The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSUB201700103 Correspondence 2018-01-16 Tim Padalino From: Tim Padalino Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 5:09 PM To: 'elliot.gaines@eclinc.com' Subject: response to Mr. Coleman's drawing Attachments: Notes_Ragland property_2018-01-09.pdf Hello Elliot, I've taken a look at the drawing you provided last week, and I've also re-reviewed the written guidance that I provided one week ago. I've re-attached those notes, in case that is helpful. It's very difficult for me to determine if the approach shown on the drawing can be approved. There is simply not enough detailed information (such as acreage and other dimensions) to guarantee that this approach would work, or (conversely) to conclude that it wouldn't work. However, it does seem to generally show the approach that I described in that written guidance—and so as you press on, my feedback is simply to make sure that whatever is submitted complies with the basic instructions I provided in writing. That's important whether you all decide to pursue "option 1" (the boundary line adjustment and division, with 1 new dwelling on 1 new lot and 1 existing dwelling on the existing, adjusted parcel 3B) or"option 2" (the boundary line adjustment with no division, with 2 dwellings on adjusted parcel 3B). Of course the other sections of County Code all still apply, but what I've provided previously should give you two successful "blueprints" for accomplishing your stated goals. I wish I could be more specific about the drawing you provided, but I can't make a full assessment of that sketch. The other challenge is that I have been trying to squeeze these informal comments in, around other assignments and responsibilities—so I will be able to commit more time to the review after the County receives a formal resubmittal that gets added to my (official) workload. Thanks for your understanding; and I sincerely hope the information I recently provided is helpful, and that it gets everyone started in the right direction towards completing your project!. Thanks again -- - Tim Padalino, AICP Senior Planner I Community Development Department County of Albemarle, Virginia https://www.albemarle.orq/department.asp?department=cdd (434)-296-5832 x. 3088 1 *� -1,.•. 3.iAss Qed CAC..Goal 2st9-oL- 0 P+vA Notes: SUB-2017-00103 (Ragland) —January 9, 2018 In response to a January 9th voicemail from Mr. Elliot Gaines,Mr. Gaines and I briefly discussed the following question on the same day: Q: Can we simply add a second dwelling unit to existing TMP 22-3B(3.0 acres)? After research and discussion with other staff members of the Community Development Department (CDD),the following answer and additional information is provided for your consideration: A: No—not unless other steps are accomplished first. Adding a second dwelling unit to parcel 22-3B (as-is)is not possible,primarily because of gross density regulations(County Code Chapter 18 Section 10.4"Area and Bulk Regulations"). However,either of the following options could be undertaken to allow for a second dwelling unit to be added to parcel 3B(subject to additional regulations and requirements contained in the Building Code): Option 1:Boundary Line Adjustment+ Subdivision (one new parcel) 1. Adjust(enlarge)parcel 22-3B by adding a minimum of 2.0 acres and 1 development right to parcel 22-3B,through the preparation and submission of a Boundary Line Adjustment plat. That acreage and development right can come from any of the adjoining properties which has sufficient acreage and at least 1 additional remaining development right to assign, assuming that the property owner(s)of that property agrees to do so. The resulting adjusted(enlarged)parcel 22-3B must have a minimum width of one hundred and fifty(150)feet,and must contain a minimum of 1 building site(not located within the 100-year floodplain)that contains 2 Health Department-approved subsurface drainfields and which otherwise complies with County Code Chapter 18, Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2("Building Site Required"and`Building Site Area and Dimensions"). The residue parcel from which the acreage and development right were taken/adjusted must still contain a minimum of 1 building site that contains 2 Health Department-approved subsurface drainfields and which otherwise complies with County Code Chapter 18, Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 ("Building Site Required"and"Building Site Area and Dimensions"). AND THEN: 2. Using the added development right,create a new parcel from the enlarged parcel 3B through the preparation and submission of a Plat of Division.The newly-created parcel must be a minimum of 2.0 acres in size,must be a minimum width of 150 feet,and must contain a building site that is not located within the 100-year floodplain and which contains 2 Health Department-approved subsurface drainfields and which otherwise complies with County Code Chapter 18, Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2("Building Site Required"and"Building Site Area and Dimensions"). The new parcel must also be accessed by a new private street(minimum width of 30 feet). Under this approach,this new private street must only serve two lots(maximum),and the private street entrance to/from Burnley Station Road must be located on parcel 22-3B (not located on, or not providing access to/from,parcel 22-3D). • The residue parcel(parcel 3B)from which the