HomeMy WebLinkAboutAP201300004 Presentation 2013-06-13 �
�
...
�
�.
,r
�
...
�
�
�
� Appeal of Zoning Administrator's Determination
..
�` SDP-2013-008 New Hope Church- Initial Site Plan
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
..
�
� Determination Made: May 16, 2013
�
�' Appeal Submitted: June 12, 2013
_
,�
_
- Prepared By:
�
�
Charles M. Boldt
�
�
�. 5260 Piney Mountain Road
�
�. Charlottesville, VA 22911
�
� VA PE 031779
�
�
�
�
�..
�
�
�..
�
Under Albemarle County Code 18-34.3 as an aggrieved party, I am initiating an appeal of the
.�,,. Initial Site Plan approval on May 16, 2013 for the New Hope Church (SPD-2013-008) for the
� following reasons:
�
�, 1. CRITICAL SLOPES: Community Development has no authority to approve the
,�,, disturbance of the critical slopes shown on the Initial Site Plan approved on May 16,
�, 2013. On July 11, 2012, the Board of Supervisors approved a waiver of the critical slopes
�
requirement "for the area on the east side of the project outside of the stream buffer",
�
based on the Conceptual Site Plan, which showed less than .02 acres of disturbed critical
�
slopes. Community Development exceeded its authority in approving the Initial Site
�
Plan with disturbed critical slopes nineteen times greater than that covered by the
waiver. Only the Board of Supervisors can waive the disturbance of critical slopes in
�
Rural Areas. (See pages 2 thru 7 for justification)
�
� 2. WOODLANDS: The Special Use Permit was approved with conditions related to
�"` woodlands, providing the "location of the `wooded' area to remain". The Initial Site
""' Plan approved by Community Development permits the removal of some of the wooded
'°�' area shown on the Conceptual Site Plan, in violation of the conditions of the Special Use
� Permit. (See pages 8 and 9 for justification)
�
.� 3. ENTRANCE: The entrance design shown on the Initial Site Plan is vastly different from
�„P that approved by the Board of Supervisors. The Architectural Review Board issued a
;�,,, Certificate of Appropriateness without addressing the issue of the disturbance of critical
�,,, slopes. Conditions to the approval of the Initial Site Plan added by the Engineering
�
Division will create yet another version of the entrance design, not reviewed or
�
approved by either the Board of Supervisors or the Architectural Review Board.
�..
Alternative locations for the entrance which do not involve disturbing critical slopes
�
were not considered, but do exist. (See pages 10 and 11 for justification)
�
4. IRREPARABLE HARM: Many of the conditions delineated as being required for a Final
�
Site Plan approval should have been required to be made before the Initial Site Plan
� approval is granted, in order to prevent irreparable harm if grading, clearing or building
" is commenced without determining how those conditions will be met. Many of these
`"" conditions are not clear or are ambiguous at best. (See pages 12 thru 14 for
"'' justification)
�
�
�
Exhibits List Summary is on Page 15
�
�
11 ,.
�.
�.
�
�
�
�
�
°� CRITICAL SLOPES: Community Development has no authority to approve the disturbance of
�" the critical slopes shown on the Initial Site Plan approved on May 16, 2013. On July 11, 2012,
�
�
the Board of Supervisors approved a waiver of the critical slopes requirement "for the area
„�, on the east side of the project outside of the stream buffer", based on the Conceptual Site
� Plan, which showed less than .02 acres of disturbed critical slopes. Community Development
�""" exceeded its authority in approving the Initial Site Plan with disturbed critical slopes nineteen
�
times greater than that covered by the waiver. Only the Board of Supervisors can waive the
�
..
disturbance of critical slopes in Rural Areas.
�
In the Community Development Staff Report (Exhibit 3) prepared for the Planning
�
�
Commission only a very small amount of critical slopes were identified. The staff report
� on page 6 shows approximately .96 acres of critical slopes on the entire 21 acre site with
�"" only .03 acres in three locations identified as disturbed by the full development
�
proposed.Two areas of disturbed critical slopes were on the west side of the property.
�
�
One was adjacent to parking and one was adjacent to the proposed soccer field which
�,. was later deferred. The third area of critical slopes identified in the staff report was on
°�° the east side adjacent to the church building. The areas of critical slopes disturbed were
�` shown on Attachment D of the report (Exhibit 4). In the Planning Commission Minutes
�
�
(Exhibit 5), Mr. Clark indicates on page 4 that "there is actually a fairly small number of
„�,, 25%or greater critical slopes on the site". Further, staff asserts on page 5 that "the
� critical slopes to be disturbed do not make up a larger system of slopes". The basis for
"'� this statement appears to be documentation provided by the Church from county topo
�
and not a site inspection. However, the church engineer appears to be aware that more
�
;,�, critical slopes exist than were shown because he is quoted as saying on page 7 of the
�.. minutes that "the slope gets real steep" along Dickerson where the proposed entrance is
'"" located. It is not until 4-19-13 when a revised site plan based on actual field topo is
�
submitted (Exhibit 13) that the extent of the system of critical slopes begins to be
�
�
revealed. Questions are still unanswered as to whether what is now shown in Exhibit 13
�.. is an accurate and complete representation of the critical slopes on the site. This is
�. 2 1
�
.�.
�
ti..
�w.�
�
�
�
noted by several of the comments in the Engineering Comments of 3-13-13 (Exhibit 12)
,.,. and the Initial Site Plan approvai letter dated 5-16-13 (Exhibit 20) requesting more
� information and details so that a proper review of the critical slopes on the site could be
�"' accomplished.
�
�"' When the Project came before the Board of Supervisors (BOS) last July, only the area of
" the church using a drawing dated 5-17-12 (Exhibit 6) was discussed. In the minutes of
...
�
the BOS meeting (Exhibit 7) Mr. Benish in�icated "that there was a very small area
�,,,,, affected" for critical slopes and it was likely that a waiver might not be needed. Mr.
°� Benish estimated that the area of critical slopes disturbed by just the church was 2/100
"" of an acre or less. The critical slope waiver was approved "for the area on the east side
�
�
of the project outside the stream buffe�". This was confirmed in the BOS Actions (Exhibit
�, 8 and Exhibit 9). Based on this BOS approval, Community Development issued a Special
� Use Permit and a Critical Slope Waiver in a letter dated 7-30-12 (Exhibit 10). Since the
'"'' critical slopes to the west were not approved, the approval was for a disturbance of
�
something less than 2/100 of an acre on the east side of the project as indicated in
�
�
Exhibit 4 and Exhibit 6.
�
In January of this year, an Initial Site Plan Submittal dated 1-17-13 (Exhibit 11) was
�
�
received by the county for processing. With regard to critical slopes, the drawings
�. submitted confirmed Mr. Benish's statement to the BOS in July that the waiver would
'"' not be needed since the critical slopes were now shown to be in the stream buffer and
� not in the building footprint. It should be noted that the North arrow on Exhibit 6 is not
...
�
the same as the North arrow on Exhibit 11 and Exhibit 13. It has been rotated to the
�., East approximately 15 to 20 degrees. The BOS approval is based on East as defined by
�"'" the North arrow in Exhibit 6.
�
,.. At the end of February, staff visited the site and the issue of critical slopes not shown
`'�°` was physically observed in the field. This was confirmed on 3-13-13 with plan comments
�` from Engineering (item 4 in Exhibit 12) raising the issue of critical slopes not delineated
.r.
�
on the 1-17-13 drawing (Exhibit 11). Item 3 of the Engineering comments (Exhibit 12)
�
3 �
,.-
�
�
�.
�
�
�.
�
requests that the topography be field verified. The February site visit also pointed out
,�,, the significant amount of fill will be required on the east side of the project, in excess of
� twelve feet in some areas. This fill will be required adjacent to the stream buffer to
""` achieve the proposed elevations for the church building and parking areas. How the
�
�..
transition between the fill area and stream buffer will be achieved has not been
,�, documented.
�.
�..
On 4-19-13 the church submitted a new drawing (Exhibit 13) for review. On this drawing
�,,, a significant system and quantity of new critical slopes was shown. Based on my
� calculations (Exhibit 14) using the information in Exhibit 13, the critical slopes have
`�'' added .38 acres (approximately 16,500 sq. ft.) that were not shown on previous
�
drawings in the church site defined in Exhibit 6. This exceeds the amount of critical
�.
..
slopes approved by the BOS by an increase of nineteen times or 1,900 %. Or alternately,
�.., almost 6% of a greater amount of critical slopes are now proposed to be disturbed in
'� two areas compared to 2% of a smaller amount in one area as summarized in the staff
'"` report (Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 14) and as approved by the BOS. These critical slopes are
�
�
part of an extensive system of critical slopes on the site. Based on the February site visit,
�,,, this may not even be the full extent of the critical slopes present on the site as noted in
� the comments in the Initial Site Plan Approval letter (Exhibit 20). It is, however,
� significantly different than what was presented to and approved by the BOS in July.
�
� Page 6 and 7 of the Staff Report (Exhibit 3) should be revised as follows based on the
""` information in Exhibit 13:
�
`� Section 4.2.5(a)
�
� 1. Table should be updated. See Exhibit 14
�' 2. Question 4 should be revised from "the areas proposed for disturbance are
� small, isolated areas that do not constitute a significant aesthetic resource.
�
�
Development of rhese areas will not create notable physical changes to the site."
�,,, to the exact opposite conclusion: The areas proposed for disturbance bv the
� pro�ect are larpe, continuous areas that constitute a sipnificant aesthetic
.�
4 �
�
«.�
�
..,_
�
�
�
�
resource. Development in these areas will create notable physical chanqes to the
�,,, site.
�
�
Section 4.2.5 (a) (3)
� 1. A: Should be revised from "the proposed areas of disturbance are a very small
�
�
portion of the site. Strict application of the requirements of Section 4.2 would
,,., require the applicants to increase the areas of grading and reduce the wooded
� areas that are important to mitigating thP impacts of this use." to the proposed
y"" disturbance is larqe. Strict application of the repuirements of Section 4.2 is
�
�
warranted. The areas of qradinq and fill have increased and are extensive. The
.�„ wooded areas have been reduced. Siqnificant cut and fill is repuired which alters
� the site includinp larpe amounts of fill adiacent to the desipnated stream buffer.
'"` 2. B: Should be revised from "No alternatives have been proposed by the
�
developer."to Alternatives are repuired to be proposed by the developer to
�
�
mitigate the disruption.
� 3. C: Should be revised from "Prohibiting the proposed development of critical
'"' slopes would not prohibit or restrict the use of the property..."to Alternative
�.
layouts thar do not disturb critical slopes are possible. Alternate layouts do not
�.
�
unreasonably restrict the use of the property and do not result in a deqradation
.�,. of the property.
�' 4. D: Should be revised from "Granting the requested modification would permit
"� impacts to some minor areas of critical slopes. However, avoiding all impacts on
�
�
critical slopes would increase grading and land clearing on the remainder of the
,� site. Reduced land clearing in the rural areas advances the public purpose to
� protect water quality..." to The public interest is better served bv alternative
" layouts that decrease pradinq and preserve the natural topoqraphy and woods.
�
Warer puality would be improved by restorinp a stream that is nonfunctioninp as
�
,�, allowed in Chapter 17(Exhibit 18). (It is not clear exactly what staff ineant by the
�
�
�
5 � ,
.ti..
�..•
�
...
�
�
�
�
statement in Exhibit 3 for this item since extensive land clearing, earthwork and
.r., fill are required on a site with significant elevation changes.)
�
,,�,, Based on the revisions proposed above, the critical slope waiver should be denied.
�
�.
Exhibit 15 shows the progression of critical slopes at the building from BOS approval, to
„�, Initial Site Plan submission, and as a revised Initial Site Plan submission on which the
� approval was made. Exhibit 16 shows the same progression for the proposed entrance.
`�"` The entrance now disturbs a continuous critical slope system that was not part of the
�
BOS approval.
..
""� It is also important to note that the finish floor elevation in Exhibit 3 on which the BOS
�
approval was granted is 528 ft. +/- and the elevation on Exhibit 11 and Exhibit 13 is
�
�
531.5 ft. The church is now 3.5 feet +/- higher than what was originally approved. The
�.. edge of the stream buffer is at elevation 516 ft. on Exhibit 13 which results in a 16.5 foot
"'"` elevation change over 300 feet of the 400 foot wide building. This is a significant change
� that should be evaluated by both the critical slope waiver and the Special Use Permit. A
�
�
12 foot elevation change across the building was present in the original submittal
�. (Exhibit 6) but was not evaluated in the staff report.
�
�
The ability of the agent to waive the requirement for disturbance of critical slopes is
.,, limited to that outlined in the Albemarle County Code 18-4.2 (Exhibit 17). Section
'°� 4.2.5.b specifically states that the agent may not waive disturbing critical slopes in Rural
� Areas (RA). Disturbance of critical slopes is by approval of the BOS and is the reason that
�
�
two motions were acted on by the BOS in Exhibit 7. Section 18-4.2.5 makes it the
�, responsibility of the applicant to address the issues of how to handle the disturbance
�� and to propose, for consideration by the BOS, a solution that is consistent with the
� intent and purpose of Section 18-4.2. This has not been done.
�
� Section 18-4.2.6 c provides for an exemption for accessways. This exemption, however,
"` requires "that the applicant demonstrates that no reasonable alternative location or
�
�.
alignment exists". The granting of a critical slope waiver then requires that this
�
6 �
�
ti..
�
.�
�
�
+�w
�
evaluation of options be done and approved by the BOS. In Exhibit 19, the County
� Engineer is premature in designating the proposed entrance as an accessway. Mr.
'■" Benish's statement at the BOS meeting (Exhibit 7) that the entrance was recommended
"`� by VDOT was also not correct. At least two other possibilities exist that are acceptable
�
�
to VDOT and one of them does not disturb critical slopes. The entrance that does not
�,, disturb critical slopes is in the stream buffer but such disturbance is allowed under
� Chapter 17 Article III Division 2 (Exhibit 18). The County Engineer is aware of this
'"` exemption but unfortunately the BOS and ARB are not aware that its use is actively
�
discouraged by Community Development policy. However, examples do exist in
�.
�..
Albemarle County, the City of Charlottesville, and other localities in Virginia and
�.•• Maryland where this approach is encouraged and has been successfully used.
�
,� In the Community Development Initial Site Plan Approval Letter dated 5-16-13 (Exhibit
� 20), several conditions related to the extent of critical slopes should have been resolved
""' prior to the issuance of the approval. They are:
�
� Planning Comment No. 9 referencing 18-32.5.2(d): "New critical slopes that were not
�' approved with the special use permit and are not exempt are being shown in Phases
�..
2 and 3. Remove any disturbance of these slopes, or provide a waiver for this area to
�
,�
be reviewed and submitted for approval by the eoard of Supervisors."
�
Engineering Comment No. 5 referencing 18-32.6.6 and 14-340: "Please state the
�.
...
date of the topography. All topography should be at least field verified by the
.r. designer within the last year."
�..
,�„ Engineering Comment No. 6: "Site appears to have critical slopes that are not
•� delineated on the plan. Please show shading on all areas on the parcel that exceed
"' 25%".
�
� Based on the above, further information from the applicant, review by staff and action
'""' by the BOS on a revised critical slope waiver is required before the critical slopes can be
�
disturbed and the Initial Site Plan approved.
�
�..
7 �
�
�
�
�
�..
�
�..
�..
WOODLANDS: The Special Use Permit was approved with conditions related to woodlands,
� providing the "location of the `wooded area to remain"'. The Initial Site Plan approved by
'"" Community Development permits the removal of some of the wooded area shown on the
"' Conceptual Site Plan, in violation of the conditions of the Special Use Permit.
�
�" The extent of woodland removal was shown on the Site Plan dated 5-17-12 (Exhibit 6).
�
,...
At the BOS meeting (Exhibit 7) Ms. Mallek asked if the trees at elevation 520 would
�..
provide adequate screening. The issue of adequate screening from Dickerson was an
�,., important element in the decision to grant a special use permit. A condition of approval
� was the "location of the `wooded area to remain'within which land clearing and
� development shall not occur" is based on Exhibit 6. Further, a portion of the woods that
�...
�.
were shown on Exhibit 6 are actually on VDOT right of way and are therefore not
�,,, controlled by church. This area is approximately 5,000 square feet. The trees can be
� removed by the issuance of the VDOT entrance permit. The Initial Site Plan (Exhibit 13)
"`"" does exactly that by removing most of the vegetation to the south of the entrance road
�
in the VDOT right of way and to the north of the entrance road required by the grading
�
...
required to traverse the critical slope from Dickerson to the proposed parking and
...� building site. The entrance in the Initial Site Plan is larger because of the cut that is
""' necessary to build the road across the critical slopes requires 3:1 slopes to achieve.
� While the 5-17-12 Site Plan (Exhibit 6) left some of the woods, the impression from the
�
�
drawing was that the corner would remain wooded and provide a buffer. It also appears
�, in Exhibit 6 that the entrance road can be built with limited grading and impact to the
°� wooded area.
.�.
,.. The ARB minutes (Exhibit 21) noted that the trees on the site are Virginia Pine and
'"�` "preserving these trees does not seem practical". The ARB also notes that "a bare slope
�" would not promote continuity within the Corridor". As these Virginia Pines die or suffer
�
�..
storm damage, a bare slope would result and the church is under no current
�„ requirement to restore the woods or maintain a buffer.
�
�
�
�.
$ I
�
�
.f.
�
�
�
�.
Because of the need for a waiver to disturb critical slopes, the location of the entrance is
�,,, no longer at the discretion of the church. In July 2012 the church represented and Mr.
�° Clark and Mr. Benish confirmed that no critical slopes were present to build the
�"` proposed entrance. Without critical slopes to contend with as represented in Exhibit 6,
�
�..
the church was free to choose an entrance location. Because a critical slope system is
�, now involved, Albemarle County Code 18-4 (Exhibit 17) requires an evaluation of all
� reasonable alternatives available be done by the church and BOS concurrence with a
�°'" proposed entrance location.
�
�
�
�, Based on the above, the woodland removal has increased to a point where the buffering
� contemplated by the Special Use Permit is no longer present. The plan, therefore, does
�'°' not comply with Condition 1 of the Special Use Permit. Until the critical slope waiver
�.
�,.
issues are resolved, a resolution to the extent of woodland removal is not possible.
�, Compliance with the Special Use Permit is a requirement of the approval of the Initial
� Site Plan. Therefore, before the Initial Site Plan can be approved, an amended Special
"'' Use Permit needs to be submitted because of the changed conditions.
�.
�
�
..
�
�
�.
�
�
.�.
�
�
,�.
....
�
�
�
9 �
�
.�.
�
...o
�
�.
�
�
ENTRANCE: The entrance design shown on the Initial Site Plan is vastly different from that
� approved by the Board of Supervisors. The Architectural Review Board issued a Certificate of
"'" Appropriateness without addressing the issue of the disturbance of critical slopes. Conditions
� to the approval of the Initial Site Plan added by the Engineering Division will create yet
�
�
another version of the entrance design, not reviewed or approved by either the Board of
„r,,, Supervisors or the Architectural Review Board. Alternative locations for the entrance which
� do not involve disturbing critical slopes were not considered, but do exist.
�
„�. The ARB granted a Certificate of Appropriateness for this project at its 3-18-13 meeting
� (Exhibit 21). The action letter was issued on 3-19-13 (Exhibit 22).This approval was
'� based on the Initial Site Plan dated 1-17-13(Exhibit 11). The ARB felt that the 3:1 slopes
.r.
�
shown were appropriate. The issue of disturbing critical slopes and alternate entrance
�,,,, locations was raised but the ARB chose not to address it because no critical slopes were
� documented in the information presented in Exhibit 11 for review. The church engineer
�"� and county staff remained silent on the subject of the existence of critical slopes not
�
�.
shown on Exhibit 11 despite the staff site visit, the issue being raised in Exhibit 12 and
�, testimony by others at the ARB hearing. However, on 4-19-13 a Revised Initial Site plan
� was submitted (Exhibit 13) which provided the documentation, to what is clearly
`�"` evident in the field, of an extensive system of critical slopes in the area proposed for the
�..
church, parking and entrance. The ARB also indicated a minimum level of landscaping by
�
�
"providing trees along the entrance drive and replanting the hillside with a mix of trees
� would mitigate the loss of wooded area and help the site blend back into the
'�" surrounding landscape ". The church agreed that trees would be required along the
� entrance drives and that the hillside would need to be replanted but is under no current
�
r..
obligations to provide it.
� The ARB action was appealed. It should be noted that the review of the ARB for a
�
�.
Certificate of Appropriateness is very narrowly defined as outlined in the Executive
.�, Summary (Exhibit 23). The BOS took up the matter at its meeting of 5-8-13. A lengthy
� discussion of the need for landscaping in order "help the site blend back into the
�
�.
10 �
�
�
�
�
�.
�
�
�
surrounding landscape" took place. With staff assurance to the BOS that it would be
,,r, properly reviewed, the ARB decision was upheld by a vote of 5-1 (Exhibit 24). )Minutes
� of the BOS meeting were not available as of 6-11-13.)
�..
,�,. Six days after the BOS meeting, Exhibit 19 was prepared by the County Engineer which
� recommended changes be made to the design of the entrance. This direction was
'" included in the Initial Plan approval (Exhibit 20) as Engineering items 12 and 13. The
�
�..
travel way width was to be reduced from twenty four feet to twenty feet and the bank
,�, slope grading be increased to 2:1 or an equivalent amount using retaining walls. The
� intent seems to be to reduce the amount of wooded area which is impacted. But, it
'�" creates a vastly different entrance from that which the ARB and BOS discussed and
�
approved.
�
"" The basis for the memo (Exhibit 19) was Albemarle County Code 18-4.2.6c (Exhibit 17)
�
which allows the proposed entrance to be defined as an accessway by the County
�
�..
Engineer. This action, however, is supposed to be initiated by the applicant which it
� appears was not the case and evaluated on the basis of all reasonable alternatives which
'"" has also not been done. It is not the County Engineer's responsibility to act on behalf of
� the church to favor one alternative over another in a matter that requires a BOS review
�..
w..
of all alternatives. The County Engineer's actions in this matter have prevented the BOS
,�,,, from looking at and evaluating at least two other viable accessway choices and is
� therefore not justified.
�
...
�.
-�..
This Initial Site Plan approval should not have been granted until the entrance location,
�.,. entrance scope and critical slope issues have been resolved by a discussion and action
'�' by the BOS and ARB. It should be clear what is acceptable in proceeding into the
'`� preparation of a Final Site Plan.
�
�..
�
�
... 11 I
�.
g..
�
�
�
,...
�
�
IRREPARABLE HARM: Many of the conditions delineated as being required for a Final Site
,�,,. Plan approval should have been required to be made before the Initial Site Plan approval, in
� order to prevent irreparable harm if grading, clearing or building is commenced without
" determining how those conditions will be met. Many of these conditions are not clear or are
�
ambiguous at best.
�
'"° Albemarle County Code 32.4.2.3 b (Exhibit 25) requires that a plan be revised to address
�
�
required changes before approval of the initial site plan. Given the issues surrounding the
�,, entrance location, critical slopes, wooded areas removed and proposed phasing of the
�.. project additional information and documentation should have been supplied and reviewed
�" prior to approval.
�
� Albemarle County Code 32.4.2.5 d (Exhibit 25) requires that if the plan does not comply
�" with all applicable requirements that it not be approved. The approval letter dated 5-16-13
�
identified plan deficiencies, applicable code sections and what corrections or modifications
�
�
would be necessary to approve the plan. The approval with these major issues not resolved
�.. is not appropriate.
.�.
�
Albemarle County Code 18-32 (Exhibit 25) outlines the requirements for an Initial Site Plan
� Approval. In the Initial Site Plan Approval letter (Exhibit 20) the following items were noted
�"" as deficiencies:
�
�• 1. Planning Comment No. 3 referencing 32.7.94(c): The proposed gas line runs through
�"' a proposed wooded area which further reduces the extent of the woods in that area
�
to maintain a utility right of way. Alternate routes do not have this impact.
�
�
2. Planning Comment No. 8 referencing 32.5.2 (c): Phase Lines need to close. It is
� unclear what improvements are in Phase 1 or Phase 2. The question of what the
"'�` extent of land disturbance is permitted is not answered by the approved plan.
'� 3. Planning Comment No. 9 referencing 32.5.2(d): "New critical slopes that were not
�..
�
approved with the specia(use permit and are not exempt are being shown in Phases
,,,� 2 and 3. Remove any disturbar�ce of these slopes, or provide a waiver for this area to
�- be reviewed and submitted far approvul by tMe Board of Supervisors."
� 12 �
�
�
�
�.
...•
�
�
�
4. Engineering Comment No. 3 referencing 32.7.2.1.b and DM905: VDOT approval of
,.�, the entrance. VDOT comments were not available on 5-16-13 but are an important
°� element of alternate the entrance location discussions. VDOT has publically stated,
"� but not documented, that the entrance can be anywhere the County desires along
�
�
Dickerson to the north. The church contends only one location is acceptable.
'�,,, 5. Engineering Comment No. 4 referencing 32.5.2.d: Adequate topography on which to
�• make informed decisions does not currently exist. See Engineering Comment 5 and 6
`�'` that follow.
�
6. Engineering Comment No. 5 referencing 18-32.6.6 and 14-340: "Please state the
�
�
date of the topography. All topography should be at least field verified by the
�. designer within the last year." Field verification will confirm that the topo currently
"�" shown is not accurate and does not reflect the full extent of the critical slopes on the
� site as noted in Engineering Comment 6.
�
...
7. Engineering Comment No. 6: "Site appears to have critical slopes that are not
,.,. delineated on the plan. Please show shading on all areas on the parcel that exceed
°� 25%".
�` 8. Engineering item 7: Plan is not clear what grading is to be completed with this
�
..
project. Earlier comments from the church indicated that the whole site would be
„� cleared but only Phase 1 of the church and associated parking constructed initially.
� 9. Engineering item 12: Reduce the slope grading and tree disturbance by using a
�'°'` maximum steepness 2:1 or an equivalent amount using retaining walls is in conflict
�...
with the Certificate of Appropriateness.
�
�
10. Engineering item 13 referencing 4.12.17c: Reduce the travel way width at the
... entrance to the minimum allowed by ordinance which is 20 feet. This is in conflict
'�'' with the Certificate of Appropriateness.
� 11. Applicable requirements of 18-32.4.2 not complied with: Extent of disturbance
�
..�
approved is not clear. Since a grading permit can be issued with an approved initial
,�, site plan, the potential exists for work to begin that would clear the entire site and
�
�
.�..
13 �
�
�
�
�..
�.
�.
�
�
may not be permitted after review. It is not evident the extent of clearing that is
�,, permitted by the approval issued.
�` 12. County Engineer memo dated 5-14-13 (Exhibit 19) was premature and advocates for
"" the applicant to the detriment of the intent of the ordinance and without authority
,..�
...
to do so. Applicant has the responsibility request waiver of critical slopes from the
,�„ BOS and to demonstrate alternatives of which at least two viable locations exist.
� 13. ARB Comment 3 and BOS direction at the 5-8-13 meeting are in conflict with
�"` Engineering Comment 12.
v..
�
�
.,�, Because the issues in this appeal have not been addressed and it is unclear what is required,
�° the Initial Site Plan should have been rejected as not in compliance with Albemarle County
'�"` Code 18-32. Once a grading permit is issued, which is authorized by an Initial Site Plan
�
�
approval, any land clearing not approved cannot be reversed. A resubmittal with these
�„�, items addressed and the appropriate BOS approvals is requested as the appropriate action.
� To deal with them at the next step involves considerable uncertainty, risk and unnecessary
"`"` expense for all parties and the potential for irreparable harm to have occurred.
�
�
�.
�
�
�
�
�
�.
�
�
�
�
�
�..
�
�..
14 �
�
�
�
�.
�.
�
�
Exhibit List:
�
�,. Exhibit 1: Appeal Application with Certificate of Mailing
"`' Exhibit 2: Right to Appeal issuance of Initial Site Plan Approval Albemarle County Code 18-34.3
�
Exhibit 3: Community Development Staff Report received 5-3-12
,...
�,,,,, Exhibit 4: Community Development Staff Report Attachment D
�"' Exhibit 5: Planning Commission Minutes 5-8-12
�..
Exhibit 6: New Hope Church Site Plan dated 5-17-12 Rev 4
�.r
,■, Exhibit 7: BOS Minutes 7-11-12
`� Exhibit 8: BOS Actions 7-11-12
�
Exhibit 9: BOS Actions 7-11-12 Attachment 10
�
.w Exhibit 10: SP201000046 Community Development Ar.tion Letter 7-30-12
� Exhibit 11: New Hope Church Site Plan dated 1-17-13 Initial Site Plan Submittal
�
�..
Exhibit 12: Engineering Comments dated 3-13-13
�r Exhibit 13: New Hope Church Site Plan dated 4-19-13 Initial Site Plan Revision
� Exhibit 14: Critical Slope Calculation Table Updated
�
�
Exhibit 15: Critical Slopes at Building(BOS, Initial Submittal, Revised)
� Exhibit 16: Critical Slopes at Entrance(BOS; Initial Submittal, Revised)
.r
Exhibit 17: Afbemarle County Code 18-4.2 Criticai Slapes
�rr
�arr
Exhibit 18: Albemarle County Code Chapter 17 Article II! Division 2
� Exhibit 19: Community Development Critical Slope Memo by Glenn Brooks dated 5-14-13
�
Exhibit 20: SDP-2013-008 Community Development Initial Site Plan Approval letter dated 5-16-13
�ro•
,�, Exhibit 21: ARB Meeting 3-18-13 Minutes
""` Exhibit 22: ARB Recommendation Letter dated 3-19-13
v..
Exhibit 23: ARB Certificate of Appropriateness Appeal Executive Summary
�
�■,, Exhibit 24: BOS Meeting 5-8-13 Action Item No.�
""" Exhibit 25: Albemarle County Cod? 18-32
�w.�
Exhibit 26: Elevation at Building(BOS, initial Submittai, Revised)
�..
�
15 �
.�
�
�
�: �:-., ��r, �.., . x, . . . f.
� �
��€
� ��
,. � '�`
� � � � � � �
� �
.. �
�s `
�
: ' �rrn�
��'
��
�
�
- �
- �
��
, ��
i �
�
�
�
�
�� '
� �
��
�
�
� FOR OFF[CE USE ONLY AP# SIGN#
�` ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION:
`�"` Fee Amount$ Date Paid By who? Receipt# Ck# By:
� • • .,.��,.�u•,.
�
Application for =`-�,: _
,.. - ;
�
Appeal of Zoning Administrator's Determination ���������
�
�"' � Appeal of Zoning Administrator's Determination=$240
�° � Provide Nine(9)copies of anv and all plans or additional
w, information
..
� Certification that notice of this application has been provided to the property owner,if owner is different from applicant.
"" FEES to be paid after staff review for public notice:
�
�, Appeals of the Zoning Administrator require a public hearing by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Virginia State Code requires that notice for public hearings be made by publishing a legal
"" advertisement in the newspaper and by mailing letters to adjacent property owners.
..
�„ The total fee for public notice will be provided to the applicant after the final cost is determined and
must be paid before the application is heard by a public body. Staff estimates the total cost of legal
`°`` advertisement and adjacent owner notification to be between $350 and $450. This estimate reflects
..• the average cost of public notice fees, but the cost of certain applications mav be higher.
�
r`� Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty(50)notices $200+actual cost of first-class postage
�.
