Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201900009 Review Comments Special Use Permit 2021-10-15COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone(434) 296-5832 Fax (434)972-4176 October 15, 2021 Valerie Wagner Long 321 East Main St. Suite 400 Charlottesville, VA 22902 vlong@williamsmullen.com / (434) 951-5709 RE: Review Comment Letter 93: SP-2019-00009 S.L. Williamson Replacement Asphalt Plant Ms. Long: Staff has reviewed your initial submittal for the special use permit (SP), SP201900009 S.L. Williamson Replacement Asphalt Plant. We have a number of questions and comments which we believe should be addressed before we can recommend favorably on your SP request. We would be glad to meet with you to discuss these issues. Our comments are provided below: General Application Comments: 1. Please revise the title of the plan to "Concept Plan" and include the application number, SP201900009. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 2. Project narrative/Concept Plan: i. Under A. Proposal, the narrative states that the lease area of the asphalt plant is 5.6 acres. However, Sheet 1 of the Concept Plan states that the SP area is 4.4 acres and follows the limits of the S.L. Williamson lease area. Please clarify this discrepancy and revise either the narrative or Sheet 1 of the Concept Plan so that the acreages match and are correct. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. S.L. Williamson's lease area crosses into TMP 88-13B and that is why the narrative states the total lease area is 5.6 acres. The SP application is only proposing improvements on TMP 88-18 and this portion of the lease area measures 4.4. acres. 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. Staff acknowledges that the revised narrative and states that the replacement plant will protect air and water quality because it will feature modern equipment. Is there any technical evidence that can be supplied demonstrating this? For example, 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 water bodies from the current plant vs. the replacement plant? This information would demonstrate consistency with Objectives 1-2, and 4-6 from Chapter 4 of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff acknowledges that the noise study provides evidence that the proposal is generally consistent with Objectives 3 and 7 of Chapter 4. Rev. 2: Per applicant response, there is not any technical data on the air and water quality protection that can be supplied. Staff has no further comment on this topic, but please be aware that the Planning Comission and Board of Supervisors may ask this question at future public hearings. 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. Rev. 2: Per applicant response, there is not any technical data on the air and water quality protection that can be supplied. Staff has no further comment on this topic, but please be aware that the Planning Comission and Board of Supervisors may ask this question at future public hearings. 3. Flood Hazard Overlay District (FH) — Per the application narrative and notes on Sheet 1 of the Concept Plan, the applicant is pursuing a floodplain study to determine the true extent of the 100-year floodplain within the extent of the SP project. Once completed, and in consultation with the County Engineer, a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) will be filed with FEMA. This will identify the true extent of the 100-year floodplain, and the proposed plant will be located outside of the floodplain. i. On Sheets 2-4 of the Concept Plan, please identify the existing extent of the FH District (100-year floodplain) per FEMA FIRM panel, and label this feature with the FIRM panel number. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 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. 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. If the LOMR has been completed, please revise the extent of the 100-year floodplain on all applicable sheets and reference the LOMR number. The County Engineer has also offered some comments about the LOMR, please see their comments attached below. Rev. 2: Comment addressed, see attached Engineering Division comments. 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 yet 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 #7a. If the LOMR has not yet been approved. by FEMA, then condition b stated below will still apply to staff's recommendation on this application. Rev. 2: Comment addressed, LOMR has been approved by FEMA. See attached Engineering Division comments for further information. 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 symbologrepresents on Sheets 3-5. Is that supposed to represent ground cover that has already been disturbed? It overlaps with steep slopes and other layers such as the 100-year floodplain and WPO buffer. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. 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 (ii) and #5 (iv) 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 subject to section 32 of this chapter shall have an area of30,000 square,feet or greater and shall be ofsuch dimensions that no one dimension 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, two subsurface drain Was approved by the Vir impartment of Health if the lot will be served bya conventional onsite sewaze system, parking and loading areas, storage yards and other improvements, and all earth disturbin ag ctivity 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 Kirtley with the Virginia Department of Health (VDH). VDH cannot currently state whether drainfields are feasible within the project area, and this is a requirement of the buildingsite to regulations. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. An application to waive the building site dimension requirements, SE202100037, has been submitted and reviewed by the County Engineer and VDH. Engineering and VDH have no objections to this waiver request, please see attached comments. 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 quwy operations, which is a legal, permitted and thus approved use. As such, the construction and installation of the asphalt plant will not impact any 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 rg eater which are lawfully created within a development that was approved by the County shall not be considered 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 critical slopes and eliminate the need for the waiver. Otherwise, a critical slopes 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 Cow . Furthermore, the site layout on Sheets 4-5 and the exhibit titled "Proposed Layout- Colored Exhibit" show an 8' x 14' recycle bin, six 10' x 14' skidded cold feed systems, and a 30' x 55' skidded aggregate access conveyor extending into the areas of critical slopes that the applicant agrees are actually critical slopes. If those features are to be installed over critical slope areas, a waiver or modification approval is still required. Again. the topographic survev may result in this comment no longer being applicable. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. A special exception application has been submitted to address this comment. The County Engineer has reviewed the critical slopes waiver special exception request, SE202100036, and has no objections. A full analysis of the waiver request will be provided when this application proceeds to public hearings with the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. 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. Rev. 2: Two special exceptions have been submitted to address the previous comments. 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 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. Rev. 2: Comment addressed, this information has been provided in SE202100036 and 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 Engineer regarding grading and other mitigation measures that may be necessary within the entire 50' buffer that extends throughout the lease area. Rev. 2: Comment addressed, see attached Engineering Division comments. 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 comments from the County Engineer regarding grading and other mitigation measures that may be necessary within the entire 50' buffer that extends throughout the lease area. Rev. 2: Comment addressed, see attached Engineering Division comments. 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 District. Please provide more information that identifies how the proposal is consistent with these requirements: i. 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 or improvements within the site. It should state the parking, travel way_ buildings, etc. and provide a calculation of the percentage. Rev. 2: Comment addressed per notes on Sheet 1. ii. 18-30.4.06 — No uses or structure shall be located within two hundred (200) feet of any occupied dwelling. Please provide information demonstrating the replacement use and associated structures will be located a minimum of 200 feet from any occupied dwelling. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. iii. 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 regardin ag dding additional landscaping along the road frontage and the security concerns this poses for the applicant. It appears that most of 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 conceptplan 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. Landscaping materials and locations will be evaluated during site plan review." Rev. 2: Comment addressed. 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 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 7:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m., Monday through Sunday, provided that for no more than sixty days per year, the hours of operation may be between 12:01 a.m. and 12:00 a.m.. Monday through Sunday." However, staff cannot recommend an unlimited 24-hour operation. The 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. Rev. 2: Zoning has adjusted the recommended to condition to allow operation between 12:01 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. Monday through Sunday for no more than 90 days per year. Please see recommended conditions below. 8. Water Protection Ordinance (WPO): The proposed layout encroaches into the WPO 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. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. County Engineering has no objections. 