HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201900009 Correspondence 2021-08-25 (3)WILLIAMS M U LLEN
Direct Dial: 434.951.5709
vlong@williamsmullen.com
August 25, 2021
Via Email: blanclillena.albemarle.org
and electronic submission
Cameron Langille
Principal Planner
Planning Division
Department of Community Development
Albemarle County, VA
Re: SP 2019-00009 S.L. Williamson Replacement Asphalt Plant
Dear Cameron,
Thank you for your comment letter of May 8, 2020, and please accept this letter as our
comment response letter in connection with SUP 2019-00009 for the S.L. Williamson
Replacement Asphalt Plant. Enclosed is an updated Concept Plan with a latest revision date of
March 3, 2021, and other materials prepared in response to your comments. Below are our
written responses to the comments in your letter. Staff comments are in italic for convenience in
distinguishing them from the Applicant's response, and the "Applicant Response" heading is in
red font for the same reason.
General Application Comments:
2. Project narrative/Concept Plan:
ii. Please provide a more detailed explanation regarding the anticipated benefits to air and
water quality that will result from upgrading the existing asphalt mixing facilities. This
information is important because it will identify the tangible benefits that will result from the
new equipment and make the operation more consistent with objectives and strategies
specified in Chapter 4 of the Comprehensive Plan. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed.
information on air discharges of the current plant vs. the improvements that will be
realized with the new equipment? Current levels of runoff and contamination into
the proposal is generally consistent with Objectives 3 and 7 of Chapter 4.
Applicant Response:
The Applicant does not have any specific technical evidence or precise data to demonstrate
that the replacement plant will protect air and water quality, however, we contend that it is
321 East Main Street, Suite 400 Charlottesville, VA 22902 T 434.951.5700 F 434.817.0977
williamsmullen.com l A Professional Corporation
irrefutable that the new plant will provide substantially better protections for air and water
quality, for the following reasons:
• The existing plant is over 51 years old, and is a batch plant, which is not designed as
a closed system, which results in the dust not being entirely contained.
• The existing plant has been retrofitted over the years to comply with changing
regulations, and because of the age of the metal, it is thin and although it has been
repeatedly patched over the years, it still leaks dust.
• The proposed replacement plant will be subject to DEQ air and water annual permits
for total suspended solids.
• The proposed replacement plant is more fuel efficient, safer, and quieter, and overall
more efficient
• The proposed replacement plant is a "closed system" drum plant that functions as a
continuous process and will contain the materials, which by definition will result in
improved protections for water and air quality.
• The existing plant was not designed or manufactured to comply with the current
more stringent environmental regulations. By contrast, the proposed replacement
plant is designed to comply with current standards, and thus will enable the plant to
much more effectively comply, and thus protect the community's air and water far
more effectively compared to existing conditions.
iii. Specifically, state how the proposal is consistent with Objectives 1-4, and 6-7. Rev. 1:
See previous comment. If the applicant provides more specific technical information
on these topics, it should be added to the narrative.
Applicant Response:
Although the Applicant does not have any technical evidence or data, the narrative has been
updated to include the information in the comment response above.
Flood Hazard Overlay District (FH) —
ii. If the LOMR is completed prior to the Board of Supervisors public hearing (as the
applicant anticipates according to the project narrative), Sheets 2-4 will need to identify the
boundaries of the 100-year floodplain in accordance with the LOMR.
Applicant Response:
The LOMR has been issued, and documentation is enclosed with this resubmittal package. In
addition, the updated Concept Plan set has been revised to reflect the boundaries in
accordance with the LOMR.
iii. Please explain how the proposal will be consistent with Strategy #7a from
Chapter 4 of the Comprehensive Plan through the approval of the LOMR. Rev. 1: Comment
stands. Staff acknowledges the LOMR note that is on Sheet 1. Please verify whether
the LOMR is completed vet or still underway. Per applicant's comment response letter
dated April 6, 2020, the LOMR will ensure that the replacement asphalt plant will be
located outside of the 100-year floodplain. If the LOMR has been approved by FEMA
and the improvements proposed by this SP will now located outside of the floodplain,
the proposal is consistent with Strategy Va. If the LOMR has not vet been approved,
by FEMA, then condition b stated below will still apply to staffs recommendation on
this application.
