Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP200000038 Action Letter ~ April 25, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) (Ms. Humphris said this request tugged at her heart. She is probably one of the few people left who know this as the Lane Baseball Field, one of the last remanents of Lane High School. She said the rationale given is certainly a good reason for doing it.) By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved renaming the County-owned Lane Baseball Field as the "Darrell C. Gardner Field at Lane Park". Item 5.5. Appointment of Jack Kelsey as Interim Director of Engineering and Public Works. It was noted in the staff's report that Mr. Bill Mawyer, Director of Engineering and Public Works, has submitted a letter of resignation and is scheduled to leave County employment on April 24. Due to the vacancy, it is necessary to appoint an interim Director. Staff recommends that Mr. Jack Kelsey, the County's current Chief of Engineering be appointed as the interim director. By the recorded vote set out above, Mr. Jack Kelsey was appointed Interim Director of Engineering and Public Works until the vacancy is filled. Item 5.6. Copy of letter dated April 11 ,2001, from Mr. John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration, to Mr. Douglas E. Little, re: Official Determination of Development Rights and Parcels - Tax Map 41, Parcels 39A, 39B and 39D (property of MLB Land Trust, Douglas E. Little, Trustee) - Section 10.31, was received as information. Item 5.7. Copy of notice of public hearing on application of Ennstone, Inc., for proposed Revenue Bond Financing by Virginia Small Business Financing Authority, was received for information. (Ms. Humphris asked if this concrete processing plant, located on two acres of land at the Northside Industrial Park, is a by-right use or is it something that will need a special use permit in the future. Mr. Martin said that basically the applicants are preparing all of the things they need before coming to the Planning Commission and the Board. They did not realize that this loan approval would be announced in this way.) Item 5.8. Copy of resolution adopted by the Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors setting out all proposed rates and fees of the Albemarle County Service Authority, was received for information. Not Docketed: Ms. Thomas said she would like to deviate from the printed agenda for a moment. She said she represented the Board at the Salvation Army Dinner recently. A County school won the "Golden Can" award. This was a reward for a large public school. In this case it was Jack Jouett Middle School, which had collected 3,285 cans of food for a food drive. Ms. Chris Thomas was present to accept the award for the school. (Note: Agenda Items 6 and 7 were heard concurrently.) Agenda Item NO.6. SP-2000-34. Spring Hill (Signs #38 & 39). Public Hearing on a request to allow amendment of earlier SUPs for the purpose of dividing the residue of Spring Hill Farm into one 102 ac lot w/340 ac residue & to create a stream crossing in accord w/Secs 10.2.2.30 & 30.3.05.2.1.2 of the Zoning Ord. TM 58, P 95, contains 442.656 acs. Located on Dick Woods Rd (Rt 637) at the intersec w/Rt 677. Znd RA. Samuel Miller Dist. (This public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on April 9 and April 16, 2001.) Agenda Item NO.7. SP-2000-38. Spring Hill (Signs #61,63 & 64). Public Hearing on a request to allow new stream crossing to be created in accord w/Sec 30.3.05.2.1.2 ofthe Zoning Ord. TM 58, P 95, contains 442.656 acs. Located on Dick Woods Rd (Rt 637) approx at its intersec w/Rt 677. Znd RA. Samuel Miller Dist. (This public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on April 9 and April 16, 2001.) Mr. Cilimberg said the proposal by Blue Springs Land Corporation, is to both divide the existing residue of Spring Hill Farm to create a 102-acre residential lot with the remaining 340 acres being in a second residue parcel. The farm was originally divided in the early 1980s by two special use permits. With those approvals, there was a condition that no further subdivision of the residue could occur without amendment to the existing permit. There is also a proposal in conjunction with this to construct a driveway and bridge over Ivy Creek at or near the intersection of Routes 637 and 677. Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant has offered to protect Ivy Creek, which crosses the proposed 102- acre parcel, and other streams on the parcel with 100-foot riparian buffer easements, and to accept a condition preventing any further division of the new 102-acre parcel. The stream crossing would be used for access to the residential parcel that would be created by SP-2000-34. Mr. Cilimberg said in the Open Space and Critical Resources Plan of the Comprehensive Plan, April 25, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) staff identified Ivy Creek as an important stream valley. Spring Hill Farm was divided in 1981. Some portions of the property were in the former Ivy Village development area, and the division consisted of 33 residential parcels and a residue of approximately 480 acres. That residue has been diminished through transactions which allowed parts of the original residue to be combined with adjacent property. The two parcels which originally comprised Spring Hill had a total of 41 lots available for division. At the time of adoption of the 1980 Zoning Ordinance, those two parcels had ten development right lots, and