HomeMy WebLinkAboutWPO201700075 Review Comments WPO VSMP 2019-04-29COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
VSMP Permit Plan Review (Amendment)
Project title:
VSMP Plan Amendment for Crozet Court
Project file number:
WP0201700075 (Amendment 1)
Plan preparer:
Shimp Engineering [ justinAshimp-engineering com ]
Owner or rep.:
Stony Point Design/Build LLC
Chris Henry [ chenry�abstonypointdb.com ]
Plan received date:
15 Mar 2019
Date of comments:
29 Apr 2019
Reviewers:
John Anderson
County Code section 17-410 and Virginia Code §62.1-44.15:34 requires the VSMP authority to act on any
VSMP permit by issuing a project approval or denial. This project is denied for significant reasons. The
VSMP application content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-401.
A. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
The SWPPP content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-405. A SWPPP must contain
(1) a PPP, (2) an ESCP, (3) a SWMP, and (4) any TMDL measures necessary.
1. SWPPP: Submit revised Registration Statement (Sec. 1; Acreage has increased), and revised SWM and
ESC plan sheets (Sec. 4, 5), once ESC /SWM Plan comments addressed.
B. Pollution Prevention Plan (PPP)
The PPP content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-404.
1. Revise SWPPP Exhibit, as needed (SWPPP, Sec. 6).
C. Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP)
VSMP Regulation 9VAC25-870-108 requires the VSMP authority to approve or disapprove a SWMP. This plan is
disapproved for reasons listed, below. The stormwater management plan content requirements can be found in
County Code section 17-403.
2. Sec. 17-208 lists a $200 per plan review fee for Amendment to an approved plan. Amendments typically
entail minor revisions. Not in this case. Limits of disturbance increase; boundary adjustment proposed;
SWM calculation packet is revised; routings have changed; mitigation plan is revised. For these reasons,
please provide revision clouds for any change to plan data, tables, design, notes, labels, etc., revised with
this Amendment application. Without cloud revisions to direct attention to elements proposed to change
with this Amendment, all elements require review. Reviewer commits to provide comments within 20
business days of receipt of revised plans, registration statement, SWM calculation packet (item 6.).
3. Please submit $200 with each subsequent plan review, including .PDF preview/s.
4. Delete C1 note reading `Crozet Court HOA shall maintain all onsite BMPs,' a note without force apart from
recorded legal instrument. Note re. HOA has no legal effect if shown on VSMP Amendment plan.
5. 50' distance from stream centerline has meaning, but code does not define the term 50' stream buffer.
Please discontinue use of 50'stream buffer label. 50' distance from stream CL is a label option.
6. SWM Calculation packet:
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 4
a. SWM quality calculation includes storm runoff pass -through from a 47.14 Ac. offsite area, and
defines POAl to include this area. Offsite runoff from this 47.14 Ac. watershed is unaffected by
development. This unaffected bypass originates offsite, crosses an off -site parcel without any
apparent proposed development activity —a parcel proposed to add acreage to TMP 56-45 via
separate boundary line adjustment (item b.).
b. Note 5, Amendment Narrative, C1, reads: `New parcel 56-42A shall be revised with a BLA. 2.18
Acres from parcel 56-42A shall be added to parcel 56-45. The residue parcel, 56-42A, 1.29 Acres
shall be left undisturbed and is not covered by this VSMPA.' This Note may contain acreage and
tax map parcel mistakes. Please check for accuracy.
c. 56-45A2 acreage that conveys bypass off -site storm runoff proposed to be included with Crozet
Court VSMPA Site Runoff Quantity Totals appears to be outside proposed limits of disturbance
(entirely), includes acreage nearly entirely proposed to be placed in forest /open space easement
(to meet 9VAC25-870-66, in tandem with treating on -site flow via on -site BMPs). Without cloud
revisions, it is difficult to gauge effect of new areas not previously included with approved VSMP.
It appears that off -site pre- /post -developed flow is included with site runoff totals in a manner
more nearly aligned with limits of analysis.
d. Please revise cover letter d. 3/15/19 Site Runoff Quantity Totals table to more nearly reflect energy
balance for on -site runoff, treated and bypass, excluding off -site area to POAl (exclude 2S sub -
catchment, pre-dev/off-site Area to POA1). All six 1- , 10-, 100-yr event POA1 values will
change. Most critical are 1-yr values. POA1 1-yr post-dev requires slight revision, to 0.23 cfs.
Please revise cover letter table, Pre-Dev POA1, 1-year, to 0.85 cfs (ref. sub -catchment 1S). Post-
Dev POA1, 1-yr (Link 1L) = 0.23 cfs is well below Max Qdewl,ed = 0.46 cfs.
e. The situation differs for POA2. Engineering requests no revision to cover letter table values,
POA2, but review of energy balance for POA2 equation shows Max Q&,1,,pad = 0.22 (0.218) cfs.
Hydrocad Link 3L reports 0.23 cfs. This does not meet SWM quantity requirements at POA2.
f. Energy balance is met for POA1 (once relocated to biofilter pipe outfall, item i), but not POA2.
g. Energy balance equation (calc packet) shows compliance with 9VAC25-870-66 at POAl, and does
not include Qi-yew flow=27.92, but cover letter table values include off -site storm events, which
give misleading impression that this development reduces runoff 99.2% which is not the case.
Although a related approach is required when showing compliance with 9VAC25-870-66.B. L-2.
(Limits of Analysis), design that meets energy balance (9VAC25-870-66.B.3.) need not proceed to
the 1 % watershed point of analysis. The actual point where energy balance is required for biofilter
A occurs at pipe outfall of biofilter A, not beyond this pipe outfall. The same applies for POA2.
h. Design presents reasonable limits of disturbance, which coincide with 2.30 Ac. Forest /Open Space
proposed post -developed land cover. Unless misreading calculation packet maps and VaRRM
.xls, Amendment requires a separate Forest /Open Space Easement plat, with Deed of Dedication.
i. POA1 is located downslope of biofilter A, and should be relocated to pipe outfall of biofilter A.
j. Engineering cautions against extending biofilter A discharge pipe (extension not required to meet
any design purpose). Approved discharge location is upslope of C4 line labeled 50' stream buffer.
D. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP)
Virginia Code §62.1-44.15:55 requires the VESCP authority to approve or disapprove an ESCP. This plan is
disapproved, for reasons listed, below. The erosion control plan content requirements can be found in County Code
section 17-402.
