NELSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

CONTINUED MEETING

WORK SESSION – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

October 5, 2011

Present: Chair Philippa Proulx, Commissioners Linda Russell, Michael Tapager, Emily Hunt

Staff Present:  Fred Boger and Betty Fortune

Guests:  Will Cockrell, TJPDC Community Development Coordinator

               Melissa M. Thompson, Incoming P & Z Secretary (10/11/11)

Purpose of Meeting:  Review of second draft of Nelson County Transportation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan

Call to Order:  Chair Proulx called the meeting to order at 7:30 P. M. in the Board of Supervisors meeting room, County Courthouse, Lovingston.

Mr. Boger stated that this chapter meets the minimum requirements of VDOT.

Commissioner Russell, referring to the Table of Contents, Chapter 5, asked for clarification of whether a bicycle is considered to be used for transportation or recreation.  Mr. Boger said that State law considers it to be for transportation.

Commissioners and Mr. Cockrell reviewed the document page by page.  Corrections were agreed upon and a revised document will be sent to the Planning Commission for approval and recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.

Mr. Boger stated that this is a much better version due to Mr. Cockrell’s assistance.  Mr. Cockrell said that a glossary of terms will be added to cover words and phrases that need explanation.

Other Business: 

• Mr. Cockrell invited the Planning Commissioners to the Public Service Training Program to be held November 3 from 7 – 9 PM in Charlottesville.  (There was some discussion of the date which may need to be changed.)
• Mr. Boger stated that Blue Ridge Medical Center will be demolishing the existing building and rebuilding it on the same footprint.  It was determined that the cost of renovation would exceed replacement.
• October 26 PC agenda – 3 communications towers and 1 Special Use Permit.

Adjournment:  At 9:10 P. M., Commissioner Hunt made a motion to adjourn the continued meeting.  Motion passed 4-0.

Respectfully submitted,

Betty Fortune

Temporary Secretary for P & Z

NELSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

MEETING MINUTES

August 24, 2011

Present: Chair Philippa Proulx, Commissioners Linda Russell, Michael Tapager, Michael Harman, and Supervisor Connie Brennan

Staff Present:  Fred Boger and Betty Fortune

Call to Order:  Chair Proulx called the meeting to order at 7:30 P. M. in the Board of Supervisors meeting room, County Courthouse, Lovingston.

Approval of Minutes – June 22, 2011:  Commissioner Tapager requested a change of the word “complimentary” to “complementary” on page 3, and Commissioner Harman made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected.  Motion was seconded by Commissioner Tapager, and motion passed 4-0, with Supervisor Brennan abstaining.

Approval of Minutes – July 27, 2011:  Commissioner Harman made a motion to approve the minutes as presented.  Motion was seconded by Commissioner Tapager, and motion passed 4-0, with Supervisor Brennan abstaining.

Special Use Permit #2011-006 – Central Virginia Wind Energy

Mr. Boger reported that Mr. Dan Boyle, representing property owner Barton Biggs, has submitted an application for a Special Use Permit to install a small wind energy system on property located at 4026 River Road, Faber, Tax Map #23-A, parcel 4.  The property is approximately 175 acres in size and is zoned Agricultural, A-1.  Surrounding properties are also zoned A-1.

The proposed tower will be a lattice design 140’ in height. The extended height of the system will be 153‘, 6”.  The tip of the blades will be 129’ at the low point rotation and they need to be 30’ above the nearest obstacle, which, according to Mr. Boyle, are 100’ tall trees. The length of a single blade is 11’, 5” from the center of the rotor with a rotor diameter of 23’. The length of the system from the tip of the rotor to the end of the tail is 15’, 7”.

The tower base will be 21’ x 21’ and will be located 600’ northeast of Mr. Biggs’ house.  The tower will have an 8’ fence around the base to prevent climbing, according to Mr. Boger. Mr. Boyle does not state in the application if the fence will be chain link or wood.

The application indicated the blades are white in color. The nacelle is yellow and white with a yellow tail fin. The application does not state the color of the tower.  A white and yellow color may not comply with Section 22-4(8) (c) of the Zoning Ordinance.

Mr. Boger added that the tower will be visible from River Road (Rt. 6) which is a Scenic By-way.  The tower appears to be about 30’ above the tree tops; however, the lower section will be screened by trees which are approximately 100’ in height.  Engineering drawings were submitted which appear to be satisfactory.

Mr. Boyle of Central Virginia Wind Energy said the tower will be approximately 40’ above tree tops which is necessary in order to take advantage of the wind.  The site of the tower is approximately 2000’ from the road.

Commissioner Russell asked whether fencing was proposed.  Mr. Boyle said they would remove foot pegs from 12’ down which will prevent anyone from climbing the tower.  No fencing is planned.  No lighting is required, and the material of the tower will be galvanized.

The public hearing was opened, there were no comments, and public hearing was closed.

Commissioner Russell said the only question she had was the color; however, she didn’t object to the proposed colors since the tower will be such a distance from the road.  Commissioner Tapager agreed, noting that they did locate the tower well away from the road.  Mr. Boger said that these towers may pose a possible threat to the bald eagle population and also to bats.  Commissioners were not concerned about the threat because the request is for a single tower.

With no further discussion, Commissioner Russell made the following motion[1]:

The Planning Commission recommends to the Board of Supervisors approval of Special Use Permit #2011-006 for Barton Biggs, represented by Dan Boyle of Central Virginia Wind Energy, to install a 140 ft. wind turbine on property located at 4026 River Road, Faber, Virginia, Tax Map #23-A-4, zoned Agricultural, A-1.

Commissioner Harman provided the second, and motion passed 4-0, with Supervisor Brennan abstaining.

Class II Communications Tower – AT&T CV397 – Waterworks Lane, Wintergreen Resort

Mr. Boger reported that Mr. Joe O’Conner has submitted a revised application for a Class I Communication Tower to replace existing wood tower #398 with a new metal tower on Waterworks Lane (Tax Map #11-A-2). The current tower is owned by AT&T and located near a ski lift.  The proposed tower is a 78’ steel monopole with a 2’ lightning rod for an overall height of 80’. The tower & flush mounted antennas will be painted dark brown. The equipment shelter will be surrounded by an 8’ board-on-board fence that will be allowed to weather naturally.

Mr. Boger added that the narrative submitted by Mr. O’Conner explains the purpose of the application. Since this is a replacement to be located in an area with existing towers, the majority being the same approximate height, Staff recommends approval of this application.

Valerie Long, attorney for AT&T, and Joe O’Connor were present to answer questions.  Chair Proulx asked why a steel pole was being used rather than wood.  Ms. Long responded that steel is more easily transported because it can be transported in sections, a wood pole requires a larger diameter, woodpeckers are a problem with wood, trees are saved, the fall zone is less since steel poles collapse within a smaller area, cable is concealed inside the pole rather than on the surface, and poles are smaller in diameter than wood poles would have to be.

Commissioner Russell asked about the timetable for removing the existing pole.  Ms. Long said removal would take place within approximately 30-60 days after the new pole is activated.

The public hearing was opened, there were no comments, and public hearing was closed.

Commissioner Russell made the following motion[2]:

The Planning Commission approves application #2011-001, together with plans dated 7/29/11 by O. Warren Williams, Jr.  Professional Engineer for AT&T (CV398), pursuant to Section 20, Subsection 20-6-2, of the Nelson County Zoning Ordinance to construct a 78 ft. monopole metal communications tower with a 2 ft. lightning rod.  The property is located on Waterworks Lane, Wintergreen Resort, Virginia, Tax Map #11-A-2, and zoned Residential Planned Community.  The Planning Commission waives the landscape requirement in Section 20-7-5k of the Zoning Ordinance.

Commissioner Harman provided the second and motion passed 4-0 with Supervisor Brennan abstaining.

Other Business:

Discussion on Subdivision Ordinance:  Commissioner Russell asked Mr. Boger to provide information about a proposed restriction on the number of driveways entering a public road.  Mr. Boger reported that VDOT’s standard is that if more than 3 lots are served by a single entrance onto a State road, a commercial entrance is required.  Supervisor Brennan asked about circular driveways with two entrances.  Mr. Boger said he would question VDOT on that issue.   He suggested that the PC consider requiring that in subdivisions with lots less than 5 acres, any 3 or more lots fronting a public road would require one shared driveway for every 2 lots. Mr. Boger provided a copy of VDOT’s site distance requirements.  Commissioner Russell said she would like to see the issue of driveways resolved and asked Mr. Boger to investigate further and make a recommendation at the September meeting.

Comprehensive Plan Revision:  Mr. Boger has received some comments from VDOT on the Comprehensive Plan transportation section.  Chair Proulx suggested scheduling  a work session to discuss this issue.  October 5 or October 12 was suggested.  Commissioners are to let Secretary know which date is convenient.  Mr. Boger indicated that the representative from TJPDC who authored the section wants to be present.

Board of Supervisor Liaison Report – Connie Brennan:  Supervisor Brennan reported the following:

(1) The Board of Supervisors received Karen Firehock’s report from the Green Infrastructure Center on Healthy Watersheds, Healthy Communities.  Supervisor was impressed with the study.

(2) The Broadband project is moving slowly.  One company has been will be hired to work toward providing Broadband for County Offices, Health Department, Schools, Library, etc. along the main Broadband line.   Other companies will handle all other subscribers working off the main line.

(3) The Health Department building is still in limbo, with no decision made at this time regarding whether to build or rehabilitate.

(4) Lovingston Health & Rehabilitation Center will be closing in approximately 3 years and moving to Albemarle County.  There is a possibility that the County may want to consider purchasing the building.

(5) The definition of Wildlife Rehabilitation Center was approved by the Board.

(6) The Gladstone communications tower was approved by the Board.

(7) No progress has been made on revisions to the Communications Tower ordinance.

(8) It is anticipated that E911, Sheriff’s office, and Courts will moved into the new County Courthouse Complex in October.

(9) Some parts of the old jail will be saved.

(10) Construction on Blue Ridge Medical Center is progressing.  The back of the present building will be demolished, and the front will be retained.

(11)  Exception #11 for Mr. Lawrence Dewey, Jr.  was denied by the Board.

Supervisor Brennan asked Mr. Boger if he had consulted with County Attorney Payne regarding the inconsistencies the Planning Commission perceived in the newly approved Va. Code Section 15.2-2292.1 relating to temporary family health care structures.  Mr. Boger said he hasn’t as of today.

Adjournment:

At 8:30 P. M., Commissioner Harman made a motion to continue the meeting on the date decided for the Comprehensive Plan work session, Commissioner Russell provided the second, and motion passed 5-0.

Next Meeting:

September 28, 2011

Respectfully submitted,

Betty Fortune, Temporary

Planning Commission Secretary

A RESOLUTION

TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT #2011-006

FOR CENTRAL VIRGINIA WIND ENERGY

WHEREAS, Mr. Dan Boyle of Central Virginia Wind Energy, on behalf of Mr. Barton Biggs, has requested approval pursuant to Article 22, Section 4-1-1b, to install a 140 ft. wind turbine on property located at 4026 River Road, Faber, Virginia, Tax Map #23-A-4, zoned Agricultural, A-1;

WHEREAS, notice of public hearing was published in the Nelson County Times on August 4 and 11, 2011; and

WHEREAS, a notice to adjacent property owners was mailed on August 17, 2011; and

WHEREAS, the Commission has considered the Planning Director’s report; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE NELSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION as follows:

The Planning Commission recommends to the Board of Supervisors approval of Special Use Permit #2011-006 for Barton Biggs, represented by Dan Boyle of Central Virginia Wind Energy, to install a 140 ft. wind turbine on property located at 4026 River Road, Faber, Virginia, Tax Map #23-A-4, zoned Agricultural, A-1.