then another 31 twenty-one or greater lots. Thirty-three of those rights were used for the small lots, plus the residue was the 34th lot. Out of the 41, there are actually seven rights for 21-acre or greater parcels left, but those rights can only be exercised through amendment to the special use permit, which is the request before the Board tonight. Mr. Cilimberg said staff noted factors favorable to the request: the proposed parcel is significantly larger than the County's minimum by-right lots in the rural areas; soil impacts can be reduced through permit conditions that reduce the area of development; and, stream buffer easements will provide additional long-term protection for streams in the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir watershed. Factors unfavorable include: parcels of this size are increasingly rare in the County; any division diminishes the parcel's natural resource value and economic potential for forestry; and, residential development on the parcel will impact highly productive and, in some cases, erodible soils. Regarding the stream crossing (SP-2000-38), Mr. Cilimberg said staff identified the following factors which are favorable to the request: the new driveway location will have a greater sight distance along Route 637 than the existing farm entrance, so will be safer for the parcel's owners and drivers on Route 637; and, closing the existing farm entrance will eliminate off-road traffic near a documented historic site. Factors unfavorable to this request are: construction of the bridge and driveway will impact the stream and stream buffers. Conditions have been included on both permits intended to minimize those impacts. Mr. Cilimberg said neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance provide justification for approval of large residential estates when the development is not a by-right use. When the County has an opportunity to prevent the fragmentation of large rural parcels, it attempts to do so. However, there are practical matters to consider in this case. First, the proposed new parcel is nearly fIVe times larger than the 21-acre minimum by-right parcel size now permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. This development would have significantly less impact than the additional seven or eight houses that might have been built if the applicant had used all available development rights in 1981. Both the new parcel, and the 340 plus-acre residue would be large enough to sustain agricultural and forestal uses. Given these factors, staff recommended approval of both SP-2000-34 and SP-2000-38, subject to a number of conditions imperative to mitigating the project's impacts. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 27, 2001, unanimously recommended approval of both petitions, subject to conditions. For SP-2000-34, the Commission did make some modifications to reflect a change given to them regarding Condition NO.1 which originally read: "No further division of the new parcel allowed by this permit or of the residue of Parcel 58-95 shall be permitted." Condition NO.1 is recommended to the Board reading: "No further division of the proposed 102-acre parcel allowed by this special use permit shall be permitted. No further division of the residue of Parcel 58-95 shall be permitted without an amendment to SP-81-01 and SP-81-55." Mr. Cilimberg said in the case of Condition No.5, the wording has been revised since the Planning Commission meeting and is reflected in the executive summary sent to the Board for this meeting. The Engineering Department has notified the Planning Department that the Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water Conservation District may not necessarily be able or willing to hold these easements. If the applicant cannot find someone to hold the easements, he will need to provide written evidence from the entities contacted declining the easements, and then the condition would be null and void. Mr. Cilimberg said Condition NO.7 was also modified by the Planning Commission to add the word "horticulture" in the last sentence. Condition NO.8 recommended by staff was removed by the Commission. These requests come to the Board with a recommendation for approval with seven conditions for SP-2000-34 and four conditions for SP-2000-38. With no questions for staff at this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Ethan Miller said he and his wife own Blue Springs Land Corporation, which is the applicant tonight. Spring Hill Farm was obtained by his wife's grandmother in 1980. Using a map he pointed out the boundaries of the property. It was 695 acres at the time. In 1981, the Spring Hill subdivision was presented. (Note: Mr. Dorrier arrived at the meeting at 7:21 p.m.) There is a problem which the Board dealt with in 1981, and will have to deal with again tonight. A portion of the property was located in the Rural Areas and a portion in the Ivy Village. (He handed out a map showing the Village boundary.) He said the issue he will raise tonight is whether the Board should look at this as a by-right subdivision or as a special permit use. The piece of property to be divided tonight (the 102 acres), was in 1981 in the Rural Areas. Had this been divided then, as well as under the current rules, it would be a by-right division. He does not know how this Board will deal with the procedural issue the Board dealt with 20 years ago, and he does agree it is somewhat confusing. Mr. Miller said the original subdivision of 33 lots contained 