Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB202000110 Correspondence 2020-07-02 Christopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Friday,April 2, 2021 1:02 PM To: Charles Rapp Cc: Bill Fritz; Frank Pohl Subject: SUB2006-00417 - Bundoran Farm - Road Plan Amendment(private -Winsome Orchard Lane) Attachments: SUB2006-00417 - Bundoran Farm - Road Plan Amendment(private-Winsome Orchard Lane) Charles, SUB2006-00417-Bundoran Farm-Road Plan Amendment(private-Winsome Orchard Lane) As discussed at the `redistribution meeting' it was decided that you and Bill will be taking the Bundoran Farm vacation plat(whenever it is submitted) and the road plan amendment moving forward.The road plan is under review as "SUB2006-417 Road Plan Amendment to Bundoran Winsome Orchard Road".This plan is a digital submittal and only available in Countyview,LINK to the plan.Attached is Frank's distribution email for this project.Review comments are due for this project by May 4th,that's the 60 day.deadline. Frank already entered you in CV as the reviewer for planning. For your history files for whenever the vacation plat comes in,I am providing you the closed out file for SUB2020-110 Access Easement Vacation Plat also locally known as"TOM FOREST LANE VACATION PLAT".This was denied on 7-6-2020.It will be located in your office with this email. I also want to make sure you have all the emails I have received on this project. So I plan to send you a couple emails with attached emails for your files. Christopher Perez Senior Planner Albemarle County cperez(cr�,albemarle.org office 434.296.5832 x 3443 ✓ 401 McIntire Road,Charlottesville,VA 22902 From: Margaret Maliszewski<MMaliszewski@albemarle.org> Sent: Friday,April 2, 2021 12:18 PM To: CDD- Planning<CDD-Planning@albemarle.org> Subject: re-assignment of Chris's applications Hello, Planners. Chris is in the process of closing out and cleaning up his files. We've reviewed his project list with him and have attempted to identify planners to take over each of his open files.Some of you have already received emails from Chris on application reassignments. Chris will continue to pass files on, but we will be continuing to review the assignments, particularly considering new submittals that come in next week, and we will do our best to distribute work evenly. It looks like we will all need to remain flexible for a time as we try to manage this heavy workload and fill open positions. Thanks for your cooperation and please don't hesitate to contact me if you have questions. Thanks. Margaret 1 Margaret Maliszewski Planning Manager, Department of Community Development Albemarle County 1 2 Christopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Thursday,July 2, 2020 4:25 PM To: Megan Nedostup Subject: RE: Bundoran Farm - SUB202000110 Access Easement Vacation Plat- Easement Plat OK, I'll send it to Andy for his sign off.Thanks From: Megan Nedostup<mnedostup@albemarle.org> Sent:Thursday,July 2, 2020 4:25 PM To:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: Bundoran Farm-SUB202000110 Access Easement Vacation Plat-Easement Plat I am good with what you outlined. Thanks, Megan Nedostup, AICP (pronounced nuh-DAHST-up) she/her/hers(What is this?) Principal Planner Community Development Department Planning Services ph: 434.296.5832 ext. 3004 From:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Sent:Thursday,July 2, 2020 10:05 AM To: Megan Nedostup<mnedostup@albemarle.org> Subject: FW: Bundoran Farm-SUB202000110 Access Easement Vacation Plat-Easement Plat Megan, Bill called me up via Teams and we discussed.the changes. He agrees with all my changes and suggested I wait till you give me the go ahead as he believes you were mulling this over...Let me know. The attached doc titled: "SUB202000110..." is the draft letter. The next step is to send this to the County Attorney for a curtesy review of the action letter. Christopher Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 From:Christopher Perez Sent:Wednesday,July 1, 2020 1:40 PM To: Bill Fritz<BFRITZ@albemarle.org> Cc: Megan Nedostup<mnedostup@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: Bundoran Farm-SUB202000110 Access Easement Vacation Plat- Easement Plat Bill, 1 I understand your strategy of less detai __ the action letter. I'm good with that;howc.__, it seems you added or omitted certain parcels from the various comments,which I have questions about.I marked up your draft action letter with my comments and provided snips to explain why certain parcels should or should not be added to various comments.Also,I had some section reference questions which I marked up in the attached doc. Assuming I'm correct on all the edits,I drafted a final action letter w/everything changed to match my edits using the last action letter the County Attorney reviewed as a template. Take a look at it and let me know.After which I'll send it to the County Attorney for his review and then send to the applicant. Thanks for getting into this one. Christopher Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 From: Bill Fritz<BFRITZ@albemarle.org> Sent:Wednesday,July 1,2020 10:35 AM To:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Cc: Megan Nedostup<mnedostup@albemarle.org> -- -Subject: RE: Bundoran Farm_SUB202000110 Access Easement Vacation Plat-Easement Plat I think you were on the right path with this. I started working with your memo and then decided just to write an action letter. - This application is of a type we don't usually get,a vacation plat. The only thing that gets reviewed is the vacation of Tom Forest Lane. Technically, all of the-other things contained on the previous plat remain. That _ means notes about development rights,building sites etc. are not needed. You are correct that the plat is - missing those things but it isn't-required to have them. As I said,this is a type of application we rarely get. I wrote an action letter. It is short and to the point. - No internal access - No frontage - Violation of road standard I used the-language from the ordinance for vacations. It uses the term consent instead of approval and withhold consent instead of denial. Take a look and tell me what you think. The letter is just a draft. Which will be obvious when you look at it. William D. Fritz,AICP Development Process Manager/Ombudsman 434-296-5823 ext 3242 From:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Sent:Wednesday,June 24,2020 12:05 PM To: Bill.Fritz<BFRITZ@lalbemarle.org> Cc: Megan Nedostup<mnedostup@albemarle.org> Subject: Bundoran Farm-SUB202000110 Access Easement Vacation Plat-Easement Plat Bill, - Bundoran Farm- SUB202000110 Access Easement Vacation Plat-Easement Plat 2 - I've completed my review of SUBL. )-110.Please review my comments and s__. 'I missed anything that you are aware of or if you want me to come at this another way. Christopher Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 3 Christopher Perez From: Megan Nedostup Sent: Thursday,July 2, 2020 4:25 PM To: Christopher Perez Subject: RE: Bundoran Farm - SUB202000110 Access Easement Vacation Plat- Easement Plat I am good with what you outlined. Thanks, Megan Nedostup, AICP (pronounced nuh-DAHST-up) she/her/hers(What is this?) Principal Planner Community Development Department Planning Services ph: 434.296.5832 ext. 3004 From:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Sent:Thursday,July 2, 2020 10:05 AM To: Megan Nedostup<mnedostup@albemarle.org> Subject: FW: Bundoran Farm -SUB202000110 Access Easement Vacation Plat-Easement Plat Megan, Bill-called me up via Teams and we discussed the changes. He agrees with all my changes and suggested I wait -- till you give me the go ahead as he believes you were mulling this over...Let me know. The attached doc titled: "SUB202000110..."is the draft letter. The next step is to send this to the County Attorney for a curtesy review of the action letter. Christopher Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 From:Christopher Perez Sent:Wednesday,July 1, 2020 1:40 PM To: Bill Fritz<BFRITZ@albemarle.org> Cc: Megan Nedostup<mnedostup@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: Bundoran Farm-SUB202000110 Access Easement Vacation Plat-Easement Plat Bill, I understand your strategy of less detail in the action letter.I'm good with that;however, it seems you added or omitted certain parcels from the various comments,which I have questions about.I marked up your draft action letter with my comments and provided snips to explain why certain parcels should or should not be added to various comments.Also,I had some section reference questions which I marked up in the attached doc. Assuming I'm correct on all the edits,I drafted a final action letter w/everything changed to match my edits using the last action letter the County Attorney reviewed as a template. Take a look at it and let me know.After which I'll send it to the 1 County Attorney for his review and tlhcnr�end to the applicant. Thanks for getting into this one. Christopher Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 From: Bill Fritz<BFRITZ@albemarle.org> Sent:Wednesday,July 1, 2020 10:35 AM To: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Cc: Megan Nedostup<mnedostup@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: Bundoran Farm-SUB202000110 Access Easement Vacation Plat-Easement Plat I think you were on the right path with this. I started working with your memo and then decided just to write an action letter. This application is of a type we don't usually get, a vacation plat. The only thing that gets reviewed is the vacation of Tom Forest Lane. Technically, all of the other things contained on the previous plat remain. That means notes about development rights,building sites etc. are not needed. You are correct that the plat is missing those things but it isn't required to have them. As I said,this is a type of application we rarely get. I wrote an action letter. It is short and to the point. - No internal access - No frontage - Violation of road standard I used the language from the ordinance for vacations. It uses the term consent instead of approval and withhold consent instead of denial. Take a look and tell me what you think. The letter is just a draft. Which will be obvious when you look at it. William D. Fritz,AICP Development Process Manager/Ombudsman 434-296-5823 ext 3242 From: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Sent:Wednesday,June 24,2020 12:05 PM To: Bill Fritz<BFRITZ@albemarle.org> Cc: Megan Nedostup<mnedostup@albemarle.org> Subject: Bundoran Farm -SUB202000110 Access Easement Vacation Plat- Easement Plat Bill, Bundoran Farm- SUB202000110 Access Easement Vacation Plat-Easement Plat I've completed my review of SUB2020-110.Please review my comments and see if I missed anything that you are aware of or if you want me to come at this another way. Christopher Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 2 Christopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Thursday,.July 2, 2020 10:05 AM To: Megan Nedostup Subject: FW: Bundoran Farm - SUB202000110 Access Easement Vacation Plat- Easement Plat Attachments: SUB202000110 Access Easement Vacation Plat-Action Letter.docx; Denial Letter CPP edits.docx Megan, Bill called me up via Teams and we discussed the changes. He agrees with all my changes and suggested I wait till you give me the go ahead