Regular Meeting – March 28, 2018
Regular Meeting, Wednesday, March 28, 2018, 7:00 p.m. Government Center, Verona, VA.
PRESENT: Gerald W. Garber, Chairman
Carolyn S. Bragg-Vice Chairman
Terry L. Kelley, Jr.
Michael L. Shull
Wendell L. Coleman
Pam L. Carter
Timothy K. Fitzgerald, County Administrator
Jennifer M. Whetzel, Deputy County Administrator
John Wilkinson, Director of Community Development
Leslie Tate, Planner
James R. Benkahla, County Attorney
Angie Michael, Executive Assistant
ABSENT: Marshall W. Pattie
VIRGINIA: At a regular meeting of the Augusta County Board of Supervisors held on Wednesday, March 28, 2018, at 7:00 p.m., at the Government Center, Verona, Virginia, and in the 242nd year of the Commonwealth….
Chairman Garber welcomed the citizens present.
Wendell Coleman led the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Terry Kelley, Supervisor for the Beverley Manor District, delivered the invocation.
NATIONAL COLORECTAL CANCER AWARENESS MONTH PROCLAMATION
Ms. Bragg moved, seconded by Mr. Shull that the Board adopt the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the county of Augusta, Virginia celebrates month of March as Colon Cancer Awareness to bring greater awareness to colon cancer; and WHEREAS, colon cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States; and WHEREAS, 1 in 20 people will develop colon cancer and every 10 minutes a life is lost to the disease; and WHEREAS, this year alone, 142,000 new cases of colon and rectal cancer will be diagnosed in America and nearly 50,000 deaths are expected; and WHEREAS, a simple screening test is recommended to individuals over age 50 and those with a family history to help combat the disease; and WHEREAS, the county of Augusta, Virginia has joined with the Colon Cancer Alliance to increase screening and save lives in Augusta, Virginia and across the country; and WHEREAS, education and increased awareness can help inform the public of methods of prevention and the early detection of colon cancer; and
NATIONAL COLORECTAL CANCER AWARENESS MONTH PROCLAMATION (CON’T)
WHEREAS, through recommended screenings, this cancer can be caught early when treatment is most effective; and WHEREAS, declaration of the Month of March as Colon Cancer Awareness Month will help bring greater awareness to the disease and the importance of being screened; and NOW THEREFORE, The Augusta County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim March 2018 as Colon Cancer Awareness Month in the county of Augusta, Virginia and encourage all individuals to work together to promote awareness and understanding of colon cancer and the need for screening to eradicate the disease.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Garber, Bragg, Kelley, Shull, Coleman, and Carter Nays: None
Absent: Pattie
Motion carried.
AUGUSTA COUNTY CODE SECTION 25-77.4 — AMENDMENT
This being the day and time advertised to consider an ordinance to amend Section 25- 77.4 of the Augusta County Code to add stepchild, sibling, and grandparent as members of the immediate family to which a grantor may convey a lot that does not have frontage on a public street provided the conditions of Section 25-77.4.B are met. The Planning Commission recommends approval.
Leslie Tate, Planner, stated that this ordinance amendment brings the Augusta County Code in compliance with the Virginia Code that defines members of the immediate family.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND
SECTION 25-77.4 OF THE
AUGUSTA COUNTY CODE
WHEREAS, the Augusta County Board of Supervisors has determined that the addition of stepchild, sibling, and grandparent to members of the immediate family to which a grantor may convey a lot that does not have frontage on a public street is needed to comply with Virginia Code § 15.2-2244.A.
NOW THEREFORE be it resolved by the Board of Supervisors for Augusta County that § 77-4. of the Augusta County Code is amended to read as follows:
§ 25-77.4. Lot frontage in general. Exceptions.
A. In General Agriculture Districts, the following frontage requirements apply:
1. For cluster residential lots: Forty feet (40’) of frontage on a private street.
2. For all other agriculture lots, with the exception of any “family member exception lot” (as described in subsection B below), shall have at least fifty feet (50') of frontage on a public street.
B. In General Agriculture Districts, a lot, to be known as a “family member exception lot,” may be created that does not have frontage on a public street, provided the following conditions are met:
1. Such family member exception lot shall be created for the purpose of a sale or gift to a 2. member of the immediate family of the grantor. For purposes of this subsection, a member of the immediate family is defined as any person who is a natural or legally defined offspring, stepchild, spouse, sibling, grandchild, grandparent, or parent of the grantor. Such lot may be conveyed by the grantor:
a. To a member of the immediate family of the grantor and the member’s spouse, or b. To a member of the immediate family of the grantor and another natural person, if the member of the immediate family owns at least a fifty percent (50%) interest in such lot.
2. No such family member exception lot shall be created for the purpose of the circumvention of chapter 21 of this Code.
3. The residual lot or tract of the grantor shall be no more than one contiguous tract or lot, and the foregoing notwithstanding, need not have the fifty feet (50') of frontage on a public street required by this section.
Any new private rights-of-way or easements established to serve either the family member exception lot or the residual lot of the grantor must meet the requirements of § 21-11.B of this Code.
4. No grantee shall be the recipient of any portion of more than one (1) family member exception lot in Augusta County.
5. A family member exception lot created under this subsection shall be titled in the name of the member of the immediate family for whom the subdivision is made for a period of no less than three (3) years; provided, however, the foregoing restriction shall not apply in the following circumstances:
a. Where such lot is subject to an involuntary transfer such as a foreclosure, judicial or bankruptcy sale, or as a result of the condemnation of such lot or the death of the grantee; or:
b. Where such lot is conveyed by the grantee:
i. To the grantee and the grantee’s spouse, or ii. To the grantee and another natural person, if the grantee continues to own at least a fifty percent (50%) interest in such lot, in which event such lot shall remain subject to the foregoing restriction for the balance of the three-year period.
6. No grantor shall create and convey a family member exception lot to a person from whom the grantor has received any portion of a family member exception lot in Augusta County. For example, in the case of a lot owned by a husband and wife, the husband can convey a lot to the wife but she cannot then convey a lot to the husband.
7. The grantor and grantee shall submit to the subdivision agent an affidavit which describes the purpose of the creation of the family member exception lot, identifies the persons to receive such lot, including the member of the immediate family, and certifies compliance with this subsection.
(Ord. 11/21/06, eff. 1/1/07) State law reference—Virginia Code § 15.2-2244.
The Chairman declared the public hearing open.
There being no speakers, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed.
Ms. Bragg moved, seconded by Mr. Shull, that the Board accept the ordinance amendment as presented.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Garber, Bragg, Kelley, Shull, Coleman, and Carter Nays: None
Absent: Pattie
Motion carried.
AUGUSTA COUNTY CODE SECTION 25-71.1 — AMENDMENT
This being the day and time advertised to consider an ordinance to amend Section 25- 71.1 of the Augusta County Code to clarify that an agricultural operation is any operation devoted to the bona fide projection of crops, animals, or fowl including the production of fruits and vegetable of all kinds; meat, dairy, and poultry products; nuts, tobacco, nursery, and floral products; and the production and harvest of products from silviculture activity; but shall not include the processing of agricultural or silvicultural products. The Planning Commission recommends approval with the extraction.
Ms. Tate stated that the Planning Commission recommends approval with the removal of storage and application of sewage sludge. This is the definition of an agricultural operation per State Code. The State Code requires certain uses to be permitted by right related to agricultural tourism, but specified that an agriculture operation does not include the further processing of agricultural or silvicultural products or the above ground application or storage or sewage sludge. These are not permitted by right in agricultural districts.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND
SECTION 25-71.1 OF THE
AUGUSTA COUNTY CODE
WHEREAS, the Augusta County Board of Supervisors desires to reference the applicable Virginia Code section for the definition of an agricultural operation, which is permitted by-right in General Agriculture districts; and WHEREAS, such reference (VA Code 3.2-300) clarifies that the processing of agricultural or silvicultural products or the above ground application or storage of sewage sludge does not fall within the agricultural operation definition.