170 acres. There were also some buffer areas around the property which were intended to protect the stream with some agricultural land in the middle of the property. An attempt was made to preserve the old farm which is now in common ownership (about 60 acres which is fenced). What is left today is 342 acres with other land in lots, the original farm or buffer. He has divided the remaining acreage into three parcels. Parcel A is 102 acres. Parcel C has 120 acres which is very steep land and its access is from Route 679. Then the piece in the middle has been April 25, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) designated as Parcel B and contains 134 acres which can be accessed by the existing subdivision roads, and which, under the original Spring Hill Master Plan, was intended to be further divided. What is before the Board tonight is only to divide off a piece of property. Mr. Miller said the issue of the development rights is an issue of disagreement between the applicant and the Planning staff as to exactly how many development rights are on the property. The method of counting that Mr. Cilimberg presented tonight is a traditional method which the staff has used, but it ignores the fact that the division rights under the ordinance only relate to the Rural Areas. It does not relate to property in the Ivy Village. A portion of this property was in the Village in 1981. The issue is what to do with parcels in the village. How are they to be counted when looking at the numbers of lots? However, that is not before the Board tonight. Mr. Miller said he wrote a letter concerning the conditions and is asking for relief from three of the conditions on SP-2000-34 and also asks for relief from one condition on SP-2000-38. The relief he seeks is that there not be riparian buffer easements imposed on streams not located on the new 102-acre parcel. Secondly, the Planning Commission is limiting the building on the new parcel to only one home site. He thinks that since the 102-acre parcel was in the Rural Areas, the Board should not impose a limitation that would not be imposed on a by-right division on a 102-acre parcel elsewhere. He believes Condition NO.7 to be unenforceable and confusing. The issue of why one is clearing land, for forestry or agriculture, is difficult to figure out. Mr. Miller said that one of the requirements for SP-2000-38 is that the original farm entrance be closed. He said they will put a new entrance at the intersection of Routes 667 and 637. They will give sight easements to VDOT to improve the safety of the public on Route 637. There is now a little farm road in that area which is gated. It would be a convenient place to take tractors, hay equipment, etc. that does not go across their bridge or their entrance. It is a fairly innocuous entrance which is approximately 875 feet from what will be the main entrance. Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Miller to point out the farm entrance and the new entrance on the map. She asked if the farm entrance takes a road across the creek. Mr. Miller said "no." There is a small tributary to Ivy Creek and there is an existing culvert in that tributary which is no more than a trickle. It does not impact the more significant Ivy Creek. It has been there for as long as anyone can remember. Mr. Perkins said there was a mention of an historic mill at the farm entrance. Mr. Miller said there is not much left of the mill. It is hard to know exactly where it is. He does not think that will impact having the existing entrance stay open. Mr. Perkins asked why the old entrance would not serve the same purpose as a new entrance. Mr. Miller said it is an old farm entrance and is not in the right location for a building site. The new entrance will be safer for the traffic which will use it. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board. Mr. Martin asked for some clarification as to Condition NO.5. He believes the newest language answers the questions Mr. Miller raised. Mr. Cilimberg said there are two pieces to No.5 in terms of what it covers. The easement itself is noted as extending 100 feet from each bank, and that the easement shall be placed on all streams on the existing parcel which contains more than 400 acres. The tree planting plan to be approved by Planning and Engineering and executed along Ivy Creek where the buffer is less than 100 feetfrom each bank would be for that portion of the stream located on the 102-acre parcel. Mr. Martin said the sentence that was added still does not address what Mr. Miller mentioned. Mr. Cilimberg said that is correct. Staff and the Commission felt that all of this is about granting something that does not exist now. One of the notations picked up from 1981 was that future review of an amendment to the permit should be under the Rural Areas provisions in place. This is balancing between adding the possibility for new parcel and building site, with those things which are important to the Rural Areas. In this location, one of the more important elements is stream protection because the property lies in the drinking water reservoir watershed. Ms. Thomas said she asked staff the difference between the County's ordinance which says you can't disturb 100 feet on either side of the stream, and what a riparian easement would do. The answer she got was that an easement would actually have a plan that went along with it that would require the planting of trees. This would be an arrangement made with whoever is holding the