HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201900025 Correspondence 2019-07-09 NTICELLO
Voluntary Guidelines for Development within Monticello's Viewshed
❑ Building colors and materials should be earth-toned and muted.
Bright pastels and whites on exterior faces of buildings and roofs can be distracting when viewing the
natural landscape from Monticello. Surfaces that are prone to glare and reflection increase visibility
and should be avoided whenever possible. Muted colors for roofs and walls that blend with the natural
landscape (ie. mid-spectrum browns and grays, sandy tones) can be substituted for bright pastels and whites
on building faces and roofs.
❑ Design strategies can break up building massing.
Articulation of building facades and roofs - as opposed to the monotony of flat/monolithic facades - can
break up building massing and help minimize the visual impact from Monticello.
❑ Parking lots should be relegated to the side of the building that minimizes visual impact and/or
plantings should be used to visually break up the parking areas.
When there is no conflict with Entrance Corridor or Neighborhood Model guidelines, the preferred
location for parking is on the far side of buildings as viewed from Monticello. Parking lots can be broken up
with interspersed plantings of trees and other landscaping.
❑ Landscaping and a mature tree line can help screen the view from Monticello.
Where possible, clear-cutting of trees should be avoided.Additional design consideration should be given
to development that breaks the mature tree line to camouflage visual impacts. Landscape screening should
employ mixed types and sizes of native species, especially those that will generate a lofty canopy. Long,
narrow borders of single-species planting should be avoided. If there is no conflict with county landscaping
requirements, lower limbs can be pruned to open ground-level views while protecting views from
Monticello.
❑ Lighting for buildings and parking areas should be minimal and shielded.
Flood lights, up-lights and exposed bulbs are more apparent in the night sky than shielded fixtures. Lighting
for buildings and parking areas can use shielded fixtures at lower heights to reduce impacts.Whenever
possible, lighting should not be placed higher than the tree line. Regardless of intensity of illumination,
lighting for buildings and parking areas should use full cut-off fixtures to reduce/eliminate glare.
Contact Liz Russell (lrussell@monticello.org) for more information.
EGR 2/18/14
8. [32.4.1.3(n)] Similarly,plea ow the required dumpster pads.A variati..__r exception may be requested under
18-4.12.13 if the minimum required dumpster pads are not provided.
9. [32.4.1.3 (n)] Please provide dimensions for all proposed improvements,including width and depth of loading
spaces, streets/travelways,sidewalks,dumpster pads and all other paved areas,etc.
10. [32.4.1.3(n)] The parking calculations show that 243 parking spaces are required,but only 220 parking spaces are
provided.A parking study and/or shared parking agreement approved by the Zoning Division will be required.
11. [4.12.15(f)] For shared parking,internal sidewalks will be needed to provide safe and convenient access throughout
the site.Please add sidewalks to sufficiently allow pedestrians to navigate the site consistent with this requirement.
12. [32.4.1.3 (k)] Staff needs additional information regarding the proposed onsite wastewater treatment facility. If a
central sewerage system is proposed,then it must be reviewed and approved according the applicable provisions in
Chapter 16. These provisions require Health Department review, as well as approval by the Board of Supervisors.
A recent request submitted to the Board of Supervisors for a central sewerage system can be found liffe.
13. [Question] Is there any outdoor equipment associated with the proposed onsite wastewater treatment facility?
14. [Question] Where are the existing/proposed drainfields as noted on Sheet C-001?
15. [Question] A new well is proposed for the new warehouse on Parcel 4P. Does the existing 10,000 square foot
warehouse at the rear of Parcel 4A already have its own well?How is this structure being provided water?
16. [Section 32.7.9.5 and 32.7.9.6]Planting islands will be needed to reasonably disperse the required plant materials.
Albemarle County Planning Services(ARB)—Margaret Maliszewski,MMaliszewski@albemarle.org—Requested changes.
1. Landscaping shown on the pre-application plan does not meet the Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines. In
particular, see EC requirements for planting along the EC frontage, at parking lot perimeters,at the interior of
parking lots,and along roads/travelways.Note that underground water lines and overhead power lines are in place
along the EC.Frontage planting areas will need to be increased to avoid conflicts between required landscaping
and utilities/easements.
2. There are potential issues with the proposed retaining walls in terms of height,location,and appearance.Along
the EC frontage and along the entrance drives,space should be provided on site for planting at the base of the
walls. This is in addition to other landscaping requirements referenced above and in the EC guidelines. The 16'
wall proposed at the back of the site is expected to be visible from the EC.EC guidelines call for terracing and
planting of walls over 6' in height. Handrails visible from the EC must have an appropriate appearance for the
EC. Standard guard rail is not considered appropriate.
3. ARB approval of the architectural design of new buildings is required with the final site plan. Site sections should
be provided to clarify visibility of new buildings from the EC.
4. Details on the appearance of the wastewater treatment facility are required. Screening beyond the standard
guidelines minimums may be required.
5. Show how the pipes and storm drain at the EC frontage will have an appropriate appearance for the EC.
6. The demolition plan appears to show existing trees as"to remain"that are intended to be removed.
7. Include in the site plan an indication of display areas previously approved with SP-2001-01.
Albemarle County Engineering Services(Engineer)—Frank Pohl,fuohlna,albemarle.org—Comments forthcoming.
Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue—Shawn Maddox,smaddoxna,albemarle.org—No objection.
Albemarle County Building Inspections—Michael Dellinger,mdellinger(alalbemarle.org —No objection.
ACSA—Alex Morrison,amorrison cAserviceauthority.org—Requested changes.
1. We have reviewed the pre-application submittal. Although this site is not within our Jurisdictional Area,we do
have a 16"water main across the frontage of the site. The water main shall be shown on the plans so the ACSA
can determine if any proposed improvements impact the water main.
Virginia Department of Transportation—Adam Moore,Adarn.Moorena,vdot.virginia.gov—Requested changes.
1. The entrance on Route 250 does not meet the minimum spacing of 470' for a minor arterial.
2. The entrance on Hunters Way closest to Route 250 does not meet minimum corner clearance of 225'.
Staff has provided references to the County Code. The Code is kept up-to-date by the County Attorney's office and may
be found at www.albemarle.org/countycode.
2
of Al,g�
®z�
•
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Tim Miller(tmiiier@meridianwbe.com)
From: J.T.Newberry(jnewberryna albemarle.org)
Division: Planning
Date: August 17,2017
Subject: SDP201700048 Floor Fashions—Preapplication Plan
This application has been reviewed under Section 32.4.1.4 of the Site Plan Ordinance.The following comments are those
that have been identified at this time.Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further
review.
Please note this application was not reviewed for compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance,although the plan appears
to propose a subdivision of both Parcel 4A and Parcel 4P. The recommended application process to achieve this layout
will be impacted by the answers to the questions below.It may be possible to achieve this layout administratively by
submitting two separate two-lot subdivision applications,but the timing and sequencing of the required applications will
play a role in the approval process. Staff recommends meeting with Planning and Zoning to discuss the subdivision
process prior to submitting the initial site plan.
Section 32.4.1.4 requires comments on the following:
• (a) Compliance with zoning
o See comments below.
• (b) Variations, exceptions and special exceptions
o We have tried to identify all of the required variations under County ordinances,however,other
variations may be needed based on the resolution of the concerns/questions outlined below.
• (c)Fees
o $752 initial site plan application and fee plus$0.016 per square foot of non-residential structure;and
o $457 special exception application and fee for critical slopes waiver.
• (d)Required changes, (e)Recommended changes and(J)Additional information
o See comments and attachments below.
Albemarle County Planning Services(Planner)—J.T.Newberry,jnewberrvAalbemarle.org—Requested changes.
1. [32.4.1.3(a)] On Sheet C-001, please correct the zoning district to be Highway Commercial (HC). Also, the
Monticello Viewshed is not a zoning district,so please note it separately.Voluntary guidelines for development in
the Monticello Viewshed are provided below.
2. [32.4.1.3(a)] On Sheet C-001, please confirm and note the proposed warehousing uses qualify as "Light
warehousing"as listed in Section 24.2.1(21).
3. [Section 24.2.2(13)] The Zoning and/or Engineering Division will require information to confirm that each
proposed lot does not exceed water consumption of 400 gallons per site acre per day.
4. [32.4.1.3(a)] On Sheet C-001, under Site Data, please note the application numbers of the previously approved
special use permits: SP199900068 and SP200100001.Please also list the conditions of SP200100001 and show the
designated display area on the site plan.The approval letter and concept plan can be found hoe.
5. [32.4.1.3(a)] On Sheet C-001, please remove the maximum building setback because it does not apply to major
arterial roads.
6. [32.4.1.3(b)] The"total building areas"shown on Sheet C-001 do not match the building labels on the other
drawings.Please amend.
7. [32.4.1.3(n)] The plans do not provide calculations on the number of required loading spaces per lot and do not
show any loading spaces. Please provide a calculation of the minimum loading spaces required per lot on Sheet
C-001. A variation or exception under 18-4.12.13 may needed if the minimum required loading spaces are not
provided.
—..bineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
Engineering plan review staff are available from 2-4 PM on Thursdays, should you require a meeting to .y
discuss this review.
County forms can be found on the county website forms center under engineering:
http://www.albemarle.org/deptforms.asp?dmartment=cdengwpo
File 1.\DEPT\Community Development\Engineering Division\Frank Pohl\Projects\SDP201700048-Floor Fashion
Ooi A
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,Room 227
Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596
Phone(434)296-5832 Fax (434)972-4126
Plan Review
•
Project title: Floor Fashion—Pre-application
Project file number: SDP201700048
Plan preparer: Meridian Planning Group,LLC [tmiller@meridianwbe.com]
Owner or rep.: Ryder Enterprises,LLC
Plan received date: 04 August 2017
Date of comments: 18 August 2017
Reviewers: Frank V. Pohl,PE
This plan has been reviewed under sections of the Albemarle Code related to this application. The
following comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments or
conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review and responses.
1. Central Sewerage System-Applicant shall notify the board of supervisors of the proposed
central sewerage system. Refer to Sec. 16-102 for notice requirements.
2. VDH permit may be required for the central sewerage system [16-105.B].
3. A maintenance agreement for the central sewerage system will be recommended to the
board of supervisors as a condition of approval,assuming all other requirements have been
addressed [16-105 & 14-317].
4. Provide estimated water usage calculations for all uses to confirm a Special Use Permit is
not required, considering public water is not available.Water use by the WWTP, if any is
required, shall be included in the calculations. [22.2.2.11]
5. A critical slopes waiver will be required [18-30.7].
6. Private Street:
a. A road plan will be required for review. The road plan may be able to be
incorporated into the site development plan but this determination must still be
made.
b. Provide estimated traffic generation for uses to be served by the private street.
c. Retaining wall locations may need to be adjusted to provide required sight lines
[Design Standards Manual].
d. A minimum 24-ft drive lane is required for the entire length of the street(
e. A minimum 3-ft clear zone is required from the travel lane or from the back of
curb. Retaining walls shall be relocated out of the clear zone.
f. Perpendicular parking is typically not permitted on roads and shall be minimized.
`Mirroring' the SWM facility/parking may be required,in addition to other
measures to ensure safe and convenient access to the rear parcel.
g. A private road maintenance agreement will be required [14-234.E, 14.235, 14-
317].
h. The private street may need Commission approval considering access to the rear
lot would not be limited to the private street[14-232.B.2].
7. VSMP permitting and the re-development VRRM spreadsheet will be required.
Christopher Perez
,From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Monday,June 24, 2019 4:04 PM
To: John Anderson
Cc: Rebecca Ragsdale
Subject: Floor Fashions
Attachments: ENGINEERING COMMENTS - SDP201700048 Review Comments Pre-application Plan
2017-08-17.pdf; SDP201700048 Review Comments Pre-application Plan 2017-08-17.pdf;
PLAN SDP201700048 Plan - Submittal (First) Pre-application Plan 2017-07-19.pdf
Floor Fashions had a pre-application plan submitted in 2017 that Frank reviewed.
The hard copy file is missing; however, all reviews are in CV and uploaded here.
Give them a look over.
Chnstopher Perez I Senior Planner
Department of Community Development(County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
1
Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2019 3:34 PM
To: Frank Pohl
Cc: John Anderson
Subject: critical slopes waiver
Frank,
RE: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions-Major Site Plan
I'm checking on the status of Engineering's completion of the critical slopes waiver.
The item is slated for the BOS's Aug 7th meeting, I need to have the staff report written and in Granicus by this Friday.
Planning staff is not recommending approval of the critical slope waiver.While many of the slopes appear to be manmade
created during the development of Hunters Way,the disturbance of these slopes does not benefit the community;rather it
harms the community and makes it more unsafe.The approval of the slopes promotes additional entrances onto the
existing public roads and omits an existing internal connection between uses.Thereby increasing congestion on offsite
streets, increasing conflicts and friction with vehicular traffic on offsite streets,and increasing conflicts with pedestrians.
The 3'd entrance shall be omitted and an access easement shall be provided from the existing entrances to serve Lot 1.
Let me know if you have any questions about the proposal while you are conducting your review.
grv[twy ... � i wvlofwwtf Add PI W Review
Mn •, crnrcv..=.--ej vs:i-.ow
Auqnad
O.7Rodr N.: � As*.nam[w to - Commit M.vaY..v Oats
M ita MYd =Want/.%Vasa a/dN QlO hai. Irt4y T QA-_• 41M� '
444
Ugh Kruav `+ucr a.r�,.,�....:�r,.�,rt. in fit Na n Ogrbtrn w Cow*. want •--* 'ply-=
nvg•
moin.ok
s wt. Now Awyrdrnenc.rnr ilk;a.a•.. OURin ' 11�wr' "al
uaara _
&n •. Ngar:nrw�ai.anR7w[cpp l9:: M
J Nrat 1.;•• ...." -
Jtr.luNa.. ra aR....tR....r.'. c.. cro[„p... c.„n• p•'.i LC t)bVa+i1 -
Wet ra..a..**flaws,I* * COO memory Nt1My ONZUN
4 "ram a Cyr• +b.r:.+anr.inv wctotw e.CCO[wp+.ea+.0 v ,aa3 u'a-' .. O'd`.7v
"@�/ MaSAtnart fvat sward Nnwy
Christopher Perez I Senior Planner
Department of Community Development County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296 5832 ext.3443
1
.
alan.mazurowski@vdh.virginia.gov
•
r -5,
�y i�trlili �.
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
In Cooperation with the Thomas Jefferson Health District ALBEMARLE-CHARLOTTESVILLE
State Department of Health FLUVANNA COUNTY(PALMYRA)
1138 Rose Hill Drive GREENE COUNTY(STANARDSVILLE)
LOUISA COUNTY(LOUISA)
Phone(434)972-6219 P.0. Box 7546 NELSON COUNTY(LOV1NGSTON)
Fax (434)972-4310
Charlottesville. Virginia 22906
July 1, 2019
Christopher Perez, Senior Planner
Albemarle County Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: Lowes& Floor Fashions
Minor Site Plan Adjustment
SDP2019-25
Mr. Perez:
As requested, I've reviewed the subject Site Plan Adjustment, dated 5/8/19. In regard to
the proposed underground wastewater treatment system, its location appears to meet
minimum separation distances to all existing private wells shown on the plan,per 12VAC
5-630-380.
I recommend approval of the site plan, SDP2019-25, with the condition that you receive
approval from DEQ that the system meets all of their permitting and operational
requirements.
If there are any questions or concerns,please give me a call, 434-972-4306.
Sincerely,
Alan Mazurowski
Environmental Health Supervisor
Thomas Jefferson Health District
PROJECT LEAD REVIEWER: Christopher Perez
PROJECT: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions-Major Site Plan
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
TAX MAP/PARCEL:079000000004P0 and 079000000004A0
LOCATION: 2305, 2424, and 2422 Hunters Way,at the intersection with Richmond Road.
PROPOSAL: Request for approval of a major site plan amendment to construct a new entrance on Hunters Way,
reconfigure and divide parcels, reconfigure drive aisles and associated parking for existing buildings.The existing uses
of office warehouse and commercial warehouse are proposed to continue.Associated with the request is a critical
slopes waiver request.
ZONING: HC Highway Commercial—commercial and service; residential by special use permit(15 units/acre).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR:Yes
PROFFERS: No
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Area—preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and
scenic resources; residential (0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
Christopher Perez 1 Senior Planner
Community Development Department
Planning Services
401 McIntire Road l Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
2
Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Tuesday,July 09, 2019 8:27 AM
To: John Anderson
Subject: FW: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions - Major Site Plan
Attachments: Lowes & Floor Fashions SDP-2019-25.doc
VDH approval.
From: Mazurowski,Alan <alan.mazurowski@vdh.virginia.gov>
Sent: Monday,July 01, 2019 10:31 AM
To: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Subject: Re: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions- Major Site Plan
Chris,
Thanks for sharing the comments from DEQ, Brandon is the one to look to to ensure the treatment/discharge system
complies with regulatory requirements. See my comment letter, attached.
Alan
Alan Mazurowski
Environmental Health Supervisor
Onsite Sewage & Private Well Programs
Thomas Jefferson Health District
1138 Rose Hill Drive
Charlottesville,VA 22906
434-972-4306 office
434-972-4310 fax
On Tue,Jun 25, 2019 at 8:09 AM Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>wrote:
Josh/Alan,
RE:SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions-Major Site Plan
I wanted to check on the status of your review for the above ref site plan. During your review please give attention to
the new underground wastewater treatment plant being proposed on the property. Prior to my approval of the site
plan I need VDH approval of this facility.
I recently request that DEQ review the above referenced site plan for compliance with an approved DEQ permit
(attached). Please give me a call if you have any questions.
1
June 18, 2019
Chris Perez
Page Two •
A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right of way. The
owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency land Use Section at (434)422-9399
for information pertaining to this process.
Sincerely,
attaiG .
Adam J. Moo , P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
L\
re
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper.Virginia 22701
Stephen C.Brich, P.E.
Commissioner
June 18, 2019
Chris Perez
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SDP-2019-00025-Lowes and Floor Fashions— Minor Site Plan Amendment
Dear Mr. Perez:
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Meridian Group, LLC., dated
April 16, 2019 and offer the following comments.
1. Please provide drainage calculations and show how the drainage runoff will be
adequately discharged.
2. The proposed entrance improvement on Route 250, does not meet VDOT's requirement
on spacing distance. Please see VDOT's Road Design Manual appendix F-pg., F-23.,
minimum spacing standards for commercial entrances, Intersections, and median
crossovers. Route 250 is a minor arterial road and the speed limit is 45 mph, spacing
distance required is 470'.
3. The proposed entrance improvement on Hunter's Way, doesn't meet VDOT's
requirement on corner clearance. Please see VDOT's Road Design Manual appendix F-
pg., F-116., for design criteria.
4. Please provide sight distance lines and profiles for proposed entrances.
5. Please note that the final site plan must show conformance with the VDOT Road Design
Manual Appendices B (l) and F, as well as any other applicable standards, regulations, or
other requirements.
6. Please show mill and overlay on plans in accordance with WP-2 and show limits of mill
and overlay to adjacent travel lane. Also please add the detail to the plans.
7. Please provide an MOT plan in accordance with the Virginia Work Area Protection
Manual. Sufficient for the paving necessary.
8. Please provide details on the existing drainage structure proposed to be modified with
this plan.
9. Increased runoff to the existing 30" and 48" pipes crossing must be shown to be
hydraulically adequate and the pipes must be in good condition.
10. The new 6" sanitary line appears to outfall into the storm swale. Please clarify.
Please provide two copies of the revised plan along with a comment response Ietter. If further
information is desired, please contact Willis C. Bedsaul at 434-422-9866.
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
-
Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Tuesday,July 09, 2019 9:53 AM
To: John Anderson
Subject: SDP2019-25 Lowes + Floor Fashions- Major
Attachments: VDOT review 6-18-19.pdf
John,
SDP2019-25 Lowes& Floor Fashions-Major
Attached is VDOT's review of the project. I believe these comments discuss the pipe under Rte.250. Please consider.
Christopher Perez 1 Senior Planner
Department of Community Development 1County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road 1 Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
1
• Leakin Tank Site Buffers"
/ --to.,i4 1.00_,
.
9 OH
yn3
WC
4114-1
WS
\\\\ .
Tr
S IJ+�..�' 79-♦P 9'
� � !!elOrc`
'rr gia
78-49A♦ Illa . .
VIP
MI
121411. )zl(a1
3
. - Nripprepier
(//74r, _
9-4N
fh}D
s
{
79-4P i %
i 8.49A+ 1 t--_
i I
RI hmeCln I
Additionally,this site is in the county's Leak Tank site buffer of 2,000' (found on the GIS under"Risk/Hazard,
Yl— is
1c ,
2
Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2019 9:30 AM
To: John Anderson
Subject: RE: Comments RE: SDP2019-25 Lowes + Floor Fashions- Major
John,
Below is the Building Official's review comments, the main one for you to be aware of is the property is located in a
BTEX area.
Buildin Official—Michael Dellin er
2. Add the following note to the general notes page:
Retaining walls greater than 3 feet in height require a separate building permit. Walls exceeding 4 feet in height require a
stamped engineered design also. Walls require inspections as outlined in the USBC.
3. Add the following note to the general notes page:
Accessible parking spaces and access isles shall not have a surface slope greater than 1:48. Access isles shall be at the
same level as the parking space they serve.
4. Add the following note to the general notes page:
ALL water lines, sewer lines, and fire lines from the main to the structure MUST have a visual inspection performed by
the buildng department.
5. Add the following to the general notes page:
All roof drains shall discharge in a manner not to cause a public nuisance and not over sidewalks.
Additionally, I just pulled the GIS and it shows there is a stream buffer(WPO 100' buffer)in a key location of the
entrance and the drain pipe. See below.
N,.)/ (!)'
CC==U
i
•
Christopher Perez I Senior Planner
Community Development Department
Planning Services
401 McIntire Road 1 Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
4
Alan Mazurowski
Environmental Health Supervisor
Onsite Sewage& Private Well Programs
Thomas Jefferson Health District
1138 Rose Hill Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22906
434-972-4306 office
434-972-4310 fax
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 8:09 AM Christopher Perez <cperez@albemarle.org>wrote:
Josh/Alan,
RE: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions - Major Site Plan
I wanted to check on the status of your review for the above ref site plan. During your review please give attention to
the new underground wastewater treatment plant being proposed on the property. Prior to my approval of the site
plan I need VDH approval of this facility.
I recently request that DEQ review the above referenced site plan for compliance with an approved DEQ permit
(attached). Please give me a call if you have any questions.
PROJECT LEAD REVIEWER: Christopher Perez
PROJECT: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions - Major Site Plan
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 079000000004P0 and 079000000004A0
LOCATION: 2305, 2424, and 2422 Hunters Way, at the intersection with Richmond Road.
PROPOSAL: Request for approval of a major site plan amendment to construct a new entrance on Hunters Way,
reconfigure and divide parcels, reconfigure drive aisles and associated parking for existing buildings. The existing uses
of office warehouse and commercial warehouse are proposed to continue. Associated with the request is a critical
slopes waiver request.
ZONING: HC Highway Commercial—commercial and service; residential by special use permit (15 units/ acre).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
PROFFERS: No
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Area—preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and
scenic resources; residential (0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
3
Buffers")
717 "IV
9•SN
rL
'}'YTS
�T
S d 411 79-4P , 9.4
78•49A4 / Zc3 I J
"ftImitft.....usiemiummuntslco
Christopher Perez Senior Planner
Department of Community Development'County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road 1 Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
From: Mazurowski,Alan <alan.mazurowski@vdh.virginia.gov>
Sent: Monday,July 01, 2019 10:31 AM
To: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Subject: Re: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions- Major Site Plan
Chris,
Thanks for sharing the comments from DEO, Brandon is the one to look to to ensure the treatment/discharge system
complies with regulatory requirements. See my comment letter, attached.
Alan
2
Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2019 9:47 AM
To: Mazurowski, Alan
Subject: RE: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions - Major Site Plan
Alan,
RE: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions - Major Site Plan
I received your review and it appears to only focus on the wastewater treatment facility. Did you also review the
site plan for the existing and proposed well and septic serving the development and proposed lots?
Notably, the building official, Michael Dellinger, provided the following comment: "Water and sewer
approvals will be needed to be submitt d for new building permits due to new wastewater system and new
well. Property located in BTEX ar�' s this expand or effect what is needed in your review prior to yyour},
signing-off on approving the site plan'?
The site is in the County's Leak Tank site buffer of 2,000' (found on the GIS under"Risk/Hazard,Leaking Tank Site
\)(912-
r
aey .
. „, Q
‘G .
I request that DEQ review the above....arenced site plan for compliance with an annoyed DEQ permit(attached). To
view the plan electronically click on SDP201900025. Below is a brief description of the proposal.What is your estimated
time to provide review comments on this plan?Please give me a call if you have any questions.
PROJECT LEAD REVIEWER: Christopher Perez
PROJECT: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions-Major Site Plan
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 079000000004P0 and 079000000004A0
LOCATION: 2305,2424,and 2422 Hunters Way,at the intersection with Richmond Road.
PROPOSAL: Request for approval of a major site plan amendment to construct a new entrance on Hunters Way,
reconfigure and divide parcels,reconfigure drive aisles and associated parking for existing buildings.The existing uses of
office warehouse and commercial warehouse are proposed to continue. Associated with the request is a critical slopes
waiver request.
ZONING: HC Highway Commercial—commercial and service;residential by special use permit(15 units/acre).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
PROFFERS:No
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Area—preserve and protect agricultural,forestal,open space,and natural,historic and
scenic resources;residential(0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
Christopher Perez I Senior Planner
Community Development Department
Planning Services
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
2
Christopher Perez
From: Brandon Kiracofe <brandon.kiracofe@deq.virginia.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 8:56 AM
To: Christopher Perez
Cc: Dameron Jason jpb60155
Subject: RE: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions - Major Site Plan
Mr. Perez:
Ryder Enterprises, LLC was issued VPDES Permit No. VA0092790 for the discharge of treated wastewater from Ryder
Enterprises Wastewater Treatment Plant(WWTP) located at 2305 Hunters Way, Charlottesville. The location of the
discharge from Ryder WWTP that was specified in the permit application and that was utilized in the development of
VPDES Permit No. VA0092790 is consistent with what is shown on the final site plan.
The design flow specified in the VPDES permit for the WWTP is 0.015 MGD. Part I.D.5 of VPDES Permit No. VA0092790
states, "Certificate to Construct (CTC)/Certificate to Operate (CTO) Requirement—The permittee shall, in accordance
with the DEQ Sewage Collection and Treatment Regulation (9VAC25-790), obtain a CTC and a CTO prior to constructing
and operating the wastewater treatment works. Noncompliance with the CTC or CTO shall be deemed a violation of the
permit."
As part of the Application for a CTC, an Engineer's Certification Statement Signature is required. Projects are no longer
reviewed by DEQ for compliance with the design requirements of the Sewage Collection and Treatment Regulations. It is
the responsibility of a licensed professional engineer in the Commonwealth of Virginia to certify that the design adheres to
the design requirements of the Sewage Collection and Treatment Regulations.
An application for a CTC for Ryder Enterprises WWTP has not been received by DEQ.
Sincerely,
Brandon Kiracofe
Brandon D. Kiracofe I Water Permits & Compliance Manager I DEQ -Valley Regional Office I (540)574-7892
Brandon D. Kiracofe I Water Permits & Compliance Manager I DEQ -Valley Regional Office I (540)574-7892
From: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Sent: Friday,June 21, 2019 9:42 AM
To: brandon.kiracofe@deq.virginia.gov
Subject: RE: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions- Major Site Plan
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Friday,June 21, 2019 9:24 AM
To: jason.dameron@deq.virginia.gov; brandon.kircofe@deq.virginia.gov
Cc:John Anderson <janderson2@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions- Major Site Plan
Mr. Kiracofe and Mr. Dameron,
RE: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions- Major Site Plan
i
alan.mazurowski@vdh.virginia.gov
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
In Cooperation with the Thomas Jefferson Health Di.+tric•t ALBEMARLE•CHARLOTTESVILLE
FLUVANNA State Department of Health GREENE COUNTY(OS ANARDSILLE)
1138 Rose Hill Drive GREENE
couNTYILouISA)
Phone(434)972-6219 P. O. Box 7546 NELSON COUNTY(LOVINGSTON)
Fax (434)972-4310
Charlottesville. Virginia 22906
July 1,2019
Christopher Perez, Senior Planner
Albemarle County Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: Lowes& Floor Fashions
Minor Site Plan Adjustment
SDP2019-25
Mr. Perez:
As requested, I've reviewed the subject Site Plan Adjustment, dated 5/8/19. In regard to
the proposed underground wastewater treatment system, its location appears to meet
minimum separation distances to all existing private wells shown on the plan, per 12VAC
5-630-380.
I recommend approval of the site plan, SDP2019-25, with the condition that you receive
approval from DEQ that the system meets all of their permitting and operational
requirements.
If there are any questions or concerns,please give me a call, 434-972-4306.
Sincerely,
eja- 1/1,
Alan Mazurowski
Environmental Health Supervisor
Thomas Jefferson Health District
•
. I
Sean Tubbs
Field Representative, Piedmont Environmental Council
Albemarle, Charlottesville and Greene
434-977-2033, ext. 7046
434-422-2375 (cell)
Contributions like yours make the work PEC does possible Become a member or donate today to continue to restore and
protect this beautiful place we love!
Sean Tubbs
Field Representative, Piedmont Environmental Council
Albemarle, Charlottesville and Greene
434-977-2033, ext. 7046
434-422-2375(cell)
Contributions like yours make the work PEC does possible. Become a member or donate today to continue to restore and
protect this beautiful place we love!
•
Sean,
SDP201900025 - Lowes and Floor Fashion—Major Site Plan Amendment
I spoke to the applicant and apparently his use of the title"Lowes" on the application was a carryover title
from the previously approved site plans on the property. He has confirmed there is not a Lowes planned for
this site; rather, it's currently Floor Fashion. The proposed uses onsite are to be commercial, office, and
warehouse.
Christopher Perez I Senior Planner
Department of Community Development(County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902
434 296 5832 ext 3443
From:Sean Tubbs<stubbs@pecva.org>
Sent: Friday,June 14, 2019 1:09 PM
To: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Subject: question about SDP201900025- Lowes and Floor Fashion
Christopher,
Hello! I'm reviewing submissions from Albemarle,and reviewing SDP201900025. I'm wondering if this an expansion of
the Floor Fashion store, or if there's a great significance of the word Lowes associated with this site plan.
Thanks!
Sean Tubbs
Field Representative, Piedmont Environmental Council
Albemarle, Charlottesville and Greene
434-977-2033,ext. 7046
434-422-2375 (cell)
Contributions like yours make the work PEC does possible. Become a member or donate today to continue to restore and
protect this beautiful place we love!
2
Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Tuesday,July 09, 2019 10:29 AM
To: Sean Tubbsl
Subject: RE: question about SDP201900025 - Lowes and Floor Fashion
Attachments: Lowes & Floor Fashions SDP-2019-25.doc; DEQ review comments.pdf
Sean,
I offer the following responses below:
Christopher Perez 1 Senior Planner
Department of Community Development lCounty of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road l Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
From:Sean Tubbs<stubbs@pecva.org>
Sent: Monday,July 01, 2019 12:43 PM
To:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Subject: Re: question about SDP201900025- Lowes and Floor Fashion
Thanks for sending this. Is there a concern that somehow the changes in use will put further burdens on the
plan? Neither of the approving agencies,VDH or DEQ have mentioned it. See attached their reviews.
I assume they have to come back with a new permit sometime in the next year or so? Based on the attached review
comments I do not believe so; however,they do need to submit a CTC report per DEQ's review.
On Thu,Jun 20, 2019 at 2:29 PM Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>wrote:
Sean,
As requested here is the Permit for the WWTP.
Christopher Perez I Senior Planner
Department of Community Development'County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902
434 296 5832 ext 3443
From:Sean Tubbs<stubbs@pecva.org>
Sent:Thursday,June 20, 2019 2:25 PM
To: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Subject: Re: question about SDP201900025 - Lowes and Floor Fashion
Christopher,
Thanks- I assumed that was the issue and just wanted to clarify.Thank you!
Sean
On Thu,Jun 20, 2019 at 2:21 PM Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>wrote:
1
Christopher Perez
From: Rebecca Ragsdale
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2019 11:03 AM
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: Planning Application Review for SDP201900025 LOWES & FLOOR FASHIONS - MAJOR.
The Review for the following application has been completed:
Application Number= SDP201900025
Reviewer= Rebecca Ragsdale
Review Status= Requested Changes
Completed Date=07/09/2019
This email was sent from County View Production.
1. The proposed site plan shows a wastewater treatment facility to be located on 07900-00-00-004A0 to serve
07900-00-00-004P0.
A wastewater treatment facility is considered an accessory use to the primary use it serves. By definition
(Section 3.0 in the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance), an accessory use must be located on the same property
as the use it serves. Because this requirement is found within a definition, it is not subject to variance and there
is no provision for waiver of this requirement.
Accessory use, building or structure. "Accessory use,""building"or"structure"means a subordinate use,building
or structure customarily incidental to and located upon the same lot occupied by the primary use,building,or
structure,and located upon land zoned to allow the primary use,building or structure;provided that a subordinate
use,building or structure customarily incidental to a primary farm use,building or structure need not be located
upon the same lot occupied by the primary farm use,building,or structure.For the purposes of County Code§ 18-
1.7(c)(2),any street may serve any use or structure authorized by this chapter,regardless of whether the use or
structure is on the same lot or in the same zoning district as the street.
2. 24.2.2(13) Although the site has existing buildings, under the new Section 24.2.1(53),the site is still subject to
the 400 gallons of water consumption per site acre per day cap because external changes are proposed to the
site. Specific proposed uses and water data should be provided to confirm that water consumption per parcel
will not exceed 400 gallons per site acre per day.
3. 24.2.1 (49)-The HC zoning regulations limit warehouse to 4,000 square feet per site.This site has more than 4,000
square feet of warehouse already. Additional warehouse is not permitted unless approved by special exception.
1
Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court's
Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States
www.epa.gov
Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court's Decision in Rapanos v. United States &
Carabell v. United States This memorandum' provides guidance to EPA regions and U.S.Army Corps of
John Anderson,PE-CDD/Engineering Division
From:Christopher Perez
Sent:Thursday,June 20, 2019 2:22 PM
To:John Anderson
Subject: FW: Floor Fashion WWTP Permit
DEQ permit from Tim.
From:tmiller@meridianwbe.com <tmiller@meridianwbe.com>
Sent:Thursday, June 20, 2019 2:19 PM
To: Christopher Perez <cperez@albemarle.org>
Subject: Floor Fashion WWTP Permit
Chris,
Here is the Permit for the WWTP.
Thanks,
Timothy Miller, P.E., L.S.
Principal
434-882-0121
www.meridianwbe.com
4..... Meridian
Planning Group
2
Christopher Perez
From: John Anderson
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2019 4:26 PM
To: Liz Russell
Cc: Frank Pohl; Christopher Perez; Mark Graham
Subject: Fw: Floor Fashion WWTP Permit
Attachments: VA0092720_Permit_2015.pdf
Liz,thanks for speaking with me,earlier this afternoon.
Attached,please fmd WWTP permit,VPDES Permit No.VA0092720,Ryder Enterprises WWTP(7/6/15). This permit
covers proposed on-site wastewater treatment shown on Lowes&Floor Fashions SDP2019-00025 Application.
I cannot confirm that design approved under VA0092720 matches design shown on the SDP. I
lack WWTP design/SCAT regulatory review experience,have not read the permit,reviewed permit application drawings
/specifications, state water control board meeting minutes(or background), or compared permit application items with
SDP2019-00025 design.
In email dated June 25,2019 9:02 AM,DEQ Valley Regional Office staff writes: 'As part of the Application for a CTC
("Certificate to Construct"),an Engineer's Certification Statement Signature is required. Projects are no longer reviewed
by DEQ for compliance with the design requirements of the Sewage Collection and Treatment [SCAT]Regulations. It is
the responsibility of a licensed professional engineer in the Commonwealth of Virginia to certify that the design adheres
to the design requirements of the Sewage Collection and Treatment Regulations. ...An application for a CTC for Ryder
Enterprises WWTP has not been received by DEQ.'
fk
CDD is sensitive to Thomas Jefferson Foundation concerns expressed in letter d. 1/9/15,and Engineers letter d. 1/9/15
(WW Assoc.). Having read both letters,a thought occurs: a WWTP permit typically identifies a receiving stream,waters
of the state/U.S. It is possible that if proposed WWTP discharge is to private land that may,at point of effluent
discharge,lack characteristics that comport with US EPA-U.S.Army Corps Regulatory Guidance, 12/2/08 (link,below)
-if that is the case at Shadwell Farms-then it may be that piped conveyance to waters of the state are a requirement
/condition of a valid WWTP at this facility. (I have not visited the site,am grateful for photos.)
If piped conveyance is required,it may be that Thomas Jefferson Foundation and applicant will need to reach agreement
for constructed improvements across Shadwell Farm from Rt.250 storm pipe outfall to Shadwell Creek(or farther,
depending on application of US EPA/US ACE regulatory guidance)for WWTP permit VA0092720 to be/remain valid.
We realize 3-Jul did not afford Thomas Jefferson Foundation a chance to meet with Applicant or Applicant's engineer
to discuss SDP2019-00025. We appreciate any perspective or information you are able to share since early on 3-Jul,CDD
learned that Applicant and engineer would be unable to attend the SRC meeting scheduled that day.
Thank you,Liz
best,J.Anderson 434.296-5832-x3069
link: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-
02/documents/cwa jurisdiction following rapanos120208.pdf
1
li di - I,, -
s • • ' ,fit, ` '..1
9 4 t' . 74•.,
• ,. .,
y 'ITN
4`'
+ r j 1
.
r
. 414 r }
Ibh
.D r
II ___--------------------: ._
-I\• : l'-'. •i: .. ---------- _ 110. ,_:_,
"dt
ii Y._
' -. Ili x.,_ ._
•
tttiii •.� SHAT)N'FLL. 'i • .-- -- -+ -
BTRTHPLACTi OF
r., ? THOrl��S JEFFERSON `' `..
•
U r Thc;itas Jct f rce --ant of the Declaration l!,- •'
I
i of Indt pcnd ncc. +hity presieett of tteUniteet 51:+tes, and rounder d the Uwlreralty .
wl of i lnia--ruts been near Ihss site o+ t3 A 1713 lit, fwthcr. At ter Jefferson l70B•I p�
s surveyor, planter, and •af .:cehosder. a t a�t/�r - . II
• , - ' •
- acgatriny land to this frcwtier r_gwn tw the „
mtd-1730s and had purchssed the -hndtrcq isph —
tract by 17i; Peter Jvffcrsn", hurt a house
-7.4i • N.,. soon tfte•. and the Shadsett plawrot•on bk.•
®-• Cause a thrlvtnq nyr,culturat est•,, Thomas w.
Jefferson spent such u/ hu cart3' li+R at .'
•I g Sh,sdtrrll. After the hots, 1Jr.e1 to +tx
' :• i gr:,lr.d In 1770 h•• florid to ltcattta!to
r1tC'+� h. h.sd b.'g+ ;<,n+tructiw a hoaN.
• . .. -
. •y t . ' . 44 - a. yae
w
YY 'r•
f , \ , : f --� �ir •t ,t f l .�. -
4+. . + e t4i3 tY►: '
` T ;• '
a a +
ma r
, . ♦ a —
•
_ . •
. -,;.%t. • .t ; -v. , ,.•.y1.
•
4 _ -
' .• .i.. i r ir _ „
i7...".•• ' ..- • ., f ,; . . -... .
., , '.iti -,....... . •
, r' Jr '. , .• ..
. • ' 4..}) . . , i
.. -' I
•••
. •
.,,0 •
‘,....,e'.,‘• _- ' - r.' - ,45'7,,4 • '. '''• -0'. ''. •.% A4 .
, • s
. . i
r.. - ..
.,
_ • .,
. . _ •-
• -a ' 1 ..
r -. 1 - 4 • • ' * .w. ' — ' •' ,
:.4.71•*, i. ,i-'.. -- • • oi.
i --7-:-- — - Ark-r;.•-,• 4v,-•,*-4 - - - . .
,
-.:.-_ -•-t-.'‘ - c,...i.,;.;* .f.. . _
• - .
. , •.. )01,•,..N- --'+'
, - ,
.,, --
o•• :"
RI. , , • It: • k I se ,,'' ' .., r 7 ,74.t .•
7.1.1.:•„ 1 •t.t., I I• ,
.....
,-,, , E. ,1,..,
....-. lit...,
, :ZY -
, '.. -iak IS -.. *. ' :". et LI ,— r
..:••• • :-.7L ,:,,`").+\;''....".„.' r-.•,.....r.- .rtirl*.- , •
., ; ,.3. --z.., 11...k.c".'.-•.-..-7:',..- ..474'7."4r,,••4.) ' • •
.N._ . -,.,,. ,,,.,, ,...
-. - i4, ,,.- -,--:.i.,:4 . .
, .1 •4;.,,, r r'-; rr.. .- - f- .• ;' , • ' - — ..
, -,,,-;,. r. " :. --. - --,.. - ,:-..., * 44• ,, - . .
IV 1 ' •
.,
I r'
r'
,-, .., . • -.
.
,.-,,, ... 1 fi t
le
• • 1
ro t/t
•.,. •
„, 4.
‘'
, .,C,....1114,'. , .• 2 • ok., t
ww.
:• . , l
. •
. ,
't
Ak6Mccilirs- ,: A" ...dr I. ,
,
' l i if
•4
'Off' -•-.• I
- .-... .
••4 41. .'71,..V.. '
ill
..,.. t . . . .
Iiikt.' ,..
. ,
4 ...., •
.4 ,. .. "'• 41K ' ''
it
4*4,11471440..,
.. ,' •3f , • -'
f•• .
... . ,... , 00 . .
A, . lir ri,... 4 . .... • ~-, .
t'' • . - , •
40: ,
. .
,,. .
.. , . .
. , ,....:
. .i%
...
4 47, I.•
* . 410','. ' • eft 1.•
•i .
'' • •:.,-. .. :V:;',Wittift-•'L 1 ''.7 -.
- ' •
•-... t ••• ..,' - • • •
, . _ . 4 .'ke••' • `„. .1---...,.„..rt
r-,44.1-,—.4 . ‘,.4.-I .Zito'„,.. - tt:". '- . ' 4 r ;;.---.i--,.• ,,-.. • ,
,. r
•
* ' 4.4.'' •• '••:4*, : ). - , • ,\`11 4
. .. . ,
::;: • .1, . - • , r 'k, . ,
1 . '' ' ' •
•
• $
• 4+14 i 4 ':.11.1*** '1- ••:. ; '
* . •• 4..7 '7 " t ; "'-.‘ •
4*. -",:<•t•
t•,,,),-'d'' . - 1 A lif'
,: •-
....; , .- •
0 ..
t/ /*;• . 2
..-• '" - '
iiress4;".4•41,- '," 1 4 • • t. t•: ';.„_,!'. ,
, • _
r......-e'a 0 ' . 0: t. ' 11)t _ i'..',• .3' 'ft
,...
4110
4 ..
.,
, . S. I . • ,.f;. : - . ,
t` �"�ri
r - Y r. l . r ` 1/` t 777
,,,,Ar-' 'k ' . - -6 : , , :•-•4r ,,,Lik.. .4., ,,, , ' :„ • , ,,,.. ,., •...t0 •,,,,.:.• ,,.
•
lS���,•" . ,T'` { //"I� �,4� 1, ` fib • %�i..c.- ,t��.
•
• Ir• 'i� i"rts r./ <1tq�•, •
t' . tr �• r � 4lrt'rtY .:.
•' •J 7 K
4
. ' .•,
1 e
tier ' -/i , s -. . . , ✓w
0. •
�411;
���,,, �i • y"..
.������jjj��� S d r.r rf.' riff
r y f it
tE . + "
t
s _ ,•,
1 -,
•
s r
. 'C'-'''k''.%/0.e '.44....X .L,A$ 4.:;* -.'•21 t; ; 4
,1..��
. „. ., ,,. :' 4ft.f.), „t;.;.},i.
•
f. �46 yL' ) �' !n•!'F. r5. .+ice ` '�';7.
r
�.• . `• �_ -. ..- •TK.. •.• .tea • a y.f 1 '1•i~ N 1:
}•,e.,, .1 G f:tK* `
iii4
_.r--- �� /, . , �y.'i,. r ` 4, -!
1
Christopher Perez
From: Liz Russell <Irussell@monticello.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2019 7:46 PM
To: John Anderson
Cc: Frank Pohl; Christopher Perez; Mark Graham
Subject: Re: Floor Fashion WWTP Permit
Attachments: imageljpeg;ATT00001.htm; image2 jpeg;ATT00002.htm; image3 jpeg; ATT00003.htm;
Video.MOV;ATT00004.htm
John and others-very much appreciate your points and analysis. I understand your point about the typology of the
stream/ditch distinction. I battled rush hour traffic, spider webs, and poison ivy to get some good pictures of the
outfall! Some are attached for your review. I took a video at the culvert because it's so overgrown.
From floor fashions looking towards shadwell:
1
Principal
434-882-0121
www.meridianwbe.com<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3
a%2f%2fwww.meridianwbe.com&c=E,1,OzWSDGzIVvSLbQR1vQAP3PYaz
UJOadrnhnK78BeC7Ahv5x3FKJwZQciLaylDcEKeeIsNCHKn70E HkorQDa
DOCxOviusQjxtJk7XpTWDrfX7sQTdlw„&typo=1>
[cid:image003.png@01D3ED12.E8F7E230]
<image001.png>
<VA0092720_Permit_2015.pdf>
4
Thank you, Liz
best,J. Anderson 434.296-5832 -x3069
link: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-
02/documents/cwa jurisdiction following rapanos120208.pdf
Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court's
Decision in Rapanos v. United States&Carabell v. United
States<https://www.epa.gov/sites/prod uction/files/2016-
02/documents/cwa jurisdiction following rapanos120208.pdf>
www.epa.gov
Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court's
Decision in Rapanos v. United States &Carabell v. United States This
memorandum' provides guidance to EPA regions and U.S.Army Corps of
John Anderson, PE-CDD/ Engineering Division
From: Christopher Perez
Sent:Thursday,June 20, 2019 2:22 PM
To:John Anderson
Subject: FW: Floor Fashion WWTP Permit
DEQ permit from Tim.
From: tmiller@meridianwbe.com <tmiller@meridianwbe.com>
Sent:Thursday,June 20, 2019 2:19 PM
To: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Subject: Floor Fashion WWTP Permit
Chris,
Here is the Permit for the WWTP.
