2014-11-12November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
An adjourned meeting and a regular night meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, were held on November 12, 2014. The adjourned meeting was held at 3:30 p.m., in
Room 241 and the regular night meeting was held in the L ane Auditorium, County Office Building,
McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. The adjourned meeting was adjourned from November 11, 2014.
PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Ms. Jane D. Dittmar, Ms. Ann Mallek, Ms. Diantha H. McKeel,
Ms. Liz A. Palmer and Mr. Brad L. Sheffield.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Thomas C. Foley, County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Clerk, Ella W. Jordan, and Senior Deputy Clerk, Travis O. Morris.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 3:33 p.m., by the Chair, Ms. Dittmar.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Joint Meeting with School Board.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Kate Acuff, Mr. Jason Buyaki, Mr. Ned Gallaway,
Mr. Stephen Koleszar, Ms. Barbara Massie Mouly, Ms. Pamela Moynihan, and Mr. Eric Strucko.
SCHOOL STAFF PRESENT: Dr. Pam Moran, Superintendent; Dr. Matt Haas, Assistant
Superintendent for Organizational and Human Resource Leadership; Mr. Dean Tistadt, Chief Operating
Officer; Mr. John Blair, Senior Assistant County Attorney; and Ms. Jennifer Johnston, Clerk of the School
Board.
Mr. Gallaway called the School Board to order at 3:33 p.m.
_____
Item No. 2a. School Five Year Financial Plan.
Mr. Dean Tistadt reported he would continue with the presentation given to the Board the
previous week by the County Executive and Budget Director. He commented that, this year, there was
tremendous collaboration and cooperation between school and local government staff. He stated that he
would provide some background information, review revenue assumptions on the school side,
expenditure assumptions and scenarios one and two. Mr. Tistadt said there are three major components
– general government, which was presented last week, schools and capital. He explained that the
assumptions in the Plan are based on the best information staff has available today, with more work
sessions to come. He then presented the guiding principles adopted by the joint Boards. Mr. Tistadt
stated that the School Division is predicting free and reduced lunch student increases, percentage and
numbers in the out years; all salary assumptions presented the previous week would be the same ones
which drive the school system numbers today; inflation, compensation and benefit costs are all the same
except for Virginia Retirement System (VRS), because the School Division and the County are in different
portions of the VRS system.
Mr. Tistadt presented statistics on school enrollment and assumptions for future enrollment, along
with the last five years of actual. He noted that, in the last three years, the projections were less than 1%
off the actual enrollment. He said the School Division is projecting an additional 311 students for next
year, 125 of those students have already enrolled, with this year’s projections being 125 less than what
they actually got. Mr. Tistadt said the School Division projects an additional 200 students next year
without the 125; 200 the year after that; 165 and then just 72. He said these projections are based on the
fact that not every grade has the same number of students. He explained that the 12th grade graduating
class has 978 students, whereas the incoming kindergarten class has 1,088 which is a difference of 110
students. Mr. Tistadt said they also look at ‘in and out’ migration between grade levels as the cohorts
progress grade to grade. He said Grade 5 currently has 995 students; when it started five years ago, it
also had 995 students but only 641 of them are the same students, so the number is coincidental. He
said the reason for the projection of only a 72-student increase in three years is because there is currently
a huge 9th grade class of 1,167 students that will be graduating and will probably be larger than the
incoming kindergarten class.
Mr. Tistadt reported that the schools seem to be experiencing a slowdown in the percent of free
and reduced lunch students, but the numbers are still growing. He said, when compared to total
enrollment increases over the last five years, the School Division has grown by 250 students and, for the
same time period, the schools have grown by 800 free and reduced lunch-eligible students. He explained
that, within the enrollment, there are more and more students of poverty, and those students require
additional services beyond other students. Mr. Tistadt said, for the last two years, there have been
dramatic increases in the percent of ESL students, and the reason for the marked increase was because
the International Rescue Committee has historically been placing 80% of their incoming families in the
City and 20% in the County, however, over the last few years, that has flipped with 80% of them in the
County and 20% in the City due to availability of affordable housing. He noted that this was impacting the
School Division as well as County services.
Mr. Tistadt reported that the state has reduced its financial commitment to students over time,
and comments made by legislators indicate that localities can ant icipate further reductions in K-12
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
funding. He stated that, in 2010, local government paid 69.4% of the budget, the state paid 28%; this
year about 70.3% will come from local with less than 28% from the state. In looking ahead, he said,
based on scenario one, the local percent will continue to increase and percentages from state and federal
would continue to decrease. Mr. Tistadt presented pictures of teachers, teacher’s assistants, principals,
counselors, librarians and others who work directly with students. He said, over the period covering the
budget challenges, the current ratio of staff to 100 students is 10.5, which is almost the same as it was in
2007 at 10.59. He said the School Board and the Superintendent have done a great job in preserving the
integrity of the services which directly touch students, and that equates to only a 12-position reduction on
a ratio basis over this time period. Mr. Tistadt stated that, on non-school based staffing per 100, there
have been dramatic reductions in staffing so where the cuts have been made is as far away from
students as possible. He noted that, if the School Division maintains the same ratio this year as it did in
the first year, they would have 52 more positions than it has today. He said current challenges include
compensation for employees, increasing enrollment, unfunded capital needs, changing demographics –
free and reduced lunch and ESL students, CSA, and operational budget reductions that impact schools
and students. Mr. Tistadt said more and more pressure is being put on teachers to buy things for
students, rather than to have the schools provide them, which is not the best arrangement. He said the
School Division’s watch list includes building capacities, state commitment and the standards of quality
(SOQs), composite index, sequestration, VRS future rate increases, and disability insurance mandates.
He stated that future challenges include restoration of professional development and world languages in
elementary schools.
Mr. Tistadt reported that the first scenario is the same one the County presented which is to
provide funding for mandates and obligations, provides for increased costs associated with healthcare,
operational increases associated with inflation but nothing else. Scenario one does not pay employees
more, it does not provide additional staffing to meet enrollment growth, and it does not support a capital
program. He said, for individual employees, the increase in health insurance obligations will result in
reduced take-home pay. Mr. Tistadt said teachers will make less net pay than they did in 2008 for
inflation adjustments and increased healthcare costs. He stated that total revenue inc reases would come
to the School Division under the 60/40 split, and presented a history of transfers to the school system and
what the numbers would be in the next five years. Mr. Tistadt noted that there are differences in the VRS
rate increases to the schools, with the schools experiencing VRS rate increases in 2017 and 2019, which
will increase school costs by about $2 million; on the County side, there would be virtually no increase.
He stated that, because there are more employees in the schools, increases in health insurance impacts
the School Division more significantly than local government. Mr. Tistadt reported that there have been
no major increases in CSA costs because of the number of participants and the cost of services being
provided by external agencies. He said they are under-budgeted on the school side this year at $1.4
million, with a major funding crisis looming next year. He said school staff have had some conversations
with county staff in an effort to change the way they fund and manage the program, however those
conversations need to continue with more work to be done in this regard. Mr. Tistadt summarized
scenario one, noting that it uses the current tax rate and covers mandates and healthcare but little else.
He stated that the CSA costs of $700,000 and the health insurance costs of $1.37 million, $2.1 of the $2.5
million will go to those two items alone. Mr. Tistadt emphasized that resources are insufficient under this
scenario to meet salary requirements for existing service levels, and class size increases would occur
under scenario one. He said basic needs are not met under this scenario, and employees would not
receive a pay raise.
Mr. Tistadt said scenario two aligns generally with the principles of the Board and School Board,
funds all mandates and obligations, pays for salary increases although there is a six-month lag in year
one which never gets caught up. In addition, he said scenario two provides funding to meet current
service levels and enrollment growth, but does not provide any funding to meet the initiatives identified in
the School Board’s strategic plan. He presented information on the salary increases, which he said were
the same as what county staff had identified in their presentation the previous week . He explained that
the shortfalls would be $4.4 million in year one, growing to nearly $16 million in year five. Mr. Tistadt said
scenario two aligns with mandates and pay raises, but puts the School Division in a position to find
additional efficiencies and service-level decisions and, despite optimization, additional resources would
be required and would not come from the state and federal levels. He noted that this does not cover any
of the aspirational items such as world languages and catching up with pro fessional development. He
reported that the School Division used to spend $100 per teacher on professional development, but now
spends only $25 per teacher.
Ms. Acuff asked if class sizes would need to be increased if there was no increase in staffing to
keep up with enrollment growth, under scenario one. Mr. Tistadt said that would be a logical conclusion.
Mr. Boyd asked if the actual dollars from state and federal sources were actually increasing, but
the expenditures were going up and creating the lower percentage rates. Mr. Tistadt replied that absolute
numbers were going up slightly but, as a percent of the total budget, they were going down.
Mr. Koleszar said the per-pupil funding from the state was going down, so state funding was
equivalent in nominal dollars but, on an inflation-adjusted basis, it was really going down.
Dr. Moran stated that, when there is growth, there are dollars attached from the state for some of
the growth, but they are staying flat with the per-pupil expenditure and are about where they were in
2007. In terms of per-pupil expenses, she said they are currently at the national average in terms of
expenses.
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
Ms. Palmer asked for clarification on the figure that goes to healthcare. Mr. Tistadt explained
that, in FY 2016, the school transfer would go up $2.5 million, and they are projecting that $1.37 million
would go to healthcare with CSA costing $700,000, which would leave only $400,000 for everything else.
Ms. McKeel asked for an explanation of Comprehensive Services Act (CSA). Mr. Tistadt stated
that CSA is a joint County Department of Social Services (DSS) and school system program, which is
why there are costs to both. He said the School Division funds the educational portion of services being
delivered to students outside the school system so those children in foster care or those who require
placement in programs external to the school system would be paid for by the schools.
Dr. Moran said the funds Social Services puts in are typically for children that need to be placed
outside of the County for foster services, perhaps very high-need students and, on the school side, it is
typically special education students who have significant needs beyond what can be provided within the
school system. She said, when combined, both foster services and special education services are being
addressed. She said, if a foster child is placed by DSS outside of the school system, the School Division
picks up any cost associated with IEP implementation even if it is from another county or an institutional
setting.
Ms. McKeel said her experience, when serving on the School Board, was that one child could
cost as much as hundreds of thousands of dollars because their placement might require a residential
placement. Mr. Haas said those students can drain the bucket pretty quickly, adding that a student might
also enroll after the budget is established for the year so it is an unexpected cost if they move into the
system.
Ms. McKeel said this is one area in which they could have more discussion about a sustainable
funding stream, as the CSA increases can be really volatile. She said it seems to her that the County
government budget with associated fund balances is in a better position to handle the volatility than the
school system.
Mr. Haas pointed out that, when those students come with a big price tag, the County does not
automatically accept it. He said, typically, there is a lot of investigation and legal resources put into
reducing the cost of those served through the Special Education Office.
Ms. McKeel said she recalled many different discussions about this, adding that one student
could be hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.
Mr. Boyd said he would like to see a chart of historical data of this.
Ms. Palmer asked if the School Division’s fund balance was used for this item in the past.
Ms. McKeel said it was. She stated that, with regard to ESL student data, the most fascinating
aspect of this to her is that the School Division has been the ‘canaries in the coal mines’ adding that the
schools in her district as well as Mr. Sheffield’s have been particularly impacted. Ms. McKeel said, as
Charlottesville is going through their urban renewal and revitalization, Albemarle is seeing a difference in
the urban ring. She said Charlottesville’s School Division spends about $5,000 more per student, and is
based on the population it had for many years which is now decreasing.
Ms. Palmer asked if the IRC population was the biggest percentage of these students. Mr.
Tistadt confirmed that it was, adding that there are also unaccompanied minors coming into Albemarle
which are not tracked for legal reasons.
Dr. Moran added that, in talking with local government officials, it is evident that these families
bring with them certain risk factors that affect local government as well as schools, and this should be an
area in which common ground could be found.
Mr. Boyd asked if the IRC was the only one in the entire state, as he had heard that fact. Mr.
Tistadt said he believed that was true, but would confirm that fact.
Ms. McKeel stated when the Board of Supervisors had its joint meeting with the City, Councilor
Dede Smith and several City Councilors had expressed concern about the impact on the school
population from IRC residents.
Ms. Acuff commented that the complexities and income status and cost of those students impact
both schools and local government.
Mr. Tistadt noted that the number of free and reduced lunch students in Albemarle County is
almost equal to the total number of students in the City.
Mr. Gallaway asked if scenario one included any of the salary pieces. Ms. Lori Allshouse,
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, said staff is trying to include a few small amounts.
Mr. Tistadt said the School Division used the same increases.
Mr. Gallaway asked if the second scenario was the two, three and six-month period and was
consistent. Staff confirmed that was the case.
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
Ms. McKeel said it might be helpful to have staff review what the scenarios were, stating that
County government presented two scenarios.
Mr. Tistadt said the basic premise of scenario one is there would be no changes to the current
revenue streams based on current tax rates, i.e., what could be afforded. He said, with scenario two,
there would be funding for only those things that should be considered seriously: compensation,
enrollment growth, police officers, etc.,
Mr. Tom Foley confirmed that those principles are consistent on both sides.
Mr. Gallaway said scenario one on the local side had operational increases associated with
capital programs, and he assumed that was the case for the School Division as well.
Mr. Tistadt agreed, stating that there may be more on the County side given obligations. He
noted that great effort was made to keep both in synch.
Mr. Koleszar commented that, when the County was first facing the recession, there were some
serious budget shortfalls. He said town hall meetings were held with staff who overwhelmingly said to not
cut positions; however, staff is now expressing concern about flat or declining take-home pay.
_____
Item No. 2b. FY 16 Capital Project Requests for FY 16-20 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).
Mr. Trevor Henry, Director of the Office of Facilities Development, addressed the Board, stating
that his role is to represent the County as a project manager, but also to facilitate the capital planning
process from the collection of requests all the way through to budget recommendations. Mr. Henry stated
that the purpose of this item on the agenda today is a CIP check -in, a new step in the process which
directly reflects feedback from the Board, School Board and Planning Commission from last year and
previous years. He said it would be helpful for the Boards to see what comes out of this first round of
evaluations from the Technical Review Committee before it goes to the Oversight Committee, with the
idea of being able to provide some direction to staff and to the Board’s representation on the Oversight
Committee before a final plan gets formulated. Mr. Henry stated that, at this meeting, the Boards would
review the requests at a high level and focus on some of the newer or key requests that are carrying
through, and would review the ranking from the Technical Review Committee. He said he would also
briefly touch on the scenario that is moving forward to Oversight, which is scenario two. He presented
information on the workflow and referenced the materials sent to the Board regarding the overall process.
Mr. Henry noted that he and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Management Analyst, Lindsay
Harris, had presented to the Planning Commission the previous night. Mr. Henry said they were moving
from technical review and financial review into oversight, with those comm ittees being cross-functional
with representations from schools, local government, public safety, etc. He stated that staff would meet
with the Oversight Committee the following Monday, and the Technical Review Committee would be
present at that meeting, formulating a recommendation that would go to the County Executive and
ultimately back to the Board. Mr. Henry said, as part of the technical review process, the committee does
an objective review of the requests, using a rubric approved by the Board several years ago which ties
requests back to the guiding principles: public safety, education, quality of life, and maintaining
investment in infrastructure.
Mr. Henry presented a summary of requests which showed everything requested for the next five
years by fiscal year, with a total of just under $304 million. He said, by comparison, last year’s CIP
request for five years was $301 million. He said there were 82 requests which came into the process: 16
are in the adopted plan as a continuation, 11 are new, 21 are ongoing maintenance requests, 34 are
enhancements and additions which were not funded. Mr. Henry stated that there is a scoring matrix
which ties back to guiding principles and there are three categories of requests that tie to the priority
funding: mandates and obligations which are legal mandates and contractual obligations; maintenance
and replacement requests; and non-maintenance and replacement requests. He said the key denotes
the requests which are proposed to be funded under the initial scenario; and requests that are included in
the scenario but have had some modifications at the financial review/technical review level. Mr. Henry
stated that the materials provided to the Board provide detailed requests which came to Technical Review
for justification, with a description and the five-year impacts. Mr. Henry noted that, from an obligations
perspective, everything on the list is in the adopted FY15 plan and is carried forward including a solid
waste program. He said the only change to courts has been to move the construction schedule out a few
years, which has been done by assuming that some of the work of the steering committee would allow
some additional study of the downtown option specifically related to co-location with the City. Mr. Henry
stated that staff is planning to come back to the Board in January to provide an update on this in much
more detail. He said the 800 MHz Emergency Communications Center (ECC) system replacement is in
the adopted plan for FY16, and is a regional project at $18.8 million with Albemarle County serving as
fiscal agent and assuming about half the cost at $9.4 million.
Mr. Boyd said that is a bit misleading, so it would be helpful to footnote the County’s portion.
Mr. Strucko pointed out that one project represents 34% of the total capital in FY16.
Mr. Boyd noted that it is partially paid for by the City and University.
Mr. Henry explained that they would have revenues that would come in to offset the partner
share.
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
Mr. Strucko asked if that meant the County now has $9.4 million more in resources to spend,
noting that the total capital budget for FY16 is $55 million, but it includes $18 million for th e
communications system which would only cost them $9.4 million. Mr. Henry said it is recognized in the
CIP program.
Mr. Boyd emphasized that it is not ‘found’ money.
Mr. Koleszar said it is already in the revenue stream.
Mr. Henry stated that the biggest category of funded work over the past five or six years is the
category of requests geared to protection of existing infrastructure such as core maintenance, building
envelopes, roofs, mechanical systems, extending the lives of those systems, and replacing them as
necessary to extend the lives of the buildings. He said it is the biggest component of the request, with the
schools’ maintenance replacement and County-owned facilities maintenance replacement being critical.
Mr. Henry said the schools have just over 2.3 million square feet of building space on 631 acres; local
government has just under 500,000 square feet. He stated that fire/rescue apparatus have been in the
program for a long time, and school bus replacement came in a few years ago, with the life cycle of a bus
being about 15 years and about 15 busses per year needing replacement. Mr. Henry said there are 82
apparatus in the fleet, with the life cycle replacement being 20 years for the big apparatus and the smaller
lasting 10-20 years. He said, in both cases, assessments are done on equipment to ensure the County is
getting as much life out of those as possible.
Mr. Boyd noted that the fire/rescue apparatus life cycle was adjusted a few years ago.
Mr. Henry added that some of the fire/rescue equipment is going from higher volume call stations
to less volume stations in order to extend equipment even further. He mentioned the key denotation for
new items that had been classified as maintenance replacement and added to the recommendation, with
the Commonwealth Attorney’s Office case management system needing replacement but having some
cost offset through asset forfeiture money totaling $35,000 to the CIP. Mr. Henry said Red Hill School
modernization is in the recommendation going to Oversight at a request of $1.2 million, with learning
space modernization at a total cost of $37 million over five years, and $66 million over 10 years. He
stated that this is a high priority request from the School Division, and it was vigorously discussed
because of the classification – whether it was maintenance/replacement or a new project request – and
the Technical Review Committee felt it was properly classified as maintenance/replacement, although
there may be elements within the request which may be in a different category. He said there will be
school representation at the first review meeting, and would be asked to take a deeper dive into the
request. He said, at the higher level, the core maintenance items would be intact which they have done a
good job with but they have not kept the interiors as current. Mr. Henry said learning space
modernization was built off of a trial contemporary learning space request that has happened over the last
three years, which has resulted in great results from a learning environment perspective; the School
Division has taken that concept and expanded it throughout all campuses.
Mr. Sheffield asked about the total project cost. Mr. Henry said the total would be $66 million
over 10 years, with $37 million covering the first five years. He noted that the recommendation is reduced
funding for the first two years and includes a combination of classroom furniture that allows teachers to do
team learning and teach more effectively, allowing them to be adaptable. He said there is also the
modernization component itself, which includes lighting in classrooms and media centers, cafeterias a nd
specialty classrooms, and lab upgrades as well.
Mr. Strucko noted that the modernization is also an attempt to create capacity within the existing
four walls of a school building in lieu of doing a new school or an addition.
Dr. Moran said it certainly has a lot of different ramifications, with that being one. She said the
other one is that students are sitting in chairs that are ergonomically not made for their bodies. She said
there are young people today having more physical problems and back problems which are related to
that, based on the research out there. She said there are also 90 classrooms with no natural light, and
this addresses the physical environment from both a health as well as a learning perspective.
Mr. Henry stated that this is a potentially large impact to the overall CIP from a resource
perspective, and financial review has recommended partial funding the first two years with strategies on
how to fund it in subsequent years. He said, because the modernization of Red Hill School was felt to be
so important, it was pulled out by the Long-Range Planning Committee and prioritized. He noted that a
few other new requests that came in as maintenance/replacement included replacement of a tactical truck
for the Police Department, and a facilities condition assessment for nine of the ten fire stations. Mr.
Henry stated that, similar to General Services, OFD would contract with a consulting firm to do the initial
assessment that would feed their database describing current conditions, recommended replacement and
life cycle. He said this would essentially be a report that establishes how much life is left in a roof, what
the mechanical system looks like and when it will need to be replaced, the condition of the apron or
pavement leading up to a fire station, etc. with a cost estimate for repair. Mr. Henry clarified that the costs
would be nine stations at $9,000 each and would be brought into the General Services condition
assessment process.
Regarding the non-maintenance requests, Mr. Henry explained that these are the acquisitions of
property, building additions, new construction projects, and anything that expands or enhances capacity
as well as new or specialized vehicles. He stated that the projects are categorized as those that are
recommended and going to Oversight, and those that are going at a reduced amount. Mr. Henry said
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
what is going from the Financial Review Committee to Oversight is simply what was in the adopted plan:
Pantops, new construction, fire/rescue, school security improvement program, telecommunications
network upgrade, transportation revenue sharing as amended at two-thirds of a penny per year, and the
Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Program at one-third of a penny per year.
With regard to some of the items not funded, Mr. Henry explained that the Rescue 8 Station
which was the old Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad (CARS) building on Berkmar Drive has a
renovation/addition project for a full renovation of the existing building. He said there was also a study
done and currently they are housing an apparatus in that station with the ambulance coveri ng the
northern corridor of Route 29 North. He said the building was designed for ambulances 20 years ago,
and currently there is just two inches of clearance in the ambulance bay. He said this request would add
some expansion to that space to allow the rescue squad to fit into it better, meet ADA requirements and
improve livability. He added that the parking lot also needs work. Mr. Henry stated that the project is not
in the current recommendations but is considered a high priority. He noted that , several years ago, there
was a master plan of public training safety facilities at the former Keene Landfill, comprising the firing
range, a public training safety facility and burn building for fire/rescue personnel, a training location for
police and those have been split out of that one location. Mr. Henry said the County is working on the
firing range joint project with the University of Virginia and the City of Charlottesville, and these are the
requests which reflect those other components that are very important to Fire/Rescue and Police.
Mr. Henry stated that some other high priority school requests were the Woodbrook Elementary
addition modernization, which would add a couple of stories and about 300 seats to the school, as well as
a modernization. He said Western Albemarle High School has a new environmental science academy
which opened this year, and is a two-phase request with the first phase being a greenhouse and, a few
years later, a modest addition. Mr. Henry stated that the central library is over 100 years old and, even
though the County has done a lot of good work on libraries over the past few years, it was identified as a
number one priority. He highlighted that many of the 34 resubmission requests were parks projects. He
said the only item in the current recommendation for parks is maintenance. Mr. Henry said there were
several studies which came out of Community Development – the Places 29 Small Area Study and a
Pantops study – that have not elevated in the ranking to be funded but are pretty important to Community
Development and transportation planning. He stated that these types of studies tend not to get funded,
and the Oversight Committee has talked about ways to allocate some funding for this type of work, which
traditionally comes from the CIP.