Applicant Response:
The LOMR has been approved by FEMA as evidenced with the enclosed materials, and the
proposed replacement plant will be located outside of the 100-year floodplain. By keeping the
plant out of the floodplain, the proposal will reduce the risk of any impairment of the function
of the floodplain. As such, this proposal is consistent with Strategy 7a of Chapter 4 of the
Comprehensive Plan — `through continued application of the Flood Hazard Overlay District,
protect floodplains from uses that impair the function of the floodplains." It is important to
consider that the existing asphalt plant has been located in this precise location for over 51
years, and the Applicant is only proposing to replace the existing outdated plant equipment
with new and more environmentally compliant equipment. This will be a substantial
improvement over existing conditions.
4. Critical Slopes: Please make the symbology representing areas of critical slopes
darker/more visible on Sheets 2-4 of the Concept Plan. Rev. 1: Please clarify what the dark
symbology represents on Sheets 3-5. Is that supposed to represent ground cover that
has already been disturbed? It overlaps with steep slopes and other lavers such as the
100-year floodplain and WPO buffer.
Applicant Response:
The darker hatch shown on Sheets 3-5 is the existing and proposed travelways used by the
quarry and asphalt plant. The hatching pattern has been added to the legend on each sheet
for clarity.
5. Critical Slopes: The proposed layout of the asphalt plant and associated travelways/
improvements encroaches into areas of critical slopes. Furthermore, staff cannot verify that
grading or construction activity that will be performed to establish the asphalt plant and
improvements will not encroach into critical slopes as required by Section 18-4.2.3(b).
Therefore, two special exception applications are needed:
i. 18-4.2.3(a) — waive or modify the requirement that "no structure or improvement shall be
located on any lot or parcel in any area other than a building site." Rev. 1: Comment not
fully addressed. Staff acknowledges the applicant's response regarding how the
critical slopes as shown in Albemarle County GIS were created. See comment #5
(h) and #5 Ov) below for follow-up comments on the critical slopes.
Building site: the revised plan still does not demonstrate that a building site which
complies with Section 18-4.2.2 (a)(2) exists on site: "Each building site in a
development subiect to section 32 of this chapter shall have an area of 30,000
square feet or greater and shall be of such dimensions that no onedimension
exceeds any other by a ratio of more than five to one as described by a rectangle
inscribed within the building site. The building site shall have adequate area for all
buildings and structures, twosubsurface drainfields approved by the Virginia
Department of Health if the lot will be served by a conventional onsite sewage
system, parking and loading areas, storage yards and other improvements, and all
earth disturbing activity related to the improvements."
A building site complying with the size, dimension, and composition
elements described in the italicized text must be provided for staff to verify that a
waiver or modification to Section 18-4.2.2(a)(2) is not needed. A building site
should be drawn on Sheets 4 and 5 of the SP plan to verify compliance with this
code section. Otherwise, a waiver or modification approval is needed, per Section
18-4.2.3 (a). Please attached comments from Josh Kirtlev with the Virginia
Department ofHealth (VDH). VDH cannot currently state whether drainfields are
feasible within the proiect area, and this is a requirement of the building site
regulations.
Applicant Response:
A sheet has been added to the Concept Plan set to show the building site — the area outside
of the stream buffer, the LOMR adjusted floodplain and critical slopes. The building site does
not meet the 5:1 dimension ratio requirement, so a request to modify or waive this
requirement has been enclosed with this resubmittal letter. A drain field is not necessary at
this site as the site is served by a pump and haul sanitary system.
ii. 18-4.2.3(b) — waive or modify the requirement that "no structure, improvement, or land
disturbing activity to establish the structure or improvement shall be located on critical or
preserved slopes except as otherwise permitted under sections 4.2.5, 4.2.6, 4.3.1, and 30.7.4."