1. ESC Plan /Amendment: Engineering will comment once plans are re -submitted with cloud revisions.
2. Revised biofilter A is included on C 14 with Erosion and Sediment Control Details. Relocate to a SWM
Plan sheet. Provide cloud revisions for plan, profile, and all other biofilter A data revised with this
VSMPA.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 4
E. Mitigation Plan
1. $150 Mitigation plan fee is required as soon as possible. Mitigation plan is revised with this VSMPA. Ref.
17-207 for Mitigation plan review fee requirement.
2. Mitigation Plan, C9, blurs distinction between whips (planted 6' x 6' on center, 1,210 plants /acre) and
container -grown seedling tubes (8' x 8'— 700 /acre). Ref. Table B, p. 102 of Riparian Buffers
Modification and Mitigation Guidance Manual ( link:
hgps://www.deq.virminia.gov/Portals/0/DEO/Water/Publications/RiparianBufferManual.pdf ).
3. Revise Buffer Planting Instructions, consistent with Riparian Guidance Manual Table B, below.
4. Delete third statement under Mitigation Option A, which is inaccurate. Amendment must elect whether
plants will be whips, or container -grown seedling tubes for bonding, plan approval, and inspection
purposes.
5. Note: Please also see county email (VSMP plan review) sent 12/10/2018 2:22 PM.
6. Note: Mitigation Planting Purchase schedule appears accurate for 8' x 8' plant spacing; that is: container -
grown seedling tubes.
Greater than'/4 acre of buffer
More than 10,890 square feet
A. Plant at the same rate as for 'A acre or less.
B. The waterside 50% of the buffer (from the waterline inland for the first 50 feet):
For every 400 square -foot unit (20'x20') or fraction thereof plant:
one (1) canopy tree @ 1 %" - 2" caliper or large evergreen @ 6'
two (2) understory trees @'/4" — 1 ''/x" caliper or evergreen @ 4'
or one (1) understory tree and two (2) large shrubs @ 3'-4'
three (3) small shrubs or woody groundcover @ 15" — 18"
AND
The landward 50% of buffer (from 50 feet inland to 100 feet inland):
either plant
Bare root seedlings or whips at 1,210 stems per acre', approximately 6'x6' on
center (Minimum survival required after two growing seasons: 600 plants)
or
Container grown seedling tubes at 700 per acre approximately 8'x 8' on center
(Minimum survival required after two growing seasons_ 490 plants)
C. If the applicant is willing to enter into a five year maintenance and performance guarantee:
100% of buffer planted with:
Bare root seedlings or whips at 1,210 per acre, approximately 6'x 6' on center (Minimum
survival required after two growing seasons: 600 plants)
or
Container grown seedling tubes at 700 per acre approximately 8'x 8' on center (Minimum
survival required after two growing seasons: 490 plants)
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 4
Please submit two print copies of revised plans, a single print copy of revised SWM Calculation packet. Please
submit revised Registration Statement, and once ESC and SWM plan sheets are approved, please submit two print
sets of revised ESC /SWM plan I I" X 17" SWPPP inserts (SWPPP Sec. 4, 5).
Process
After approval plans may need to be bonded, given revised ESC (new sediment trap) and alteration of biofilter A.
The bonding process is begun by submitting a bond estimate request form and fee to the Department of Community
Development. One of the plan reviewers will prepare estimates and check parcel and easement information based on
the approved plans. The County's Management Analyst will prepare bond agreement forms, which will need to be
completed by the owner and submitted along with cash, certificates or sureties for the amounts specified. The
agreements will need to be approved and signed by the County Attorney and County Engineer. This may take 2-4
weeks to obtain all the correct signatures and forms.
A recorded Stormwater Management Facilities Maintenance agreement should be unaffected, but if 2.30 Acres (or
any acreage) is proposed to be placed in Forest /Open Space Easement, a separate Easement Application and Deed
of Dedication are required to be submitted, reviewed, approved, and recorded. An Easement Plat would be required.
After bonding and agreements are complete, and deed /plat recorded, county staff will enter project information in a
DEQ database for state application processing (VAR10M007, Permit Modification).
Reminder: Please note recent DEQ email outreach regarding renewal of active VAR10 permits. It is permittees'
responsibility to follow DEQ guidance. No further reminders will be issued. Application to amend an active
VAR10 does not satisfy responsibility to request renewal of current active VPDES VAR10M007 permit.
DEQ will review the application information (VSMP Amendment) based on local VSMP authority approval. At this
time, the DEQ portion of the application fees (if any) will need to be paid directly to the state. For fastest
processing, this is done electronically with the emails provided on the application (Registration Statement). DEQ
should notify applicants with instructions on how to pay fees. When DEQ approves the application, they will issue a
permit coverage letter. This should be copied to the county.
After DEQ coverage is issued, via the coverage letter, the County can hold a pre -construction conference, at
inspector's discretion (may not be necessary, given project is under construction). If pre -construction meeting is
warranted, Applicant will need to complete the request for a pre -construction conference form. The form identifies
the contractor and responsible land disturber, and the fee remaining to be paid ($0, if $200 per review Amendment
fees are paid). This will be checked by county staff, and upon approval, a pre -construction conference will be
scheduled with the County inspector. A grading permit has been issued for WP0201700075.
County forms can be found on the county website forms center under engineering;
httt)://www.albemarle.org/dei)tforms.asD?del)artment--cdenaw-Do
Thank you
J. Anderson 434.296-5832 —x3069
WP0201700075 Crozet Court_042919_VSMP _Amend
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
VSMP Permit Plan Review
Project title:
Crozet Court
Project file number:
WP0201700075
Plan preparer:
Shimp Engineering
Owner or rep.:
Stony Point Design/Build LLC
Chris Henry
Plan received date:
15 November 2017
(Rev. 1)
24 May 2018
(Rev. 2)
6 Aug 2018
(Rev. 3)
7 Sep 2018
Date of comments:
15 December 2017
(Rev. 1)
6 July 2018
(Rev. 2)
28 Aug 2018
(Rev. 3)
19 Sep 2018
Reviewers:
Matt Wentland
J. Anderson (Rev. 2, 3)
b ustin@shimp-engineering. c om]
[chenry@stonypointdb. com]
County Code section 17-410 and Virginia Code §62.1-44.15:34 requires the VSMP authority to act on any
VSMP permit by issuing a project approval or denial. This project is denied for relatively minor reasons.
The VSMP application content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-401.
A. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
The SWPPP content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-405. A SWPPP must contain
(1) a PPP, (2) an ESCP, (3) a SWMP, and (4) any TMDL measures necessary.