as he believes you were mulling this over...Let me know. The attached doc titled: "SUB202000110..."is the draft letter. The next step is to send this to the County Attorney for a curtesy review of the action letter. Christopher Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 From:Christopher Perez Sent:Wednesday,July 1, 2020 1:40 PM To: Bill Fritz<BFRITZ@albemarle.org> Cc: Megan Nedostup<mnedostup@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: Bundoran Farm-SUB202000110 Access Easement Vacation Plat-Easement Plat Bill, I understand your strategy of less detail in the action letter.I'm good with that; however, it seems you added or omitted certain parcels from the various comments,which I have questions about.I marked up your draft action letter with my comments and provided snips to explain why certain parcels should or should not be added to various comments.Also,I had some section reference questions which I marked up in the attached doc. Assuming I'm correct on all the edits,I drafted a final action letter w/everything changed to match my edits using the last action letter the County Attorney reviewed as a template.Take a look at it and let me know.After which I'll send it to the County Attorney for his review and then send to the applicant. Thanks for getting into this one. Christopher Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 From: Bill Fritz<BFRITZ@albemarle.org> Sent:Wednesday,July 1, 2020 10:35 AM To:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Cc: Megan Nedostup<mnedostup@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: Bundoran Farm-SUB202000110 Access Easement Vacation Plat-Easement Plat 1 M I think you were-on the right path i ___this. I started working with your mere.;dnd then decided just to write an action letter. This application is of a type we don't usually get,a vacation plat. The only thing that gets reviewed is the vacation of Tom Forest Lane. Technically, all of the other things contained on the previous plat remain. That means notes about development rights,building sites etc. are not needed. You are correct that the plat is missing those things but it isn't required to have them. As I said,this is a type of application we rarely get. I wrote an action letter. It is short and to the point. - No internal access - No frontage - Violation of road standard I used the language from the ordinance for vacations. It uses the term consent instead of approval and withhold consent instead of denial. Take a look and tell me what you think. The letter is just a draft. Which will be obvious when you look at it. William D. Fritz,AICP Development Process Manager/Ombudsman 434-296-5823 ext 3242 From:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Sent:Wednesday,June 24, 2020 12:05 PM To: Bill Fritz<BFRITZ@albemarle.org> Cc: Megan Nedostup<mnedostup@albemarle.org> Subject: Bundoran Farm-SUB202000110 Access Easement Vacation Plat-Easement Plat Bill, - --Bundoran Farm- SUB202000110 Access Easement Vacation Plat-Easement Plat I've completed my review of SUB2020-110.Please review my comments and see if I missed anything that you are aware of or if you want me to come at this another way. Christopher Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 2 The agent has reviewed your proposal to vacate Tom Forest Lane which is part of the I8undoran Subdivision plat!L _ Commented[CP1]:Bundoran Farm subdivision plat 1 The agent reviewed the proposal for compliance with applicable law to determine if consent for the vacation may be given. The agent does not give consent for the vacation of Tom Forest Lane. The agent withholds consent for the following reasons: 1.-The following parcels will not have access to an internal street as required by Chapter 14, Section 14-404A of the Code of Albemarle: - TMP 86-71; - TMP 86-72; - TMP 86-73; - TMP 86 74 ---' Commented[CP2]:The reason why I didn't include TMP - 86-74(Lot D8)in my comment#1 is because.the original V 9` J / plat for Bundoran depicts a different road to serve that lot. en 1.01719 �/ Tom Preserve Lane(sheets 11A,21,&23),which bisects the ® �„ '' property.The building site for that lot is adjacent to Tom wa....10 Ma...w.ng / Dd ti+e. Preserve Lane.Below are snips from the original plat.Thus I .vw.+w wr.. ra r�¢r $ F..�=IIi don't think Tom Forest Lane was ever intended to serve that �� lot. W ?//,,,,,,)%lii,...- -\. LOSD12gN'" LQl'O 0\ • • \ LWFDS k.. AVM' LOSDI \ 1\----::::::::-....... wrD9 1 ' ta0a'et iOnonv •bem " vitmb10�"' �a 1rD40mII DOW=� s�`aoia�uo to s "%w o: '�LYGY78 .61-.{IfI ° DfIU671.41 i 6D..Y�bS O MM.1 nt ]I m Ln1GL11/111910/MA 1.11 Ia'av a� is a : : \: cam VI r•l taw' el NM �a ....".• vl,„� mes.Tir r 4. °ft .¢.mod MUM ..fJ b''''' SY mum ,...z�`�•� arm � ��\ILOC PMIA odga-aid r:rs -vav'v+ AC..i• lVOS 133149 Mara. USD # b SflYtamot¢rrom s 1/DtiF tr '°1111.41° aVailliENTAIVILLV aDVJ MO H 1.O'I 1 I " ,- -.! 1 -` ` .t ±— ,' i'"'\\\ V - i 1/,'... ,... .4tik......... I _ I I 2. Frontage as required by Chapter 14,!Section 14-404A)s not provided for TMP 86-72. f ---- Commented[CP3]:Frontage requirements are contained I' under Section 14-403.Is this the section you meant to 3. Providing access to Winsome Orchard Lane for[rMP 86-71 is in violation of Chapter 14,Section reference? - 11 234C. This lot was intended to access Tom Forest Lane. By accessing Winsome Orchard Lane it Commented[CP4]:My comment#2 also included TMP increases the number of lots served by Winsome Orchard Lane to 6. Winsome Orchard Lane 86-72 because it was never intended to serve this lot either does not meet the standards for a street serving six lots as required bylChapter 14,.Section 2341I and the plat is stating it will be added to that road.I think we need to include this TMP also. For the above stated reasons the agent withholds consent to vacate Tom Forest Lane. ` Commented[CPS]:should we also reference Section 14- 412 Standards for private streets? J � fA �I_'� lll� c4� ©! us i COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596 July 3,2020 Tyler Jamison 435 Merchant Walk Square Suite 300-159 Charlottesville VA 22902 RE:Action Letter—The agent does not give consent for the vacation of Tom Forest Lane. (SUB202000110 Access Easement Vacation Plat) The agent has reviewed your proposal to vacate Tom Forest Lane which is part of the Bundoran Farm Subdivision plat.The - agent reviewed the proposal,as shown on SUB202000110 dated 6-1-2020,for compliance with applicable law to determine if consent for the vacation may be given pursuant to Subdivision Ordinance Section§14-212.2.The agent does not give consent for the vacation of Tom Forest Lane.The agent withholds consent for the following reasons: 1. [14-404,14-404(A)] The following parcels will not have access to an internal street as required by Chapter 14,Section 14- 404A of the Code of Albemarle: - TMP 86-71; - TMP 86-72; - TMP 86-73; 2. [14-403]Frontage as required by Chapter 14,Section 14-403 is not provided for TMP 86-72. 3. [14-234(C),14-234, 14-412,14-412(A)(3)] Providing access to Winsome Orchard Lane for TMP 86-71 and TMP 86-72 is in violation of Chapter 14,Section 234C.These lots were intended to access Tom Forest Lane.By accessing Winsome Orchard Lane it increases the number of lots served by Winsome Orchard Lane to 7. Winsome Orchard Lane does not meet the standards for a street serving six or more lots as required by Chapter 14,Section 234 and Chapter 14,Section 412. For the above stated reasons the agent withholds consent to vacate Tom Forest Lane. Respectfully, Christopher Perez Senior Planner—Planning Services Division Albemarle County Community Development Department cnerez@albemarle.org (434)-296-5832 x 3443 File: SUB202000110 CC: Core Bundoran,LLC—Owner: 600 E.Water Street, Suite H.Charlottesville VA 22902 Christopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Wednesday,July 1, 2020 1:40 PM To: Bill Fritz Cc: Megan Nedostup Subject: RE: Bundoran Farm - SUB202000110 Access Easement Vacation Plat- Easement Plat Attachments: SUB202000110 Access Easement Vacation Plat-Action Letter.docx; Denial Letter CPP edits.docx Bill, I understand your strategy of less detail in the action letter.I'm good with that;however,it seems you added or omitted certain parcels from the various comments,which I have questions about. I marked up your draft action letter with my comments and provided snips to explain why certain parcels should or should not be added to various comments.Also,I had some section reference questions which I marked up in the attached doc. Assuming I'm correct on all the edits,I drafted a final action letter w/everything changed to match my edits using the last action letter the County Attorney reviewed as a template.Take a look at it and let me know.After which I'll send it to the County Attorney for his review and then send to the applicant. Thanks for getting into this one. Christopher Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 From: Bill Fritz<BFRITZ@albemarle.org> Sent:Wednesday,July 1,2020 10:35 AM To:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Cc: Megan Nedostup<mnedostup@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: Bundoran Farm-SUB202000110 Access Easement Vacation Plat-Easement Plat I think you were on the right path with this. I started working with your memo and then decided just to write an action letter. This application is of a type we don't usually get, a vacation plat. The only thing that gets reviewed is the vacation of Tom Forest Lane. Technically,all of the other things contained on the previous plat remain. That means notes about development rights,building sites etc. are not needed. You are correct that the plat is missing those things but it isn't required to have them. As I said,this is a type of application we rarely get. I wrote an action letter. It is short and to the point. - No internal access - No frontage - Violation of road standard I used the language from the ordinance for vacations. It uses the term consent instead of approval and withhold consent instead of denial. Take a look and tell me what you think. The letter is just a draft. Which will be obvious when you look at it. 1 William D. Fritz,AICP - Development Process Manager/Ombudsman 434-296-5823 ext 3242 From:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Sent:Wednesday,June 24, 2020 12:05 PM To: Bill Fritz<BFRITZ@albemarle.org> Cc: Megan Nedostup<mnedostup@albemarle.org> Subject: Bundoran Farm -SUB202000110 Access Easement Vacation Plat-Easement Plat Bill, Bundoran Farm- SUB202000110 Access Easement Vacation Nat-Easement Plat I've completed my review of SUB2020-110.Please review my comments and see if I missed anything that you are aware of or if you want me to come at this another way. Christopher Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 2 • r The agent has reviewed your proposal to vacate Tom Forest Lane which is part of the IBundoran Subdivision plat I. " Commented[CP11:Bundoran Farm subdivision plat ,) The agent reviewed the proposal for compliance with applicable law to determine if consent for the vacation may be given. The agent does not give consent for the vacation of Tom Forest Lane. The agent withholds consent for the following reasons: 1. The following parcels will not have access to an internal street as required by Chapter 14, Section 14-404A of the Code of Albemarle: - TMP 86-71; - TMP 86-72; - TMP 86-73; • - TMP 86-741 - - Commented[CP2]:The reason why I didn't include TMP 86-74(Lot D8)in my comment 81 is because the original '+" ; '•'• .