Thanks,
Timothy Miller, P.E., L.S.
3
,
CAUTION:This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise
caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from
unknown senders.
Liz,thanks for speaking with me, earlier this afternoon.
Attached, please find WWTP permit,VPDES Permit No.VA0092720,
Ryder Enterprises WWTP (7/6/15). This permit covers proposed on-site
wastewater treatment shown on Lowes& Floor Fashions SDP2019-
00025 Application.
I cannot confirm that design approved under VA0092720 matches
design shown on the SDP. I lack WWTP design/SCAT regulatory review
experience, have not read the permit, reviewed permit application
drawings/specifications, state water control board meeting minutes(or
background), or compared permit application items with SDP2019-
00025 design.
In email dated June 25, 2019 9:02 AM, DEQ Valley Regional Office staff
writes: 'As part of the Application for a CTC("Certificate to Construct"),
an Engineer's Certification Statement Signature is required. Projects are
no longer reviewed by DEQ for compliance with the design
requirements of the Sewage Collection and Treatment [SCAT]
Regulations. It is the responsibility of a licensed professional engineer in
the Commonwealth of Virginia to certify that the design adheres to the
design requirements of the Sewage Collection and Treatment
Regulations. ...An application for a CTC for Ryder Enterprises WWTP has
not been received by DEQ.'
CDD is sensitive to Thomas Jefferson Foundation concerns expressed in
letter d. 1/9/15, and Engineers letter d. 1/9/15 (WW Assoc.). Having
read both letters, a thought occurs: a WWTP permit typically identifies a
receiving stream,waters of the state/U.S. It is possible that if proposed
WWTP discharge is to private land that may, at point of effluent
discharge, lack characteristics that comport with US EPA- U.S. Army
Corps Regulatory Guidance, 12/2/08 (link, below)-if that is the case at
Shadwell Farms-then it may be that piped conveyance to waters of the
state are a requirement/condition of a valid WWTP at this facility. (I
have not visited the site,am grateful for photos.)
If piped conveyance is required, it may be that Thomas Jefferson
Foundation and applicant will need to reach agreement for constructed
improvements across Shadwell Farm from Rt. 250 storm pipe outfall to
Shadwell Creek (or farther,depending on application of US EPA/US ACE
regulatory guidance)for WWTP permit VA0092720 to be/remain valid.
We realize 3-Jul did not afford Thomas Jefferson Foundation a chance to
meet with Applicant or Applicant's engineer to discuss SDP2019-
00025. We appreciate any perspective or information you are able to
share since early on 3-Jul,CDD learned that Applicant and engineer
would be unable to attend the SRC meeting scheduled that day.
2
•
Christopher Perez
From: Liz Russell <Irussell@monticello.org>
Sent: Wednesday,July 10, 2019 6:52 AM
To: John Anderson
Cc: Frank Pohl; Christopher Perez; Mark Graham
Subject: Re: Floor Fashion WWTP Permit
Yes
On Jul 10, 2019, at 6:45 AM,John Anderson<janderson2Palbemarle.org>wrote:
CAUTION:This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening
attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Liz,thanks for the photos. They are helpful. Were they taken,yesterday?
Thank you
best,J.Anderson
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 9, 2019,at 7:46 PM, Liz Russell<Irussell@monticello.org>wrote:
John and others-very much appreciate your points and analysis. I understand your
point about the typology of the stream/ditch distinction. I battled rush hour traffic,
spider webs,and poison ivy to get some good pictures of the outfall! Some are attached
for your review. I took a video at the culvert because it's so overgrown.
From floor fashions looking towards shadwell:
<imagel.jpeg>
<image2.jpeg>
Shadwell towards floor fashions:
<image3.jpeg>
Ditch and culvert on shadwell side:
<Video.MOV>
On Jul 9, 2019, at 4:26 PM,John Anderson<ianderson2@albemarle.org>wrote:
1
Dellinger<mdellinger@albemarle....,,-
Subject:SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions- Major Site Plan
CAUTION:This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking
links, especially from unknown senders.
SRC Reviewers,
SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions-Major Site Plan
Tim Miller just emailed me, evidently, he is out of town this week, neither he nor the property owner will be at today's
SRC meeting.
I'll attend just to see if any citizens show up,but otherwise you don't need to attend for this item.
For those of you still working on your comments,please have them to me no later than Wed,July 10th.
thanks
Christopher Perez[Senior Planner
Department of Community Development!County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902
434 296 5832 ext.3443
2
Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Wednesday,July 10, 2019 7:47 AM
To: Liz Russell
Cc: Mark Graham; Frank Pohl;John Anderson; Mazurowski,Alan; Shawn Maddox; Sean
Tubbsl; Bedsaul, Willis; Michael Dellinger; Richard Nelson;tmiller@meridianwbe.com
Subject: RE: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions - Major Site Plan
Liz,
If anyone would like to comment on the project or inquire about the project they may contact County staff,preferably
prior to action. Action on this project is due no later than Friday,July 19th; however, I will be away on summer vacation
from the 15t''to the 19t''and plan to take an action on this project by Friday the 12th before I leave. To be clear there are no
additional pre-scheduled meetings associated with the project.
Christopher Perez I Senior Planner
Department of Community Development'County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
From: Liz Russell<Irussell@monticello.org>
li Sent: Tuesday,July 09, 2019 3:40 PM
To:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>; Bedsaul, Willis<willis.bedsaul@vdot.virginia.gov>;John Anderson
<janderson2@albemarle.org>; Sean Tubbsl<stubbs@pecva.org>; Shawn Maddox<smaddox@albemarle.org>
Cc: Richard Nelson <rnelson@serviceauthority.org>; Mazurowski, Alan<alan.mazurowski@vdh.virginia.gov>; Michael
Dellinger<mdellinger@albemarle.org>; Mark Graham<mgraham@albemarle.org>; Frank Pohl<fpohl@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions- Major Site Plan
Chris—Can you clarify please whether the opportunity for public comment with the applicant and/or engineer present
will be rescheduled for a later date?
Thank you,
Liz Russell
i
1_
a'KfteiCiTICELLO
Liz Russell I Assistant Director of Facilities+Planning
Thomas Jefferson Foundation,Inc I Monticello
P 0 Box 316 I Charlottesville,VA 22902
Work:434-984-7589 I Cell:434-466-1275 I Email.lrussell(iimonticello.org
From: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Sent: Wednesday,July 3, 2019 7:44 AM
To: Liz Russell<Irussell@monticello.org>; Bedsaul,Willis<willis.bedsaul@vdot.virginia.gov>;John Anderson
<ianderson2@albemarle.org>; Sean Tubbsl<stubbs@pecva.org>; Shawn Maddox<smaddox@albemarle.org>
Cc: Richard Nelson<rnelson@serviceauthority.org>; Mazurowski,Alan<alan.mazurowski@vdh.virginia.gov>; Michael
1
• •
Christopher Perez I Senior Planner
Department of Community Development(County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
From: Rebecca Ragsdale
Sent: Wednesday,July 10, 2019 2:28 PM
To: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: Planning Application Review for SDP201900025 LOWES& FLOOR FASHIONS- MAJOR.
OK
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Wednesday,July 10, 2019 2:25 PM
To: Rebecca Ragsdale <rragsdale@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: Planning Application Review for SDP201900025 LOWES& FLOOR FASHIONS- MAJOR.
May I come down and discuss these comments with you real quick.
From: Rebecca Ragsdale
Sent:Tuesday,July 09, 2019 11:03 AM
To:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Subject: Planning Application Review for SDP201900025 LOWES& FLOOR FASHIONS- MAJOR.
The Review for the following application has been completed:
Application Number=SDP201900025
Reviewer= Rebecca Ragsdale
Review Status= Requested Changes
Completed Date=07/09/2019
This email was sent from County View Production.
1. The proposed site plan shows a wastewater treatment facility to be located on 07900-00-00-004A0 to serve
07900-00-00-004P0.
A wastewater treatment facility is considered an accessory use to the primary use it serves. By definition
(Section 3.0 in the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance),an accessory use must be located on the same property
as the use it serves. Because this requirement is found within a definition, it is not subject to variance and there
is no provision for waiver of this requirement.
Accessory use, building or structure. "Accessory use,""building"or"structure"means a subordinate use,building
or structure customarily incidental to and located upon the same lot occupied by the primary use,building,or
structure,and located upon land zoned to allow the primary use,building or structure;provided that a subordinate
use,building or structure customarily incidental to a primary farm use,building or structure need not be located
upon the same lot occupied by the primary farm use,building,or structure. For the purposes of County Code § 18-
I.7(c)(2),any street may serve any use or structure authorized by this chapter,regardless of whether the use or
structure is on the same lot or in the same zoning district as the street.
2
Christopher Perez
Subject: FW: Planning Application Review for SDP201900025 LOWES & FLOOR FASHIONS -
MAJOR.
Attachments: Zoning Comments in word.docx
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 4:00 PM
To: Rebecca Ragsdale <rragsdale@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: Planning Application Review for SDP201900025 LOWES & FLOOR FASHIONS- MAJOR.
Rebecca,
I offer the following changes to your review comment. See track changes in red(attached is a clean version in Microsoft
Word). Let me know if this works for you.
33.!Section 31 The proposed site plan shows a wastewater treatment facility to be located on 07900-
00-00-004A0 004P0 to serve 07900-00-00-004P0004A0.
A wastewater treatment facility is considered an accessory use to the primary use it serves. By
definition(Section 3.0 in the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance),an accessory use must be
located on the same property as the use it serves.Because this requirement is found within a
definition,it is not subject to variance and there is no provision for waiver of this requirement.
Revise to ensure each lot is provided its own septic or wastewater treatment facility.
Accessory use, building or structure. "Accessory use.""building"or"structure"means a
subordinate use,building or structure customarily incidental to and located upon the same
lot occupied by the primary use,building,or structure,and located upon land zoned to
allow the primary use,building or structure:provided that a subordinate use,building or
structure customarily incidental to a primary farm use,building or structure need not be
located upon the same lot occupied by the primary farm use,building.or structure.For
the purposes of County Code§ 18-1.7(c)(2),any street may serve any use or structure
authorized by this chapter,regardless of whether the use or structure is on the same lot or
in the same zoning district as the street.
34. [24.2.2(13),24.2.1(5311_ ,
24.2.1(53),Tthe site is still-subject to the 400 gallons of water consumption per site acre per day
cap because external changes are proposed to the site.Specifyie the proposed uses and provide
water consumption data for each per-parcel,to
ensure each lot will not exceed 400 gallons per site acre per day.
35. [24.2.1-(49))For each building provide the SF calculations for the existing uses and provide the
SF calculations for the proposed uses.The HC zoning regulations limit warehouse to 4,000
square feet per site.This site has more than 4,000 square feet of warehouse already.Additional
warehouse is not permitted unless approved by special exception.
4-5,[24.2.1(49)]Revise to ensure the parking calculations provided on sheet 1 coincide with the uses
proposed throughout the site plan for each building.For example:the parking calculations on
sheet 1 utilize office and warehouse for building#2422 and building#2424;however,other
sheets of the site plan list the uses in these buildings as commercial and warehouse.Revise.
Also,ensure the total square footage of each building provided in the parking calculations
coincide with the square footages provided throughout other sheets of the site plan.
1
4
• 1.According to text on the cover sheet,there is to be a new private well on Lot 1,but its location • Formatted:Indent:Left: 006",Hanging 0 25", No
needs to be plotted on the Utility Sheets,and its construction will need to be permitted either bullets or numbering
through this office or the Office of Drinking Water if it qualifies as a public waterworks.This shall be
addressed prior to final site plan approval
• =2.The"New Lateral Line"(sewer line)shown on sheet C204,connecting the existing building to
existing drainfield for Lot 1 must be permitted by this office prior to final site plan approval priorto
the Final ..Ian
• 3 I've reviewed the subject Site Plan Adjustment,dated 5/8/19. In regard to the proposed
underground wastewater treatment system,its location appears to meet minimum separation
distances to all existing private wells shown on the plan,per 12VAC 5-630-380. The new onsite
wastewater treatment facility serving Lots 4A&4P is referring to the underground treatement
system which is regulated by DEQ.Approval from DEQ that the system meets all of their permitting
and operational requirements is required prior to final site plan approval.
•
F. a
•
•
On Tue,Jun 25, 2019 at 8:09 AM Lnristopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Josh/Alan,
RE: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions - Major Site Plan
I wanted to check on the status of your review for the above ref site plan. During your review please give attention to
the new underground wastewater treatment plant being proposed on the property. Prior to my approval of the site
plan I need VDH approval of this facility.
I recently request that DEQ review the above referenced site plan for compliance with an approved DEQ permit
(attached). Please give me a call if you have any questions.
PROJECT LEAD REVIEWER: Christopher Perez
PROJECT: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions-Major Site Plan
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 079000000004P0 and 079000000004A0
LOCATION: 2305, 2424, and 2422 Hunters Way, at the intersection with Richmond Road.
PROPOSAL: Request for approval of a major site plan amendment to construct a new entrance on Hunters Way,
reconfigure and divide parcels, reconfigure drive aisles and associated parking for existing buildings. The existing uses
of office warehouse and commercial warehouse are proposed to continue. Associated with the request is a critical
slopes waiver request.
ZONING: HC Highway Commercial—commercial and service; residential by special use permit (15 units/acre).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
PROFFERS: No
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Area —preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and
scenic resources; residential (0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
Christopher Perez 1 Senior Planner
Community Development Department
Planning Services
401 McIntire Road l Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
5
From: Mazurowski,Alan<alan.mazurowski@vdh.virginia.gov>
Sent: Monday,July 01, 2019 10:31 AM
To: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Subject: Re: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions- Major Site Plan
Chris,
Thanks for sharing the comments from DECO, Brandon is the one to look to to ensure the treatment/discharge system
complies with regulatory requirements. See my comment letter, attached.
Alan
Alan Mazurowski
Environmental Health Supervisor
Onsite Sewage & Private Well Programs
Thomas Jefferson Health District
1138 Rose Hill Drive
Charlottesville,VA 22906
434-972-4306 office
434-972-4310 fax
4
• Alan,
RE: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions-Major Site Plan
I received your review and it appears to only focus on the wastewater treatment facility. Did you also review
the site plan for the existing and proposed well and septic serving the development and proposed lots?
Notably, the building official, Michael Dellinger,provided the following comment: "Water and sewer
approvals will be needed to be submitted for new building permits due to new wastewater system and new
well. Property located in BTEX area. " Does this expand or effect what is needed in your review prior to your
signing off on approving the site plan?
The site is in the County's Leak Tank site buffer of 2,000' (found on the GIS under"Risk/Hazard,Leaking Tank
rSite Buffers")
2 x-i `71),1-I_
/27
•
2 345
>79.4N
2365
.07
2 355 aro
gErs
\� .
100
794A
9r�
Shatlwe(1 HeiS \ ,F
.b 4,4k* 2305 2422
I `
I 115
101
f -
1110
--- Riihm dlRd
Christopher Perez I Senior Planner
Department of Community Development'County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext 3443
3
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Please incorporate the following comments below to those submitted
previously:
• According to text on the cover sheet,there is to be a new private well on Lot 1, but its location needs to be
plotted on the Utility Sheets, and its construction will need to be permitted either through this office or the
Office of Drinking Water if it qualifies as a public waterworks.
• The "New Lateral Line" (sewer line) shown on sheet C204,connecting the existing building to existing drainfield
for Lot 1 must be permitted by this office prior to signing the final site plan.
• The new onsite wastewater treatment facility serving Lots 4A&4P is referring to the underground treatement
system which is regulated by DEQ.
Alan
Alan Mazurowski
Environmental Health Supervisor
Onsite Sewage& Private Well Programs
Thomas Jefferson Health District
1138 Rose Hill Drive
Charlottesville,VA 22906
434-972-4306 office
434-972-4310 fax
On Tue,Jul 9, 2019 at 9:47 AM Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>wrote:
2
Christopher Perez
From: Mazurowski, Alan <alan.mazurowski@vdh.virginia.gov>
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2019 8:28 AM
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: Re: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions - Major Site Plan
Looks good, Chris,thanks.
Alan Mazurowski
Environmental Health Supervisor
Onsite Sewage & Private Well Programs
Thomas Jefferson Health District
1138 Rose Hill Drive
Charlottesville,VA 22906
434-972-4306 office
434-972-4310 fax
On Thu,Jul 11, 2019 at 8:05 AM Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>wrote:
Alan,
Per your request I incorporated both of your reviews into the 3rd bullet. Please review the attached word doc w/
track changes to ensure this is what you mean. Thanks
Christopher Perez 1 Senior Planner
Department of Community Development 1County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road l Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
From: Mazurowski,Alan <alan.mazurowski@vdh.virginia.gov>
Sent:Wednesday,July 10, 2019 5:10 PM
To: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Subject: Re: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions- Major Site Plan
Chris,
1
,:).,,./..
Legend
------ \7":'.\_______j !Note Some dems on map may not appear in legend)
Parcel Info
J \ G Parcels
/}'�'J+j --- --- \\ i� Water Features
0.
1� Major Water Bodies
I Ponds
111 ? Other Streams
Watersheds
I 7
r 0 Non-Water Supply
0 Water Supply
l� NanSens______--
,ovh
("...*--V�° ----------- -'--- -.Th f
Ryder Parcels
... -"1111111110.40.14064141414411411414:
11,8 Iiriw,% A
'diddle E3arn Ble
nna River
ill
.441111111111'e 1i tershed
J1ShaJ 4,.0.0.- `` ,
(71
\-;:i .0000f,.
Barn Branch r
not Barn Branch
SHADWELL r "r
RivannaPliiii"
../............) . . . . . . ---N.e."--- ....."'""'
sir,
1 ifs
1379 ft �
1•
f cls web
MI%ton-Rd a
Geographic Data Services
6 d www.albemarle.orgigis
(434)296,5832
Any ontermination of topography or contours,or any depiction of physical improvements,property lines or boundaries is for general information only and shall not be used for the design,modification,or construction of improvements to real properly or for flood plain determination July t t,2019
, ��
Legend
(Note.Some items on map may not appear in legend)
Parcel Info
J \ G ❑ Parcels
/J"I(f--- Water Features
JL..., Major Water Bodies
Ponds
Other Streams
Watersheds
r 0 Non-Water Supply
0 Water Supply
to
,, NansenS �--+1
,oVii
e
;,
:j •••iis:.papOlg'-.r•ii•"'r0ir,„.-,.,!=eereeedrElirr%n•EoP"iP• ' ,i'cl
('' Ryder Parcels 14 _______.......___________
....2., ,s......, „,„ Is
. . vie
2!...4."-----.it11111. il /171
\ ran
diddle gars
/VI7.-
nria River ., --�
� r to rs h e d . s. 11 . "_.
1
�s
She _ _'". `--
Barn Branch P
not Barn Branch
JCK�NGHA`r'•�°AMCNI�_
SHADWELL ��'` r -►•
Rivanna
i'4.-*#
K ri'r
"IIIINF-
1379 ft *k41. ' . 1
� � �'t
Q. a
MiltoneR �
. GeographiGlc Dweba Services at
O 0 www.albemarle.oryigis
(434)296,5832
_w /N._
Any c ntermination of topography or contours,or any depiction of physical improvements,property lines or boundaries is for general information only and shall not be used for the design,modification.or construction of improvements to real property or for flood plain determination July t t.2019
AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE
VIRGINIA POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
AND
THE VIRGINIA STATE WATER CONTROL LAW
In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act as amended and pursuant to the State Water Control
Law and regulations adopted pursuant thereto,the following owner is authorized to discharge in accordance
with the information submitted with the permit application,and with this permit cover page,Part I-
Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements,and Part II—Conditions Applicable To All VPDES
Permits,as set forth herein.
Owner. Ryder Enterprises,LLC
Facility Name: Ryder Enterprises W WTP
County: Albemarle
Facility Location: 2305 Hunters Way,Charlottesville
The owner is authorized to discharge to the following receiving stream:
Stream: Barn Branch,U.T.
River Basin: James(Middle)
River Subbasin: N/A .:
Section: I0
Class: III
Special Standards: None
ATh
elAreAAP)/
Amy T.Owens, egional Director
Valley Reeional Office
•
Christopher Perez
From: Liz Russell <Irussell@monticello.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2019 10:39 AM
To: Frank Pohl
Cc: John Anderson; Christopher Perez
Subject: Map of Shadwell
Attachments: Ryder Permit.png; Shadwell and Barn Branch.pdf
Frank—here is the permit and the map of Barn branch, which is not the same body of water as the proposed outfall to
the WWTP.
Liz
M r
TICELLO
Liz Russell I Assistant Director of Facilities+Planning
Thomas Jefferson Foundation,Inc. I Monticello
P.O.Box 316 I Charlottesville,VA 22902
Work:434-984-7589 I Cell:434-466-1275 I Email:lrussell@monticello.org
1
11111 Legend
78-49G 79-4B (Note Some items on map may not appear in legendl
(8-49F
Parcel Info
N
w iinters
�yw�_
79-4C Parcels
1-
co
-..
5.
79-4M i„`
��\
9
/� Proposed discharge location to
Z
existing stormwater swale. This
is not a stream. Can applicant 79-5
discharge to this swale?
79-4N 79 • .
k 1i ,
79-4P difit :'
11111
•
_________ Barn Branch
Richmond ' d ,
79-7+
r"......`......7
79-7A \ r.,..).0 /
Unnamed Tributary \del
376 ft ,
tl/ GIS-Web
=.�Q s Geographic Data Services
.� www.albemarle org:yis
,r rxure`t' (434)296-5832
Any determination of topography or contours,or any depiction of physical improvements,property lines or boundaries is for general information only and shall not be used for the design modification or construction of improvements to real property or for flood plain deterrninanon July 11,2019
i
I)
It.
•
/ ,:;$7414•11('''
/
•
,,,...
•
-:‘, ,
_ ._.,
Ifrii. ...„, -
t - „7. 'r .ep,*. °E.-‘1..4..x, • 7,,% 1
''OA. ."41. i *4 '. 01 : .•,.,. VS4/,4,.t. '. 4, ... '
'%-*w1-4- . ... N.,. ' ,. - .. , ' ifil ,.. •' ..1 7.'1.....•
. . •
'i,••V .. — Alt" ''''''''-' . '' 1 4 ir„ •
'• '#.... '.
f . ..• .A._,
'..-1- • .•.'31P. . , ,
/. .
Olt•• ._ '41.P. * f • ' . 4.-"... ,--
.- . -'17?..TP . -- e,_• • .4 — . = N• _ .-• Pe' •,..' ,t .
.- T.* "'.•, -‘, ' •....vO,t -...
-6, / ... .... , ','4 . •.,.., ; 1...Aillt.• ' 4 0 .. S' 4. ..... li
..4' * .„,'N it
.1,, ' •'' •
.--trik*,,„,„.e. . , .„, ,•••.,1, - ...., ' ••• ,..:- 21 , .,, 4 ,
•••• f 4F'....::
•
1• , -;'
---,-, • 4% ' ..... . . .., . i if 1 . •./.1, - 4' .. •
.::' 4*.1 • .0" . .•,..r ..t.i ,,. . 4 ••fir-
if
- — '-
•••• •••• ' -,i- • _ _ ,t,..• .,••••:„.." 4, •A.m. „. _
1 •'-
-(/!!4: 846/ 441111K
••••••• • ,,x. . ,4.
.. t .... .
.iiii&a., • # i
. 11 • r
•
el% -
fti •4 • •,.. ...... .A11111111....lillrS Mk.
Proposed discharge
_
location. . _____.- -
_
_
.... -
• .1111110 ,.„,.......,
•:•• - • . .- .
a• .....orost
I - . . . . ) _ .__... . • • • ..-
. •
upi Newil.046.11411114
•Iry. , /
ri
...olla*
''k. j i+" t•0•• )Z' ..... i; ,',''. ',.. . '4'* ,
• ..,
• *
,... ...,..0‘ ..,.. - •
A•)''.1. •-
' * ,
,'. •ct.*.' ,,c,k . • ,
.
1 li's4 4. •. :r.• '—
•-_,
- ' A s • '.
.
*--4 • - Az"""A ' • • A r. ''
. ''' .'` '•-• t ' s'.,., '.... N, • A
.- .
. A ,
, .
..,. , "1
. • •f.,,,,
• • .
•
.A' •. ...,, , ,7...; ' , • ,
, .f.a 1-__...
LOCATION: 2305, 2424,and 2422 iters Way,at the intersection with Richm Road.
PROPOSAL: Request for approval of a major site plan amendment to construct a new entrance on Hunters Way,
reconfigure and divide parcels,reconfigure drive aisles and associated parking for existing buildings.The existing uses of
office warehouse and commercial warehouse are proposed to continue.Associated with the request is a critical slopes
waiver request.
ZONING: HC Highway Commercial—commercial and service;residential by special use permit(15 units/acre).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
PROFFERS:No
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Area—preserve and protect agricultural, forestal,open space,and natural,historic and
scenic resources;residential(0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
Christopher Perez I Senior Planner
Community Development Department
Planning Services
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
3
Cc: Dameron Jason jpb60155<jason.__...eron@deq.virginia.gov>
Subject: RE: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions- Major Site Plan
Mr. Perez:
Ryder Enterprises, LLC was issued VPDES Permit No. VA0092790 for the discharge of treated wastewater from Ryder
Enterprises Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) located at 2305 Hunters Way, Charlottesville. The location of the
discharge from Ryder WWTP that was specified in the permit application and that was utilized in the development of
VPDES Permit No. VA0092790 is consistent with what is shown on the final site plan.
The design flow specified in the VPDES permit for the WWTP is 0.015 MGD. Part I.D.5 of VPDES Permit No. VA0092790
states, "Certificate to Construct(CTC)/Certificate to Operate (CTO) Requirement—The permittee shall, in accordance
with the DEQ Sewage Collection and Treatment Regulation (9VAC25-790), obtain a CTC and a CTO prior to constructing
and operating the wastewater treatment works. Noncompliance with the CTC or CTO shall be deemed a violation of the
permit."
As part of the Application for a CTC, an Engineer's Certification Statement Signature is required. Projects are no longer
reviewed by DEQ for compliance with the design requirements of the Sewage Collection and Treatment Regulations. It is
the responsibility of a licensed professional engineer in the Commonwealth of Virginia to certify that the design adheres to
the design requirements of the Sewage Collection and Treatment Regulations.
An application for a CTC for Ryder Enterprises WWTP has not been received by DEQ.
Sincerely,
Brandon Kiracofe
Brandon D. Kiracofe I Water Permits &Compliance Manager I DEQ -Valley Regional Office I (540) 574-7892
Brandon D. Kiracofe I Water Permits &Compliance Manager I DEQ -Valley Regional Office I (540) 574-7892
From:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Sent: Friday,June 21, 2019 9:42 AM
To: brandon.kiracofe@deq.virginia.gov
Subject: RE: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions- Major Site Plan
From:Christopher Perez
Sent: Friday,June 21, 2019 9:24 AM
To: jason.dameron@deq.virginia.gov; brandon.kircofe@deq.virginia.gov
Cc:John Anderson<ianderson2@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions- Major Site Plan
Mr. Kiracofe and Mr. Dameron,
RE: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions-Major Site Plan
I request that DEQ review the above referenced site plan for compliance with an approved DEQ permit(attached). To
view the plan electronically click on SDP201900025. Below is a brief description of the proposal. What is your estimated
time to provide review comments on this plan?Please give me a call if you have any questions.
PROJECT LEAD REVIEWER: Christopher Perez
PROJECT: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions - Major Site Plan
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 079000000004P0 and 079000000004A0
2
Christopher Perez
From: Frank Pohl
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2019 12:07 PM
To: brandon.kiracofe@deq.virginia.gov
Cc: John Anderson; Christopher Perez
Subject: RE: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions - Major Site Plan
Attachments: Ryder-Channel.pdf; RyderMap.pdf
Brandon,
Following up on my voicemail...
The proposed discharge is not an unnamed tributary of Barn Branch, it is a stormwater conveyance channel. Please refer
to attached exhibit and photos,which show the channel upstream of the culvert under Richmond Rd.
Do they need to extend the discharge to the UT or does the discharge location into the channel meet permit
requirements?
Thanks,
Frank
Frank V. Pohl, PE, CFM
County Engineer
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville,VA 22902
434-296-5832 (ext. 7914)
From:John Anderson
Sent:Thursday,July 11, 2019 11:45 AM
To: Frank Pohl<fpohl@albemarle.org>
Subject: FW: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions- Major Site Plan
From: Christopher Perez
Sent:Tuesday,June 25, 2019 9:02 AM
To:John Anderson<ianderson2@albemarle.org>;Josh Kirtley<Joshua.kirtley@vdh.virginia.gov>; Mazurowski,Alan
<alan.mazurowski@vdh.virginia.gov>
Subject: FW: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions- Major Site Plan
See below DEQs review comments on the proposal for your consideration during your review of the site plan.
From: Brandon Kiracofe<brandon.kiracofe@deq.virginia.gov>
Sent:Tuesday,June 25,2019 8:56 AM
To: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
1
. `
Parking Setback for Lot 1
Front Minimum— 10' from the public right-of-way
From: Bart Svoboda
Sent: Friday,July 12, 2019 8:07 AM
To: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE:Setback discussion
All writing reports most of the morning. Have a meeting from 9-10am.
Stop by.
From:Christopher Perez
Sent: Friday,July 12, 2019 8:05 AM
To: Bart Svoboda <bsvoboda@albemarle.org>
Subject:Setback discussion
Can I snag you this morning for a setback discussion.
Christopher Perez 1 Senior Planner
Department of Community Development 1County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road 1 Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
4
a
' 4.20 SETBACKS AND STEPRACAS IN ENTIO\AL COMMERCIAL AND LNDCSIRIAl.
DISTRICTS
Snbacksand stcphacks shall be prosrdcd as folhrny..
a ii,.trtywtuwnaf romatrrcrat.lurncrt. The h1io%en Jul! apply. ntthan the C.1.CO, and lk
St.-dun:
tnmt-.Iintntum 10 fort from the t ht1ri-wa?or thr nUnxrr c4,c n1 tltc.rdr calk tf tAt adc*all In
.n.1nt k of the nght-nf•w-ry,for ad!-urw-t parknn or loading).pacts.10 f rl iron any
publt..errO taghl.o6w11y
t ronl-Maturtur-t 3t1 god from the ntht-or-a a1 or arc cUrrwr cap of the stdcwalk tfthc salcwalk i,
nut idc ol'the ngl I.of-nav,pnn rtkd that this nu•lmurn unback shall not apply w ant
.tnnulum rRih11D or to I.2015 nod to tun>Uu.rurr dcptcsoi on an appro.ssl frail>rtc
plan that as valid am Ant 3.201 S a.,has in a iota scflark gr atcr than 30 Intl_nonc,on
an..ka.tncludine a corner lot.alwtlmg a principal ancn.al hat:hwav or ttttmtatc
I:,-4-N
Qu,stian---Can f-crtcrte-the-part,f-in-ytllow-bosrdon-thr-lancuoge-above7{ir-2424-will-br error.thou•
30fe►t from-tht-Hunters-Way-ROWM
•yn 12365'
2355t , INV
\\
100
79.4P 79-4Ar
'6 sGA 4 1 2305I 2422
101 i! ..
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Friday,July 12, 2019 8:11 AM
To: Bart Svoboda <bsvoboda@albemarle.org>
Subject:To discuss
1. [32.5.2(a), 32.6.2(a), Section 24, Section 21,4.20] Setbacks. Lot 1 cannot be divided as proposed
because it does not meet the maximum front setback of 30 feet from Hunter's Way. Revise the plan to
demonstrate how the existing building on Lot 1 will meet the maximum front setback once divided.
2. [32.5.2(a), 32.6.2(a), Section 24, Section 21,4.201 Setbacks. Revise the setbacks on the cover sheet as
follows:
Building Setback for TMP 79-4P and TMP 79-4A
Front Minimum: 10 feet from the right-of-way
Front Maximum: None because the lots abut a principle arterial highway.
Parking Setback for TMP 79-4P and TMP 79-4A
Front Minimum— 10' from the right-of-way
Building Setback for Lot 1
Front Minimum: 10 feet from the right-of-way
Front Maximum: 30 feet from the right-of-way
3
Christopher Perez I Senior Planner ' c
Department of Community Development'County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
From: Lea Brumfield
Sent: Friday,July 12, 2019 9:09 AM
To:Jeffrey Baker<jbaker@albemarle.org>; Bart Svoboda <bsvoboda@albemarle.org>; Rebecca Ragsdale
<rragsdale@albemarle.org>; Francis MacCall<FMACCALL@albemarle.org>; Kevin McCollum
<kmccollum@albemarle.org>
Cc: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: Question for today
No, because it's Highway Commercial, and the minimum frontage is 150'for new lots. 18-24.3
The setback question is a red herring.
Lea Brumfield,Zoning Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Ibrumfield@albemarle.org
434.296.5832 ext. 3023
From:Jeffrey Baker
Sent: Friday,July 12, 2019 9:04 AM
To: Bart Svoboda <bsvoboda@albemarle.org>; Rebecca Ragsdale<rragsdale@albemarle.org>; Lea Brumfield
<lbrumfield@albemarle.org>; Francis MacCall <FMACCALL@albemarle.org>; Kevin McCollum
<kmccollum@albemarle.org>
Cc: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: Question for today
Sounds like, given "provided that this maximum setback shall not apply to any structure....",that it could work, provided
the building's been since 2015 and there and there's no site plan identifying a lesser setback.
From: Bart Svoboda
Sent: Friday,July 12, 2019 8:49 AM
To: Rebecca Ragsdale<rragsdale@albemarle.org>; Lea Brumfield <Ibrumfield@albemarle.org>;Jeffrey Baker
<ibaker@albemarle.org>; Francis MacCall<FMACCALL@albemarle.org>; Kevin McCollum <kmccollum@yalbemarle.org>
Cc:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Subject:Question for today
Trying to figure this out by 1pm.
2
Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2019 2:43 PM
To: Bart Svoboda; Francis MacCall
Subject: SDP2019-25 Floor Fashions— Major Amendment
B art,
RE: SDP2019-25 Floor Fashions—Major Amendment
1 want to send this email to document Zoning's recent decision on the maximum front setbacks as applied to
SDP2019-25 Floor Fashions—Major Amendment. It has been conveyed to Planning staff that the 30' front
maximum setback does not apply to the existing building on the proposed Lot 1. As the current setback
regulations in Section 4.20 state the following: "30 feet from the right-of-way or the exterior edge of the
sidewalk if the sidewalk is outside of the right-of-way,provided that this maximum setback shall not apply to
any structure existing on June 3, 2015 and to any structure depicted on an approved final site plan that is valid
on June 3, 2015 as having a front setback greater than 30 feet; none, on any lot, including a corner lot, abutting
a principal arterial highway or interstate".
The existing building meets both of the above underlined criteria. Thus for the division on Lot 1,the 30' front
maximum setback does not apply to the existing building.
REM TO C-102. C-202. C-204
smog Arm=MI
N'N) -'"
gifir
'Bali
� 4
, NtNif Ira tam elm
,4/ .�r+f lM f r !'M'K
111
i �/
.....:_ik, — rye * rik,16-411_ _4
s% / /- _ __.......
��' s�Cy. Nam' '.' i .
4
ii\ %i "
�4�ram. ♦ 7'_
A.. + -t
a0
t., . It 1 ita.___Niz....
Y . . . gigs . lei ' «I 1� r �.r:1
_ "1
r � ,am as
I ...Au•m.LI
1
•
To: Bart Svoboda<bsvoboda@albf41'rIe.org>
Subject:To discuss
1. [32.5.2(a),32.6.2(a), Section 24, Section 21, 4.20] Setbacks. Lot 1 cannot be divided as proposed
because it does not meet the maximum front setback of 30 feet from Hunter's Way. Revise the plan to
demonstrate how the existing building on Lot 1 will meet the maximum front setback once divided.
2. [32.5.2(a),32.6.2(a), Section 24, Section 21, 4.20] Setbacks. Revise the setbacks on the cover sheet as
follows:
Building Setback for TMP 79-4P and TMP 79-4A
Front Minimum: 10 feet from the right-of-way
Front Maximum: None because the lots abut a principle arterial highway.
Parking Setback for TMP 79-4P and TMP 79-4A
Front Minimum— 10' from the right-of-way
Building Setback for Lot 1
Front Minimum: 10 feet from the right-of-way
Front Maximum: 30 feet from the right-of-way
Parking Setback for Lot 1
Front Minimum— 10' from the public right-of-way
From: Bart Svoboda
Sent: Friday,July 12, 2019 8:07 AM
To:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: Setback discussion
All writing reports most of the morning. Have a meeting from 9-10am.
Stop by.
From:Christopher Perez
Sent: Friday,July 12, 2019 8:05 AM
To: Bart Svoboda <bsvoboda@albemarle.org>
Subject:Setback discussion
Can I snag you this morning for a setback discussion.
Christopher Perez I Senior Planner
Department of Community Development(County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
4
S
From:Jeffrey Baker
Sent: Friday,July 12, 2019 9:04 AM
To: Bart Svoboda <bsvoboda@albemarle.org>; Rebecca Ragsdale<rragsdale@albemarle.org>; Lea Brumfield
<lbrumfield@albemarle.org>; Francis MacCall<FMACCALL@albemarle.org>; Kevin McCollum
<kmccollum@albemarle.org>
Cc: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: Question for today
Sounds like,given "provided that this maximum setback shall not apply to any structure....",that it could work, provided
the building's been since 2015 and there and there's no site plan identifying a lesser setback.
From: Bart Svoboda
Sent: Friday,July 12, 2019 8:49 AM
To: Rebecca Ragsdale<rragsdale@albemarle.org>; Lea Brumfield<lbrumfield@albemarle.org>;Jeffrey Baker
<jbaker@albemarle.org>; Francis MacCall<FMACCALL@albemarle.org>; Kevin McCollum <kmccollum@albemarle.org>
Cc:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Subject:Question for today
Trying to figure this out by 1pm.
4.2d SETBACKS AND STERBACKS IN CONVENTIONAL COMMERCIAL AND iNDOBT1101.
DISTRICTS
Scthucks and stcplsa.ks shall he pn srdcd as hallows:
R Cgreevoranad crsnesrercr,i,hsrncn. The folk-mane stall ap(+h within the C•1.CO.and 11C
Setbacks
}n ni-'<Imrnncm In k.i front the r, ln•of-wa)'t.r tltc ett<'teor ti pt 01 the•JJosslk If IA:sskss alk Is
rrsasrdc of the right-ot.r.a);for off-simy rorkrr Of 1oadin atvccs.In foci(turn any
I,ubla stnaet tiglu-oGway
tront-Masrawrn 30 Frci from the nghr'aFway or the cstersor crier of the srJcwalk It the sakwalk u
oWuk of Ilse righi•ot-way.veto sJal that this maximum scthaA shall not alcpis 1u am
sttwawc csrsrrn f on hint 3.21113 arat to any-sirwlwt dCtnctat on an approscd final site
plan that is c alal on loot 3.2015 as has imp a(mini s fifw•k gr attr than 341(cc+:rams.+-n
anv ln.trrclurlrnt a.s,rnet lot.alwttuna a pnn+N°anmst hujhwar ca intrrstatC
IS•4•?4
r,. r 11.irkerirm a111034$
'1
Question---Can 1-treat.Nrr parcaf-in yellow bawd on fhe JangtroyrabaveNie.•2424-vvill,br•more than-
301ert from-thrMwnerrs Way-ROW)A
art
23b5
2355- �
>v/7424
100
2 305 z 2422
I
101
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Friday,July 12, 2019 8:11 AM
3
0 0
REAR TO C 102. C-202. C 204
V
WI IWO it
"no y 65 w uo
- —
Orat
law
7a y, "Lwm" I\
raw rr. .�'7 �u r wer
,� Jf/ ('I'T I .1i �.ID 111111
�/r E7fPis
wwrrawa 1
4k—
r —r 1
•
\ n n �
Mil Mar�� ' 1
1‘,1 sl. .t ,. opri'' I or ..as Iwo
I 1 I
-1 1"1"I 4-IH .4.-
30
7:Y Ile fit
Y e:\, siumrr.rrrrrl OM
ruunrmrrrrrwrr
sta....
..owv I
Christopher Perez 1 Senior Planner
Department of Community Development 1County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road 1 Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
From: Lea Brumfield
Sent: Friday,July 12, 2019 9:09 AM
To:Jeffrey Baker<ibaker@albemarle.org>; Bart Svoboda <bsvoboda@albemarle.org>; Rebecca Ragsdale
<rragsdale@albemarle.org>; Francis MacCall <FMACCALL@albemarle.org>; Kevin McCollum
<kmccollum@albemarle.org>
Cc:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: Question for today
No, because it's Highway Commercial,and the minimum frontage is 150'for new lots. 18-24.3
The setback question is a red herring.
Lea Brumfield,Zoning Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Irumfield@albemarle.org
434.296.5832 ext. 3023
2
•
Christopher Perez
From: Bart Svoboda
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2019 4:00 PM
To: Christopher Perez
Cc: Francis MacCall
Subject: RE: SDP2019-25 Floor Fashions— Major Amendment
Chris,
Correct. The existing building meets both of the below underlined criteria. erefore,for the division on Lot 1, the 30'
front maximum setback from does not apply to the existing building.
Please let me know if there are additional questions.
Bart
Bart J. Svoboda
Director of Zoning
County of Albemarle,Virginia
434-296-5832 ext.3225
bsvoboda@albemarle.org
www.albemarle.org
From:Christopher Perez
Sent: Friday,July 12, 2019 2:43 PM
To: Bart Svoboda <bsvoboda@albemarle.org>; Francis MacCall<FMACCALL@albemarle.org>
Subject:SDP2019-25 Floor Fashions—Major Amendment
Bart,
RE: SDP2019-25 Floor Fashions—Major Amendment
I want to send this email to document Zoning's recent decision on the maximum front setbacks as applied to
SDP2019-25 Floor Fashions—Major Amendment. It has been conveyed to Planning staff that the 30' front
maximum setback does not apply to the existing building on the proposed Lot 1. As the current setback
regulations in Section 4.20 state the following: "30 feet from the right-of-way or the exterior edge of the
sidewalk if the sidewalk is outside of the right-of-way,provided that this maximum setback shall not apply to
any structure existing on June 3, 2015 and to any structure depicted on an approved final site plan that is valid
on June 3, 2015 as having a front setback greater than 30 feet; none, on any lot, including a corner lot, abutting
a principal arterial highway or interstate".
The existing building meets both of the above underlined criteria. Thus for the division on Lot 1, the 30' front
maximum setback does not apply to the existing building.
i
Cc:John Anderson <janderson2ta marle.org>
Subject: RE: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions- Major Site Plan
Mr.Kiracofe and Mr.Dameron,
RE: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions-Major Site Plan
I request that DEQ review the above referenced site plan for compliance with an approved DEQ permit(attached).To
view the plan electronically click on SDP201900025.Below is a brief description of the proposal.What is your estimated
time to provide review comments on this plan?Please give me a call if you have any questions.
PROJECT LEAD REVIEWER: Christopher Perez
PROJECT: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions-Major Site Plan
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 079000000004P0 and 079000000004A0
LOCATION: 2305,2424,and 2422 Hunters Way, at the intersection with Richmond Road.
PROPOSAL: Request for approval of a major site plan amendment to construct a new entrance on Hunters Way,
reconfigure and divide parcels,reconfigure drive aisles and associated parking for existing buildings.The existing uses of
office warehouse and commercial warehouse are proposed to continue.Associated with the request is a critical slopes
waiver request.
ZONING: HC Highway Commercial—commercial and service;residential by special use permit(15 units/acre).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
PROFFERS:No
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Area—preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural,historic and
scenic resources;residential (0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
Christopher Perez I Senior Planner
Community Development Department
Planning Services
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
3
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Tuesday,June 25, 2019 9:02 AM
To:John Anderson <janderson2@albemarle.org>;Josh Kirtley<Joshua.kirtley@vdh.virginia.gov>; Mazurowski, Alan
<alan.mazurowski@vdh.virginia.gov>
Subject: FW:SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions- Major Site Plan
See below DEQs review comments on the proposal for your consideration during your review of the site plan.
From: Brandon Kiracofe <brandon.kiracofe@deq.virginia.gov>
Sent:Tuesday,June 25, 2019 8:56 AM
To: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Cc: Dameron Jason jpb60155<jason.dameron@deq.virginia.gov>
Subject: RE: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions- Major Site Plan
Mr. Perez:
Ryder Enterprises, LLC was issued VPDES Permit No. VA0092790 for the discharge of treated wastewater from Ryder
Enterprises Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) located at 2305 Hunters Way, Charlottesville. The location of the
discharge from Ryder WWTP that was specified in the permit application and that was utilized in the development of
VPDES Permit No. VA0092790 is consistent with what is shown on the final site plan.
The design flow specified in the VPDES permit for the WWTP is 0.015 MGD. Part I.D.5 of VPDES Permit No. VA0092790
states, "Certificate to Construct (CTC) /Certificate to Operate (CTO) Requirement—The permittee shall, in accordance
with the DEQ Sewage Collection and Treatment Regulation (9VAC25-790), obtain a CTC and a CTO prior to constructing
and operating the wastewater treatment works. Noncompliance with the CTC or CTO shall be deemed a violation of the
permit."
As part of the Application for a CTC, an Engineer's Certification Statement Signature is required. Projects are no longer
reviewed by DEQ for compliance with the design requirements of the Sewage Collection and Treatment Regulations. It is
the responsibility of a licensed professional engineer in the Commonwealth of Virginia to certify that the design adheres to
the design requirements of the Sewage Collection and Treatment Regulations.
An application for a CTC for Ryder Enterprises WWTP has not been received by DEQ.
Sincerely,
Brandon Kiracofe
Brandon D. Kiracofe I Water Permits &Compliance Manager I DEQ - Valley Regional Office I (540) 574-7892
Brandon D. Kiracofe I Water Permits &Compliance Manager I DEQ - Valley Regional Office I (540) 574-7892
From: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Sent: Friday,June 21, 2019 9:42 AM
To: brandon.kracofe@deq.virginia.gov
Subject: RE: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions- Major Site Plan
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Friday,June 21, 2019 9:24 AM
To:jason.dameron@deq.virginia.gov; brandon.kircofe@deq.virginia.gov
2
ChrisIopher Perez
From: Brandon Kiracofe <brandon.kiracofe@deq.virginia.gov>
Sent: Monday,July 15, 2019 7:42 AM
To: Frank Pohl
Cc: John Anderson; Christopher Perez
Subject: RE: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions - Major Site Plan
Frank,
The discharge of treated wastewater into the channel upstream of the culvert under Richmond Road is authorized by
VPDES Permit No. VA0092720.