Motion made by Commissioner:  Linda Russell

Motion seconded by Commissioner:  Michael Harman

Motion Passed:  4-0, Supervisor Brennan abstaining

APPROVED: __________________________

CHAIR

ATTEST: _____________________________

Planning Commission Secretary DATE:               August 24, 2011        ________               

A RESOLUTION

TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF CLASS I COMMUNICATIONS TOWER

#2011-001 FOR AT&T

WHEREAS, an application has been submitted by AT&T for a Class I Communications Tower Permit, pursuant to Section 20, Subsection 20-6-2, of the Nelson County Zoning Ordinance to construct a 78 ft. metal monopole communications tower with a 2 ft. lightning rod, on property located on Waterworks Lane, Wintergreen Resort, Virginia, Tax Map #11-A-2, zoned Residential Planned Community, RPC; and

WHEREAS, notice of public hearing was published in the Nelson County Times on August 4 and 11, 201

WHEREAS, a notice to adjacent property owners was mailed on August 17, 2011; and

WHEREAS, the Commission has considered the Planning Director’s report;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE NELSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION as follows:

The Planning Commission approves application #2011-001, together with plans dated 7/29/11 by O. Warren Williams, Jr.  Professional Engineer for AT&T (CV398), pursuant to Section 20, Subsection 20-6-2, of the Nelson County Zoning Ordinance to construct a 78 ft. monopole metal communications tower with a 2 ft. lightning rod.  The property is located on Waterworks Lane, Wintergreen Resort, Virginia, Tax Map #11-A-2, and zoned Residential Planned Community.  The Planning Commission waives the landscape requirement in Section 20-7-5k of the Zoning Ordinance.

Motion made by Commissioner:  Linda Russell

Motion seconded by Commissioner:  Michael Harman

Motion Passed:  4-0, Supervisor Brennan abstaining

APPROVED: __________________________

CHAIR

ATTEST: _____________________________

Planning Commission Secretary

DATE:               August 24, 2011        ________               

Present: Chair Philippa Proulx, Commissioners Linda Russell, Michael Tapager, Michael Harmon , Emily Hunt, and Supervisor Connie Brennan

Staff Present:  Fred Boger and Wanda Staton

Call to Order:  Chair Proulx called the meeting to order at 7:30 P. M. in the Board of Supervisors meeting room, County Courthouse, Lovingston.

Election of Officers:
Commissioner Russell made a motion to nominate current Planning Commission officers for 2011 which includes: Chair – Philippa Proulx, Vice Chair – Emily Hunt, and Recording Secretary – Wanda Staton. Commissioner Tapager seconded the motion and motion passed 5-0.

Approval of Minutes – November 17, 2010 Commissioner Harmon made a motion to approve the November minutes and Commissioner Tapager provided the second. Motion passed 5-0.
Approval of Minutes – December 15, 2010 Commissioner Harmon made a motion to approve the December minutes and Commissioner Tapager proved the second. Motion passed 4-0.  Commissioner Hunt abstained.
(Note: There was no PC meeting in January due to inclement weather.)

Supervisor Constance Brennan stated that she would not be voting on any items due to personal preference.

Rezoning #2010-004 – Terry and Janet Parkins
Mr. Boger stated the public hearing was held in December. Letters have been received from Wintergreen Partners, High Country Associates, and WPOA stating no opposition to the rezoning submitted by Terry and Janet Parkins.  They want to keep horses on the property and under the current zoning designation PRC, horses are not allowed in that zoned district.

Commissioner Russell stated that she is in agreement with Mr. Boger’s original recommendations. She suggested that this rezoning should not take effect until the Master Plan has been revised and signed by the chairman of the Board of Supervisors.

Commissioner Russell made the following motion:
The Nelson County Planning Commission recommends to the Board of Supervisors approval of Rezoning request #2010-004, for Terry and Janet Parkins, to rezone 25.481 acres from Residential Planned Community to A-1, located at the intersection of Rt. 151 and Stonegate Lane, Nellysford, Virginia, Tax Map #22-A-57A and 57B. This rezoning shall be effective on submission of a revised Master Plan and signed by the Chairman of the Nelson County Board of Supervisors.

Commissioner Harmon provided the second and motion passed 5-0.

Other Business

Communication Tower Ordinance
20-5-4 Plans and Drawings:
Supervisor Connie Brennan asked whether the information in (f) was required to be submitted with the application.  Mr. Boger replied that this information was needed in order to evaluate the entire application. Commissioner Russell stated that the next area is (G) and that has to do with the fall area. Ms. Schweller stated in her letter, that “Part of this section is redundant with Sec. 20-11(b).  Subsection 20-5-4(g)could benefit from a cross-reference to 20-11.  Also, the wording, “within the lease area” at the end of this subsection 49(g) should be changed to “within the subject parcel.” Commissioner Russell stated that the Commission’s concern is whether it would collapse within the subject property. Commissioner Russell suggested that the phraseology be changed in 20-11. On page 15, Section A will be changed to read, “The fall area for a metal monopole and lattice tower may be waived or modified upon certification by the licensed professional engineer that the tower is designed to collapse within the property lines of the subject parcel.  On page 7, Section G, the same changes will be made.

20-5-7 Phototgraphs: Mr. Boger would like the balloon test photo simulations submitted with the application so that staff is able to see how high the tower is going to be within the trees. There are instances where several balloon tests are required or needed. Commissioner Russell stated that “technically” the application is incomplete until a balloon test has been done.  Mr. Boger stated that everything has to be done before the notice in the paper goes out. Commissioner Russell recommended deleting 20-5-7 and adjust 20-5-18. Section 20-5-7 should read Photographs:  (See Section 20-5-18 for balloon test requirements.) Mr. Boger stated that 20-5-18 will need to be revised.

20-5-8 Service Area Standards: Commissioner Russell stated that this section concerns the cost of referring to an outside consultant and she feels that the fee needs to be agreed upon by both parties. Mr. Boger feels that a consultant will not be obtainable this way.  Chair Proulx felt that the applicant should be notified of the cost and agree in writing.

20-5-14 No changes to this section.

20-5-17(b) Standards for Siting and Construction: Mr. Boger is going to check on the diameters of the 130’ poles that have been used in the past. He suggested tiering the size for different classes of towers.  He is also going to check with Albermarle County to see what they require.

20-5-17(c)(8) No changes to this section.

20-5-17(d)  Setback-Viewsheds 1and 2:  Changes:
Class I Communication Tower: A tower with more than 2 antennas shall require an additional 500 feet of setback for each antenna over the two permitted.

Class II Communication Tower: A tower with more than 2 antennas shall require an additional 500 feet of setback for each additional antenna.

Class III Communication Tower:  A tower with more than 2 antennas shall require and additional 500 feet of setback for each additional antennas.

20-9    Removal and Reporting: In order to guarantee that the facility will be removed as required,  the Planning and Zoning Director shall require that the parcel owner or the owner of the facility submit a certified check, a bond with surety, or a letter of credit, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the removal of the facility.

20-10    Exemption from regulations otherwise applicable: The fall area for a metal monopole and lattice tower may be waived or modified upon certification by the licensed professional engineer that the tower is designed to collapse within the property lines of the subject parcel.

Collocation:  Commissioner Russell stated that the Board of Supervisor’s have not stated their position whether they support collocations. When the ordinance was written, it was designed not to collocate and it was designed to have the least intrusive towers. She suggested that collocation could be permitted in areas where the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Nelson County is of concern. Supervisor Brennan said she will discuss with the Supervisors.

Comprehensive Plan Update: Commission Proulx reported that she, Supervisor Brennan and Mr. Boger met with representatives of the Thomas Jefferson Planning district commission to discuss the Comp Plan update. She recommended that the Planning Commission review the Transportation, Historic Resources and Recreation sections and then hold public hearings. Mr. Boger explained that VDOT wants each region and locality to provide a transportation plan in their Comp Plan on which would be based future funding.  Supervisor Brennan reported that she had discussed funding with the County Administrator, Steve Carter covering the 3 sections referred to above plus the maps and data.  Steve Williams with the TJPDC is preparing cost projections.  The Commissioners set Thursday, March 17, at 7:30 for a work session to review the 3 sections.

Report from BOS Liaison Constance Brennan
Supervisor Brennan reported that she and Mr. Boger attended the Planning Commissioners’ Workshop on Feb. 17th at the TJPD.  Basically the meeting was divided into two sections, technical and legal. She feels that training is very important for the Commissioners but if funding is needed she will take to the board. Next workshop is April 11th.

One thing that has been very useful for the BOS is maintaining a punch list.  The secretary could be responsible for keeping up with the items that are pending.

Steve Williams gave an excellent presentation to the BOS on how critical planning can be in growth areas.  He will give this presentation to the Commission if desired.

Supervisor Brennan has been very involved in the Piedmont Region Planning Program for the Chesapeake an in the Green Infrastructure Project. She asked if anyone would like to be in the focus group for the Green Infrastructure Project.  She also suggested changing the meeting time from 7:30 pm to 7:00 pm. After discussion, the Commission decided not to change the time.

Adjournment
Commissioner Tapager made a motion to continue this meeting until March 17th, 7:30 pm. Commissioner Hunt provided the second and the motion passed 5-0.

Respectfully submitted,

Wanda Staton

Present:  Chair John Bradshaw, Members Gifford Childs, Linda Russell, Kim Cash, Goffrey Miles, and Alternate Ron Moyer

Staff:    Fred Boger, Planning Director, and Wanda Staton, Secretary

Call to Order:  Mr. Bradshaw called the meeting to order at 7:30 P. M. with a welcome to the applicants.

Minutes of August 2, 2010 – Ms. Cash made a motion to approve the minutes as presented, Ms. Russell provided the second, and motion passed 5-0.

Variance #2010-004 – Small Wind Energy System – Barton Biggs
Mr. Boger reported that Mr. Barton Briggs, represented by Dan Boyle, Central Virginia Wind Energy, is appealing the Zoning Administrator’s denial of a zoning permit to install a 130 foot guyed lattice small wind energy system tower on his property located at 4026 River Road, Faber, Virginia. The property is further identified as Tax Map #23-A, Parcel 4.

On August 20, 2010, Mr. Barton Biggs submitted an application for a zoning permit for a small wind energy system tower. After reviewing the application, Mr. Biggs was informed that the permit could not be approved for the following reasons:

1.    The maximum tower height permitted is 100 feet. The proposed height of your system is 130 feet.  The height needs to be reduced to 100 feet.
2.    The lattice tower is supported by tower guyed wires. Our ordinance requires the tower to be self supporting. The tower needs to be redesigned to be a self-supporting tower.
3.    There is no information (drawings) on the blade design. This information is required.
4.    No information has been submitted on the color of the small wind energy system.
5.    Proof of adequate liability insurance for the small wind energy system must be provided.
6.    The tower design does not show how it will not be accessible to the public for a minimum height of 12 feet.

Mr. Boyle stated in the application the reasons for the appeals are:

1.    “Section 20-7-6b allows guyed wires for radio towers; we are appealing the definition of wind turbine towers only including freestanding lattice and monopoles.”

20-7-6b. A design plan showing the Communication Tower, base, and the foundations for all guy-line anchors and support structures, all proposed auxiliary buildings and any other proposed improvements, including the utilities connections within and to the proposed site.

2.    “Section 22-4-2C. We are also appealing the Maximum height of 100’, we recommend using 20-8-1 for Class III communication towers in order to take full advantage or federal and state tax dollars by installing the wind turbine a the optimum height on the property, which entails the turbine to be installed above the tree canopy and our trees in VA are very tall and cause turbulence to wind turbines installed just above the canopy.”

22-4 Permitted Use
(2)  Height: The maximum height of a small wind energy system shall be:
(a)  Parcels 1-2 acres in size:  Maximum tower height – 45 feet
(b) Parcels greater than 2 acres and less than 5 acres in size:  Maximum tower height – 60 feet
(c)  Parcels 5 acres or greater in size:  Maximum tower height – 100 feet
(d) Building-mounted small wind energy system:  Maximum height – 15 feet above point of attachment to the building or above the roof deck where the system is placed.

20-8-1     Standards of Height.    Any Communication Tower over ninety-five (95) feet and to a maximum height of one hundred thirty (130) feet shall require a Class III permit from the Nelson County Board of Supervisors.

Mr. Boyle also stated “the hardship imposed by the current ordinance is the fact that a properly sited turbine must be at the highest point on a resident’s property without affecting neighbors. Because the highest installation site on Mr. Biggs’ property is a tree canopy, the tower height must be above the trees an amount high enough to extend beyond the turbulence created by such a canopy. Mr. Biggs is approved for the state wind incentive and Central Virginia Wind Energy, a certified master installer with the state, is required to install this wind turbine to a state standard, which requires a height appropriate to the property. The higher a tower is erected, the higher the costs associated with such towers. The wind turbine is only rated at 10kW, which is 10kWs under the maximum allowed in the Nelson County ordinance. This unit will supply 1/3 of the power the Biggs’ residence uses on average. It is not a commercial application, the higher the wind turbine is installed, the better the wind resource is available, decreasing the return on investment.”