$1.00 for each additionai notice+actual
� ➢ Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty(50) cost of first-class postage
�"` ➢ Legal advertisement(published twice in the newspaper for each public Actual cost
�,,, hearing) (averages between$150 and$250)
„'` �Pe� C�.qr \4S M - ���1�
,,�,, Contact Person(Who should we call/write concerning this pr.ejt�?): 1 �
*�' Address S 2(o� ��+•� �o.,w��w �� __City C�r,a l��'� State �I 1� Zip 2Zc1�1
� Daytime Phone(�`h �1� �`'t�r1 Fax#(__)_ E-mail h O��� C Ft� �/��o . C Jdh
� Owner of Record i`�� �'W�� C��1 ►"^�"'�� G 1fv�Cl�i �1G�l�}�l �'��'�"a�St3w `�.-�ST�`�
� Address 3y�� .x,��C�OuS t R+'4�1. 1'4 3�o C�ty�r ��C`S��IY� State V"l� Zip 2'Zy�1
�r —
ar Daytime Phone(¢3`'� C113���CaU Fax#( ) E-maif ��►� 2�i'�v e gK���- • C.��
"' Applicant(Who is the Contact person representing?): ���'e�� ��ZZ'`� _ C�0.�r�e S � �o`�1�
� Address 5Z 6U ��'"`y �'� � ______City ChQr'O I F�i V� �IQ State�Zip 225 ((
� Daytime Phone(�) �1`�1'(o`'fi��_Fax#(___)___ _E-mail �p�,��'C � ��'It-aC�• C J�
�
�- �;ounty nf Albemarle
,,�,,, D�partmerct of Ct�mmunity Developmeut
401 McIntire Road Charlottesvilie,'VA 22902 Voice: (434)296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126
""" Appeal Application Revised 4/16/2013 Page l of 2
�
�
�
�
�
� —
�.. Project Name: �`��w 1�0 Q� ��'�'�Q�-��" �.w �T1t`�L S�1� �L�'N
"" Tax map and parceL• T M Z1 '� �Z L� Zoning: ��
�
Physical Street Address(if assigned):
..�
�" Location of property(landmarks,intersections,or other :
� �N1�'�-s�.T+0 n' b� C�a3�i`: �C R iP �U S� /°�i�D 1 Co3
�
� The following information shall be submitted with the application and is to be provided by the applicant:
„�,. 1) Completed application including subject of appeal.
„� 2) Justif]cation for applicant's position,including error in Zoning Administrators determination. You may use the space below to
�r+
provide this information or submit an attached sheet.
�
3) Ifapplicable,a copy of the latest deed for the property involved,and the approved and recorded plat.
�l) If applicable,the appropriate drawings showing all ehisting and proposed improvements on the property and any special
�
conditions for the situation that may justify the appeal.
�
�) Reference to the relevant Zoning Ordinance section or other applicable regulations or case precedence tojustify the appeal.
'� 6) Appropriate fee made payable to the County of Albemarle.
"'� Explanation of error in determination and justification of applicant's position:
�r..
�
� S�� ��C�C� D
�
�..
..�
�
.rr
�
Owner/Applicant Must Read and Sign
'�r' I hereby certify that the information provided on this application and accompanying information is accurate, true
;,,,,, and correc the best of my knowledge and belief.
�
..• � Date: ro ` ►Z - 13
�
Signature of Owner or Contract Purchaser, A� �p��C��r
�,. C4.0.f�es M ���►�- �-3�c — G-�y- t��s�
Print Name Daytime phone number of Signatory
�
w�.
�+ Board of Zoning Appeals Action/vote:
� Board of Zoning Appeals Chairman's signature: Date:
�
�
� Appeal Application Revised 4/16/2013 Page 2 of2
r..
�..
�
�..
�
�.
�..
�
�
�
..,.
�
...
�..
�
�
ZO-bIL00[00
^� ����� ODUI
� 1NflOWFJ S31O1Sp3�N
£�.�?S ��(1(�
+�" 896ZZ
�A'�llIhS�i3�i��ii (��
�
"" 3Jd1SOd�aS'fl i``
�
""` -�
✓ M
,�.. C9 ,,
J ~ J� � �
� Q ° N � �
� W
� oo � � � �
J � (
� ~ � � V S.
Q J
� LL o � � �J
F. � �- �
� z � � o
w W �� v � �
U FF � b
o a � °' � �
� z� � d � �
� v a � 4 �j _` �
q�/ � /� y o
W ai w � �I' E .t J� N
wr j �z 0- s- -r -� z
� o� —� � � � �(+ —' �
W �� S s�i � �
'�' � �Z o �J � 0 7 � � �
� �o �.-s N � � � � T
y.. � �� �
o �W >_� a Z M M
a Wo �
m� � � E
�a^ � ¢� � � u°
�a �
aar a
�
+ir�
�
�
�wr
�u'
�
wor
�
vr+
wir
�
��e �
� � �
� � �
�i � �
� �
; �
�
, : '� � �t
� �
,. �
� �
�
, � �
� ��
�
� �
�
�
� �
�
�
� �
� �
�
'�
_ ' � ��
�
� ��
� �
�
� � '
��
�
� ` �
�
� �
+� ; �;
- �
w..
�
..•
�
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
�
�
,,,�,, CHAPTER 18
�w ZOI�I NG
"`"� SECTION 34
«..
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
dr.
sar+
Sections:
�
34.1 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS: APPOINTMENT AND ORGANIZATION
'� 34.2 POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE BOARD OF ZONINC APPEALS
34.3 APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
'� 34.4 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES
�,,, 34.5 PROCEDURE
34.6 DECISION OF BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
br►
,� 34.1 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS: APPOINTMENT AND ORGANIZATION
� A board of zoning appeals, consisting of tive(5)members, shall be appointed in accordance with
the provisions of section 15.2-2308 of the Code,and shall have such powers and duties as set forth
""' in section 15.2-2309 of the Code.
v�
Within the limits of funds appropriated by the board of supervisors, the board of zoning appeals
..�. may employ or contract for such secretaries, clerks, legal counsel. consultants and other technical
and clerical services as the board of zoning appeals may deem necessary tor transaction of its
""` business.
�
Members of the board of zoning appeals shall receive such compensation as may be authorized b}
� the board of supervisors, from time to time,by urdinance or resolution.
""" Any board member may be removed for malfeasance, misfeasance or nonteasance in of�fice,or for
� other just cause, by the court �vhich appointed him, atter hearing held atter at least iitteen (15)
days notice.
«.�
"I�he board of zoning appeals shall have the authority to request the opinion, advice or other aid of
"" any ot�ticer, employee, board, bureau or commission of the county within the scope of�his or its
�,,,, respective competence.
'W" The board of zoning appeals may, from ti�ne to time, adopt such rules and regulations consistent
with the ordinances of the county and the la���s of the Commonwealth as it may deem necessary to
� carry out the duties imposed by this ordinance. The meetings of the board shall be heid at the call
�,,, of its chairman or at such times as a quorum of the board may determine. The board shall choose
annually its own chairman and vice-chairman ��ho shall act in the absence of the chairman. The
�""' chairman,or,in his absence,the acting chairman, may administer oaths and compel the attendance
of witnesses. The board shall keep minutes of its proceedings, showing the vote of each member
� upon each question, or if'absent or failing to vote, indicating such fact. All records of ofticial
,,,,,,, actions shall become part of the permanent records of the board. A quorum shall be a majority of
ali the members of the board.
p.r
�
vrr
�
°�' 18-34-1
�..
�,..
«�
�
�
�...
�..
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
�
34.2 POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE BOARD OF ZOMNG APPEALS
...
,�, "I'he board of zoning appeals shall have the lollowing po�vers and duties in accordance �vith
section 15.2-2309 of the Code:
a..
'To hear and decide appeals from any order, requirement. decision or determination made b}' an
`°�' administrative oflicer in the administration or enforcement of this ordinance or ot�any regulation
�, adopted pursuant hereto.
�rr To authorize upon appeal or original application in specitic cases such varianee trom the terms of
this ordinance as will not be contrary to the public interest, when o�ving to special conditions a
'"' literal enforcement of the provision�vill result in unnecessary hardship; provided that the spirit of
,,,�, the ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done,as follo�vs:
� When a property o�vner can sho�v that his property ���as acquired in good faith and �vhere, by
reason of the exceptional narrowness, shallo�vness.size or shape of a specific piece of property at
'�` the time of the etlective date of this ordinance, or �t�here, by reason of etceptional topographic
„�,,, conditions or other extraordinary situation or condition of such piece of property,or of the use or
development of property immediately adjacent thereto, the strict application of the terms of this
�` ordinance�vould ettectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the propei�ty or�tihere thc
board is satistied, upon the evidence heard by it.that the granting of such variance��ill alleviate a
�` clearly demonstrable hardship approaching contiscation, as distinguished trom a special privilege
,,,.,� or convenience sought by the applicant, provided that all variances shall be in harmony �vith the
intended spirit and purpose of this ordinance.
�
No such variance shall be authorized by the board of zoning appeals unless it tinds: (a) that the
'� strict application of this ordinance would produce undue hardship; (b) that such hardship is nut
... shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity; and(c)that
the authorization of such variance�vill not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and that
'�'' the character of the district will not be changed by the granting of the variance.
� No such variance shall be author;zed except atter notice and hearing as reyuired by section 1�.2-
�r 2204 of the Code.
""' No variance shall be authorized unless the board uf zuning appesls tinds that the condition or
„�,, situation of the property concerned or the intended use of the property is not of so general or
recurring a nature as to make reasonably practicable the f'ormulation of a general regulation to be
+.. adopted as an amendment te the ordinance.
""` ln authorizing a variance,the board of zoning appeals may impose such conditions regarding the
,,,� location,character and other features of the proposed structure or use as it may dcem necessary in
the public interest,and may require a guarantee or bond to insure that the conditions imposed are
� being and will continue to be complied�vith.
"� `[�o hear and decide appeals from the decision of Yhe zoning administrator.
t..
To hear and decide applications for interpretation of the zoning map�vhere there is any uncertainty
� as to the location of a district boundary. Atter notice to the o�vners of the properly affected by any
such question, and after public hearing with notice as required by section 15.2-2204 of the Code,
�" the board of zoning appeals may interpret the map in such �va}� as to carry out the intent and the
„r purpose of this ordinance for the particular section or district in question. The board of zoning
appeals shall not have the po���er, however, to rezone propeirty or substantially to change the
''■" locations of district boundaries as established by this ordinance and the zoning map.
x...
�.
�..
� l 8-34-2
�
�
n..
�
�.
�
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
�
�
34.3 APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
w.•
An appeal to the board of zoning appeals may be taken b} any person aggrieved or by any ofticer,
'� department,board or bureau of the county affected by any decision of the zoning administrator,or
..,,,, trom any order, requirement,decision or determination(collectively,the "decision") made by any
other administrative ofticer in the administration or enforcement of' this chapter, as provided
""� herein.
� a. Tinte o�� r/in a eal. A nolice of a eal an "a eal") shall be tiled��-ithin thirt� ,0
.f .f g PP Pp ( P� } (-' )
� days atter the decision appealed, provided that an appeal ot'a decision pertaining to
temporary or seasonal commercial uses shall be filed �vithin ten (10) days after the
"�"` decision if the notice of��iolation states that the ten(10)day appeal period applies.
9.r
b. h'i/ing and c•ontenls of appeal. An appeal shall be filed�vith the zoning administrator and
�r. �vith the board of coning appeals. The appeal shall specity the grounds fur the appeal.
� c. Ti�crnsmittal of recoi•d. Upon the tiling of an appeal. the zoning administrator shall
,�, forth�vith transmit to the board oF roning appeals all the papers constituting the record
upon��hich the action appealed from was taken.
�
d. Stuv of p�•oceedings. An appeal shall stay all proceedings in f'urtherance of the action
""' appealed trom unless the zoning administrator certities to the board of zoning appeals
� that by reason oi�f'acts stated in the certiticate a stay would in his opinion cause imminent
peril to life or property,in which case proceedings shall not be stayed otherwise than by a
� restraining order granted by the board of zoning appeals or by a court of record, on
�
application and on notice to the zoning administrator and for good cause sho�vn.
,,,,„ e. Paynrent of fee. No appeal shall be processed, no record shall be reyuired to be
transmitted as provided under section 34.3(c),no proceedings shall be stayed as provided
*� under section 34.3(d), and the time for which the appeal must be heard and acted on by
the board of zoning appeals shall not begin, until the fee required by section 35 is paid.
''� The failure of the appellant to pay the required �vithin the time for tiling an appeal shall
�,,, not be a basis to refuse to accept the appeal or to dismiss the appeal.
=r► State law reference—Va.Code§§ I S�-2286(A)(4),15 2-231 1(A),(B).
� (� 34.3. 12-10-80;Ord.09-18(3),7-I-09)
�..
34.4 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES
�
Any owner may apply for a variance. The application shall be made to the zoning administrator in
"' accordance �vith the provisions of this section and with rules adopted by the board of zoning
,�,,,, appeals. The application and accompanying maps, plans or other inlormation shall be transmitted
promptly to the secretary of the board of zoning appeals��ho shall place the matter on the docket
�►' to be acted on by the board of zoning appeals.No variance shall be authorized except atter notice
and hearing is provided as required by Virginia Code § 15.2-2204. The owner shall provide
'� satisfactory evidence that an} delinquent real estate tares, nuisance charges, storm�vater
s,,,, management utilit} iees, and any other charges that constitute a lien on the subject properiy,that
are owed to the county and have been properly assessed against the subject property, have becn
�' paid.
� (§34.4, 12-10-80;Ord. 12-18(7), 12-5-12,eftective 4-1-13)
+r.
State law reference—Va.Code$s I S 2-2286(B),15.2-2309.
.rr
vr+
wr
I 8-34-3
� 7_oning Supplement#77.a-I-13
�
�rr
�w
�
�
�..
�..
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
�.r
34.5 PROCEDURE
�
,�, Appeals and applications for variances shall be tiled with the zoning administrator,together�vith a
fee as set forih in section 35.0.
�
The board of'zoning appeals shall tit a reasonable time for the hearing of an application or appeal.
''r give public notice thereof pursuant to section 15?-220d of the Code, as �vell as due notice to the
.,�,�, parties in interest and decide the same�vithin sizty (60) days. In exercising its powers,the board
of zoning appeals may reverse or aftirm, wholly or partly, or may modify the order, rcyuirement.
°� decision or determination appealed from. The concurring vote of three (3) members shall be
necessary to reverse any order, reyuirement, decision or determination of an administrative ofticer
� or to decide in favor of the applicant on any matter upon which it is required to pass under the
,w, ordinance or to ettect any variance from this ordinance.
� (§34.5, 12-10-80;5-5-82)
�
r,,, 34.6 DECISION OF BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
"�' Any person or persons jointly or severally aggrieved by any decision of the board of �oning
appeals,or any taxpayer,or any otticer,department,board or bureau of the county, may present to
� the circuit court of the county a petition specifying the grounds on which aggrieved within thirty
8,,,, (30)days after the tiling of the decision in the ottice of the board of zoning appeals,which petition
shall proceed in accordance with section 15.2-2314 of the Code.
�r.
�, (§34.6. 12-10-80)
...
�
v..
�.ro
�r
7rr
a�r
�
�
�
�
�
�rr
�
�
+�rr
�Yr`
�
�
i x-�4-�
"�' l.oning Supplement#77,�1-I-13
�
�
�ae.r
„� �s�_, .� � r , t. ��v , r� „ ,�� �_. , ,, _ , _
<� �:f _ <<.„ � __, - �-.s� ,.�a_.
, _;, , F _ u - . , �.e�- _ � .. �,�� �,_ .� �-_, ._ -� ,�,r��
��
�s �
� � ��
_ � � �
� �
� ��
- � ' � �M�
� � � �
� �
', � �
� �
�
� �
�
�
�
�
�
�
, �
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
� '
�
�
�
�..
�, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
�
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: Staff: Scott Clark,Senior Planner
"r SP2010-00046 New Hope Church
� SP2010-00047 Ne�� Hope Church Soccer Field
�w Planning Commission Public Hearing: May 8.2012 Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: TBA
.�,.�
Owner/s: Ne�v tiope Community Church;Michael Applieant:Ne�v Hope Community Church: Michael
�..� Henderson Trustee Henderson Trustee
,�,,. Acreage: 21 acres Special Use Permit: SP201000046: 10.2.2.35,
Church building and adjunct cemetery;SP2010000d7:
""" 10.2.2.4, S�vim,golt:tennis or similar athletic
.�.-
facilities(reference�.1.16)
v..
TMP: 021000000012C 1 Existing Zoning and By-right use: RA Rural Areas-
Location: North�vest side of intersection of Dickerson agricultural,forestal,and tishery uses;residential
� Road(Route 606)and Dickerson Lane(Route 763). density(0.5 unit/acre in development lots); GC
Entrance Corridor-Overlay to protect properties of
"""` historic,architectural or cultural signiticancc trom
visual impacts of de��e(opment along routes of tourist
� access;AIA Airport Impact Area-Overlay to
�,.. minimize adverse impacts to both the airporl and the
surrounding land
aw.�
Magisterial District: White liall Conditions or Proffers: Yes
�
DA(Development Area): Piney Mountain Requested#of Dwelling Units: n/a
� ProposaL• SP201000046:400-seat church with ottices Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural Areas -
� and classrooms; SP201000047: Soccer field for athletic preserve and protect agricultural, forestal,open space,
events,on grounds of proposed new church and natural, historic and scenic resources/density ( .�
"�' uniU acre in develo ment lots)
,,,,�,, Character of Property: The land is wooded,primarily Use of Surrounding Properties: Churches,
in pines. residences.The GE Fanuc facility is approzimately
�+ �50 feet to the southwest
� Factors Favorable(SP2010-00046): Factors Unfavorable(SP2010-
1. The proposed church use tits the area's established patlern of land 00046): I.
� uses.�vhich includes other churches,residences,and light- Adlacent o�vners are concerned that
�.r industrial uses. the proposed design�vould bring
2. "I'he Virginia Department of 7'ransportation and the Virginia people close enough to Piney
"" Department of I lealth have t�>und that the proposed conceptual Mountain Road that unauthorir.ed
� plan meets their standards tor public health and safety. access would become a problcm.
3. "1'he proposed design includes significant tree protection areas Yhat
� will reduce water-quality impacts and visual impacts of the
�
develo ment
Factors Favorable(SP2010-00047) Factors Unfavorable(SP2010-
"�" 1. 7'he community�vould gain an additional soccer tield 00047):
,,,�, ?. No outdoor lighting or amplitied sound systetn would be installed, Adjacent lando�vners are concerned
which would prevent lighting impacts on neighboring properties, that the tield use�vill be visible and
�` and keep noise impacts to a minimum audible fi•om their properties.
�
3. Prohibition on tournaments would reduce trattic and noise impacts.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of these Special Use Permits, �vith conditions. "1'he
'+� proposal will also require a critical slopes waiver (under section 4.2.�(a) of the Loning Ordinance) trom the
Board of Supervisors,and staff recornmends approval of that request.
rr.°
vrP
Brr
wwr
�
�
.�
...
..o
..�
� Proposal
SP201000046: 400-seat church with offices and classrooms
� SP201000047: Soccer field for athletic events, on grounds of proposed new church
�" ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas -agricultural, forestal, and fishery
a,,,,, uses; residential density(0.5 unit/acre in development lots); EC Entrance Corridor- Overlay to
protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural significance from visual impacts of
`� development along routes of tourist access; AIA Airport Impact Area-Overlay to minimize
� adverse impacts to both the airport and the surrounding land
,�„ SECTION:
SP201000046: 10.2.2.35, Church building and adjunct cemetery
�" SP201000047: 1022.4, Swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities(reference 5.1.16)
�.. COMPREHENS[VE PLAN LAND USE/DENS[TY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect
agricultural, forestal, open space,and natural, historic and scenic resources/density( .5 unit/
� acre in development lots)
'� ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
� LOCATION: Northwest side of intersection of Dickerson Road (Route 606) and Dickerson Lane
(Route 763).
� TAX MAP/PARCEL: 021000000012C 1
w MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall
�..
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
"`' The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Rural Area. The property is located in the
�• Piney Mountain neighborhood.
�.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
`�' This property is zoned Rural Areas, and is included in the EC Entrance Corridor and AIA
,�,.. Airport Impact Areas zoning overlay districts. All the surrounding properties but one are zoned
�
RA Rural Areas. The remaining adjacent property, to the southwest, is zoned L[ Light Industrial.
� Two adjacent properties to the east have already been developed as churches.
�•
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
`" No previous applications have been submitted for this property.
�
�
PROPOSALS:
�""' The applicant is proposing to build a church with seating for 400 persons, offices, classrooms,
�... and 150 parking spaces. The plan indicates that the church facility may be built in phases, but the
�
request is for the entire 400-seat facility.
� The proposed athletic facility is a single outdoor soccer field with no lighting or amplified
a,,,, sounds. The applicant estimates that a maximum of 50 people would attend for weekend games
(fewer for weekday-afternoon practices), and has stated that no tournaments would be held on
'"" the site. See Attachment C for the conceptual plan for the two uses.
...
�
.�.
�
�
�
�
�
.w.
�.
«�
�
-„ REGULATORY CONTEXT:
� SP201000046 is subject to the First Amendment's Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses and
� the Religious Land Use and [nstitutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLU[PA"). One key
,�,,, provision of RLUIPA states:
" No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes
� a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly
�
or institution, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that
person, assembly, or institution—(A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental
""' interest; and (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental
�. interest. (italics added)
� 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(1). RLUIPA also requires that land use regulations: (1)treat a religious
� assembly or institution on equal terms with nonreligious assemblies and institutions, (2) not
,,,� discriminate against any assembly or institution on the basis of religion or religious
denomination; and (3) not totally exclude religious assemblies, or unreasonably limit religious
"'` assemblies, institutions or structures, from the locality. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b).
�
�
SP201000047 is not subject to these limitations.
� ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REOUESTS:
�... The staff analysis below is for both special use permit requests. Section 31.6.1 of the Zoning
�
Ordinance below requires that special use permits be reviewed as follows:
'�"' Will the u.se he of sr�bstantial detriment to ac�jacent property?
�
As the adjacent properties to the east have already been developed as churches, no
"�` detriment is expected on that side.
�
,�„ The dwellings to the west and north of tlle site would be approximately 300 to 800 feet
from the developed portion of property. As church activities would take place indoors
�"' and there would be no outdoor lighting or amplifcation for the soccer field, significant
�... light and sound impacts would be to some degree limited. However, adjacent landowners
have e�pressed concerns over the visibility of the soccer field and church facility from
"`W properties higher on Piney Mountain. They have also expressed concerns that the narrow
�' wooded buffer on the west side of the church property would not be enough to prevent
,,,�, people on the church site from accessing Piney Mountain Road or walking into the
�..
adjacent wooded properties.
� Access to the residential parcels would not be directly affected, as they use the private
� Piney Mountain Road, which is not connected to the church property. Access could be
indirectly affected by the fact that both the ch��rch and the dwellings would use Dickerson
'"` Road and Dickerson Lane to access US 29. The Virginia Department ofTransportation is
,... satisfied with the design and location of the entrance for the site.
�..
�
�
�
.�
�
.�.
�
�
�
�
�., Will the character of the zoning di.strict change with this use?
� The addition of a church to a portion of the R�zoning district that is already
"�' characterized by church and residential uses is not expected to significantly change the
,,� character of the district.
"` The southern end of the property is in the rearmost portion of the 500-foot area affected
�•- by the EC Entrance Corridor overlay zoning district. No structures are included in this
,,.
area, and the remaining tree cover on the site would obscure visibility of the developed
portion of the site, with the possible exception of the entrance. Architectural Review
�"` Board staff has reviewed the proposal and found that the proposed use will not impact the
�, character of the Entrance Corridor zoning district.
�
The property is also located in the AIA Airport [mpact Area zoning overlay district.
�"' However, the proposed development would be located significantly below the peak of
„w„ Piney Mountain and would not create any obstruction to takeoffs or landings at the
�
airport. No impact on this zoning district is expected.
�► Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the�orring ordinance?
�
Religious land uses are not specifically addresses in the purpose or intent of the zoning
`"' ordinance. However, they have generally been considered as compatible land uses in
... rural and residential areas.
�.
The proposed soccer field supports the zoning ordinance's purposes to provide
""" "adequate...recreational facilities."
�
�
Will the use be in harmony with the uses perrnitted by right in the district?
� Churches are common in the Rural Areas zoning district, and have generally been
,r, considered in harmony with agricultural land uses and with residential uses.
`"' The compatibility of athletic facilities with rural land uses has generally been evaluated
� on the scale ofthe use and the nature ofthe visible and audible impacts. This minimally-
�.
developed soccer field would be of a smaller scale than the existing or proposed churches
in the area, and would not include lighting or amplified sound. Therefore staff finds that
""'" this particular athletic facility would be in harmony with by-right uses in the district.
.,., However, adjacent landowners are concerned about the visibility of the field from their
,..
properties and the sounds created during use of the field.
� Will the use be in hurmony with additional regulations provided in section 5?
�
�
There are no additional regulations in section 5 for churches.
.�
�
�
�.
�
�..
�
�
�
�
�
�
�.. Included below is a discussion of the regulations in section 5 for athletic facilities:
�.
5.1.16 SWIMMING, GOLF, TENNIS CL UBS
�..
.,,� Each swimming golf or tennis club shall be.si�bject to the followirrg:
� a. The slvimming pool, including the apron,filtering and parmping equipment,
�' and any buildings, shall be at least seventy five (75)feet from the nearest
,,,,, property line and at least one harndred t�venty-five (125)feet frorn uny existing
dwellirrg on an adjoining property, except Ihat, where t61e lot upon which it is
� located abuts land in a conamercial or industrial district, the pool may be
�•.r constructed no less than twenry-five (25)feet from the nearest properry line of
�
.si�ch lund in a cornmercial or industrial district;
�"' No swimming pool is included in this proposal.
�
b. When the lot on which any szrch pool is located abuts the rear or side line of,
'� or is acroa�s the street from, arry residential district, a sub.stantial, sightly tivall,
�' fence, or shrtibbery shall be erected or plantec� so as to screen effectivelv sc�id
,w„ pool fron� view from the nearest properry in such residential district;
" No swimming pool is included in this proposal.
�
�,, c. (Repealed 6-1-f-00)
"" d The board of supervisors may,for the protection of the health, safery, i110Yu1s
,.,. and general tivelfare of the conrmtrnity, require such additional conditions as it
deerns necessary, includirrg but not limited to provisiorrs for additional fencing
� and/or planting or other land.scaping, additianal setback from property lines,
� additionul parking space, location and arrangen�ent of lighting, and other
�„o reasonable requiremerrts;
� Given that this is facility is not a swimming pool and will not have lights or an
�•► amplified sound system, staff believes that the design show on the conceptual
� plan is sufficient to protect the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of
the community.
�.
� e. Provision for concessions for the serving offood, refreshn�ents or
entertainment for club members and guests may be permitted i�nder special
� use permit procedures.
�
,r,,, No such facilities have been proposed by the applicant.
�
�
�.
..►
�
�
...r
..r.
�
�
..�
�
�.
..� Will the public health, safety cmd general welfure of the cornmunity be protected rf the
..r
u,se is approved?
'�"" The proposed entrance design and location meet the Virginia Departments of
�, Transportation's standards for these proposed uses. The Virginia Department of Health
has found that the site has adequate water-supply and septic-effluent processing capacity
"` for the proposed uses.
�
,�,, CRITICAL SLOPES MODIFICATION
`" The proposed development will require the disturbance of critical slopes. A modification to allow
�., critical slopes disturbance is necessary before the site development plan for the use can be approved by
the Board of Supervisors. Section 4.2.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance restricts earth-disturbing activity on
�` critical slopes, while Section 4.2.5(a) ailows the Board of Supervisors to waive this restriction.
� The critical slopes in the area of this request appear to be natural. Staff has reviewed this waiver request
'�' with consideration for the concerns that are set forth in Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, entitled
„�, "Critical Slopes."These concerns have been addressed directly through the analysis provided herein,
..
which is presented in two parts, based on the Section of the Ordinance each pertains to.
�
Section 4.2.5(a)
�..
�„ Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance:
The areas proposed for disturbance are small, isolated areas of critical slopes that are not part of any
'"` major system of slopes (see Attachment D).
�..
�.
Pro osed disturbance er conce tual lan:
Areas Acres
"'` Total site 21 acres approximately
� Area of critical slopes Man-made=0 0 %of development
�, (man-made & natural) Natura! = 0.96 ac. 4.6%of develo ment
Total critical slopes area 0.96 acres 4.6%of development
"`� Critical slo es disturbed 0.03 acres 3.125%of critical slopes
�
�, The engineering analysis of the request follows:
'""" Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance:
�
�
The critical slope areas contain natural critical slope areas.
� Below, each of the concerns of Zoning Ordinance section I 8-4.2 is addressed:
�.
1. "rapid und/or large scale movement ofsoil and rock": Proper slope construction, control of
� drainage, and vegetative stabilization will prevent any movement of soil.
� 2. "excessive stoi�mwater run-of'f": Stormwater runoff from the roads will be conveyed in pipes to
,�„ a basin
3. "siltation of nutural and man-made bodie,s of tit�ater": Inspection and bonding by the County
�..
...
�
�
�
�
�
...
,.�
�
,,�. will ensure siltation control during construction. Proper stabilization and maintenance will
ensure long-term stability.
� 4. "loss of aesthetic resource": The areas proposed for disturbance are small, isolated areas that
� do not constitute a significant aesthetic resource. Development of these areas will not create
,,,,, notable physical changes to the site.
5. "septic effluent": The areas proposed for disturbance are not located near any eYisting septic
�"'` fields (there are none on the property, and do not connect to the areas proposed for new septic
�. fields.
..�
No portion of this conceptual plan is located inside the 100-year flood plain area according to FEMA
""` Maps, dated 04 February 2005.
9..-
�` Summary of review of modifcation of Section 4.2:
�.
""` Sectiorr 4.2.5 estahlishes the review process and criteria for granting a waiver of Section =�.2.3. The
�, preceding comments by staff address the provi.sions of Section=1.2.5(a). Staff has included the provisions
�
of Section 4.2.S(a)(3) here, along with staff corr�ment on tlTe various provisions.
The commission may modify or waive any requirement of section 4.2 in a particular case upon finding
� that:
� A. Strict application of the requirements of section 4.2 i��ould not forward the purposes of this
"" chapter or othenvi,se serve the pz�blic health, safety or welfare;
�
The proposed areas of disturbance are a very small proportion of the site. Strict application of the
�" requirements of section 4.2 would require the applicants to increase the areas of grading and
� reduce the wooded areas that are important to mitigating the impacts of this use.
�.
B. Alternatives proposed by the developer or subdivider would satisfy the intent and purposes of
"' section =1.2 to at lea.st an equivalent degree;
�
�
No alternatives have been proposed by the developer.
""' C. Due to the�roperry's unusual siae, topography, shape, location or other unusual conditions,
.... excluding the proprietary interest of the developer or st�bdivider,prohihiting the distzrrbance of
critical slopes would effectively prohibit or urtreasonably restrict the use of�the property or
" would result in significant degradation of the properry or adjacertt properties; or
..
�,,, Prohibiting the proposed development of critical slopes would not prohibit or unreasonably
restrict the use of the property, which could be used for by-right uses available under Rural
"" Areas zoning, including agriculture, forestry, or a residence.
.�,
�
D. Granting the modification or waiver would serve a pz�blic purpose of greater import than ivould
be sen�ed by strict applicatiorr of the regulations sought to be modified or waived
�
�,. Granting the requested modification would permit impacts to some minor areas of critical slopes
�
However, avoiding all impacts on critical slopes would increase grading and land-clearing on the
�
�
�..
�...
�
�.
�
�
�
�• remainder of the site. Reduced land-clearing in the Rural Areas advances the public purpose to
�, protect water quality, and this proposal would provide recreational area that would be of benefit
to the community.
�
-� SUMMARY AND ACTION (SP 2010-00046 New Hope Church):
�
..�.
Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal:
,... Factors favorable to this request include:
� l. The proposed church use fits the area's established pattern of land uses, which includes
� other churches, residences, and light-industrial uses.
,�, 2. The Virginia Department ofTransportation and the Virginia Department of Health have
found that the proposed conceptual plan meets their standards for public health and safety.