NOW THEREFORE be it resolved by the Board of Supervisors for Augusta County that § 25-71.1 of the Augusta County Code is amended to read as follows:
§ 25-71. Purposes.
A. The General Agriculture District is intended to allow an area to be devoted to agricultural use; to conserve, protect, and encourage the development, improvement and preservation of agricultural land for the production of food and other agricultural products; to retain major areas of natural ground cover for conservation purposes; and to retain forests.
B. The principal purposes of this district may be accomplished by maintaining the existing agricultural lands and preventing the encroachment of incompatible land uses; while allowing development to occur at a reasonable density.
C. Non-farm residents should recognize that in this district they are located in an agricultural environment where "the right to farm" and “the right to practice forestry” have been established as public policies.
D. This district is also intended to minimize the demand for unanticipated public improvements and services, such as public sewer and water, by reducing development densities and discouraging large scale development.
§ 25-71.1. Definitions The following definitions shall be used in the interpretation and construction of this Article:
Agricultural operation. Any operation devoted to the bona fide production of crops, animals, or fowl including the production of fruits and vegetables of all kinds; meat, dairy, and poultry products; nuts, tobacco, nursery, and floral products; and the production and harvest of products from silviculture activity; but shall not include the processing of agricultural or silvicultural products or the above ground application or storage of sewage sludge.
The Chairman declared the public hearing open.
There being no speakers, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed.
Ms. Carter asked if aquaculture should be included in the ordinance amendment.
John Wilkinson, Director of Community Development, stated that this is the definition of agriculture tourism section that the State added a couple of years ago to increase tourism in the state. There is a full set of definitions for agriculture in the zoning ordinance. The State provided this definition. The County’s current agricultural definitions are similar and list all ranges of agricultural products as definition of agriculture. There are permits available from DEQ for that type of activity and Special Use Permits in the current ordinance for agriculture and support operations.
Ms. Bragg commented that the Planning Commission had suggested the final line stating “the above ground applications or storage of sewage sludge” be removed, but it remains in the ordinance.
Mr. Wilkinson stated that this is word for word of the State’s change in the definition.
Staff will be able to explain the definition to the farm community that the State has not changed the options.
Ms. Bragg moved, seconded by Mr. Shull, that the Board accept the ordinance amendment as presented with the inclusion of the State wording.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Garber, Bragg, Kelley, Shull, Coleman, and Carter Nays: None
Absent: Pattie
Motion carried.
AUGUSTA COUNTY CODE SECTION 25-33 — AMENDMENT
This being the day and time advertised to consider an ordinance to amend Section 25- 33 of the Augusta County Code to reference compliance with Chapter 9. Environment for parking facilities. The Planning Commission recommends approval.
Ms. Tate stated that this changes a reference to a section that no longer exists. It was referencing Chapter 18 and it needs to reference Chapter 9, which is the environment section dealing with stormwater erosion and sediment control related to off street parking facilities.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND
SECTION 25-33 OF THE
AUGUSTA COUNTY CODE
WHEREAS, the Augusta County Board of Supervisors desires to reference the applicable stormwater, erosion and sediment control, and illicit discharge detection and elimination regulations for parking facilities; and WHEREAS, such regulations are found in Chapter 9. “Environment” of the Augusta County Code.
NOW THEREFORE be it resolved by the Board of Supervisors for Augusta County that § 25-33 of the Augusta County Code is amended to read as follows:
§ 25-33. Design and construction standards.
A. Parking facilities shall be so designed: (a) to prevent parked vehicles from extending beyond the limits of the parking facility; (b) to prevent damaging effects to adjoining or nearby properties from surface drainage from the parking facilities; and (c) to comply with Augusta County Code Chapter 9.
Environment.
The Chairman declared the public hearing open.
There being no speakers, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed.
Ms. Bragg moved, seconded by Mr. Shull, that the Board accept the ordinance amendment as presented.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Garber, Bragg, Kelley, Shull, Coleman, and Carter Nays: None
Absent: Pattie
Motion carried.
AUGUSTA COUNTY CODE SECTION 25-673 — AMENDMENT
This being the day and time advertised to consider an ordinance to amend Section 25- 673 of the Augusta County Code to reference compliance with Chapter 9. Environment.
The Planning Commission recommends approval.
Ms. Tate stated that this is related to the site plan contents required and it references the correct regulations.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND
SECTION 25-673 OF THE
AUGUSTA COUNTY CODE
WHEREAS, the Augusta County Board of Supervisors desires to reference the applicable stormwater, erosion and sediment control, and illicit discharge detection and elimination regulations for required site plan contents; and WHEREAS, such regulations are found in Chapter 9. “Environment” of the Augusta County Code.
NOW THEREFORE be it resolved by the Board of Supervisors for Augusta County that § 25-673 of the Augusta County Code is amended to read as follows:
§ 25-673. Site plan contents.
A. Each site plan shall be drawn to scale. The scale shall be one inch (1") equals a stated number of feet. The number of feet shall be a multiple of ten. For example, the scale may be one inch (1") equals fifty feet (50') or one inch (1") equals one hundred feet (100').
B. Each site plan shall contain or be accompanied by the following:
16. Any information necessary, including topography, to show compliance with chapter 9, “Environment,” of this code.
17. Location and dimensions of existing and proposed easements, including, but not necessarily limited to, utility, stormwater drainage, and ingress and egress easements, showing appurtenant structures such as fire hydrants, manholes, cleanouts, and water meters.
18. Location, layout, dimensions, and calculations of all required buffers, landscaping areas, fences and walls, in a separate table, including where applicable, the distances to established uses. June 19. Any information required by the reviewing agencies listed in § 25-675 below.
20. Any information necessary to show compliance with § 24-2, Fire Flow, if applicable.
21. In the case of development of an adult business within a General Business (GB) District, certification of compliance with the requirements of subsection (A-H) of § 25-310 of this Code.
(Ord. 04/23/08) 22 Any rezoning proffers, Special Use Permit conditions such as operating or pre-conditions shall be noted on the plan.
23. A completed TIA Worksheet with a determination by the Community Development Department that a TIA is not necessary or a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) found to be in conformance with the requirements of Chapter 527 (24VAC30-155) by VDOT, if applicable.
The Chairman declared the public hearing open.
There being no speakers, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed.
Ms. Bragg moved, seconded by Mr. Shull, that the Board accept the ordinance amendment as presented.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Garber, Bragg, Kelley, Shull, Coleman, and Carter Nays: None
Absent: Pattie
Motion carried.
AUGUSTA COUNTY CODE SECTION 25-20 — AMENDMENT
This being the day and time advertised to consider an ordinance to amend Section 25- 20 of the Augusta County Code to clarify that public utility distribution, transmission and collection lines for the furnishing of utility services to the public, rather than specifically for local service, shall be permitted in all districts. The Planning Commission recommends approval with change in wording.
Ms. Tate stated that the Planning Commission recommends approval with the suggestion of adding the wording “transmission lines” in addition to distribution and collection lines. The ordinance currently reads that public utility distribution and collections lines for local service shall be permitted in all districts and Staff feels that changing it from local service, to the furnishing of utility services to the public. This clarifies that local authority is preempted by the requirement that the public lines be permitted in all districts.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND
SECTION 25-20 OF THE
AUGUSTA COUNTY CODE
WHEREAS, the Augusta County Board of Supervisors has determined it desirable to clarify that public utility distribution and collection lines for the furnishing of utility services to the public, not specifically those for local service, are permitted in all districts.
