HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-2-22Tentative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
FEBRUARY 22, 2013
11:30 A.M., ROOM 241
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
1. Call to Order.
2. Presentation on County Executive’s FY 2013-2014 Recommended Budget.
3. Mountain Valley WPO Exception.
4. From the Board: Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
5. Adjourn to February 25, 2013, 6:00 p.m., Lane Auditorium.
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
Return to County Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2013Files/0222/0.0_Agenda.htm [10/2/2020 3:27:43 PM]
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Mountain Valley WPO Exception
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Exception to the WPO to allow a stream crossing on
TM89-73G5 in Mountain Valley Subdivision, 2060
Ridgetop Drive.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Davis, Graham, and Brooks
PRESENTER (S): Glenn Brooks
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
February 22, 2013
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Mountain Valley Subdivision was approved in 2005. A mitigation plan was approved as part of the development
that committed the developer to provide access to four lots (TMP 89-73, Lots G3, G4, G5 and G6) from Ridgetop Drive
in order to avoid a stream buffer disturbance within the proposed subdivision. This is noted on the approved plans and
the recorded subdivision plat that created these four lots. Attachment A is a map of the property from the County’s
GIS system showing the existing driveway from Ridgetop Drive and the start of a proposed driveway from Ambrose
Commons Drive for Lot G5. Selected excerpts from the previously approved subdivision plan are provided as
Attachment B that show the approved access for Lot G5.
Another mitigation plan was submitted by Collins Engineering on behalf of the owners, Jessco LLC and Piedmont
Realty & Construction, LLC, on September 25, 2012 proposing a stream crossing for Lot G5. That plan is provided as
Attachment C. On October 1, 2012, the County notified Collins Engineering that the plan could not be approved
because the lot had access on Ridgetop Drive (in existence, and provided on previously approved plans). The Water
Protection Ordinance (WPO) does not authorize the Program Authority to approve a stream buffer crossing when
there is an approved existing access to the lot. Collins Engineering submitted the same plan again on January 4,
2013, and the County again notified Collins Engineering on January 10, 2013 that the plan could not be approved. On
January 24, 2013, the County notified Jessco LLC and Piedmont Realty & Construction, LLC that any further
disturbance of the stream buffer was prohibited. That notification letter is provided as Attachment D. On February 4,
2013, the County received a letter dated January 30, 2013 requesting a WPO exception to allow the stream crossing
and driveway. That letter is provided as Attachment E. Section 17-308 of the WPO authorizes the Board to approve
exceptions to the stream buffer requirements when specified findings are satisfied. Normally, this request would be
presented to the Board for consideration at its March 6, 2013 meeting. This request is being presented to the Board
on February 22, 2013 because the property owners have indicated a need for a decision prior to March 1, 2013.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 4. Protect the County’s parks and its natural, scenic and historic resources in accordance with the County’s
established growth management policies
DISCUSSION:
The applicant’s exception request letter cites County Code §§ 17-308 and 17-321.
Section 17-308 lists criteria in paragraph C:
Sec. 17-308 Exceptions.
Except for requests to develop in the stream buffer made pursuant to section 17-321, a request for an
exception to the requirements of this article shall be made and granted as provided herein:[…]
C. A request for exception may be granted provided that:
1. A stormwater management/BMP plan has been submitted to the program authority
for review in accordance with this article; the plan demonstrates that reasonable alternatives to the
exception have been considered and determined to not be feasible through attempts to meet the
AGENDA TITLE: Mountain Valley WPO Exception
February 22, 2013
Page 2
provisions of this article, the use of non-structural measures as provided in section 17-313, the use of
a mitigation plan as provided in section 17-322, or by other means;
2. The exception requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief;
3. Reasonable and appropriate conditions are imposed as necessary to ensure that the
purposes of this article are satisfied; and
4. The basis for the request is not economic hardship, which shall be deemed an
insufficient reason to grant an exception.
The plan does not demonstrate that there are no reasonable alternatives under item (1). There is an existing
approved alternative. In addition, the plan is not the minimum necessary to afford relief under item (2). The plan
disturbs stream buffer that would not otherwise be disturbed.
Section 17-321 includes the following condition:
Sec. 17-321 Types of development which may be allowed in stream buffer by program authority.
Development in a stream buffer may be authorized by the program authority in the circumstances
described below, provided that a mitigation plan is submitted to, and approved, by the program authority
pursuant to section 17-322: […]
3. on a lot on which the development in the stream buffer will consist of the construction
and maintenance of a road, street or driveway that would not satisfy the requirements of section 17-
320(D) and the program authority determines that the stream buffer would prohibit access to the lot
necessary for the lot to be used and developed as permitted in the underlying zoning district and
under the applicable regulations of the subdivision ordinance, or to establish more than one stream
crossing;
The stream buffer does not prohibit access to the lot. There is existing access approved as part of the original
mitigation plan. That access was platted and is currently being used.
Section 17-320D3 was cited in the County’s January 24, 2013 letter to the owners:
Sec. 17-320 Types of development authorized in stream buffer.