1. The SWPPP appears to be acceptable at this time.
B. Pollution Prevention Plan (PPP)
The PPP content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-404.
1. The PPP appears to be acceptable at this time.
C. Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP)
VSMP Regulation 9VAC25-870-108 requires the VSMP authority to approve or disapprove a SWMP.
This plan is disapproved for relatively minor reasons listed at items 2 and 14, below. The stormwater
management plan content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-403.
Any Forest and Open Space used in the VRRM worksheet as a Post -Development land cover will need to
be shown on the plans and labelled as 'SWM Forest and Open Space'. The following note will need to be
placed on the plan:
"The SWM Forest and Open Space Easement is subject to the guidance set forth by DEQ in the Virginia
Stormwater Management Program. The areas will remain undisturbed in a natural, vegetated state, except
for activities as approved by the local program authority, such as forest management, control of invasive
species, replanting and revegetating, passive recreation (e.g., trails), and limited bush hogging to maintain
desired vegetative community (but no more than four times a year)."
If the Forest and Open Space is not needed to reach compliance, the undisturbed portion can be removed
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 4
from the worksheet. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. As follow-up:
• Provide conventional label on sheet C-3; cut/paste label may become detached. (Rev. 2)
Addressed.
• Provide boundaries to define 1.62 Ac. SWM Forest and Open Space easement. (Rev. 2)
Addressed.
• Provide scan image of Circuit Court receipt of recordation of Deed of Dedication of SWM Forest
and Open Space Easement, prior to VSMP plan approval. (Rev. 2) Addressed. Applicant correctly
states SWM Forest /Open Space easement may be recorded on the subdivision plat, and is not required
for VSMP approval. This comment is revised to request VSMP-related easements be recorded with
subdivision plat.
It is not clear how the flow from the 15" CMP under Claudius Ct. next to the proposed entrance will reach
the inlet on Lot 17. Provide more detailed grading in this area to verify the neighboring property will be
unaffected by the Jamestown Road construction. (Rev. 1) Not addressed. At issue: existing contours
divert storm runoff away from Block A, Sec. 2, Lot 5 (Ralston) parcel located at the northwest corner of Int.
Claudius Ct. and (proposed) Jamestown Rd. Proposed drainage does not accommodate disturbance to pre -
development runoff patterns. If Jamestown Road is constructed without drainage designed to capture and
convey off -site /bypass runoff from Ex. 15" CMP (beneath Claudius Ct.; runoff transits Ralston parcel but
briefly before turning SW under existing conditions), post -developed storm runoff will trek west along /on
the Ralston parcel, which is an adverse impact. Provide drainage to attenuate post -development impact to
this parcel. Provide pipe convey as condition of VSMP /Road Plan approval. (Rev. 2) Addressed. As
follow-up: Discussed in Engineering plan review meeting on 7/12 (pipe is not mandatory; see Ditch 4A).
Further, design engineer met with property owner (D. Ralston) on -site, 8/21 (ref. D. Ralston email:
8/21/2018 11:50 PM). Engineering follow-up email: `Ensure Notes on ROAD NSMP-WPO plans clarify
tree preservation measures, berm installation, etc.' (8/22/2018 11:38 AM). (Rev. 3) Partially addressed.
As follow-up: Revise ditch section table, Ditch 4A, to show 2.5:1 sideslope. (Avoid slopes steeper than
2.5:1 at this location, to be maintained as grass.)
4A
EC-2
Matting
1.0
0.91
5 boom
EC-2
4B
Matting
1.0
0.87
8 4:1
3. Show easements on all the proposed ditches and pipes. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. As follow-up:
Provide SWMFacility Easement label in vicinity of BMP B pretreatment cell; easement is not clearly
continuous between 12' SWM Facility Access for BMP practice B, and BMP practice B. Recommend
review easement line -work and provide additional labels that more clearly identify easements. (Rev. 2)
Addressed.
4. Provide Deed Book references or copies of signed agreements for any off -site construction easements (such
as on the 960 Claudius Ct. property). (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant response: No offsite construction is
proposed.
5. It doesn't appear the BMP B facility access will work as shown due to it passing over outlet D 1. The access
to the BMPs should also be a minimum of 12' wide. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
6. Specify the surface cover of the BMPs (such as turf or mulch). (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. As ollow-
yp: In addition to listing hardwood mulch in narrative, label BMP surface cover in BMP profile details,
C14. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
7. Provide access points to the 60" HDPE at B1, Cl, and the weir. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 60" HDPE has been
replaced. As follow-up: With redesigned pretreatment, provide detailed location information for 22' X 3'
and 17' X 3' timber /gravel level spreaders (BMP detail: Biofilter A pretreatment). Location is ambiguous.
(Rev. 2) Addressed.
8. The 60" HDPE does not appear to count as a pre-treatment cell as it is not providing any filtering of the
sediment before it reaches the biofilter. Please choose a measure from section 6.4 of DEQ Specification No.
9 Bioretention to ensure that two measures are provided. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
9. Remove the sanitary sewer from beneath the biofilter. This has the potential to cause maintenance issues in
the future as the ACSA would not normally repair the biofilter if there is a need to repair/replace the
sanitary line. The sanitary line can remain if the ACSA agrees to repair the biofilter in the case of
disturbances caused by any sewer repairs. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant response: Sanitary sewer no
longer passes under biofilter.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 4
New
10. Surface Area (SA) of biofilters (filter beds) appears insufficient for both bioretention practices, based upon
depth of media, stone, ponding, void ratios, and VRRM .xls Tv for each Level 1 bioretention practice.
Please see Eq. 9.3, p. 17 of VA DEQ Stomrwater Design Specification No. 9. SA BMP A should be
>2,269 ft2; SA BMP B should be >3,302 ft2. Please provide SA that meets specification. (Rev. 2)
Comment withdrawn. Review error.
11. C3, C4, C5 sheet titles reference Road Plans —revise to reference VSMP Plan. (Rev. 2) Addressed. As
follow-up, please reverse order of plan sheets C12, C13. (Rev. 3) Applicant may restore original order of
sheets, and revise index to reflect original order of plan sheets. Comment only intended to point out that
sheets were arranged out of order during plan set assembly. Original order was logical, and made sense.