9. Natural Resources: David Hannah, Natural Resources Manager, has reviewed the application and has no objections so long as proposed grading and improvements do not extend further northward into the site. There are existing wetlands and other sensitive ecological features along the stream north of the improvements shown on the Concept Plan. Please be aware of this issue when addressing comment #8. If certain features can only be relocated north of where currently shown, they should be located to be entirely outside of the 100' WPO stream buffer. Rev. 1: Comment addressed, the reconfigured site appears to lie outside of wetland areas on the north end of the S.L. Williamson lease area/SP limits. i. There appears to be a rectangular -shaped area north of the proposed travelway that is located between the 500'-600' contour lines that could be utilized for relocating the travelway turnaround and/or SWM facilities, as mentioned in the previous comment. This area measures approximately 8,100 sq. ft. and is located outside of the WPO 100' stream buffer. If necessary in order to address comment #8, staff could support the northward relocation of improvements to this area. Rev. 1: Comment no longer applicable. Planning Planning staff comments are organized as follows: • How the proposal relates to the Comprehensive Plan • Additional comments from reviewers (See attached) Comprehensive Plan Comments on how your project conforms to the Comprehensive Plan will be provided to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors as part of the staff report that will be prepared for the work session or public hearing. The comments below are in preparation for the Planning Commission review and may change based on direction from the Commission and/or with subsequent submittals. The proposal is located within an approximately 5.5-acre size lease area on Tax Map Parcel (TMP) 08800-00-00-01800. This property is zoned RA Rural Area and is located within Rural Area 4 of the Comprehensive Plan. The property is also located within the Flood Hazard (FH) Overlay Zoning District, and the Natural Resource Extraction (NR) Overlay Zoning District. Several businesses lease portions of the property for mining activities, including the S.L. Williamson company. The property is commonly referred to as the Martin Marietta Red Hill Quarry. S.L. Williamson's current on -site activities include the production of plant mix asphalt that is sold and used for road paving and construction. The existing machinery and facilities within TMP 88-18 that belong to the S.L. Williamson operation are located at the southwestern corner of the property, north of Red Hill Road (State Route 708). The Rural Area chapter (Chapter 7) of the Comprehensive Plan has designated the subject property for Rural Area land use. The intent of the Rural Area designation is to allow uses that preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources; and also to allow residential uses at a density of up to 0.5 acres per dwelling unit. Asphalt mixing plants are not a permitted use within the RA Zoning District and are not explicitly recommended as a land use type by the Rural Areas chapter of the Master Plan. However, TMP 88-18 is located within the NR Overlay Zoning District, which allows asphalt mixing plants through approval of a Special Use Permit. There are approximately ten properties throughout the entire County that are within the NR Overlay District. All of these properties are also located within the Rural Area of the Comprehensive Plan and have a base zoning of RA. As stated in Section 18-30.4.01 of the Zoning Ordinance, the purpose of the NR Overlay District is "to provide for the utilization of spring water for off -site consumption, sand, gravel, stone or other mineral deposits within the county in a manner compatible with adjacent land uses. " The NR Overlay District has been established on properties where deposits of sand, gravel, stone or other minerals exist; where the uses permitted hereunder are unlikely to create effects adverse to public health, safety and welfare or to the value of adjacent properties; and specifically where existing roads will not make it necessary to conduct trucking operations through developed residential areas or areas likely to be developed for residents during the course of any extractive use. Therefore, the mineral extraction activities that occur on TMP 88-18 are permitted by -right on the subject property. Furthermore, an asphalt mixing plant that is co -located with a by -right use in the NR Overlay District is consistent with Objective #3a from Chapter 4 of the Comprehensive Plan, provided that certain Zoning Ordinance performance standards are adhered to, and the use does not result in detrimental effects on surrounding properties that conflict with the goals and objectives of Chapter 7. Many comments mentioned earlier in this letter are related to protection of sensitive environmental features and waterbodies near the proposal. TMP 88-18 is located within the North Fork Hardware River Watershed, which is not a water -supply watershed. Nearby streams drain into the Hardware River, which belongs to the Middle James River Basin. In order for staff to make a favorable recommendation on the proposal, the application must demonstrate that it is consistent with the following objectives from Chapter 4 of the Comprehensive Plan: • Objective 1: Ensure clean and abundant water resources for public health, business, healthy ecosystems, and personal enjoyment by preventing shortages and contamination; • Objective 2: Protect air quality; • Objective 3: Recognize the economic value of the County's mineral resources while giving due consideration to the potential harm