Mr. Henry presented information on the existing adopted CIP, stating that it anticipated a two-
penny increase in dedicated revenues in FY16 and one penny in FY18, exceeding the Board goal of $2
million reserve at the end of five years. He stated that what Oversight will be talking a lot about has
pushed out at least that initial penny into FY17 and FY18, and still meets the goal of $2 million at the end
of five years. Mr. Henry said the Board’s priorities for funding are existing debt service, new debt service,
mandates and obligations, core maintenance, and the enhancement requests. He stated that the
Oversight Committee’s charge is to take their initial evaluation, meet with the Technical Review
Committee, and ultimately provide a recommendation to the County Executive and the Board. Mr. Henry
said the objective is to establish a plan which meets the County’s financial goals and policies, addresses
needs as much as possible, and forwards a recommendation to the Board.
Ms. Palmer asked if the non-maintenance project requests, with the transportation revenue-
sharing program at $27 million, are listed at a reduced cost of $1 million per year, and if that would bring
the money down to $5 million over the period. Mr. Henry confirmed that it would.
Ms. Mallek said that is what the County would match with the state. Mr. Henry said staff could
add a column which shows what is in the recommendation. He said, for those items that are reduced,
staff can show what the number is and also make sure there is an asterisk next to the ones that have
partnership funding. He stated that VDOT currently would match up to $10 million, and the request came
in identifying those items which might require the higher funding amount.
Ms. Palmer noted that the County is leaving $5 million on the table. Mr. Henry said the dedication
of a penny last year really came out of Oversight, which recommended two-thirds of a penny to
transportation for matching and one-third of a penny to go to ACE. He noted that it is in the
recommendation going to Oversight again this time.
Mr. Boyd said he would like to see a breakdown of the scoring which members came up with
which scores and if that was done collectively. Mr. Henry said, as individuals, they rank each request,
and that gets averaged, then they review the average and discuss it; but, as a committee, they have not
really done a written report as to why each individual scored an item the way they did. He stated that the
committee could show each category of scoring and how it was graded, but he was not sure if it could be
broken down by member.
Mr. Boyd said he was not sure who was on the committee or how they graded these, and was
only curious as to how certain subjective decisions were made. He said he would also like to see the
debt service added to this information, because these large projects generate a lot of debt service. Mr.
Henry said Attachment D shows what the anticipated debt and equity funding would be, includes the
detail of the request, the ranking, the financial snapshot showing expenditure and revenue sides and also
whether it is borrowed funds or equity funding.
Ms. Massie-Mouly said Mr. Henry had commented that the scoring committee had questioned
whether or not the learning space modernization needs were valid. Mr. Henry clarified that what he said
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
referred to whether the improvements were properly classified as a maintenance replacement or as a
non-maintenance replacement. He said the reason classification was important is because of the priority
in funding.
Ms. Massie-Mouly said she had recently visited a number of schools and, from what she saw,
there is a real need for maintenance and modernization with Albemarle High School alone having desks
that are falling apart. Mr. Henry said, contrary to Mr. Strucko’s comment, it was the committee’s
understanding that the modernization would not expand capacity but would just im prove the learning
environment so it is important to understand that.
Mr. Gallaway said Red Hill would be modernized but not actually renovated, however, their library
does not meet capacity so, in their modernization, the space can properly serve that population.
Dr. Moran stated that there are science classrooms all over the County in middle schools and
high schools that need to be brought up to a different level of service for students. She added that the
career and technical education also needed improvement.
Ms. Moynihan said they are trying to improve some of the situations by using space that is
currently storing junk, but every school that she has seen needs some major modernization work. She
stated that they made the request very judiciously in terms of knowing that some of the schoo ls and the
materials within those facilities need to be improved and modernized for students.
Mr. Koleszar stated that the School Division is in the process of considering county-wide
redistricting, but they have also started to bump up against its total capacity numbers, and it is concerning
to him that Woodbrook Elementary does not get built because there is overcrowding in that area. He
said, when he first joined the School Board, there were 40 trailers at Albemarle High School because
there was not money in the CIP to build Monticello, and they worked really hard to get rid of those,
however, if they fall behind the enrollment growth, they may be back in that situation.
Ms. Moynihan said she had spent three hours at Albemarle High School and, even with the new
MESA addition; they have about 200 students more than they should have, with a total of about 1,900
students in the school. She said she is hopeful they can find some space now for the students who are
there now to alleviate some of the extremely small classrooms.
Mr. Gallaway said the rationale for the Woodbrook project is a little different than what they have
seen in the past. He said the Long-Range Planning Advisory Committee is very concerned about
elementary seats in the urban ring. He said they put an addition on at Greer and are putting one at
Agnor-Hurt, and doubling the capacity of Woodbrook is a long-term solution to urban ring growth beyond
just that current school’s needs.
Ms. McKeel said the Greer addition was cut back at least once in size, and now it is over capacity
again, so they need to be careful because it is cheaper and a better use of taxpayer’s money to go in and
build once. She stated that Albemarle High School infrastructure , halls and stairwells, were built for 875
students so, while they can add another classroom , they cannot expand those other areas.
_____
Item No. c. Work Groups Report-out
1. Legislative Agendas. (Jane Dittmar, Ned Gallaway, Jason Buyaki)
2. Public Communication Process. (Steve Koleszar)
3. Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). (Diantha McKeel, Liz Palmer)
4. Funding Responsibilities Outside K-12. (Ned Gallaway, Jane Dittmar, Ann Mallek)
5. Budget Book Common Format. (Kate Acuff)
_____
Mr. Gallaway reported that he served on the Legislative W orkgroup along with Mr. Buyaki from
the School Board, Ms. Dittmar from the Board, Nicole Storm from the School Division, and Larry Davis
and Tom Foley from the local government side. Mr. Gallaway said they came out of that meeting with
results and, when they have legislators together for their meeting, they will have a common time with both
Boards. He stated that the group got their legislative agendas out and decided to prioritize both, and in
the near future, they would like to meet to strategize so they can continue to put forth efforts with
legislators in tandem as one cohort. Mr. Gallaway said both Boards will be pleased with the legislative
document of priorities that would be taken to legislators.
_____
Mr. Koleszar said, with respect to the Communications W orkgroup, there has been great
cooperation and communication on the five-year plan, and they want to align communications so that
County government and schools are not sending different messages with different terminology. Mr.
Koleszar said there is a desire to focus more on outreach, noting that the Board’s town halls were a great
resource with schools often using their PTOs in that outreach capacity. He stated that they want to
ensure that county and school staffs share budget presentation information in a consistent and accurate
fashion, and that process and commitment are important. Mr. Sheffield said he was the Board’s
representative on that committee.
Ms. McKeel said, during the budget cycles, it would be helpful for the communicatio ns group to
continue its work.
_____
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Ms. McKeel stated that, with the Capital Improvement Plan W orkgroup, she and Ms. Palmer were
the two representatives along with Mr. Strucko and Mr. Koleszar, and Bill Letteri and Lori Allshouse from
County staff. She stated that they reviewed the CIP process and calendar and the iterations it goes
through. She said today’s meeting was a reflection of their desire to get the two Boards together to talk
about the CIP and its shared concerns. She said one of the important things they discussed was the
desire not to have an element of surprise in January, which goes back to communications and the need
to explain the budget cycle itself.
Ms. Palmer said one thing that was mentioned in their meeting was for the School Board to set a
time on their calendar to review information coming from the Technical Review Committee before the
Oversight Committee reviewed it.
Mr. Koleszar said, even though there are School Board representatives on those committees, he
feels it is important to take collective action as a Board, especially when a project is under fire.
Ms. Palmer said one of the things that came up was the challenge of bringing new Board
members up to speed, and the need to have one centralized Dropbox to help them keep track of all the
information coming at them. She said their group decided they did not need another meeting, as they felt
they had covered it all. Ms. Palmer said they talked about communicating with the public more
thoroughly, specifically having the School Board hold more meeting s with the public such as town halls.
_____
Regarding the workgroup to explore Funding Options Outside of K-12, Ms. Dittmar said her group
has held two meetings already and was not near the finish line. She said she and Ms. Mallek
represented the Board on the group, with Ned Gallaway and Pam Moynihan from the School Board;
County staff representatives were Doug Walker, Lori Allshouse and Kathy Ralston and School staff
included Dean Tistadt, Matt Haas and Jackson Zimmerman. She said the group discussed funding
options pursuant to pre-K education, the adult student population at CATEC, and talked about the
Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) and its funding implications. Ms. Dittmar stated that they also
discussed School Resource Officers and safety issues pertaining to General Government and the School
Division.
Mr. Gallaway said, at the School Board meeting the following night, they would have a discussion
about pre-K, and he would bring that back to the workgroup.
_____
Ms. Acuff said, even before the common budget book workgroup was formed, the School Board
and division started a workgroup on the budget book. She reported that she and Ms. Massie-Mouly were
working with Dean Tistadt and Jackson Zimmerman. She said Matt Haas came in along with Bill Letteri
and Lori Allshouse. She noted that Supervisors Ann Mallek and Ken Boyd represented the Board on the
committee.
Mr. Boyd said, due to a scheduling conflict, he had been unable to attend the meeting.
Ms. Acuff stated that the group agreed it should be an iterative process over the next few years.
She said there are enough funding challenges with the budget without bumping into each other on
terminology and format adding that the County and schools are working together to find common
definitions and establish a similar structure. Ms. Acuff said whatever changes they make, there will be an
additional explanatory section to the budget book which will note what was changed and why. She said it
was also considered a high priority to include information about what is driving changes in the budgets.
She noted that a lot of the information is already there, but they are working on making it more accessible
and clearer for both Boards and the public. Ms. Acuff said most of the data is collected and formatted
according to state reporting requirements, and it is considered a waste of expenditures and resources to
modify that and it might not add much in clarity. She noted that instruction is 76% of the budget, and is
composed largely of personnel costs so a 1% increase in salary has a disproportionate impact on the
school budget as compared to the rest of the County budget. Ms. Acuff stated that the new format would
have numbers broken out by elementary, middle and high schools, and would also include trend data and
percentages. She said school expenditures can be broken down to see what they are spending by
category, and mentioned that Ms. Mallek had suggested having performance measures on different
programs. Ms. Acuff said they may resurrect the “FAQ” sections on their respective websites, perhaps by
the next budget cycle.
Mr. Koleszar asked if they had a place where members of the public can ask a question about the
budget. Ms. Lee Catlin, Assistant County Executive, stated that their new tool, “Engage Albemarle,” has
that option.
Ms. Acuff said they talked about having budget documents online and perhaps having the ability
to do keyword searches within them.
Ms. Palmer said she has been asked how much the School Division spends each year on
personal tablets. Ms. Acuff said the overall technology budget is included, and they should have that
broken out as a line item for the public.
Mr. Boyd said he was pleased there would be a categorical breakout, but he would also like to
know what numbers go into that; for example, if it is stated that “76% is for instruction,” does that mean
that 76% of the budget is in the classroom or does it also include administration.
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
Ms. Acuff said there is a description of what goes into each category, and also an explanation of
what each section covers with instruction being primarily teachers, classroom assistants, librarians, etc.
Mr. Boyd asked if administrators, such as principals and assistant principals at the school level,
were considered instructional even though they do not teach classes. Mr. Zimmermann said the state
considers them instructional, so that is how they are classified locally as well.
Ms. Dittmar asked what changes to the budget format would be ready for this year. Ms. Acuff
responded that the instructional costs would be drilled down across all school levels, there would be
shared definitions and a glossary, and there would be a similar format with tables of contents being more
interrelated.
Ms. Massie-Mouly said they have systematized the narratives so they are all parallel to
instruction, with state and local requirements outlined.
Mr. Boyd said he and Mr. Koleszar sat on the Access Albemarle Committee for years and years,
and one of the questions he often asked was how the query system would be used for reporting that out
so he did not think they should be dictated to by state reporting parameters.
Ms. Acuff said the structure they are provided is more user-friendly, but perhaps it could be
improved upon. She said, at the beginning of the budget book, there would be an explanation of what is
different and what is available.
Mr. Gallaway said it sounded as if the Legislative Workgroup was nearly done, Public
Communications and CIP are both done and Pre-K Funding Responsibilities and the Budget Book
Workgroup would be ongoing.
Ms. Dittmar asked if there were any additional comments for the joint meeting.
_____
Mr. Gallaway stated that, when he attended the presentation on November 5 and, in light of this
meeting today, it is apparent that the two staffs from Local Government and School Division are working
together in a much different way than in the past. He commented that it is better for them, and it would
also be better for their constituents even though the budget numbers themselves are not looking so good.
Ms. McKeel said she hoped there would be fewer surprises and, hopefully, the new
communication and dialogue would allow for that to happen.
Ms. Dittmar thanked everyone who participated in the small workgroups for their input, with the
additional benefit being both Boards working together and sharing ideas.
Ms. McKeel asked if this was the time to identify the point people who would respond for both the
County side and the school side, and mentioned that they have had some glitches in the past with
technology and firewalls. She encouraged constituents to co ntinue sending their questions in, and she
hoped that the technical issues could be resolved.
Dr. Moran said the point person for the School Division would be Dean Tistadt.
Mr. Foley announced that the point person for Local Government would be Lori Allshouse.
Mr. Gallaway emphasized the importance of having members of both Boards at least copy the
respective leadership when they are asking questions of staff.
Mr. Koleszar suggested they copy the entire Board membership in order to keep everyone in the
loop.
The School Board adjourned their meeting at 5:25 p.m.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 3. Recess.
At 5:25 p.m., the Board recessed their meeting.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Reconvene and Call to Order Night Meeting.
The meeting was called back to order at 6:08 p.m. by Chair, Ms. Dittmar.
_______________
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
Agenda Item No. 5. Pledge of Allegiance
Agenda Item No. 6. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Adoption of Final Agenda.
Ms. Dittmar introduced County staff.
Ms. Dittmar stated that the Board moved the town hall check-in item scheduled during the
afternoon work session to this part of the meeting, and suggested that it be placed following Agenda Item
No. 17.
Ms. Mallek moved to adopt the agenda as modified. Ms. McKeel seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek and Ms. McKeel.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
There were none.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Recognitions.
Item No. 9a. Paul Coleman, Outstanding Conservation Farmer.
Ms. Dittmar read the following proclamation recognizing Paul Coleman for his outstanding farm
conservation practices:
RESOLUTION
In Recognition Outstanding Conservation Farmer
In recognition of Paul Coleman for his outstanding farm conservation management practices which
includes implementation of a farm nutrient management plan,
WHEREAS, the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District serves this community through
programs and activities that enhance water quality of our surface and ground waters; while
conserving and protecting our natural resources; and
WHEREAS, in cooperation with the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, farmers who
demonstrate outstanding management practices which conserve our precious natural
resources are selected and recognized through the Clean Water/Bay Friendly Farm Award
Program; and
WHEREAS, the Thomas Jefferson SWCD has selected Paul Coleman as the Clean Water Farm Award
Program recipient of Albemarle for 2013.
WHEREAS, Paul Coleman, demonstrates a commitment to the conservation of the natural resources
on his/her farm through:
managing 640 acres of pasture, as 27 paddocks, and 236 acres of woodland
grazing around 200 cow/calf pairs and 150 hair sheep for meat.
installing 20 frost-free automatic water troughs on the farms
protecting 3.5 miles of streams with 95.4 acres of riparian buffers
carefully planning to allow cattle access to the shade from mature forest in each
field while restricting the livestock from the steeper wooded slopes.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that Paul Coleman
is hereby commended for his commitment to protecting and enhancing waters that flow
beyond farm boundaries and for the conservation ethic he demonstrates through his farm
management practices.
Ms. Dittmar moved to adopt the proclamation as presented. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek and Ms. McKeel.
NAYS: None.
Ms. Dittmar recognized Mr. Coleman’s wife, Virginia, and his son, Peanut.
___________
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
Item No. 9b. Sheriff Department – Reaccreditation.
Mr. Gary Dillon, Program Manager of the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services,
addressed the Board, stating that all accreditation programs are designed to measure and confirm
compliance of participating agencies with professional standards in whatever discipline they are involved
in. He stated that it is one of the only means citizens and government leaders have to ensur e an agency
is maintaining ethical standards and benchmarks of performance to which the community has a right. Mr.
Dillon said the Albemarle County Sheriff’s Department has been participating in the accreditation program
for many years, and he was here to present their award. He noted that the department was very
instrumental in the Hannah Graham case, with over 2,000 hours of manpower in assisting other local law
enforcement agencies with locating Hannah.
Sheriff Chip Harding addressed the Board, stating that the department is very proud of this and
recognized Sgt. Chan Giannini, accreditation manager, and her assistant, Kevin Sprouse. He said his
department has not had a valid complaint from a citizen on anyone in the Sheriff’s Department for over six
years, and there are no files returned on the 190 policies for accreditation. Sheriff Harding stated that the
reviewer indicated their department was in the top 1% of accredited agencies, based on this record. He
noted that the department was founded when Thomas Jefferson was just two years old, and it was not
until Chan Giannini was promoted that the office had its first female supervisor. Sheriff Harding said they
have the largest reserve division in the state of Virginia, contributing 1,200 hours to the Hannah Graham
case in addition to the 800 hours from civilian searchers. Sheriff Harding said the Sheriff’s Department
has a foundation which has raised over $100,000 to support their programs and the purchase of their
command vehicle.
___________
Item No. 9c. Proclamation recognizing Charles E. “Mo” Stevens.
Ms. Mallek read the following proclamation recognizing Charles E. “Mo” Stevens for his many
contributions to ornithology in Albemarle and throughout the state:
RECOGNITION
WHEREAS, Charles E. “Mo” Stevens has made many significant contributions to ornithology in
Albemarle County, including his annotated checklist of birds of Albemarle County, which
was a “milestone in ornithological history of Albemarle County” (The Birds of Albemarle
County and Charlottesville Virginia, p. 1); and
WHEREAS, Mo made remarkably extensive discoveries in botany in Albemarle and throughout the
state, and added over 25,000 specimens to the Longwood Herbarium (now the Harvill -
Stevens Herbarium) and was a significant contributor to the recently published Flora of
Virginia (Flora of Virginia, p.19); and
WHEREAS, Mo’s participation with the Biodiversity Workgroup, as well as his explorations and
remarkably extensive notes, have been invaluable to the County by documenting many of
our most special places and species; and
WHEREAS, Mo served as a mentor to some of the Commonwealth’s most respected field specialists;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors recognizes and
honors the considerable life achievements of Charles E. “Mo” Stevens as a citizen, scientist
and naturalist who has greatly deepened our understanding of the natural world in
Albemarle County and the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Signed and sealed this 12th day of November, 2014.
Ms. Mallek moved to adopt the recognition as presented. Ms. McKeel seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek and Ms. McKeel.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Chris Ludwig, Chief Biologist at the Virginia Division of Natural Heritage within the
Department of Conservation and Recreation, addressed the Board. Mr. Ludwig said, when he came to
Virginia in 1988 as staff botanist, he visited Longwood Herbarium, now called the Stevens/Harville
Herbarium, and kept seeing Mo Stevens’ name on documents. He said, in 1992 and 1993, they met with
each forest supervisor in each district, and they knew that a lot of those areas were special because Mo
Stevens had found those areas. He said, through that effort, they got 84,000 acres of the George
Washington National Forest set aside as special biological areas which was due, in large part, to Mo
Stevens. He noted that the Flora Virginia book is full of information that was gleaned from Mo Stevens’
work, especially the specimens he donated to the herbarium. He said, in 2004, he went on a botanizing
trip with Mr. Stevens and others, and he was mesmerized by Mr. Stevens’ curiosity as to what was
around the next bend and that is what drove him to be such an excellent naturalist in birds and plants.
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
Mr. Lonnie Murray of the Albemarle County Natural Heritage Committee addressed the Board
and stated that a lot of the special places in the County were first discovered by Mo Stevens.
Ms. Jennifer Gaden addressed the Board, stating that she is a longtime mem ber of the Monticello
Bird Club. She said the birding community is particularly appreciative of Mr. Stevens as the compiler of
the Charlottesville Christmas bird count data, which was gathered by volunteers. Ms. Gade n said, for
many years, all of this data was compiled by Mr. Stevens and provided to the National Audubon Society.
Ms. Ruth Douglas, president of the Virginia Native Plant Society, addressed the Board and stated
that they are appreciative of all the work that Mr. Stevens has done over the years . She thanked the
Board for recognizing him.
Ms. Kathy Galvin addressed the Board, stating that Mo Stevens has made many significant
contributions to ornithology, extensive discoveries in botany, participated in the biodiversity work group,
and documented many of the region’s most special natural areas and species. Ms. Galvin said, although
she was not there to speak on behalf of the Charlottesville City Council or the Thomas Jefferson Planning
District Commission, she can say that Mr. Stevens’ work has helped shape their public policies on
environmental stewardship and land management for the better. She stated that the sentiment is best
expressed in the joint vision and goal statements of the City and County Planning Commissions,
approved on January 15, 2013 which was one of the most important outcomes of the HUD Sustainable
Communities Planning Project. Ms. Galvin emphasized that Charlottesville and Albemarle could not
achieve this level of complementarity in its approaches to environmental stewardship and land
management without the leadership, dedication, expertise and wisdom of citizen scientists and naturalists
like Mr. Stevens. She said the region is healthier, more beautiful and vibrant for his efforts, and she
thanked the Board for honoring him.
Ms. Dittmar noted that Mr. Stevens’ son had picked up the resolution honoring his father.
Ms. Gaden mentioned that there were several other people present who were supporters of his
work, and they stood to be recognized.
Ms. Palmer noted that some of them were extraordinary naturalists in their own right.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Ms. Pearl Early addressed the Board, asking for all National Society of Black Engineering (NSBE)
students and parents to stand. Ms. Early said they were before the Board because of Ms. Mallek, who
invited Clifford Ayers to share their experience with the Exxon Mobil program. Ms. Early introduced two
NSBE students.
Mr. Imani Bruno addressed the Board, stating that he is the standing UVA chapter president for
NSBE, which works to assist high school students in making the transition to college as well as to find out
more about engineering and Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics (STEM) fields. He said
he is representing an organization that has over 400 chapters, 40,000 members, and has national
recognition.
An individual who did not identify himself addressed the Board, stating that they had a project
whereby they built catapults out of Popsicle sticks, rubber bands and spoons, and were tryin g to get kids
more involved in the engineering fields.
Mr. Clifford Ayers Brown addressed the Board, stating that he attends Henley Middle School and
also attended the Exxon Mobil Bernard Harris Summer Science Camp at UVA. Mr. Brown said they did
many exciting projects, including making a Mars Rover out of a plastic cup. He said they were divided
into groups and competed on how they could land the rover. He said his group won first place because
they did not drop the marshmallow “passenger” and their cup landed upright.
Ms. Early invited Board members to visit Albemarle High School from 4:00-5:30 p.m. and see
NSBE in action, noting that they were trying to connect with the MESA program.
Ms. Mallek congratulated them on a job well done.
Ms. Dittmar said the Board appreciated them being here, and thanked UVA students for their
involvement in the program.
__________
Mr. Michael Basile addressed the Board, stating that he is a member of the Jefferson Area Tea
Party (JATP) and a resident of the Samuel Miller District. Mr. Basile said the Board’s desire to increase
taxes is bewildering. He said it is as if many of the families in the County do not matter to them although
the Board has a duty to serve them as well. He stated that the tax hikes last year hurt the mid dle and
low-income families, adding that a lot of renters had their rents raised. Mr. Basile said many of these
people try to take small amounts and put it into savings, and each incremental tax increase makes it
harder to do that. He also stated that the Rio Road and Route 29 construction would hit people with time
delays as they travel, and the Board is the responsible party for that. Mr. Basile said the JATP does not
feel the Board is acting in a responsible manner, and he does not endorse a pay raise for Supervisors.