"` 3. The proposed design includes significant tree protection areas that will reduce water-quality
� impacts and visua( impacts of the development.
�
Factors unfavorable to this request include:
�
q.. 1. Adjacent owners are concerned that the proposed design would bring people close enough to
�
Piney Mountain Road that unauthorized access would become a problem.
*'"' RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecommends approval of SP2010-00046 New Hope Church
�.,. based upon the analysis provided herein, with the following conditions:
'"� l. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled
�- "Conceptual Plan: New Hope Community Church," prepared by Blackwell
,�,. Engineering PLC, revision number 3 (dated 2-18-12), (hereafter "Conceptual Plan"),
as determined by the Director of Planning and the 2oning Administrator. To be in
"""` general accord with the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the
�. following major elernent within the development essential to the design of the
�
development, as shown on the Conceptuai Plan:
�'" • location of buildings and structures, which may be built in phases
..� • location and maximum number of parking spaces, which may be built in
...
phases
• location of the entrance
"'' • location of the "wooded area to remain," within which land clearing and
� development shall not occur, with the exception that the designated
�, "Proposed Reserve Drainfield" site may be cleared and used only for that
purpose
�
,o,.,� Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be
�
made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
� 2. The area of assembly shall be limited to a maximum 400-seat sanctuary.
.,�.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�.
�...
�
� 3. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light
...-
away from all abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property
lines to no greater than 0.3 foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning
'�" Administrator or their designee for approval.
�..
4. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a
� separate special use permit;
...
,,,,,. 5. Entrance design and location must be approved by the Virginia Department of
�
Transportation before construction of the access road for this use may commence.
�• 6. Written approval of water-supply and septic facilities must be submitted before this
�
use may commence.
'" PLANNING CONIMISSION MOTION—Special Use Permit:
,.r
Y...
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this special use
permit:
�..
,� Move to recommend approval of SP 2010-00046 New Hope Church with the
�
following conditions:
_.. 1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled
,� "Conceptual Plan: New Hope Community Church," prepared by Blackwell
Engineering PLC, revision number 3 (dated 2-18-12), (hereafter "Conceptual Plan"),
"" as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in
�... general accord with the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the
following major element within the development essential to the design of the
� development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan:
�.
,,, • location of buildings and structures, which may be built in phases
• location and maximum number of parking spaces, which may be built in
� phases
""` • location of the entrance
.... • location of the "wooded area to remain," within which land clearing and
�
development shall not occur, with the exception that the designated
"Proposed Reserve Drainfield" site may be cleared and used only for that
"" purpose
�
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be
"`�" made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
..
„�, 2. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light
away from all abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property
`""` lines to no greater than 0.3 foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning
,� Administrator or their designee for approval.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
-«.
�
�
.r..� 3. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light
away from all abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property
""� lines to no greater than 0.3 foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning
�` Administrator or their designee for approval.
,.r
4. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a
"" separate special use permit;
�
�
5. Entrance design and location must be approved by the Virginia Department of
Transportation before construction of the access road for this use may commence.
�..
.... 6. Written approval of water-supply and septic facilities from the Virginia
..,,.
Department of Health must be submitted before this use may commence.
�
�
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this special use
permit:
�
� Move to recommend denial of SP 2010-46 New Hope Church. Shoz�ld a commi.ssioner
motion to reconm�end denial, lze or ,she should state the reason(s) for recomn�ending
� deniul.
�
�. SUMMARY AND ACTION (SP 2010-00047 New Hope Church Soccer Field):
� Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposaL•
,�
„�, Factors favorable to this request include:
'" 1. The community would gain an additional soccer field
� 2. No outdoor lighting or amplified sound system would be installed, which would
�„ prevent lighting impacts on neighboring properties, and keep noise impacts to a
minimum
�"` 3. Prohibition on tournaments would reduce traffic and noise impacts.
�
�
Factors unfavorable to this request include:
°�- 1. Adjacent landowners are concerned that the field use will be visible and audible from
,,,, their properties.
�` RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of SP2010-0047 based upon the analysis
� provided herein, with the following conditions:
�..
l. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled
""" "Conceptual Plan: New Hope Community Church," prepared by Blackwell
�. Engineering PLC, revision number 3 (dated 2-18-12), (hereafter "Conceptual Plan"),
as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in
� general accord with the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
...
�
� following major element within the development essential to the design of the
�
development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan:
'�` • location and size of the soccer field
�
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may
""� be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
�
�, 2. No outdoor lighting shall be constructed or installed for this use.
3. No amplified sound system shall be used or installed for this use.
""'' 4. No tournaments shall be held on this soccer field.
�.
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MOT�ON—Special Use Permit:
�
.�.,. A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this special use
�..
perm it:
� Move to recommend approval of SP 2010-47 New Hope Church Soccer Field with
Q„ the following conditions:
'�" l. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled
�., "Conceptual Plan: New Hope Community Church," prepared by Blackwell
Engineering PLC, revision number 3 (dated 2-18-12), (hereafter "Conceptual Plan"),
� as determined by the Director of Pianning and the Z.oning Administrator. To be in
� general accord with the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the
�,, following major element within the development essential to the design of the
development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan:
�
� • location and size of the soc�er field
�
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may
"" be made to ensure compliance �vith the Zoning Ordinance.
�
�..
2. No outdoor lighting shal! be constructed or installed for this use.
3. No amplified sound system shall be used or installed for this use.
�"' 4. No tournaments shall be held on this soccer field.
...
�" B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this special use
� permit:
� Move to recommend denial of SP 2010-47 New Hope Church Soccer Field. Should a
�"" commissioner motion to recomrnend denial, he or she should state the reason(.$) for
.,,,,, recomrnending denial.
�
�
�.
�
�
..
...
�
�
9..
�
� SUMMARY AND ACTION (Critical Slopes Waiver):
� Staff has reviewed this modification request and has identified the following favorable and unfavorable
�"" factors:
�
...
Favorable factors:
`"" 1. The disturbance does not impact significant resources in the Open Space Plan.
.., 2. The critical slopes to be disturbed do not make up a larger system of slopes.
� Unfavorable factors:
.�
�, I. None found
`'"' Staff recommends approval of the modification request based upon the analysis provided herein.
�
�
ATTACHMENTS
"�` Attachment A—Vicinity Map
�.,. Attachment B—Site Map
Attachment C—Conceptual Plan
� Attachment D—Critical-slopes Map
�,..
�
a..
�..
�
�
.r.
�
�
�
�
..�
�
�
�
.�.
�
�
.�
�
�
�
�.
�,.
a
a
a
• VANN #
•`
3 c
a
•
a
a
a
a
a
a
a rat
cooti
a
4
a
a
•
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
�
�
'.�
- ,• • __ ---- � �----
".( , / .-- ;' ;' i �
�' , ;� . � �
�' . . ,� j � .'
�'� ; _------ , � ,, � ,
� � � ------� , � , �
� �'� %� : � � .
.- .- •
, . , �
. , , . ,.,
.- -- : : � -' � � `��, : � .,
- ,.- ,� . � .- ; � . . � �,`
� ------- �
-- � . � � . . ,
.,' ,- � __ ' ; / ,,,�.!"'' � ; `\,..' ;
� 'l/ � — / ` � -, I ____ \J /
/
���/__—„/�/ �/ /^ �—� f�.�� /
� �i� // /ni / + r'� ' j\\ / ,
/ f,A, / \ I
�/ �_— \� ��/ �/ /��__ '/ + %\� I \ I j\ ��
r� � �� "� l / —___I / —_ .� 1 I l �
� ; ,� �. i i� ; U�DISTURBED ,,-'� i
' ' — ' CRITICAL SLOPES �
�( ' �/ � ��/ i f-��� .��_���J /
�
� � `\ �
/^� �
� � � �`��_�� 1\ \\\ �/ � //�_�_��_�__._.�
��_���___�/
`' /�_-� � \�\ �' �\ / �J
� � � � ONLMY N�OINI R IL \' \� ��r� J
� ��� \ .` TY 11-11 /
�� �, OA I�tl-W RR \ �� Dd 20RYi ttlYMIY OIIKM� /
� i� \ ` \ . 4E IINtUaD PW fI II00l11 R MY t�IIOC..IG �
,� / �` ONFD MW.2 1000 �
/ � , C` /�
y�. /'r"� � I ��\\ �1 I /� /
I � \
*� � / j \��,�,./�� j \� �
I �� ' + i \\ //
1 1 ♦ �
i�� � � ��
� �/ \\`' "� •�`\ // j \\ I
j f'ri�� J j \\\ ��' % `\ I
� \\ ,.1, % • \\ �
'� I � $ / \ �
/ �♦ , I � O1 / \ - j �
� � ' I _____� I 1 I 1
\
�( �—_� \ tr xr� �I \��__--���_— / i
1 \ �'j
—so.r�'�a�fa 1
� \�,� �, ��aw w-'��a Mr � I j i•
� � + aa m-a aer � � !
awusr�i��a��ti` ��\ ��� �� � -�
-,�y ,� / . . �{ � �� �
� \ .��� __�\' � S6" �i � ����� �
_�.y � i � ���....�Y /
� DIS��IRB�D `.` �1,;,� 9:.�- � °��'�� �
CRITICAL SLOPES `�-----�\,� i?� �\ ; � �
� i .
S,\ / i � �
.. \ � d, I
C>� �� � �� 1� 'F I �
� � . ���� ,�..` � 1 ♦—� � N 1 I!
I \. � ��� ' � ' ' j i � 1
�^\ �� ���—'._�♦ \`, � / , �-�/ � /
� ` `, . ♦ 1
�1 \\ ��\ '`, , ,.-/K�_,±+-�:,-, i 1� � �
I \ 1}` c'�,�!`�.����"` '� i I I ��� / /
� \��\ \� r�\_�7" . . , . .�i`����i � \\ `\_ .. �� `� l/ �
; � rr r-�s \,i ii i? .� `� ; ,
� � � aweta r.�anr . ;� j�i /� � /
w.ao�-sn
� �\ PJ.]!7/-SII \,� :! f�t ( \\ /
� � \\1 �`� \ i —_�� f � `� \`� �_/ // �
� � �1 I \�� �1,�i��r ^\\ i 1).-.._ ,:} �'��/} �\ i� /�
1 � �\__ . ;: Y 1 �
1 � —__ C il .I _!� �,` . \�♦ i
� I �� h.
, `r--. � I , _,, \ ��--- , �
� � '� , � .i :�(�---..
� ; �' --� ' ,�� =�,,, �i � , DISTURBED
� �� DISTURBE � ' ,,� i'±�\�-','�"�`�'`R i\ Cf�ITICAL SLOPE$
„� ` CRITICAL SLOPE �;, ,',' { � �. � \ �\.� ' �
� / , `� b_, i j ,� � � � � �� �� ���•
1 ..��� % ii'' .� '"j ,..� � �� �\ �� % ���
�ry 1 i� ��\_l� � i � �,; \ \ �J ,
� ' � `
I � '/ ����i��� � i /�. , � 1
I� o ,�. � � �
� � � 1. �'.1�.__A:'_-.�',:.:. - __'.', � �
i
I � .:..... \ ,'
i \I \\ 1`I ` s 1 r.. -ex. \
l 1 1 'n� , f� .
� � � � � /.
� \ , i � _j',"_" JI -�' � ' i
, __.__. � ,
/ \` I i 4' I��.�\ .. __.._.. „p� �f'. �
� �ti �r
� / � � 1 � \ /�i
/ � / �i
N i ,\ ' i I�i ,� _// i
O � � . ��\��/ �j�\• '.. / �` /��` ,
l� \ - I'� m,. '� - -_::,:���"_, r � �i
�� \\ �\\ � � i �' \\ :.,�.�.1.`�! _ T/' I\ 1
«�cv � � , �� ��,�,�'--..�,,.� ::.."'..�'..`.,^'��'"'�.,T},.i 1
I_ � ��� \ � t \, '�,� r _,)
�— .
�'1� GR44P,�IIC�',��,��E '., i`;t ���--- -,' �� ,
;� , � ;
� 250' `, o% � o' ,� _::������� �'
�a , „ '` . CRITICAL SLOPES AREA
` ' ` � � TOTAL= 0.96 ACRES
�� �__ �"��, SCALE: 1"�250' �� � �"-� �T�„_,,,,a DISTURBED= 0.03 ACRES
�� NEW HOPE COMMUNITY CHURCH
`�v CRITICAL SLOPES MAP
�
�
- _ , , , , , ;_ - - =� _ , ,,
, �� �'""'"'�
� �
�
� � �� �� �
� � �
�
�
�e€s
�
�
�s
�
�
�
, �•
�
, �
�
�
" �
� '
�
�
` �
�
�
..�.
�
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION—MAY 8,2012 FINAL MINUTES
,..
„�. Page 4
�" Public Hearing Items:
„�„ SP-2010-00046 New Hope Community Church
PROPOSED: 400-seat church with offices and classrooms
� ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas-agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;residential density (0.5
�, unit/acre in development lots); EC Entrance Corridor- Overlay to protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural
significance from visual impacts of development along routes of tourist access; AIA Airport Impact Area - Overlay to
� minimize adverse impacts to both the airport and the surrounding land SECTION: 10.2.2.35, Church building and adjunct
�
cemetery
� Page 5
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas- preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space,
�.►° and natural, historic and scenic resources/density (.5 unit/acre in development lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
" LOCATION: Northwest side of intersection of Dickersan Road (Route 606) and Dickerson Lane (Route763).
�,,. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 021000000012C1
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall
�"' AND
�.,, SP-2010-00047 New Hope Community Church Saccer Field
PROPOSED: Soccer field for athletic events, on grounds of proposed new church
� ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas-agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density
�,,,, (0.5 unit/acre in development lots); EC Entrance Carridor-Overlay to protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural
significance from visual impacts of development along routes of tourist access; AIA Airport Impact Area -Overlay to
� minimize adverse impacts to both the airport and the surrounding land
SECTION: SP201000047: 10.2.2.4, Swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities (reference 5.1.16)
'~ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas- preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space,
� and natural, historic and scenic resources/density ( .5 unit/acre in development lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
� LOCATION: Northwest side of intersection of Dickerson Road (Route 606) and Dickerson Lane (Route763).
�. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 021000000012C1
�
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall
� (Scott Clark)
Mr. Morris noted the staff report states the church building and adjacent cemetery.
�"" Mr. Clark replied that was the name of the use in the zoning ordinance. lt has to be listed that way.However, in this case
� there is no cemetery proposed. Scott Clark presented a Power-Point presentation and summarized the two staff reports
for SP-2010-00046: 400-seat church with offices and classrooms; and SP-2010-00047: Soccer field for athletic events,
�` on grounds of proposed new church for church and community use. Although the entire property slopes rather steadily to
�,, the northwest there is actually a fairly small number of 25 percent or greater critical slopes on the site. The critical slopes
request would be for the .03 acre of critical slopes that are outside the undisturbed wooded area of the site. The critical
� slopes within the opening in the tree canopy where the development would happen is where they are requesting a critical
slopes waiver. The applicant is proposing to build a church with seating for 400 persons, offices, classrooms, and 150
� parking spaces. The plan indicates that the church facility may be built in phases, but the request is for the entire 400-seat
�.. facility. The proposed athletic facility is a single outdoor soccer field with no lighting or amplified sounds. The applicant
estimates that a maximum of 50 people would attend for weekend games (fewer for weekday afternoon practices), and
�""' has stated that no tournaments would be held on the site.
�
�
Staff reviewed the three requests separately, as follows:
,�,. SUMMARY AND ACTION (SP 2010-00046 New Hope Church):
Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable ta this proposal:
""` Factors favorable to this request include:
�
1. The proposed church use fits the area's established pattern of land uses, which includes other churches, residences,
� and light-industrial uses.
�..a
....
1
�
�
�
�
�
2. The Virginia Department of Transportation and the Virginia Department of Health have found that the proposed
""" conceptual plan meets their standards for public health and safety.
�
w.,. Page 6
� 3. The proposed design includes significant tree protection areas that will reduce water-quality impacts and visual impacts
..�
of the development.
�. Factors unfavorable to this request include:
'�" 1. Adjacent owners are concerned that the proposed design would bring people close enough to Piney Mountain Road
�,,, that unauthorized access would become a problem.
�
Staff recommends approval of SP-2010-00046 New Hope Church with the conditions outlined in the staff report.
�, SUMMARY AND ACTION (SP-2010-00047 New Hope Church Soccer Field):
The soccer field is the 200' X 300' rectangle at the northern end of the developed area of the site. Staff has identified
� factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal:
'� Factors favorable to this request include:
� 1. The community would gain an additional soccer field. It is not a full sized regulation field, but it would be useful for
chiidren's games and practices
'� 2. No outdoor lighting or amplified sound system would be installed, which would prevent lighting impacts on neighboring
�. properties, and keep noise impacts to a minimum
�
3. Prohibition on tournaments would reduce traffic and noise impacts.
�„ Factors unfavorable to this request include:
�..
1. Adjacent landowners are concerned that the field use will be visible and audible from their properties.
� RECOMMENDATION:
"' Staff recommends approval of SP-2010-0047 based upon the analysis provided herein, with the foliowing
�„ conditions:
� 1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled "Conceptual Plan: New Hope
Community Church," prepared by Blackwell Engineering PLC, revision number 3 (dated 2-18-12), (hereafter"Conceptual
� Plan"), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the
� Conceptual Pian, development and use shall reflect the following major element within the development essential to the
design of the development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan:
`"� • location and size of the soccer field
�
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure
�""' compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
�.
2. No outdoor lighting shall be constructed or installed for this use.
"""` 3. No amplified sound system shall be used or installed for this use.
,,,�„ 4. No tournaments shall be held on this soccer field.
� SUMMARY AND ACTION (Critical Slopes Waiver):
� Staff has reviewed this modification request and has identified the following favorable and unfavorable factors:
� Favorable factors:
1. The disturbance does not impact significant resources in the Open Space Plan.
'"`� 2. The critical slopes to be disturbed do not make up a larqer system of slopes.
�
Unfavorable factors:
�' 1. None found
�
�
Staff recommends approval of the modification request based upon the analvsis provided herein.
Page 7
�
2
�
..r
�
�
�
� RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of these Special Use Permits, with conditions. The proposal wili also
require a critical slopes waiver(under section 4.2.5(a) of the Zoning Ordinance)from the Board of Supervisors, and staff
""` recommends approval of that request.
�. Mr. Kamptner asked to add one thing to the critical slopes waiver. As they know these are now processed as special
exceptions. So the Commission's action on that would be a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
"'' Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
�
Ms. Monteith asked if the soccer field would have public use,
�
,„� Mr. Clark replied that as he understood it would be both for church use and community use. It is intended to be for
practice sessions and small games having two teams on the site at a time. There wasn't really room for more than that.
� There is only one fieid with parking next to it.
� Ms. Monteith asked if that means that anyone could come in and use it at will.
�
r.
Mr. Clark replied that it would have to be by the permission of the landowner, which is the church.
�.. Mr. Loach asked if he said that it was not regulation size.
a"' Mr. Clark replied that was correct that it was 200'X 300'. Regulation size is 300' X 350'.
�
Mr. Randolph said in reading the description he realized that staff is tasked with the challenge to describe the property. In
'�"` visitinq the site the take awav was different from seeinq Pinev Mountain Road and the operation of that
,r,, communitv qiven that it is a qated rural communitv. There was a code to qet up the road. So the people in this
area are use to very hiph level of privacv. Thev are used to beinq a reallv rural undisturbed area. None of that
� came throuqh in the staff report descriqtion. It is not a criticism but just a recommendation if there is some way in the
....
future when an application comes in like this it would be helpful to find a way to get that incorporated because he could
not understand all of the concerns of the adjacent land owners until he went on site.
�
�
Mr. Smith said that it is a gated road with no public access.
�. Mr. Randolph pointed out it is public access.When he went out todav there was a UPS truck cominq out as he
was cominp in. The UPS driver does not have the code and dropped a packaqe. The level of securitv on this road
�" exceeds anv qated road that he has seen before. The level of securitv is far bevond Farminqton, Glenmore, etc.
„� He was struck immediatelv by the level of privacy the people are use to as a result of havinq that gate there. Thev
are concerned about trespassinq and the chanqe in the wav their rura! culture has operated until now.All of
'�"` sudden it looked differentiv when he understood how thev are living based on the qate.
�..�
Mr. Morris thanked him for his observations. There being no further questions, he opened the public
`-` hearing and invited the applicant to come forward.
�...
Ed Blackwell, with Blackwell Engineering, represented the owner. Pastor Mike Henderson and the architect are present to
� answer questions. They started the project almost two years ago in July, 2010 when they first met with the Pastor. Plans
were submitted to the county in the fall of 2010. They have worked back and forth with staff. One of the main issues was
� trying to get an entrance into the site that was safe. There was one thought of trying to use Piney Mountain Road, which
� did not work out. The other was having access directly on Dickerson Lane right across from the substation. However, it
required a VDOT access waiver. So they got with VDOT and the county engineer and worked out an access on Dickerson
"r Road that has worked out for all parties. They have a safe access on Dickerson. Moving farther north on Dickerson Road
«..� the slope gets real steep. To get up into the site they kind of curve around the slope to get up onto the level plateau that is
on the front half where they want to put the church. Th�y have worked on several designs to make sure they stay out of
`"' the intermittent stream
� Page 8
�w
buffers to come up with what they think is a good solution that will meet the county codes and meet the church's needs.
� They are trying to stay outside the 1,000' limit from Route 29 and keeping the tree buffer so the access corridor is
maintained. They are trying to keep as many trees on the property as possible. They are only grading the bare minimum
� to get those fields in. He liked the plan where the soccer field ends up in the upper part of the site. It would be a green
� soccer field, which would be smaller than regulation size. !t would be more of a multi-purpose field. A regulation field is
�
300' X 360'. The proposal is 200' X 300'. It is for the church use and the church community outreach. It will only be open
3
�
�
�
�.
�.
to the community if they come coordinate with the church pastor and work through the church office to get use to it. The
�° church wants to be an outreach and be a place where the community can come and use the facilities, but it is controlled
� and not open to general use. The drain field is in the front with the church. The site layout is pretty tight. They have done a
good faith effort to maintain as many of the trees and the rural setting as possible to fit the use that they would like to use
� it for.
�` Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant.
�
Mr. Loach noted in the letter received tonight one of the neiqhbors noted that none of the neighbors were involved or
` consulted in the planninq process for what is beinq presented. He asked if that is true. Mr. Blackwell replied early in the
�.. process VDOT or the county preferred them to try to use Piney Mountain Road. They more or less hit a stone wall trying
�.
to contact there. But,they did not set up a community meetinq.
;,� Mr. Loach asked if the soccer field was the only proposed recreational facility. He asked if there is a tot lot.
�' Mr. Blackwell replied no tot lots would be near the soccer fiela. They did not talk about a tot lot. If they had anything it
�„ would be down by the church building near the nursery area. They have not planned for the tot lot at this time.
� Mr. Randolph asked why the church wasn't to utilize a soccer program on the property.
� Mike Henderson, Pastor of Church, said they felt they had the opportunity and had the land to put a soccer field if the kids
� want to come and play. He read an article this week where 42 percent of Americans are going to be obese by the year
2030. He would think everybody would want to promote kids getting involved or playing. They at least want to provide an
'� opportunity for people to play a little bit if they want to. It is not a major thing, but the soccer field will be there if they want
� to play. It is part of his nature since he grew up playing sports. He coached soccer and played baseball and basketball. It
�
would be good to have a place for the kids to play.
,.,. Mr. Randolph asked if it is correct that the church currently does not a soccer program built around any aspect.
""' Pastor Henderson said that the church does not have a program.
,,,..
Mr. Randoiph suggested that a basketball court could serve the same purpose and take up less space.
�
�, Pastor Henderson replied that some like gymnasiums, but that is a high expense they are not ready to look at right now.
*� Mr. Loach pointed out that most of the concern seems to be not with the church but with the soccer field and its use.
Going to Mr. Randolph's position is there some way to mitigate the size of the soccer field.The question boils down to can
�" it be mitigated so it starts to answer the questions of privacy of the neighbors but allows them some recreational use of
� the property. That is the question.
�" Pastor Henderson said they have about 20' or more of trees buffering and privacy was going to be different individually.
�
Page 9
�
Mr. Loach noted the applicant said they wanted to keep as much wood as possible.
,�..
�, Mr. Blackweli said that when it first came up about a field the pastor asked how about a soccer field. It is a nice big field
and could be used for multiple things. They could have church picnics up there. They do have a church pavilion. Early on
�► they can get a full size field in with the grading. It is up there on the slope. It is more of a multi-purpose field at almost the
�
half size of a normal field.
�. Mr. Loach asked if they would consider scaling it back so it was more consistent with the buffer the neighbors would like.
Secondly, the letter said if the field was rotated 90 degrees along the same access the setback is increased to 50'. If they
�" rotate and move off the center of the line the setback increases to 100'. His neighbors seem to have other suggestions in
,r. how they might change something.
�"` Mr. Blackwell said they oriented the long access with the contour lines to help limit the grading. If they go the other
,,,,, direction it will require more grading and more removal of trees. He became aware of some of these concerns recently.
They can take the field and slide it to the right to get it away from Piney Mountain Road. They have to maintain the stream
� buffer. He thought he could slide the field over 20' to 30' from where they have it shown. They are willing to do that.
� 4
�
..�
�
�
�
'"' Mr. Smith asked if there were two other churches in the area are they at odds with them.
�..
Mr. Blackwell replied no.
�..
�
Mr. Smith suggested the soccer field might be used by other churches.
� Pastor Henderson said that they have not talked about it. Every church has different missions.
'"�` Mr. Randolph noted this is not a level site and they are talking about putting in a soccer field. They have not worked it out
.., with the neighbors about coming in here.
�
Pastor Henderson noted that the Nazarene church had talked about putting a gym in behind their building.
� Mr. Franco said what he heard was that the scale of the athletic fieid seems to be out of place for this site and this
location. It sounds like they were trying to make it a little bit smaller. He suggested that they hear from the public.
�..
,,,,, Mr. Lafferty pointed out there was a 49 foot drop between the upper boundary property line and the soccer field by the
topo. That is a fairly significant drop for site distance.
�
,� Mr. Morris invited pubiic comment.
� Barbara Rainey, A 25-year county resident, said that she resides in Barboursville in Albemarle County. She was present
to express concerns regarding the crux of the New Hope Community Church to build a soccer field on their proposed
� location. She has not issue with construction of the church. There are two other churches currently at that location. So it is
�. natural that a church wouid be given permission along with the other two. She was very concerned about creating a
soccer field situation. It is a true that a portion of that road is paved. Don't deceive yourself because only 1/3 of the way is
""` paved. The rest of it is a dirt road. She did not think it was in the alignment with the purpose of a church to have such a
�. large soccer field. In the course of Sunday traffic there is naturally traffic on Sundays and maybe weekly meetings. But in
the case of a soccer field in that area there will be lots of cars and traffic. It is very generous of the church to want to allow
"r' groups to come in and use the facility. At the same time she did not think it was appropriate. She had been teaching for 25
�,, years in the county. She has taught in this area since 1988. She can tell them that soccer is the huge growth especiaily in
the northern corridor. The county has worked hard to provide the facilities for students and people in the community to do
'�` that sport. However, it greatly concerns her that the character of this road will be affected in a negative manner if they
�, allow a soccer field to be put in that location. Again, she does not live on the road and was four miles away, but it was a
concern because she bikes and walks on that road.
�
Page 10
�
�, Joyce Walker said she lived on Piney Mountain for 34 years. She was here simply because she loved Piney Mountain. It
is near and dear to her hear. In 1977 she found land with her husband and built a cabin on top of the mountain. Their
� cabin was the only house there at the time. As neighbors came they shared the love of the mountain and helped to keep
the wildlife, mountain streams and forest there. They want their mountain to keep the integrity that it has now. As a good
�` citizen and resident of Albemarle County she reaily needs to voice strong opposition to the soccer field. Her front deck is
� less than 1,000 feet from the soccer field. She did not feel she should be subject to a lot of noise. Mr. Boldt has worked
�..�
hundreds of hours to build and maintain their private road there and to keep the character of the community.
.,. Myriam Pitts, resident of Piney Mountain, spoke for herself and husband, John Pitts. She pleaded for the Commission to
protect the environment and wildlife at Piney Mountain. They oppose the soccer field construction. It is a quality of life
"" issue for current and future citizens. They need to be good stewards of the land and protect the area, its wildlife, birds and
.r, native plants. It is like the song says you don't know what you've got until you put up a parking lot. They are concerned
about the light, traffic and noise pollution associated with soccer daily practices and on game days. She asked the
� Commission to protect the area and deny the request.
...
Greg Quinn said he was a strong advocate of property rights. He made the following comments: - He believes in freedom
� to use property, but that freedom requires a certain responsibility. His concern is that nobody from New Hope came to the
community. The neighbors all get along well and feel the land use that they all employ is favorable to the mountain. He
� was not opposed to a church. However, he was opposed to the impact to Piney Mountain and the close proximity to the
� road. The way they have the design people will come in off of Piney Mountain through the church up the road and what
that will increase on his property line is illegal trespassing. That is a very big concern because Dickerson Road late at
'" night does have some activity on it. Unless the church is gated they could get closer to their property line and create a
�.
5
�
�
�
�
�
risk. He also worries about soccer kids wandering over onto his property. Every fall he has very prudent safe hunting with
'�"° several friends on his property with muzzie loaders. He would be afraid to do that with a soccer field in place because of
,� the liability there. He would probably have to end that. - He has wanted to do a lot of things like have a big saw mill and a
big stable. However, he chose not to do it because of the impact on the mountain. The proposal is for a shed metal type of
� building. He would love to see a country church with a steeple rather than a shed. He suggested if everything was
moved south east as far as possible it would give them move privacy. If they were having a soccer game soccer
� enthusiasts may in a hurry get confused and pull up his private road, park, go through the woods and walk to the game.
� He asked what he would do—call a tow truck. - He wished the church had gotten with the neighbors so they could all
have walked the woods and planned this thing together as little better as a good neighbor. They have other churches
�` there that have low impact. That road that follows Dickerson Road and comes up is just an invitation for illegal
... activity at night. At the other church in the area he has had to go down in the middle of the night and call the police. He
would like this thing to be scaled down and maybe a little different design on the church building. A metal building is not
�'"` very attractive. He wished they would get with the neighbors and talk about it.
�
Charles Boldt, resident of 5260 Piney Mountain Road, said his wife and he own 72 acres on Piney Mountain consisting of
� six parcels. He is the majority property owner. He made the following comments:
„�„ -They got 90 percent of the land in land use to preserve the character of the area. There is a character of Piney Mountain
Road that the proposed plan does not respect. The proposed development is going to alter in a very negative way the
'� physicai and visual environment of the neighbors. All of the neighbors speaking today have the same theme. They respect
�, their privacy and are very different from a lot of the neighborhood� in the county. They are different for a reason because
there are things on the mountain that have a need to be protected. He noted that it is very easy to pull a pin on a gate and
� get in. It happens all the time. Since he maintains the road and gate he knows when somebody has accessed it illegally
�
because they never put it back the same way.
�
Page 11
.�,. -The plan before them is about making choices in an attempt to avoid even a minimum standard for what is acceptable
development in Albemarle County as defined by the stated objectives of the rural development plan, the zoning code and
``"` the comprehensive plan in his opinion. As his letter stated that is an informed opinion because he was a registered
,�,,,,,; engineer in Virginia. To further elaborate he did not think this plan is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. It
intrudes on the privacy and security of those who live there. It creates traffic congestion at the intersection of Dickerson
� Road. The proposed entrance is 100' from the stop sign. That is four cars. He has some issues with the staff report. They
� see that this development is more of a clear cut pad site that they get with a strip mail. They see the woodlands being
destroyed. They see a lot of things that could have been avoided, as Mr. Quinn pointed out, if some of their needs had
� been addressed in the beginning instead of learning that this plan existed from a sign and a letter. He would ask that they
reject the soccer field as inappropriate and send the plan for the church back to be revised in a manner that is more
� appropriate with its setting and the setting of its neighbors. The other churches are good neighbors. They have done a
� thoughtful development and they do not impact their quality of life. This church as presented does and they ask that they
�
reject it.