Mr. Boyle further stated that 4026 River Road has a tree canopy at its highest elevation. This topographic condition requires a variance in order to maintain the integrity of the canopy and take full advantage of said property’s wind resource.

Staff has reviewed this petition and has the following comments:

1.  The Petitioner is using a provision of the Communication Tower Ordinance to justify the use of guyed wires on a wind turbine tower. The use of guyed wires on these towers was carefully reviewed and considered by both the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors when developing the Small Wind Energy Ordinance. It was decided that the wind turbine tower must be self-supporting with no guyed wires. This is a design requirement for these towers and any change to this requirement will require an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance.

Bergey Windpower Co. has a self-supporting lattice tower that can be used for this wind turbine.

2.    The Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors discussed at length the height of a small wind energy tower. The purpose of the Small Wind Energy Ordinance is to provide standards whereby small wind energy systems can be permitted in all zoning districts as a permitted use. These standards are uniform as all properties are subject to the height requirements. If there is a hardship with the height requirements, it is shared by all property owners in Nelson County, not just by Mr. Biggs. Therefore a variance in this case should not be granted.

3.    There are large open areas on the subject property where a 100 foot self-supporting lattice tower could be located without a variance. The maximum 100 height requirement falls with the tower height range (100-120 ft) recommended by Bergey Windpower Co. The County cannot guarantee adequate wind to run a turbine at its ideal output. If the height requirements are not adequate for wind turbines in the County, then the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors should be provided with the wind data for the entire County and a request made for an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, not a variance.

Mr. Dan Boyle with Central Virginia Wind Energy was sworn in by Mr. Bradshaw. He stated that they are appealing the guyed wires of the tower as well as the maximum height of 100 feet for the tower. He also wished to amend the application now requesting a tower height of 140’ instead of 130’, because when they did the balloon test they encountered 100’trees. Bergy is the type of tower he wants to install.  It is a 10 kilowatt version with a 10 year warranty. They expect to get about 1000 kilowatt hours per month. He gave a quick review of the State and Federal renewable wind energy incentives.

Mr. Boyle described why there was a hardship with the property. The state incentive program requires the wind turbine must be installed at the highest point of the property. Mr. Biggs, property owner, has 100 feet tall trees on his property.  Mr. Boyle stated that the average return on investment of a small wind turbine is less than 20 years.

Ms. Cash stated that the issue is that they want to see a much taller tower on the tallest part of the property. Mr. Boyle stated that was correct. The applicant wants to see a tower on the tallest portion of the property.

Ms. Russell asked if there was any open space on the property where you could place a tower that would meet the requirements.  Mr. Boyle replied that the applicant could expect to lose 588 kilowatt hours per month installing in a field that is 100 feet lower than the proposed site. Mr. Bradshaw stated that it seemed to him that you would get some turbulence from the trees on the upper side of the mountain. Mr. Boyle stated that you will get some turbulence. Mr. Boyle also stated that Virginia is a hard state to site wind turbines in.

Mr. Barton Biggs was sworn in by Mr. Bradshaw.  Mr. Biggs stated that there were a few points he wanted to emphasize.  He did not understand why his hardship cannot be shared by others in the county in order to qualify for a variance.  The guyed wires at the proposed location in the woods would not be visible.  Mr. Bradshaw stated that if you go to Truslow’s Lane the property in question is visible.  He asked if there would be a fence around the guyed wires.  Mr. Biggs stated that he had not planned on any fencing.  He said the tower would be inaccessible to the public by use of a ladder that slides up above the height that someone could reach.

Mr. Boger stated that if the applicant amends the application it would have to readvertised.

The public hearing was opened.

Mr. Bradshaw stated that a letter had been received and asked Wanda Staton to read the letter from Katherine M. Daniels, 2724 Alston Drive, Atlanta, Georgia.

The public hearing was closed.

Ms. Cash stated that she supports small wind energy systems.  Any action taken by this board will set a precedent.  If the Board of Zoning Appeals decides it has the authority to grant a height variance then a precedent has been set. She felt that Mr. Biggs misunderstood the term hardship because the ordinance requires that the hardship must be unique to your property.

Ms. Russell stated that she is very uncomfortable granting a 40% variance. In view of the uniqueness of Mr. Biggs property, this should go back to the Planning Commission to consider regulations for properties with unusually high densely vegetative canopies.  She didn’t think that a variance is appropriate. As far as guyed wires are concerned she firmly believes that self-supporting towers are the way to go. She does not support this variance as requested.

Mr. Childs stated that he cannot support the variance on the height because it is too great.

Mr. Biggs asked if the BZA could approve or disapprove the entire variance or could it be partially approved. Mr. Bradshaw stated that it would either be approved or not approved.

Ms. Cash stated that it comes down to whether the Board of Zoning Appeals can even grant a variance or whether the ordinance should be revised. She feels that the BZA doesn’t have the authority to change the height of a tower.

Mr. Boger stated that he felt it should go back to the Planning Commission.

Mr. Biggs asked would it qualify as a hardship, the fact that, the state rebate runs out this spring. The use of wind energy is not financially feasible without this state incentive.

Mr. Miles asked when the state rebate would expire and Mr. Biggs answered he believed it was May 2011.

Mr. Bradshaw suggested to Mr. Biggs that he consider withdrawing the application. It is possible that some changes could be made within the next 60 days and then he could reapply before his deadline.

Mr. Boger stated that when the ordinance was crafted there were only one or two companies in this area. Mr. Boyle seems to have much more information that would be useful during reexamination of this ordinance.

Mr. Biggs stated that he wanted to withdraw his application.

Ms. Linda Russell made a motion to recommend that the Planning Commission readdress the height issues in relation to the wind energy ordinance at their next meeting.  Second was provided by Mr. Miles and motion passed 5-0.

Variance #2010-005 – Melvin Lawhorne

Mr. Boger reported that  Mr. Melvin Lawhorne is appealing the Zoning Administrator’s violation notice of September 28th  and is requesting variances to keep a travel trailer on his property located  on Crabtree Falls Highway and identified as Tax Map 26-A, Parcel 22.

The subject property is zoned Agricultural, A-1. Mr. Lawhorne is requesting the following variances:

1.    Section 4-11-1 Temporary placement of a travel trailer not to exceed three (3) years and temporary occupancy not to exceed thirty (30) consecutive days at any one time.  A zoning permit will not be issued until a septic tank has been installed. The required septic system has not been installed.
2.    Section 4-3-1a Front yard:  Minimum of seventy-five (75) feet from the center of the road or fifty (50) feet from the edge of the right-of-way, whichever is the greater distance. The travel trailer is located approximately 52 feet from the center of Crabtree Falls Highway.

On May 27, 2010, Mr. Lawhorne provided the Planning Director with a written statement that the travel trailer would not be on the property more than 10 days at a time. It would be transported in and out of the property as needed.  With this understanding, an electrical permit was issued for an electrical meter to be installed on the property. The travel trailer was not removed periodically from the property as agreed to on May 27th resulting in the Notice Zoning Violation.

Mr. Lawhorne stated in his application that the travel trailer was not permanently occupied and was for seasonal use. He also stated that Bell Septic was paid to dispose of waste from the 50 gallon holding tank. He would like to set the camper there for a fixed amount of time.

The subject property is approximately .17 acres (7,405.2 sq. ft.) in size. Mr. Lawhorne stated that he was not able to move the camper back due to the small lot. He also stated that there are no complaints from an adjoining property owner.

Mr. Boger stated that the office has received 3 letters in opposition to Mr. Lawhorne leaving his camper on the property.  Mr. Anderson also an adjoining property owner called the office and stated he had no problem with the camper staying there. The BZA has been very consistent in denying these types of requests.

Mr. Lawhorne was sworn in by Mr. Bradshaw. Mr. Lawhorne showed pictures of the property. He stated that he should have never signed the paper at the Planning and Zoning office stating he would remove trailer every 10 days. He stated that he did ask the Planning and Zoning Office if he could put a camper on his property and he was told it was the only thing he could put there. He stated that he keeps the property clean and has had the self-contained unit pumped twice this year and has only been there three times this year to use the camper. He stated that adjoining property owner, Mr. Anderson, enjoys them coming up there because he is 90 years old and feels safe when they are there. He has nowhere else to put the camper. He doesn’t have enough land where the camper is sitting to install a septic system and that is why he is having it pumped by Bells Septic. He inherited the land and purchased the camper. Ms. Cash asked if he didn’t understand when he signed the agreement that he had to pull the camper off the property after 10 days and then could bring it back for 10 days. Mr. Lawhorne said he did understand but that he hadn’t realized how dangerous it was to pull the camper in and out of the road on Rt. 56.

Mr. Bradshaw opened the Public Hearing.

Board of Supervisors’ Member, Tommy Bruguiere, stated that Mr. Lawhorne’s land is a non-conforming piece of property and feels the best suited use is for a camper trailer. It is not large enough to put a septic system. He has already had it pumped by Bells Septic System service. If a variance is granted, Mr. Lawhorne could submit proof to the Planning Director each time the tank is emptied.  He has improved the land and he is paying taxes on it.

Public hearing was closed.

Mr. Childs stated that he feels the Board would be in big trouble if the variance were approved after denying so many cases just like this one.

Ms. Russell stated that she felt Mr. Lawhorne has good intentions, and he would have it pumped out as required but the trailer could be sold to someone else and they may not be as conscientious as Mr. Lawhorne and she was very concerned that it is right next to a creek and the land is a very small lot and feels it is an inappropriate place for a travel trailer.

Ms. Cash stated she agrees with Mr. Childs in that the Board has been incredibly consistent in requiring others to install septic systems or move the trailer and she would not support this application.

Mr. Miles stated that he agrees with Ms. Cash. He feels it is hard to tell one person they can do something and someone else that they can’t.

Mr. Childs made a motion to deny the request for both the septic and variance for the front yard setback based on the fact that there is no demonstration of hardship based on our definition of hardship. Ms. Russell provided the second and motion passed 5-0.

Mr. Lawhorne asked how long he had before he had to move the camper. Mr. Boger stated he will have 30 days to move the camper. Mr. Lawhorne asked if he could move it back after 30 days and Mr. Boger stated he could and that it has to be moved every 10 days. Mr. Boger stated he would talk to the county attorney and would get back to Mr. Lawhorne. Mr. Bruguiere stated that he could move the camper every 10 days and he must leave the camper off the property for 10 before he could move it back for 10 days.

Mr. Bradshaw stated that Mr. Boger would need some time to verify the requirements and would then contact Mr. Lawhorne within two weeks.

Other Business – None

Adjournment
At 9:30 o’clock P.M., Mr. Bradshaw declared the meeting adjourned.

Next meeting –  December 6, 2010

Respectfully submitted,

Wanda L. Staton
BZA Secretary

Present: Chair Philippa Proulx, Commissioners Linda Russell, Michael Tapager, Michael Harmon and Supervisor Allen Hale
Absent: Emily Hunt

Staff Present: Fred Boger and Candy McGarry

Call to Order: Chair Proulx called the meeting to order at 7:30 P. M. in the Board of Supervisors meeting room, County Courthouse, Lovingston.

Approval of Minutes – October 27, 2010 Commissioner Harmon made a motion to approve the October minutes and Commissioner Tapager provided the second.
Approval of Minutes – November 17, 2010 – Deferred until January 26, 2011 meeting.

Class III Communication Tower with exceptions – County of Nelson – Wintergreen Permit # 2010-007

Mr. Boger reported that Nelson County has submitted an application for a Class III Communication Tower Permit to erect a ninety four foot (94’) Communication Tower on Fern Circle, Wintergreen Resort. At the site plan review meeting there was concern that there may not be enough fall area to miss a house close by, so the County has decided to lower the height to 86 feet with a 4 foot antenna for a total of a 90 feet tower. The tower is a critical link in the County’s Broadband Communication Plan. They have provided a list of antennas and the proposed height location and there is some possibility of future collocation. If there is any new collocation to the tower then they would have to come back to the Planning Commission. The main issue is to get the County through the process because they are on a tight time line to apply for grant money. The property is identified as Tax Map #11-F-Open which is owned by WPOA and leased by the County. The purpose of this tower is to replace the County’s existing tower on that site.