12. C12: Revise permanent stormwater management Note 3 to include and require County ESC inspector
approval prior to removing ESC measures. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
13. C11: Root wad bank stabilization: show on plans how many, spacing, and locations of this stream
restoration measure. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
14. 5/21/18 Applicant response references sheet C12 channel restoration plan. Show and label (recommend
legend symbol) those sections of channel to be restored for mitigation credit. Provide evidence of Corps of
Engineers coordination and USACE acceptance of mitigation plan, if U.S. Army Corps is involved. (Rev.
2) Partially Addressed. Applicant response: `USACE will not be involved [?] because we are permitted to
disturb less than 3001f of stream under the Nationwide 18 permit.' Please send .PDF of NWP-18 issued to
this project to affirm permit acquired. (Rev. 3) Not Addressed. Provide copy of project -specific NW-18
hermit. Also see email sent: 9/18/2018 4:50 PM (request to provide copy of NW-18 permit).
D. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP)
Virginia Code §62.1-44.15:55 requires the VESCP authority to approve or disapprove an ESCP. This plan
is approved.
The notes on sheet C8 state that storm sewer B and C will flow into the trap until the 60" HDPE is installed
and that the 60" HDPE is not to be installed until the trap is removed. Please provide more detail as to
where the flow from B and C will be directed during the trap removal/60" HDPE installation. (Rev. 1)
Partially addressed. Note, C8, states that (proposed) storm sewers shall drain to trap until manhole is
installed. As follow-up: Confirm and provide supportive calculation showing trap is designed to
accommodate concentrated storm drain flow from area/s captured and conveyed by storm drains. (Rev. 2)
Addressed.
E. Mitigation Plan
1. It appears that the number of plantings shown on the plans is based off of the disturbed area and not the 2:1
ratio. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. Asefollow-up: Mitigation Landscape Table lists 270 plants total, while text
immediately beneath buffer planting instructions references 495 tree whips planted... Please note large canopy trees
are not whips. 45 large caliper canopy trees are required. 90 understory trees are required. 135 shrubs are required.
The total 270 is incorrect. If sum quantities in the table, total =407. Revise text, table, and totals for clarity. (Rev.
2) Partially addressed. As follow-up: C9 references 1,210 /Ac. planting requirement. With 0.82 Ac. stream buffer
impact, and 2:1 offset requirement, plant requirement = 0.82 x 2 x 1,210 =1,984 plants. Revise reference to 990
plants to the correct quantity, 1,984. Also, if 34,380 ft2 of buffer is available for seedling plants on 8' x 8' centers,
then 34,380 ft2 - 64 ft2 = 537 (plants). Please revise Landscape Schedule table to provide 537 mixed species plants.
(Rev. 3) Not addressed. Option C. requires 1,210 whips /Ac. to be planted; 600 /Ac. to survive after two growing
seasons. Review error lists 8' x 8' centers. Option C requires 6' x 6' centers, meaning 34,380 ft2 - 36 ft2 = 955
(plants). Please revise Landscape Schedule table to provide 955 mixed species plants.
Link: https://townhall.vir ig nia.gov/L/GetFile.cftn?File=GuidanceDocs%5C440°/`5CGDoe DEO 5415 vl.pdf
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 4
C. If the applicant is willing to enter into a five year maintenance and performance guarantee:
100% ofbuffer planted with:
Bare root seedlings or whips at 1,210 per acre, approximat y 6'x 6' on center (Minimum
survival required after two growing seasons: 600 plants)
or
Container grown seedling tubes at 700 per acre approximately 8'x 8' on center (Minimum
survival required after two growing seasons: 490 plants)
The VSMP plan may be resubmitted for approval when all comments have been satisfactorily addressed. Since only
minor comments remain, we welcome .PDF preview, prior to print submittal. Once preview complete, please submit
four (4) full-size copies of the VSMP plan and two (2) sets of revised I I" X 17" ESC Plan, SWM Plan, Mitigation
Plan (SWPPP inserts), for stamped approval. Final print submittal does not require an application, and should be
addressed to J. Anderson, marked `For Approval.'
Process;
After approval, plans will need to be bonded. The bonding process is begun by submitting a bond estimate request
form and fee to the Department of Community Development. One of the plan reviewers will prepare estimates and
check parcel and easement information based on the approved plans. The County's Management Analyst will
prepare bond agreement forms, which will need to be completed by the owner and submitted along with cash,
certificates or sureties for the amounts specified. The agreements will need to be approved and signed by the County
Attorney and County Engineer. This may take 2-4 weeks to obtain all the correct signatures and forms.
Stormwater Management Facilities Maintenance agreements will also need to be completed and recorded. The
County's Management Analyst or other staff will prepare the forms and check for ownership and signature
information. The completed forms will need to be submitted along with court recording fees.
After bonding and agreements are complete, county staff will need to enter project information in a DEQ database
for state application processing. DEQ will review the application information based on local VSMP authority
approval. At this time, the DEQ portion of the application fees will need to be paid directly to the state. For fastest
processing, this is done electronically with the emails provided on the application. DEQ should notify applicants
with instructions on how to pay fees. When DEQ approves the application, they will issue a permit coverage letter.
This should be copied to the county.
After DEQ coverage is issued, via the coverage letter, the County can hold a pre -construction conference. Applicants
will need to complete the request for a pre -construction conference form, and pay the remainder of the application
fee. The form identifies the contractor and responsible land disturber, and the fee remaining to be paid. This will be
checked by county staff, and upon approval, a pre -construction conference will be scheduled with the County
inspector. At the pre -construction conference, should everything proceed satisfactorily, a joint VSMP and grading
permit will be issued by the County so that work may begin.
County forms can be found on the county website forms center under engineering;
htt-D://www.albemarle.ori!/dei)tforms.asi)?deDartrnent--cdena"o
Thank you
Sincerely,
J. Anderson 434.296-5832 —x3069
File: WP0201700075 Crozet Court091918 rev3.doc
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
VSMP Permit Plan Review
Project title:
Crozet Court
Project file number:
WP0201700075
Plan preparer:
Shimp Engineering
Owner or rep.:
Stony Point Design/Build LLC
Chris Henry
Plan received date:
15 November 2017
(Rev. 1)
24 May 2018
(Rev. 2)
6 Aug 2018
Date of comments:
15 December 2017
(Rev. 1)
6 July 2018
(Rev. 2)
28 Aug 2018
Reviewers:
Matt Wentland
J. Anderson (Rev. 2, 3)
b ustin@shimp-engineering. c om]
[chenry@stonypointdb. com]
County Code section 17-410 and Virginia Code §62.1-44.15:34 requires the VSMP authority to act on any
VSMP permit by issuing a project approval or denial. This project is denied for relatively minor reasons.