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
He stated that the Board must address the fiscal responsibilities it has already been given without trying
to increase the tax burden on the rest of the community.
__________
Mr. Morgan Butler addressed the Board on behalf of the Southern Environmental Law Center,
stating that he represents SELC on the Route 29 Project Delivery Advisory Panel. Mr. Butler thanked the
Board and County staff for its ongoing efforts to correct the steady stream of misinform ation which some
opponents of the Rio interchange project have been disseminating in recent weeks. He said most of the
misinformation boils down to dramatically overstating the 103-day period of time during the summer of
2016 when some lanes will be closed at the intersection, and dramatically overstating the extent of the
lane closures which will occur during that time. Mr. Butler acknowledged that it will be harder to access
some of those businesses during that 103 days and that should not be trivialized, but this crucial project is
not going to get any easier to accomplish two, five or ten years from now – not for the people at those
businesses and not for the rest of the community. He emphasized that it was only going to get harder,
and this project would become more essential once the parallel road network is expanded and the Rio/29
intersection becomes an even more critical junction point between the network and Route 29. Mr. Butler
said the Board currently has the good fortune of having administration at the state level that is interested
in working with them at the local level to minimize impacts and keep travel disruptions to a minim um
during construction. He stated that he saw a recent news story in which fellow panel members and an
opponent of the Rio interchange complained that the project is being designed in Richmond and the local
community should have a larger say, apparently f orgetting that a group of them, comprised primarily of
business owners, had been meeting with VDOT every two weeks for the past four months to provide input
and recommendations on the design, and that many of their most significant recommendations had been
incorporated into the plan. Mr. Butler said everyone has a right to their opinion and a right to advocate
their view, but the community is best served when the discussion is based on facts. He thanked the
Board for its efforts to counter the misinformation. He said he hoped those who were spreading false
information will realize that it just means there is less time to focus on mitigating the true impacts.
__________
Mr. Neil Williamson of the Free Enterprise Forum addressed the Board, stating that he shared Mr.
Butler’s concern about misinformation out in the public and felt it was important that true information be
recognized. Mr. Williamson said the ideas in Places 29 are about collector roads, right-turn only, and
limiting conflicts and, while they may not call it an “expressway,” it is important that the County use the
true information in the approved plan when there are conversations about whether or not VDOT is
building an expressway. He stated that he firmly believes the County is headed toward having some road
that has limited access through the center of the community adding that he spoke against the project with
the previous Board. Mr. Williamson said the VDOT website and Places 29 plan should be used as
resources to find out what the correct information is, adding that misinformation is bad and more
information is good.
Mr. Sheffield said one reason why he asked for an update on Places 29 at the Board’s November
11 work session was because it does add a bit of confusion and it does not align completely with current
plans.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Consent Agenda.
Mr. Boyd moved to approve the Consent Agenda as read. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek and Ms. McKeel.
NAYS: None.
______
Item No. 11.1c. Approval of Minutes: November 13, 2013 and May 14, 2014.
Mr. Boyd said he read the minutes of May 14, 2014 and found them to be in order.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the minutes of November 13, 2013 and
moved the remaining minutes to the next meeting.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Public Hearing: SP-2013-00023. Buck Mountain Episcopal Church
Addition (Sign #1).
Magisterial District: White Hall.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 03100000003500.
LOCATION: 4133 Earlysville Road.
PROPOSAL: Request to amend the application plan for SP1996-037 for an addition onto the
fellowship hall of the existing church.
PETITION: Churches by Special Use Permit under Section 12.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
ZONING: VR Village Residential- residential at 0.7 units/acre; churches by special use permit.
Airport Impact Area (AIA)- Overlay to minimize adverse impacts to both the airport and the
surrounding land.
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Areas- preserve and protect agricultural, forestall, open space,
and natural, historic and scenic resources/density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots) in Rural
Area 1.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 27 and November 3, 2014)
The executive summary forwarded to the Board states that on September 16, 2014, the Planning
Commission held a public hearing on the application for the amendment of the special use permit for
Buck Mountain Episcopal Church property. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this SP
with the expectation that the following be provided/addressed prior to the Board of Supervisors meeting:
1. The application plan to be revised to include a replacement tree for the oak tree
that was being removed with the proposed addition.
The applicant has provided the following in response to the Commission’s expectations:
1. The applicant has updated the application plan to include a large shade tree. This is
also a condition of the special use permit.(Attachment E)
Staff recommends that the Board approve SP-2013-023 Buck Mountain Episcopal Church, with a
revised date of October 9, 2014 (Attachment A), and the recommended resolution and conditions
(Attachments D and E).
_____
Ms. Meagan Yaniglos, Senior Planner, addressed the Board, stating that this is a request to
amend the application plan for SP 1996-037 for an addition onto an existing fellowship hall of the church,
which is located on Earlysville Road and is an historic church that is across from an existing veterinary
office. Ms. Yaniglos said the applicant proposes an addition to their existing Deese Hall and also
entrance improvements. She said, during the Planning Commission meeting, an additional condition was
added to the plan regarding an oak tree being removed, and the applicant has provided a tree on the
revised application plan; it is also a revised condition. She noted that the design planner had also
reviewed the impacts to the historic church and found it to be com patible with the existing church. Ms.
Yaniglos said favorable factors include no significant impacts created by the proposed addition, and the
historic design planner found it to be compatible with the historic church. She stated that there were no
identified unfavorable factors.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Ms. Lauren Hilldebrand addressed the Board, stating that she is a member of Buck Mountain
Episcopal Church and represents the building committee. She said she had no further comments but
would be happy to answer any questions the Board might have.
There being no other comments, the Chair closed the public hearing.
Ms. Mallek said she received several emails from congregation members regarding how the
addition would support their mission, and she was glad that staff has found it to be compatible with county
ordinances and the rest of the project.
Mr. Davis stated that condition #1 needs to be slightly amended to refer to the conceptual plan
dated June 13, 2014 and revised October 9, 2014 . He said the motion would be to approve the resolution
with the conditions as amended.
Ms. Mallek moved to adopt the proposed resolution to approve SP-2013-023, with attached
conditions, and the revised conceptual plan with a revision date of October 9, 2014. Ms. McKeel
seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Palmer, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Sheffield.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The adopted resolution is set out below:)
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE
SP 2013-23 BUCK MOUNTAIN EPISCOPAL CHURCH
WHEREAS, Buck Mountain Episcopal Church (the “Owner”) is the owner of Tax Map and Parcel
Number 03100-00-00-03500 (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Owner filed an application to amend the application plan for Special Use Permit
SP 1996-037 Buck Mountain Episcopal Church to build an addition onto the existing fellowship hall, and
the application is identified as Special Use Permit 2013-00023 (“SP 2013-23”); and
WHEREAS, on September 16, 2014, after a duly noticed public hearing, the Albemarle County
Planning Commission recommended approval of SP 2013-23 with the conditions recommended by
County staff; and
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
WHEREAS, on November 12, 2014, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors held a duly
noticed public hearing on SP 2013-23.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, upon consideration of the foregoing, the staff
report prepared for SP 2013-23 and all of its attachments, the information presented at the public
hearing, and the factors relevant to a special use permit in Albemarle County Code § 18 -33.8, the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby approves SP 2013-23, subject to the condition attached
hereto.
*****
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PROJECT: SP-2013-00023. Buck Mountain Episcopal Church Addition.
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Buck Mountain
Episcopal Church Proposed Addition- Site, Grading and Utility Plan” prepared by Draper Aden
Associates dated June 13, 2014 and revised October 9, 2014 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as
determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord
with the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the following major elements within
the development essential to the design of the development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan:
a. Location of proposed addition
2. Add additional Oak tree to replace the one that is being taken down.
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Public Hearing: ZMA-2013-00016. Avinity II (Sign 67.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville.
TAX MAP/PARCELS: 091000000016A0, 091000000016C0, 091000000016E0,
09100000001400(portion).
LOCATION: 2085 Avinity Loop which intersects Route 742 Avon Street Extended; Rezoning also
includes properties adjacent to Route 20 Scottsville Road.
PROPOSAL: Rezone a total of 11.886 acres to permit development of 102 maximum residential
units, including townhouses and attached and detached single family. Avinity I Phase portion
proposed to be amended to replace 24-unit condominium building with a maximum of eight
townhouses.
PETITION: Rezone 11.886 acres from R1 Residential zoning district which allows residential
density (1 unit/acre) to Planned Residential District (PRD) which allows residential (3 -34
units/acre) with limited commercial uses. Also, request to amend the section of the application
plan for Avinity I Phase IV from approved ZMA2006-005 zoned PRD. 102 maximum residential
units proposed for a density of 9 units per acre. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes.
PROFFERS: Yes.
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Urban Density Residential (6.01-34 units/acre) and supporting uses
such as religious institutions, schools, comm ercial, office and service uses in Neighborhood 4.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 27 and November 3, 2014)
The executive summary forwarded to the Board states that on August 19, 2014, the Planning
Commission held a public hearing on the application for the rezoning of the Avinity II property,
amendment to the existing Avinity I property, and modifications. The Planning Commission recommended
approval of this ZMA with the expectation that the following be provided/addressed prior to the Board
meeting:
1. Improvements necessary to mitigate the impacts from Avinity II onto Avinity I roads need
to be addressed by the applicant in coordination with the County Engineer.
2. An easement for Phase I for future public access on the existing streets needs to be
addressed.
3. Technical revisions should be made to the proffers based on comments received by the
Deputy County Attorney and the Housing Director.
The Planning Commission also recommended approval of a special exception to reduce the
minimum separation from 30 feet to 10 feet.
The Planning Commission approved private streets and a variation to allow the planting strip to
be replaced by a landscaping easement to allow the sidewalk to be located adjacent to the curb. These
actions are delegated in the Subdivision Ordinance to the Planning Commission.
The applicant has provided the following in response to the Commission’s expectations:
1. The applicant has worked with the County Engineer to address his concerns and has
revised the application plan to include traffic mitigation measures, including a traffic circle
and speed humps. The applicant has also added a proffer (Proffer #4) for the installation
of the speed humps. These revisions have addressed the County Engineer’s comments
and he has no further concerns with the rezoning.
2. The applicant has added a note on the plan that the streets will be open for public use.
An easement plat will be submitted during the site plan or subdivision process.
3. The applicant has addressed all technical comments to the satisfaction of the Deputy
County Attorney and the Housing Director.
The special exception to reduce the minimum building separation is analyzed on pages 9 and 10
of Attachment D.
Staff believes that the Planning Commission’s expectations have been addressed and
recommends that the Board adopt the attached ordinance (Attachment E) approving ZMA2013-016
Avinity II.
Staff also recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment F) approving
the special exception to reduce the minimum building separation that was recommended for approval by
the Planning Commission, as outlined in the September 10, 2014 action letter (Attachment C) and further
discussed in the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment D).
_____
Ms. Megan Yaniglos stated that this is a request to rezone 11.886 acres from R-1 residential to
Planned Residential Development (PRD). She said the applicant is proposing a maximum of 102 single-
family and townhouses for a maximum density of approximately nine units per acre. She said there is
also a request to amend the application plan for ZMA 2006-005 Avinity I, already zoned PRD, to replace a
24-unit condo with six to eight townhouses which will reduce the density total in Avinity I from 124 to 106-
108. Ms. Yaniglos stated that the applicant is also requesting approval of a modification of the building
separation requirement. She said the site is located off of Scottsville Road and Avon Street Extended,
with Avinity I being adjacent to the parcels that are proposed to be rezoned and will be the main access
into the development. Ms. Yaniglos pointed out the location of Cale Elementary and Kappa Sigma
fraternity, as well as single-family residential units, all adjacent to the site. She reiterated that the
proposal includes a mixture of townhouse and single-family residential units at a maximum of 102 units.
She said, along with the residential units, the applicant is proposing a tot lot, a dog park, pavilion, and
passive recreation park, which are amenities that are required by the ordinance. She said access to the
site will be through the existing Avinity development adjacent to Avon Street Extended; emergency
access only will be provided out to Route 20 South. Ms. Yaniglos said public connectivity to Route 20
South is not being provided due to topographic and entrance spacing issues with the Kappa Sigma site
and, while this is not ideal, the applicant has provided the opportunity for future connection to an adjacent
parcel – both Cale Elementary and an existing driveway. She stated that all the streets within existing
phase one of the development are private, and the Planning Commission approved the private street
requests for Avinity II. Ms. Yaniglos indicated on a map the location of the condo units which would be
replaced with the townhouse units. She said there would now be no multi-family residential units within
Avinity I, which was approved providing two unit types: townhouse and condo multi-family. If approved,
she said the combined phase one and phase two would provide three unit types: townhouse, single-
family attached and detached, with no commercial being proposed.
Ms. Yaniglos stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval with the expectation
that issues as outlined in the staff report would be addressed prior to the Board meeting . She said those
issues included improvements necessary to mitigate the impacts from Avinity II on Avinity I roads and
also, in coordination with the County Engineer, an easement for future public access onto the existing
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
private streets and technical revisions to the proff ers. She said the applicant has worked with the County
Engineer to address his concerns and revise the application plan to include traffic mitigation measures
including a traffic circle and speed bumps, and the applicant has also added a proffer to install those
speed bumps. Ms. Yaniglos stated that the applicant noted that the streets would be open for public use,
and an easement plat would be submitted and required during the site plan and subdivision process. In
addition, the applicant has addressed all technical comments which the Deputy County Attorney and
Housing Director had. She stated that favorable factors include that the density and housi ng types
proposed for development of the property are consistent with the land use recommendations in the Comp
Plan as well as the goals for the development, and future connections are shown on the two adjacent
parcels. She said no unfavorable factors have been identified, and the applicant has addressed all
concerns from the Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Sheffield asked if the Fire Marshal’s Office had provided input on the site plan. Ms. Yaniglos
responded that the office had provided input.
Mr. Sheffield commented that he did not want to repeat the Belvedere problem, with narrow
streets of which the Fire Department is not happy.
Ms. Mallek noted that the issue arose when there was on-street parking.
Mr. Sheffield confirmed that fact.
At this time, the Chair opened the public hearing.
Mr. Allen Taylor, developer of Avinity I and Avinity II, addres sed the Board and stated that this
project has been a good one to work on. Mr. Taylor said subdivision developers do not always get to
know the people who are moving into a neighborhood, but it has been different in this case and has been
a nice process to get to know the people who are living there.
Mr. Sheffield asked what the average home sale price was for Avinity I. Mr. Taylor said they were
just developing the lots and working with builders who were selling the homes, but his recollection was
that the homes were in the $300K range.
Mr. Paul McCarter, resident of Avinity, addressed the Boar d and stated that Mr. Taylor has heard
a lot from residents, and the developer has heard all of their comments. Mr. McCarter said everyone is
very satisfied with the development with overwhelm ing support among residents, adding that almost all
requests regarding amenities have been granted. He stated that the price ranges from the high $200,000
range to the high $300,000’s if they have a lot of special attributes, with the midpoint at about $310,000.
He re-emphasized support from the community.
Ms. Jas Depiem addressed the Board, stating that she lives in Avinity I and commented that the
process has been long, but the developer has been very responsive to residents’ requests. She said
residents are very happy with the current neighborhood but knew they could do even better, which is what
they are trying to do with Avinity II. Ms. Depiem said residents felt very involved with the process and, in
moments of dissention, they tried to come together and create solutions . She stated that the developer
was the one who facilitated that.
There being no further comments, the Chair closed the public hearing.
Ms. Dittmar stated that, as the Supervisor from that district, she appreciated the residents of
Avinity I and all the time spent talking about their community and visioning what they want for the future.
She expressed her appreciation to Mr. Taylor and Riverbend for listening and being accommodating,
stating that she has watched the project from beginning to now and it was great to see everyone come
together.
Mr. Davis noted that, in order to approve the ZMA, there was an ordinance as Attachment E, so
the motion would be to approve that along with a second motion to approve the special exception.
Ms. Yaniglos said she had prepared the motions on the screen for the Board.
Ms. Dittmar moved that the Board adopt Ordinance No. 14-A(4) ZMA-2013-0016 Avinity II. Ms.
Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek and Ms. McKeel.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The adopted ordinance is set out below:)
ORDINANCE NO. 14-A(4)
ZMA 2013-00016
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP
FOR TAX MAP AND PARCEL NUMBERS 09100-00-00-016A0,
09100-00-00-016C0, 09100-00-00-016E0, AND 09100-00-00-01400 (PORTION)
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
WHEREAS, the application to amend the zoning map for Tax Map and Parcel Numbers 09100-
00-00-016A0 (“Parcel 16A”), 09100-00-00-016C0 (“Parcel 16C”), 09100-00-00-016E0 (“Parcel 16E”), and
09100-00-00-01400 (“Parcel 14”) (portion) is identified as ZMA 2013-00016, Avinity II (“ZMA 2013-
00016”); and
WHEREAS, Parcels 16A, 16C and 16E are zoned Residential (R-1) and Parcel 14(portion) is
zoned Planned Residential District (PRD); and
WHEREAS, ZMA 2013-00016 proposes to rezone Parcels 16A, 16C, and 16E to Planned
Residential District (PRD) with proffers and an application plan, to allow the development of 102
maximum residential units, including townhouses and attached and detached single family dwellings; and
WHEREAS, ZMA 2013-00016 also proposes to amend the application plan for a portion of Parcel
14, as depicted on the application plan, which was approved as part of ZMA 2006-005 Avinity I Phase IV,
to replace a 24-unit condominium building with a maximum of eight townhouses; and
WHEREAS, on August 19, 2014, after a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission
recommended approval of ZMA 2013-00016, with recommended technical revisions to the proffers and
the application plan, which have since been satisfactorily addressed; and
WHEREAS, on November 12, 2014, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors held a duly
noticed public hearing on ZMA 2013-00016.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that upon
consideration of the executive summary and staff report prepared for ZMA 2013-00016 and their
attachments, including the proffers and the application plan, the information presented at the public
hearing, the material and relevant factors in Virginia Code § 15.2-2284, and for the purposes of public
necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices, the Board hereby approves ZMA
2013-00016 with the proffers dated October 30, 2014, and the application plan entitled “Avinity II Planned
Residential Development (PRD) Application Plan,” last revised October 13, 2014, and the zoning map for
Tax Map and Parcel Numbers 09100-00-00-016A0, 09100-00-00-016C0, 09100-00-00-016E0, and
09100-00-00-01400 (portion) are amended accordingly.
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
*****
Ms. Dittmar then moved to adopt the proposed resolution approving a special exception for
building separation associated with ZMA-2013-0016 with the attached conditions. Ms. Mallek seconded
the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek and Ms. McKeel.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The adopted resolution is set out below:)
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL EXCEPTION
FOR ZMA 2013-00016, AVINITY II
WHEREAS, Wallace B. Hughes is the owner of Tax Map and Parcel Number 09100-00-00-
016A0, Moss Acquisitions, LLC is the owner of Tax Map and Parcel Number 09100 -00-00-016C0, and
Avon Properties, LLC is the owner of Tax Map and Parcel Number 09100-00-00-016E0 and a portion of
Tax Map and Parcel Number 09100-00-00-01400; all of the owners of such parcels are referred to herein
collectively as the “Owner” and the parcels are referred to herein collectively as the “Property”; and
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
WHEREAS, the Owner filed an application to amend the zoning map for the Property, which
rezoning application is identified as ZMA 2013-00016, Avinity II (“ZMA 2013-00016”); and
WHEREAS, on August 19, 2014, the Planning Commission recommended approval of ZMA
2013-00016 with certain conditions, including the approval of a special exception to modify the building
separation requirements under County Code § 18-8.2(b)(4).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, upon consideration of the foregoing, the executive
summary prepared in conjunction with th e application, and its supporting analysis included on pages 9
and 10 of the executive summary, and all of the factors relevant to the special exception in Albemarle
County Code §§ 18-8.2(b)(4) and 18-33.8, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby approves
the special exception to authorize the modification of the building separation requirements under County
Code § 18-8.2(b)(4), subject to the conditions attached hereto.
*****
ZMA 2013-00016 Avinity II Special Exception Conditions
1. The applicant shall submit a revised subdivision plat that shows an eight (8) foot maintenance
easement between structures to allow residents to maintain their units.
2. The minimum building separation shall be ten (10) feet with architectural features and building
overhangs allowed to encroach into the setback no further than one foot.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Public Hearing: 14-03(2) – Agricultural and Forestal Districts.
Ordinance to amend Division 2, Districts, of Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3,
Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of the Albemarle County Code, to add lands to a certain district and to
make corrections to certain district regulations to identify all those tax map parcels within the districts, as
specified below:
a) AFD 2014-4. Keswick AFD – District Review. The proposed ordinance would amend
Section 3-219, Keswick Agricultural and Forestal District, to continue the district for all
parcels identified in the district regulations, to set the next district review deadline date of
November 12, 2024, and to remove any parcels for which a request for withdrawal is
received before the Board acts on the proposed ordinance;
b) AFD 2014-5. Kinloch AFD – District Review. The proposed ordinance would amend
Section 3-220, Kinloch Agricultural and Forestal District, to identify TMP 65-121A1 as no
longer being in the district (this parcel was combined with another parcel in the district), to
continue the district for all parcels identified in the district regulations, to set the next
district review deadline date of November 12, 2024, and to remove any parcels for which
a request for withdrawal is received before the Board acts on the proposed ordinance;
c) AFD 2014-6. Moorman’s River AFD – District Review. The proposed ordinance would
amend Section 3-222 Moorman’s River Agricultural and Forestal District, to identify
TMP’s 41-72E, 41-72F, and 42-41B as being in the district (these parcels were created
by subdivision of other parcels in the district); to identify TMP’s 28 -25(part) and 29-
15D(part) as being in the district (land from other parcels in the district was added to
these parcels, the remainders of which are not in the district); to identify TMP’s 28-37, 29-
8H, 41-68, 42-7, 42-8A, and 42-8B as no longer being in the district (land from these
parcels was added to other parcels in the district); to continue the district for all parcels
identified in the district regulations, to set the next district review deadline date of
November 12, 2024, and to remove any parcels for which a request for withdrawal is
received before the Board acts on the proposed ordinance; and
d) AFD 2014-7. Hardware AFD – Addition. The proposed ordinance would amend Section
3-214, Hardware Agricultural and Forestal District, to add TMP 88-3R to the district.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 27 and November 3, 2014)
The executive summary forwarded to Board members states that Localities are enabled to establish
agricultural and forestal districts (AFD’s) under the Agricultural and Forestal Districts Act (Virginia Code §
15.2-4300). AFD’s serve two primary purposes: (1) to conserve and protect agricultural and forestal lands;
and (2) to develop and improve agricultural and forestal lands. Land within an AFD is prohibited from being
developed to a more intensive use, other than a use resulting in more intensive agricultural or forestal
production, without prior Board approval. The County is prohibited from exercising its zoning power in a way
that would unreasonably restrict or regulate farm structures or farming and forestry practices in
contravention of the Agricultural and Forestal Districts Act unless those restrictions or regulations bear a
direct relationship to public health and safety (Virginia Code § 15.2-4312).
Virginia Code § 15.2-4311 requires the periodic review of AFD’s to determine whether they should
continue, be modified, or be terminated, unless the Board determines that review is unnecessary. During
the review period, any landowner may request to withdraw his lands from an AFD until the Board acts on
the AFD review. At any time other than during an AFD’s review, land may be withdrawn from the district
upon approval by the Board and only for good and reasonable cause. The Board has set a 10-year review
period for all AFD’s in the County. Virginia Code § 15.2-4311 requires that the Board conduct a public
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
hearing on AFD reviews, and that they also be reviewed by both the Agricultural and Forestal District
Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission for their recommendations.