Nelson County is also requesting the following:

1. Section 20-7-5K, Landscaping. A wavier by the Planning Commission of the landscaping requirements because this facility and the other towers at this location will all be enclosed by a wood stockade fence.
2. Section 20-7-2a, Distance to Property Line. An exception to the required fall area of the tower from 117.5 feet to approximately 90 feet.
3. Section 20-7-2b, There are no existing tower options.
4. Section 20-7-2c, Maximum height on mountain ridge or peak.
5. Section 20-7-4c, 8 foot chain link fence. A wavier of the required fence for this facility since all the towers are to be enclosed by a wood fence.
6. Section 20-7-5j, Security Fencing. A wavier of the required fence for this facility since all the towers are to be enclosed by a wood fence.
7. 20-7-3, Proximity to an Existing Tower. Nelson County requests an exemption to the requirement of 2 miles separation from existing towers. Other towers within the 2 mile separation neither have the required height or location to provide the connectivity into the County’s communication network or the coverage required for mobile communication.
8. 20-7-2e, Viewshed of the Blue Ridge Parkway. Nelson County requests exemption to this requirement due to the fact that the site will be within 1.0 mile of the right of way of the Blue Ridge Parkway.

Mr. Boger stated that Blue Ridge Parkway was contacted on October 26, 2010. They have not given any formal comments back. There are 2 categories of antennas on the tower, the proposed antennas and the future ones. They are not seeking approval of the future antennas right now.

Commissioner Russell stated that Section 20-7-2a refers to distance to the property line. Mr. Boger stated that it is shown on the application that this tower is at the same location as the current tower.

Commissioner Harmon asked if the issue of monopole vs. lattice had been resolved. Mr. Boger stated that the tower is currently proposed as a lattice tower. If it is changed to a monopole, it will have to be approved by the Planning Commission. The County would prefer a lattice tower.

Ms. Susan Rorrer, the County’s representative, stated that part of this tower is for the public safety microwave network. They are on tight deadlines to comply with grant funding requirements.

Commissioner Russell asked Ms. Rorrer to discuss the Blue Ridge Parkway’s position. Ms. Rorrer stated they have had discussions and at one point were recommending collocation on a monopole tower. The BRP would like for a proposed AT&T tower not be built but collocated on the County’s tower. They consider it to be an adverse impact should two structures be built. Commissioner Russell asked if they understand that if a tower is taller than 90 feet it would impact the houses there. Ms. Rorrer said that it has been made clear to them and the County is making an attempt to accommodate collocutors with the 86 plus 4 foot height. When the application was originally submitted the County didn’t have the benefit of the microwave path analysis. The latest data indicated that the dish height can be dropped and still have room for additional equipment on the tower. The only difference will be potential structural engineering changes. Commissioner Russell asked if there was a change that the FCC would turn them down. Discussions between the FCC and BRP since the Site Plan Review have indicated that the BRP would consider a lattice tower but probably will insist on collocation. The county hopes to obtain FCC approval by satisfying the concerns of the BRP.

Commissioner Tapager commented that the original height of the tower wasn’t really needed. Ms. Rorrer concurred stating the original height was based on some preliminary path studies. The County does not want to lower the tower height any further because of required dish heights and spacing of current antenna placement. The new tower will wrap around the existing tower.
Chair Proulx opened the public hearing.

Mr. Scott Meardon, adjacent property owner, stated that he is gathering data at this time. He wants to know whether the tower will impact his property if it falls. Commissioner Russell showed him a drawing of the site and his property would not be affected.

Public hearing was closed.

Commissioner Russell asked if the Planning Commission could provide an exemption from the Blue Ridge Parkway comment requirement. Mr. Boger stated only the Board of Supervisors can provide an exemption. Mr. Boger stated that the Blue Ridge Parkway has so many days to submit written comment and they have not done so. Ms. Rorrer stated the Blue Ridge Parkway’s input is ensured through the FCC process.

Commissioner Russell stated that she doesn’t like to see the tower 60 feet above the canopy on top of the mountain but Wintergreen Property Owners Association has approved it and they represent all the people that live there and she knows that it is a necessity to upgrade communication system not only within Wintergreen but in the County. As long as this tower is no higher than the distance to the closest house she would be in support of it.

Commissioner Russell made the motion:
The Planning Commission recommends approval of a 90 foot lattice tower, permit #2010-007 by Nelson County for Exhibit 1, dated October 13, 2010, showing placement of antennas and also on Exhibit 1 showing the site plan. The Planning Commission waives the requirements under section 20-7-4c, 20-7-5j, 20-7-5k and recommends that the Board of Supervisors grant exceptions for 20-7-2a, 20-7-2c, 20-8-3 and 20-7-2d.
Commissioner Harmon provided the second and motion passed 5-0.

Rezoning #2010-004 – Terry and Janet Parkins

Mr. Boger reported that Mr. and Mrs. Parkins are requesting to rezone approximately 25.481 acres of land from Residential Planned Community (RPC) to Agricultural District (A-1) in order to remove their property from the Wintergreen Master Plan. The property is located at the intersection of Stonegate Lane and Rockfish Valley Highway. It is further identified as Tax Map #22-A-57A and 57 B.

According to Mr. Russell Otis, Executive Director, WPOA, this has not been subject to Wintergreen covenants and restrictions and the owners are not required to pay an annual assessment to WPOA. Also, WPOA is not required to provide services to this property or its owners. A letter was received from Hank Thiess, General Manager of Wintergreen Partners, Inc., stating they had no legal standing to object to the proposed rezoning. At this time, no information has been received from High Country Associates, the developer.

Mr. Boger stated that basically they want to use the property to keep horses. An application was submitted to the Board of Zoning Appeals and the Planning Director’s interpretation of permitted uses in the RPC zone was upheld in that horses are not allowed in that zoning district.

Staff has reviewed this request and has no objection to the rezoning request. However, staff recommends that the rezoning, if approved, become effective upon the submission of a revised Master Plan for Wintergreen, signed by the Chair of the Nelson County Board of Supervisors, showing the plan change and the necessary changes in the density tables on the Master Plan.

Chair Proulx opened the public hearing.

Mr. Al Gale, adjacent property owner, stated he wants to find out the meaning of certain words. He asked what A-1 is and whether it is open land and what qualified the land to be A-1. Chair Proulx stated that for example in Nelson County A-1 is almost a default zoning. Supervisor Hale asked Mr. Boger to read the definition from the Zoning Ordinance and stated that 90% of the county is zoned A-1. Mr. Gales is concerned about losing the tight covenants of Stoney Creek. Supervisor Hale stated that the applicant’s land is part of the Residential Planning Community and WPOA has submitted a letter stating that the parcel is not subject to the covenants. Commissioner Russell asked Mr. Gale what his property is zoned and he said A-1. She stated that the same rules would apply to him as the Parkins. Mr. Gales is concerned about what they will do next if changed to A-1. Chair Proulx stated they can do what is allowed by right in A-1. Mr. Gale asked if rezoning for this property had come before the Planning Commission previously. Commissioner Russell explained the Board of Zoning Appeals ruling. She stated there was a question of interpretation of the covenants for that section of Wintergreen whether they could have horses. The position that was taken by the attorney before the Board was that a horse was a pet. The BZA determined that a horse was not a pet; therefore they could not have horses if they were part of Wintergreen.

Ms. Laura Burrows, adjacent property, stated she has several concerns as well. She asked if they had gotten a permit for the paddock and barn. She stated the land is unsuitable for horses, no grazing area and no water available. She is concerned about them living in Waynesboro and how they are going to take care of the horses. She questions how they are going to have access to the property because it is her understanding they do not have access off of Rt. 151 and VDOT will not give them access due to safety reasons. She also stated that no one on Stonegate Lane will grant them access through their property for a right of way. Commissioner Russell stated that an access road was put in by the Nature Foundation before the Parkins bought the property. Ms. Burrows asked what would be the tax consequences of this rezoning or the consequences of others withdrawing from Wintergreen. It was suggested that these issues be addressed to the Board of Supervisors.

Chair Proulx closed public hearing.

Ms. Janet Parkins, applicant, stated that 25 acres is plenty of land to support a horse. There is some pasture land that has been cleared and grass has been planted. They have built a 3 sided run in shed for the horse. They plan on building a residence and have started putting a pen in which they do not believe is illegal. There are a lot of horse owners in the area. They do not plan to remove the woods but will remove the dead trees that would impact their cabin. They plan to access the property off of Rt. 151. When they had the survey done someone removed the flags along the boundary but it appears that the property line goes out into Stonegate road.

Commissioner Russell stated that the property to the north is zoned A-1. The original development of Wintergreen permits horses and is adjacent to the Mark Addy Inn and the Parkins’ property is also adjacent. It is a very appropriate rezoning in her opinion. Her only concern is that the developers who are responsible for the Master Plan for Wintergreen be given time to state their position. She recommended deferring a decision until the Planning Commission hears from the High Country Associates, the developers.
Supervisor Hale asked if this rezoning would go to public hearing to the Board of Supervisors without recommendation from the Planning Commission.

Supervisor Hale asked if High Country had ample time to comment. Commissioner Russell stated that she had spoken with Tim Hess, a partner in HCA who had been out of the country until late last week. There seems to be some question if there will be a reduction in development rights allowed.

Chair Proulx stated that she agrees that the High Country Associates comments are important and wants to also defer also until the January meeting.

Commissioner Russell made the following motion:
The Planning Commission moves to defer a decision on the application for Rezoning #2010-004 for Mr. and Mrs. Terry Parkins until the January meeting awaiting position letter from the Wintergreen Developer, High Country Associates.

Commissioner Tapager provided the second and motion passed 5-0.
Chair Proulx stated the next public hearing will likely be with the Board of Supervisors at their February meeting.

Final Subdivision – Hannon B. Graves (Board of Supervisor action not required)
Mr. Boger reported, Mr. Morris Foster, representing Hannon B. Graves, property owner, has submitted a final subdivision plat to subdivide Lot #5 in Horizons Village Subdivision into two parcels, each approximately 5 acres in size. The subject property is located on Horizons Village Road, and is identified as Tax Map #21-16, parcel 5.

Horizons Village Subdivision was approved by the Board of Supervisors on March 31, 1997. At that time the subject property consisted of lots 5 and 6. On June 10th, 2003, Mr. Graves combined the two lots into one parcel. Mr. Graves would now like to divide this parcel back into two lots but in a different configuration.

Staff has reviewed the plat and has the following comments:

1. The Health Department has approved the soil work for the vacant lot.
2. Horizons Village Road is a private road and any new entrances will have to be approved by the property owners association.
3. The width of the drainage easement extending across the property must be noted on the plat. The approved plat shows this permanent drainage ease to be 20 feet going into the 50 foot drainage easement.
4. Electrical service is available to serve this lot.
5. The new lot must be subject to the road maintenance agreement and the Property Owners Association.
6. The following Certifications must be added to the plat:

“Approval of this subdivision plat by the County of Nelson does not certify or guarantee the purchaser of the presence of adequate subterranean water to support the purposes of this subdivision”.

DATE _____________ SUBDIVIDER ________________
“The streets in this subdivision do not meet state standards and will not be
maintained by VDOT or the County of Nelson”.

DATE ______________ SUBDIVIDER__________________

7. The final plat can be approved once the above changes have been made to it.

Chair Proulx questioned whether the County could require the subdivision to be subject to a Property Owners Association. Mr. Boger stated it could be taken out. Mr. Boger recommends approval and had a copy of the revised plat.

Chair Proulx opened public hearing. There were no comments and public hearing was closed.

Commissioner Harmon made the following motion:
The Planning Commission approves the final subdivision plat dated 10/14/2010, revised 12/08/10, to divide 10.081 acres into 2 lots consisting of 5.006 acres and 5.075 acres. Property is located at 463 Horizons Village Road, Nellysford, Virginia, Tax Map #21-16-5 and further contingent that any new entrances will have to be approved by the Property Owners Association and further that the drainage easement be noted and also the new lot must be subject to the road maintenance agreement and that the following certification must be added to the plat. “Approval of this subdivision plat by the County of Nelson does not certify or guarantee the purchaser of the presence of adequate subterranean water to support the purposes of this subdivision.”

Commissioner Russell provided the second and motion passed 5-0.

Special Use Permit # 2010-007 – John Washburn
Mr. Boger reported that Bold Rock Cidery, LLC represented by Mr. Jim Gates and Mr. Russell Orrison has submitted an application for a Special Use Permit to construct a farm winery to produce hard apple cider, a restaurant and a gift shop. The proposed development will be constructed on a site located on Rockfish Valley Highway across from Horizons Village Road south of Nellysford. The property is identified as Tax Map #21-9, parcel 1 and 1A.
The property is owned by Mr. John W. Washburn, Jr.