If otherwise authorized by the applicable regulations of the zoning ordinance, the following types of
development shall be allowed in a stream buffer, provided that the requirements of this section are satisfied:
[…]
D. Stream crossings of perennial and intermittent streams for roads, streets or d riveways,
provided the following requirements are addressed to the satisfaction of the program authority: […]
3. The stream buffer disturbance shall be the minimum necessary for the lot(s) to be used
and developed as permitted in the underlying zoning district and under the applicable regulations of
the subdivision ordinance. Stream crossings shall not disturb more than thirty (30) linear feet of
stream for driveways and sixty (60) linear feet for roads or streets, provided that the program authority
may allow additional length of stream disturbance where fill slopes or special conditions necessitate
additional length;
The proposed stream crossing would not be the minimum necessary for the lots to be used and developed. The
existing driveway(s) from Ridgetop Drive have eliminated the necessity for stream crossings and buffer disturbance.
Based on this analysis of the property owner’s request, staff believes that the findings required to approve an
exception have not been satisfied and that this buffer disturbance is better defined as a matter of convenience rather
than necessity. The property owner’s engineer has indicated he believes the road with this stream crossing would be
safer, but staff has found no evidence to support that position and notes that there are steep slopes leading down to
the stream crossing, which would make this access difficult. Staff further notes that, while the existing access from
Ambrose Commons is claimed to be part of “…an old gravel farm road…”, that access was not shown on the
approved subdivision plan as required by the Subdivision Ordinance, and appears to have been constructed at
approximately the same time that Ambrose Commons was created.
AGENDA TITLE: Mountain Valley WPO Exception
February 22, 2013
Page 3
BUDGET IMPACT:
No budget impacts anticipated. If an exception is granted, a revised mitigation plan must be conditioned with the
approval, but the fees for that review are intended to recover the cost.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff finds that the necessary criteria for granting an exception request have not been satisfied and recommends
denial of the request.
Should the Board determine the necessary findings have been satisfied and desire to approve the exception, staff
recommends the following conditions be included with this approval:
1. Prior to construction of the stream crossing, the property owner must submit a mitigation plan for th e
disturbance and the plan must be approved prior to commencing construction. The mitigation plan shall be
revised to include mitigation for the prior disturbances of graded access from Ambrose Commons Drive and
the new stream crossing, with the Program Authority having the authority to determine if the proposed
mitigation plan adequately addresses this impact.
2. Associated with reviewing the mitigation plan, the property owner shall demonstrate to the Program Authority’s
satisfaction that all federal and state permits associated with the stream disturbance are in place.
3. Associated with reviewing the mitigation plan, the Program Authority shall determine if a revised Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan is needed for compliance with the approved Erosion and Sediment Control Permit. If a
revised plan is needed, no land disturbance associated with the driveway crossing shall be allowed prior to
approval of a revised plan and the permit including the plan.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – map of property
Attachment B – approved plans from 2005
Attachment C – proposed plan
Attachment D – letter to the owners
Attachment E – letter requesting exception
Return to agenda
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Overlays
Water Protection Ordinanc
Parcel Info
Parcels
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources February 6, 2013
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
432 ft
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
24 Jan 2013
Jessco LLC
P.O. Box 9035
Charlottesville VA, 22906
Piedmont Realty & Constr., LLC
3081 Darby Road,
P.O. Box 724
Keswick, VA 22949
Re: Stream buffer disturbance for driveway and stream crossing on TM89-73G5
For lot in Mountain Valley Subdivision (Building permit B201201640SF)
You are hereby notified that the stream work proposed for your driveway crossing is not approved. The
Water Protection Ordinance application (WPO201200083) submitted by Collins Engineering on your
behalf was not approved. This application has been denied. Any work to build a driveway within the
stream buffer will be a violation of the County’s Water Protection Ordinance. Section 17-320D3
indicates that “disturbance shall be the minimum necessary for the lot(s) to be used and developed”.
This subdivision already has an approved mitigation plan under section 17-321, which shows no
disturbance for driveways on these lots, and assures access on Ridgetop Drive. Your access is currently
on Ridgetop Drive.
The approved plans and plats for Mountain Valley Subdivision indicate that access to this lot (as
well as TM89 parcel 73G3, 73G4, 73G6) is to be provided on Ridgetop Drive. After
consultation with the agent of the Subdivision Ordinance, you are also notified that access from
another location will be in violation of the Subdivision Ordinance.
If you still wish to pursue the matter of driveway access through the stream buffer, you may
request an exception to the Water Protection Ordinance under section 17-308, and this matter
will be scheduled for a Board of Supervisors hearing.
Please contact me if you have questions.
Sincerely,
Glenn Brooks, P.E.