Keswick AFD
The Keswick AFD, which was created in 1986 and currently includes 71 parcels an d 6,923 acres, is
undergoing its periodic ten-year review. This AFD is located in the vicinity of Keswick . One
landowner submitted a request to withdraw two parcels (TMPs 80-182A and 80-183), totaling 46.35
acres. The Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission reviewed the Keswick AFD and
recommend the continuation of the AFD. The Keswick AFD staff report to the Planning Commission
is attached (Attachment B).
Kinloch AFD
The Kinloch AFD, which was created in 1986 and currently includes 33 parcels and 1,722 acres, is
undergoing its periodic ten-year review. This AFD is located in the vicinity of Cismont, Cash’s
Corner, and Cobham. One landowner submitted a request to withdraw one parcel (TMP 66-10G1)
consisting of 10.96 acres. The Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission reviewed the
Kinlock AFD and recommend the continuation of the AFD. The Kinloch AFD staff report to the
Planning Commission is attached (Attachment B).
Moorman’s River AFD
The Moorman’s River AFD, which was created in 1986 and currently includes 230 parcels and
10,944 acres, is undergoing its periodic ten-year review. This AFD is located in the vicinity of White
Hall, Millington, Free Union, and Owensville. Nine landowners submitted requests to withdraw
eleven parcels (TMPs 28-7, 29-8K, 29-15D(part), 29-69D, 29-70F1, 29-73B, 29-80, 30-12, 30-17A,
30-18E, and 43-30D) totaling 331.28 acres. The Advisory Committee and the Planning
Commission reviewed the Moorman’s River AFD and recommend the continuation of the AFD. The
Moorman’s River AFD staff report to the Planning Commission is attached (Attachment B).
Additions
A landowner may petition to add its land to an AFD at any time (Virginia Code § 15.2 -4310).
Virginia Code §§ 15.2-4307 and 15.2-4309 require that the Board conduct a public hearing on
proposed additions to AFDs, and that these actions be reviewed by both the Agricultural and
Forestal District Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission for their recommendations.
Hardware AFD
The Hardware AFD is located on either side of US 29 South, in the vicinity of Crossroads and
Red Hill, and contains 3,341 acres. One landowner submitted a request to add one parcel (TMP
88-3R) consisting of 21 acres to the District. The Advisory Committee and the Planning
Commission reviewed the request and recommend approval of the proposed action. The
Hardware AFD staff report to the Planning Commission is attached (Attachment B).
Rural Areas: Preserve the character of rural life with thriving farms and forests, traditional
crossroad communities, and protected scenic areas, historic sites, and biodiversity.
Keswick AFD
The Keswick AFD primarily consists of pasture and hardwood forest. Of the 6,923 acres in the
District, there are currently 5,327 acres under conservation easement. There are also
approximately 740 acres in Agricultural Land Use, 508 acres in Forestry Land Use, and 344 acres
in Open Space Land Use. In addition to agricultur al, forestal, and open space uses, there are
approximately 88 dwellings in the District (this includes secondary dwellings). Conservation of
this area will help maintain the environmental integrity of the County and aid in the protection of
ground and surface water, agricultural soils, mountain resources, critical slopes, and wildlife
habitat.
Kinloch AFD
The Kinlock AFD primarily consists of open land and deciduous forest. Of the 1,722 acres in the
District, there are currently 1,225 acres under conservation easement. There are also
approximately 61 acres in Agricultural Land Use, 82 acres in Forestry Land Use, and 262 acres
in Open Space Land Use. In addition to agricultural, forestal, and open space uses, there are
approximately 44 dwellings in the District (this includes secondary dwellings). Conservation of
this area will help maintain the environmental integrity of the County and aid in the protection of
ground and surface water, agricultural soils, mountain resources, critical slopes, and wildlife
habitat.
Moorman’s River AFD
The Moorman’s River AFD primarily consists of mixed forest and open land. Of the 10,994 acres
in the District, there are currently 5,379 acres under conservation easement. There are also
approximately 2,929 acres in Agricultural Land Use, 1,751 acres in Forestry Land Use, 260 acres
in Open Space Land Use, and 18 acres in Horticultural Land Use . In addition to agricultural,
forestall, open space, and horticultural uses, there are approximately 230 dwellings in the District
(this includes secondary dwellings). Conservation of this area will help maintain the
environmental integrity of the County and aid in the protection of ground and surface water,
agricultural soils, mountain resources, critical slopes, and wildlife habitat.
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
Hardware AFD
The Hardware AFD primarily consists of large forested parcels and large farm parcels. There are
approximately 40 dwellings in the District (this includes secondary dwellings). The parcel under
consideration for addition, TMP 88-3R, is located at 1745 Chopin Drive. There is one dwelling on
the parcel. The proposed addition of the parcel, consisting of 21 acres, would increase the total
number of acres in the Hardware District to 3,362. Adding this parcel, which includes woodland
and agricultural fields, will help protect forest and rich farm land, and will help maintain the
environmental integrity of the County and aid in the protection of ground and surface water,
agricultural soils, and wildlife habitat. The Hardware AFD is scheduled for revi ew in 2017.
There is no budget impact.
After conducting public hearings on the proposed AFD reviews and the AFD addition, which may
be held together as one public hearing, staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached ordinance to
continue the Keswick, Kinloch, and Moorman’s River AFD’s and to approve the addition of Tax Map and
Parcel Number 88-3R to the Hardware AFD.
_____
Ms. Dittmar stated that the Board would consider all of the districts at this time, therefore,
Supervisors would be looking at Keswick, Kinloch, Moorman’s River and Hardware.
Mr. Scott Clark, Senior Planner, addressed the Board, stating that these districts come up for
review every 10 years by the Board, and that is the period in which it decides whether to continue the
district and the time in which members can withdraw by right d uring the review. He said the fourth item is
an addition request.
Mr. Clark reported that the first review was the Keswick District, which is located primarily on the
east side of the Southwest Mountains in the Keswick area, starting in 1986 at 5,400 acres and is now at
almost 7,000 acres and 71 parcels. He said the district has 4,800 acres of important soils, and a very
large proportion – 5,300 acres – is also under conservation easement. He stated that there had been
only one request for withdrawal, a total of two parcels and 46 acres, and the district advisory committee
and Planning Commission unanimously recommended renewal of the district for a ten-year period. Mr.
Clark said the Kinloch District is just northeast of the Keswick District and he pointed out the requested
withdrawals. He reported that the district was started in 1986 and has grown from 1,400 acres to 1,700
acres, with 1,200 acres in conservation easements. He said this district has had only one withdrawal
request for a parcel just under 11 acres. Mr. Clark said the committee and Commission unanimously
recommended renewal of the district. He stated that the third review was the Moorman’s River District,
which is the County’s largest at almost 11,000 acres. He said this district was created in 1986 with 7,200
acres and now has 230 parcels of which 8,000 are important agricultural soils and 5,000 are in
conservation easements. He stated that there are also 230 dwellings in this district. Mr. Clark said the
County received several requests for withdrawal for a total of 13 parcels and 426 acres out of the 11,000
acres. Mr. Clark stated that both the committee and the Commission unanimously recommended renewal
of the district. He reported that the last item was the addition request for the Hardware District, stating
that the district, at one point, included 6,000 acres but was now down to 3,300 acres. He explained that
the Keeling property is an addition of 21 acres with one dwelling; there is a mix of land cover with 14
acres of important agricultural soils. He said the committee and the Planning Commission both
recommended approval of the addition to the Hardware District. He said the recommendation to the
Board would be to renew the three districts under review and also add the Keeling property to the
Hardware District.
The Chair opened the public comment period.
There being no public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing.
Mr. Davis said there was a single ordinance covering all the districts, and the updated ordinance
with the two latest withdrawals has a draft date of November 4, 2014, so the motion would be to approve
the ordinance regarding the Ag/Forestal Districts with that date.
Ms. Palmer asked staff for a brief explanation of the benefits of participation in the districts.
Mr. Clark said people with sufficient acreage – over 20 acres – can use it to qualify for the Open
Space category of use/value taxation, and the act of committing to the protections inhere nt to the districts
qualifies them without any further requirements for production or land management. He stated that he
hears from a lot of residents that neighbors are reassuring each other that their land would not be
developed, as people do not want to commit to protecting their land and then see everything else around
them taking advantage of what they have done so there seems to be a real community aspect of people
doing it together.
The Chair reopened the public comment period.
Mr. Brian Walton, a local farmer, addressed the Board, stating that the Open Space easement
enables landowners to take a step back and not participate, and he has seen thousands of acres
adjacent to him become neglected because the landowner is capable of preserving it in op en space and
not fertilizing it so it becomes devoid of life. Mr. Walton said the grass is under-fertilized so the yield per
acre is very low, and the incentive for a farmer to cut it is not there but the owner is saving thousands of
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
dollars in tax money because of their easement. He stated that farmers are losing land to neglectful
homeowners, and there was no direction given to them nor is there any guidance to tell them wh at to do.
Mr. Walton said he sees large farms like Blandemar and Bundoran trying to get a handle on it, but those
extremely large parcels are not required to be fertilized and treated and, if a farmer has to tend the land,
the landowner may not be replenishing it.
Ms. Marcia Joseph addressed the Board, stating that her property is in the Keswick District and
she has a small parcel but five development rights. Ms. Joseph said she is making a promise for 10
years that she will not subdivide the property into four other houses, so that is the other advantage and
why she gets a little bit of a tax break. She stated that the reason the tax break is there is because there
is less pressure in the rural areas to provide more school busses, more emergency vehicles and other
services as a result of her not cashing in and subdividing.
The Chair closed the public comment period.
Ms. Palmer asked if the 21-acre lot had any development rights on it. Mr. Clark responded that it
could, but stated that a 21-acre lot that was developed as a residue lot of a subdivision usually does not
have any additional development rights so it can have one house but no more, and that can mean a fair
number of these lots without development potential in the districts. He said, in the past, the committee
has expressed concern about the fact that the districts are not really preventing development from
happening because the potential is not there. Mr. Clark stated that the County has never had a policy of
accepting or not accepting parcels based on development potential and, if people volunteer to join the
district, they are almost always accepted so it would be a change in policy to begin using development
potential as a factor.
Ms. Mallek said her farm was the core property back in the 1980s for the Jacob’s Run District,
and, at that time, it was a collegial gathering of those wanting to establish a conservation area, but not
every piece of land is suitable to be cropped. She stated that her land is very thin and rocky, which is
good for pasture and forest but requires care not to lose the soil. Ms. Mallek said the conservation aspect
of the land use program and ag/forestal program is very important for water quality, adding that all this
acreage counts as positives in the watershed improvement program for the Chesapeake Bay and are
assets for the County in that regard.
Ms. Palmer said she agrees completely and values the program tremendously for the reasons
Ms. Mallek and Ms. Joseph both mentioned. She said she simply wanted to bring up the question as the
County is entering budget season and looking for revenue. She said the Board will need to decide
whether to entertain a discussion regarding those who are not haying their land or using it for agriculture
but are still getting a tax break.
Ms. Mallek said the County’s program is based upon the state model, and has strenuously
avoided stepping out of the state model. She said, back in the 1980s, Supervisors never dreamed that
people would have 21-acre front yards, and the whole goal was to have a one-acre house site and 20
acres that could be added to another house site so that a farmer could come in and use it as a lease-
hold. Ms. Mallek stated that, in the district she represents, there has been a tremendous increase in
farmer/landowner cooperation after revalidation came in, which was five or six years ago, because there
had to be affirmation of agricultural use for that program.
Ms. Mallek moved to adopt the ordinance to continue the Keswick, Kinloch and Moorman’s River
AG/Forestal Districts, and to approve the addition to the Hardware Agricultural/Forestal District, dated
November 4, 2014. Ms. Palmer seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the f ollowing recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek and Ms. McKeel.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The adopted ordinance is set out below:)
ORDINANCE NO. 14-3(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL
DISTRICTS, ARTICLE II, DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, DIVISION 2, DISTRICTS, 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 3,
Agricultural and Forestal Districts, Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, Division 2, Districts, of the
Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3-214 Hardware Agricultural and Forestal District
Sec. 3-219 Keswick Agricultural and Forestal District
Sec. 3-220 Kinloch Agricultural and Forestal District
Sec. 3-222 Moorman’s River Agricultural and Forestal District
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
CHAPTER 3. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS
ARTICLE II. DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE
DIVISION 2. DISTRICTS
Sec. 3-214 Hardware Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Hardware Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following
described properties: Tax map 72, parcel 51C; tax map 73, parcels 38, 39C7, 41A, 41B1, 41B2, 42, 42A,
43, 44; tax map 74, parcels 6H, 6N, 26, 28, 28B; tax map 75, parcels 4A, 5; tax map 86, parcels 14, 16,
16A, 16C, 16D, 16E, 16F, 16H, 27, 27A; tax map 87, parcels 10, 13A, 13E (part consisting of 89.186 acres),
16A; tax map 88, parcels 2A, 3R, 3T, 3U, 3V, 6A, 20A, 20B, 20C, 20D, 20F, 23, 23E, 23F, 24, 24A, 24B,
26B, 29, 40, 42; tax map 99, parcels 10 (part), 29, 52, 52B. This district, created on November 4, 1987 for
not more than 10 years and last reviewed on September 12, 2007, shall next be reviewed prior to
September 12, 2017.
(Code 1988, § 2.1-4(h); Ord. No. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 00-3(2), 7-12-00; Ord. 07-3(2), 9-12-07; Ord. 09-
3(4), 12-2-09; Ord. 10-3(2), 7-7-10; Ord. 10-3(3), 12-1-10; Ord. 12-3(1), 7-11-12; Ord. 13-3(1), 12-4-13)
Sec. 3-219 Keswick Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Keswick Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following
described properties: Tax map 48, parcels 30, 30A, 30B, 30C, 30D, 30E; tax map 63, parcels 39, 39A, 40,
42A; tax map 64, parcels 5, 7, 7A, 8A, 9, 10 10A, 10B, 10C, 10D, 11 12, 13, 13A, 14; tax map 65, parcels
13, 14A, 14A1, 31C1, 31C3, 31D, 32; tax map 79, parcel 46; tax map 80, parcels 1, 2, 2A, 2C, 3A, 3A1,
3G, 3H, 3I, 4, 61D, 88, 114A, 115, 164, 169, 169A, 169C, 169C1, 174, 176, 176A, 182, 183A, 190, 192,
194; tax map 81, parcels 1, 8A, 15A6, 15B, 63, 69, 72, 73, 74, 79. This district, created on September 3,
1986 for not more than 10 years and last reviewed on November 12, 2014, shall next be reviewed prior to
November 12, 2024.
(10-12-94; 4-12-95; 8-13-97; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(e); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 04-3(3), 11-3-04; Ord. 09-
3(4), 12-2-09; Ord. 10-3(3), 12-1-10; Ord. 11-3(4), 12-7-11; Ord. 12-3(1), 7-11-12; Ord. 13-3(1), 12-4-13)
Sec. 3-220 Kinloch Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Kinloch Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following
described properties: Tax map 49, parcels 5C, 6A1; tax map 50, parcels 13, 19; tax map 65, parcels 7, 7A,
8, 84A, 86, 89, 90, 91, 91A, 92, 93A, 93A1, 94, 94A, 94B, 94C, 95, 95A, 100, 121; tax map 66, parcels 2,
3C, 3G, 32, 32D, 32E, 34 (Albemarle part only), 34B. This district, created on Septemb er 3, 1986 for not
more than 10 years and last reviewed on November 12, 2014, shall next be reviewed prior to November
12, 2024.
(11-17-93; 10-12- 94; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(f); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 00-3(3), 9-13-00; Ord. 04-3(3), 11-
3-04; Ord. 09-3(5), 12-9-09; Ord. 10-3(2), 7-7-10)
Sec. 3-222 Moorman's River Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Moorman's River Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the
following described properties: Tax map 27, parcels 32, 34, 34A, 40, 40A, 40A1, 42, 42A; tax map 28,
parcels 2, 2A, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6A, 6B, 7A, 7A1, 7B, 8, 12, 12A, 12B, 13, 13A, 17A, 17C, 18, 25 (part), 30, 30A,
30A1, 30B 32B, 32D, 34B, 35, 35B, 37A, 37B, 37C, 38; tax map 29, parcels 2C, 4E, 8, 8B, 8E, 8E1, 8J, 9,
10, 15C, 40B, 40C, 40D, 45, 45H1, 45H2, 49C, 50, 54A, 61, 62, 63, 63A, 63D, 67C, 69F, 70A, 70B, 70C,
70F, 70H1, 70K, 70L, 70M, 71, 71A, 74A, 76, 78, 78A1, 79C, 79E, 79F, 8 4, 85; tax map 30, parcels 10,
10A, 10C, 12C, 12C1, 12D, 23; tax map 41, parcels 8, 8B, 8C, 8D, 9E, 15, 15A, 17C, 18, 19, 41C, 41H, 44,
50, 50C, 65A1, 67B, 70, 72, 72B, 72C, 72D, 72E, 72F, 89; tax map 42, parcels 5, 6, 6B, 8, 8C, 10, 10A,
10D, 37F, 37J, 38, 40, 40C, 40D, 40D1, 40G, 40H2, 41, 41B, 42B, 42B1, 43, 43A, 44; tax map 43, parcels
1, 1F, 2A1, 2B, 3A, 4D, 5, 5A, 9, 10, 16B2, 16B3, 18E4, 18G, 18J, 19I, 19N, 19P, 20A, 20B, 20C, 2l, 21A,
24, 25A, 25B, 30, 30A, 30B, 30B1, 30B2, 30B3, 30B4, 30G, 30H, 30M , 30N, 32H, 33, 33E, 34D1, 41, 42,
43, 44, 45, 45C, 45D; tax map 44, parcels 1, 2, 24, 26, 26A, 26B, 26C, 27B, 27C, 28, 29, 29A, 29D, 30,
30A, 30B, 31, 31A, 31A1, 31D, 31F, 31G, 31H; tax map 57, parcel 69; tax map 59, parcels 32, 32A, 34, 35,
82A; tax map 60E3, parcel 1. This district, created on December 17, 1986 for not more than 10 years and
last reviewed on November 12, 2014, shall be next reviewed prior to November 12, 2024.
(4-14-93; 12-21-94; 4-12-95; 8-9-95; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(g); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 99-3(4), 5-12-99;
Ord. 00-3(1), 4-19-00; Ord. 04-3(4), 12-1-04; Ord. 05-3(2), 7-6-05; Ord. 08-3(2), 8-6-08; Ord. 09-3(4), 12-
2-09; Ord. 10-3(2), 7-7-10)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Public Hearing: ZTA- 2014-00001. Agricultural operations and farm
breweries. Ordinance amending Secs. 18-3.1, Definitions, 18-5.1.25, Farm winery, 18-5.1.47, Farm
stands, farm sales and farmers markets, 18-10.2.1, By right (Rural Areas district (RA)), 18-10.2.2, By
special use permit (RA), 18-11.3.1, By right uses (Monticello Historic district (MHD)), 18-11.3.2, By
special use permit (MHD), and Sec. 18-31.5, Zoning clearance, and adding Secs. 18-5.1.47, Farm
breweries, and 18-5.1.58, Events and activities at agricultural operations, to Chapter 18, Zoning, of the
Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend Sec. 18-3.1 by amending and adding definitions
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
pertaining to agriculture, farm wineries, farm breweries, and events and activities at agricultural
operations (“ag operations”), amend Sec. 18-5.1.25, by requiring farm wineries established on and after
the effective date of this ordinance to obtain a zoning clearance prior to generating outdoor amplified
music; amend Sec. 18-5.1.47, by moving the regulation of farm sales from that section to new Sec. 18-
5.1.58; add Sec. 18-5.1.57 (farm breweries) and 18-5.1.58 (ag operations), by establishing regulations
applicable to those respective uses by delineating the uses, events and activities (“uses”) allowed by right
and by special use permit, the requirements for establishing those uses, substantial impact thresholds of
200 visitors at any time (farm breweries) or acreage, vehicle trips per day, visitors at any time, and
structure size (ag operations), sound generation from outdoor amplified music, minimum yards and other
health and safety matters; and prohibiting restaurants and helicopter rides; amend Secs.18-10.2.1, 18-
10.2.2, 18-11.3.1 and 18-11.3.2 by adding farm brewery and ag operation uses, events and activities as
being allowed by right or by special use permit as provided in Secs. 18-5.1.57 and 18-5.1.58,
respectively; amend Sec. 18-31.5, by providing for a zoning clearance for certain events and activities at
ag operations as provided in Sec. 18-5.1.58, and make technical changes to sections being amended.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 27 and November 3, 2014)
The executive summary forwarded to the Board states that on July 1, 2014, State legislation
became effective limiting a locality’s ability to regulate certain classes of activities associated with bona
fide agricultural operations and farm breweries. Attachment D provides the complete background leading
to the Planning Commission’s July 15, 2014 public hearing and recommendation to adopt a Zoning
Ordinance amendment to address this State legislation. On September 3, 2014, the Board held a work
session on the recommended ordinance amendment (see Attachment C).
At its September 3rd work session, the Board provided feedback on three focused issues. The
following identifies each issue, Board direction and, where appropriate, additional staff information in
response:
1) A 50 vehicle trips per day threshold for establishing substantial impact
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend including a vehicle trips threshold due to
concerns regarding the potential for traffic generation associated with events and activities
and to ensure that farm entrances conform to VDOT standards. The VDOT standards
require a moderate volume commercial entrance (minimum standards for entrance throat,
radii, angle of entrance, minimum and maximum entrance width) for land uses generating
over 50 vehicle trips per day in addition to satisfying sight distance and access
management requirements. This threshold remains in the proposed ordinance.
2) A minimum acreage threshold for establishing substantial impact
The Board supported the 21-acre minimum threshold recommended by the Planning
Commission, below which a zoning clearance would be required to host events or
activities at an agricultural operation.
3) Factors to be considered in establishing whether or not agriculture is a bona fide use of
the property
Staff has revised the factors to add those that the Board asked to be considered when
determining whether or not an agricultural operation is bona fide, including federal tax
forms pertaining to farm income, receipts showing gross sales over a three year period,
the proportion of a lot’s acreage in agricultural production, and agricultural census data.
Attachment A is the revised Zoning Ordinance amendment. Attachment B provides staff’s
comments to each section of the draft ordinance. Key changes to the ordinance since the Bo ard’s
September 3rd work session are also highlighted in the comments. The key provisions of the ordinance
include:
Definitions for agricultural operation; agricultural operation event; agricultural products;
devoted to the bonafide production of animals, crops or fowl; farm brewery; farm brewery
event; farm tour; production agriculture and silviculture; substantial impact; and usual and
customary use, event, or activity
For the regulations pertaining to events and activities at agricultural operations, a
purpose and intent section is provided to identify the comprehensive plan’s stated goals
for the Rural Area and the proposed regulations’ consistency with those goals
A zoning clearance requirement for outdoor amplified music at agricultural operations,
farm breweries and new farm wineries to verify that sound equipment will comply with the
County’s noise regulations
Zoning clearance provisions for events and activities at agricultural operations, including
verification of compliance with VDOT entrance standards and Health Department
requirements, adequate emergency vehicle access, setbacks, parking requirements, and
environmental standards outlined in the Water Protection Ordinance
Increased setbacks for outdoor activity areas, parking, and portable toilets (75 feet from
property line, 125 feet from an adjoining residence)
The provisions for farm wineries, farm breweries and agricultural operations are summarized in
the text and tables below.
