrawn
Withdrawn
Approved (pre-existing)
Approved (pre-existing)
Denied
Denied
Denied
Approved (pre-existing)
Denied
Denied
I:\general\share\lilleykrezone.tst
PIEDMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL
P~o~ecd~g The Ett~irortme~ J[s E~erTbo~} 's 8~sirtes
ZMA-95-10 Crozet Moose Lodge
Statement Delivered to the Board of Supervisors
October 11, 1995
The Piedmont Environmental Council urges you to follow the recommendation of your
Planning Commission and staff and deny this rezoning application.
The staff report lists many good reasons to deny this application. Zoning this lot to
Highway Commercial would undermine the County's 15-year commitment to
protecting the watershed, and its more recent pledge to encourage development in
downtown C¢ozet. The applicant currently enjoys reasonable use of the property: the
use can continue without change under the existing zoning. If the applicant wishes to
expand the lodge, the use is allowed by special use permit.
In an attempt to justify the rezoning, the applicant points to the proximity of other
parcels. Two of the properties adjoining this parcel are zoned Highway Commercial.
These commercially zoned properties represent the one compromise the Board made
in 1980 when it realized the health of the reservoir was at stake, and undertook a
comprehensive downzonmg m order to reverse the decline in the quality of our
drinking water.
That one concession--to grant commercial zoning to properties put to uses allowed
only in commercial zoning districts--does not justify this rezoning, To extend this
privilege would hand the power of planning over to past development. What's built
would guide our land use policy, rather than the Comprehensive Plan.
Where would it stop? Across Route 250 West from this property lie nine properties
zoned Rural Areas. Four rurally zoned properties surround this tract on the west and
south. Granting this request would certainly alter the expectations of many
landowners in the immediate vicinity, and weaken your ability to deny future rezonings,
We ask that you uphold the Comprehensive, Plan and deny-this application.
45 P{orner Street Box 46C Warrentor Virginia 22iS6/70}-347-2334/Fax 34%9003
Lift Rose H Drfve. Suke [. 2ha*,-ioctcsvit~¢, Virgmfa 22903/804-977-2033/Fax 977-6306
MEMORANDUM
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. ot Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-,5823
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Ella Carey, Clerk
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director ofPlmming & Community Development
August 2, 1995
ZTA-95-03 Farm Sales
ZTA-95-04 Farmers' Market
ZTA-95-05 Commercial Stables
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on August l, 1995, deferred the
above-noted zoning text tanendments to its August 15, 1995 meeting.
If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
VWC/jcw
cc: Robert W. Tucker, Jr
COUNTY OF ALBEMAR
Office of Board of Superviso~
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4J
f804 296-5843 FAX (804) 29~
MEMO TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Board of Supervisors
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC ~.
October 13, 1995
Supplement No. 80 to the Zoning
Attached are amended sheets to be placed
Ordinance. These changes are occasioned
on October 11, 1995.
Replace sheets in your copy of the ordinance as follows:
Old Sheet New Sheet
13 (Supp ~8, 12-16-81
69.8 (Supp ~76, 8-10-94
91.1 (Supp ~66, 6-10-92
147 (Supp ~73, 9-15-93
152 (Supp ~73, 9-15-93
13 (Supp ~80, 10-11-95)
69.8 (Supp #80, 10-11-95)
69.9 (Supp #80, 10-11-95)
91.1 (Supp ~80, 10-11-95)
147 (Supp ~80, 10-11-95)
152 (Supp #80, 10-11-95)
LEN/mms
cc:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr. (1)
Richard Huff, II (1)
Larry W. Davis (5)
Water Resources Manager (1)
V. Wayne cilimberg (12)
Amelia McCulley (12)
Clerk (3)
Printed on recycled paper
not more than two (2) unrelated persons living
together as a single housekeeping unit in a
dwelling or dwelling unit; or:
For the purposes of this ordinance the following
shall not apply to the R-l, R-2 and R-4 residen-
tial districts: a group of not more than. six (6)
persons not related by blood, marriage, adoption
or guardianship living together as a single house-
keeping unit in a dwelling or dwelling unit.
Farm Winery: An establishment located on a farm with a
producing vineyard, orchard or similar growing area and with
facilities for fermenting and bottling wine on the premises
where the owner or lessee manufactures wine from fresh
fruits or other agricultural products predominantly grown or
produced on such farm or from fruits, fruit juices or other
agricultural products grown or produced elsewhere4 (Added
12-16-81)
Fast Food Restaurant: A commercial establishment wherein
food and/or drink are furnished for compensation primarily
for consumption off the premises in disposable containers.
Floor Area~ Gross: The sum of the total horizontal areas of
the several floors of all buildings on a lot, measured from
the interior faces of exterior walls. The term "gross floor
area" shall include basements; elevator shafts and stair-
wells at each story; floor space used for mechanical equip-
men~ with structural head room of slx (6) feet, slx (6)
inches or more; penthouses., attic space, whether or not a
floor has actually been laid, providing structural head room
of six (6) feet, six (6) inches or more; interior balconies;
and mezzanines.
The gross floor area of structures devoted to bulk storage
of materials, including, but not limited to grain elevators
and petroleum storage tanks, shall be computed by counting
each ten (10) feet of height or fraction thereof, as being
equal to one (1) floor.
The term "gross floor area" shall not include cellars or
outside balconies which do not exceed a projection of six
(6) feet beyond the exterior walls of the building. Parking
structures below or above grade and roof top mechanical
structures are excluded from gross floor area.
Floor Area, Net: The sum of the total horizontal areas of
the several floors of all buildings on a lot measured from
the interior faces of exterior walls and from the centerline
of walls separating two (2) or more buildings. The term
"net floor area" shall include outdoor display areas for the
sale, rental and display o~ recreational vehicles, boats and
-13- (Supp. ~8, 12-16-81)
A single-family dwelling which adds an accessory apartment shall
be deemed to remain a single-family dwelling and shall be consid-
ered one (1) dwelling unit for purposes of area and bulk regula-
tions of the district in which such dwelling is located.
A guest or rental cottage shall not be deemed to be an accessory
apartment, but shall be deemed to be a single-family detached
dwelling, whether or not used as such, subject to area and bulk
regulations of the district in which such cottage is locate. No
accessory apartment shall be permitted within any gues= or rental
cottage.
The owner must reside in any dwelling to which the apartment unit
is accessory or the apartment unit itself.
The provisions of section 4.1.6 notwithstanding, for lots not
served by a central sewer system; no accessory apartment shall be
established without written approval from the local office of the
Virginia Department of Health of the location and area for both
original and future replacement fields adequate to serve the main
dwelling and accessory apartment.
Accessory apartment shall be deemed to be a dwelling unit for the
purposes of section 18-36 Private Roads of Chapter 18, Subdivision
of Land of the Code of Albemarle. (Added 8-10-94)
-69.8-
(Supp. #76, 8-10-94)
38. Exploratory drilling. (Added 2-10-82)
39. Hydroelectric power generation (reference 5.1.26).
(Added 4-28-82)
40. Borrow area, borrow pit not permitted under section
10.2.1.18. (Added 7-6-83)
41. Convent, Monastery (reference 5.1.29). (Added 1-1-87)
42.
Temporary events sponsored by local nonprofit organi-
zations which are related to, and supportive of the RA,
rural areas, district (reference 5.1.27). (Added
12-2-87)
43. Agricultural Museum (reference 5.1.30).
12-2-87)
(Added
44. Theatre, outdoor drama. (Added 6-10-92)
10.3
APPLICATION OF REGULATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT BY RIGHT
The following provisions shall apply to any parcel of record
at 5:15 p.m., the tenth day of December, 1980 (reference
6.5). (Amended 11-8-89)
-91.1- (Supp. $66, 6-10-92)
22.2.2
18.
Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile
facilities such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and
roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal
agencies (reference 31.2.5); public water and sewer trans-
mission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping
stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12).
(Amended 11-1-9)
19. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.1).
20. Dwellings (reference 5.1.21).
21. Medical center.
22.
Automobile, truck repair shop excluding body shop. (Added
6-3-81; Amended 9-9-92)
23.
Temporary nonresidential mobile homes (reference 5.8). (Added
3-5-6)
24. Indoor athletic facilities. (Added 9-15-93)
BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
Commercial recreation establishments including but not limited
to amusemenu centers, bowling alleys, pool halls and dance
halls. (Amended 1-1-83)
Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related
towers; gas or oil transmission lines, pumping stations and
appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchanqe centers; m~cro-wave
and radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substations and
appurtenances.
3. Hospitals.
4. Fast food restaurant.
5. Veterinary office and hospital (reference 5.1.11).
Unless such uses are otherwise provided in this section, uses
permitted in section 18.0, residential - R-15, in compliance
with regulations set forth therein, and such conditions as may
be imposed pureuant to section 31.2.4.
7. Hotels, motels and inns.
Motor vehicle sales and rental in communities and the urban
area as designated in the comprehensive plan. (Added 6-1-83)
9. Parking structures located wholly or partly above grade.
(Added 11-7-4)
-147- (Supp. $73, 9-15-93)
24.2.2
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities excluding
tower structures and including poles, lines, transformers,
pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local
service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water
distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations
and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County
Service Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided,
central water supplies and central sewerage systems in
conformance with Chapter 10 of the Code of Albemarle and all
other applicable law. (Amended 5-12-93)
Public uses and buildings including =emporary or mobile
facilities such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and
roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal
agencies (reference 31.2.5); public water and sewer transmis-
sion, main oF trunk ~lines, treatment facilities, pumping
stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1~12).
(Amended 11-1-89)
Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18).
Indoor theaters.
Heating oil sales and distribution (reference 5.1.20).
Temporary nonresidential mobile homes (reference 5.8).
3-5-86)
(Added
Uses permitted by right pursuan= to subsection
section 22.1, commercial, C-1. (Added 6-19-91;
Amended 9-9-92)
22.2.1 of
42. Indoor athletic facilities. (Added 9-15-93)
8Y SPECIAL USE PERMIT
Commercial recreation establishment including but not limited
to amusement cen=ers, bowling alleys, pool halls and dance
halls. (Amended 1-1-83)
2. Septic tank sales and related service.
3. Livestock sales.
4. Veterinary office and hospital (reference 5.1.11).
5. Drive-in theaters (reference 5.1.8).
Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related
towers; gas or oil transmission lines, pumping stations and
appur=enances; unmanned telephone exchange centers, micro-wave
and radio-wave transmission and relay =owers, substations and
appur=enances (reference 5.1.12).
-152-
(Supp. #73, 9-15-93)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-584~ FAX '804 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Waiter F Perkins
Sally H. Thomas
cms
MEMO TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: Ella W. Carey, Clerk,
DATB: October 13, 1995
SUBJECT: Supplement No. 80 to the Zoning Ordinance
Attached are amended sheets to be placed in your copy of the Zoning
Ordinance. These changes are occasioned by. the amendments adopted
on October 11, 1995.
Replace sheets in your copy of the ordinance as follows:
Old Sheet New Sheet
13 (Supp #8, 12-16-81) 13 (Supp ~80, 10-11-95)
69.8 (Supp ~76, 8-10-94) 69.8 (Supp ~80, 10-11-95)
69.9 (Supp ~80, 10-11-95)
91.1 (Supp ~66, 6-10-92) 91.1 (Supp #80, 10-11-95)
147 (Supp ~73, 9-15-93) 147 (Supp #80, 10-11-95)
152 (Supp #73, 9-15-93) 152 (Supp ~80, 10-11-95)
LEN/mms
CC:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr. (1)
Richard Huff, II (1)
Larry W. Davis (5)
Water Resources Manager (1)
V. Wayne Cilimberg (12)
Amelia McCulley (12)
Clerk (3)
Printed on recycled paper
not more than two (2) unrelated persons living ~ogether as a
single housekeeping unit in a dwelling or dwelling unit; or:
3o
For the purposes of this ordinance the following shall not apply
to the R-l, R-2 and R-4 residential districts: a group of not
more than six (6) persons not related by blood, marriage, adoption
or guardianship living together as a single housekeeping unit in a
dwelling or dwelling unit.
Farm Sales: The sale of agricultural or horticultural produce or merchandise
produced on the farm~ with subordinate sales of produce or merchandise not
produced on the premises. Merchandise not produced on the premises shall be
companion items intended to be used with (for planting, caring for, display-
ing, combinisg with, canning, or preserving) the agricultural or horticultural
produce which is produced on the farm, but shall not include farm machinery
and equipment (except hand tools), building materials, furniture, or other
like items. Examples: Canning jars, pumpkin carving kits, wreath making
supplies, floral arranging supplies, potting soil, pots, packaged fertilizer,
mulch, peat moss, pruning shears, gardening gloves, Christmas tree decora-
tions. (Added 10-11-95)
Farm Winery: An establishment located on a farm with a producing vineyard,
orchard or similar growing area and with facilities for fermenting and
bottling wine on the premises where the owner or lessee manufactures wine from
fresh fruits or other agricultural products predominantly grown or produced on
such farm or from fruits, fruit juices or other agricultural products grown or
produced elsewhere. (Added 12-16-81)
Farmers' Market: An existing parking area used periodically by two (2) or more
farmers only for the seasonal sale of agricultural or horticultural produce or
merchandise produced on their farms. A farmers' market shall not include the
sale of commercially manufactured products which the farmers have not grown or
produced on their farms. (Added 10-11-95)
Fast Food Restaurant: A commercial establishment wherein food and/or drink
are furnished for compensation primarily for consumption off the premises in
disposable containers.
Floor Area, Gross: The sum of the total horizontal areas of the several
floors of all buildings on a lot, measured from the interior faces of exterior
walls. The term "gross floor area" shall include basements; elevator shafts
and stairwells at each story; floor space used for mechanical equipment with
structural head room of six (6) feet, six (6) inches or more; penthouses,
attic space, whether or not a floor has actually been laid, providing struc-
tural head room of six (6) feet, six (6) inches or more; interior balconies;
and mezzanines.
The gross floor area of structures devoted to bulk storage of materials,
including, but not limited to grain elevators and petroleum storage tanks,
shall be computed by counting each ten (10) feet of height or fraction
thereof, as being equal to one (1) floor.
The term "gross floor area" shall not include cellars or outside balconies
which do not exceed a projection of six (6) feet beyond the exterior walls of
the building. Parking structures below or above grade and roof top mechanical
structures are excluded from gross floor area.
Floor Area, Net: The sum of the total horizontal areas of the several floors
of all buildings on a lot measured from the interior faces of exterior walls
and from the centerline of walls separating two (2) or more buildings. The
term "net floor area" shall include outdoor display areas for the sale, rental
end display of recreational vehicles, boats and
-13- (8upp. #80, 10-11-95)
5.1.35
A single-family dwelling which adds an accessory apartment shall
be deemed to remain a single-family dwelling and shall be consid-
ered one (1) dwelling unit for purposes of area and bulk regula-
tions of the district in which such dwelling is located.
A guest or rental cottage shall not be deemed to be an accessory
apartment, but shall be deemed to be a single-family detached
dwelling, whether or not used as such, subject to area and bulk
regulations of the district in which such cottage is locate. No
accessory apartment shall be permitted within any guest or rental
cottage.
The owner must reside in any dwelling to which the apartment unit
is accessory or the apartment unit itself.
The provisions of section 4.1.6 notwithstanding, for lots not
served by a central sewer system, no accessory apartment shall be
established without written approval from the local office of the
Virginia Department of Health of the location and area for both
original and future replacement fields adequate to serve the main
dwelling and accessory apartment.
Accessory apartment shall be deemed to be a dwelling unit for the
purposes of section 18-36 Private Roads of Chapter 18, Subdivision
of Land of the Code of Albemarle. (Added 8-10-94)
FARM SALES
One (1) farm sales structure may be established per farm. In
addition =o displays and sales of agricultural or horticultural
produce or merchandise which is produced on the farm, it may
include companion items not produced on the premises, but intended
to be used with the agricultural or horticultural produce which is
produced on the farm. The farm sales s~ruc~ure shall not be
established until the agricultural or horticultural produce
growing area has been established and is in production. Such
growing area shall be reestablished on an annual basis.
The total retail sales area in the farm sales structure shall not
exceed fifteen hundred (1,500) square feet. Greenhouses shall not
be counted as part of the total retail sales area, unless one is
designated as the farm sales structure. At all times, at least
fifty (50) percent of the retail sales area inside the farm sales
structure shall be agricultural or horticultural produce or
merchandise produced on the premises. The remaining fifty (50)
percent area may be companion items. Displays outside the farm
sales structure shall be limited to agricultural and horticultural
produce only.
A preliminary schematic plan in accordance with section 32.4.1
shall be submitted along with, and become a par= of, the special
use permit application. The plan shall include the area of the
farm sales structure, parking and entrance. The plan shall
address, in particular, provisions for safe and convenient access
from and =o the public road, adequacy of delineation of parking,
end general information regarding the exterior appearance of the
proposed site. Based on the submitted information, the board of
supervisors may then waive the requirement for a site development
plan in a particular case, upon a finding that the requirement ~f
a site development plan would not forward the purposes of this
ordinance or otherwise serve the public interest. No such use
shall be established without Virginia Department of Transportation
approval of commercial access to the site.
-69.8-
(Supp. #80, 10-11-95)
5.1.36
do
The farm sales structure and parking area shall not be located
closer than fifty (50) feet to any adjoining property not under
the same ownership. The farm sales structure shall meet front
yard setbacks for a primary structure. The parking area shall not
be located closer than =en (10) feet to any public or private
street right-of-way.
Farm machinery and equipment (except hand tools), building materi-
als, furniture or other like items, shall not be offered for sale.
Ail farm sales structures shall meet all applicable requirements
of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. [Added 10-11-95)
FARMERS ' MARKET
A site development plan shall be required, unless waived in
accordance with section 32.2.2.
Farmers' markets shall be limited to a maximum of two (2) days per
week, during daylight hours, between May 1 and November 30 only.
Days and hours of operation shall be only those specified on the
site development plan.
The parking area for all farmers' and customers' vehicles shall
not be located closer than ten (10) feet to any public street
right-of-way.
do
The applicant shall make adequate arrangements for the removal of
trash and debris and general restoration of the site following an
event. The zoning administrator may establish and require the
posting of a bond in an amount deemed sufficient for such purpose.
e. No permanent structure shall be established. (Added 10-11-95)
-69.9- (SUpp. #80, 10-11-95)
10.3
38. Exploratory drilling. (Added 2-10-82)
39. Hydroelectric power generation (reference 5.1.26). (Added 4-
28-82)
40. Borrow area, borrow pit no~ permitted under section 10.2.1.18.
(Added 7-6-83)
41. Convent, Monastery (reference 5.1.29). (Added 1-1-87)
42. Temporary events sponsored by local nonprofit organizations
which are related uo, and supportive of the RA, rural areas,
district (reference 5.1.27}. (Added 12-2-87)
43. Agricultural Museum (reference 5.1.30). (Added 12-2-87)
44. Theatre, outdoor drama. (Added 6-10-92)
45. Farm sales (reference 5.1.35). (Added 10-11-95)
APPLICATION OF REGULATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT BY RIGHT
The following provisions shall apply to any parcel of record at 5:15
p.m., the tenth day of December, 1980 (reference 6.5). (Amended
8-89)
-91.1- (Supp. ~80, 10-11-95)
22.2.2
18.
Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile
facilities such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and
roads funded, owned or operated by local, s~ase or federal
agencies (reference 31.2.5); public water and sewer ~rans-
mission, main or trunk lines, ~rea~men~ facilities, pumping
stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12).
(Amended 11-1-9)
19. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.1).
20. Dwellings (reference 5.1.21).
21. Medical center.
22.
Automobile, truck repair shop excluding body shop. (Added
6~3-81; Amended 9-9-92)
23.
Temporary nonresidential mobile homes (reference 5.8). (Added
3-5-6 )
24. Indoor athletic facilities. (Added 9-15-93)
25. Farmers' market (reference 5.1.36). (Added 10-11-95)
BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
Commercial recreation establishments including but not limited
to amusement centers, bowling alleys, pool halls and dance
halls. (Amended 1-I-83)
20
Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related
towers; gas or oil transmission lines, pumping stations and
appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers; micro-wave
and radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substations and
appurtenances.
3. Hospitals.
4. Fast food restaurant.
5. Veterinary office and hospital (reference 5.1.11).
Unless such uses are otherwise provided in this section, uses
permitted in section 18.0, residential - R-t5, in compliance
with regulations set forth therein, and such conditions as may
be imposed pursuant to section 31.2.4.
