HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB202000073 Correspondence 2020-07-20 (2)1. [Comment] This being a BLA affecting only TMP 65-15 and TMP 81-57, the plat notes will need to limit
information to that which pertains to these two (2) parcels or, if desired, the notes can address all four
parcels shown on the plat. In either case, the plat notes should be consistent throughout to avoid
confusion in the future. (Note: Proceeding review comments are provided under the assumption that
the applicant wishes to provide information on all four parcels — TMP 65-15, TMP 65-15B, TMP 81-57,
and TMP 81-58 — as indicated by the owner signature panel statement.)
The applicant wishes to provide information on all four parcels
2. [14-302(A)(10)] Development Rights. Revise Note 3 on the plat to clarify the number of development
rights each parcel has now and how many each parcel will have after this BLA. See bulleted information
below. • A 1992 Letter of Determination found that each of the original parcels —TMP 65-15, TMP 65-
15B, TMP 81- 57, and TMP 81-58 — each had five (5) development rights, prior to a 1992 subdivision
which reduced the number of development rights for TMP 65-15 to four (4). Thus, currently, TMP 65-
15B, TMP 81-57, and TMP 81-58 each have five (5) development rights while TMP 65-15 has four (4)
development rights. • Per County Code the three cottages located in Area "X" will need to be allocated
at least three (3) development rights from TMP 65-15 to allow these dwellings to remain. • Regarding
development rights, please be aware that any future subdivisions of these parcels must be in
accordance with County Code 18-10.3, which has several provisions including the "31-acre rule", which
limits the total acreage of any new lots created with development rights to 31 acres.
Note 3 on plat has been revised as per County's suggested rephrasing.
3. [14-302(B)(5)] Zoning. Revise Note 2 to clarify that parcels TMP 65-15, TMP 65-15B, TMP 81-57, and
TMP 81-58 are all zoned RA.
Note 2 on plat has been revised.
4. [Comment] Watershed. Per comment #1, staff recommends revising Note 5 to address all four parcels
TMP 65-15, TMP 65- 15B, TMP 81-57, and TMP 81-58. (Note: All of these parcels are located in the
Mechunk Creek Watershed and are not within an agricultural -forestal district.)
Note 5 on plat has been revised.
5. [14-302(B)(5)] Overlay Districts. Revise Note 6 to clarify the following: a. TMP 65-15 and TMP 65-15B
are located in the Entrance Corridor and Flood Hazard Overlay Districts b. TMP 81-57 and TMP 81-58 are
located in the Flood Hazard Overlay District *Note: The Scenic Byways Overlay is not a regulated overlay
district, therefore, it does not need to be included in these notes.
Note 6 on plat has been revised.
6. [Comment] Flood Hazard Overlay District. Per comment #1, staff recommends revising Note 8 to
address all four parcels TMP 65-15, TMP 65-15B, TMP 81-57, and TMP 81-58.
Note 8 on plat has been revised
7. [14-302(A)(15), 14-212.1(B)] Virginia Outdoors Foundation (VOF) Easement. As these parcels are
subject to a VOF Easement, approval from VOF is needed prior to final plat approval. Please see the
attached letter from VOF regarding this BLA application. County staff will continue to coordinate with
Justin Altice at VOF on the finalization of this plat.
Informed of required VOF approval.
8. [Comment] Sheet size. Staff recommends contacting Albemarle Circuit Court to ensure the sheet size
for this plat, 24in x 36in, is acceptable/compatible with their recordation system.
The size of this plat is acceptable for recordation as per Albemarle County Clerk's Office. Also, final plat
will be in black and white.
9. [14-302(B)(1)] Resubmission. Reminder that revised plats must include the original date of drawing as
well as a date of last revision.
Both dates are included on the revised plat.
10. [Comment] Access. Staff recommends the applicant consider providing an access easement, and
accompanying maintenance agreement, for the benefit of TMP 81-58 with this plat. If an access
easement to the aforementioned parcel is established later, a new plat, application, and fee will be
needed to approve the easement.
No new access to TMP 81-58 is proposed by this revised plat.