,,., Mr. Loach pointed out that the applicant has offered to adjust the soccer field distance of 30'. He asked if that makes any
difference.
�.
�,,,, Mr. Boldt replied no, because he thinks the soccer field in that location is inappropriate. That intermittent stream is a
physical barrier they could maintain that physical barrier by eliminating the soccer field. He thinks they could find an area
� for a multi-purpose field, which is what the Church of the Nazarene has. He suggested that there was a different way to do
�, the design. In his opinion, he did not agree with what the church's engineer said that they evaluated all possibilities. What
he has drawn here encroaches on the road and 20' is nothing in those woods. When he drives up Piney Mountain Road
� he can see 50' to 60' into the woods and this development will change that. The proposed parking area will put people
�
behind the gate. That is a real concern.
� Mr. Morris invited questions.
"" Mr. Dotson asked where the gate was located.
�
Mr. Boldt replied that the gate is on this side of the intermittent stream. It is�150' up the road. The gate was paid for by a
"`' combination of the residents, the FAA, American Tower which has a cell tower site used by AT&T and Ntelos, Crown
;„ Castle which has Ntelos, T Mobile, US Cellular and Verizon, Albemarle County antennas for emergency vehicles, and the
residents. He maintains it because Piney Mountain Road is owned by his wife and him. They grant an easement to the
�" rest of the residents, the FAA, and the cell phone people. There is a fair amount of activity. Before the gate was put in
�..
6
�.
�
�
.�..
�
there was a sufficient amount of vandalism and dumping. He has hauled 350 tires, car parts, engine blocks and a lot of
tl-° trash off his property. The gate has minimized that.
�.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter before the Pianning
�- Commission.
�"" Mr. Morris asked if the applicant wanted five minutes for a rebuttal.
�..
Mr. Blackwell said hearing the concerns it was probably an error on his part for not getting with the neighbors. He would
"""� move that they table the soccer field. It is obviously a lot of concerns tonight. He will get with the neighbors on the soccer
�, field for everything north of the hour glass bubble. However, they would like to move forward on the church parking lot and
church. They would like to table the soccer field application to allow time for him to get with the neighbors and come up
'"'' with something. He asked for a deferral on the soccer field request.
�
Mr. Kamptner said that was fine. He takes it that the applicant wants the Commission to take action on the church special
� use permit.
""` Page 12
� Mr. Blackwell said they would like to move forward on the church.
�
�
Mr. Morris noted that it involves a critical slopes recommendation.
�, Mr. Kamptner asked staff to clarify if the critical slopes affect both of the areas or just the soccer field.
"' Mr. Clark replied that there are small areas of critical slopes in the church area and in the soccer field area.
�
Mr. Kamptner said the Commission could make a recommendation on the special exception as well.
�
;,�, Mr. Blackweli said they want to be a good neighbor. Again, he wouid get with neighbors and he would like to get some
names so they could set up a meeting time to coordinate whether they slide the field or make it smaller. There is an old
� saying that if they get ten engineers in a room you will have eleven opinions. They will get together and coordinate their
opinions on how that fieid should be laid out and get with the county staff again on some of these issues with the soccer
'� fields and the slopes and setbacks with Piney Mountain Road so people are not going around their gate coming up to the
� soccer field. They want to be a good neighbor on that issue.
"'° Mr. Morris said in the interest of time he would entertain a motion to approve the applicanYs request for deferral on the
,�,, question of the soccer field so it removed it from the discussion. Mr. Franco said he would like to ask the applicant another
question. Thus far he felt that the use of the church is acceptable to the community. However, there has been some
`�" question about the scale of the soccer field. It has also raised the question about security and buffering to the adjacent
.�„ road that could affect the design of the site. Is it enough to get an indication from the Commission that a support of a
special use permit for the church is there, but wanting to send the applicant back to discuss the whole plan with the
'�' neighbors? He asked how that would impact the applicant.
s..
Mr. Blackwell replied that they would like to move forward with the church. If they have seen the site, he pointed out they
� were trying to crab up that slope trying to keep the driveway at a steady grade. They have to crab along the slope to get
up to that pad site. To switch the driveway to the east side of the site all he would have to do is slide the new church and
� the parking lot closer to Piney Mountain Road. The church drive and parking lot areas are on the outside of the gate. He
� thought they could do the church plan. The church would like to move forward to get the building going. Obviously, they
�
are willing and want to work out the solution for the soccer field or multi-purpose field.
�.. Motion for SP-2010-47 New Hope Church Soccer Field
�"` Motion: Mr. Loach moved and Mr. Franco seconded for deferral of SP-2010-47 New Hope Church Soccer Field.
�..
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
�...
„� Mr. Morris asked if he could assume it was indefinite deferral.
�
�
7
�.
�
.�
�
.,,.
Mr. Benish replied that was up to the applicant. He thouqht that was the safer approach to qive the applicant time
""` to schedule with the neiqhbors.
�..
Mr. Morris said as soon as the applicant is ready they will try to get them back to hear the soccer field request. He noted
� the Commission would now consider the church and associated critical slopes.
�
Mr. Smith asked if the church sells the property could all of the trees be cut to build a house.
�.
Mr. Clark replied that they certainly could put a house on the lot. However, he was not sure they could cut every single
� tree because there are stream buffers.
�
Page 13
�.
,..
Mr. Franco noted they could cut every tree outside of the stream buffers.
�„ Mr. Lafferty asked how many public soccer fields are within a 10 or 15 mile radius of this, or how many soccer fields do
they know of in this area.
�..
�, Mr. Clark replied that there are several on Polo Grounds Road with the soccer facility.
� Mr. Benish noted that all the schools would have one or two soccer fields. He noted that Baker Butler School has one
�
soccer field and the Hollymead/Sutherland complex has three.
�• Mr. Morris asked if there was any discussion for the church or critical slopes.
�` Mr. Kamptner suggested that condition one may need to be modified because it refers to the conceptual plan. He
,� recognized that they have two uses shown there. But, it may be that they will want to perhaps draw a line across that
identifies the area for the church use.
�
�„ Mr. Benish noted the approach to take is to emphasize in their action that this approval is iust for the church.
One of the items staff will take care of with the applicant before it is scheduled with the Board is to ensure that
"""' the concept plan is consistent with iust the apqroval of the church. Staff can make sure that adiustment is made.
�.
Motion for SP-2010-46 New Hope Church
�
y..
Motion: Mr. Loach moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded to recommend approval of SP 2010-46 New Hope Church with the
conditions as outlined by staff for approval of the church only.
�
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled "Conceptual Plan: New Hope
" Community Church," prepared by Blackwell Engineering PLC, revision number 3 (dated 2-18-12), (hereafter"Conceptual
.. Plan"), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the
Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the following major element within the development essential to the
"` design of the development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan for the church only:
.... • location of buildings and structures, which may be built in phases
• location and maximum number of parking spaces, which may be built in phases
� • location of the entrance
�.• • location of the"wooded area to remain,"within which land clearing and development shall not occur, with the exception
that the designated "Proposed Reserve Drainfield" site may be cleared and used only for that purpose Minor modifications
'"' to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
�
2. All outdoor lighting shall be on�y full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from all abutting properties. A
'"` lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than 0.3 foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning
„�, Administrator or their designee for approval.
'"" 3. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from all abutting properties. A
�,,, lighting plan limiting light levels at all property iines to no greater than 0.3 foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning
Administrator or their designee for approval.
�
Page 14
�++rr
,�r, 4. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate special use permit;
8
�
.r
�
�
�
"�' 5. Entrance design and location must be approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation before construction of the
�,,. access road for this use may commence.
'�" 6. Written approval of water-supply and septic facilities from the Virginia Department of Health must be submitted before
�,, this use may commence.
� 7. Adjustments to be made to concept plan prior to scheduling with Board to ensure that the concept plan is
�
consistent with just the approval of the church.
� The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
�`"` Mr. Benish suggested that the motion for the critical slopes waiver be made just for the church area.
�
�
Motion for Critical Slopes Waiver:
�,,, Motion: Mr. Loach moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approva� of the critical slopes waiver for SP-2010-46
New Hope Church associated with the church only. The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
"'�' Mr. Benish clarified for the record that recommendation on the critical slopes was just for the church area.
,�, Mr. Morris noted that SP-2010-46 New Hope Church and associated critical slopes waiver would be
forwarded to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for approval at a time to be determined.
�
�
�
�
...
�«.
�..
�..
�.
�
�.
�
�
�.
�
�.
�.
�
�
�
�.
;..
�
�
�
«..
9
�
�
�
�
'�
���
� .
�.
+�"
. � �' :
.i�
�:
� `
' �►
�1 :
: �'
�
+�.
�.:
�
�_. _ �4 � .. ._ � ..
_:.... ,..,.a. .
�.,.�� . ,_,,�. __ � :.r� ,�,, .: t, .. ,. .:. ,.. �.,,,�, .,.�-, — �
�
�r
m � � y .:,'n.. _ _._. _.. __._
? o � .�v� N: � S�� Ir ...�_ ____.. __.__ ._._.._ �_...� I� � .. ��..
�.ea��ix� I-I
� "� � � I I l6ZZ VA '31�1A531101NtlN� ,
C W 07d �ocaz=�a,n �o � I
�,,,�s i,�,o � 4. , 00£ 31I05 'lltlel 3lONIW35 St4£ ,I
� � � � � `JNI2I��AII�I�I� � � s � oo N I� � "� � �
e , s Y 'IZ�A1?I�d'I�I I ,I,� � I H anH� AiiNnww 3dOH M3 i . _�
� p $ ;r ,, �§ s . . .. __. oI z ..
� � x a a � ,,,,,,,,.,�. I ���4�� �3AOW321 O131� M3��OS - NVId lVfI1d3�N0� j __ I� ; ;
oi
� �tl �,
y� � z �y o = Y S 4 e
y ^y b � �d ^ _
� �p������'���� �ey�� �£��dr tl � @ . . �
�E�Sa�da�s�I�3� ��c������a � 4 . $ o � 9 S a �
� I� �I .o.Q�� �� � �§ � � a�l ° � � � �8I �
� � . � a a a 40l
_.. � c� � qa .
� n~ � � � a c�
.. O�FNN � d � d � d �k� 8;
�, � '�`> x_ � s ffi � ,
�W wzo'< Y�.
= Qs��; eg a � ���
�, W ��_�� W �� - �� , __--, —
Y`- �So '8; �, i _
� m"� �;s„ � &� '` 1 `` " , _
� �
� i ,,-�
` � �
` , / , ' ` �/
� � ��
�� � - � _.� . \. � 1
� �1., ..� �__� .. '.\\ , \ �
� 11 �,,1� .. ... . �\�\ 1 \ .., ,
1 ��,� I I � ��:
; r i 1 1
I 1 � 1 I�
� l I l.. I 1 , _-... ��
� / � � Y 1
/ % I/ I ., I � �l�' � i ���� I
� %�/ I � .� - i . . . �� � I
� / i/%� I ; /.� ' �� . . �\ ., /��ag . .� �
%/ � � / .�'� . I/ � �. � u6�'R �
� � I� . I
I // � I �/ I����' 1 1__'�/// :�.'o�� I
/ �/ � / � I' f'� � 1 . ��,^�w
I � y�$ �
� / � I i ,'�/ � 1�4� �� ' �n�b �
.// � I �/ � �0� ,�
/ � 1 I . � j 8K � / `o� �
/
/ � � \
/ � / / � I �� . Y � �\ �
� i i ,� , .��- � � � � . �.. `�
/ � / / � � 1'.- . I I 1
/ � i I 1�'.� i " � I - � �\
� � i . ��, � � . �
i / � � i
/ I.. �..... \� I� I
� /`�h / ' i�f, � 1\� �6Qy � .. �. � .
� �°9� ,,.� I .�� �§� 't ___ . �� ��\
4..,���„� �� � � �\ �`�, ,_ �-- _` . � .. �
� i �� % +•,,.. � —."'� .. � -�� ' � i �R oo�
1 1 .I ^rt+r��` .. . I . I�
' ' ` � �`' � '::. . ���� � �� .
' I I I � � .. � :.2��� \\\ ��
� � �� ���� �._ � �-�4 � p �� � � �� � � .
� ` a �
i 1 � �i g� `o� �� � ��� i'`�� . e.6 .� .� .
1 ,1{ ��'�. 46� 2 i i k
� / 1' 'II�., \�`� .-/ ��C .. . �A 1 . I � e�o� �\\
1 �
'.1, \ 1\ �\� �
� � /. ' ,` '\��� , ��a '' .. `� y� \ I \\\ —_ \� 1
hw T',�J� \ �
1/ / \\ '��+�.\� � ..� I 1
1 I \\ Y�'___. <.i�,.�,.. I � �1��
1 1 \ � \ "W�'c�lYh \ }�
� � � ) ` �� "o'7ybJ } �j �'� . � I .
l \ / \� da i..�. � \\l
' � � � � � � fi , �
` ' #� ` _ w„. � \'��
� A
1 /`f u�R:S �� 1 � \
I ' � 8� `\ /` � ��� . � __ .
� / , ...^ . .." " . .. , .
I I � I
I � ��o � � � \� `1./
� �� mo
i I i ao 3� _i _____ )�`��\\� � �
� -
� S
� I ��i- Y_\� \ Y � �!`,� �e ��� \� ' '_ . ` .. _'�` . . . . . ,
i " � � I � �� � .
i
i ,
� i �� ` �` n: 1 's� �i � --'
� � �Ay � \�, s � �s 'I5� ��pp�� i/
ffw ,.1 { 1 �11 �� gF �� �� ;� .. . � En�`I
� gffiy�__ -� /\ � \: �� . ' z�" \ \ 31. ��` __� .
i _
� �
j8 . . . � _ . � . . F... �D�/I�r _ . .
� , --- _, �� ` �,.� ,
�:� �� :,� � ,� ,� �-'� �
L„� -- —_— " ���� ��� �� ;�a°F��' f' �� �
_ , . �, . e
_ �� � 'r`��,
� ` _ . �az \ _1'�� b;;��` �laF E� .;�; � i �`---
� �, � � ��� � ��`'���", - ���� I� --.",
� . �., � . `��'�,��a � ��i�-
, '�� �� ��� ✓� y�, ,, �
� � " �_�: �� � �,� �� ��,� �
� , � s� /� � �`�
�`� , •�� � � ��' � ' � � ���'=
�
� --_ .. . . y� <� g��b�� ��� 4� �� g8 � ���> � 3nri Hos+F��ia .,
--' . . � �-,� ���-'--��.,#,�,. . - y ,� `
� � rt � -_/ � _ � ,— � , .. . �$� . ���.;��`,� � u�� ��� `���� n�.
� �� - � � � �i� `' ,,-
,� . _
� �
1 ,.'^. � . Rtl .. �� .�•� CaR
�
� �
�t � a
`�
� .� . � . . 1 . -� 4
:.y,Y� . ._- �\.� I -- �� .... � .. / ,�
� � . y� �' .. ` � � _��_ �.�/- .
... y? 'Z ,\ �__ i� - - �
� v ��� .... � / �C
' � �.
� � \�
\ \
� �
W $� > \�' .. \ ... . . '�' .
. �. I
1 ` ` ��
F � .... . � . . �
� - \ � �
� � .����1 \. .. �_ -_ __'� . � `e
��1 ' tl
. .. `I . ��, 'C��s� ��
� .. �_ �, l . I'�,.�.F k � . ��
� �I
� ���r 1 ��w.,«....ro ..�.....„.,...a.��..
�
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
�
�
July 11,2012(Regular Meeting)
+�r (Page 24)
� Ms.Mallek explained that over 65Q houses have received retrofits as part of the program and that
is a huge accomplishment.
�
Mr.George Shadman,Director of General Services,said that the allocation of money from the
� $406,000 from the Department of Energy was outlined specifically and the Board approved$60,000 for
LEAP to offset energy audits in County facilities and residences,and to help in the advertising for the
a�r audits. The$60,000 allocation has not changed. The funds are all from a Department of Energy grant.
Mr.Shadman said no money from General Services'operating or CIP budget has gone to LEAP.
�r.
Mr.Rooker commented that at the time the grant application was made,it was disclosed that
�,,. $60,000 would be going for that purpose. In addition,none of the money can be used for other purposes.
Mr.Shadman commented that that is true.)
§rr+
,�, Item No.8.13.Board-to-Board,A monthly report from the Albemarle County School Board to the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, was received for information.
+irr°
„r. Agenda item No.9.SP-2010-00046.New Hoqe Communitv Church ISiqns#12&151.
PROPOSED:400-seat church with offices and classrooms.
,�, ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE:RA Rural Areas-agricultural,forestal,and fishery
uses;residential density(0.5 unit/acre in development lots);EC Entrance Corridor-Overlay to
�, protect properties of historic,architectural or cultural significance from visual impacts of
development along routes of tourist access;AIA Airport Impact Area-Overlay to minimize
,�, adverse impacts to both the airport and the surrounding land.
SECTION:SP201U00046:10.2.2.35,Church building and adjunct cemetery SP2 01 0 00 04 7:
� 10.2.2.4,Swim,golf,tennis or similar athletic facilities(reference 5.1.16).
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY:Rural Areas-preserve and protect agricultural,
�
forestal,open space,and natural,historic and scenic resources!density(5 uniUacre in
development lots).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR:Yes
""' LOCATION:Northwest side of intersection of Dickerson Road(Route 606)and Dickerson Lane
(Route 763).
ti'D' TAX MAP/PARCEL:021000000012C1
MAGISTERIAL DISTRIC7:White Hall.
"' (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 25 and July 2,2012.)
'"` Mr.David Benish,Chief of Planning,reported that the applicant is proposing to build a church with
seating for 400 persons,offices,classrooms and 150 parking spaces onsite. He said the plan indicates
"'` that the church facility may be built in phases,but this request is for the entire 400-seat church.
'�' Mr.Benish stated that the site is located at the northwest side of the intersection of Dickerson
Road and Dickerson Lane,and is just north of the power substation in the area of the GE Fanuc site. He
�- said the property is located in the rural area,north of the designated Piney Mountain development area
and the Briarwood development. The immediate surrounding uses consist of rural residential homes,
� wooded areas,and two existing churches.
�ww Mr.Benish reported that the original proposal reviewed by the Planning Commission included this
church's SP and an SP tor a soccer field for athletic events. At the May 8,2012 Planning Commission
.,. meeting,the Commission requested that the applicant defer the soccer field proposal in order to address
concerns from adjacent property owners—and he agreed to that. Mr.Benish said the applicant has
wr provided a revised conceptual plan that shows only the church facility. He said there is a critical slope
waiver associated with the church request,c:overing less than 3/100 of an acre. He indicated the area on
� a map before the Board and said that it falls outside of the stream buffer.
� Ms.Mallek asked why the applicant would need a critical slopes waiver if the wooded area noted
on the applicanYs plan is marked as not to be disturbed. She added that there does not seem to be a
,�,,,,�, need to cut down trees there,and she is trying to prevent an unnecessary disturbance towards Piney
Mountain Road that is going to invite people to leave the property on that side.
�
Mr.Bernsh explained that there is a very small area affected,and the Board could ask the
,r„ applicant about it. He said that the applicant has labeled the areas that would potentially be impacted
where the critical slope waiver is being requested,and it is likely they may not need the one in question.
ur
Mr.Benish reported that favorable factors include: the church use fits into the area's established
�, pattern of development,which includes churches,residences,and light industrial;VDOT and the Health
Department have found that the proposal meets the standards for public health and safety;the stream
buffer areas are protected;and 50-foot buffer areas are shown,along with tree protedion provided on a
� large portion of the site. Mr. Benish stated that unfavorable factors include: proposed design would bring
people close enough to the Piney Mountain Road that unauthorized access could become a problem,an
� issue related primarily to the soccer field,but still a concern with at least one neighbor.
""` Mr.Benish said staff recommends approval subject to six conditions. He added that condition#1
regarding the conceptual plan has been updated to refer to the one that excludes the soccer field. He
""' noted that the Planning Commission has also recommended approval of the proposal.
�.
�
�
�r
..�
�
July 11,2012(Regular Meeting)
"'" (Page 25)
'�" Ms.Mallek asked if she understood correctly that the official entrance,the driveway,has been
moved much further to the north than the boundary corner.
�
Mr.Benish noted the entrance location recommended by VDOT,on Dickerson Road,100-150
'�" feet from the intersection with Dickerson Lane.
+ Ms.Mallek asked if the trees near the 520 elevation line would provide adequate screening for the
parking area.
ier+-
Mr.Benish explained that the buffer area included a fairly significant stand of trees along Piney
++° Mountain Road that contain a minimum 50-foot buffer and/or the additional area to remain.
� The Chair opened the public hearing. Since no one came forward to speak,the public hearing
was closed.
�
Mr.Benish said that Mr.Scott Clark,Planner,for the project,explained to him that when the
.w• soccer field was eliminated the applicant was able to shift the road further into the site,so that changed
the need for the critical slope because it is not as close to the wooded area—and apparently that was not
� caught in the staff's review.
�„ Mr.Davis asked Mr.Benish to clarify the location of the critical slopes for the waiver.
� Mr.Benish pointed out on the conceptual plan the location of the critical slopes,noting the area
labeled on the plan that is now unnecessary.
� Ms.Mallek said that whatever action is taken,it will not include the slope to the west.
� Mr.Benish stated that the Board's motion could reference to the"west side of the site."
�` Mr.Davis asked what the total acreage of that would be. Mr.Benish responded that staff did not
� recalculate because the total area is very small—3/100 of an acre—and he estimated that the change
took about 1/100 off. He said it would be good to reference the critical slope waiver as not necessary on
�
the western side of the site.
Mr.Davis suggested the Board make two motions-one motion on the SP and a separate motion
""' for the modification.
'°"`� Ms.Mallek then offered motion to approve SP-2010-00046 subject to the six recommended
conditions. Mr.Rooker seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
�"` recorded vote:
'�"' AYES: Mr. Boyd,Mr.Dumler,Ms.Mallek,Mr.Rooker,Mr.Snow and Mr.Thomas.
�
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
Qar
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled"Conceptual Plan
�"' —Soccer Field Removed:New Hope Community Church,"prepared by Blackwell Engineering
PLC,revision number 4(dated 5-17-12),(hereafter"Conceptual Plan"),as determined by the
�"` Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the Conceptual
Plan,development and use shall reflect the following major element within the development
'W' essential to the design of the development,as shown on the Conceptual Plan:
• location of buildings and structures,which may be built in phases;
'+� • location and maximum number of parking spaces,which may be built in phases
• location of the entrance;
�w- • location of the"wooded area to remain,"within which land clearing and development shall
not occur,with the exception that the designated"Proposed Reserve Drainfield"site may
�* be cleared and used only for that purpose.
�.. Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to
ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
�
2. The area of assembly shall be limited to a maximum four hundred(400)-seat sanctuary.
�
3. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from all
� abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than 0.3
foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval.
�
4. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate special
.,i,,, use permit.
,� 5. Entrance design and location must be approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation
before construction of the access road for this use may commence.
� 6. Written approval of water-supply and septic facilities must be submitted before this use may
�, commence.
wr
wr�
�
y,.�.
�
July 11,2012(Regular Meeting)
"' (Page 26)
""° Ms.Mallek offered motion to approve the critical slopes waiver under Section 4.2.5(a)for the
area on the east side of the project outside of the stream buffer. Mr.Snow seconded the motion. Roll
�'` was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
i"' AYES: Mr. Boyd,Mr.Dumler,Ms.Mallek,Mr.Rooker,Mr.Snow and Mr.Thomas.
NAYS: None.
+rr
`�` Agenda Item No.10.SP-2010-00057.Pine Knot Historical Center ISiqn#571.
PROPOSED:Historical center at Pine Knot with tours,related special events(up to 12 per year,
'�" not to exceed 200 persons),restroom facility,and museum and educational building(not to
exceed 1,700 square feet).
^+� ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE:RA--Rural Areas:agricultural,forestal,and fishery
uses;residential density(0.5 uniUacre in development lots).
� SECTION:10.2.2.49,Historical centers,historical center special events,historical center festivals
(reference 5.1.42).
� COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas-preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal,open space,and natural,historic and scenic resources/density(.5 uniUacre in
�. development lots).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR:No.
�,,,, LOCATION:711 Coles Rolling Road(Route 712),approximately 0.6 miles east of the intersection
with Glendower Road(Route 713).
�.., TAX MAP/PARCEL: 12200000001100.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT:Scottsville.
r,. (Advertised in the Dailv Progress on June 25 and July 2, 2012.)
�,,. Mr.Benish reported that this is a proposal to bring the use of the historic center with special
events into compliance with the County's Zoning Ordinance. He noted that this facility was the retreat for
�,,. President Roosevelt. He said that activities include daily visitation by appointment and up to 12 events per
year with a maximum of 200 people per event. Mr.Benish stated that the proposed development activities
,� on the site include the construction of new restroom facilities,the construction of a new historical center of
approximately 1,500 square feet,and the addition of overflow parking. There are no changes proposed to
� the Pine Knot cottage or existing parking area. He explained that the site is located on Route 712,Cole's
Rolling Road,approximately.6 miles from its intersection with Route 713,Glendower Road—about three
�r
miles southeast of Keene.
Mr.Benish stated that the improvements are proposed closer to Route 712 and away from the
�` cottage. He presented the proposed conceptual plan as included in the staff report. He noted the design
planned for the new historic structure as having a firsk floor with 1,000 square feet and a future addition
"" planned for 1,500 square feet. Mr.Benish said that the applicant is proposing something much fancier
than the existing composting facility,and is awaiting approval from the Health Department. The ability to
� provide restroom facilities is not an issue affecting this review.
"" Mr.Benish said the Planning Commission held its public hearing on May 22,2012 and
recommended approval,subject to four conditions. He noted that the conditions include: improvements
"'' as identified in the conceptual plan for development of the site;a transportation plan for activities on the
site;Health Department approval;and a six-year approval periorJ in order to allow time for funding and
�' construction. He stated that there are three modifications to the application: a waiver of the site plan
requirement,which staff supports;inodification of supplementary regulations to allow for a slightly larger
.r area than the 1,500 square foot limit within the Ordinance;and special events maximum capacity
increased to 200,as suggested by the Planning Commission,to be consistent with prior approvals and
+.� winery activities.
+■r Mr.Rooker asked if the applicant was expanding the parking area,as the staff report indicates
that"additional structures and site activity do not require additional parking over what is already provided
�.r and proposed."
�rr Mr.Benish confirmed that there is an additional parking area they are proposing to add,and the
overflow parking is adjacent to the existing parking area. He said that the reference to the waiver is
�,. because it is not a requirement,and staff does not feel that the extent of the improvements warrants a site
plan.
�
Mr.Rooker clarified that they could do it anyway without the expansion.
�r
Ms.Mallek asked if it would be a grass parking lot,not to include paving. Mr.Benish said that
,�,,, was his understanding.
�„ Mr.Dumler asked if VDH did not give permission for the installation of the toilet facility,if the
applicant would have to come back to the Board. Mr.Benish responded that a condition of approval is
,�, that the Health Department must approve some kind of septic system.
� Mr.Davis said the only way it would not be approved is if it could no tonger be in general accord,
such as moving a structure to accommodate it. Otherwise,it would not have to come back to the Board.
� At this time,the Chair opened the public hearing.
wr
,�rr
�v
�
� �
� �
, � �
�
, � ��
� �
�
: ��
�
� � �
: �
�
�
�
. �
�
�
9 �
�
�..
�
Hospital space and to authorize the County Countv Attorn�: Provide Clerk with copy of
�'""' Executive to sign the lease and any associated agreement.
�,,, uments after approval of both form and
subs e b the Count Attorne .
� 8.9 SDP-2012-00 Whitewood Road Day Care Communit Develo : Proceed as
Center—Zoning Or ' nce Waiver. approved.
"" • APPROVED applican equest for a critical
,w,,, slo es waiver.
8.10 Cancel July 18,2012 Board meeting August 8, rk: Notify appropriate individuals.
� 2012 Board meeting.
• CANCELLED meetin s.
� 8.10a Request for Letter of Support for Riv a k: Forward letter to Leslie Middleton.
,.,, Watershed Planning Technica sistance Grant.
• APPROVED reques etter of Support for
""' Rivanna Water Planning Technical �
Assistanc rant.
" 8.10b Resolut' o Approve an Alternate to Act far the Clerk: Forwar�d copy of sign solution to
� C y Executive on the Albemarle-Charlottesville Jail Authority Board and County ey's
egional Jail Authority Board. office. (Attachment 9)
�
9. Pb.Hrq: SP-2010-00046. New Hon�e Communitv Clerk: Set out conditions of approval.
� Church(Siqns#128151. (Attachment 10)
� • By a vote of 6:0,APPROVED SP-2010-00046
subject to six conditions.
"` • By a vote of 6:0, APPROVED the critical
...
slopes waiver under Section 4.2.5(a)for the
area on the east side of the project outside of
�,,,. the stream buffer.
°r Center(Siqn#57). (Attachment 10)
• By a vote of 6:0, APPROVED SP-2010-00057
� subject to four conditions and APPROVED
� odifications to Section 5.1.42(d}to waive the
su ittal of a site plan; Section 5.1.42(a)to
"�' permit increase from 1,500 square feet to
1,700 squ feet(in aggregate)from the Pine
' Knot Historic enter; and Secti�n 5.1.42(i)to
,., allow an increas om 150 to 200 persons in
the maximum numb of attendees.
;�` 11. Pb.Hr : SP-2012-00004.C munekv�hristian Clerk: out conditions of approval.
Academv(Sians#38�39). (Att menc 10)
'� • By a vote of 6:0, APPROVED -2012-
.o,,. 00004, Community Christian Acad subject
to four conditions.
y""' 12. Pb.Hr : 12-03 —A ricultural and �ores Clerk: Forward copy of adopted ordinance to
,�, Districts: County Attorney's office and Community
a. AFD-2012-4. Chalk Mountain A — evelopment. Prepare letter to individuals in
,o,.. Addition. di icts for Chair's signature. (Attachment 11)
b. AFD-2012-2• 2012-3. Har ar�AFD—
� Addition.
c. AFD-2012-1� 2012- eswick AFD—
�' Addition.
,�, • By a vote of 6� , ADOPTED Ordinance No. 12-
03 1 .
� 13. Pb. Hr : T S uare in Crozet: Go�sider granting Cferk: F�rward�opy of si d resolution to
power I' easement to Domirion Power within County.4ttorn�y's office and D. (Attachment
"` Cou Parce1056A2-01-00-02400 1?_)
,.,, • By a vote af 6:0, ADOPTED resolution tc
approve the proposed Right of Way Ayreemer�t County Attor�ne� Frovide Clerk with c of
�'' and to AUTHORIZE the County Executive to agreernent.
sign the Right of Way Agreement an behalf of
... ------ ----- —
�. �
�
�
�
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
•a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
t
a
a
a
a
a
•
a
•
a
a
a
�
�
...
� ATTACHMENT 10
�
�
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ON PLANNING ITEAAS
,.,. SP-2010-00046.New Hope Communitv Church(Sipns#125151.
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled"Conceptual Plan—
'� Soccer Field Removed: New Hope Community Church,"prepared by Blackwell Engineering PLC,
revision number 4(dated 5-17-12), (hereafter"Conceptual Plan"),as determined by the Director of
` Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan, development
,,,�, and use shall reflect the following major element within the development essential to the design of the
development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan:
� • location of buildings and structures, which may be built in phases;
■ location and maximum number of parking spaces,which may be built in phases
"" ■ location of the entrance;
■ location of the"wooded area to remain,"within which land clearing and development shall not
� occur,with the exception that the designated"Proposed Reserve Drainfield"site may be cleared
� and used only for that purpose.
�' Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure
_...