NOW THEREFORE be it resolved by the Board of Supervisors for Augusta County that § 25-20 of the Augusta County Code is amended to read as follows:
§ 25-20. Utility lots.
C. Public utility distribution, transmission and collection lines for the furnishing of utility services to the public shall be permitted in all districts.
The Chairman declared the public hearing open.
There being no speakers, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed.
Ms. Bragg moved, seconded by Mr. Shull, that the Board accept the ordinance amendment as presented.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Garber, Bragg, Kelley, Shull, Coleman, and Carter Nays: None
Absent: Pattie
Motion carried.
AUGUSTA COUNTY CODE SECTION 25-68.7 & 25-68.8 — AMENDMENT
This being the day and time advertised to consider an ordinance to amend Sections 25- 68.7 & 25-68.8 of the Augusta County Code to clarify removal of telecommunications facilities, including the concrete pad is required to a depth of at least three feet below grade. The Planning Commission recommends approval.
Ms. Tate stated that in the current Wireless Telecommunications ordinance, it requires complete removal of the telecommunications facility including the concrete pad. After speaking with members from the industry, the concrete pad could go very deep into the ground and complete removal would be difficult. Removing it to a depth of three feet would meet the intention that something else could be developed above it.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND
SECTION 25-68.7 and 25-68.8 OF THE
AUGUSTA COUNTY CODE
WHEREAS, the Augusta County Board of Supervisors has determined that removal of telecommunications facilities to a depth of at least three feet below grade is a sufficient and reasonable provision for the protection of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW THEREFORE be it resolved by the Board of Supervisors for Augusta County that § 25-68.7 and 35.68-8 of the Augusta County Code is amended to read as follows:
DIVISION A. IN GENERAL.
Article VI.B. Wireless telecommunication facilities.
§25-68.7. Bonding.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit for a wireless telecommunications facility, the applicant shall:
A. Submit to the Zoning Administrator an itemized cost estimate of the work to be done to completely remove the entire telecommunications facility including the concrete pad to a depth of at least three feet (3’) below grade plus twenty-five percent (25%) of said estimated costs as a reasonable allowance for administrative costs, inflation, and potential damage to existing roads or utilities.
B. Submit a bond, irrevocable Letter of Credit, or other appropriate surety acceptable to the County in the amount of the estimate as approved by the Zoning Administrator which shall:
1. Secure the cost of removing the facility and restoring the site to its original condition to the extent reasonably possible.
2. Include a mechanism for a Cost of Living Adjustment after ten (10) and fifteen (15) years.
C. The applicant will ensure the bond shall remain in effect until the Community Development Department has inspected the site and verified that the wireless telecommunications facility and equipment has been removed and the site restored. At which time the Community Development Department shall promptly release the bond.
§25-68.8. Removal, maintenance and safety.
A. The applicant shall maintain the wireless telecommunications facility in good condition. Such maintenance shall include, but not be limited to, painting, structural integrity of the foundation and tower or base station structure and security barrier (if applicable), and maintenance of the buffer areas and landscaping if present.
The project owner shall be responsible for the cost of maintaining the wireless telecommunications facility and access road if present, unless accepted as a public way, and the cost of repairing any damage occurring as a result of operation and construction.
B. Any wireless telecommunications facility that is found to be unsafe by the building official shall be repaired by the owner to meet federal, state, and local safety standards or disassembled and completely removed, including the concrete pad to a depth of at least three feet (3’) below grade, within one hundred eighty (180) days.
Any wireless telecommunications facility that is not operated for a continuous period of twenty-four (24) months shall be considered abandoned and the owner of the system shall completely remove the wireless telecommunications facility within one hundred eighty (180) days of receipt of notice from the County instructing the owner to remove the facility.
C. The applicant shall notify the Augusta County Community Development Department within thirty (30) days of the date the wireless telecommunications facility is no longer used for telecommunications purposes. The tower or base station shall be disassembled and completely removed, including the concrete pad to a depth of at least three feet (3’) below grade and all equipment, from the site within one hundred eighty (180) days of the date the facility is no longer us for telecommunications purposes ed .
The Chairman declared the public hearing open.
There being no speakers, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed.
Ms. Bragg moved, seconded by Mr. Shull, that the Board accept the ordinance amendment as presented.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Garber, Bragg, Kelley, Shull, Coleman, and Carter Nays: None
Absent: Pattie
Motion carried.
AUGUSTA COUNTY CODE SECTION 25-25-74.H — AMENDMENT
This being the day and time advertised to consider an ordinance to amend Section 25- 74.H of the Augusta County Code to remove bed and breakfasts, tourist homes, restaurants and cafes, special event facilities, meeting places, boarding houses and residential care facilities from the public accommodation facilities permitted in agriculture zones by Special use Permit, revise direct access condition, create additional conditions for traffic flow, compatibility with neighboring properties, reasonable limitations on enlargement unless determined compatible with neighboring properties, evidence of connection to public sewer or approval by the Virginia Department of Health, and protections for fire, environmental and other hazards. The Planning Commission recommends approval.
Ms. Tate stated that this is a Special Use Permit category in general agriculture. Several of the uses have been broken out into individual categories. The additional conditions are being added to the public accommodation category.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND
SECTION 25-74 OF THE
AUGUSTA COUNTY CODE
WHEREAS, the Augusta County Board of Supervisors has deemed it desirable to remove several of the uses under public accommodation facilities and create individual categories for such uses; and WHEREAS, the Augusta County Board of Supervisors has deemed it desirable to amend the condition for direct access so that either frontage on a state maintained road or the expected traffic on a legal right of way can be accommodated by the intersection with the state maintained road per approval by the Virginia Department of Transportation is sufficient to satisfy such condition; and WHEREAS, the Augusta County Board of Supervisors has determined that additional conditions for public accommodation facilities for a Special Use Permit in General Agriculture districts should be added to reduce impacts to neighboring properties and create reasonable provisions addressing the impacts related to the use.
NOW THEREFORE be it resolved by the Board of Supervisors for Augusta County that § 25-74 of the Augusta County Code is amended to read as follows:
§ 25-74. Uses permitted by special use permit.
The uses listed in this section shall be permitted within General Agriculture Districts upon the issuance of a Special Use Permit by the board of zoning appeals pursuant to the provisions of ARTICLE LVIII of DIVISION I of this chapter.
H. Public accommodation facilities.
Public accommodation facilities, including but not necessarily limited to: hotels and motels, may be permitted by Special Use Permit provided:
1. The business and anticipated enlargements thereof will be appropriate for agriculture areas; and 2. The business, taking into account such things as its proposed size, parking facilities, setbacks, and landscaping, will not be out of character with neighboring properties; and 3. The permitting of the proposed business, when taking into account the presence of similar businesses in the neighborhood, will not result in such concentration or clustering of businesses as to create an institutional setting or business center or otherwise change the area’s character and social structure; and 4. The business shall have frontage on a state maintained road or the expected traffic on a legal right of way can be accommodated by the intersection with the state maintained road per approval by the Virginia Department of Transportation; and 5. On-site traffic flow will adequately and safely accommodate all traffic to and from the public highways; and 6. Only pre-existing structures will be utilized unless the board of zoning appeals finds that proposed new construction will be compatible with neighboring properties; and 7. Reasonable limitations are imposed on the enlargement or expansion of the business. Business structures larger than four thousand (4,000) square feet or accumulated expansions by more than fifty percent (50%) shall not be permitted unless the board finds that a larger structure or expansion is compatible with neighboring properties; and 8. Evidence that the business will be connected to public sewer or that an onsite sewage disposal system can be approved for the business use by the Virginia Department of Health; and 9. There are adequate provisions set forth for the protection of fire, environmental and other hazards.
The Chairman declared the public hearing open.
