County Planning Commission work session hears objections from wine growers

By Tarpley Ashworth
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Thursday, November 12, 2009

The Albemarle County Planning Commission held an informal work session on Tuesday, November 10th to discuss how best to bring local zoning regulations in line with an updated state law concerning farm wineries. The Virginia General Assembly added language in 2009 to an existing farm winery law which mandated that localities take into account the potential economic effects on the wineries when considering regulation. The state also required that farm wineries be permitted to engage in activities that are “usual” and “customary” for wineries, such as tastings and hosting wedding receptions. Ever since this provision was revised, County staff has been working on changing relevant regulations to reflect these requirements.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: 20091111-APA-Farm-Wineries

Planning Commissioners, farmers and winery owners listen as the proposed ordinance is discussed

Wayne Cilimberg, the County’s Director of Planning, proposed an amendment to Albemarle’s zoning rules which he said would clear up confusion while also following state law. His proposal defines that “customary” winery activities include fruit harvesting, the sale and shipment of wine, hosting private gatherings and festivals, and tastings and tours among other activities. But the draft regulation requires that all of these activities take place during normal business hours, which is defined by the County as being between 9:00 am and 6:00 pm, and be limited to no more than 50 people.

The draft regulation would allow a farm winery to obtain a one-time zoning ordinance which allows them to operate outside normal business hours and at a maximum capacity of 200 persons. If wineries wish to host events having more than 200 people, the draft ordinance would require them to obtain a special use permit. The proposed rule change also expressly prohibits wineries from opening restaurants on their property.

Amelia McCulley, the County’s Zoning Administrator, told winery representatives that the application for a “zoning clearance” was fairly simple and would need to be completed only once by the winery. The application includes questions about the proposed use, frequency and duration of use, parking, sanitation, and temporary structures. The application fee is currently $35.

Cilimberg said that the application was necessary since it concerned events which “may make substantial impact” to the surrounding community, including neighbors and drivers. He also noted that these regulations were thorough because they applied to rural areas within the county, which are more protected than development areas.

Commissioner Calvin Morris (Rivanna), who chaired the work session, questioned the exclusion of restaurants on farm winery property.

“It seems that we’re almost providing restaurant facilities, but not permitting them,” said Morris, referring to the fact that catering, picnics, and appetizers are permitted in the draft.

Cilimberg responded that the restaurant prohibition was based on a distinction between activities which are accessories to wineries, and those which aren’t. He said more casual food like appetizers were considered an accessory, but that a separate commercial operation, such as a restaurant, was not.

Matt Conrad of the Virginia Wine Council, who spoke during the work session, called the draft legislation a “paradox” since the state had just issued, in his words, a “burden-shifting paradigm” which placed the burden on the County to prove that such regulation was necessary. Conrad took issue specifically with restricting farm wineries’ hours of operations, particularly since there was no mention of such restriction in state legislation.

“We know that the folks in Albemarle County are very reasonable. But there may come a time where we can’t always be certain who will be at the helm in the county,” said Conrad. “So we want assurances in this ordinance that the things that the General Assembly has allowed us to do will be permitted without obstruction.”

David King of King Family Vineyards told the group about his personal experiences of trying to get a special use permit from the County for his vineyard in 2007. He said the conditions of the permit would have “put us out of business” and so he helped pursue the new legislation.

Charlotte Shelton of Albemarle CiderWorks echoed previous concerns about the restricted operating hours. She said it was extremely hard to accurately predict the number of visitors for a certain event and that normal business hours should, at the very least, be defined by season since this influences turnout.

Neil Williamson of the Free Enterprise Forum called for the regulations to be tabled indefinitely because they would disrupt farm wineries’ customer traffic and profit.

“I think this should be a dead document,” said Williamson. “I would hate to see the County spend what limited funds it has to pursue a chapter that is only going to be mired in litigation in the future.”

Morgan Butler, an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, was the only public speaker to defend the proposed regulations.

“The tricky balance is making sure the uses allowed are supplemental to the winery,” said Butler. “[Some] could have a substantial impact of public welfare.”