Sincerely,
Brandon Kiracofe
Brandon D. Kiracofe I Water Permits&Compliance Manager I DEQ-Valley Regional Office I (540) 574-7892
From: Frank Pohl<fpohl@albemarle.org>
Sent:Thursday,July 11, 2019 12:07 PM
To: brandon.kiracofe@deq.virginia.gov
Cc:John Anderson<janderson2@albemarle.org>; Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions- Major Site Plan
Brandon,
Following up on my voicemail...
The proposed discharge is not an unnamed tributary of Barn Branch, it is a stormwater conveyance channel. Please refer
to attached exhibit and photos,which show the channel upstream of the culvert under Richmond Rd.
Do they need to extend the discharge to the UT or does the discharge location into the channel meet permit
requirements?
Thanks,
Frank
Frank V. Pohl, PE, CFM
County Engineer
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville,VA 22902
434-296-5832 (ext. 7914)
From:John Anderson
Sent:Thursday,July 11, 2019 11:45 AM
To: Frank Pohl <fpohl@albemarle.org>
Subject: FW: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions- Major Site Plan
1
Christopher Perez
From: John Anderson
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 7:56 AM
To: Liz Russell
Cc: Christopher Perez; Frank Pohl
Subject: RE: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions - Major Site Plan
Liz,
Albemarle received confirmation from DEQ that discharge of treated wastewater into the channel upstream of the culvert
under Richmond Road is authorized by VPDES Permit No. VA0092720. Thank you.
best, J. Anderson
434.296-5832 -x3069
John Anderson, PE,Civil Engineer II • (434)296-5832-x3069
Community Development Dept. I Engineering Division
County of Albemarle 1401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596
1
Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Monday,July 15, 2019 8:12 AM
To: tmiller@meridianwbe.com
Subject: RE: SDP2019000025 - Lowes Floor Fashions
Tim,
With the deferral I want to make sure we have enough time to review and send the SE request to the BOS for
action. Can you restate the SE deferral request as follows:
"The applicant requests a deferral of the Special Exception for Critical Slopes till the item is scheduled, heard,
and acted on by the Board of Supervisors. We plan to address the SRC comments, submit revised plans, and
submit a revised critical slopes waiver request. "
Christopher Perez I Senior Planner
Department of Community Development(County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
From:tmiller@meridianwbe.com <tmiller@meridianwbe.com>
Sent: Monday,July 15, 2019 8:03 AM
To:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Subject:SDP2019000025 - Lowes Floor Fashions
Chris,
This is to request a deferral of the Exception for Critical Slopes to the Board of Supervisors until we can address the SRC
comments and submit revised plans.
Thanks,
Timothy Miller, P.E., L.S.
Principal
434-882-0121
www.meridianwbe.com
4._ Meridian
Planning Group
Christopher Perez
From: tmiller@meridianwbe.com
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 8:26 AM
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: SDP2019000025 - Lowes Floor Fashions
Chris,
The applicant requests a deferral of the Special Exception for Critical Slopes till the item is scheduled, heard, and acted
on by the Board of Supervisors. We plan to address the SRC comments, submit revised plans, and submit a revised
critical slopes waiver request.
Thanks,
Timothy Miller, P.E., L.S.
Principal
434-882-0121
www.meridianwbe.com
Meridian
Planning Group
4._
Christopher Perez
From: tmiller@meridianwbe.com
Sent: Monday,July 15, 2019 9:44 AM
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: RE: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions - Major Site Plan
Attachments: DEQ E-mail response to Loews FLoor Floor Fashion.pdf
Chris,
This e-mail from Brandon K. at DEQ was included in the comments you sent.
It says that DEQ has approved the permit and all they need is a Certificate to Construct (CTC) in order for the Owner to
begin construction of the WWTP.
DEQ will not have any public hearings for the WWTP design or approval. The public hearings were held during the
Permit approval process.
Thanks,
Timothy Miller, P.E., L.S.
Principal
434-882-0121
www.meridianwbe.com
Meridian
Planning Group
From:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Sent: Monday,July 15, 2019 8:55 AM
To:tmiller@meridianwbe.com
Cc:John Anderson <janderson2@albemarle.org>; Frank Pohl<fpohl@albemarle.org>
Subject:SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions- Major Site Plan
Tim,
SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions-Major Site Plan
Attached is the action letter for the SRC review associated with the proposal. As discussed please revise the site plan to
address all required revisions. Also, please revise the critical slopes waiver request as needed based on these changes.
Christopher Perez 1 Senior Planner
Department of Community Development(County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road 1 Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
1
Claudette,
SDP201900025-Lowes and Floor Fashion- Critical Slopes Special Exception
I do not believe this item should be a public hearing. Is there some reason this item is being elevated to a public hearing?
Christopher Perez I Senior Planner
Department of Community Development(County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
From: Claudette Borgersen On Behalf Of clerk
Sent:Tuesday,July 09, 2019 4:57 PM
To: Bart Svoboda <bsvoboda@albemarle.org>; Richard J.Washburne<rwashburne@albemarle.org>;Andy Herrick
<aherrick@albemarle.org>;Amanda Farley<afarley@albemarle.org>; Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Cc: Marsha Davis<MDavis02@albemarle.org>; Vivian Groeschel<vgroeschel@albemarle.org>; Marsha Davis
<MDavis02@albemarle.org>; Carolyn Shaffer<cshaffer2@albemarle.org>;Travis Morris<tmorris2@albemarle.org>
Subject:August 7 Ad Language
Good afternoon,
We would like to send in the ad language early for the August 7 agenda. Please send it to us by 5:00 tomorrow. Listed
below are the Public Hearings for the August 7 meeting. Thanks.
• ZTA 201700001 Homestays(Previously Transient Lodging).
• Ordinance to Update the Address of the Branchlands Precinct Polling Place Location.
• Ordinance to Amend County Code Chapter 7, Health and Safety.
• Ordinance to Amend County Code Chapter 9, Motor Vehicles (School Bus Arm).
• SDP 2019-25-Lowes and Floor Fashion -Critical Slopes Special Exception.
Best Regards,
Claudette K. Borgersen
Clerk, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
(434)296-5843 ext. 3405
cborgersen(a�albemarle.orq
4
William D. Fritz,AICP
Development Process Manager/Ombudsman
434-296-5823 ext 3242
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Wednesday,July 10, 2019 2:01 PM
To: Megan Nedostup<mnedostup@albemarle.org>; Bill Fritz<BFRITZ@albemarle.org>; David Benish
<DBENISH@albemarle.org>
Subject: FW: August 7 Ad Language
Bill, Megan, David,
Do you recall Claudette's take on the items below? Specifically, was it discussed that SDP201900025 - Lowes
and Floor Fashion - Critical Slopes Special Exception should be elevated to a public hearing. At this point she is
willing to lower it back down to an action item but believes the item was discussed as a PH at the planning
meeting.
I wanted to run it by you all to see if you recalled this at all. Not sure David is checking his emails today to
respond. She agreeable to lower it back down to an action item. Let me know if you attended this meeting and
know what was discussed.
Christopher Perez 1 Senior Planner
Department of Community Development 1County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road i Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
From:Claudette Borgersen On Behalf Of clerk
Sent:Wednesday,July 10, 2019 11:31 AM
To:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Cc: David Benish<DBENISH@albemarle.org>;Travis Morris<tmorris2@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE:August 7 Ad Language
Hi Chris,
It was identified as a PH at the planning meeting. I do see it in the system as an action item. I will make the
change.
Best Regards,
Claudette K. Borgersen
Clerk, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
(434) 296-5843 ext. 3405
cborgersen(a)albemarle.org
From:Christopher Perez
Sent: Wednesday,July 10, 2019 11:28 AM
To: clerk<clerk@albemarle.org>
Cc:Travis Morris<tmorris2@albemarle.org>; David Benish<DBENISH@albemarle.org>; Claudette Borgersen
<cborgersen@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE:August 7 Ad Language
3
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
(434)296-5843 ext. 3405
cborgersen a(�albemarle.orq
From:Christopher Perez
Sent:Wednesday,July 10, 2019 3:22 PM
To:clerk<clerk@albemarle.org>
Cc:Travis Morris<tmorris2@albemarle.org>; Claudette Borgersen<cborgersen@albemarle.org>; David Benish
<DBENISH@albemarle.org>
Subject: FW:August 7 Ad Language
Claudette,
SDP201900025-Lowes and Floor Fashion- Critical Slopes Special Exception
I stand corrected,this item is a public hearing. Please leave it on the agenda as a public hearing.
Notably, this public hearing will not be advertised based on Section 33.47(C).
Christopher Perez I Senior Planner
Department of Community Development(County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
From:Christopher Perez
Sent:Wednesday,July 10, 2019 3:06 PM
To: Bill Fritz<BFRITZ@albemarle.org>; Megan Nedostup<mnedostup@albemarle.org>; David Benish
<DBENISH@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE:August 7 Ad Language
Ok, I'll contact Claudette and tell her to leave it as a public hearing.
But it sounds like we do not advertise this"public hearing" because it's not required under subsection A., as specified in
subsection C.
From: Bill Fritz
Sent:Wednesday,July 10, 2019 3:00 PM
To:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>; Megan Nedostup<mnedostup@albemarle.org>; David Benish
<DBENISH@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE:August 7 Ad Language
Public hearing. The odd thing is that it doesn't involve any sort of notice unless it would increase by greater than 50
percent the bulk or height of an existing or proposed building within one-half mile of an adjoining locality.
Ordinance language (emphasis added.)
Sec. 33.47 Public hearings; when required; notice. Public hearings on an application for a special exception are required
as follows:
B. When the Board of Supervisors may elect to have the Commission make a recommendation on the application and to
hold one or more public hearings.When public hearings are not required under subsection (A), the Board may elect,
either by policy or for an individual application,to have the Commission first make a recommendation on the application
for a special exception and for either the Commission or itself to hold one or more public hearings.
2
Christopher Perez
From: Claudette Borgersen
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 2:21 PM
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: RE:August 7 Ad Language
Got it. Thanks Chris.
Best Regards,
Claudette K Borgersen
Clerk, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
(434) 296-5843 ext. 3405
cborgersen(a�albemarle.orq
From:Christopher Perez
Sent: Monday,July 15, 2019 9:37 AM
To:clerk<clerk@albemarle.org>
Cc:Travis Morris<tmorris2@albemarle.org>; David Benish <DBENISH@albemarle.org>;Travis Morris
<tmorris2@albemarle.org>; Frank Pohl<fpohl@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: August 7 Ad Language
Claudette,
SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions - Major Site Plan
Please pull the SE request from the BOS's Aug 7th agenda. The applicant has requested a deferral of the Special
Exception for the Critical Slopes. The applicant plans to address the SRC comments, submit revised plans, and
submit a revised critical slopes waiver request.
Christopher Perez I Senior Planner
Department of Community Development(County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
From:Claudette Borgersen On Behalf Of clerk
Sent: Wednesday,July 10, 2019 4:12 PM
To: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Cc:Travis Morris<tmorris2@albemarle.org>; David Benish <DBENISH@albemarle.org>;Travis Morris
<tmorris2@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE:August 7 Ad Language
Will do.
Best Regards,
Claudette K. Borgersen
Clerk, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
County of Albemarle
1
,,\i Planning Division ►Planning Leave Calendar Calendar
CDD Planning Division Leave Calendar
11/111/111.
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
I Andrew K-Out
Tori-Vacation
Andy R-Out
i .5 more items
7 9 __.J19__"_____._ __. __)i 10_v._..-.--._._. 11
Andrew K-Out
i
1 Andy R-Out 8 00 am Dan Out 8 00 am Brent Out All Day
Cameron-Vacation 9 00 am Tim out(AM) 1 00 pm Tim out(PM)
.1 more item .1 more item
14. _ 15 16 17 18 19 ._ 20
! Andrew K-Out
Brent Out All Day
l .1 more item
21 _ 22 .. _ __ ._..__ __..... 23 24 25 26 27
Paty-Vacation
I 1
28 29 _ 30 31 1 2 _ 3
Paty-Vacation II Kevin-Out on vacation
Michaela-Out
3 30 pm Paty Satemye-Dr Appt II Margaret out
•Add
Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Monday,July 15, 2019 9:11 AM
To: David Benish; Frank Pohl
Cc: John Anderson
Subject: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions - Major Site Plan (The applicant has requested
a deferral of the Special Exception for the Critical Slopes)
David,
SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions - Major Site Plan
Please pull the SE request from the BOS's Aug 7th agenda. The applicant plans to address the SRC comments,
submit revised plans, and submit a revised critical slopes waiver request. The applicant has requested a deferral
of the Special Exception for the Critical Slopes till the item is scheduled, heard, and acted on by the Board of
Supervisors.
ale ltem hs'been ddeferred-I worked on Sunday drafting the executive summary and the associated
411lPINITRtrritftitefiIeSf. If you need my work to document the overtime, let me know and I'll send it to you.
Christopher Perez Senior Planner
Department of Community Development(County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road 1 Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
1
. ,�'
Brandon D. Kiracofe I Water Permits &Compliance Manager I DEQ-Valley Regional Office I (540)574-7892
From:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Sent: Friday,June 21, 2019 9:42 AM
To: brandon.kiracofe@deq.virginia.gov
Subject: RE: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions- Major Site Plan
From:Christopher Perez
Sent: Friday,June 21, 2019 9:24 AM
To: jason.dameron@deq.virginia.gov; brandon.kircofe@deq.virginia.gov
Cc:John Anderson<janderson2@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions- Major Site Plan
Mr. Kiracofe and Mr. Dameron,
RE: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions-Major Site Plan
I request that DEQ review the above referenced site plan for compliance with an approved DEQ permit(attached).To
view the plan electronically click on SDP201900025.Below is a brief description of the proposal. What is your estimated
time to provide review comments on this plan?Please give me a call if you have any questions.
PROJECT LEAD REVIEWER: Christopher Perez
PROJECT: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions-Major Site Plan
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 079000000004P0 and 079000000004A0
LOCATION: 2305, 2424, and 2422 Hunters Way, at the intersection with Richmond Road.
PROPOSAL: Request for approval of a major site plan amendment to construct a new entrance on Hunters Way,
reconfigure and divide parcels,reconfigure drive aisles and associated parking for existing buildings. The existing uses of
office warehouse and commercial warehouse are proposed to continue.Associated with the request is a critical slopes
waiver request.
ZONING: HC Highway Commercial—commercial and service; residential by special use permit(15 units/acre).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
PROFFERS: No
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Area—preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural,historic and
scenic resources; residential (0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
Christopher Perez 1 Senior Planner
Community Development Department
Planning Services
401 McIntire Road l Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
3
•
Frank V. Pohl, PE, CFM
County Engineer
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
434-296-5832 (ext. 7914)
From:John Anderson
Sent:Thursday,July 11, 2019 11:45 AM
To: Frank Pohl <fpohl@albemarle.org>
Subject: FW: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions- Major Site Plan
From: Christopher Perez
Sent:Tuesday, June 25, 2019 9:02 AM
To:John Anderson <ianderson2@albemarle.org>;Josh Kirtley<Joshua.kirtley@vdh.virginia.gov>; Mazurowski, Alan
<alan.mazurowski@vdh.virginia.gov>
Subject: FW: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions- Major Site Plan
See below DEQs review comments on the proposal for your consideration during your review of the site plan.
From: Brandon Kiracofe<brandon.kiracofe@deq.virginia.gov>
Sent:Tuesday,June 25, 2019 8:56 AM
To: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Cc: Dameron Jason jpb60155<iason.dameron@deq.virginia.gov>
Subject: RE: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions- Major Site Plan
Mr. Perez:
Ryder Enterprises, LLC was issued VPDES Permit No. VA0092790 for the discharge of treated wastewater from Ryder
Enterprises Wastewater Treatment Plant(WWTP) located at 2305 Hunters Way, Charlottesville. The location of the
discharge from Ryder WWTP that was specified in the permit application and that was utilized in the development of
VPDES Permit No. VA0092790 is consistent with what is shown on the final site plan.
The design flow specified in the VPDES permit for the WWTP is 0.015 MGD. Part I.D.5 of VPDES Permit No. VA0092790
states, "Certificate to Construct(CTC) /Certificate to Operate (CTO) Requirement—The permittee shall, in accordance
with the DEQ Sewage Collection and Treatment Regulation (9VAC25-790), obtain a CTC and a CTO prior to constructing
and operating the wastewater treatment works. Noncompliance with the CTC or CTO shall be deemed a violation of the
permit."
As part of the Application for a CTC, an Engineer's Certification Statement Signature is required. Projects are no longer
reviewed by DEQ for compliance with the design requirements of the Sewage Collection and Treatment Regulations. It is
the responsibility of a licensed professional engineer in the Commonwealth of Virginia to certify that the design adheres to
the design requirements of the Sewage Collection and Treatment Regulations.
An application for a CTC for Ryder Enterprises WWTP has not been received by DEQ.
Sincerely,
Brandon Kiracofe
Brandon D. Kiracofe l Water Permits &Compliance Manager I DEQ - Valley Regional Office I (540) 574-7892
2
Christopher Perez
From: Brandon Kiracofe <brandon.kiracofe@deq.virginia.gov>
Sent: Tuesday,July 16, 2019 8:35 AM
To: Frank Pohl
Cc: John Anderson; Christopher Perez
Subject: RE: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions - Major Site Plan
Gentlemen,
In my June 25, 2019, email below, I incorrectly stated that the VPDES Permit No. for Ryder Enterprises WWTP was
VA0092790. The correct permit no. is VA0092720 as stated in my July 15, 2019 email below. Sorry for any confusion.
Sincerely,
Brandon Kiracofe
Brandon D. Kiracofe I Water Permits &Compliance Manager I DEQ-Valley Regional Office I (540)574-7892
From: Brandon Kiracofe<brandon.kiracofe@deq.virginia.gov>
Sent: Monday,July 15, 2019 7:42 AM
To: 'Frank Pohl' <fpohl@albemarle.org>
Cc: 'John Anderson'<ianderson2@albemarle.org>; 'Christopher Perez'<cperez@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions- Major Site Plan
Frank,
The discharge of treated wastewater into the channel upstream of the culvert under Richmond Road is authorized by
VPDES Permit No. VA0092720.
Sincerely,
Brandon Kiracofe
Brandon D. Kiracofe I Water Permits &Compliance Manager I DEQ -Valley Regional Office I (540)574-7892
From: Frank Pohl<fpohl@albemarle.org>
Sent:Thursday,July 11, 2019 12:07 PM
To: brandon.kiracofe(a@deq.virginia.gov
Cc:John Anderson<ianderson2@albemarle.org>; Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions- Major Site Plan
Brandon,
Following up on my voicemail...
The proposed discharge is not an unnamed tributary of Barn Branch, it is a stormwater conveyance channel. Please refer
to attached exhibit and photos, which show the channel upstream of the culvert under Richmond Rd.
Do they need to extend the discharge to the UT or does the discharge location into the channel meet permit
requirements?
Thanks,
Frank
i
As part of the Application for a CTC, ngineer's Certification Statement Signatu required. Projects are no longer •
reviewed by DEQ for compliance with the design requirements of the Sewage Collection and Treatment Regulations. It is
the responsibility of a licensed professional engineer in the Commonwealth of Virginia to certify that the design adheres to
the design requirements of the Sewage Collection and Treatment Regulations.
An application for a CTC for Ryder Enterprises WWTP has not been received by DEQ.
Sincerely,
Brandon Kiracofe
Brandon D. Kiracofe I Water Permits &Compliance Manager I DEQ-Valley Regional Office I (540) 574-7892
Brandon D. Kiracofe I Water Permits &Compliance Manager I DEQ-Valley Regional Office I (540) 574-7892
From: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Sent: Friday,June 21, 2019 9:42 AM
To: brandon.kiracofe@deq.virginia.gov
Subject: RE: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions- Major Site Plan
From:Christopher Perez
Sent: Friday,June 21, 2019 9:24 AM
To:jason.dameron@deq.virginia.gov; brandon.kircofe@deq.virginia.gov
Cc:John Anderson<janderson2@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE:SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions- Major Site Plan
Mr. Kiracofe and Mr. Dameron,
RE: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions-Major Site Plan
I request that DEQ review the above referenced site plan for compliance with an approved DEQ permit(attached). To
view the plan electronically click on SDP201900025. Below is a brief description of the proposal. What is your estimated
time to provide review comments on this plan?Please give me a call if you have any questions.
PROJECT LEAD REVIEWER: Christopher Perez
PROJECT: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions-Major Site Plan
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 079000000004P0 and 079000000004A0
LOCATION: 2305, 2424, and 2422 Hunters Way, at the intersection with Richmond Road.
PROPOSAL: Request for approval of a major site plan amendment to construct a new entrance on Hunters Way,
reconfigure and divide parcels, reconfigure drive aisles and associated parking for existing buildings. The existing uses of
office warehouse and commercial warehouse are proposed to continue. Associated with the request is a critical slopes
waiver request.
ZONING: HC Highway Commercial—commercial and service; residential by special use permit(15 units/acre).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
PROFFERS: No
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Area—preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and
scenic resources; residential (0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
Christopher Perez Senior Planner
Community Development Department
Planning Services
2
Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2019 11:24 AM
To: 'tmiller@meridianwbe.com'
Cc: Frank Pohl;John Anderson
Subject: FW: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions - Major Site Plan
Tim,
FYI—below is a DEQ follow-up email with permit#correction.
Christopher Perez 1 Senior Planner
Department of Community Development'County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road 1 Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
From: Brandon Kiracofe<brandon.kiracofe@deq.virginia.gov>
Sent:Tuesday,July 16, 2019 8:35 AM
To: Frank Pohl<fpohl@albemarle.org>
Cc:John Anderson<janderson2@albemarle.org>; Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE:SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions- Major Site Plan
Gentlemen,
In my June 25, 2019, email below, I incorrectly stated that the VPDES Permit No. for Ryder Enterprises WWTP was
VA0092790. The correct permit no. is VA0092720 as stated in my July 15, 2019 email below. Sorry for any confusion.
Sincerely,
Brandon Kiracofe
Brandon D. Kiracofe I Water Permits & Compliance Manager I DEQ-Valley Regional Office I (540) 574-7892
From: Brandon Kiracofe<brandon.kiracofe@deq.virginia.gov>
Sent:Tuesday,June 25, 2019 8:56 AM
To: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Cc: Dameron Jason jpb60155<jason.dameron@deq.virginia.gov>
Subject: RE: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions- Major Site Plan
Mr. Perez:
Ryder Enterprises, LLC was issued VPDES Permit No. VA0092790 for the discharge of treated wastewater from Ryder
Enterprises Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) located at 2305 Hunters Way, Charlottesville. The location of the
discharge from Ryder WWTP that was specified in the permit application and that was utilized in the development of
VPDES Permit No. VA0092790 is consistent with what is shown on the final site plan.
The design flow specified in the VPDES permit for the WWTP is 0.015 MGD. Part I.D.5 of VPDES Permit No. VA0092790
states, "Certificate to Construct(CTC) / Certificate to Operate (CTO) Requirement—The permittee shall, in accordance
with the DEQ Sewage Collection and Treatment Regulation (9VAC25-790), obtain a CTC and a CTO prior to constructing
and operating the wastewater treatment works. Noncompliance with the CTC or CTO shall be deemed a violation of the
permit"
i
Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Tuesday,June 25, 2019 9:02 AM
To: John Anderson;Josh Kirtley(Joshua.Kirtley@vdh.virginia.gov); Mazurowski, Alan
Subject: FW: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions - Major Site Plan
See below DEQs review comments on the proposal for your consideration during your review of the site plan.
From: Brandon Kiracofe<brandon.kiracofe@deq.virginia.gov>
Sent:Tuesday,June 25, 2019 8:56 AM
To: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Cc: Dameron Jason jpb60155<jason.dameron@deq.virginia.gov>
Subject: RE: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions- Major Site Plan
Mr. Perez:
Ryder Enterprises, LLC was issued VPDES Permit No. VA0092790 for the discharge of treated wastewater from Ryder
Enterprises Wastewater Treatment Plant(WWTP) located at 2305 Hunters Way, Charlottesville. The location of the
discharge from Ryder WWTP that was specified in the permit application and that was utilized in the development of
VPDES Permit No. VA0092790 is consistent with what is shown on the final site plan.
The design flow specified in the VPDES permit for the WWTP is 0.015 MGD. Part I.D.5 of VPDES Permit No. VA0092790
states, "Certificate to Construct(CTC) /Certificate to Operate (CTO) Requirement—The permittee shall, in accordance
with the DEQ Sewage Collection and Treatment Regulation (9VAC25-790), obtain a CTC and a CTO prior to constructing
and operating the wastewater treatment works. Noncompliance with the CTC or CTO shall be deemed a violation of the
permit."
As part of the Application for a CTC, an Engineer's Certification Statement Signature is required. Projects are no longer
reviewed by DEQ for compliance with the design requirements of the Sewage Collection and Treatment Regulations. It is
the responsibility of a licensed professional engineer in the Commonwealth of Virginia to certify that the design adheres to
the design requirements of the Sewage Collection and Treatment Regulations.
An application for a CTC for Ryder Enterprises WWTP has not been received by DEQ.
Sincerely,
Brandon Kiracofe
Brandon D. Kiracofe I Water Permits &Compliance Manager I DEQ -Valley Regional Office I (540) 574-7892
Brandon D. Kiracofe I Water Permits & Compliance Manager I DEQ-Valley Regional Office I (540) 574-7892
From: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Sent: Friday,June 21, 2019 9:42 AM
To: brandon.kiracofe@deq.virginia.gov
Subject: RE: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions- Major Site Plan
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Friday,June 21, 2019 9:24 AM
To: iason.dameron@deq.virginia.gov; brandon.kircofe@deq.virginia.gov
1
Cc:John Anderson<janderson2@aIL_...arle.org>
Subject: RE: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions- Major Site Plan
Mr.Kiracofe and Mr.Dameron,
RE: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions-Major Site Plan
I request that DEQ review the above referenced site plan for compliance with an approved DEQ permit(attached).To
view the plan electronically click on SDP201900025.Below is a brief description of the proposal.What is your estimated
time to provide review comments on this plan?Please give me a call if you have any questions.
PROJECT LEAD REVIEWER: Christopher Perez
PROJECT: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions-Major Site Plan
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 079000000004P0 and 079000000004A0
LOCATION: 2305,2424,and 2422 Hunters Way, at the intersection with Richmond Road.
PROPOSAL: Request for approval of a major site plan amendment to construct a new entrance on Hunters Way,
reconfigure and divide parcels,reconfigure drive aisles and associated parking for existing buildings.The existing uses of
office warehouse and commercial warehouse are proposed to continue.Associated with the request is a critical slopes
waiver request.
ZONING: HC Highway Commercial—commercial and service;residential by special use permit(15 units/acre).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
PROFFERS:No
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Area—preserve and protect agricultural, forestal,open space,and natural,historic and
scenic resources;residential(0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
Christopher Perez I Senior Planner
Community Development Department
Planning Services
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
2
Christopher Perez
From: Rebecca Ragsdale
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2019 7:32 AM
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: Fw:A-team: SDP201900025 (3 questions)
Attachments: Use Determination - Determination private septic 2-23-07.docx
see items 2 and 3 below. Regarding item 2,they must clarify uses and provide water data with the site plan.
We discuss item 1 this morning after which I will provide you complete comments in CV.
From: Rebecca Ragsdale
Sent: Monday,June 24, 2019 2:42:30 PM
To: Bart Svoboda; Francis MacCall; Lea Brumfield; Kevin McCollum;Jeffrey Baker
Cc:Christopher Perez
Subject:A-team: SDP201900025 (3 questions)
Chris has SDP201900025 under review. It is for parcels 07900-00-00-004A0 and 07900-00-00-004P0 both zoned HC with
three existing buildings on them.The proposed site plan will add a new entrance, a new wastewater treatment facility
that would be located on TMP 79-4P but also serve 4P.There are also a few other change like retaining walls,
stormwater related, etc. I might be leaving out. Chris will be requesting in his review comments they clarify existing and
proposed uses.
We sat down on Friday and have three items to run by the group and Chris will join us at A-team.
1. Can the proposed wastewater treatment facility be located on the adjacent parcel it serves? I believe 4A and 4P
have their own septic on-site now but Chris can confirm tomorrow.The proposed plan would add an off-site
facility. Based on the attached determination, I believe the answer is NO.
2. Although the site has existing buildings, under the new Section 24.2.1(53), they are still subject to the 400
gallons of water consumption per site acre per day cap because they are making external changes to the site.
Should we ask for water data with this site plan review?Or wait until tenants change and we review water
consumption data with zoning clearances?
53.Any use listed in subsection 24.2.1(1)-(51))not served by either public water or an approved central water
supply,provided that: (i)the use is within a structure lawfully existing or vested on February 6,2019; (ii)no
external change on the property occurs other than maintenance or signage changes;and(iii)the use is not subject to
a special use permit issued under subsection 24.2.2(13).
3. The HC zoning regulations limit warehouse to 4,000 square feet per site.This site has more warehouse than
4,000 square feet of warehouse already. If they increase warehouse in the future beyond any existing 4,000
square feet of warehouse they will need a special exception.
49. Storage/Warehousing/Distribution/Transportation;gross floor area of the establishment does not exceed 4,000
square feet per site;provided that the gross floor area of the establishment may exceed 4,000 square feet per site by
special exception approved by the board of supervisors.
Rebecca Ragsdale, Principal Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
1
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville,VA 22902-4596
(434)296-5832 Ext.3226
E-mail:rragsdale(a,albemarle.org
2
•
S k1•
2 � IIII tr
�IRcIDn�'
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
•
To: Environmental Health Division, Thomas Jefferson Health Department
A.O.S.E. Professionals
Consultants and Developers
Albemarle County Staff
From: Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator and Subdivision Agent
Date: February 23, 2007
Subject: New Information and Recent Decisions Regarding Private Septic Systems
The purpose of this memo is to share information and recent decisions that may impact you and/or
the work you do with private septic systems. There are three different issues which will be discussed:
1) the types of private sewage disposal systems approved by Albemarle County, 2) the use of off-site
septic systems and 3)the use of private well and septic systems on property within the jurisdictional
area for public water and sewer.
1. The Types of Private Sewage Disposal Systems Approved by Albemarle County
The comprehensive Subdivision Ordinance amendment in 2005 introduced new ordinance
language about private sewage disposal systems. Section 14-310 of the current Albemarle
County Subdivision Ordinance (adopted 7-05) requires that all new lots will be served by a
"conventional drain field." This interpretation of the Subdivision Ordinance language is consistent
with our longstanding administrative decision as to types of private sewage systems permitted by
the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, this interpretation applies to new lots and new
construction on existing lots. It does not apply to emergency repair situations for existing
uses. (If you have any question about the applicability of this interpretation, please contact me.)
The specific Subdivision Ordinance language is as follows:
14-310 Health director approval of individual private wells and/or septic systems.
If required as a condition of final plat approval,a final plat shall not be approved if individual
private wells are proposed for the subdivision until written approval has been received from the health
director by the agent. A final plat shall not be approved if septic systems are proposed for the subdivision
until written approval has been received from the health director by the agent as follows:
A.The health director shall determine the suitability of the soil of each lot of the subdivision
for which septic systems with a conventional drain field will be constructed,and shall submit his opinion to
the agent...
This term, "conventional drain field" is not currently defined in our Subdivision Ordinance. In
addition, the Virginia Sewage Handling and Disposal Regulations do not use this terminology and
therefore do not define either a "conventional" or a nonconventional system.
In order to interpret this new ordinance provision, we considered the rules of interpretation and we
sought input from the Thomas Jefferson Health Department. In this Subdivision Ordinance
language, the term "conventional" describes the drain field and not the septic tank or the entire
system.
New Information and Recen cisions Regarding Private Septic Sys'
February 23, 2007
Page 2
Case law indicates that when a term is not defined in the regulation, we should seek commonly
accepted dictionaries for guidance in our interpretations. The term "conventional" is defined in
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary as "of traditional design." In order to determine what has
been traditional design as accepted by Albemarle County, we researched historical zoning
determinations for septic systems.
In conclusion, the Subdivision Ordinance limitation of"conventional drain fields" requires the
following to be met for any septic system serving a new lot in Albemarle County:
A. It must involve a subsurface absorption field. No surface discharge, including no spray
irrigation is permitted;
B. It must handle effluent in drain lines that is absorbed into the soil. Pressure distribution
and drip systems are permitted.
C. Only systems with General Virginia Health Department approval are allowed. No
provisional systems are allowed.
D. Sand mounds are not permitted.
E. The lot and system must comply with Section 4.1.6 of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance in that it must have suitable soils for a minimum 3-bedroom house with 100
percent reserve field.
F. The primary system and reserve area must be on the lot they serve (see also issue #2
in this memo).
2. The Use of Off-Site Septic Systems
A septic system is considered an accessory use to the primary use (the house or other use it
serves). By definition (Section 3.0 in the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance), an accessory
use must be located on the same property as the use it serves and it must be zoned to allow
that primary use. Therefore, for example, a use which is zoned commercial (such as C1) can
not be served by a septic system (or well) on property which is zoned Rural Areas or
Residential.
In addition, the use of off-site septic systems even with a recorded septic easement, shall no
longer be permitted in Albemarle County. Because this requirement is found within a
definition, it is not subject to variance and there is no provision for waiver of this requirement.
Accessory Use, Building or Structure: A subordinate use,building or structure customarily
incidental to and located upon the same lot occupied by the primary use,building,or structure,and
located upon land zoned to allow the primary use,building or structure. (Amended 10-9-02)
We recognize that the use of off-site septic systems has been allowed in the past. They will
not be allowed in the future. The lot or parcel of land on which the primary use is or will be
located should be modified so as to include the approved primary and reserve septic area.
3. The Use of Private Well and Septic System on Property within the Jurisdictional Area for
Public Water and Sewer
"It is specifically intended that the public water supply and public sewerage system be utilized
within the service areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority" (Section 4.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance). In order to connect a proposed building to private well and/or septic system within
the service area, an individual waiver or exemption must be applied for and approved by the
Albemarle County Director of Zoning and Current Development.
• New Information and Recen cisions Regarding Private Septic Sys 3
February 23, 2007
Page 3
Refusal of neighbors to provide necessary easements for the connection to public water
and/or public sewer does not justify approval of this waiver. In those cases, the applicant
should pursue due diligence in writing to acquire the easement or permission for a future
easement. In the event the applicant is unable to obtain the easement, they should contact
the Service Authority about the potential for condemnation.
The requirement to connect to public water and/or sewer may be waived in a particular case
when the Director of Zoning and Current Development in consultation with the Albemarle
County Service Authority finds that the cost of connecting to the public system, exclusive of
connection fees, exceeds the cost of installing an on-site well and/or septic system.
An applicant should submit the following information to both the ACSA and the County:
A. The cost of the private on-site system proposed AND
B. The cost of connecting to the public system. If this cost includes the acquisition
of easements, the value-basis for that estimate should also be provided.
The form for submittal of this request is found from the following hyperlink to the Community
Development Department website:
http: //www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms center/departments/commu
nity development/forms/applications/Form Public Water & Sewer Connect
ion Evaluation.pdf
We hope this will provide useful information for your work. If you have any questions about
any of these items, please contact me, Amelia McCulley, at 296-5832 x3229 or at
amccullealbemarle.orq We apologize for getting some of this information to you some time
after the effective date of these regulations. It is not how we prefer to work with you and we
will do better in the future.
Cc: Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney
Mark Graham, Director of Community Development
Pete Gorham, Director of Engineering ACSA
Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning
Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Wednesday,July 03, 2019 7:44 AM
To: Liz Russell; Bedsaul, Willis;John Anderson; Sean Tubbsl; Shawn Maddox
Cc: Richard Nelson; Mazurowski, Alan; Michael Dellinger
Subject: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions - Major Site Plan
SRC Reviewers,
SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions-Major Site Plan
Tim Miller just emailed me, evidently, he is out of town this week, neither he nor the property owner will be at today's
SRC meeting.
I'll attend just to see if any citizens show up, but otherwise you don't need to attend for this item.
For those of you still working on your comments,please have them to me no later than Wed,July 10th.
thanks
Christopher Perez I Senior Planner
Department of Community Development'County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902
434 296 5832 ext.3443
1
Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2019 7:30 AM
To: tmiller@meridianwbe.com
Subject: RE: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions - Major Site Plan
Thank you for the heads up. Much appreciated.
om:tmiller@meridianwbe.com <tmiller@meridianwbe.com>
ent:Tuesday,July 02, 2019 5:31 PM
o:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
ubject: Re: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions- Major Site Plan
41, hris,
t
am out of town this week so will not be at the SRC tomorrow. Owner will not be there.
k`Will wait for all of the comments before revising plans
ci
w': Have a great.4th.
hanks
'm
Sent from my Sprint Phone.
Original message
From: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Date: 7/2/19 4:06 PM (GMT-05:00)
To:tmiller@meridianwbe.com
Subject: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions- Major Site Plan
Tim,
SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions-Major Site Plan
Attached are the SRC review comments from various reviewers that have been received so far.
Please note that I have not completed my review yet, additionally I am awaiting review comments from County
Engineering and Fire Rescue.
I hope to have the final SRC review comments to you no later than July 18'
Please do not begin revising the site plan or making additional applications related to this plan until you receive my final
review comment letter on this project.
PS- The critical slopes waiver is tentatively scheduled for the August 7, 2019 BOS meeting.
See you tomorrow.
1
Christopher Perez I Senior Planner
Department of Community Development'County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902
434 296 5832 ext.3443
2
Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sint: Tuesday, July 02, 2019 4:06 PM
To: 'tmiller@meridianwbe.com'
Subject: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions - Major Site Plan
Attachments: Review Comments as of 7-2-19.pdf
Tim,
SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions-Major Site Plan
Attached are the SRC review comments from various reviewers that have been received so far.
Please note that I have not completed my review yet,additionally I am awaiting review comments from County
Engineering and Fire Rescue.
I hope to have the final SRC review comments to you no later than July 18th.
Please do not begin revising the site plan or making additional applications related to this plan until you receive my final
review comment letter on this project.
PS- The critical slopes waiver is tentatively scheduled for the August 7, 2019 BOS meeting.
See you tomorrow.
Christopher Perez I Senior Planner
Department of Community Development'County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902
434 296 5832 ext.3443
•
Keview comments for SDP201900025 Major Amendment
Project Name: LOWES & FLOOR FASHI_.._ - MAJOR
Date Completed: Tuesday, June 11. 2019 Department/Division/Agency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Margaret Maliszewski • LCDDARB Requested Changes
This Plan requires ARB review and approval Please submit an ARB application Note that the landscape plan is difficult to read
Please revise the plan to make all notes and plant labels legible
1....11.1.111111=51M=.
Page: [1 County of.Albemarle Printed On: 107/0212019
11
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Roaa
Culpeper.Virginia 22701
Stephen C. Brich,P.E.
Commissioner
June 18, 2019
Chris Perez
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SDP-2019-00025-Lowes and Floor Fashions—Minor Site Plan Amendment
Dear Mr. Perez:
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Meridian Group, LLC., dated
April 16, 2019 and offer the following comments.
1. Please provide drainage calculations and show how the drainage runoff will be
adequately discharged.
2. The proposed entrance improvement on Route 250, does not meet VDOT's requirement
on spacing distance. Please see VDOT's Road Design Manual appendix F-pg., F-23.,
minimum spacing standards for commercial entrances, Intersections, and median
crossovers. Route 250 is a minor arterial road and the speed limit is 45 mph, spacing
distance required is 470'.
3. The proposed entrance improvement on Hunter's Way, doesn't meet VDOT's
requirement on corner clearance. Please see VDOT's Road Design Manual appendix F-
pg., F-l 16., for design criteria.
4. Please provide sight distance lines and profiles for proposed entrances.
5. Please note that the final site plan must show conformance with the VDOT Road Design
Manual Appendices B (1) and F, as well as any other applicable standards, regulations, or
other requirements.
6. Please show mill and overlay on plans in accordance with WP-2 and show limits of mill
and overlay to adjacent travel lane. Also please add the detail to the plans.
7. Please provide an MOT plan in accordance with the Virginia Work Area Protection
Manual. Sufficient for the paving necessary.
8. Please provide details on the existing drainage structure proposed to be modified with
this plan.
9. Increased runoff to the existing 30" and 48" pipes crossing must be shown to be
hydraulically adequate and the pipes must be in good condition.
10. The new 6" sanitary line appears to outfall into the storm swale. Please clarify.
Please provide two copies of the revised plan along with a comment response letter. If further
information is desired, please contact Willis C. Bedsaul at 434-422-9866.
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
June 18, 2019
Chris Perez
Page Two
A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right of way. The
owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency land Use Section at (434)422-9399
for information pertaining to this process.
Sincerely,
Utak. 14.1(dVtA-
Adam J. Moo , P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Christopher Perez
From: Brandon Kiracofe <brandon.kiracofe@deq.virginia.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 8:56 AM
To: Christopher Perez
Cc: Dameron Jason jpb60155
Subject: RE: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions - Major Site Plan
Mr. Perez:
Ryder Enterprises, LLC was issued VPDES Permit No. VA0092790 for the discharge of treated wastewater from Ryder
Enterprises Wastewater Treatment Plant(WWTP) located at 2305 Hunters Way, Charlottesville. The location of the
discharge from Ryder WWTP that was specified in the permit application and that was utilized in the development of
VPDES Permit No. VA0092790 is consistent with what is shown on the final site plan.
The design flow specified in the VPDES permit for the WWTP is 0.015 MGD. Part I.D.5 of VPDES Permit No. VA0092790
states, "Certificate to Construct(CTC)/Certificate to Operate (CTO) Requirement—The permittee shall, in accordance
with the DEQ Sewage Collection and Treatment Regulation (9VAC25-790), obtain a CTC and a CTO prior to constructing
and operating the wastewater treatment works. Noncompliance with the CTC or CTO shall be deemed a violation of the
permit."
As part of the Application for a CTC, an Engineer's Certification Statement Signature is required. Projects are no longer
reviewed by DEQ for compliance with the design requirements of the Sewage Collection and Treatment Regulations. It is
the responsibility of a licensed professional engineer in the Commonwealth of Virginia to certify that the design adheres to
the design requirements of the Sewage Collection and Treatment Regulations.
An application for a CTC for Ryder Enterprises WWTP has not been received by DEQ.
Sincerely,
Brandon Kiracofe
Brandon D. Kiracofe I Water Permits &Compliance Manager I DEQ-Valley Regional Office I (540) 574-7892
Brandon D. Kiracofe I Water Permits & Compliance Manager I DEQ -Valley Regional Office I (540) 574-7892
From: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Sent: Friday,June 21, 2019 9:42 AM
To: brandon.kiracofe@deq.virginia.gov
Subject: RE: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions- Major Site Plan
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Friday,June 21, 2019 9:24 AM
To: iason.dameron@deq.virginia.gov; brandon.kircofeCa@deq.virginia.gov
Cc:John Anderson<ianderson2@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions- Major Site Plan
Mr. Kiracofe and Mr. Dameron,
RE: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions - Major Site Plan
i
I request that DEQ review the above.......enced site plan for compliance with an a1,r.,,ved DEQ permit(attached). To
view the plan electronically click on SDP201900025. Below is a brief description of the proposal. What is your estimated
time to provide review comments on this plan?Please give me a call if you have any questions.
PROJECT LEAD REVIEWER: Christopher Perez
PROJECT: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions-Major Site Plan
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 079000000004P0 and 079000000004A0
LOCATION: 2305,2424, and 2422 Hunters Way, at the intersection with Richmond Road.
PROPOSAL: Request for approval of a major site plan amendment to construct a new entrance on Hunters Way,
reconfigure and divide parcels,reconfigure drive aisles and associated parking for existing buildings.The existing uses of
office warehouse and commercial warehouse are proposed to continue. Associated with the request is a critical slopes
waiver request.
ZONING: HC Highway Commercial—commercial and service;residential by special use permit(15 units/acre).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
PROFFERS: No
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Area—preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space,and natural,historic and
scenic resources;residential(0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
Christopher Perez I Senior Planner
Community Development Department
Planning Services
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
2
r„••�. N
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
In Cooperation with the Thomas Jefferson Health District ALBEMARLE.CHARLOTTESVILLE
FLUVANNA COUNTY(PALMYRA)
State Department of Health 1138 Rose Hill DriveGREENE COUNTY(STANARDSVILLE)
LOUISA COUNTY(LOUISA)
Phone(434)972-6219 P O. Box 7546 NELSON COUNTY(LOVINGSTON)
Fax (434)972-4310
Charlottesville, Virginia 22906
July 1, 2019
Christopher Perez, Senior Planner
Albemarle County Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: Lowes &Floor Fashions
Minor Site Plan Adjustment
SDP2019-25
Mr. Perez:
As requested, I've reviewed the subject Site Plan Adjustment, dated 5/8/19. In regard to
the proposed underground wastewater treatment system, its location appears to meet
minimum separation distances to all existing private wells shown on the plan, per 12VAC
5-630-380.
I recommend approval of the site plan, SDP2019-25, with the condition that you receive
approval from DEQ that the system meets all of their permitting and operational
requirements.
If there are any questions or concerns, please give me a call, 434-972-4306.
Sincerely,
Alan Mazurowski
Environmental Health Supervisor
Thomas Jefferson Health District
alan.mazurowskina,vdh.virginia.gov
Christopher Perez
From: Liz Russell <Irussell@monticello.org>
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2019 3:36 PM
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: Comments RE: SDP2019-25 Lowes + Floor Fashions- Major
Attachments: 2015-01-08_Ryder WWTP Comments (TJF) v.3_LGB SIGNED.pdf
Importance: High
Chris—please know that a letter will be coming to you but I wanted to make sure you had these comments in email form
before the end of the day.Thank you, as always,for the opportunity to provide comments.
Dear Mr. Perez,
This letter is in response to Project SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions- Major Site Plan, notification of which was
shared via SRC Distribution Memo 2019-05-20.The two TMPs, 79-4P and 79-4A,fall within the Monticello Viewshed;
additionally,the Thomas Jefferson Foundation (TJF) is an abutting property owner(79-7A) of Shadwell, a property
originally owned by Peter Jefferson,Thomas Jefferson's father.The property is the birthplace of Thomas Jefferson.
The Thomas Jefferson Foundation wishes to state concerns regarding the proposed Major Site Plan Amendment—the
primary concern is the underground wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and associated discharge into a stormwater
drainage culvert owned by the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT") under State Route 250 and then through
and over private property of the Foundation (Shadwell Farm) before (if ever) ultimately reaching state waters.TJF and
other abutting property owners received notification of this application via a letter dated June 5, 2019; however, neither
the letter nor the SRC Distribution Memo mention the WWTP.