--1, / plat for Bundoran depicts a different road to serve that lot. �� a t' 1011 •\ • - Tom Preserve Lane(sheets SSA,21,&23),which bisects the ® ���') •~cm • property.The building site for that lot is adjacent to Tom • ewe a+I^dvo ns v+e = Preserve Lane.Below are snips from the original,plat.Thus I �vw la. don't think Tom Forest Lane was ever intended to serve that 1..., •.. :1.-- ..1, -• lot. t�J DI2 N ' tom .kfQRI�,' Itr ........' tams tarm torc9 1\ l - -- . i wlo uuvaii adm.Ad,a;,.ab.,K,•,,. � _ Cf-.I:ame r� TTSLEEE:Si'ii • m®\)srlam! , a..1 ' gg Ra Cer , =O O uo1cM .m mra9irDOSSY" r 1 Well atlu:a rFwa ICt53 w1?1.1 fill ..l�.A.lfA yV!ll{ 1,:l u"'n{ta't t' l.tA.<A Gn,r _ m't42 t n.iGdn •�.NlBi AfJ01 M� "yam {yy c. • 11111.01 \ N)O) (NA La _____ w4gq P..1A.LV....6- voc.. 133NS ACM'LL1>;110flY _ it5aa ‘°"nvilb aVallIEWINIVH,LV HOVJ.NOOId,LO l t i rim %� / i -- WW1 2. Frontage as required by Chapter 14,(Section 14=404A(is not provided for TMP 86-72. --- Commented[CP3]:Frontage requirements are contained under Section 14-403.Is this the section you meant to 3. Providing access to Winsome Orchard Lane for MP 86-71 Is in violation of Chapter 14,Section reference? - 234C. This lot was intended to access Tom Forest Lane. By accessing Winsome Orchard Lane it Commented[CP4]:My comment#2 also included TMP increases the number of lots served by Winsome Orchard Lane to 6. Winsome Orchard Lane 86-72 because it was never intended to serve this lot either does not meet the standards for a street serving six lots as required bylChapter 14,Section 234i I and the plat is stating it will be added to that road.I think 'we need to include this TMP also. For the above stated reasons the agent withholds consent to vacate Tom Forest Lane. Commented[CPS]:should we also reference Section 14- 1 412 Standards for private streets? 1 S of AL©— COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596 July 3,2020 Tyler Jamison 435 Merchant Walk Square Suite 300-159 Charlottesville VA 22902 RE:Action Letter—The agent does not give consent for the vacation of Tom Forest Lane. (SUB202000110 Access Easement Vacation Plat) The agent has reviewed your proposal to vacate Tom Forest Lane which is part of the Bundoran Farm Subdivision plat.The agent reviewed the proposal,as shown on SUB202000110 dated 6-1-2020,for compliance with applicable law to determine if consent for the vacation may be given pursuant to Subdivision Ordinance Section§14-212.2.The agent does not give consent for the vacation of Tom Forest Lane.The agent withholds consent for the following reasons: 1. [14-404,14-404(A)]The followingparcels will not have access to an internal street as required by Chapter 14,Section 14- 404A of the Code of Albemarle: - TMP 86-71; - TMP 86-72; - TMP 86-73; 2. [-14-403]Frontage as required by Chapter 14,Section 14-403 is not provided for TMP 86-72. 3. [14-234(C),14-234,14-412,14-412(A)(3)] Providing access to Winsome Orchard Lane for TMP 86-71 and TMP 86-72 is in violation of Chapter 14,Section 234C.These lots were intended to access Tom Forest Lane.By accessing Winsome Orchard Lane it increases the number of lots served by Winsome Orchard Lane to 7. Winsome Orchard Lane does not meet the standards for a street serving six or more lots as required by Chapter 14,Section 234 and Chapter 14,Section 412. For the above stated reasons the agent withholds consent to vacate Tom Forest Lane. Respectfully, Christopher Perez Senior Planner—Planning Services Division Albemarle County Community Development Department cperez@albemarle.org (434)-296-5832 x 3443 File: SUB202000110 CC: Core Bundoran,LLC—Owner: 600 E.Water Street,Suite H.Charlottesville VA 22902 Christopher Perez From: Bill Fritz Sent: Wednesday,July 1, 2020 10:35 AM To: Christopher Perez Cc: Megan Nedostup Subject: RE: Bundoran Farm - SUB202000110 Access Easement Vacation Plat- Easement Plat Attachments: Denial Letter.docx I think you were on the right path with this. I started working with your memo and then decided just to write an action letter. This application is of a type we don't usually get,a vacation plat. The only thing that gets reviewed is the . vacation of Tom Forest Lane. Technically,all of the other things contained on the previous plat remain. That means notes about development rights,building sites etc.are not needed. You are correct that the plat is _: . missing those things but it isn't required to have them. As I said,this is a type of application we rarely get. I wrote an action letter. It is short and to the point. - No internal access - No frontage - Violation of road standard -I used the language from the ordinance for vacations. It uses the term consent instead of approval and withhold consent instead of denial. __ _Take a look and tell me what you think. The letter is just a draft. Which will be obvious when you look at it. William D. Fritz,MCP Development Process Manager/Ombudsman 434-296-5823 ext 3242 From:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Sent:Wednesday,June 24, 2020 12:05 PM To: Bill Fritz<BFRITZ@albemarle.org> Cc: Megan Nedostup<mnedostup@albemarle.org> Subject: Bundoran Farm-SUB202000110 Access Easement Vacation Plat-Easement Plat Bill, Bundoran Farm- SUB202000110 Access Easement Vacation Plat-Easement Plat I've completed my review of SUB2020-110.Please review my comments and see if I missed anything that you are aware of or if you want me to come at this another way. Christopher Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 1 The agent has reviewed your proposal to vacate Tom Forest Lane which is part of the Bundoran Subdivision plat. The agent reviewed the proposal for compliance with applicable law to determine if consent for the vacation may be given. The agent does not give consent for the vacation of Tom Forest Lane. The agent withholds consent for the following reasons: 1.._The following parcels will not have access to an internal street as required by Chapter 14, Section 14-404A of the Code of Albemarle: - TMP 86-71; - TMP 86-72; - TMP 86-73; - TMP 86-74 2. Frontage as-required by Chapter 14,Section 14-404A is not provided for TMP 86-72. 3. Providing access to-Winsome-Orchard Lane for TMP 86-71 is in violation of Chapter 14,Section 234C. This lot was intended to access Tom Forest Lane. By accessing Winsome Orchard Lane it increases the,number of lots served by Winsome Orchard Lane to 6. Winsome Orchard Lane does not meet the_standards.for a street serving six lots as required by Chapter 14,Section 234. For the above stated reasons the agent withholds consent to vacate Tom Forest Lane. Christopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Wednesday,June 24,2020 1:59 PM To: Bill Fritz Cc: Megan Nedostup Subject: RE: Bundoran Farm - SUB202000110 Access Easement Vacation Plat- Easement Plat We're good on time.Thanks From: Bill Fritz<BFRITZ@albemarle.org> Sent:Wednesday,June 24,2020 1:58 PM To:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Cc: Megan Nedostup<mnedostup@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: Bundoran Farm-SUB202000110 Access Easement Vacation Plat-Easement Plat Thanks Chris. I will take a look at. It won't be until later this week though. William D. Fritz,MCP Development Process Manager/Ombudsman 434-296-5823 ext 3242 From:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Sent:Wednesday,June 24,2020 12:05 PM To: Bill Fritz<BFRITZ@albemarle.org> Cc: Megan Nedostup<mnedostup@albemarle.org> Subject:-Bundoran Farm -SUB202000110 Access Easement Vacation Plat- Easement Plat Bill, Bundoran Farm- SUB202000110 Access Easement Vacation Plat-Easement Plat I've completed my review of SUB2020-110.Please review my comments and see if I missed anything that you are aware of or if you want me to come at this another way. Christopher Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 1 1110 Christopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Wednesday,June 24,2020 12:05 PM To: Bill Fritz Cc: Megan Nedostup Subject: Bundoran Farm - SUB202000110 Access Easement Vacation Plat- Easement Plat Attachments: CD1 SUB202000110 Access Easement Vacation Plat- Easement Plat.docx; SUB202000110 Plan -Submittal (First) 2020-06-01.pdf Bill, Bundoran Farm- SUB202000110 Access Easement Vacation Plat-Easement Plat I've completed my review of SUB2020-110:Please review my comments and see if I missed anything that you are aware of or if you want me to come at this another way. Christopher Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 1 1111 ehnitin 7400 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,VA,22902 434-296-5832 Memorandum To: Tyler Jamison From: Christopher Perez,Senior Planner Division: Planning bate: DRAFT—PLEASE REVIEW Subject: SUB202000110 Access Easement Vacation Plat-Easement Plat The County of Albemarle Planning Division will grant or recommend approval of the plat referenced above once the following comments have been addressed:[Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference,which is to the Subdivision/Zoning Ordinances unless otherwise specified.] 1. 114-404(A)1 Single point of access required.Tom Forest Lane is the County approved private street created at the .same time as the original subdivision to provide access to Edge Valley Road for TMP 86-71(Lot D5),TMP 86-72 (Lot D6),and TMP 86-73(Lot 7-R).The"30'access easement and variable width grading slope maintenance and drainage easement"recorded in DB 5032-332 and referenced on the plat was not approved by the County nor created at the time of the subdivision and therefor is not permitted to provide access to Edge Valley Road for Lot D5 and Lot D6.Additionally,the proposed vacation permits TMP 86-73(Lot 7-R)direct access to Edge Valley Road through the remains of Tom Forest Lane,which would be reduced to a driveway.Lots are only permitted -access to Edge Valley Road through private streets created at the same time as the original subdivision.For this reason the proposed vacation of Tom Forest Lane is not permitted. 2. [14-410(F),.14-412]Principal means of access to subdivision.The principal means of access to a subdivision shall be either a public street or a private street.The"30'access easement and variable width grading slope maintenance and drainage easement"recorded in DB 5032-332 and referenced on the plat was not approved by the County as a private street and therefor is not permitted to provide access to Edge Valley Road for TMP 86-71 (Lot D5)and TM?86-72(Lot D6).For this reason the proposed vacation of Tom Forest Lane is not permitted. 