7. Hotels, motels and inns.
Motor vehicle sales and rental in communities and the urban
area as designated in the comprehensive plan. (Added 6-1-83)
9. Parking structures located wholly or partly above grade.
(Added 11-7-4}
-147- (Supp, #80, 10-11-95)
24.2.2
35.
Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities excluding
tower structures and including poles, lines, transformers,
pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local
service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water
distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations
and appurtenances owned and operated bF ~he Albemarle County
Service Authority. Excep~ as otherwise expressly provided,
central water supplies and central sewerage systems in
conformance with Chapter 10 of the Code of Albemarle and all
other applicable law. (Amended 5-12-93)
36.
Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile
facilities such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and
roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal
agencies (reference 31.2.5); public water and sewer transmis-
sion, main or ~runk lines, treatment facilities, pumping
stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12).
(Amended 11-1-89)
37. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18).
38. Indoor theaters.
39. Heating oil sales and distribution (reference 5~1.20).
40. Temporary nonresidential mobile homes (reference 5.8). (Added
3-5-86)
41. Uses permitted by right pursuant to subsection 22.2.1 of
section 22.1, commercial, C-1. (Added 6-19-91;
Amended 9-9-92)
42. Indoor athletic facilities. (Added 9-15-93)
43. Farmers' market (reference 5.1.36). (Added 10-11-95)
SPECIAL USE PERMIT
Commercial recreation establishment including but not limited
to amusement cenners, bowling alleys, pool halls and dance
hells. (Amended 1-1-83)
2. Septic tank sales and related service.
3. Livestock sales.
4. Veterinary office and hospital (reference 5.1.11).
5. Drive-in theaters (reference 5.1.8).
Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related
towers; gas or oil transmission lines, pumping stations and
appurtenances; unmanned telephone e~change cenners, micro-wave
and radio-wave transmission and relay towers, suDstations'and
appurtenances (reference 5.1.12].
-152- (Supp. ~80, 10-11-95)
DRAFT: October 10. 1995
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 20, ZONING,
ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE II. BASIC REGULATIONS AND
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 20, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Article II, Basic
Regulations and Article Iti, District Regulations, are hereby amended and reordained
by amending section 3.0, DeRnitions, section 5.0, Supplementary Regulations and
section i0.0, Rural Areas District, RA, as follows:
3.0 - DEFINITIONS
Farm Sales: The sale of ak~ricultural or horticultural ~)roduce or
merchandise produced on the farm. with subordinate sales of r)roduce or
merchandise not oroduced on the r)remises. Merchandise not t)roduced
on the premises shall be companion items intended to be used with (for
planting, caring for, displaying, combinim, with. canning, or vreservin~)
the agricultural or horticultural nroduce which is Droduced on the farm,
but shall not include farm machinery and eouivment (exceot hand
tools), buildin~ materials, furniture, or other like items. Examples:
Cannin~ jars, pumpkin carving kits, wreath makine sun. lies. floral
arrane~ne suvvties, vottine soil. t)ots, vackaeed fertilizer, mulch, year
moss, prunine shears, ~ardenin, doves. Christmas tree decorations.
5.0 SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS
5.1.35 F__ARM SALES
a. One([)arm sales structure may be established per farm.
addition .to displays and sales of agricultural or horticultutal
produce or merchandise which is produced on the farm, it may
include companion, items not oroduced on the nremises but
intended to be used with the agricultural or horticultural oroduce
which is produced on the farm. The farm sales structure shall not
be established until the agricultural or horticultural produce
growing area has been established and is in production. Such
trrowin~ area shall be re-established on an annual basis
The total retail sales area in the farm sales structure shall no~
exceed5500.1square feet. Greenhouses shill not be counted as
\
part of the total retail sties area~ unless one is desienated as the
farm sales structure. At alt times, at least 50% of the retail sales
area inside the farm sales structure shall be atrricultural or
horticultural ~roduce or merchandise vroduced on the vremises.
.The.remm'nina 50 ~ area may be companion items. Displays
Outside the farm salts structure shall be limited to at, ticultural
and horticultural vroduce only.
A preliminary schematic plan in accordance w~tt}~ection 32.4.1
shall be submitted alon~ with. and become a hart of. the s ecial
~se permit ap¢lication. The plan shall indude the area of the
farm sales structure, parldn~, and entrance. The plan shall
address, in particular, l~rovisions for safe and convenient access
from and to the public road, adequacy of delineation of narkine.
and ~eneral information reffardin~ the exterior avnearance of the
proposed site. Based on the submitted information, theB/oan~-~z
~;u~ervisors may then waive the reouirement for a site~ran in a
r~articular case. u~on a findin~ that the reouirement of a site~nlan
/,
would not forward the tmrposes of this ordinance or otherwise
serve the t~ublic interest. No such use shall be establishe
without Virtqnia Department of Transportation apvroval of
commercial access to the ~ire.
The farm sales structure and mrkin~ area Shall not be located
closer than~5~0/~;et to any adioinin~ Dro~)ertv not under the same
ownership. The farm sales structure shall meet front yard
setbacks for a primary structure. The r>arkint~ area shall not be
located closer than/~10,~eet to any public or private srreei
right-of-way__
Farm.machinery and eouir~ment (exceot hand tools), buildine
materials, furniture or other like items, shall not be offered for
sale.
All farm sales structures shah meet all applicable reouirements of
the Virginia Uniform Statewide Buildin~ Code.
10.0
10~2.2
RURAL AREAS DISTRICT, RA
BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
45. Farm g/ales (reference.5.1.35)
/
ZTA95-03.'WPD
ORDINANCE NO. 95-20(3)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 20, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL
PROVISIONS, ARTICLE II, ~ASIC REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULA-
TIONS, 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 20, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Article II,
Basic Regulations, and Article III, District Regulations, are hereby amended
and reordained by amending Section 3.0, Definitions, Section 5.0, Supplemenna-
ry Regulations, and Section 10.0, Rural Areas District, RA, as follows:
3°0 DEFINITIONS
Farm Sales: The sale of agricultural or horticultural produce or
merchandise produced on the farm, with subordinate sales of
produoe or merchandise not produced on the premises. Merchandise
not produced on the premises shall be companion items intended to
be used with (for planting, caring for, displaying, combining
with, canning, or preserving) the agricultural or horticultural
produce which is produced on the farm, but shall not include farm
machinery and equipment (except hand nools), building materials,
furniture, or other like items. Examples: Canning jars, pumpkin
carving kits, wreath making supplies, floral arranging supplies,
potting soil, pots, packaged fertilizer, mulch, peat moss, pruning
shears, gardening gloves, Christmas ~ree decorations.
5.0
SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS
5 · 1.35 FARM SALE S
One (1) farm sales s=ruc~ure may be established per farm.
In addition to displays and sales of agricultural or horti-
cultural produce or merchandise which is produced on the
farm, it may include companion items not produced on the
premises, but intended to be used with the agricultural or
horticultural produce which is produced on the farm° The
farm sales structure shall no= be established until the
agricultural or horticultural produce growing area has been
established and is in production. Such growing area shall
be reestablished on an annual basis.
The total retail sales area in the farm sales structure
shall not exceed fifteen hundred (1,500) square feet.
Greenhouses shall no= be counted as part of the total re=ail
sales area, unless one is designated as the farm sales
structure. At all times, at least fifty (50) percent of the
retail sales area inside the farm sales structure shall be
agricultural or horticultural produce or merchandise pro-
duced on the premises. The remaining fifty (50) percent
area may be companion items. Displays outside the farm
sales structure shall be limited to agricultural and horti-
cultural produce only.
Co
A preliminary schematic plan in accordance with sec-
tion 32.4.1 shall be submitted along with, and become a part
of, the special use permit application. The plan shall
include the area of the farm sales structure, parking and
entrance. The plan shall address, in particular, provisions
for safe and convenient access from and ~o the public road,
adequacy of delineation of parking, and general information
regarding the exterior appearance of the proposed site.
10.0
10.2.2
Based on the submitted information, the board of supervisors
may then waive the requirement for a site development plan
in s particular case, upon a finding that the requirement of
a site development plan would not forward the purposes of
this ordinance or otherwise serve the public interest. No
such use shall be established without Virginia Department of
Transportation approval of commercial access to the site.
The farm sales structure and parking area shall no= be
located closer than fifty (50) feet to any adjoining proper-
ty not under the same ownership. The farm sales structure
shall meet front yard setbacks for a primary structure. The
parking area shall not be located closer than ten (10) feet
=o any public or private street right-of-way.
Farm machinery and equipment (except hand tools), building
materials, furniture or other like items, shall not be
offered for sale.
fo
Ail farm sales structures shall meet all applicable require-
men=s of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code.
BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
45. Farm Sales (reference 5.1.35).
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a
true, correct copy of an ordinance unanimously adopted by the Board of County
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on
October 11, 1995.
Clerk, Board of Cou_nt¥ S~ervisors
PIEDMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL
Protecting The E~wro~rnen~ Is Everyt>ody's Busines~
Statement
ZTA-95.03 Farm Sales
Delivered to the Board of Supervisors
October 11, 1995
The Piedmont Environmental Council supports this zoning text
amendment as revised by the Planning Commission. We believe that
this amendment will bring the farmer closer to the customer and make the
practice of agriculture more profitable, while protecting the rural areas
from inappropriate commercial development.
In an earlier statement before the Planning Commission, we expressed
our concern over the size and design of the farm sales structure and the
square footage which could be dedicated to items not grown or produced
on the farm. The revision before you this evening has addressed these
concerns and we support its approval.
45 ttorner Street Box 460. Warrenton, Virgitlia 22186, 703-347-2334/Fax 34%9003
Rose Hill Drive SuiTe I, Charlottesville. Virginia 22903/804-977-2033/Fa× 977-6306
MEMORANDUM
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Developmen[
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902,4596
(804) 296-5823
to:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Ella Carey, Clerk
Scala, Senior Planner
Mary
Joy
August 30, 1995
ZTA-95-03 Farm Sales
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 29, 1995, recommended
approval of ZTA-95-03 Farm Sales with a 4-2 vote, subject to the following changes to the
supplementary regulations as proposed by staff:
Add to the end of supplementary regulation a. the following sentence: "Such growing
area shall be re-established on an annual basis."
2. Change supplementary regulation b. as follows:
I'he total retail sales area in the farm sales structure shall not exceed 1500 square
feet. Greenhouses shall not be open to *" ..... ~,:- ~_~ ,~_~ .... ~,, _ r,
counted as part of the total retail sales area, unless one is designated as the farm
sales structure. At all times, at least-q-5 50_% of the retail sales area inside the farm
sales structure shall be agricultural or horticultural produce or merchandise
produced on the premises. The remaining -2-5 50% area may be companion items.
Displays outside the farm sales structure shall be limited to agricultural and
horticultural produce only.
The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to rewew this petition at its October 11, 1995 meeting.
Attached is the August 29, 1995 staffreport, with original August 1, 1995 staff report also
attached.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
MJS/jcw
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD of SUPERVISORS:
MARY JOY SCALA
AUGUST 29, 1995 (DEFERRED
FROM AUGUST 1, 1995)
OCTOBER 11, 1995
ZTA-95-03 FARM SALES (.Amended August 29, 1995)
Attached is one letter received from the public regarding this proposed amendment. At its
meeting on August 1, 1995, the Planning Commission asked that the supplementary regulations
be changed to reflect comments made at that meeting. The following Planning Commission
concerns have been addressed:
1. Require the farm sales structure to be subject to architectural review.
The proposed supplementary regulation "c" clarifies that a site plan will be required unless
waived by the Board of Supervisors during the special use permit hearing. The intent is that the
usual procedure for either site plan approval or site plan waiver would be followed.
Architectural review of a building located on an Entrance Corridor would be required if either a'
site plan or building perm~cis required.
While the Entrance Corridor regulations exempt agricultural uses, the proposed supplementary
regulation "f" clarifies that an agricultural exemption does not apply to the farm sales structure.
2. Decrease the size of the farm sales structure.
See "b." The maximum permitted size of the retail sales area ia the farm sales structure has been
reduced,from 4000 to 1500 square feet. ~
3. Change "directly related to" to "companion items" for use with the produce. Use
examples to define. :
See definition and "a." ;
· 4. Allow less square footage to be dedicated to the sale of merchandise "directly related" to
the sale of the agricultural and horticultural products. Limit percentage of such
merchandise at all times, rather than averaging the percentage over a year.
See "b." The requirement for agricultural or horticultural produce or merchandise produced on
the premises has been increased from 50% to 75% of the indoor retail sales area at all times.
(Such produce or merchandise is allowed to be sold b~ right at a wayside stand.) The remmning
25% area may be companion items.
Note that outside display shall not include companion items bur may include agricultural or
horticultural produce not grown on the premises (such as cut Christmas trees).
5. What signs are permitted?
In the RA zoning district, one freestanding sign is allowed per highway right-of-way frontage, 24
square feet in area, 10 feet in height~ setback 10 feet from the property line. One wall sign can
· measure 20 square feet with a maximum height of 20 feet on the building.
6. Provide for review after 1-2 years.
It is the opinion of the Assistant County Attorney that, once a special use permit is issued, the
County may not review the permit after a certain period of time to determine whether additional
conditions are necessary. Once a permit is issued, the use authorized by the permit is one by
right during the life of the permit. However, the County may limit the life ora special use permit
to a specific term (e.g., 15 years). This type of limitation is occasionally found in permits issued
in areas that are undergoing a long-term change in character (e.g., from rural to urban) where it is
recognized that'in the future, the use allowed by the permit will be neithe~ desirable nor
compatible with the planned uses in the area. Of course, in any case a special ,use. permit may be
revoked in a revocation proceeding ifa permittee is not in compliance with permit conditions.
7. Add "people leasing the farm" as well as owners. Change "his" to "their."
See definition and "a." The definition has been changed to eliminate reference to specific
persons.
8. Do not limit farm sales to one' structure.
Staff recommends that there shall be only one farm sales structure per farm. In addition, one
wayside stand, maximum 600 square feet, selling only produce or merchandise produced on the
premises may be established by right.
9; Establish a minimum distance between the farm sales strudture and adjoining property
lines.
Setbacks have been addressed in supplementary regulation "d."
10. Greenhouses should not be open to the public.
See "b."
Staff Recommendation:
Amend the Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Add to Section 3.0 DEFINITIONS:
Farm Sales: The sale of agricultural or horticultural p~oduce or merchandise produced on the
farm, with subordinate sales of produce or merchandise not produced on the premises.
Merchandise not produced on the premises shall be companion items intended to be usq.d with
(for planting, caring for, displaying, combining with, canning, or preserving) the agricultural or
horticultural produce which is produced on the farm. Examples: Canning jars, pumpkin carving
· kits, wreath making supplies, floral arranging supplies, potting soil, pots, packaged fertilizer,
mulch, peat moss, pruning shears, gardening gloves, Chrislrnas tree decorations.
2
Add to RURAL AREAS DISTRICT. RA. BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT:
Section 10.2.2.45 Farm Sales (reference 5.1.35).
Add to SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS:
Section 5.1.35 FARM SALES
This provision is intended to encourage and support the preservation of
agricultural lands and activities in the Rural Area through direct marketing of
agricultural and horticultural products and companion items.
One farm sales structure may be established per farm. In addition to
displays and sales of agricultural or horticultural produce or merchandise
~vhich is produced on the farm, it may include companion items not
produced on the premises, but intended to be used with th~ agricultural or
horticultural produce which is produced on the farm. The farm' sale
structure shall not be established until the agricultural or horticultUral
produce growing area has been established and is in production.
The total retail sales area in the farm sales structure shall not exceed 1500
square feet. Greenhouses shall not be open to the public, and therefore,
shall not be counted as part of the total retail sales area, unless one is
designated as the farm sales structure. At all times, at least 75% of the
retail sales area inside the farm sales structure shall be agricultural or
horticultural produce or merchandise produced on the premises. The
remaining 25% area may be companion items. Displays outside the farm
sales structure shall be limited to agriculturhl and horticultural produce
only,.
A preliminary schematic plan in accordance with Section 32.4.1 shall be
submitted along with, and become a part of, tli~ special use permit
application. The plan shall include the area of the farm sales structure,
parking, and entrance. The plan shall address, in particular, provisions for
safe and convenient access from and to the public road, adequacy of
delineation of parking, and general information regarding the exterior
appearance ofthe proposed site. Based onthe snhmittedinformation, the
Board of Supervisors may then waive the requirement for a site plan in a
particular case, upon a finding that the reqmrement of a site plan would
not forward the purposes of this ordinance ar otherwise serve the public
interest. No such use shall be established without Virginia Department of
Transportation approval of commercial access to the site.
The farm sales structure and parking area shall not be located closer than
50 feet to any adjoining property not under the same ownership. The farm
sales structure shall meet front yard setbacks for a primary structure. The
parking area shall not be located closer than 10 feet to any public or
private street ~ght-of-way~
Merchandise not permitted to be offered for sale shall include items such
as, but not limited to:
Farm machinery and equipment except hand tools;
Building materials; and
Furniture.
The agricultural exemption of the zoning ordinance shall not apply to the
~farm sales stmcture.
C:\Scala\ZTA03A.frm
2 ~ugusm 1995
Bo the Members of the ~emarle Planning Commissic ~-~ ..... ~ ~ .....
Sirs & Mesdames,
After hours of tossing & turning in total disbelief~et~9~
from Tuesday, August let's Albemarle P~anning commissionl~ ~e~tin~, it
seems of paramount importance to set forth a number of th~ought~ ~%2~L
4 A.M. is a good time ~o do it.
As a starting point, it seems regrettable that a number of is-
sues raised by members of the Commission were not raised during the
period when input from the public was being solicited & accepted --
points which could have been clarified had the opportunity been pre-
sented. Instead, a man's'entire future for which he spent 5 years in
professional/~r~n~itional 20 in practical experience is jeopardized
because of a ~otal'lack of comprehension of the questions involved.
· This farmer isn't asking for anything as "grand~' as a country
smore;'he's only asking to be allowed to offer related materials --
related to products he does raise on his farm (& it is, in matter of
fact, unimportant whether it is his own farm as you stated you would
prefer or his family'~ farm or a farm which he rents). As a special
use permit, it & he are hardly a threat to the rural integrity of the
county.
Much of this country's success has been based on free enterprise
of which fair competition comprises a large component. If qou make
fair. competition an impossibility as %~ down-grading the proposed ZTA
would do, y~u will have made a public s~atement that free enterprise
and fair competition for the small Yarmer is dead. In trying ~o pro-
tect fair compepition, you will be instead thrott%ing it. In your al-
truistic desire to protect his "competitors", y,u lose sight of the
fact that the materials he needs to sell will have been already pur-
chased from other erstwhile "competitors". Mr. Blue stated that after
buying the farmer's product he needed the attendant items, he would
notl.go searching for these items, he would high-tail'it to a one-s~op
spot. Why not allow that farmer to be that one-stop spot?
During strawberry & greenhouse season, customers want straw-
berry recipes, canning jars, attractive pots for their plants,~ fer-
tilizer, potting soil, plant rages, some small hand tools. In pump-
kin season, they want pumpkin recipes, Halloween paint kits for pump-
kin faces, more pots for their plants from the greenhouse, etc.
Whether these items are made in Canada, China, Timbuctoo, or Crozet
is irrelevant. They will have been'made in these places no ma~er
where they are purchased. But being made available on his farm is
To the Members
Page Two -
of the A~emarle PlaD2n~ng Commission
performing an additional service to his customers & making his busi-
ness more viable. Knowing they are unavailable there, potential cus-
tomers might well decide to go where it is ~l available, e.g. K-Mar~
or Roses even though their plants will not be locally grown on site by
a sma~ll farmer.
On numerous occasions local fund-raising groups (local Rescue
Squad & Fire Department, school PT0s, 4-H groups) have been offered
the opportunity to bring a hamburger, hot dog, soft drink._ stand to
the farm where they could raise money for their projects from farm
customers. These, too, were products not raised on the farm.
It would see~ the Albemarle Plannin~ Commissioh is attempting
· o protect the commercial suppliers while simultaneously ~tifling the
possibilities of the small farmer.
It could be argued further that this farmer's mistake (& it was
au his behest that this matter is being addressed) was in at.tempting
To ascertain that much of what he has been doing for the past 20 years
is acceptable. Perhaps instead he should be "grandfathered~' as are
those in nearby fruit stands. Why is he not to be allowed to do what
others are doing without first asking? Why does the Commission wish ~o
-change the stipulations in the ZTA which, as read, would allow him to
continue selling what he has been selling for the'last 20 years, while
at the same time espousing & paying lip service to interest in the
cause of the small family-owned farm?'