The proposed project is designed as a mixed use development. The winery building will have a brewing area, enclosed apple processing area, and a cider pub area. The main floor area will be approximately 7,990 sq. ft., and the upper floor will have an area of approximately 710 sq. ft.

The Mill Building will be three stories high. The first floor will have a gift shop, the second and third floors will have one apartment on each floor.

The third component of this project is the agricultural aspect. Some of the apples to be used by the Cidery will eventually be grown on site (15 apple trees). The applicant indicated the rest of the apples will come from local apple orchards and will help support this sector of the County’s agricultural community.

There is one concern that will need to be looked at which is that the Comprehensive Plan designates this area as rural farming. This project is subject to the same rules as the wineries and everything except for the gift shops could be done by right.

The property to the west that is owned by Mr. Peter Agelasto is zoned M-1 and across from Glenthorne Loop is zoned M-1 and B-1.

Based on the information staff has received, the design of the project reflects an agricultural theme and it should be compatible with the surrounding area. At this time staff has no major objections to granting the Special Use Permit as requested.

Staff Comments:

1. The Comprehensive Plan designates this area along Rockfish Valley Highway as Rural and Farming. The proposed Cidery/Restaurant/Gift shop will help support our agricultural industry. It is similar to the wineries that we have approved in the past. The one very important difference is the developers have been up-front with us by telling us that the Cidery will have a restaurant instead of saying it will have only a few occasional events there with catered meals which we later learn it has evolved into a restaurant creating major zoning and building code problems.

We feel the proposed project will be compatible with the Rural and Farming designation of the Comprehensive Plan as an Agri-business.

2. VDOT states “Based on this review the site of the proposed entrance would qualify for a full access entrance”. Some trees will have to be removed and the fence relocated to obtain adequate sight distance.

3. The developers have contacted the Health Department to discuss their requirements for the Cidery and restaurant.

4. The height of the proposed buildings must be carefully reviewed with staff to make sure there are no zoning issues to be resolved before the final plans are submitted if the SUP is approved.

5. The final site plan will be slightly revised to reflect preliminary comments from the Health Department (the proposed drainfield by the parking area will not be required) and Alyson Sappington for Stormwater management and quality.

6. The proposed sign and lighting fixtures appear compatible with the agricultural character of this area of the County.

7. The final site plan will have to show the elevation of the site in relation to the Special Flood Hazard Area.

Commissioner Harmon asked about the 2 apartments. Mr. Boger stated that they can be rented out to anyone and can be done by right.

Jim Gates representing John Washburn stated that the zoning is A-1 with a farm winery designation by right. He is asking for a Special Use Permit for the gift shop and the restaurant. To the north an adjoining property is zoned M-1 and another is zoned B-1. He noted the floodplain line and stated there are no plans for development there. The property line between the 2 parcels will be vacated resulting in one large parcel for the project. He is totally confused by the Comp Plan and is not sure how this project does or doesn’t fit into it. He doesn’t see any distinction in zoning in nearby properties from Graves Grocery to the Ski Barn. He feels that this project fits with the agriculturally based apple growers in the county and with the existing zoning.

Chair Proulx asked if anyone has contacted the orchards to see about supply. Mr. Gates replied yes and there is ample supply in the varieties that are wanted. Also, they are providing a market for imperfect apples.

Chair Proulx opened the floor for public hearing.

Mr. Peter Agelasto, of Elk Hill in the Rockfish Valley, stated that the hoped they will be sensitive to issues in the valley. There are star gazing events right next to the property by the Rockfish Valley Foundation. He feels that there may be a traffic/speed issue which could be a catalyst for change. He is in support of the project.

Mr. Sam Eggleston, of Afton, stated he was in support of the proposed project. He said the project is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. He feels that this type of development is a good thing and is compatible with the area. The project falls within the goals of the Comp Plan and is another stop on the tourism route in the county.

Chair Proulx closed public hearing.

Commissioner Russell asked Mr. Gates about the outdoor festivals. He answered that they do expect to do an apple festival in the fall but they have no specific plans for it yet. Commissioner Russell asked if it would be in the daytime since that is what most of the apple orchards have versus Devil’s Backbone that has late evening types of events and has caused some complaints. Mr. Gates does not expect for their functions to be late night types of events. Commissioner Russell asked would they be comfortable with a restriction that these festivals be a dawn to dusk type events especially since Horizons Subdivision is across the street. He stated that he would be.

Supervisor Hale made the following motion:
The Planning Commission recommends to the Board of Supervisors approval of Special Use Permit #2010-007 for James Gates, pursuant to Article 4, Section 4-1-3a and 4-1-2a of the Nelson County Zoning Ordinance to build a farm winery to produce hard apple cider, consisting of an enclosed apple juicing processing area, cider pub restaurant, gift shop, and 2 apartments. Property is located on Rockfish Valley Highway, Nellysford, Virginia, Tax Map # 21-9-1 & 1A, and zoned Agricultural.

Commissioner Harmon provided the second.

Supervisor Hale stated that he did not want to place restrictions on outside events as suggested by Commissioner Russell. There was discussion also on the cidery, if they would have to get a permit for outside events and Mr. Boger stated they would not because they are governed by winery rules.

The motion passed 5-0.

Commissioner Tapager stated that this project adds another layer to the county tourism and fulfills the Comprehensive Plan to encourage mixed usage. His only concern is the number of strip developments being created along route 151 which will need to be address in the future. He also feels that as far as events go, that will be something that will have to be addressed as well.

Commercial Composting
Mr. Boger reported that the Board of Supervisors amended the County Code to permit this type of activity under the Solid Waste Ordinance. The Planning Commission discussed the definition of commercial composting last month and Mr. Boger questioned whether the Planning Commission wanted to keep the word commercial in front of composting.

Commissioner Harmon asked what the definition of a rendered animal was. Mr. Boger stated that it was a slaughtered animal. Commissioner Russell stated that it was an animal whose fat has been removed. Mr. Boger stated that this would be a Class III DEQ permitted activity. The definition is meant to be broad so that the Planning Commission can attach specific conditions based on the site.

Chair Proulx opened the public hearing.

Mr. Eric Walter, Black Bear Composting, stated he would like to give a brief overview. Commercial scale composting is not backyard composting. It is carefully managed, monitored process to make sure that the components are mixed in proper ratios resulting in a stable compost that is managed for nutrient content and elimination of pathogens. DEQ monitors the operation and requires reporting. He likes the definition that is proposed which mirrors others in the state. He stated that organic materials make up about 30-60% of municipal solid waste. Nelson County can benefit from having a composting facility. Recycling organic materials is cheaper and having an operation in the county would reduce transportation costs.

Chair Proulx closed public hearing.

Commissioner Russell stated that the wording in the definition should be changed. The Ordinance should read “Composting, Commercial: The process by which organic wastes are combined in proper ratios to which might be added bulking agents, such as wood chips, to provide air space and by using controlled temperature, moisture, and oxygen, to achieve accelerated decomposition, thereby producing a stable humus material. “Organic waste” includes, but is not limited to, yard trimmings, agricultural by-products, food wastes, and manures.”

Chair Proulx stated that the definition should be Composting, Commercial and thinks it’s important to keep the word commercial in the definition.

Commissioner Tapager made the following motion:
The Nelson County Planning Commission recommends to the Board of Supervisors to amend Appendix A, Article 2 Definitions Article 4, Agricultural District, A-1 §4-1-a, Subsection 4-1-42a; Article 9, Industrial District, M-2, §9-1-1A Subsection 9-1-12A Of the Code of the County Of Nelson, 1989, Generally Relating to Zoning, whereas, public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good planning and zoning practice requires revision of the Zoning Ordinance; therefore it be ordained by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Nelson adapt the following changes, that Article 2, “Definitions” include the following definition, “Composting, Commercial: The process by which organic wastes are combined in proper ratios to which might be added bulking agents, such as wood chips, to provide air space and by using controlled temperature, moisture, and oxygen, to achieve accelerated decomposition, thereby producing a stable humus material. “Organic waste” includes, but is not limited to, yard trimmings, agricultural by-products, food wastes, and manures.” That Article 4, Agricultural District, A-1 §4-1-a, “Uses- Permitted by Special Use Permit only”, Subsection 4-1-42a be, and the same hereby is amended to read as follows: 4-1-42a Composting, Commercial and That Article 9, Industrial District, M-2, §9-1-a, “Uses-Permitted by Special Use Permit only”, Subsection 9-1-12a be, be amended to read as follows: 9-1-12a Composting, Commercial.

Commissioner Russell provided the second and motion passed 5-0.

Other Business

1) Discussion on Class I Communication Tower denial.

Mr. Boger reported that he had denied a Class I Communication Tower application because the tower was too tall and the site was inappropriate due to the fact that it was too close to the road. Looking back at the Ordinance he could request that an outside consultant review the site and determine if it is appropriate. The tower will be about 20 or 30 feet above the tree line. The concept of the Ordinance from the beginning was as you get closer to the road the tower height would be reduced to just above the tree line and the further back the tower height could go back up to 80 feet. He feels that the tower should be further back so that it will not be as visible. Most administrative approvals have been back from the line where they are not visible and the antenna is showing just above the tree line. There is currently nothing in the Ordinance that limits the distance to the road.

Chair Proulx asked how an applicant could be denied based on proximity to a property that might be eligible for historic designation. Commissioner Tapager stated that he felt Mr. Boger was saying in order to not be arbitrary that he applies the same standards even if they are not written.
Chair Proulx asked if Mr. Boger had the option to refer his denial to the Planning Commission or must the applicant file a formal appeal. He said that according to the Ordinance he can only consult with the Planning Commission, but not refer it to them. Further he can request an independent consultant to determine that it is the only site that can be used. Commissioner Russell stated that it would have to be a decision that the applicant would make to appeal or to pay for an outside consultant. The Planning Commission will officially review the decision of the Planning Director if and when the applicant appeals his decision.

Commissioner Russell stated that it would have to be a decision that the applicant would make if they want to appeal if they do not want to pay for an outside consultant. Chair Proulx advised that there wasn’t anything further to discuss at this point. She stated that if the applicant chooses to appeal the decision to the Planning Commission then they will have all the background information needed.

Commissioner Russell stated that she knew Mr. Boger had approved these types of towers administratively but she never knew what the bases were for these approvals. There is nothing in the ordinance that can guide the applicant to whether a tower will be approved or not. Mr. Boger stated that he approves towers up to 80 feet but not necessarily at 80 feet. The same criteria is used for other towers not in view of a Scenic Byway.

(1) Rezoning of specific parcels along Thomas Nelson Highway, Lovingston

Commissioner Harmon stated that he was concerned about the statement “there would be no out of pocket costs to you.” There may be an impact on taxes. Chair Proulx clarified that it is meant to mean no cost to rezone. There was discussion on the wording and the letter was changed to read “no administrative costs to you” and remove “recently”.

Commissioner Tapager made the following motion:
The Nelson County Planning Commission directs staff to forward the letter as corrected concerning rezoning alleged properties along Rt. 29 South.

Commissioner Russell provided the second and motion passed 5-0.

Chair Proulx advised that the considerations of the Communication Tower Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance revisions are deferred.

Report from BOS Liaison Allen Hale
Supervisor Hale advised that no action was taken on the Special Use Permit in Glass Hollow by the Board of Supervisors. Following discussion they agreed that a decision would be made at the January 11th meeting.

Supervisor Hale stated that he was interested in getting the Planning Commission’s opinion on the appropriateness of having a member of the Board of Supervisors serving as a Planning Commission member. The key is that there needs to be good communication between the two bodies. Commissioner Harmon stated the continuity of Supervisor Hale being there and listening to the discussion gives the Board of Supervisors a better understanding of how the Planning Commission arrived at its decision. Supervisor Hale agreed with Commissioner Harmon and stated there is a possibility of having a non-voting member of the Board of Supervisors or the Planning Commission could designate someone to attend to the Board of Supervisors meeting although that would be burdensome. Supervisor Hale stated that he has been given an added responsibility on the Service Authority and he is not seeking to return to the Planning Commission. The Ordinance would have to be changed to not have a Board of Supervisors member on the Planning Commission. Chair Proulx stated that her general feeling is not to have a BOS member on the Planning Commission, but agrees that communication is critical. Maybe they could rotate a person going to the Board of Supervisors meeting for the Planning Commission items.