3. [14-412,14-412(A)(3)]Standards for private streets only.When the private street Winsome Orchard Lane was approved it only served 5 lots:TMP 86-67(Lot DI),TMP 86-70(Lot D4),TMP 86-69(Lot D3),TMP 86-68(Lot D2),and TMP 86-64(Lot C5).To switch the access of TMP 86-71(Lot D5)and TMP 86-72(Lot D6)to Winsome Orchard Lane would add additional lots to this private street.The road standards that the road was originally approved at are below the standards that are necessary to serve the additional lots.Prior to plat approval the road would need to be evaluated to determine what would be needed to upgrade the road to meet VDOT standards.If the existing portion of Winsome Orchard Lane needs to be upgraded,prior to plat approval a road plan amendment shall be submitted,reviewed,and approved.A private street request would also be needed to permit the private street extension,and the Planning Commission would need to review and approve the private street request before the plat can be approved.Additionally,a special exception is needed to disturb critical slopes,as the street extension through TMP 86-70 disturbs critical slopes,this request would need to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by the Board of Supervisors prior to road plan and plat approval.Additional plans and plats may be needed depending on the improvements needed to upgrade the road and facilitate the extension,such as a WPO plan amendment,final plat to extend the road,boundary line adjustments plats with adjacent lots to increase the width of the road. 4. [14-400,4.2,4.2.3,4:2.6]Critical Slopes.The existing driveway/accessway built within the"30'access easement and variable width grading slope maintenance and drainage easement"recorded in DB 5032-332 and referenced on the plat is in violation of County Code as it was constructed through critical slopes that were not approved to be 1 disturbed.This activity is not exempt from County ordinance provisions to protect critical slopes.Winsome - 1 Orchard Lane was never intended to serve TMP 86-71(Lot D5)or TMP 86-72(Lot D6).[it appears the' 'disturbance took place on TMP 86-70,County staff will work with the property owner and process a violation.L -- Commented[CPI]:What do we do in this situation?The applicant of this plat didn't create the critical slope disturbance.I 5. 114-4031 Lot frontage.Tom Forest Lane provides the required frontage for Lot D6,without this private street Lot assume we would process a violation on the property owners who's land the disturbance took place on?Or do we wait and see if these D6 does not have the minimum required frontage in the RA zoning district.The"30'access easement and applicants apply for the SE to disturb the already disturbed slopes? variable width grading slope maintenance and drainage easement"recorded in DB 5032-332 and referenced on the plat is not a County approved private street,therefor it does not provide the required frontage to TMP 86-72 (Lot D6).For this reason Tom Forest Lane cannot be vacated. 6. [14-403]Lot frontage.To insure all lots have the required frontage,provide the frontage measurements for TMP 86-74(Lot D-8R)and TMP 86-71(Lot D5). 7 [14-302(A)(9),4.2.2(b)(1),4.2.1,14-400]Building Site.Revise note#5 as follows:"Parcel[letter or number] and the residue of Tax Map/Parcel[numbers]each contain a building site that complies with section 4.2.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance." 8. [14-302(A)(3)]Existing or platted streets.Provide the width of Rte.696. 9 [14-302(A)(10)]Right off rather division of proposed lots.Development rights are not affected with the easement vacation,please state the following: "Developments rights are not affected by this plat." 10. [14-303(D)]Acreage of lots.On the plat provide the acreage of each lot. -11. 114-303(Q)1 Water Supply On the plat provide the following note: "Under current county policy,public water and/or sewer service will not be available to this property." 12. 114-302(B)(10)]Stream buffers.Provide the following note: "The stream buffer(s)shown hereon shall be managed in accordance with the Albemarle County Water Protection Ordinance. Please contact Christopher Perez in the Planning Division by using cperez(a�albemarle.org or 434-296-5832 ext.3443 for further information. - i 2 Christopher Perez From: Bill Fritz Sent: Tuesday,June 16, 2020 11:49 AM To: Christopher Perez Subject: Bundoran I was looking at my notes and came across this. Winsome Lane was originally called Quarry Lane. When Bundoran was approved it was approved with a 16 foot width instead of 18 feet. If the vacation plat results in more lots accessing this road it needs to be evaluated to determine if the road design is still adequate. The road originally was to serve 5 lots. If it bumps up to 6 that could change things. William D. Fritz,AICP Development Process Manager/Ombudsman 434-296-5823 ext 3242 i Christopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Tuesday,June 16, 2020 8:43 AM To: Bill Fritz Subject: RE: Reidenouer- Lot F4 Bundoran Farm Attachments: SUB202000110 Plan - Submittal (First) 2020-06-01.pdf From: Bill Fritz<BFRITZ@albemarle.org> Sent: Monday,June 15, 2020 4:59 PM To:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: Reidenouer- Lot F4 Bundoran Farm Sure. But how about tomorrow. I am beat now. William D. Fritz,AICP Development Process Manager/Ombudsman 434-296-5823 ext 3242 From:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Sent: Monday,June 15,2020 4:59 PM To: Bill Fritz<BFRITZ@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: Reidenouer- Lot F4 Bundoran Farm Ok.Thanks for all the emails...do you want to give me a quick call and just explain what it all means before I dive into it all. From: Bill Fritz<BFRITZ@albemarle.org> Sent: Monday,June 15,2020 4:55 PM To:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Subject: FW: Reidenouer-Lot F4 Bundoran Farm William D. Fritz,AICP Development Process Manager/Ombudsman 434-296-5823 ext 3242 From: Bill Fritz Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 11:55 AM To: Frank Pohl<fpohl@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: Reidenouer-Lot F4 Bundoran Farm I am confused. This looks to be TMP 86-83 which already has a house and driveway. The existence of a house on this property automatically makes them ineligible for an exemption. Also, I see no"watershed area" on this lot that would impact anything. 1 I assume the code reference he inten o reference is 4.6.6(d). That section allon exemption for the first single- family dwelling on lots existing prior to February 6, 2008. The final plat for Bundoran was approved on September 5, 2007 and was recorded that same day. (3486-97) This means that undeveloped lots in Bundoran are potentially exempt from 4.6.6. (I emphasize potentially because a finding has to be made prior to granting the exemption.) Hope this helps. Let me know if you need anything more. William D. Fritz,AICP Development Process Manager/Ombudsman 434-296-5823 ext 3242 From: Frank Pohl Sent: Friday, May 10,2019 10:57 AM To: Bill Fritz<BFRITZ@albemarle.org> Subject: FW: Reidenouer-Lot F4 Bundoran Farm Bill, Are homes in Bundoran Farm exemptfrom the driveway standards,specifically the 16%max slope? Frank V. Pohl, PE,CFM County Engineer 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 434-296-5832(ext.7914) From: Mike Ball<mike@elementbuild.com> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 9:52 AM To: Frank Pohl<fpohl@albemarle.org> Subject: Re: Reidenouer- Lot F4 Bundoran Farm Thanks Frank, I really appreciate you pulling all of this together. Can you clarify one final thing for me? I know my client is going to ask. 18-4.4.6.c.2 discusses any lot of record prior to this code potentially being exempt. These lots were created in 2004 I believe and it looks like the date on the code online shows 2012 (though I think I remember the 16' rule being put into place around 2009). Could they make the argument for hardship based on this lot being created prior to the rule? To give you context-they purchased the lot from a neighbor with the understanding that they would be able to build in the open field where the Bundoran developer specified a house location. That location required a 33%driveway. They tried to move the house down the hill but it was in a watershed area. We moved it to the current location after grades were taken and it was determined that the driveway could come up the hill at about 16%(see attached from architect). I'm not sure if the grades were taken in the wrong location or if our site guy built up the driveway in unfortunate ways but obviously now we're sitting higher. I don't mean to keep pestering you about this, but we're feeling a little stuck. We feel like we've taken the correct steps to find a location and grade on the lot that meets the code but we're obviously hitting some walls. Thanks again for all your help on this. Mike 2 - Mike BaII, President Element Construction 434.825.4196 www.elementbuild.com On Fri;May 10,2019 at 8:31 AM Frank Pohl<fpohl@albemarle.org>wrote: Mike, Here is the entire section, 18-4.6.6: 4.6.6 LOT ACCESS REQUIREMENTS Vehicular access on a lot shall be provided as follows: a. In all zoning districts, a.structure requiring a permit under the Uniform Statewide Building Code may be established only on a lot having frontage on a public or private street as authorized by the subdivision ordinance, except that this requirement shall not apply to lots lacking such frontage on the effective date of this chapter. b. In the rural areas zoning district,in addition to the requirements in subsection (a)and in order to provide public safety vehicles with safe and reasonable access to a new dwelling unit on a lot, each driveway that will serve a new dwelling unit: (1)shall not exceed a_sixteen(16)percent grade;(2)shall have a travelway that is at least ten (10) feet in width; (3)shall extend to within fifty(50)feet of each dwelling unit on the lot;and(4)shall include a rectangular zone superjacent to the driveway that isclear-of all obstructions, including any structures and vegetation, that is at least ten (10)feet in width and fourteen (14)feet in height. The landowner shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the county - engineer that the driveway will meet the requirements of this subsection before a building permit is issued. _ _- c. Notwithstanding the requirements of subsection(b), the county engineer, with the recommendation of the fire marshal,may authorize a driveway having a grade that exceeds sixteen (16)percent if the landowner demonstrates - -to the satisfaction of the county engineer and the fire marshal that public safety vehicles would be able to access the - - dwelling unit even though the grade may exceed sixteen (16)percent. In considering a waiver request, the county engineer and the fire marshal shall consider:(1)the length of the segment of the driveway that would exceed sixteen (16)percent;(2)whether the segment that would exceed sixteen (16)percent would require the public safety vehicle to travel uphill towards the dwelling unit;(3)whether fire suppression equipment such as sprinklers would be installed within the dwelling unit;and(4)whether the dwelling unit is within fifty(50)feet of a public or private street. In authorizing such a grade, the county engineer may impose reasonable conditions to assure that the public safety vehicles may access the dwelling unit including, but not limited to, a condition limiting the maximum length any segment of the driveway may exceed sixteen(16)percent. 1. The landowner may appeal the disapproval of a waiver under subsection (c), or the approval of a waiver with conditions objectionable to the landowner, to the commission. The appeal shall be in writing and be filed with the department of community development within ten(10)days after the date of the county engineer's and the fire marshal's decision. In reviewing a waiver request, the commission may approve or disapprove the waiver based upon the applicable factors in subsection (c), amend any condition imposed by the county engineer and fire marshal, and impose any conditions it deems necessary to assure that public safety vehicles may access the dwelling unit. In so doing, the commission shall give due consideration to the recommendations of the county engineer and the fire marshal. In addition, the commission may consider such other evidence as it deems necessary for a proper review of the waiver request. 