Victor Meyer of 705 Knightly Lane, Mount Sidney stated that he would like clarification on the removal agricultural zoning, specifically Ag Tourism. Mr. Meyer may have his guest house rented out from time to time and would like to know if this precludes that rental.
Ms. Tate stated that the use of bed and breakfast is being removed from the accommodation category, but it is an additional use that is being added as a stand alone. It’s currently not permitted by right in general agriculture but does require a Special Use Permit. It is being removed from this category and being put into a separate category.
There being no other speakers, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed.
Ms. Bragg moved, seconded by Mr. Shull, that the Board accept the ordinance amendment as presented.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Garber, Bragg, Kelley, Shull, Coleman, and Carter Nays: None
Absent: Pattie
Motion carried.
AUGUSTA COUNTY CODE SECTION 25-74.I — AMENDMENT
This being the day and time advertised to consider an ordinance to amend Section 25- 74.I of the Augusta County Code to add restaurants and cafes to the list of limited business and industries permitted in agriculture zones by Special Use Permit, revise direct access condition, eliminate condition that the use be a substantial benefit to neighboring properties, and add reference to the Virginia Department of Health for sewer conditions. The Planning Commission recommends approval.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND
SECTION 25-74 OF THE
AUGUSTA COUNTY CODE
WHEREAS, the Augusta County Board of Supervisors has deemed it desirable to include restaurants and cafes as a use specified under the Special Use Permit provision for limited business and industries in agriculture zones; and WHEREAS, the Augusta County Board of Supervisors has deemed it desirable to amend the condition for direct access so that either frontage on a state maintained road or the expected traffic on a legal right of way can be accommodated by the intersection with the state maintained road per approval by the Virginia Department of Transportation is sufficient to satisfy such condition; and WHEREAS, the Augusta County Board of Supervisors has determined that the language requiring substantial benefit to neighboring properties as a condition should be removed; and WHEREAS, the Augusta County Board of Supervisors has deemed it desirable to add reference to the Virginia Department of Health with regards to the sewer related condition.
NOW THEREFORE be it resolved by the Board of Supervisors for Augusta County that § 25-74 of the Augusta County Code is amended to read as follows:
§ 25-74. Uses permitted by special use permit.
The uses listed in this section shall be permitted within General Agriculture Districts upon the issuance of a Special Use Permit by the board of zoning appeals pursuant to the provisions of ARTICLE LVIII of DIVISION I of this chapter.
I. Limited business and industries in agriculture zones.
Limited businesses, professions, and other establishment for the sale of goods and services or for limited industrial activities, including, but no necessarily limited to: barber and beauty shops, pet grooming businesses, day care center and nursery schools, medical and dental clinics, veterinarian clinics, hardware stores, lawn and garden centers, motor vehicle service stations and convenience stores, restaurants and cafes, auction houses and flea markets, mini-warehouses, sale and storage of building materials, carpentry, electrical and plumbing sales and services, contractor’s offices and storage yards, and welding and machine shops, may be approved by Special Use Permit provided:
1. Where outside storage is not prohibited, all outside storage areas will be adequately shielding or screened from view; and 2. The operator will be a resident on the premises unless the board of zoning appeals determined that such residency is not appropriate in the specific case, taking into account the nature of the business and the character of the neighboring properties; and 3.
4. The business and anticipated enlargements thereof will be appropriate for agriculture areas; and 5. The business shall have frontage on a state maintained road or the expected traffic on a legal right of way can be accommodated by the intersection with the state maintained road per approval by the Virginia Department of Transportation; and 6. On-site traffic flow will adequately and safely accommodate all traffic to and from the public highways; and 7. Only pre-existing structures will be utilized unless the board of zoning appeals finds that proposed new construction will be compatible with neighboring properties; and 8. Reasonable limitations are imposed on the enlargement or expansion of the business. Business structures larger than four thousand (4,000) square feet or accumulated expansions by more than fifty percent (50%) shall not be permitted unless the board finds that a larger structure or expansion is compatible with neighboring properties; and 9. Evidence that the business will be connected to public sewer or that an onsite sewage disposal system can be approved for the business use by the Virginia Department of Health; and 10. There are adequate provisions set forth for the protection of fire, environmental and other hazards; and 11. All items displayed for sale or stored on site shall be set back at least twenty-five feet (25’) from the edge of the pavement of any adjoining roads, and in no case shall a display or storage area be within the right-of-way of any road. (Ord. 09/28/11) The Chairman declared the public hearing open.
There being no speakers, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed.
Ms. Bragg moved, seconded by Mr. Shull, that the Board accept the ordinance amendment as presented.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Garber, Bragg, Kelley, Shull, Coleman, and Carter Nays: None
Absent: Pattie
Motion carried.
AUGUSTA COUNTY CODE– ORDINANCE TO ADD SECTION 25-74.R
This being the day and time advertised to consider an ordinance to add Section 25-74.R of the Augusta County Code to create a separate category for such uses to be permitted in agriculture zones by Special Use Permit with the following conditions: there shall be no more than 1 principal dwelling or part thereof, operating as such use per parcel; there shall be no more than 1 accessory unit operating as such use per parcel; the lot is at least 5 acres in area unless determined that a smaller acreage will be compatible with neighboring properties; the owner of record’s primary residence is the principal dwelling or accessory; Building Inspection Department approval; Virginia Department of Health approval if not connected to public sewer; and all parking shall be accommodated on-site.
The Planning Commission recommends approval.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND
SECTION 25-74 OF THE
AUGUSTA COUNTY CODE
WHEREAS, the Augusta County Board of Supervisors has deemed it desirable to include Short-term rentals, bed and breakfasts, and vacation rentals as a Special Use Permit category in General Agriculture districts with specific conditions; and WHEREAS, the Augusta County Board of Supervisors has determined that such conditions create reasonable provisions related to the impacts associated with the use.
NOW THEREFORE be it resolved by the Board of Supervisors for Augusta County that § 25-74 of the Augusta County Code is amended to read as follows:
§ 25-74. Uses permitted by special use permit.
The uses listed in this section shall be permitted within General Agriculture Districts upon the issuance of a Special Use Permit by the board of zoning appeals pursuant to the provisions of ARTICLE LVIII of DIVISION I of this chapter.
R. Short-term rentals, bed and breakfasts, and vacation rentals.
Short-term rentals, bed and breakfasts, and vacation rentals, may be approved by Special Use Permit provided:
1. There shall be no more than one (1) principal dwelling, or part thereof, operating as a Bed and breakfast or Short-term rental per parcel; and 2. There shall be no more than one (1) detached accessory dwelling unit operating as a Bed and breakfast or Short-term rental per parcel; and 3. The lot is at least five (5) acres in area, unless the board of zoning appeals determines that operation of the use on a smaller acreage will be compatible with neighboring properties; and 4. The owner of record’s primary residence is personally resides in the principal dwelling or accessory dwelling unit; and 5. The Building Inspection Department has indicated that either a Building Permit is not required, or a Building Permit can be issued for the use once the Special Use Permit has been approved; and 6. If the principal and/or detached accessory dwelling unit is not connected to public sewer, the Virginia Department of Health has confirmed that the sewage disposal system is adequate for the proposed use; and 7. All parking shall be accommodated on-site.
The Chairman declared the public hearing open.
There being no speakers, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed.
Ms. Bragg moved, seconded by Mr. Shull, that the Board accept the ordinance to add a section as presented.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Garber, Bragg, Kelley, Shull, Coleman, and Carter Nays: None
Absent: Pattie
Motion carried.