The VSMP application content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-401.
A. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
The SWPPP content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-405. A SWPPP must contain
(1) a PPP, (2) an ESCP, (3) a SWMP, and (4) any TMDL measures necessary.
1. The SWPPP appears to be acceptable at this time.
B. Pollution Prevention Plan (PPP)
The PPP content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-404.
1. The PPP appears to be acceptable at this time.
C. Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP)
VSMP Regulation 9VAC25-870-108 requires the VSMP authority to approve or disapprove a SWMP.
This plan is disapproved for relatively minor reasons listed at items 2 and 14, below. The stormwater
management plan content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-403.
Any Forest and Open Space used in the VRRM worksheet as a Post -Development land cover will need to
be shown on the plans and labelled as'SWM Forest and Open Space'. The following note will need to be
placed on the plan:
"The SWM Forest and Open Space Easement is subject to the guidance set forth by DEQ in the Virginia
Stormwater Management Program. The areas will remain undisturbed in a natural, vegetated state, except
for activities as approved by the local program authority, such as forest management, control of invasive
species, replanting and revegetating, passive recreation (e.g., trails), and limited bush hogging to maintain
desired vegetative community (but no more than four times a year)."
If the Forest and Open Space is not needed to reach compliance, the undisturbed portion can be removed
from the worksheet. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. As follow-up:
• Provide conventional label on sheet C-3; cut/paste label may become detached. (Rev. 2)
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 4
Addressed.
• Provide boundaries to define 1.62 Ac. SWM Forest and Open Space easement. (Rev. 2)
Addressed.
• Provide scan image of Circuit Court receipt of recordation of Deed of Dedication of SWM Forest
and Open Space Easement, prior to VSMP plan approval. (Rev. 2) Addressed. Applicant correctly
states SWM Forest /Open Space easement may be recorded on the subdivision plat, and is not required
for VSMP approval. This comment is revised to request VSMP-related easements be recorded with
subdivision plat.
2. It is not clear how the flow from the 15" CMP under Claudius Ct. next to the proposed entrance will reach
the inlet on Lot 17. Provide more detailed grading in this area to verify the neighboring property will be
unaffected by the Jamestown Road construction. (Rev. 1) Not addressed. At issue: existing contours
divert storm runoff away from Block A, Sec. 2, Lot 5 (Ralston) parcel located at the northwest corner of Int.
Claudius Ct. and (proposed) Jamestown Rd. Proposed drainage does not accommodate disturbance to pre -
development runoff patterns. If Jamestown Road is constructed without drainage designed to capture and
convey off -site /bypass runoff from Ex. 15" CMP (beneath Claudius Ct.; runoff transits Ralston parcel but
briefly before turning SW under existing conditions), post -developed storm runoff will trek west along /on
the Ralston parcel, which is an adverse impact. Provide drainage to attenuate post -development impact to
this parcel. Provide pipe convey as condition of VSMP /Road Plan approval. (Rev. 2) Addressed. As
follow-up: Discussed in Engineering plan review meeting on 7/12 (pipe is not mandatory; see Ditch 4A).
Further, design engineer met with property owner (D. Ralston) on -site, 8/21 (ref. D. Ralston email:
8/21/2018 11:50 PM). Engineering follow-up email: `Ensure Notes on ROAD NSMP-WPO plans clarify
tree preservation measures, berm installation, etc.' (8/22/2018 11:38 AM).
3. Show easements on all the proposed ditches and pipes. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. As follow-up:
Provide SWMFacility Easement label in vicinity of BMP B pretreatment cell; easement is not clearly
continuous between 12' SWM Facility Access for BMP practice B, and BMP practice B. Recommend
review easement line -work and provide additional labels that more clearly identify easements. (Rev. 2)
Addressed.
4. Provide Deed Book references or copies of signed agreements for any off -site construction easements (such
as on the 960 Claudius Ct. property). (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant response: No offsite construction is
proposed.
5. It doesn't appear the BMP B facility access will work as shown due to it passing over outlet D1. The access
to the BMPs should also be a minimum of 12' wide. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
6. Specify the surface cover of the BMPs (such as turf or mulch). (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. As ollow-
yR: In addition to listing hardwood mulch in narrative, label BMP surface cover in BMP profile details,
C 14. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
7. Provide access points to the 60" HDPE at B1, C1, and the weir. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 60" HDPE has been
replaced. As follow-up: With redesigned pretreatment, provide detailed location information for 22' X 3'
and 17' X 3' timber /gravel level spreaders (BMP detail: Biofilter A pretreatment). Location is ambiguous.
(Rev. 2) Addressed.
8. The 60" HDPE does not appear to count as a pre-treatment cell as it is not providing any filtering of the
sediment before it reaches the biofilter. Please choose a measure from section 6.4 of DEQ Specification No.
9 Bioretention to ensure that two measures are provided. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
9. Remove the sanitary sewer from beneath the biofilter. This has the potential to cause maintenance issues in
the future as the ACSA would not normally repair the biofilter if there is a need to repair/replace the
sanitary line. The sanitary line can remain if the ACSA agrees to repair the biofilter in the case of
disturbances caused by any sewer repairs. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant response: Sanitary sewer no
longer passes under biofilter.
New
10. Surface Area (SA) of biofilters (filter beds) appears insufficient for both bioretention practices, based upon
depth of media, stone, ponding, void ratios, and VRRM .xls Tv for each Level 1 bioretention practice.
Please see Eq. 9.3, p. 17 of VA DEQ Stomrwater Design Specification No. 9. SA BMP A should be
>2,269 ft2; SA BMP B should be >3,302 ft2. Please provide SA that meets specification. (Rev. 2)
Comment withdrawn. Review error.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 4
11. C3, C4, C5 sheet titles reference Road Plans —revise to reference VSMP Plan. (Rev. 2) Addressed. As
follow-up, please reverse order of plan sheets C12, C13.
12. C12: Revise permanent stormwater management Note 3 to include and require County ESC inspector
approval prior to removing ESC measures. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
13. C 11: Root wad bank stabilization: show on plans how many, spacing, and locations of this stream
restoration measure. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
14. 5/21/18 Applicant response references sheet C12 channel restoration plan. Show and label (recommend
legend symbol) those sections of channel to be restored for mitigation credit. Provide evidence of Corps of
Engineers coordination and USACE acceptance of mitigation plan, if U.S. Army Corps is involved. (Rev.