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
,�., 2. The area of assembly shall be limited to a maximum four hundred(400)-seat sanctuary.
� 3. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from all abutting
properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than 0.3 foot candles
� shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval.
�
4. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate special use
� permit.
'" 5. Entrance design and location must be approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation before
,,,, construction of the access road for this use may commence.
� 6. Written approval of water-supply and septic facilities must be submitted before this use may commence.
�
�
S 10-00057. Pine Knot Historical Center Si n#57 .
1. velopment and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled"Ex. Conditions d Site
... Plan ecial Use Permit—SP#201000057"prepared by Water Street Studio and dated (la vised)
March 2 , 12 (hereafter"Conceptual Plan"), as determined by the Director of Planni and the
�` Zoning Admirn tor. To be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan,develo nt and use shall
reflect the following 'or elements within the development essential to the ign of the development,
� as shown on the Concep I Plan:
�. • limits of disturbance;
• location of buildings and s res;and
"` • location of parking area and ass ' ted BMPs f orm water management
�.
Minor modifications to the plan, which do not ith the elements above, may be made to ensure
�..�. compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
"�' 2. Transportation to and from the � e Knot property for attendees II special events shall be subject to
�
a transportation managem plan approved by the Planning Director.
,�,. 3. Approval from th ealth Department for the composting restroom facility shall equired prior to
issuance of ilding permit for this use.
�
4. Co uction of the new building, as identified on the conceptual site plan(Attachment C-copy file),
� shall commence on or before July 11,2018, or this special use permit shall be deemed abandone and
„�, the authority granted hereunder shall thereupon terminate.
�..
�,.. 27
�.�.
�
�
' i, ,�
1� � � "
�
�:;
�
�. � _..
�
�<
� ..
i�
�
,�
> �`
;�
. �.
:�.
�
�
__,- . . ,. , ,�. ,,. . ., _ � �
� � _.,.. ,,., , _z ,__ .,_ ,.�.� , .,,e , . _ . , - �.
�
�
- . <..
�r'd p''„
����'�
`i/�r:q"� . ,
�v;o.,:� '�
i
+�/';',; .
i
'""" �4 dT'ALp�,vL I
r
,,., . c -Yp� i
v s� ,
�ar �
�
�r, vIRGTt31P
�,,, COUNTY OI+ALB�MARL� �
Depai•tment of Community De��elopmeut i
'""' 401 Mclntire Road,North Wiug '
� Charlottesville,Virgi�iil 22902-459G ��
Phone(434)2I6-5832 F'�x(434}972-4126
� �
�,. July 30, 2012
� Edmond H. Blackwell �
566 East Market Street
""" Harrisonburg, Va 228010000
� RE: SP201000046 New Hope Community Church �
�
..,. i
Dear Mr. Blackwell:
�
„� On July 11. 2�12, the Albemarie County Board of S�pervisors,00k action on the above referenced
speciai use permit to allow a 400-sear church with offices and classrooms on Tax Map 21, Parcel 12C1 in �,
� the Wnitehali District. This special use permit was approved based on the following ccnditions: �
'�" 1. Development and use shall be in gzneral accord with the canceptual plan titied "Conceptual Plan
—Soccer Field Removed: New Hope Community Church," prepared by Blackwe(I Engineering '
�" PLC, revision number 4 (dated 5-17-12), (hereafter"Conceptual Plan"), as determined by the �
,,,. Director of Pfanning ar+d the Zonfig Administrator. To be in genera! accord with the Conceptual
Plan, development and use shall rerlect the foilowing major eiement within the development
'�' essential to the design of the development, as shown on the Conceptual Plar: i
• location of buildings and siructures,rvhich may be built in phases; ,
� • location and maximum number flf parking spaces: which may be buiit in phases �
�,, � iocation of the entrance; �
• location of the"wooded area to remain,"within which land clearing ard devefopment shall �
� not occur,wifh the exception that the dssignated "Proposed Reserve Drainfield"site may
�
be cleared and used only�or that purpose. ;
Minor modificaiions to the plan which do not conflict with the elaments above may be made to �
� ' ensure complianc2 wi±h the Zoning Ordinance. !
I
� 2. The area of assembly shali be limited to a maximum four hundred (400)-seat sanctuary. �
,..
,,w,,. 3. AI'autdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reilect light away from ail i
� abutting properties. A lighting plan fimiting light leve{s at�II property lines to no greater than 0.3 �
� I foot candles shall be submitted to tne Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval. !
i �
"'�' � 4. -`here shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate speciaf �
� use permit. �
...� 5. Entrance design and location must be approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation ;
before construction of the access road for this use may commence. i
� 6. Written approvai cf water-supply and septic facilities must be submitted before this use may �
� commence. !
� . '
�
,r, � I
�
� ;
�
�
�.
...
�.►
�.
In addition, the Board, by a vo#e of 6:0, approved a special exception for a critical slopes waiver for the
� area on the east side of the project outside of the stream buffer.
�` Please be advised that although the Albemar[e County Board of Supervisors took action on the
„�,. project noted above, no uses on the property as approvec! above may lawfuify begin until all
applicabfe approvals have been received and conditions have been met. This includes:
�..
• compliance with conditions of the SPECIAL USE PERMIT;
'r`� • approval of and compliance with a SITE PLAN; and
�,.�. • appraval of a ZONING COMPLIANCE CLEARANCE.
�' In the event that the use, structure or activity for which this special use permit is issued is not commenced
within twenty-four(24) monfhs from the date of Baard approval, it shali be deemed abandoned and the
� permit terminated. The term"commenced" means"construction of any structure necessary to the use of
�,,, the permit."
� If you have questions or comments regarding the above-noted action, please do not hesitate tn contact
�
Rebecca Ragsdale at 296-5832,
,�, Sincerely, , ,
� V,
'"�` V, Wa ne ilimber
Y 9
�
Director oF Planning
�.
Emai!Cc: Tex Weaver, Rebecca Ragsdale, Elise Hackett
...
�
File
,..
...
�
w�..
y..
..�
�
�
�
�
�..
�..
...
�
�
�
�
2
w+..
Y..•
�
.�.
�
�
� � 4
�� �
� �
�� � ��
�
,. �e�� ��
� �
.. ' _ �r+�' � :
�` �
� � �
� �
� ' � � �
�
x � �
� �
�
� �
� �
�€� -
�
�� �
+�r+t
� �
�
�
i � � � � � ���� �
, �
� �
�
�
`�
�
�..
«�.
H�21f1H� 3dOH M3N� �
vr.
<rr�
�, �� �� '�
... _ � `� -
��.. � �, � _z �� o
W _ _ � � �n , ,a _ � �
�..,. U . _ . �,�
. �� _ _ �� _ _ � � ��, � W �
c� - �w- _ w �� � �'�- �,,'�� ��ti ..�.,m
�, � �W _ _ i> ?� - �' r� _'_�-�-
�n? c� j ., t..`b ;�
Gz Uw - E"a - za-_ 'a.1 I � � - _
,rr• �� �o '�3 w,: a o "� �"s ,''
F� c� zw a� .a� � ° - ul_ -
�1� 31 � �m N � �' T�
G �,
mm 1
� �
� ^3z
�/ i
� m = _ ==M 3 a �w=� �-�- � , �
,., � -- - �� ^
� _ .
��
� � ---- _ '
� U � =
- � ��:�� =� _= ����_ � _-
�� � ''�ri - _ N�_ _
� � /,n1, -,,y __
� � -
� � _� _.
—�'� a
.� � �.�� �� : -
� � : �� _ ; -- `F ' -
�r. � � � - :
� � f`;__ - ; _ ;
:�>
F�
0
"� �`-- � - - - - ,� -
-�� _ = e
' x_-_- "- __ - - -
aw� , s�,_ - _ ;�r „
zid
��' €i
+rr' � CI, `- _ -s
W _ z. - _ _ . _
��- _ _
� Z Cn x� =o - = = _ =
�
���-; :� �.. , . �- � na
�
�.. _ _ _ _ _ . � _ -_ : _ _ _ __ = � � - ;
�. __-_ : - - _ __ = -u�_ _ _ _; _ - __ _ _ . _ �
� _ - -- _-_ . -__ - _ - � - - �
�� -- - - _- - - - ' -' - _ -_ - - _- 1 __- - - a E - �
_ _ C: _ _ _ � _ ' _ JE~� _ _ _ ^�% .
_=-�-I -'- _ - _ - _ _ _- _ _- -�_ ' _ ' _ _- '_ --� + _ � � -
�'�� w _ `C� _ - __ - -- � _ _- - _� _ -_ _ - -_ „ - _ _�, - - ;L -
O - _ _
"�` � - _ _ ' - ' ,. k -
W _ � �_ __ � _ � �_ _ - _- ` _ � _ _',Eo _ _ - �_ .. _ - Fv �- ^ -- - __ ,
`ii' 7 � -� H ,
"r` � ' E Ev � ^ o � �k
'_ _- ' . _ ' _ _ - �- -' ' _' _ "� _ _ . ` - ;, _ - ___ � o: - - __
�r ',r�� �.��., „�. ��,.,, :-„ _ �; . �,a.a :. �,.� ,,,�U ,..e_ , . :..,�„_..�,� a ..., ,�, ., , <- �,.a „� �.. ,_ ,, ., ✓,� ,,. . �.... .. �r
�r .,...�.,,,.. ..v,.y
�
�
wr
� �
� � � T iOBLi`�+v wb,�n�q3ay.,onw.n 1� . � ._ ._.... .. . .. . ._. -.-.. ... � . I .,
ffi �++M+Wh�wwu�s u�n r I-� � I-
o C m ''�� ��K��o�e,�, +' , 116ZZ tln'3lllnS3l101atlHJ �I
��� g s" II I �i 00£ 311f1S 'IIVMl 3lONIW3S St4£
y � �3 �s' ' 8 � I ' S331Sf1tl1 - H�tlf1HJ 3dOH M3N �I ^' �
� a ' '�a, � . . .in rn ^ �� H�?Jf1HJ 3dOH M3N ' .'.. `V „ .
� a _ �- NVId Alllllfl ONV 1f10AVl 3115 J
�� s � o - `IZ�A1X��g ,�� � I� I � i I I �
sss 4
t �8 � 8 a 5 .�i_I I I�' � '.
�NI2I:3'��II�N� _ i
:
� — _� _ �
�
`✓ ��� � � a � _ �s i p z ;� �� : s s y
� �j � - - -
$ p 9 L �'1 '�g %i� tl � 8
L �y 5g � i��g i y� S X�a d �a � �� F ���g � � e y
� Epp b��' �� .i & qS �� p H� G }
` 2���.'.a��i�d��������d9���� �� �y u� y �y �g �� . � 0 � � & 8
� ��� � �1� ZN �n �; �n C N C � �
� ��`� t��� � `I� ����� ' �
f � \ � ,�Y„ .�,[� �x J F i k �q � � � � �
� '1 I I I i i � � � �� �d e � ' � - -
� d:.: �g A d A
� \`� , �^ � 3r�. � ef - ; � � �
1 � �h ��
< a k
¢� �.. 'Fi� / �e �- a � b � � �h�
�r �� �,�� '" ���
�, *"?,`,� I \\ ,#� �;��ry� i �� � q��
-,�,�`°` .} � �, ���s I
�• �, ��� / �� -��� R�' � ���_� ,
�� �� _���_�� / „ � �� I
�"'' �� ��_� \� �� � i ,,�
� �= 1�`.�q#r�,� `� �g �� a. 9 0� � :
(""i �� �� ( / f I�'' ^t �r ' '
�/ �- i _ _ _ � " � t � i; � �,, N y� r h�,t _
�_./ 1� �-���N�(. t9 �o �\� ._ � � \ y �P0
� `'� ..� / � $
�� , �, � � /p ��@�� ,�o~
� f J
�� /
a - ��� � � /C�� ry� �A R
� W ^._}� . �� �� ��n�a iep' � � U "y
� �O� � aCC.��� �e S
�. ; � �- ��_..�.., 1�� ' �
� � ,�' � �' � �' : , 'S �
� r f''� � � .0 �� � \. R
� �� E-." 1 f Q „a
� U � `: , .4 t ��„� � � M1 , � �. /
� 1 �6� � i�
�, W
y <:
�, �`: t: i �; � I ;1� g �,_�_.--- , , $o I�
a a � � ._. � � � ��
�. � � ,� , _,��1�'���� q�_ � ,
, ,�r.
�►• �, � , ,�
�- � � .,, € � ` d�" � �1,�,� � %,/
i.- �� _ �) ���,� �h;
�► � � a � �" "-�� � � ��_ :
�r ��� `.� , -- ' ''�°` U°, � g9 _�r �a � �£ / ,
�` \� �� o a �� �/"
�� � R i
r' 1—e-
�==� .
0 1 w �` /
� �qR �. P � , �� Ef= ��� /
� �Y74 ''� � $ �r° , �` , � k€S s��a' �� � �
3�� ���1 b i$h`o� ,� � 1 � � �: �u�YM `\\ /j �a /I ��// ��rl
� t ' `��, � \ n �.5� i �E h�/ , G��
�i � f - � 0 1 1 \ rc.0 ��\ /
� �� _�J � So �`�d_�V � , �`t �\\` L� �j � �.
. �3 ��` - Jy�� �\\ �,\� `\� � � j�. _R �fi _ig�
� // �
` �
� � �`
� '
�, � ,,� � � \ t � �¢; p, :���
"�*a, •., A :� -- �'�- '�-�
,a e
�► ''"as,3. � � • -. .. a�___ -. ,
� � -.� �`--.� . \ .. _
`, Xg'a� � ti�\ `�"�� �'--�'�, _ ?�h
=i � ;,€; �'�� � � �3a:
� � ta: �`"�� `�\� ., f �� �`S
��'u� �� �Y. � ,. � /.
� �� � ���� � �� �
�� � �. a� � i
� '', s '� �' ,� ' � n3 �,r I
� �s wr°`` � � 3: •� aoay a7
� ' ` ---- � �- ------ 2`T �
�_b � `1 '1', �� � \`�\ " 1 Qiy ��£
i' at':g . ,,_ . %
\
a', ..��
.
� �������� . ., . '"' � --�----- ----- `- _
\ '� �_
oa _ � � � ,- �-
. . � � �,� �
� . .. ,' � _�-'�- �-... _ �
� a .-..n..Y �, , , � ,..,I�'- �� � ..
� � # � � .d� / R���°
�w�9 � g��i ;��'� \�� � .�� ��� =Sya*s
F .
■■ � -'
�
.
���� yE,� nii � �� . . utl
y � � �
a _ � , � � .
.
, „ .
.. ____ � / , ,�6:
�' .. ' \ �j9�
� � r � � ��
� ,.�....�...... ..,.�.,..
�
`
� �..o z � � � �����II?I�I�J�iI�N.�� '� 8I �., � s33�H�anH��3doH M3NMiN .. .. �T----�� - N�
� � � y � ���.� � z, � i��I � � I� �
� s � ���`u}����g � �d',,,,,.,�,��"� ,�j �i NVId AlIlVf10 2131VM ONV �S3 �`JNIQV21`J I I I �i �
� a a� a a _�. � '� _— ���'
8 � t� � 1� � �Q��s
� q s � s I� � �.o,r -2 �£ �� y4 "� -
� � " I _ < �� �oW� �,
� �G o� :,R �� � 9 � g � .`.�. �'� � �
� � ��� ����g�'�����a�� o as �S � �x 4A - �Nn�« � I
� � � ���C��@�3�g �y�� y� � �A �� 2 �,' ��\ �.�r�� �
5� ���d��al`����f5�$���� `� y x¢ge �'i'� � It°yep �"�S o��Sz 2 �
� > � �I p.
^ � . I:��
s L K- a� �
� a . � � � � '` �^� �I�iL�� i � � g�3�� : I
�s@�e1�,��c,�c>OOOc7�P,�,C� �` a � , � '' r r ' s5� � ��g '��� E
;� .� � .��s p � � o W
��. . �'°.� ' 11 R y'� \, � 'i 5.m^' T'�k q� F7N 435 � "W'�� � �
� _ . ) t: '��a g��
�� I � t - `Yt14,-� ?
j; �� \J1 ; � /� �+�} �r .� y�T�� ��� �
� I`/ ^� 4 , q r, ._� �u o ,
. �-lK)��.„.�r- "�4 . S I \ I f �a�
1
� N L ' � � \ I � i��
"F �-r�R '' �,� r Y ✓\ I.. �4� ,
�t ��� .,I�A �-t`� > `''� R 3�� � \ @�s:
� �'t R � a�..- I .q����'n Z `KJ �/;� / < 9 ,.� �
� �� � �,/ � s a�� • � <j a 1 �
k'� �� H1, �� �
� & ti' t, I �` � X�� �.,¢�y ..� i V J '.
� � �" tl
a5 �
� Y
S'. /�J � �� �k' Fe �e g;„ d ��..• \����,�.. 9
� . �;� � 4 .�s _ R, �� � d �'wy � {�
� 4 y n , p�.s� �� � ' /� � \\ ryy1 R �
_ $ I .J 1� ��f -I/ � � , x '
� , ...1 � ,{� �sn/3 �1 ... � o �` � �e S�
...`� � _ ; � �ns� , �
''(( �( c i '�
� �9� 7 r ` y
�� �, � . �i Y ar:'� �'� „" �. \ � � �x� } „
�g:
� `�`�� ` ��. � �' .1 � � � � i$; �� 1 � �
� � �! w� � � � � s�a � � �
�� � 1��`'�� ` �� �' �• ��4 � �� � �s�' i
� ', � - �
� �� , z . �� �
+ o. —� � �
a-
.� � �"1 �., d. a u
\ . ni
� , � . ... \ � '. /� � 'o # �¢ k� .
�`, ,4 1 � ��s �� � e
P � G. ���g � .�:t,., ./.
� `�e� � ��� •_ ' ' .
0
� � � '�, �
, � � 1 � = �=� ���` � � \
�\ � \� �' ' ,`;s , �
� � b ,� ° � ` �
� � � � f g � '� ������ � ��� p� t ���L; �� � ����_
�'' ��, � , \' .�t- '��:� � au i �
� �� ."�, 4 r {�}� I , '°�: Ee i � .
S� �`� $�� .. e�i���OO" V � cr
1 ° `� °r' 4
� . • $ I ry 4 N t . �x�g' y �> � � ,� .
�, � d
� � �
a � >
i ..� e a:3 "� P � �" , �
� �' �. �'�d)''� t�� �- �� .�� � ��� ��� /� .
�r '��j ' �s"
�' � � � , � o��
�i � � -- � � ,� , s � , l :
d y� �r A1 `\\ � - I �,%.
1` / 1 I � s p �N i��\� \ \i�' J �� / /i
/ ti . �i �'�e' ! � r ' •�•
� � �: ,
,� I a .._... �� � S :M,�.
� @2 �l. �-�/ � ���\� ,, �'�. g` YMl •� � �
� , ` . \, �Xa ; � �6 � Ya a:y �G�i.
/ � . 1t1 � � 9 raai� �:� � �l �/ ! �;�w/.�
� � ` �1 ��l uoec- � `. \ ��q �� � . S{��d/ �/ i
� �. ' r +\ � w _ ` �
� � �!.�'i_ c � 1� �� �
� � .
� . __��_ . ^ (�S� \\ \ ... ��� ✓. � 3
\ S�/ y � �
� �'\ � � � � I � 1 y
. ��� P�S?d r � i �_� 1� ' ... " Ey �
` \ �� y > — � � j+ �
:4� . � ��{jp�� *��_ �':
` �h �\� . l. _-ICJ�i] r6 .�� ♦ . �
.yR �.. \�. y. N f �� 4-J L
� ~C-� �J .. u __ XjC� WJ� � .
�
� 1 �� l�q � '� �� �� ' � ~� 4;0�
y83. � ���' � � "'�� � �'� ^��3
�. � � �: 8 ��� � � ��y `r '��
� Z �� `� ,,,;,,��*�-��� � �,.,,,' � l I � �� o
zi . ��«�r. a : i 5
' a�xd�i� �7', 9Y � 'i�� . a. \^�.n '� g 3 3
� � o�, ,, � � , � i � -. . �Q �soa �� .i
S4�s€E� ° � �a
� �
.� . $ � -
- -• _ .�
� - ---
,
�
� t i.,t ..,� ' . . . j , --- - 1Y.•' 6j�
. .._ � , : � -_
t QY ` �,
f�z¢�.rvk n;- �f�. -�_----- --\�� F � �;
� " 1 � ` ` . . -" � _T�' - ��� o i
a
v a � 1 - ,- - " ,-'' j Nw ., �n
s � szs � \ � ,� �p,p -. . Wz € �g �
� � _ . � /oN.� � u'� �3
� �� ;!��, ,,'� ������� � � �:�k'.
� _� ;s ..a ati � �� �. � ���8
� ;� 8frke akY � . �. ^ _
7s ;�
' �� �;,1
� a..�....�_ >.......
�
� �
�.:.:
.,,:
,,:�:
It.
�-:�
.�
` `�:
�-.
� ;;
��
�'
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
...
�..
,,� �,.rt,,
`"' :�Jp •`';
�
�t;r. _
�' J _f .: �
1
,,i:ti.,' ,� ,:
„� �11i(�I���
�
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
.r 401 Mclntire Road,Room 227
Charlottesville,�'irginia 22902-4596
*� Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126
wr
�""' Project: New Hope Church SDP201300008
,�,� Plan preparer: Blackwell Engineering [fax 540-432-7604]
Owner or rep.: New Hope Community Church [fax 434-973-1800]
'"r Plan received date: 23 Jan 2013
�,.. Date of comments: 13 March 2013
..�
Reviewer: Max Greene
..� The Initial Site development Plans(SDP201300008)submitted OS February 2013 have received
�
Engineering Review and do not appear to meet Albemarie County's engineering minimum
checklist items for approvaL Please adequately address the fiollowing comments for final approval:
�
�..
1) VDOT approval is required for the entrance location. Comments will be forwarded when received.
[DM905, 18-32.7.2.1.b]
�
�
2) Please show existing topography extended at least 50' past the property lines. [18-32.5.2.d]
�` 3) Please state the date of the topography. All topography should be at least visually tield verified by the
� designer within the last year[18-32.6.6, 14-30?, Policy for date]
'"` 4) Site appears to have critical slopes that are not delineated on the plan. Please show shading on all
„r. areas on the parcel that exceed 25%slope.
""` 5) This plan appears to be for the construction of phase i only. Please remove the phase 2 portion of the
,,,,. plans from the construction/grading portion ofthe plan set ar�d show the grading to be completed with
this phase ofthe project.
.�..
„�, 6) Please delineate the areas of light verses heavy}�avement on the construction plans.
""` 7) Upon "initial"plan approval,please submit Stonnwater plans with application and fee for official
„r, review.
'_'` 8) Upon "initial"plan approval,please submit Erosion and Sediment Control plans with application and
�,,,, fee for official review.
""' 9) Please see Chapter 17 for Water Protection requirements prior to"final"site plan approval.
�
Preliminary E&SC comments in advance of WPO application:
'�`� a) Plan does not appear to show adequate Grosion and Sediment Control measures to protect adjacent
�. properties. A Thursday meeting is recommended. See below for meeting request information.
b) Please show the Albemarle County Temporary Paved Construction Entrance detail on the E&SC
� plan.
�.► c) Please show areas for the contractors staging, parking, materials storage, and temporary office on
�
�
�
...
�.>
�..
�
�
�
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 3
..
,�„ the construction plan sheet.
d) West side of site appears to require a sediment trap for initial grading until the curbing is installed
'"' to redirect stormwater flows. Silt fence does not meet the State/County requirements for adequate
,,,� protection.
e) Sediment trap on the East side of the site is shown in the proposed slope and will need to be
""' moved to below the slope for adequate protection.
�.,, � Please show proposed elevations on sediment traps for construction and inspection.
g) Culvert inlet protections appears to show l+acres draining to C[P and will require a sediment trap
� design.
�.• h) Temporary construction entrance is shown as a"one-way"entrance. Please show the other lane to
be blocked during construction or widen the entrance to allow for two-way traffic.
"`� i) All pipes will be a minimum ]5"for maintenance.
� j) Energy dissipation wil) be required for paved ditch outlets to prevent scouring.
k) Please show profile of culvert under entrance.
� I) Paved ditch shown perpendicular to roadside ditch does not appear to work and may cause
� blockage and flooding of the roadway. Please change the angle of confluence and show details for
�.•
construction and inspection.
m) Paved ditches may require inlet shaping to direct/capture stormwater flows adequately.
�° n) Roadside ditches do not appear deep enough for the proposed Check Dams and will cause the
�..
roadway to erode if installed. Please show the roadside ditches a minimum 2" (feet)deep to allow
for the check dam installation.
`�` o) Slope armament may be required for"scupper" inlets to SWM facilities to prevent erosion.
,�, p) Underground detention appears to bypass the water quality structure. Please explain.
q) Underground detention requires at least 0.05%slope to prevent extended pounding in structure.
�' r) All storm drain inlets will be VDOT approved inlets.
�
Preliminary SWM comments in advance of WPO application
"" s) Honor existing drainage divides as much as possible. MS-19 wil) need to be demonstrated for all
� outlets.
...
t) Computations must use SCS methods. The modified rational hydrograph does not provide enough
runoff volume.
`"` u) Use standard VDOT manholes and a minimum 15"pipe. An 8"orifice setup can be used in the
� manhole with an overflow to the 1 S"pipe
,,,�,, v) A minimum slope of YZ% is required in the system.
�...
w) Provide pre and post drainage area maps for the facility showing the�.76 predevelopment acres
and post development area
Y" x) The routings and detention computations must account for areas released undetained, like the
�• entrance travelway. These areas should be smalL Capture as much of the development as possible
�
for water quality treatment.
y) The bioretention outlet needs to be detailed and should accommodate flow and overflow from the
'`� detention system.
� z) Proposed SWM structure appears to be located on rock outcrop. Please provide proof the structure
,,,,, can be constructed in this location.
�
aa) Please show SWM for entrance road impervious area.
""' A Stormwater Management Agreement wif! be submitted and approved for recordation prior to Final
... Site Plan approval. The procedures can be found at this link:
�
�
�
a..
�
�
�
�
Engineering Review Comments
""' Page 3 of 3
..
,�,, hlt�:'!�ti�v�v.albemarle.or�l�load%ima�csiii�rms cent�r%de�<u�tmcnts'Communitv l�evelopment,li�rms%
f;n�inecrin��an�1__1�'PQ_�_orms__Plan Rc_v_ic��__-
� �torm�vatcr Mana�ment �3MP C�rilitie� Maint�nance .A}�r�cm�nt Proccdurrs.�d1�
y..
� The SWM agreement can be found at this link:
_.• ht�:_' ������.alhemai•le.��r�-ut�load ima�s_tbrms_center-_departments;C��mmunit�'—De�.elc�nent ti�rm�'
l�,n�incc��in�r and WPO t�oi7�is�Plan Rcric�� -
� Storm�vater Mana�em�nt [�MP Facilitics Maintenance �1�eeemenL��df
�
10) Please see Chapter 18-32.6.2 for Final site plan requirements for approval.
� 11) Please refer to the Albemarle County Design Standards Manual prior to resubmittaL The link to the
�+► ACDSM is:
,� }it�_;��a��w.alhemarlc.qr�'uplc�ad!inra�5�'forms_ccntcr_dr��artmcntsiron�m_u�iit�_ d��cic�mci�l_i<�rm5 cl
esi�n standards manual%Albemarle Count� Desi��n Standard� Manual �2Oct''01?.P�1f�
�.
,r, Once these comments have been addressed, please submit 3 copies ofthe revised plans,calculations, and
narratives to Current Development Engineering along with the required review fee and transmitta) form.
�
,,,,,, Current Development Engineering is available from 2:30-4 PM on Thursdays to discuss these review
comments. Please contact Max Greene at 434-296-5832 ext. 3283 or email m��r�enerci ejlbemarle.o����to
"""`` schedule an appointment.
...
[17-204.f] An application tor an erosion and sediment control plan that requires modifications,terms,or conditions to be
�w included in order for it to be approved shall be deemed to be withdrawn if the owner fails to submit a revised plan addressing the
omitted modifications,tenns or conditions within six(()months after the o�tiner is infornied oY the omitted information as
"" provided under paragraph(B).
vrr
�
vrr
�
.rr
�
vr
�
9rr
^wr
�rr
v�r
w�r
�
�
�
�
+arr
YYr'
ar
v
,a, , __, ,�� , u ��,, E_..,�� � �_, ,� k , ,.,. ...,,_., 6....� � „r.�, , ,
: rrrwr� s�� �
�� � �
� �
�� ��
� ��
� �
�o
�
� �
� , � �
�
�
- �e
� �
�� �_
�: ��
�� �
�
�
�
;; �
�
�
�
H�2J'1H� 3dOH M3N c
�r
ar —
� g
wrr' � �', � 3�
�'r` W � � u� _ri f"s , 4 �
U - � �
�. �N �� _ � � �,,,� �,, � a�
t� `w- �_ _ � ?o � �� W�..
�. pC �p _ __ �� _ z� _ z� �( � � _ _ �
A z c;W .�.�.� F�=� _ :.�� _ `a-� k.� ..��
� �,� �� ?o - �a+-'�g a� ' �I � "'� ,!' ��t�
�� o� x W c,_ �� - i � i����,y
v,yw- _ - Zo - a� < - k� � rr z
:J� ' 3x � s 21m � �Il
qr � m 2 �m z .J=� w a �' T i�l?- '1 I�
n 3 N n �__� L� T
�✓ � _
� � .+ '
�� � "___� � _
.�.. U - =
..
� - _ �;- =
� ��..��.: �:, _� - N,�,=
w -
.... Z �,1.�. __
� � �.� , __
�..�. Q _o
,�
�- � `����� ' �� _ _
��,,, _ � F_ :- == ; � =
�.. �— , � ,� _ _ _ _ ; _
oE
�_ � - % -. _ ; - ` ,
. -�� � _
d�--- -- -� - :�� - _
� �`_ i ^rt� ` _
� + ,I`� � - E W - _
W _ z"�F� ' '
�. �,— - _ _ ,
�. Z C� ¢o � _ - - _ _ =
.� ��e3 .� �ve � �-. : . na
�
� _ _ _ o_ � =- _ _ =�< � � - �
_ _ F� - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ __ - : ,
'�' - - - - - - ,C_ __ - _ _ _ - __ _ __ n - _ - F _
- -' - ' _ , _�F� �__ � _ _ _' ' ,
.�/ _ _ - , "C E�- __- -_ -__ - _ _ _ - ,. - - _ _, "
' _�5.. _ _ - _ _ --' . _ - __ _ _ - o _ __
��II - - - --_ �u -_ _ ' -: _ ' ' - _ cE^- - -. ' _- _ -_ - _ a - _ g
�_ ' _ _ _ _ " �_ _ _ - __ -_ __'C� . __ " _ __ _ " " _ "
- _ - -_ ' _ _ _ �
_ _ -�E' _ _' _ - _ - _ - .. " _ - _
"�' _ _
og _
� ' _ ' _ ' _ ' -' = n _" - - _ _
F. ' ' - - '- __ - _ _" , _
p = ' ' - _ -��[� _ _ ' ��c - '_ _ '
. s Z. ' '_ �- , _ _ _ ' " _ _ - '- _ "[,- _ _ __
w _ _ - _ '_ ' _ - " _ �_ �E�- - _ ' - _ ;E " " •�4: - ___ ° ?