Greg Kamptner, the Deputy County Attorney, said that the county has struggled with determining what uses qualify as “usual” and “customary” since the state did not define these terms in the farm winery legislation. He also said that the County determined the normal hours of operation by surveying all the farm wineries in the county for their specific hours. He reported that the 9 am to 6 pm timeframe was actually more broad than any winery’s actual hours of operation.

Cilimberg clarified that the 50 person limit only applied to wineries’ supplemental activities and not to their regular business. He also said that the County was open to rethinking the limit on visitors and hours of operation and stated that the final decision about the details would be made by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.

Morris ended the meeting by acknowledging that the input was “very informative” in helping the Commission formulate the regulations. Cilimberg said that planners would take the discussion into consideration as they finalize the proposal for future review by the Planning Commission.

Council expands Belmont commercial zone by one property

By Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow   
Tuesday, July 7, 2009

The Charlottesville City Council has voted to rezone 814 Hinton Avenue in the City’s Belmont neighborhood from residential to Neighborhood Commercial Corridor (NCC). The owners of the property have plans to convert their home into a restaurant. The rezoning came despite opposition from some in the Belmont neighborhood who say the increasing number of commercial uses on Hinton Avenue is affecting their quality of life. Council’s vote was 3-2 with Councilors Satyendra Huja and Julian Taliaferro voting against the project.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090706-CC-Belmont

Council voted 3-2 to approve the rezoning of 814 Hinton Avenue

The NCC zoning district was created in the late 1940’s to encourage business in both Belmont and the Fontaine Road area.  Over the past few years, the Belmont corridor has emerged as a dining and entertainment destination, with several restaurants opening in former commercial buildings and former residences. The Belmont Barbecue is among the latter, operating in a building at 816 Hinton Avenue.

Andrew Ewell is one of the owners of 814 Hinton Avenue. In testimony to the Charlottesville Planning Commission, he reasoned that because the NCC corridor ends at Belmont Barbeque four feet from his property, he should be allowed the opportunity to join the commercial zoning. Ewell said his property would be a more natural buffer with the residential zone because there are 28 feet between his house and the next one further up Hinton Avenue.

However, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the rezoning at their meeting on May 12, 2009. They did so in part because some members of the neighborhood had expressed concern that the commercial uses were becoming too concentrated. Yet, the City Council indicated their support for the rezoning when the item came before them for a first reading on June 1, 2009. At that time, Mayor Dave Norris acknowledged the concerns of the neighborhood, and directed staff to work with key stakeholders to work out solutions created by the increased commercial use.

The item’s second reading was postponed to Council’s meeting on July 6, 2009. Because the public hearing had already been held, Council did not have to take further public input. However, several opponents of the rezoning took the opportunity to discuss the proposal during matters from the public at the beginning of the Council meeting.

Tomas Rahal, the owner and chef of the Mas Tapas Bar, called on the City’s Neighborhood Development Services department to spend more time addressing the issues of traffic, vandalism, and excessive noise. He said Mas is working with the neighborhood to promote “a pro-family, residential character in all of our plans going forward.” Rahal said he wanted Council to regulate amplified music outdoors, called for additional bike patrols, and to require nightclubs to keep their doors closed when live music is playing.  Rahal did not publicly comment one way or the other on the rezoning of 814 Hinton Avenue.

Allison Ruffner, a Belmont resident, said she has grown frustrated by the increasing commercial activity in her neighborhood. She said she has been personally threatened and her property has been vandalized. During her testimony, Ruffner read from the description of the NCC corridor from the City Code:

“The intent of the Neighborhood Commercial Corridor district is to establish a zoning classification for the Fontaine and Belmont commercial areas that recognize their compact nature, their pedestrian orientation, and the small neighborhood nature of the businesses. This zoning district recognizes the areas as small town center type commercial areas and provides for the ability to develop on small lots with minimal parking dependent upon pedestrian access. The regulations recognize the character of the existing area and respect that they are neighborhood commercial districts located within established residential neighborhoods.”