AUGUSTA COUNTY CODE – ORDINANCE TO ADD SECTION 25-74.S
This being the day and time advertised to consider an ordinance to add Section 25-74.S of the Augusta County Code to create a separate category for such use to be permitted in agriculture zones by Special Use Permit with the following conditions: appropriate for agriculture areas, compatible with neighboring properties, will not result in a concentration of businesses, frontage on a state maintained road or approval by VDOT of the intersection of a legal right of way and the state maintained road, pre-existing structures to be utilized unless new construction determined compatible with neighboring properties, Virginia Department of Health approval if not connected to public sewer, adequate provisions for protection of fire, environmental and other hazards and if applicable, compliance with state, federal, local licensing and/or regulations. The Planning Commission recommends approval.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND
SECTION 25-74 OF THE
AUGUSTA COUNTY CODE
WHEREAS, the Augusta County Board of Supervisors has deemed it desirable to include residential care facilities as a standalone Special Use Permit category in General Agriculture districts with specific conditions; and WHEREAS, the Augusta County Board of Supervisors has determined that such conditions create reasonable provisions related to the impacts associated with the use.
NOW THEREFORE be it resolved by the Board of Supervisors for Augusta County that § 25-74 of the Augusta County Code is amended to read as follows:
§ 25-74. Uses permitted by special use permit.
The uses listed in this section shall be permitted within General Agriculture Districts upon the issuance of a Special Use Permit by the board of zoning appeals pursuant to the provisions of ARTICLE LVIII of DIVISION I of this chapter.
S. Residential care facilities.
Residential care facilities, including, but not necessarily limited to, hospitals, nursing homes, group homes (unless separately permitted), assisted living facilities, and independent living facilities, may be approved by Special Use Permit provided:
1. The facility and anticipated enlargements thereof will be appropriate for agriculture areas; and 2. The facility, taking into account such things as its proposed size, parking facilities, setbacks, and landscaping, will not be out of character with neighboring properties; and 3. The permitting of the proposed facility, when taking into account the presence of similar businesses in the neighborhood, will not result in such concentration or clustering of businesses as to create an institutional setting or business center or otherwise change the area’s character and social structure; and 4. The business shall have frontage on a state maintained road or the expected traffic on a legal right of way can be accommodated by the intersection with the state maintained road per approval by the Virginia Department of Transportation.
5. On-site traffic flow will adequately and safely accommodate all traffic to and from the public highways; and 6. Only pre-existing structures will be utilized unless the board of zoning appeals finds that proposed new construction will be compatible with neighboring properties; and 7. Reasonable limitations are imposed on the enlargement or expansion of the business. Business structures larger than four thousand (4,000) square feet or accumulated expansions by more than fifty percent (50%) shall not be permitted unless the board finds that a larger structure or expansion is compatible with neighboring properties; and 8. Evidence that the business will be connected to public sewer or that onsite sewage disposal system can be approved for the business use by the Virginia Department of Health; and 9. There are adequate provisions set forth for the protection of fire, environmental and other hazards; and 10. If applicable, the applicant demonstrates compliance with state licensing requirements and all applicable federal, state and local regulations.
The Chairman declared the public hearing open.
There being no speakers, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed.
Ms. Bragg moved, seconded by Mr. Shull, that the Board accept the ordinance to add a section as presented.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Garber, Bragg, Kelley, Shull, Coleman, and Carter Nays: None
Absent: Pattie
Motion carried.
AUGUSTA COUNTY CODE – ORDINANCE TO ADD SECTION 25-74.T
This being the day and time advertised to consider an ordinance to add Section 25-74.T of the Augusta County Code to create a separate category for such use to be permitted in agriculture zones by Special Use Permit with the following conditions: appropriate for agriculture areas, compatible with neighboring properties, will not result in a concentration of businesses, frontage on a state maintained road or approval by VDOT of the intersection of a legal right of way and the state maintained road, pre-existing structures to be utilized unless new construction determined compatible with neighboring properties, reasonable limitation on expansions unless determined compatible with neighboring properties, Virginia Department of Health approval if not connected to public sewer, and adequate provisions for protection of fire, environmental and other hazards.
The Planning Commission recommends approval.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND
SECTION 25-74 OF THE
AUGUSTA COUNTY CODE
WHEREAS, the Augusta County Board of Supervisors has deemed it desirable to include Special event facilities and meeting places as a standalone Special Use Permit category in General Agriculture districts with specific conditions; and WHEREAS, the Augusta County Board of Supervisors has determined that such conditions create reasonable provisions related to the impacts associated with the use.
NOW THEREFORE be it resolved by the Board of Supervisors for Augusta County that § 25-74 of the Augusta County Code is amended to read as follows:
§ 25-74. Uses permitted by special use permit.
The uses listed in this section shall be permitted within General Agriculture Districts upon the issuance of a Special Use Permit by the board of zoning appeals pursuant to the provisions of ARTICLE LVIII of DIVISION I of this chapter.
T. Special event facilities and meeting places.
Special event facilities and meeting places, including but not necessarily limited to: wedding venues, reunion venues, meeting places and other facilities of civic, community service and fraternal organizations, may be permitted by Special Use Permit provided:
1. The business and anticipated enlargements thereof will be appropriate for agriculture areas; and 2. The business, taking into account such things as its proposed size, parking facilities, setbacks, and landscaping, will not be out of character with neighboring properties; and 3. The permitting of the proposed business, when taking into account the presence of similar businesses in the neighborhood, will not result in such concentration or clustering of businesses as to create an institutional setting or business center or otherwise change the area’s character and social structure; and 4. The business shall have frontage on a state maintained road or the expected traffic on a legal right of way easement can be accommodated by the intersection with the state maintained road per approval by the Virginia Department of Transportation; and 5. On-site traffic flow will adequately and safely accommodate all traffic to and from the public highways; and 6. Only pre-existing structures will be utilized unless the board of zoning appeals finds that proposed new construction will be compatible with neighboring properties; and 7. Reasonable limitations are imposed on the enlargement or expansion of the business. Business structures larger than four thousand (4,000) square feet or accumulated expansions by more than fifty percent (50%) shall not be permitted unless the board finds that a larger structure or expansion is compatible with neighboring properties; and 8. Evidence that the business will be connected to public sewer or that an onsite sewage disposal system can be approved for the business use by the Virginia Department of Health; and 9. There are adequate provisions set forth for the protection of fire, environmental and other hazards.
The Chairman declared the public hearing open.
There being no speakers, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed.
Ms. Bragg moved, seconded by Mr. Shull, that the Board accept the ordinance to add a section as presented.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Garber, Bragg, Kelley, Shull, Coleman, and Carter Nays: None
Absent: Pattie
Motion carried.
AUGUSTA COUNTY CODE SECTION 25 DIVISION A–AMENDMENT — CANCELLED
This being the day and time advertised to consider an ordinance to amend Chapter 25 of the Augusta County Code to add Article VI.D Solar energy systems. The proposed ordinance regulates solar energy systems operating as principal land uses. The Planning Commission recommends approval as written with recommendations.
Mr. Shull pointed out that Staff has spent a great deal of time on the ordinance amendments.
This public hearing was cancelled and will be re-held at a later date.
VERONA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
This being the day and time advertised to consider the sale of real estate (Verona Elementary School) owned by the County of Augusta.
Timothy Fitzgerald, County Administrator, stated that when the new Hugh K. Cassell Elementary School was built, the School Board decided to close Verona Elementary. It was declared surplus property and transferred to Augusta County. The County currently has a buyer interested in the property.
The Chairman declared the public hearing open.
There being no speakers, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Kelley moved, seconded by Ms. Carter, that the Board accept the sale of Verona Elementary School.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Garber, Bragg, Kelley, Shull, Coleman, and Carter Nays: None
Absent: Pattie
Motion carried.
MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC
1) Nancy Sorrels of 3419 Cold Springs, Greenville, VA made the following statement:
Good evening, I am here tonight to talk very briefly about Dominion, but not specifically about the pipeline. This time I want to address Dominion and powerline projects, both past and future.