W' _ _ ____ � - - _- _ _ _- ' - -__ -_ _ _ _- __ _ _ - � � -_ - � '
,�r 7� _ _ _ _ - _- JE _- :. "--- _ _ _- _ _ - _ __ _- _ _ �. �9
� - - '- " _ - - � E9 " _ _ -_ " _ ' - " - - _ " _ - -_
- __ _ __ ' _ 'E ' [3' _ " _ " . _ '__ � .¢ _ _
+t�r - _ _- , " _ '_ -_ _ _ , __ _ _ _ - _ -: ° � _ _ - _
- ' ' _ _ _ " " ' ' - - dk
_ "_ _ _ '_ _ _ _ _ _ � ' _' - ' _ _ _ _ ' _ ' .-, _ -� ' _- C„ - _"
�� �r� ' �._�.� �na- �,�.�. �.,. >�� .. �.,a, _. ��r �„s- ^t_ .,, s,.�v=....� : n.. � , ,.' � a„w i -; .,, .- �, .-� 0.�-,,. � a.,.. -� wi '
VY�' .wv�r.�w tiu.��.
t��
�IIY✓
�
�
�„'"w'�°Y � �
� n ffi .o.� Hmsi�vxc�.io.c�i��nw � ° a � �� i I Il6ZZ Vn '3lllnS3l101NtlHJ I � I ,r, I
o I o I c � � �'Id ioeoe o��a.�r n,�y3�.,,0„ "�' 4ii ' „ ,
I 00£ 31105 'lltlNl 3lONIW35 SVY£ I
� _� I r i a �� ; ��'d'I�M R�`d'I H � . .M� I` �'I , I� I' �I��� NVld3Alllllfl�4NV 1f10A1f1N311S I�'�� N g l � I''
t I,�II � r
a i ._I .. � � I
\r• 8 `� a �
Wy 5p 4 "
� j�y G9 E . n � i' W �? J ^p Z o� � d� � : $ $ o
����Sayg@f tlF� pp pL $4,�,4� �k O § �8. ` ' ' _
�SS3 3°��i��3�H� y'.�adY Qe '1r '� e I 6N L` d C�
� .yy� � �s5�aa �p a�g� ����g�� ` i �" :g � � � . � o � � B�"
�`B�B��S3��F�f��%6��#Sk^5 A`\ `�8 � c � �Y �& � � � � � �} � S
� � ;� � � � ..:� ~ �� iF ya �� � � ¥ � � 357
i� �c� �: ���� , � � ��.. � �.,:.. q �� ��# ( . 4 �k ���;J � a; � � r � �
� � a a a
� a � x
a
.� , d„ 't 2 � S S e
� � N z� Y "
� / �ti Q �ti �
�� 's� � g ,�` z �- " a � � 5
�l ,5 i� / � � � � �€�
� �o ,/ 3
� �
� � �
� � � �P��� � _�� �� � ���
p �� \ � t��� I f / ��. .:�€e� R �� �j � 'n
� $� . ����, _ �l ,�/ r„� �} '��K�� . ( .,1`-+� �� i
� �t V /� -� ��,� l � �� � ��
���"` ��`��Mr Y T `O �g i J / j1 r�c�i I ti�
� � �� � � �� �� � . �� i
�1 � �� .n �� � a� �� �'� F � v
k �., � � , -� � � �� yW �-aT
�ir �
, �
.�r �� ` o , y � I
-
o�
� �o
,
� � e rc
1 ' �
y � � ""�� �
� �ti._� /" �� �� � � � a
� ��r �� � �� � � ��o
��', �' a o �
a ��1 � � � �q. '\�\ "> y A 3t
� '� ���� �.� �, ���' zxa°°s�'�^`d ( . 8.,,y� �. � �
� � �./r a d g
� r�. 0 ���/� �-, - }. q�o
"`� � �� : � 'u ',
il�� r p '� �' � a
� � ���- ��� / ��� �o-� � � � a s
� �.� � � ���€ � Qa a' ��-
� �
n �
` " _ v 8 3 .. � �. i
�.�. ✓ � r 1 . "-
.<
�► `, �� ',, - _ �=� I �� �,
4► � �; $ -r�x, � `, - � �����.�__ � �.. ��
�r � � � ;. � � ._ "�- , 'y,� ^ , ' ,,
,,` ` � �' � �, �,�°�,� ��a � �
� � ,�.a � ''� � � ��, ��; y ,, ,
'� ' .�`o _ �a . �. �
`.. ��� f '� ,�— 1,���'-�`�"e , �.' �9`\ , � �o
��� � ' � � � ��� l� � � � � -
�r ��� \ � j �' f � -a- P<: .��� � `''
� ',�� � $" !�'� 1 � �,�� ����' `� � �� �$ ��
� ��1 i �m �N'_ :{ �Y�
b ,��� � _ �a, `� \ jz_ �5� � �2 � f� ���./ Ga I
�,@ ��� Q #� .� \\ d `. � .'6 .
/ ` \
� � � ��T�� � go .f5+A�4�S' t \� ` , . . � 4 ;''�+ �
�� 1 �\ _ �yy'�t�r J . \�� . . ��. ' �
�v . � � \ ' ! _ � / ��g�
,
., p
��� �. � �� . �
.
M
� � � �a� '..."� ., _ I —__ "_ - e d�� -. 9
� .a��
Eg� N4S 3 '� \,�' .. /� _�._ --`�� �t
�.\ �
�^� � 1
�Y } �
nn(�3 1-� `� i�_` �..,�.��. `�'-�_'_ � 1
� '�3��' q� ME� l� �\ ^'\.�� �' �!/ \c og=
� :T�� ��m '�`\� ��`��. i � ��
� ~ }
1 � .. }.�\ � 5 ^
� ��� fi� � � �,'"�, � a` ry � I'
� ..� °� j1-
� �' � �: ri"rr` :,z. .Es.. � a¢a �l
� ,
, �s .
� e� I t$
t, g
� � �-d_S� �.,1 �� $� ' � y9�e� ` ...._. __ __ - - �ti . ��a
�a$FI¢I�g ` �` .\f ,,'-' 1 _ \_— � c$
� € � . :� �� � _ � .--- -—� - �
. .`? � 1 � 1 � .-' -
��.. � . � ��',�� � � '�-
� � � � , ,
� �� �� �a5�. � '°��� � � s�� �l���
. `
��� � 4 s i�3� �� $� ��� '��"�
d�� i 3 a}} nn:t�
` :w � / '` �a� :�
\r � � .�.. ��a3'
�\
� � . � � ,
� ..�„�..._,.. ...�<...
�
�r
�,..,..,..ri.,...,��, � __ _ _
� � � E € .o..«w�,,.,«�,...��,�e � � � i r i <<ezz vn •3iiins3uoiavno ��, � 1 � e
�1d ioeaz o�a,n mw3�„o„ q: I g i
00f 311f1S 'lltlLl 3lONIW35 S49£
� � � W 's� Nl W� � 8 53315l1tl1 - H�afIN� 3dOH M3N I �I
� a s ``JNI2i:I:3I�I�!V:� � �' i �; �
� a ' 'IZ�M}I�f1'IH , t ' H�anH� 3dOH M3N � o
g ,� � a ,,,a�r I 1"'i � , ' NVId AlIlVf10 ?131VM QNV �S3 '9NIOV2J9 z
� -
� �} s � ' �`r--�I � �I'� ��`F� -
��p „d SE `R ^� � � I � I .�/ � �9 3���� N
� �6y5 �4g��S„^-dER4a Y ap �t �f � ���� � �
[ � �p gµ� � F ������ � yut
�r y Bp� �f��q�������y��ygpq"@ sp g � =s� � �
�tltf�E88d(������d��kY�&K 4 �a �rvb�� ._.I � �uO�� � �
� a � ^ �� �;1 I
Qa9�aic:e;cxx>oocxx���6 �� a ���� �� � ����s E
� . , . ja 4 � ... ` ' ���� -�
Y��/ • A R ��� � �i t cYC�o � �
� ;�.��:�_��- R a J� '��� �
,— ¢ i
� � � �,�-•�_ " r�" Y
�__—_i . Ce ;�---.�..- y 4 R � � =,�\ �
� � �� ,.��� . .. � �� � �
� ' �p �X�'����� �+r 0 � � �
l�
( F's t, . 4 @ .. . .
1 a I ! ; .
rr � ,� I �°- ��� w" � � i, �� �
�� ' ��� �q�� a� � �� � � .
I g ,
� � ,��;�- r � � � y
� q. � x �. � `, . . .
� �� �' s -. Y � �K� ��� ,1 � !� • �\ �
� . /./ _ �`LY' � Ee g.^ � \ _ \...,. \ . ' a
(1 f � /\ d �''°�,'�`�� e �°' _ .
� � �� ����� t ( � � ���} ��,.4 S. - � � �R
� .�,�� .4' � l�c. l� � q �
� $ "� �,� �'\1 r. � �
1�}� �}
� 4 �I� s���3, i . . ' go
� p `�� \ � ..` I�. s1��°;asv.� - .I ?5 � . .. . t�'i
P3 `��� h � ��;���� 1 �,`t �� � �x� fr ��
� , �F� 1 , 1 f � . . .,
1�. I �. � � �, � ,�.. ;� ,�
�` \ �� 1 yp.' � �# h � .� / \
� . . ��1�11eN `b i I � L.0 � �� 1 . $� .:.� , � .
�� . � �_.P ��s pS . �. ��• 4 ��.
� � , � � � A €3�� _ ��' . .� . � . � .
� A t P� �'� � �� e �� � 'r ��'�a�•� " �
�i 1 �Lu� 0, �.�,�,Za � �,` - � _�-4 =q' Z�: ..
� � �. � � _... _� �, ._ '= ��.
1 r � i ,�K »� �
. ���'� , 1 j� �`s'. - � `� .s . ` �� ' , ':A
� � � b i�g� / ,� i ✓'��� �¢� -
� �1�3� � , �_�-� F I�� �
� � : �� '� � � � -, ,�� , r °"o��, ;e � ,�.
^v. �� � v$�py •
i
X �' r p � ` � °�' a /�
� , � � � ��/ �• //'
� P � �` � � �'' � t`���°� � �
I ' � i f`g .�, $ \\..� . � .{� . ��i
�I �� � 1 �Y^. �%�i
� � ��. � �C e'�. .€�'u �� �� p . . l
� � �� '�� �� z �� ��
, �"� ) � �
w , t / W : a t � �� aJJ C�`, ,� , a „ %, o
� ���'� � / . �' " a� ,� �l,\ \ 1 / . ��r 9[ � _�
�� q � o�,� �, �y�� ' �/
� . 11 �, / [� �t . ... � � �rva.\ i . �. E.F i�n, � �VJ
� �\� / Y`d �1 �� �\ ,� �'` � YM� � I� �/�'��
1`� �� �I / l. �� bd i ' 'a1��,�j a5 `d mm� � �q:�
.
ti
0 (
� `� � \� �a ���// . .Y: \�/
ry
�r,,, 1 , , o��� � , �
, , . , , . .
��
� � ., �� � , ��,-'� �,� , � ��� _._
, „ .� , �' � �
�. � �,�� � �� � _ � �, � � �� ��
`i�'� ',�,, � �� �,��`� �`, _ ,^ , � .� r �� � :
� \' �, A� �sa � ��,� � �"" �� :� ,� �� ��� � Y m
� ' � �"' � ; - ,� � qt+ �
�� �� p� ��� �"' --�' �� �� j ' '�3 �: x o�
� � ��• � � � � �� .. � � ��1� �. � o
,
ti
- ,„
. ^
� �,�- � ^
� \�., a� ��`;�(� '���� .� � Y•p s��3 y
7y,` . - '�
` � :�W '� \y-y,�t'.`.. ... ` �/ "�.,.'+ � o "��3
` \ � k`5 a \\� '�qy�`•.o�`w� l � � . . �'`� y . ..
�y, b e*
` � � � � � '\ q.���� "'�yS._. �.������ g� % ''• ��� p
\ c� a4
�� � -\\ �� � '�. Y. C � E�
� A t . y Y 1.. �" ; I
� � �.
Yg
� �5��; �, �� g� �� �� ; �►;ti�� � ,. � ' �I�r �I; �7
: g � R
fi3£���6 ! � �� �'a �� • ' , Ib ��f �
�
�. 3 . � �� � .� a,
- = a
� �
, _.
�
4 s.�i r•.,� � k a .., � ---- -� -- � �� t
� .� _ .._ �� �9 e.. .. " ,��- �_ -'� �
�'G'!. �A �f� . �� �,�_
�� �E 3 k 0.` �� - ` _,� /�'' ,-__ __-�-�7 � _5 S p
� a 1 � _... '� D[, '�" I' 4�i Z• ' 4�� F
V � i.a � . ...� � .O i� k'�O
o tl �- � �RS�N c, ae
,. �
� � - ; �\ \�� ' a
y� - 8�� ��' �`. �,����� �a��
` ,-. . .'as�C
�, et! -,��.. . � ��4� �
� yi� n& tt ` i . , _ � _ . .
�t s~ �� l-i�i
S
� ,,,..o�....�._ ..,..,...
�
�
+� ".
�1 :
�
�i►
ir�>
1i.
� .
� .
�.
�► :
,� ;
�
�►
�
t-
, �
�
� . .o,_ � ..a�,�.,_� . � _,. ,. � � �, . �. ,� ,
� K - —
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Prepared by C. Boldt from various sources
�
�
As Submitted with Special Use Request includes soccer field
�
� Area Acres
�
Total Site 21 acres approximately
�
� Area of Critical Slopes
�,� Man-made 0.0 ac 0%of development
�.
Natural .96 ac 4.6%of development
"' Total critical slopes area .96 ac 4.6%of development
�
�. Critical Slopes Disturbed .03 ac 3.125%of critical slopes
(Building Only)
�
�
� As adjusted by removal of soccer field per BOS Minutes
"'" Area Acres
a..o
,r, Total Site 21 acres approximately
'� Area of Critical Slopes
� Man-made 0.0 ac 0%of development
�„ Natural .96 ac 4.6%of development
�
Total critical slopes area .96 ac 4.6%of development
...
� Critical Slopes Disturbed .02 ac 2.08%of critical slopes
„�,, (Building Only)
�
� Revised 1-17-13 by plan submitted
...
..-
Area Acres
� Totai Site 21 acres approximately
�
�
Area of Critical Slopes
Man-made 0.0 ac 0%of development
"�' Natural .96 ac 4.6%of development
�
.w
Total critical slopes area .96 ac 4.6%of development
"� Critical Slopes Disturbed .00 ac 0.0%of critical slopes
� (small piece in driveway not
�,,,. approved is shown disturbed)
�
�
�
�.
�.
�
v..
Prepared by C. Bo�dt from various sources
W.
...
Revised 4-19-13 based on additional topo
� Area Acres
�..
�..
Total Site 21 acres approximately
"'' Area of Critical Slopes
�„ Man-made 0.0 ac 0%of development
...
Natural .96 ac+.38ac 6.4%of development
"`` Total critical slopes area 1.34 ac 6.4%of development
�..
�„ Critical Slopes Disturbed .08 ac 5.9%of critical slopes
�
(Driveway and Building)
Church site only 4-19-13
�
,�,. Area Acres
� Total Site 7.5 acres approximately(proposed)
�..
�.. Area of Critical Slopes
�.
Man-made 0.0 ac 0%of development
Natural .38 ac 5.1%of development
...•
� Tota) critical slopes area .38 ac 5.1%of development
�
�
Critical Slopes Disturbed .08 ac 21.1%of critical slopes
(Driveway and Building)
"'` Church site only 4-19-13
...�
�
Area Acres
"" Total Site 7.5 acres approximately(proposed)
�
�,� Clear Areas 4.2 acres(Building, Parking and Power ROW 56%of site)
� Wooded 2.4 acres 36%
�...
�. Stream Buffer .9 acre 12%
�..�
Developable Site 6.6 ac
�
� Clear Area 4.2 acres(Building, Parking and Power ROW 63.6%of adjusted site)
...
�
Wooded 2.4 acres 36.4%
�...
..•
�
�
,�
L ' �
� �
� �
�rr�r < ��
�
.� ��
� �
�
a�w�
� �
�
� � �
�
�
�
�
�
�'�t
�
�
; �r t�
�
= �
�
�
�
�
_+�
�
�
` ,.,�.
�
�- �,+.
�
�
�
�
�
� � �
....�
�.'"�'�
!"�"
�
- '�
. �
�
�
�
- .�,.F�
:�
�
�
,, +�s
�rr
�
�
�
�
� _ A� � ��, � .
�
� t / �
�/ \ `" �
>� w., ,,. �. �..--'�-1 1
(b � r ' �
� � � i �
�r � �� _ � � � ,..- ,. � �
� .,,, ;
� '�� ..`_,�- f � _
� � �� � � � � � �, 1 �
� � � � ..,- .
�i.. � ` r'.� '
\ � �`` ,� °'
�r *`�, Z �Y" �� t� v�i
� � co
� � �� � �" � -� $.
�rr `
. � __ --� 1 v
\ ` � � � �� �
�r � � �� �\ Jt� �
.r / v�
� . ` � � ..,__,, �
� � � w� r =
� i o� � �� _ ,��, �.�-. j .a
. � �� � �� . - � N�O� / p
�y �
� F .�^_ I 4�y� � _� � ��p � �
� V rrY`iy; �> � � �y(�H O
WQ ', ` �q _t� �� z
� �W . t�3 "�� ,..� ._. .,,� � •���Y -p
��o� �
�z � .� `5,�8�. � �. �
� `± �q '� :�� J`�9`��S�r - ��\ .v
y � �j . ., ` ... �
� � � � � � . . ..
\ i � � ' v
' % � .a
� � ` . ++
r �� � �1 �
, �\ . $ •
; , • �� ° C
.r -
c . [� —
� ' . �\ R . ) �'. ., �S�.��. � w�,, �
Zt.S 4✓ iyn L
E �vp �'�� , 3
t � ;' � �
�q Z
� i� e �i'� `�,, �w � �
� � � � i
�� � 9 e �
�.. g". ��c�� �s W� � �,�n a.
c�' � y rx �-
�, � � � '' �i n. , � �'� - . ✓ � � �
� �
� .�� � � �.� �
N ' � � ,. t r��Y � "O
� `� ' ��` � � ,sz I�- v �
�„r `� � ' U���. , ��,, � � a � .�
1�� I� v-'� �+ �,, � ,"�y � `0 �
`r. p ,�� , � ��aty,�� ` C� ' � i Q 3 �
v LL
�r. Q f :L. ��i / �z rc�n i f '1r (� � v
� O � S r° -a�.o,,./ �l�� � ,�,' ,� � . � +� �
!
m 1/�� B� � � Z � �,
�„ '' )r �o � u+ o-
� � � � � o
� O *��, t F /��. � '��� i,r . � � v
,( �^
� � ,i 4__ � �\ {� '� �2 /''�' q t� (0 �+
a � '� �< -y' .s/ — '�
` \ � � � � o
� Q � �' '.;�_� �.��'� � `�p`� �`�►.�°' ;fi �°�� � �'°� �' vt Z
. � `.►. ,
�
�
�
�
�rr�
�
�
�
� ' ' � x`; ' �
� � ���� �, � ��' �' �
y �` .. �
�. � � � E,; � ..r��.
;h, ;,; t
s ` � ` �,� � x
r'
1 � f �� w
�✓ � � `�
� � \ ' i ' �: � v
� � � � � \ i i � � � Vl
. � '. � i � i �i C1
� . ..'. ' ' ; �
t� 4�.:','�' (C
1 ¢ ��� \ �' '
� \ � v
��. �
F, +�
�,r ` ` / °c
t�, .
� ��� r �
` .� l
`r � �' + � ; 3
�, '�� �, �,,.�'+�- -a
,, � �, v
�I, _ • ��...� �., �
.-" �
�,,.,.— R . ' ,a � '�. ' �
� ` i . .��..\ > C
r t '�w.' s �� O O
a � 1 �- �
� �
� � �
� �� � �� � � �
1
� o �
tytl4�fd S �_^ � Vf LL
�. � •�
� � � ��� � � �
�rr � ' ��` � �
� ` :� ��� J `'�,, s
� t / Y •>
j . ��r � � � Ql
M
�,,� �L ; � 't ��� 3 v�
�r g� ; �_ � '� J � Q
� ���� ;� �'� �� ����� � � �
�► r. ,'`�.-.
�s�'��" � "�� +�` �� � a
� ,, � � ,�ti. „�. � �
� ,�„ t`s ��---- � ,� �
_,_
,y �`�a� �
, �
�.r
�n.�.. A , ' , � "n -�
b
� �• �p9yr ,- �
.�y-�..�� v� . i{-.. __�-� �^��� •� �j� O �
� -..1� " � ' .. '`� 30� SF. � Q�
. . � .. .,.f: � o �.
� � �- � _ . � �
. Q
� ;� . � `�a�° � - r ..� � ; � v
� " . a,�c� � �n
�✓ ' _ `' ri..-."° �' `��� � � 3
"� 'S= �� ��� .\'��
� � �� � �
_�,.�"""- _�� � f � 3 s
� �� ,� �� _ � �
�, ; c
.� � � ,� ,ti, �,� � �
` ��'� '. � :. .� c
� ..._'�_/� ��, ��s ��'' -��e =w3 r � `
�. _,��� �� ; l � �� � �k ��d , �� c �
��= m� , � � �
3 y'�N 3%' � aS y '^ ro ra
�►. v �, �a� �.' A R. � � p
•> , �.� #` � Q
� �, �, -�.',� � j + � = J,�, v� p C
. � �� v _ �,
� ', >f t Q � v
� �O ��'- �„ {+� i` 3 . '� $ O � .a
`�- � ,` r , „r � '�� �� ��� �n v in
M �'.,-,,-,-.� � _ .
� � �r�;.. � ! 1�, '" ! _..' '� ,� �,3 " to ` t
a �- m_ ; _. �
N � f - � 3
�
� N , 't:�„� „t , � oI 'i � O
, > F � � , k� O �
' '_ ' . ++
� �� �,, � �r , : �
�
� .o t�, . i a� c �o
v � t. �. q � 3
� �r�...,,w��~i � {:� � O 'a.�,
� i�- �` �6�. ' +�"'� � "'�A �;7 �• � r�0 �
' ;
� � ,� .,�,,,t �' � , � �• ;�� ! 'i � +�
3 ' —
� �
""' - t
Q ��'*w���:�_�...-.-.''�yr;;�,,. : . �� r ... tn V�1 Z
a
_-�K''� � •�.� t, � _ � �
�
�
�
�
-
�
�
�
�. � � -
�
�, � :�, � v
� � v
R � � i v Y
�t a �
� �
° ' � �
� ` J� _ ;� � °
� �
� £ � '� c
� � ��,� v �
fr► � .� � `
� � ��, �� � �
� , �
� v
� � � � �
: w �
�, ' � °� �-
a
z ,
. ,
� �� � �
� � , � � �
• � ;�' `e* � � x
j �� � � _ � �
i;
�r' N �� �>� p �
� y,i.... ��,.; � e� v
fl. �'
� 0 ��:� ' .�. � C �
Vf �":�� � � `.::�: � v v
� � �� � � � _p �
u � � �o �
� +� �.�.;; � � 3
u ' `�` s �
� / � +, o
� o _��_ �!',, � � �
C Y�•� ,yr +,� � L u
4! `1 �" � v-
� � � �
�t'�� �,� y Y� � � a1
G1 � i � � � •�' C -p
�, — ;� e��� �Q af6i a�
,� � � ��� � / � .� o � :«-
3 � ��•. . `�,, o ao 0
c s
� .� ' i .
A _
� S ,.,� � ��>`+, � l . �xr �1 C � �n
Y _� �� � �p � � a C
O
5#, ��,�i� � . v
�r c �� �}` `� ��`, � � s �
.,
� � s. � ��� �� . � ���Y � �� � � �
t � �t�1.� ";' !k .�'- ` aY j � �' C c u�
�, � �; i . � , •ya � � � L -� ��
L �� �,�� . i +_+ � � �
> .
3 �rC:.:r=� � � � 3 ul i
, t
� . r �'.' .. C
, -� b
•— .�
ey� t �F a � O
M n A T' -" ^ � OO
N 4 � �' _.�- 9e � �� C O � �
A �
k
� � ��' _ � ' ���.-,%�Gz; �`i4 .. �•�'s r.� _ ..� � C C �
� y... � �'� � � +�''� � � �-( v� � � i
,� g ` v v v �
� � °y.° , .` � � 0 3 O �
o .�< a $ �r k v, a � �
'v� `� �%^". R � � t a> > O
� � /`' .. ��� Y,' � .. 'u L � C
a-� �
� 'N'""�`--�....,,._,,. f ,� � I � N 01 il
� N � �!� ir � ft.� � � � �M -� O � 3
Q �/4' �h� '�.� � �R � N f0 � f0
� R , � :
. . �� �' _� " �
o �� �. � �d �`'' j,' �� r�c.� `—° 3 � v
.� � ' ` �'',. �ti � s -a a
'� to , �o +- a o
.� � ���
v yn ,���,`' � �'�, � i � ;r1 r' � � 3 0 � �
�.. � �,�{ �� � F�i �' � � � r'� v a v � u
� ,� '� �� � o o � o �'
f N •�
m ��, -�,�,.� � �� __ _ w�;,� � � � _ o � u
� � � � �� � �� � � � � , v � � � �
��,'
, � f N
5 `
� l� � ,Ir� a •t+ 41 f0 7
� Y .I .0 ' � � ' � U Y � t�/1
�_�
� � . . .. r .�. ��� _k.�.'...'�"�,�„�,,,. ^••a':r^'�a_._..__a�� f0 � � �6
�r �
� � 'a _ �h� ! 3 �� , ,_.,.• � p �, °� L o C �
� '.,.,ti.. '� R.,... j r ... �i ;� h.,. J i� � v in C �
.-
� .K.. �
* ,
.._.._ _.. . ..
� � `.,-, �.,� ' -7°� :"�,��, '�'�.�... ��.L...�� � c6 � > OD U
' j' , � � � +,.
� •..... � ,.- . . ," +`' .. ' �,y� ��.:.. L � C •� � C
� N . _ � + " t .:���' Y ._ C C .� a.�.
.�• � a�+
� Q � tw�e br.., �.� I �t l,'� �.i � �� Z O �u w � w
�
�
�
� �
� �
� �
` �� �+�
�
� ��
aru�r� �
�
� �
�
�
�
�
�
�
- �
�
��
�
.,�;:
�
�
�
` �
�
��
.. �
�
�
�.
,.
' �
�
, �
�.
, �
�
�
. �
�rr►
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
� �` � � ` ,:" ' �1
� �� �
•�- � ,�--
� � � � ` �
�• t"�,} �``�" ��{.
� � �
11" � a �. ��
� �
�. �"' ,� .,� .c� � K�
�► :� ,�.- ``�: . �
�„r � C� W , �
� � C1 � � �� �
,
�
�► � t^� t} �� , �
~ -� �
� � ��.
:,�, . ��
� ,
� ���� ��
� � � � �
i�'' '� ��! ,�,,
k�
. �
r � ,� t �� �
� �
4 � ; � �
�i � . �+
�r "� ` ,�"' � '
�
i
� � � ,
; 1
�„� . � ,r•� '� 4�
� , ,
�,,, ,�-� :-�'` c� �
�, ^ �`� � � =,i ° ,�, ,Cy �'
� { .'� � � � r
�► , ;
�„ � �, . �
� � � '�' � � `{, tt'�
v Y�
o � �r �� , � �
� � n � b ��� ���
�. �
� x� ��
�� _ ,�.�
�- a ��� � ��
- � ,�.,,,,,
Q � '"`yw,'."'.F...�, .MINXII
+.'�...�ib
�
�
�
�
�rr
�
�
�
�
�
�
� ---,.a. a�a �` �� t � �
� �� � �jt� � � Z , . .
` �,, ,\\ �\ /� 1 � � ` ''�
� �� �i � � Jz
1��cYyo� � , � ��
� .' V'��' � �\ '. YNN
- J V�\ . � �a Q U'1 .
� 2' � . '�` �j . � �p I�O'n .
N� V� � ��-.- .�F UW � - �r
� q<W \` � (� �� p ' Q II �a�w �;
�� ! � � � Wo � ; ar �
� . *
r
r
�r z z �� ,, cp C� � � t�_ � �
w � � �:
�r �� ,,,� � j 'a; `-r,.��� .� �'y�
,
� ir"'r
� � � . �
, ;
� /,
� � � � �� � i i.�`� ,r'�,:,t�:Y �
�
� � �� ` '
� �_ �
; ± ��� .. � /
' �. �-'` � � � 5� �
�/ � �. � �r� � � . � ,'` y
� ,'" � _._ j.. �� ' . 3:t '/
�. _.� .�
!_
^ � � �,....+' i 7
..s x� F. ` � :
�' .� . _i '�. _� ✓ !_.
� � _L... . �.
R -. d'f �-�Iti -:." � � .• .. _. 1 /f gj��
`+..
��� ,' - '��� �M" , � "
_
. � t
7° �
� �� �;,,. � ��� �, i
_
�'
.
_ -' U . � . -..
,
x
� f ' , �
J �
- � '�
� � .�.,__„_- '
.
�. � .._,s,.�.-f ` ,�'i
„ �J _ �
a'
-^' 0 ,/"t�.�L �f,J �Y� . J.lX�-�. �. �• �
_ " 3 � �
� �� '" � '� a __:_.__ ,; � � ;:� ,� � �r �r-.
r ; .� ,�... �.._ —�-,..
� :r ; �
x
_-
. �
, �
z . . „
�. �, =- _ _, . " � , :,o
� � �
.. ;,:
R
� �- i� .�_._ ...... "' � '' `�` ! 0 a tt�n n
>. ,�
, _.,
~`.r--"'�O� N �� �t � V ad0 O�i O�i
- . � \ /%��� � � rjY7
� �Se.'"��� �, �� .., � . ( ; 0 ' U'3 � ��
k �.. "� � . � � r ` : o .-�z�
� / i * � >o
� , � . r� . O � �>
�
.... ~c !,� � y� f � y � ^ 2
� ., , . ���.. '
� / « 1
o /' �,
,�`�4 / ��
� a o /�� � c��
� Z 4
�
v�. �,/ � � �,
� ���� , �� Ht�,
�_ � �' /-� � O I�� , l.'� .fi��. 1 W a
� �r F'��'� � � � y ' � � n
,. ,. _
� �:.�''�` 4 ; � � - ..._.,
� � U . � . _..'�"7
F : a o �
� a .
~�. �� � �� ` '.�w a
� ,fi` .��. �(
�+ �� � I `\� � � . �� .�`�' . T�
L _ �,�,
`
�' m
�
� �
N
� �
�
� �
�
� �
7
� N
ti
Q
�
�
�
�
�rr
. `I
�
�
�
�
i�r'
v
�.
�,, �� � ��` � ,'� � z ���
i\\ �� � �� �i�'�� W N
�V � �� �� � �� ,
� �� � `, � zd
� �4J� � ~ !Y N N � / rL,
'��u� , ; c�`a a � "�„- a'
� ZNw \� a�1 ; �� ��> �
��� , ��W �,
VWi ` ♦'� y U O !u�.� 'C� �'::
� �< . � � �F � �}'� .fDQIw
zm /I � �Q' Wo � � � i4aa �
� � w�� � � � i 4i�'I � {� �
m J : �U �� ,�.
�✓ /� � 1 a; ,� f,��s
. �
� � ��
.
�rr ___ ; ;
5� � �'r— . y , .
�.. __ -� �.. � �: � �,,,��,
; , i- _ ,
� �; ,
_. ; � ,
�r+ �.. � � ; y� � 1
'- �'- " � a ff� . � i- �,
� .� ,-�:� , �----'" �' �{�� ���_ 3:1 � .�' '�
� �
.M` '
: . = _�
.
�� ' ��s��cX �< _ _ �' � � ,.
- .. � ��W -, t
� F '9 � :�
, - _ � -r _ � _ � -� . _ ..
/� �
d �
� �, f s �_�� . `� f � -�' � t,_ _ -.�`��q ; �a .-� /t
_ x � �� 1 .
�, �� - : ; � K--- � �
,-
� s -'�`-� �"j �� ,` ;�°�`` ; �• ...� , /,i
_
�r► �
�
�3.� %"` � � ! ' ' � `�►
, ,
. U --*-__... .