Ruffner said the Planning Commission had recommended denial because the NCC corridor is becoming a “monoculture” with only one type of commercial use being promoted. She said there are other commercial properties in the existing NCC corridor that could be developed if the applicant so chose. Ruffner said families with children have moved out of the neighborhood because of the noise generated at some of those restaurants.

Fellow Belmont resident Eleanor Biasiolli said the rezoning would remove one more residence from the City’s housing stock. She said the neighborhood would bear the brunt of the rezoning by giving up more parking.

“Your decision to make on any rezonings will send a message to the Charlottesville community as to your priorities and your goals,” Biasiolli said.

COUNCIL TAKES UP THE REZONING

On June 1, Mayor Dave Norris said his support was contingent upon NDS staff working with the neighborhood to address their concerns. City Planner Brian Haluska said he has met with Jesse Fiske, the President of the Belmont-Carlton Neighborhood Association. Together, they’ve met with city traffic planners as well as Police Chief Tim Longo. There will be a meeting on July 13, 2009 between planners and the neighborhood in the basement conference room at City Hall.  Traffic counts are being gathered so planners have data on which to base the next steps.

Norris also asked if the proffers being made by the applicant would be in place if the property changes hands. Haluska said future owners are bound by the proffers, which are to maintain a vegetated buffer, not to expand past the building’s existing footprint, and not to offer amplified music.

Councilor Satyendra Huja said he was impressed by the sincerity of the applications, but did not think he could support the rezoning for several reasons. First, he said rezoning was against the spirit of the City’s comprehensive plan. Second, he said rezoning would contradict the reason why the NCC zone was created. Third, he said there were other available properties zoned commercial in the NCC zone. Fourth, he said the rezoning would not benefit the neighborhood.

Councilor Julian Taliaferro said he would not support the rezoning because the precedent it would set would make it harder for future Councils to deny requests to rezone residential land to commercial. He also said the neighborhood is already stressed by the commercial uses that are already allowed.

Councilor David Brown said the issues experienced by the Belmont neighborhood had come to Council’s attention due to this rezoning, but that he thought those issues were somewhat separate from the merits whether or not to change the zoning for 814 Hinton Avenue.

“Those issues will be there whether this property is changed or not, and these issues in my mind will not be dramatically affected by this one piece of property being changed,” Brown said. He said he supported NDS’s outreach to the neighborhood, but supported Ewell’s claim that his property would be a more fitting buffer between residential and commercial zones. Mayor Dave Norris agreed with both of Brown’s arguments.

Councilor Holly Edwards said she thought having businesses in the neighborhood made it safer and provided job opportunities. She said she wished other parts of the City, such as 6th Street S.E., had the ability to have commercial uses mixed in with homes.

“I would rather see more businesses on 6th Street than the violence that I’ve seen on my block,” Edwards said.

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST:

• 01:00 – Public comment from Tomas Rahal, owner and chef of Mas Tapas Bar
• 04:30 – Public comment from Allison Ruffner, Belmont resident
• 08:02 – Public comment from Eleanor Biasiolli, Belmont resident
• 11:10 – Staff report from Brian Haluska
• 11:30 – Norris asks Haluska to update him on outreach efforts from NDS to Belmont neighborhood
• 14:00 – Haluska says the proffers made with the rezoning would be binding for next owners
• 15:30 – Councilor Satyendra Huja comments on why he will not support rezoning
• 19:42 – Councilor Julian Taliaferro comments on why he will not support rezoning
• 20:15 – Councilor David Brown comments on why he will support rezoning
• 22:00 – Councilor Holly Edwards comments on why she will support rezoning
• 24:30 – Mayor Dave Norris indicates why he will support rezoning

Rezoning for new Belmont restaurant likely to be approved

By Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Tuesday, June 2, 2009

Charlottesville’s Belmont neighborhood is likely to get another restaurant as Charlottesville City Council appears poised to expand Belmont’s commercial district.  A majority of City Councilors indicated their support to rezone 814 Hinton Avenue from residential to Neighborhood Commercial Corridor (NCC) zoning at their meeting on June 1, 2009.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090601-CC-Belmont-Rezoning

The Planning Commission had recommended denial of the rezoning at its meeting on May 12, 2009 on a 4-2 vote. City Planner Brian Haluska told Council the Commission was receptive to neighborhood concerns that Belmont’s evolution as a restaurant district has caused traffic, parking and noise problems for residents.