2) Partially Addressed. Applicant response: `USAGE will not be involved [?] because we are permitted to
disturb less than 3001f of stream under the Nationwide 18 permit.' Please send .PDF of NWP-18 issued to
this project to affirm permit acquired.
D. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP)
Virginia Code §62.1-44.15:55 requires the VESCP authority to approve or disapprove an ESCP. This plan
is approved.
The notes on sheet C8 state that storm sewer B and C will flow into the trap until the 60" HDPE is installed
and that the 60" HDPE is not to be installed until the trap is removed. Please provide more detail as to
where the flow from B and C will be directed during the trap removal/60" HDPE installation. (Rev. 1)
Partially addressed. Note, C8, states that (proposed) storm sewers shall drain to trap until manhole is
installed. As follow-up: Confirm and provide supportive calculation showing trap is designed to
accommodate concentrated storm drain flow from area/s captured and conveyed by storm drains. (Rev. 2)
Addressed.
E. Mitigation Plan
1. It appears that the number of plantings shown on the plans is based off of the disturbed area and not the 2:1
ratio. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. As follow-up: Mitigation Landscape Table lists 270 plants total, while text
immediately beneath buffer planting instructions references 495 tree whips planted... Please note large canopy trees
are not whips. 45 large caliper canopy trees are required. 90 understory trees are required. 135 shrubs are required.
The total 270 is incorrect. If sum quantities in the table, total =407. Revise text, table, and totals for clarity. (Rev.
2) Partially addressed. As follow-up: C9 references 1,210 /Ac. planting requirement. With 0.82 Ac. stream buffer
impact, and 2:1 offset requirement, plant requirement = 0.82 x 2 x 1,210 =1,984 plants. Revise reference to 990
plants to the correct quantity, 1,984. Also, if 34,380 ft2 of buffer is available for seedling plants on 8' x 8' centers,
then 34,380 ft2 - 64 ft2 = 537 (plants). Please revise Landscape Schedule table to provide 537 mixed species plants.
The VSMP plan may be resubmitted for approval when all comments have been satisfactorily addressed. Since only
minor comments remain, we welcome .PDF preview, prior to print submittal. Once preview complete, please submit
four (4) full-size copies of the VSMP plan and two (2) sets of revised I I" x 17" ESC Plan, SWM Plan, Mitigation
Plan (SWPPP inserts), for stamped approval. Final print submittal does not require an application, and should be
addressed to J. Anderson, marked `For Approval.'
Process;
After approval, plans will need to be bonded. The bonding process is begun by submitting a bond estimate request
form and fee to the Department of Community Development. One of the plan reviewers will prepare estimates and
check parcel and easement information based on the approved plans. The County's Management Analyst will
prepare bond agreement forms, which will need to be completed by the owner and submitted along with cash,
certificates or sureties for the amounts specified. The agreements will need to be approved and signed by the County
Attorney and County Engineer. This may take 2-4 weeks to obtain all the correct signatures and forms.
Stormwater Management Facilities Maintenance agreements will also need to be completed and recorded. The
County's Management Analyst or other staff will prepare the forms and check for ownership and signature
information. The completed forms will need to be submitted along with court recording fees.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 4
After bonding and agreements are complete, county staff will need to enter project information in a DEQ database
for state application processing. DEQ will review the application information based on local VSMP authority
approval. At this time, the DEQ portion of the application fees will need to be paid directly to the state. For fastest
processing, this is done electronically with the emails provided on the application. DEQ should notify applicants
with instructions on how to pay fees. When DEQ approves the application, they will issue a permit coverage letter.
This should be copied to the county.
After DEQ coverage is issued, via the coverage letter, the County can hold a pre -construction conference. Applicants
will need to complete the request for a pre -construction conference form, and pay the remainder of the application
fee. The form identifies the contractor and responsible land disturber, and the fee remaining to be paid. This will be
checked by county staff, and upon approval, a pre -construction conference will be scheduled with the County
inspector. At the pre -construction conference, should everything proceed satisfactorily, a joint VSMP and grading
permit will be issued by the County so that work may begin.
County forms can be found on the county website forms center under engineering;
httt): //www. albemarle. org/deDtforms. asp? department--cdenawt)o
Thank you
Sincerely,
J. Anderson 434.296-5832 —0069
File: WPO201700075 Crozet Court082818 rev2.doc
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
Project title:
Project file number:
Plan preparer:
Owner or rep.:
Plan received date:
(Rev. 1)
Date of comments:
(Rev. 1)
Reviewers:
VSMP Permit Plan Review
Crozet Court
WP0201700075
Shimp Engineering
Stony Point Design/Build LLC
Chris Henry
15 November 2017
24 May 2018
15 December 2017
6 July 2018
Matt Wentland
J. Anderson (Rev. 2)
b ustin@shimp-engineering. c om]
[chenry@stonypointdb. com]
County Code section 17-410 and Virginia Code §62.1-44.15:34 requires the VSMP authority to act on any
VSMP permit by issuing a project approval or denial. This project is denied. The rationale is given in the
comments below. The VSMP application content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-
401.
A. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
The SWPPP content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-405. A SWPPP must contain
(1) a PPP, (2) an ESCP, (3) a SWMP, and (4) any TMDL measures necessary.
1. The SWPPP appears to be acceptable at this time.
B. Pollution Prevention Plan (PPP)
The PPP content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-404.
1. The PPP appears to be acceptable at this time.
C. Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP)
VSMP Regulation 9VAC25-870-108 requires the VSMP authority to approve or disapprove a SWMP.
This plan is disapproved, and the reasons are provided in the comments below. The stormwater
management plan content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-403.
Any Forest and Open Space used in the VRRM worksheet as a Post -Development land cover will need to
be shown on the plans and labelled as 'SWM Forest and Open Space'. The following note will need to be
placed on the plan:
"The SWM Forest and Open Space Easement is subject to the guidance set forth by DEQ in the Virginia
Stormwater Management Program. The areas will remain undisturbed in a natural, vegetated state, except
for activities as approved by the local program authority, such as forest management, control of invasive
species, replanting and revegetating, passive recreation (e.g., trails), and limited bush hogging to maintain
desired vegetative community (but no more than four times a year)."
If the Forest and Open Space is not needed to reach compliance, the undisturbed portion can be removed
from the worksheet. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. As follow-up:
• Provide conventional label on sheet C-3; cut/paste label may become detached.
• Provide boundaries to define 1.62 Ac. SWM Forest and Open Space easement.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 3
• Provide scan image of Circuit Court receipt of recordation of Deed of Dedication of SWM Forest
and Open Space Easement, prior to VSMP plan approval.