mineral extraction activities and byproducts can have on human health and property values. • Objective 4: Protect the biological diversity and ecological integrity of the County in both the Rural Area and Development Areas. • Objective 6: Retain and improve land cover near rivers and streams and protect wetlands. • Objective 7: Protect residents and properties from damage that can be prevented when natural hazards are present. Recommended Conditions Staff will be recommending that the following conditions be approved by the Board for this application. See Zoning Division comments for further information. • SP201900009 shall be developed in general accord with the concept plan titled "Proposed Layout Plan Special Use Permit SL Williamson Asphalt Plant @ Red Hill Quarry," with the layout changes recommended by staff. The Zoning Administrator may approve revisions to the concept plan to allow compliance with the Zoning Ordinance; • Approval of the special use permit is contingent on the acceptance and approval of an Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) or Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) to the County's 100-year floodplain map to remove the plant and all its associated construction and land disturbance from the 100-year floodplain; • Use of the asphalt plant authorized by this special use permit shall expire when the adjacent quarry is no longer in operation; • Hours of operation of the asphalt plant shall be between 7:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m., Monday through Sunday, provided that for no more than 90 days per year, the hours of operation may be between 12:01 a.m. and 12:00 a.m., Monday through Sunday. Sound/noise barriers and at • Attenuation measures will be provided as necessary to comply with the County's noise ordinance (section 18- 4.18); • Plant site lighting will comply with the County's outdoor lighting ordinance (section 18-4.17). Height of the asphalt plant and all associated structures will be limited to 80 feet. In addition to consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, please also be advised that all zoning map amendment applications are evaluated relative to the "factors to be considered" specified in County Code § 18-33.40(B). This evaluation will be written in the staff report to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors once the application moves forward to public hearings. Community Meeting A community meeting was held on December 19, 2019 at Red Hill Elementary School. The applicant provided a thorough and detailed explanation of the proposed replacement plant facilities and the benefits that would result related to air and water quality, as well as the reduction in noise pollution. Approximately 5 community members attended, and no objections were expressed to the proposal. Community members made comments in support of replacing the plant with modem equipment since it would reduce noise, air, and water pollution. Department of Community Development — Zoning Division Please see the attached comments from Lea Brumfield, lbrumfield@albemarle.org. Department of Community Development — Engineering Division Please see the attached comments from the County Engineer, Frank Pohl, fpohl@albemarle.org. Virginia Department of Health No objection, see attached comments from Josh Kirtley, Joshua.kirtleya vdh.virginia.gov. Action after Receipt of Comments The applicant voluntarily requested a deferral of final Board action on this application. Final Board action must occur on or before August 31, 2022. Resubmittal If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. There is a $1,183 resubmittal fee for the next submittal and each subsequent submittal made thereafter. The resubmittal date schedule is provided for your convenience. Additional notification fees will not be required unless a deferral takes place and adjoining owners need to be notified of a new date. Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email address is blanig lle@albemarle.or Sincerely, 7 W Cameron Langille Principal Planner Planning Division, Department of Community Development V LEA BRUMFIELD GOUTIty Of i11b21T12T12 Senior Planner II, Zoning COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ibrumfield@albemarle.org tel: 434-296-5832 ext. 3023 To: Cameron Langille, Principal Planner From: Lea Brumfield, Senior Planner II Division: Zoning Date: 10/4/2021 Subject: 3rd Zoning Comments for SP201900009 I S.L. Williamson Replacement Asphalt Plant The following comments are provided regarding the latest revisions to above noted special use permit application. Staff follow-up comments bolded: 1) Recommended condition of approval re: hours of operation Prior comment: In light of the applicant's prior operation without noise complaints, and the remote location of the application in question, staff recommends hours of operation of the asphalt plant shall be between 7:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m., Monday through Sunday, provided that for no more than sixty days per year, the hours of operation may be between 12:01 a.m. and 12:00 a.m., Monday through Sunday. However, staff cannot recommend an unlimited 24- hour operation. The 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's 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. Staff's response: With the new truck circulation plan, this change is acceptable. Zoning staff will recommend a condition of approval stipulating that hours of operation of the asphalt plant shall be between 7:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m., Monday through Sunday, provided that for no more than 90 days per year, the hours of operation may be between 12:01 a.m. and 12:00 a.m., Monday through Sunday. 