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Per the applicant's comment response letter,
some of the areas on the western side of the S.L. Williamson lease area that show up as
critical slopes on Albemarle County GIS are man-made stockpiles of overburden that
have been excavated from the quarry. The applicant stated that per the definition of
critical slopes in Section 18-3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, these areas are "man-made
piles of materials that are part of the quarry operations, which is a legal, permitted andthus
approved use. As such, the construction and installation of the asphalt plant will not impact anv
actual critical slopes as defined by the Ordinance, such that a critical slope waiver is not
required."
Staff agrees with the applicant's assertion that Section 18-3.1 states that "Slopes of 25
percent or greater which are lawfully created within a development that was approved
by the County shall not beconsidered critical slopes." However, the existing asphalt
plant has never been approved by the County as a use on this site either through a site
plan or special use permit. Therefore, the critical slopes visible in GIS are the official
locations of critical slopes because these areas are not within a "development that was
approved by the County."
Per the definition in Section 3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, the critical slopes
requirements of Section 18-4.2 can be waived administratively if "a more accurate field
survey certified by a professional surveyor or engineer." See Zoning Division comments
for additional information. If a topographic survey is provided, staff can evaluate that
and better determine the true extent of critical slopes.
It's possible that this will find that the areas of critical slopes visible in GIS, are not
actually criticalslopes and eliminate the need for the waiver. Otherwise, a critical slopes
August 25, 2021
Page 5
waiver is still needed to disturb those areas which show up as critical slopes on the
official GIS map since the development has never been approved by the County.
installed over critical slope areas, a waiver or modification approval is still required.
Again, the topographic survey may result in thiscomment no longer being applicable.
Applicant Response:
The surveyor is willing to certify that the topographic information shown on the plan is field run
topo. The surveyor analyzed the critical slope areas with that information and has labeled those
critical slope areas on the plan as "Critical Slope Areas Created Thru Overburden Placement."
In other words, they are man-made slopes; piles of overburden material. The revised plan does
show that those man-made critical slopes will be impacted by two elements of the replacement
plant: the Cold Feed System and the Recycle Bin, labeled as #1 and #9, respectively, on the
Concept Plan. The approximate size of the area of man-made critical slopes that will be
disturbed in connection with these components of the project is 1,200 square feet. In light of
those limited disturbance of such man-made critical slopes, we have submitted with this
resubmittal letter a Special Exception request for a critical slopes waiver.
Please note that the Aggregate Access Conveyor (labeled #2 on the Concept Plan) will not
impact the critical slopes, for it is an aerial conveyor belt system that is not attached to the
ground.
Please also note that the numbered list of equipment in the top left corner of sheet 2 of the
Concept Plan has been revised to remove the reference to "skidded" that previously described
the Cold Feed System, Recycle Bin, and Aggregate Access Conveyor. While these three
components will arrive in a "skidded" fashion, but the skids will be removed, and the equipment
will be placed on footings and bolted into place; they will not be movable or transportable.
iii. 18-4.2.5(a)(1) and 18-33.44 — Please submit an Application for a Special Exception. The
special exception application will run with and as part of the SP application. Submit all required
information identifying how the request would satisfy one or more of the findings set forth in
Section 18-4.2.5(a)(3). Rev. 1: Comment stands, see previous comments above.
Applicant Response:
As noted, a Critical Slope Waiver request in the form of a Special Exception request is included
with this resubmittal letter.
iv. 18-4.2.5(a)(1) — The special exception application must also shall state the reason for the
modification or waiver, explaining how the modification or waiver, if granted, would address the
rapid and/or large-scale movement of soil and rock, excessive stormwater run-off, siltation of
August 25, 2021
Page 6
natural and man-made bodies of water, loss of aesthetic resources, and, in the event of septic
system failure, a greater travel distance of septic effluent (collectively referred to as the `public
health, safety, and welfare factors') that might otherwise result from the disturbance of critical
slopes. Rev. 1: Comment stands, see previous comments above.
Applicant Response:
Please refer to the enclosed Critical Slope Waiver request for this information.