Our county fathers & mothers can protect us from ourselves, but
they cannot protect us from the removal of our Scenic Highway designa-
tion on U.S. 250 ~est in mid-Augus~ 2 years unbeknowns~ to anyone in
the neighborhood with ~he exception of a developer. Nor can/will the~
protect us from a shopping center by that same developer to be erected
in a steep-slope f~ood plain -- surely a greater challeng to local bus-
inesses than ~ur small farm operatien. Nor do we see any attempt be-
ing made $o return the Scenic Highway designation, as requested repeat-
edly with its attendant checks & balances. I'm beginning to dread August.
It does appear that our most critically & ignored endangered
species is the small farmer strugglin~ to eke out an existence in a
small operation. Perhaps when our Yellow Mountain Agricultural & For-
estal District restrictions expire, we should just quit bucking "City
(County) Hall", throw in the ~owel, & grow a development instead of
farm produce. One reaches the stage where banging one's head against
Page Three
To the Members of the Albemarle Planning Commission
stone wall plus dealing & coping with the elements of nature become
just too much.
Unfortunately, it seems that the future of Albemarle County be-
comes more like the foreseen future of the City of Charlottesville --
tham of a population which is overgoverned & underserved by people who
simply don't understand the circumstances of issues brought before them.
In your deliberations, please try to come to an understanding of
this matter. We will be happy to discuss it with you.
In the meantime, ~ those from elsewhere who have read all the
news of Charlottesville & Albemarle County as being the place to ~ive
"The times they be a-changin'"
had better/on.
hurry
Gertrude B. Peyton
(Mrs. F, Bradley ~eyton, III)
Seven Oaks P.O. Box 305
Breenwood, Va. 22943
Phone: 456-6151
PIEDMC' · ENVIRONMENTAL CqUNCIL
ZTA-95-03: Farm Sales
ZTA-95-04: Farmers' Market
ZTA-95-05: Commercial Stables
Statement Delivered to Planning Commission
August 1, 1995
The Piedmont Envi¢onmental Council supports the intent of these zoning text
amendments. We agree that farming must be profitable in order for farmland to be
preserved.
Without son: e changes to two of these zoning text amendments; however, developing
commercial property in the countryside will become easier than developing in the
growth areas. In order-to reduce the proliferation of commercial sites in the rural
areas, we recommend the following modifications to ZTA-95-03.
I. Require the farm sales structure to be subject to architectural
review. In the growth areas, a site proposed for commemial development along one
of the County's entrance corridors is subject to amhitectural review. Its amhitecture is
carefully reviewed for its compatibility with the County~s,historic resoumes; its parking
lots must be screened from the entrance corridor Dy large,*closely spaced trees; and its
- lighting undergoes an exacting review to reduce its im pact on the corridor.
The farm sales structure would be exempt from all these regulations. Yet a 4000-
square foot building, surrounded by a 40-space parking lot and light poles, could be
just as incompatible with our historic sites and buildings as the most ill-conceived
trademark building in the growth areas. Given a rural setting, the impact of such a
structure would be even more profound than commercial structures where we expect
to find them. Keep in mind that structures not visible from an entrance corridor are
exempt from ARB review. Farm sales structures may be more easily located away from
the entrance corridor than other commercial structures.
We recommend that the farmers' market enabled under ZTA-95-04 be subject to
architectural review as well.
2. Decrease the size of the farm sales structure. According to the square
footage listed on zoning clearance applications, the average square footage of various
retail businesses approved since January, t995 is 1492 square feet. Only two retail
operations approved since January exceeded 3000 square feet. We recommend
lowering the size of the farm sales structure to 1500 square feet. The supplementary
regulations would allow the Planning Commission to increase this square footage
upon making the findings outlined i~ Section 5.1.
3. Establish a minimum ~distance between the farms sales structure
and adjoining property lines. Without such a setback, the farm sales structure
could be as close as six feet to an adjoining property line if it were determined to be an
accessory structure; 25 feet, if it were determined to be a primary structure. Either of
these distances could be too close to an adjoining agricultural operation.
4. Allow less square footage to be dedicated to the sale of items only
"directly related" to the sale of the agricultural and horticultural
products. The 50% threshold is not compatible with the proposed definition of "Farm
sales", which describes the sales of memhandise related to the agricultural and
horticultural products as subordinate to the sale of those prodacts. A: ratio of 25%
directly related merchandise to 75% products grown or produced on ;the farm would
implement much more accurately the proposed definition. The supplementary
regulations should also make it clear that 75% of the farm sales structure is to be
dedicated to the display of items grown or produced on the farm; otherwise, the farm
sales structure could be half garage, or half workshop, and have absolutely no relation
at all to the marketing of agricultural produce.
As we said before, we support the idea of direct marketing. We believe-that the
recommendations we have outlined above will reduce the potential for abuse of these
regulations, without impeding the profitability of agricultural enterprise.
STAFF PERSON:
ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD of SUPERVISORS:
MARY JOY SCALA
JULY 24, 1995
AUGUST 1, 1995
AUGUST 16, 1995
ZTA-95-03 FARM SALES
Origin: Board of Supervisors resolution on June 7, 1995
Public Purnose to be Served: To encourage and support the preservation of agricultural lands
and activities in the Rural Area through direct marketing of agricultural and 15orticultural produce
and directly related merchandise.
Proposal: To hmend Section 10.0, Rural Area District, RA, of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit
by special use permit the sale of merchandise not necessarily produced on the premises, but
directly related and accessory to agricultural or horticultural produce which is grown by the
owner or his family on their farm.
Background: In 1993, the Agricultural and Forestal Industries Support Committee was
appointed by the Board to report on ways to support and promote agriculture and forestry. One
of the committee's recommendations, "Develop marketing strategies for all agricultaral/forestal
products" (Attaclunent #1), includes several pertinent strategies to encourage pick-your-own
operations, direct marketing, farms retailing to the public, and farms for tourists to visit.
Staff recently received a request for the sale of accessory merchandise at a Greenwood farm
which currently grows fruits and vegetables, nursery plants, and greenhouse crops, and which has
~f pick-your own strawberry operation. A zoning text amendment% required to permit the sale of
~items not produced on the farm.
Some related zoning prowsions are: :
Rural Areas District, RA, allows by right, wayside stands for displa¢'and sale of agricultural
products produced on the premises. Highway Commercial, HC, allows by right, wayside stands
- vegetables and anricultural produce. The Zoning Ordinance currently defines wayside stand,
roadside stand, wayside market as: "Any structure or land used for the sale of agricultural or
horticultural produce or merchandise produced by the owner or his family on their farm."
Supplementary regulations (5.1.19) are the same for both uses: structures not to exceed 600
square feet in aggregate floor area; 35 ft. setback; and administrative site plan approval with
attention given to parking and commercial access.
Rural Areas District, RA, also allows by right, Farm winery_ with supplementary regulations
(5.1.25). On-premise sale of wine and wine consumption may be established in accordance with
(5.1.19) wayside stands. Farm winery_ requires a special use permit for any or all of the
following: (1) a greater floor area than is permitted for a wayside stand; (2) wine consumption in
a location other than the wayside stand, and (3) production of wine from products not produced
on the premises.
The RA District provides for three general categories of commercial/service uses:
agricultural/forestal uses, tourism us~es, and basic support uses. Some relevant permitted uses
are:
· . Country store allowed by special use permit in RA District. The ground floor is limited
to 4000 square feet, and it must offer for sale "a wide variety of goods."
Agricultural service occu_nation allowed by right in RA District. Sales of goods are
limiled to those incidental to the performing of a service.
Gift, craft and antique shops are allowed by special use permit in RA District.
Commercial, C-l, and Highway Commercial, HC Districts allow by right, Retail nurseries and
greenhouses.
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan gives highest priority to the pres. ervation of
agricultural and forestal activities in the Rural Area. It states, "For agricultural and forestal
resources to be successfully preserved from a land use standpoint, they must be succesgful as a
business/industry." (p.55)
The Comprehensive Plan is silent on commercial uses in general in the Rural Area because
commercial land use designations are confined to the Growth Areas. As part of the Plan review,
Rural Area Standards are now being written which will discuss limited commercial uses
appropriate to the Rural Area. In the past, staff has noted a lack of poticy guidelines to use when
rewewmg support uses in the RA District.
Discussion: The advantages of this proposed use are:
· It would encourage the agricultural use of land for growin~ produce for sale locally;
'· It would provide a convenience to customers;
It would promote tburism; and,
It would allow the farmer to extend the season for produce sales, making the business
more viable.
Disadvantages are:
It would introduce a new category of commercial use m the Rural Area which could
change the nature of the Rural Area;
· It may be difficult to interpret that what is being sold is "related and accessory to;" and
It may be difficult to monitor what percentage of sales is not produced on the farm.
The Agricultural and Forestal Districts Advisory committee at its meeting on May 8, 1995,
discussed and supported a proposal in the Yellow Mountain Agricultural/Forestal District for the
sale of accessory products directly related to what is produced on the farm. That prop%sal-led to
this zoning text amendment. The committee reviewed the proposal since staff anticipated that
such a use mighl require a special use permit in addition to a ZTA, which would be considered a
more intensive use in an agricultural/forestal district. (Those minutes are Attachment #2.) The
Advisory Committee reviewed ZTA-95-03 on July 24, 1995. The committee had mixed opinions
2
regarding farm sales. Four members attending were in favor; one of the four thought that staff
was too restrictive in its proposed regulations. Two members had concerns about the definition
of farm sales being too wide open. One of those two felt the whole Rural Areas concept could be
damaged. (Those minutes will be mailed under separate cover. I
Hanover County permits by special use permit the sale of farm products not raised on the
premises only in conjunction with sales pursuant to produce, on not less than ten acres. They
require a seasonal time limit, a review after one year of operation, and a site plan.
Loudoun County permits Farm market by special exception in A-10 and A-25 Districts, which
may sell nursery stock, perennials, annuals, bulbs, mulch, compost, dried flowers, Christmas
trees and greens, fresh produce, honey, cider, and similar items. A minimum of 25% of the items
for sale must bt produced on the site.
Fanquier County permits Plant nursery/greenhouse, retail sales by special use ~ermit (granted by
BZA) in RC, RA, RR-2, V, and R-1 Districts. Supplementary regulations include 5 aci~e
minimum; 50 ft. setback from all lot lines for building, outdoor storage, parking and loading;
sereemng of outdoor storage, parking and loading; and no sales of power tools, garden vehicles,
or machinery.
The following recommended supplementary regulations state that a preliminary schematic plan
shall be submitted along with the special use permit application. The fee schedule states that
when a preliminary plan is reviewed simultaneously with a special use permit, no fee will be
applied for review of the plan.
The current County parking requirement for commercial uses of a~retail character is one space
per 100 square feet of retail sales area for the first 5000.square feet.
Staff Recommendation: Staff is proposing a definition for the new use which is intended to
limit farm sales to what is currently permitted to be sold at wayside sthnds (agricultural or
horticultural produce or merchandise produced by the farmer or his family on their farm) and, as
a subordinate use, produce or merchandise directly related to that which is produced on the farm.
The proposed supplementary regulations limit the size of the farm sales structure to 4000 square
feet, the maximum size of a country store, also allowed by special use permit in RA.
Amend the Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Add to Section 3.0 DEFINITIONS:
Farm Sales: The sale of agricultural or horticultural produce or merchandise produced by the
owner or his family on their farm, with subordinate sales of produce or merchandise not
produced on the premises, but directly related to the agricultural or horticultaral produc~ which is
produced by the owner or his family on their farm.
Add to RURAL AREAS DISTRICT. RA, BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT:
Section 10.2.2.45 Farm Sales (reference 5.1.35).
Add to SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS:
Section 5.1.35 FARM SALES
This provision is intended to encourage and support the preservation of
agricultural lands and activities in the Rural Area through direct marketing of
agricultural products and directly related merchandise.
One farm sales structure may be established per farm. In addition to
displays and sales of agricultural or horticultural produce which is
produced by the owner or his family on their farnk, it may .include produce
and merchandise not produced on the premises, but directly related to the
agricultural or horticultural produce which is produced 6n the farm. The
farm sale structure shall not be established until the agricultural or
horticultural produce growing area has been established and is in
production.
The total retail sales area of the farm sales structure shall not exceed 4000
square feet. Greenhouses used for agricultural or horticultural production
shall not be counted as part of the total retail sales area. No more than
50% of the retail sales area inside the farm sales sumcture shall be
merchandise not produced on the premises. Displays outside the farm
structure shall be limited to agricultural and horticultural pro[tuce only.
A preliminary schematic plan in accordance with Section 32.4.1 shall be
sub/nitted along with, and become a part of, the special use permit
application. The plan shall include the area of the farm sales structure,
parking, and entrance. The plan shall address, ii~ particular, provisions for
safe and convenient access from and to the public road, adequacy of
delineation of parking, and general information regarding the exterior
appearance of the proposed site. Based onthe submitted information, the
Board of Supervisors may then waive the requirement for a site plan in a
particular case, upon a finding that the requirement of a site plan would
not forward the purposes of this ordinance or otherwise serve the public
interest. No such use shall be e§tablished without Virginia Depamuent of
Transportation approval of commercial access to the site.
Merchandise not permitted to be offered for sale shall include items such
as, but not limited to:
Farm machinery and equipment except hand tools;
Building materials; and
Furniture.
C:\Scala\ZTA03.frm
4
Agricultural/Forestal Industries Support Committee ATTACHMENT #1
Recommendations (excerpt)
IV.
Develop Harketing StrateRies For All Agriculcural/Fore~tal Product~.
The County should take action to foster the development'cf niche
agriculture such as garlic, cut flowers, etc, and direct
marketing, such as "pick your own" operations and community
supported agriculture (subscription farming).
Shpport farmers markets as a direct marketing strategy and a way
to educate people about agriculture. There is a pgtential for a
farmers market at the County Office Building parking lot or at a
location on Route 29 North or Route 29 at 1-64. Several smaller
markets operating on different days would serve the public better
than one large market. Good management, location, access and
parking are essential. Shelter and ,cold storage are desirable. A
joint or coordinated effort with the City Market is desirable.
Develop Albemarle Count~ brochures listing products available for
direct sales, farms retailing to the public, and farms open for
tourists to visit.
Encourage tourist attractions co promote buying from farms.
Agricultural tourism should be recognized and encouraged.
Opportunities include bed and breakfast operations in historic
landmarks, tourist lodging, farm tours, livestock shows,
vineyards, "pick-your-own" operations, herb and flower producers,
6. Encourage stores ~o promote local products.
Develop a hotline for county agricultural products (Extension
Service).
Create a sticker, "Produced or grown in Albemarle County'~ To
promote County products.
7 75
Agricultural/Forestal Districts Advisory Committe~
May 8, 1995 Meeting Minutes (excerp0
ATTACHMENT #2
Request for More Intensive Use in the Yellow Mountain District
Staff presented the staff report.
The applicant is requesting a full service garden center and greenhouse facility.
The Zoning Administrator has ruled that a zoning text amendment is necessary for this use, most
likely by special use permit. A larger wayside stand could be approved by thc Planning
Commission and would not require a ZTA, however, by definition, a wayside stand does not
allow sale of items not grown on the property.
Staff noted that in 1994, the Agricultural and Forestal Industries Support~Committee (of which
Rob Btoch and Posie Dent were members) made recommendations on how the County could
support and promote agricultural and forestal activities and the intent was clearly'to promote
direct marketing and pick-your-own operations. The question is how, and to what extent, should
we restrict the sale of products not produced on the premises.
Staff recommended that the proposed use is not compatible with the intent of the agricultural and
forestal districts, and that the applicant should revise his application and meet with planning and
zoning to find an acceptable solution.
Staff spoke with Rob Bloch today, who felt that we needed to approve some type of retail use
which was tied to farms, so they could continue to be viable operations. He said they should not
be able to Sell tractors, for instance, but small tools would be ok.
Staff said, the difficulty is trying to find out what is appropriate, and then, how do you enforce it?
The zoning inspectors have difficulty enforcing these conditions.
Mrs. Huckle had no problem if they want to make the wayside stand larger, the problem comes if
- they want to sell something not produced on the farm. The problem is opening the door, so that
other people could come tn who are not se conscientious.
The applicant, Scott Peylon, spoke. He said he has operated for twenty y~ears a retail landscape
nursery from the farm. A retail outlet, i.e., a garden center, is not ex:isting. We are at a point
where a sustained cash flow is critical. I don't have it in summer or winter. I need to establish a
strategy to stretch out what I am doing. What I am proposing ~s to expand on what I have been
doing by offering accessories to crops we are producing. In my opinion, for people to appreciate
'something, they need to understand it. To understand it, they have to experience it. Our entire
farm operation has been predicated on direct marketing. We bring the public onto our farm and
they experience it. We bring thousands of school kids that come to our farm for an educational
tour. Hopefully they will learn the value of agriculture to them, to our County, State and
Country. They need to understand that there is a linkage there. We would like to be able to
provide to the public accessory products to the crops we arc growing. We have been growing
flowers commercially for ten years. My wife manages the greenhouse. Sooner or later someone
will ask if you sell pots, topsoil, mulch. These are the types of things I am talking about~ not
general merchandise. This farm has been in my family for close to one hundred years. There is a
demonstrable commitment to preserve this land in an agricultural context.
The Chairman asked the difference between what the Peytons are applying for, and building a
monstrous building for a winery.
Mrs. Huckle said the wine is produced on the place, that's the whole crux. The problem is the
things he wants to add to his sales ate things not produced on his farm, that's the difference.
Mr. Woodzell said most of the wineries today sell corkscrews, t-shirts, not just the wine. I have a
little bit of problem with shovels, but shovels are related to this man's business. I don't think we
are setting a precedent.
Mr. Manpin agreed.
Mr. Peyton said his wife sells dried flower arrangements. Accessories like floral wire and silica
gel are things we would like to sell.
The Chairman said Scott has brought up a point, you opened this up to a much broader sense,
you as~ked us m consider in some way designating specifications not only for what Seven Oaks is
asking for, but for the entire agriculturally related retail business.
Mr. Peyton smd zoning'hsked us to get some feeling for whether what w~ are proposing is
viewed as appropriate in the A/F District. What we are talking about is directly and inextricably
linked to what we are producing on the farm. I am sensitive to the precedent issue. I want to be
honest about what I am doing, and address the issue up front. What I am talking about is linked
to the prodnction capability of an existing farm that has been demonstrated to be in production,
as opposed to someone just coming in and wanting to open up some kind of retail outlet.
Mrs. Huckle asked what action they are able to take, what is our role in this.
Staff said, tell me ifa similar use to this would be appropriate in any agricultural district. If you
say it is appropriate, then we will devise some category that he would be permitted tc operate
under in the zoning ordinance. My suggestion was an enlarged kind of wayside stand so it would
still be tied to the agricultural use of the property, similar to the wineries. I think retail nursery
and greenhouse is too broad.
The Chairman said that's what he is doing now. To me, you"ar'e c?ming in and applying for
. ~omething that is just about almost a retail process.
Mr. Peyton said what we ge doing is commercial, creating products for sale.
Mrs. Dent asked if he had to go before the Plarining Commission to enlarge the greenhouse.
Staff said greenhouses would be permitted as an agricultural use..
Mr. Peyton said staff told him he could put the entire hundred acres u~nder glass, but bringing the
public onto the farm is different.
The Chairman asked, why is it legal for me to come to you and buy bedding plants?
Mr. Peyton said, the issue is wanting to offer expanded accessories.
Mr. Maupin said what he is proposing to sell works in with what he is already selling.
Mrs. Huckle said what types of things he is going to be able to sell will have to be stipulated~- he
can't sell weed eaters or lawn mowers or something like that. There's got to be standards set.
Mrs. Dent said I can't sell saddles or riding things. Sl~e asked Mr. Maupin if people asked him to
sell canning jars.
Mr. Manpin said they never asked for them.
Mrs. Huckle said he is missing the boat.
Mr. Manpin said there's been a change in the world, and he needs to change along with it.
Mrs. Huckle said Posie made a good point, people come to her farm to buy a horse, and then they
say, do you have a saddle or bridle or saddle blankets? That's the sort of thing that can be
ancillary to this.
2
Mr. Jones said I've sold a horse with a bridle on it before. If he just applied for an expanded
stand, selling products that directly relate to his production ....