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 31)
Farm Wineries and Breweries
Farm breweries and farm wineries will be regulated similarly. New farm wineries and all farm
breweries will be required to obtain a zoning clearance before having outdoor amplified music. Only one
zoning clearance would be required and would apply to any future event on the property. Existing farm
wineries would be exempt from the zoning clearance requirement.
By-right By-right with Zoning Clearance Special Use Permit
Farm Breweries Production, harvesting, storage,
sales, tasting, agritourism activities
Events ≤ 200 attendees at any time
Outdoor amplified music Events > 200 attendees at
any time
Farm Wineries Production, harvesting, storage,
sales, tasting, agritourism activities
Events ≤ 200 attendees at any time
Outdoor amplified music
(new establishments)
Events > 200 attendees at
any time
Events and Activities at Agricultural Operations
While agricultural operations, including all aspects of production and harvesting, will remain a by-right
activity in the Rural Areas and will not be affected by this ordinance, certain activities and events at
agricultural operations would be regulated under the proposed ordinance based on the following
thresholds, at which substantial impacts on public health, safety or welfare have been identified.
By-right By-right with Zoning
Clearance
Special Use Permit
Events and Activities
at Agricultural
Operations
Harvest-your-own activities Outdoor amplified music Structures for farm sales
> 4,000 sf
Agritourism, events* or retail
sales generating ≤ 50 vehicle
trips per day and occurring on
sites** ≥ 21 acres in size
Up to 4 farm tours per year with
≤ 200 attendees at any time
Up to 4 educational programs,
work-shops, or demonstrations
related to agriculture or
silviculture per year with ≤ 200
attendees at any time
Agritourism, events* or retail
sales generating either > 50
vehicle trips per day or
occurring on sites**
< 21 acres in size
> 4 farm tours per year and
farm tours with > 200
attendees at any time
> 4 educational programs,
workshops or
demonstrations related to
agriculture or silviculture with
≤ 200 attendees at any time
Events* or activities
(including educational
programs, workshops or
demonstrations related to
agriculture or silviculture)
with > 200 attendees at any
time or > 24 events of any
size/ year
Structures for farm sales
≤ 4,000 sf
* Events not deemed to be usual and customary at Virginia agricultural operations would be subject to the special events regulations
outlined in Section 5.1.43 of the Zoning Ordinance.
** The term “site” means one or more abutting lots under the same ownership on which the agricultural operation and the event or
activity is located.
There is potential for an increase in staff time devoted to review of zoning cle arance and
special use permit applications associated with this Zoning Ordinance amendment.
Staff recommends that, after the public hearing, the Board adopt the attached draft Zoning
Ordinance Amendment (Attachment A).
_____
Ms. Amanda Burbage, Senior Planner, addressed the Board, noting that she had distributed
some comments from the Virginia Wine Council on the proposed ordinance. Ms. Burbage reported that
the Zoning Text Amendment was generated in response to state code changes which took effect in July,
and is related to activities at farm breweries and agriculture operations. She said the code limits local
regulation to those activities which have substantial impact on public health, safety and welfare, and
requires that these regulations be reasonable and take into account the economic impact of the
regulations on the operation. Ms. Burbage stated that , under the state code, there are some activities
that explicitly cannot be regulated, such as production and harvesting. She noted that, for farm
breweries, there is a more extensive list which includes things such as storage, sales and tasting and is
essentially nearing what is permitted for farm wineries in the state code. She said the focus of this
amendment has been on activities which localities can regulate based on a finding of substantial impact
on public health, safety and welfare such as sales, agri-tourism activities and events. Ms. Burbage said
the code includes specific language which enables localities to regulate outdoor amplified music above
and beyond the noise ordinance without a finding of substantial impact.
Ms. Burbage stated that, following the Planning Commission’s adoption of a resolution of intent in
March, staff held a public roundtable and a number of work sessions to develop and seek feedback on
the proposed amendments. She said staff sought additional input from key stakeholders through an
email mailing list, and conversations with the local Farm Bureau and the Virginia Wine Council, among
others. She said, at its July 15 public hearing, the Commission recommended adoption of the ordinance
with minor revisions. She said, on September 3, the Board held a work session on the proposed draft
ordinance, and provided input on three issues outlined in the staff repor t. She stated that the ordinance
has been modified to reflect that input, specifically codifying the 21-acre zoning clearance trigger
recommended by the Planning Commission, and adding other factors which may be considered in
determining whether agriculture is the bona fide use of the property. Ms. Burbage said the resulting
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 32)
provisions of the proposed ordinance include the creation of a new section for farm breweries – Section
5.1.57 – which mirrors the farm winery regulations and provides for production, tasting, agri-tourism and
sales by right; special use permits for events exceeding 200 attendees at any given time; and a new
provision for a one-time zoning clearance for outdoor amplified music, which would also apply to any farm
winery established after the ordinance was adopted. She noted that existing wineries would be
grandfathered from this requirement.
Ms. Burbage stated that the provisions for agricultural operations are outlined in Section 5 .1.58
and includes provisions which maintain production and harvesting as a by-right use, and provides for
three substantial impact thresholds, any of which trigger the need for a zoning clearance. Ms. Burbage
said the first is outdoor amplified music, which is the same requirement for breweries and wineri es; the
second is for agri-tourism events or retail sales generating more than 50 vehicle trips per day, based on
an existing VDOT standard for moderate volume commercial entrances; and the third trigger would be
agri-tourism events or retail sales occurring on parcels under 21 acres and this acreage may include
abutting parcels if they are under the same ownership and are part of the agricultural operation. Ms.
Burbage noted that the exemption from the vehicle trip and acreage thresholds would be up to four farm
tours or educational programs per year which are under the 200-attendee threshold. She explained that
this exemption was based on feedback received from the Farm Bureau about the undue burden of getting
a permit for farms that are engaging in infrequent educational activities like school field trips. She said
these provisions also include three substantial impact thresholds which trigger a special use permit: farm
sales structures over 4,000 square feet, which exists in the current ordinance and can be exceeded by
special exception; events or activities with over 200 attendees which is the same special use permit
requirement that exists for wineries and breweries, with an event considered not to be usual or customary
to be considered under special event regulations; and events of any size exceeding 24 per year would
trigger the need for a special use permit. She noted that this threshold also exists in the current
ordinance as the maximum number of special events per year.
Ms. Burbage presented a comparison of what is considered in the review of a zoning clearance
versus a special use permit, stating that the zoning clearance is a ministerial review process with a
modest $50 application fee which serves as a means for staff to educate the property owner about the
County’s standards and verify compliance with ordinance requirements as well as VDOT and Health
Department standards. She said, provided these standards are met, staff does not have the discretion to
deny a zoning clearance. Ms. Burbage stated that a special use permit, on the other hand, is a more
lengthy and costly legislative review where impacts on adjacent properties and the cumulative effects of
multiple uses on the character of the district are considered. She said staff recommends that, following
the public hearing, the Board approve ZTA 2014-0001.
Ms. Palmer asked Ms. Burbage to review what the special use permits would require people to
do. Ms. Burbage explained that the special use permit process would be the same as what is required for
other types of uses, including a sketch plan and various other pieces of information.
Ms. Palmer asked about the cost. Ms. Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator, said the cost is
$2,000 but she would check if there were special pricing for agricultural uses.
Ms. Burbage stated that the special use permit requirements in the ordinance would ask for
information including the proposed use, the maximum number of people that would attend at any given
time, frequency and duration of the uses, provision of on-site parking, outdoor lighting and the location of
stages, structures and/or other places where music would be performed.
Ms. Dittmar asked if the memo that had just been given to the Board was sent out electronically.
Ms. Burbage stated that she was not aware of the memorandum that had been sent regarding this
amendment, as it was just handed to her before the meeting.
Mr. Sheffield asked if staff had a response to the Wine Council’s concerns. Ms. Burbage
responded that she spoke with Katie Hellebush from the Virginia Wine Council over the phone, and
clarified that the regulations on farm wineries were not really changing at all. She said one thing that is
changing is the last item which the Council has indicated its support of, which is the grandfathering of
current wineries for the one-time zoning clearance for outdoor amplified music. She said the other items
include the requirements for what a property must provide to demonstrate they are the bona fide
agricultural use. She said the farm tour and the substantial impact issues relate more to agricultural
operations. She said there is a provision in that section which excludes any property that is a farm winery
so they are automatically exempt from the substantial impact thresholds she reviewed. Ms. Burbage said
the properties that were growing grapes but not necessarily making wine on the property would be
considered agricultural operations and these terms would apply. She said, to address the point in the
memo about bona fide production, the landowner is in support of using the criteria which the County uses
for land use assessment as criteria for consideration as to whether a property is bona fide and, of their
list, four or five out of six are included and are things that would be considered. Ms. Burbage said, if a
property was in the land use taxation program and 1040 forms or a forest management plan or sales
receipts could be provided, that documentation would be acceptable in making a determination about
whether agriculture was bona fide.
Ms. McCulley said the criteria established in the County’s definition are more expansive than that,
with the idea being that the land use criteria may be completely relevant for some operations, and there
may be different factors to be considered with other operations. She stated that the County felt that a
more expansive list with more factors and evidence to consider would be useful and, in a lot of cases, it
would be self-evident and would most likely not even get to that point.
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 33)
Ms. Mallek asked for an example of a situation where those would not apply yet would still qualify
as a bona fide operation, which could be demonstrated with Schedule F. She said she did not think it
should be voluntary to have this information provided because it is ‘after the fact’ and puts a terrible
burden on the Zoning Administrator. Ms. McCulley responded that there could be a case where
someone was not in the land use program, so some of the other factors listed would be things the County
would consider such as crops, animals or fowl being produced, acreage in agricultural production, etc.
Ms. Mallek said production is production, and the whole thing is built around a farm so, at the very
least, the landowner has to demonstrate something. Ms. Burbage said the question arose in the
memorandum regarding if there was a tour that visited a few farms around the County but went to the
farm winery at the end of that tour, would the winery then be subject to needing a zoning clearance to b e
part of that tour. She said the answer is no, because a farm winery is expressly exempt from that section
of agricultural operations. She said that is not to say the other farms would not be subject to those
regulations, but tours of the winery are a by-right use listed in the farm winery section.
Ms. Dittmar said the language in this ordinance bothers her, as it says, “Our concern lies in the
world of unintended consequences…wineries, vineyards, orchards, cideries…” and , if there are tours,
there is that expectation to keep track of all promotions by third parties, which they say would be
excessive and burdensome, and would have a significant economic impact.
Ms. Mallek said there is a section which references a tour that changes from year to year, and
there is a separate category for those which seems to address those concerns.
Mr. Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney, stated that it is in the comments within the
explanation of “farm tour,” as that issue came up in the work session. He explained that the farm tour is
typically set up by a collective of farms or a church or organization, whereby they coordinate with farms in
the area to open them up to the public on a particular day or weekend and that is what is covered here.
Mr. Kamptner emphasized that there is no obligation put on any farm to track whether their neighbors are
having tours of their farms or farm wineries or breweries, and the comment s seem to miss the purpose of
the regulation.
Ms. Dittmar said the language includes a statement from the Wine Council which indicates it is
completely unreasonable to require farm wineries, farm breweries and agricultural operations to be aware
of the details of all public/private events taking place in the County such as requiring the hiring of staff,
which would be excessive and would have a significant negative impact.
Ms. McCulley said that comment is not about farm tours, it is about substantial impact which
comes into play with a special use permit, and those are the things that the County, the staff and the
Board already consider in its evaluation of a special use permit. She explained that the County is not
asking applicants to keep track of that, however, the County is obligated to consider the impact on public
roads, adjacent properties and so forth.
Mr. Sheffield stated that he is concerned about over-burdening the Zoning Office and the farms
with too much and, at some point, it becomes difficult to get a zoning clearance, however, it is not at that
point yet. He said he hopes the Board does not kill the agricultural tour and activities by bureaucracy.
Ms. McCulley said that is why staff included the exception of the educational programs and farm tours to
allow four per year. She stated that the County is feeling its way to stay in line with state code and may
end up tweaking this and coming back to the Board.
Mr. Kamptner said the County has strived to reduce the burden on industry and staff with the
zoning clearance process, as it is an administrative process and a check-in to ensure the applicant is
aware of the regulations which would apply.
Ms. Palmer said her concern is that applicants do not have to come in again, and wondered if
they should have to check back in 10 years or so. Ms. McCulley said that is the case for every zoning
clearance the County issues but, if there is a change of tenant with a business, they must get a new
zoning clearance but, overall, those are a one-time thing.
Mr. Sheffield asked what the case might be if the agricultural activities change, because this is an
evolving industry.
Ms. McCulley said that was a really good question and something that would likely occur.
Ms. Mallek said staff’s language includes the provision that an applicant must start over if there is
a change in use. Mr. Kamptner said an intensification of use would trigger that.
Ms. McCulley noted that the zoning clearance process provides the opportunity to have that kind
of discussion with people who are undertaking this.
Ms. Palmer asked how the County would know that something had changed. Ms. McCulley said
it was hoped that applicants would talk to staff because they understand that ch anges have to go through
review but, otherwise, it would be complaint-driven, as all other zoning is. She confirmed that special use
permit applications were $2,000, but the County had set up a lower price for farmers’ markets, so the
Board may want to re-visit the fee to see if it creates undue burden. Ms. McCulley noted that farmers’
markets with a new commercial entrance are $490; with an existing entrance, the cost is $110; zoning
clearance is $50.
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 34)
Mr. Boyd asked if Ms. McCulley felt the concerns outlined in the memorandum were
substantiated, and whether this would overburden agri-tourism businesses. Ms. McCulley responded that
she did not, and felt that some of the suggestions for outdoor amplified music would prevent some of the
impact issues. She explained that they can currently do outdoor amplified music without any regulation
unless they need a special use permit to exceed 200 attendees. She explained that what this new draft
ordinance says is that, if they are doing outdoor amplified music, they would need a zoning clearance
before doing so. Ms. McCulley said, as part of that process, the applicant would set up the noise where it
would be produced and staff would do an initial test or they can opt for self-monitoring. She noted that
the problems which have occurred in the past were due largely to applicants trying to retrofit the
mitigation, and the music was too close to property lines or open to the air . She added that no decibel
settings or distance requirements have been changed in this ordinance.
Ms. Mallek asked if there were any stipulations that the activity must be based on products grown
on the farm. Mr. Kamptner said it was a function of the state license for a farm brewery and, in order to
qualify for a farm license, they do have to grow the products and grains on the farm but whether they
have to grow all of the product there is unclear. He stated that, in the ordinance, the County simply
stipulates that the brewery must be licensed under th e limited brewery regulations so they must make
their case to the ABC in order to get their license.
Ms. Mallek said it is possible that people could bring in a beer truck and have their event, and it is
something the wineries have been very clear about. She said she has a problem with property that is
conservation land, has no production, and just functions as entertainment. Mr. Kamptner said the best
answer staff can give in light of state legislation is that , in order for them to have the brewery license, they
must have some agricultural production on the farm.
Ms. Mallek asked if there was a cut-off time for outdoor music in the County now. Ms. Burbage
said there is no cut-off time in the proposed ordinance.
Ms. McCulley said 10 p.m. is considered nighttime, and that is when the decibel level limit is
lower per the existing noise ordinance.
Ms. Mallek asked if there were limitations on the size of structures, because there were a lot of
sales stands that are over 4,000 square feet, and she was not sure where the 1,500 square foot limit
came from. Ms. Burbage explained that it is in the current ordinance for farm stands, which are not
located on the same property where the products are grown. She clarified that farm sales were onsite
with a 4,000 square foot threshold, which currently requires a zoning clearance under 4,00 0 but, by
special exception, can go over. She said, under the proposed ordinance, it is by-right up to 4,000 square
feet and over that limit by special use permit. She said that was more stringent but below it was more
liberal and, based on her understanding, the majority of structures staff has seen were under that.
Ms. McCulley agreed.
Ms. Burbage said the limit would be the area devoted to sales so it could be a larger structure.
Ms. Mallek stated that she was also interested in how they measure activities which are
subordinate to the farming activity. Ms. McCulley explained that it is a separate determination and is a
fairly common one staff makes in zoning, and one of the components of an accessory use is that i t be
subordinate. She said, in determining that, some of the factors staff would consider would be a
cumulative consideration of the area devoted to the use, the frequency of the use, if it is an active or
passive activity such as a nursery where plants are grown versus a commercial retail nursery, and
number of activities and work hours.
Ms. Mallek asked about the setback situation for tall barn structures near a property line. Ms.
Burbage explained that accessory structure setbacks are six feet from the property line.
Ms. McCulley said there is a special exception for existing structures and, in the rural areas
district, 35 feet is the maximum height. She explained that setbacks are different for existing structures
because staff wants to encourage people to use them; and have added setbacks for outdoor activity
because those are the primary areas of concern from neighbors. Ms. McCulley said a barn near a
property line which hosts music but opens its doors becomes regulated because , by definition, it would be
considered “outdoor” once it is open so noise would be regulated.
Ms. Palmer asked what the brewery and winery acreage restrictions are. Ms. Burbage
responded that those do not have the 21-acre restriction, or any acreage restriction.
At this time, the Chair opened the public hearing.
Ms. Katie Hellebush, Virginia Wine Council, addressed the Board, apologizing for the delay in
getting comments to the Board but stating that she has to receive her Board’s approval for comments
which just took place that week. Ms. Hellebush said she represents farm wineries in addition to
vineyards, orchards, cideries, and other agri-tourism industries such as meat producers. She stated that
it is a bit confusing in looking through the legislation, and wanted to make sure it is clear to the reader as
to what they need to do. Ms. Hellebush said there is great cross-promotion going on in Albemarle and
other counties, there are situations that may arise with separate businesses owned by the same person
and the reason they submitted the remarks was to seek clarification on legislation of which the Wine
Council was not clear. She stated that it looked as if the businesses would have to know what was going
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 35)
on in order to assess substantial impact for an event, so she was relieved to learn the County does not
expect agri-businesses to have that burden. Ms. Hellebush said they would love for farm breweries to
have the same percentage requirements as wineries which is to use 51% or 75% of product grown on
their land or leased land because, to be labeled “Virginia Wine,” they take great pride in that product.
Mr. Jeff Werner addressed the Board and congratulated Amanda Burbage on her wedding. Mr.
Werner stated that the Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC) supports agriculture but is concerned that
this regulation would lead to exploitation of minimal agricultural activity so as to establish non -ag
commercial venues in the rural area, and the intent of the legislation was to support agriculture , not to use
it to support event and wedding venues. He commended staff on doing a good job with a “poorly written
piece of state legislation,” adding that the definition of “bona fide agriculture” p uts a tremendous burden
on the Zoning Administrator. He stated that having the information requested but not required puts it in
the subjective versus objective, with questions that remain about how it would be measured. Mr. Werner
said some of the events and activities, when they are by-right, do not have to come to the County and
request zoning clearance or even notify the County and, if they do not know something is happening, it
cannot really be evaluated nor can cumulative impacts be determined. He stated that, if an adjacent
owner consents to a property owner reducing a setback, which is great until they sell their land and the
new buyer may be stuck with a situation where an event venue is close to the property line because the
previous owner said it was OK. Mr. Werner said he appreciated the explanatory notes, but it was difficult
to understand the ordinance without those notes and it seemed the text should be adopted with the
ordinance.
Mr. Richard Roderick addressed the Board stating that, in looking over minutes from the summer
when the state ordinance was passed, the reason the Board adopted the 21-acre threshold as opposed
to the five acres was so the County had an idea of what was going on out in the rural areas and he was
not sure if there would be provisions between the five and 21 acres for a brewery or winery.
Ms. Mallek said, for the threshold to have a zoning clearance, the 21 acres comes into play.
Ms. Palmer said that it was just for agricultural operations.
Ms. Burbage said it did not apply to wineries and breweries.
Mr. Roderick asked what crops would constitute agriculture for a brewery, since it is difficult to
grow fermentables for a brewery operation, unlike wine where the product is obvious. He also asked
what the situation would be if the brewery produces a non-alcoholic beverage, because they would not
have to go before the ABC Board. Mr. Roderick asked if the 4,000 square foot limit pertained just to sales
or also included production space. Ms. Burbage said it was just sales.
Mr. Roderick commented that 24 events seems like a generous amount, as a five-day music
festival would be considered one event in many places. He said he would like to see breweries in
Albemarle before Nelson County claims them all.
Ms. Marcia Joseph said she is happy to see the wineries and happy to see the activity in the rural
areas because, if the County educates people and they see the vast expanse, perhaps they will support
conservation easements and understand the importance of how those contribute to water and air quality,
which is why people move to this area. She stated that there are other people who live in the rural area,
and they need to be considered in thinking about the traffic and other events because they are not used
to large venues. Ms. Joseph said she felt the “farm tour” definition was far too open, stating that she is a
member of Grace Church and, when farm tours are held, it is a big event which involves the need for
traffic control at each of the farms, designated where the parking is, hiring police officers, etc. She stated
that they really need to look at the scale of the operations and, while it is great to have children visit farms
for educational purposes, 200 people is a lot of people to be at a farm at one time. Ms. Joseph added
that if the Board is going to increase educational visits for children, it needs to consider safety aspects
and to consider the requirements for entrance improvements. She said, for substantial impact, she would
like the Board to look at land under conservation easement because there is a whole list of factors which
would determine if something is of substantial interest. Ms. Joseph stated that the sound issue still
concerns her because it is self-regulating and, if a loud band comes in and turns up the volume, only the
adjacent owners would know. She added that she is also concerned that future owners of land be
informed that regulations are in place in order to ensure that the rural areas remain a calm place.
Mr. Collins Zuff addressed the Board, stating that the vehicle restriction and number of people are
a bit out of sync noting that there would need to be eight people per car with a 25-car limit in order to total
200 people. He said the reality of selling meat on a farm is that cars only have one buyer, with the rest
usually being children, and a 2,000-acre cattle farm would have a lot more meat to sell than a 20-acre
cattle farm.
Ms. Mallek asked Ms. Burbage to clarify whether people coming to buy meat would be under
agricultural production and sales.
Ms. Burbage explained that, if there were over 25 vehicles coming in a day to purchase a
product, it would trigger just the zoning clearance requirement which is the $50 administrative review.
She said the 200 people would have to be at any given time, not over the course of the day, to trigger the
special use permit requirement. She said the vehicle standard came from VDOT provisions, which
stipulates that more than 25 vehicles coming and going triggers the need for a moderate volume
commercial entrance and would entail site distance requirements, access management, etc.
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 36)
With no further comments, the Chair closed the public hearing.
Ms. Burbage stated that the brewery questions pertain to whether the state grants a limited
brewery license and, if they have that license, they are subject to local regulations. She explained that
they cannot call themselves a “brewery” for non-alcoholic beverages and, therefore, would not be subject
to those provisions.
Ms. Mallek said she was told that kombucha producers fall under the local ordinance as a
brewery for the square footages of operating and sales space.
Ms. McCulley said whatever did not fit into brewery or farm winery licensure is potentially an
agricultural operation.
Mr. Kamptner said one of the categories of farm sales is “food products” which are created from
products grown on a farm.
Ms. Palmer commented that they would not be subject to the brewery event provisions. Ms.
Burbage said they would not be entitled to those, but would be subject to zoning clearance and special
use permit triggers.
Ms. McCulley stated that it is best to keep those separated as they are, because it is directly from
the state code with a license for farm brewery and a license for farm winery, and everything else falls
under “agricultural operations.”
Mr. Boyd asked where distilleries fall into this. Ms. McCulley said distilleries are not specifically
provided for as wineries and breweries are; however, it is possible they could fall under an agricultural
operations depending on whether they are processing a significant amount of what they grow onsite.