The NCC designation was given to the area in 1949 with the boundary for Hinton Avenue being set between 814 and 816 Hinton Avenue. In the past 5 years, 816 Hinton has been developed from a residence into the Belmont Barbecue restaurant, and the owners of 814 had argued before the Planning Commission that they had lost the ability to enjoy their property as a residence. In their request before the Commission in May, they made several proffers to address neighborhood concerns.

• The property’s use would be restricted to a restaurant
• A landscaped buffer would be built to the west of 814 Hinton to create a more distinct separation between the proposed new boundary of NCC and residential zoning
• Amplified music would not be allowed at the new restaurant

Attorney Andrew Sneathern (right) shows Councilors photographs demonstrating the close proximity of his clients' house to the adjoining restaurant

Attorney Andrew Sneathern, representing the owners of 814 Hinton, told Council that the NCC designation was created in order to give City residents a commercial hub within walking distance. He said that 60 years later, that logic now has an environmental benefit to it as well. He said the existing boundary between 814 and 816 is against the principles embedded in the City’s zoning ordinances.

“One of the objectives of the [NCC] corridor is to have a place where people want to walk, not to increase parking, but rather to reduce the necessity to have people get in their car and drive to a destination,” Sneathern said. He said an extension of the NCC zoning, as well as the applicant’s willingness to create a buffer, would be appropriate.

Mayor Dave Norris asked Haluska if he thought the rezoning of 814 Hinton would create a precedent that would encourage other residences to apply for rezoning. Haluska said while any owner could decide to go through the rezoning process, 814 Hinton contains a lot of open space between it and the next house over, allowing for the buffer to be created.

Norris, who was in attendance at the May public hearing before the Planning Commission, said he felt many of the opponents of the rezoning were using the rezoning of 814 Hinton as an opportunity to raise serious concerns about how their neighborhood has been transformed. With their concerns in mind, he
asked Haluska what the City could do to address their concerns. Haluska suggested that the City could tighten up its noise ordinance, and mentioned that the Belmont-Carlton Neighborhood Association is looking at options to address parking and traffic.

Customers enjoy a meal on the patio at Belmont BBQ at 816 Hinton Avenue. Soon, the house directly behind will be the location for the new Southern Crescent restaurant, which will feature French cuisine

Councilor David Brown said that he agreed with the comments, made by Planning Commission Chairman Jason Pearson, that rezoning the property would create a more natural buffer. However, he also said the neighborhood concerns are serious, but Brown announced he would support the rezoning.

Councilor Holly Edwards said since the May Planning Commission meeting, she has frequently visited the Belmont neighborhood and noticed that she saw many of the opponents sitting and eating at the outdoor patios at the various restaurants. Edwards said she struggled with her decision because the Belmont neighborhood already appears to be a thriving alternative to downtown. She said her support was contingent on the community coming together to address parking and traffic concerns.

Norris agreed with Edwards, and he said ‘clear actions’ needed to be taken by City staff and the neighborhood association.

“But I don’t feel that it’s appropriate to hold this particular applicant hostage to some of the broader concerns, so I will be supporting the rezoning,” Norris said.

The rezoning’s second reading will be held on June 15, 2009.