First the past: Remember last year when Dominion “replaced” its aging transmission lines through Augusta and Rockbridge? As you know, that “replacement” was a bait and switch. Dominion misrepresented the extent of the upgrade, thus denying the public and this board an opportunity to input. Overnight those smaller, brown towers were replaced with shiny lattice towers that were many feet higher and wider and scarred our beautiful valley landscape.
And you will also recall that, in the process, dominion’s subcontractors allowed massive erosion and sediment control issues to continue unchecked for long periods of time, blasting caused damage to foundations, gravel and runoff was allowed to enter trout streams in the Shenandoah National Park, and transmission line workers used residents’ fields and forests for their own private outdoor bathroom facilities.
When residents and leaders of Rockbridge and Augusta pushed back, Dominion agreed before the State Corporation Commission to darken the towers with a product called Natina. Now we are learning that Dominion is not going to follow through on that promise in Augusta.
We at Augusta County Alliance have learned that the SCC is meeting very soon to decide on whether or not they will require Dominion to follow through on its promise to darken the towers. We have urged people to send letters this week to the SCC on the subject. I think that the Rockbridge County attorney and or the County Administrator has been in touch with their counterparts in Augusta. I just wanted to keep you all in the loop of what Augusta’s citizens are doing. Therefore I am leaving you with a copy of the letter that I sent on behalf of the Augusta County Alliance. The second letter involves the proposed upgrade to the Dooms-Valley 500 kilovolt upgrade project.
Dominion sent a letter to the Augusta County Historical Society asking for input and participation in the development of that project in regard to impact on historic resources.
It further asked us to forward the letter to other interested organizations and invited us to attend the July 13 meeting on the project.
We followed up with a letter that contained many questions and also attended the meeting at Fort Defiance. I am pleased to report that Dominion appears to be willing to learn from its mistakes and make this a more open and inclusive process as they work to complete this very essential upgrade. They seemed very willing at this point to include the historical society and others like the Valley Conservation Council, the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation, Friends of the Middle River, and the Shenandoah Valley Network into the discussion.
I am leaving you with a copy of the letter sent by the Society with the questions that we have raised. Again this is simply to keep you all in the loop and to let you know that we at the Historical Society and the other organizations are willing to help with our resources as discussions on this project continue.
As the Society noted in the letter: “While we realize the valuable infrastructure and safety needs that figure into this important upgrade to the power grid, we have unfortunately already witnessed some very negative visual impacts to historic and cultural resources and landscapes that have occurred in earlier power line upgrades.
…By working together and carefully examining the questions that we have posed, we think that this project can be a win for all by providing safe and efficient energy and protecting our valuable agricultural, scenic and cultural resources.” 2) Victor Meyer of 705 Knightly Lane, Mt. Sidney, VA made the following statement:
Good evening Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board, We are here tonight to request that the Board of Supervisors adopt a resolution opposing Dominion’s current application before the SCC, and ask that the SCC require Dominion reduce the height of all towers to the current average tower height of 111 feet, and the towers have a patina applied to reduce the glare of the proposed galvanized steel. The SCC Dooms Valley Staff Report submitted on 13 March 2018 concluded that “smaller towers could be employed while still allowing the same 500kv electrical load and transmission lines, and the 230kv underbuilt.
As follow-up to my letter to the Board of Supervisors of 13 March 2018, I wish to update you on recent events.
Specifically, the Department of Historical Resources (DHR) was offered the opportunity to comment on the Dominion Visual Effects Impact Assessment for the Dooms Valley project. DHR did an assessment; however, due to an administrative oversight, DHR failed to transmit their funding to the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) or the SCC, as required. This oversight has been corrected with a DHR letter submitted to DEQ on March 15, which stated “Impacts to Belvidere Farm in Mount Sidney Historic District and the Piedmont Battlefield will likely be moderate and mitigation is warranted.” Moderate impact is defined as view sheds with expansive views of the transmission line, more dramatic changes in the line and tower height, and/or an overall increase in the visibility of the route from the historic properties. The highest rating of Severe is for view sheds that do not have existing transmission lines. In their letter, DHR recommended “Avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation of moderate to severe impacts to VLR/NRHP-eligible/listed resources by Dominion in consultation with DHR and other stakeholders. This recommendation has been posted to the SCC website.
All this happened just two weeks ago due to my diligence and direct intervention.
The Visual Effect Assessment was limited to the Public Right of Way, not the Manor House, Schoolhouse, or barn where the farm’s agriculture activities are taking place or where future business activities are planned. Of the five eligible sites impacted by the project, Belvidere Farm is by far worst affected visually, and is also the only site where there is significant business activity taking place.
The State Corporation Commission (SCC) has documents on the already completed Lexington to Dooms Valley project leg that paint a troubling picture:
• Dominion misrepresented the true height of the proposed towers during the Public Hearing phase of the project approval process. They communicated that the average height would be 144’ tall, but in point of fact the towers were always going to be 176’ tall. The current average tower height is 111’. 2030-2034 timeframe, not an actual electrical demand study. This need is highly suspect in view of recently passed Virginia legislation making it easier for utilities to build renewable energy projects, in U.S. Code restricting or eliminating coal-fired plants. The Mount Storm West Virginia plant, which is the source of electrical power for the Transmission Lines, is coal-fired. This yet unknown growth in electrical demand is driven by industrial users in North Caroline – not Augusta County or the Shenandoah Valley.
• Dominion failed to disclose the use of aircraft balls during the Public Hearing phase.
• Dominion failed to apply a patina to the towers to diminish the glare of their galvanized steel finish; this was outlined in their proposal and communicated to the public during the Public Hearing phase; however they willfully violated an SCC order to make it right.
• Dominion has admitted to misleading the SCC and the public in documented statements.
Belvidere has a rich history and is a National Historic Landmark Eligible property. It is on the battlefield where the Battle of Piedmont was fought in 1864. It was occupied by both sides during the battle and served as a Confederate hospital in which at least one soldier died, and as Union headquarters for General Hunter with hundreds of Union troops bivouacked in the front yard. According to Augusta County archives, 2nd Lt.
William McKinley, later President of the United States, spared the barn from being burned during the Shenandoah Valley Campaign.
Ruth Bell Graham, wife of Billy Graham who recently passed away, was from the McCue-Bell family that built Belvidere and lived there for five generations. Ruth and Billy spent summer vacations at Belvidere for many years. Grandma Moses also occupied Belvidere in the early years before moving on to Kansas.
With Belvidere’s rich history in mind, and the bad experience of the Lexington to Dooms Valley project, we ask that the Augusta County Board of Supervisors adopt a resolution opposing Dominion’s current application before the SCC, and ask that the SCC require Dominion reduce the height of all towers to the current average tower height of 111- feet, and the towers have a patina applied to reduce the glare of the proposed galvanized steel. The SCC Dooms Valley Staff Report submitted on 13 March 2018 concluded that “smaller towers could be employed while still allowing the same 500kv electrical load and transmission lines, and the 230kv underbuild.” The growth and profits of Dominion Energy should not be balanced on the backs of farmers, landowners, and homeowners of Augusta County.
I will forward this statement to the SCC as part of the Public Hearing phase of the transmission line approval process and ask that it be included as an artefact in the official minutes of this proceeding.
Mr. Fitzgerald discussed with the Board the options of sending the letter concerning this issue. Staff could draft a letter for the Board’s approval and the sent to SCC.
3) Chris Baumann of 700 Branch Lane, Raphine, stated that he has been involved in litigation with Dominion for the past three years regarding the Lexington-Dooms line project. He provided comments to the BZA which spoke about the way Dominion has acted towards the residents of this County and the prior County Administrator. It is important to take the opportunity presented to address the Dooms-Valley Tower project.