6. Grading: Please revise the Concept Plan so that it includes information showing proposed
grading and the extent of disturbed areas. This information is needed in order for staff to
evaluate the proposal's consistency with Objectives 3, 4, and 6 of Chapter 4 of the
Comprehensive Plan. Rev. 1: Comment stands, see comments from the County Enuinee
50' buffer that extends throughout the lease area.
i. This is also a requirement for all special use permit applications in accordance with
Section 18-33.33(F)of the Zoning Ordinance. Rev. 1: Comment stands, see
throughout the lease area.
County Engineer Comments:
1. It appears grading is shown within the inner 50-ft of the stream buffer to remove/relocate
existing settling basins and material stockpiles Grading within the inner 50-ft will be minimized
and the buffer restored by removing all unsuitable materials gravel/stone%tc), providing soil
amendments where topsoil has been removed, and providing mitigation plantings The 50-ft
stream buffer requirements shall apply to the entire lease area, which may require additional
mitigation measures for areas upstream of the plant location. Please show the entire lease area
on this plan and additional areas to be mitigated Add a note indicating a 50-ft stream buffer will
be restored and that mitigation will also be provided for impacts to the landward 50-ft of stream
buffer.
2. Please copy the County with all documents submitted to FEMA as they occur to allow
adequate time for County review.
Applicant Response:
There is grading within the inner 50-feet of the stream buffer to remove and relocate the existing
settling basins and material stockpiles. Sheet 7 of the revised Concept Plan set shows the
extent of the stream buffer impacts and outlines the stream buffer mitigation steps that shall be
taken for this project.
The Applicant copied the County on all documents submitted to FEMA throughout the LOMR
process.
7. Natural Resources Extraction Overlay District (NR): There are several Zoning Ordinance
Code sections that establish different standards that apply to uses within the NR Overlay
August 25, 2021
Page 7
District. Please provide more information that identifies how the proposal is consistent with
these requirements:
a. 18-30.4.05 — Percentage of lot coverage. All operations associated with the
extraction of natural resources as well as the provision of parking areas and access
roads and driveways shall not occupy more than eighty (80) percent of the total site.
Rev. 1: Per applicant comment response letter, the percent lot coverage is
63%. or 2.8 acres of the 4.4 acre site. Please add a calculation to Sheet 1 of the
Concept Plan stating the acreage/square footage of lot coverage for
improvements within the site. It should state the parking, travel way, buildings,
etc. and provide a calculation of the percentage.
Applicant Response:
The calculations for the lot coverage has been added to the Cover Sheet.
b. 18-30.4.09 - Existing trees and ground cover along public road frontage shall be
preserved, maintained and supplemented by selective cutting, transplanting and addition of new
trees, shrubs and other ground cover for the depth of any roadside setback (100 ft.). What is the
extent of the existing tree line and groundcover within the 100 ft. roadside setback within the SP
area? Providing notes on proposed landscaping (specifically by providing native vegetation) will
make the proposal consistent with Objective 4, Strategy #4e of Chapter 4 of the Comprehensive
Plan. Rev. 1: Comment partially addressed. Staff acknowledges that applicant's response
regarding adding additional landscaping along the road frontage and the security
concerns this poses for the applicant. It appears that mostof the SP limit area along Red
Hill Road contains existing vegetation that satisfies this requirement. There is only a
small area that appears to need additional landscaping, and staff has circled this on the
attached exhibit. It would be best if a note was added to the concept plan stating
something like"Additional trees and/or shrubs will be installed where existing vegetation
is missing, per requirements of Section 18-30.4.09 of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance. Landscapinp materials and locations will be evaluated during site plan
review."
Applicant Response:
The Applicant has agreed to add landscaping to the front of the property that was outlined in
your sketch. This landscaping will also be used to meet the stream buffer mitigation replanting.