Mr. Woodzelt said that is still too weak, that is open-ended.
Mr. Jones said no, he is selling products a that are related to what he produces. He won't be
selling lawnmowers because he is nol producing turf grass. If he was producing sod, he could
sell lawnmowers at his expanded stand.
Mrs. Denl said there are roadside stands all along where he lives.
Other committee members noted that the stands are not in an ag/forestal district; and they are
grandfathered.
Staff said that is what I am most concerned about - I have less of a problem in the Rural Area in
general. Do you see that a retail use like this is appropriate ~n an ag/forestal district?
Mr. Maupin said, the ,applicant already has a retail use.
Staffsaid, he has a w~/yside stand.
The Chairman said, he has a greenhouse and it's drawing the public in to a retail business. He
already has the traffic coming - what's the difference? I agree with Scott - some criteria should
be drawn up to put into the ordinance that would allow this type of use.
Staff said, what if this happened in Keswick Agricultural District, would a retail use be
appropriate there, or is it only in certain locations?
A comnuttee member said; if they are growing strawberries, they could sell the same things.
Staffsaid, so you think, in an ag/forestal district, as long as it is tied to the production of the
farm .... Do you think it's important like Scott said, that we should establish that the farm has
demonstrated some production capability before we allow the stand?
Mr. Jones said there should be enough acreage to support it. I don't know that they should have
demonstrated a past history.
Mrs. Huckle asked if staff expected any action from the committee, or was it just a brainstorming
~ession?
'Mr. Peyton said the Zonin, g Administrator wanted an opinion from this committee as to whether
they thought what I am requesting is considere~t to be appropriate in an A/F district. There will
be other issues that I will have to address from planning and zoning..
Staffsaid we don't have a name for it yet, because he wilt have to aplSly for a ZTA. If you want
to put in the form ora motion that what he has described here is appropriate, and if it requires a
special use permit, it would be considered a more intensive use. I think you should say that you
feel what he has proposed is appropriate in an agricultural district, and specifically, where he is
located.
Mrs. Huckle said, and we do need standards, we need criteria.
The Chairman said, but that could come through the recommendations of the committee, and not
necessarily through the motion.
Mrs. Huckle said, I'm not saying that we have to list the criteria, I'm saying it needs to have
criteria attached to it, not just be an open-ended, do whatever you want.
Mr. Jones said, the number one criteria would be that the products be directly related to the
acreage and the agricultural products produced.
Mr. Woodzell asked if any other group out there now would come under these regs for
enforcement? As honorable as this man is, the next gentleman or lady comes in and does not live
up to their obligations, who is going to be the enforcer?
Mrs. Huckle said, Amelia, I guess, she gets all the dirty work.
Mr. Woodzell said, what if Scott wants to start selling motomycles and chain saws, where does
he go?
Mrs. Dent said we don't have a procedure.
l~rs. Hackle said, that's where your criteria is so importam.
Mr. Jones asked who enforces that?
Staffsaid, if he applies for a special use permit, and conditions are placed on it, then zoning
would enforce those conditions.
The Chairman said, ifI am reading the consensus here, then the request for a mom intensive use
within this district should be allowed with certain criteria added to it?
Mrs. Hackle.said, that it be directly related to the products that he is growing on the place?
The Chairman said we need to put that in the form ora motion. I don't have any problem with
this request, but I do think the commxttee should recommend that, ff thru ~equest is accepted, that
criteria be set up to set guidelines for subsequent applications.
Mrs. Hackle said, I don't think we can approve something tonight without knowing what those
conditions are, do you?
Staff said they have to do the ZTA, then apply for a special use permit.
Mr. Maupin moved that this committee approve it as applicable in this agricultural/forestai
district, under the conditions he asked for, which is all related products.
Mr. Jones seconded the motion.
Mrs. Huckle said she is uncomfortable with this, until it gets a little more formalized. Not that I
have any questions about this particular applicant, but it makes me uncomfortable when we don't
know what criteria is going to be. I think we am jumping ahead of ourselves.
Mrs. Dent suggested another worksession on this particular case.
Staff suggested that they could bring the ZTA back to the comfnittee.
Mrs. Ih~ckle agreed.
The Chairman asked if it i~ critical that this request be approved tonight.
Mr. Peyton said one thing he had discussed wi/h Amelia and Bill was the possibility ora special
use permit for a country store. If I were to apply for a country store with'specific criteria, would
that be another way to go?
Staffsaid that in her discussions with Bill and Amelia, that was not the appropriate way to go. I
don't think a country store ts appropriate in an ag/forestal district.
Mrs. Dent suggested that they could recommend that the land be taken out of the ag/forestal
district.
Mr. Peyton said he did not want to take it out of the district.
The Chairman said there is a motion on the floor.
The vote was taken, with 5 in favor and 2 abstaining (Huckle and Dent).
Other Business
Mr. Jones said the Albemarle Farm Bureau took a vote on the question of ailowing riding lessons
(commercial stable) by right. The committee had discussed this question at its last meeting. He
said the Farm Bureau voted in favor of allowing them by right.
4
Attachment #3
Exerpt From:
Agricultural/Forestal Districts Advisory Committee Minutes
July 24, 1995
ZTA-95-03 Farm Sales
Initiated by Scott Peyton, but the Board of supervisors has taken the step to request that all three
ZTA's be reviewed. Staff tried to accommodate Mr. Peyton, but wrote the ZTA in a universal
way, so others could also apply for it. Staff noted the definition starts with the wayside stand
definition, then the subordinate sales part added. Staff noted that if the wording is approved, Mr.
Peyton would still have to apply for a special use permit.
The Chair asked the cost of a special use permit.
Staff said $600-800 dollars.
Staff said the most important part is the supplementary regulations. Other conditions could be
added by the Board of Supervisors. Staff explained the rationale for the supplementary
regulations. Staffnoted that someone would have to make a subjective decision about what
could be sold. Staff asked for the committee's comments.
Mr. Maupin asked about the effect of this on existing uses. He noted that he sells apples part of
the year in his garage.
Staff said it sotmdS like a wayside stand.
Mrs. Huckle: Anything she is about to say is no reflection on this applicant. Secondly, no one is
more supportive of the viability of family farms. She is afraid that we are opening a can of
worms. The other counties are much more specific. The definition is so vague and wide open,
will lead to controversy and will take a lot of time for Zoning Administrator to adjudicate.
Question whether this will provide ongoing cash flow when things are quiet in the winter; a
backlash from those in commercial districts. Will this endanger the whole concept of the
agricultural district? We have received criticism that agricultural land does not pay its share of
taxes. We know that is not tree but what is true. what is perceived, are two different things.
Staff asked for specific suggestions.
Mrs. Huckle: 50% is not a subordinate use.
Mr. Woodzell agrees. Did other counties speak to hand tools?
Staff said they say no power tools, but did nor specifically say that hand tools are ok.
Mr. Woodzell: Does commercial access mean commercial entrance?
Mr. Peyton said they had to get approval for an entrance, he doesn't know if the requirements
will change if they put up a new building.
Mrs. Huckle asked if Mr. Peyton is planning to put up a new building at the highway.
Mr. Peyton said he hoped that they would build a specific building, not right on the road. The
problem is, the existing building is back on the farm, doesn't offer any control over where the
customers go on the farm. We are looking at expanding the greenhouse operation.
Mrs. Huckle: If we do this, it is going to be County-wide, going to include alot of people.
She noted the Eagle's Nest in the old Very Thing building is back from the road.
Mr. Maupin said they have a wagon right up on the road.
The Chair saidhe does not personally share the concerns of Mrs. Huckle. He likes having the
growing area established first. He thinks the sales area is adequate. Over the course of a year, it
will average out to 50%. In the wintertime, it may be 75%, and 90% in the summertime and fall.
Staff has addressed the Highway Depamnent concerns, the area for parking, the area of the
structure. Farming has become so difficult to make a living at, any way we can piggyback
companion operations, and attach them to a fanning operation is in the long run going to
· enhance, and develop and keep the whole concept of ag and forestal districts, which is to keep
land in open space. If we can keep this land in open space for another 25 years, then we have
done something. If you want to add a few things to what you have established here under the
criteria, that's fme.
Mrs. Huckle asked if he is satisfied with the definition?
Staff said 50% is subordinate when you add all the outside display area to half the indoor displa)
for things grown on the farm.
Mr. Woodzell asked about the building as placed visually from the highway, and signs.
Staff said the setback is 75 feet. She did not know about the sign requirements.
Mr. Maupin did not like the first restriction, to have the growing area established before the
structure is allowed to be built. He said they need to be done at the same time.
The Chair said that is the commitment.
Staff said he can sell the produce in a wayside stand, but we don't want the subordinate sales of
things not grown on the farm. We want to make sure that they are a farmer in production in
Albemarle and has made a commitment to grow stuff before we will let him sell other stuff.
I understand your point, I just don't agree.
Mr. Maupin: They should be done simultaneously.
The Chair said I don't see how you can justify building a building in hopes that you would be
able to sell a product, Your sales of a product stipulate the building.
Mrs. Huckle: The whole object is to have some way to sell things grown on the farm, not
establish a gift shop.
Mr. Maupin: It will be difficult for someone to get into this.
The Chair said I see it that you have so much business a wayside stand can't handle it, so then
' you build a bigger wayside stand, or a building, but you don't build a hundred thousand dollar
building in hopes that the produce will sell.
Mrs. Huckle expressed concern that the Blue Ridge Building Supply that sells these things will
come back and complain that they have to pay more taxes and compete with someone who
doesn't.
The Chair said that is a very good point. I don't know how you solve it. I think it would be up to
the people in that line of business to come and complain to the Planning Commission and Board
of Supervisors.
Mrs. Huckle said she mentioned this to one of the County Attorneys, his impression was that tkis
definition was too vague, wide-open, and would lead to controversy. The Zoning
Administrator's office is hard pressed to keep up with all the demands already, so I think if you
don't do anything else, you tighten up on the defmition, and if you haven't, have input from that
Department.
Staff said they had three hours of input from that department. I agree that it's difficult.
Mr. Peyton said the Blue Ridge Building Supply is in no way constrained in what they can sell in
terms of having to produce something.
Mrs. Huckle said, but the other 50% would be in competition.
Mr. Maupin disagreed.
Mrs. Huckle said part of what you sell would be sold by alot of other garden shops and nurseries:
the Eagle's Nest, the Garden Spot, the Blue Ridge Nursery on Proffit Road. Maybe they don't
care. If you are in an ag/forestal district, and you are paying lower taxes than they are in a
commercial district, you do have an advantage.
Mr. Woodzell said the only thing that bothers him is the auomey saying this is a wide open door.
It was determined that the attorney Mrs. Huckle spoke to was Greg Kantner, and that he did not
look at the supplementary regulations.
Mrs. Huckle said she did not think that the supplementary regulations tell what you can or cannot
sell.
The Chair said there is a gray area.
Mrs. Huckle asked why the other cotmties are much more specific.
Staff said she attempted to custom tailor it to whomever might apply. Depending what was
grown, you would determine what was related to it. You could not possibly list everything that
anyone might want to grow. You could tie it down through the special use permit.
Mrs. Huckle said that even gardening stores don't sell things sold in grocery stores.
Staff said it would be up to the Planning Commission and Board to make that decision.
Mr. Woodzell asked about having it reviewed after one year of operation.
Staffsaid if they don't like it after one year, what is he going to do with the building?
It is unrealistic.
Mr. Woodzell wondered if Mr. Peyton is going to build a 4000 square foot building.
There was discussion where that number came from. It was determined that coumry stores are
permitted to be that size. Wineries are limited to 600 square feet, unless they get a special
permit.
Mrs. Huckle said it is going to take alot of sure-gel and flower pots to justify a commercial
entrance and whatever cost building. It's sometlfing we have to go into very carefully and very
slowly.
Mr. Peyton I hear stafftrying to provide flexibility. It is difficult to anticipate what someone will
be growing. If the concern is opening Pandora's box, the special use permit process g~v-es a
tremendous amount of control to the County.
4
· Mrs. Huckle said there is no problem if you are trying to sell things you produce on your farm.
The problem comes with the extraneous items you haven't produced.
Mr. Hogue said it would be wonderful if he could sell others' farm products - like honey - it
would sell better there than in Kroger's.
Mrs. Huckle said if you call it agricultural products, that would be fine. Flower pots and sure-gel
are in another realm altogether.
The Chair asked if the committee is basically in agreement with the concept of being able to sell
produce as well as related items.
Mr. Woodzell said wineries sell alot of goods not grown on the spot: corkscrews, t-shirts, cheese.
I'm not saying that's right, that's the only thing that would throw me one side or the other.
Mrs. Huckle said she would have no problem if he sells agricultural produce grown by someone
else. That would be supporting agriculture.
1'he Chak noted he could sell Mr. Hogue's honey.
It was clarified that wayside stands currently may only sell produce grown or produced on the
farm, not produced by someone else.
Staff asked Mrs. Huckle if she agreed with what Loudoan allowed (nursery stock, perennials,
annuals, bulbs, mulch, compost,..., and similar items.) Even they say similar items·
Mrs. Huckle said she would say, and other agricultural items.
Mr. Peyton said he sells only live Christmas trees which he grows. He asked if brought in some
cut Christmas trees, could he display them outside? What about mulch?
Mr. Woodzell said you would have to separate agricultural or horticultural merchandise from
hardware type of merchandise. Display of non- agricultural merchandise is not allowed outside
the structure. Just rewrite it.
Mr. Peyton asked what specifically is the concern of selling something that I haven't produced?
Mrs. Huckle said because that is something you would sell in a retail store in a commercial
district. I don't think that is appropriate for someone in an agricultural/forestal district. That
strikes right at the heart of an agricultural district.
Mr. Peymn asked if it would be appropriate in the Rural Area if it were not in an agricultural
district?
5
Mrs. Huckle said she was not sttre.
The Chair said if tiffs is going to preserve this parcel of land into the next generation, then we are
accomplishing what we are trying to do.
Mrs. Huckle said we have been trying to do with the Comprehensive Plan is keep the Rural
Areas rural, and not having alot of commercial things ar every crossroads. The line is very f'me.
· Mr. Woodzell asked the Chair if it going to take retail to save the farm?
The Chair said if you can sell companion items you enhance the mount of income that the fam~
is receiving.
Mr. Jones asked if his building wouldn't be taxed at a commereiai rate as opposed to a farm rate?
Mr. Woodzell said he would have a valne on it, but he would not run a commercial rate. It's not
out there for sale as a structure that would be parcelled offand sold as a retail outlet. It's part of
the farm.
Mrs. Huckle said in our zeal to preserve the Rural Areas, we are going to hurt them.
Mr. Jones said he understands Mrs. Huckle's reasoning, but he doesn't think there will be many
applicants. With the nmxtber of existing farmers we have now in the County, the few of them
that do produce something that's saleable on the farm do a wayside stand. I don't see it as a year-
round thing for more than one or two people. Keller at Mt. Aire has a beef farm, they sell eggs
and beef, a few other things. Conceivably, he could sell butcher knives.
Mr. Woodzell said Mrs. Huckle has a point - what is going to be allowed to be sold in this
building? Right now it is very vague.
Mrs. Huckle said to restrict it to agricultural firings.
The Chair said he doesn't want to restrict it so much that this applicant or someone else decides
this is too much hassle, that he'd rather build houses.
Mr. Jones said he looks at it as an expanded wayside stand.
Mrs. Huckle said the Zoning Adminisl~cator decided this is not a country store.
Staff said a country store must sell a wide variety of things.
Mr. Jones asked if there is a middle designation between counu-y store and wayside stand?
6
Mr. Maupin said he doesn't see a problem with it, maybe just some of the wording.
Mr. Jones said let's call it a specialty stand, ail by special use permit, then that leaves it up to the
Planning Commission and Board. He could list a generai outline what he will sell, antiques or
strawberries.
Staff said, we set the guidelines, then the applicant would come in and give his specific proposal,
he might not list every item, but they would have a pretty good idea of what he wanted to do.
Staff said if the committee could not come to a consensus, she would summarize some of the
major themes for the Commission and Board.
Mr. Hogue said he agrees with the Chair that we want to do everything possible to encourage the
farms. He said the Extension Service is advising people who buy a 200 acre farm to rent to their
neighbor who is already farming. It's a sad day when you can't make a living on a farm, but that
day is here°
Mrs. Huckle asked how people could make a living r~nting a farm.
The Chair said they are not renting, they- are mining the property.
Mr. Jones said someone who inherits a farm may not have the equipment and cattle, it would be
cheaper m rent to someone already in the business.
Mr. Peyton asked where the land is coming from that goes into an A/F district? Either from
someone using it for an agriculturai use whether he is making a profit or not, or someone who
does not care if it makes a profit. If someone need to make a living, that source of land in an A/F
district could be gone.
The Chair asked for the next staffreport.
O~ I~d~E NO.
95-20(4)
AN OPJ)INANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 20, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS,
ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS AND 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 20, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Article II, Basic Regulations, and
Article III, District Regulations, are hereby amended and reordained by amending Sec-
tion 3.0, Definitions, Section 5.0, Supplementary Regulations, Section 22.0, commercial,
O-1, and Section 24.0, Highway Commercial, HC, as follows:
3.0 DEFINITIONS
Farmers' Market: An existing parking area used periodically by two (2) or more
farmers only for the seasonal sale of agricultural or horticultural produce or
merchandise produced on their farms. A farmers' market shall not include the
sale of commercially manufactured products which the farmers have not grown or
produced on their farms.
5.0
SUPPL~4ENTARY REGULATIONS
5.1.36 FARMERS' MAPd~E T
A site plan shall be required, unless waived in accordance with section
32.2.2.
Farmers' markets shall be Limited to a maximum of two (2) days per week,
during daylight hours, between May 1 and November 30 only. Days and
hours of operation shall be only those specified on the site plan.
The parking area for all farmers' and customers' vehicles shall not be
located closer than ten (10) feet ~o any public s~ree~ right-of-way.
The applicant shall make adequate arrangements for the removal of trash
and debris and general restoration of the site following an event. The
zoning administrator may establish and require the posting of a bond in
an amount deemed sufficient for such purpose.
22.0
e. Ne permanent structure shall be established.
COMMERCIAL - C-I
22.2.1 BY RIGHT
22.2.1.b
24.0
25. Farmers' Market (reference 5.1.36).
HIGHWAY COMMERCIALr HC
24.2.1 BY RIGHT
24.2.1.43 Farmers' Market (reference 5.1.36).
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct
copy of an ordinance unanimously adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginza, at a regular meeting held on October 11, 1995.
C~az d/~o'f ~Count y/'Su~ervis or s
DRAFT: October 10. 1995
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 20, ZONING,
ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS AND
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 20, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Article II, Basic
Regulations and Article III, District Regulations, are hereby amended and reordained
by amending section,3.0, Definitions, section 5.0, Supplementary Regulations,
section 22.0, Commercial, C-I and section 24.0, Highway Commercial, HC, as
follows:
3.0
DEFINITIONS
' Farmers' Market: An ~sting. varking area used neriodicallv by twdr~i"?
/
/
more farmers only for the seasonal sale of agricultural or horticultural
vroduce or merchandise produced on their farms. A farmers' market
shall not include the sale of commercially manufactured oroducts which
the farmers have not erown or vroduced on their farms.
5. I SLFPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS
5.1.36 FA3RMERS' MARKET
a. Asite t)lan shall be reouire& unless waived in accordance with
Section 32.2.2~_
b. Farmers' markets shall be limited to a maximum of two days net
week, during davligh&hours, between May 1 and November 30
only. Days and hours of operation shall be only those, specified
on .the site plan.
c. The oarkin~ area for all farmers' and customers' vehicles shall not
be located. ¢.lgser than t0 feet. to any tmblic street right-of-way.
d. The.applicant shall make adeauate arrangements for the removal
f tr~ and ~on of the 'te f- ]- win _n
~ablis, and re uire t:
~~ suffmient fo. such
e. No nermanent structure shall be established.
22.0 .COMMERCIAL - C-1
22.2.1 By Right
22.2.1.2.5 FArmers' Market (reference 5.1.36)
24.0 HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL, HC
24.2.1 By Right
~ .Farmers~ Market (reference 5 1.36)
3
MEMORANDUM
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept, of Planning & Communiw Development
401 Mclntire Road
CharlottEsville, Virgini~ 22902,4596
(804) 296-~5823
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Ella Carey, Clerk
Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner
August 30, 1995
ZTA-95-04 Farmers' Market
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 29, 1995, unanimously
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. The Board of
Supervisors is scheduled to review- this petition at its October 11, 1995 meeting. Attached is the
August 29, 1995 staffreport, with origtnaI August I, 1995 staff report also attached.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to comact me.