newly-created parcel is divided must contain a minimum of 1 building site that contains 2 Health Department-approved subsurface drainfields and which otherwise complies with County Code Chapter 18, Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2("Building Site Required"and`Building Site Area and Dimensions"). Note: This"Option 1" could be done on one plat that shows both steps (boundary line adjustment and division). Option 2:Boundaryy Line Adjustment only(no division/no new parcels) 1. Adjust(enlarge)parcel 22-3B by adding a minimum of 2.0 acres and 1 development right to parcel 22-3B,through the preparation and submission of a Boundary Line Adjustment plat.That acreage and development right can come from any of the adjoining properties which has sufficient acreage and at least 1 additional remaining development right to assign, assuming that the property owner(s)of that property agrees to do so. The resulting adjusted(enlarged)parcel 22-3B must have a minimum width of two hundred and fifty(250)feet,and must contain a minimum of 1 building site(not located within the 100-year floodplain)that contains 2 Health Department-approved subsurface drainfields and which otherwise complies with County Code Chapter 18, Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2("Building Site Required"and"Building Site Area and Dimensions"). The residue parcel from which the acreage and development right were taken/adjusted must still contain a minimum of 1 building site that contains 2 Health Department-approved subsurface drainfields and which otherwise complies with County Code Chapter 18, Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 ("Building Site Required"and"Building Site Area and Dimensions"). Please contact me(Tim Padalino)at any time with any questions and/or requests for assistance at(434)- 296-5832 x. 3088 or tpadalino@a,albemarle.org.Thank you very much. Tim Padalino From: Tim Padalino Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2017 11:24 AM To: 'residentialsurveying@gmail.com' Cc: Moore,Adam PE (VDOT); 'Bedsaul, Willis C. (VDOT)'; 'Kirtley, Joshua (VDH)' Subject: UPDATED Review Comments:SUB2017-103 (Ragland) Attachments: Review Comment Letter_SUB20170103 Ragland 08-17-2017_UPDATE.pdf Hello Bob, As we discussed on the phone earlier this week, I'm writing to provide updated review comments (attached). These updated comments were composed after speaking with you, with other County staff, and with other review agencies. Please note the significant issues involving the (proposed building sites and drainfields on proposed new Parcel 3E) + (VDH review/approval of the same), as explained in updated Planning comment#7. Please be sure you communicate directly with Mr. Kirtley to begin resolving those issues; and it may be helpful to include me on any written correspondence to help me remain aware of any/all developments with this plat. Thank you in advance; and please let me know if you have questions or requests for assistance, or if you would otherwise like to discuss these updated review comments. Thanks again, Tim Tim Padalino, AICP Senior Planner I Community Development Department County of Albemarle, Virginia https://www.albemarle.orq/department.asp?department=cdd (434)-296-5832 x. 3088 Tim Padalino From: Tim Padalino Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 11:17 AM To: 'Kirtley,Joshua (VDH)' Subject: RE:Albemarle County SUB2017-103 (Ragland) - review comments Hi Josh, Yes, correct—the plat simply needs to contain one building site that is a contiguous 30,000 SF in size/area, and that is capable of having two subsurface drainfields (as determined/approved by VDH, in reliance upon proper soils reports, drainfield plats, etc). I intend to advise the surveyor to remove the second building site for several reasons—it is not required; including it may complicate County review/approval of the plat; and a second building site could still be developed in the future (even without it being shown as a second building site on this plat of division). In other words, the County only intends to ensure that each new parcel is buildable for a minimum of one dwelling unit. If additional future dwelling units are to be built in the future, that can be reviewed and approved (as may be applicable) in the future, through an application for an additional building permit. I hope this helps. I'll provide you with a copy of the revised/updated review comments to the surveyor(Mr. Bob Coleman), just so you have that available for reference. Thanks again for your time and attention on this - - - Tim Tim Padalino, AICP Albemarle County I Community Development Dept. (434)-296-5832 x. 3088 From: Kirtley,Joshua (VDH) [mailto:Joshua.Kirtley@vdh.virginia.govj Sent:Tuesday,August 15, 2017 6:38 PM To:Tim Padalino<tpadalino@albemarle.org> Subject: RE:Albemarle County SUB2017-103 (Ragland) - review comments Tim: Sounds like they're going to need to have some additional soils work to "fit" everything in the required 30,000 sq ft area. My question would be whether or not Lots A and B would need to have approved drainfield areas (total of 4), or if the new Parcel 3E could suffice with only 2. Josh Kirtley Environmental Health Technical Consultant Onsite Sewage and Water Programs Thomas Jefferson Health District Office(434)972-6288 1 From: Tim Padalino [mailto:tpadalino@albemarle.