In 2015, in addition to additional concerned parties,TJF attended public information sessions hosted by Albemarle
County regarding a permit for Ryder Enterprises to construct a wastewater treatment plant at this site (VPDES Permit
No.VA 0092720). Our concerns were communicated to the Virginia Dept. of Water Quality in a letter dated January
9, 2015 (letter is enclosed). With the assistance of a civil engineer, we outlined our concerns and questions
regarding the Permit.
Project SDP201900025, as presented, does not raise any significant viewshed concerns to the Foundation at this time;
however,we have significant concerns that Shadwell water quality
will, or may be, adversely impacted if the concerns and questions expressed in the January 9, 2015 are not addressed
by the applicant.There is not enough detail in the current application materials (site plan dated April 16, 2019 by
Meridian Planning Group, LLC.) to assess the type of WWTP and implications to water quality.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment.
Sincerely,
Liz Russell
Assistant Director of Facilities+ Planning,Thomas Jefferson Foundation
1
M NTICELLO
Liz Russell I Assistant Director of Facilities+Planning
Thomas Jefferson Foundation,Inc I Monticello
P.O Box 316 I Charlottesville,VA 22902
Work:434-984-7589 I Cell:434-466-1275 I Email:Jrussell@monticello.erg
2
M NTICELLO
LIs1.IE GREF.NI:BOWMAN
P rs,dent
January 9, 2015
Mr. Jason Dameron
Virginia Dept. of Environmental Quality
Valley Regional Office
4411 Early Road
P.O. Box 3000
Harrisonburg, VA 22801
RE: Ryder Enterprises, LLC; VPDES Permit No. VA 0092720
Mr. Dameron:
I am writing on behalf of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation,Inc. ("Foundation"), to address
questions and comments and to request a public hearing concerning the draft permit for Ryder Enterprises,
LLC ("Applicant"); Wastewater Treatment Plant("WWTP")VPDES Permit No. VA 0092720("Draft
Permit").
Thomas Jefferson Foundation,Inc.
The Foundation owns and operates Monticello,the mountaintop home of Thomas Jefferson and the
only home in America on the elite World Heritage List of the United Nations. As a private,nonprofit
organization,the Foundation receives no regular federal or state budget support for its twofold mission of
preservation and education.
Since 1923,the Foundation has steadily expanded its role as a museum and educational institution.
Its facilities now include the house and gardens on over 2,000 of Jefferson's original 5,000 acres; the Robert
H. Smith International Center for Jefferson Studies next door at Kenwood,a headquarters for Jeffersonian
research and teaching and home to the Jefferson Library; and the Thomas Jefferson Center for Historic
Plants,which propagates heirloom varieties and makes them available to institutions and individuals. The
Thomas Jefferson Visitor Center and Smith Education Center hosts state-of-the art exhibits for visitors of
all ages. It serves as the gateway to Jefferson's timeless Monticello,preparing guests for their trips to the
historic mountaintop through dynamic content presenting fresh perspectives on Monticello and the
enduring significance of Jefferson's life and ideas. About a half a million people visit Monticello each
year.
I$ f 11
THOMAS JEFFERSON FOUNDATION,INC.
Post Office Box 316 • Charlottesville,Virginia 22902 • www.monticello.org
Address
•
Mailing Address: Overnight Address:
Thomas Jefferson Foundation 1070 Monticello Loop
Post Office Box 316 Operations Cottage
Charlottesville, VA 22902 Charlottesville, VA 22902
Comments and Justification for Public Hearing
For the reasons set out in the numbered paragraphs below,the Foundation is concerned that
the Draft Permit, as currently written, may be inconsistent with,or in violation of,the State Water
Control Law (Va. Code §62.1-44.2 et seq.), federal law or the regulations promulgated thereunder.
I. The Foundation owns Shadwell Farm, a property originally owned by Peter Jefferson,
Thomas Jefferson's father. The property is the birthplace of Thomas Jefferson. Shadwell is
adjacent to the proposed WWTP and the Foundation is requesting a hearing because it
believes Shadwell will, or may be, adversely impacted if the concerns and questions
expressed here are not adequately addressed.
2. The WWTP will be located in Albemarle County's Entrance Corridor. Entrance Corridors
are streets that provide routes of tourist access to the County and to historic landmarks,
structures, and districts. The goal of this regulation is to ensure that new development in
these corridors reflects the traditional architecture of the area and that development within the
corridors is orderly and attractive.
3. A public hearing is warranted and due consideration given to the fact that Shadwell Farm is
located in the Monticello Historic District("MHD"). The intent and purpose of the MHD is
to create a planned historic district:
a. To permit restoration,preservation,conservation, education,programs,research,
business and support activities,including fundraising activities for the public and/or
contributors, all of which are related to the operation of a historic house museum and
historic site at Monticello;
b. To promote the preservation, interpretation and enhancement of a unique historical
site;
c. To preserve significant tracts of agricultural and forestal land;
d. To be a district that is unique to those parcels which both belonged to Thomas
Jefferson and contain uses related to the operation of the historic site, in recognition
of:
i. the importance of Thomas Jefferson to the history of Albemarle County;
ii. the importance of Monticello to the reputation,education, and economy of
Albemarle County;
2
iii. Monticello as a unique element of the historical and architectural legacy of
Albemarle County, the nation, and the world, as recognized by its inclusion
• on the World Heritage List administered by the United Nations Educational,
Scientific, and Cultural Organization.
See Albemarle County Code of Ordinances, Ch. 18, § 11.
4. The effluent will not enter a water of the state at the outfall. Instead, it is our opinion that the
effluent from the WWTP will need to pass through a stormwater drainage culvert owned by
the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT")under State Route 250 and then
through and over private property of the Foundation(Shadwell Farm)before(if ever)
ultimately reaching state waters. Discharge permits do not convey property rights. See
9VAC25-31-190 G. Applicant has not sought, and does not hold any form or permission or
easement to discharge effluent to Foundation property.
5. The discharge from the WWTP is proposed to flow through a VDOT culvert that may be
inadequately sized to transmit both stormwater and treated effluent. If the VDOT storm
culvert is improperly sized to carry effluent and storm flow,this may result in flooding and
further release of effluent to private and public property and the roadway.
6. The Draft Permit makes reference to a nutrient trading. The Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority("Authority")has expended significant sums to upgrade its Moores Creek
Wastewater Treatment Plant facility as part of the Charlottesville-Albemarle community's
commitment to remove nutrients from the watershed at a level higher than that required by
law. If this WWTP requires trading to achieve its permit limitations, it could be seen as
undercutting this commitment by the localities and the Authority. Additionally, as worded,
the Draft Pennit appears to allow the WWTP to discharge nitrogen and phosphorus into a
stream with critical flows of zero. Virginia DEQ should reevaluate the WWTP discharge
facility taking into consideration the limits of technology in the interest of minimizing stream
impairment.
7. The application stated that the facility would be designed for 0.015 mgd(15,000 gpd),to
serve 125 people. Please identify the building facilities that are planning to use the WWTP
and the basis for the design flow. The application addendum states that the operations
generating the wastewater include medical offices. We would also like to know where the
medical offices are located as none appear present at the address listed.
8. The effluent discharge is identified as flowing in an ephemeral stream for about 2,000 ft.
(0.42 mi.) This is essentially discharge to the surface of the ground in 7Q10 conditions, and
not to a flowing stream. We do not understand how the WWTP described could discharge
effluent from this secondary treatment facility at levels that will meet water quality standards
as 100 percent effluent.
3
9. Ammonia-N toxicity is pH dependent. If the effluent at the design flow does reach Barn
Branch,then the pH of existing discharges in the watershed may need to be considered. We
• would be interested to know if the ammonia concentration in Barn Branch was evaluated or if
pH sampling of the stream was performed.
10. If the effluent does reach the stream, as an ephemeral stream,the receiving water does not
appear to be able to provide a minimal dilution of 10 to 1. An extended failure of the WWTP
treatment could result in the discharge of partially treated, or even untreated, sewage.
11. The WWTP will be permitted as Reliability Class II. We would like to understand the
rationale for Reliability Class II shown in the Fact Sheet and not Reliability Class I. A Class
I facility would be equipped with an electrical generation facility. It is reasonable to
conclude that the location of the discharge,or potential discharge,due to the volume or
character,might permanently or unacceptably damage neighboring properties,the VDOT
right of way, Route 250,or adversely affect private property or the receiving waters or public
health and welfare during periods of short-term operations interruptions. See 9 VAC 25-790-
70. The facility should be considered for qualification as Reliability Class I.
12. The VPDES application indicates this WWTP is a tertiary treatment facility. We do not
understand how a Rotating Biological Contactor("RBC")with a secondary clarifier may be
considered tertiary treatment.
13. No buffer zone is included in the Draft Permit. A 200 foot buffer zone is required for a
WWTP of this type. See 9 VAC 25-790. The site plan in the VPDES permit application
does not appear to meet the requirements of law.
Conclusion
The Foundation contacted Applicant and attempted to discuss the comments above with
Applicant directly. This attempt was rejected and a representative or vendor of the applicant referred
us directly to Virginia DEQ. The Foundation has valid and substantial concerns and respectfully
requests complete responses and a public hearing in accordance with Va. Code § 62.1-44.15:02.
Please refer questions or comments concerning this letter to our attorney, Dale Mullen,at
804.775.4710, dmullen@mcguirewoods.com.
Sincerely.
VAV �I
LESLIE GREENE BOWMAN
4
Keview t omments TOf SDP201900025 Major Amendment
Project Name: LOWES & FLOOR FASHI..,.� - MAJOR
• Date Completed: Monday, June 24, 2019 Department/Division/Agency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Michael Inspections
Michael Dellinger CDD Ins ctions Requested Changes I "
I I
Water and sewer approvals will be needed to be submitted for new building permits due to new wastewater system and new
well Property located in BTEX area
Add the following note to the general notes page_
Retaining walls greater than 3 feet in height require a separate building permit. Walls exceeding 4 feet in height require a
stamped engineered design also Walls require inspections as outlined in the USBC
Add the following note to the general notes page_
Accessible parking spaces and access isles shall not have a surface slope greater than 1-48_ Access isles shall be at the
same level as the parking space they serve_
Add the following note to the general notes page:
ALL water lines sewer lines and fire lines from the main to the structure MUST have a visual inspection performed by the
buildng department.
Add the following to the general notes page
All roof drains shall discharge in a manner not to cause a public nuisance and not over sidewalks_
Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: 07i02'2019
review comments tor SDP201900025 Major Amendment •!
Project Name: & FLOOR FASHI..,... - MAJOR
Date Completed: Thursday, June 13. 2019 Department/Division/Agency: Review Status:
Reviewer Andrew Slack El coo E911 No Objection
No objection
Page: 1 County of.Albemarle Printed On: 107/0212019
Christopher Perez
From: Richard Nelson <rnelson@serviceauthority.org>
Sent: Friday,June 28, 2019 3:35 PM
to: Christopher Perez
Subject: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions - Major Site Plan
Chris,
SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions- Major Site Plan is outside of the ACSA Jurisdictional Area. There are no
comments.
Thanks,
Richard Nelson
Civil Engineer
Albemarle County Service Authority
168 Spotnap Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22911
(434)977-4511
1
Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2019 3:13 PM
To: Liz Russell
Subject: RE: Comments RE: SDP2019-25 Lowes + Floor Fashions- Major
Liz,
You are welcome to attend the meeting, it's an SRC meeting where we will be discussing all the review comments. If the
applicant has questions it may be good for him to discuss it with you there.
Christopher Perez 1 Senior Planner
Department of Community Development 1County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road l Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
From: Liz Russell <Irussell@monticello.org>
Sent:Tuesday,July 02, 2019 9:14 AM
To: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: Comments RE: SDP2019-25 Lowes+ Floor Fashions- Major
Thanks Chris—would it be appropriate for me to attend the meeting on the 3rd or will my comments suffice?
From:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Sent: Monday,July 1, 2019 4:37 PM
To: Liz Russell <Irussell@monticello.org>
Subject: RE: Comments RE:SDP2019-25 Lowes+ Floor Fashions- Major
CAUTION:This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking
links, especially from unknown senders.
I received them, thanks.
From: Liz Russell <Irussell@monticello.org>
Sent: Monday,July 01, 2019 3:36 PM
To: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Subject: Comments RE: SDP2019-25 Lowes+ Floor Fashions- Major
Importance: High
Chris—please know that a letter will be coming to you but I wanted to make sure you had these comments in email form
before the end of the day.Thank you, as always, for the opportunity to provide comments.
Dear Mr. Perez,
This letter is in response to Project SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions- Major Site Plan, notification of which was
shared via SRC Distribution Memo 2019-05-20.The two TMPs, 79-4P and 79-4A,fall within the Monticello Viewshed;
additionally,the Thomas Jefferson Foundation (TJF) is an abutting property owner(79-7A) of Shadwell, a property
originally owned by Peter Jefferson,Thomas Jefferson's father.The property is the birthplace of Thomas Jefferson.
1
The Thomas Jefferson Foundation wishes to state concerns regarding the proposed Major Site Plan Amendment—the
primary concern is the underground wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and associated discharge into a stormwater
drainage culvert owned by the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT") under State Route 250 and then through
and over private property of the Foundation (Shadwell Farm) before (if ever) ultimately reaching state waters.TJF and
other abutting property owners received notification of this application via a letter dated June 5, 2019; however, neither
the letter nor the SRC Distribution Memo mention the WWTP.
In 2015, in addition to additional concerned parties,TJF attended public information sessions hosted by Albemarle
County regarding a permit for Ryder Enterprises to construct a wastewater treatment plant at this site (VPDES Permit
No. VA 0092720). Our concerns were communicated to the Virginia Dept. of Water Quality in a letter dated January
9, 2015 (letter is enclosed). With the assistance of a civil engineer, we outlined our concerns and questions
regarding the Permit.
Project SDP201900025, as presented, does not raise any significant viewshed concerns to the Foundation at this time;
however,we have significant concerns that Shadwell water quality
will, or may be, adversely impacted if the concerns and questions expressed in the January 9, 2015 are not addressed
by the applicant. There is not enough detail in the current application materials (site plan dated April 16, 2019 by
Meridian Planning Group, LLC.) to assess the type of WWTP and implications to water quality.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment.
Sincerely,
Liz Russell
Assistant Director of Facilities+ Planning,Thomas Jefferson Foundation
M NT� C LO
Liz Russell I Assistant Director of Facilities+Planning
Thomas Jefferson Foundation,Inc I Monticello
P 0 Box 316 I Charlottesville,VA 22902
Work.434-984-7589 I Cell 434-466-1275 I Email•lrussell(a,monticello org
2
Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2019 4:37 PM
To: Liz Russell
Subject: RE: Comments RE: SDP2019-25 Lowes + Floor Fashions- Major
I received them,thanks.
From: Liz Russell <Irussell@monticello.org>
Sent: Monday,July 01, 2019 3:36 PM
To:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Subject: Comments RE: SDP2019-25 Lowes+ Floor Fashions- Major
Importance: High
Chris—please know that a letter will be coming to you but I wanted to make sure you had these comments in email form
before the end of the day.Thank you, as always,for the opportunity to provide comments.
Dear Mr. Perez,
This letter is in response to Project SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions- Major Site Plan, notification of which was
shared via SRC Distribution Memo 2019-05-20.The two TMPs,79-4P and 79-4A, fall within the Monticello Viewshed;
additionally,the Thomas Jefferson Foundation (TJF) is an abutting property owner(79-7A) of Shadwell, a property
originally owned by Peter Jefferson,Thomas Jefferson's father.The property is the birthplace of Thomas Jefferson.
The Thomas Jefferson Foundation wishes to state concerns regarding the proposed Major Site Plan Amendment—the
primary concern is the underground wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and associated discharge into a stormwater
drainage culvert owned by the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT") under State Route 250 and then through
and over private property of the Foundation (Shadwell Farm) before (if ever) ultimately reaching state waters.TJF and
other abutting property owners received notification of this application via a letter dated June 5, 2019; however, neither
the letter nor the SRC Distribution Memo mention the WWTP.
In 2015, in addition to additional concerned parties,TJF attended public information sessions hosted by Albemarle
County regarding a permit for Ryder Enterprises to construct a wastewater treatment plant at this site (VPDES Permit
No.VA 0092720). Our concerns were communicated to the Virginia Dept. of Water Quality in a letter dated January
9, 2015 (letter is enclosed). With the assistance of a civil engineer, we outlined our concerns and questions
regarding the Permit.
Project SDP201900025, as presented, does not raise any significant viewshed concerns to the Foundation at this time;
however, we have significant concerns that Shadwell water quality
will, or may be, adversely impacted if the concerns and questions expressed in the January 9, 2015 are not addressed
by the applicant.There is not enough detail in the current application materials (site plan dated April 16, 2019 by
Meridian Planning Group, LLC.) to assess the type of WWTP and implications to water quality.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment.
Sincerely,
1
Liz Russell
Assistant Director of Facilities+ Planning,Thomas Jefferson Foundation
1VI NTICELLO
Liz Russell I Assistant Director of Facilities+Planning
Thomas Jefferson Foundation,Inc I Monticello
P 0 Box 316 I Charlottesville,VA 22902
Work:434-984-7589 I Cell 434-466-1275 I Email:hussellna,monticello.org
2
•
•
M NTICELLO
• LE.SLIE GRFENF.BOWMAN
President
January 9, 2015
Mr. Jason Dameron
Virginia Dept. of Environmental Quality
Valley Regional Office
4411 Early Road
P.O. Box 3000
Harrisonburg,VA 22801
RE: Ryder Enterprises,LLC;VPDES Permit No.VA 0092720
Mr. Dameron:
I am writing on behalf of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation,Inc. ("Foundation"), to address
questions and comments and to request a public hearing concerning the draft permit for Ryder Enterprises,
LLC ("Applicant"); Wastewater Treatment Plant("WWTP")VPDES Permit No. VA 0092720("Draft
Permit").
Thomas Jefferson Foundation,Inc.
The Foundation owns and operates Monticello,the mountaintop home of Thomas Jefferson and the
only home in America on the elite World Heritage List of the United Nations. As a private,nonprofit
organization,the Foundation receives no regular federal or state budget support for its twofold mission of
preservation and education.
Since 1923,the Foundation has steadily expanded its role as a museum and educational institution.
Its facilities now include the house and gardens on over 2,000 of Jefferson's original 5,000 acres; the Robert
H. Smith International Center for Jefferson Studies next door at Kenwood, a headquarters for Jeffersonian
research and teaching and home to the Jefferson Library; and the Thomas Jefferson Center for Historic
Plants, which propagates heirloom varieties and makes them available to institutions and individuals. The
Thomas Jefferson Visitor Center and Smith Education Center hosts state-of-the art exhibits for visitors of
all ages. It serves as the gateway to Jefferson's timeless Monticello,preparing guests for their trips to the
historic mountaintop through dynamic content presenting fresh perspectives on Monticello and the
enduring significance of Jefferson's life and ideas. About a half a million people visit Monticello each
year.
III I
THOMAS JEFFERSON FOUNDATION,INC.
Post Office Box 316 • Charlottesville,Virginia 22902 • www.monticello.org
Address
Mailing Address: Overnight Address:
Thomas Jefferson Foundation 1070 Monticello Loop
Post Office Box 316 Operations Cottage
Charlottesville, VA 22902 Charlottesville, VA 22902
Comments and Justification for Public Hearing
For the reasons set out in the numbered paragraphs below, the Foundation is concerned that
the Draft Permit, as currently written, may be inconsistent with, or in violation of, the State Water
Control Law (Va. Code § 62.1-44.2 et seq.), federal law or the regulations promulgated thereunder.
1. The Foundation owns Shadwell Farm, a property originally owned by Peter Jefferson,
Thomas Jefferson's father. The property is the birthplace of Thomas Jefferson. Shadwell is
adjacent to the proposed WWTP and the Foundation is requesting a hearing because it
believes Shadwell will, or may be, adversely impacted if the concerns and questions
expressed here are not adequately addressed.
2. The WWTP will be located in Albemarle County's Entrance Corridor. Entrance Corridors
are streets that provide routes of tourist access to the County and to historic landmarks,
structures, and districts. The goal of this regulation is to ensure that new development in
these corridors reflects the traditional architecture of the area and that development within the
corridors is orderly and attractive.
3. A public hearing is warranted and due consideration given to the fact that Shadwell Farm is
located in the Monticello Historic District("MHD-). The intent and purpose of the MHD is
to create a planned historic district:
a. To permit restoration,preservation, conservation, education,programs, research,
business and support activities, including fundraising activities for the public and/or
contributors, all of which are related to the operation of a historic house museum and
historic site at Monticello;
b. To promote the preservation, interpretation and enhancement of a unique historical
site;
c. To preserve significant tracts of agricultural and forestal land;
d. To be a district that is unique to those parcels which both belonged to Thomas
Jefferson and contain uses related to the operation of the historic site, in recognition
of:
i. the importance of Thomas Jefferson to the history of Albemarle County;
ii. the importance of Monticello to the reputation, education, and economy of
Albemarle County;
2
iii. Monticello as a unique element of the historical and architectural legacy of
Albemarle County, the nation, and the world,as recognized by its inclusion
on the World Heritage List administered by the United Nations Educational,
Scientific,and Cultural Organization.
See Albemarle County Code of Ordinances, Ch. 18, § 11.
4. The effluent will not enter a water of the state at the outfall. Instead,it is our opinion that the
effluent from the WWTP will need to pass through a stormwater drainage culvert owned by
the Virginia Department of Transportation("VDOT")under State Route 250 and then
through and over private property of the Foundation(Shadwell Farm)before(if ever)
ultimately reaching state waters. Discharge permits do not convey property rights. See
9VAC25-31-190 G. Applicant has not sought, and does not hold any form or permission or
easement to discharge effluent to Foundation property.
5. The discharge from the WWTP is proposed to flow through a VDOT culvert that may be
inadequately sized to transmit both stormwater and treated effluent. If the VDOT storm
culvert is improperly sized to carry effluent and storm flow,this may result in flooding and
further release of effluent to private and public property and the roadway.
6. The Draft Permit makes reference to a nutrient trading. The Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority("Authority")has expended significant sums to upgrade its Moores Creek
Wastewater Treatment Plant facility as part of the Charlottesville-Albemarle community's
commitment to remove nutrients from the watershed at a level higher than that required by
law. If this WWTP requires trading to achieve its permit limitations, it could be seen as
undercutting this commitment by the localities and the Authority. Additionally, as worded,
the Draft Permit appears to allow the WWTP to discharge nitrogen and phosphorus into a
stream with critical flows of zero. Virginia DEQ should reevaluate the WWTP discharge
facility taking into consideration the limits of technology in the interest of minimizing stream
impairment.
7. The application stated that the facility would be designed for 0.015 mgd(15,000 gpd),to
serve 125 people. Please identify the building facilities that are planning to use the WWTP
and the basis for the design flow. The application addendum states that the operations
generating the wastewater include medical offices. We would also like to know where the
medical offices are located as none appear present at the address listed.
8. The effluent discharge is identified as flowing in an ephemeral stream for about 2,000 ft.
(0.42 mi.) This is essentially discharge to the surface of the ground in 7Q10 conditions, and
not to a flowing stream.We do not understand how the WWTP described could discharge
effluent from this secondary treatment facility at levels that will meet water quality standards
as 100 percent effluent.
3
.4
9. Ammonia-N toxicity is pH dependent. If the effluent at the design flow does reach Barn
Branch,then the pH of existing discharges in the watershed may need to be considered. We
would be interested to know if the ammonia concentration in Barn Branch was evaluated or if
pH sampling of the stream was performed.
10. If the effluent does reach the stream, as an ephemeral stream,the receiving water does not
appear to be able to provide a minimal dilution of 10 to 1. An extended failure of the WWTP
treatment could result in the discharge of partially treated, or even untreated, sewage.
11. The WWTP will be permitted as Reliability Class II. We would like to understand the
rationale for Reliability Class II shown in the Fact Sheet and not Reliability Class I. A Class
I facility would be equipped with an electrical generation facility. It is reasonable to
conclude that the location of the discharge,or potential discharge, due to the volume or
character,might permanently or unacceptably damage neighboring properties,the VDOT
right of way, Route 250,or adversely affect private property or the receiving waters or public
health and welfare during periods of short-term operations interruptions. See 9 VAC 25-790-
70. The facility should be considered for qualification as Reliability Class I.
12. The VPDES application indicates this WWTP is a tertiary treatment facility. We do not
understand how a Rotating Biological Contactor("RBC")with a secondary clarifier may be
considered tertiary treatment.
13. No buffer zone is included in the Draft Permit. A 200 foot buffer zone is required for a
WWTP of this type. See 9 VAC 25-790. The site plan in the VPDES permit application
does not appear to meet the requirements of law.
Conclusion
The Foundation contacted Applicant and attempted to discuss the comments above with
Applicant directly. This attempt was rejected and a representative or vendor of the applicant referred
us directly to Virginia DEQ. The Foundation has valid and substantial concerns and respectfully
requests complete responses and a public hearing in accordance with Va. Code § 62.1-44.15:02.
Please refer questions or comments concerning this letter to our attorney,Dale Mullen,at
804.775.4710, dmullen@mcguirewoods.com.
Sincerely„.
/
LESLIE GREENE BOWMAN
4
Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Monday,July 01, 2019 2:14 PM
To: Liz Russell
Subject: RE: Comments for SDP2019-25 pending
Liz,
Sounds good. Send them over when you finish them.Thanks
Christopher Perez I Senior Planner
Community Development Department
Planning Services
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
From: Liz Russell<Irussell@monticello.org>
Sent: Monday,July 01, 2019 1:32 PM
To:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Subject:Comments for SDP2019-25 pending
Hi Chris—I will be sending you Monticello's comments on the SDP2019-25 Lowes& Floor Fashions—Major today. Its my
first day back from a week at the beach but please be on the lookout for the comments.
Liz
Sie
M rTCELLOI
Liz Russell I Assistant Director of Facilities+Planning
Thomas Jefferson Foundation,Inc I Monticello
P.O.Box 316 I Charlottesville,VA 22902
Work 434-984-7589 I Cell 434-466-1275 I Email•lrussell0.monticello org
1
Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 9:02 AM
To: John Anderson; Josh Kirtley (Joshua.Kirtley@vdh.virginia.gov); Mazurowski, Alan
Subject: FW: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions - Major Site Plan
See below DEQs review comments on the proposal for your consideration during your review of the site plan.
From: Brandon Kiracofe<brandon.kiracofe@deq.virginia.gov>
Sent:Tuesday,June 25, 2019 8:56 AM
To:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Cc: Dameron Jason jpb60155<jason.dameron@deq.virginia.gov>
Subject: RE: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions- Major Site Plan
Mr Perez:
Ryder Enterprises, LLC was issued VPDES Permit No. VA0092790 for the discharge of treated wastewater from Ryder
Enterprises Wastewater Treatment Plant(WWTP) located at 2305 Hunters Way, Charlottesville. The location of the
discharge from Ryder WVVTP that was specified in the permit application and that was utilized in the development of
VPDES Permit No. VA0092790 is consistent with what is shown on the final site plan.
The design flow specified in the VPDES permit for the WWTP is 0 015 MGD. Part I.D.5 of VPDES Permit No. VA0092790
states, "Certificate to Construct(CTC)/Certificate to Operate (CTO) Requirement—The permittee shall, in accordance
with the DEQ Sewage Collection and Treatment Regulation (9VAC25-790), obtain a CTC and a CTO prior to constructing
and operating the wastewater treatment works Noncompliance with the CTC or CTO shall be deemed a violation of the
permit."
As part of the Application for a CTC, an Engineer's Certification Statement Signature is required. Projects are no longer
reviewed by DEQ for compliance with the design requirements of the Sewage Collection and Treatment Regulations. It is
the responsibility of a licensed professional engineer in the Commonwealth of Virginia to certify that the design adheres to
the design requirements of the Sewage Collection and Treatment Regulations
An application for a CTC for Ryder Enterprises WWTP has not been received by DEQ.
Sincerely,
Brandon Kiracofe
Brandon D. Kiracofe I Water Permits & Compliance Manager I DEQ -Valley Regional Office I (540) 574-7892
Brandon D. Kiracofe I Water Permits & Compliance Manager I DEQ -Valley Regional Office I (540) 574-7892
From: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Sent: Friday,June 21, 2019 9:42 AM
To: brandon.kiracofe@deq.virginia.gov
Subject: RE: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions- Major Site Plan
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Friday,June 21, 2019 9:24 AM
To:jason.dameron@deq.virginia.gov; brandon.kircofe@deq.virginia.gov
i
Cc:John Anderson <janderson2@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions- Major Site Plan
Mr. Kiracofe and Mr. Dameron,
RE: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions-Major Site Plan
I request that DEQ review the above referenced site plan for compliance with an approved DEQ permit(attached).To
view the plan electronically click on SDP201900025.Below is a brief description of the proposal. What is your estimated
time to provide review comments on this plan?Please give me a call if you have any questions.
PROJECT LEAD REVIEWER: Christopher Perez
PROJECT: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions-Major Site Plan
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 079000000004P0 and 079000000004A0
LOCATION: 2305,2424,and 2422 Hunters Way,at the intersection with Richmond Road.
PROPOSAL: Request for approval of a major site plan amendment to construct a new entrance on Hunters Way,
reconfigure and divide parcels,reconfigure drive aisles and associated parking for existing buildings.The existing uses of
office warehouse and commercial warehouse are proposed to continue. Associated with the request is a critical slopes
waiver request.
ZONING: HC Highway Commercial—commercial and service;residential by special use permit(15 units/acre).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
PROFFERS:No
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Area—preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural,historic and
scenic resources;residential(0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
Christopher Perez I Senior Planner
Community Development Department
Planning Services
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
2
Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 8:09 AM
To: Josh Kirtley (Joshua.Kirtley@vdh.virginia.gov); Mazurowski, Alan
Subject: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions - Major Site Plan
Attachments: VA0092720_Permit_2015.pdf
Josh/Alan,
RE: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions-Major Site Plan
I wanted to check on the status of your review for the above ref site plan.During your review please give attention to the
new underground wastewater treatment plant being proposed on the property. Prior to my approval of the site plan I need
VDH approval of this facility.
I recently request that DEQ review the above referenced site plan for compliance with an approved DEQ permit
(attached).Please give me a call if you have any questions.
PROJECT LEAD REVIEWER: Christopher Perez
PROJECT: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions-Major Site Plan
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 079000000004P0 and 079000000004A0
LOCATION: 2305,2424,and 2422 Hunters Way,at the intersection with Richmond Road.
PROPOSAL: Request for approval of a major site plan amendment to construct a new entrance on Hunters Way,
reconfigure and divide parcels,reconfigure drive aisles and associated parking for existing buildings.The existing uses of
office warehouse and commercial warehouse are proposed to continue.Associated with the request is a critical slopes
waiver request.
ZONING: HC Highway Commercial—commercial and service; residential by special use permit(15 units/acre).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
PROFFERS:No
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Area—preserve and protect agricultural, forestal,open space,and natural,historic and
scenic resources; residential(0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
Christopher Perez I Senior Planner
Community Development Department
Planning Services
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
1
Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2019 9:42 AM
To: 'brandon.kiracofe@deq.virginia.gov'
Subject: RE: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions - Major Site Plan
Attachments: VA0092720_Permit_2015.pdf
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Friday,June 21, 2019 9:24 AM
To:jason.dameron@deq.virginia.gov; brandon.kircofe@deq.virginia.gov
Cc:John Anderson<janderson2@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions- Major Site Plan
Mr.Kiracofe and Mr.Dameron,
RE: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions-Major Site Plan
I request that DEQ review the above referenced site plan for compliance with an approved DEQ permit(attached).To
view the plan electronically click on SDP201900025.Below is a brief description of the proposal.What is your estimated
time to provide review comments on this plan?Please give me a call if you have any questions.
PROJECT LEAD REVIEWER: Christopher Perez
PROJECT: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions-Major Site Plan
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 079000000004P0 and 079000000004A0
LOCATION: 2305,2424,and 2422 Hunters Way,at the intersection with Richmond Road.
PROPOSAL: Request for approval of a major site plan amendment to construct a new entrance on Hunters Way,
reconfigure and divide parcels,reconfigure drive aisles and associated parking for existing buildings.The existing uses of
office warehouse and commercial warehouse are proposed to continue.Associated with the request is a critical slopes
waiver request.
ZONING: HC Highway Commercial—commercial and service; residential by special use permit(15 units/acre).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
PROFFERS:No
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Area—preserve and protect agricultural, forestal,open space,and natural,historic and
scenic resources;residential(0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
Christopher Perez I Senior Planner
Community Development Department
Planning Services
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
1
tget4,:t
A
��RGIN�P
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Tim Miller(tmiller@,meridianwbe.com)
From: J.T.Newberry(iewberry@,albemarle.org)
Division: Planning
Date: August 17,2017
Subject: upP201700048 Floor Fashions--Preapplication Plan
This application has been reviewed under Section 32.4.1.4 of the Vre Plan Ordinance.The following comments are those
that have been identified at this time.Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further
review.
lease note this application was not reviewed for compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance,although the plan appears
to propose a subdivision of both Parcel 4A and Parcel 4P.The recommended application process to achieve this layout
will be impacted by the answers to the questions below. It may be possible to achieve this layout administratively ley
submitting two separate two-lot subdivision applications,but the timing and sequencing of the required applications will
play a role in the approval process. Staff recommends meeting with Planning and Zoning to discuss the subdivision
process prior to submitting the initial site plan.
Section 32.4.1.4 requires comments on the following:
• (a) Compliance with zoning
o See comments below.
• (b) Variations, exceptions and special exceptions
o We have tried to identify all of the required variations under County ordinances,however,other
variations may be needed based on.the resolution of the concerns/questions outlined below.
• (c)Fees
o $752 initial site plan application and fee plus$0.016 per square foot of non-residential structure;and
o $457 special exception application and fee for critical slopes waiver.
• (d)Required changes, (e)Recommended changes and(1)Additional information
o See comments and attachments below.
Albemarle County Planning Services(Planner)—J.T.Newberry,jnewberry(ialbemarle.org—Requested changes.
1. [32.4.1.3(a)] On Sheet C-001, please correct the zoning district to be Highway Commercial (HC). Also, the
Monticello Viewshed is not a zoning district,so please note it separately. Voluntary guidelines for development in
the Monticello Viewshed are provided below.
2. [32.4.1.3(a)] On Sheet C-001. please confirm and note the proposed warehousing uses qualify as "Light
warehousing"as listed in Section 24.2.1(21).
[Section 24.2.2(13)] The Zoning and/or Engineering Division will require information to c Iiilach
_ _ ,_•: e, -.. . •,: tcr consumption of 400 gallons per site acre per dam
4. [32.4.1.3(a)] On Sheet C-001, under Site Data, please note the application numbers of the previously approved
special use permits: SP199900068 and SP200100001.Please also list the conditions of SP200100001 and show the
designated display area on the site plan.The approval letter and concept plan can be found here.
5. [32.4.1.3(a)] On Sheet C-001, please remove the maximum building setback because it does not apply to major
arterial roads.
6. [32.4.1.3(b)] The"total building areas"shown on Sheet C-001 do not match the building labels on the other
drawings.Please amend.
7. [32.4.1.3(n)] The plans do not provide calculations on the number of required loading spaces per lot and do not
show any loading spaces. Please provide a calculation of the minimum loading spaces required per lot on Sheet
C-001. A variation or exception under 18-4.12.13 may needed if the minimum required loading spaces are not
provided.
f.
8. [32.4.1.3(n)] Similarly,please show the required dumpster pads.A variation or exception may be requested under
18-4.12.13 if the minimum required dumpster pads are not provided.
9. [32.4.1.3(n)] Please provide dimensions for all proposed improvements, including width and depth of loading
spaces,streett/travelways,sidewalks,dumpsterpads and all other paved areas,etc.
10. 32.4.1.3 n The parting calculations show that 243 parking aces are r quired,but only220 parkingspaces are
[ ( )] P g P g P �l P
provided.A parking study and/or shared parking agreement approved by the Zoning Division will be required.
1 1. [4.12.15(t)] For shared parking,internal sidewalks will be needed to provide safe and convenient access throughout
the site.Please add sidewalks to sufficiently allow pedestrians to navigate the site consistent with this requirement.
12. [32.4.1.3 (k)] Staff needs additional information regarding the proposed onsite wastewater treatment facility. If a
central sewerage system is proposed,then it must be reviewed and approved according the applicable provisions in
Chapter 16. These provisions require Health Department review,as well as approval by the Board of Supervisors.
A recent request submitted to the Board of Supervisors for a central sewerage system can be found here.
13. [Question] Is there any outdoor equipment associated with the proposed onsite wastewater treatment facility?
14. [Question] Where are the existing/proposed drainfields as noted on Sheet C-001?
15. [Question] A new well is proposed for the new warehouse on Parcel 4P. Does the existing 10,000 square foot
warehouse at the rear of Parcel 4A already have its own well?How is this structure being provided water?
16. [Section 32.7.9.5 and 32.7.9.6]Planting islands will be needed to reasonably disperse the required plant materials.
Albemarle County Planning Services(ARB)—Margaret Maliszewski,MMaliszewski@albemarle.org—Requested change.
1. Landscaping shown on the pre-application plan does not meet the Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines.In
particular,see EC requirements for planting along the EC frontage,at parking lot perimeters,at the interior of
parking lots,and along roads/travelways.Note that undelground water lines and overhead power lines are in place
along the EC.Frontage planting areas will need to be increased to avoid conflicts between required landscaping
and utilities/easements.
2. There are potential issues with the proposed retaining walls in terms of height,location,and appearance.Along
the EC frontage and along the entrance drives,space should be provided on site for planting at the base of the
walls.This is in addition to other landscaping requirements referenced above and in the EC guidelines.The 16'
wall proposed at the back of the site is expected to be visible from the EC.EC guidelines call for terracing and
planting of walls over 6' in height.Handrails visible from the EC must have an appropriate appearance for the
EC. Standard guard rail is not considered appropriate.
3. ARB approval of the architectural design of new buildings is required with the final site plan. Site sections should
be provided to clarify visibility of new buildings from the EC.
4. Details on the appearance of the wastewater treatment facility are required. Screening beyond the standard
guidelines minimums may be required.
5. Show how the pipes and storm drain at the EC frontage will have an appropriate appearance for the EC.
6. The demolition plan appears to show existing trees as"to remain"that are intended to be removed.
7. Include in the site plan an indication of display areas previously approved with SP-2001-01.
Albemarle County Engineering Services(Engineer)—Frank Pohl,foohl@,albemarle.org—Comments forthcoming.
Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue—Shawn Maddox,smaddox(aialbemarle.org—No objection.
Albemarle County Building Inspections—Michael Dellinger,mdellinger(a,albemarle.org —No objection.
ACSA—Alex Morrison,amorrison(aserviceauthority.org—Requested changes.
1. We have reviewed the pre-application submittal.Although this site is not within our Jurisdictional Area,we do
have a 16"water main across the frontage of the site.The water main shall be shown on the plans so the ACSA
can determine if any proposed improvements impact the water main.
itirginia Department of Transportation—Adam Moore,Adam.Moore@vdot.virginia.gov—Requested changes.
1. The entrance on Route 250 does not meet the minimum spacing of 470' for a minor arterial.
2. The entrance on Hunters Way closest to Route 250 does not meet minimum corner clearance of 225'.
Staff has provided references to the County Code.The Code is kept up-to-date by the County Attorney's office and may
be found at www.albemarle.org/countycode.
2
•
NTICELLO
Voluntary Guidelines for Development within Monticello's Viewshed
❑ Building colors and materials should be earth-toned and muted.
Bright pastels and whites on exterior faces of buildings and roofs can be distracting when viewing the
natural landscape from Monticello. Surfaces that are prone to glare and reflection increase visibility
and should be avoided whenever possible. Muted colors for roofs and walls that blend with the natural
landscape (ie.mid-spectrum browns and grays, sandy tones) can be substituted for bright pastels and whites
on building faces and roofs.
o Design strategies can break up building massing.
Articulation of building facades and roofs -as opposed to the monotony of flat/monolithic facades - can
break up building massing and help minimize the visual impact from Monticello.
a Parking lots should be relegated to the side of the building that minimizes visual impact and/or
plantings should be used to visually break up the parking areas.
When there is no conflict with Entrance Corridor or Neighborhood Model guidelines, the preferred
location for parking is on the far side of buildings as viewed from Monticello. Parking lots can be broken up
with interspersed plantings of trees and other landscaping.
❑ Landscaping and a mature tree line can help screen the view from Monticello.
Where possible, clear-cutting of trees should be avoided.Additional design consideration should be given
to development that breaks the mature tree line to camouflage visual impacts. Landscape screening should
employ mixed types and sizes of native species, especially those that will generate a lofty canopy. Long,
narrow borders of single-species planting should be avoided. If there is no conflict with county landscaping
requirements, lower limbs can be pruned to open ground-level views while protecting views from
Monticello.
a Lighting for buildings and parking areas should be minimal and shielded.
Flood lights, up-lights and exposed bulbs are more apparent in the night sky than shielded fixtures. Lighting
for buildings and parking areas can use shielded fixtures at lower heights to reduce impacts. Whenever
possible, lighting should not be placed higher than the tree line. Regardless of intensity of illumination,
lighting for buildings and parking areas should use full cut-off fixtures to reduce/eliminate glare.
Contact Liz Russell (lrussell@monticello.org) for more information.
EGR 2/18/14
Albemarle County Development Departments SDP-2003-104
SPIN Submission and Comment Floor Fashions of Virginia Minor
Engineering • •I.1 a°r>' nt revision 1
reviewer eceived reviewe decision
Allan Schuck 12/23/2003 1/15/2004 requested changes
The minor amendment to the fina • an or Floor Fashions of Virginia received on 23 December
2003 has been reviewed. The Engineering Department does not recommend approval of the minor
amendment until the following items are addressed:
1. The Engineering Department needs to see verification that the following agencies have approved the
new sewage treatment plant before recommending approval of this minor amendment:
(a) Thomas Jefferson Health District approval of the treatment and disposal system. [14-517;16-
202]
(b)Virginia De artm t of Environmental Quality approval of the treatment and disposal system.
2. The Engineering Department needs to review and approve the system design. Please provide. [16-
103;16-105]
3. Please show the Albemarle County Engineering General Construction Notes for Site Plans on the
plans. [Policy]
4. Please update the minor amendment to show existing site conditions if the current drawing is
resubmitted Otherwise, a smaller scale drawing that depicts the system in correlation to existing
conditions may be used.
1/22/2004 05:09 PM Page 2 of 4
4 __X____ -1---Pr(i° C
fii,tee
ct, j62--
History to pull
D -104 minor_suspendedV
S P2003 Floor Fashion— e'L'Ileer
0 SPP1996-20 Ryder Enterprise-major_deferred,,K V �et$
®SDP-218 Lowes of Charlottesville_approved 5-3-1971 '� >
O SDP2004-53 Amerigas_approved 8-9-2004 --? 1, S- 6` ���3�
•SDP2017-48 Floor Fashions Preapplication Plan apprd<ed 8-17-2017 `'
P2001-1 Bev Tractor , z* -4/ M., /y / al„P1999-68 Bev Tracto7aip i� /S 41°�')` ` e" •�O�- ti,(4 •
*_:7,--
V
"Y'
o
ar- el,
_hristopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Thursday,June 20, 2019 2:29 PM
To: Sean Tubbs
Subject: RE: question about SDP201900025 - Lowes and Floor Fashion
Attachments: VA0092720_Permit_2015.pdf
Sean,
nom
Christopher Perez I Senior Planner
Department of Community Development(County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 Mclntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902
434 296 5832 ext.3443
From:Sean Tubbs<stubbs@pecva.org>
Sent:Thursday,June 20, 2019 2:25 PM
To: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Subject: Re: question about SDP201900025- Lowes and Floor Fashion
Christopher,
Thanks- I assumed that was the issue and just wanted to clarify.Thank you!
Sean
On Thu,Jun 20, 2019 at 2:21 PM Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>wrote:
Sean,
SDP201900025 - Lowes and Floor Fashion—Major Site Plan Amendment
I spoke to the applicant and apparently his use of the title "Lowes" on the application was a carryover title
from the previously approved site plans on the property. He has confirmed there is not a Lowes planned for
this site; rather, it's currently Floor Fashion. The proposed uses onsite are to be commercial, office, and
warehouse.
Christopher Perez I Senior Planner
Department of Community Development(County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296 5832 ext.3443
From:Sean Tubbs<stubbs@pecva.org>
Sent:Friday,June 14, 2019 1:09 PM
To:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Subject:question about SDP201900025- Lowes and Floor Fashion
1
Christopher,
Hello! I'm reviewing submissions from Albemarle, and reviewing SDP201900025. I'm wondering if this an expansion of
the Floor Fashion store,or if there's a great significance of the word Lowes associated with this site plan.
Thanks!
Sean Tubbs
Field Representative, Piedmont Environmental Council
Albemarle, Charlottesville and Greene
434-977-2033, ext. 7046
434-422-2375(cell)
Contributions like yours make the work PEC does possible. Become a member or donate today to continue to restore and
protect this beautiful place we love!
Sean Tubbs
Field Representative, Piedmont Environmental Council
Albemarle, Charlottesville and Greene
434-977-2033, ext. 7046
434-422-2375 (cell)
Contributions like yours make the work PEC does possible. Become a member or donate today to continue to restore and
protect this beautiful place we love!
2
Christopher Perez
From: Sean Tubbs <stubbs@pecva.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 2:25 PM
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: Re: question about SDP201900025 - Lowes and Floor Fashion
Christopher,
Thanks - I assumed that was the issue and just wanted to clarify.Thank you!
Sean
On Thu,Jun 20, 2019 at 2:21 PM Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>wrote:
Sean,
SDP201900025 - Lowes and Floor Fashion—Major Site Plan Amendment
I spoke to the applicant and apparently his use of the title "Lowes" on the application was a carryover title
from the previously approved site plans on the property. He has confirmed there is not a Lowes planned for
this site; rather, it's currently Floor Fashion. The proposed uses onsite are to be commercial, office, and
warehouse.
Christopher Perez I Semor Planner
Department of Community Development(County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville.VA 22902
434 296 5832 ext.3443
From:Sean Tubbs<stubbs@pecva.org>
Sent: Friday,June 14, 2019 1:09 PM
To: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Subject:question about SDP201900025- Lowes and Floor Fashion
Christopher,
Hello! I'm reviewing submissions from Albemarle, and reviewing SDP201900025. I'm wondering if this an expansion of
the Floor Fashion store, or if there's a great significance of the word Lowes associated with this site plan.