Ms. Burbage noted that, for special events not associated with agricultural operations, there are
existing regulations for special events which are more restrictive than those associated with agricultural
operations. She said, under current regulations, those events onl y allow for up to 150 attendees but,
through the special use permit process, that cap may be lifted.
Ms. McCulley said, regarding the question about the property sale and the agreement for a
reduced property line setback, that is a special exception through the Board of Supervisors so it is
memorialized through the action in the County record and the minutes, however, it is not required to be
recorded on a deed.
Ms. Mallek asked if the County needed to have a waiver for a setback, as she would rather not.
Ms. McCulley said it is not required under state law, but she can imagine a lot of situations where there is
a standing agreement which allows a business to go closer to a property line as there are times when the
neighbor does not object. She urged the Board not to remove that requirement, adding that it would
come before the Board and does serve a legitimate purpose.
Mr. Kamptner addressed Mr. Werner’s question about the voluntary nature of applicants
submitting information as to whether their use is a bona fide agricultural use. He said, like any other use
under the zoning ordinance, the burden is on the owner or applicant to show that they fit within a
particular zoning classification which is allowed under the ordinance. Mr. Kamptner stated that the
burden is on the applicant to present whatever information will make their case and show that they are
engaged in an agricultural operation. He said if they decide they do not want to provide that information
and the Zoning Administrator is unable to determine they are engaged in an agricultural operation, they
do not get the benefits of participating and promoting their events or activities. He said, even though it is
voluntary, the burden is on them to provide the evidence to show that they fit within the use classification.
Mr. Kamptner said a number of the activities are going to be allowed by right without a zoning cl earance
or a special use permit because there are certain classes allowed by statute unless the County has
identified a substantial impact and that is what state enabling authority requires them to do, which is why
the ordinance is set up this way for events and activities at agricultural operations. He also said the state
licensing statute under ABC laws gives examples: “agricultural products including barley, other grains,
hops or fruit, used by such brewery in the manufacturing of the beer.” Mr. Kamptner said it was wide
open and “agricultural products” as defined by state law could mean livestock , aqua-culture and other
types of crops.
Ms. Mallek asked if the Board would be allowed to add a 51% grown onsite in here which would
be consistent with wineries and cideries. Mr. Kamptner said that would not be possible adding that the
County would have to identify a substantial impact that is arising from the events and activities. He said,
in order to qualify for the farm brewery regulations, all they have to do is be a limited brewery, and the
licensing requirements do not require that kind of threshold. Mr. Kamptner said the state has said they
simply have to grow some amount of products, and the last time he checked there were no state
regulations to establish some kind of minimum threshold unlike the farm winery regulations which do have
thresholds for onsite and in-state crops.
Ms. Palmer said she was still a bit confused at the definition of ‘bona fide’ agriculture, as she
heard staff say they are not compelled to do it, however, if they do not do it, they may not get the
clearance. Mr. Kamptner explained that the way the zoning ordinance operates here and elsewhere, the
applicant or owner needs to establish that whatever they are proposing to do fits into one of the use
classifications. He said, in this case, it is events and activities that are at an agricultural operation. He
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 37)
said, in order to enjoy the benefits of that use classification, they need to establish that they are an
agricultural operation, which means they need to produce evidence to the Zoning Administrator, who
makes that determination, whatever evidence that person has which shows they are an agricultural
operation. Mr. Kamptner said part of that showing establishes that their use is devoted to the bona f ide
production of agriculture and it is their option so they can decide to not provide any evidence, and the
Zoning Administrator presumably would decide they are not an agricultural operation and, therefore, were
not allowed to participate in the types of activities which are allowed under this new regulation.
Ms. Palmer said this is very difficult to understand, especially for the layperson, so anything staff
can include in the document which would not give the wrong impression would be a wonderful addition.
Ms. Mallek stated that it is the uncertainty which has the populous most upset, and perhaps the
Board could include the first few items on Ms. Hellebush’s list. She stated that a small wording change
might make it clear.
Mr. Sheffield said the ordinance that has been advertised for adoption did not have those
comments included. Ms. Burbage said all three versions were advertised.
Mr. Kamptner said the draft with all the comments will become part of the legislative record, and
will become part of records that the Zoning Office will refer to. He noted that the 24 pages or so are only
a small part of the zoning ordinance, with other parts that help fill in some of the gaps.
Ms. Burbage said something staff has done with the farm winery regulations is to create a fact
sheet which has been widely utilized and puts the ordinance in plain language. She said that is
something staff can also do for agricultural operations and breweries very easily.
Ms. Mallek said, under ZTA 2014-0014, all twelve recommendations are lifted out of the
ordinance.
Mr. Sheffield said he would leave it to the attorneys to determine whether the Board can pass it or
not at this meeting.
Ms. McCulley said staff can have it available on the County’s website, and also the Farm Bureau
and Wine Council offices’ websites to better explain agricultural operations and farm breweries.
Ms. Palmer said she has a variety of problems with the ordinance, but does not know it can be
fixed at this point adding that staff has indicated it may have to come back and be tweaked again. She
stated that, if there are links so people can easily find the fact sheets, she is OK with appr oving it. Ms.
Palmer said she read the ordinance many times to try to understand it and was still confused, but she did
not find it to be onerous.
Mr. Boyd stated that many of the County’s ordinances could be looked at that way, however, as
Ms. McCulley said, if the Board finds it is not working, it can come back and tweak it at a later date. He
said there have been many meetings and discussions about this, and the Planning Commission has
reviewed it, as well as stakeholder meetings, and he is ready to move forward with a vote.
Mr. Sheffield commented that, as Mr. Boyd often mentions, this comes down to staff’s
interpretation on some of these matters.
Mr. Davis said this creates a great legislative history which aids the Zoning Administrator and the
public in interpretations and, as Ms. Burbage pointed out, there is a great effort being done by Community
Development to provide help sheets and other information to develop understanding of this ordinance.
He said Albemarle County is a leader in this effort to adopt these regulations which are mandated by the
state from last year’s General Assembly, and there has been a great deal of effort to try to meet a lot of
different competing interests in this. He added that it appears that staff has done a good job, judging by
the lack of turnout at this meeting.
Mr. Boyd moved to adopt the proposed ordinance as presented. Ms. Mallek seconded the
motion.
Ms. Mallek asked fellow Supervisors if there was any interest in increasing the amount of trips per
day for things such as farm sales.
Mr. Sheffield said he did not have an interest, but would like to monitor it as the Board looks at
tweaking this in the future.
Mr. Boyd said he was ready to move forward with this as presented, but recognized that
Supervisors may have to come back and readdress Ms. Mallek’s issue.
Ms. Dittmar said she echoed Ms. Palmer’s comments about how complicated this is and, if she
were a farmer, she would probably need to seek legal advice on how to comply. She said she feels great
resistance to this and the fact that they need comments and explanations of this is an indication of the
confusion, and felt it is too much right now. Ms. Dittmar said she appreciated all of the work that had
gone into this, including the roundtable discussions, but she was going to vote against it.
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 38)
Ms. McKeel asked Ms. Burbage if Ms. Hellebush had spoken with staff, and whether she was
comfortable with the answers received today, or whether these concerns were still p ercolating to the top
in the way they were before she had spoken with staff.
Ms. Hellebush said she felt comforted that this did not impact farm wineries with regard to the
farm tours, and the interpretation gave her assurance. She said members who do fall under ag
operations still have serious concerns about the vehicle trip limits and other things which would trigger the
zoning clearance.
Mr. Boyd said he understood that they would be grandfathered in.
Ms. Hellebush said, if they were a farm winery and were actually producing the wine, they would
be but an independent vineyard or orchard would be considered an agricultural operation because they
are not producing the alcohol. She said, for new vineyards, it takes six years to produce a healthy crop to
produce wine, so they are always looking for new ways to partner with folks.
Ms. McCulley clarified that, if they are currently existing, they are not subject to this regulation.
She explained that, if the agricultural operation currently exists and they are not a new operation, it would
predate this regulation so they would be grandfathered in. She emphasized that everyone legally in
existence in Albemarle County doing this would predate these regulations, and it is legally
nonconforming; this ordinance is for new or expanding operations.
Roll was then called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Mallek and Ms. McKeel.
NAYS: Ms. Dittmar.
(Note: The adopted ordinance is set out below:)
ORDINANCE NO. 14-18(4)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE
II, BASIC REGULATIONS, ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE IV, PROCEDURE,
OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18,
Zoning, Article I, General Regulations, Article II, Basic Regulations, Article III, District Regulations, and
Article IV, Procedure, are hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
Sec. 5.1.25 Farm winery
Sec. 5.1.47 Farm stands, farm sales and farmers markets
Sec. 10.2.l By right
Sec. 10.2.2 By special use permit
Sec. 11.3.1 By right uses
Sec. 11.3.2 By special use permit
Sec. 31.5 Zoning clearance
By Adding:
Sec. 5.1.57 Farm breweries
Sec. 5.1.58 Events and activities at agricultural operations
Article I. General Provisions
Sec. 3.1 Definitions.
. . .
Agriculture: An agricultural operation, the keeping of livestock or poultry, or both, regardless of whether
the keeping of livestock or poultry qualifies as an agricultural operation. The term includes accessory
processing facilities for agricultural products grown or raised solely on the farm on which the agriculture is
located, such as fruit packing plants and dairies. The term does not include any processing facilities
permitted only by special use permit. (Amended 12-2-87, 5-5-10)
Agricultural operation: Any operation devoted to the bona fide production of crops, or animals, or fowl,
including the production of fruits and vegetables of all kinds; meat, dairy, and poultry products; nuts,
tobacco, nursery, and floral products; and the production and harvest of products from silviculture activity.
This term includes aquaculture and plant nurseries.
Agricultural operation event: An event conducted at, and subordinate to, an agricultural operation for up to
three (3) consecutive days comprised of: (i) agritourism-related events such as tastings not conducted in
the daily course of agritourism, farm sales, or the sale of agricultural products or food products; farm -to-
table dinners; agricultural festivals; and auctions or livestock shows pertaining to livestock, animals, or
other agricultural products not grown or raised at that agricultural operation; (ii) events that promote the
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 39)
sale of agricultural or silvicultural products; (iii) events that promote the sale of food products; (iv) events
that are usual and customary at Virginia agricultural operations; and (v) fundraisers and charity events.
Agricultural products: Any livestock, aquaculture, poultry, horticultural, floricultural, viticulture, silvicultural,
or other farm crops.
Agritourism: Any activity carried out at a farm winery, farm brewery, or an agricultural operation, that
allows members of the general public, for recreational, entertainment, or educational purposes, to view or
enjoy rural activities, including farming, wineries, ranching, historical, cultural, harvest-your-own activities,
or natural activities and attractions, regardless of whether or not the participant paid to participate in the
activity. These rural activities also include, but are not limited to, farm tours, tours of an individual
agricultural operation, hayrides, heirloom plant and animal exhibits, crop mazes, and educational
programs, workshops, or demonstrations related to agriculture or silviculture. (Added 5-5-10)
. . .
Devoted to the bona fide production of crops, animals, or fowl: As used in the definition of “agricultural
operation,” any lot on which the production of one or more agricultural products is a primary use
(“agricultural production”) and the agricultural production is engaged in good fa ith and not merely to
enable the lot to be eligible to host events and activities at an agricultural operation as provided in
sections 5.1.58, 10.2.1(30), 10.2.2(56), 11.3.1(29), and 11.3.2(10). In determining whether the agricultural
production is a primary use and engaged in good faith, the following factors may be considered: (i)
whether the lot is subject to use value assessment because it is real estate devoted agriculture,
horticulture, or silviculture; (ii) the acreage in agricultural production; (iii) the proportion of the lot’s
acreage in agricultural production; (iv) the crops, animals, or fowl being produced; (v) the acreage of the
lot and of the site; (vi) the owner’s federal tax forms including Form 1040F (Farm Expense and Income),
Form 4385 (Farm Rental Income and Expenses), Form 1040E (Cash Rent for Agricultural Land), Form
1040C (Business Profit and Loss), or Form 1120 (Corporate Partnership); (vii) receipts showing gross
sales over the most recent three-year period or evidence of the value of agricultural products that would
have been sold but for a natural disaster; (viii) the proportion of the owner’s total income derived from
agricultural production on the site; (ix) evidence of participation in a federal farm subsidy program; (x)
evidence of operating under a conservation farm management plan prepared by a professional; (xi) the
proportion of capital investment in the site devoted to the production of agricultural products, operating,
and labor expenses; (xii) Albemarle County-level United States Department of Agriculture Census of
Agriculture data; and (xiii) any other relevant factors.
. . .
Farm brewery: An establishment located on one or more lots in Albemarle County licensed as a limited
brewery under Virginia Code § 4.1-208.
Farm brewery event: An event conducted at a farm brewery on one or more days where the purpose is
agritourism or to promote beer sales including, but not limited to, gatherings not otherwise expressly
authorized as a use under section 5.1.57(a), (b)(1) and (b)(3) through (b)(9) including, but not limited to,
beer festivals; receptions where beer is sold or served; beer club meetings and activities; beer tasting
educational seminars; beer tasting luncheons, business meetings, and corporate luncheons with a focus
on selling beer; gatherings with the purpose of promoting sales to the trade, such as restaurants,
distributors, and local chamber of commerce activities; brewmasters’ dinners where beer is paired with
food; agritourism promotions; and fundraisers and charit y events.
Farm sales: The sale of agricultural products, value-added products and accessory merchandise on a
farm, either outdoors or within a temporary or permanent structure, where the vendor selling the products
and merchandise is engaged in production agriculture on the farm on which the farm sales use is located.
(Added 10- 11-95; Amended 5-5-10)
Farm stand: The sale of local agricultural products and value-added products, either outdoors or within a
temporary or permanent structure, where the vendor selling the products is engaged in production
agriculture in Albemarle County, but not on the lot on which the farm stand is located. (Added 5 -5-10)
Farm tour: An event organized by two or more agricultural operations or by a third party, to which the
public is invited to visit two or more agricultural operations, and which may include educational programs,
workshops, or demonstrations related to agriculture or silviculture.
Farm winery: An establishment located on one or more lots in Albemarle County licensed as a farm
winery under Virginia Code § 4.1-207. (Added 12-16- 81; Amended 5-5-10)
Farm winery event: An event conducted at a farm winery on one or more days where the purpose is
agritourism or to promote wine sales including, but not limited to, gatherings not otherwise expressly
authorized as a use under section 5.1.25(a), (b)(1) and (b)(3) through (b)(9) including, but not limited to,
wine fairs; receptions where wine is sold or served; wine club meetings and activities; wine tasting
educational seminars; wine tasting luncheons, business meetings, and corporate luncheons with a focus
on selling wines; gatherings with the purpose of promoting sales to t he trade, such as restaurants,
distributors, and local chamber of commerce activities; winemakers’ dinners where wine is paired with
food; agritourism promotions; and fundraisers and charity events. (Added 5-5-10)
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 40)
. . .
Farmers’ market: The sale of agricultural products, value-added products, and accessory merchandise
either outdoors or within a temporary or permanent structure by two (2) or more vendors in the rural areas
(RA) district or by one or more vendors in any other zoning district where the use i s allowed, where each
vendor selling the products and merchandise is engaged in production agriculture in Albemarle County
regardless of whether it is on or not on the lot on which the farmers’ market is located. (Added 10 -11-95;
Amended 5-5-10)
. . .
Production agriculture or production silviculture: The bona fide production or harvesting of agricultural or
silvicultural products but shall not include the processing of agricultural or silvicultural products or the
above ground application or storage of se wage sludge.
. . .
Substantial impact: An impact that may arise from an event or activity at a farm winery, farm brewery, or
agricultural operation that has a significant adverse effect on: (i) an abutting lot or the neighborhood,
including an impact on any owner, occupant, or agricultural or silvicultural activity; or (ii) any rural road,
natural resource, cultural resource, or historical resource. A substantial impact may result from a wide
variety of factors including, but not limited to, the generatio n of traffic, noise, dust, artificial outdoor light,
trash, stormwater runoff, and excessive soil compaction; the failure to provide adequate traffic controls
and sanitation facilities; the cumulative effects of large numbers of events and activities occur ring
simultaneously, particularly when they are in close proximity to one another or require travel on the same
rural roads; and events and activities that are incompatible with existing production agriculture.
. . .
Usual and customary use, event or activity: A use, event, or activity at a farm winery, farm brewery, or
agricultural operation that is both ordinary and commonly practiced or engaged in at farm wineries, farm
breweries, or agricultural operations, as applicable, within the Commonwealth, as de termined by objective
evidence.
. . .
(§ 20-3.1, 12-10-80, 7-1-81, 12-16-81, 2-10-82, 6-2-82, 1-1-83, 7-6-83, 11-7-84, 7-17-85, 3-5-86, 1-1-87,
6-10-87, 12-2-87, 7-20-88, 12-7-88, 11-1-89, 6-10-92, 7-8-92, 9-15-93, 8-10-94, 10-11-95, 11-15-95, 10-
9-96, 12-10-97; § 18-3.1, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-3-01; Ord. 01-18(9), 10-17-01; Ord. 02-
18(2), 2-6-02; Ord. 02-18(5), 7-3-02; Ord. 02-18(7), 10-9-02; Ord. 03-18(1), 2-5-03; Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-
03; Ord. 04-18(2), 10-13-04; 05-18(2), 2-2-05; Ord. 05-18(7), 6-8-05; Ord. 05-18(8), 7-13-05; Ord. 06-
18(2), 12-13-06; Ord. 07-18(1), 7-11-07; Ord. 07-18(2), 10-3-07; Ord. 08-18(3), 6-11-08; Ord. 08-18(4), 6-
11-08; Ord. 08-18(6), 11-12-08; Ord. 08-18(7), 11-12-08; Ord. 09-18(3), 7-1-09; Ord. 09-18(5), 7-1-09;
09-18(8), 8-5-09; Ord. 09-18(9), 10-14-09; Ord. 09-18(10), 12-2-09; Ord. 09-18(11), 12-10-09; Ord. 10-
18(3), 5-5-10; Ord. 10-18(4), 5-5-10; Ord. 10-18(5), 5-12-10; Ord. 11-18(1), 1-12-11; Ord. 11-18(5), 6-1-
11; Ord. 11-18(6), 6-1-11; Ord. 12-18(3), 6-6-12; Ord. 12-18(4), 7-11-12; Ord. 12-18(6), 10-3-12, effective
1-1-13; Ord. 12-18(7), 12-5-12, effective 4-1-13; Ord. 13-18(1), 4-3-13; Ord. 13-18(2), 4-3-13; Ord. 13-
18(3), 5-8-13; Ord. 13-18(5), 9-11-13; Ord. 13-18(6), 11-13-13, effective 1-1-14; Ord. 13-18(7), 12-4-13,
effective 1-1-14; Ord. 14-18(2), 3-5-14)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2286(A)(4).
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 5.1.25 Farm wineries.
Each farm winery shall be subject to the following:
a. Uses permitted. The following uses, events and activities (hereinafter, collectively, “uses”) are
permitted at a farm winery:
1. The production and harvesting of fruit and other agricultural products and the
manufacturing of wine including, but not limited to, activities related to the production of
the agricultural products used in wine including, but not limited to, growing, planting and
harvesting the agricultural products and the use of equipment for those activities.
2. The sale, tasting, including barrel tastings, or consumption of wine within the normal
course of business of the farm winery.
3. The direct sale and shipment of wine by common carrier to consumers in accordance
with Title 4.1 of the Virginia Code and the regulations of the Alcoholic Beverage Control
Board.
4. The sale and shipment of wine to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, licensed
wholesalers, and out-of-state purchasers in accordance with Title 4.1 of the Virginia
Code, regulations of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, and federal law.
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 41)
5. The storage, warehousing, and wholesaling of wine in accordance with Title 4.1 of the
Virginia Code, regulations of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, and federal law.
6. The sale of wine-related items that are incidental to the sale of wine including, but not
limited to, the sale of incidental gifts such as cork screws, wine glasses, and t-shirts.
7. Private personal gatherings of a farm winery owner who resides at the farm winery or on
property adjacent thereto that is owned or controlled by the owner, provid ed that wine is
not sold or marketed and for which no consideration is received by the farm winery or its
agents.
b. Agritourism uses or wine sales related uses. The following uses are permitted at a farm winery,
provided they are related to agritourism or wine sales:
1. Exhibits, museums, and historical segments related to wine or to the farm winery.
2. Farm winery events at which not more than two hundred (200) persons are in attendance
at any time.
3. Guest winemakers and trade accommodations of invited guests at a farm winery owner’s
private residence at the farm winery.
4. Hayrides.
5. Kitchen and catering activities related to a use at the farm winery.
6. Picnics, either self-provided or available to be purchased at the farm winery.
7. Providing finger foods, soups, and appetizers for visitors.
8. Tours of the farm winery, including the vineyard.
9. Weddings and wedding receptions at which not more than two hundred (200) persons
are in attendance at any time.
10. Other uses not expressly authorized that are agritourism uses or are wine sales related
uses, which are determined by the zoning administrator to be usual and customary uses
at farm wineries throughout the Commonwealth, which do not create a substantial im pact
on the public health, safety, or welfare, and at which not more than two hundred (200)
persons are in attendance at any time.
c. Agritourism uses or wine sales related uses; more than 200 person at any time; special use
permit. The following uses, at which more than two hundred (200) persons will be allowed to
attend at any time, are permitted at a farm winery with a special use permit, provided they are
related to agritourism or wine sales:
1. Farm winery events.
2. Weddings and wedding receptions.
3. Other uses not expressly authorized that are agritourism uses or wine sales related uses
which are determined by the zoning administrator to be usual and customary uses at
farm wineries throughout the Commonwealth.
d. Information and sketch plan to be submitted with application for a special use permit. In addition
to any information required to be submitted with an application for a special use permit under
section 33.4, each application for one or more uses authorized under section 5.1.25(c) shall
include the following:
1. Information. Information pertaining to the following: (i) the proposed uses; (ii) the
maximum number of persons who will attend each use at any given time; (iii) the
frequency and duration of the uses; (iv) the provision of on-site parking; (v) the location,
height and lumens of outdoor lighting for each use; and (vi) the location of any stage,
structure or other place where music will be performed.
2. Sketch plan. A sketch plan, which shall be a schematic drawing of the site with notes in a
form and of a scale approved by the director of planning depicting: (i) all structures that
would be used for the uses; (ii) how access, on-site parking, outdoor lighting, signage
and minimum yards will be provided in compliance with this chapt er; and (iii) how
potential adverse impacts to abutting lots will be mitigated so they are not substantial.
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 42)
e. Sound from outdoor amplified music. Sound generated by outdoor amplified music shall be
subject to the following:
1. Zoning clearance. Each farm winery licensed on and after November 12, 2014 shall
obtain approval of a zoning clearance under section 31.5 prior to generating any outdoor
amplified music at the farm winery. The purpose of the zoning clearance shall be to verify
that the sound amplification equipment at the farm winery will comply with the applicable
standards in section 4.18 or that the owner has and will use a sound level meter as that
term is defined in section 4.18.02 prior to and while outdoor amplified music is being
played, to monitor compliance with the applicable standards in section 4.18, or both.
2. Maximum sound level. Sound generated by outdoor amplified music shall not exceed the
applicable maximum sound levels in section 4.18.04.