2. The landowner may appeal the decision of the commission to the board of supervisors under the same procedure and subject to the same standards as an appeal to the commission set forth herein. d.Any lot 3 which was lawfully a lot of r.::., zi on the effective date of subsection (b) r._...a exempt from the requirements of that subsection for the establishment of the first single-family detached dwelling unit on the lot if the county engineer determines that those requirements would prohibit the practicable development of the lot for that first single-family detached dwelling unit. Frank V. Pohl, PE,CFM County Engineer 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 434-296-5832 (ext.7914) From: Mike Ball<mike@elementbuild.com> Sent:Thursday, May 9, 2019 5:14 PM To: Frank Pohl<fpohl@albemarle.org> Subject: Re: Reidenouer-Lot F4 Bundoran Farm OK,good to know. Is there a specific code you can direct me to that I can send my clients? Thanks again. On May 9, 2019,at 4:21 PM, Frank Pohl<fpohl@albemarle.org>wrote: Mike, Chip and spray is not acceptable, it will need to be paved.The pavement provides a solid surface for the emergency equipment,and in the event of snow or ice,they drop chains to make the climb. If it is chip and spray, it may not provide them with the traction needed. Sincerely, Frank Frank V. Pohl, PE, CFM 4 County Engineer 4' 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 434-296-5832 (ext. 7914) From:Shawn Maddox Sent:Thursday, May 9,2019 3:56 PM To: Frank Pohl<fpohl@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: Reidenouer- Lot F4 Bundoran Farm I agree with your assessment,that would not be acceptable. From: Frank Pohl Sent:Tuesday, May 7,2019 4:23 PM To:Shawn Maddox<smaddox@albemarle.org> Subject: FW: Reidenouer-Lot F4 Bundoran Farm Shawn, can chip and spray in lieu of a paved surface be use for driveways with slopes between 16 and 18%? My first thought is no but wanted to confirm. Thanks, Frank Frank V. Pohl, PE, CFM County Engineer 401 McIntire Road 5 Charlottesville,VA 22902 434-296-5832 (ext. 7914) From: Mike Ball<mike@elementbuild.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 7, 2019 3:31 PM To: Frank Pohl<fpohl@albemarle.org> Cc:John Yerby<iverby@albemarle.org>; Kenny Thacker<kthacker3@albemarle.org>; Hayden Yount <havden@elementbuild.com> Subject: Re: Reidenouer- Lot F4 Bundoran Farm Thanks Frank. Can we assume that a tar and chip paving surface is acceptable up to 18%since that's a form of paving? It's much safer in snow and ice. Thanks Mike Ball, President Element Construction 434.825.4196 www.elementbuild.com On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 2:20 PM Frank Pohl<fpohl@albemarle.org>wrote: Mike, I spoke with the fire marshal and the maximum driveway grade allowed for new homes is 18%. Anything between 16%and 18%must be paved. 6 cr Please let me know ifyollilike to discuss further. However,waiving/It requirements is not likely. Sincerely, Frank Frank V. Pohl, PE,CFM County Engineer 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 434-296-5832 (ext. 7914) From: Mike Ball<mike@elementbuild.com> Sent:Tuesday,April 30, 2019 9:13 AM To:John Yerby<iyerby@albemarle.org> Cc: Kenny Thacker<kthacker3@albemarle.org>; Frank Pohl<fpohl@albemarle.org>; Hayden Yount <havden@elementbuild.com> Subject: Re: Reidenouer-Lot F4 Bundoran Farm Thanks,that's helpful. Since we're very close to the 16 percent grade I would love an opportunity to meet with the fire marshal!and whoever in the engineering department is able to make these provisions. We've been very limited in driveway layouts on this lot,and we moved the house to reduce the grade to what we have. Just let us know the best course forward. Thanks again! Mike Mike Ball, President Element Construction 7 434.825.4196 www.elementbuild.com On Tue,Apr 30, 2019 at 9:01 AM John Yerby<iverby@albemarle.org>wrote: Mike, Below is the county code for lot access requirements, - _ Notwithstanding the requirements of subsection(b),the county engineer,with the recommendation of the fire marshal, may authorize a driveway having a grade that exceeds sixteen (16) percent if the landowner demonstrates to the satisfaction of the county engineer and the fire marshal that public safety vehicles would be able to access the dwelling unit even though the grade may exceed sixteen (16) percent. In considering a waiver request,the county engineer and the fire marshal shall consider: (1)the length of the segment of the driveway that would exceed sixteen (16) percent; (2) whether the segment that would exceed sixteen(16) percent would require the public safety vehicle to travel uphill towards the dwelling unit; (3)whether fire suppression equipment such as sprinklers would be installed within the dwelling unit;and (4)whether the dwelling unit is within fifty(50)feet -- _ of a public or private street. In authorizing such a grade,the county engineer may impose reasonable =-_= conditions to assure that the public safety vehicles may access the dwelling unit including, but not limited to,a condition limiting the maximum length any segment of the driveway may exceed sixteen (16) percent. John Yerby Engineering Inspector II From: Mike Ball<mike@elementbuild.com> Sent: Monday,April 29,2019 1:19 PM To:John Yerby<iverbv@albemarle.org> Cc:Jay White<iayw@elementbuild.com>; Hayden Yount<hayden@elementbuild.com>; Mitchell Burns<mburns@albemarle.org> Subject: Reidenouer-Lot F4 Bundoran Farm Hi John, Thanks a lot for meeting with us this morning. We checked some of the grades after you left and it looks like they're currently sitting a little steeper than we had initially laid out. We're finding 18.2- 18.4% 8 ,. • A few questions for yoo -Can we get by on an 18%grade with a tar and chip driveway system? The owner is hesitant about paving, especially the slickness of driving on paving in ice and snow. -We've done projects in outer counties with steep drives-the sentiment out there seems to be that it's just the Owner's risk if fire trucks can't get up. Is there a variance for that available in Albemarle? - I've been told in the past that the maximum grade allows for some steeper sections in some parts of the driveway. Is there a code or allowance on this that you can tell us about? -You mentioned the possibility of having an area lower on the driveway where a fire truck could pull off,allowing for a steeper driveway from that point up to the house. Can you clarify any information on that option? Thanks again for your help, Mike Mike Ball, President Element Construction 434.825.4196 www.elementbuild.com 9 Christopher Perez From: Bill Fritz Sent: Monday,June 15, 2020 4:53 PM To: Christopher Perez Subject: FW: Reidenouer- Lot F4 Bundoran Farm William D. Fritz,AICP Development Process Manager/Ombudsman 434-296-5823 ext 3242 From: Bill Fritz Sent: Friday, May 10,2019 4:05 PM To: Frank Pohl<fpohl@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: Reidenouer-Lot F4 Bundoran Farm I would say it is not exempt. The longer driveway meets the slope requirements. The building permit was issued based on that. Alternatively they could move the house closer to the street. There is no restriction other than the setback requirements. This appears to.be.a case of"the realtor said I could put my house where the views were the best". -d:Any lot which was lawfully a lot of record on the effective date of subsection (b)shall be exempt from the requirements of that subsection for the establishment of the first single family detached dwelling unit on the lot if the county engineer determines that-those requirements would prohibit the practicable development of the lot for that first single family detached dwelling unit. William D. Fritz,AICP Development Process Manager/Ombudsman 434-296-5823 ext 3242 From: Frank Pohl Sent: Friday, May 10,2019 2:36 PM To: Bill Fritz<BFRITZ@albemarle.org> Subject: Re: Reidenouer- Lot F4 Bundoran Farm The house is still under construction, I think what is shown in GIS is the new home, but the CO hasn't been issued yet. If this is the first home, it sounds like it is exempt... Thanks, Frank Get Outlook for iOS From: Bill Fritz Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 11:55:25 AM To: Frank Pohl Subject: RE: Reidenouer- Lot F4 Bundoran Farm 1 • I am confused. This looks to be TMI' -—83 which already has a house and drive : . The existence of a house on this property automatically makes them ineligible for an exemption. Also, I see no "watershed area" on this lot that would impact anything. I assume the code reference he intended to reference is 4.6.6(d). That section allows an exemption for the first single- family dwelling on lots existing prior to February 6,2008. The final plat for Bundoran was approved on September 5, 2007 and was recorded that same day. (3486-97) This means that undeveloped lots in Bundoran are potentially exempt from 4.6.6. (I emphasize potentially because a finding has to be made prior to granting the exemption.) Hope this helps. Let me know if you need anything more. William D. Fritz,AICP Development Process Manager/Ombudsman 434-296-5823 ext 3242 From: Frank Pohl Sent: Friday, May 10,2019 10:57 AM To: Bill Fritz<BFRITZ@albemarle.org> Subject: FW: Reidenouer-Lot F4 Bundoran Farm Bill, . Are homes in Bundoran Farm exempt from the driveway standards,specifically the 16%max slope? Frank V. Pohl, PE, CFM County Engineer 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 434-296-5832(ext.7914) From: Mike Ball<mike@elementbuild.com> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 9:52 AM To: Frank Pohl<fpohl@albemarle.org> Subject: Re: Reidenouer- Lot F4 Bundoran Farm Thanks Frank, I really appreciate you pulling all of this together. Can you clarify one final thing for me? I know my client is going to ask. 18-4.4.6.c.2 discusses any lot of record prior to this code potentially being exempt. These lots were created in 2004 I believe and it looks like the date on the code online shows 2012 (though I think I remember the 16' rule being put into place around 2009). Could they make the argument for hardship based on this lot being created prior to the rule? To give you context-they purchased the lot from a neighbor with the understanding that they would be able to build in the open field where the Bundoran developer specified a house location. That location required a 33%driveway. They tried to move the house down the hill but it was in a watershed area. We moved it to the current location after grades were taken and it was determined that the driveway could come up the hill at about 16%(see attached from architect). I'm not sure if the grades were taken in the wrong location or if our site guy built up the driveway in unfortunate ways but obviously now we're sitting higher. I don't mean to keep pestering you about this, but we're feeling a little stuck. We feel like we've taken the correct steps to find a location and grade on the lot that meets the code but we're obviously hitting some