More detail for the mitigation planting areas has been provided on Sheet 7.
iv. 18-30.4.10 — See Zoning Division comments regarding hours of operation. In similar SP
applications for asphalt plants in the Rural Areas and NR Overlay District, hours of operation
have been restricted to 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, provided that for
no more than sixty days per year, the hours of operation may be between 7:00 a.m. and 12:00
a.m., Monday through Saturday. Staff will be recommending those hours as a condition of
approval of the SP. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. The applicant has stated that
they cannot agree to this condition. Staff understands that the operation has been in
existence for decades and has operate during hours different from the recommended
condition. Please be aware that this comment was made because the hours of operation
August 25, 2021
Page 8
are an actual Zoning Ordinance regulation and cannot be altered unless a special
exception is approved. Zoning staff have provided an updated comment with a revised
condition that could be supported if the applicant agrees: "hours shall be between 7:0(
a.m. and 12:00 a.m., Monday through Sunday, provided that for no more than sixty day.
Special Use Permit for the Luck Stone asphalt plant located at 2981 Richmond Road was
Previously approved with limited hours of operation, and these recommendations are
based on those conditions.
Applicant Response:
The Applicant is agreeable to the draft condition stated above if the 60-day period is extended to
90-days. That will enable the Applicant to comply with the requirements of its contracts with
VDOT, which mandates night work on highway projects to minimize the impact on the travelling
public, which thus requires the asphalt to be made at the plant after hours, including between
the hours of 10:00 pm and 7:00 am, and including on Sundays. The new truck circulation plan
shown on the plans will mean a continuous forward flow of trucks through the project site, and
thus no back-up beeping alarms. By contrast, the current circulation pattern requires trucks to
back up and emit the back-up alarms regularly, including after hours.
8. Water Protection Ordinance (WPO): The proposed layout encroaches into the INPO stream
buffer within the SP area. Under the WPO Ordinance, the furthest that any structure,
improvement, or activity can encroach into the WPO buffer is the most landward 50' feet, in
accordance with Section 17-604(A). The travelway and portions of the stormwater facilities are
located beyond the most landward 50.' The layout needs to be revised to the satisfaction of the
County Engineer before staff can recommend approval. This will strengthen the application's
consistency with Objective 1, Strategy #la and Objective 3, Strategy #3a from Chapter 4 of the
Comprehensive Plan. See Engineering and Zoning Division comments for further information.
Rev. 1: Comment stands, please see comments from the County Engineer regarding the
50' buffer throughout the lease area. There are additional soil amendments and
mitigation measures such as landscaping that will help establish a 50' buffer which staff
could support.
Applicant Response:
A mitigation planting plan has been added to the revised Concept Plan set. It shows the impact
area on the landward 50 feet of the stream buffer as well as the replanting areas within the inner
50 feet of the stream buffer where existing vegetation was not present. It also shows the
replanting area extending into the landward 50 feet of the stream buffer where room was
available. The requested notes have been added to the plan. The entire lease area has been
shown on Sheet 7 of the Concept Plan.
Recommended Conditions:
c) Use of the asphalt plant authorized by this special use permit shall expire when the
adjacent quarry is no longer inopeation; Rev. 1: Per applicant's comment response,
August 25, 2021
Page 9
the applicant is not agreeable to this condition. Please contact the Zoning staff
member to further discuss this condition.
Applicant Response:
The Applicant cannot agree to this proposed condition. In the unlikely event that Martin Marietta
were to close the adjacent quarry, S.L. Williamson would still need to operate at this location.
The Company would bring in material from off -site in such event, and cannot have its ability to
legally operate, and its multi -million dollar investment, be dependent upon the business of
another party that it has no control over.
Further support for the Applicant's position with regard to this proposed condition:
The property that is the subject of this SUP application is located within the Natural
Resources Extraction Overlay District, and based upon knowledge and belief, it has
been in the NR Overlay District since the district's creation.
The Applicant will have invested multiple millions of dollars into this precise location and
this Special Use Permit (if approved), including:
o the new plant itself and related equipment, which is not relocatable. The cost of
the new plant is approximately $5-6 million in equipment and construction costs
o approximately $1-2 million in site work and design costs to prepare the site for
the new plant
o extensive stream buffer mitigation measures as shown on the Concept Plan,
such as new plantings
o FEMA LOMR applications and fees, including the substantial engineering and
other consultant expenses associated therewith
o Other consultants' fees
If this condition is approved, and the adjacent quarry were to close, SL Williamson will
have to find a new location for its plant, which may not be possible or realistic:
o Asphalt plants are not permitted by right in ANY zoning district
o Asphalt plants are only permitted by SUP in NR and Heavy Industry (HI) zoning
districts. There are very few parcels in the County zoned HI and NR, and
securing a Special Use Permit for an Asphalt Plant at any of these parcels would
be extraordinarily challenging, time-consuming, expensive, and unpredictable
o All of the expenses referenced above would be required to be invested in any
new site, at a cost of millions of dollars.