Thanks!
1
Sean Tubbs
Field Representative, Piedmont Environmental Council
Albemarle, Charlottesville and Greene
434-977-2033,ext. 7046
434-422-2375 (cell)
Contributions like yours make the work PEC does possible. Become a member or donate today to continue to restore and
protect this beautiful place we love!
Sean Tubbs
Field Representative, Piedmont Environmental Council
Albemarle, Charlottesville and Greene
434-977-2033, ext. 7046
434-422-2375 (cell)
Contributions like yours make the work PEC does possible. Become a member or donate today to continue to restore and
protect this beautiful place we love!
2
Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 2:22 PM
To: Sean Tubbs
Subject: RE: question about SDP201900025 - Lowes and Floor Fashion
Sean,
SDP201900025 - Lowes and Floor Fashion—Major Site Plan Amendment
I spoke to the applicant and apparently his use of the title "Lowes" on the application was a carryover title from
the previously approved site plans on the property. He has confirmed there is not a Lowes planned for this site;
rather, it's currently Floor Fashion. The proposed uses onsite are to be commercial, office, and warehouse.
Christopher Perez I Senior Planner
Department of Community Development'County of Albemarle,Viral =a
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902
434 296.5832 ext.3443
From:Sean Tubbs<stubbs@pecva.org>
Sent: Friday,June 14, 2019 1:09 PM
To:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Subject: question about SDP201900025- Lowes and Floor Fashion
Christopher,
Hello! I'm reviewing submissions from Albemarle,and reviewing SDP201900025. I'm wondering if this an expansion of
the Floor Fashion store,or if there's a great significance of the word Lowes associated with this site plan.
Thanks!
Sean Tubbs
Field Representative, Piedmont Environmental Council
Albemarle, Charlottesville and Greene
434-977-2033,ext. 7046
434-422-2375 (cell)
Contributions like yours make the work PEC does possible. Become a member or donate today to continue to restore and
protect this beautiful place we love!
1
June 20,2019
Phone call w/ Sean Tubbs of The Piedmont Env Council
After receiving email contact from Sean on this project, I placed a phone call with him asking
him what his organization reviews for as I had never received communication from them before.
He said they promote and protect the Piedmont area's rural economy, natural resources, and
history. They review development projects or anything in the area that effects environmental
features,natural resources, and anything that effects historic properties. We then discussed what
the project for Floor Fashion entailed.
Christopher Perez
From: Sean Tubbs <stubbs@pecva.org>
Sent: Friday,June 14, 2019 1:09 PM
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: question about SDP201900025 - Lowes and Floor Fashion
Christopher,
Hello! I'm reviewing submissions from Albemarle, and reviewing SDP201900025. I'm wondering if this an expansion of
the Floor Fashion store,or if there's a great significance of the word Lowes associated with this site plan.
Thanks!
Sean Tubbs
Field Representative, Piedmont Environmental Council
Albemarle, Charlottesville and Greene
434-977-2033,ext. 7046
434-422-2375 (cell)
Contributions like yours make the work PEC does possible. Become a member or donate today to continue to restore and
protect this beautiful place we love!
1
Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Thursday,June 20, 2019 2:22 PM
To:
Subject: FW: Floor as lion WWTP Permit
Attachments: VA0092720_Permit_2015.pdf
distat y
From:tmiller@meridianwbe.com <tmiller@meridianwbe.com>
Sent:Thursday,June 20, 2019 2:19 PM
To:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Subject: Floor Fashion WWTP Permit
Chris,
Here is the Permit for the WWTP.
Thanks,
Timothy Miller, P.E., L.S.
Principal
434-882-0121
www.meridianwbe.com
4.-- Meridian
Planning Group
1
Christopher Perez
From: tmiller@meridianwbe.com
Sent: Thursday,June 20, 2019 2:19 PM
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: Floor Fashion WWTP Permit
Attachments: VA0092720_Permit_2015.pdf
Chris,
Thanks,
Timothy Miller, P.E., L.S.
Principal
434-882-0121
www.meridianwbe.com
4, Meridian
Planning Group
i
rf
Toe
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
VALLEY REGIONAL OFFICE
Molly Joseph Ward 4411 Early Road,P.O.Box 3000,Harrisonburg,Virginia 22801 David K.Paylor
Secretary of Natural Resources (540)574-7800 Fax(540)574-7878 Director
www.deq.virginia.gov Amy Thatcher Owens
Regional Director
July 6,2015
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Phillip Ryder
Ryder Enterprises,LLC
PO Box 6778
Charlottesville,VA 22906
Re: Issuance, VPDES Permit No. VA0092720,Ryder Enterprises WWTP
Dear Mr. Ryder:
The enclosed permit has been approved. This permit action consisted of issuing a permit for a
proposed facility for the discharge of treated wastewater. The first Discharge Monitoring Report(DMR)
for the month ending July 31,2015 is due by August 10,2015. A paper DMR is not enclosed; however,
an electronic DMR is available through the e-DMR program for submitting the effluent data. The e-DMR
program provides the following benefits:
1) Fewer revisions for data since the e-DMR program automatically flags omissions before the
data are submitted;
2) Cost savings on postage,copying, and paper;
3) No concerns about using the most current DMR—e-DMR refreshes the required parameters
automatically when changes are needed;
4) Submittals can be made on a timelier basis; and • .; �,:_,:�, �a,.k:, y m��;�,,��.:4.,-,�...
5) Electronic signatures from multiple people are allowed and e-DMR can be accessed from
multiple computer locations.
Please register for e-DMR participation now. This should allow the e-DMR application to be
processed prior to the first DMR due date for this reissuance to avoid noncompliance with the permit
reporting requirements. Please contact Brandon Kiracofe at 540-574-7892 or
brandon.kiracofe@a,deq.virginia.gov as soon as possible if you need to request an exception from using e-
DMR.
Our regional DMR administrator, Linda Ferguson-Davie(540-574-7806, linda.ferguson-
davie@deq.virginia.gov)can assist you with e-DMR and further details can be found at
http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/Water/PermittingCompl iance/ElectronicDMRsubmissions.aspx
Please note that parameters with a sampling frequency less than monthly,the parameter will only be
reflected in the e-DMR in the months designated by the permit.
•
Permit No.VA0092720
Ryder Enterprises WWTP
Page 2
As provided by Rule 2A:2 of the Supreme Court of Virginia,you have thirty days from the date
of service(the date you actually received this decision or the date it was mailed to you,whichever
occurred first)within which to appeal this decision by filing a notice of appeal in accordance with the
Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia with the Director,Department of Environmental Quality. In the
event that this decision is served on you by mail,three days are added to that period.
Alternatively, any owner under§§ 62.1 -44.16, 62.1 -44.17,and 62.1 -44.19 of the State Water
Control Law aggrieved by any action of the State Water Control Board taken without a formal hearing,or
by inaction of the Board,may demand in writing a formal hearing of such owner's grievance,provided a
petition requesting such hearing is filed with the Board. Said petition must meet the requirements set
forth in §1.23(b)of the Board's Procedural Rule No. 1. In cases involving actions of the Board, such
petition must be filed within thirty days after notice of such action is mailed to such owner by certified
mail.
Please be aware that other regulatory requirements may also apply to this facility. For example,
development of the proposed site or,further development of this site may require review or approval
under other federal, State,or local programs. Also,any construction activities in surface waters or
wetlands may require permit authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and/or DEQ. Please
contact Brandon Kiracofe at(540) 574-7892 or brandon.kiracofe@deq.virginia.gov to find out more
about these additional permit requirements.
If you have questions about this permit, please contact Brandon Kiracofe at 540-574-7892 or
brandon.kiracofe@deq.virginia.gov.
Sin erely,
•
Amy T. Owens
Regional Director
Enclosure: Permit No.VA0092720
cc: L. Ferguson-Davie—VRO(electronic)
B.Maddox-VRO(electronic)
FileNet—VA0092720
•
MEMORANDUM
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
VALLEY REGIONAL OFFICE
4411 Early Road- P.O. Box 3000 Harrisonburg, VA 22801
SUBJECT: Issuance of VPDES Permit No. VA0092720, Ryder Enterprises WWTP
TO: Deputy Regional Director
FROM: Regional Water Permits & Compliance Manager 61.
DATE: July 6, 2015
COPIES: VRO Permit Processing File
Other Agency Comments: DGIF and DCR provided comments on the draft permit. See Item
27 of the Fact Sheet.
No other agency comments were received.
Public Notice Comments: During the 30-day public comment period of the draft permit DEQ
received 78 comments by email or letter. All of the comments
objected to the draft permit, and 75 of the comments included a
request for a public hearing. Based on a review of the requests for
public hearing received during the public comment period, a decision
to hold a public hearing was approved on February 6, 2015. DEQ
held the public hearing on April 9, 2015. DEQ also provided an
informational session prior to the hearing so that questions could be
asked and answered prior to the hearing. Eleven people attended the
public hearing with 4, including the applicant,providing oral
comments during the public hearing.
The additional public comment period associated with the hearing
was open from March 6, 2015,through April 24, 2015. No
comments other than the oral comments presented at the public
hearing were received during this comment period.
Board Action: The permit action was presented to the Board on June 25, 2015.
By a unanimous vote, the Board voted to authorize the issuance of
VPDES Permit No. VA0092720 as presented.
Staff Comments: Processing of this permit was delayed by the need to hold a hearing
and present this permit at the Board meeting.
lit Required Special Condition and e-DMR Due :s*
Facility Name:Ryder Enterprises W WTP Permit No:VA0092720
Special Condition I Due Date
Submit VPDES Permit Application 1/2/2020
Obtain CTC/CTO Prior to constructing and operating
*This list is intended to assist the permittee;however,it is not intended to supersede any permit requirements.
e-DMR Monitorin Periods and Due Dates Based on Calendar Reporting
Permit Effective Date Monitoring Start Date I Reporting Frequency 1"DMR Due Date Monitoring Period Example
8/1/2015 8/1/2015 Monthly 9/10/2015 8/1/2015-8/31/15
8/1/2015 1/1/2016 Annual 1/10/2017 1/1/2016-12/31/2016
....: -:. <. .� ,.: ,._. .Y.,ic.1-r..tO":_,%u,S 4t:i*,k!•x'�:1n..v e..,...�..5:(..iJ,....� b .=�yy_._�.: _ .. .,� ,.,. -- >. _. .. ...S.. -. ...i.i .�.,.........n a... _ t.,.. ...-}
d
'tiP447.-----
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Permit No.VA0092720
Effective Date: July 6,2015
Expiration Date: June 30,2020
AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE
VIRGINIA POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
AND
THE VIRGINIA STATE WATER CONTROL LAW
In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act as amended and pursuant to the State Water Control
Law and regulations adopted pursuant thereto,the following owner is authorized to discharge in accordance
with the information submitted with the permit application,and with this permit cover page,Part I-
Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements, and Part II-Conditions Applicable To All VPDES
Permits,as set forth herein.
Owner: Ryder Enterprises,LLC
Facility Name: Ryder Enterprises WWTP
County: Albemarle
Facility Location: 2305 Hunters Way,Charlottesville
The owner is authorized to discharge to the following receiving stream:
Stream: Barn Branch,U.T.
River Basin: James(Middle)
River Subbasin: N/A
Section: 10
Class: III
Special Standards: None
11-
Amy T. Owens, egional Director
Valley egiona Office (S
-- �
t
Date
Permit No.VA0092720
Part I
Page 1 of 7
A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
1. During the period beginning with the permit's effective date and lasting until the permit's expiration date,the permittee is authorized to discharge from Outfall 001.
This discharge shall be limited and monitored as specified below:
EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monthly Average Weekly Average Minimum Maximum Frequency Sample Type
Flow(MGD)' NL NA NA NL 1/Day Estimate
pH(standard units) NA NA 6.0 9.0 1/Day Grab
CBOD5(Jun-Nov)' 10 mg/L 0.57 kg/d 15 mg/L 0.85 kg/d NA NA 1/Month Grab
CBOD5(Dec-May)' 17 mg/L 0.97 kg/d 26 mg/L 1.5 kg/d NA NA 1/Month Grab
Suspended Solids e,d 30 mg/L 1.7 kg/d 45 mg/L 2.6 kg/d NA NA I/Month Grab
126 4/Month
E.coli(N/100 mL)b Geometric Mean NA NA NA 10 a.m.to 4 p.m. Grab
Dissolved Oxygen(mg/L) NA NA 5.0 NA 1/Day Grab
Ammonia-N(Jun-Nov)(mg/L)` . 4.4 4.4 NA NA 1/Month Grab
Ammonia-N(Dec-May)(mg/L)` F 6.3 6.3 NA NA 1/Month Grab
Total Phosphorus—Year to Date(mg/L)° NL NA NA NA 1/Month Calculated
Total Phosphorus—Calendar Year(mg/L)` 1.0 NA NA NA 1/Year Calculated
Total Nitrogen—Year to Date(mg/L)' ; NL NA NA NA 1/Month Calculated
Total Nitrogen—Calendar Year(mg/L)` 5.0 NA NA NA 1/Year Calculated
NL=No Limitation,monitoring required NA =Not Applicable
4/Month=4 samples taken monthly, with at least 1 sample taken each calendar week
1/Year=Annual sampling with the results submitted with the DMR due January le of each year
a. The design flow of this treatment facility is 0.015 MGD. See Part I.D.I.for additional requirements related to facility flows.
b. See Part I.B.for alternative disinfection requirements.
c. See Part I.C.for additional monitoring and reporting instructions.
d. At least 85%removal for TSS must be attained for this discharge.
e. In addition to any Total Nitrogen or Total Phosphorus concentration limits(or monitoring requirements without associated limits)listed above,this facility has Total Nitrogen and
Total Phosphorus calendar year load limits associated with this outfall included in the current Registration List under registration number VAN040170,enforceable under the
General VPDES Watershed Permit Regulation for Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus Discharges and Nutrient Trading in the Chesapeake Watershed in Virginia.
f. There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
t
,
i.-
Permit No.VA0092720
Part I
Page 2 of 7
B. TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE(TRC)AND E. COLI LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING
REQUIREMENTS
If chlorination is chosen as a disinfection method,TRC and E. coli shall be limited and monitored by the
permittee as specified below.
1. Effluent TRC shall be monitored,following dechlorination, 1/Day by grab sample and limited as
specified below:
Monthly Average Weekly Average
TRC(mg/L) 0.0080 0.0098
2. TRC shall be monitored at the outlet of each operating chlorine contact tank, prior to dechlorination,
1/Day by grab sample.
3. No more than 3 samples for TRC taken after each operating chlorine contact tank, prior to dechlorination,
shall be less than 1.0 mg/L for any one calendar month.
4. No TRC sample collected at the outlet of any operating chlorine contact tank,prior to dechlorination,
shall be less than 0.6 mg/L.
5. E. coli limitations and monitoring:
Discharge Limit Monitoring Requirements
Monthly Average Frequency Sample Type
E. coli 126 4/Month in any month of Grab
(N/100 mL) (Geometric Mean) each calendar year*
10 a.m.to 4 p.m.
*4/Month in any month of each calendar year=4 samples taken,with at least 1 sample taken
each calendar week, in any calendar month and reported with the December DMR due January
10`h of every year
The requirements in Part I.B.I-5 above, if applicable,shall substitute for the E. coli requirements specified in
Part I.A.
C. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS-ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS
1. The quantification levels(QLs) shall be less than or equal to the following concentrations:
Effluent Characteristic OL
CBOD5 2 mg/L
Suspended Solids 1.0 mg/L
Chlorine 0.10 mg/L
Ammonia-N 0.20 mg/L •
The QL is defined as the lowest concentration used to calibrate a measurement system in accordance with
the procedures published for the method. It is the responsibility of the permittee to ensure that proper
quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC)protocols are followed during the sampling and analytical
procedures. QA/QC information shall be documented to confirm that appropriate analytical procedures
have been used and the required QLs have been attained.The permittee shall use any method in
accordance with Part II.A of this permit.
Permit No. VA0092720
Part I
Page 3 of 7
2. Compliance Reporting
a. Monthly Average—Compliance with the monthly average limitations and/or reporting requirements
for the parameters listed in Part I.C.1 shall be determined as follows: All concentration data below the
QL used for the analysis shall be treated as zero. All concentration data equal to or above the QL
used for the analysis shall be treated as it is reported. An arithmetic average shall be calculated using
all reported data for the month, including the defined zeros. This arithmetic average shall be reported
on the Discharge Monitoring Report(DMR)as calculated. If all data are below the QL used for the
analysis,then the average shall be reported as"<QL". If reporting for quantity is required on the
DMR and the reported monthly average concentration is<QL,then report"<QL"for the quantity.
Otherwise use the reported concentration data(including the defined zeros)and flow data for each
sample day to determine the daily quantity and report the monthly average of the calculated daily
quantities
b. Weekly Average—Compliance with the weekly average limitations and/or reporting requirements for
the parameters listed in Part I.C.I shall be determined as follows: All concentration data below the
QL used for the analysis shall be treated as zero. All concentration data equal to or above the QL
used for the analysis shall be treated as reported. An arithmetic average shall be calculated using all
reported data, including the defined zeros, collected within each complete calendar week and entirely
contained within the reporting month. The maximum value of the weekly averages thus determined
shall be reported on the DMR. If all data are below the QL used for the analysis,then the weekly
average shall be reported as "<QL". If reporting for quantity is required on the DMR and the reported
weekly average concentration is<QL,then report"<QL" for the quantity. Otherwise use the reported
concentration data(including the defined zeros)and flow data for each sample day to determine the
daily quantity and report the maximum weekly average of the calculated daily quantities.
c. Any single datum required shall be reported as "<QL" if it is less than the QL used for the analysis.
Otherwise the numerical value shall be reported.
d. The permittee shall report at least the same number of significant digits as the permit limit for a given
parameter.Regardless of the rounding convention used(i.e., 5 always rounding up or to the nearest
even number)by the permittee,the permittee shall use the convention consistently,and shall ensure
that consulting laboratories employed by the permittee use the same convention.
e. Nutrient reporting calculations—The reporting calculations below shall be performed using the
concentration monitoring required by the general_permit,VAN040170.
For each calendar month,the DMR shall show the calendar year-to-date average concentration
(mg/L)calculated in accordance with the following formula:
ACavg YTD=(E(Jan-current month)MCavg)-(#of months)
where:
ACavgYTD=calendar year-to-date average concentration(mg/L)
MCavg=monthly average concentration (mg/L)as reported on DMR
The Total Nitrogen(TN)and Total Phosphorus(TP)average concentrations(mg/L)for each calendar
year(AC) shall be shown on the December DMR due January 10th of the following year. These
values shall be calculated in accordance with the following formula:
ACavg=(E(Jan. ec)MCavg)_ 12
Permit No. VA0092720
Part I
Page 4 of 7
where:
ACan=calendar year average concentration(mg/L)
MCavg=monthly average concentration(mg/L)as reported on DMR
For TP, all daily concentration data below the quantification level (QL)for the analytical method
used shall be treated as half the QL.All daily concentration data equal to or above the QL for the
analytical method used shall be treated as it is reported.
For TN, if none of the daily concentration data for the respective species(i.e.,TKN,Nitrates/Nitrites)
are equal to or above the QL for the respective analytical methods used,the daily TN concentration
value reported shall equal one half of the largest QL used for the respective species. If one of the data
is equal to or above the QL,the daily TN concentration value shall be treated as that data point is
reported. If more than one of the data is above the QL,the daily TN concentration value shall equal
the sum of the data points as reported.
D. OTHER REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS
1. 95%Capacity Reopener—A written notice and a plan of action for ensuring continued compliance with
the terms of this permit shall be submitted to the DEQ-Valley Regional Office when the monthly average
influent flow to the wastewater treatment facility reaches 95 percent of the design capacity authorized in
this permit for each month of any three consecutive month period. The written notice shall be submitted
within 30 days and the plan of action shall be received at the DEQ-Valley Regional Office no later than
90 days from the third consecutive month for which the flow reached 95 percent of the design capacity.
The plan shall include the necessary steps and a prompt schedule of implementation for controlling any
current or reasonably anticipated problem resulting from high influent flows. Failure to submit an
adequate plan in a timely manner shall be deemed a violation of this permit.
2. Indirect Dischargers—The permittee shall provide adequate notice to the DEQ-Valley Regional Office of
the following:
a. Any new introduction of pollutants into the treatment works from an indirect discharger which would
be subject to Section 301 or 306 of the Clean Water Act and the State Water Control Law if it were
directly discharging those pollutants; and
b. Any substantial change in the volume or character of pollutants being introduced into the treatment
works by a source introducing pollutants into the treatment works at the time of issuance of this
Adequate notice shall include information on 1)the quality and quantity of effluent introduced into the
treatment works,and 2)any anticipated impact of the change on the quantity or quality of effluent to be
discharged from the treatment works.
3. Materials Handling/Storage—Any and all product, materials, industrial wastes,and/or other wastes
resulting from the purchase, sale,mining,extraction,transport, preparation, and/or storage of raw or
intermediate materials,final product, by-product or wastes, shall be handled,disposed of, and/or stored in
such a manner so as not to permit a discharge of such product, materials, industrial wastes,and/or other
wastes to State waters,except as expressly authorized.
Permit No. VA0092720
Part I
Page 5 of 7
4. Operation and Maintenance(O&M)Manual Requirement—The permittee shall maintain a current O&M
Manual for the treatment works that is in accordance with Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Regulations,9VAC25-31 and (for sewage treatment plants) Sewage Collection and Treatment
Regulations,9VAC25-790.
The O&M Manual and subsequent revisions shall include the manual effective date and meet Part II.K.2
and Part II.K.4 Signatory Requirements of the permit. Any changes in the practices and procedures
followed by the permittee shall be documented in the O&M Manual within 90 days of the effective date
of the changes. The permittee shall operate the treatment works in accordance with the O&M Manual and
shall make the O&M Manual available to DEQ personnel for review during facility inspections. Within
30 days of a request by DEQ,the current O&M Manual shall be submitted to the DEQ-Valley Regional
Office for review and approval.
The O&M Manual shall detail the practices and procedures which will be followed to ensure compliance
with the requirements of this permit. This manual shall include,but not necessarily be limited to,the '
following items, as appropriate:
a. Permitted outfall locations and techniques to be employed in the collection, preservation,and analysis
of effluent, storm water,and sludge samples;
b. Procedures for measuring and recording the duration and volume of treated wastewater discharged;
c. Discussion of Best Management Practices, if applicable;
d. Procedures for handling, storing,and disposing of all wastes,fluids, and pollutants characterized in
Part I.D.3 that will prevent these materials from reaching state waters. List type and quantity of
wastes, fluids,and pollutants(e.g. chemicals)stored at this facility;
e. Discussion of treatment works design, treatment works operation,routine preventative maintenance
of units within the treatment works,critical spare parts inventory and record keeping;
f. Plan for the management and/or disposal of waste solids and residues;
g. Hours of operation and staffing requirements for the plant to ensure effective operation of the
treatment works and maintain permit compliance;
h. List of facility, local, and state emergency contacts;
i. Procedures for reporting and responding to any spills/overflows/treatment works upsets; and
j. Procedures for documenting compliance with the permit requirement that there shall be no discharge
of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
5. Certificate to Construct(CTC)/Certificate to Operate(CTO)Requirement—The permittee shall, in
accordance with the DEQ Sewage Collection and Treatment Regulation(9VAC25-790),obtain a CTC
and a CTO prior to constructing and operating the wastewater treatment works. Noncompliance with the
CTC or CTO shall be deemed a violation of the permit.
6. Sludge Management Plan(SMP)Requirement—The permittee shall conduct all sewage sludge use or
disposal activities in accordance with the SMP approved with the issuance of this permit. Any proposed
changes in the sewage sludge use or disposal practices or procedures followed by the permittee shall be
documented and submitted for DEQ approval 90 days prior to the effective date of the changes. Upon
approval,the SMP becomes an enforceable part of the permit. This permit may be modified or,
alternatively,revoked and reissued to incorporate limitations/conditions necessitated by substantive
changes in sewage sludge use or disposal practices.
7. Licensed Operator Requirement—The permittee shall employ or contract at least one Class IV licensed
wastewater works operator for this facility. The license shall be issued in accordance with Title 54.1 of
the Code of Virginia and the regulations of the Board for Waterworks and Wastewater Works Operators.
The permittee shall notify the DEQ-Valley Regional Office in writing whenever he is not complying, or
has grounds for anticipating he will not comply with this requirement. The notification shall include a
statement of reasons and a prompt schedule for achieving compliance.
Permit No. VA0092720
Part I
Page 6 of 7
8. Reliability Class—The permitted treatment works shall meet Reliability Class II. Prior to the installation
of a generator or other equipment that would allow the water supply to the property to be operable during
a power outage, the permitted treatment works shall meet Reliability Class I.
9. Treatment Works Closure Plan—If the permittee plans an expansion or upgrade to replace the existing
treatment works,or if the facility is permanently closed,the permittee shall submit to the DEQ-Valley
Regional Office a closure plan for the existing treatment works. The plan shall address the following
information as a minimum: Verification of elimination of sources and/or alternate treatment scheme;
treatment, removal and final disposition of residual wastewater and solids;removal/demolition/disposal
of structures,equipment, piping and appurtenances; site grading, and erosion and sediment control;
restoration of site vegetation;access control; fill materials; and proposed land use(post-closure)of the
site. The plan should contain proposed dates for beginning and completion of the work. The plan must
be approved by the DEQ prior to implementation. The permittee may continue discharging until the
effluent no longer meets the permit limits or the permit expires, whichever occurs first.
10. Reopeners—This permit may be modified or, alternatively, revoked and reissued:
a. If any approved waste load allocation procedure, pursuant to Section 303(d)of the Clean Water Act,
imposes waste load allocations, limits or conditions on the facility that are not consistent with the
permit requirements; or
b. To incorporate technology-based effluent concentration limitations for nutrients in conjunction with
the installation of nutrient control technology,whether by new construction,expansion or upgrade; or
c. To incorporate alternative nutrient limitations and/or monitoring requirements, should:
(1) the State Water Control Board adopt new nutrient standards for the water body receiving the
discharge, including the Chesapeake Bay or its tributaries; or
(2) a future water quality regulation or statute require new or alternative nutrient control;or
d. If any applicable standard for sewage sludge use or disposal promulgated under Section 405(d)of the
Clean Water Act is more stringent than any requirements for sludge use or disposal in this permit, or
controls a pollutant or practice not limited in this permit.
11. Offset Requirement—Any annual Total Nitrogen and/or Total Phosphorus loadings above and beyond
those permitted prior to July 1,2005 shall be offset subject to a DEQ-approved trading contract prepared
in accordance with § 62.1-44.19:12- :19 of the Law and 9 VAC 25-820-10 et seq.,and which includes,
but is not limited to,the following:
a. Discussion of the source of the acquired allocations,
b. Discussion of other permitted facilities involved in the trade,and
c. Discussion of any non-point source allocations acquired.
This proposal shall provide for the waste loads that are projected to be discharged on an annual basis for
the term of this permit,and shall be approved prior to the commencement of discharge from the new or
expanded facility. Once approved,the conditions of the proposal pertaining to verification of non-point
allocations acquired,or self-offsetting practices implemented, become an enforceable part of this permit.
Permit No. VA0092720
Part I
Page 7 of 7
12. The annual average concentration limitations for TN and/or TP are suspended during any calendar year in
which the facility is considered by DEQ to be a participant in the Virginia Environmental Excellence
Program in good standing at either the Exemplary Environmental Enterprise(E3) level or the
Extraordinary Environmental Enterprise(E4) level,provided that the following conditions have also been
met:
a. The facility has applied for(or renewed)participation,been accepted,maintained a record of
sustained compliance and submitted an annual report according to the program guidelines;
b. The facility has demonstrated that they have in place a fully implemented environmental management
system(EMS)with an alternative compliance method that includes operation of installed nutrient
removal technologies to achieve the annual average concentration limitations; and
c. The E3/E4 designation from DEQ and implementation of the EMS has been in effect for the full
calendar year.
The annual average concentration limitations for TN and/or TP, as applicable,are not suspended in any
calendar year following a year in which the facility failed to achieve the annual average concentration
limitations as required by b. above.
iermit No.VA0092720
Part II
Page 1 of 7
CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL VPDES PERMITS
A. Monitoring
1. Samples and measurements taken as required by this permit shall be taken at the permit designated or
approved location and be representative of the monitored activity.
a. Monitoring shall be conducted according to procedures approved under Title 40 Code of Federal
Regulations Part 136 or alternative methods approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
unless other procedures have been specified in this permit.
b. The permittee shall periodically calibrate and perform maintenance procedures on all monitoring and
analytical instrumentation at intervals that will insure accuracy of measurements.
c. Samples taken shall be analyzed in accordance with 1 VAC30-45,Certification for Noncommercial
Environmental Laboratories,or 1 VAC30-46,Accreditation for Commercial Environmental Laboratories.
2. Any pollutant specifically addressed by this permit that is sampled or measured at the permit designated or
approved location more frequently than required by this permit shall meet the requirements in Part I.A.1.a
through c above and the results of this monitoring shall be included in the calculations and reporting
required by this permit.
3. Operational or process control samples or measurements shall not be taken at the designated permit
sampling or measurement locations. Operational or process control samples or measurements do not need
to follow procedures approved under Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 136 or be analyzed in
accordance with I VAC30-45,Certification for Noncommercial Environmental Laboratories, or 1 VAC30-
46,Accreditation for Commercial Environmental Laboratories.
B. Records
1. Records of monitoring information shall include:
a. The date, exact place,and time of sampling or measurements;
b. The individual(s)who performed the sampling or measurements;
c. The date(s)and time(s)analyses were performed;
d. The individual(s)who performed the analyses;
e. The analytical techniques or methods used; and
f. The results of such analyses.
2. Except for records of monitoring information required by this permit related to the permittee's sewage
sludge use and disposal activities,which shall be retained for a period of at least five years,the permittee
shall retain records of all monitoring information, including all calibration and maintenance records and all
recordings for continuous monitoring instrumentation,copies of all reports required by this permit,and
records of all data used to complete the application for this permit,for a period of at least 3 years from the
date of the sample, measurement,report or application. This period of retention shall be extended
automatically during the course of any unresolved litigation regarding the regulated activity or regarding
control standards applicable to the permittee,or as requested by the Board.
C. Reporting Monitoring Results
1. The permittee shall submit the results of the monitoring required by this permit not later than the 10th day
of the month after the required monitoring period, unless another reporting schedule is specified elsewhere
in this permit. Monitoring results shall be submitted to:
Department of Environmental Quality
Valley Regional Office
P.O. Box 3000
Harrisonburg, Virginia 22801
2. Monitoring results shall be reported on a Discharge Monitoring Report(DMR)or on forms provided,
approved or specified by the Department.
3. Calculations for all limitations which require averaging of measurements shall utilize an arithmetic mean
unless otherwise specified in this permit.
Permit No.VA0092720
Part II
Page 2 of 7
D. Duty to Provide Information
The permittee shall furnish to the Department,within a reasonable time,any information which the Board may
request to determine whether cause exists for modifying,revoking and reissuing,or terminating this permit or
to determine compliance with this permit. The Board may require the permittee to furnish, upon request,such
plans, specifications, and other pertinent information as may be necessary to determine the effect of the wastes
from his discharge on the quality of state waters,or such other information as may be necessary to accomplish
the purposes of the State Water Control Law.The permittee shall also furnish to the Department upon request,
copies of records required to be kept by this permit.
E. Compliance Schedule Reports
Reports of compliance or noncompliance with, or any progress reports on, interim and final requirements
contained in any compliance schedule of this permit shall be submitted no later than 14 days following each
schedule date.
F. Unauthorized Discharges
Except in compliance with this permit,or another permit issued by the Board, it shall be unlawful for any
person to:
1. Discharge into state waters sewage, industrial wastes,other wastes, or any noxious or deleterious
substances; or
2. Otherwise alter the physical,chemical or biological properties of such state waters and make them
detrimental to the public health,or to animal or aquatic life,or to the use of such waters for domestic or
industrial consumption,or for recreation,or for other uses.
G. Reports of Unauthorized Discharges
Any permittee who discharges or causes or allows a discharge of sewage, industrial waste,other wastes or any
noxious or deleterious substance into or upon state waters in violation of Part II.F; or who discharges or causes
or allows a discharge that may reasonably be expected to enter state waters in violation of Part II.F, shall notify
the Department of the discharge immediately upon discovery of the discharge,but in no case later than 24
hours after said discovery.A written report of the unauthorized discharge shall be submitted to the Department,
within five days of discovery of the discharge.The written report shall contain:
1. A description of the nature and location of the discharge;
2. The cause of the discharge;
3. The date on which the discharge occurred;
4. The length of time that the discharge continued;
5. The volume of the discharge;
6. If the discharge is continuing, how long it is expected to continue;
7. If the discharge is continuing,what the expected total volume of the discharge will be;and
8. Any steps planned or taken to reduce,eliminate and prevent a recurrence of the present discharge or any
future discharges not authorized by this permit.
Discharges reportable to the Department under the immediate reporting requirements of other regulations are
exempted from this requirement.
H. Reports of Unusual or Extraordinary Discharges
If any unusual or extraordinary discharge including a bypass or upset should occur from a treatment works and
the discharge enters or could be expected to enter state waters,the permittee shall promptly notify, in no case
later than 24 hours,the Department by telephone after the discovery of the discharge. This notification shall
provide all available details of the incident, including any adverse affects on aquatic life and the known number
of fish killed.The permittee shall reduce the report to writing and shall submit it to the Department within five
days of discovery of the discharge in accordance with Part II.I.2. Unusual and extraordinary discharges include
but are not limited to any discharge resulting from:
1. Unusual spillage of materials resulting directly or indirectly from processing operations;
2. Breakdown of processing or accessory equipment;
3. Failure or taking out of service some or all of the treatment works;and
4. Flooding or other acts of nature.
_permit No.VA0092720
Part II
Page 3 of 7
I. Reports of Noncompliance
The permittee shall report any noncompliance which may adversely affect state waters or may endanger public
health.
1. An oral report shall be provided within 24 hours from the time the permittee becomes aware of the
circumstances. The following shall be included as information which shall be reported within 24 hours
under this paragraph:
a. Any unanticipated bypass;and
b. Any upset which causes a discharge to surface waters.
2. A written report shall be submitted within 5 days and shall contain:
a. A description of the noncompliance and its cause;
b. The period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times, and if the noncompliance has not been
corrected,the anticipated time it is expected to continue; and
c. Steps taken or planned to reduce,eliminate,and prevent reoccurrence of the noncompliance.
The Board may waive the written report on a case-by-case basis for reports of noncompliance under Part
II.I if the oral report has been received within 24 hours and no adverse impact on state waters has been
reported.
3. The permittee shall report all instances of noncompliance not reported under Parts II.I.1 or 2, in writing, at
the time the next monitoring reports are submitted.The reports shall contain the information listed in Part
II.I.2.
NOTE: The immediate(within 24 hours) reports required in Parts II.G,H and I may be made to the
Department's Valley Regional Office at(540) 574-7892 (voice),(540)574-7878 (fax),or online at
http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/PollutionResponsePreparedness/MakingaReport.aspx.For reports outside normal
working hours,leave a message and this shall fulfill the immediate reporting requirement.For
emergencies,the Virginia Department of Emergency Services maintains a 24-hour telephone service at 1-
800-468-8892.
J. Notice of Planned Changes
1. The permittee shall give notice to the Department as soon as possible of any planned physical alterations or
additions to the permitted facility.Notice is required only when:
a. The permittee plans alteration or addition to any building, structure, facility, or installation from which
there is or may be a discharge of pollutants,the construction of which commenced:
(1) After promulgation of standards of performance under Section 306 of Clean Water Act which are
applicable to such source; or
(2) After proposal of standards of performance in accordance with Section 306 of Clean Water Act
which are applicable to such source, but only if the standards are promulgated in accordance with
Section 306 within 120 days of their proposal;
b. The alteration or addition could significantly change the nature or increase the quantity of pollutants
discharged.This notification applies to pollutants which are subject neither to effluent limitations nor
to notification requirements specified elsewhere in this permit; or
c. The alteration or addition results in a significant change in the permittee's sludge use or disposal
practices,and such alteration, addition, or change may justify the application of permit conditions that
are different from or absent in the existing permit, including notification of additional use or disposal
sites not reported during the permit application process or not reported pursuant to an approved land
application plan.
2. The permittee shall give advance notice to the Department of any planned changes in the permitted facility
or activity which may result in noncompliance with permit requirements.
Permit No.VA0092720
Part II
Page 4 of 7
K. Signatory Requirements
1. Applications. All permit applications shall be signed as follows:
a. For a corporation: by a responsible corporate officer.For the purpose of this section, a responsible
corporate officer means: (i)A president,secretary,treasurer,or
vice-president of the corporation in charge of a principal business function,or any other person who
performs similar policy-or decision-making functions for the corporation,or(ii)the manager of one or
more manufacturing, production,or operating facilities,provided the manager is authorized to make
management decisions which govern the operation of the regulated facility including having the
explicit or implicit duty of making major capital investment recommendations,and initiating and
directing other comprehensive measures to assure long term environmental compliance with
environmental laws and regulations;the manager can ensure that the necessary systems are established
or actions taken to gather complete and accurate information for permit application requirements;and
where authority to sign documents has been assigned or delegated to the manager in accordance with
corporate procedures;
b. For a partnership or sole proprietorship: by a general partner or the proprietor,respectively;or
c. For a municipality, state,federal,or other public agency: By either a principal executive officer or
ranking elected official. For purposes of this section,a principal executive officer of a public agency
includes: (i)The chief executive officer of the agency,or(ii)a senior executive officer having
responsibility for the overall operations of a principal geographic unit of the agency.
2. Reports, etc. All reports required by permits,and other information requested by the Board shall be signed
by a person described in Part II.K.1,or by a duly authorized representative of that person.A person is a
duly authorized representative only if:
a. The authorization is made in writing by a person described in Part II.K.1;
b. The authorization specifies either an individual or a position having responsibility for the overall
operation of the regulated facility or activity such as the position of plant manager, operator of a well or
a well field,superintendent, position of equivalent responsibility,or an individual or position having
overall responsibility for environmental matters for the company. (A duly authorized representative
may thus be either a named individual or any individual occupying a named position.);and
c. The written authorization is submitted to the Department.
3. Changes to authorization. If an authorization under Part II.K.2 is no longer accurate because a different
individual or position has responsibility for the overall operation of the facility,a new authorization
satisfying the requirements of Part II.K.2 shall be submitted to the Department prior to or together with any
reports,or information to be signed by an authorized representative.
4. Certification. Any person signing a document under Parts II.K.1 or 2 shall make the following certification:
"I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or
supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and
evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system,
or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information,the information submitted is,to the best
of my knowledge and belief,true,accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for
submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations."
L. Duty to Comply
The permittee shall comply with all conditions of this permit.Any permit noncompliance constitutes a violation
of the State Water Control Law and the Clean Water Act, except that noncompliance with certain provisions of
this permit may constitute a violation of the State Water Control Law but not the Clean Water Act. Permit
noncompliance is grounds for enforcement action; for permit termination,revocation and reissuance,or
modification; or denial of a permit renewal application.
The permittee shall comply with effluent standards or prohibitions established under Section 307(a)of the
Clean Water Act for toxic pollutants and with standards for sewage sludge use or disposal established under
Section 405(d)of the Clean Water Act within the time provided in the regulations that establish these standards
or prohibitions or standards for sewage sludge use or disposal,even if this permit has not yet been modified to
incorporate the requirement.
-permit No.VA0092720
Part II
Page 5 of 7
M. Duty to Reapply
If the permittee wishes to continue an activity regulated by this permit after the expiration date of this permit,
the permittee shall apply for and obtain a new permit.All permittees with a currently effective permit shall
submit a new application at least 180 days before the expiration date of the existing permit,unless permission
for a later date has been granted by the Board. The Board shall not grant permission for applications to be
submitted later than the expiration date of the existing permit.
N. Effect of a Permit
This permit does not convey any property rights in either real or personal property or any exclusive privileges,
nor does it authorize any injury to private property or invasion of personal rights,or any infringement of
federal, state or local law or regulations.
O. State Law
Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any legal action under,or relieve the
permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities,or penalties established pursuant to any other state law or
regulation or under authority preserved by Section 510 of the Clean Water Act. Except as provided in permit
conditions on"bypassing"(Part II.U), and "upset"(Part II.V)nothing in this permit shall be construed to relieve
the permittee from civil and criminal penalties for noncompliance.
P. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any legal action or relieve the permittee
from any responsibilities, liabilities,or penalties to which the permittee is or may be subject under Sections
62.1-44.34:14 through 62.1-44.34:23 of the State Water Control Law.
Q. Proper Operation and Maintenance
The permittee shall at all times properly operate and maintain all facilities and systems of treatment and control
(and related appurtenances)which are installed or used by the permittee to achieve compliance with the
conditions of this permit. Proper operation and maintenance also includes effective plant performance,adequate
funding,adequate staffing,and adequate laboratory and process controls, including appropriate quality
assurance procedures.This provision requires the operation of back-up or auxiliary facilities or similar systems
which are installed by the permittee only when the operation is necessary to achieve compliance with the
conditions of this permit.
R. Disposal of solids or sludges
Solids, sludges or other pollutants removed in the course of treatment or management of pollutants shall be
disposed of in a manner so as to prevent any pollutant from such materials from entering state waters.
;u,:. �; ..:..
S. Duty to Mitigate _ .a: o.: u .�> '—
The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent any discharge or sludge use or disposal in
violation of this permit which has a reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the environment.
T. Need to Halt or Reduce Activity not a Defense
It shall not be a defense for a permittee in an enforcement action that it would have been necessary to halt or
reduce the permitted activity in order to maintain compliance with the conditions of this permit.
U. Bypass
1. "Bypass" means the intentional diversion of waste streams from any portion of a treatment facility. The
permittee may allow any bypass to occur which does not cause effluent limitations to be exceeded, but only
if it also is for essential maintenance to assure efficient operation.These bypasses are not subject to the
provisions of Parts II.U.2 and U.3.
2. Notice
a. Anticipated bypass. If the permittee knows in advance of the need for a bypass,prior notice shall be
submitted, if possible at least ten days before the date of the bypass.
b. Unanticipated bypass.The permittee shall submit notice of an unanticipated bypass as required in Part
II.I.
?ermit No.VA0092720
Part II
Page 6 of 7
3. Prohibition of bypass
a. Bypass is prohibited,and the Board may take enforcement action against a permittee for bypass,
unless:
(1) Bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life,personal injury,or severe property damage;
(2) There were no feasible alternatives to the bypass,such as the use of auxiliary treatment facilities,
retention of untreated wastes, or maintenance during normal periods of equipment downtime.This
condition is not satisfied if adequate back-up equipment should have been installed in the exercise
of reasonable engineering judgment to prevent a bypass which occurred during normal periods of
equipment downtime or preventive maintenance;and
(3) The permittee submitted notices as required under Part II.U.2.
b. The Board may approve an anticipated bypass,after considering its adverse effects, if the Board
determines that it will meet the three conditions listed above in Part II.U.3.a.
V. Upset
I. An upset constitutes an affirmative defense to an action brought for noncompliance with technology based
permit effluent limitations if the requirements of Part II.V.2 are met.A determination made during
administrative review of claims that noncompliance was caused by upset,and before an action for
noncompliance, is not a final administrative action subject to judicial review.
2. A permittee who wishes to establish the affirmative defense of upset shall demonstrate,through properly
signed,contemporaneous operating logs,or other relevant evidence that:
a. An upset occurred and that the permittee can identify the cause(s)of the upset;
b. The permitted facility was at the time being properly operated;
c. The permittee submitted notice of the upset as required in Part II.I;and
d. The permittee complied with any remedial measures required under Part II.S.
3. In any enforcement proceeding the permittee seeking to establish the occurrence of an upset has the burden
of proof.
•
W. Inspection and Entry
The permittee shall allow the Director,or an authorized representative,upon presentation Of credentials and
other documents as may be required by law,to:
1. Enter upon the permittee's premises where a regulated facility or activity is located or conducted,or where
records must be kept under the conditions of this permit;
2. Have access to and copy,at reasonable times,any records that must be kept under the conditions of this
permit;
3. Inspect at reasonable times any facilities,equipment(including monitoring and control equipment),
practices,or operations regulated or required under this permit;and
4. Sample or monitor at reasonable times,for the purposes of assuring permit compliance or as otherwise
authorized by the Clean Water Act and the State Water Control Law,any substances or parameters at any
location.
For purposes of this section,the time for inspection shall be deemed reasonable during regular business hours,
and whenever the facility is discharging.Nothing contained herein shall make an inspection unreasonable
during an emergency.
X. Permit Actions
Permits may be modified, revoked and reissued, or terminated for cause.The filing of a request by the
permittee for a permit modification,revocation and reissuance,or termination, or a notification of planned
changes or anticipated noncompliance does not stay any permit condition.
Permit No.VA0092720
Part II
Page 7 of 7
Y. Transfer of Permits
1. Permits are not transferable to any person except after notice to the Department.Except as provided in Part
II.Y.2,a permit may be transferred by the permittee to a new owner or operator only if the permit has been
modified or revoked and reissued,or a minor modification made,to identify the new permittee and
incorporate such other requirements as may be necessary under the State Water Control Law and the Clean
Water Act.
2. As an alternative to transfers under Part II.Y.1,this permit may be automatically transferred to a new
permittee if:
a. The current permittee notifies the Department at least 30 days in advance of the proposed transfer of
the title to the facility or property;
b. The notice includes a written agreement between the existing and new permittees containing a specific
date for transfer of permit responsibility,coverage,and liability between them; and
c. The Board does not notify the existing permittee and the proposed new permittee of its intent to modify
or revoke and reissue the permit. If this notice is not received,the transfer is effective on the date
specified in the agreement mentioned in Part II.Y.2.b.
Z. Severability
The provisions of this permit are severable, and if any provision of this permit or the application of any
provision of this permit to any circumstance, is held invalid,the application of such provision to other
circumstances, and the remainder of this permit,shall not be affected thereby.
Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Thursday,June 20, 2019 2:24 PM
To: Johnathan Newberry
Subject: RE: SRC Distribution Memo for May 20, 2019 submittal
JT,
SDP201900025 - Lowes and Floor Fashion—Major Site Plan Amendment
I spoke to the applicant and apparently his use of the title "Lowes" on the application was a carryover title from
the previously approved site plans on the property. He has confirmed there is not a Lowes planned for this site;
rather, it's currently Floor Fashion. The proposed uses onsite are to be commercial, office, and warehouse.