2. It is not clear how the flow from the 15" CMP under Claudius Ct. next to the proposed entrance will reach
the inlet on Lot 17. Provide more detailed grading in this area to verify the neighboring property will be
unaffected by the Jamestown Road construction. (Rev. 1) Not addressed. At issue: existing contours
divert storm runoff away from Block A, Sec. 2, Lot 5 (Ralston) parcel located at the northwest corner of Int.
Claudius Ct. and (proposed) Jamestown Rd. Proposed drainage does not accommodate disturbance to pre -
development runoff patterns. If Jamestown Road is constructed without drainage designed to capture and
convey off -site /bypass runoff from Ex. 15" CMP (beneath Claudius Ct.; runoff transits Ralston parcel but
briefly before turning SW under existing conditions), post -developed storm runoff will trek west along /on
the Ralston parcel, which is an adverse impact. Provide drainage to attenuate post -development impact to
this parcel. Provide nine conveyance as condition of VSMP /Road Plan approval.
3. Show easements on all the proposed ditches and pipes. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. Asfollow-up:
Provide SUM Facility Easement label in vicinity of BMP B pretreatment cell; easement is not clearly
continuous between 12' SWM Facility Access for BMP practice B, and BMP practice B. Recommend
review easement line -work and provide additional labels that more clearly identify easements.
4. Provide Deed Book references or copies of signed agreements for any off -site construction easements (such
as on the 960 Claudius Ct. property). (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant response: No offsite construction is
proposed.
5. It doesn't appear the BMP B facility access will work as shown due to it passing over outlet D1. The access
to the BMPs should also be a minimum of 12' wide. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
6. Specify the surface cover of the BMPs (such as turf or mulch). (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. As ollow-
yy: In addition to listing hardwood mulch in narrative, label BMP surface cover in BMP profile details,
C 14.
7. Provide access points to the 60" HDPE at B1, Cl, and the weir. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 60" HDPE has been
replaced. Asfollow-up: With redesigned pretreatment, provide detailed location information for 22' x 3'
and 17' x 3' timber /gravel level spreaders (BMP detail: Biofilter A pretreatment). Location is ambiguous.
8. The 60" HDPE does not appear to count as a pre-treatment cell as it is not providing any filtering of the
sediment before it reaches the biofilter. Please choose a measure from section 6.4 of DEQ Specification No.
9 Bioretention to ensure that two measures are provided. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
9. Remove the sanitary sewer from beneath the biofilter. This has the potential to cause maintenance issues in
the future as the ACSA would not normally repair the biofilter if there is a need to repair/replace the
sanitary line. The sanitary line can remain if the ACSA agrees to repair the biofilter in the case of
disturbances caused by any sewer repairs. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant response: Sanitary sewer no
longer passes under biofilter.
New
10. Surface Area (SA) of biofilters (filter beds) appears insufficient for both bioretention practices, based upon
depth of media, stone, ponding, void ratios, and VRRM .xls T„ for each Level 1 bioretention practice.
Please see Eq. 9.3, p. 17 of VA DEQ Stomrwater Design Specification No. 9. SA BMP A should be
>2,269 W; SA BMP B should be >3,302 ft2. Please provide SA that meets specification.
11. C3, C4, C5 sheet titles reference Road Plans —revise to reference VSMP Plan.
12. C12: Revise permanent stormwater management Note 3 to include and require County ESC inspector
approval prior to removing ESC measures.
13. C 11: Root wad bank stabilization: show on plans how many, spacing, and locations of this stream
restoration measure.
14. 5/21/18 Applicant response references sheet C12 channel restoration plan. Show and label (recommend
legend symbol) those sections of channel to be restored for mitigation credit. Provide evidence of Corps of
Engineers coordination and USACE acceptance of mitigation plan, if U.S. Army Corps is involved.
D. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP)
Virginia Code §62.1-44.15:55 requires the VESCP authority to approve or disapprove an ESCP. This plan
is disapproved, and the reasons are provided in the comments below. The erosion control plan content
requirements can be found in County Code section 17-402.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 3
The notes on sheet C8 state that storm sewer B and C will flow into the trap until the 60" HDPE is installed
and that the 60" HDPE is not to be installed until the trap is removed. Please provide more detail as to
where the flow from B and C will be directed during the trap removal/60" HDPE installation. (Rev. 1)
Partially addressed. Note, C8, states that (proposed) storm sewers shall drain to trap until manhole is
installed. As follow-up: Confirm and provide supportive calculation showing trap is designed to
accommodate concentrated storm drain flow from area/s captured and conveyed by storm drains.
E. Mitigation Plan
1. It appears that the number of plantings shown on the plans is based off of the disturbed area and not the 2:1
ratio. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. As follow-up: Mitigation Landscape Table lists 270 plants total, while text
immediately beneath buffer planting instructions references 495 tree whips planted... Please note large canopy trees
are not whips. 45 large caliper canopy trees are required. 90 understory trees are required. 135 shrubs are required.
The total 270 is incorrect. If sum quantities in the table, total =407. Revise text, table, and totals for clarity.
The VSMP permit application and all plans may be resubmitted for approval when all comments have been
satisfactorily addressed. For re -submittals please provide 2 copies of the complete permit package with a completed
application form.
Engineering plan review staff are available from 2-4 PM on Thursdays, should you require a meeting to discuss this
review.
Process;
After approval, plans will need to be bonded. The bonding process is begun by submitting a bond estimate request
form and fee to the Department of Community Development. One of the plan reviewers will prepare estimates and
check parcel and easement information based on the approved plans. The County's Management Analyst will
prepare bond agreement forms, which will need to be completed by the owner and submitted along with cash,
certificates or sureties for the amounts specified. The agreements will need to be approved and signed by the County
Attorney and County Engineer. This may take 2-4 weeks to obtain all the correct signatures and forms.
Stormwater Management Facilities Maintenance agreements will also need to be completed and recorded. The
County's Management Analyst or other staff will prepare the forms and check for ownership and signature
information. The completed forms will need to be submitted along with court recording fees.
After bonding and agreements are complete, county staff will need to enter project information in a DEQ database
for state application processing. DEQ will review the application information based on local VSMP authority
approval. At this time, the DEQ portion of the application fees will need to be paid directly to the state. For fastest
processing, this is done electronically with the emails provided on the application. DEQ should notify applicants
with instructions on how to pay fees. When DEQ approves the application, they will issue a permit coverage letter.
This should be copied to the county.