• New plant, construction costs, site and design costs, federal and state
permits, and consultants' fees (in excess of $8 million)
o Given these challenges, the Applicant would likely pursue a new location that is
outside of Albemarle County, where the availability of suitably -zoned land is more
abundant, and the challenges securing any needed permits from the location will
be significantly lower.
August 25, 2021
Page 10
• That will then require the Applicant to haul its materials over much longer
distances to various job sites in and around Albemarle, requiring
additional fuel and other expenses, and creating additional climate
impacts, all unnecessarily.
• This will also result in the loss of 30 jobs from Albemarle County
• The regulations in Section 30.4.02.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, which lists the uses that
are permitted within the NR district by Special Use Permit, do not contain any
regulations providing that an Asphalt Plant is only permitted if it is adjacent to an
operating quarry.
• Such a condition would be reasonable if an Asphalt Plant were deemed an accessory
use to a use permitted by -right in the NR Overlay District, but that is not the case here.
• We have not received any explanation for why staff is recommending this condition, or
why staff is does not consider the Applicant's response to this condition to justify
removing it.
• We are aware of no policy or land use reason why an Asphalt Plant can only be allowed
by SUP if it is adjacent to an operating quarry.
• Zoning staff has advised that their reason for the proposed condition is their opinion that
it would be inappropriate to have an NR-related use once the natural resources are no
longer being extracted from the adjacent property; that it would then be appropriate to
remove the NR overlay district zoning from the entire parcel (including the Applicant's
leased parcel, which is within the NR overlay district) and no longer allow any uses that
are not related to the natural resource extraction. While the Applicant appreciates the
policy goals of that position, it does not reflect the reality of what is required for a new
plant, including the substantial capital investment involved, the practical inability to
transition to a new location, and the lack of available NR and HI zoned land, among
others listed herein.
In addition, even if the County felt it appropriate to remove the NR overlay zoning from
the portion of the parcel that does not contain the Applicant's plant, it could nevertheless
leave the NR overlay in tact on the Applicant's lease area, in light of the property's long-
time operation within the area, and further in light of the inability to practically relocate
the plant to a new location.
Furthermore, in the unlikely event that the adjacent quarry were to close, the Applicant's
plant would remain subject to the conditions of approval of the SUP, and all other
applicable rules and regulations. So long as the new plant continues to comply with the
SUP conditions of approval and all applicable regulations, for all the reasons contained
August 25, 2021
Page 11
herein, it would be inherently unreasonable to require the plant to close just because the
adjacent quarry were to close.
Virginia Department of Health
I do not see anything in the way of soils work or where they have a proposed drainfield
site for this project. Without this information, I am unable to say whether or not the project
is feasible.
Applicant Response:
A drain field is not necessary at this site as the site is served by a pump and haul sanitary
system.
Should you have any questions or comments regarding the responses contained in this letter, or
regarding any aspect of the updated Concept Plans or other enclosed materials, please do not
hesitate to contact me at 951-5709.
Sincerely,
2/a�eitce V, zag'�
Valerie W. Long
Enclosures:
1. Updated Concept Plan, last revised March 3, 2021 (7 sheets)
2. Cover Letter from FEMA and Letter of Map Revision Determination Document
3. FEMA Final Flood Hazzard Determination Letter
4. Updated SUP Narrative
5. Special Exception Application for Critical Slopes Waiver
6. Special Exception Application for Building Site Ratio Waiver
cc: Blair Williamson, S.L. Williamson & Company
Ammy George, Roudabush, Gale & Associates
45533262_3