Specific future uses have not been identified.
Chnstopher Perez I Senior Planner
Department of Community Development'County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 Mclntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902
434 296.5832 ext.3443
From:Johnathan Newberry
Sent: Monday,June 03, 2019 1:30 PM
To:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: SRC Distribution Memo for May 20, 2019 submittal
Hey Chris,
I see that SDP201900025 is called "Lowes and Floor Fashions—Major"... is that like Lowes,the home improvement
store?
J.T.
From: Marsha Alley
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2019 12:55 PM
Subject:SRC Distribution Memo for May 20, 2019 submittal
Hello everyone!
Attached you will find the Memo for the SDP-SUB (SRC) Projects for the 5/20/19 Submittal.
Just a reminder, the SRC date for this submittal is WEDNESDAY,JULY 3rd, 2019. This is a change from the
regular schedule.
Please remember to Ctrl + Click to open the links and allow time for larger files to load.
Thank you! Have a nice day!
Marsha Alley
1
Community Development Assistant _Jning
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, VA 22902
(434) 296-5832 ext. 3417
2
Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 1:57 PM
To: John Anderson
Subject: FW: Ryder Enterprises VA Permit#VA0092720
History emails from Mark about the item.
From: Mark Graham
Sent:Thursday,June 20, 2019 12:28 PM
To: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Subject: FW: Ryder Enterprises VA Permit#VA0092720
Mark B Graham, P.E.
Director of Community Development
Albemarle County,Virginia
From: Mark Graham
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 3:52 PM
To: Liz Russell<Irussell@monticello.org>
Subject: RE: Ryder Enterprises VA Permit#VA0092720
Yes,that would be part of the building permit or site plan review. For the building permit, it could add time to the
project if this is above ground or not behind an existing building that hides it from the entrance corridor. ( I thought Tim
Miller said they planned to put it behind an existing building?)That is something verified as part of the review.
From: Liz Russell [mailto:lrussell@monticello.org]
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 3:49 PM
To: Mark Graham <mgraham@albemarle.org>
Subject: Re: Ryder Enterprises VA Permit#VA0092720
Hi Mark thanks for your prompt response. One question—if it is in new structure and it is in the Entrance Corridor are
they not subject to ARB review?
On Oct 9, 2015, at 3:46 PM, Mark Graham <mgraham@albemarle.org>wrote:
Hi Liz,
Hope you are doing well. No, seen or heard nothing.
If they simply want to put in the WWTP and connect it to existing buildings, it would only require a
building permit. That is totally administrative and we would typically issue a permit within a couple of
weeks of submittal. There is no discretion on that review and approval. If it satisfies the building code
requirements,we must approve it.
1
If they wanted to put in the ..NTP as part of new buildings, it would fir-. —quire a site plan and then a
building permit. The site plan would likely be a "major amendment" of their current site plan, which
requires notices sent to the adjacent properties. While the site plan is also administrative,there is a site
review meeting for a major amendment that is open to the public, so you can hear from the applicant
and ask staff questions.
Hope this helps.
Mark
From: Liz Russell [mailto:lrussell@monticello.org]
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 9:20 AM
To: Mark Graham <mgraham@albemarle.org>
Subject: Ryder Enterprises VA Permit#VA0092720
Hi Mark,
Ann and I have been asked to update our Board this fall on the proposed Ryder Wastewater Treatment
plant. I was wondering if you have heard anything from Mr. Ryder or his engineer or if they have
submitted a site plan for review.
If you could give me an update as to the "next steps" for this project,that would be much appreciated.
Thanks,
Liz Russell
Liz Russell
Project and Planning Assistant
Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc. I Post Office Box 316 'Charlottesville,Virginia 22902
Phone: (434)984-7589 I Cell: (434)466-1275
2
Christopher Perez
From: Mark Graham
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 12:28 PM
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: FW: Ryder Enterprises VA Permit#VA0092720
Mark B Graham, P.E.
Director of Community Development
Albemarle County,Virginia
From: Mark Graham
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 3:52 PM
To: Liz Russell<Irussell@monticello.org>
Subject: RE: Ryder Enterprises VA Permit#VA0092720
Yes,that would be part of the building permit or site plan review. For the building permit, it could add time to the
project if this is above ground or not behind an existing building that hides it from the entrance corridor. ( I thought Tim
Miller said they planned to put it behind an existing building?)That is something verified as part of the review.
From: Liz Russell [mailto:lrussell@monticello.org]
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 3:49 PM
To: Mark Graham <mgraham@albemarle.org>
Subject: Re: Ryder Enterprises VA Permit#VA0092720
Hi Mark thanks for your prompt response. One question—if it is in new structure and it is in the Entrance Corridor are
they not subject to ARB review?
On Oct 9,2015, at 3:46 PM, Mark Graham <mgraham@albemarle.org>wrote:
Hi Liz,
Hope you are doing well. No, seen or heard nothing.
If they simply want to put in the WWTP and connect it to existing buildings, it would only require a
building permit. That is totally administrative and we would typically issue a permit within a couple of
weeks of submittal. There is no discretion on that review and approval. If it satisfies the building code
requirements, we must approve it.
If they wanted to put in the WWTP as part of new buildings, it would first require a site plan and then a
building permit. The site plan would likely be a "major amendment" of their current site plan, which
requires notices sent to the adjacent properties. While the site plan is also administrative, there is a site
review meeting for a major amendment that is open to the public, so you can hear from the applicant
and ask staff questions.
Hope this helps.
Mark
1
From: Liz Russell [mailto:Irusseii@monticello.org]
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 9:20 AM
To: Mark Graham <mgraham@albemarle.o[g>
Subject: Ryder Enterprises VA Permit#VA0092720
Hi Mark,
Ann and I have been asked to update our Board this fall on the proposed Ryder Wastewater Treatment
plant. I was wondering if you have heard anything from Mr. Ryder or his engineer or if they have
submitted a site plan for review.
If you could give me an update as to the "next steps" for this project,that would be much appreciated.
Thanks,
Liz Russell
Liz Russell
Project and Planning Assistant
Thomas Jefferson Foundation,Inc. I Post Office Box 316 'Charlottesville,Virginia 22902
Phone: (434)984-7589 I Cell: (434)466-1275
2
Christopher Perez
From: Mark Graham
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 12:25 PM
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: FW: Ryder Enterprises, VA Permit#VA0092720
Mark B Graham, P.E.
Director of Community Development
Albemarle County,Virginia
From: Dameron,Jason (DEQ)<Jason.Dameron@deq.virginia.gov>
Sent:Wednesday,July 08, 2015 1:14 PM
To: Mark Graham <mgraham@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: Ryder Enterprises,VA Permit#VA0092720
Dear Mr. Graham,
As a follow-up to the previous notification of the State Water Control Board meeting, which included a summary of the
public comments received on the proposed issuance of VPDES Permit No. VA0092720 and DEQ responses to the public
comments, this is to advise you that the State Water Control Board, at its meeting on June 25, 2015, unanimously
approved issuance of VPDES Permit No. VA0092720 for Ryder Enterprises WWTP as presented at the meeting.
Thank you for your participation in the permitting process. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this
notification.
Sincerely,
Jason Dameron
From: Mark Graham [mailto:mgraham@albemarle.orq]
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 1:32 PM
To: Dameron, Jason (DEQ)
Subject: RE: Ryder Enterprises, VA Permit #VA0092720
Thanks Jason,
Appreciate the update.
From: Dameron, Jason (DEQ) [mailto:Jason.Dameron@deq.virginia.gov]
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 5:26 PM
To: Mark Graham
Subject: RE: Ryder Enterprises, VA Permit #VA0092720
Hey Mark,
I just wanted to let you know that I did receive your voice messages, and that DEQ would be more than happy to attend
an informational meeting if the county decides to hold one. I will discuss dates to avoid with my manager tomorrow and
get back to you. Thanks!
Jason
1
From: Mark Graham [mailto:mgraham@albemarle.orq]
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2015 10:40 AM
To: Kiracofe, Brandon (DEQ); Dameron, Jason (DEQ)
Subject: Ryder Enterprises, VA Permit #VA0092720
Good morning Brandon and Jason,
I left a voice mail at the main office number trying to explain County staff's interest with the subject, but not following
that with this email. Hopefully,this email helps.
This relates to a response to questions and concerns of the downstream property owner, as well as others in the area,
with respect to the subject. In this case, the property immediately downstream of this proposed wastewater treatment
plant( WWTP) is owned by the Thomas Jefferson Foundation,the same organization that owns and manages
Monticello. We are hearing the Foundation has been trying to contact Ryder, but have not received a response and are
interesting in understanding how this use might impact their property. The Thomas Jefferson Foundation property is in
a conservation easement and this WWTP discharges into a small stream that has a protected stream buffer where the
owner has invested in restorative plantings. The property is also part of the County's Monticello Historic District and this
stream is highly visible from one of the County's designated Entrance Corridors. The Entrance Corridors are intended to
assure significant routes leading to historic landmarks maintain the appropriate protection of scenic resources. All of
this creates a strong County interest in assuring questions and concerns have been considered before this permit is
issued.
For land use applications the County manages, we routinely require public meetings for questions and concerns to be
considered. Given the amount of interest I have heard expressed with this application, I am hoping DEQ can provide a
similar opportunity for our constituents with this permit application.
If you have any questions or concerns with my request,you may simply respond to this email or contact me by phone at
434-296-5832.
Thank you,
Mark B. Graham, P.E.
Director of Community Development
Albemarle County,Virginia
2
Christopher Perez
From: Mark Graham
Sent: Thursday,June 20, 2019 12:22 PM
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: FW: State Water Control Board Meeting, Proposed Issuance of VPDES Permit No.
VA0092720 for Ryder Enterprises WWTP
Attachments: Tentative Agenda and Minibook - State Water Control Board Meeting.pdf
Mark B Graham, P.E.
Director of Community Development
Albemarle County,Virginia
From: Kiracofe, Brandon (DEQ) <Brandon.Kiracofe@deq.virginia.gov>
Sent: Monday,June 08, 2015 1:48 PM
To: Mark Graham<mgraham@albemarle.org>
Cc: Dameron, Jason (DEQ) <Jason.Dameron@deq.virginia.gov>
Subject: State Water Control Board Meeting, Proposed Issuance of VPDES Permit No. VA0092720 for Ryder Enterprises
WWTP
Mr. Graham,
The State Water Control Board Meeting during which the proposed issuance of VPDES Permit No. VA0092720 for Ryder
Enterprises WWTP is to be considered will be held on June 25, 2015, at 9:30 am at the following location:
General Assembly Building
House Room D
9th& Broad Streets
Richmond, Virginia 23210
The tentative agenda and minibook for the State Water Control Board Meeting are attached. A summary of the public
comments received on the proposed issuance of VPDES Permit No. VA0092720 and DEQ responses to the public
comments begins on page 3 of the attachment . Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this notification.
Sincerely,
Brandon Kiracofe
Brandon D. Kiracofe
Water Permits & Compliance Manager
DEQ -Valley Regional Office
4411 Early Road, Harrisonburg, VA
Harrisonburg, VA 22801
Office: (540) 574-7892 FAX: (540) 574-7878
brandon.kiracofe@deq.virginia.gov
Web: www.deq.virginia.gov
Mail: P.O. Box 3000, Harrisonburg, VA 22801
1
TENTATIVE AGENDA AND MINIBOOK
STATE WATER CONTROL BOARD MEETING
THURSDAY,JUNE 25,2015
House Room D
General Assembly Building
9th&Broad Streets,
Richmond,VA 23219
9:30 A.M.
TAB
I. Minutes(March 30,2015) A
II. Permits
Ryder Enterprises Wastewater Treatment Plant Kiracofe B
VPDES Permit(Albemarle Co.)
Synagro Central LLC VPA Permit(Spotsylvania Co.) Quigley C
III. Final Exempt
Fees for Permits and Certificates(9VAC25-20) Davenport D
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Designation and Management Davenport E
Regulations(9VAC25-830)
Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations(9VAC25-840) Davenport F
IV. Regulations-Proposed
General VPDES Permit Regulation for Domestic Sewage Discharges Tuxford G
Less Than or Equal to 1,000 Gallons Per Day
V. Significant Noncompliers Report O'Connell H
VI. Consent Special Order
Northern Regional Office O'Connell I
Fairfax County Board of Supervisors
Central Office Reynolds J
Duke Energy Carolinas,LLC(Dan River)
VII. Public Forum
VIII. Other Business
Division Director's Report
Future Meetings(October 1-2 and December 10-11)
ADJOURN
NOTE:The Board reserves the nght to revise this agenda without notice unless prohibited by law. Revisions to the
agenda include,but are not limited to,scheduling changes,additions or deletions.Questions ansmg as to the latest status
of the agenda should be directed to the staff contact listed below.
PUBLIC COMMENTS AT STATE WATER CONTROL BOARD MEETINGS:The Board encourages public
participation in the performance of its duties and responsibilities.To this end,the Board has adopted public participation
procedures for regulatory action and for case decisions.These procedures establish the times for the public to provide
appropriate comment to the Board for its consideration.
For REGULATORY ACTIONS(adoption,amendment or repeal of regulations),public participation is governed by the
Administrative Process Act and the Board's Public Participation Guidelines.Public comment is accepted during the
Notice of Intended Regulatory Action phase(minimum 30-day comment period)and dunng the Notice of Public
1
•
Comment Period on Proposed Regulatory Action(minimum 60-day comment period).Notice of these comment periods is
announced in the Virginia Register,by posting to the Department of Environmental Quality and Virginia Regulatory
Town Hall web sites and by mail to those on the Regulatory Development Mailing List. The comments received during
the announced public comment periods are summarized for the Board and considered by the Board when making a
decision on the regulatory action.
For CASE DECISIONS(issuance and amendment of permits),the Board adopts public participation procedures in the
individual regulations which establish the permit programs.As a general rule,public comment is accepted on a draft
permit for a period of 30 days.If a public hearing is held,there is an additional comment period,usually 45 days,during
which the public hearing is held.
In light of these established procedures,the Board accepts public comment on regulatory actions and case decisions,as
well as general comments,at Board meetings in accordance with the following:
REGULATORY ACTIONS:Comments on regulatory actions are allowed only when the staff initially presents a
regulatory action to the Board for final adoption.At that time,those persons who commented during the public comment
period on the proposal are allowed up to 3 minutes to respond to the summary of the comments presented to the Board.
Adoption of an emergency regulation is a final adoption for the purposes of this policy.Persons are allowed up to 3
minutes to address the Board on the emergency regulation under consideration.
CASE DECISIONS:Comments on pending case decisions at Board meetings are accepted only when the staff initially
presents the pending case decision to the Board for final action.At that time the Board will allow up to 5 minutes for the
applicant/owner to make his complete presentation on the pending decision,unless the applicant/owner objects to specific
conditions of the decision.In that case,the applicant/owner will be allowed up to 15 minutes to make his complete
presentation.The Board will then allow others who commented during the public comment period(i.e.,those who
commented at the public hearing or during the public comment period)up to 3 minutes to respond to the summary of the
pnor public comment period presented to the Board. No public comment is allowed on case decisions when a FORMAL
HEARING is being held.
POOLING MINUTES: Those persons who commented during the public hearing or public comment period and attend
the Board meeting may pool their minutes to allow for a single presentation to the Board that does not exceed the time
limitation of 3 minutes times the number of persons pooling minutes,or 15 minutes,whichever is less.
NEW INFORMATION will not be accepted at the meeting.The Board expects comments and information on a regulatory
action or pending case decision to be submitted during the established public comment periods.However,the Board
recognizes that in rare instances,new information may become available after the close of the public comment period.To
provide for consideration of and ensure the appropriate review of this new information,persons who commented during
the prior public comment period shall submit the new information to the Department of Environmental Quality
(Department)staff contact listed below at least 10 days prior to the Board meeting.The Board's decision will be based on
the Department-developed official file and discussions at the Board meeting.In the case of a regulatory action,should the
Board or Department decide that the new information was not reasonably available dunng the prior public comment
period,is significant to the Board's decision and should be included in the official file,the Department may announce an
additional public comment period in order for all interested persons to have an opportunity to participate.
PUBLIC FORUM:The Board schedules a public forum at each regular meeting to provide an opportunity for citizens to
address the Board on matters other than those on the agenda,pending regulatory actions or pending case decisions. Those
wishing to address the Board during this time should indicate their desire on the sign-in cards/sheet and limit their
presentations to 3 minutes or less.
The Board reserves the right to alter the time limitations set forth in this policy without notice and to ensure comments
presented at the meeting conform to this policy.
Department of Environmental Quality Staff Contact: Cindy M. Berndt,Director,Regulatory Affairs,Department of
Environmental Quality,629 East Main Street,P.O.Box 1105,Richmond,Virginia 23218,phone(804)698-4378; fax
(804)698-4346;e-mail:cindy.berndtOdeq.virginia.gov.
2
Issuance of VPDES Permit No.VA0092720,Ryder Enterprises WWTP,Albemarle County
Background:
On November 14,2012,DEQ received an application from Ryder Enterprises,LLC for the issuance of VPDES Permit
No.VA0092720 for Ryder Enterprises WWTP. The applicant proposes to discharge treated wastewater from a new
sewage treatment facility serving retail stores,business offices,and medical offices. The proposed effluent flow will be
0.015 MGD,discharging to an unnamed tributary of Barn Branch in Albemarle County. The applicant was required to
develop a nutrient offset plan to offset all nutrients discharged from the facility. Processing of the draft permit was
delayed while the nutrient offset plan was being developed and subsequently accepted by DEQ-Central Office staff.
In accordance with the State Water Control Law,DEQ notified the Albermarle County Executive,Chairman of the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors,and Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission on March 22,2013 that an
application for a new permit had been received for Ryder Enterprises WWTP. The same notification was provided on
March 22,2013,to riparian property owners to a distance one half mile downstream from the proposed discharge point.
The notice to property owners was based on names taken from local tax rolls.
Public notice for this proposed permit action was published in the Daily Progress on December 13,2014 and December
20,2014. DEQ notified the Albemarle County Executive,Chairman of the Board of Supervisors,and Thomas Jefferson
Planning District Commission of the public notice on December 10,2014.
In addition to the regulatory requirements for notifying localities and adjacent property owners,DEQ staff also
participated in an informational meeting for the community on February 25,2015,organized by the Albemarle County
Director of Community Development to discuss all aspects of the proposed project.
During the 30-day public comment penod of the draft permit which ended on January 12,2015,DEQ received 78
comments by email or letter. All of the comments objected to the draft permit,and 75 of the comments included a request
for a public hearing.
Public Hearing:
Based on a review of the requests for public hearing received during the public comment period,a decision to hold a
public hearing was approved on February 6,2015 in accordance with the State Water Control Law. The public notice for
the hearing was published in the Daily Progress on March 6 and March 13,2015.
DEQ held the public hearing at 7:00 p.m.on April 9,2015,at the Albemarle County Office Building,Lane Auditorium.
Mr.Robert Dunn served as the hearing officer. DEQ also provided an informational session prior to the hearing so that
questions could be asked and answered prior to the hearing. Eleven people attended the public hearing including the
applicant's attorney and consultant. Three citizens provided oral comments during the public hearing.
The additional public comment period associated with the hearing was open from March 6,2015,through April 24,2015.
No comments other than the oral comments presented at the public hearing were received during this comment period.
Summary of Public Comments and DEQ Responses
During the public comment period of the draft permit,DEQ received 78 citizen comments.
Dunng the public hearing DEQ received 3 oral comments.
The public comments received regarding the issuance of VPDES Permit No.VA0092720 for Ryder Enterprises WWTP
are summarized and are followed by the DEQ staff response.
1. Comment: There will be negative impacts to the Monticello Historic District and one of Albemarle County's
Entrance Corridors.
Staff Response: Zoning,planning,and land use issues are not within the purview of DEQ,but are issues to be addressed
by Albermarle County. The property immediately across Route 250 from the proposed Ryder Enterprises WWTP is in the
Monticello Historic District. The Albermarle County Code includes provisions for regulating uses and activities within
3
the Monticello Historic District. The Ryder Enterprises,LLC property is in the Monticello Viewshed,which is an
element of Albemarle County's Comprehensive Plan. The County notifies the Thomas Jefferson Foundation of projects
in the Monticello Viewshed and asks the applicant to contact the Foundation to discuss any potential issues. While this is
not a regulatory restriction with by-right development,the County encourages applicants to work out potential issues with
the Foundation. The Ryder Enterprises,LLC property is also within the Albemarle County Entrance Corridor along
Route 250. A Certificate of Appropriateness issued by the County's Architectural Review Board consistent with
applicable design guidelines for the Entrance Corridor is required by Albemarle County for a site plan and/or a building
permit in the Entrance Corridor.
§62.1-44.15:3 of the Code of Virginia requires an application to include notification from the locality in which the
discharge is to take place that the location and operation of the discharging facility are consistent with applicable
ordinances adopted pursuant to Chapter 22(§15.2-2200 et seq.)of Title 15.2. The required notification from Albemarle
County was provided with the application.
2. Comment: There will be infringement on property rights unless easements are obtained to reach the receiving stream
because the effluent will not enter state waters at the outfall.
Staff Response: §62.1-44.3 of the Code of Virginia defines"State waters"as"all water,on the surface and under the
ground,wholly or partially within or bordering the Commonwealth or within its jurisdiction,including wetlands." §62.1-
44.4.(1)of the Code of Virginia,states"The right and control of the Commonwealth in and over all state waters is hereby
expressly reserved and reaffirmed."
Respecting impacts to property rights generally, §62.1-44.22 of the Code of Virginia provides that"The fact that any
owner holds or has held a certificate issued under[the State Water Control Law] shall not constitute a defense in any civil
action involving private rights." Additionally,both the VPDES Permit Regulation(9VAC25-31)and Part II.N of the draft
permit specifically state that the permit does not convey any property rights of any sort,or any exclusive pnvilege.
3. Comment: The discharge should be piped underground and along the north side of US Route 250 to Barn Branch.
Staff Response: Discharge locations are indicated by applicants in their permit applications. If a permit
application is submitted and the proposal would be in compliance with local zoning ordinances,then DEQ has a legal
obligation to prepare a draft permit for the proposed discharge that is protective of water quality and meets all applicable
state laws and regulations.
4. Comment: There will be negative impacts to the Thomas Jefferson Foundation's Shadwell Farm which is in a
conservation easement and which is adjacent to the proposed facility. Also,the discharge will be to a small stream
that has a protected stream buffer where the Thomas Jefferson Foundation has invested in restorative plantings.
Staff Response: The draft permit is written in accordance with the Code of Virginia and Virginia Water Quality Standards
(9VAC25-260)to protect the beneficial uses of the unnamed tributary to Barn Branch,including the conservation efforts
and restorative plantings that have taken place on the property owned by the Thomas Jefferson Foundation.
5. Comment: The discharge is proposed to flow through what may be an inadequately-sized VDOT culvert,and
therefore flooding issues downstream of the discharge may occur.
Staff Response: On February 23,2015,the VDOT District Environmental Manager indicated that VDOT does not have
any concerns regarding the sizing of the culvert under US Route 250 and the proposed discharge volume of 0.015 MGD.
6. Comment: The discharge will cause serious pollution problems for the Rivanna River and its tributaries.
Staff Response: The draft permit is written in accordance with the Code of Virginia and Virginia Water Quality Standards
to protect the beneficial uses of the Rivanna River and its tributaries. If a VPDES permit is issued,the owner of Ryder
Enterprises WWTP must comply with the permit's conditions and with the Sewage Collection and Treatment Regulations
(9VAC25-790). These regulations ensure that the design,construction,and operation of sewage collection systems and
treatment works are consistent with the public health and water quality objectives of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
4
Noncompliance with a VPDES permit is addressed by the DEQ's compliance and enforcement staff to remedy the permit
noncompliance. This process can include Warning Letters,Notices of Violation,and significant penalties for serious
violations. The goal of our compliance and enforcement actions is to provide effective disincentives for non-compliance
and to encourage a prompt return to full permit compliance.
7. Comment: Allowing nutrient trading in the permit would undercut the nutrient removal efforts by the Rivanna Water
and Sewer Authority and the localities.
Staff Response: §62.1-44.19:12-19 of the Code of Virginia requires owners of new facilities to obtain offsets for the
nutrients discharged to state waters and to register for coverage under the General Permit for Total Nitrogen and Total
Phosphorus Discharges and Nutrient Trading in the Chesapeake Watershed in Virginia(9VAC25-820-70). The applicant
has entered into a nutrient offset agreement with the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and has submitted a registration
statement for coverage under the General Permit for Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus Discharges and Nutrient
Trading in the Chesapeake Watershed in Virginia. As a requirement of the nutrient general permit,the applicant will be
required to obtain offsets for all nutrients discharged from Ryder Enterprises WWTP.
8. Comment: The nutrient credit exchange program allows the purchase of credits in a broad area. The nutrient credits
should be purchased close to or contiguous to the area affected.
Staff Response: Nutrient credits and offsets are handled in accordance with the General VPDES Watershed
Permit Regulation for Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus Discharges and Nutrient Trading in the Chesapeake Bay in
Virginia(9VAC25-820),and not under the VPDES Permit Regulation. In order to register the proposed discharge under
the nutrient general permit,the applicant has obtained nutrient credits from the closest facility eligible under the tradmg
program(Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority's Moores Creek Regional STP). Although the permittee would be allowed
to acquire additional nutrient credits in the case of noncompliance with the nutrient general permit,the individual VPDES
permit includes annual average concentration effluent limits for Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus that will ensure
compliance with the nutrient general permit. No trading is allowed to comply with the annual average concentration
effluent limits for Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus contained in the individual VPDES permit.
9. Comment: The permit allows the discharge of nitrogen and phosphorus into a stream with critical flows of zero;
therefore,the facility should be required to meet limits of technology for Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus.
Staff Response: At the discharge point,the receiving stream is not shown as perennial on the USGS Quadrangle
topographic map. The low flow conditions for streams that are not perennial are set at 0.0 cfs. Since the receiving stream
has critical flows of 0.0 cfs,the permit is written to require that the discharge meet Virginia Water Quality Standards at
the discharge pipe,not allowing for a mixing zone. The State of Virginia does not currently have Water Quality
Standards for nitrogen and phosphorus;therefore,the nutrient requirements in the draft permit are not based on nutrient
considerations for the unnamed tributary to Barn Branch,Barn Branch,or the Rivanna River. The permit nutrient
requirements are instead based on regulations designed to restore or protect the water quality and beneficial uses of the
Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries. As discussed previously,the applicant will be required to obtain offsets for all
nutrients discharged from Ryder Enterprises WWTP. As part of the nutrient offset agreement with the Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority,the applicant has indicated that the facility will achieve an annual average Total Nitrogen concentration
of 5.0 mg/L and an annual average Total Phosphorus concentration of 1.8 mg/L. In accordance with 9VAC25-40-70.A,
which requires concentration limits for any facility that has installed technology for the control of nitrogen and
phosphorus,the draft permit includes an annual average Total Nitrogen concentration limit of 5.0 mg/L and an annual
average Total Phosphorus limit of 1.0 mg/L.
DEQ believes these proposed permit limits and requirements will provide appropriate nutrient controls for this discharge.
There are no regulatory requirements for a facility of this size to meet limits of technology for Total Nitrogen or Total
Phosphorus.
10. Comment: The draft permit does not have specific language that requires the discharger to meet all water quality
criteria at 100%whole effluent. For example,lead copper,zinc,and other metals are not mentioned in the permit.
5
•
Staff Response: The water quality criteria for surface waters stipulated in the Virginia Water Quality Standards
apply to all surface waters and this permit does not authorize infringement of any federal,state,or local law or regulation.
That this permit requires monitoring for some,but not all,parameters listed in the regulation in no way implies that only
some criteria apply. The permit requires monitoring of selected parameters,depending on the type and size of the
discharge as outlined in DEQ Guidance Memorandum No. 14-2003 and Guidance Memorandum No.00-2011. If any
other pollutants are reasonably expected to be present in concentrations that could violate the water quality criteria,then
monitoring will be imposed to obtain additional data as necessary.
11. Comment: The pH of Barn Branch may not have been considered in the development of Ammonia-N limits in this
permit.
Staff Response: At the discharge point,the receiving stream is not shown as perennial on the USGS Quadrangle
topographic map. The low flow conditions for streams that are not perennial are set at 0.0 cfs Since the receiving stream
has critical flows of 0.0 cfs,the permit is written to require that the discharge meet Water Quality Standards at the
discharge pipe,not allowing for a mixing zone. Because the Water Quality Standards must be met at the discharge pipe,
the pH of the unnamed tributary of Barn Branch and the pH of Barn Branch were not utilized in the calculation of
Ammonia-N limits.
12. Comment: The permit requires a Reliability Class II rather than Reliability Class I for the wastewater treatment
plant,potentially leading to adverse impacts to neighboring properties,the VDOT right of way,Route 250,or
receiving waters during periods of short term operational interruptions. The receiving stream does not provide a
minimal dilution of 10 to 1. An extended failure of the wastewater treatment plant could result in the discharge of
partially treated,or even untreated,sewage.
Staff Response: Reliability is defined in the Sewage Collection and Treatment Regulations as a measurement of the
ability of a component or system to perform its designated function without failure or interruption of service. The
treatment works design shall provide for satisfactory operation during power failures,flooding,peak loads,equipment
failure,and maintenance shut-down. Guidelines for determining reliability class are specified in the Sewage Collection
and Treatment Regulations and are included below:
a. Reliability Class I. Sewerage systems or treatment works whose location,or discharge,or potential discharge
(i) is sufficiently close to residences,public water supply,shellfish,or recreation waters;
(ii) has a volume or character;or
(iii) for which minimal dilution of 10 to 1,receiving water volume to discharge volume,based on permit flow values
is not provided year round,
such that permanent or unacceptable damage could occur to the receiving waters or public health and welfare if normal
operations were interrupted.
b. Reliability Class II.Sewerage systems or treatment works whose location or discharge,or potential discharge,due
to its volume or character,would not permanently or unacceptably damage or affect the receiving waters or public health
and welfare during periods of short-term operations interruptions,but could be damaging if continued interruption of
normal operation were to exceed 24 hours.
The applicant has indicated that Albemarle County has not allowed Ryder Enterprises,LLC to connect to the public water
supply system. The water supply for the property served by the Ryder Enterprises WWTP will be on-site wells;therefore,
when the property experiences a power outage the water supply to the property will be inoperable and there will not be
sustained flow to the WWTP. In addition,the nature of the establishments(retails stores,business offices,and medical
offices)generating wastewater are such that they can be closed during penods when power is interrupted or the WWTP is
otherwise not operational thus eliminating the influent flow to the WWTP. Based on these factors,a Reliability Class II
requirement was determined to be appropriate for this WWTP. In addition,in a memorandum dated July 16,2013,the
Virginia Department of Health identified the raw water intake for Lake Monticello as being 8.9 miles downstream of the
discharge,stated that this should be a sufficient distance to minimize the impacts of the discharge,and recommended a
minimum Reliability Class of II for this facility. Because the owner is not prohibited from installing a generator or other
equipment that would allow the water supply to the property to be operable during a power outage,the draft permit has
been revised to require the treatment works to meet Reliability Class I prior to the installation of a generator or other
equipment that would allow the water supply to the property to be operable during a power outage.
6
In addressing reliability protection,9VAC25-790-490.F regmres that an audiovisual alarm system to monitor the
condition of equipment whose failure could result in a bypass or a violation of effluent limitations shall be provided for all
treatment works. Alarms shall also be provided to monitor conditions which could result in damage to vital components.
Treatment works not continuously manned shall have,in addition to a local audiovisual alarm,provisions for transmitting
an audible alarm to a central location where personnel competent to receive the alarm and initiate corrective action are
available 24 hours per day or during the period of time that the treatment works receives influent flow.
The proposed permit requires Ryder Enterprises,LLC to meet certain effluent limitations and to operate the facility in
accordance with an Operations&Maintenance(O&M)Manual that will be developed for the facility. Owners of
facilities that experience noncompliance with their VPDES permits must promptly remedy the problem since persistent or
senous instances of noncompliance warrant enforcement action.
13. Comment: The Lake Monticello drinking water intake is on the Rivanna River downstream of the discharge.
Staff Response: In a memorandum dated July 16,2013,the Virginia Department of Health identified the raw water intake
for Lake Monticello as being 8.9 miles downstream of the discharge,stated that this should be a sufficient distance to
minimize the impacts of the discharge,and recommended a minimum Reliability Class of II for this facility. The Rivanna
River and its tributaries from the raw water intake for Lake Monticello to points 5 miles upstream are designated as a
public water supply in the Virginia Water Quality Standards. Because the proposed discharge is not directly into a section
classified as a public water supply,the additional criteria that are applicable to public water supplies were not considered
in the draft permit development.
14. Comment: The Rivanna River is designated as a Virginia Scenic River.
Staff Response: The Virginia Scenic Rivers Program is a program that is administered by the Department of
Conservation and Recreation whose intent is to identify,designate,and help protect rivers and streams that possess
outstanding scenic,recreational,histonc,and natural characteristics of statewide significance for future generations. State
and federal agencies must consider how projects and programs affect state scenic rivers. The draft permit is written in
accordance with the Code of Virginia and Virginia Water Quality Standards to protect the beneficial uses of the Rivanna
River. DEQ does not consider the draft permit to be contrary to the Rivanna River's designation as a Virginia Scenic
River,nor have we received any objections from DCR to this proposed permit.
15. Comment: DEQ's inspection process to ensure proper functioning of such a small wastewater treatment plant is not
known.
Staff Response: The inspection frequency for a facility of this size would be a minimum of once every 5 years;however,
DEQ inspectors have the authority to inspect a facility whenever they choose,within reasonable working hours. In
addition,DEQ is committed to following up on any inquiries or complaints we receive regarding the facility's operation.
16. Comment: How the effluent from the wastewater treatment plant and the downstream waters will be monitored is
not known.
Staff Response: The VPDES program is a self-monitoring program under the Clean Water Act. The DEQ performs
inspections of facilities and collects samples from the facility as necessary. VPDES permittees are also required to submit
monthly Discharge Monitoring Reports to DEQ. These monitoring reports contain summaries of the facility's self-
monitoring results,and are reviewed by the DEQ's compliance staff. In addition,DEQ is committed to following up on
any inquiries or complaints we receive regarding the facility's operation. Monitoring the receiving stream downstream of
the discharge is not required by the permit and is not typically performed by DEQ. DEQ maintains hundreds of stream
monitoring locations to assess water quality and trends throughout the State. The locations of these monitoring sites are
available at http://www.deq.virginia.gov/mapper ext/default.aspx?service public/wimby.
17. Comment: Other alternatives should be considered including consolidating this small wastewater treatment plant
with a larger facility that is operated with trained staff and that is more cost-effective.
7
Staff Response: There is no prohibition in state law or regulation against anyone applying for an individual wastewater
discharge permit,even if public sewer service is reasonably available. If an application for a permit is submitted and the
proposal would be in compliance with local zoning ordinances,then DEQ has a legal responsibility to prepare a draft
permit that would be protective of water quality.
18. Comment: The building facilities that will be connected to the wastewater treatment plant and the basis for the
design flow are not identified. The application states that the plant will serve 125 persons. Using a flow of 15
gallons per day per person for an office,results in a design flow of 1,875 gallons per day. The plant is significantly
oversized.
Staff Response: Although not required as part of the VPDES permitting process,it is our understanding that the proposed
retail,business offices,and medical offices will be housed in the structures already in place at the location. The applicant
has indicated that the design flow is based on the following:
Office Space—175 employees at 20 GPD/employee=3,500 GPD
Doctor Offices—20,000 sq.ft.at 5000 GPD/1000 sq.ft.= 10,000 GPD
Total= 13,500 GPD
19. Comment: A Rotating Biological Contactor with a secondary clarifier is not tertiary treatment as described in the
application and may not achieve Water Quality Standards at the discharge location.
Staff Response: The application provided preliminary information regarding the proposed treatment units;however,it is
the permittee's responsibility to design a treatment plant capable of meeting the effluent limits specified in the permit.
The design of the treatment plant cannot be finalized or approved before a VPDES permit authorizing the discharge is
issued. The applicant will be required to obtain a Certificate to Construct,as well as a Certificate to Operate,prior to
constructing and operating any treatment units at the site. The treatment facility must be designed in accordance with the
Sewage Collection and Treatment Regulations and to achieve the limits required in the permit.
20. Comment: A 200' buffer zone for the wastewater treatment plant is not required in the permit as specified in
9VAC25-790.
Staff Response: The proposed permit issuance does not specify where the wastewater treatment plant will be built,only
where the outfall is to be located; however,the construction of this facility will be required to comply with all the relevant
laws and regulations administered by DEQ. The Sewage Collection and Treatment Regulations are very prescriptive
regarding the siting and design of the wastewater treatment facilities. The Certificate to Construct and Certificate to
Operate that a permittee is required to obtain are only granted once the permittee has certified that that the requirements of
the Sewage Collection and Treatment Regulations are met. The Sewage Collection and Treatment Regulations require a
buffer zone of 200 feet for unit operations using low intensity mixing or quiescent system;however,a buffer zone of only
50 feet is required if the unit operations are totally enclosed.
21. Comment: DEQ does not have a technical review process to ensure that the wastewater treatment plant will meet
permit standards.
Staff Response: If a VPDES permit is issued,the owner of Ryder Enterprises WWTP must comply with the permit's
conditions and the Sewage Collection and Treatment Regulations(9VAC25-790). These regulations ensure that the
design,construction,and operation of sewage collection systems and treatment works are consistent with the public health
and water quality objectives of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Projects such as this wastewater treatment facility are not
reviewed by DEQ for compliance with the design requirements of the Sewage Collection and Treatment Regulations. It is
the responsibility of a licensed professional engineer in the Commonwealth of Virginia to certify that the project design
adheres to the design requirements of the Sewage Collection and Treatment Regulations. This is done through the
submission of an application for a Certificate to Construct. Following construction,submission of an application for a
Certificate to Operate is required. On this application,a licensed professional engineer in the Commonwealth of Virginia
must certify that all components have been installed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. Upon
commencing operation of the wastewater plant,wastewater quality is monitored as required by the permit to ensure
8
protection of the stream quality,and the wastewater facilities are inspected by DEQ staff to ensure compliance with all
permit requirements,including proper operation and maintenance.
22. Comment: There has not been adequate time to allow stakeholders to consider the proposal and implications for the
community. DEQ should re-notify property owners if an application is delayed more than a year before a draft
permit is developed and public noticed.
Staff Response: In accordance with§62.1-44.15:4.D of the Code of Virginia,DEQ notified the Albermarle County
Executive,Chairman of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors,and Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission on March 22,2013 that an application for a new permit had been received for Ryder Enterprises WWTP.
The same notification was provided on March 22,2013,to riparian property owners to a distance one half mile
downstream from the proposed discharge point. The notice to property owners was based on names taken from local tax
rolls.
In accordance with§62.1-44.15:01 of the Code of Virginia,notice of the draft permit for Ryder Enterprises was sent to the
Albermarle County Executive,Chairman of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors,and Thomas Jefferson Planning
District Commission on December 10,2014 and was also published in the Daily Progress on December 13 and December
20,2014. The public comment period on the draft permit closed on January 12,2015.
All notifications and notices have been provided in accordance with applicable state laws and regulations.
Draft Permit Changes in Response to Public Comments:
Based on public comments received,the reliability class special condition has been revised to require the treatment works
to meet Reliability Class I prior to the installation of a generator or other equipment that would allow the water supply to
the property to be operable during a power outage.
During the public comment period,the applicant indicated that UV disinfection would be the primary means of
disinfection utilized instead of chlorination. As a result,the disinfection language in the draft permit and fact sheet has
been revised to reflect that change.
Part II.A and Part II.0 of the boilerplate language have been revised to reflect the current boilerplate language utilized for
VPDES permits.
Issuance of VPA Permit No.VPA00059—Synagro Central,LLC.—Spotsylvania County Summary of Public
Comments:
Background
Synagro Central,LLC. submitted a Virginia Pollution Abatement(VPA)permit application for the land application of
biosolids. The draft permit,if issued as drafted,would authorize Synagro to land apply biosolids to 13 sites comprised of
143 fields,totaling approximately 6,452 acres in Spotsylvania County.Of the 13 sites proposed,8 are currently permitted
under an administratively continued Virginia Department of Health(VDH)Biosolids Use Regulation(BUR)permit and
are currently eligible for land application by Synagro.
Public Notice and Public Hearing
Notice for this proposed permit issuance was published in the Free lance Star on January 29,February 5,and February 12,
2015.The 30-day public notice comment period ended on March 2,2015. NRO received 46 comments,45 of which
requested a public hearing. A public hearing was authorized on March 18,2015.
The public hearing was held at 7:00 p.m.on May 7,2015,at the Marshall Center Community Room in Spotsylvania
County. Mr.Joe Nash served as hearing officer. An interactive informational session preceded the hearing.
- 23 people provided oral comments during the public hearing
- One written comment was received prior to the hearing
- 81 written comments were received after the hearing
9
•
o 7 provided specific comments via email
o 35 people submitted by mail a form letter requesting denial of the permit,25 of which did not include
specific comments
o 27 form letters with no specific comments submitted via email
o 9 form letters with no specific comments received via fax
o 3 Letters were received in support of the permit
Summary of Public Comments and Staff's Responses
1. Protection of Surface Waters and Impaired Streams
Comments were received related to concerns regarding adverse impacts to surface water quality:
- Potential for contamination from runoff into surface waters;
- Contaminants found in biosolids on the list of non-point source contaminants for streams on the impaired waters
list;
- Adverse effects on fish and other marine life in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed as a result of run-off;and
- Potential for contamination of Lake Anna and the Chesapeake Bay Watershed as a result of runoff.
Staff Response:
The conditions in the draft permit were written in accordance with Virginia Pollution Abatement(VPA)regulation
(9VAC25-32-30.A.)to prohibit point source discharges of pollutants to surface waters,including wetlands,except in the
case of a storm event greater than the 25-year,24-hour storm.
The regulation(9VAC25-32-560)requires the implementation of agricultural best management practices(BMPs)to
reduce nonpoint source pollution from farmland.This includes restrictions on application timing,application rate,slope,
and in particular setback distances from sensitive environmental features,they are designed to control and restrict the
movement of biosolids after application.
2. Protection of Groundwater
Comments were received related to groundwater:
- Groundwater is a source of drinking water supply for many in the county;and
- Excess nutrients and contaminants migrating into ground water and drinking water wells.
Staff Response:
The conditions in the draft permit are based on requirements in the VPA regulations which were developed to ensure that
neither infiltration nor runoff have an effect on aquifers.Infiltration is addressed through the restriction of land application
on areas where groundwater is within 18 inches from the surface. Additionally,planting and harvesting requirements are
designed such that the plant root systems uptake nutrients. Runoff is addressed through the assessment of field
conditions,such as crop conditions,soil type,and topography,that could potentially affect runoff,and the VPA regulation
requires a 100' setback distance from all wells located near land application sites.
Virginia Department of Health(VDH)regulations,(12VAC5-630-380,)require a minimum 100' distance between new
well construction and a"Sewage Disposal System or other contaminant source"including drainfields,underground
storage tanks,barnyards and hog lots.The VPA permit requirement for a 100' setback from biosolids land application is a
conservative application of this established standard,as agricultural fertilization of crops is not included in the VDH
regulations as a contaminant source in this context and is not an activity that would require a mandatory setback for newly
constructed wells.For wells that do not meet the VDH safe construction standards,the impact risk to a well is greater
from more frequent and common activities surrounding the well than from land application activities undertaken
observing appropriate regulatory setbacks,BMPs and other required protections.
The VPA regulation also requires that a Nutrient Management Plan(NMP)be written by a Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation(DCR)certified NMP writer,and that land application be conducted in accordance with the
NMP.The NMP dictates rate and timing of application.The VPA Regulation places limitations on land application to
sites with>15% slope and sites characterized by the US Department of Agriculture Soil Survey as"Frequently Flooded".
10
NMPs are written to ensure that biosolids are land applied at a rate which is agronomically appropriate,and to prevent
application of excess nutrients.
3. Biosolids Composition and Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Comments were received expressing concerns over the composition of biosolids as it relates to human health and the
environment:
-Potential risks from unknown pathogens,metals and other contaminants;
-Lack of significant research to assess risks to human health and the environment;
-Long term effects;
-Effectiveness of the treatment process;
-Monitoring requirements for pre and post land application;
-Required research prior to land application;
- Large food companies not accepting products from land that has used biosolids;
- Excess nutrient and contaminants entenng the food chain;
-Lack of research and studies pertaining to the accumulation of metals in livestock that have grazed pasture fields that
have received biosolids applications;and
- Pollution sensitive sites and/or individuals having not been accounted for in studies.
Staff Response:
The U.S.Environmental Protection Agency's(EPA)Sewage Sludge Use or Disposal Regulation(40 CFR Part 503)
establishes standards that apply to facilities that generate or treat sewage sludge,to become biosolids,as well as any
person who uses biosolids or disposes of sewage sludge. The regulation establishes concentration limits for pathogens
and elements commonly present in land applied biosolids,access restrictions for humans and animals,and harvest
restrictions for crops,in order to reduce the risk of pathogen exposure to humans or animals.The regulation specifies that
biosolids that are sold to the general public,known as Class A EQ biosolids,be treated to a higher pathogen reduction
standard. When biosolids are not treated to Class A EQ standards,the additional site management requirements provide
an equivalent level of human health protection.
Regarding additional pollutants that have been found in sewage sludge,the Clean Water Act requires EPA to review
existing sewage sludge regulations at least every two years.The purpose of the review is to identify additional pollutants
that may be present in sewage sludge,and if appropriate to develop regulations for those pollutants.At this time,EPA's
review has not identified any additional pollutants for regulation.
The Virginia State Water Control Law requires permits for the application of Class B biosolids. These permits contain all
of the criteria required by the federal regulation plus additional requirements such as setbacks from homes and
environmentally sensitive features,NMPs,public notification(including signage),financial assurances,local authority,
inspections,and training.The combined state and federal restrictions,such as the federal access and harvesting restrictions
and the state requirement for signage,work in concert to mitigate risk.Any person who land applies Class B biosolids
must obtain authorization to do so under a VPA permit and conduct all land application activity in conformance with that
permit.
The 2007 Virginia General Assembly commissioned a group of experts to study the issues surrounding biosolids.The
Biosolids Expert Panel (the Panel)published their final report in 2008.The Panel determined that as long as biosolids are
applied in conformance with all state and federal laws and regulations,that there is no scientific evidence of any toxic
effect to soil organisms,plants grown in treated soils,or to humans(via acute effects or bio-accumulation pathways)from
inorganic trace elements(including heavy metals)found at the current concentrations in biosolids.DEQ and the SWCB
considered the Panel's review and recommendations when the VPA regulations were amended in 2013.The Panel noted
in its report that"while certain contaminants have been found in land-applied biosolids,mere presence will not in itself
cause water quality impacts without a means to reach ground and surface waters.Additionally,presence does not indicate
danger without a toxic concentration."