MJS/jcw
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD of SUPERVISORS:
MARY JOY SCALA
AUGUST 29, 1995 (DEFERRED
FROM AUGUST 1, 1995)
OCTOBER 11, 1995
ZTA-95-04 FARMERS' MARKET (Amended August 29, 1995)
At its meeting on August 1~ 1995, the Planning Commission asked that the supplementary
regulations be changed to reflect comments made at that meeting. The follo~ving Planning
Commission concerns have been addressed:
1. Limit by days and hours.
See proposed supplementary regulation "b."
2. Limit scale or size of structure.
References to a farmers' market structure have been eliminated. See "e."
3. State in definition thatthis is not a flea market. (No commercially manufactured
products.)
See definition.
4. Incorporate farmers' market under the defmition of wayside stand.
· A wayside stand differs from a farmers' market in that it is allowed in RA, VR and HC by right,
does not reqmre site plan approval, involves only one farmer, .is limited in size to ~500 square
feet (about tlu'ee parking spaces), and is not limited in hours or d~tys of operation. It is not
'recommended that the definitions bc combined.
5. Approach this as a "temporary use."
A" temporary event sponsored by a local nonprofit group" 'is permitte~l by special use in the
Rural Areas District and in the Light Industrial District. Supplementary regulations address a
preliminary plan; adequate arrangements with the sheriff', fire and rescue squads, and health
department; and restoration of the site. It is the opinion o~the Zoning Administrator that a
farmers' market could be considered a temporary event in the RA District, if it were sponsored by
a local nonprofit group, although temporary events are usually of shorter duration. The County
Fair is an example of a temporary event which was approved for a longer time period. There is
no provision for temporary events in the commemial ~listricts.
6. How would a school parking lot fit into this?
Staff has eliminated the proposal for a farmers' market in the RA District by special us~permit.
A farmers' market should be located near the population which it serves. If a farmers' market is
desirable in the RA District, it would be most appropriately located on a school property where
there are existing facilities. If it is sponsored by the County, it would be considered a public
use, and would not require a special use permit.
Staff Recommendation: A farmers' market may take various forms. The following
recommendations are intended to address a farmers' market in the form of designated parking
stalls at an existing parking lot. No structures are anticipate& If a cooperative parking
arrangement is used, part of the review will include a determination by the Zoning Administrator
that the hours of operation of the uses sharing the site are not conflicting.
Amend the Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Add to Section 3.0 DEFINITIONS:
Farmers' Market: _an existing parking area used periodically by two or more'famxers only for the
seasonal sale of agricnltural or horticultural produce or merchandise produced on their farms. A
farmers' market shall not include the sale of commercially manufactured products which the
farmers have nbt grovm or produced on their farms.
Add to COMMERCIAL. C-1. BY RIGHT:
Section 22.2.1.25 Farmers' Market (reference 5.1.36).
Add to HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL. HC, BY RIGHT:
Section 24.2.1.43 Farmers' Market (reference 5.1.36~.
Add to SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS:
Section 5.1.36 FARMERS' MARKET
a. A site plan shall be required, unless waived in accordance with Section
32.2.2.
Days and hours of operation shall be established-as a condition of
approval. Farmers' markets shall be limited to a maximum of two days per
week, during daylight hours, between May 1 and November 30 only.
The parking area for all farmers' and customer§' vehicles shall not be
located closer than 10 feet to any public street right-of-way.
The applicant shall make adequate arrangements for the removal of trash
and debris and general restoration of the site following an evem. The
Zoning Administrator may establish and require the posting of a bond in
an amount deemed sufficient for such purpose.
e. No permanent structure shall be established.
C:\ScalaxZTA04a. frm
STAFF PERSON:
ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD of SUPERVISORS:
MARY JOY SCALA
JULY 24, 1995
AUGUST 1, 1995
AUGUST 16, 1995
ZTA-95-04 FARMERS' MARKET
Origin: Board of Supervisors resolution on June 14, 1995
Public Purpose to be Served: To encourage and support the preservation of agricultural lands
and activities in the Rural Area 1) through direct marketing of agricultural products and 2) by
educating people about agriculture.
Proposal: To amend Section 22.0, Commercial, C-l, and Section 24.0, Highway. Commercial,
HC, of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit farmers' markets by right; and to amefid Section 10.0,
Rural Areas District, RA. of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit farmers' markets by special use
permit.
Background: In 1993, the Agricultural and Forestal Industries Support Committee was
appointed by the Board m report on ways m support and promote agriculture and forestry. One
of the committee's recommendations, "Develop marketing stra!egies for all agricultural/forestal
products" (Attachment #1), includes a pertinent strategy ro "Support farmers' markets as a direct
marketing strategy and a way to educate people about agriculture."
Farmers' markets are not currently permitted in the Zoning Ordinance. In recent yehrs this type
of direct marketing has gained popularity in urban areas. Staff hag received a specific request for
~a farmers' market to locate in Crozet.
Some related zoning provisions are: :
Highway Commercial, HC, allows by right, wayside stands~ vegetables and agricultural produce,
which are limited to 600 square feet and are intended for an individual farmer.
The RA District provides for three general categories of commercial/service uses:
agricuttural/forestal uses, tourism uses, and basic support uses. Some relevant permitted uses
are:
.Country_ store allowed by special use permit in RA District. The ground floor is limited
to 4000 square feet, and it must offer for sale "a wide variety of goods."
Gift, craft and antique shops allowed by special use permit in RA District.
Wayside stands for display and sale of agricultural products produced on the pre~mises
allowed by right in RA District. Floor area is limited to 600 square feet.
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan gives highest priority to the preservation of
agricultural and forestal activities in the Rural Area. An objective is, "Support the agricultural
and fbmstal industries throngh promotional activities." (p.55) Under this objective the Plan
states, "For agricultural and forestal resources to be successfully preserved from a land use
standpoint, they must be successful as a business/industry." (p.55) A strategy is, "Assess the
need for a local or regional farmer's market and, if feasible, coordinate its development with the
City of Charlottesville and the proposed statewide farmer's market system." (p.56)
The Comprehensive Plan is silent on commercial uses in general in the Rural Area because
cormmercial land use designations a~-e confined to the Growth Areas. As part of the Plan review,
Rural Area Standards are now being written Which will discuss limited commercial uses
appropriate to the Rural Area. In the past, staff has noted a lack of policy guidelines to use when
reviewing support uses in the RA District.
Discussion: The advantages of this proposed use are:
It would provide a market for local produce farmers;
'It would encourage the agricultural use of land for growing produce for sale locally;
It would provide a benefit to residents by providing locally grown produce;
It would serve to educate the public about agriculture; and,
It would promote tourism.
Disadvantages are:
It would introduce a new category of commercial use to the Rural Area which could
change the nature of the Rural Area;
It may be difficult to control what is offered for sale (example: flea market items).
The Agricultural and Forestal Districts Advisory Committee reviewed ZTA-95-04 on July 24,
1995. The committee was in favor of allowing farmers' markets as proposed. (Those minutes
will be mailed under separate cover.)
The City of Charlottesville and the City of Staunton treat farmers' markets like a retail use, and
permit them in a commercial district. James City County has separate definitions for farmers'
markets and flea markets. They define farmers' market as "An occasional or periodic market
-held in a structure or open area where farmers sell their produce or farm products." James City
County allows farmers' mfirkets by right in their agricultural or rural residential districts,
maximum 2500 square feet, or larger by special use permit. Farmers' markets are also allowed
by right in their limited business/industrial district and mixed use district ~ith no size limitations.
The recommended supplementary regulations state that a preliminary schematic plan shall be
submitted along with the special use permit application in the RA District. The fee schedule
allows that when a preliminary plan is reviewed simultaneously with a special use petTait, no fee
will be applied for review of the plan. The recommended supplementary regulations also state
that a site plan is required in the C-1 and HC Districts unless it is waived. A fee of $215 is
charged for a site plan waiver.
Staff Recommendation: It is possible that a farmers' marker may take various forms, from
parking stalls at an existing parking lot with commemial zoning, to a new structure at a~
undeveloped site zoned Rural Ama. The following recommendations are intended to address
either case. Ifa cooperative parking arrangement is used, part of the review will include a
determination by the Zoning Administrator that the hours of operation of the uses sharing the site
are not conflicting.
Amend the Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Add to Section 3.0 DEFINITIONS:
Farmers' Market: Any structure or land used periodically by farmers only for the seasonal sale of
agricultural or hortieuttural produce ,or merchandise produced on their farms.
Add to COMMERCIAL, C~I, BY RIGHT:
Section 22.2.1.25 Farmers' Market (reference 5.1.36).
Add to HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL, HC, BY RIGHT:
Section 24.2.1.43 Farmers' Market (reference 5.1.36).
Add to RURAL AREAS DISTRICT, RA, BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT:
Section 10.2.2.46 Farmers' Market (reference 5.1.36).
Add to SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS:
Section 5.1.36 FARMERS' MARKET
a. In the RA District, a preliminary schematic plan in accordance With
Section 32.4.1 shall be submitted along With, and become apart of, the
special use permit applieatiun. The plan shall address, in particular,
provisions for safe and convenient access from and to the public road.
adequacy of delineation of parking, vehicular and pedestrian circulation
and method of separating the same, and general information regarding the
exterior appearance of the proposed site. Based on the submitted
information, the Board of Supervisors may then waive the requirement for
a site plan in a particular case, upon a finding that the require, ment of a site
plan would not forward the purposes of ~his ordinance or otherwise serve
the public interest. No such use shall be esfablished without Virginia
Dep~a~ent of Transportation approval of commercial access to the site.
In the C-1 and HC Districts, a site plan shall be required, unless waived in
accordance with Section 32.2.2. "
Setback for all parked farmers' and customers' vehicles shall be 10 feel
from any public street right-of-way.
The total floor area of a farmers' market structure ia the Rural Areas
District shall not exceed 4000 square feet. There are no size restrictions irt
the Commercial or Highway Cdmmercial Districts.
C:\Scala\ZTA04.frm
The applicant shall make adequate arrangements for the removal of trash
and debris and general restoration of the site following an event. ~The
Zoning Administrator may establish and require the posting of a bond in
an amount deemed sufficient for such purpose.
Agricultural/Forestal Industries Support Committee ATTACHMENT #1
Recommendations (excerpt)
IV. Develop Marketing StrageKies For All A~rteultural/Forestgl Produ~t~.
The County should take action to foster the developmen~ of niche
agriculture such as garlic, cut flowers, etc. and direct
marketing, such as "pick your own" operations and community
supported agriculture (subscription farming).
$~pport farmers markets aa a direct marketing strategy and a way
to educate people about agriculture. There is a potential for a
farmers market at the County Office Building parking lot or ar a
location on Route 29 North or Route 29 at 1-64. Several smaller
markets operating on different days would serve the public better
than one large market. Good management, location, ~ccess and
parking are essential. Shelter and told storage are desirable. A
joint or coordinated effort with the G~ty Market is desirable.
Develop Albemarle County brochures listing products available for
direct sales, farms retailing to the public, and farms open for
tourists to visit. ~
Encourage tourist attractions to promote buying from farms.
Agricultural tourism should be recognized and encouraged.
Opportunities include bed and breakfast operations in historic
landmarks, tourist lodging, farm tours, livestock shows,
vineyards, "pick-your~own" operations, herb and flower producers,
6. Encourage stores to promote local products.
Develop a hotline for county agricultural products (ExtenSion
Service).
Create a sticker, "Produced or grown in Albemarle County" to
promot~ County products.
7 75
Attachment #2
Excerpt From:
Agricultural] Forestal Districts Advisory Committee Minutes
July 24, 1995
ZTA-95-04 Farmers' Market
Staff presented the report.
Mr. Maupin noted that a 4000 square feet structure would be a huge structure, 50fl. by 80ft.
Mrs. Huckle wondered about the districts. She said Albemarle High School w, ould make an
excellent place for a market, in the middle of high density development, plenty of parking,
lavatories available in the high school. She asked what the zoning is there.
Staff said, PA, but if it is owned, operated, or funded by the County, they don't need a special
permit.
The Chair said this is a great idea in all of the districts.
Mr. Maupin said the Charlottesville farmers' market is downtown, it's not in a heavy residential
area, people have to go down to it. Albemarle High School is an ideal location.
The Chair said there are alot of good locations, all we have to de~ide is whether we like the
concept.
Mr. Jones noted that Waynesboro has one in a parking lot adjacent to a City park. That runs
from about 6:30 or 7:00 on Saturday morning to about 9:00 o'clock, and then they are sold out.
It's not only farmers, but people who grow things in their garden. They have a designated area.
Occasionally you will see nursery stock after 9:00 o'clock. Something like the high school or
Crozet Park, this church, anywhere you have some parking space, and a designated time, it w/ll
develop itself.
Mrs. Huckle said she asked the County Attorney, and apparently these people don't need a
business license. Everybody has extra produce one tlme in the summer.
Mr. Jones said he thinks that is the way it is in Waynesboro.
The Chair asked if everyone is in agreemem.
Mrs. Huckle asked if the committee would like to have some input into doing something about
1
this farmers' market at Al-IS.
The Chair said it's a great idea, but ~this committee is here to either endorse the concept or to
make suggestions.
Mr. Jones said a $600 fee should be waived or reduced.
Staff said you might not want to waive it in every situation, but you could add language that the
fee should be waived if there is a need. The church in Crozet would not require a special use
permit. We are txying to make it as simple as possible, But establishing a new use in RA might
need more review.
Mr. Jones said~, as long as you have a way out of it for a common meeting place like the Crozet
site.
(End of discussion3
2
DRAFT: October 11, 1995
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 20, ZONING,
ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS AND
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 20. Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Article II, Basic
Regulations and Article Iit, District Regulations, are hereby amended and reordained
by amending secuon 3.0, Definitions. section 5.0, Supplementary Regmlations and
section 10.0, Rural Areas District, RA, as follows:
3.0 DEFINITIONS
Stable, Commercial: A building, rrr group of buildings, or use of land, or
any combination thereof, where, for compensation, whether monetary
or ~oods, IILCLILBI:I~ O£ dtc public arc provided wld~ provision is made for
more than ten~l~rses or ponies for hire,' acconunoda~iuit~ fo~ dtci~
lto~se~ aitd/vi l~a~u~ta instruction in riding, or for boarding when th~
horses or poz~ies are also used for hire o? instruction.
5.0 SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS
5.1.3
COMMERCIAL STABLE
a. Riding rings and other riding surfaces shall be covered and
maintained with a material audt aa pine ba*k to minimize dust
and erosionl/
b, Fencing ancffother means of animal confinement shall be
maint~yd~at~'~ ali times;
c. A site/~lan shall.be required, unless waived in accordance with
dction 32.2.2.
/
/
d. A commercial stable buildin~ or indoor ridin~ rin~ shall be
considered a primary use for setback/yard determination. An
outdoor riding ring and parkin~ area shall meet front yard
requirements for a primary use, shall not be located closer than
q{~( 50 feet from any adioining not under the same
properw
ownership, and shall be screened with existing or new landscapin~ .J
if determined necessary to serve the public interest.
If the proposed facility is located on a private road, the sit
shall include plans for uv~rade of the road to meet antidnated
increased traffic and shall require a maintenance agreement
acceptable to the )C/ounw which assures the maintenance of the
/
road for $o long as the properw is used for a commercial stable.
!..n the event of a waiver of sit ments, the
aforementioned shall be a condition of the waiver approval.
No events or shows soliciting the general public shall be allowed.
10.0
10.2.1
RURAL AREAS DISTRICT, gA
BY ~GHT
10.2.1.20
1012.2
Co~ercial stable (reference 5.1.3).
BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
10.2.2:16 Cmmnc~cial stable (~cfc~=ncc ~,.I.o~.
MEMORANDUM
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
De~t. of Plannin9 & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesuille. Virginia 22902,4596
(804) 296-5823
'995
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Ella Carey, Clerk
Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner
August 30, 1995
ZTA-95-05 Commercial Stables
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 29, 1995, unanimously
deferred the above-noted petition to its September 19, 1995 meeting.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
MJS/jcw
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
~ BC~.RO OF SUPER~CtSOR$ i
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
' RE:
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner ~.~)~/
September 22, 1995
ZTA-95-05 Commercial Stables
The Albemarle Couhty Planning Commission m its meeting on September 19, 1995,
recommended unanimously that staffs recommendation regarding ZTA-95-05 be approved
Attached is a copy of the September 19, 1995 staff report, with attachments of the August 1,
1995 and August 29, 1995 staffreports. Also attached are twelve letters from citizens.
ATTACHMENTS
A:\ZTA9505.LTR
STAFF PERSON:
' PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD of SUPERVISORS:
MARY JOY SCALA
SEPTEMBER 19, 1995
(DEFERRED FROM
AUGUST 29, 1995)
OCTOBER 11, 1995
ZTA-95-05 COMMERCIAL STABLES
At its meeting on August 29, 1995, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to defer this
proposed amendment until September 19, 1995 with the following direction to staff: There are
two thoughts on this, 1) to keep commercial stables by special use permit, clean up the definition,
and make sure that the,supplementary regulations meet some of the conce/ms expressed by
Commissioners Dotson and Nitchman; and 2) that Commissioner Imhoff still believes that this
should be a use by-right but with supplementary regulations. Ms. Huckle suggested, in
discussion about the motion, that staff include some of the standards read by Ms. Taylor.
Commissioners Dotson and Nitchman expressed concerns regarding:
· Clarification of the definition: At what point (number of horses) the commercial stable
designation would apply. Staff has developed a new definition.
Traffic generation. This is addressed through stte plan review which includes VDOT
approval of the entrance, and supplementary regulation "e" which addresses private
road concerns.
Remove "pine bark mulch" from supplementar~ regulation "a." This has been removed
Maintain the special use permit. Staff opinion is that commercial stables shouM be
permitted as a use by right in the Rural Area, based on the Compre]tensive Plan
language which states, "...give highest priority to agricultural and forestal activities in
the Rural Area, and firmly establish these activities as the primary land use, rather than
residential development." (p. 203) In additior~ the Agricultural and Forestal Industries
Support Committee has made recommendations to the Board of Si~pervisors on ways to
support and promote agriculture and forestry in the County. One recommendation
states, "County policies and regulations should support agricultural and forestal
interests."
Ms. Taylor's standards include:
' · Planning Commission approval of site plans. Supplementary regulation "c"reqyiresa
site plan unless waived (by the Commission), in accordance with Section 32.2.2.
Setback of 100 feet from any boundary lines, and screening, for outdoor riding areas,
courses, indoor arenas and other structures and uses thereof. Supplementary regulation
"d" addresses setback/yard requirements. Barn-like structures such as the stable and
indoor riding ring are proposed to meet primary use setback/yards (75 or 25fl. front/25
ft. side/ 35 fl. rear9 rather than accessory use setback/yards (6fl. side and rear}. The
outdoor riding ring and parking area must be located at least 50fi. from adjoining
properties, and screened if determined necessary.
No facilities or activities for spectators. Supplementary regulation ".[" originally stated
that a commercial stable does not constitute a horse show grounds, (which now requires,
and would continue to require, a special use permit). Staff has suggested an alternate
wording to address the concern regarding spectators because we currently have no
definition of horse show grounds. The zoning administrator has proposed a definition,
but it would have to be advertised before it can be considered
Health Department approval in accordance with requirements for aommereial use.
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of a commercial entrance.
Any grading plan to be reviewed by a Watershed Management Official'in addition to a
review by the County Engineer. These items are addressed under the site plan review.
No commercial activity except that associated with a commercial stable.
No facilities for sale of goods to the public. These activities are not permitted by the
definition of commercial stables. In general, commercial activities are not permitted in
the RA zoning district unless a permit is obtained for the specific use. Examples would
be a wayside stand (by-right~ or a country store ('by special use perrnit).
Fences maintained at all times.
All ridirig surfaces covered with a material to l~revent dust.
Maintain screening from road and adjacent properties. These items are addressed by the
supplementary regulations.