Commissioner Russell stated that she is concerned that the Board of Supervisors doesn’t get to see the minutes from the Planning Commission prior to considering referrals. Mr. Boger stated that he tries to incorporate the minutes into the staff report. Supervisor Hale stated that he agreed if the Board members had the opportunity to read the minutes they would have a better idea of the process by which the Planning Commission reached its recommendation.

Commissioner Russell suggested having a non-voting Board of Supervisors member to hear the discussion of the Planning Commission. They would not have to be involved in the minutiae of each application and yet would hear our thought process and the comments. Commissioner Harmon asked how this would affect the quorum. Mr. Boger stated that it would not count against.

Supervisor Hale stated that he appreciated the Planning Commission members’ work.

Adjournment
At 9:53P.M., Commissioner Harmon made a motion to adjourn. Motion passed 5-0

Respectfully submitted,

Wanda L. Staton

Present: Chair Philippa Proulx, Commissioners Linda Russell, Michael Tapager, Michael Harman, Emily Hunt and Allen Hale

Staff Present:  Fred Boger and Wanda Staton

Call to Order:  Chair Proulx called the meeting to order at 7:30 P. M. in the Board of Supervisors meeting room, County Courthouse, Lovingston.

Approval of Minutes – October 27, 2010:  Minutes will be approved at next meeting on December 15, 2010

Chair Proulx advised that the application for a Special Use Permit 2010-006 for Arlene Thomas and Kimberly Morris which was advertised for hearing tonight has been withdrawn.

Class II Communication Tower with Exceptions – Central Virginia Electric Cooperative – Wintergreen Permit # 2010-005
Mr. Boger reported that Central Virginia Electric Cooperative has submitted an application for a Class II Communication Tower Permit to erect a ninety four foot (94’) Communication Tower on Waterworks Lane, Wintergreen Resort. The property is identified as Tax Map #11-A-2D which is owned by WPOA. CVEC is also requesting the following:

1.    Section 20-7-5K, Landscaping. A wavier by the Planning Commission of the landscaping requirements because the facility will be enclosed by a wood stockade fence and will be screened by existing trees.
2.    Section 20-7-2a, Distance to Property Line. An exception to the required fall area of the tower from 117.5 feet to approximately 90 feet.
3.    Section 20-7-2b. There are no existing tower options.
4.    Section 20-7-2c, Maximum height on mountain ridge or peak.
5.    Section 20-7-4c, 8 foot chain link fence.  Will be using a wood fence.
6.    20-7-3 Proximity to an Existing Tower. CVEC requests an exemption to the requirement of 2 miles separation from existing towers.  Other towers within the 2 mile separation neither have the required height or location to provide the connectivity into CVEC’s communication network or the coverage required for mobile communication.
7.    20-7-2e Viewshed of Scenic By-Way. CVEC requests exemption to this requirement due to the fact that the site will be within 1.0 mile of the right of way of the Blue Ridge Parkway.  BRP comments concerning this tower application will be forwarded when received.

Staff has reviewed this application and has the following comments.

1.    WPOA is trying to cluster communication towers into specific areas of Wintergreen. Placing this tower on Waterworks Lane requires a taller tower in order for it to communicate with the High Top tower near Lovingston.
2.    The existing towers on Waterworks Lane are wood and at a height making them unsuitable for installing a dish antenna on them.
3.     The required fall area should be reduced as requested since the distance to the road appears to be over 90 feet.

4.    It appears by the photographs that the proposed tower will be more than 30 feet above the existing tree canopy in this area. Therefore, an exception is required to permit the tower height of 94 feet.

5.    The proposed tower will be located within 1 air mile of the Blue Ridge Parkway. As of this date we have not received comments from the Superintendent of the Parkway as required by Section 20-7-2d.

6.    It appears the proposed tower will be visible from the restaurant located south of the site. A representative of WPOA has signed the application for this tower suggesting they have no major concerns with the tower.

Commissioner Russell asked if the Blue Ridge Parkway had been notified and when.  Mr. Boger stated the applicant would be able to answer.

Supervisor Hale stated that WPOA (Wintergreen Property Owners Association) may not have any concerns with the restaurant but WPI (Wintergreen Properties Inc.) is the property owner. Mr. Boger stated that WPOA owns the tower site and both WPOA and WPI has been contacted about the tower. The county tax records show that WPI owns the site where tower will be placed but those records are incorrect.

Commissioner Hunt asked if the existing towers could be used instead.  Mr. Boger said the wooden poles are only 80 foot high and cannot support the microwave dish that is needed by the CVEC.

Commissioner Russell stated that CVEC is modernizing their communication system. WPOA is trying to consolidate the towers in this one area to have the least impact on Wintergreen.

Commissioner Russell asked Robert Harris, Engineer Manager for CVEC, if a letter had been sent to the (BRP) Blue Ridge Parkway. Mr. Harris stated that a letter was sent last Friday which was November 12. Commissioner Russell stated that the ordinance allows the (BRP) 45 days to respond.

Commissioner Hunt asked about the existing towers and what happens when they are not needed any longer. Mr. Boger stated that the ordinance requires all new towers to post a bond for their removal. There is no such requirement for towers erected prior to the effective date of the ordinance.

Chair Proulx opened the floor for public hearing. There were no comments and the public hearing was closed.

Commissioner Russell expressed concern that the tower will be visible from the restaurant but hasn’t heard any negative comments from the owner, WPI.  Commissioner Russell felt that the Blue Ridge Parkway should have an opportunity to comment and if the tower is approved then it should be contingent upon a positive or no response from the BRP.  Commissioner Hunt asked if the BRP objected, what options would be available. Commissioner Russell thought the applicant would have to come back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Boger stated that it would have to go to the Board of Supervisors for exceptions.

Commissioner Russell asked who determines what bodies have to approve this tower. Mr. Boger stated that there is a list of agencies that have to be contacted. It’s part of the environmental review required by the FCC.

Commissioner Russell made the following motion: The Planning Commission approves application #2010-005 for Central Virginia Electric 94 foot tower per MapleNet elevation drawing dated November 11, 2010, to be located on Waterworks Lane, Wintergreen, with the following conditions:
1.    The Commission approves the waiver 20-7-5k and 20-7-4c
2.    The Commission recommends that the BOS approve the following exceptions:
A.    20-7-2a- Reducing the fall line from 117.5 feet o 90 feet.
B.    20-7-2c- Allowing the tower to be more than 30 feet above the existing tree canopy.
C.    20-7-3- Allowing a tower to be erected within 2 miles of an existing Class II tower.
3.     The Planning Commission is unwilling to waive the Blue Ridge Parkway’s right to comment. The letter to the Blue Ridge Parkway was sent on November 12, 2010; therefore the entire approval by this commission is contingent on a favorable or no opinion response from the Blue Ridge Parkway community planner.
4.    The tower and appurtenances are painted Wintergreen brown.

A second was provided by Commissioner Tapager and motion passed 6-0.

Class III Communication Tower – Central Virginia Electric Cooperative – Colleen  Permit  # 2010-006

Mr. Boger reported that Central Virginia Electric Cooperative is requesting a Communication Tower Permit to erect a one hundred and twenty foot (120’) lattice communication tower with a four foot (4) lightning rod at the top for a total height of one hundred twenty four feet (124’). The proposed tower will be located on Cooperative Way. CVEC was contacted by the County to collocate and this raised the height of the tower 30 more feet.

CVEC is also requesting the following waiver and exceptions from the requirements of the Communication Tower Ordinance:

1.    A waiver of Section 20-7-5k Landscaping.
CVEC requests the Planning Commission to waive this requirement due to the fact that the site will be surrounded by trees and brush on three sides and the elevation of the tower base is below that of nearest road.  The tower base would not be visible unless within just a few hundred feet of the site.

2.    20-8-2 Standards for Location
CVEC requests a Special Exception from the Board of Supervisors to reduce the required setback of 155 feet fall zone for the tower to 119 feet.  Relocating the tower on the property to achieve such distance will be contrary to maintaining required system line-of-sight design parameters. Installation at a lower ground elevation would require additional tower height.

3.    20-8-3 Proximity to an Existing Tower
CVEC requests an exception to the requirement of 2 miles separation from existing towers.  An existing AT&T monopole tower does exist within 2 miles. Obtaining line-of-sight communication between this tower and Hightop or CVEC’s headquarters would be difficult.  The AT&T monopole tower is not suitable for microwave communication.

The microwave antenna (a Radiowaves 5.7Ghz 2’ solid parabolic dish) features     an extremely narrow beam width of 6 degrees, and it will be used to make a point-to-point connection to a tower 6.5 miles away.  The wireless connection will provide primary connectivity for the site to backhaul mission-critical land mobile     radio traffic as well as eventual IP connectivity for remote metering and controls.

It is essential that the directional microwave antenna be mounted to a structure with absolutely minimal twist and sway.   The AT&T tower is functional for attaching cellular sectors, omni-directional antennas and wide-beam directional antennas.  These antennas have antenna patterns that are five, ten and even     twenty times wider than the beam width of the microwave antenna, which must    stay in alignment at all times to remain connected.

The site for the tower was selected by CVEC because it would provide a line of sight to the High Top Tower. The County approached them to collocate on this tower in order to bring broadband to this area and eliminate the need for a second tower. In order for the County’s antenna to communicate with a tower (to be constructed) in Massie’s Mill area the height of CVEC’s tower had to be increased to 120 feet.

Staff has reviewed the application and has the following comments:

1.    VDOT has stated that the entrance will have to be 16 feet in width instead of the 11’ shown on the site plan.
2.    The Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District Office has received the plan, and the required review fee was paid on 11/10/2010.
3.    The proposed tower will be located in an industrial park which already has a large AT&T lattice tower in it. The overall visual impact of this tower should be minimal however it will impact the few surrounding residential properties. The tower is necessary to bring broadband to the medical facilities, schools, library, government offices, businesses and residences from the Afton area to Colleen and to the Massie’s Mill area.
Mr. Boger stated that a balloon test simulation was done and the tower is visible from Rt. 29 as well as Stage Road.

Chair Proulx asked Mr. Harris, Engineer Manager for CVEC what backhaul means.  Mr. Harris stated that it refers to high capacity communications. He said for an example it would be like a fiber optic cable.

Mr. Gary Wood, President of CVEC, stated that the reason for using the lattice tower is because microwave dishes talk from one tower to another. They do not broadcast. It will communicate full time and can carry data, voice, video, just like a fiber only uses a radio signal. Supervisor Hale asked what the height of the transmission line tower is. Mr. Harris stated that he thought it was 150 feet.

Chair Proulx opened the floor for public hearing. After there was no comment the public hearing was closed.

Commissioner Russell made the following motion: The Planning Commission recommends approval of application #2010-006 for Central Virginia Electric for a 124 foot tower as per drawing MapleNet dated 11/5/2010 located at Cooperative Way, Colleen, subject to the following conditions:
1.    The Commission approves waiver of 20-7-5k.
2.    The Commission recommends that the Board of Supervisors grant the following exceptions.
a. 20-8-2 Standards for Location. Reduce the required setback of 155 feet fall zone for the tower to 119 feet.
b. 20-8-3 Proximity to an Existing Tower. The proposed tower will not have the required 2 mile separation between it and another Class II Tower.

3.    The permit is contingent upon approval of the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan by the Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water Conservation District.

A second was provided by Supervisor Hale and motion passed 6-0.
Other Business

Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment/Composting
Mr. Boger reported that the composting proposal was presented to the Board of Supervisors and he was asked to provide a definition of composting for the Planning Commission’s consideration.

Mr. Boger submitted the following definition: Commercial Composting: The process by which organic wastes are combined in proper ratios to which might be added bulking agents, such as wood chips, to provide air space and by using controlled temperature, moisture, and oxygen, achieve accelerated decomposition, thereby producing a stable humus material. “Organic waste” includes, but not limited to, yard trimmings, agricultural by-products, food wastes, or manures.

Supervisor Hale made a motion to direct staff to advertise, a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance adding a definition for Composting, Commercial by Special Use Permit in Agricultural, A-1, and Industrial, M-2 Zones.  Commissioner Russell provided the second and motion passed 6-0.

Small Wind Energy Ordinance
Mr. Boger stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals had a request under the Small Wind Energy Ordinance for a variance to increase the height of a wind turbine from 100 feet to 140 feet. The BZA determined that this issue was beyond the scope of their authority and therefore referred it to the Planning Commission for consideration.

Commissioner Russell stated the background of the BZA variance. In order for the owner to receive financial incentives from the state the turbine would have to be placed at the highest point on the property. The highest point on the property is a highly densely wooded area where the trees were 100 feet tall. They needed to be 40 feet above the trees to get above the turbulence. Even though there was another area on the property they could put the turbine they would not get the same energy.