The suggestions from Mr. Meyers and Ms. Sorrells are not taking a stance as to whether the powerline should be there. The project needs to be done, but do it in a manner that it doesn’t harm the scenic beauty of the area and no environmental harm.
Mr. Baumann assumed the SCC regulated the utilities. The SCC has been involved in several cases that has gone to the VA Supreme Court. One of those cases is Floyd County. In a transmission line situation when a utility company says they would like to rebuild a transmission line, the SCC would require environmental impact statements, confirmation from VDOT and DHR. In Floyd County, the SCC said they weren’t responsible for asking questions or following up on anything from a DEQ report. The Supreme Court agreed with the SCC so now state agencies have to individually make recommendations that the SCC is not bound to follow, adopt or follow-up on.
Therefore, if Dominion misrepresents what they will do to a state agency there is very little the SCC says it can do. Highland County also had a case that involved a wind facility. The County Board voted to approve permits for the wind facility and part of the vote, the words scenic impact was used. There is a statute that states if a local Board takes action, all SCC rights, obligations and ability to do anything about the process are waived. In the Highland County case, no one could look at the scenic impacts because the County Board had taken action. SCC has seeded its regulatory authority and walked away from obligations. As a result of this, the regulatory responsibility has been pushed to the Counties. While it is a burden and a resource issue, it’s also an opportunity. The Augusta County Board is being given an opportunity, because of the way the SCC functions, to step up for the citizens because the SCC is not going to.
Finally, to the west there are lots of resources and scenic beauty. To the east there are ports who have large cities that want the resources and companies such as Dominion are watching counties like Augusta and Rockbridge trying to figure out where they can push through with the least amount resistance. The counties that do not stand up to protect are the ones targeted. A letter would show the SCC that the Augusta County Board of Supervisors is watching out for their citizens.
Ms. Bragg stated that the letter needed to include the concern on the wires, the colors, the towers, the lines, the minimal size and we request the time period be extended so it can be studied further.
Mr. Baumann suggested stating that additional time is needed. The Staff Report from the SCC stated that the towers do not need to be taller. It is reasonable to ask for an extension of time.
Ms. Bragg moved, seconded by Mr. Kelley, that the Board authorize a letter be drafted and it be sent to the Board for review before it is sent.
Mr. Coleman is open to hear from the other Board members whose areas are impacted. As stated previously, these lines go through downtown Fishersville and there has not been one comment on them. Mr. Coleman understands he is in an urban area and a lot of the objections are coming from the rural parts of the County.
Mother Nature has taken the shine off of the towers in his area. He is open to the will of the Board on sending a letter.
Mr. Kelley stated that the least amount of impact is best for the County no matter what direction is taken.
Ms. Bragg is disappointed that a letter was not sent previously.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Garber, Bragg, Kelley, Shull, Coleman, and Carter Nays: None
Absent: Pattie
Motion carried.
Mr. Fitzgerald handed out to the Board, a response from Dominion to a letter from Mr. Meyer. He also informed the Board, that during a meeting with Dominion, he learned there is more of the same coming. Mr. Fitzgerald gave the Board a copy of a map of the next phase of the project which will have an SCC filing in July 2018 for the Valley to Mount Storm Tower Rebuild Project. This does include a small portion of Augusta County. There will be public meetings held and construction will begin in 2020.
4) Chuck Wilson of 65 Aiden Circle Fishersville, VA is concerned about the Woodrow Wilson Small Area Study. He purchased land and a house in that area several years ago. Option B and Option C will cut through his land and he does not want that to happen. Option A would take Government land and is a more desirable option. Option B and C are more expensive than option A. A piece of the Small Area Study discusses adding an additional lane going from Rt. 250 to the Elementary School and he would like that additional lane to extend all the way up to Hornet Drive because of heavy traffic. There is a need to add a right turn lane coming out of the complex to go west on Rt. 250. A traffic circle at the intersection of Hornet Drive and Woodrow Wilson has been discussed and he feels this is a poor plan for that area. He purchased property in that area because it is quiet and adding more traffic will add to the noise. This will decrease the value of his property.
AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY BOARD FUND REQUEST
The Board considered a request from the Agriculture Industry Board to transfer $5,160.00 to the Market Animal Show and Sale to use in operating the 2018 event.
Jerry Cleveland, Agriculture Industry Board member, stated that he not only represents the Beverley Manor District on the Ag Industry Board, he is also on the Market Animal Show board and represents the Woodrow Wilson District Ruritans. Mr. Cleveland read the letter presented to the Board in the Agenda Package requesting the transfer of $5,160.00 from the Agriculture Industry Board to the Market Animal Show. Mr. Cleveland extended an invitation to the Board to visit the Market Animal Show on May 3, 4 and 5 at Expo.
Mr. Kelley moved, seconded by Mr. Coleman, that the Board approve the transfer of $5,160.00 from the Agriculture Industry Board to the Market Animal Show and Sale.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Garber, Bragg, Kelley, Shull, Coleman, and Carter Nays: None
Absent: Pattie
Motion carried.
RECREATION MATCHING GRANT REQUEST
The Board considered funding to assist with Phase 1 of the development of a new Primary Playground at Cassell Elementary School.
Funding Source: Wayne P&R Matching Grant 80000-8027-44 $15,000.00 Middle River P&R Matching Grant 80000-8022-51 $15,000.00 Mr. Garber asked Ms. Bragg to handle this item as he had to abstain from the discussion due to the fact that his wife is the Principle of the school.
Ms. Bragg stated that there is a request to provide a matching grant to assist in phase 1 in developing a new Primary Playground at Cassell Elementary School. The total amount for requested is $30,000.00 with $15,000.00 coming from the Wayne Parks and Recreation Matching Grant fund and $15,000.00 coming from the Middle River Parks and Recreation Matching Grant fund.
Mr. Coleman stated that this request comes from the PTO of Cassell Elementary. The organization has raised a little over $20,000.00. Mr. Coleman has been working closely with the PTO and supports the funding request.
Mr. Coleman moved, seconded by Ms. Carter, that the Board approve the funding for phase 1 development of the new Primary Playground.
Ms. Carter would like to clarify for the minutes that Mr. Garber will be abstaining from voting due to a conflict of interest.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Bragg, Kelley, Shull, Coleman, and Carter Nays: None
Absent: Pattie
Abstain: Garber Motion carried.
WATERSHED PROJECT CLOSEOUT
The Board considered the South River and Lower North River Watershed project closeouts.
Jennifer Whetzel, Deputy County Administrator, stated that in January the Board had discussed closing out the South River and the Lower North River Watershed agreements with NRCS. All of the area sponsors have agreed to close both out. The resolution reads:
Now, therefore, the Secretary of Agriculture through the NRCS and the Sponsors hereby agree upon the following modifications of the terms, conditions, and stipulations of said watershed agreement; (1) All flood control and land treatment measures planned for the Lower North River or the South River Watershed, but not installed, are hereby deleted from the planned works of improvement. This action closes out the project.
This is the official agreement the NRCS has sent. Mr. Fitzgerald will sign the agreement with the Board’s approval and if any of the projects come up in the future a separate plan could be presented.
Ms. Bragg moved, seconded by Mr. Shull, that the Board accept the watershed project closeouts and authorize the County Administrator to sign the agreement.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Garber, Bragg, Kelley, Shull, Coleman, and Carter Nays: None
Absent: Pattie
Motion carried.
WOODROW WILSON REHAB CENTER STUDY
The Board considered recommendations for the WWRC Small Area Study.
Leslie Tate, Planner, gave a brief overview of the Wilson Workforce Rehabilitation Small Area Study associated with relieving traffic congestion on Route 250 and Woodrow Wilson Avenue and creating the possibility for a secondary access.