3. Outdoor amplified music not an exempt sound. Outdoor amplified music shall not be
deemed to be an exempt sound under section 4.18.05(A).
f. Yards. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the minimum front, side, and rear yard
requirements in section 10.4 shall apply to all primary and accessory structures established after
May 5, 2010 and to all tents, off-street parking areas and portable toilets used in whole or in part
to serve any use permitted at a farm winery, provided the minimum required yard may be reduced
by special exception upon consideration of the following: (i) there is no detriment to the abutting
lot; (ii) there is no harm to the public health, safety, or welfare; and (iii) written consent has been
provided by the owner of the abutting lot consenting to the reduction.
g. Uses prohibited. The following uses are prohibited:
1. Restaurants.
2. Helicopter rides.
(§ 5.1.25, 12-16-81, 1-1-84; Ord. 98-20(1), 4-1-98; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-3-01; Ord. 10-18(3), 5-5-10; Ord. 11-
18(3), 3-9-11)
Sec. 5.1.47 Farm stands and farmers’ markets.
Each farm stand and farmers’ market shall be subject to the following, as applicable:
a. Zoning clearance. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, each farm stand or
farmers’ market shall obtain approval of a zoning clearance issued by the zoning administrator as
provided by section 31.5 before the use is established as provided herein:
1. Application. Each application for a zoning clearance shall include a letter or other
evidence from the Virginia Department of Transportation establishing that it has approved
the entrance from the public street to the proposed use and:
(a) Farm stands. For farm stands, a sketch plan, which shall be a schematic drawing
of the site with notes in a form and of a scale approved by the zoning
administrator depicting: (i) all structures that would be used for the use; (ii) how
access, on-site parking, outdoor lighting, signage and minimum yards will be
provided in compliance with this section and this chapter; and (iii) how potential
adverse impacts to adjoining property will be mitigated.
(b) Farmers’ markets. For farmers’ markets, a site plan showing only the details not
excepted under section 32.3.5(a).
2. Notice. The zoning administrator shall provide written notice that an ap plication for a
zoning clearance for a farm stand or by right farmers’ market has been submitted to the
Virginia Department of Health and to the owner of each abutting lot under different
ownership than the lot on which the proposed use would be located. T he notice shall
identify the proposed use and its size and location, and invite the recipient to submit any
comments before the zoning clearance is acted upon. The notice shall be mailed at least
ten (10) days prior to the action on the zoning clearance as provided in section
32.4.2.1(g). The review by the Virginia Department of Health shall be independent of the
zoning administrator’s review of the application for a zoning clearance and the approval
of the zoning clearance shall not be dependent on any approval by the Virginia
Department of Health. The notice requirements shall not apply to a zoning clearance
required for a farmers’ market that has been approved by special use permit.
b. Structure size. Structures used in conjunction with a farm stand or farmers’ market shall comply
with the following:
1. Farm stands. Any permanent structure established on and after May 5, 2010 (hereinafter,
“new permanent structure”) used for a farm stand shall not exceed one thousand five
hundred (1500) square feet gross floor area. Any permanent structure, regardless of its
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 43)
size, established prior to May 5, 2010 (hereinafter, “existing permanent structure”) may
be used for a farm stand provided that if the structure does not exceed one thousand five
hundred (1500) square feet gross floor area, its area may be enlarged or expanded so
that its total area does not exceed one thousand five hundred (1500) square feet gross
floor area, and further provided that if the existing structure exceeds one thousand five
hundred (1500) square feet gross floor area, it may not be enlarged or expanded while it
is used as a farm stand.
2. Farmers’ markets. Any new or existing permanent structure may be used for a farmers’
market without limitation to its size.
c. Yards. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the following minimum front, side and
rear yard requirements shall apply to a farm stand or farmers’ market:
1. New permanent structures and temporary structures. The minimum front, side and rear
yards required for any new permanent structure or temporary structure shall be as
provided in the bulk and area regulations established for the applicable zoning district,
provided that the minimum front yard on an existing public road in the rural areas (RA)
district shall be thirty-five (35) feet. The minimum required yard may be reduced by
special exception upon consideration of the following: (i) there is no detriment to the
abutting lot; (ii) there is no harm to the public health, safety, or welfare; and (iii) writ ten
consent has been provided by the owner of the abutting lot consenting to the reduction.
2. Existing permanent structures. If an existing permanent structure does not satisfy any
minimum yard requirement under subsection 5.1.47(c)(1), the minimum yard required
shall be the distance between the existing permanent structure and the street, road,
access easement or lot line on May 5, 2010 and that distance shall not be thereafter
reduced. An enlargement or expansion of the structure shall be no closer to a street,
road, access easement or lot line than the existing structure.
d. Parking. Notwithstanding any provision of section 4.12, the following minimum parking
requirements shall apply to a farm stand or farmers’ market:
1. Number of spaces. Each use shall provide one (1) parking space per two hundred (200)
square feet of retail area.
2. Location. No parking space shall be located closer than ten (10) feet to any public street
right-of-way.
3. Design and improvements. In conjunction with each request for approval of a zoning
clearance, the zoning administrator shall identify the applicable parking design and
improvements required that are at least the minimum necessary to protect the public
health, safety, and welfare by providing safe ingress and egress to and from the site, safe
vehicular and pedestrian circulation on the site, and the control of dust as deemed
appropriate in the context of the use. The zoning administrator shall consult with the
county engineer, who shall advise the zoning administrator as to the minimum design and
improvements. Compliance with the identified parking design and improvements shall be
a condition of approval of the zoning clearance.
(§ 5.1.19, 12-10-80; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-3-01; §5.1.35, Ord. 95-20(3), 10-11-95; § 5.1.36, Ord. 95-20(4),
10-11-95; § 5.1.47, Ord. 10-18(4), 5-5-10)
Sec. 5.1.57 Farm breweries.
Each farm brewery shall be subject to the following:
a. Uses permitted. The following uses, events and activities (hereinafter, collectively, “uses”) are
permitted at a farm brewery:
1. The production and harvesting of barley and other grains, hops, fruit, and other
agricultural products, and the manufacturing of beer including, but not limited to, activities
related to the production of the agricultural products used in beer including, but not
limited to, growing, planting, and harvesting the agricultural products and the use of
equipment for those activities.
2. The sale, tasting, or consumption of beer within the normal course of business of the
farm brewery.
3. The direct sale and shipment of beer in accordance with Title 4.1 of the Virginia Code
and the regulations of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board.
4. The sale and shipment of beer to licensed wholesalers and out-of-state purchasers in
accordance with Title 4.1 of the Virginia Code, regulations of the Alcoholic Beverage
Control Board, and federal law.
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 44)
5. The storage and warehousing of beer in accordance with Title 4.1 of the Virginia Code,
regulations of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, and federal law.
6. The sale of beer-related items that are incidental to the sale of beer including, but not
limited to, the sale of incidental gifts such as bottle openers, beer glasses, and t-shirts.
7. Private personal gatherings of a farm brewery owner who resides at the farm brewery or
on property adjacent thereto that is owned or controlled by the owner, provided that beer
is not sold or marketed and for which no consideration is received by the farm brewery or
its agents.
b. Agritourism uses or beer sales related uses. The following uses are permitted at a farm brewery,
provided they are related to agritourism or beer sales:
1. Exhibits, museums, and historical segments related to beer or to the farm brewery.
2. Farm brewery events at which not more than two hundred (200) persons are in
attendance at any time.
3. Guest brewmasters and trade accommodations of invited guests at a farm brewery
owner’s private residence at the farm winery.
4. Hayrides.
5. Kitchen and catering activities related to a use at the farm brewery.
6. Picnics, either self-provided or available to be purchased at the farm brewery.
7. Providing finger foods, soups, and appetizers for visitors.
8. Tours of the farm brewery, including the areas where agricultural products are grown.
9. Weddings and wedding receptions at which not more than two hundred (200) persons
are in attendance at any time.
10. Other uses not expressly authorized that are agritourism uses or are beer sales related
uses, which are determined by the zoning administrator to be usual and customary uses
at farm breweries throughout the Commonwealth, which do not create a substantial
impact on the public health, safety, or welfare, and at which not more than two hundred
(200) persons are in attendance at any time.
c. Agritourism uses or beer sales related uses; more than 200 person at any time; special use
permit. The following uses, at which more than two hundred (200) persons will be allowed to
attend at any time, are permitted at a farm brewery with a special use permit, provided they are
related to agritourism or beer sales:
1. Farm brewery events.
2. Weddings and wedding receptions.
3. Other uses not expressly authorized that are agritourism uses or beer sales related uses
which are determined by the zoning administrator to be usual and customary uses at
farm breweries throughout the Commonwealth.
d. Information and sketch plan to be submitted with application for a special use permit. In addition
to any information required to be submitted with an application for a special use permit under
section 33.4, each application for one or more uses authorized under section 5.1.57(c) shall
include the following:
1. Information. Information pertaining to the following: (i) the proposed uses; (ii) the
maximum number of persons who will attend each use at any given time; (iii) the
frequency and duration of the uses; (iv) the provision of on-site parking; (v) the location,
height, and lumens of outdoor lighting for each use; and (vi) the location of any stage,
structure, or other place where music will be performed.
2. Sketch plan. A sketch plan, which shall be a schematic drawing of the sit e with notes in a
form and of a scale approved by the director of planning depicting: (i) all structures that
would be used for the uses; (ii) how access, on-site parking, outdoor lighting, signage,
and minimum yards will be provided in compliance with this chapter; and (iii) how
potential adverse impacts to abutting lots will be mitigated so they are not substantial.
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 45)
e. Sound from outdoor amplified music. Sound generated by outdoor amplified music shall be
subject to the following:
1. Zoning clearance. Each farm brewery shall obtain approval of a zoning clearance under
section 31.5 prior to generating any outdoor amplified music at the farm brewery. The
purpose of the zoning clearance shall be to verify that the sound amplification equipment
at the farm brewery will comply with the applicable standards in section 4.18 or that the
owner has and will use a sound level meter as that term is defined in section 4.18.02
prior to and while outdoor amplified music is being played, to monitor compliance with the
applicable standards in section 4.18, or both.
2. Maximum sound level. Sound generated by outdoor amplified music shall not exceed the
applicable maximum sound levels in section 4.18.04.
3. Outdoor amplified music not an exempt sound. Outdoor amplified music shall not be
deemed to be an exempt sound under section 4.18.05(A).
f. Yards. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the minimum front, side, and rear yard
requirements in section 10.4 shall apply to all primary and accessory structure s and to all tents,
off-street parking areas, and portable toilets used in whole or in part to serve any use permitted at
a farm brewery, provided that the minimum required yard may be reduced by special exception
upon consideration of the following: (i) there is no detriment to the abutting lot; (ii) there is no
harm to the public health, safety, or welfare; and (iii) written consent has been provided by the
owner of the abutting lot consenting to the reduction.
g. Uses prohibited. The following uses are prohibited:
1. Restaurants.
2. Helicopter rides.
Sec. 5.1.58 Events and activities at agricultural operations.
Each event or activity at an agricultural operation authorized below shall be subject to the following:
a. Purpose and intent. The purpose and intent of this section 5.1.58 is to implement policies of the
comprehensive plan and the requirements of Virginia Code § 15.2-2288.6. The stated elements
of the county’s vision for the Rural Area designated in the comprehensive plan include having a
strong agricultural economy with large lots on which to produce agricultural products,
opportunities to gain value from processing those products, and accessing local markets;
maintaining a clearly visible rural character achieved by supporting lively rura l industries and
activities; having a significant tourist economy in which the rural landscape augments the visitors’
experience; and having diverse, interconnected areas of viable habitat, healthy streams,
sustainable supplies of unpolluted groundwater, and protected historic and cultural resources.
The comprehensive plan’s stated goal to protect the county’s agricultural lands as a resource
base for its agricultural industries and for the related benefits they contribute towards the county’s
rural character, scenic quality, natural environment, and fiscal health is achieved, in part, by
allowing appropriately scaled low-impact events and activities on farms engaged in agricultural
production as provided in this section. The comprehensive plan’s stated goal to encourage
creative and diverse forms of rural production and support rural land uses is achieved, in part, by
allowing the events and activities such as farm sales, low-impact forms of agritourism, and other
events and activities provided herein.
The comprehensive plan also recognizes that rural land uses depend on natural resources that
are irreversibly lost when rural land is converted to residential and commercial uses, and that
protecting rural land uses provides an opportunity to conserve natural, scenic, and historic
resources – by maintaining farmland, forested areas, and other natural areas – and public fiscal
resources – by limiting development and lessening the need to provide public services to wide
areas of the County. In addition, the comprehensive plan recognizes that conflicts can arise not
only between agricultural and residential uses, but also between different agricultural uses. Thus,
to ensure that events and activities at agricultural operations do not conflict with the character of
the Rural Area, to promote a vibrant rural economy while controlling the adverse impacts these
events and activities may have on public fiscal resources and services, and to minimize possible
adverse impacts resulting from events and activities, this section incorporates strategies provided
in the comprehensive plan to address potential impacts.
This section shall be implemented and interpreted to achieve the objectives of its purpose and
intent.
b. Findings. The board hereby finds that the standards and restrictions in this section were
established by considering their economic impact on agricultural operations and the agricultural
nature of the events and activities authorized herein. The board further finds that one or more
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 46)
substantial impacts on the public health, safety, or welfare have been identified when a zoning
clearance or a special use permit is required by this section. These substantial impacts, and the
thresholds and standards related thereto, are based upon the comprehensive plan, study,
experience from authorizing and regulating similar events and activities under this chapter, and
existing state standards. In addition, the board finds that the thresholds and standards
established herein are the minimum necessary in order to satisfy the relevant policies, goals, and
objectives of the comprehensive plan without allowing the events, activities, and structures
permitted by this section to cause substantial impacts and thereby endanger the public he alth,
safety, or welfare.
c. Applicability; limitations. This section applies only to the events and activities permitted by right
and by special use permit under subsection (d). This section does not apply to the agricultural
operation itself, to any farm winery subject to section 5.1.25, or to any farm brewery subject to
section 5.1.57.
d. Events and activities permitted. The following events, activities, and structures are permitted by
right, permitted by right with approval of a zoning clearance, or by special use permit as set forth
in the following table, provided that these events, activities, and structures are individually and in
the aggregate subordinate to the agricultural operation, and subject to the applicable
requirements of this section and this chapter:
Event or activity1
Criterion
By right
By right
with
zoning
clearance2
By
special
use
permit3
Agritourism: generally,
for any number of
events or activities, not
regulated as another
category of agritourism
in this subsection or as
an agricultural
operation event
On sites4 greater than or equal to 21
acres and the event or activity will
generate 50 or fewer visitor vehicle
trips per day (“VTPD”)
X
Either on sites less than 21 acres or
the event or activity will generate more
than 50 visitor VTPD
X
The event or activity would have more
than 200 attendees at any single
agricultural operation at any time,
regardless of the number of visitor
VTPD or the acreage of the site
X
Agritourism:
educational programs,
or workshops or
demonstrations related
to agriculture or
silviculture
On sites4 greater than or equal to 21
acres and the event or activity will
generate 50 or fewer visitor vehicle
trips per day (“VTPD”), and each event
or activity would have 200 or fewer
attendees at any single time,
regardless of whether the number of
these events or activities, in the
aggregate would exceed 4 in a
calendar year
X
The event or activity would have 200
or fewer attendees at any single time,
regardless of the number of visitor
VTPD or the acreage of the site, where
the number of these events or
activities, in the aggregate would not
exceed 4 in a calendar year
X
Either on sites less than 21 acres or
the event or activity will generate more
than 50 visitor VTPD and each event
or activity would have 200 or fewer
attendees at any single time, where
the number of these events or
activities, in the aggregate would
exceed 4 in a calendar year
X
The event or activity would have more
than 200 attendees at any single
agricultural operation at any time,
regardless of the number of visitor
VTPD or the acreage of the site
X
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 47)
Event or activity1
Criterion
By right
By right
with
zoning
clearance2
By
special
use
permit3
Agritourism: farm tours The number of farm tours in which the
agricultural operation is participating
would not exceed 4 in a calendar year,
and each farm tour would have 200 or
fewer attendees at any single
agricultural operation at any time,
regardless of the number of visitor
VTPD or the acreage of the site
X
Agritourism: farm tours The number of farm tours in which the
agricultural operation is participating
would exceed 4 in a calendar year,
regardless of the number of attendees
at any single agricultural operation at
any time, the number of visitor VTPD,
or the acreage of the site
X5
Sales: The sale of
agricultural or
silvicultural products, or
the sale of agricultural-
related or silvicultural-
related items incidental
to the agricultural
operation, including
farm sales but
excluding harvest-your-
own activities
On sites greater than or equal to 21
acres and the activity will generate 50
or fewer visitor VTPD
X
On sites less than 21 acres or the
activity will generate more than 50
visitor VTPD
X
Structures used for the sales activity,
in the aggregate, if the gross floor area
devoted to sales is less than or equal
to 4,000 square feet
X
Structures used for the sales activity,
in the aggregate, if the gross floor area
devoted to sales is greater than 4,000
square feet
X
Sales: harvest-your-
own activities
On any site, regardless of the acreage
of the site, the number of visitor VTPD,
or the number of attendees at any time
X
Sales: The preparation,
processing, or sale of
food products in
compliance with
Virginia Code § 3.2-
5130(A)(3), (4) and (5)
or related state laws
and regulations (“sale
of food products”)
On sites greater than or equal to 21
acres and the activity will generate 50
or fewer visitor VTPD X
On sites less than 21 acres or the
activity will generate more than 50
visitor VTPD X
Other Events or
Activities: Agricultural
operation events
The event will generate 50 or fewer
visitor VTPD and will occur on sites
greater than or equal to 21 acres
X
The event will generate more than 50
visitor VTPD or occur on sites less
than 21 acres but have 200 or fewer
attendees at any time
X
The event will have more than 200
attendees at any time, regardless of
the number of visitor VTPD or the
acreage of the site
X
The number of events in a calendar
year would exceed 24, regardless of
the number of visitor VTPD, number of
attendees, or the acreage of the site
X
Other Events or
Activities: Other events
or activities which are
determined by the
zoning administrator to
be usual and customary
uses at agricultural
operations throughout
the Commonwealth
The applicable criteria will depend on
whether the proposed event or activity
is classified as agritourism, sales, or
an event; and the applicable criterion
of the events or activities listed above
shall apply
Determine
d by how
event or
activity is
classified
Determined
by how
event or
activity is
classified
Determine
d by how
event or
activity is
classified
1. If two or more events or activities categorized as “Agritourism” or “Other Events or
Activities” are being, or will be, conducted on-site simultaneously for any duration, the
number of visitor VTPD and the number of attendees shall each be aggregated, and the
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 48)
requirements of the more restricted event or activity shall apply. For the purposes of this
provision, an event or activity requiring a special use permit is more restricted than an
event or activity permitted by right, either with or without a zoning clearance, and an
event or activity permitted by right with a zoning clearance is more restricted than an
event or activity permitted by right.
2. The zoning clearance shall be obtained under section 31.5 and shall include considering
the matters in subsection (e).
3. The special use permit shall be obtained under section 33 and, in addition to the
requirements of that section, shall include the information required by subsection (f).
4. The term “site,” as used in this section, means one or more abutting lots under the same
ownership on which the agricultural operation and the event or activity is located.
5. A single zoning clearance may be obtained for all agricultural operations participating in a
farm tour.
e. Matters to be considered in review of request for approval of zoning clearance . In
reviewing a request for approval of a zoning clearance, the zoning administrator’s review shall
include verifying that the proposed event or activity complies with the applicable minimum yard
standards in subsection (h), Virginia Department of Transportation entrance standards, Virginia
Department of Health health and sanitation standards, and shall ensure that on-site travelways
can accommodate emergency vehicles, adequate on-site parking is provided in a location that
complies with this chapter, environmental impacts are addressed by compliance with the
applicable regulations or performance standards of this chapter and chapter 17, and that all
improvements comply with the applicable requirements in section 4. In addition, for any zoning
clearance for a farm tour that may have more than 200 attendees at any single agr icultural
operation at any time, the zoning administrator shall consider the traffic management plan
submitted by the person requesting the zoning clearance. The traffic management plan shall
demonstrate how traffic entering and exiting each agricultural o peration participating in the farm
tour will be managed to ensure safe and convenient access to and from the site and safe travel
on public streets.
f. Information and sketch plan to be submitted with application for a special use permit. In addition
to any information required to be submitted with an application for a special use permit under
section 33.4, each application for one or more event or activity (“use”) for which a special use
permit is required under subsection (d) shall include the following :
1. Information. Information pertaining to the following: (i) the proposed uses; (ii) the
maximum number of persons who will attend each use at any given time; (iii) the
frequency and duration of the uses; (iv) the provision of on-site parking; (v) the location,
height, and lumens of outdoor lighting for each use; and (vi) the location of any stage,
structure or other place where music will be performed.
2. Sketch plan. A sketch plan, which shall be a schematic drawing of the site with notes in a
form and of a scale approved by the director of planning, depicting: (i) all structures that
would be used for the uses; (ii) how access, on-site parking, outdoor lighting, signage,
and minimum yards will be provided in compliance with this chapter; and (iii) how
potential adverse impacts to abutting lots will be mitigated so they are not substantial.
g. Sound from outdoor amplified music. Sound generated by outdoor amplified music shall be
subject to the following:
1. Zoning clearance. Each agricultural operation shall obtain approval of a zoning clearance
under section 31.5 prior to generating any outdoor amplified music at the agricultural
operation. The purpose of the zoning clearance shall be to verify that the sound
amplification equipment at the agricultural operation will comply with the applicable
standards in section 4.18 or that the owner has and will use a sound level meter as that
term is defined in section 4.18.02 prior to and while outdoor amplified music is being
generated.
2. Maximum sound level. Sound generated by outdoor amplified music shall not exceed the
applicable maximum sound levels in section 4.18.04.
3. Outdoor amplified music not an exempt sound. Outdoor amplified music shall not be
deemed to be an exempt sound under section 4.18.05(A).
h. Yards and separation from dwelling units. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the
following minimum front, side, and rear yard requirements shall apply to any event or activity:
1. Structures used for sales. The minimum yards for structures used for the sale of
agricultural or silvicultural products shall be as follows:
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 49)
a. New permanent structures and temporary structures. The minimum front, side,
and rear yards required for any new permanent structure or temporary structure
shall be as provided in the bulk and area regulations established for the
applicable zoning district, provided that the minimum front yard on an exist ing
public road in the rural areas (RA) district shall be thirty-five (35) feet. The
minimum required yard may be reduced by special exception upon consideration
of the following: (i) there is no detriment to the abutting lot; (ii) there is no harm to
the public health, safety, or welfare; and (iii) written consent has been provided
by the owner of the abutting lot consenting to the reduction.
b. Existing permanent structures. If an existing permanent structure does not satisfy
any minimum yard requirement under subsection (h)(1)(a), the minimum yard
required shall be the distance between the existing permanent structure and the
street, road, access easement, or lot line on November 12, 2014, and that
distance shall not be thereafter reduced. An enlargement or expansion of the
structure shall be no closer to a street, road, access easement or lot line than the
existing structure.
2. Outdoor event and activity areas. The minimum front, side, and rear yards for outdoor
event and activity areas shall be seventy-five (75) feet. In addition, outdoor event and
activity areas shall be a minimum of one hundred twenty-five (125) feet from any dwelling
unit on an abutting lot not under the same ownership as the agricultural operation. These
minimum standards shall not apply to any portion of the agricultural operation that is
engaged in production agriculture or silviculture, even though it also is used for an
agritourism activity.
3. Parking areas and portable toilets. The minimum front, side, and rear yards for parking
areas and portable toilets shall be seventy-five (75) feet. In addition, parking areas and
portable toilets shall be a minimum of one hundred twenty-five (125) feet from any
dwelling unit on an abutting lot not under the same ownership as the agricultural
operation.
i. Uses prohibited. The following uses are prohibited:
1. Restaurants.
2. Helicopter rides.
Article III. District Regulations
Section 10. Rural Areas
Sec. 10.2.1 By right.