Mr. Dan Boyle, Central Virginia Wind Energy, reported that the trees typically in Virginia are 60 feet high but on this property the trees are 100 feet high and there are probably other properties of this type in the county.

Supervisor Hale stated that a proposed amendment for consideration should include technical specifications to serve as justification for any increased tower height. Requiring a Special Use Permit should also be examined. Commissioners agreed to defer further work on this until January.
Communication Tower Ordinance: Tabled until the December 17th meeting.

Comprehensive Plan Review:
Mr. Boger reported that the plan is being worked on presently. Chair Proulx suggested that each member review the plan with notes on which sections are working and which need to be considered for amendment. She also suggested that a work session be set after the holidays.

Report from BOS Liaison Allen Hale
Supervisor Hale reported that the BOS decision on the Knott application would be made at their next meeting.

Adjournment

At 9:00 P.M.., Supervisor Hale made a motion to adjourn. Motion passed 6-0

Respectfully submitted,

Wanda L. Staton

Present:  Chair John Bradshaw, Members Gifford Childs, Linda Russell, Kim Cash, Goffrey Miles, and Alternate Ron Moyer

Staff:    Fred Boger, Planning Director, and Betty Fortune, Secretary

Call to Order:  Mr. Bradshaw called the meeting to order at 7:30 P. M. with a welcome to the applicants.  Mrs. Fortune introduced Dana Lawhorne who has been hired as Planning and Zoning Secretary.

Minutes of July 6, 2010 – Ms. Cash made a motion to approve the minutes as presented, Ms. Russell provided the second, and motion passed 5-0.

Variance #2010-003 – Barbara Koschara (Deferred by BZA on 7/6/10)
(Note:  See minutes of July 6, 2010 for background regarding this request.)

Mr. Boger reported that this request regarding front setbacks is continued from July.  He consulted with County Attorney Payne who made the following interpretation of a lot’s yards when public roads are on opposite sides of the property:  A front yard is defined in Article 2 as “space…between the front line of the building and the front lot or street line…”  In Section 4-3-1a the setback for a front yard is established by the “center of the road” or the “edge of the right-of-way.”  Both the Article 2 definition and the §4-3-3 setback for rear yard refer to a rear lot or property line.  A consistent element of the ordinance provisions addressing a front yard is the reference to a roadway.  In other words, frontage on a road defines a front yard.  Accordingly, a lot facing a road on either side has, for the purposes of the setback regulations, two front yards.

Mr. Boger added that the Board has several options:  to grant or deny the variance and to initiate a request to the Planning Commission for clarification or amendment of the definition of a front yard.  An amendment would be needed in order to change the interpretation made by the County Attorney.

Mr. Bradshaw reminded the Board that the public hearing had been held in July.

Ms. Koschara was sworn in by Mr. Bradshaw.

Ms. Koschara said that when she bought the house, she was not aware that it was considered to have two front yards, and didn’t have any idea this would be a problem.  There is no entrance on the back side of the house, but only through the carport and front.  There are two accessory buildings on the property.  One was a replacement and the other houses her yard and garden tractor.  Ms. Koschara added that she has a sewing and alteration business and the moisture in the basement is ruining her sewing machines.  The proposed addition would be used to house this equipment.

Ms. Cash said that the ordinance is clear that in this situation there are two front yards.  She concurred with the options available as stated by Mr. Boger and supported the idea of asking the PC to look at this issue of two front yards.  Mr. Childs agreed and asked if others felt there was a hardship demonstrated in this case.

Ms. Russell made a motion to deny Variance application #2010-003 for Barbara Koschara to construct a 24’ x 24’ addition to her home at 691 Old Roseland Road for the following reasons:

1)    The County Attorney has determined that two front yards are permitted under the Nelson County Zoning Ordinance which would require an unacceptably large variance of 23 feet.
2)    An addition could be placed at an alternative location which would not require a variance; therefore, there is no hardship.
Mr. Childs provided the second, and the motion passed 3-2 with Mr. Miles and Mr. Bradshaw voting “no.”

Ms. Koschara was very upset with the decision and asked if there was anything else she could have done to ensure a different outcome.  Ms. Russell said that a layout of the house and grounds would have been helpful and she had suggested that to Ms. Koschara in a memo.  Ms. Koschara described the layout, but the information had not previously been supplied to the Board.  Ms. Koschara said it was the County’s loss because she would have to discontinue her business.

Special Use Permit #2010-005 – William Pearcy (Deferred by BZA on 7/6/10)

Mr. Boger reported that Mr. Pearcy is requesting a Special Use Permit to build a 12’ x 16’ tool storage shed on his property located on Fortunes Cove Lane, Tax Map 57-A-3E.  This will be the first structure on the property and Mr. Pearcy states that he wishes to use it to store tools and materials while the primary dwelling is being built.  The building will be approximately 50’ from the property line near the northeast corner of the site and a building permit will be required.  Conditions could be placed on the permit stating that construction on the main dwelling will begin within one year from the date of approval of the SUP.

Mr. Pearcy was sworn in by Mr. Bradshaw.

Mr. Pearcy said that he plans to apply for a building permit for the main dwelling within a year.  There is no electricity at this time; however, he has started the process of procuring it from Central Virginia Electric Cooperative.

Mr. Childs suggested placing a condition on the permit that the storage shed could not be used for residential purposes.

The public hearing was opened, there was no comment, and public hearing was closed.

Ms. Russell made a motion to grant Special Use Permit #2010-005 for William Pearcy to allow construction of a storage shed, 12’ x 16’ in size, on property located on Fortunes Cove Lane, with the following conditions:
1)    A building permit be granted for the main house within one year of the date of this meeting.
2)    The storage shed will not be used for residential purposes.

Mr. Childs provided the second, and motion passed 5-0.  Mr. Boger told Mr. Pearcy that if he needs an extension of the permit, he should apply prior to the expiration date.

Adjournment
At 8:15 P. M. Mr. Bradshaw declared the meeting adjourned.

Next meeting – September 7, 2010

Respectfully submitted,

Betty M. Fortune
BZA Secretary

MEETING MINUTES

September 22, 2010

Present: Chair Philippa Proulx, Commissioners Linda Russell, Michael Tapager, Michael Harman, and Emily Hunt

Staff Present:  Fred Boger and Wanda Staton

Call to Order: Chair Proulx called the meeting to order at 7:30 P. M. in the Board of Supervisors meeting room, County Courthouse, Lovingston.

Approval of Minutes – August 25, 2010: Commissioner Harman made a motion to approve the minutes as presented, Commissioner Hunt abstained, and motion passed 4-0. Supervisor Hale was absent.

Chair Proulx advised that the Kerl, Exception Section 4-4 has been withdrawn.

Special Use Permit #2010-004 – Adam & Kathryn Knott

Chair Proulx stated there would not be public comment since this is a continuation of the June meeting where public comment was heard.

Mr. Boger reported that Mr. and Mrs. Knott have submitted information to revise their plans for a summer camp on Glass Hollow Road. Basically they have removed the cabins from the plan. However, there will be some overnight tent camping at the site.  The change made to their Special Use Request will help address many of the concerns expressed at the public hearing. However, this change is more than a minor adjustment and the Commission considers holding another public hearing.

Mr. Boger discussed a “typical schedule about 16 days” that he gathered from information the Knotts submitted.

Mr. and Mrs. Knott explained what the schedule would consist of in reference to the “Typical Schedule.”  Adam Knott stated that they have eliminated the cabins from the original plan and will not need the bath house or commercial kitchen. They have reduced the amount of activity in response to neighbors’ concerns.  They will now have approximately 16 days out of the year where they will conduct programs. Most of the activities will be over by 3:00 P.M. Commissioner Russell asked if they were asking for fall camp to be included in this permit. The Knotts’ response was no. At this time they were not asking to expand.

Commissioner Russell asked the Knotts to describe the pavilion. Ms. Knott’s description of the pavilion said it was going to be a rustic wood building with a metal roof and 3 sides. Commissioner Russell also asked what the maximum amount of employees they would hire to run the summer camp.  Mr. Knott stated that mainly it would be just himself and sometimes a single employee.

Commissioner Russell asked if Tom Eick from the Health Department approved their water supply. Mr. Knott states that the well is satisfactory to the Health Department inspector and should be inspected every year. Commissioner Russell asked if it was an existing well and Mr. Knott stated that it was and that the well is near the house. Commissioner Russell also wanted to know where on the property the activities would be held. Mr. Knott stated that everything had been moved up the hill and near the woods.

Chair Proulx asked what sanitary facilities would be provided. Mr. Knott said they would have portapotties. Mr. Knott stated that the new proposed program would have all activities out of sight of everyone’s homes.  He stated that the traffic would possibly be 8 to 9 cars on the days of the activities. Commissioner Tapager asked if VDOT had approved the entrance. Mr. Knott stated VDOT said the entrance was okay but that they would need to open the line of sight at the entrance and improve the surface 10 foot in to match VDOT pavement.

Chair Proulx stated that the new proposal continues to be very different and there was a lot of interest in their proposal.  Commissioner Russell agreed that we should schedule a public hearing in October to allow citizens to be heard.

Chair Proulx told the Knotts they will need to have a site plan diagramming the location of the pavilion and the portajohns and also a statement of the maximum number of days the camp will be held.

Commissioner Russell made a motion to ask staff to advertise a public hearing on the revised proposal. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Harmon and motion passed 5-0.

Final Subdivison Review – Family Division: Jack & Kathleen Miller

1280 Walkers Moutain Road

Mr. Boger reported that Mr. and Mrs. Miller have submitted a final subdivision plat dividing 10.917 acres off a 16.105 acre lot in Walker’s Mountain Subdivision. The residue of the lot will be 5.188 acres. The purpose of the subdivision is a family division for their son. Also in fairness to the Millers’, Mr. Boger stated that they did not receive the staff report until the day of the meeting.

Mr. Boger stated that staff has reviewed the final plat and has the following comments:

1. The soil work for the new lot has been approved by the Health Department.
2. 2. The plat shows two fifty foot pipe stems being created out the 100 ft wide pipe stem of the original lot. This is a problem. The Surveyor is taking a non-conforming lot, i.e. the pipe stem portion, and dividing into two parts. The minimum frontage requirement for the new lot is 125 feet. This minimum frontage requirement cannot be complied with. Therefore this plat cannot be approved.
3. In order for this family division, a thirty foot easement for the new lot must be provided on Walker’s Mountain Road instead of the two pipe stems as shown.
4. A question has been raised by some residents of the subdivision that the covenants prevent further division of lots. The covenants are between the   owners of properties in this subdivision. If the subdivision complies with our zoning and subdivision requirements, it has to be approved.

Ms. Miller said they would like to divide the lot so that her son could build a house near them to help them. They want to clear enough for a home and septic and the house would not be visible to others.

Commissioner Russell stated that the number of allowable lots on the front and back of the plat do not agree.

Commissioner Harmon stated that if they get the plat redrawn they could come back to the Commission for approval.

Ms. Miller spoke again and restated about not knowing about the 30 foot easement until today.  She stated that someone in the subdivision put a second home on one lot without necessary approvals and permits and others in the subdivision had told them to do that. They were not going to do that.

Chair Proulx opened the floor for public hearing.

Tom Allen, 748 Walkers Mountain Road, addressed the concern of having a 78 year old mother that he and his wife would have to take care. They moved from Virginia Beach 3 years ago. When they purchased the parcel in Walkers’ Mt. Subdivision they knew it came with restrictive covenants.  Taking into consideration his Mom’s health, he approached his neighbor to purchase another lot so he could move his mother there. He stated that if the subdivision was approved it was set a precedent and he said it would impact the property value and that the covenant doesn’t mean anything. He said the purpose of this declaration was to protect the rural environment, the lots in the subdivision with only 1 house per lot. He feels the Millers should approach other lot owners to see if they can buy another lot.

Ed Wodicka, stated if they pass the subdivision they may as well do away with the subdivision and the road maintenance agreement.

Mark Bradcliff, stated that he also purchased 2 lots so that he could build another house.  He said not all the lots are occupied and maybe the Millers could purchase another lot as well.  He said that he has not spoken to anyone in the subdivision that is in favor of the Millers subdividing their lot. Everyone is strongly opposed.

Tedd Taylor, said he is good friends of the Millers and they knew when they purchased the property there were restrictions. He agrees that they should not subdivide the lot.