StaffRecommendation: Amend the Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Section 3.0 DEFINITIONS:
Stable, Commercial: A' building, or. group of buildings, or use of land. or t~nv combination
thereof, where, for compensation, whether monetary or goods, -----'- .... e'~ .... '-':- -
prc, v'[dcd '~;Sth nrovision is made for more than ten horses or nonies for hire, .. _ -' .. ~' ~
thc. ir hc, raca an&' c,r lcaac, n3 instruction in riding, or for boardin~ when the homes or ponies are
also used for hire or instruction.
Add to RURAL AREAS DISTRICT. RA. BY RIGHT:
Section 10.2.1.20 Commercial stable (reference 5.1.3).
Delete from RURAL AREAS DISTRICT. RA, BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT:
Section 10.2.2:16 Commercial stable (reference 5.1.3).
2
Amend the SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS:
Section 5.1.3 COMMERCIAL STABLE
a. Riding nngs and other riding surfaces shall be covered and maintained
with a material a-ac~, aa pine Bark to minimize dust and erosion;
Fencing and other means of animal confinement shall be maintained at all
times;
A site plan shall be required, unless waived in accordance with Section
32.2.2,
A commercial stable buildine or indoor ridine rine shall be considered a
primary_ use for sethack/vard determination. An oh.tdoor riding ring and
parking area shall meet front yard requirements for a primary use, shall
not be located closer than 50 feet from any adjoining prfiperty not trader
the same ownership, and shall be screened with existing or new
landsca_ning if determined necessary_ to serve the public interest.
If the proposed facility_ is located on a private road. the site plan shall not
be approved until plans for upgrade of the road to meet anticipated
increased traffic have been approved, and a maintenance agreement has
been submitted which reflects the proposed use of the property_ for a
commercial stable, lnthe event ora waiver ofsite plan requirements, the
aforementioned shall be a condition of the waiver approval,
f. No events or shows soliciting the general public shall be allowed,
I:\General\ShareXAscala~ZTA05 b.frm
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD of SUPERVISORS:
MARY JOY SCALA
AUGUST 29, 1995 (DEFERRED
FROM AUGUST 1, 1995)
OCTOBER 11, 1995
ZTA-95-05 COMMERCIAL STABLES (Amended August 29, 1995)
' Attached are seven letters received from the public regarding this proposed amendment. At its
meeting on August 1, 1995, the Planning Commission asked that the supplementary regulations
be changed to reflect comments made at that meeting. The following Planning Commission
concerns have been addressed:
1. Include setback requirements for outdoor riding ring. Address screening.
See proposed supplementary regulation "d."
2. Address spectators.
See "f."
StaffRecommendation: Amend the Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Section 3.0 DEFINITIONS:
Stable, Commercial: A building, or group of buildings, and/or use of land where, for
compensation, members of the public are provided with horses or ponies for hire,
accommodations for their horses or ponies and/or lessons in riding.
Add to RURAL AREAS DISTRICT. RA. BY RIGHT:
Section 10.2.1.20 Commercial stable (reference 5.1.3).
Delete from RURAL AREAS DISTRICT. RA. BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT:
Section 10.2.2.16 Commercial stable (reference 5.1.3).
Add to SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS:
Section 5.1.3 COMMERCIAL STABLE
a. Riding tings and other riding surfaces shall be covered and maintained
with a material such as pine bark to minimize dust and erosion;
b. Fencing and other means of animal confinement shall be maintained at all
times;
A site plan shall be required, unless waived in accordance with Section
32.2.2.
do
eo
I ATTACHFtENT A I
IPage 2J
A commercial stable building or indoor riding ring shall be considered a
primary use for setback determination. An outdoor riding ring and
parking area shall meet front yard setbacks for a pnmary use, shall not be
located closer than 50 feet from any adjoining property not under the same
ownerskip, and shall be screened with existing or new landscaping if
determined necessary to serve the public interest.
If the proposed facility is located on a private road, the site plan shall not
be approved until plans for upgrade of the road to meet anticipated
increased traffic have been approved, and a maintenance agreement has
been submitted which reflects the proposed use of the property for a
commercial stable. In the event of a waiver of site ,plan requirements, the
aforementioned shall be a condition of the waiver approval.
This use does not constitute a horse show grounds.
C:\ScalakZTA05a.frm
2
STAFF PERSON:
ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD of SUPERVISORS:
MARY JOY SCALA
JULY 24, 1995
AUGUST 1, 1995
AUGUST 16, 1995
IPagelI
ZTA-95-05 COMMERCIAL STABLES
Origin: Board of Supervisors resolution on June 14, 1995.
Public Purpose to be Served: To encourage and support the preservation of agricnltural lands
and activities in the Rural Area through provision of commercial stables, ·
Proposal: To amend Section 10.0, Rural Areas District, RA, of the Zoning O~dinance, to permit
commercial stables by right, and to include all necessary supplementary regulations related
thereto.
Background: The 1992 U.S. Census of Agriculture reported that Albemarle ranl~ed first in the
· state in sale~ of horses, and third in the state in number of horses, following Loudoun and
Fauquier Counties. The regulations of those two counties related to commercial stables are
discussed below.
Staff has received two specific requests for commercial stables to be permitted by right.
Commercial stables are currently permitted by special j~se permit in the Rural Areas, RA District·
Stabte. Commercial is defined as, "A building or group of buildings where, for compensation,
members of the public are provided with horses for hire, accommodations for their horses and/or
lessons in tiding." Current supplementary regulations (5.1.3) are: a. Riding tings and other
riding surfaces shall be covered and maintained with a material such as pine bark to minimize
dust and erosion; and b. Fencing and other means of animal confmement shall be maintained at
all times.
Some related zoning provisions are:
Horse show ~,rotmds. permanent are currently permitted by special use permit in the Rural Areas,
RA District. Horse shows m~y also qualify as a Temporary event sponsored by local nonprofil
organizations, which is permitted by special use permit in Rural Areas, RA District. No changes,
are proposed to these provisions.
' The RA District provides for three general categories of commercial/service uses:
agricnltural/forestal uses, tourism uses, and basic support uses. A commercial stable is ~'
considered an agricultural use, and is only permitted in the RA District.
Since 1980 there have been six requests for commercial stables by special use permit. All
applications were approved with conditions, except one which was withdrawn after zoning
determined that a permit was not required.
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan gives highest priority to the preservation of
agricultural and forestal activities in the Rural Area. It states, "For agricultural and forestal
resources to be successfully preserved from a land use standpoint, they must be successful as a
business/industry." (p.55)
The Comprehensive Plan is silent on commercial uses in general in the Rural Area because
co~muercial land use designations are confined to the Growth Areas..As part of the Plan review,
Rural Area Standards are now being written which will discuss limited commercial uses
appropriate to the Rural Area. In the past, staff has noted a lack of policy guidelines m use when
reviewing support uses in the RA District.
Discussion: The advantages of this proposed use are:
It is appropriately located in the Rural Area;
It would support the local horse industry;
It would encourage the agricultural use of land;
It would provide a benefit to residents by providing riding and boarding facilities; and,
· It would promote tourism.
Disadvantages are:
There is potential for conflicts with residential development in the Rural Area;
It may cause an increase of traffic on rural roads.
The Agricultural and Forestal Districts Advisory Committee at its meeting on March 6, 1995,
discussed the idea of permitting commercial stables by right, and expressed some reservations.
(Those minutes are Attachment #1.) The Agricultural and Forestal Districts Advisory
Committee reviewed ZTA-95-05 on July 24, 1995. The committee was in favor of allowing
commercial stables by right. (Those minutes will be mailed under separate cover.)
Loudoun County permits Equestrian facility by right in A-25 or A-50 Districts. Lots must be
minimum 50 acres, and the facility must be located on a state maintained road. Loudoun defines
Equestrian facility as having more than 20 boarding horses, and three or more active riding
instructors.
Fauquier County permits Equestrian facilities, boarding and instruction, non-spectator, by right
in RA, and by special use permit in RC, RR-2, V, and R-1 Districts. Their supplementary
regulations include: No facilities or activities intended for spectators allowed; 5 acre minimum
lot size; no structure associated with a riding or boarding stable or indoor tiding facility~located
closer than 100 feet to any lot line.
The recommended supplementary regulations state that a site plan is required unless it is waived.
A fee of $215 is charged for a site plan waiver.
Our current parking requirement for Commercial stable is one space per three animals.
CtaffRecommendafion: Amend the Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Add to RURAL AREAS DISTRICT. RA, BY RIGHT:
Section 10.2.1.20 Commercial stable (reference 5.1.3).
Delete from RURAL AREAS DISTRICT. RA, BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT:
Section 10.2.2.16 Commercial stable (reference 5.1.3 ).
Add to SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS:
Section 5.t.3 COMMERCIAL STABLE
a. Riding rmgs and other riding surfaces shall be covetred and. maintained
with a material such as pine bark to minimize dust and erosion;
b.
Fencing and other means of animal confinement shall be maintained at all
times;
A site plan shall be required, unless waived in accordance with Section
32.2.2.
A commercial stable or indoor riding ring shall be considered a primary
use for setback determination. No parking space shall be located closer
than 10 feet to any public or private street right-of-way;
If the proposed facility is locate~l on a private road, the site plan shall nnt
be approved until plans for upgrade of the road to meet anticipated
increased traffic have been approved, and a maintenance agreement has
been submitted which reflects the proposed use of the property for a
commercial stable. In the event of a waiver of site plan requirements, the
aforementioned shall be a condition of the waiver approval.
. C:\Scala\ZTA05.frm
ATTACHMENT
IPage41
rI
.g
The Pennsylvania State University
College of Agr/culmral Sciences
Department of Agricultural Economics
and Rural Sociology ~
Final Report
on
PDA Contract No. ME449219
Pennsylvania Horse Industry Profile
January31. 1993
Presented By:
Cathy A. Hamlett. Assistant Professor, Agricultural Economms and Rural Sociology
Kelly M. Smith-Wells. Research Technologist, Health and Human Development ~-
C. A. Hamlett. Project Leader
Dept. of Agricultural Economics
and Rural Sociology
~E~R~LE ,HINOR & RS$8C. TE~:80~-g7z-7559
Sep 19,95
11:85
'1 ' I'i . ~,4
P .0!
[',
Christie Bolender
Alta Mira Farm
Keswick, ~ VA
Oct 8, 1995
so^" su so s{
To t~e Board of Supervisors:
As indicated in the original communications with regard to the 'By Right'
movement for "commercial" stables, we are seeking to acquire the same kind
of status that all of the other sectors of agr/culture enjoy in Albemarle CouxzW.
What is the purpose of Iimiting income or imposing the commercial use
criteria ozz horse farms that serve to promote health and recreation to the
occupants of Albemarle County.7 How many counties in Virginia, which are
blessed with such a large segment of the industry as is Albemarle are issuing
regulations ro restrict horse farm owners, or in the alternative, require horse
farm owners to produce expensive site plan documentation, and pursue time-
involved hearings to operate? THIS IS ALBI~MARLE COLrN3~,~ Pride and
reputation of this area has encouraged growth in the horse industry and all
other attending vocations. Hay growers, grain producers, veterinarians,
farriers and blacksmiths, trainers, grooms, tack makers, and instructors of
every aspect of equestrian pursuits abound in Albemarle County! I feet that
the county needs to consider the needs of the horse industry before issuing
further regulations.
Respectfully Yours,
Ruth Dalsky
Keswick, Va
804-295-4557
a Or SOa, 1
Oct 9- 1995
To the Board of Supervisors:
This letter is in response to the Sept. 19th passing of the 'new' zoning regulations for
horse farms in Virginia to be discussed at the meeting on Oct 11. Having attended both
zoning meetings in which the regulations were drafted, what has become apparent to me
is that the County of Albemarle is unfamiliar with the needs of the horse industry in t/als
area. With alt due respect, I believe that the zoning officers were trying to be fair;
however, I am not convinced that the new wording of the current ordinance is in the best
interest of the horse community. I find a few points ambiguous, and I am not sure what
kind of financial impact that limiting the number to 'ken" horses will have on the
industry. It was obvious at the meetings that the county felt pressure from a few home
owners who have complained about the horse farms which are interfering with their
sub-division bliss. However, both of the farms that have drawn complaints in the last two
years have been in existence for years upholding the long tradition of horse farms in
Albemarle County.
I sincerely hope that the Board of Supervisors will do more research into the needs of
the horse community before passing the current wording of the new ordinance. The horse
community has already felt the pressures of encroaching development and the financial
hardships associated with limits on the industry. Albemarle County is one the most
respected horse communities in the country; and hence, has attracted some of the world's
finest equestrians and trainers. I hope to see this tradition continue!
Bmokhill Farm
2163 Scottsville Rd.
Charlottesville. Va. 22902
3 October, 1995
Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County Office Building
401 Mclntire Rd.
Charlottesville. Va. 22901
Dear Board of Supervisor member.
Due to the fact that I might be out of state during the Board of Supervisor meeting which
is to be held 11 October 1995. this letter is written to express my concerns about the Commercial
Stables proposal passed on to the Board by the Planning Commission, Some of the points which
I wish to stress are:
a.) Horses are a ma~.k0_r industry in every state, deserving of respect ~and attention_.
According to an American Horse Council study, there are approximately 5.25 million
economically productive equines in the United States. The horse industry makes $15.2 billion in
contribution to the agricultural sector of the U.S. Gross National Project through the purchase of
horses, feed. veterinary care and other products and services.
b.) The equinecommunit¥ is important to maintaining op. en space and aesth_eti_c benefits.
tn a state with many areas of rapid urbanization, maintaining open space through private
activities is vital. To quote a study done by the equine community in Pennsylvania. "Horses are
generally close to the people who own them which means that urbanization tends to bring more
equine, and these equine help the area cIing to open fields and aesthetically appealing settings."
c.) The equine community contributesgreatly to recreatio~n and travel. Opportunities for
recreation include riding trails, 4-H programs, therapeutic riding for the handicapped, local
shows, horse racing, polo and countless other recreational outlets.
According to some preliminary data from a study on the equine industry in Albemarle
County, there are approximately 5000 horses in this area. Albemarle places among the top three
equine counties in The Commonwealth of Virginia. Equine expenditures average $2,882 per
horse tSee attached data sheet). Five thousand homes times the average expenditure of $2.882
per horse equals over 14 million dollars spent by the equine community per year. This does not
include the money that is brought in by FoxEeld Races. The equine business is big business.
Care needs to be taken to encourage the industry.
The future of the industry rests upon the young riders taking instruction today. From this
pool. numbers will elect to go on in the horse industry, l'he generation of this interest is
imperative for the future of the industry, and in mm. the preservation of open and aesthetically
appealing space. Much of our present open space in Albemarle County is owned by people who
are 55 years of age or older. Over the next fifteen to twenty years thousands of acres in
Albemarle will change hands. Open space and its traditional uses and enjoyment in this county
are threatened. It is important to encourage the next generation of horse owners for the
preservation of open space.
To require a commercial license could have a negative impact on mmntaining a stable for
instruction. Taxing gross receipts places a burden on tiding instmctors. Although the gross
receipts could be high, the overhead is so great that the margin of profit is small. If instructors
go out of the business, what will happen to the pool of potential horse owners of the furore?
When you look at other agricultural practice in the county, how many other livestock
owners have to have a site plan? Fencing is taken care of with your concern for liability if an
animal should get our. The road issue is raised because of one stable in the county. Should that
one problem impact on the rest ora large industry? To require special permits for horse shows,
events, polo, etc. creates problems for the industry and for policing the regulations. When a hunt
club or 4-H group wants to have a show, how does that hurt the commumty? How does it differ
from a softball game or other gporting activity? Regulations! Regulations!
At present, a $100,000 study is underway in Virginia to gather data on the economics of
the horse industry, information will be broken down county by county. These data could be
useful to local politicians deliberating on zoning regulations. It is unfortunate when a few
neighbors near two farms out of the entire horse community can push issues that will impact so
greatly in the horse industry.
In closing, I would like to support the staff of the planning department and commissioner
Imhoffto have commercial stables by tight. I would, however, like to encourage the board to
wait to develop stipulations for commercial stables until the Virginia Equine Study is completed
in January. These data should help decision makers deliberate in an ~nformed manner.
Sincerely, ~
Charles W. Beegle
Equine expenditures average per equine 1990
Feed 465.00
Bedding 83.00
Grooming Supplies 34.00
Tack 93.00
Boarding of Equine 113.00
Equipment 402.00
Purchases of Equine 299.00
Farrier 94.00
Breeding Fees 87.00
Health 112.00
Training Fees 143.00
Professional Fees 30.00
Hired Labor 230.00
Capital Improvements 266.00
Utilities 48.00
Rent/Lease 28.00
Insurance 57.00
Taxes 93.00
Equine Transportation 44.00
Human Travel and Lodging 53.00
Sales and Promotion 28.00
Stakes 36.00
Miscellaneous 43.00
Total 2.882.00
Hay consumed per horse per year 1.6 T
Different Counties in Pennsylvania averaged value of horse per head from $L380 to $7,550
(From the Pennsylvania Home Industry Profile)
,~! aI. regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
Count .Virginia, held on the llth day of October, 1995, at the time and
place e~tablished by such Board for its regular meetings in accordance
with Section 15.1-536 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, at
which th~ following members were present and absent:
PRESENT=
Mr. David P. Bowerman
Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris
Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
Mr. Charles S. Martin
Mr. Walter F. Perkins
Mrs. Sally H. Thomas
ABSENT: None
the following resolution, having been the subject of a public hearing
held in accordance with Section 15.1-227.8 of the Code of Virginia of
1950, as amended, on October 11, 1995, was adopted by the affirmative
roll call vote of a majority of all members 0f the Board of Supervisors,
the ayes and nays being recorded in the minutes of the meeting as shown
below:
MEMBER VOTE
Mr. Martin Aye
Mr. Perkins Aye
Mrs° Thomas Aye
Mr. Bowerman Aye
Mrs. Numphris Aye
Mr. Marshall Aye
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED
$7,850,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION SCHOOL BONDS
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, SERIES 1995At
TO BE SOLD TO THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY
AND PROVIDING FOR THE FORM AND DETAILS THEREOF.
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia (the "County"), has determined that it is necessary
and expedient to borrow not to exceed $7,850,000 and to issue its
general obligation school bonds for the purpose of financing certain
capital projects for school purposes; and
WHEREAS, the County held a public hearing, duly noticed, on October
11, 1995, on the issuance of the Bonds (as defined below) in accordance
with the requirements of Section 15.1-227.8.A, Code of Virginia 1950, as
amended (the "Virginia Code"); and
WHEREAS, the School Board of the County has, by resolution,
requested the Board to authorize the issuance of the Bonds (as
hereinafter defined) and, consented to the issuance of the Bonds;
(Page 1)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
1. Authorization of Bonds and Use of Proceeds. The Board hereby
determines that it is advisable to contract a debt and issue and sell
its general obligation school bonds in an aggregate principal amount not
to exceed $7,850,000 (the "Bonds") for the purpose of financing certain
capital projects for school purposes. The Board hereby authorizes the
issuance and sale of the Bonds in the form and upon the terms
established pursuant to this Resolution.
2. Sale of the Bonds. It is determined to be in the best interest
of the County to accept the offer of the Virginia Public School
Authority (the "VPSA") to purchase from the County, and to sell to the
VPSA, the Bonds at par upon the terms established pursuant to this
Resolution. The Chairman of the Board, the County Executive and such
officer or officers of the County as either may designate are hereby
authorized and directed to enter into a Bond Sale Agreement dated as of
October 17, 1995, with the VPSA providing for the sale of the Bonds to
the VPSA in substantially the form submitted to the Board at this
meeting, which form is hereby approved (the "Bond Sale Agreement") with
such completions, omissions, insertions and changes not inconsistent
with this Resolution as the Chairman of the Board or the County
Executive may consider appropriate. The Chairman of the Board or the
County Executive shall make such completions, omissions, insertions and
changes in the Bond Sale Agreement not inconsistent with this Resolution
as are necessary or desirable, the execution thereof by the Chairman of
the Board or the County Executive to constitute conclusive evidence of
his approval of any such completions, omissions, insertions and changes.
3. Details of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be dated the date of
issuance and delivery of the Bonds; shall be designated "General
Obligation School Bonds, Series 1995A"; shall bear interest from the
date of delivery thereof payable semi-annually on each January 15 and
July 15 beginning July 15, 1996 (each an "Interest Payment Date"), at
the rates established in accordance with Section 4 of this Resolution;
and shall mature on July 15 in the years (each a "Principal Paymen%
Date") and in the amounts set forth on Schedule I attached hereto (the
"Principal Installments"), subject to the provisions of Section 4 of
this Resolution.