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 4:11 PM To: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH) Subject: RE: Albemarle County SUB2017-103 (Ragland) - review comments Good question. To use the term "combined" informally, yes -- Lots A and B will be "combined" to create a new Parcel 3E. But the actual formal sequence of what is being proposed is not so simple— it involves the following two steps, shown on one plat: Currently: Existing Parcel 3D and Existing Parcel 3B (Division): "Lot B" is divided out of Existing Parcel 3D by using 1 development right, AND (Boundary Line Adjustment): "Lot A" is adjusted out of Existing Parcel 3B and combined with "Lot B" Result: proposed New Parcel 3E (comprised of"Lot A" and "Lot B") and modified Parcels 3D and 3B Does that help clarify what is shown on the plat? As a result, in my updated/revised comment letter to the surveyor, I will need to tell him that each building site needs to contain areas for two subsurface drainfields [per 18.4.2.2-(a)-1] --- and that VDH will need to review and approve the revised plat accordingly. I presume that will require new soils reports and/or new drainfield plats? Tim Padalino, AICP Albemarle County I Community Development Dept. (434)-296-5832 x. 3088 From: Kirtley,Joshua (VDH) [mailto:Joshua.Kirtley@vdh.virginia.gov] Sent:Tuesday, August 15, 2017 3:49 PM To:Tim Padalino <tpadalino@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: Albemarle County SUB2017-103 (Ragland) - review comments Good afternoon, Tim. I see where you're coming from. I was under the impression that Lots A and B were being combined. Is this not the case? Josh Kirtley Environmental Health Technical Consultant Onsite Sewage and Water Programs Thomas Jefferson Health District Office(434)972-6288 From: Tim Padalino [mailto:tpadalino@albemarle.orq] Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 3:46 PM To: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH) Subject: RE: Albemarle County SUB2017-103 (Ragland) - review comments 2 Hi again Josh, Thanks again for your help this week. I'm writing about the Ragland plat; as I re-reviewed the subdivision plat this afternoon, another County Planner noticed something that we should discuss. With regards to the proposed New Parcel 3E, two different building sites are shown (Lot A and Lot B). The primary drainfield is shown on Lot A, and the reserve drainfield is shown on Lot B. Those two lots and drainfield areas are separated by a stream, stream buffer, and 100-year floodplain. It was pointed out to me that County Code Chapter 18, Section 18.4.2.2 requires the following: 4.2.2-(a)-1 "Dwelling units"—Each building site for a dwelling unit shall have an area of thirty thousand (30,000) square feet or greater... [and] ... shall have adequate area for locating two (2) subsurface drainfields approved by the Virginia Department of Health if the lot will be served by a conventional onsite sewage system. So it appears there may be a problem: although the VDH approval confirms that the proposed New Parcel 3E has adequate area for two new drainfields (primary and reserve), neither of the two building sites (either Lot A or Lot B) contain 2 VDH-approved drainfields. Can we discuss how to address this? (FYI, the surveyor will be revising and resubmitting the plat to address other additional review comments, so this "2 drainfields per building site" issue is not the only issue to be resolved at this time.) Thanks in advance-- - Tim Tim Padalino, AICP Albemarle County I Community Development Dept. (434)-296-5832 x. 3088 From: Kirtley,Joshua (VDH) [mailto:Joshua.Kirtlev@vdh.virginia.gov] Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 12:55 PM To:Tim Padalino<tpadalino@albemarle.org> Subject: RE:Albemarle County SUB2017-103 (Ragland)- review comments Thanks, Tim. Good talking to you earlier. As discussed, please review the attached PDF of the approval letter and soils work. If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know. Have a good afternoon, Josh Josh Kirtley Environmental Health Technical Consultant 3 Onsite Sewage and Water Programs Thomas Jefferson Health District Office(434)972-6288 From: Tim Padalino [mailto:tpadalino@albemarle.orq] Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 12:37 PM To: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH) Subject: RE: Albemarle County SUB2017-103 (Ragland) - review comments Hi Josh, You're welcome. Thanks for the prompt reply. The tax map parcels involved would be TMP 22-3D and 22-3B. They are right across from Preddy Creek Trail Park, you can follow the link to see their location on Burnley Station Road: http://gisweb.albemarle.org/Map/Viewer.aspx?state=417265796058 Hope this helps, Tim Tim Padalino, AICP Albemarle County I Community Development Dept. (434)-296-5832 x. 3088 From: Kirtley,Joshua (VDH) [mailto:Joshua.Kirtley@vdh.virginia.gov] Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 12:24 PM To:Tim Padalino <toadalino(@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: Albemarle County SUB2017-103 (Ragland) - review comments Good afternoon, Tim. Thanks for your email. What is the Tax Map and Parcel ID for the property in question? Josh Josh Kirtley Environmental Health Technical Consultant Onsite Sewage and Water Programs Thomas Jefferson Health District Office(434)972-6288 From:Tim Padalino [mailto:tpadalino0albemarle.orq] Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 11:28 AM To: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH) Subject: FW: Albemarle County SUB2017-103 (Ragland) - review comments Hi Josh, I hope you're doing well after the troubling weekend here in Charlottesville. 