Research into the safety and use of biosolids as an agricultural soil amendment is ongoing. DEQ,along with VDH,
monitor the progress of the research conducted by EPA in this regard,and if necessary,will respond to significant
findings with recommendations to modify the VPA regulation. During the summer of 2014,VDH performed a follow-up
review of the VPA regulations in light of research that had been conducted since 2008. Consistent with earlier reviews,
11
VDH's recent literature review did not find any contributory associations between biosolids exposure and adverse health
effects.Until there is new relevant research to conclude otherwise,DEQ is confident that VPA regulations and permits are
protective of human health and the environment.
4. Medically Sensitive Individuals
Comments were received questioning studies that had been conducted to protect individuals who are highly susceptible to
respiratory illnesses.
Staff Response:
DEQ has developed a procedure for working with VDH to consider extended setbacks for citizens with specific health
conditions.When a citizen attests that standard setbacks from homes and property lines should be extended based on
medical reasons,DEQ will double the setback distance upon written request from the citizen's physician.Setback
distances may be extended beyond the doubled setback where an evaluation by VDH determines that an additional
setback is necessary to prevent adverse effects to the health of an individual.
5. Airborne Particulates and Nanoparticles
Comments were received expressing concern for the potential for particulates and nanoparticles to become airborne and
travel from the site and the potential health risks of this.
Staff Response:
This is an example of an emerging contaminant that is not identified as a concern and for which the scientific community
has yet to reach consensus regarding environmental and human health effects. For this reason,DEQ nor EPA have
regulatory standards for the content of these materials in biosolids.
6. Wildlife
Comments were received concerning how wildlife moving through land application sites may be affected,in contrast to
livestock that are required to be excluded from land application sites for specified periods of time.
Staff Response:
This matter was also considered by the Biosolids Expert Panel and no additional requirements were included in the VPA
Regulation,as it was found that the limited exposure to wildlife poses no greater threat than normal agricultural activity.
Additionally,the federal risk assessment did not find that wildlife posed a significant risk of pathogen transmission.
7. Odor
Comments were received expressing concern in regard to the odor associated with biosolids.
Staff Response:
The regulations do not prohibit odors.Biosolids,at times,can and do have objectionable odors. The regulation does
require the mitigation of odors[9VAC25-32-60.F.l.c.(3)]by both the wastewater plants generating biosolids and the land
appliers. Accordingly,the draft permit requires an Odor Control Plan with the following:
(a)Methods used to minimize odor in producing biosolids;
(b)Methods used to identify malodorous biosolids before land application(at the generating facility);
(c)Methods used to identify and abate malodorous biosolids if delivered to the field,prior to land application;and
(d)Methods used to abate malodor from biosolids if land applied such as incorporation,if applicable.
8. Permit Applicant's Compliance History
Comments were received questioning the compliance history of the permit applicant, Synagro. and responsibility for any
damages.
Staff Response:
Synagro currently land applies biosolids in Spotsylvania County under an administratively continued VDH-BUR permit
and is currently in good standing with no compliance issues.
The proposed draft permit would allow Synagro to land apply biosolids in a manner that is protective of human health and
the environment. Pursuant to Va.Code(§62.1-44.22),the fact that any owner holds or has held a permit issued by the
12
Board shall not constitute a defense in any civil action involving private rights of adjacent or nearby property owners. In
addition,as required by the Va.Code(§62.1-44.19:3(H)and the VPA regulations,Synagro maintains an environmental
liability policy applicable to all their land application activity in Virginia,to pay claims for cleanup costs,personal injury,
and property damage resulting from the transportation, storage,or land application of biosolids.
If the permit is approved,DEQ will perform inspections to ensure compliance and will initiate enforcement action,if
applicable.Any injunctive relief and civil charges sought in an enforcement proceeding will be consistent with applicable
law as well as DEQ enforcement guidelines and appropriate for the severity of the violation.
9. Outdated Laws,Regulations,and Permits
Comments were received addressing VPA laws,regulations,and draft permits and the lack of confidence that the permits
encompass or thoroughly regulate all potential situations:
- Responses to comments are outdated;
- Comment responses based on inconclusive research;
- Outdated laws and regulations that are not protective of human health and the environment;
- Emerging contaminants not adequately researched or regulated; and
- Don't trust agency findings and verbal assurances.
Staff Response:
DEQ has processed the permit application and prepared a draft permit in accordance with the law and regulation as they
exist. It is not DEQ's role in this permit process to assess the adequacy of the regulations.
The proposed draft permit contains all of the criteria required by the state and federal regulations such as setbacks from
homes and environmentally sensitive features,NMPs,public notification(including signage),financial assurances,local
authority,inspections,training. Access and harvesting restrictions,and signage,work in concert to mitigate risk.
Research into the safety and use of biosolids as an agricultural soil amendment is ongoing. DEQ and VDH monitor the
progress of the research conducted by EPA,and if necessary, will respond to significant findings with recommendations
to modify the VPA regulation. During the summer of 2014,VDH performed a follow-up review of the VPA regulations
in light of research that had been conducted since 2008. Consistent with earlier reviews,VDH's recent literature review
did not find any contributory associations between biosolids exposure and adverse health effects.Until there is new
relevant research to conclude otherwise,DEQ is confident that VPA regulations and permits are protective of human
health and the environment.
10. Future Studies of Biosolids Will Determine it to be Unsafe
Comments were received suggesting that while it is considered safe today,further studies may reveal detrimental effects
of biosolids:
- Described biosolids as"Toxic Trojan Horse"due to a lack of studies on some of the potential effects of
substances and elements found to be in biosolids;
- Compared biosolids to asbestos and DDT;and
- Concern that biosolids could contain harmful substances or elements that the scientific community has not
determined to be harmful.
Staff's Response:
Research into the safety and use of biosolids as an agricultural soil amendment is ongoing. Recognizing this,the Clean
Water Act requires EPA to review existing sewage sludge regulations at least every two years.The purpose of the review
is to identify additional toxic pollutants that may be present in sewage sludge,and if appropriate to develop regulations for
those pollutants.At this time,EPA has not identified any additional toxic pollutants for regulation under federal law.
In preparing permits,DEQ also considers any additional directives from the EPA or Center for Disease Control(CDC)
regarding emergent health threats that may be made concerning biosolids.
11. Modification of Permits Not Requiring Public Meeting or Notice
Comments were received pertaining to DEQ not conducting a public meeting or public notice for modifications to add
land less than 50%of the original total acreage permitted.
13
Staff's Response:
The proposed draft permit is an original issuance of a VPA permit. As part of the issuance process,and in accordance
with the VPA regulation,adjacent landowners were notified,a public meeting was held,and public notice of the draft
permit was completed.
All VPA permits are drafted and modified in accordance with VPA regulation and State Water Control Law,with
modification procedures for biosolids permits specifically outlined in§62.1-44.19:3.C.10.and§62.1-44.19:3.4.of the
Code of Virginia. When DEQ receives a modification request for an existing permit that results in the addition of less
than 50%of the originally permitted acreage of the permit,landowners adjacent to the land proposed to be added are
notified;however,a public meeting or public notice in the newspaper are not required. Modifications are considered
cumulative and once the addition of land exceeds 50%of that included in the original issuance,DEQ follows a
modification process identical to that for the original permit issuance that includes a public meeting and newspaper
public notice in addition to notification of adjacent landowners.
12. Property Values and Quality of Life in Spotsylvania County
DEQ received comments that alleged that there would be a decrease in property values and a negative effect on the quality
of life as a result of land application of biosolids:
- Financial implications for the county due to decreased tourism;and
- Decreased property value as a result of odors and contaminated streams
Staff Response:
The impact of land application on property values was an inherent consideration during the development and adoption of
the VPA regulation. The draft permit was prepared in accordance with the regulation.
In 2007,HJR 694 required the Biosolids Expert Panel to respond to the question of whether odors from biosolids could
affect property values or impact human health and well-being.The Panel's final report recognized that odors from
biosolids could potentially impact property values,but could not confirm such an impact or the extent of such an impact
based on the current body of scientific literature and information presented directly to the Panel.The Panel recommended
that DEQ consider requiring that municipal biosolids generators be required to have odor control plans to ensure that the
generator is looking at critical control points to minimize odors,reducing the potential that odor would impact adjacent
properties.The draft permit includes a requirement for odor control plans from both the generators of the biosolids land
applied as well as the land applier.
Final Exempt Action: Amendments to the Fees for Permits and Certificates(Fee)regulation(9VAC25-20-10 et
seq.)Regarding Land Application Fees for Exceptional Quality Biosolids Cake
Introduction
At the June 25,2015 meeting,the staff intends to bring to the Board a request to amend regulations that pertain to the
regulation of sewage sludge in the Commonwealth. These changes are being made solely as a result of the following
legislative changes included in the Budget Bill—Chapter 665 of the 2015 General Assembly:
Item 361:E.Beginning October 1,2015,there shall be a$3.75 fee imposed on each dry ton of exceptional quality
biosolids cake sewage sludge that is land applied pursuant to§62.1-44.19:3P,Code of Virginia,until such fee is altered,
amended or rescinded by the State Water Control Board.
Background
In accordance with§62.1-44.19:3.P,the Department of Environmental Quality collects a fee for biosolids land applied in
the Commonwealth of Virginia. However,9VAC25-20-50.0 exempts the land application of exceptional quality
biosolids from this fee and DEQ collects the established fee of$7.50 per dry ton of biosolids land applied only for Class B
biosolids.The exemption for the land application of exceptional quality biosolids was based on the premise that most
exceptional quality biosolids were being produced in a granular or pelletized form to be marketed and distributed to the
public,in a manner much like commercial fertilizer.
14
Recently,the Blue Plains Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility completed an upgrade to the solids treatment at the
facility which will produce 100%exceptional quality biosolids,but as a cake product that will be land applied on sites
permitted for Class B biosolids until a blended product is developed for marketing and distribution.Cake biosolids
contain approximately 30%solids,similar to many Class B biosolids,and are land applied in bulk using specialized
equipment,as the material is not suitable for bagging. In addition,other wastewater treatment facilities in Virginia have
proposed generating an exceptional quality biosolids cake for land application.
While the exceptional quality cake material is of a higher quality than Class B biosolids with respect to pathogen
reduction,vector attraction reduction,and metals content,9VAC25-32-570.B.2 of the Virginia Pollutant Abatement
Regulation requires this type of exceptional quality biosolids to be land applied in accordance with a nutrient management
plan.To ensure compliance,DEQ staff will perform routine inspections,review reports and investigate citizen complaints.
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation staff will also review and,in some cases,approve nutrient
management plans,and local monitors may conduct inspections and collect samples.
The 2015 General Assembly included in the 2015 Budget Bill a requirement to impose a fee of$3.75 per dry ton on the
land application of exceptional quality biosolids land applied as a cake.
Regulatory Amendments
This is a request to amend the Fee regulation(9 VAC 25-20-10 et seq.)in order to reflect the effect of the budget
amendment.The Fee regulation establishes a fee assessment and collection system to recover costs associated with State
Water Control Board permitting programs.This regulatory action is exempt from Article 2 of the APA(§2.2-4006)
regarding public participation,as the changes being sought are pursuant only to those changes required by modifications
to the 2015 Budget Item 361.
The proposed revisions include the following:
• Section 40. Removed a reference to the language in Section 50 that exempts exceptional quality biosolids from
land application fees.
• Section 50. Removed the language exempting exceptional quality biosolids from land application fees.
• Section 146. Replaced the term"biosolids"with"Class B biosolids and exceptional quality biosolids cake"in
sentences referring specifically to the land application fees. Added language prescribing the fee of$3.75 per dry
ton of exceptional quality biosolids land applied as a cake in Virginia.
• Section 147. Amended recordkeeping requirements to include documentation of class of biosolids land applied,
i.e.Class B biosolids or exceptional quality biosolids cake. Amended reporting requirements to include biosolids
class in order to determine the appropriate fee.
Final Exempt Action: Amendments to the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Designation and Management
Regulation(9VAC25-830-10 et seq.)Regarding Daylighted Streams
Introduction
At the June 25,2015 meeting,the staff intends to bring to the Board a request to amend the regulation pertaining to the
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act. These changes are being made solely as a result of legislation(HB2067)passed during
the 2015 General Assembly session and signed by the Governor to amend and reenact§§62.1-44.15:68 and 62.1-44.15:72
of the Code of Virginia,relating to daylighted streams.
Background
In accordance with§62.1-44.68 et seq.,the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act,localities in the Tidewater region of
Virginia are required to ensure that land use ordinances and comprehensive plans contain specific requirements to reduce
the amount of pollutants from land use activities entering the waters of the state. These localities are also required to
designate and manage Resource Protection Areas(RPAs).RPAs are comprised of tidal wetlands,certain non-tidal
15
wetlands,and tidal shores and include a 100-foot buffer to minimize the adverse effects of human activities on these
features as well as water bodies with perennial flow.
These provisions have been administered by localities through their local ordinances since 1991. However,neither the
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act nor the Bay Act regulation addresses whether or not land adjacent to streams that had
been previously piped to an underground system but then later"daylighted"by being redirected to an above ground
channel should be part of the RPA.
At the request of several localities,legislation was presented and approved by the General Assembly to address daylighted
streams. The legislation adds a definition of daylighted streams to the Bay Act and states sets forth that the Board shall
not require the designation of an RPA adjacent to a daylighted stream. The legislation also sets forth that for localities
electing to establish an RPA adjacent to a daylighted stream use a water quality impact assessment to ensure that practices
are in place to prevent any degradation of the daylighted stream.
Regulatory Amendments
This is a request to amend the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Designation and Management regulation(9 VAC 830-
20-10 et seq.)in order to reflect the effect of the approved legislation.This regulatory action is exempt from Article 2 of
the APA(§2.2-4006)regarding public participation,as the changes being sought are pursuant only to those changes
required by modifications to the Chesapeake Bay Preservation act resulting from HB2067.
The proposed revisions include the following:
• Section 40. Added a definition of daylighted streams that is the same as the definition in the legislation.
• Section 80. Added a provision that a locality is not required to designate a Resource Protection Area adjacent to a
daylighted stream,but that those localities electing not to do so are required to use a water quality impact
assessment to ensure that proposed development on properties adjacent to the daylighted stream do not result m
the degradation of the stream and that the water quality assessment is consistent with the existing regulatory
requirements for such assessments.Verbiage was also added stating that the objective of the water quality
assessment is to ensure that practices on properties adjacent to daylighted streams are effective in retarding runoff,
preventing erosion,and filtering nonpoint source pollution.
Final Exempt Action: Amendments to the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Program to Address 2015
Legislation Related to Providing an Exemption for Routine Maintenance Projects
Introduction
At the June 25,2015 meeting,the staff intends to bring to the Board a request to amend regulations that pertain to the
Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Program in the Commonwealth. The 2015 General Assembly passed legislation
(HB 1827)which was signed by the Governor to amend and reenact§62.1-44.15:52 of the Code of Virginia,relating to an
exemption from erosion and sediment control requirements for routine maintenance projects.The approved Acts of
Assembly Chapter 497 exempts routine maintenance projects from the flow rate capacity and velocity requirements(i.e.,
the post-construction water quantity requirements)of the Erosion and Sediment Control Law.This exemption is
consistent with the exemption for similar routine maintenance projects under the Virginia Stormwater Management
Program.
Background
Prior to the passage of HB1827,the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law and attendant regulations required
routine maintenance projects to comply with the Commonwealth's post-construction water quantity requirements. These
projects,however,are exempt from complying with the Commonwealth's post-construction water quantity requirements
under the Virginia Stormwater Management Act and attendant regulations. The passed legislation(i.e.,FIB 1827)served
to align the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law and the Virginia Stormwater Management Act with regard to
routine maintenance projects. When routine maintenance is being performed,staff believes that the onginal construction
project should have addressed all applicable post-construction water quantity requirements.
16
Regulatory Amendments
This is a request to amend the Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations(9VAC25-840-40)in order to reflect the effect
of the amendment.This section of the regulations establishes the minimum standards that each Virginia Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan must meet.
The proposed revision includes the insertion of a statement in 9VAC25-840-40 19 m that provides an exemption pursuant
to C 7 of§62.1-44.15:34 of the Stormwater Management Act.
VPDES General Permit for Domestic Sewage Discharges Less Than or Equal to 1,000 GPI),VAG40- Amendments
to 9VAC25-110 and Reissuance of the General Permit
The current VPDES General Permit for Domestic Sewage Discharges will expire on August 1,2016,and the regulation
establishing this general permit is being amended to reissue another five-year permit. The staff is bringing this proposed
regulation amendment before the Board to request authorization to hold a public comment period and a public hearing. A
Notice of Intended Regulatory Action(NOIRA)for the amendment was issued on October 20,2014. The proposed
regulation takes into consideration the recommendations of a technical advisory committee(TAC)formed for this
regulatory action. The TAC consisted of three consultants(two of which represented the Virginia Society of Professional
Engineers and the American Council of Engineering Companies of Virginia),the Chesapeake Bay Foundation,three
Virginia Department of Health representatives,two private citizens(permittees),and DEQ staff. The changes proposed
are:
Proposed new
Current section
section number,if Proposed change,intent,rationale,and likely impact
number applicable Current requirement of proposed requirements
10 "7Q10"definition Deleted"climatic"from the definition as this term is
not needed.
"Climatic year"definition Deleted this definition as it is not needed.
Added definitions of"Board", "combined
application", "Department", "individual single
family dwelling", and"receiving water"to clarify
these terms for this permit regulation.
15 Added"Applicability of incorporated references
based on the dates that they became effective." This
section was added to update all references to Title
40 Code of Federal Regulations(CFR)within the
document to be those published as of July 1,2014.
This was a recommendation from the DEQ Office
of Policy so that dates do not need to be added for
each CFR reference.
20.0 Effective Date of Permit Changed the effective(2016)and expiration(2021)
dates to reflect the reissuance date of the permit.
60.A.1 Authorization to Discharge Added: "For an individual single family dwelling
the owner may submit a VDH combined application
in place of a registration statement." This allows
these owners to submit either form to apply for
general permit coverage. Similar changes were
made throughout the regulation.
60.B.6 A TMDL(board adopted, Reworded as follows to match the wording now
EPA approved,or EPA being used in all general permits: "The discharge is
imposed)contains an not consistent with the assumptions and
17
mdividual WLA for the requirements of an approved TMDL."
facility,unless this general
permit specifically addresses
the TMDL pollutant of
concern and the permit limits
are at least as stringent as
those required by the TMDL
WLA.
6O.0 "Compliance with this Modified as follows to better mirror the language in
general permit..." the Permit Regulation at 9VAC25-31-60:
"Compliance with this general permit constitutes
compliance,for purposes of enforcement,with the
federal Clean Water Act§§301,302,306,307,318,
403 and 405(a)through(b),and the State Water
Control Law,
either,with the exceptions stated in 9VAC25-31-60
of the VPDES Permit Regulation.Approval for
coverage under this general VPDES permit does not
relieve any owner of the responsibility to comply
with any other applicable federal,state or local
statute,ordinance or regulation,including,for
owners of sewage treatment works that serve
individual single family dwellings,the Alternative
Discharging Sewage Treatment Regulations for
Individual Single Family Dwellings(12VAC5-640)
of the Virginia Department of Health adopted
pursuant to§§32.1-12,32.1-163,and 32.1-164 of
the Code of Virginia and,for owners of sewage
treatment works that serve nensmgle-buildings or
dwellings other than individual single family
dwellings,the Sewage Collection and Treatment
Regulations(9VAC25-790)adopted by the State
Water Control Board pursuant to§62.1-44.4-819 of
the Code of Virginia."
60.D Continuation of Permit Updated the dates and made editorial changes as
Coverage follows:
"1. Any owner that was authorized to discharge
under the domestic sewage discharges general
permit issued in 2O06-2011, and who is required to
and submits a complete registration statement
for an individual single family dwelling a combined
application) on or before August 1, 2011 2016, is
authorized to continue to discharge treated domestic
sewage under the terms of the 2O06 2011 general
permit until such time as the board either:
a. Issues coverage to the owner under this general
permit;or
b. Notifies the owner that the discharge_is not
eligible for coverage under this general permit—is
denied.
2. When the owner that was covered under the
expiring or expired general permit has violated or is
violating the conditions of that permit, the board
18
may choose to do any or all of the following:
a. Initiate enforcement action based upon the 2011
general permit which has been ntinued;
b. Issue a notice of intent to deny coverage under
the new reissued general permit. If the general
permit coverage is denied,the owner would then be
required to cease the as discharges
authorized by the administratively continued
coverage under the terms of the 2011 general permit
or be subject to enforcement action for operating
without a permit;"
These dates are updated with each reissued general
permit so permittees can discharge legally and
safely if the permit reissuance process is delayed.
70.A Registration Statement Made editorial changes as follows:
"Any owner seeking coverage under this general
permit,and who is required to submit a registration
statement, shall submit a complete Ggeneral
VPDES Ppermit Registration Sstatement in
accordance with this chapter section,which shall
serve as a notice of intent to-be-covered-for
coverage under the gGeneral VPDES pPermit for
dDomestic sSewage dDischarges of!Less tThan or
eEqual to 1,000 g_Gallons peer dDay.For an
individual single family dwelling,the owner may
submit a VDH combined application in place of the
registration statement."
70.A.1&2 Updated the dates and made editorial changes as
follows:
"1. New facilities treatment works. Any owner
proposing a new discharge shall submit a complete
registration statement (or for an individual smgle
family dwelling a combined application) to the
department at least 60 days prior to the date planned
for commencing operation of the treatment works.
2.Existing facilities-treatment works.
a. Any owner of an existing treatment works
covered by an individual VPDES permit who is
proposing to be covered by this general permit shall
notify the department and submit a complete
registration statement (or for an individual single
family dwelling a combined application) at least
240 days prior to the expiration date of the
individual VPDES permit.
b. Any owner of a treatment works that was
authorized to discharge under the general permit
issued in 2006 2011, and who intends to continue
coverage under this general permit,is automatically
covered by this general permit and is not required to
submit a registration statement (or for an individual
single family dwelling a combined application)if:
(1) The ownership of the treatment works has not
changed since the registration statement or
19
combined application for coverage under the 2006
2011 general permit was submitted, or, if the
ownership has changed, a new registration
statement (or combined application) or VPDES
Change of Ownership form was submitted to the
department by the new owner at the time of the title
transfer;
(2) There has been no change in the design or
operation, or both, of the treatment works since the
registration statement or combined application for
coverage under the 2006 2011 general permit was
submitted;
(3) For treatment works serving individual single
family dwellings,the
VDH has no objection to the automatic permit
coverage renewal for this treatment works based on
system performance issues, enforcement issues, or
other issues sufficient to the board. If the Virgiftia
VDH objects to the automatic
renewal for this treatment works, the owner will be
notified by the board in writing; and
(4)For treatment works serving neusingle-buildings
or dwellings other than mdividual single family
dwellings, the board has no objection to the
automatic permit coverage renewal for this
treatment works based on system performance
issues, OF enforcement issues, or other issues
sufficient to the board. If the board objects to the
automatic renewal for this treatment works, the
owner will be notified by the board in writing.
c_Any owner that of a treatment works that was
authorized to discharge under the general permit
issued in 2011 who does not qualify for automatic
permit coverage renewal shall submit a complete
registration statement (or for an individual single
family dwelling a combined application) to the
department on or before June 2,2011 2016."
70.A.3 Late Notifications Changed section to"Late Registration Statements"
and clarified the text as follows:
"Late-FRegistration statements e-armed-by
the-board-(or for individual single family dwellings
combined applications)for existing treatment works
covered under subdivision 2 b of this subsection
will be accepted after August 1,2016,but
authorization to discharge will not be retroactive.
Owners described in subdivision 2 b of this
subsection that submit registration statements(or
combined applications)after June 2,2016,are
authorized to discharge under the provisions of
9VAC25-110-60 D(Continuation of permit
coverage)if a complete registration statement(or
combined application)is submitted before August 2,
2016."
20
What this means is that an owner must apply for
coverage before August 2,2016 or they will be
discharging without a permit and may be subject to
enforcement action.
70.B Registration Statement Made editorial changes to B.1.a&b and B.2.a as
follows:
"1. a.Indicate if the facility-building served by the
treatment works is an individual single family
dwelling.If the facility building is not an individual
single family dwelling,describe the€acilityls-use of
the building or site served.
b.Name and street address of the facility-building
or site served by the treatment works.
2.a.Name,mailing address,email address(where
available),and me telephone numbers
of the facility owner of the treatment works.Fef-a
dwelling,ilndicate if the owner is or will be the
occupant of the dwelling or facility served by the
treatment works."
70.B.2.b Registration Statement Added B.2.b to ask for a contact name if the owner
will not be the occupant of the building or dwelling:
"b. If the owner is not or will not be the occupant of
the dwelling or facility,provide an alternate contact
name,mailing address,email address(where
available),and telephone number of the dwelling or
facility,if available."
70.B Registration Statement Made editorial changes to B.4,6,7&8 as follows:
"4. The amount of discharge from the treatment
works, in gallons per day, on a monthly average,
and the design flow of the treatment works, in
gallons per day.
6. For a proposed treatment works, indicate if there
are central sewage facilities available to serve the
facility-building or site.
7. If the facility treatment works currently has a
VPDES permit, provide the permit number. Indicate
if the facility-treatment works has been built and
begun discharging.
8. For the owner of any proposed treatment works
or any treatment works that has not previously been
issued a VPDES permit:
a. A 7.5 minute U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
topographic map or equivalent (e.g., a computer
generated map) that indicates the discharge point,
the location of the property to be served by the
treatment works, and the location of any wells,
springs, other water bodies, and any residences
within 1/2 mile downstream from the discharge
point;
b.A site diagram of the existing or proposed
sewage-treatment works;to include the property
boundaries,the location of the facility or dwelling
21
building or site to be served,the individual sewage
treatment units,the receiving water body,and the
discharge line location;and..."
70.B.9 Maintenance Contract Renamed the item to"Operation and Maintenance".
In 9.a,removed the detail from the item and
specified: "For the owner of a treatment works
serving an individual single family dwelling,
operation and maintenance
.,tract has been obtained: ordance, .ith the
requirements are specified in the VDH regulations
at 12VAC5-640-500."
In 9.b,removed the unnecessary detail from the
item(it is specified in the permit itself)and clarified
that this applies to: "the owner of a treatment works
serving a tnonsingle-building or dwelling other than
an individual single family dwelling"
70.B.10 Removed the unnecessary detail from the item(it is
specified in the permit itself)and clarified that this
applies to: "the owner of a treatment works serving
a nensingle-building or dwelling other than an
individual single family dwelling"
70.0 Signature Requirements Clarified that: "The registration statement shall be
signed in accordance with the requirements-of
9VAC25-31-110 A of the VPDES Permit
Regulation."
70.D Added an allowance for the Registration to be
submitted electronically: "Where To Submit.The
registration statement may be delivered to the
department by either postal or electronic mail and
shall be submitted to the DEO regional office
serving the area where the treatment works is
located.
80 Part I General Permit Changed the effective and expiration dates to reflect
the upcoming permit term.
80 Part I First Effluent Limits Table Added footnote(6)to the TRC Final Effluent
A.1 Instantaneous Maximum limit,and the D.O.
Instantaneous Minimum limit. Footnote(6)states:
"Does not apply when the receiving stream is an ,
ephemeral stream. "Ephemeral streams"are
drainage ways,ditches,hollows,or swales that
contain only(a)flowing water during or
immediately following periods of rainfall,or(b)
water supplied by the discharger.These waterways
would normally have no active aquatic community."
80 Part I Monitoring Data Changed this to require owners of treatment works
A.2 serving buildings or dwellings other than individual
single family dwellings(i.e.,those that report to
DEQ)to submit their monitoring results to the
Department along with their maintenance logs.
This change will assist the Department with
compliance with this permit. "Repo
22
Monitoring results for treatment works serving
buildings or dwellings other than individual single
family dwellings shall be
submitted to the department
on a Discharge Monitoring Report(DMR)no later
than the 10th of January following the monitoring
period.The monitoring period is January 1 through
December 31.A copy of the maintenance log
required by Part I D 2 b(4)shall also be submitted
with the DMR."
80 Part I Second Effluent Limits Table Changed the Total Residual Chlorine(TRC)limit to
B 1 break out"After contact tank"and"Final effluent"
as two separate entries,to be consistent with the
way this is presented in the Part I A Effluent Limits
table.
80 Part I Monitoring Data Changed this to require owners of treatment works
B.2 serving buildings or dwellings other than individual
single family dwellings(i.e.,those that report to
DEQ)to submit their monitoring results to the
Department along with their maintenance logs.
This change will assist the Department with
compliance with this permit. "Repel
Monitoring results for treatment works serving
buildings or dwellings other than individual single
family dwellings shall be
submitted to the department
on a Discharge Monitoring Report(DMR)no later
than the 10th of January following the monitoring
period.The monitoring period is January 1 through
December 31.A copy of the maintenance log
required by Part I D 2 b(4)shall also be submitted
with the DMR."
80 Part I C Added a new limits set for discharges to receiving
waters subject to the Policy for the Potomac River
Embayments(PPRE)(9VAC25-415). This was
done to allow owners of treatment works
discharging to these waters to be eligible for
coverage under this general permit. Presently these
facilities must be covered under an individual
permit. Monitoring for these dischargers is required
quarterly and the limits are based on the PPRE
limits and on limits developed for existing
individual permits in the PPRE area. Monitoring
results for treatment works serving individual single
family dwellings in this area are to be submitted to
both DEQ and VDH.
80 Part I 80 Part I D Special Conditions Renumbered to accommodate the addition of the
C new limit set above.
80 Part I Maintenance Contract Renamed this special condition to"Operation and
D.2 Maintenance".
In D.2.a,removed the detail from the special
condition and specified: "Operation and
23
maintenance requirements for treatment works
serving individual single family dwellings are
specified in the Virginia Department of Health
regulations at 12VAC5-640-500-r-equife
In D.2.b,clarified that this applies to: "Treatment
works serving nensingle-buildings or dwellings
other than an individual single family dwellings."
In D.2.b(2),changed the requirement for the owner
of a proposed treatment works to submit a copy of a
valid maintenance contract to have the owner
submit a certification that they have a valid
maintenance contract.
In D.2.b(3)(b),added: "... the owner shall begin
emergency pump and haul of all sewage generated
from the facility or dwelling or otherwise ensure
that no discharge occurs if full and complete repairs
cannot be accomplished within 48 hours;"
In D.2.b(3)(c),specified that the contract provider
log shall be maintained"at the treatment works"
Deleted D.2.b(3)(e)that the maintenance contract
shall be valid for a minimum of 24 months of
consecutive coverage. The section already requires
that a maintenance contract be kept in force during
the permit term,so this requirement was
unnecessary.
80 Part I Added a requirement for the permittee to keep a
D.2.b(4) maintenance log:
"(4) The permittee shall keep a log of all
maintenance performed on the treatment works
including,but not limited to,the following:
(a) The date and amount of disinfection chemicals
added to the chlorinator.
(b)If dechlorination is used,the date and amount of
any dechlorination chemicals that are added.
(c) The date and time of equipment failure(s) and
the date and time the equipment was restored to
service.
(d) The date and approximate volume of sludge
removed.
(e) Dated receipts for chemicals purchased,
equipment purchased,and maintenance performed."
80 Part I Operation and Maintenance Made editonal changes to Part I D.3:
D.3 Plan "3. Operation and maintenance plan.The owner of
any treatment works serving a netsingle-building or
dwelling other than an individual single family
dwelling may request an exception to the
maintenance contract requirement by submitting an
operation and maintenance plan to the board for
review and approval.At a minimum,the operation
and maintenance plan shall contain the following
information:
24
3.b(1)The date and amount of disinfection
chemicals added to the chlorinator(if applicable).
3.d.An effluent monitoring plan to conform with
the requirements of Part I A,Part I B or Part I B-C,
as appropriate,including all sample collection,
preservation,and analysis procedures.Note:The
Discharges from the treatment works should be
sampled during normal discharging operations or
normal discharging conditions(i.e.,operations that
are normal for that facility works).The
owner or maintenance provider should not force a
discharge in order to collect a sample."
80 Part I Compliance Recordkeeping Added quantification levels(QL)for cBOD5(2
D.4 mg/L),Ammonia as N(0.20 mg/L),and Total
Phosphorus(0.10 mg/L). These were added
parameters under the PPRE limit set(Part I C),so
the QLs were needed.
80 Part II A.4 Monitoring Added A 4 as follows: "Samples taken as required
by this permit shall be analyzed in accordance with
1 VAC30-45(Certification for Noncommercial
Environmental Laboratories)or 1 VAC30-46
(Accreditation for Commercial Environmental
Laboratories)."
This is a new regulatory requirement effective
January 1,2012,and is being added to all general
permits as they are reissued.
80 Part II Reports of Noncompliance Added an online allowance for immediate(24-hour)
I NOTE noncompliance reporting,and a link to the web
page.
80 Part II Duty to Reapply Made date changes and editorial changes:
M "M.1.If the permittee wishes to continue an activity
regulated by this permit after the expiration date of
this permit, and the permittee does not qualify for
automatic permit coverage renewal, the permittee
shall submit a new registration statement (or for an
individual single family dwelling a VDH combined
application) at least 60 days before the expiration
date of the existing permit, unless permission for a
later date has been granted by the board.The board
shall not grant permission for registration
statements (or combined applications) to be
submitted later than the expiration date of the
existing permit.
M.2. A permittee qualifies for automatic permit
coverage renewal and is not required to submit a
registration statement (or for an individual single
family dwelling a VDH combined application)if:
M.2.a. The ownership of the treatment works has
not changed since this general permit went into
effect on August 2, 20112016, or, if the ownership
has changed, a new registration statement(or for an
individual single family dwelling a VDH combined
25
application) or VPDES Change of Ownership form
was submitted to the department by the new owner
at the time of the title transfer;
M.2.b. There has been no change in the design or
operation,or both, of the treatment works since this
general permit went into effect on August 2,
20112016;
M.2.d. For treatment works serving neusingle
buildings or dwellings other than single family
dwellings, the board has no objection to the
automatic permit coverage renewal for this
treatment works based on system performance
issues, et--enforcement issues, or other issues
sufficient to the board. If the board objects to the
automatic renewal for this treatment works, the
permittee will be notified by the board in writing.
M.3. Any permittee that does not qualify for
automatic permit coverage renewal shall submit a
new registration statement (or for an individual
single family dwelling a VDH combined
application)in accordance with Part II M 1."
80 Part II Upset Clarified that the term"upset"is defined in
V 9VAC25-31-10(the VPDES Permit Regulation).
80 Part II Transfer of Permits Revised this subsection so that the Board may
Y waive the automatic transfer timing requirement
(i.e.,30 days in advance of proposed transfer).
Permittees are rarely able to meet this requirement
and the staff thinks they need some flexibility with
this. Also,the references to modifications and
revocations and reissuances have been removed
because these events are not appropriate for
coverage under general permits.
"4-Permits are not transferable to any person except
after notice to the department.
Part II Y 2, a permit may be transferred by the
pe.mitree t ater only if the
permit has been n odifed a ,oked anal ,ed
,.,dif,c tion ., a de to identify the ., w
as-ma.be ne a nder the State Water Contr l
Law nd the Clean Water Act
2 A.. a alterative to transf .n.der Para H Y 1
Coverage under this permit may be automatically
transferred to a new permittee if:
al. The current permittee notifies the department
within 30 days of the transfer of the title to the
facility or property, unless permission for a later
date has been granted by the board;
b2. The notice includes a written agreement
between the existing and new permittees containing
a specific date for transfer of permit responsibility,
coverage,and liability between them;and
e3. The board does not notify the existing permittee
26
and the proposed new permittee of its intent to
modify or revoke and reissue deny the new
permittee coverage under the permit.If this notice is
not received, the transfer is effective on the date
specified in the agreement mentioned in Part II Y 2
b. "
Significant Noncompliers Report: No new facilities reported to EPA on the Quarter Noncompliance Report for the
quarter ending December 31,2014.
Fairfax County Board of Supervisors,Fairfax County-Consent Special Order w/Civil Charges: The Fairfax
County Board of Supervisors("County")owns a portion of the sanitary sewer collection system that feeds into the
Alexandria Renew Enterprises Water Resources Recovery Facility. The collection system is maintained by Fairfax
County Public Works and Environmental Services("Fairfax"). On October 14,2013,Fairfax experienced a sanitary
sewer overflow("SSO")into Holmes Run of approximately 250,000 gallons of sewage resulting in a fish kill. According
to information received by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries(VDGIF),this reach of stream had
recently been stocked with close to 1000 trout. On October 21,2013,Fairfax submitted an incident report to DEQ
attributing the cause of the SSO to high flows in the sewer line from flooding upstream combined with a blockage in the
line. After restoring flow,Fairfax discovered that a portion of the sewer line had collapsed requiring the installation of a
bypass. Fairfax has since replaced this line with a larger pipe with work completed in December 2013. On October 17,
2013,Fairfax notified DEQ of a SSO that occurred into an unnamed tributary to Hunting Creek. The cause of the SSO
was a tree that was outside of Fairfax's easement that fell at the tributary crossing breaking a sanitary sewer pipe. On
October 18,2013,Fairfax replaced the piping and also cleared the surrounding area of any other trees that could
potentially affect the piping. Fairfax estimated the SSO at approximately 17,800 gallons of sewage. On April 30,2014,
Fairfax provided notification to DEQ of an approximately 300,000 to 400,000 gallon discharge of wastewater to Holmes
Run and Lake Barcroft. In Fairfax's writing description of the event it stated that on April 29,2014,Fairfax found a leak
in a joint connection of new piping it had just installed at the Barcroft pump station force main. On April 30,2014,the
area experienced a large rain event. Due to the previously discovered leak,Fairfax was unable to use the pump station for
the excess flows and had to bring portable pumps and a tanker truck to use in conjunction with the temporary bypass
already in place. The portable pumps were unable to carry the excess flow resulting in the SSO. The leak was repaired on
May 5,2014. On May 16,2014,Fairfax reported a discharge of 3,240 gallons of wastewater from a manhole into Holmes
Run leading to Lake Barcroft. The overflow was attributed to pumps being incorrectly locked out when preparing for
heavy rains predicted for May 15`s. Employees were onsite at the time and were able to quickly switch the pumps. On
May 19,2014,Fairfax reported a discharge of 6,404 gallons of wastewater into Lake Barcroft stemming from lost
communication at the Barcroft Pump Station due to issues with a Verizon Communication line. Verizon was unable to
correct the issues and advised that it was unable to work over the weekend and would come back the following Monday.
Fairfax employees verified operation of the station throughout the weekend and discovered the overflow the morning of
May 19t. On June 16,2014,Fairfax reported a discharge of approximately 8,000 gallons of wastewater of which 6,000
gallons reached Holmes Run leading to Lake Barcroft. Fairfax discovered that a gasket in the area of piping that was
repaired after the April 30th discharge had failed. Fairfax hired an engineering firm to investigate and they determined that
despite concrete being in place at the bends,the pressure in the pipe likely caused the pipe to move leading to the failing
gasket. Fairfax installed additional coupling restraints and then as an extra precaution,slip-lined the interior
circumference of piping.
DISCUSSION:
Fairfax has implemented repairs of the piping that led to the overflows. Additionally,Fairfax has installed additional
equipment including a cell based SCADA system. Accordingly,the Order does not require additional measures to correct
the items leading to the SSOs. The Order does require Fairfax to submit to DEQ for review and comment notification
procedures to be used after occurrences of SSOs that ensure appropriate public notification and include requirements for
suitable signage depending on the circumstances of the SSO event.
CIVIL CHARGES/SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT:
A civil charge of$27,300 is being assessed for the SSOs. This was based on a moderate to serious potential for harm.
One of the SSOs did result in a fish kill thereby removing a special recreational use. Some of the SSOs did occur during
heavy rainfall events which mitigates the potential for harm. Of the$27,300 charge,90%will be used towards a
Supplemental Environmental Project(SEP). For the SEP,Fairfax will donate the money to the Virginia Department of
27
•
Game and Inland Fisheries(VDGIF)to use for restocking trout in Holmes Run. The SEP meets the statutory cnteria as it
will benefit the geographic region where the SSOs occurred and will support a recreational use of the stream.
PUBLIC COMMENT
The consent order was signed on February 20,2015. A public notice for this proposed consent order was run on March
23,2015,and April 23,2015 in the Washington Times,and in the Virginia Register on March 23,2015,and May 18,
2015,and on the Department's website. The public comment period closed on May 28,2015. The following outlines the
comments received on the proposed Order and staff response. Those comments that were similar in nature were
combined where it was possible without losing specifics.
1. Comment: The April 30th sanitary sewer overflow(SSO)should have been charged in a Notice of Violation
(NOV).
DEQ Response•
DEQ did decide not to issue a NOV(due to heavy rainfall contributing to the SSO). Nonetheless,DEQ did include the
SSO in the Order.
2. Comment: The Order did not acknowledge or address Fairfax's use of an undersized bypass pipe or temporary
pump.
DEQ Response:
DEQ did investigate this concern and according to Fairfax the pump sizes were based on historical flow data and were
twice the size that normally would be required. DEQ has no other evidence to suggest that Fairfax did not employ good
engineering principles.
3. Comment: The Order should state that the cause of the April 30,2014,SSO was the contractor who conducted
testing of its work during heavy rains.
DEQ Response:
According to the evidence presented to DEQ,the force main was tested on April 29t. It was because of this testing that a
leak was discovered. The SSO itself was caused by heavy rains which resulted in excess flows. Due to the leak,Fairfax
was unable to use the pump station for excess flows and had to use portable pumps and a temporary bypass already in
place.
4. Comment: The Order should require Fairfax to review its contract management procedures and require the
County to retain an independent contractor to oversee quality control.
DEQ Response:
DEQ holds Fairfax liable for the SSOs not the contractors completing the work. Historically,DEQ has a high level of
confidence in Fairfax's Collection System Management and Maintenance Program(CMOM).
Comment: The SEP should compensate the Lake Barcroft Association and its citizens for the loss of lake use and
specifically reimburse LBA for the emergency notification company that LBA employed.
DEQ Response:
It is the responsibility of the party subject to the Order to submit a SEP if they so choose. The SEP proposed by Fairfax
meets the statutory requirements,in particular environmental restoration,and in reviewing and approving the SEP DEQ
followed those procedures and protocols set forth in Enforcement Guidance Memorandum No. 3-2006.
5. Comment: The Consent Order should include specific guidelines for notice to the public of SSOs.
DEQ Response:
Those specifics will be part of the document required by the Order. Fairfax already has procedures in place which comply
with regulatory requirements for notification.
6. Comment: There should be an environmental assessment of the damage from the SSOs.
DEQ Response
Fairfax has completed extensive testing of Lake Barcroft both during and after the SSO events. Based on this data,DEQ
does not believe further assessment is necessary.
7. Comment: There should be a review of the alarm systems and the pump stations should shut down in the case of
an overflow.
DEQ Response:
The pump stations are designed in conformance with the sewage collection and treatment regulations(9 VAC 25-790).
8. Comment: The Order should require Fairfax to install sewage containment prevention systems prior to beginning
work.
DEQ Response•
The Order addresses past events. Fairfax does conduct repairs and upgrades to its system daily with no issues. DEQ has
confidence in Fairfax's CMOM.
9. Comment: A review of the"combined sewer system"around the lake should be performed to check for leaks.
28
DEQ Response•
The collection system in the vicinity of Lake Barcroft is not a combined sewer system. Fairfax does have a model Capital
Improvement Program in which it evaluates and identifies areas of its system in need of repair or upgrades. This program
is what led Fairfax to identify the pump stations and piping in the Lake Barcroft area for replacement. Fairfax has
completed work on the piping and pump stations that led to the SSOs. Any further assessment is best handled by Fairfax
and not through an enforcement mechanism.
10. Comment: The Authority should be required to have a spill response plan for sewer overflows.
DEQ Response:
The comment is outside the scope of the Order. Fairfax's CMOM does address how to handle SSOs.
11. Comment: There should be a fine for failure to notify DEQ and the Health Department of the SSOs.
DEQ Response•
DEQ has no information to suggest that Fairfax did not comply with notification requirements.
Duke Energy Carolinas,LLC,Eden,North Carolina-Consent Special Order w/Civil Charge:
BACKGROUND:On February 2,2014,a coal ash and water mixture was released from a buried 48-inch stormwater
pipe,at Duke's Dan River Combined Cycle Station north of Eden,North Carolina. The cause of the release was the
sudden collapse of the 48-inch pipe,which runs beneath the Station's primary coal ash storage impoundment. Coal ash
and ash pond water flowed into the pipe and discharged to the Dan River. The estimated volume of ash released was
between 30,000 and 39,000 tons. In addition,approximately 24 million to 27 million gallons of ash impoundment water
was released. The release of coal ash extended approximately 80 miles down the Dan River,from the Station to the Kerr
Reservoir. Sampling results for surface water,taken at the time of the release and thereafter,revealed levels of arsenic,
lead,aluminum,iron,beryllium,copper,boron,zinc,nitrate nitrogen and manganese which exceed EPA's risk-based
ecological risk screening levels. Iron levels exceeded the Board's Water Quality Standard for iron. Sampling results for
the ash material mdicated the presence of arsenic,beryllium,cadmium,chromium,copper,lead,mercury,nickel,
manganese,selenium,iron and zinc,all of which(with the exception of iron)have been listed by EPA as hazardous
substances. The U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service advised that,following the release,ash deposits from five inches deep to
trace amounts occurred at various locations along the Dan River from the Station to Kerr Reservoir. In addition,EPA
identified that there were several larger deposits of ash in the Dan River,including an approximately 2,500 ton deposit
above the Schoolfield Dam in Danville. (The Schoolfield Dam deposit has since been removed by Duke.) Immediately
following the release the Virginia Department of Health issued an advisory warning against contact with coal ash in Dan
River water or sediments. In addition,during this period,water treatment plants on the Dan were forced to implement
enhanced treatment methods to remove coal ash fines from the river water,prior to distributing the water to customers.
Duke has agreed to reimburse Commonwealth agencies and localities,including DEQ,for response costs. In addition,
Duke is currently participating in a natural resource damage assessment process with the Department of Environmental
Quality,the Department of the Interior,North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,and other
stakeholders to determine natural resource injury and to identify projects addressing that injury.