County Engineer
GEB/
Copy: file
January 30, 2013
Glenn Brooks, PE ‐County Engineer
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: Exception/Appeal Request for Mountain Valley Stream Crossing
Dear Mr. Brooks:
On behalf of Jesco LLC and Piedmont Realty & Construction, LLC, please allow this letter to serve as a
formal request for appeal of the denial for a stream crossing to access a lot in the Mountain Valley
Subdivision from the roadway within the Mountain Valley development. On January 24, 2013, we
received a denial of our request for a stream crossing to serve Lot 36 in Mountain Valley Subdivision in
respect to Section 17‐320D3 of the Water Protection Ordinance, because the lot had access from an
adjacent development (Mosby Mountain) and their existing road network. The applicants and the
Albemarle County resident who is currently building their house on this lot are requesting an appeal of
this decision in respect to section 17‐308 and 17‐321 of the Water protection ordinance.
With regards to Section 17‐308, this request meets the (4) requirements as stated in section 17‐308C:
(1) A stormwater management/BMP has been submitted to the program authority for review in
accordance with this article ‐ A water protection and mitigation plan has been submitted for the
driveway access to Lot 36 with this application to protect the stream and to mitigate the stream buffer
impacts with the proposed driveway access. In addition, the stream crossing is being proposed as a
bridge crossing, complying with all the County requirements, to limit any impacts to the actual stream or
stream banks. The mitigation plan complies with section 17‐322 of the Water protection Ordinance.
(2) The exception requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief ‐ The driveway access is being
proposed along an old gravel farm road and access road on the property. The driveway comes off
Ambrose Commons Drive along a pathway utilized during the construction of the development for the
monitoring of the wetlands and the construction of the existing storm outfall from the existing roadway
and roadside ditches. On the other side of the creek, the proposed driveway shall connect to an existing
old gravel farm road (as shown on the existing conditions of the property) and travel up this farm road
to the building site where the house is being constructed on the lot. The driveway is being constructed
along the existing grades of the land, and will minimize the amount of stream buffer disturbance with
the installation of the driveway over the existing access path in this area. The stream crossing is also a
bridge crossing that will limit the disturbance to the stream and stream banks.
(3) Reasonable and appropriate conditions are imposed as necessary to ensure that the purpose of this
article are satisfied – The proposed driveway and stream crossing comply with all (7) of the
www.collins‐engineering.com
434.293.3719 PH 434.293.2813 FX
200 GARRETT ST, SUITE K CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22902
requirements set forth in Section 17‐320 of the water protection ordinance. This driveway crossing is a
bridge crossing which will leave the stream and stream banks undisturbed, the bridge crossing is sized to
allow the 25 yr storm to pass (the requirement is a 10yr storm), the bridge and the abutments are
outside of the stream and stream banks and it will not cause any stream erosion or energy dissipation
issues, there are no additional stream impacts necessary to install the bridge crossing or driveway
access, the stream bed and banks will remain undisturbed, there is a mitigation plan proposed for the
area within the stream buffer for the driveway access, only (1) stream crossing is being requested for
driveway access to this lot, and we have approval from the USCOE and DEQ for the crossing and stream
buffer impact and mitigation.
(4) The basis for the request is not economic hardship – This request for an appeal is in large part
associated with the change in the process by the County in which this driveway access was going to be
reviewed and approved. Back in October, 2012 our original driveway crossing was denied by the County
because of the subdivision plat required that this lot must have access from Ridge Top Drive. We met
with County staff in October 2012, and a clear procedure was established in that meeting for how this
driveway access would be processed and approved. It included the re‐subdivision of the overall
development plat to remove this requirement, resubmission of the water protection plan for the
construction of the driveway access, and final approval from DEQ on the stream crossing and mitigation.
We followed all these steps, as outlined by the County. Meanwhile, the residents started construction
on the house, facing the house toward the proposed driveway from the stream crossing. It was not until
a month or so after these requirements were completed that we received a second denial letter from
the County, which brought up a completely new issue about crossing the stream. This was not ever
mentioned in the previous meetings back in October. This denial is requiring the driveway to enter from
Ridge Top Drive, which now faces the back of the house, not the front of the house. Had this issue been
known back in October before the house construction started, the house could have been turned 180
degrees so the house could face the driveway, if it had to come in from Ridge Top Drive and the back of
the house would face the stream and existing pond. The applicants and the resident are extremely
disappointed in the misdirection by staff throughout this application process.
Our request for an appeal of the denial of this stream buffer impact meets all the requirements set forth
in Section 17‐308 of the Water protection ordinance. In addition, our proposal meets all the
requirements set forth in Section 17‐320 of the Water Protection Ordinance for an authorized type of
development in a stream buffer, except 17‐320(D) based on staff’s current determination of this section
of the ordinance in this specific case. Furthermore, our application meets the requirements of Section
17‐321, which would allow this type of development in stream buffer by authorization of the program
authority, and provided that a mitigation plan is submitted and approved the by the program authority.
We have completed a mitigation plan as required for this stream buffer impact, and the plan was
completed in accordance with Section 17‐322. Below is the original approved plan by USCOE and DEQ
for the project along with some pictures of this proposed access and stream impact. We look forward to
your help to resolve this issue, and respectfully request a redress of on this matter.
Scott Collins, PE
Picture #1: Proposed Driveway from Ambrose Common Drive
Picture #2: Location of Proposed Driveway crossing