After DEQ coverage is issued, via the coverage letter, the County can hold a pre -construction conference. Applicants
will need to complete the request for a pre -construction conference form, and pay the remainder of the application
fee. The form identifies the contractor and responsible land disturber, and the fee remaining to be paid. This will be
checked by county staff, and upon approval, a pre -construction conference will be scheduled with the County
inspector. At the pre -construction conference, should everything proceed satisfactorily, a joint VSMP and grading
permit will be issued by the County so that work may begin.
County forms can be found on the county website forms center under engineering;
httD://www.albemarle.org/deDtforms.ast)?deDarttnent=cdeni!wr)o
File: WP0201700075 Crozet Court070618 revl.doc
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
Project title:
Project file number:
Plan preparer:
Owner or rep.:
Plan received date:
Date of comments:
Reviewers:
VSMP Permit Plan Review
Crozet Court
WP0201700075
Shimp Engineering
Stony Point Design/Build LLC
Chris Henry
15 November 2017
15 December 2017
Matt Wentland
[j u stin @ shimp-engineering. com]
[chenry@ stonypointdb.com]
County Code section 17-410 and Virginia Code §62.1-44.15:34 requires the VSMP authority to
act on any VSMP permit by issuing a project approval or denial. This project is denied. The
rationale is given in the comments below. The VSMP application content requirements can be
found in County Code section 17-401.
A. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
The SWPPP content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-405. A SWPPP must
contain (1) a PPP, (2) an ESOP, (3) a SWMP, and (4) any TMDL measures necessary.
1. The SWPPP appears to be acceptable at this time.
B. Pollution Prevention Plan (PPP)
The PPP content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-404.
1. The PPP appears to be acceptable at this time.
C. Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP)
VSMP Regulation 9VAC25-870-108 requires the VSMP authority to approve or disapprove a
SWMP. This plan is disapproved, and the reasons are provided in the comments below. The
stormwater management plan content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-403.
Any Forest and Open Space used in the VRRM worksheet as a Post -Development land cover will
need to be shown on the plans and labelled as 'SWM Forest and Open Space'. The following note
will need to be placed on the plan:
"The SWM Forest and Open Space Easement is subject to the guidance set forth by DEQ in the
Virginia Stormwater Management Program. The areas will remain undisturbed in a natural,
vegetated state, except for activities as approved by the local program authority, such as forest
management, control of invasive species, replanting and revegetating, passive recreation (e.g.,
trails), and limited bush hogging to maintain desired vegetative community (but no more than four
times a year)."
If the Forest and Open Space is not needed to reach compliance, the undisturbed portion can be
removed from the worksheet.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 3
2. It is not clear how the flow from the 15" CMP under Claudius Ct. next to the proposed entrance
will reach the inlet on Lot 17. Provide more detailed grading in this area to verify the neighboring
property will be unaffected by the Jamestown Road construction.
3. Show easements on all the proposed ditches and pipes.
4. Provide Deed Book references or copies of signed agreements for any off -site construction
easements (such as on the 960 Claudius Ct. property).
5. It doesn't appear the BMP B facility access will work as shown due to it passing over outlet D1.
The access to the BMPs should also be a minimum of 12' wide.
6. Specify the surface cover of the BMPs (such as turf or mulch).
7. Provide access points to the 60" HDPE at B1, C1, and the weir.
8. The 60" HDPE does not appear to count as a pre-treatment cell as it is not providing any filtering
of the sediment before it reaches the biofilter. Please choose a measure from section 6.4 of DEQ
Specification No. 9 Bioretention to ensure that two measures are provided.
9. Remove the sanitary sewer from beneath the biofilter. This has the potential to cause maintenance
issues in the future as the ACSA would not normally repair the biofilter if there is a need to
repair/replace the sanitary line. The sanitary line can remain if the ACSA agrees to repair the
biofilter in the case of disturbances caused by any sewer repairs.
D. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP)
Virginia Code §62.1-44.15:55 requires the VESCP authority to approve or disapprove an ESCP.
This plan is disapproved, and the reasons are provided in the comments below. The erosion control
plan content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-402.
The notes on sheet C8 state that storm sewer B and C will flow into the trap until the 60" HDPE is
installed and that the 60" HDPE is not to be installed until the trap is removed. Please provide
more detail as to where the flow from B and C will be directed during the trap removal/60" HDPE
installation.
E. Mitigation Plan
1. It appears that the number of plantings shown on the plans is based off of the disturbed area and
not the 2:1 ratio.
The VSMP permit application and all plans may be resubmitted for approval when all comments have
been satisfactorily addressed. For re -submittals please provide 2 copies of the complete permit package
with a completed application form.
Engineering plan review staff are available from 2-4 PM on Thursdays, should you require a meeting to
discuss this review.
Process;
After approval, plans will need to be bonded. The bonding process is begun by submitting a bond estimate
request form and fee to the Department of Community Development. One of the plan reviewers will
prepare estimates and check parcel and easement information based on the approved plans. The County's
Management Analyst will prepare bond agreement forms, which will need to be completed by the owner
and submitted along with cash, certificates or sureties for the amounts specified. The agreements will need
to be approved and signed by the County Attorney and County Engineer. This may take 2-4 weeks to
obtain all the correct signatures and forms.
Stormwater Management Facilities Maintenance agreements will also need to be completed and recorded.
The County's Management Analyst or other staff will prepare the forms and check for ownership and
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 3
signature information. The completed forms will need to be submitted along with court recording fees.
After bonding and agreements are complete, county staff will need to enter project information in a DEQ
database for state application processing. DEQ will review the application information based on local
VSMP authority approval. At this time, the DEQ portion of the application fees will need to be paid
directly to the state. For fastest processing, this is done electronically with the emails provided on the
application. DEQ should notify applicants with instructions on how to pay fees. When DEQ approves the
application, they will issue a permit coverage letter. This should be copied to the county.
After DEQ coverage is issued, via the coverage letter, the County can hold a pre -construction conference.
Applicants will need to complete the request for a pre -construction conference form, and pay the remainder
of the application fee. The form identifies the contractor and responsible land disturber, and the fee
remaining to be paid. This will be checked by county staff, and upon approval, a pre -construction
conference will be scheduled with the County inspector. At the pre -construction conference, should
everything proceed satisfactorily, a joint VSMP and grading permit will be issued by the County so that
work may begin.
County forms can be found on the county website forms center under engineering;
http://www.albemarle.org/dpptforrns.asp?dgpartment=cden,gwpo
File: WPO201700075 Crozet Court 12-15-17.doc