walls. Thanks again for all your help on this. 2 • Mike Mike Ball, President Element Construction 434.825.4196 www.elementbuild.com On Fri, May 10,2019 at 8:31 AM Frank Pohl<fpohl@albemarle.org>wrote: Mike, Here is the entire section, 18-4.6.6: 4.6.6 LOT ACCESS REQUIREMENTS Vehicular access on a lot shall be provided as follows: r a._In all zoning districts,a structure requiring a permit under the Uniform Statewide Building Code may be established only on a lot having frontage on a public or private street as authorized by the subdivision ordinance, except that this requirement shall not apply to lots lacking such frontage on the effective date of this chapter. -b. In the rural areas zoning district, in addition to the requirements in subsection (a)and in order to provide public safety vehicles with safe and reasonable access to a new dwelling unit on a lot, each driveway that will serve a new dwelling unit: (1)shall not exceed a sixteen(16)percent grade;(2)shall have a travelway that is at least ten (10) feet in width;(3)shall extend to within fifty(50)feet of each dwelling unit on the lot;and(4)shall include a rectangular zone superjacent to the driveway that is clear of all obstructions,including any structures and vegetation, that is at least - - -ten (10)feet in width and fourteen (14)feet in height. The landowner shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the county engineer that the driveway will meet the requirements of this subsection before a building permit is issued. c. Notwithstanding the requirements of subsection(b), the county engineer, with the recommendation of the fire marshal, may authorize a driveway having a grade that exceeds sixteen (16)percent if the landowner demonstrates to the satisfaction of the county engineer and the fire marshal that public safety vehicles would be able to access the dwelling unit even though the grade may exceed sixteen (16)percent. In considering a waiver request, the county engineer and the fire marshal shall consider: (1)the length of the segment of the driveway that would exceed sixteen (16)percent; (2)whether the segment that would exceed sixteen (16)percent would require the public safety vehicle to -- - travel uphill-towards the dwelling unit;(3)-whether fire suppression equipment such as sprinklers would be installed within the dwelling unit;and(4)whether the dwelling unit is within fifty(50)feet of a public or private street. In authorizing such a grade, the county engineer may impose reasonable conditions to assure that the public safety vehicles may access the dwelling unit including, but not limited to, a condition limiting the maximum length any segment of the driveway may exceed sixteen(16)percent. 1. The landowner may appeal the disapproval of a waiver under subsection (c), or the approval of a waiver with conditions objectionable to the landowner, to the commission. The appeal shall be in writing and be filed with the department of community development within ten (10)days after the date of the county engineer's and the fire marshal's decision. In reviewing a waiver request, the commission may approve or disapprove the waiver based upon the applicable factors in subsection (c), amend any condition imposed by the county engineer and fire marshal, and impose any conditions it deems necessary to assure that public safety vehicles may access the dwelling unit. In so doing, the commission shall give due consideration to the 3 recommendations of the county engineer and the fire marshal. In addition, ,,i commission may consider such other evidence as it deems necessary for a proper review of the waiver request. 2. The landowner may appeal the decision of the commission to the board of supervisors under the same procedure and subject to the same standards as an appeal to the commission set forth herein. d.Any lot which was lawfully a lot of record on the effective date of subsection (b)shall be exempt from the requirements of that subsection for the establishment of the first single-family detached dwelling unit on the lot if the county engineer determines that those requirements would prohibit the practicable development of the lot for that first single-family detached dwelling unit. Frank V. Pohl, PE, CFM County Engineer 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 434-296-5832 (ext. 7914) From: Mike Ball<mike@elementbuild.com> Sent:Thursday, May 9, 2019 5:14 PM To: Frank Pohl<fpohl@albemarle.org> Subject: Re: Reidenouer- Lot F4 Bundoran Farm OK,good to know. Is there a specific code you can direct me to that I can send my clients? Thanks again. On May 9, 2019, at 4:21 PM, Frank Pohl<fpohl@albemarle.org>wrote: Mike, Chip and spray is not acceptable, it will need to be paved.The pavement provides a solid surface for the emergency equipment,and in the event of snow or ice,they drop chains to make the climb. If it is chip and spray, it may not provide them with the traction needed. 4 I Sincerely, Frank Frank V. Pohl, PE, CFM County Engineer 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 434-296-5832 (ext.7914) From:Shawn Maddox Sent:Thursday, May 9, 2019 3:56 PM To: Frank Pohl<fpohl@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: Reidenouer- Lot F4 Bundoran Farm I agree with your assessment,that would not be acceptable. From: Frank Pohl Sent:Tuesday, May 7, 2019 4:23 PM To:Shawn Maddox<smaddox@albemarle.org> Subject: FW: Reidenouer-Lot F4 Bundoran Farm Shawn, can chip and spray in lieu of a paved surface be use for driveways with slopes between 16 and 18%? My first thought is no but wanted to confirm. Thanks, Frank Frank V. Pohl, PE,CFM 5 } v County Engineer 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 434-296-5832 (ext.7914) From: Mike Ball<mike@elementbuild.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 7,2019 3:31 PM To: Frank Pohl<fpohl@albemarle.org> Cc:John Yerby<iverbv@albemarle.org>; Kenny Thacker<kthacker3@albemarle.org>; Hayden Yount <hayden@elementbuild.com> Subject: Re: Reidenouer- Lot F4 Bundoran Farm Thanks Frank. Can we assume that a tar and chip paving surface is acceptable up to 18%since that's a form of paving? It's much safer in snow and ice. Thanks Mike BaII, President Element Construction 434.825.4196 www.elementbuild.com On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 2:20 PM Frank Pohl<fpohl@albemarle.org>wrote: Mike, 6 I spoke with the fire marshal and the maximum driveway grade allowed for new homes is 18%. Anything between 16%and 18%must be paved. Please let me know if you'd like to discuss further. However,waiving these requirements is not likely. Sincerely, Frank Frank V. Pohl, PE, CFM County Engineer 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 434-296-5832 (ext.7914) From: Mike Ball<mike@elementbuild.com> Sent:Tuesday,April 30,2019 9:13 AM To:John Yerby<iverbv@albemarle.org> Cc: Kenny Thacker<kthacker3@albemarle.org>; Frank Pohl<fpohl@albemarle.org>; Hayden Yount <havden@elementbuild.com> Subject: Re: Reidenouer- Lot F4 Bundoran Farm Thanks,that's helpful. Since we're very close to the 16 percent grade I would love an opportunity to meet with the fire marshal!and whoever in the engineering department is able to make these provisions. We've been very limited in driveway layouts on this lot, and we moved the house to reduce the grade to what we have. Just let us know the best course forward. Thanks again! Mike Mike Ball, President Element Construction 434.825.4196 www.elementbuild.com On Tue,Apr 30, 2019 at 9:01 AM John Yerby<iyerby@albemarle.org>wrote: Mike, Below is the county code for lot access requirements, Notwithstanding the requirements of subsection(b),the county engineer,with the recommendation - of the fire marshal,may authorize a driveway having a grade that exceeds sixteen (16) percent if the landowner demonstrates to the satisfaction of the county engineer and the fire marshal that public safety vehicles would be able to access the dwelling unit even though the grade may exceed sixteen :(16) percent. In considering a waiver request,the county engineer and the fire marshal shall consider: (1)the length of the segment of the driveway that would exceed sixteen (16) percent; (2) whether the segment that would exceed sixteen(16) percent would require the public safety vehicle to travel uphill towards the dwelling unit; (3)whether fire suppression equipment such as sprinklers would be installed within the dwelling unit; and (4)whether the dwelling unit is within fifty(50)feet of a public or private street. In authorizing such a grade,the county engineer may impose reasonable conditions to assure that the public safety vehicles may access the dwelling unit including, but not limited to, a condition limiting the maximum length any segment of the driveway may exceed sixteen (16) percent. John Yerby Engineering Inspector II From: Mike Ball<mike@elementbuild.com> Sent: Monday,April 29, 2019 1:19 PM To:John Yerby<iyerby@albemarle.org> Cc:Jay White<iayw@elementbuild.com>; Hayden Yount<hayden@elementbuild.com>; Mitchell Burns<mburns@albemarle.org> Subject: Reidenouer-Lot F4 Bundoran Farm 8 Hi John, Thanks a lot for meeting with us this morning. We checked some of the grades after you left and it looks like they're currently sitting a little steeper than we had initially laid out. We're finding 18.2- 18.4% A few questions for you: -Can we get by on an 18%grade with a tar and chip driveway system? The owner is hesitant about paving, especially the slickness of driving on paving in ice and snow. -We've done projects in outer counties with steep drives-the sentiment out there seems to be that it's just the Owner's risk if fire trucks can't get up. Is there a variance for that available in Albemarle? -I've been told in the past that the maximum grade allows for some steeper sections in some parts of the driveway. Is there a code or allowance on this that you can tell us about? -You mentioned the possibility.of having an area lower on the driveway where a fire truck could pull off,allowing for a steeper driveway from that point up to the house. Can you clarify any information on that option? Thanks again for your help, Mike • Mike BaII, President Element Construction 434.825.4196 www.elementbuild.com 9 Christopher Perez From: Bill Fritz Sent: Monday,June 15, 2020 4:53 PM To: Christopher Perez Subject: FW: Reidenouer- Lot F4 Bundoran Farm William D. Fritz,AICP Development Process Manager/Ombudsman 434-296-5823 ext 3242 From: Bill Fritz Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 11:55 AM To: Frank Pohl<fpohl@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: Reidenouer- Lot F4 Bundoran Farm I am confused. This looks to be TMP 86-83 which already has a house and driveway. The existence of a house on this property automatically makes them ineligible for an exemption. Also, I see no"watershed area"on this lot that would impact anything. I assume the code reference_he intended to reference is 4.6.6(d). That section allows an exemption for the first single- family dwelling on lots existing prior to February 6, 2008. The final plat for Bundoran was approved on September 5,2007 and was recorded that same day. (3486-97) This means that undeveloped lots in Bundoran.are.potentially exempt from 4.6.6. (I emphasize potentially because a finding has to be made prior to granting the exemption.) Hope this helps. Let me know if you need anything more. William