4. Interest Rates and Principal Installments. The County Executive
is hereby authorized and directed to accept the interest rates on the
Bonds established by the VPSA, provided that each interest rate shall be
ten one-hundredths of one percent (0.10%) over the interest rate to be
paid by the VPSA for the corresponding principal payment date of the
bonds to be issued by the VPSA (the "VPSA Bonds"), a portion of the
proceeds of which will be used to purchase the Bonds, and provided
further that the true interest cost of the Bonds does not exceed eight
percent (8%) per annum. The Interest Payment Dates and the Principal
Installments are subject to change at the request of the VPSA. The
County Executive is hereby authorized and directed to accept changes in
the Interest Payment Dates and the Principal Installments at the request
of the VPSA, provided that the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds
shall not exceed the amount authorized by this Resolution. The
(Page 2)
execution and delivery of the Bonds as described in Section 8 hereof
shall conclusively evidence such interest rates established by the VPSA
and Interest Payment Dates and the Principal Installments requested by
the VPSA as having been so accepted as authorized by this Resolution.
5. Form of the Bonds. For as long as the VPSA is the registered
owner of the Bonds, the Bonds shall be in the form of a single,
temporary typewritten bond substantially in the form attached hereto as
Exhibit A. On twenty (20) days written notice from the VPSA, the County
shall deliver, at its expense, the Bonds in marketable form in
denominations of $5,000 and whole multiples thereof, as requested by the
VPSA~ in exchange for the temporary typewritten Bond.
6. Payment; Pa¥inq Aqent and Bond Reqistrar.
provisions shall apply to the Bonds:
The following
a. For as long as the VPSA is the registered owner of the Bonds,
all payments of principal, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds
shall be made in immediately available funds to the VPSA at, or before
11:00 a.m. on the applicable Interest Payment Date, Principal Payment
Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption, or if such date is not
a business day for Virginia banks or for the Commonwealth of Virginia,
then at or before 11:00 a.m. on the business day next preceding such
Interest Payment Date, Principal Payment Date or date fixed for
prepayment or redemption.
b. Ail overdue payments of principal and, to the extent permitted
by law, interest shall bear interest at the applicable interest rate or
rates on the Bonds.
c. Crestar Bank, Richmond, Virginia, is designated as Bond Regis-
trar and Paying Agent for the Bonds.
7. Prepayment or RedemDtion. The Principal Installments of the
Bonds held by the VPSA coming due on or before July 15, 2006, and the
definitive Bonds for which the Bonds held by the VPSA may be exchanged
that mature on or before July 15, 2006, are not subject to prepayment o~
redemption prior to their stated maturities. The Principal Installments
of the Bonds held by the VPSA coming due after July 15, 2006, and the
definitive bonds for whick the Bonds held by the VPSA may be exchanged
that mature after July 15, 2006, are subject to prepayment or redemption
at the option of the County prior to their stated maturities in whole or
in part, on any date on or after July 15, 2006, upon payment of the
prepayment or redemption prices (expressed as percentages of Principal
Installments to be prepaid or the principal amount of the Bonds to be
redeemed) set forth below plus accrued interest to the date set for
prepayment or redemption:
Dates Prices
July 15,
July 15,
July 15,
July 15,
2006 to July 14, 2007, inclusive ........... 103%
2007 to July 14, 2008, inclusive ........... 102
2008 to July 14, 2009, inclusive ........... 101
2009 and thereafter ........................ 100
(Page 3)
Provided, however, that the Bonds shall not be subject to
prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities as described
above without first obtaining the written consent of the registered
owner of the Bonds. Notice of any such prepayment or redemption shall
be given by the Bond Registrar to the registered owner by registered
mail not more than ninety (90) and not less than sixty (60) days before
the date fixed for prepayment or redemption.
8. Execution of the Bonds. The Chairman or Vice Chairman and the
Clerk or any Deputy Clerk of the Board are authorized and directed to
execute and deliver the Bonds and to affix the seal of the County
thereto.
9. Pledqe of Full Faith and Credit. For the prompt payment of the
principal of and premium, if any, and the interest on the Bonds as the
same shall become due, the full faith and credit of the County are
hereby irrevocably pledged, and in each year while any of the Bonds
shall be outstanding there shall be levied and collected in accordance
with law an annual ad valorem tax upon all taxable property in the
County subject to local taxation sufficient in amount to provide for the
payment of the principal of and premium, if any, and the interest on the
Bonds as such principal, premium, if any, and interest shall become due,
which tax shall be without limitation as to rate or amount and in
addition to all other taxes authorized to be levied in the County to the
extent other funds of the County are not lawfully available and
appropriated for such purpose.
10. Use of Proceeds Certificate and Certificate as to Arbitraqe.
The Chairman of the Board, the County Executive and such officer or
officers of the County as either may designate are hereby authorized and
directed to execute a Certificate as to Arbitrage and a Use of Proceeds
Certificate each setting forth the expected use and investment of the
proceeds of the Bonds and containing such covenants as may be necessary
in order to show compliance with the provisions of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), and applicable regulations relat-
ing to the exclusion from gross income of interest on the Bonds and on
the VPSA Bonds. The Board covenants on behalf of the County that (i)-
the proceeds from the issuance and sale of the Bonds will be invested
and expended as set forth in such Certificate as to Arbitrage and such
Use of Proceeds Certificate and that the County shall comply with the
other covenants and representations contained therein and (ii) the
County shall comply with the provisions of the Code so that interest on
the Bonds and on the VPSA Bonds will remain excludable from gross income
for Federal income tax purposes.
11. State Non-Arbitraqe Proqram; Proceeds Aqreement. The Board
hereby determines that it is in the best interests of the County to
authorize and direct the County's Director of Finance to participate in
the State Non-Arbitrage Program in connection with the Bonds. The
Chairman of the Board, the County Executive and such officer or officers
of the County as either may designate are hereby authorized and directed
to execute and deliver a Proceeds Agreement with respect to the deposit
and investment of proceeds of the Bonds by and among the County, the
(Page 4)
other participants in the sale of the VPSA Bonds, the VPSA, the
investment manager and the depository, substantially in the form
submitted to the Board at this meeting, which form is hereby approved.
12. Continuing Disclosure Agreement. The Chairman of the Board,
the County Executive and such officer or officers of the County as
either may designate are hereby authorized and directed to execute a
Continuing Disclosure Agreement, as set forth in Appendix F to the Bond
Sale Agreement, setting forth the reports and notices to be filed by the
County and containing such covenants as may be necessary in order to
show compliance with the provisions of the Securities and Exchange
Commission Rule 15c2-12, with such completions, omissions, insertions
and changes not inconsistent with this Resolution as the Chairman of the
Board or the County Executive may consider appropriate. The Chairman of
the Board or the County Executive shall make such completions,
omissions, insertions and changes in the Continuing Disclosure Agreement
not inconsistent with this Resolution as are necessary or desirable, the
execution thereof by the Chairman of the Board or the County Executive
~o constitute conclusive evidence of his approval of any such
completions, omissions, insertions and changes.
13. Filing of Resolution. The appropriate officers or agents of
the County are hereby authorized and directed to cause a certified copy
of this Resolution to be filed with the Circuit Court of the County.
14. Further Aotions. The members of the Board and all officers,
employees and agents of the County are hereby authorized to take such
action as they or any one of them may consider necessary or desirable in
connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds and any such action
previously taken is hereby ratified and confirmed.
15. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immedi-
ately.
The undersigned Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of'
Albemarle, Virginia, hereby certifies that the foregoing constitutes a
true and correct extract from the minutes of a meeting of the Board of
Supervisors held on October 11, 1995, and of the whole thereof so far as
applicable to the matters referred to in such extract. I hereby further
certify that such meeting was a regularly scheduled meeting and that,
during the consideration of the foregoing resolution, a quorum was
present.
WIT~EBS MY HAND and the seal of the Board of Supervisors of
County of Albemarle, Virginia, this 17th day of October, 1995.
~e~'Boa~d of Sup~.~vlsors of
the County of Albe~rle, Virginia
the
[S~L]
(Page 5)
EXHIBIT A
(FORM OF TEMPORARY BOND)
NO. TR-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
General obligation School Bond
series 1995A
The COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (the "County"), for value
received, hereby acknowledges itself indebted and promises to pay to the
VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY the principal amount of
DOLLARS ($ ), in annual installments in the amounts set forth
on Schedule I attached hereto payable on July 15, 1996 and annually on
July 15 thereafter to and including July 15, 2015 (each a "Principal
Payment Date"), together with interest from the date of this Bond on the
unpaid installments, payable semi-annually on January 15 and July 15 of
each year, commencing on July 15, 1996 (each an "Interest Payment Date";
together with any Principal Payment Date, a "Payment Date"), at the
rates per annum set forth on Schedule I attached hereto, subject to
prepayment or redemption as hereinafter provided. Both principal of and
interest on this Bond are payable in lawful money of the United States
of America.
For as long as the Virginia Public School Authority is the
registered owner of this Bond, , as bond registrar (the
"Bond Registrar"), shall make all payments of principal, premium, if
any, and interest on this Bond, without the presentation or surrender
hereof, to the Virginia Public School Authority, in immediately
available funds at or before 11:00 a.m. on the applicable Payment Date
or date fixed for prepayment or redemption. If a Payment Date or date
fixed for prepayment or redemption is not a business day for banks in
the Commonwealth of Virginia or for the Commonwealth of Virginia, then
the payment of principal, premium, if any, or interest on this Bond
shall be made in immediately available funds at or before 11:00 a.m. on
the business day next preceding the scheduled Payment Date or date fixed
for prepayment or redemption. Upon receipt by the registered owner of
this Bond of said payments of principal, premium, if any, and interest,
written acknowledgment of the receipt thereof shall be given promptly to
the Bond Registrar, and the County shall be fully discharged of its
obligation on this Bond to the extent of the payment so made. Upon
final payment, this Bond shall be surrendered to the Bond Registrar for
cancellation.
(Page 6)
The full faith and credit of the County are irrevocably pledged for
the payment of the principal of and the premium, if any, and interest on
this Bond. The resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors
authorizing the issuance of the Bonds provides, and Section 15.1-227.25
of the Code of Virginia 1950, as amended, requires, that there shall be
levied and collected an annual tax upon all taxable property in the
County subject to local taxation sufficient to provide for the payment
of the principal, premium, if any, and interest on this Bond as the same
shall become due which tax shall be without limitation as to rate or
amount and shall be in addition to all other taxes authorized to be
levied in the County to the extent other funds of the County are not
lawfully available and appropriated for such purpose.
This Bond is duly authorized and issued in compliance with and
pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia,
including the Public Finance Act of 199I, Chapter 5.1, Title 15.1, Code
of Virginia 1950, as amended, and resolutiOns duly adopted by the Board
of County Supervisors of the County and the School Board of the County
to provide funds for capital projects for school purposes.
This Bond may be exchanged without cost at the office of the Bond
Registrar for an equal aggregate principal amount of bonds in definitive
form having maturities and bearing interest at rates corresponding to
the maturities of and the interest rates on the installments of
principal of this Bond then unpaid, issuable in fully registered form in
denominations of $5,000 and whole multiples thereof. On twenty (20)
days written notice from the Virginia Public School Authority, the
County shall deliver, at its expense, this Bond in marketable form, in
exchange for the temporary typewritten Bond.
This Bond is registered in the name of the Virginia Public School
Authority on the books of the County kept by the Bond Registrar, and the
transfer of this Bond may be effected by the registered owner of this
Bond only upon due execution of an assignment by such registered owner.
Upon receipt of such assignment and the surrender of this Bond, the Bond
Registrar shall exchange this Bond for definitive Bonds as hereinabove
provided, such definitive Bonds to be registered on such registration-
books in the name of the assignee or assignees named in such assignment.
The principal installments of this Bond coming due on or before
July 15, 2006 and the definitive Bonds for which this Bond may be
exchanged that mature on or before July 15, 2006, are not subject to
prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities. The
principal installments of this Bond coming due after July 15, 2006, and
the definitive Bonds for which this Bond may be exchanged that mature
after July 15~ 2006, are subject to prepayment or redemption at the
option of the County prior to their stated maturities in whole or in
part, on any date on or after July 15, 2006, upon payment of the
prepayment or redemption prices (expressed as percentages of principal
installments to be prepaid or the principal amount of the Bonds to be
redeemed) set forth below plus accrued interest to the date set for
prepayment or redemption:
(Page 7)
Dates Prices
July 15, 2006 to July 14, 2007, inclusive .......... 103%
July 15, 2007 to July 14, 2008, inclusive .......... 102
July 15, 2008 to July 14, 2009, inclusive .......... 101
July 15, 2009 and thereafter ....................... 100;
Provided, however, that the Bonds shall not be subject to
prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities as described
above without the prior written consent of the registered owner of the
Bonds. Notice of any such prepayment or redemption shall be given by
the Bond Registrar to the registered owner by registered mail not more
than ninety (90) and not less than sixty (60) days before the date fixed
for prepayment or redemption.
Ail acts, conditions and things required by the Constitution and
laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia to happen, exist or be performed
precedent to and in the issuance of this Bond have happened, exist and
have been performed in due time, form and manner as so required, and
this Bond, together with all other indebtedness of the County, is within
every debt and other limit prescribed by the Constitution and laws of
the Commonwealth of Virginia.
IN WITNESS W~EREOF, the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, has caused this Bond to be issued in the name of
the County of Albemarle, Virginia, to be signed by its Chairman or
Vice-Chairman, its seal to be affixed hereto and attested by the
signature of its Clerk or any of its Deputy Clerks, and this Bond to be
dated , 1995.
ATTEST:
Clerk, Board of
Supervisors of the County
Albemarle, Virginia
(SEAL)
of
Chairman, Board of
Supervisors of the
Albemarle, Virginia
County of-
(Page 8)
ASSIGNMENT
FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned sells, assigns and transfers
unto
(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF
ASSIGNEE)
PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER
IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE:
the within Bond and irrevocably constitutes and appoints
attorney to exchange
said Bond for definitive bonds in lieu of which this Bond is issued and
to register the transfer of such definitive bonds on the books kept for
registration thereof, with full power of substitution in the premises.
Date:
Signature Guaranteed:
(NOTICE: Signature(s) must be
guaranteed by a member firm of
the New York Stock Exchange or
a commercial bank or trust
company.)
Registered Owner
(NOTICE: The signature above
must correspond with the name
of the Registered Owner as it
appears on the front of this
Bond in every particular,
without alteration or change.)
(Page 9)
Box 9030 Chadoll'esville, Vl~rginia 22906 Telephone: 804/978-7200
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLICATION
CI~TY/COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
I, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE ATTACHED NOTICE WAS PUBLISHED IN
" THE DAILY PROGRESS ", A NEWSPAPER IN CHARLOTTESVILLE,
yIRGINIA, AND APPEARED IN THE ISSUE(S)
GIVEN UNDER MY HAND THIS ~ DAY OF
DATED
DANA S. HUBBARD/ CLASSIFIED SUPERVISOR
PUBLIC NOTICE
...~'~e pubic[ hearing wi oe
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SUP RWSO _ S
AGENDA TfI.'LE:
VPSA Bond Resolution
SUBJECT/PROPOSAI.fREQUEST:
Request Board approval of Resolution authorizing the issuance
of $7,850~000 in VPSA Bonds
AGENDA DATE:
October 11, 1995
ACTION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACT(SI:
Messrs. Tucker, Huff,, Brceden
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY: ~
!
BACKGROUND:
The FY 1995/96 Cap'~al lraprovement Budget was approved with the intent to issue approxLmately $7,850,000 m bonds through the Virgima
Public School Authority (VPSA) for school projects. (Projecl list is attached.)
DISCUSSION:
Resolutions authorizing application to VPSA were approved by the School Board on September I 1, 1995 mad by the Board of Supervtsors on
September 13, 1995. This application was approved by VPSA on September 18, 1995. Attached for your information is a pro. lo:ted payment
schedule based on the estimated effective interest rate of 5.46%. ha order to proceed with this process, a public hearing is scheduled for 10:30
a.m. on October 11, t995. In addi6on, the attached R. esotution will require your approval on the same date. A final version of the Resolution
will be completed by bond counsel after your action end returned for certification by the Clerk to the Board. Also, for your information, I have
enclosed a schedule of events necessary m complete the bond issue.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the resolution to proceed with tiffs project end to meet the bond issuance guidelines.
95.171
LU
LU
Albemarle County
Non-Subsidized Local School Bond
Principal Rate Interest Total
Fiscal
Total
7/15/96
1/15/97
7/15/97
1/15/98
7/15/98
1/15/99
7/15/99
1/15/00
7/15/00
1/15/01
7/15/01
t/15/02
7/15/02
1/! 5/03
7/15/03
I/15/04
7/15/04
1/15/05
7/15/05
1/15/06
7/15/06
1/15/07
7/15/07
1/15/08
7/15/08
1/15/09
7/15/09
1/15/10
7/15/'10
1/15/11
7/15/11
1/15/12
7/1 5/12
1/15/13
711 5/13
1/15/14
7/15/14
"/1 5/15
7/15/15
1/15116
7/15116
Totals
$395.000 5.200%
0
395.000 5.200%
0
395.000 5.200%
0
395 000 5.200%
0
395 000 5.200%
0
395.000 5.200%
0
395.000 5~200%
0
395.000 5.200%
0
395,000 5.200%
0
395.000 5.200%
0
390.000 5.200%
0
390.300 5.250%
0
390.000 5.350%
0
390.000 5.450%
0
390.000 5.550%
0
390,000 5.650%
0
390.000 5.700%
0
390.000 5.750%
0
390.000 5.750%
0
390.000 5.750%
0
$7.850.000
$247,022.39
200,460.00
200.460.00
190.190.00
190.190.00
179 920.00
179 92O.OO
169 650.00
169 650.00
159 38O.OO
159 380.00
149 I10.00
149 110.00
138 840.00
138 840.00
128,570.00
128.570.00
118.300.00
118 300.00
108 330.00
108 030.00
97.890.00
97.890.00
87,852.50
87.652.50
77.220.00
77.220.00
66,592.50
66.592.50
55.770.00
55.770.00
44,752.50
44.752.50
33.637.50
33.637.50
22.425.00
22.425.00
11,212.50
11.212,50
0.00
8642.022.39
200 460.00
595 460.00
190 190.00
585 t90.00
179 920.00
574 920.00
169 650.00
564.650.00
159.380.00
554.380.00
149.110.00
544.110.00
t38.840.00
533.840.00
128.570.00
523 570.00
118 300.00
513.300.00
108.030.00
498330.00
97890.00
487 890.00
87,652.50
477.352.50
77.220.00
467.220.00
66.592.50
456.592.50
55.770.00
445.770.00
44,752.50
434_752.50
33,637.50
423,637.50
22.425.00
412.425.00
11.212.50
401,212.50
0.00
842 482.39
785.850.00
765 110.00
744 570.00
724.030.00
703.490.00
682.950.00
662¢10.00
841.870.00
621.330.00
595.920.00
575.542.50
554.872.50
533.812.50
512.362.50
490.522~50
468.390.00
446.062.50
423.637.50
401,212.50
$4.326.227.39 $12.176.227.39
Dated Date 17./14198 Effective Rate 5.45543352%
RI PF
t:\vpsa\albem\fal195\bondreso.001
10/02/95
At a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, held on the llth day of October, 1995, at the
time and place established by such Board for its regular meetings
in accordance with Section 15.1-536 of the Code of Virginia of
1950, as amended, at which the following members were present and
absent:
the following resolution, having been the subject of a public
hearing held in accordance with Section 15.1-227.8 of the Code of
Virginia of 1950, as amended, on October 11, 1995, was adopted by
the affirmative roll call vote of a majority of all members of the
Board of Supervisors, the ayes and nays being recorded in the
minutes of the meeting as shown below:
mEMBER VOTE
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED
$7,850,000 GENEP~L OBLIGATION SCHOOL BONDS
OF THB COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, SERIES 1995A,
TO BE SOLD TO THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY
AND PROVIDING FOR THE FORM AND DETAILS THEREOF.