, �, �. _ _ —. � a+ �
' � 3
� � � �'� f � - �
_ �t � `
E �� 7
� , �. .. , c , _ � �t ,
.�� -� -`._ �
�kZ ,� _ � � � �'K- ...� '�;,� '� �0 p 1�p.K�n n!�
� , �" ��` � ��� � ."' �= �% f '" t�iQao,`°
%.�
. ' � � � a -` +� ��_ � � � � v
� . � �"� . / i :`. . � p t `� JQ;O
� � .. � /� ��3 .,: %. . ?�
�� �' '�/�' �.� 7 � �,f n
�, —�� � : � � �-f
�... �. / � w ir' ; + :
� a o / � � # ��
� , - �� � =W
,
�� , � r � -
, � . - ��
� , - -.
�jr► '� �r' i � ,� � � ,,� � �'�i
� � .,�.,,,�,..'� / �i � `�'�"=-� ,�ll 1 �a
.� n �� v� 7' -
�r �� �' "'? ` ---
�► ,� � ; __
� ,�� _��
�,�_�.� .� , , a�� , 1 --+
�✓
� M
a-i
� �
�--1
� �
�
QJ
� �
.�
N
` �
�
Q
�
�
�
�
�
1►�� .
'�
�`::;
� =:
�
�:.
�:
`�
: �:�
��:
�,
� :
:!�
'e�
�
�'
�
�
_..
...
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
,�..
residential usage, at a minimum, each septic disposal field shall consist of suitable soils of
""" adequate area to accommodate sewage disposal lrom a three (3) bedroom dwelling as
,r,, determined by current regulations of the Virginia Department of Health.(Amended 1 I-15-89)
..., 4.1.7 In a cluster development,open space may be used for septic tield location only after the septic
field locations on such lot are determined to be inadequate by the local office of the Virginia
�' Department of Health. (Added 6-3-81)
�
4.2 CRITICAL SLOPES
w
These provisions are created to implement the comprehensive plan by protecting and conserving
+�r steep hillsides together with public drinking ���ater supplies and tlood plain areas and in
recognition of increased potential for soil erosion, sedimentation. water pollution and septic
"" disposal problems associated�vith the development of those areas described in the comprehensive
�,,, plan as critical slopes. It is hereby recognized that such development of critical slopes may result
in: rapid and/or large-scale movement of soil and rock; excessive stormwater run-ott; siltation of
� natural and man-made bodies of�aater; loss of aesthetic resource;and in the event of septic system
failure, a greater travel distance of septic etiluent, all of which constitute potential dangers to the
"� public health, safety and/or welfare. These provisions are intended to direct building and septic
,,.,, system locations to terrain more suitable to development and to discourage development on
critical slopes, and to supplement other regulations regarding protection of public �vater supplies
`"'' and encroachment of development into tlo�d plains. (Amended 11-15-89)
�"' Where modification of'regulations is sought pursuant to section �3.2.5, such request shall address
�, each concern specitied in section 4.2. (Added 1 I-IS-89)
�- 4Z.1 BUILDING SITE REQUIRED
� No lot other than a special lot shall have less than one (1) building site. Por purposes of this
section,the term "building site" shall mean a contiguous area of land in slopes of less than t�venty-
'� five (25) percent as determined by reference to either topographic quadrangle maps of the
,.,,. Geological Survey - U. S. Department of Interior (contour interval twenty [20] feet) or a source
determined by the county engineer to be of superior accuracy,esclusive of:
�
Any area located in the flood hazard overlay district or which is located under water;
�...
Any area located within t���o hundred(200) horizontal feet of the one hundred year flood plain of
�"` any public drinking water impoundment or within one hundred(100)horizontal f'eet of the edge of
� any tributary stream to such impoundment; (Amended 11-1 1-87)
� Any area designated as a resource protection areas on the resow•ce protection areas map adopted
pursuant to chapter 17 of the Code of Albemarle; provided that nothing contained herein shall be
"" deemed to prevent or impair the program authority trom e�ercising discretion as set forth in that
„�„ chapter.(Added 9-9-92)
�.. (�4.2.1, 12-10-80: 11-11-87;9-9-92;Ord. 11-18(�).6-1-11)
""` 4.2.2 BUILDINC S[TE AREA AND DIMENSIONS
i"'� Gach building site shall be subject to the following minimum area and dimension requirements:
,�, (Amended 10-17-01)
�■,, a. Uses nol serred by a public or cenlral seN�erage system. Building sites for uses not served by
a public or central se�verage system shall be subject to the follo�ving: (Amended 11-IS-89;
'"" 10-17-01)
'"" l. Direlling u��ils. Each building site for a d�velling unit shall have an area of thirt}
,r„ thousand (30.000) square feet or geater and shall be of such dimensions that no one
�
18-4-6
� Zoning Supplement#68,6-I-I I
�
v.
�
�
�
�.-
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
�
«.�
�4.2.3? No structure or improvement nor earth disturbing activity to establish such structure or
°� improvement shall be located on slopes o1�riventy-tive(25)percent or greater etcept as other�vise
�.�.
permitted under section 4.3.01. (Amended 1 I-IS-89)
„�,,, 4.2.4 LOCATION OF SEPTIC SYSTEMS(Amended 11-11-87)
�
In the revie�v for and issuance of a permit for the installation of a septic system, the Virginia
Department of Health shall be mindful of the intent of this section,and particularly mindful of the
� intent to discourage location of septic tanks and/or drain tields on slopes of hventy(20)percent or
greater. Septic system location shall be restricted to the approved building site.
'""` (Amended 1I-1-87:9-9-92)
`�" 4.2.5 MODIFICATION OR WAIVER
"' Any requirement of section 4?.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3 or 4.2.4 may be moditied or waived as pro�ided
�
herein:
a. A9odifica�ion or irairer hv the comnrission. The commission may modity or waive any
"`� requirement that is not subject to an administrative ���aiver as providcd in subsection (b), as
�,,,. ti�l lows:
,,,,, 1. Request. A developer or subdivider requesting a moditication or �vai�er shall tile a
written request in accordance with section 32.3.10(d) of this chapter and identity and
�' state how the request �vould satisfy one or more of the findings set ti�rth in subsection
4.2.5(a)(3). If the request pertains to a moditication or ��aiver of'the prohibition of
� disturbing slopes of twenty-tive(25)percent ur greater(Ilereinatter."critical slopes"),the
..,, reyuest also shall state the reason t��r the moditication or waiver, explaining ho�� the
moditication or waiver, il�granted, would address the rapid and/or large-scale movement
`""'` of�soil and rock, ezcessive storm�vater run-oft; siltation of natural and man-made bodies
�, of water, loss of aesthetic resources, and, in the event of septic system failure, a greater
travel distance of septic effluent(collectively referred to as the"public health,safety,and
�. ���elfare factors")that might other���ise result h•om the disturbance of critical slopes.
;W.. 2. (,onsideration of recanmendation; determination by county engi�:eei�. In reviewing a
request for a moditication or waiver, the commission shall consider the recommendation
"°"` of the agent as to �vhether any of the findings set forth in subsection 4.2.5(a)(3) can be
made by the commission. If the request pertains to a moditication or waiver of the
� prohibition of disturbing critical slopes, the commission shall consider the determination
... by the cuunty engineer as to�vhether the developer or subdivider�vill address each of the
public health, safety and welfare lactors so that the disturbance ot'the critical slopes will
a"" not pose a threat to the public drinking water supplies and flood plain areas,and that soil
�, erosion, sedimentation. �vater pollution and septic disposal issues will be mitigated to the
satislaction of the county engineer. T'he county engineer shall evaluate the potential fur
a.. soil erosion, sedimentation and �a�ater pollution that might result from the disturbance of
slopes of twenty-tive(25) percent or greater in accordance�vith the current provisions of
"�" the Virginia Department of 'I'ransportation Drainage Manual, the Commonwealth of
�, Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control tiandbook and Virginia State Water Control
I3oard best management practices, and where applicable, Chapter 17. Water Protection,
�. of the Code.
� 3. Findings. The commission may grant a modification or �vaiver if it linds that the
moditication or waiver would not be detrimental to the public health,safety or welfare,to
"" the orderly development of the area, or to adjacent properties; would not be contrary to
„�„ sound engineering practices;and at least one of the following:
,� a. Strict application of the requirements o1�section 4.2 would not forward the purposes
oi�this chapter or other�vise serve the public health,safety or welfare;
�..
b. Alternatives proposed by the developer or subdivider �vould satisty the intent and
.■. purposes of section 4?to at least an equivalent degree;
.�..
18-4-8
.r Z.oning Supplement#68,6-I-1 1
.rr
�
w
�
�
�.
�
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
K..
c. Due to the property's unusual size, topograph}', shape, location or other unusual
'�"' conditions, escluding the proprietary interest of the developer or subdivider.
prohibiting the disturbance of critical slopes �vould eii'ectively prohibit or
� unreasonably restrict the use of the property or �vould msult in significant
..r, degradation of the propertr or adjacent properties;or
�• d. Granting the moditication or�-vaiver �vould serve a public purpose of greater import
�
than would be serveu' b}'strict application of the regulations sought to be modified or
waived.
'� 4. Conditions. In granting a moditication or waiver,the commission may impose conditions
� deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare and to insure that the
development will be consistent�vith the intent and purposes of section 4.2.
�..�
�
5. .tppeal.The board of supervisors shall consider a moditication or waiver as lollo�vs:
a. The denial by the commission of a moditication or waiver, or the approval of a
'� modification or �vaiver by the commission �vith conditions objectionable to the
�. developer or subdivider,may be appealed to the board of supervisors as an appeal of
a denial of the plat, as provided in section 14-226 of the Code, or the site plan, as
"' provided in section 32.4.2.7 or 32.4.3.9, to �a�hich the modiiication or �vaiver
�, pertains. A moditication or waiver considered by the commission in conjunction
with an application for a special use permit shall be subject to revie�v by the board of
�. supervisors.
'r' b. In considering a modification or �vaiver. the board may grant or deny the
moditication or �vaiver based upon the tindings set forth in subsection 4?.5(a)(3).
� amznd any condition imposed by the commission, and impose any conditions it
.,.,. deems necessary for the reasons set forth in subsection 4.2.�(a)(4).
� b. G6'airer by!he agenl. In accordance with the procedures stated in section 2.5 of this chapter,
the agent may waive the prohibition of disturbing critical slopes on any parcel not ��ithin the
'"'"� Rural Areas (RA), Monticello Historic District (MHD) or Village Residential (VR) zoning
,�, districts in the following circumstances: (i) the critical slopes were created during the
development of the property pursuant to a site plan approved by the county;or(ii)the critical
� slopes will be disturbed to replace an existing structure located on the critical slopes and the
ettent of'the disturbance is the minimum necessary to replace the esisting structure with a
`"' new structure�vhose footprint does not e�ceed the footprint of the existing structure. The
,r agent may grant a�vaiver if he or she tinds that:
�..• 1. 'I'he property is not identitied in the open space plan as one having any protected
resources and a tield inspection has contirmed that there are no signiticant or critical
""" leatures on the property identitied for protection in the open space plan;
" 2. There is no reasonable alternative that �vould eliminate or reduce the disturbance of
�„�,. critical slopes;
� 3. "I'he developer or subdivider submitted and obtained approval from the program authority
of an erosion and sediment control plan, regardless of��-hether the area disturbed is less
'"` than ten thousand(10,000)square feet;and
'�"� �1. The developer or subdivider submitted and obtained approval from the county engineer
,,,,, of a plan that describes ho�v the movement of soil and rock, storm�vater runoff; siltation
ot'natural and man-made bodies of water,the loss of aesthetic resources identified in the
"�' open space element of the comprehensive plan and, in the event of the failure of a
treatment works and subsurtace draintield,a greater travel distance of septic el'tluent,�vill
"`� be mitigated through design, construction techniques, revegetation, storm�vater
�, management and other best management practices.
�
18-4-9
�r Ioning Supplement#68,6-I-I I
�
�r
vIr
�
�.
�
.+..
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
Y...
(12-10-80, ,��'4?.5; I1-15-89;Ord.01-18(�4).5-9-Q1;Ord.09-18(1), 1-14-09)
�
�, 4.2.6 EXEMPTIONS
,,,,,,. A lot,structure, or improvement may be etempt tcom the requirements of section 4.2 as provided
herein:(Added 10-17-01)
�
a. Any structure which �vas la�vfully in existence prior to the effective date of this chapter and
�' which is nonconforming solely on the basis of the requirements of section 4.2, may be
„� ezpanded, enlarged,extended, moditicd and/or reconstructed as though such structure�rere a
conforming structure. For the purposes of this section, the term "la�vfull} in ezistence" shali
� also apply to any structure �or which a site development plan was appruved or a building
permit�vas issued prior to the etfective date ot�this chapter, provided such plan or permit has
`"' not expired.(Amended 10-17-01)
'� b. Any lot or parcel o�record w�hich ��as lawfully a lot of�record on the effective date ot'this
.a., chapter shall be esernpt from the requirements of section 4.2 for the estahlishment of the tirst
single-family detached d�v�lling unit on such lot or pae•cel; provided that section 4.2.3? shall
'�" appl}�to such lot or parcel if it contains adequate land area in slopes of less than t�venty-tive
� (25) percent for the location of such structure. For the purposes of this section a
manuf'actured home shall be deemed a single-family detas;hed dwelling unit. (Amendcd 10-
,�.. 17-0 l)
� c. Accessways,public utility lines and appurtenances,storm�vater management facilities,and
any other public facilities necessary to allo�v the use of the parcel shall not be required to be
�"` located�vithin a building site and shall not be subjec[to the requirements of this section 4?.2,
�„ provided that the applicant demonstrates that no reasonable alternative location or alignment
etists. The county engineer shall require that protective and restorative measures be installed
� and maintained as deemed necessary to insure that the development���ill be consistent���ith
�
the intent of section�.2 of this chapter.(Added 10-17-01)
�, (§4.2.6. 12-10-80;Ord.O1-18(7). 10-17-01)
�.. 4.3 TREE CUTTING
"■" a. In districts other than lhe RA, cutting of trees shall be limited tu dead trees and trees of�less
than six(6)inches in diameter measured at six(6)iriches above ground; etcept that trees may
� be cleared as an incident to the preparation of land for the establishment of some other use
� permitted in the disn•ict,provided that:
.r. 1. Such use is exempt 1ro:n the provisions of section 32.0 hereot;or
'� 2. A site development plan ior such permitted use shall have been approved in accordancc
,..
�vith the provisions ol�section 32.0 ofthis ordinance;
�, b. The following regulation shall apply in all zoning districts:
� I. Unless other�vise specitically approved to accommodate development pursuant Lo section
32.0 hereot; no tree within fit�een (15) feet of any perennial stream or water supply
°�' impoundment may be cut. escept for dead trees or trees of less than siz (6) inches in
,�, diameter measured at si� (6) inches above gruund; or in order to provide access for
livestock or for another permitted use;
�
c. The forcgoing not�vithstanding, the zoning administrator may authorize cutting of trees
�
which:
m..
l. Are deemed b� the zoning administrator to pose a clearly demonstrable danger to
�' buildings or other structures or other�vise a danger to public safet};or
�
18-4-10
+ Zoning Supplement#68.6-1-I I
�.r
wr
�ar
� � �
�a �► �;
�� � �
� � �►a
��t �
�; �� +ur�r�•
�
� �
�`
� �
� �
� �
� � • �►
�
�
�
� '
�
�
_ �
�
�
�
' �
- �
�
�
�
�
�
�
�rrr�w'
�
s �
�
`�
��
+yww�o
...
�..
�
ALBE.MARLE COUNTY CODE
�.
...-
forth below. Each fee shall be in the form of cash or a check payable to the"County of Albemarle."
,,,..
.■.
1. Plan review: $300 per plan review
�.
2. Amendment to approved plan: $180 per plan review
�, 3. Request for exception(section 17-308):$240.
,�,,, 4. Each inspection or reinspection:$60.
.. 5. Mitigation plan(section 17-322): $150.
+r (§ 19.3-34, 2-11-98; § 19.I-8, 9-29-77, art. 11, § 3, 7-11-90; Code 1988, §§ 19.1-8, 19.3-34; Ord.98-A(1),
�
8-5-98;Ord.02-17(1),7-3-02;Ord.08-17(3),8-6-08;Ord. 11-17(1), 10-5-11)
� State law reference--Va Code�• 10.I-(�03.10.
.� Sec. 17-311 Review of certain program authority actions.
""" Any person who is aggrieved by any action of the program authority because of its disapproval of
�
a plan submitted pursuant to this article, or in the interpretation of the provisions of this article, shall have
the right to apply for and receive a review of such action by the board of supervisors,as provided herein:
�
A. An appeal shall be filed i��writing with the clerk of the board of supervisors within thirty
"` (30) days of the date notice of the action is given by the program authority or, if an exception to the
„r,,, requirements ofthis article as provided in section 17-308 is requested and denied,within thirty(30)days of
the date notice of the denial of such exception is given by the board of supervisors. Notice shall be deemed
� to be given on the date that it is mailed or is hand delivered.
`"" B. When reviewing the pragram authority's action, the board of supervisors shall consider
,�,,, evidence and opinion presented by the aggrieved person,the program authority, and such other persons as
shall be deemed by the board to be necessary for a complete review af the matter. The board may affirm,
� reverse or modify the program authority's action. The decision of the board shall be final, subject only to
...
review by the circuit court as provided in Virginia Code� 10.1-603.13.
,,,,,,. C. For the purposes of this section,the term pe�son aggriered shall be limited to the owner,
owners of adjacent or down-stream property,and any interested governmental agency or officer thereof.
�
�
(2-I 1-98;Code 1988, ,��' 19.3-35;Ord.98-.A(?),8-5-98)
� DIVISION 2. PLAN REQU[REMENTS: WATER
QUALITY AND WATF,R QUAWTI'PROTECTION
�..
...
Sec. 17-312 Stormwater managemeot facilities and channels.
,,� Stormwater management facilities and modifications to channels required as part of a stormwater
management/BMP plan shall be designed, installed and constructed as provided herein:
j..
A. Stormwater management facilities or modifications to channels shall be constructed in
" compliance with all applicable local,state,and federal laws and regulations, including but not limited to the
.,,,,,, Federal Clean Water Act,and the State Erosion and Sediment Control Act.
� B. Stormwater management facilities shall be designed and constructed in compliance with
�
the National Flood[nsurance Program anci section 30.3 of the zoning ardinance.
.,,,, C Stormwater mana�ement facilities shall be, sited to capture, to the maximum extent
practical,the runoff from the eutire land deveiopment project area.
�
a..
17-?"i
,r Supp #?6 I-12
9er
arr�
�w+
�
....
..
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
�
�
"�" D. Hydrologic parameters shall reflect the ultimate buildout in the land development project
� area and shall be used in all engineering calculations.
... E. The number,type,and siting of stormwater management facilities shall be designed so as
to preserve natural channel characteristics and natural groundwater recharge on a site to the extent
'�` practical.
"�` (§ 19.3-36,2-11-98; § 19.1-8,9-�9-77, art. Il, § 3, 7-1I-90; Code 1988, �§ 19.1-8, 19.3-36; Ord. 98-A(1),
,�,� 8-5-98)
�, State law reference--Va.Code§I�.I-603 3
� Sec. 17-313 Non-structural measures.
"'` Non-structural measures may be used in conjunction with or in place of structural measures in
,,r, order to satisfy the requirements�f this article,as provided herein:
� A. The program authority may allow non-structural measures to satisfy, partially or in
whole, the requirements of this article, if such measures are identified in accepted technical literature, are
� acceptable to the program authority based on its exercise of sound professional judgment,and the program
,,,,, authority finds that the measures achieve equivalent benefit for water quantity and/or quality protection as
would otherwise be provided by structural measures.
..
B. ��'on-st��i{ctrrrnl measures include, but are not limited to, minimization of impervious
� surfaces, stream buffer reforestation, providing additional stream buffer areas, wetland restoration, waste
,.�. reuse and recycling,and development design that reduces the rate and volume of runoff.
""' (,��' 19.3-37, 2-11-98; § 19.1-8, 9-29-77,art. II, § 3> 7-11-90; Code 1988, §§ 19.1-8, 19.3-37;Ord. 98-A(1),
�..
8-5-98)
,�. State law reference--Va.Code� 10 I-603.3.
� Sec. 17-314 Control of peak rate and velocity of runoff.
'""" Each stormwater managementBMP plan shall require that land and receiving waterways which
� are downstream from the land development be protected from stormwater runoff damage, as provided
herein:
wr.
A. To protect downstream properties and receiving waterways from flooding, the ten (10)
�' year post-development peak rate of runoff from the land development shall not exceed the ten (10) year
�
pre-development peak rate of runoff.
� B. To protect downstream properties and receiving waterways from channel erosion,the two
(2)year post-development peak rate and velocity of runoff from tne land development shall not exceed the
«r two(2)year pre-development peak rate and velocity of runoff.
� C. If the land development is in a watershed for which a hydrologic and/or hydraulic study
has been conducted or a stormwater model developed,the program authority may modify the requirements
� of paragraphs A and B so that runoff from the land development is controlled in accordance with the
,,,,, findings in the study or model, or to prevent adverse watershed stormflow timing, channel degradation,
and/or localized flooding problems.
�
D. In addition to the requirements of paragraphs(A)and(B),the program authority may
"" require that the plan include additional measures to address damaging conditions to downstream properties
,�, and receiving waterways caused by the land development.
q..-
�
17-28
,�,., Supp #261-12
rr
.�r
�
�
�
�
�
ALBEM,4RLE COUNTY CODE
�
E. Pre-development and post-development runoff rates determined for purposes of
""" paragraphs A or B shall be verified by calculations that are consistent with accepted engineering practices,
�.
as determined by the program authority.
..�• F. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this article, the following activities are exempt
from the requirements of this section:
�..
,� l. permitted surface or deep mining operations and projects, or oil and gas
operations and projects conducted under the provisions of Title 45.1 of the Code of Virginia;
�
2. tilling,planting or harvesting or agricultural,horticultural,or forest crops;
�
,r 3. single-family dwelling units separately built and not part of a division of land,
including additions or modifications to existing single-family detached dwelling units;
�
4. land development that disturbs less than one(1) acre of land area, not including
"� cases where land development is to be done in phases and the total land disturbance for all phases is greater
„�,, than one(1)acre;
� 5. land development or a portion of a land development on land which is
designated as lying within a flood plain, except in cases where the flood plain has been modified by
'`� permitted fill or other activities in compliance with the zoning ordinance;
�.
6. land development or a portion of a land development where the land is adjacent
�' to a flood plain,and the owner has demonstrated to the reasonable satisfaction of the program authority that
off-site improvements or other provisions for the disposition of surface water runoff would equally or better
'"`� serve the public interest and safety, and that such method of disposition would not adversely affect
,,,., downstream properties or stream channels;and
'""' 7. any land development related to a final site plan or plat approved by the
,..
appropriate governing authority prior to the effective date of this chapter.
.�,.. G. The program authority may exempt a land development or part thereof from some or all
of the requirements of this section if all of the following conditions are satisfied:
j..
�
1. the lanrl development or a part thereof is within a water supply protection area or
other rural land;
nrr
2. the program authority determines that the application of the requirements of this
"' article would cause damage to the environment to an extent which exceeds the benefits of the strict
„�,,, application of all of the requirements of this article;
� 3. all requirements which are determined by the program authority to not apply to
�
the land development or part thereof shall be set forth in the stormwater management/BMP plan;and
„�, 4. the granting of an exemption of any requirement of this article will not create a
threat to the public health,safety or welfare,or to the environment.
�
(� 19.3-38, 2-11-98; § 19.1-8, 9-29-77, art. II, � 3, 7-11-90; Code 1988, �$ 19.1-8, 19.3-38; Ord. 98-A(1),
�' 8-5-98)
�..
State law reTerence--Va.Code�10 1-603 3
'� Sec. 17-315 Best management practices.
�
Each stormwater management/BMP plan shall require that best management practices be provided
� in conjunction with or in addition to stormwater management facilities designed for water quantity
...
17-29
vr supp tt�7,7-07
�r
�
�
�
�...
...
ALBEM.qRLE CO�'NTr"CODE
�
�
treatment,as provided herein:
�
A. Best management practices shall be designed and sited to capture runoff from the entire
` land development project area and,in particular,areas of impervious cover within the land development,to
,,.. the maximum extent practicable.
'�' B. Best management practices shall be designed to remove the difference between post-
development and pre-development total phosphorus loads in cases where post-development loads exceed
� pre-development loads.
�
C. Calculation methods and exper,ted removal ranges for various best management practices
`�"' shall be included in the design manual maintained by the program authority.
�
D. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this a!-ticle, the following activities are exempt
�... from the requirements of this section:
'"" l. permitted surface or deep mining operatians and projects, or oil and gas
,W,, operations and projects conducted under the pr�visions of Title 45.1 of the Code of Virginia;
�.. 2. tilling,planting or harvesting or agricultural,horticultural,er forest crops;and
'"` 3. single-family dwelling units separately built and not part of a division of land,
„r„ including additions or modifications to existing single-family detached dwelling units.
� (§ 19.3-39,2-11-98; § 19.1-8, 9-29-77,art. I1, § 3, 7-11-90; Code 1988, §,��' 19.1-8, 19.3-39; Ord.98-A(1),
.�
8-5-98)
� State law reference--'Ja.Code ti 10 1-60;3.
�. Sec. 17-316 Contribution to regional storm�vater management program.
"�' Each stormwater management/BMP pian shall require that the owner contribute to a regional
,r, stormwater management program,as provided herein:
�.► A. If the land development is located within the �vatershed of a regional stormwater
management program established by the county which requires pro rata share contributions,the owner shall
'"' pay a pro rata share of the cost of the facility in accordance with any ordinance af the county establishing
,�, the program.
� B. An owner's payment pursuant to paragr�ph (A) shall relieve the owner of the
requirements of section 17-314, if the regional program is designed to control the peak rate and velocity of
"`W runoff, and/or the requirements of section 17-315, if the regi�nal program is d�signed to provide best
,,,�,,, management practices. An owner's payment pursuant to paragraph (A) shall not relieve an owner of his
responsibility to comply with any other requirement of this chapter,except as provided in this section.
�
(§ 19.3-40, 2-I 1-98; § 19.1-6, 9-29-77, art. I l, § 1, ]0-i 9-77, 9-13-7R, 10-22-80, 7-I 1-90, 8-3-94; Code
'r 1988,§§ 19.1-6, 19.3-40;Ord.98-A(1),8-5-98)
�
State law reference--Va Code$10.1-6033.
vr.
Sec. 17-317 Duty to retain or estabiish str�am traffer.
�
�
Except as provided in section 17-31 S',�ny land subject to this a��ticle and each stormwater
management/BMP plan shall provide for stream buffers for the purposes of retarding runoff,preventing
�.. erosion,filtering nonpoint source pollution from runoff,moderating stream temperature,and providing for
�..
the ecological integrity of siream corridors and nerivorks.as provided herein:
�
17-3�
..�. supp.ai�.�-o�
�
.o.
�
�
,,..
...
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
�
�
A. If the development is located within a development area or an area of infill and
� redevelopment, stream buffers shall be retained if present and estabiished where they do not exist on any
lands subject to this article containing perennial streams, and/or nontidal wetlands contiguous to these
�` streams. The stream buffer shall be no less than one hundred(100)feet wide on each side of such perennial
m,,,.. streams and contiguous nontidal wetlands,measured horizontally from the edge of the nontidal wetlands,or
the top of the stream bank if no wetlands exist.
�
B. If the development is located within a water supply protection area or other rural land,
� stream bufters shall be retained if present and established where they do not exist on any lands subject to
,,.. this article containing perennial or intermittent streams, nontidal wetlands contiguous to these streams,and
flood plains. The stream buffer shall extend to whichever of the following is wider: (i)one hundred(100)
""� feet on each side of perennial or intermittent streams and contiguous nontidal wetlands, measured
horizontally from the edge of the nontidal wetlands, or the top of the stream bank if no wetlands exist; or
� (ii)the limits of the flood plain. The stream buffer shall be no less than two hundred(200)horizontai feet
.., wide from the flood plain of any public water supply impoundment.
"" C. On agricultural lands used for crop land, whether located in a development area,an area
,�, of infill and redevelopment, a water supply protection area or other rural land, the stream buffer shall
include all perennial streams,non-tidal wetlands contiguous with these streams,and a twenty-five(25)foot
�.r. buffer,measured horizontally from the edge of contiguous non-tidal wetlands,or the top of the stream bank
if no wetlands exist. On these lands, the stream buffer shall be managed to prevent concentrated flows of
""` surface water from breaching the buffer area. Each owner of crop land with a stream buffer shall have
,r, developed by the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District a soil and water conservation
plan, or a component thereof, which, shall be based on an assessment of existing conservation practices of
� the crop land.
"` D. Each stream buffer shall be maintained and incorporated into the design of the land
�,,, development to the fullest extent possible.
� E. Except for the activities pertaining to the management of a stream buffer identified in
section 17-318,the types of development authorized in a stream buffer identified in section 17-320,and the
� additional types of develapment which may be allowed in a stream buffer identified in section 17-321, no
�„ indigenous vegetation within the stream buffer shall be disturbed or removed, regardless of the size of the
area affected.
�
� (§ 19.3-41, 2-11-98; § 19.2-8, 6-19-91; Code 1988, §§ 19.2-8, 193-41; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 08-
17(1),2-6-08)
�..
State law reference--Va.Code fi 10 1-210A
�+r.
�..
Sec. 17-318 Management of stream buffer.
.... Each stream buffer required to be retained or established pursuant to section 17-317 shall be
managed as provided herein:
�
�, A. In order to maintain the runoff, erosion, nonpoint source pollution control, strearn
temperature, and ecological values of the stream buffer, indigenous vegetation shall be preserved to the
�..� maximum extent possible. The target vegetative cover in the stream buffer shall be an indigenous riparian
forest with ground cover, shrub, and tree canopy layers. Removal of vegetation in the stream buffer shall
""` be allowed only as provided in paragraphs(B)and(C).
�
B. Within twenty-five (25) feet of the top of the stream bank and on land classified as
�► nontidal wetland:
"` l. lndigenous riparian vegetation shall be preserved or allowed to evolve by
,r,,, natural succession where it does not exist;
�
17-31
� Supp #19,7-08
wr�
,.r
�
w..
..�
�
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
�
�r
2. Dead,diseased,and dying trees may be removed;
�
3. Fallen trees that are blocking stream channels, or trees with undermined root
"w systems in imminent danger of falling,may be removed where stream bank erosion is a current or potential
,�, problem that outweighs any positive effects the fallen tree or trees may have on the stream ecosystem;
""' 4. Removal or pruning of invasive shrub and vine species is allowed,provided that
�
such removal or pruning is done in a manner that prevents erosion;and
.,.. 5. Pathways shall be constructed so as to effectively control erosion; stormwater
channels shall be constructed to prevent erosion.
�
;..-
C. Beyond twenty-five (25) feet from the top of the stream banh and outside of nontidal
wetlands:
�..•
I. Dead,diseased,and dying trees may be removed;
...�
„�„ 2. Silvicultura) thinning may be conducted based upon the best available technical
advice of a professional forester;
�
3. Trees may be pruned or removed as necessary to provide limited sight lines and
""" vistas, provided that if trees are removed, they shall be replaced with other vegetation that is equally
,�, effective in retarding runoff;preventing erosion,and filtering nonpoint source pollution from runoff;
� 4. Trees six(6) inches in diameter or greater at breast height shall be preserved;
�"` 5. Removal or pruning of invasive shrub and vine species shall be allowed,
,,�,. provided that such removal or pruning is done in a manner that prevents erosion;and
�►° 6. Pathways and stormwater channels shall be constructed to effectively control
�
erosion.
„� (§ 19.3-42,2-11-98,§ 19?-8,6-19-91,§ 8;Code 1988,§§ 19.2-8, 19.3-42;Ord.98-A(1),8-5-98)
�r State law reference--Va Code`10 I-2108.