The following uses shall be permitted by right in the RA district, subject to the applicable requirements of
this chapter:
. . .
3. Agriculture, forestry, and fishery uses except as otherwise expressly provided.
. . .
6. Water, sewer, energy, communications distribution facilities (reference 5.1.12). (Amended 5-12-
93)
. . .
9. Public uses (reference 5.1.12). (Amended 11-1-89)
. . .
17. Farm winery uses, events, and activities authorized by section 5.1.25(a) and (b). (Added 12 -16-
81; Amended 5-5-10)
. . .
27. Farm stands (reference 5.1.47) (Added 5-5-10)
. . .
29. Farm brewery uses, events, and activities authorized by section 5.1.57(a) and (b).
30. Events and activities at agricultural operations authorized by right under sec tion 5.1.58(d).
(§ 20-10.2.1, 12-10-80; 12-16-81; 7-6-83; 11-1-89; 11-8-89; 11-11-92; 5-12-93; Ord. 95-20(5), 11-15-95;
Ord. 98-A(1), § 18-10.2.1, 8-5-98; Ord. 02-18(6), 10-9-02; Ord. 04-18(2), 10-13-04; Ord. 06-18(2), 12-13-
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 50)
06; Ord. 08-18(7), 11-12-08; Ord. 09-18(11), 12-10-09; Ord. 10-18(3), 5-5-10; Ord. 10-18(4), 5-5-10; Ord.
11-18(1), 1-12-11; Ord. 12-18(3), 6-6-12; Ord. 13-18(5), 9-11-13)
Sec. 10.2.2 By special use permit.
The following uses shall be permitted by special use permit in the RA district, subject to the applicable
requirements of this chapter: (Added 10-9-02; Amended 5-5-10)
. . .
2. Clubs and lodges (reference 5.1.02).
3. Fire and rescue squad stations (volunteer) (reference 5.1.09).
. . .
6. Energy and communications transmission facilities (reference 5.1.12).
7. Day care centers (reference 5.1.06).
. . .
53. Farm winery uses, events, and activities authorized by section 5.1.25(c). (Added 5 -5-10)
54. Farmers’ markets (reference 5.1.47). (Added 5-5-10)
55. Farm brewery uses, events, and activities authorized by section 5.1.57(c).
56. Events and activities at agricultural operations authorized by special use permit under section
5.1.58(d).
(§ 20-10.2.2, 12-10-80; 3-18-81; 2-10-82; 4-28-82; 7-6-83; 3-5-86; 1-1-87; 12-2-87; 11-8-89; 6-10-92; 11-
11-92; Ord. 95-20(1), 3-15-95; Ord. 95-20(3), 10-11-95; Ord. 95-20(5), 11-15-95; Ord. 98-A(1), § 18-
10.2.2, 8-5-98; Ord. 99-18(4), 6-16-99; Ord. 00-18(6), 10-18-00; Ord. 01-18(2), 3-21-01; Ord. 02-18(6),
10-9-02; Ord. 04-18(1), 5-5-04 effective 7-1-04; Ord.04-18(2), 10-13-04; Ord. 05-18(7), 6-8-05; Ord. 05-
18(8), 7-13-05; Ord. 06-18(2), 12-13-06; Ord. 08-18(7), 11-12-08; Ord. 10-18(3), 5-5-10; Ord. 10-18(4), 5-
5-10; Ord. 11-18(1), 1-12-11)
Section 11. Monticello Historic District
Sec. 11.3.1 By right.
The following uses shall be permitted by right in the MHD:
. . .
10. Water, sewer, energy, communications distribution facilities (reference 5.1.12).
. . .
13. Public uses (reference 5.1.12).
. . .
19. Farm winery uses, events, and activities authorized by section 5.1.25 (a) and (b).
. . .
26. Farm stands (reference 5.1.47). (Added 5-5-10)
. . .
28. Farm brewery uses, events, and activities authorized by section 5.1.57(a) and (b).
29. Events and activities at agricultural operations authorized by right under section 5.1.58(d).
(Ord. 05-18(5), 6-8-05; Ord. 08-18(2), 5-7-08; Ord. 10-18(4), 5-5-10; Ord. 11-18(4), 4-6-11)
Sec. 11.3.2 By special use permit.
The following uses shall be permitted by special use permit in the MHD:
. . .
8. Farm winery uses, events, and activities authorized by section 5.1.25(c), provided, however, that
no special use permit shall be required for any use that is otherwise permitted pursuant to section
11.3.1.
9. Farm brewery uses, events, and activities authorized by section 5.1.57(c), provided, however,
that no special use permit shall be required for any use that is otherwise permitted pursuant to
section 11.3.1.
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 51)
10. Activities at agricultural operations authorized by special use perm it under section 5.1.58(d),
provided, however, that no special use permit shall be required for any use that is otherwise
permitted pursuant to section 11.3.1.
(Ord. 05-18(5), 6-8-05; Ord. 10-18(4), 5-5-10; Ord. 11-18(4), 4-6-11)
Article IV. Procedure
Sec. 31.5 Zoning clearance.
The zoning administrator shall review requests for zoning clearances as follows:
a. When required. A zoning clearance shall be required in the following circumstances:
1. New use. Prior to establishing a new non-residential use, including those provided in
subsections (a)(6) and (a)(7), other than an agricultural use.
2. Change or intensification of existing use. Prior to changing or intensifying an existing
non-residential use, including those provided in subsections (a)(6) and (a)(7),other than
an agricultural, use.
3. Change of occupant. Prior to a new occupant taking possession of an existing non-
residential use, other than an agricultural, use.
4. Specific buildings, structures or uses. Prior to establishing any building, structure, or use
for which a zoning clearance is required under section 5.
5. Commencement of extraction activity. Prior to commencing any natural resource
extraction activity within the natural resources overlay district.
6. Events and activities at agricultural operations. Prior to the first time that a specific class
of event or activity is held at an agricultural operation, if a zoning clearance is required
under section 5.1.58(d).
7. Outdoor amplified music. Prior to the first time that outdoor amplified music is generated
at an event or activity at a farm winery, farm brewery, or agricultural operation, as
provided in sections 5.1.25, 5.1.57, and 5.1.58, respectively.
b. Approval. If the proposed building, structure, improvements, and site, and the proposed use
thereof, comply with this chapter, the zoning administrator shall issue the zoning clearance.
c. Circumstance when zoning clearance shall not be issued. The zoning administrator shall not
issue a zoning clearance if, after review of any site, the zoning administrator determines that
additional improvements are necessary to protect the public health or safety, regardless of
whether the improvements are shown on the site plan.
d. Notice to the owner if the applicant is not the owner. Within ten (10) days after receipt of a
request for a zoning clearance by an applicant who is not the owner of the lot and/or structure to
which the zoning clearance pertains, and prior to acting on the request, the zoning administrator
or the applicant, at the zoning administrator’s request, shall give written notice of the request to
the owner. Written notice mailed to the owner’s last known address as shown on the current real
estate tax assessment records shall satisfy this notice requirement. If the zoning administrator
requests that the applicant provide the written notice, the applicant shall provide satisfactory
evidence to the zoning administrator that the notice has been given.
e. Commercial and industrial uses defined. For the purposes of this section 31.5, production
agriculture, production silviculture, and agricultural operations are neither commercial nor
industrial uses; a home occupation is a commercial use.
f. Effect of renumbering and renaming. Any other section of this chapter that refers to section
31.2.3.2 or to a zoning compliance clearance shall be deemed to be a reference to section 31.5
or a zoning clearance.
(§ 31.2.3.2, 9-9-92; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-3-01; Ord. 09-18(3), 7-1-09; Ord. 11-18(1), 1-12-11; Ord. 11-18(8),
8-3-11)
_______________
Non-Agenda Item. The Board recessed their meeting at 8:36 p.m., and reconvened at 8:47 p.m.
_______________
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 52)
Agenda Item No. 16. To receive comments on the request to granting in fee simple to the
Commonwealth of Virginia a portion of that real property owned by the County located at the
intersection of Old Trail Drive and Jarmans Gap Road (Parcel ID 055E0-00-00-000A1). The portion
being considered for conveyance contains 0.684 acres, more or less. The parcel conveyed will be used
as a stormwater management facility that will be maintained by the Commonwealth.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 3, 2014)
The executive summary forwarded to the Board states that in conjunction with the recordation of
the final subdivision plat for the Old Trail Carriage Park Subdivision in 2007, two pieces of land
composing a single tax parcel (TMP 055E0-00-00-000A1, hereinafter “Parcel 55E-A1”), totaling 2.398
acres, were dedicated to the County for public use. The two pieces of Parcel 55E-A1 are separated by
Old Trail Drive near its intersection with Jarmans Gap Road.
Unaware that title in Parcel 55E-A1 transferred to the County upon recordation of the Old Trail
Carriage Park subdivision plat, the State Commissioner of Highways (the “State”) commenced a
condemnation action in 2010 against March Mountain Properties, the prior owner of the parcel. The
action sought to condemn approximately 0.7 acres of Parcel 55E-A1 to establish a stormwater
management facility to serve Jarmans Gap Road. The State recorded a certificate of take, which
purportedly transferred title to the State. However, the certificate identified March Mountain Properties as
the owner, and the County was never notified of the proposed condemnation as required by law. The
State installed the stormwater management facility on Parcel 55E-A1 in conjunction with the recently-
completed improvements to Jarmans Gap Road. No compensation for the property was paid to Ma rch
Mountain Properties.
Virginia Code § 15.2-1800 requires that the Board hold a public hearing prior to conveying any
interest in County-owned real property. The plat for Old Trail Carriage Park showing the Lot, and
highlighting by shading the portion proposed to be conveyed to the State, is included as Attachment A.
The Lot’s continued use as a stormwater management facility serves a public purpose. When the
Lot was dedicated to the County, the subdivider designated it as open space. A stormwater management
facility is permitted under the County’s open space regulations (County Code § 18 -4.7). The State will be
responsible for maintaining the stormwater management facility.
Staff recommends that, following the public hearing, the Board adopt the attached Resolution
(Attachment B) to approve the proposed conveyance and to authorize the County Executive and the
County Attorney to sign the necessary documents to complete the conveyance of the portion of the Lot,
including those to correct or waive any errors or omissions in that proceeding to this date, once those
documents are approved as to content and form by the County Attorney.
_____
Mr. Greg Kamptner stated that this was a public hearing to considering authorizing the County
Executive to convey an approximately .7 acre piece of land at the intersection of Old Trail Drive and
Jarman’s Gap Road, which had been conveyed to the County in conjunction with the Old Trail/Carriage
Park subdivision and was dedicated for public use as open space. Mr. Kamptner said, related to the
Jarman’s Gap Road project which was recently completed, VDOT constructed a stormwater management
facility on that site, mistakenly believing that it had acquired the property from a prior owner in a
condemnation proceeding, however, the County owns that property. He said the counsel for the
Commonwealth has contacted the County and wants to complete the acquisition of the site . It was stated
that the Commonwealth would maintain the stormwater management facility so there is a benefit to the
public and benefit to the County that the state will manage and maintain the facility, which has been
constructed at this point.
Ms. Mallek asked if VDOT would have to replant if any of the plants die out in the bio filter in order
to keep the growth down.
Mr. Kamptner said VDOT would have to replant and, in looking at the aerial photos, it is a planted
site.
Ms. Mallek reported that VDOT had to double the density of the plants in order to get rid of
standing water in there during the last year.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
There being no speakers, the Chair closed the public hearing.
Ms. Mallek moved to adopt the proposed resolution approving the proposed conveyance and to
authorize the County Executive and the County Attorney to sign the necessary documents to complete
the conveyance of the portion of the Lot, including those to correct or waive any errors or omissions in
that proceeding to this date, once those documents are approved as to content and form by the County
Attorney. Ms. McKeel seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, and Ms. McKeel.
NAYS: None.
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 53)
(Note: The resolution as adopted is set out in full below).
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY
AT THE INTERSECTION OF OLD TRAIL DRIVE AND JARMANS GAP ROAD
TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRIGNIA
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle owns certain property located at the intersection of Old
Trail Drive and Jarmans Gap Road identified as Parcel ID 055E0-00-00-000A1; and
WHEREAS, the Commonwealth of Virginia commenced a condemnation action in 2010 against
March Mountain Properties, the prior owner of the parcel, in error, and recorded a certificate of take for
approximately 0.7 acres of the County-owned property (the “Lot”), of which the County was never
notified, and which purported to transfer title of the Lot to the Commonwealth; and
WHEREAS, the Commonwealth established a stormwater management facility on the Lot in
conjunction with the recently-completed improvements to Jarmans Gap Road; and
WHEREAS, the Board finds that conveying the property to the Commonwe alth of Virginia
serves a public purpose and is necessary for the commonwealth of Virginia to properly own and maintain
its facilities on the Lot.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
hereby approves the conveyance of approximately 0.7 acres of Parcel ID 055E0-00-00-000A1 to the
Commonwealth of Virginia, and authorizes the County Executive and the County Attorney to sign all
documents, approved as to content and form by the County Attorney, necessary to convey this property
to the Commonwealth.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. To receive comments on the request to grant a temporary construction
easement and two temporary stormwater management and use easements to March Mountain
Properties, LLC on the Old Trail Park property owned by the County located along the southern
property boundary adjacent to Claremont Lane and identified as Parcel ID 055E0-01-00-000H0.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 3, 2014)
The executive summary forwarded to the Board states that on November 8, 2010, March
Mountain Properties LLC (MMP) dedicated the 36.158-acre Old Trail Park property to the County.
Although the need for drainage easements serving the Old Trail development were contemplated at that
time, those drainage easements were not recorded until February 24, 2011. Because MMP no longer
owned Old Trail Park in 2011, MMP’s attempted dedication of drainage easements was not effective for
the County property that it no longer owned. At the time of the dedication to the County in November
2010, two drainage basins serving the Old Trail development were already located on the Park property.
MMP is proposing additional development of Old Trail Village and is proposing to use temporary
drainage facilities on the Park property previously dedicated by it to the County to address the County’s
Water Protection Ordinance requirements. County staff has identified the resolution of these drainage
issues as necessary before proceeding with the additional proposed development.
County staff has worked with MMP to propose the following resolution:
1. Drainage pipe – MMP is required to construct the proposed drainage pipe across a
corner of County-owned Old Trail Park. Because the Park is already County-owned, the
typical dedication of a drainage easement from a developer to the County is not needed.
Rather, the County would be conveying to MMP a temporary construction easement for
MMP to construct the required improvements across County property. All proposed
improvements would be bonded. See Attachment A for the Proposed Temporary
Construction Deed of Easement.
2. Temporary drainage basins –The County would grant an easement for the existing
drainage basins to remain on County property temporarily, but would require their
removal upon completion of construction. The cost of removing these basins would also
be bonded. See Attachment B for the Proposed Deed of Temporary Easement.
Virginia Code § 15.2-1800 requires that the Board hold a public hearing prior to conveying any
interest in County-owned real property. Attachment C is a Plat depicting the proposed easements.
Because both easements are along the outer periphery of Old Trail Park, neither will significantly impact
Park operations.
Because MMP is responsible for constructing the required drainage improvements and for
removing the temporary drainage basins, and because all work is bonded, no budget impact is
anticipated.
Staff recommends that, following the public hearing, the Board adopt the attached Resolution
(Attachment D) to approve the conveyance of the easements, and to authorize the County Executive to
sign all necessary documents once approved as to content and form by the County Attorney.
_____
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 54)
Mr. Davis stated that this is a request by March Mountain Properties, LLC, for temporary
easements on a piece of property which had been donated by them to the County and is located in the
Old Trail development. He said the purpose of the donation of 36.158 acres was for a future County park
in Old Trail and, at the time it was donated, there was an attempt by them to have previously reserved
easements for construction of a drainage line that would be ultimately dedicated to the County, and for
the temporary use of two stormwater basins that were already constructed on the site and used for
previous development at Old Trail, however, they dedicated the property to the County before they
reserved those easements. Having recognized that inadvertent issue, he said they now require the
County to grant them easements instead of having reserved the easements before dedicating the
property to the County. Mr. Davis said there are two easement agreements which have been drafted that
accomplish that purpose and, after the public hearing, staff’s recommendation is to adopt the resolution
that would authorize the County Executive to grant those two easements to March Mountain Properties,
LLC.
Ms. Mallek asked if the drainage basin east of the Lodge at Old Trail is one of them.
Mr. Davis confirmed that it is, stating that the park property is just beyond the pool if one is
heading toward Jarman’s Gap Road. He noted that there is one drainage basin just beyond the pool and
another one to the east of that, and are ver y close to the dedicated property line of the park.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Mr. David Brockman stated that he is the development manager of the property and, when the
dedication of the land for the park was made, there were a number of facilities discussed – one being the
pond behind the lodge, which is not including this as this is over by the swim club. Mr. Brockman said
their intent was to come back and discuss the more holistic approach of how the open space would work
in correlation with stormwater management and those types of things whereas today was to deal only
with something that is already built.
The Chair closed the public hearing.
Ms. Mallek moved to adopt the proposed resolution to approve the conveyance of the
easements, and to authorize the County Executive to sign all necessary documents once approved as to
content and form by the County Attorney. Ms. Palmer seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, and Ms. McKeel.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The adopted resolution is set out below:)
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE GRANTING OF
EASEMENTS ON THE OLD TRAIL PARK PROPERTY
TO MARCH MOUNTAIN PROPERTIES, LLC
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle owns certain property located along the southern property
boundary adjacent to Claremont Lane known as the Old Trail Park and identified as Parcel ID 055E0 -01-
00-000H0; and
WHEREAS, a temporary construction easement and two temporary stormwater management and
use easements on this County-owned property are necessary for March Mountain Properties, LLC to
construct a permanent drainage pipe across a corner of the property and to use the t emporary drainage
basins to address Water Protection Ordinance requirements during construction of the additional proposed
development of Old Trail Village; and
WHEREAS, the Board finds that granting such easements is appropriate to address the water
quality requirements arising from the proposed development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
approves the granting of these certain easements to March Mountain Properties, LLC, and authorizes the
County Executive to sign all documents, approved as to content and form by the County Attorney,
necessary to convey these easements on Parcel ID 055E0 -01-00-000H0 and to implement the terms and
conditions thereof.
_______________
(The Board returned to Item 2c1 from the afternoon portion of the meeting.)
Agenda Item 2c1. Town Hall Check -In.
Ms. Lee Catlin, Assistant County Executive, reported that the Tom Tom Festival has been
awarded a $50,000 grant from the Virginia Tourism Festival, in which the County was a partner, and she
had attended a ceremony celebrating that award. She stated that she was checking in with the Board on
the upcoming town hall meeting schedules, presentation materials and logistics for the Boards’ respective
town hall meetings, and distributed a schedule. Ms. Catlin said staff has already started advertising the
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 55)
meetings in November, and would start advertising the meetings in December but wanted to have a
check-in moment for everyone to look at the schedule. She asked the Board to review the schedule and
get back to her by noon the following day with any corrections, in order to start the second round of
publicity. Ms. Catlin said she had given the Board some presentation materials to work with, and asked if
staff had covered the basics of what Supervisors needed. She stated that the Board heard some good
information today from the School Division and from the CIP presentations, so staff would likely include a
few slides from that and send those to the Board as part of the revised presentation materials.
Ms. Dittmar said she had a brief conversation with Tom Foley about handling the CIP and the
resources to address that, adding that people in a town hall setting would want to know how the Board
plans to handle the gap. She stated that the likely ‘go-to’ is property tax, but she had heard recently
about Warren County and one other locality financing large capital projects through bonds, however, she
would like to have additional background so she could become more educated in that arena.
Ms. Palmer said, in looking at the sales tax and meals tax revenue, she was not sure what the
County hoped to get back in terms of economic development if it is expecting a 5 or 10% increase. She
said she would like some sort of information as to how economic development might impact tax revenue.
She stated that she would like to get an idea on the numbers, because building new developments
means more people, and more students, which increases the expenditure burden.
Mr. Boyd suggested using the 5th Street complex as an example, because there is a lot of
commercial property there which would be paying commercial property taxes. That type of development
does not necessarily bring people into the community and is an example of what economic development
can do. He said he had participated in a discussion in Chesterfield about a $2.1 billion investment from a
company in China, which is a lot of property tax generated.
Ms. Mallek said that was a heavy industry, machinery and tools, bricks and mortar project.
Mr. Boyd said Chesterfield County most likely gave them some tax breaks and deferrals.
Ms. Palmer stated that she was looking for what Stonefield brought in with sales tax, for example,
just to show the impact.
Mr. Foley said staff could develop some scenarios based on some real projects.
Mr. Boyd said those projects are a matter of public record, so Supervisors could talk about that.
Ms. Catlin said the Board could also talk in terms of hypotheticals: if a certain type of company
were to come in, here are the ways that impacts the economy and the revenue streams associated with it.
Mr. Sheffield said every single job creates a type of transaction, and that transaction generates a
revenue for the County, not just income or property tax for that individual.
Mr. Boyd said Wegman’s is talking about creating 600 jobs for this area, and he doubted that
would require bringing in 600 people from outside the area.
Ms. Palmer said Wegeman’s will likely pay higher wages than a Wal-Mart, but sometimes
businesses like that end up costing the locality more in social services if they are not paying employees
enough.
Ms. Catlin said one example could be Micro-Aire. She said staff had costed out how much their
property tax would generate, and that is an example which could be shared in terms of the ripple effect of
that type of company.
Mr. Boyd said Supervisors could also talk about the impact of businesses leaving the County
because they could not be facilitated here, i.e., Worldstrides, CNA, etc.
Ms. Mallek said keeping businesses here and helping them stay and grow is an important
element of economic development.
Ms. Palmer said it has already been established that the Economic Development Office would
focus on supporting and growing existing companies.
Ms. Mallek said Micro-Aire is a good example, as they have been here 25 or 30 years.
Mr. Foley emphasized that he wanted everyone to understand t hat this would not have an
immediate impact, but is an investment in the long-term to create more of a tax base to help support
services.
Ms. Mallek said one factor she uses relates to agriculture and local food and, if every resident
spent $10 a week on locally grown products, the amount generated is approximately $20 million and that
is an impact which people can do something about.
Ms. Catlin stated that the Board had asked for a tax bill/tax rate chart, and staff had compiled a
few options for Supervisors to consider. She said staff created a matrix with the tax rate changes to see
November 12, 2014 (Joint Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 56)
how the values would play out so it gives people a sense of what is being discussed and how it impacts
residents.
Ms. Palmer said she would also like to get information on the decline in home prices, and how
much of that is associated with the lower assessment values due to the recession.
Mr. Foley said staff has done some of that analysis before, so they should be able to come up
with something the Board can use.
Ms. Catlin said, in terms of logistics, staff would prepare materials for upcoming town hall
meetings, sign-in charts, etc., IT support and a person onsite to get them started, and also one of the
senior County Executive’s Office staff in attendance. She said staff has provided the dates to the School
Division so they are aware of the events, with representation being something th at some Board members
had requested.
Ms. Palmer confirmed that the Red Hill meeting was scheduled to begin at 7:00 p.m.
Ms. McKeel said she would like to add a town hall meeting sometime in December.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the
Agenda.
Ms. Mallek said she would like to talk about the Virginia Association of Counties (VACO)
conference, but she was not prepared yet.
_____
Ms. Dittmar reported that, in December, there would be a conversation about procedures, and
would touch base with Supervisors personally to get their thoughts. She said she celebrates her first year
as a Supervisor tomorrow, and thanked the people of Scottsville as well as the Board for being a great
group to work with.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Foley wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. Adjourn.
With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:12 p.m.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 07/01/2015
Initials: EWJ