Loading...
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