easement, rather than with the County, but it would require that something be done to actively protect the stream. Whereas, the County's Ordinance protects large trees, would keep one from disturbing the buffer, but it would not have a tree planting plan as part of it. She thinks tree planting is very necessary along Ivy Creek. The applicant has proposed that there be a riparian easement along Ivy Creek and others on this 102 acres. She is not certain aboutthe need for the riparian easement on the rest of the property since, in theory, it is not a house site; it might be used for forestry activity in which case the County's Ordinance would protect the buffer from being disturbed. Mr. Cilimberg said he is not totally familiar with the Water Resource Protection Ordinance. He does not know the extent to which the buffer provisions apply to tributary streams. Mr. Kamptner said the greatest protection offered by the Water Resources Ordinance exists in the water supply protection area, and also when there is a perennial stream. He is not sure Parcel C has a perennial stream. April 25, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) Mr. Cilimberg said Ivy Creek is a perennial stream, but this condition covers all of the tributaries also. He does not know the extent to which all of those tributaries are covered under the Water Resources Ordinance. He said this was actually a condition arrived at in consultation with the Water Resources Manager. It was that office which let Planning know the easement may not be taken by the Soil & Water Conservation District. He said staff was looking for the most reasonable trade-off that covered the residue property in total. Right now, there is nothing specifically in the form of easements. Staff is relying on the Water Resources Manager to advise them in this matter. Mr. Dorrier asked if this is necessary because there is a building on the property. Mr. Cilimberg said the easements start in the general area where the house site would be, but they would cover throughout the property. Ms. Thomas said the easements are very important where there might be a house because they restrict putting a lawn straight down to a creek. Things have to be put in a buffer area which actively act as a buffer. She thinks it is a good idea on the 102-acre part. The question is about the other 300 acres that are possibly going to be forested. Ms. Humphris asked if the residue parcel were to be forested, would the County's Water Protection Ordinance naturally provide for that 100-foot buffer or is a legal easement needed to protect it from a forestry operation? Mr. Kamptner said the applicant would need to have a permit issued by the Department of Forestry which would deal with some of the water quality issues. Mr. Perkins said the Department of Forestry does not issue permits. It has to be done according to their guidelines, but there is not a permit issuing process. He can see requiring a buffer on Ivy Creek. As to the small tributaries, he asked if there is a map that shows those. How many streams are being talked about? Mr. Miller said he had indicated the location of the streams on his map and proceeded to point out those locations. Mr. Perkins said those are buffered by the railroad track. Mr. Miller said they are actually where the Crozet Interceptor is located. Mr. Cilimberg noted the location as being near Little Ivy Creek. Ms. Thomas said two of those tributaries are in the existing subdivision. Mr. Miller said "yes." Mr. Perkins asked about requiring buffers where there are flood plains. He said there are flood plains along Ivy Creek and Little Ivy Creek. The small tributaries are probably intermittent streams, at best. Mr. Martin said he was thinking that this requirement should be limited to the 1 02-acre parcel. Ms. Humphris said that is why she asked the question, do the streams on the residue parcel get protected in the event of forestry? Mr. Martin said they would be protected no more, or no less than they currently are protected, while the streams on the 1 02-acres will get a much higher level of protection. He assumes that if Mr. Miller decides to do something with the other parts of the property, there would be a requirement to have an easement on those streams as well, unless he does forestry. Ms. Humphris said that is the point. Based on what the Planning Commission thought it was doing, are residue parcel streams being left unprotected without the buffer? The Commission intended it to be that way in the event of a forestry operation. She understands that if Mr. Miller had to apply for another special use permit, conditions could be placed on the property at that time. She is concerned about what would happen if the Board does not do what the Planning Commission and the staff recommended. Mr. Cilimberg said there is the potential on the residue parcel to have another house site. Ms. Thomas asked ifthey could build a house without coming back for another approval. Mr. Cilimberg said "yes." Mr. Kamptner said the Water Protection Ordinance may apply to forestry activities. Generally, harvesting of forest crops is exempted unless the area in which the harvesting occurs is reforested, artificially or naturally, in accordance with certain provisions of the Virginia Code. Depending on how the parcel is forested, it mayor may not be subject to the Water Protection Ordinance. In the areas listed in the Water Protection Ordinance, the 1 OO-foot buffer applies also to intermittent streams, not just perennial streams. Mr. Dorrier