D. Fritz,AICP Development Process Manager/Ombudsman 434-296-5823 ext 3242 From: Frank Pohl Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 10:57 AM To: Bill Fritz<BFRITZ@albemarle.org> Subject: FW: Reidenouer-Lot F4 Bundoran Farm Bill, Are homes in Bundoran Farm exempt from the driveway standards,specifically the 16%max slope? Frank V. Pohl, PE, CFM County Engineer 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 434-296-5832 (ext. 7914) 1 From: Mike Ball<mike@elementbuiia:com> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 9:52 AM To: Frank Pohl<fpohl@albemarle.org> Subject: Re: Reidenouer- Lot F4 Bundoran Farm Thanks Frank, I really appreciate you pulling all of this together. Can you clarify one final thing for me? I know my client is going to ask. 18-4.4.6.c.2 discusses any lot of record prior to this code potentially being exempt. These lots were created in 2004 I believe and it looks like the date on the code online shows 2012 (though I think.I remember the 16' rule being put into place around 2009). Could they make the argument for hardship based on this lot being created prior to the rule? To give you context-they purchased the lot from a neighbor with the understanding that they would be able to build in the open field where the Bundoran developer specified a house location. That location required a 33%driveway. They tried to move the house down the hill but it was in a watershed area. We moved it to the current location after grades were taken and it was determined that-the driveway could come up the hill at about 16%(see attached from architect). I'm not sure if the grades were taken in the wrong location or if our site guy built up the driveway in unfortunate ways but obviously now we're sitting higher. I don't mean to keep pestering you about this, but we're feeling a little stuck. We feel like we've taken the correct steps to find a location and grade on the lot that meets the code but we're obviously hitting some walls. Thanks again for all your help on this. Mike Mike Ball, President Element Construction 434.825.4196 www.elementbuild.com On Fri, May 10,2019 at 8:31 AM Frank Pohl<fpohl@albemarle.org>wrote: Mike, Here is the entire section, 18-4.6.6: 4.6.6 LOT ACCESS REQUIREMENTS Vehicular access on a lot shall be provided as follows: a. In all zoning districts, a structure requiring a permit under the Uniform Statewide Building Code may be established only on a lot having frontage on a public or private street as authorized by the subdivision ordinance, except that this requirement shall not apply to lots lacking such frontage on the effective date of this chapter. b. In the rural areas zoning district, in addition to the requirements in subsection (a)and in order to provide public safety vehicles with safe and reasonable access to a new dwelling unit on a lot, each driveway that will serve a new dwelling unit: (1)shall not exceed a sixteen (16)percent grade;(2)shall have a travelway'that is at least ten (10) feet in width;(3)shall extend to within fifty(50)feet of each dwelling unit on the lot;and(4)shall include a rectangular zone superjacent to the driveway that is clear of all obstructions, including any structures and vegetation, that is at least ten (10)feet in width and fourteen (14)feet in height. The landowner shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the county engineer that the driveway will meet the requirements of this subsection before a building permit is issued. 2 c. Notwithstanding the requirements of subsection(b), the county engineei, with the recommendation of the fire marshal, may authorize a driveway having a grade that exceeds sixteen (16)percent if the landowner demonstrates to the satisfaction of the county engineer and the fire marshal that public safety vehicles would be able to access the dwelling unit even though the grade may exceed sixteen (16)percent. In considering a waiver request, the county engineer and the fire marshal shall consider:(1)the length of the segment of the driveway that would exceed sixteen (16)percent; (2)whether the segment that would exceed sixteen (16)percent would require the public safety vehicle to travel uphill towards the dwelling unit;(3)whether fire suppression equipment such as sprinklers would be installed within the dwelling unit;and(4)whether the dwelling unit is within fifty(50)feet of a public or private street. In authorizing such a grade, the county engineer may impose reasonable conditions to assure that the public safety vehicles may access the dwelling unit including, but not limited to, a condition limiting the maximum length any segment of the driveway may exceed sixteen (16)percent. 1. The landowner may appeal the disapproval of a waiver under subsection (c), or the approval of a waiver with conditions objectionable to the landowner, to the commission. The appeal shall be in writing and be filed with the department of community development within ten (10)days after the date of the county engineer's and the fire marshal's decision. In reviewing a waiver request, the commission may approve or disapprove the waiver based upon the applicable factors in subsection (c), amend any condition imposed by the county engineer and fire marshal;and impose any conditions it deems necessary to assure that public safety vehicles may access the dwelling unit. In so doing, the commission shall give due consideration to the recommendations of the county engineer and the fire marshal. In addition, the commission may consider such other evidence as it deems necessary for a proper review of the waiver request. - 2. The landowner may appeal-the decision of the commission to the board of supervisors under the same procedure and subject to the same standards as an appeal to the commission set forth herein. d.Any lot which was lawfully a lot of record on the_effective date of subsection (b)shall be exempt from the requirements of that subsection for the establishment of the first single-family detached dwelling unit on the lot if the county engineer determines that_those requirements would prohibit the practicable development of the lot for that first single-family detached dwelling unit. Frank V. Pohl, PE, CFM- County Engineer 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 434-296-5832 (ext.7914) From: Mike Ball<mike@elementbuild.com> Sent:Thursday, May 9, 2019 5:14 PM To: Frank Pohl<fpohl@albemarle.org> Subject: Re: Reidenouer- Lot F4 Bundoran Farm 3 OK,good to know. Is there a specific code you can direct me to that I can send my cuients? Thanks again. On May 9, 2019, at 4:21 PM, Frank Pohl<fpohl@albemarle.org>wrote: Mike, Chip and spray is not acceptable, it will need to be paved.The pavement provides a solid surface for the emergency equipment,,and in the event of snow or ice,they drop chains to make the climb. If it is chip and spray, it may not provide them with the traction needed. Sincerely, Frank Frank V. Pohl, PE, CFM County Engineer 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 434-296-5832 (ext. 7914) From:Shawn Maddox Sent:Thursday, May 9,2019 3:56 PM To: Frank Pohl<fpohl@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: Reidenouer- Lot F4 Bundoran Farm I agree with your assessment,that would not be acceptable. From: Frank Pohl Sent:Tuesday, May 7, 2019 4:23 PM To:Shawn Maddox<smaddox@albemarle.org> Subject: FW: Reidenouer-Lot F4 Bundoran Farm 4 Shawn, can chip and spray in lieu of a paved surface be use for driveways with slopes between 16 and 18%? My first thought is no but wanted to confirm. Thanks, Frank Frank V. Pohl, PE, CFM County Engineer 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 434-296-5832 (ext.7914) From: Mike Ball<mike@elementbuild.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 7, 2019 3:31 PM To: Frank Pohl<fpohl@albemarle.org> - Cc:John Yerby<iverbv@albemarle.org>; Kenny Thacker<kthacker3@albemarle.org>; Hayden Yount <hayden@elementbuild.com> Subject: Re: Reidenouer- Lot F4 Bundoran Farm Thanks Frank. Can we assume that a tar and chip paving surface is acceptable up to,18%since that's a form of paving? It's much safer in snow and ice. Thanks 5 Mike Ball, President Element Construction 434.825.4196 www.elementbuild.com On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 2:20 PM Frank Pohl<fpohl@albemarle.org>wrote: Mike, I spoke with the fire marshal and the maximum driveway grade allowed for new homes is 18%. Anything between 16%and 18%must be paved. Please let me know if you'd like to discuss further. However,waiving these requirements is not likely. Sincerely, Frank Frank V. Pohl, PE, CFM County Engineer 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 434-296-5832 (ext. 7914) From: Mike Ball<mike@elementbuild.com> Sent:Tuesday,April 30,2019 9:13 AM To:John Yerby<iverbv@albemarle.org> Cc: Kenny Thacker<kthacker3@albemarle.org>; Frank Pohl<fpohl@albemarle.org>; Hayden Yount 6 <hayden@elementbuild.com> Subject: Re: Reidenouer- Lot F4 Bundoran Farm Thanks,that's helpful. Since we're very close to the 16 percent grade I would love an opportunity to meet with the fire marshal!and whoever in the engineering department is able to make these provisions. We've been very limited in driveway layouts on this lot, and we moved the house to reduce the grade to what we have. Just let us know the best course forward. Thanks again! Mike Mike Ball, President Element Construction 434.825.4196 www.elementbuild.com On Tue,Apr 30, 2019 at 9:01 AM John Yerby<iyerby@albemarle.org>wrote: Mike, Below is the county code for lot access requirements, Notwithstanding the requirements of subsection (b),the county engineer,with the recommendation of the fire marshal,may authorize a driveway having a grade that exceeds sixteen (16) percent if the landowner demonstrates to the satisfaction of the county engineer and the fire marshal that public safety vehicles would be able to access the dwelling unit even though the grade may exceed sixteen (16) percent. In considering a waiver request,the county engineer and the fire marshal shall consider: (1)the length of the segment of the driveway that would exceed sixteen (16) percent; (2) whether the segment that would exceed sixteen (16) percent would require the public safety vehicle • to travel uphill towards the dwelling unit; (3)whether fire suppression equipment such as sprinklers 7 would be installed within the dwelling unit;and (4)whether the dwelling—unit is within fifty(50)feet of a public or private street. In authorizing such a grade,the county engineer may impose reasonable conditions to assure that the public safety vehicles may access the dwelling unit including, but not limited to, a condition limiting the maximum length any segment of the driveway may exceed sixteen (16) percent. John Yerby Engineering Inspector II From: Mike Ball<mike@elementbuild.com> Sent: Monday,April 29,2019 1:19 PM To:John Yerby<jyerby@albemarle.org> Cc:Jay White<jayw@elementbuild.com>; Hayden Yount<hayden@elementbuild.com>; Mitchell Burns<mburns@albemarle.org> Subject: Reidenouer-Lot F4 Bundoran Farm Hi John, _ _ Thanks a lot for meeting with us this morning. We checked some of the grades after you left and it ;. - looks like they're currently sitting a little steeper than we had initially laid out. We're finding 18.2- 18.4% A few questions for you: -- . -Can we get by on an 18%grade witha tar and chip driveway system? The owner is hesitant about paving,especially the slickness of driving on paving in ice and snow. -We've done projects in outer counties with steep drives-the sentiment out there seems to be that it's just the Owner's risk if fire trucks can't get up. Is there a variance for that available in Albemarle? - I've been told in the past that the maximum grade allows for some steeper sections in some parts of the driveway. Is there a code or allowance on this that you can tell us about? -You mentioned the possibility of having an area lower on the driveway where a fire truck could pull off, allowing for a steeper driveway from that point up to the house. Can you clarify any information on that option? Thanks again for your help, Mike 8 • d- ` e Mike BaII, President Element Construction 434.825.4196 www.elementbuild.com 9 Christopher Perez From: Bill Fritz Sent: Monday,June 15, 2020 4:51 PM To: Christopher Perez Subject: FW:Vacation plat Attachments: Tom Forest Lane Vacation Plat DRAFT.pdf William D. Fritz,AICP Development Process Manager/Ombudsman 434-296-5823 ext 3242 Original Message From: Frank Pohl<fpohl@albemarle.org> Sent:Tuesday, May 26,2020 3:49 PM To: Francis MacCall<FMACCALL@albemarle.org> Cc: Bill Fritz<BFRITZ@albemarle.org> Subject: FW:Vacation plat This is out of my wheelhouse. Frank Frank V. Pohl, PE, CFM County Engineer 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 434-296-5832 (ext.7914) Original Message From:Andrew baldwin<andrew@corecville.