WHERF~, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of the County
of Albemarle, Virginia (the "County"), has determined that it is
necessary and expedient to borrow not to exceed $7,850,000 and to
issue its general obligation school bonds for the purpose of
financing certain capital projects for school purposes; and
WHERe, the County held a public hearing, duly noticed, on
October 11, 1995, on the issuance of the Bonds (as defined below)
in accordance with the requirements of Section 15.1-227.8.A, Code
of Virginia 1950, as amended (the "Virginia Code"); and
WHEREAS, the School Board of the County has, by resolution,
requested the -Board '-to~ authorize the issuance of the Bonds (as
hereinafter defined) and, consented to the issuance of the Bonds;
NOW~ THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
1. Authorization of Bonds and Use of Proceeds. The Board
hereby determines that it is advisable to contract a debt and issue
and sell its general obligation school bonds in an aggregate
principal amount not to exceed $7,850,000 (the "Bonds") for the
purpose of financing certain capital projects for school purposes.
The Board hereby authorizes the issuance and sale of the Bonds in
the form and upon the terms established pursuant to this
Resolution.
2. Sale of the Bonds. It is determined to be in the best
interest of theCounty to accept the offer of the Virginia Public
School Authority (the "VPSA") to purchase from the County, and to
sell to the VPSA, the Bonds at par upon the terms established
pursuant to this Resolution. The Chairman of the Board, the County
Executive and suchofficer or officers of 'the County as either may
designate are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a Bond
Sale Agreement dated as of October 17, 1995, with the VPSA
providing for the sale of the Bonds to the VPSA in substantially
the form submitted to the Board at this meeting, which form is
hereby approved (the "Bond Sale Agreement") with such completions,
omissions, insertions and changes not inconsistent with this
Resolution as the Chairman of the Board or the County Executive may
consider appropriate. The Chairman of the Board or the County
Executive shall make such completions, omissions, insertions and
changes in the Bond-Sale Agreement not inconsistent with this
Resolution as are necessary or desirable, the execution thereof by
the .Chairman of the Board or the County Executive to constitute
conclusive evidence of his approval of any such completions,
omissions, insertions and changes.
3. Details of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be dated the date
of issuance and delivery of the Bonds; shall be designated "General
Obligation School Bonds, Series 1995A"; shall bear interest from
the date of delivery thereof payable semi-annually on each January
15 and July 15 beginning July 15, 1996 (each an "Interest Payment
Date"), at the rates established in accordance with Section 4 of
this Resolution; and shall mature on July 15 in the years (each a
"Principal Payment Date") and in the amounts set forth on Schedule
I attached .hereto (the "Principal Installments"), subject to the
provisions of Section 4 of this Resolution.
4. Interest Rates and Principal Insta~lmAnts. The County
Executive is hereby authorized and directed to accept the interest
rates ~n the Bonds established by the VPSA, provided that each
interest rate shall be ten one-hundredths of one percent (0.10%)
2
over the interest rate to be paid by the VPSA for the corresponding
principal payment date of the bonds to be issued by the VPSA (the
"VPSA Bonde"), a portion of the proceeds of which will be used to
purchase the Bonds, and provided further that the true interest
cost of the Bonds does~not exceed eight percent (8%) per annum.
The Interest Payment Dates and the Principal Installments are
subject to change at the request of the VPSA. The County Executive
is hereby authorized and directed to accept changes in the Interest
Payment Dates and the Principal Installments at the request of the
VPSA, provided that the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds
shall not. exceed the amount authorized by this Resolution. The
execution and delivery of the Bonds as described in Section 8
hereof shall conclusively evidence such interest rates established
by the VPSA and Interest Payment Dates and the Principal
Installments requested by the VPSA as having been so accepted as
authorized by this Resolution.
5. Form of the Bonds. For as long as the VPSA is the
registered owner of the Bonds, the Bonds shall be in the form of a
single, temporary typewritten bond substantially in the form
attached hereto as Exhibit A. On twenty (20) days written notice
from the VPSA, the County shall deliver, at its expense, the Bonds
in marketable form in denominations of $5,000 and whole multiples
thereof, as requested by the VPSA, in exchange for the temporary
typewritten Bond.
6. Pa~ment: Pavina aaent and Bond Re=istrar. The following
provisions shall apply to the Bonds:
a. For as long as the VPSA is the registered owner of the
Bonds, all payments of principal, premium, if any, and interest on
the Bonds shall be made in immediately available funds to the VPSA
at, or before 11:00 a.m. on the applicable Interest Payment Date,
Principal Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption,
or if such date is not a business day for Virginia banks or for the
Commonwealth of Virginia, then at or before 11:00 a.m. on the
business day next preceding such Interest Payment Date,' Principal
Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption.
b. All overdue payments of principal and, to the extent
permitted by law, interest shall bear interest at the applicable
interest rate or rates on the Bonds.
c. Crestar Bank, Richmond, virginia, is designated as Bond
Registrar and Paying Agent for the Bonds.
7. Prepayment or Redemption. The Principal Installments of
the Bond~ held by the VPSA coming due on or before July 1~, 2006,
and the definitive Bonds for which the Bonds held by the VPSA may
be exchanged that mature on or before July 15, 2006, are not
subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated
maturities. The Principal Installments of the Bonds held by the
3
VPSA coming due after July 15, 2006, and the definitive bonds for
which"the Bonds held by the VPSA may be exchanged that mature after
July 15, 2006, are subject to prepayment or redemption at the
option of the County prior to their stated maturities in whole or
in part, on any date on or after July 15, 2006, upon payment of the
prepayment or redemption prices (expressed as percentages of
Principal Installments to be prepaid or the principal amount of the
Bonds to be redeemed) set forth below plus accrued interest to the
date set for prepayment or redemption:
Dates Prices
July 15,
July 15,
July i5,
July 15,
2006 to July 14, 2007, inclusive ........... 103%
2007 to July 14, 2008, inclusive ........... 102
2008 to July 14, 2009, inclusive ........... 101
2009 and thereafter ......................... 100
Provided, however, that the Bonds shall not be subject to
prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities as
described above without first obtaining the written consent oft he
registered owner of the Bonds. Notice of any such prepayment or
redemption shall be given by the Bond Registrar to the registered
owner by registered mail not more than ninety (90) and not less
than sixty (60) days before the date fixed for prepayment or
redemption.
8. Exeoution of .the Bonds. The Chairman or Vice Chairman
and the Clerk or any Deputy Clerk of the Board are authorized and
directed to execute and deliver the Bonds andto affix the seal of
the County thereto.
9. Pledge of Full Paith and Credit. For the prompt payment
of the principal of and premium, if any, and the interest on the
Bonds as the same shall become due, the full faith and credit of
the'County are hereby irrevocably pledged, and in each year while
any of the Bonds shall be outstanding there shall be levied and
collected in accordance with law an annual ad valorem tax upon all
taxable property in the County subject to local taxation sufficient
in amount to provide for the payment of the principal of and
premium, if any, and the interest on the Bonds as such principal,
premium, if any, and interest shall become due, which tax shall be
without limitation as to rate or amount and in addition to all
other taxes authorized to be levied in the county to the extent
other funds of the County are not lawfully available and
appropriated for such purpose.
10. Use of Proceeds Certificate and Certificate as to
Arbitraue. The Chairman of the Board, the County Executive and
such officer or officers of the County as either may designate are
hereby authorized and directed to execute a Certificate as to
Arbitrage and a Use of Proceeds Certificate each setting forth the
expected use and investment of the proceeds of the Bonds and
4
containing such covenants as may be necessary in order to show
compliance with the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended (the "Code"), and applicable regulations relating
to the exclusion from gross income of interest on the Bonds and on
the VPSA Bonds. The Board~covenants on behalf of the County that
(i) the proceeds from the issuance and sale of the Bonds will be
invested and expended as set forth in such Certificate as to
Arbitrage and such Use of Proceeds Certificate and that the County
shall comply with the other covenants and representations contained
therein and (ii) the County shall comply with the provisions of the
Code so that interest on the Bonds and on the VPSA Bonds will
remain excludable from gross income for Federal income tax
purposes.
11. State Non-~rbitra=e Pro=ram: Proceeds Aareement. The
Board hereby determines that it is in the bes= interests of the
County. to authorize and direct the County's Director of Finance to
participate in the State Non-Arbitrage Program in connection with
the Bonds. The Chairman of the Board, the County Executive and
such officer or officers of the County as either may designate are
hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver a Proceeds
Agreement with respect to the.deposit and investment of proceeds of
the Bonds by and among the County, the other participants in the
sale of the VPSA Bonds, the VPSA, the investment manager and the
depository, substantially in the form submitted to the Board at
this meeting, which form is hereby approved.
12. Continuina Disclosure A~reement. The Chairman of the
Board, the County Executive and such officer or officers of the
County as either may designate are hereby authorized and directed
to execute a Continuing Disclosure Agreement, as set forth in
Appendix F to the Bond Sate Agreement, setting forth the reports
and notices to be filed bythe County and containing such covenants
as may be necessaryin order to show compliance with the provisions
of the Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12, with such
completions, omissions, insertions and changes not inconsistent
with this Resolution as the Chairman of the Board or the County
Executive may consider appropriate. The Chairman of the Board or
the County Executive shall make such completions, omissions,
insertions and changes in the Continuing Disclosure Agreement not
inconsistent with this Resolution as are necessary or desirable,
the execution thereof by the Chairman of the Board or the County
Executive to constitute conclusive evidence of his approval of any
such completions, omissions, insertions and changes.
I3. Filina of Resolution. The appropriate officers or agents
of the County are hereby authorized and directed to cause a
certified copy of this Resolution to be filed with theJ Circuit
Court of the County.
14. Fttrther Actions. The members of the Board and all
officers, employees and agents of the County are hereby authorized
5
to take such action as they or any one of them may consider
necessary or desirable in connection with the issuance and sale of
the Bonds and any such action previously taken is hereby ratified
and confirmed.
15. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect
immediately.
The undersigned Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the
County of Albemarle, Virginia, hereby certifies that the foregoing
constitutes a true and correct extract from the minutes of a
meeting of the Board of Supervisors held on October 11, 1995, and
of the whole thereof'so far as applicable to the matters referred
to in such extract. I hereby further certify that such meeting was
a regularly scheduled meeting and that, during the consideration of
the foregoing resolution, a quorum was present.
WITNESB MY H~ND and the seal of the Board of Supervisors of
the County of Albemarle, Virginia, this day of October, 1995.
Clerk, Board of Supervisors of
the County of Albemarle, virginia
[SEAL]
6
EXHIBIT A
(FORM OF TEMPORARY BOND)
NO. TR-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERIC~
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
General Obligation school Bond
Series 1995~
The COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (the "County"), for value
received, hereby acknowledges itself indebted and promises to pay
to the VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY the principal amount of
DOLLARS ($ ), in annual installments in the
amounts set forth on Schedule I attached hereto payable on July 15,
1996 and annually on July 15 thereafter to and including July 15,
2015 (each a "Principal Payment Date"), together with interest from
the date of this Bond on the unpaid installments, payable semi-
annually on January 15 and July 15 of each year, commencing on July
15, 1996 (each an "Interest Payment Date"; together with any
Principal Payment Date, a "Payment Date"), at the rates per annum
set forth on Schedule I attached hereto, subject to prepayment or
redemption as hereinafter provided. Both principal of and interest
on this Bond are payable in lawful money of the United States of
America.
For as long as the Virginia Public School Authority is the
registered owner, of this Bond, , as bond' registrar
(the "Bond Registrar"), shall make all payments of principal,
premium, if any, and interest on this Bond, without the
presentation or surrender hereof, to the Virginia Public School
Authority, in i~mediately available funds at or before i1:00 a.m.
on the applicable Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or
redemption.. If a Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or
redemption is not a business day for banks in the Commonwealth of
Virginia or for the Commonwealth of Virginia, then the payment of
principal, premium, if any, or interest on this Bond shall be made
in immediately available funds at or before 11:00 a.m. on the
business day next preceding the scheduled Payment Date-or date
fixed for prepayment or redemption. Upon receipt by the registered
owner of this Bond of said payments of principal, premium, if any,
and interest, written acknowledgment of the receipt thereof shall
be given promptly to the Bond Registrar, and the County shall be
A-1
fully discharged of its obligation on this Bond to the extent of
the payment so made. Upon final payment, this Bond shall be
surrendered to the Bond Registrar for cancellation.
The full faith and credit of the County are irrevocably
pledged for the payment of the principal of and the premium, if
any, and interest on this Bond. The resolution adopted by the
Board of Supervisors authorizing the issuance of the Bonds
provides, and Section 15.1-227.25 of the Code of Virginia 1950, as
amended, requires, that there shall be levied and collected an
annual tax up.on all taxable property in the County subject to local
taxation sufficient to provide for the payment of the principal,
premium, if any, and interest on this Bond as the same shall become
due which tax shall be without limitation as to rate or amount and
shall be in addition to all other taxes authorized to be levied in
the County to the extent other funds of the County are not lawfully
available and appropriated for such purpose.
This Bond is duly authorized and issued in compliance with and
pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, including the Public Finance Act of 1991, Chapter 5.1,
Title 15.1, Code of Virginia 1950, as amended, and resolutions duly
adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of the Cou/~ty and the
School Board of the County to provide funds for capital projects
for school purposes.
This Bond may be exchanged without cost at the office of the
Bond Registrar for an equal aggregate principal amount of bonds in
definitive form having maturities and bearing interest at rates
corresponding to the maturities of and the interest rates on the
installments of principal of this Bond then unpaid, issuable in
fully registered form in denominations of $5,000 and whole
multiples thereof. On twenty (20) days written notice from the
Virginia Public School Authority, the County shall deliver, at its
expense, this Bond in marketable form, in exchange for the
temporary typewritten Bond.
This Bond is registered in the name of the Virginia Public
School Authority on the books of the County kept by the Bond
Registrar, and the transfer of this Bond may be effected by the
registered owner of this Bond only upon due execution of an
assignment by such registered owner. Upon receipt of such
assignment and the surrender of this Bond, the Bond Registrar shall
exchange this Bond for definitive Bonds as hereinabove provided,
such definitive Bonds to be registered on such registration books
in the name of the assignee or assignees named in such assignment.
The principal installments of this Bond coming due on or
before July 15, 2006 and the definitive Bonds for which this Bond
may be exchanged that mature on or before July 15, 2006, are not
subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated
maturities. The principal installments of this Bond coming due
A-2
after July 15, 2006, and the definitive Bonds for which this Bond
may be exchanged that mature after July 15, 2006, are subject to
prepayment or redemption att-he option of the County prior to their
stated maturities in whole or in part, on any date on or after July
15, 2006, upon payment of the prepayment or redemption prices
(expressed as percentages of principal installments to be prepaid
or the principal amount of the
below plus accrued interest to
redemption:
Dates
July 15, 2006 to July 14~ 2007,
July 15, 2007 to July 14, 2008,
July 15, 2008 to July 14, 2009,
July 15, 2009
Bonds to be redeemed) set forth
the date set for prepayment or
Prices
inclusive .......... 103%
inclusive .......... 102
inclusive ........... 101
and thereafter ....................... 100;
Provided, however, that the Bonds shall not be subject to
prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities .as
described above without the prior written consent of the registered
owner of the Bonds. Notice of any such prepayment or redemption
shall, be given by the Bond Registrar to the registered owner by
registered mail not more than ninety (90) and not less than sixty
(60) days before the date fixed for prepayment or redemption.
Ail acts, conditions and things required by the Constitution
and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia to happen, exist or be
performed precedent to and in the issuance of this Bond have hap-
pened, exist and have been performed in due time, form and manner
as so required, and this Bond, together with all other indebtedness
of the County, is within every debt and other limit prescribed by
the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
INWITNEBS WHEREOF, the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, has caused this Bond to be issued inthe name
of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, to be signed by its Chairman
or Vice-Chairman, its seal to be affixed hereto~and attested bythe
signature of its Clerk or any of its Deputy-Clerks, and this Bond
to be dated , 1995.
ATTEST:
Clerk,~ Board of
Supervisors of the County of
of Albemarle, Virginia
(SEAL)
Chairman, Board of
Supervisors of the County
Albemarle, Virginia
A-3
ASSIGNMENT
FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned sells, assigns and
transfers unto
(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS,
ASSIGNEE)
PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE:
the within Bond and irrevocably constitutes and appoints
attorney
INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF
to
exchange-said Bond for definitive bonds in lieu of which this Bond
is issued and to register the transfer of such definitive bonds on
the books kept for registration thereof, with full power of
substitution in the premises.
Date:
Signature Guaranteed:
(NOTICE: Signature(s) must be
guaranteed by a member firm of
the New York Stock Exchange or
a commercial bank or trust
company.')
Registered Owner
(NOTICE: The signature above
must correspond with the name
of the Registered Owner as it
appears on the front of this
Bond in every particular,
without alteration or change.)
A-4
t:\vpsakalbem\fal195\sched Draft of 10102/95
Albemarle County, Virginia
$7,850,000 Genexal ObFtgation Se. hool Bond, Series 1995.$.
Schedule of Event~
Fall Fina~c'mg Program
Board of Supervisors Meeting Dates:
School Board Meeting Dates:
Second and Third Wednesdays of each month at 7:00 p.m.;
First Wednesday of each month at 9:00 a.m.
S~ond Monday of each month (work sessions are scheduled
fourth Monday of each month)
Event~
School Board adopts resolution consenting to issuance of bonds and ratifying applica-
tion to VPSA
Board of Sul~rvisors adopm re~olution approving application to VPSA
County publishez notice of public hearing on Bond issu~~
H&W cimulate~ draft Bond Resolution Providing for the Issuanc~ of the Bonds~
Commenm due on draft Bond Resolution
H&W se~ds out Bond Rosolution in fin~l form (for including in Board of Supervisors'
package), along with circuit court clerk's
Bonni holds public hearing, adopts Bond Resolution
County Attorney Files Bond Resolution with circui~ court cle~-
County returns Bond Sale Agreement to VPSAg
H&W ch'~fl-*,~ dra~ clo~ing cerfifi~c~_~_~ for review by County and VPSA-~
~*s duo on draft clo~ing cetfificetes
VPSA Bond Sal~t
H&W sends out clo~ing certificete~ to Cmmty for execution~
County obtai~ ~igmamres on closing
County returnz executed ,losing certificates to H&W~
Date
September 11
September 13
Septenll~ 27 and
October 4
September 28
October 2
October 2
October 11
No later than No-
vember 21
No later than Octo-
ber 17
October 23*
Noyember 8*
November 28
December 4*
December 5-13'
December 14'
December 18-20
December 21
* Subject to Change
f; Second publication must follow firs~ publication by at least on~ full week and public hearing must follow
second publicelion by at lea~ six days but not more than 21 days.
-~ The Bond Resolution provides for the details of the Bond is~. The Public Finance Act of 1991 allows
delegation of final terms of bonds. This resolution delegates final terms to County officials.
~; Sending documents out on this date should get them to you in time for inclusion in Board peckage~. Final
form of Bond Resolution will reflect changes suggested or required by the County or VPSA.
Y Required by Virginia Code § 15.1-227.9. Code provide~ for a 30-day waiting period after sj~t, nin$ before
dosing. See Virginia Code § 15.1-227.28.
It VPSA will send you this contract, which provides for the sale of your Bond to VPSA. The Bond Resolution
will authorize its execution and delivery to VPSA.
~ There w/Il be eight or nine different cerdf/,~t~ for signature by various County and School Board officials.
The~o cer~ficaUm will documant com~liancm with federal tax laws, Virginia laws and VPSA requiremants.
They will be based 'on information contained in the questionnaires.
2; VPSA sells its bonds to provide funds to purchase your Bond. VPSA charges you interest at rates which are
greater by l/lOth of i% in each year than the rates VPSA gets on its bonds.
Tho final ve~ions of these certificates will reflect cl~mge~ suggested or required by the County or VPSA.
~ Thcv, e need to be returned in advance of closing so they can be reviewed and any necessary corrections
made in advance of closing.
L °~ Representatives of VPSA and its bond eonmel will indepeaxtently review documents mht_~_ to your Bond
for compliance with federal tax laws, Virg/nia taws and VPSA reqmremems.
ut Your Bond is delivered to VPSA, and your proceeds are made available for your use.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
MEMORANDUM
Charles S. Martin
Rivanaa
Walter F. Perkins
Sally H. Thomas
TO=
FROM=
DATE=
SUBJECT=
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
LETTIE E. NEHER, CMC, CHIEF DEPUTY
OCTOBER 6, 1995
READING LIST FOR OCTOBER 11, 1995
June 7, 1995 - Page 12 (~8) to Page
Page 36 (#18) to End
September 13, 1995 -Mr. Perkins
27 (#19) - Mrs. Humphris
- Mr. Martin
LEN/mms
.Printed on recucled paper