Some of the existing conditions are the queues that back up to Barren Ridge Road during the school AM peak hour. The level of service is E with a delay of more than 75 seconds per vehicle. The southbound right turn lane from Woodrow Wilson to Route 250 queues extend back to the elementary school in both the AM and PM peak hours.
This blocks the left turn and through traffic. The movement fails at a level of service F with a delay of more than 90 seconds per vehicle on average. Also, there is no secondary or emergency access point.
There was a stakeholders meeting in March 2017 and an initial public meeting in June 2017. The transportation consultant did onsite observations in September once school was back in session. This study has developed short and long term improvement options. The short term focusing on Route 250, Wilson Avenue, Lifecore Drive and the long term focusing on the secondary access point. A second public meeting was held in January 2018 and a final recommendations report will be accepted by the Staunton-Augusta-Waynesboro MPO at their next meeting.
The goal of the short term options is to alleviate congestion at the intersection, minimize delay and queues during the AM and PM peak hours and preserve the existing multi-use path and the pedestrian amenities. Short term options are a channelized, free-flow westbound right turn lane and associated northbound receiving lane, and separate southbound right turn lane and signal timing adjustments. Ms. Tate showed a map on the screen of the short term improvements. The additional lane could go to the elementary school and it could also run to the round-a-bout which is not a part of this study. The round-a-bout is an already approve Smart Scale Funding Project that was funded in the last round of Smart Scale. An additional turn lane going west on Route 250 has also been recommended. A high level planning cost estimate in 2018 dollars ranges from $1.5 to $1.8 million for those improvements.
The goals of the long term options are to alleviate congestion at the existing entrance and provide a secondary emergency access and provide access to adjacent undeveloped parcels. Ms. Tate showed a map on the screen pointing out the different options. Option A is approximately 3,700 feet long and provides direct access to the Wilson Workforce Rehabilitation Center, provides relief for the eastbound left in AM and southbound right AM and PM hours and provides access to adjacent undeveloped parcels and majority of the right-of-way is across state owned property. An intersection control on US 250 is still to be determined. Site distance on US 250 is somewhat limited by the vertical curve. Option A does not provide relief for the heavy westbound traffic in the AM peak hour, but the transportation consultant confirmed that if the short term improvements are made, the westbound traffic backup will be alleviated. A high level cost estimate in 2026 dollars is $13.3 to $16.1 million. Option B is approximately 3,900 feet long and provides access to the middle and high school, provides relief for the heavy westbound traffic in the AM peak hour, intersection control on US 250 because there is no existing signal, site distance on US 250 is limited by vertical curve, will require obtaining right-of-way on private property. High level cost estimate in 2026 dollars is $13.3 to $16.6 million. Option C is approximately 5,000 feet long. It utilizes an existing traffic signal at US 250/Barren Ridge Road/Mule Academy Road intersection. This option provides access to the middle and high school, and relief for the heavy westbound traffic. This is the longest option by more than 1,000 feet and has some significant topographical challenges. Right-of-way from private property will need to be obtained and is the most expensive. The high level cost estimate in 2026 dollars is $19.7 to $23.7 million.
At the public hearing meeting held in January, there was support of the short term recommendations. The community felt they would help alleviate some of the AM and PM peak hour backups. There was overwhelming support for Option A as a long term recommendation option.
James Earhart of 1426 Jefferson Highway, Fishersville, owns property on the corner of US 250. Option B and Option C will greatly affect his property. Mr. Earhart is in favor of Option A and it is the only option that makes sense. It’s shorter, it’s the cheapest of the three options and the land is already paid for. He would like it to go on record that he fully supports Option A.
George Gadette stated that his property adjoins the area of Option B and Option C. At the meeting that was held on January 31, there was unanimous support for anything other than Option B and C. Also, it has been discovered that the upgrades necessary to Barren Ridge was not mentioned in the budget given by Timmons Group.
Barren Ridge is a country road and would need significant improvements to accommodate Option C.
Mr. Coleman appreciates the property owners being present. He has been involved with this project from the start.
Mr. Coleman moved, seconded by Mr. Shull, that the Board accept the study completed by Timmons Group and accept Option A as the long term alternative to provide a second access to the Woodrow Wilson Complex.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Garber, Bragg, Kelley, Shull, Coleman, and Carter Nays: None
Absent: Pattie
Motion carried.
SMART SCALE
The Board considered transportation projects for Smart Scale Round 3 applications.
Ms. Tate, stated that the Smart Scale applications, which is the competitive process for funding new roads and improvements in the State of Virginia, has opened and the pre- applications are due June 1, 2018 with the final applications being due August 1, 2018.
Direction from the Board is needed concerning applications for staff to pursue. The County is limited based on population size, to four final applications. The pre-application process will allow more than four. Related to the Woodrow Wilson Workforce Study, staff recommends applying for the short term recommendations from the study as one application, and the long term Option A as a second application. A third application is one that was applied for in the last round and funding was not received. It was for a widening of Route 256 on Weyers Cave Road. It is approximately .8 of a mile and is an existing two lane road and it was proposed for a four lane divided roadway. There also is a Park and Ride which includes 50-60 spaces. The other improvements with the turn lanes have previously been funded through the last round of Smart Scale.
Mr. Coleman moved, seconded by Mr. Shull, that the Board approve submission of the 3 Smart Scale applications as recommended by staff.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Garber, Bragg, Kelley, Shull, Coleman, and Carter Nays: None
Absent: Pattie
Motion carried.
WAIVERS– NONE
MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY THE BOARD
Ms. Bragg requests that the Board send, for review of the Ordinance Committee, a draft protest assembly permit.
Ms. Bragg moved, seconded by Mr. Shull, that the Board re-appoint the following, effective immediately:
Alphonso Boxley, III Economic Development Authority Expires 3/28/2022 Vote was as follows: Yeas: Garber, Bragg, Kelley, Shull, Coleman, and Carter Nays: None
Absent: Pattie
Motion carried.
Ms. Carter attended the VACo New Supervisors Orientation. Counties were encouraged to write a letter to the Governor asking him to veto the bill that was passed regarding the cell towers.
Mr. Fitzgerald stated that staff would recommend it.
Ms. Carter moved, seconded by Ms. Bragg, that Board approve submitting a letter to the Governor asking him to veto the legislation that was passed.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Garber, Bragg, Kelley, Shull, Coleman, and Carter Nays: None
Absent: Pattie
Ms. Carter also stated that she has a meeting with Dr. Kornegay, Director of the Health Department, to discuss the activities that are taking place regarding the opioid crisis around the Country. She would like to continue the dialogue and bring back recommendations to the Board.
Mr. Shull stated that the doors at Riverheads Fire Department are not working again.
This is an ongoing problem with this company.
Mr. Fitzgerald stated that it would be taken care of.
Mr. Garber commended the airport on their preparation and training for the new service provider. He thanked the public for the way they handled themselves while speaking.
MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY STAFF
Timothy Fitzgerald, County Administrator discussed the following issues:
1) Previously there was a public hearing on the Buffalo Gap property regarding the County owned house and agricultural land to lease or sale the house. The FFA teacher has livestock on the farm and the Board requested a Lease Agreement be created. James Benkahla, County Attorney drafted a lease agreement and it has been completed. Payment has been received with yearly rent being set at $322.00. Board’s approval is needed to finalize the process.
Ms. Carter moved, seconded by Mr. Coleman, that the Board approve lease agreement.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Garber, Bragg, Kelley, Shull, Coleman, and Carter Nays: None
Absent: Pattie
Motion carried.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no other business to come before the Board, Ms. Bragg moved, seconded by Mr. Kelley, the Board adjourn subject to call of the Chairman.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Garber, Bragg, Kelley, Shull, Coleman, and Carter Nays: None
Absent: Pattie
Motion carried.
Chairman County Administrator
h:03-28min.18