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 20,2020 2:56 PM To: Francis MacCall<FMACCALL@albemarle.org>; Frank Pohl<fpohl@albemarle.org> Subject:Vacation plat CAUTION:This message originated outside the County of Albemarle email system. DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. Gents,one of the pieces of the puzzle. Brian Jamison believes you may not even need to review this, but due to the circumstance, I wanted to send it direct. 1 Christopher Perez From: Bill Fritz Sent: Monday,June 15, 2020 4:51 PM To: Christopher Perez Subject: FW:Vacation plat First of many emails I am going to forward you about the Bundoran Vacation Plat. Some of them have info that should help you in your review. Some of them are just fyi. William D. Fritz,AICP Development Process Manager/Ombudsman 434-296-5823 ext 3242 Original Message From: Bill Fritz Sent:Tuesday, May 26,2020 4:31 PM To: Frank Pohl<fpohl@albemarle.org>; Francis MacCall<FMACCALL@albemarle.org> Cc: andrew@corecville.com Subject: RE:Vacation plat - This appears to be a plat proposing the vacation of a portion of the Bundoran Farms plat recorded in Deed Book 3486, Pages 87-155. A vacation plat must be submitted for review as provided for in Chapter 14,Section 212.2. I have copied the provisions of the ordinance below. The application may be found here: http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms_center/departments/Community_Development/forms/Subdivision_A pplications/Subdivision_Plat_&_Checklist.pdf Please note:that the fee is$258 currentlyand not$150 as stated in the application form. The fee was increased after the form was developed. Sec. 14-212.2 Vacation of plat or part thereof; procedure. A recorded plat or any part thereof may be vacated pursuant to Virginia Code§§ 15.2-2271 through 15.2-2274 as follows: A.An application to vacate a recorded plat shall be submitted to the agent. B. If the application to vacate a recorded plat is proceeding under Virginia Code§§ 15.2-2271(1)or 15.2-2272(1): 1.The application shall include the proposed written instrument declaring the plat,or part thereof,to be vacated. 2.The agent shall review each application for compliance with applicable law. In conducting his review and prior to acting on the application,the agent shall transmit the application to appropriate site review committee members for review and recommendation. 1 4, 3.The agent shall either grant or withhold consent to the vacation upon receipt of the recommendation of the site review committee. If the agent withholds consent, he shall inform the applicant in writing of the reasons for withholding consent.The agent shall either mail the notice of withholding of consent by first class mail,or personally deliver it,to the applicant. C. If the application to vacate a.recorded plat is proceeding under Virginia Code§§ 15.2-2271(2)or 15.2-2272(2),the agent shall make a recommendation to the board of supervisors as to whether it should vacate the plat by ordinance. When the agent has developed his recommendation, he shall transmit it and the application to the commission.The commission shall consider the recommendation and the application in making its recommendation to the board of supervisors. D.An application which\proposes to vacate a public street shall also be reviewed to determine whether the vacation is , substantially in accord with the comprehensive plan,or part thereof. E.An application shall be acted upon by the agent or the board of supervisors, as the case may be,within the time period set forth in section,14-214. F.The vacation of.a recorded plat shall operate to destroy the force and effect of the recording of the plat so vacated,or any portion thereof,.and to divest all public rights in,and to reinvest in the owners, proprietors and trustees, if any,the title to the streets,_alleys,easements for public passage and other public areas laid out or described in the plat. William D. Fritz,AICP Development Process Manager/Ombudsman 434-296-5823 ext 3242 Original Message From: Frank Pohl<fpohl@albemarle.org> Sent:Tuesday, May 26,2020 3:49 PM To: Francis MacCall<FMACCALL@albemarle.org> Cc: Bill Fritz<BFRITZ@albemarle.org> Subject: FW:Vacation plat This is out of my wheelhouse. Frank Frank V. Pohl, PE, CFM County Engineer 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 434-296-5832 (ext. 7914) Original Message From:Andrew baldwin<andrew@corecville.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2020 2:56 PM To: Francis MacCall<FMACCALL@albemarle.org>; Frank Pohl<fpohl@albemarle.org> Subject:Vacation plat CAUTION:This message originated outside the County of Albemarle email system. DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. 2 Gents,one of the pieces of the puzile. Brian Jamison believes you may not even need to review this, but due to the circumstance, I wanted to send it direct. 3 Christopher Perez From: Bill Fritz Sent: Monday,June 15, 2020 4:51 PM To: Christopher Perez Subject: FW:Vacation plat William D. Fritz,AICP Development Process Manager/Ombudsman 434-296-5823 ext 3242 From: Francis MacCall<FMACCALL@albemarle.org> Sent:Wednesday,June 3,2020 1:03 PM To:andrew@corecville.com • Cc: Bill Fritz<BFRITZ@albemarle.org>; Frank Pohl<fpohl@albemarle.org> Subject: RE:Vacation plat Andrew, I see that the plat is in for review for the vacation of Tom Forrest Lane(SUB2020-00110). You will also need to submit the BLA between TMPs 86-70,86-72, and 86=69. With that BLA,you will need to submit the request for the special - exception for the driveway to disturb the critical slopes.This request will be processed with the BLA submittal. SE Application to be filed with the BLA http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms center/departments/Community Development/forms/Subdivision A pplications/Special Exception Application.pdf Francis Original Message From: Bill Fritz<BFRITZ@albemarle.org> Sent:Tuesday, May 26,2020 4:31 PM To: Frank Pohl<fpohl@albemarle.org>; Francis MacCall<FMACCALL@albemarle.org> Cc: andrew@corecville.com Subject: RE:Vacation plat This appears to be a plat proposing the vacation of a portion of the Bundoran Farms plat recorded in Deed Book 3486, Pages 87-155. A vacation plat must be submitted for review as provided for in Chapter 14,Section 212.2. I have copied the provisions of the ordinance below. The application may be found here: http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms_center/departments/Community_Development/forms/Subdivision_A pplications/Subdivision_Plat_&_Checklist.pdf Please note that the fee is$258 currently and not$150 as stated in the application form. The fee was increased after the form was developed. 1 Sec. 14-212.2 Vacation of plat or part thereof; procedure. A recorded plat or any part thereof may be vacated pursuant to Virginia Code §§ 15.2-2271 through 15.2-2274 as follows: A.An application to vacate a recorded plat shall be submitted to the agent. B. If the application to vacate a recorded plat is proceeding under Virginia Code§§ 15.2-2271(1)or 15.2-2272(1): 1.The application shall include the proposed written instrument declaring the plat,or part thereof,to be vacated. 2.The agent shall review each application for compliance with applicable law. In conducting his review and prior to acting on the application,the agent shall transmit the application to appropriate site review committee members for review and recommendation. 3.The agent shall eithergrant or withhold consent to the vacation upon receipt of the recommendation of the site review committee. If the agent withholds consent, he shall inform the applicant in writing of the reasons for withholding consent.The agent shall either mail the notice of withholding of consent by first class mail,or personally deliver it,to the applicant. C. If the application to vacate a.recorded plat is proceeding under Virginia Code§§ 15.2-2271(2)or 15.2-2272(2),the agent shall make a recommendation to the board of supervisors as to whether it should vacate the plat by ordinance. When the agent has developed his recommendation, he shall transmit it and the application to the commission.The commission shall consider,the recommendation and the application in making its recommendation to the board of supervisors. D.An application which proposes to vacate a public street shall also be reviewed to determine whether the vacation is substantially in accord with the comprehensive plan,or part thereof. E.An application shall be acted upon by the agent or the board of supervisors, as the case may be,within the time period set forth in section 14-214. F.The vacation of a recorded plat shall operate to destroy the force and effect of the recording of the plat so vacated,or any portion thereof, and to divest all public rights in,and to reinvest in the owners, proprietors and trustees, if any,the title to the streets,alleys,easements for public passage and other public areas laid out or described in the plat. William D. Fritz,AICP Development Process Manager/Ombudsman 434-296-5823 ext 3242 Original Message From: Frank Pohl<fpohl@albemarle.org> Sent:Tuesday, May.26, 2020 3:49 PM To: Francis MacCall<FMACCALL@albemarle.org> Cc: Bill Fritz<BFRITZ@albemarle.org> Subject: FW:Vacation plat This is out of my wheelhouse. Frank 2 y I. Frank V. Pohl, PE, CFM - County Engineer 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 434-296-5832 (ext.7914) Original Message From:Andrew baldwin<andrew@corecville.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2020 2:56 PM To: Francis MacCall<FMACCALL@albemarle.org>; Frank Pohl<fpohl@albemarle.org> Subject:Vacation plat CAUTION:This message originated outside the County of Albemarle email system. DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. Gents,one of the pieces of the puzzle. Brian Jamison believes you may not even need to review this, but due to the circumstance, I wanted to send it direct. - - 3