DISCUSSION: The order requires payment of$2,500,000 in settlement of the violations cited in the order,of which
$250,000 is to be paid within 30 days of the effective date of the order. The civil charge does not include an economic
benefit component,as any cost savings which Duke may have realized in the maintenance of the 48-inch pipe were
outweighed by the remediation and corrective action costs incurred as a result of the pipe failure.The remaining
$2,250,000 is to fund certain Virginia projects which,generally, are intended to either improve water quality or enhance
beneficial uses of the Dan River for affected Virginia communities.
PUBLIC COMMENT:The consent order was signed on March 27,2015 by Duke. Public notices for the order were run
on April 8,2015 in The Gazette-Virginian and The Mecklenburg Sun and on April 9,2015 in The Danville Register&
Bee and The South Boston News and Record,as well as in the Virginia Register on April 20,2015 and on the
Department's website. The public comment period ended on May 20,2015. Public comments were received regarding
the order and a summary of the comments follows. Responses to the comments will be provided at a later date.
1 The$2.5 million dollar settlement figure is insufficient to address cleanup costs and mitigation of the effects of the
spill on water quality. The Virginia Projects in Appendix A of the Order do not address cleanup and/or mitigation of spill
effects.
2 The information contained on the Department's website about the Kingston,Tennessee Plant spill does not appear
to be accurate.
3 The amount of the penalty should be more than the cost of environmental restoration.
4 Relative to the cost of the short term economic and environmental impacts of the spill,i.e. $295 million,the
amount of the$2.5 million settlement figure is too small.
29
5 The investment of$2,250,000 in Virginia Projects is insufficient to compensate local governments impacted by the
negative publicity related to the spill,the adverse effect that the spill had on public opinion regarding the attractiveness of
Dan River and the impact on recreational and tourism businesses.
6 The Order should require a substantially larger settlement in Order to ensure that all the projects mentioned in
Appendix A are performed,i.e.it should be$50 million. As a comparison,adjusting for inflation,the 1977 kepone fine of
$13.2 million would be$51.13 in today's dollars.
7 Duke should not be able to satisfy its obligations under the Order with promises already made to upgrade the
amenities at Abreu-Grogan Park.
8 Duke should not be allowed under the provisions of the Order to unilaterally determine which Virginia Projects
will be performed.
9 The Order should clarify that payments by Duke in the nature of restitution,damages or penalties may not be used
to offset the$2,250,000 amount.
10 The$2.5 million settlement figure is too low compared to the crimmal case settlement of$102 million.
11 Any funds appropriated by Duke Energy pursuant to its Water Resources Fund should be separate and distinct
from the$2,250,000 settlement figure.
12 The$2.5 million settlement figure is too low given the fact that Duke has cleaned up only 8%of the volume of ash
spilled,that Virginia Beach and Norfolk declined to use Lake Gaston as a drinking water source for three months after the
spill,that North Carolina did not withdraw its warning about touching Dan river water until July 2014,that farmers
expressed concerns about irrigating crops and feeding cattle with contaminated river water and given the toxic nature of
coal ash.
13 The Order should provide a definition for the term "Virginia Stakeholders"and should clarify how the
Stakeholders will participate in the project selection process.
14 The Order should include a list of baseline requirements that each project must meet before it will be awarded
funds from the settlement. The public should have an opportunity to view and comment on those baseline requirements
prior to final approval of the Order.
15 The Department should base its penalties on EPA's$37,500 per violation per day cap and should use EPA's
penalty calculation factors.
16 An independent third party should oversee the process of using the settlement funds.
17 The$2.5 million settlement figure is too low compared to the 2014 salary of Duke Energy's CEO($8.3 million).
18 Appendix A of the Order includes a project to provide information to the public that the coal ash spill did not
adversely affect agriculture,livestock or wildlife. Including this project could impede clean-up efforts in that surface
water samples reveal pollutants that exceed EPA screening levels,wildlife mortality is attributable to the spill,and
constituents of the ash have been listed by EPA as hazardous substances.
19 SEP guidance was not followed in this case.
30
Christopher Perez
From: Mark Graham
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2019 6:20 AM
To: Christopher Perez;John Anderson
Cc: Frank Pohl
Subject: Re: SDP2019-25 Lowes & Floor Fashions— Major
Foiks, I fascilitated a public meeting with DEQ and the property owner several years ago regarding this
package treatment plant. I'm happy to discuss with anyone who has questions.
Thanks,
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Friday,June 14, 2019 8:53 AM
To:John Anderson
Cc: Frank Pohl; Mark Graham
Subject: RE: SDP2019-25 Lowes & Floor Fashions—Major
John,
SDP2019-25 Lowes & Floor Fashions—Major
I recently received communication from Liz Russell of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation in which she raises
concerns about the new underground waste water treatment plant proposed/depicted on the site plan. The
Foundation is an adjacent property owner, TMP 07900-00-00-007A0, who has substantial concerns with the
proposal as the new underground wastewater treatment plant drains to their property. There appears to be
history on this subject with the property owner, the community at large, the Board of Supervisors, DEQ, and the
applicant. Please take a look into this issue during your review of the plan, as will I during mine.
Also, John upon your return lets discuss if this major amendment application needs a new groundwater study.
Christopher Perez I Senior Planner
Department of Community Development!County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902
434 296 5832 ext.3443
From: Liz Russell <Irussell@monticello.org>
Sent:Thursday,June 13, 2019 3:57 PM
To: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: SDP2019-25 Lowes& Floor Fashions—Major
Will do. Informally and in advance—here is the letter that was sent to DEQ in 2015 outlining our concerns with the
proposed onsite WWTP. A letter from our engineer is attached as well.
It is unfortunate that the letter that went out to adjacent property owners did not mention the facility as shown on the
plan.The proposed WWTP was (and still is) a really big deal to Monticello and to community members. We had support
from Jane Dittmar, Liz Palmer(see attached letters), and others and the County put a lot of time and resources into
scheduling public hearings. Mark Graham was heavily involved.
1
Is there any way to immediately semi notice of this oversight to adjacent ownersr I realize it was not intentional, but it is
a really important issue and I think the public should have all the facts.
Thanks,
Liz
2
Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2019 9:14 AM
To: John Anderson
Cc: Frank Pohl; Mark Graham
Subject: RE: SDP2019-25 Lowes & Floor Fashions— Major
Attachments: 2015-01-08_Ryder WWTP Comments (TJF) v.3_LGB SIGNED.pdf; DEQLetter_LPalmer.pdf;
DEQLetter_JDittmar.pdf; WWA Public Comments v2..pdf
John,
SDP2019-25 Lowes&Floor Fashions—Major
I recently received communication from Liz Russell of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation in which she raises concerns
about the new underground waste water treatment plant proposed/depicted on the site plan.The Foundation is an adjacent
property owner,TMP 07900-00-00-007A0,who has substantial concerns with the proposal as the new underground
wastewater treatment plant drains to their property.There appears to be history on this subject with the property owner,
the community at large,the Board of Supervisors,DEQ,and the applicant. Please take a look into this issue during your
review of the plan,as will I during mine.
She plans to provide me the Foundation's formal written concerns soon,but wanted to let us know of the issue as soon as
possible so we can research it and consider it in our review.Attached is a letter that was sent to DEQ in 2015 outlining
their concerns with the proposed onsite WWTP. Also,attached is a letter from their engineer.Upon your return lets
discuss.
Also,John upon your return lets discuss if this major site plan amendment application truly requires a groundwater tier 4
study.
Christopher Perez I Senior Planner
Department of Community Development(County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902
434 296 5832 ext.3443
1
Christo•her Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Friday,June 14, 2019 8:54 AM
To: John Anderson
Cc: Frank Pohl; Mark Graham
Subject: RE: SDP2019-25 Lowes & Floor Fashions— Major
Attachments: 2015-01-08_Ryder WWTP Comments (TJF) v.3_LGB S NED.pdf; DEQLetter_LPalmer.pdf;
DEQLetter_JDittmar.pdf;WWA Public Comments ..••
Tracking: Recipient R. all
John Anderson ucceeded 6/17/ •19 928 AM
Frank Pohl
Mark Graham
John,
SDP2019-25 Lowes & Floor Fashions—Major
I recently received communication from Liz Russell ,f the Thomas Jefferson Foundation in which she raises
concerns about the new underground waste water t -atment plant proposed/depicted on the site plan. The
Foundation is an adjacent property owner, TMP 1900-00-00-007A0, who has substantial concerns with the
proposal as the new underground wastewater tr,atment plant drains to their property. There appears to be
history on this subject with the property owne , the community at large, the Board of Supervisors, DEQ, and the
applicant. Please take a look into this issue • ring your review of the plan, as will I during mine.
Also, John upon your return lets discuss ' this major amendment application needs a new groundwater study.
Christopher Perez Senior Planner
Department of Community Development County of Albemarl= Virginia
401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902
434 296 5832 ext 3443
From: Liz Russell <Irussell@monti,ello.org>
Sent:Thursday,June 13, 2019 3. 7 PM
To:Christopher Perez<cperez'aalbemarle.org>
Subject: RE: SDP2019-25 Lo es& Floor Fashions—Major
Will do. Informally and in .dvance—here is the letter that was sent to DEQ in 2015 outlining our concerns with the
proposed onsite WWTP. A letter from our engineer is attached as well.
It is unfortunate tha' the letter that went out to adjacent property owners did not mention the facility as shown on the
plan.The propose. WWTP was(and still is) a really big deal to Monticello and to community members. We had support
from Jane Dittm. , Liz Palmer(see attached letters), and others and the County put a lot of time and resources into
scheduling publ. hearings. Mark Graham was heavily involved.
Is there any ay to immediately send notice of this oversight to adjacent owners? I realize it was not intentional, but it is
a really important issue and I think the public should have all the facts.
Thanks,
1
Christopher Perez
From: Liz Russell <Irussell@monticello.org>
Sent: Thursday,June 13, 2019 3:57 PM
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: RE: SDP2019-25 Lowes & Floor Fashions— Major
Attachments: 2015-01-08_Ryder WWTP Comments (TJF)v.3_LGB SIGNED.pdf; DEQLetter_LPalmer.pdf;
DEQLetter_JDittmar.pdf;WWA Public Comments v2..pdf
Will do. Informally and in advance—here is the letter that was sent to DEQ in 2015 outlining our concerns with the
proposed onsite WWTP. A letter from our engineer is attached as well.
It is unfortunate that the letter that went out to adjacent property owners did not mention the facility as shown on the
plan. The proposed WWTP was (and still is) a really big deal to Monticello and to community members.We had support
from Jane Dittmar, Liz Palmer(see attached letters), and others and the County put a lot of time and resources into
scheduling public hearings. Mark Graham was heavily involved.
Is there any way to immediately send notice of this oversight to adjacent owners? I realize it was not intentional, but it is
a really important issue and I think the public should have all the facts.
Thanks,
Liz
From:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Sent:Thursday,June 13, 2019 3:09 PM
To: Liz Russell <Irussell@monticello.org>
Subject:SDP2019-25 Lowes & Floor Fashions—Major
CAUTION:This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking
links, especially from unknown senders.
Liz,
SDP2019-25 Lowes & Floor Fashions—Major
Once completed please provide me your specific concerns about the proposal in writing, this should be documented in
your review comments.
I'll be doing my own homework on this aspect of the plan prior to the SRC meeting and discuss it with John Anderson
and Frank Pohl (County Engineering staff).
After our phone call I got to thinking,this appears to simply be a case of an adjacent property owner being highly aware
of a specific issue that effects their property,the County's plan reviewer(me)not knowing anything about the history of
that issue,the developer meeting with County staff for a preapp and telling us their proposal but staff not knowing about
the adjacent land owner's previous dealings nor the history on the project or the issue. Additionally, while you and I have
briefly touched base on this project twice in the past week, I still have not conducted my review of the plan, nor truly
know anything about the issue you are discussing in order to let you know either way if this is truly an issue that County
regulations cover.
1
- I plan to start my review sootrl
Christopher Perez I Senior Planner
Department of Community Development iCounty of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902
434 296 5832 ext.3443
From:Cisco Unity Connection Messaging System <unityconnection@cobm-cucxnpub.albemarle.org>
Sent:Thursday,June 13, 2019 1:35 PM
To: cperez@cobm-cucxnpub.albemarle.org
Subject: Message from MONTICELLO-HOME (94349847589)
2
M NTICELLO
LESLlh GRFFNF BOWMAN
Pres,drnt
January 9,2015
Mr. Jason Dameron
Virginia Dept. of Environmental Quality
Valley Regional Office
4411 Early Road
P.O. Box 3000
Harrisonburg, VA 22801
RE: Ryder Enterprises, LLC; VPDES Permit No. VA 0(192720
Mr. Dameron:
I am writing on behalf of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc. ("Foundation"),to address
questions and comments and to request a public hearing concerning the draft permit for Ryder Enterprises,
LLC ("Applicant"); Wastewater Treatment Plant("WWTP")VPDES Permit No. VA 0092720("Draft
Permit").
Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc.
The Foundation owns and operates Monticello,the mountaintop home of Thomas Jefferson and the
only home in America on the elite World Heritage List of the United Nations. As a private,nonprofit
organization,the Foundation receives no regular federal or state budget support for its twofold mission of
preservation and education.
Since 1923,the Foundation has steadily expanded its role as a museum and educational institution.
Its facilities now include the house and gardens on over 2,000 of Jefferson's original 5,000 acres; the Robert
H. Smith International Center for Jefferson Studies next door at Kenwood,a headquarters for Jeffersonian
research and teaching and home to the Jefferson Library; and the Thomas Jefferson Center for Historic
Plants, which propagates heirloom varieties and makes them available to institutions and individuals. The
Thomas Jefferson Visitor Center and Smith Education Center hosts state-of-the art exhibits for visitors of
all ages. It serves as the gateway to Jefferson's timeless Monticello,preparing guests for their trips to the
historic mountaintop through dynamic content presenting fresh perspectives on Monticello and the
enduring significance of Jefferson's life and ideas. About a half a million people visit Monticello each
year.
THOMAS JEFFERSON FOUNDATION,INC
Post Office Box 316 • Charlottesville,Virginia 22902 • v,ww.monticello.org
Address
Mailing Address: Overnight Address:
Thomas Jefferson Foundation 1070 Monticello Loop
Post Office Box 316 Operations Cottage
Charlottesville, VA 22902 Charlottesville, VA 22902
Comments and Justification for Public Hearing
For the reasons set out in the numbered paragraphs below,the Foundation is concerned that
the Draft Permit, as currently written, may be inconsistent with,or in violation of,the State Water
Control Law(Va. Code § 62.1-44.2 et seq.), federal law or the regulations promulgated thereunder.
1. The Foundation owns Shadwell Farm, a property originally owned by Peter Jefferson,
Thomas Jefferson's father. The property is the birthplace of Thomas Jefferson. Shadwell is
adjacent to the proposed WWTP and the Foundation is requesting a hearing because it
believes Shadwell will, or may be, adversely impacted if the concerns and questions
expressed here are not adequately addressed.
2. The WWTP will be located in Albemarle County's Entrance Corridor. Entrance Corridors
are streets that provide routes of tourist access to the County and to historic landmarks,
structures, and districts. The goal of this regulation is to ensure that new development in
these corridors reflects the traditional architecture of the area and that development within the
corridors is orderly and attractive.
3. A public hearing is warranted and due consideration given to the fact that Shadwell Farm is
located in the Monticello Historic District("MHD"). The intent and purpose of the MHD is
to create a planned historic district:
a. To permit restoration,preservation, conservation, education,programs, research,
business and support activities, including fundraising activities for the public and/or
contributors, all of which are related to the operation of a historic house museum and
historic site at Monticello;
b. To promote the preservation, interpretation and enhancement of a unique historical
site;
c. To preserve significant tracts of agricultural and forestal land;
d. To be a district that is unique to those parcels which both belonged to Thomas
Jefferson and contain uses related to the operation of the historic site, in recognition
of:
i. the importance of Thomas Jefferson to the history of Albemarle County;
ii. the importance of Monticello to the reputation, education, and economy of
Albemarle County;
2
iii. Monticello as a unique element of the historical and architectural legacy of
Albemarle County,the nation, and the world,as recognized by its inclusion
on the World Heritage List administered by the United Nations Educational,
Scientific, and Cultural Organization.
See Albemarle County Code of Ordinances, Ch. 18, § 11.
4. The effluent will not enter a water of the state at the outfall. Instead, it is our opinion that the
effluent from the WWTP will need to pass through a stormwater drainage culvert owned by
the Virginia Department of Transportation("VDOT")under State Route 250 and then
through and over private property of the Foundation(Shadwell Farm)before(if ever)
ultimately reaching state waters. Discharge permits do not convey property rights. See
9VAC25-31-190 G. Applicant has not sought, and does not hold any form or permission or
easement to discharge effluent to Foundation property.
5. The discharge from the WWTP is proposed to flow through a VDOT culvert that may be
inadequately sized to transmit both stormwater and treated effluent. If the VDOT storm
culvert is improperly sized to carry effluent and storm flow,this may result in flooding and
further release of effluent to private and public property and the roadway.
6. The Draft Permit makes reference to a nutrient trading. The Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority("Authority")has expended significant sums to upgrade its Moores Creek
Wastewater Treatment Plant facility as part of the Charlottesville-Albemarle community's
commitment to remove nutrients from the watershed at a level higher than that required by
law. If this WWTP requires trading to achieve its permit limitations, it could be seen as
undercutting this commitment by the localities and the Authority. Additionally, as worded,
the Draft Permit appears to allow the WWTP to discharge nitrogen and phosphorus into a
stream with critical flows of zero. Virginia DEQ should reevaluate the WWTP discharge
facility taking into consideration the limits of technology in the interest of minimizing stream
impairment.
7. The application stated that the facility would be designed for 0.015 mgd(15,000 gpd),to
serve 125 people. Please identify the building facilities that are planning to use the WWTP
and the basis for the design flow. The application addendum states that the operations
generating the wastewater include medical offices. We would also like to know where the
medical offices are located as none appear present at the address listed.
8. The effluent discharge is identified as flowing in an ephemeral stream for about 2,000 ft.
(0.42 mi.) This is essentially discharge to the surface of the ground in 7Q10 conditions, and
not to a flowing stream.We do not understand how the WWTP described could discharge
effluent from this secondary treatment facility at levels that will meet water quality standards
as 100 percent effluent.
3
9. Ammonia-N toxicity is pH dependent. If the effluent at the design flow does reach Barn
Branch,then the pH of existing discharges in the watershed may need to be considered. We
would be interested to know if the ammonia concentration in Barn Branch was evaluated or if
pH sampling of the stream was performed.
10. If the effluent does reach the stream,as an ephemeral stream,the receiving water does not
appear to be able to provide a minimal dilution of 10 to 1. An extended failure of the WWTP
treatment could result in the discharge of partially treated, or even untreated, sewage.
11. The WWTP will be permitted as Reliability Class II. We would like to understand the
rationale for Reliability Class II shown in the Fact Sheet and not Reliability Class I. A Class
I facility would be equipped with an electrical generation facility. It is reasonable to
conclude that the location of the discharge,or potential discharge,due to the volume or
character,might permanently or unacceptably damage neighboring properties,the VDOT
right of way,Route 250,or adversely affect private property or the receiving waters or public
health and welfare during periods of short-term operations interruptions. See 9 VAC 25-790-
70. The facility should be considered for qualification as Reliability Class I.
12. The VPDES application indicates this WWTP is a tertiary treatment facility. We do not
understand how a Rotating Biological Contactor("RBC") with a secondary clarifier may be
considered tertiary treatment.
13. No buffer zone is included in the Draft Permit. A 200 foot buffer zone is required for a
WWTP of this type. See 9 VAC 25-790. The site plan in the VPDES permit application
does not appear to meet the requirements of law.
Conclusion
The Foundation contacted Applicant and attempted to discuss the comments above with
Applicant directly. This attempt was rejected and a representative or vendor of the applicant referred
us directly to Virginia DEQ. The Foundation has valid and substantial concerns and respectfully
requests complete responses and a public hearing in accordance with Va. Code § 62.1-44.15:02.
Please refer questions or comments concerning this letter to our attorney,Dale Mullen,at
804.775.4710, dmullen®mcguirewoods.com.
Sincerely,
(, j/VVIN WA'
LESLIE GREEN BOWMAN
4
(1 Of A`ii,?
J�__IlR Ill III >y
O_•!.
-
L I
/RGfl '
Kenneth C. Boyd COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Diantha H. McKeel
Rivanna Office of Board of Supervisors Jack Jouett
401 McIntire Road
Jane D.Dittmar Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Liz A.Palmer
Scottsville (434)296-5843 FAX (434)296-5800 Samuel Miller
Ann H.Mallek Brad L. Sheffield
White Hall Rio
January 9, 2015
Mr. Jason Dameron
Department of Environmental Quality
Fax: (504) 574-7878
Email: jason.dameron@deq virginia.gov
Re: Ryder Enterprises WWTP - Permit No. VPDES VA0092720
Dear Mr. Dameron:
This letter is in response to the Department of Environmental Quality's request for comment on
Ryder Enterprises, LLC; Permit No. VPDES VA0092720.
As the Albemarle County Supervisor representing the Samuel Miller Magisterial District, I am
requesting that a public hearing be held. I represent local interested parties and wish to carefully consider
how this application will impact them and how to fulfill my responsibilities as their representative on the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
My request for a public hearing is based on questions and concerns of the downstream property
owner, as well as others in the area, with respect to the proposed wastewater treatment plant (WWTP).
The property immediately downstream of this proposed WWTP is owned by the Thomas Jefferson
Foundation, the same organization that owns and manages Monticello. We are informed that the
Foundation has been trying to contact Ryder, but has not received a response. The Foundation is seeking
to understand how this use might impact its property. The Foundation property is in a conservation
easement and this WWTP would discharge into a small stream that has a protected stream buffer where
the Foundation has invested in restorative plantings. The property is also part of the County's Monticello
Historic District and this stream is highly visible from one of the County's designated Entrance Corridors.
The Entrance Corridors are intended to assure that significant routes leading to historic landmarks such
as Monticello maintain an appropriate protection of scenic resources. All of these factors create a strong
County interest in having a public hearing to assure that all questions and concerns have been considered
before this permit is issued.
For land use applications the County reviews, we routinely require public meetings for questions
and concerns to be considered.
Mr. Jason Dameron
January 9, 2015
Page 2
Given the amount of interest I have heard expressed with this application, I am requesting that
DEQ schedule a public hearing that will allow me to responsibly assess the desires, needs and
requirements of each party. If the request for a public hearing is denied, the County requests that DEQ at
least meet with me and other County officials to respond to our questions and concerns. Thank you for
respectfully considering my request.
Sincerely,
Liz almer, Supervisor
Sam el Miller Magisterial District
LAP/ewj
cc: Leslie Bowman, Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc.
Liz Russell, Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc.
Phillip Ryder, Ryder Enterprises, LLC
Jane Dittmar, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Mark Graham, Director of Community Development
of AL
Jam'_Ili�ll
cams, rrl
♦`' ,P -
Kenneth C.Boyd COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Diantha H. McKccl
Rivanna Office of Board of Supervisors Jack Jouett
401 McIntire Road
Jane D.Dittmar Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596 Liz A.Palmer
Scottsville (434)296-5843 FAX (434)296-5800 Samuel Miller
Ann H.Mallek Brad L. Sheffield
White Hall Rio
January 9, 2015
Mr. Jason Dameron
Department of Environmental Quality
Fax: (504) 574-7878
Email: Jason.dameron(a�deq.virginia.gov
Re: Ryder Enterprises WWTP - Permit No. VPDES VA0092720
Dear Mr. Dameron:
This letter is in response to the Department of Environmental Quality's request for comment on
Ryder Enterprises, LLC; Permit No. VPDES VA0092720.
As the Albemarle County Supervisor representing the Scottsville Magisterial District in which this
permit application is pending, I am requesting that a public hearing be held. I represent the local interested
parties and wish to carefully consider how this application will impact them and how to fulfill my
responsibilities as their representative on the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
My request for a public hearing is based on questions and concerns of the downstream property
owner, as well as others in the area, with respect to the proposed wastewater treatment plant (WWTP).
The property immediately downstream of this proposed WWTP is owned by the Thomas Jefferson
Foundation, the same organization that owns and manages Monticello. We are informed that the
Foundation has been trying to contact Ryder, but has not received a response. The Foundation is seeking
to understand how this use might impact its property. The Foundation property is in a conservation
easement and this WWTP would discharge into a small stream that has a protected stream buffer where
the Foundation has invested in restorative plantings. The property is also part of the County's Monticello
Historic District and this stream is highly visible from one of the County's designated Entrance Corridors.
The Entrance Corridors are intended to assure that significant routes leading to historic landmarks such
as Monticello maintain an appropriate protection of scenic resources. All of these factors create a strong
County interest in having a public hearing to assure that all questions and concerns have been considered
before this permit is issued.
For land use applications the County reviews, we routinely require public meetings for questions
and concerns to be considered.
Mr. Jason Dameron
January 9, 2015
Page 2
Given the amount of interest I have heard expressed with this application, I am requesting that
DEQ schedule a public hearing that will allow me to responsibly assess the desires, needs and
requirements of each party. If the request for a public hearing is denied, the County requests that DEQ at
least meet with me and other County officials to respond to our questions and concerns. Thank you for
respectfully considering my request.
Sincerely,
Jane D. Dittmar, Supervisor
Scottsville Magisterial District
JDD/ewj
cc: Leslie Bowman, Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc.
Liz Russell, Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc.
Phillip Ryder, Ryder Enterprises, LLC
Liz A. Palmer, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Mark Graham, Director of Community Development
rim
.....
ENGINEERS
SURVEYORS
PLANNERS
ASSOCIATES
January 9, 2015
Jason Dameron
Virginia Dept. of Environmental Quality
Valley Regional Office
4411 Early Road
P.O. Box 3000
Harrisonburg,VA 22801
RE: Ryder Enterprises, LLC; VPDES Permit No. VA 0092720
Mr. Dameron:
I am writing on behalf of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc. ("Foundation")
as the Foundation consulting engineer, to address questions and comments and to request
a public hearing concerning the draft permit for Ryder Enterprises, LLC ("Applicant");
Wastewater Treatment Plant("WWTP")VPDES Permit No. VA 0092720 ("Draft
Permit").
We offer the following comments concerning the VPDES Draft Permit:
1. The effluent will not enter a water of the state at the outfall. Instead, the effluent
from the WWTP will pass through a stormwater drainage culvert owned by the
Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT")under State Route 250 and then
through and over private property of the Foundation (Shadwell Farm)before(if
ever)ultimately reaching state waters. Discharge permits do not convey property
rights. See 9VAC25-31-190 G. Applicant has not sought, and does not hold any
form or permission or easement to discharge effluent to Foundation property.
2. The discharge from the WWTP is proposed to flow through a VDOT culvert that
is likely inadequately sized to transmit both stormwater and treated effluent
during storm events. If the VDOT storm culvert is improperly sized to carry
effluent and storm flow,this may result in flooding and further release of effluent
to private and public property and the roadway.
3. The Draft Permit appears to allow the WWTP to discharge nitrogen and
phosphorus into a drainageway with critical flows of zero. Virginia DEQ should
3040 Avemore Square Place •Charlottesville,VA 22911
Telephone(434)984-2700 • Fax(434)978-1444
Charlottesville■ Lynchburg
reevaluate the WWTP discharge facility taking into consideration the limits of
technology in the interest of minimizing stream impairment.
4. The application stated that the facility would be designed for 0.015 mgd (15,000
gpd), to serve 125 people. Please identify the building facilities that are planning
to use the WWTP and the basis for the design flow. The application addendum
states that the operations generating the wastewater include medical offices. We
would also like to know where the medical offices are located as none appear
present at the address listed.
5. The effluent discharge is identified as flowing in an ephemeral stream for about
2,000 ft. (0.42 mi.) This is essentially discharge to the surface of the ground in
7Q10 conditions, and not to a flowing stream. We do not understand how the
WWTP described could discharge effluent from this secondary treatment facility
at levels that will meet water quality standards as 100 percent effluent.
6. Ammonia-N toxicity is pH dependent. If the effluent at the design flow does
reach Barn Branch, then the pH of existing discharges in the watershed may need
to be considered. We would be interested to know if the ammonia concentration
in Barn Branch was evaluated or if pH sampling of the stream was performed.
7. If the effluent does reach the stream, as an ephemeral stream, the receiving water
does not appear to be able to provide a minimal dilution of 10 to 1. An extended
failure of the WWTP treatment could result in the discharge of partially treated, or
even untreated, sewage.
8. The WWTP will be permitted as Reliability Class II. We would like to
understand the rationale for Reliability Class II shown in the Fact Sheet and not
Reliability Class I. A Class I'facility would be equipped with an electrical
generation facility. It is reasonable to conclude that the location of the discharge,
or potential discharge, due to the volume or character, might permanently or
unacceptably damage neighboring properties,the VDOT right of way, Route 250,
or adversely affect private property or the receiving waters or public health and
welfare during periods of short-term operations interruptions. See 9 VAC 25-790-
70. The facility should be considered for qualification as Reliability Class I.
9. The VPDES application indicates this WWTP is a tertiary treatment facility. We
do not believe a Rotating Biological Contactor("RBC")with a secondary clarifier
may be considered tertiary treatment.
3040 Avemore Square Place • Charlottesville,VA 22911
Telephone(434)984-2700• Fax(434)978-1444
Charlottesville • Lynchburg
Page 2 of 3
10. No buffer zone is included in the Draft Permit. A 200 foot buffer zone is required
for a WWTP of this type. See 9 VAC 25-790. The site plan in the VPDES permit
application does not appear to meet the requirements of law.
11. Thomas Jefferson Foundation address is:
P.O. Box 316
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Sincerely,
/W/W� Associates, Inc.
�C�Le;c�GGc
Herbert F. White III, P.E.
President
3040 Avemore Square Place • Charlottesville,VA 22911
Telephone(434)984-2700 • Fax(434)978-1444
Charlottesville■ Lynchburg
Page 3 of 3
Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2019 3:09 PM
To: Liz Russell
Subject: SDP2019-25 Lowes & Floor Fashions— Major
Liz,
SDP2019-25 Lowes&Floor Fashions—Major
Once completed please provide me your specific concerns about the proposal in writing,this should be documented in
your review comments.
I'll be doing my own homework on this aspect of the plan prior to the SRC meeting and discuss it with John Anderson
and Frank Pohl(County Engineering staff).
After our phone call I got to thinking,this appears to simply be a case of an adjacent property owner being highly aware
of a specific issue that effects their property,the County's plan reviewer(me)not knowing anything about the history of
that issue,the developer meeting with County staff for a preapp and telling us their proposal but staff not knowing about
the adjacent land owner's previous dealings nor the history on the project or the issue.Additionally,while you and I have
briefly touched base on this project twice in the past week, I still have not conducted my review of the plan,nor truly
know anything about the issue you are discussing in order to let you know either way if this is truly an issue that County
regulations cover.
Christopher Perez I Senior Planner
Department of Community Development(County of Albemarle.Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902
434 296 5832 ext.3443
From: Cisco Unity Connection Messaging System <unityconnection@cobm-cucxnpub.albemarle.org>
Sent: Thursday,June 13, 2019 1:35 PM
To: cperez@cobm-cucxnpub.albemarle.org
bject: Message from MONTICELLO-HOME (94349847589)
Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 4:12 PM
To: Marsha Alley
Cc: Frank Pohl
Subject: "56157619000 52 Lowes and Floor Fashions - Major Site Plan
Attachments: Critical Slopes Waiver.pdf
Marsha,
SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions- Major Site Plan
—j
The legal ad for SDP201900025 has been put in CV. Associated with this request is a critical slopes waiver, ---k''
which needs to be disturbed to Engineering for review. Can you ensure they get the critical slopes waiver wi
the distribution(see attached). Also,this project is supposed to have a Tier 4 groundwater study. I note the
applicant paid the fee but didn't submit a study. This is something Engineering will hopefully be commenting
on.
Anyways thanks for your help.
Christopher Perez I Senior Planner
Department of Community Development'County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902
434 296.5832 ext.3443
1
PROJECT: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions - Major Site Plan
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 079000000004P0 and 079000000004A0
LOCATION: 2305,2424, and 2422 Hunters Way,at the intersection with Richmond Road.
PROPOSAL: Request for approval of a major site plan amendment to construct a new entrance on
Hunters Way,reconfigure and divide parcels,reconfigure drive aisles and associated parking for existing
buildings.The existing uses of office warehouse and commercial warehouse are proposed to continue.
Associated with the request is a critical slopes waiver request.
ZONING:HC Highway Commercial—commercial and service;residential by special use permit(15
units/acre).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
PROFFERS:No
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Area—preserve and protect agricultural, forestal,open space,and
natural,historic and scenic resources;residential(0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
IS A
e\.
x�
1.17.0,.; :11 I I"
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,North Wing
Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596
Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126
MEMORANDUM
TO: MEMBERS,SITE REVIEW COMMITTEE:
Adam Moore—VDOT(Charlottesville) Frank Pohl—Engineering
Alan Mazurowski—Health Dept. (Charlottesville) Richard Nelson—ACSA
Tim Keller—At-Large PC Member Michael Dellinger—Inspections
Andy Slack—GIS Shawn Maddox —Fire&Rescue
Margaret Maliszewski ARB Dan Mahon—Parks&Rec.
Brian Walton—Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District
FROM: Albemarle County Department of Community Development—Division of Planning
DATE: May 30,2019
RE: Site Review Committee Meeting—Wednesday,July 3,2019 at 10 a.m.,
Meeting Room#235,Second Floor,County Office Building
Attached is the list of site plans and subdivisions to be reviewed based on the schedule below.This list may include
electronic submittals which may be accessed by clicking on the link provided.Please review these projects and send
your written comments to the applicable planner as noted below.
The Submission and Review Schedule is as follows:
SITE REVIEW COMMENTS DUE: ow July 1,2019
SITE REVIEW MEETING DATE: Wednesday,July 3,2019 at 10 a.m.
For the attached site plans please review each plan for compliance with the technical requirements of Chapters 14 and
18 of the Code of the County of Albemarle and/or other applicable laws enforced by your agency/department.Please
either
1. Recommend approval,including conditions that must be met prior to approval of the final plan and including
conditions required to be satisfied before a grading permit may be issued under chapter 17 of the Code.Any
recommended conditions shall pertain to any requirements of this chapter and other applicable laws.Or,
2. Recommend denial. Any recommendation for denial shall clearly state what requirements of Chapter 18 of the
Code or other applicable laws that the plan does not satisfy.
If you have any recommendations for revisions please feel free to provide that information. Please be clear in
your comments what a"required" revision is and what a"recommended" revision is.
If you are unable to attend the meeting,please submit your comments so they will be available at the meeting.
PROJECT LEAD REVIEWER: Christopher Perez
PROJECT: SDP201900025 Lowes and Floor Fashions-Major Site Plan
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
TAX MAP/PARCEL:079000000004P0 and 079000000004A0
LOCATION:2305,2424,and 2422 Hunters Way,at the intersection with Richmond Road.
PROPOSAL:Request for approval of a major site plan amendment to construct a new entrance on Hunters Way,
reconfigure and divide parcels,reconfigure drive aisles and associated parking for existing buildings.The existing uses
of office warehouse and commercial warehouse are proposed to continue.Associated with the request is a critical slopes
waiver request.
ZONING:HC Highway Commercial—commercial and service;residential by special use permit(15 units/acre).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR:Yes
PROFFERS:No
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:Rural Area—preserve and protect agricultural,forestal,open space,and natural,historic
and scenic resources;residential(0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
PROJECT LEAD REVIEWER: Cameron Lan¢ille
PROJECT: SDP201900028 UVA Research Park Town Center Four—Major Site Plan Amendment
MAGESTERIAL DISTRICT:Rio
TAX MAP/PARCEL:032000000006A2
LOCATION: 994 Research Park Boulevard
PROPOSAL: Request for a major site plan amendment to construct a four-story, 108,568 sq.ft.buildmg and associated
parking and infrastructure on a 6.848 acre parcel for Town Center Building Four of the University of Virginia Research
Park.This property is subject to the proffers approved with ZMA200500003.
ZONING: PDIP Planned Development Industrial Park—industrial and ancillary commercial and service uses(no
residential use)
OVERLAY DISTRICT:EC-Entrance Corridor;ALA-Airport Impact Area;Managed and Preserved Steep Slopes.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR:Yes
PROFFERS:Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Office/R&D/Flex/Light Industrial—commercial,professional office;research and
development,design,testing of prototypes;manufacturing,assembly,packaging and Privately Owned Open Space;
Environmental Features—privately owned recreational amenities and open space;floodplains,steep slopes,wetlands,
and other environmental features in the Places29 Development Area.
PROJECT LEAD REVIEWER: Mariah Gleason
PROJECT: SDP201900030 Proffit Road Townhomes North-Initial Site Plan
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
TAX MAP/PARCEL:032A0020000200
LOCATION: 3223 Proffit Road,Charlottesville,VA 22911
PROPOSAL:Initial site plan application for fifty-nine(59)new townhomes(attached single-family dwelling units)on
7.29 acres for a proposed density of 8.09 units/acre.The property is subject to the proffers and conditions of
ZMA201800006.
ZONING:R-15 Residential- 15 units/acre
OVERLAY DISTRICT:MA-Airport Impact Area;Managed Steep Slopes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Urban Density Residential- residential(6.01—34 units/acre);supporting uses such as
religious institutions,schools,commercial,office and service uses in the Hollymead-Places 29 Master Plan.
PROJECT LEAD REVIEWER: Tori Kanellopoulos
PROJECT: SDP201900032—Lochlyn Hifi Phase IV—Initial Site Plan and
SUB201900086—Lochlyn Hill Phase IV—Preliminary Plat
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT:Rio
TAX MAP/PARCELS:061A0000000300;061A00000003A0;061A00000003B0;061A0000000600;
061A0000000700;061A0000000800;061 A0000000900;061A0000001000;061 A0000001100;061A0000001200;
061A0000001300
LOCATION:Parcels are approximately 370 feet southeast from the intersection of Pen Park Lane and Lochlyn Hill
Lane,are adjacent to the west side of Pen Park,and are adjacent to the City of Charlottesville boundary.
PROPOSAL:Request for approval of an initial site plan and preliminary subdivision plat for cluster development of
twenty-two(22)residential units(single-family attached and detached)across 4.554 acres in Phase IV of the Lochlyn
Hill development for a proposed density of 4.83 du/acre.Proposed density bonus of four(4)additional units using the
affordable housing bonus density provision under 18-15.4.3.Extension of existing roads and new alleys are also
proposed.
ZONING:R-4 Residential-4 units/acre
OVERLAY DISTRICT: Steep Slopes—Managed
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:Neighborhood Density Residential—residential(3—6 units/acre)supporting uses such as
religious institutions,schools and other small-scale non-residential uses in the Places29 Master Plan.
Cc:
Architectural Review Board Mary Hughes
Krystal Brinkley Irene Peterson
Jennifer Whitaker United States Postal Service
Melvin Kosler Sandy VonThelen
Sprint-Manager of Engineering
Ronnie Rutherford
E-mail copy:
Board of Supervisors Planning Commission
Joe Letteri Dan Mahon
David Benish Brad Sheffield
Claudette Borgersen Jack McClelland
Steve Blaine Karen Davis
Mike Heckman Francis MacCall
Sabrina Stanwood Steve Allshouse
William D.Fritz Doug Walker
Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 3:55 PM
To: Megan Nedostup
Subject: FW: TMP 79-4P and TMP 79-4A questions
Attachments: Floor Fashion Concept Subdivision.pdf
Fyi
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 12:36 PM
To: 'tmiller@meridianwbe.com' <tmiller@meridianwbe.com>
Cc: Frank Pohl <fpohl@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: TMP 79-4P and TMP 79-4A questions
Tim,
RE: TMP 79-4P and TMP 79-4A questions
This subdivision will be a tough one to review/approve and has some major things you need to be aware of prior
to moving forward. As part of the subdivision application you will need to demonstrate that the division remains
in compliance with the existing site plans for both properties (TMP 79-4P and TMP 79-4A). To demonstrate
these items you will either need to submit a Major site plan amendment application simultaneously for review
with the subdivision. The two applications can be reviewed in tandem but you will still need applications and
fees for both. Or instead of a site plan amendment you may choose to provide many exhibits and provide cross
lot easements to ensure compliance with the existing site plans (this will determine if the division is possible
while remaining in compliance with the site plan).
The subdivision would be applied for under Section 14-203(B)1(a)—Two-lot subdivision w/all lots fronting on
an existing public street: $581.00. This item does not go to SRC and is reviewed under Section 14-207. VDOT,
VDH, Zoning, Engineering, and Planning will review this item. As you know the Major site plan will be
required to go to SRC. This Major site plan should include both site plans (TMP 79-4P and 79-4A) and needs
its own fee and application.
Some of the big issues I can think of off the top of my head are:
1) Critical Slopes—the proposed frontage on Hunters Way is heavily encumbered by critical slopes making
access to the building questionable(the access may be provided through the use of a travelway to serve the site,
as the lot is being proposed with frontage thus no private road or public road is needed with the division). We
previously discussed that if the slopes proposed disturbance of were shown on an approved site plan that they
may be exempt. You will need to demonstrate that these slopes were shown as created on an approved site plan
for exempt status to prevail. Provide the necessary documentation with the application and provide an exhibit
depicting and referencing everything. Engineering and Planning will need to sign off on this to ensure you have
access to the building site of the parcel. If additional disturbance of non-site plan created slopes is needed then a
critical slopes waiver will be required prior to approval of the subdivision plat.
2) Entrances—VDOT entrance approval will be needed, to include review of the entrance on Hunters Way and
the existing entrance on Rte. 250. If no public road is proposed,but rather just a travelway serving the existing
1
building, then VDOT will only be required to approve the entrances.
3) With the subdivision application you will need to demonstrate that all required improvements and parking for
the new lot configurations comply with the existing site plans for all parcels involved. If it's not possible, all
necessary easements to comply with all site plans would be needed. Notably, wells and sewer are not permitted
to have offsite easements, thus these items will be needed on the lots they each serve.
4) VDH approval of individual well and septic system for the lot that serves the existing 10,700 SF building.
Also, if any of the drainfields or wells for the other buildings are on the proposed lot those will also need VDH
approval.
5) The use may also generate the need for an SP based on the recent zoning text amendment related to water
regulations that were passed by the County. This division may also effect the existing uses on all of the three
properties because the acreage of the lots are being reduced thus the water usage info may be relevant for those
lots too and require SPs.
6) Stormwater management for each site plan will need to remain on each lot or easements provided.
7) Access and parking required for each building/use on each lot or easements provided.
All in all, this one seems tough mainly be of the issues related to the site plans remaining in compliance with the
proposed division.
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:tmiller@meridianwbe.com<tmiller@meridianwbe.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2019 12:38 PM
To: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: Floor Fashions
Chris,
The Owner is now wanting to make the back of the properties into one lot as shown on the attachment. The new lot will
have frontage on Hunters Way.
During the pre-app there was some discussion about whether or not this would still require a public road.
Can you take a look and let me know what you determine?
Thanks,
Timothy Miller, P.E., L.S.
Principal
434-882-0121
www.meridianwbe.com
2
Meridian
Planning Group
From:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Sent:Wednesday,January 2, 2019 9:02 AM
To:tmiller@meridianwbe.com
Cc: Patricia Saternye<psaternve@albemarle.org>; Andrew Knuppel<aknuppel@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: Floor Fashions
Being the only planner who touched this is no longer in the office I think a pre application meeting would be the next
step.
I've cced Andrew to this email to facilitate the meeting setup.
From:tmiller@meridianwbe.com<tmiller@meridianwbe.com>
Sent:Sunday, December 23, 2018 10:31 AM
To:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Cc: Patricia Saternye<psaternve@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: Floor Fashions
Forgot to attach the comments
From:tmiller@meridianwbe.com <tmiller@meridianwbe.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2018 10:30 AM
To: 'Christopher Perez'<cperez@albemarle.org>
Cc: 'Patricia Saternye' <psaternve@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: Floor Fashions
Chris,
Sorry about that. It was 1T that reviewed the previous submittal a year ago.
any suggestions on who I should talk to about this now?
Have a great holiday.
Thanks
Timothy Miller, P.E., L.S.
Principal
434-882-0121
www.meridianwbe.com
•Meridian
Planning Group
3
From:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2018 8:06 AM
To: tmiller@meridianwbe.com
Cc: Patricia Saternye<psaternye@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: Floor Fashions
Tim,
Surprisingly Floor Fashion and Amerigas are not ringing a bell for me.
Are you sure I have been the planner handling this project?Or is it Paty?
Regardless, when you say critical slopes my ears perk up and I wonder where exactly this project is located in the county
and if these slopes are truly critical or if they are preserved and managed slopes in the development area.
If it is truly critical slopes you will need to request a critical slopes waiver and the BOS will need to act on it.
If it's managed you merely need to meet the design standards. If it's preserved—this shall not be disturbed.
Christopher P.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:tmiller@meridianwbe.com<tmiller@meridianwbe.com>
Sent:Thursday, December 20, 2018 4:47 PM
To:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>
Subject: Floor Fashions
Chris,
Floor Fashion has raised its bitter head again. Mr. Ryder needs to install a storm pipe in the ditch between Floor Fashion
and Amerigas. He claims his parking lot floods whenever there is a heavy rain. There are critical slopes along the ditch so
not sure what it will take to get approval.
Should I meet with you or engineering to discuss this?
Thanks,
Timothy Miller, P.E., L.S.
Principal
434-882-0121
www.meridianwbe.com
Meridian
PIlnning Group
4
Jennifer Smith - CDD - Planning
From: Megan Nedostup
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 3:00 PM
To: TMILLER@MERIDIANWBE.COM
Cc: Jennifer Pritchett;Jennifer Smith - CDD - Planning; Buck Smith; Christopher Perez
Subject: SDP2019-025 Floor Fashion
Attachments: Minor_or_Major_Site_Plan_Amendment_Application.pdf
Good Afternoon,
We received your application, however the changes being proposed require this to be a major amendment and
not a minor. Please submit the correct application, checklist, and additional fee (see detailed fee information
below) with the correct number of copies (8 additional are needed) and we will process this under the site
review schedule. The next submittal date is Monday the 20th. In addition, it looks like you paid the fee for the
Tier 4 review, however the study was not included with the submitted materials, please include the study with
your plans.
Fees:
Major Amendment: $1613
Fire Rescue Review: $100
Notification Fee: $215
Total: $1928
Total of Major Amendment Fee - Minor Amendment Paid ($1928-$538=$1390 additional fee required)
Megan Nedostup, AICP
(pronounced nuh-DAHST-up)
Principal Planner
Community Development Department
Planning Services
ph: 434.296.5832 ext. 3004
i