4 I'm writing to check in regarding the proposed plat of division and adjustment for the Ragland family properties on Burnley Station Road. The soils reports/info was transmitted to VDH at the end of July, and I just completed my review and provided the surveyor with comments (below and attached). I wanted to circle back to you, and see if you or anyone else at VDH has received and reviewed the info that was transmitted (or to see if there might be someone else I should check in with?). At this time, I've simply let the applicant know that we'll pass on VDH review comments whenever they are provided. Thanks in advance for any/all info and assistance—much appreciated. And if you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to give me a call or let me know via email. Thanks again. Sincerely, Tim Tim Padalino, AICP Albemarle County I Community Development Dept. (434)-296-5832 x. 3088 From:Tim Padalino Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 11:17 AM To: 'residentialsurveying@gmail.com'<residentialsurveying@gmail.com> Subject:Albemarle County SUB2017-103 (Ragland)- review comments Hello Mr. Coleman, I'm writing to provide you an electronic copy of the review comment letter for the "Division and Boundary Survey" plat you prepared and submitted, involving parcels on Burnley Station Road. Specifically, please find attached the comment letter prepared by County staff, as well as the comment letter from VDOT. As noted in the County comment letter, Community Development has not received a response from the Health Department. I will notify you when that changes, and provide any/all VDH related info at that time. Thank you, and please let me know if you have any questions and/or requests for assistance. Sincerely, Tim Tim Padalino, AICP Senior Planner I Community Development Department County of Albemarle, Virginia https://www.albemarle.orq/department.asp?department=cdd (434)-296-5832 x. 3088 5 Tim Padalino From: Tim Padalino Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 11:17 AM To: 'residentialsurveying@gmail.com' Subject: Albemarle County SUB2017-103 (Ragland) - review comments Attachments: Review Comment Letter_SUB20170103 Ragland 08-14-2017.pdf; VDOT_SUB-2017-00103-Finley Ragland- S1-Division Survey-8-3-17.pdf Hello Mr. Coleman, I'm writing to provide you an electronic copy of the review comment letter for the "Division and Boundary Survey" plat you prepared and submitted, involving parcels on Burnley Station Road. Specifically, please find attached the comment letter prepared by County staff, as well as the comment letter from VDOT. As noted in the County comment letter, Community Development has not received a response from the Health Department. I will notify you when that changes, and provide any/all VDH related info at that time. Thank you, and please let me know if you have any questions and/or requests for assistance. Sincerely, Tim Tim Padalino, AICP Senior Planner I Community Development Department County of Albemarle, Virginia https://www.albemarle.orq/department.asp?department=cdd (434)-296-5832 x. 3088 1 Tim Padalino From: Tim Padalino Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 11:28 AM To: Josh Kirtley Subject: FW:Albemarle County SUB2017-103 (Ragland) - review comments Attachments: Review Comment Letter_SUB20170103 Ragland 08-14-2017.pdf; VDOT_SUB-2017-00103-Finley Ragland- Sl-Division Survey-8-3-17.pdf Hi Josh, I hope you're doing well after the troubling weekend here in Charlottesville. I'm writing to check in regarding the proposed plat of division and adjustment for the Ragland family properties on Burnley Station Road. The soils reports/info was transmitted to VDH at the end of July, and I just completed my review and provided the surveyor with comments (below and attached). I wanted to circle back to you, and see if you or anyone else at VDH has received and reviewed the info that was transmitted (or to see if there might be someone else I should check in with?). At this time, I've simply let the applicant know that we'll pass on VDH review comments whenever they are provided. Thanks in advance for any/all info and assistance— much appreciated. And if you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to give me a call or let me know via email. Thanks again. Sincerely, Tim Tim Padalino, AICP Albemarle County I Community Development Dept. (434)-296-5832 x. 3088 From:Tim Padalino Sent: Monday,August 14, 2017 11:17 AM To: 'residentialsurveying@gmail.com'<residentialsurveying@gmail.com> Subject:Albemarle County SUB2017-103 (Ragland) - review comments Hello Mr. Coleman, I'm writing to provide you an electronic copy of the review comment letter for the "Division and Boundary Survey" plat you prepared and submitted, involving parcels on Burnley Station Road. Specifically, please find attached the comment letter prepared by County staff, as well as the comment letter from VDOT. As noted in the County comment letter, Community Development has not received a response from the Health Department. I will notify you when that changes, and provide any/all VDH related info at that time. i Thank you, and please let me know if you have any questions and/or requests for assistance. Sincerely, Tim Tim Padalino, AICP Senior Planner I Community Development Department County of Albemarle, Virginia https://www.albemarle.orq/department.asp?department=cdd (434)-296-5832 x. 3088 2