2) Recommended condition of approval re: expiration of special use permit Prior comment: Suggested conditions of approval will likely include: ... Use of the asphalt plant authorized by this special use permit shall expire when the adjacent quarry is no longer in operation. Applicant's 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. Staff's response: Comment stands. The appropriateness of this use, and Zoning staff's recommendation of this application's approval, is reliant on the existence of the adjacent quarry, as the existence of the quarry precludes the Natural Resource Extraction Overlay District. Jirlri4rJA_14:3 :1 u/_1 N 1 We]:Iel 401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Per section 30.4.01, "This natural resource extraction overlay district (herein referred to as NR) is created to provide for the utilization of spring water for off -site consumption, sand, gravel, stone or other mineral deposits within the county in a manner compatible with adjacent land uses." The special use permit uses permitted in the Natural Resources Extraction Overlay District, such as asphalt mixing plants, are permitted due to their proximity to the extraction of natural resources. In the unlikely event of the closing of the quarry, the Natural Resource Extraction Overlay District would likely be removed, creating a non -conforming use, regardless of the approval of a special use permit. Without the adjacent quarry and a Natural Resources Extraction Overlay District, the use of an asphalt plant is highly incompatible with the intended uses of the Rural Areas zoning district. Due to this incompatibility, Zoning staff does not recommend approval of this use without a condition of approval to avoid potentially creating a non- conforming use of an asphalt mixing plant in the Rural Areas district. Additionally, see the traffic comment below. 3) Traffic Prior comment: Impacts to Roads. The applicant has asserted that the plant replacement will not increase the number of vehicular trips and will not result in any traffic changes. Staff's additional comment: Review of the application as submitted includes the review of traffic to and from the asphalt mixing plant site. Current conditions, under which this application has been reviewed, do not include the addition of trucks providing the applicant with raw materials from off -site, potentially from quarries in other counties. The recommended condition of approval requiring the expiration of this special use permit to be tied to the existence of the adjacent quarry provides a reduction in potential impacts to roads, and reduces the potential need for additional traffic and road maintenance and construction analysis. JiVIYArirA_14 :l :1 S C1 N 4 :1111501 tttl 401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Review Comments for SP201900009 F— Project Name: S. L. WILLIAMSON - REPLACEMENT ASPHALT PLANT Date Completed: Thursday, October 14, 2021 Department/DivisiordAgency: Review Status: Frank Pohl I CDD Enaineerina No Objection Pager County of Albemarle Printed On: 10/1512021 Review Comments for SE202100036 Project Name: S.L. WILLIAMSON REPLACEMENT ASPHALT PLANT (CRITICAL SLOPE WAIVER) - DIGITAL Date Completed: Thursday, October 14, 2021 Department/DivisiordAgency: Review Status: Frank Pohl CDD Enaineerina No Objection Pager County of Albemarle Printed On: 10/15/2021 Review Comments for SE202100037 Project Name: S.L. WILLIAMSON REPLACEMENT ASPHALT PLANT (BUILDING SITE RATIO WAIVER) - DIGITAL Date Completed: Thursday, September 23, 2021 Department/DivisiordAgency: Review Status: Frank Pohl —2 CDD Enaineerina No Objoctlon Page: Fl� County of Albemarle Printed On: 10/1512021 Review Comments for SE202100037 Project Name: S.L. WILLIAMSON REPLACEMENT ASPHALT PLANT (BUILDING SITE RATIO WAIVER) - DIGITAL Date Completed: Friday, October 15, 21 2 Department/DivisiordAgency: Review Status: Josh Kirbey —31 Health Deoarhnent No Oberon My review and understanding of the project is that the applicant is replacing an aging asphalt plant and that the use of the property will remain exactly the same. It is also my understanding that the new proposed plant does not contain an office and there will be no water connections that could produce wastewater flow. It is extremely unlikely for the subject property to support two (2) subsurface drainfiekls in the vicinity of the proposed plant location. I say this after noting the stream buffer, possible flood plain, critical slopes, probable shallow depth to bedrock, and lack of "undisturbed soils". It is my opinion that requiring two (2) drainfiekl locations would effectively eliminate this project from consideration. As a side note, there may be something to be said that replacing the existing plant may have some benefits from an environmental point of view. While I'm not aware of issues associated with the existing plant, I would imagine that a new updated plant would be more of icienUenvironmentally friendly in almost every way. Page: 1 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: 00/1512 221