Lowell Hewitt, says he has the same concerns as the others that have spoken. He said his neighbor has three lots and if he was allowed to divide those he would have lots of houses around him. He said he liked to watch the wildlife.

Ms. Miller stated that she understands the county allows for a onetime family division and what she is proposing is to subdivide a 5 acre parcel off of the 11 acre lot.

There were no additional comments from the public.  Chair Proulx explained that when the public hearing was closed there would be no further comment.

The public hearing was closed.

Commissioner Russell stated that she lives in a subdivision with covenants and that if the property owners had any concerns they would go to their Home Owners Association and she suggested that the property owners in Walker’s Mt. go to their Home Owners Association to uphold the covenants through legal means.

Chair Proulx said that the Millers did not have an acceptable plat.  The Planning Commission could postpone a decision which would allow the Millers to submit a revised plat.  Commissioner Tapager said we must approve the plat if the division meets the ordinance requirements regardless of the existence of covenants.

Commissioner Tapager made a motion to postpone consideration of the subdivision for Jack and Kathleen Miller until the October meeting.  Commissioner Russell provided the second, and motion passed 5-0.

Commisioner Russell told Ms. Miller to  have the number of allowable lots corrected.

Class II Communication Tower, With Exceptions – Verizon Wireless- Site Name: Myndus

Mr. Boger reported that Clare Novak, Consultant for Verizon Wireless, has submitted an application for a Class II Communication Tower permit for construction of a 91’ metal communication tower with a lightning rod extending the height to 92’. The site is located on Pine Trail (SR 624) and is identified as Tax Map #45-7-1.  On July 26, 2010, a balloon test was conducted at the site. This test showed there would be minimal impact on the surrounding properties and the community as a whole. Simulation photos of the proposed tower have been submitted with the application.

Mr. Boger reported that Ms. Novak has prepared an excellent application clearly explaining what Verizon is requesting.  Three (3) antennas will be attached to the pole at a height of 86 feet and three (3) at a height of 76 feet. On sheet C-6 it shows how the antennas will be attached to the pole. The one question that is not clear is the distance  between the pole and the antenna. The drawing shows a maximum distance of + 24 inches. We prefer the minimum distance from the face of the pole to antenna so that they appear to be flush mounted.

Verizon is requesting the following two exceptions to Communication Tower requirements:

1. 20-7-2a           Sufficient land shall be acquired for all Class II Communication Tower sites to contain any ice or debris that happens to fall from the tower, antenna, or guy wires.  The minimum distance from the tower’s base to the property line shall be equal to one hundred twenty-five (125) percent of the Tower Height.

The proposed tower does not meet the required setback of 125% of the height of the tower as noted on sheet SV-4 of the zoning drawings submitted with this application. The required setback for a 92’ tower is 115’. The Tower is located 52.8’ from the boundary line of the abutting properties to the north. The Tower will be designed to collapse within a radius of 50’ as noted in the letter prepared by Keith Tindall, PE, of Sabre Towers and Poles. Since the antennas will be flush mounted to the pole and the metal pole does not require any guy wires, any debris or ice will fall within the lease compound.

1. 20-7-5k           Landscaping. The following requirements shall govern the landscaping surrounding towers for which a Class II Communication Tower permit is required; provided, however, that Nelson County may waive such requirements if the goals of this ordinance would be better served thereby.

Verizon Wireless requests that the Planning Commission waive the landscaping requirement as the visual impact will be minimal and the proposed facility is located in a heavily wooded area. Also, the tower will be enclosed by stockade fence which will screen the equipment compound from adjacent properties.

Staff has reviewed this application and recommends approval of the Communication Tower permit and waiving the required landscaping requirements as requested. Also staff  supports recommendation of the Commission to the Board of Supervisors reducing the required fall area for the Tower from 115’ to 52.8’ from the boundary line of the abutting properties to the north of the site.

Ms. Lori Schweller asked for approval of the tower and a waiver for the landscaping requirement because the tower is in a very wooded area. She also asked for a waiver of the 125% setback requirement of 115 feet to 52.8 feet from the boundary line.  She stated that they did not meet the requirements on one side and need a 50 foot radius for the tower to collapse.

Mr. Boger stated that he attended the balloon test and the proposed tower had minimum visibility.

The public hearing was opened.

Gary Wood lives on Simpsons Lane. He is in favor of the tower because he has no cell phone service in that area.

The public hearing was closed.

Commissioner Harmon made the following motion:

The Nelson County Planning Commission approves the application for Verizon to

erect a  91 foot metal communication tower with a 1 foot lightning rod for a total of        92 feet on the property of David L. Thomas, identified as Tax Map #45-7,Parcel 1,

Pine Trail (SR 624), Myndus, and grants a waiver of Section 20-7-5(k) of the Zoning

Ordinance. Further, the Commission recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve an exception to Section 20-7-2a of the Zoning Ordinance.

Commissioner Hunt provided the second and motion passed 5-0.

Major Site Plan #2010-006 – Mountain View Brewery (Board of Supervisor action not required

Mr. Boger reported that Mr. Steve Crandall, representing Devils Backbone Brewing Company, LLC, has submitted the final site plan for a new brewery to be constructed in the Colleen Industrial Park. The site will be approximately 15 acres in size and the building will have an approximate 13,990 square surface area. The property is zoned Industrial, M-1 and is owned by Central Virginia Electric Cooperative. A subdivision plat will be required, which can be administratively approved, when it is sold to the applicant.  Staff recommends approvals of the site plan contingent upon all required agencies approve the site plan and sign off on it.

Mr. Boger stated that the building height had been determined to be 34’6” at the highest point of the gable. He said Mr. Crandall is working with the Service Authority to see how the liquid waste will be handled from the brewing process. VDOT has approved the entrance.  The site will be landscaped as well.

Commissioner Hunt asked if the way the building was measured was the normal way to measure building height. Mr. Boger said it was measured according to building code.

Commissioner Tapager asked for clarity on the pretreatment of the waste and how was it going to be paid for.

Answering concerns of Ms. Hunt, Mr. Massie Saunders, representing Mr. Crandall, said that he and Mr. Boger reviewed 3 different codes and reached agreement on the height measurement of the building. Mr. Saunders said the tanks require the height in the building. He also discussed the pre-treatment process and ways that may be used.

Mr. Saunders said in order for them to move forward that they must have some form of confirmation from the county to move on to the next stage.

Mr. George Miller with the Nelson County Service Authority said the brewery site is within the mandatory hookup distance.  The Service Authority supports the project although there are several issues to be resolved.

Commissioner Hunt asked if the waste could be composted.  Mr. Saunders stated that the waste was not a solid by-product and it was the fluid coming off the process.

Mr. Steve Carter, County Administrator, said that he was in favor of the brewery and that county staff endorse the site plan.  Ms. Russell asked if he knew what timetable that Mr. Crandall was looking at. Mr. Carter did not know, but Mr. Miller stated maybe a year or sooner.

Public hearing was opened.

Mr. Gary Wood stated that Central Virginia Electric Cooperative owns the property and was in favor of the project. He states they were in the process of making final arrangements to transfer the property.

Public hearing was closed.

Commissioner Russell expressed reservation about giving contingent approvals for major projects.  In 2006 the Planning Commission adopted a policy of requiring all necessary approvals be submitted prior to the Planning Commission decision. In this case she does not have the necessary information from the Service Authority but knowing the applicant feels assured that the project would be completed in compliance with all of the regulations.  However the next applicant could be unknown to the Commission and could raise again the issue of contingent approvals.  Commission Tapager said that the intent of the policy was to ensure a good faith effort which has been demonstrated in this case.

Commissioner Harmon made a motion that The Nelson County Planning Commission  approves the Major Site Plan for the Mountain View Brewery contingent upon all required agencies approve the site plan and sign off on it as required by Section 13-4 (E) of the Zoning Ordinance and also to pre-treat the waste water as approved by the Nelson County Service Authority.

A second was provided by Commissioner Hunt and motion passed 5-0.

Will Cockrell – Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission

Mr. Boger introduced Mr. Will Cockrell with the TJPDC who is assisting with updating the transportation section of the Comprehensive Plan.

Mr. Cockrell asked what approach the Planning Commission wants to take. There was discussion on carpooling and formal commuter lots and JAUNT services already in the county.

Mr. Cockrell welcomed any request for their services.

Communication Tower Ordinance

Continued until October Planning Commission meeting.

Board of Supervisor Liaison – Allen Hale

Absent – no report

Adjournment

At 9:25 P.M. Commissioner Harmon made a motion to adjourn. Motion passed 5-0.

Nest Meeting – October 27, 2010

Respectfully submitted,

Wanda Staton

A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CLASS II COMMUNICATIONS TOWER PERMIT FOR VERIZON WIRELESS TO ERECT A 92 FOOT METAL COMMUNICATIONS TOWER, WAIVER OF SECTION OF SECTION 20-7-5(k), AND RECOMMENDING BOS APPROVAL OF AN EXCEPTION TO SECTION 20-7-2a 0F THE ZONING ORDINANCE; PINE TRAIL (SR (624) MYNDUS

WHEREAS, Verizon, represented by Ms. Clare Novak, Consultant, has filed a request with the Nelson County Planning Department for a Class II Communication Tower Permit pursuant to Article 20, Communication Tower Ordinance of the Nelson County Zoning Ordinance to erect a 91 foot metal tower with a lightning rod extending the height to 92 feet, a waiver of Section 20-7-5(k), and for a recommendation to BOS for an exception to Section 2007-2a, of the Zoning Ordinance; and

WHEREAS, the proposed communications tower site is located on Pine Trail (SR 624), Myndus on property owned by David L. Thomas and is identified as Tax Map #45-7-1; and

WHEREAS, a notice of the required Public Hearing by the Nelson County Planning Commission was published in the Nelson County Times on September 2, 2010 and September 9,         2010; and

WHEREAS, a notice to adjacent property owners was mailed on September 13, 2010; and

WHEREAS, on September 22, 2010, the Nelson County Planning Commission held the required Public Hearing on said application; and

WHEREAS, the Commission has considered the Planning Director’s report and comments from the applicant and citizens;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE NELSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION as follows:

The Nelson County Planning Commission approves the application for Verizon to

erect an  91 foot metal communication tower with a 1 foot lightning rod for a total of      92 feet on the property of David L. Thomas, identified as Tax Map #45-7,Parcel 1,

Pine Trail (SR 624), Myndus, and grants a waiver of Section 20-7-5(k) of the Zoning

Ordinance. Further, the Commission recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve an exception to Section 20-7-2a of the Zoning Ordinance.

Motion made by Commissioner: Michael Harmon

Motion seconded by Commissioner: Emily Hunt

Motion Passed: 5-0                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Approved:_____________________

Planning Commission Chair

ATTEST:______________________

Planning Commission Secretary

Date: September 22, 2010

A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE MAJOR SITE PLAN FOR MOUNTAIN VIEW BREWERY DATED 8/31/2010 PREPARED BY RUSSELL H. ORRISON, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER

WHEREAS, Mr. Russell  H. Orrison, Professional Engineer and P. Massie Saunders, Land Surveyor, representing Devils Backbone Brewing Company, LLC have submitted a major site plan for review and approval to construct a 13,990 brewery with offices and observation room on 15 acres of land presently owned by the Central Virginia Electric Cooperative on Cooperative Way (SR855) in Colleen, Virginia; and

WHEREAS, a notice of the required Public Hearing by the Nelson County Planning Commission was published in the Nelson County Times on September 2, 2010 and September 9,           2010; and

WHEREAS, a notice to adjacent property owners was mailed on September 13, 2010; and

WHEREAS, on September 22, 2010, the Nelson County Planning Commission held the required Public Hearing on said application; and

WHEREAS, the Commission has considered the Planning Director’s report and comments from the applicant and citizens; and

WHEREAS, The Commission has been informed that the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District and the Nelson County Service Authority are actively working with the applicant to make changes to the plans to comply with their requirements;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE NELSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION as follows:

The Nelson County Planning Commission  approves the Major Site Plan for the Mountain View Brewery contingent upon all required agencies approve the site plan and sign off on it as required by Section 13-4 (E) of the Zoning Ordinance.

Motion made by Commissioner: Michael Harmon

Motion seconded by Commissioner: Emily Hunt

Motion Passed: 5-0

Approved:_____________________

Planning Commission Chair

ATTEST:______________________

Planning Commission Secretary

Date: September 22, 2010