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST

• 01:00 – Staff report from City Planner Brian Haluska
• 02:00 – Comments from Andrew Sneathern, attorney representing owners of 814 Hinton Avenue
• 07:20 – Mayor Dave Norris asks a series of questions
• 14:00 – Public comments from Councilor Holly Edwards as well as a question about zoning
• 17:40 – City Attorney Craig Brown answers a question about spot-zoning and says the rezoning of 814 Hinton would not meet the definition
• 19:45 – Councilor Brown makes public comments and indicates his support
• 23:00 – Norris says he will also support the rezoning, but only if neighborhood concerns are addressed

Planning commission reshapes City’s definition of a bed and breakfast

Inn at Court Square in downtown Charlottesville

The Charlottesville Planning Commission voted during their meeting on January 13, 2009 to recommend a new ordinance that would provide some clarity and precision to the City’s legal definition of a Bed and Breakfast. The discussion was precipitated by last year’s by-right acceptance of a 27-room lodging facility on Oakhurst Circle under the zoning category of a “Bed and Breakfast.” The new ordinance is intended to provide some objective criteria for these uses, particularly in residential neighborhoods throughout the city.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090113-CPC-B-B

The proposed ordinance will create a three-tiered system with the following options:

Bed and Breakfast “homestay”:

• No more than three guest rooms
• Owner occupied and managed
• Food service is limited to breakfast and light fare for guests only
• Maximum length of stay limited to 90 days out of 365
• Allowed in all zoning districts

Bed and Breakfast:

• No more than eight guestrooms
• Owner occupied and managed, or occupied by a residential manager
• Food service is limited to breakfast and light fare
• Maximum length of stay limited to 90 days out of 365
• By-right in R3 and above, Special use permit in R1 and R2

Bed and Breakfast “Inn”:

• No more than fifteen guestrooms
• Owner occupied and managed, or occupied by a residential manager
• Food service may be provided
• Maximum length of stay limited to 90 days out of 365
• Special use permit in R2 and above.

In the Commission’s pre-meeting gathering, the fact that residents are already free to rent rooms from their homes without the B&B designation was discussed. The proposed ordinance will not add any new restrictions to homeowners who simply wish to rent rooms out of their house, even for long periods of time. In fact, as Commission Chairman Jason Pearson clarified, it would be technically possible to have certain rooms in a household considered as a Bed and Breakfast and others considered as a standard residential room rental.

The commissioners were in broad agreement on the motion, with a few exceptions. Commissioner Dan Rosensweig would have liked to see Bed and Breakfast “Inns” allowable not just in R2 zones, but also in R1 by Special Use Permit. However, this difference was not substantial enough to preclude his affirmative vote. The City zoning code defines both R1 and R2 as “quiet, low-density residential areas,” with the difference being that R2 zones allow a slightly broader variety of housing types. Commissioner Bill Emory, on the other hand, did vote against the proposal. He pointed out that 11 of the 12 commissioners and councilors actually live in R1 neighborhoods, and he inferred that it was unfair to subject residents in R2 zones to the possibility of a 15-room inn while forbidding it in their own neighborhoods.

The ordinance in its complete form will be presented to City Council at an upcoming meeting.

Daniel Nairn

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST

2:00 – Staff Ms. Walden introduces the proposed ordinance
8:30 - Commissioner Lewis questions how this would affect residential homestays
15:10 – Councilor Huja wants to know why B&Bs would be allowed in R2 zone; restaurant/B&B combinations
18:40 – Joyce Casmodic, B&B homestay director, speaks at public hearing
25:10 – Candice Sloan, B&B Innkeeper, speaks at public hearing, questioned by Commission
32:50 – Commissioner Keller asks about the use of signs in B&Bs
33:50 – The Difference between “B&B Inn” and “Hotel”
39:40 – Commissioner Farruggio wants to loosen some restrictions; expand stay times to 90 days, allow more meal service
49:20 – Commissioner Pearson praises this mix of uses in residential areas
51:10 – Commissioner Emory wants to allow possibility for inns in R1
59:40 – Commissioner Lewis requests room increase for homestays to three
1:05:00 - Motion made by Commissioner Farruggio
1:10:40 – Commissioner Osteen considers possibility of students moving in
1:15:55 – More discussion on Inns in R1 and R2.
1:21:05 – Motion passes; Emory only dissent.