said he is trying to visualize the threat. He is having trouble seeing the threat, and asked if the forestry possibility is a threat to the stream. Ms. Thomas said it could be a house lawn which goes right down to the stream. Mr. Dorrier said it is then non-point source run-off. Ms. Thomas said she tends to think the Board could just put Condition No.5 on the new parcel where there is going to be a house. Mr. Martin said that is also how he feels. Ms. Humphris asked if the Board is to trust the ordinance. Ms. Thomas and Mr. Martin said "yes." Ms. Thomas said if the condition is not on the new parcel, the condition would read "Riparian buffer easement 1 00 feet from each bank placed on all streams on the new parcel, including a tree planting plan, to be approved by the Planning and Engineering Departments, executed along Ivy Creek where existing riparian buffers extend less than 1 00 feet from each bank." She asked if that makes sense to counsel. The new underlined words could be dropped from the condition. Mr. Cilimberg said that was to apply only to Ivy Creek where it was less than 100 feet. He suggested saying "Riparian buffer easements extending at least 100 feetfrom each bank shall be placed on all streams on the new 102-acre parcel." Mr. Kamptner said the Planning Commission did not get into it, but does the Board want to consider what it would like to have as part of the easement provisions? Ms. Thomas said it requires a tree planting plan. She said Mr. David Hirschman described it to her and said an easement would most likely have a tree April 25, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) planting plan, but this makes it explicit that it include such a plan. Mr. Kamptner said it should include a requirement that there be no disturbance of the existing vegetation. Mr. Perkins said considering some of the sessions the Board has had recently, there is a question of "what is a stream?" If he were the applicant, he would want some definition. Ms. Thomas said she also asked Mr. David Hirschman that question. The Engineering Department has a process they go through to make that determination. Since the property lies in the watershed, they will identify all of the streams and use field judgment in addition to what is on the GIS. Mr. Cilimberg said they look at these streams which are in the watershed differently from streams outside of the watershed. Ms. Thomas said she thinks the applicant has a good point about the limiting of building to home site number one. She also thought staff had a good argument because it is on the less good soils on the parcel. As long as there are good buffers and easements along the waterways, to limit an applicant to a particular building site on 102 acres, as long as the other impacts are taken care of, is not a necessary condition. She thinks the condition limiting the clearing for residential development to two acres is necessary in the way of limiting the impact. Ms. Humphris said that on Page 4 of the staff's report, the staff said "By limiting the area of land clearing for residential development, conditions on this permit can limit the impacts on productive and erodible soils, without requiring the applicant to go through unduly complex site selection processes." That was the rationale of the staff, and with the applicant asking that he be relieved of that condition of the siting of the home, what are the unduly site selection processes the applicant might have to go through? Ms. Thomas said she assumed that was Condition NO.8 which the staff proposed. It reads "Land clearing for a future building site on the residue of Parcel 58-95 shall be limited to no more than two acres. The site shall not be located on soils rated 'high' or 'very high' for tree productivity by the USDA's Albemarle County Soil Survey, or on soils rated 'moderate' or 'severe' for erodibility or septic field limitations." She said maybe that condition should be reinstated if a house is to be allowed anywhere on this acreage. She does not know why the Commission dropped Condition NO.8. Mr. Cilimberg said Condition Nos. 6 and 7 apply to the new parcel. Condition NO.8 applies to the residue parcel. The Commission decided that the residue parcel was not as critical. So, they did not recommend that particular condition to the Board. Ms. Thomas said it could say "Site shall not be located on soils rated "high" or "very high" for tree productivity, or on soils rated "moderate" or "severe" for erodibility or septic field limitations." Mr. Martin said he has some problems with that suggestion. He can understand soils rated "moderate or severe for erodibility or septic field limitations", but, to say that on 102 acres the applicant cannot build on a certain site because the soils are too good is not logical to him. Suppose the only soils that are suitable are on a corner somewhere, where no one would want to build? Why is the Board getting into this? Ms. Humphris said her only reason for getting into any of this is to find out ifthat site condition is dropped, what will happen about the site selection? Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant will have to meet ordinance requirements for site selection, which is meeting building site requirements. The site shown is an adequate building site which has space for adequate drainfields, and the back-up drainfields. By limiting clearing to no more than two acres, it means that there can be no more clearing than that for this building site. Staff does not judge building sites based on productivity of the soils. Ms. Thomas said she understands why staff made the recommendation. There does not have to be any building site, and it is good productive land. The County's Comprehensive Plan says that productive land should be protected, but there reaches a point on 102 acres where there is a limit to what can be said to someone who wants to build on that acreage. Ms. Humphris asked if the Board could agree to the exact wording for Condition No.5. Mr. Kamptner said he would read the language recommended at this time, hopefully incorporating all of the suggestions made. He read: "Riparian buffer easements extending at least one hundred feet from the bank of each stream shall be placed on all streams on the new parcel. The Water Resources Manager shall identify the streams for which the easements shall be established. The easements shall include provisions protecting existing vegetation and a tree planting plan to be approved by the Planning and Engineering Departments and executed along Ivy Creek where existing riparian buffers extend less than one hundred feet from each bank (Mr. Kamptner said that from this point, the condition will be worded as set out in the executive summary for today's meeting for that portion of the stream located on the 102- acre parcel: "The final plat creating the new parcel shall not be signed until these easements have been reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. The easements shall be granted to the Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water Conservation District, the County of Albemarle, or such entity approved by the County of Albemarle. If no such entity accepts the easements, the applicant shall provide written evidence from such entities declining the easements and this condition shall be null and void.") Ms. Thomas said she would suggest that Condition No.6, as recommended by the Planning Commission (The building site shall be limited to the area labeled "Homesite 1" on the applicant's "Preliminary Site Study," drawn by Gloeckner Engineering/Surveying, Inc. and dated July 19, 2000.), be removed. Mr. Cilimberg suggested that in the first line of Condition No.5, the "new parcel" be referred to as the "new 102-acre parcel." April 25, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) At this point, Ms. Thomas entertained a motion for approval. Ms. Humphris offered motion to approve SP-2000-34 subject to six conditions, with Condition NO.5 being amended to read as set out above, and read into the record by Mr. Kamptner, and removing Condition NO.6 as recommended by Ms. Thomas, and renumbering Condition NO.7 as Condition No.6. The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. (Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) 1. No further division of the proposed 102-acre parcel allowed by this shall be permitted. No further division of the residue of Parcel 58-95 shall be permitted without an amendmentto SP-81-01 and SP-81-55; 2. The 102-acre parcel shall be created through application for a rural division; 3. If an application for a rural division of Parcel 58-95 is not filed with the Planning Department within eighteen (18) months from the Board approval date, this permit amendment will expire; 4. Only one (1) dwelling unit shall be permitted on the 102-acre parcel; 5. Riparian buffer easements extending at least one hundred (100) feet from the bank of each stream shall be placed on all streams on the new 102-acre parcel. The Water Resources Manager shall identify the streams for which the easements shall be established. The easements shall include provisions protecting existing vegetation and a tree planting plan to be approved by the Planning and Engineering Departments and executed along Ivy Creek where existing riparian buffers extend less than one hundred (100) feet from each bank. The final plat creating the new parcel shall not be signed until these easements have been reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. The easements shall be granted to the Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water Conservation District, the County of Albemarle, or such entity approved by the County of Albemarle. If no such entity accepts the easements, the applicant shall provide written evidence from such entities declining the easements and this condition shall be null and void; and 6. Land clearing for this residential development site (including accessory structures such as sheds or pools) shall be limited to no more than two (2) acres (includes 1.05 acres required for the 35,000 square-foot building site and 10,000 square-foot septic site). This condition is not intended to limit agriculture, horticulture or forestry on the parcel. Ms. Thomas said the next item is SP-2000-38 which deals with the stream crossing. Mr. Martin asked if any Board member had a problem with the old entrance being gated. Ms. Thomas said the Planning Commission recommendation reads: "The existing farm entrance shall be permanently closed upon completion of the new entrance." The applicant said he would be happy to place a gate on the entrance. That would help to make sure it did not become an easy second access and a less desirable location for an entrance. She thinks that if the Board wants the land kept in forestry or agricultural use, the agricultural access road should be kept. She suggested that Condition NO.3 be changed. Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant has suggested that the existing farm entrance be gated and locked and used only by Department of Forestry equipment, although he does not think the Forestry Department needs to be mentioned. Ms. Thomas suggested that the condition read: "The existing farm entrance shall be gated and locked by the landowner." Mr. Cilimberg said he does not think a reference to the landowner is needed, simply say "The existing farm entrance shall be gated and locked upon completion of the new entrance." At this point, motion was offered by Ms. Humphris to approve SP-2000-38 subject to the four conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, but rewording Condition No.3, as set out above. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. April 25, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. (Note: The conditions of approval are set out below.) 1. The applicant shall secure the following approvals before removing vegetation or beginning work on the stream crossing: a. Engineering Department approval of structural computations for the entrance and stream crossing, include structural design computations that demonstrate the bridge can safely carry the vehicles that will access the residence (including all emergency vehicles); b. Fire & Rescue Department approval of the entrance design; c. Engineering Department approval of computations and plans documenting changes to the flood plain. Plans must show flood plain limits and levels before and after construction. Sections 18-30.02.2 and 18-30.03.2 allow no increase in flood levels. On the plan sheet, indicate the FEMA panel and designation (Community-Panel # 5100060215 B) and that this section of Ivy Creek is a detailed study area; d. Engineering Department receipt of copies of Federal and State permits for disturbance of the stream channel and any associated wetlands; e. If the Engineering Department, after review of the hydraulic computations, finds that the flood plain will be changed, the applicant must obtain a map revision from FEMA; f. Engineering Department approval of an erosion and sediment control plan [17-203]. A water protection (E&SC and SWM) bond must be posted and a pre-construction conference held prior to the issuance of a grading permit; g. Engineering Department approval of a mitigation plan for repair and enhancement of the stream buffer [17-322]. Please include planting of trees to widen the Ivy Creek stream buffer; and h. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of the entrance design, including provision of adequate sight distance; 2. In order to protect downstream habitat of the endangered James Spiny-mussel, the applicant must adhere to the following conditions recommended by the Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries: a. In-stream work for constructing either entrance shall not occur from May 15 to July 31 of any year; b. Any cofferdams used in in-stream work for isolating the bridge construction area shall be non-erodible; c. In-stream construction work shall block no more than fifty (50) percent of stream flow at any given time; d. Excavated material shall be removed from the flood plain to prevent reentry of that material into Ivy Creek or its tributaries; e. Where they have been altered by construction or vegetation removal, the original stream bed and stream bank contours shall be restored; and f. Areas where vegetation has been removed for bridge construction shall be replanted with similar species (except in the area occupied by the bridge), or must be included in the tree-planting plan required as a condition of SP-2000-34; 3. The existing farm entrance shall be gated and locked upon completion of the new entrance; and 4. The applicant shall grant the County the right to periodically enter the property for the purpose of inspecting this stream crossing in order to verify no additional fill has been placed and the stream crossing remains stable. Agenda Item NO.8. SP-2000-077. Orrock Property (Triton PCS) (Signs 34 & 35). Public Hearing on a request to allow construction of a personal wireless communications fac w/an 80' tall steel monopole, in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ord. TM 92, P 5A, contains approx 15.61 acs. Located off of St Rt 53, approx 1/8 ml W of intersec wlMilton Rd (Rt 732). Znd RA & EC. Scottsville Dist. (This public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on April 9 and April 16, 2001.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office. He said this proposal is for the installation of a personal wireless service facility which would include an eighty-foot, self- supporting steel monopole with two flush-mounted panel antennas and a lightning rod. All ground-based equipment would be contained within a metal cabinet 6'9" in height, on a 10' by 12' concrete pad. This approval would help the applicant's system provisions along State Route 53 south of Monticello. Mr. Cilimberg said the 80-foot height of the tower was based on two specific trees in the area. The first tree is a 78-foot tall Ash which is located 39 feet away and situated at an elevation that is approximately four feet lower than the proposed location of the monopole. The second tree is a 75-foot tall Ash, approximately 63 feet away and eight feet higher. Mr. Cilimberg said access to the facility would be by use of an existing gravel road which starts on the north side of Route 53, and would be extended 109 feet east to the lease area. The areas directly south and east of the facility site are vegetated with a mixture of large, mature trees and dense underbrush.