� Sec. 17-319 Types of development exempt from duties to retain,establish or manage a stream buffer.
�..�
The following types of development shall not be required to retain, establish or manage a stream
""" buffer,provided that the requirements of this section are satisfied:
�
A. The construction, installation, operation and maintenance of electric, gas and telephone
� transmission lines, railroads, and activities of the Virginia Department of Transportation, and their
appurtenant structures,which are accomplished in compliance with the Erosion and Sediment Control Law
""'` (Virginia Code §§ 10.1-560 et seq.)or an erosion and sediment control plan approved by the Virginia Soil
�
and Water Conservation Board.
y.. B. The construction, installation, and maintenance by public agencies of water and sewer
lines, induding water and sewer lines constructed by private interests for dedication to public agencies,
�"' provided that:
y..
I. To the extent practical,the location of such water or sewer lines shall be outside
� of all stream buffer areas;
""` 2. No more land shall be disturbed than is necessary to construct,install and
�. maintain the water or sewer lines;and
�
17-32
.,� Supp #I9,7-08
.r�p
�
wv
�
�
�..
�..
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
�
3. All such construction,installation,and maintenance of such water or sewer lines
""` shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local requirements and permits and be conducted in a
� manner that protects water quality.
9,, C. Silvicultural activities,provided that such activities are conducted in compliance with the
water quality protection procedures established by the Virginia Department of Forestry in its "Best
� Management Practices Handbook for Forestry Operations."
�""` D. The construction,installation and maintenance of runways,taxiways,and other similar or
�, appurtenant improvements at public airports,including the expansion or extension of those improvements,
provided that all applicable federal,state and local permits are obtained.
wwr
(§ 19.3-43,2-I 1-98; § 19.2-12,6-19-91, � 12; Code 1988, §� 19.2-12, 19.3-43; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98;Ord.
� 08-17(4),9-3-08)
�° State law reTerence--Va.Code§10 I-2108.
�
Sec. 17-320 Types of development authorized in stream buffer.
�
If otherwise authorized by the applicable regulations of the zoning ordinance,the following types
�' of development shall be allowed in a stream buffer, provided that the requirements of this section are
�
satisfied:
�, A. A building or structure which existed on the date of adoption of this chapter may
continue at such location. However,nothing in this section authorizes the continuance,repair,replacement,
�.. expansion or enlargement of such building or structure except as provided in sections 6.0 and 30.3 of the
zoning ordinance.
...
B. On-site or regional stormwater management facilities and temporary erosion and
� sediment control measures,provided that:
�
l. To the extent practical, as determined by the program authority, the location of
� such facilities shall be outside ofthe stream buffer;
"r' 2. No more land shall be disturbed than is necessary to provide for construction
...
and maintenance of the facility,as determined by the program authority;
,�, 3. The facilities are designed and constructed so as to minimize impacts to the
functiona(value of the stream buffer and to protect water quality;and
vr
4. Facilities located within a flood plain adhere to flood plain regulations of the
`"'` county and are designed and located, to the extent practical, to maintain their water quantity and/or water
„r, quality control value,according the standards of this article,during flood conditions.
� C. Water-dependent facilities; water wells; passive recreation access, such as pedestrian
trails and bicycle paths; historic preservation;archaeological activities; provided that all applicable federal,
� state and local permits are obtained.
�
D. Stream crossings of perem�ial and intermittent streams for roads,streets or driveways,
� provided the following requirements are addressed to the satisfaction of the program authority:
� 1. Bridges and culverts shall satisfy the following:
..►.
a. For crossings of perennial streams,bridges,arch culverts,or box
'�' culverts shall be used for the stream crossing and sized to pass the ten(10)year storm without backing
water onto upstream properties. Bridges or culverts shall either leave the stream section,consisting of the
� stream bed and the stream bank,undisturbed or shall allow the stream to return to a natural stabilized cross-
.�. section upon completion of installation. The lowest interior elevation of the culvert(the culvert invert)
�..
17-33
�+� Supp.#26, I-I?
�
w
�..r
r..
�
�
ALBEMARLE COL/NTY CODE
�
.v..
shall be a minimum of six(6)inches below the stream bed. Culvert walls and bridge columns should be
�' located outside the stream banks wherever possible;
� b. For crossings of intermittent streams,bridges or culverts shall be used
�
for the stream crossing and sized to pass the ten(10)year storm without backing water onto upstream
properties;
"` 2. Stream stabilization and energy dissipation measures below each bridge or
,,,,,, culvert shall satisfy the standards for stream bank stabilization and outlet control provided in the county's
design standards manual;
�..�
3. The stream buffer disturbance shall be the minimum necessary for the lot(s)to
� be used and developed as permitted in the underlying zoning district and under the applicable regulations of
the subdivision ordinance. Stream crossings shall not disturb�nore than thirty(30) linear feet of stream for
�` driveways and sixty(60)linear feet for roads or streets,provided that the program authority may allow
.. additional length of stream disturbance where fill slopes or special conditions necessitate additional length;
� 4. The stream bed and stream bznks shall be stabilized within seven(7)days from
the start of backfilling for the bridge or culvert;
�
5. For stream crossings where any portion of the pre-construction stream buffer is
"� not fully vegetated as determined by the program authority,and for any portion of a vegetated stream
� buffer that is disturbed during the installation of the stream crossing,buffer vegetation shall be established
and maintained within the stream buffer but outside of the stream crossing at a ratio of two(2)square feet
'�° of stream buffer restored for every one(1)square foot of stream buffer that was either not fully vegetated
or is disturbed during the installation of the stream crossing. Buffer vegetation shall be established and
� maintained at the 2:1 ratio to the extent that the stream buffer is fully vegetated outside of the stream
,■.• crossing,provided that the owner shall not be required to establish vegetation outside of the stream buffer
in order to satisfy the 2:1 ratio.The program authority may require that the owner enter into an agreement
"" providing for the ongoing maintenance of the plantings in the stream buffer,and may require a bond with
surety or other acceptable instrument,which agreement and bond with surety or other acceptable
'� instrument shall be of a substance and in a form approved by the program authority and the county
a.r attorney. Stream buffer plantings shall be consistent with guidance supplied by the program authority;
� 6. In order to assure that the encroachment into or across the stream buffer is
minimized,on and after May 7,2008, it shall be presumed that one stream crossing is adequate to serve the
"" owner's lot(s)existing on that date and all lots created theretrom�n and after that date. The program
�,,,. authority shall allow only one stream crossing to serve all Icts,provided that it may allow additional
crossings under section 17-321(4);
�..
7. The owner shall provide the program authority with copies of approved federal
�"" and state permits associated with the stream crossing, if applicable.
�"� (� 19.3-44, 2-11-98; § 19.2-7,6-19-91, ti 7; � 19?-8,6-19-91, § 8; Code 1988, §j 19.2-7, 19.2-8, 19.3-44;
�,. Ord.98-A(1),8-5-98;Ord.08-17(2),5-7-08)
� State law reference--Va.Code`10 I-2108
� Sec. 17-321 Types of development which ma�y be allowed in stream buffer by program authority.
.,.,� Development in a stream buffer may be authorized by the program authority in the circumstances
described below, provided that a mitigation plan is submitted to, and approved, by the program authority
"" pursuant to section 17-322:
�' l. on a lot within the fifty (50) horizontal feet of stream buffer that is the most landward
w (furthest from the stream)for necessary infrastructure to allow reasonable use of the lot. In all cases under
this paragraph,any new building site and sewage disposal system shall be located outside the stream buffer;
'� 2. on a lot on which the development in the stream buffer will consist of a lake, pond, or
„�,. ecological/wetland restoration project;
�
I 7-34
� Supp #26,1-12
=rr
+rr
-rw
...-
...
...e
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
9.r
�
3. on a lot on which the development in the stream buffer will consist of the construction
� and maintenance of a road,street or driveway that would not satisfy the requirements of section 17-320(D)
and the program authority determines that the stream buffer would prohibit access to the lot necessary for
� the lot to be used and developed as permitted in the underlying zoning district and under the applicable
� regulations of the subdivision ordinance,or to establish more than one stream crossing;
"" 4. on a lot which was of record prior to the date of adoption of this chapter, on which the
development in the stream buffer will consist of the construction, installation and maintenance of water and
� sewer facilities or sewage disposal systems, and the program authority determines that the stream buffer
�.. would prohibit the practicable development of such facilities or systems. Any such sewage disposal system
must comply with all applicable state laws;and
�
,�„ 5. on a lot which was of record prior to the date of adoption of this chapter, if the stream
buffer would result in the loss of a building site, and there are no other available building sites outside the
.... stream buffer on the lot,or to allow redevelopment as permitted in the underlying zoning district.
'�"` (§ 19.3-45,2-1 I-98; § 19.2-8,6-19-91, �8;Code 1988,� y 19.2-8, 19.3-45;Ord.98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord.08-
�,,, 17(1),2-6-08;Ord.08-17(2),5-7-08;Ord. I I-17(1), 10-5-I 1)
s• State law reference--Va.Code,��10.1-210R.
" Sec. 17-322 Mitigation plan if development allowed in stream buffer.
�
Each owner who seeks to develop in a stream buffer pursuant to section i 7-321 shall submit to the
� program authority for review and approval a mitigation plan as provided herein:
� A. The owner shall submit a mitigation plan that satisfies the applicable requirements of this
�,,. section,the fee required by section 17-3 I 0,and a certification stating that all requirements of the approved
plan will be complied with.
�rr
B. The mitigation plan shall be reviewed by the program authority to determine whether it
� complies with the requirements of this section and all other requirements of this article. The program
.� authority shall approve or disapprove a mitigation plan within forty-give(45)days that a complete plan was
accepted for review. The decision shall be in writing and shall be communicated to the owner. If the plan
"" is disapproved,the reasons for such disapproval shall be stated in the decision.
�r.
C. Each mitigation plan shall:
�
l. identify the impacts oFproposed development on water quality and lands within
"�" the stream buffer;
� 2. ensure that, where deve(opment takes place within a stream buffer: (i) the
�,.,. proposed development shall be located on those portions of a site and in a manner that will be least
disruptive to the natural functions of the stream buffer; (ii) no more land shall be disturbed than is
"r" necessary to allow a development that is permitted in the underlying zoning district under the applicable
regulations of the subdivision ordinance; (iii) indigenous vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum
� extent practicable, consistent with the proposed development; and (iv) the impervious cover shall be
.,� minimized consistent with the proposed development;
�" 3. demonst�ate and assure that development will be cunducted using best
� management practices; where best rnanagement practices require regular or periodic maintenance in order
to continue their functions, the program authority may require that the owner enter into an agreement
� providing for the ongoing maintenance of the plantings in the stream buffer, and may require a bond with
surety or other acceptable instrument, which agreement and bond with surety or other acceptable
`"' instrument shall be of a substance and in a form approved by the program authority and the county
�, attorney;
�
]7-3.5
...� Supp.#26,1-12
�
�
ar.
�
.�
�.
ALBEMARLE COU.NTY CODE
�r.�
vr
4. specify mitigation which will address water quality and stream buffer impacts;
�
�...
5. contain all other information requested by the program authority;and
� 6. where an owner seeks to establish more than one stream crossing as provided in
section 17-320(D)(6), demonstrate that the environmental impacts from the entire road, street or driveway
� necessitated by a single stream crossing would be greater than the environmental impacts caused by an
additional crossing and its associated road, street or driveway. For the purposes of this subsection, the
" environmental impacts considered by the program authority include, but are not limited to, impacts to soil,
„�„ soil erosion,stormwater quantity,water quality, loss of vegetated stream buffer,impacts to stream beds and
stream banks,the creation of impervious surfaces,and the disturbance of slopes of twenty-five(25)percent
� or greater.
""' D. Each mitigation plan shall be evaluated by tne program authority based on the following
�
criteria:
l. whether all reasonab!e alternatives to development in the stream buffer have
'� been explored and exhausted;
�
2. whether the development in the stream buffer is the minimum necessary and is
� conducted in a manner that will be least disruptive to the natural functions of the stream buffer;
'"' 3. whether best management practices will effectively mitigate adverse impacts
.�.
from the encroachment on the stream buffer and its natural functions;
,w, 4. whether the design and construction of the development will satisfy the criteria
in subsections 17-322(C)(2)and(C)(3);and
�
5. for driveways, roads and streets, whether their alignment and design are
�" optimized,consistent with all other applicable requirements,to minimize encroachment in the stream buffer
� and adverse effects on water quality.
� E. An application for a mitigation plan that requires modifications to be made in order for it
to be approved shall be deemed to be withdrawn if the owner fails to submit a revised plan addressing the
�+ omitted modifications within six (6) months after the owner is informed of the omitted information;
provided that any application for which the program authority informed the owner of omitted modifications
'` prior to October 5,2011 shall be deemed withdrawn if the owner fails to submit a revised plan addressing
�„ the omitted modifications by April S,2012.
�,., F. An approved mitigation plan shall be void if the owner fails to obtain a grading,building
or other permit for activities involving land disturbing activities to implement the plan(the"permit")within
"' two(2)years after the date of its approval; provided than any mitigation plan approved prior to October 5,
„�, 2011 shall be void if the owner fails to obtain a permit by October 5, 2013; and further provided that any
mitigation plan associated with a subdivision plat or site plan whose period of validity is extended by
�.. Virginia Code� 15.2-�209.1(A)shall likewise be extended for the same time period.
'"' (§ 19.3-46,2-1 I-98; fi I 9?-8,6-19-91, § 8; § 19.1-13,6-19-91, ,��' 13;Code 1988, �§ 19.1-I 3, 19.2-8, 193-
�..
46;Ord.98-A(1),8-5-98;Ord.08-17(2),5-7-08;Ord. 11-17(1), 10-5-i l)
State law reference--Va Code§10 1-�108
vr
�
Sec. 17-323 Duty to comply,maintain and repair;maintenance agreement.
,�„ Upon approval by the program authority of a stormwater managemenUBMP plan, each owner
shall:
..�
1. comply with all of the terms and conditions of the approved plan;
�
2. maintain and repair all structural and nonstructural stormwater management
�° measures required by the plan,as provided herein:
�.
17-36
� Supp.#26. I-12
wr
aY.
w�r
,...
�
..�
.�iLBEMARE.E COUNTY CODE
.�...
�
(a) The owner shall be responsible for the operation and rnaintenance of such
"�'' measures and shall pass such responsibility to any successor owner,unless such responsibiliry is transferred
�
to the county or to another governmental entity as provided in section 17-309.
� (b) If an approved stormwater managemenUBMP plan requires structural or non-
structural measures, the owner shall execute a stormwater managemenUBMP facilities maintenance
"" agreement prior to the program authority granting final approval for any plan of development or other
,� development for which a permit is required. The agreement shall be recorded in the office of the clerk of
the circuit court for the county and shall run with the land. If an owner cannot exercise a purchase
..� agreement until a plan of development or other development receives final approval from the county, the
program authority may grant its final approval without a signed agreement, provided that the agreement is
"`� signed and recorded as provided herein prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy for the
,�, development project.
•�.. (c) The stormwater management�BMP facilities maintenance agreement shall be in
a form approved by the county attorney and shall,at a minimum:(i)designate for the land development the
�"" owner,governmental agency,or other legally zstablishea entity which shall be permanently responsible for
,,,�, maintenance of the structural or non-structural measures required by the plan;(ii)pass the responsibility for
such maintenance to successors in title; and (iiil ensure the continued performance of the maintenance
� obligations required by the plan and this article.
'"" (§ 19.3-47, 2-11-98; § 19.1-6, 9-29-77, art. I 1, § 1, 10-I 9-77, 9-13-78, 10-22-80, 7-1 I-90, 8-3-94; Code
„�,,, 1988,�,��' 19.1-6, 19.3-47;Ord.98-A(1►,8-5-98)
�.r State law reference--Va Code§§ 10 I-60?3.10 1-210A
""' Sec. 17-324 Inspections.
� The program authority shall inspect any iand subject to an approved stormwater
..w management/BMP plan as provided herein:
"� A. During the installation of stormwater management/6MP measures or the conversion of
�, erosion and sediment control measures into stormwater management/BMP measures.the program authority
shall conduct periodic inspections to determine whether such measures are being installed as provided in
� the approved plan.
"` B. Upon completion of the installation of stormwater management/BMP measures, the
,,,�, program authority shall conduct periodic inspections to determine whether such measures are being
maintained as provided in the approved plan, or t� investigate a complaint pertaining to the plan. The
� inspections shall be conducted at least annually, measured from the date the installation or implementation
of the stormwater management/BMP measures is deemed by the program authority to be complete. The
'� inability of the program authority to conduct inspections v✓ithin the time periods set forth in this paragraph
,,,, shall not be deemed to be a failure of the program authority t� perform a mandatory duty or a ministerial
function, and no liability to the county, the program authority, or any official or employee thereof shall
"�' arise therefrom.
"r C. The program authority shall be allowed, after giving notice to the owner, occupier or
.., operator of the land development, to conduct any inspection required by this section. The notice may be
either verbal or in writing. Notice shall not be required if the program authoriry and the owner have
�' entered into a right of entry agreement or if the owner has granted to ihe program authority an easement for
,..
purposes of inspection and maintenance,as pr�videcl in section i 7-304(E)(7).
� (§ 14.3-48,2-11-98;J 19.1-9,9-20_77,art. I I I, �4, 10-I 9-7?. 7-I 1-90;Code 1988,�� 19.1-9, 19.3-48;Ord.
98-A(1),6-17-98)
�
State law reference--Va Code,��� i 0 I�603 I I. I 0 I-�I 08.
�
�..
i7-;?
,� s��Pp #i�.�-os
...
�
�
�..
�
..�
�.�.
ALBE/19ARLE COUNTY CODE
,�.
Sec. 17-325 Determination of noncompliance with plan; procedure.
�
�, Upon a determination by the program authority that the owner has failed to comply with the
approved stormwater managementBMP plan,the following procedures shall apply:
�
A. The program authority shall immediately serve upon the owner a written notice to
� comply. The notice shall be served by registered or certified mail to the address provided by the owner in
the application for approval of the plan, by personal delivery to the owner, or by personal delivery to an
� agent or employee at the site of the permitted activities who is supervising such activities. The notice shall:
,,,,. (i) instruct the owner to take corrective measures immediately when immediate action is necessary to
prevent or abate drainage or water pollution problems; (ii) specify the measures required to comply with
�' the plan; and(iii)specify the time within which such measures shall be completed.The notice shall also be
�
given to the permit-issuing department.
,,,,� B. If the owner fails to take the corrective measures stated in the notice to comply within the
time specified in the notice, the permit-issuing departinent may revoke any grading, building or other
"�"" permit for activities involving the land development, and the owner shall be deemed to be in violation of
..o
this article.
,r„ C. If the program authority determines, upon completion of a maintenance inspection
provided in section 17-324,that maintenance or repair of the measures is neglected,or that any stormwater
"" management facility is a danger to public health or safety, it may perform the work necessary to assure that
� such measures or facilities are not a danger to public health or safety, and shall be entitled to recover the
costs of such work from the owner.
�
(j 19.3-49,2-11-98; § 19.1-9,9-29-77,art. I I I,�4, 10-I 9-77,7-I 1-90;Code 1988,j§ 19.1-9, 19.3-49;Ord.
� 98-A(1),8-5-98)
""' State law reference--Va Code ti§ 10.1-603.1 I,10.1-2108
�` Sec. 17-326 Penalties and remedies.
�
This article may be enforced as follows:
�
A. Any person who violates any provision of this articic shall be guilty of a misdemeanor
� and shall be subject to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1000.00) or up to thirty (30) days
�
imprisonment for each violation,or both.
�,,.. B. The county may apply to the circuit court in any jurisdiction wherein the land lies to
enjoin a violation or a threatened violation af the provisions of this article without the necessity of showing
`�' that an adequate remedy at law exists.
" C. Without limiting the remedies that may be obtained pursuant to this section, the county
,■„ may bring a civil action against any person for violation ofi any provision of this article or any term or
condition of a permit or plan. The action may seek:he imposition of a civil penalty of not more than two
�"` thousand dollars($2000.00)against the person for each violation.
� D. With the consent of any person who has violated or failed, neglected or refused to obey
� any condition of a permit, obligation of a plan or agreement, or any provision of this article, the program
authority may provide, in an order issued by the program authority against such person, for the payment of
�"' civil charges for violations in specific sums, not to exceed the limit specified in paragraph(C). Such civil
,�,, charges shall be instead of any appropriate civil penalty which could be imposed under paragraph(C).
,r„ (§ 19.3-50,2-11-98; § 19.1-10,9-�'9-77,art. Ill,4-13-88,7-I 1-90, ti 19.2-15,6-19-91,§ 15;Code 1988,
§$ 19.1-10, 19.2-I5, 19.3-50;Ord.98-A(1),8-5-98)
,�
State law reference--Va Code$� 10 I-6U3 I 4, 10.1?108.
� Article IV. Groundwater Assessments
�
I 7-38
� Supp #19,7-08
�
�
�
...
�
�
....
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
;..
forth below. Each fee shall be in the form of cash or a check payable to the"County of Albemarle."
�.
�..
I. Plan review:$300 per plan review
�, 2. Amendment to approved plan: $180 per plan review
,,�„ 3. Request for exception(section 17-308):$240.
�.. 4. Each inspection or reinspection:$60.
� 5. Mitigation plan(section 17-322): $150.
"`' (§ 19.3-34, 2-11-98; § 19.1-8, 9-29-77,art. ll, § 3, 7-11-90; Code 1988, §� 19.1-8, 19.3-34; Ord. 98-A(1),
� 8-5-98;Ord.02-17(1),7-3-02;Ord.08-17(3),8-6-08;Ord. I 1-17(1), 10-5-11)
,,,,,,, State law reference--Va Code�10 1-603.10
�` Sec. 17-311 Review of certain program authority actions.
� Any person who is aggrieved by any action of the program authority because of its disapproval of
..,, a plan submitted pursuant to this article,or in the interpretation of the provisions of this article, shall have
the right to apply for and receive a review of such action by the board of supervisors,as provided herein:
..
A. An appeal shall be filed in writing with the clerk of the board of supervisors within thirty
' (30) days of the date notice of the action is given by the program authority or, if an exception to the
,,.,, requirements of this article as provided in section 17-308 is requested and denied,within thirty(30)days of
the date notice of the denial of such exception is given by the board of supervisors. Notice shall be deemed
"�' to be given on the date that it is mailed or is hand delivered.
,..
B. When reviewing the program authority's action, the board of supervisors shall consider
�- evidence and opinion presented by the aggrieved person, the program authority, and such other persons as
shall be deemed by the board to be necessary for a complete review of the matter. The board may affirm,
"" reverse or modify the program authority's action. The decision of the board shall be final, subject only to
,� review by the circuit court as provided in Virginia Code§ 10.I-603.13.
.. C For the purposes of this section,the term person aggriered shall be limited to the owner,
owners of adjacent or down-stream property,and any interested governmental agency or officer thereof.
+..
,ar, (2-11-98;Code 1988,� 19.3-35;Ord.98-A(I),8-5-98)
� DIVISION 2. PLAN REQUIREMENTS: WATER
.�.
QUALITY AND WATER QUALITY PROTECTION
�,,. Sec. 17-312 Stormwater management facilities and channels.
�..� Stormwater management facilities and modifications to channels required as part of a stormwater
managemenUBMP plan shall be designed,installed and constructed as provided herein:
�
a..
A. Stormwater management facilities or modifications to channels shall be constructed in
compliance with all applicable local,state,and federal laws and regulations, including but not limited to the
�.. Federal Clean Water Act,and the State Erosion and Sediment Control Act.
`"" B. Stormwater management facilities shall be designed and constructed in compliance with
,., the National Flood Insurance Program and section 30.3 of the zoning ordinance.
� C. Stormwater management facilities shall be sited to capture, to the maximum extent
,..
practical,the runoff from the entire land development project area.
...
I 7-27
"`` Supp,#26 I-12
+rr�
�
ar
�
�
�
�
!,
��;
�.
#
�. �
°�
:�
+�'
� �
�:
t
�
�"
-�r.=
�
,�:
#
�
�:
�:
n . .... ,F ,, , --.,r; - r�.
__ � . _ . ��. , ,� , �
� -. r.
� � � � _ .,_ ,,. ,. >.. . , _ .�.,_ ., _ ,_� _. ,.._
�
`r
`
�
�nc�
��i
� ��-_l; �
� �r.�, `i;:r
� ��RCIN�P
County of Albemarle
�r► Department of Community Development
�v Memorandurre
� Toe Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner
From: Glenn Brooks,County Engineer
�► Date: 14 May 20]3
�, Subject: New Hope Church critical slopes
`
�
�,r At your request I have reviewed the current site plan for New Hope Church by Blackwell Eng►neering,
� sealed 4-9-13. With some minor corrections,the entranceway and associated grading is found to be
exempt under section 18-42.6c of the Zoning Ordinance. These corrections are to minimize the necessary
�.. disturbance;
� 1. Reduce the slope grading and tree disturbance by using a maximum slope steepness of 2:1 (2
ft horizontal for 1 ft vertical),or an equivalent amount using retaining walls, while maintaining
` appropriate entrance sight lines.
�, 2. Reduce the travelway width of the entrance to the minimum allowed by the ordinance(18-
� 4.12.17c), which is 20' where the travelway does not abut parking.
The approved special use permit plan (SP201000046) was considered in this analysis. Below is a sample
�, overlay detail of the two plans. The special use permit plan is in blue, over the current site plan.
�r.
� f� `�,� }f /� � r�;'%''
� U ¢ „s�"�� �
� � l�f'� �''� r.� �t � �
" ' �
� `��f ~�`�"`.'�.-�"'�w i _„!�"-�.,�,�C�`�5,� ,�
.
� . ,
� � �
.«.,...�� � �,� .. �< <.". �' �h b..
_. _..,... -a-,,,. '" "'! \
's
�..
.�_ .✓"'.`_. , y.. `.
�, � . t
. ¢ ����'^ " ' • ., `' �
�+�, '
� � ` �`� R � .+.��,�,
� � �� . � � � � �
„�..TM' ...- •
. . d .,, � *�, �
�....«."'°' ,,,� ,. �
`� r" -' . ��s e ....-^"' ' " ..
,w.
� °V' � a 1 t '0',',�" "" �, � {
� � �„! � ` t~ T`K` �s ���Y'`� ��—�.^ ,.,q�r �f ,` �
`✓ �� '` ' �" =`� �"�; ����
: �-. ,.,_
�°'` �r� z�-�'"'�� ��-`.,,�< ,° '..,�,,,= 1 t µ �„ .>;'...
r..
�r ` '' � . �—...
` ,�� i ,��� ��� r " ` � ` � , � .
_ �
, � '_-�. �
� �� , � ,-�
� , ",�� {� �', , �� � �`" �"` �' "'�
�,�
.a 5 � � � � ¢ l =�� a
, �,
� k� , : . ' '� �
` ' �
.
�, , '� ,� ,�, ��; �
, ,
�,
� �,,� �, ,�„ � � '• ...�.
� �,�� �',q.�`,w`,�*�,.�`1 � ' .,�, ��*;A..�����M"�
� i � � �k, t^'Y � �lr!^�» ,.'
4 �`' k , "�� � �a: �*. � .�
� r r-
y. �+. �'* ,,� r'
r
� \"-"'� 4�.._�` " " {,. `;,.g��a� �,,'
� 4 j� . � M1 a d �.. A ,N �,f 4 . '�.c�in.•a adkn r�tre
i� � � 1 ♦� ;:�J w9' � t;wx�d�cezxradNs
��� ��� � .� �
�; �d � < �,�� o '
j � �,,5� g� �'� , ry � � r/t !
�IP �.� ,,: "r'�` --t � ti
v '' �xt"''p� �� f'� f� �«,�� f �.
� !
�*� a,_ �
.r �"`
5,s�.o�'" f S"v ���`,-'�i
v ��"� r M �4`� �+<�.�. " '`` �'� �y�+ i 7
� { � g-- h,
M+t +1 � r� L r. 1 �..
�
�
�
�r
�.•
�` Albemarle County Community Development
�' Engineering Review comments
�,, Page 2 of 2
�
� As can be seen from the overlay,the site has been shifted away from the private road to the west. The
� soccer field area has been left out. The entrance is in the same location. Not so obvious at this scale, is
that the entrance has increased its grading footprint, which is highlighted below in red. (The two
�,,,. corrections given previously will pull back some of this increased grading area at the entrance.) The green
� shaded areas are additional treed areas which were shown disturbed on the special use permit plan,but are
� now proposed to be saved.
� �� y�-°' � �,y,�.� —I � e '"�
�� �� �r� �.,�.. �� w �I
�'
� �- �� _ '�•� , � . . � °�.' a •
�
� a
� � .
w,.�.r..e� .� �� N »,�✓rt �+ ._..._ �,m,,. w
� �� � _" �� ,;y.. � .
..,d- •.^""' ....�+"'�"�"�^ � .
.
.� q
-`"'° ,w .,.,r� ..,..-,,,....�. ':„'7fi�
. _�
" . ' '" �„``� . " �^". '�"
€ '*. '�
.
� -
� �`.� � � i � �„a+ � ""� .�#rr..."�*''. ,�,
....-.
�. � � "� a,� � •7,���...,,�, ,ti ��
.
� � �.✓�t �,i a� � �..��yy�M,��.�„».�� �` '''°�"``,.�.�.. � � ;,e�_ t �..,+���.� a.�: ..
'`�, . `� � -M - , �,
! . k. .,�. e'"'�! ` �� �..,n✓�
t
� # �` ? '� � F f .m°° � � �'
� ° s'� � x,:✓�-�-.'"`°.� � '4"" „�„,..,�,�� l
�r � ' � _� f 4 +� � � �6�y
I +`� n> � �`s �' *, . t �
�r � � „` �� e �,, �_ �,'�,,,.�-°�"�'""'�.�--�°"�.�
J R,` �°�, '�..''
�r' �t• ���� � ���`' � � � , � � �� � �- � '
� ��� �l� 3 t?� �� � "� � y,��'"�'� ����
t ` ,'� " <"S ; ,y .„r�""��`*�
y,' f' �� � �M �.�� . ^��V�y' � . 'a-., ��p.
� 4 �
� � \\� {
.. �4 ��� 15•�� �i� ♦ ��*� ��L. . ';!. � W f 4
� L ` � �5 4 , � = �..-
: � � � � � i �
y ,` ,� ; � � �� _ - � � �, � ,,•'�.` ��x.«-
� r
..
Y
� ' ` ��� '�`,�,r!'�y :::y�.-�. .�'� ` �,/ '" `-"{� , "�.
� r
�' :
� � t "�.� �=�r.:>:,:�:�'�`�`� � ����a
F
� �' �
, + °'� �
� � � �.��,,. � ` �, �py4 „�4
: �. � ',r�" `�`'�,
� � ��i'
� . Ot
�-c 3� �
�� �" „� ¢ �, <,� ; �,:, �
Ra o} Nr�. r" -*•-�-'
� �*A�;y'SQ+�; 4.� � 4 � �w � �.� iJ a
� :� ����' ��+ , �'� ���� � � g
�/ 4.�' "„�..«.�`�'3,g��'��� ��� �� � ��, �
�
�
�
3'ii€ !:E ic {�t3 Nc��,•.Tiop�ChtA��;lz cto�;
� _
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�.
�: �
i �
� �
�
�
�� �:
�: �
,��
�
�M
� :
�.
�
�.
� ,
�
� : �
�_
-�
�
�
�
E j...�
�.
,,... . ,, , . ,�, �. . , : _
,. � ._ _. ._ r� . _ _ ,. �:-�. .
� _ _
�
�w
� , I
�
� t�` ���...
� r 1"1 7 +
<,�,/�7.�'ih� ��,�;? �
{�,� ra a �;E�� i
��.� � ��
� . �`����N'r �J I
�r �.:,, ;-"
�� w...;
.`J�,Nl,,,,
'�+' ��C;�.1�°=?'C'i�`�JF::�.LI3FIVI:�.F�1_.��;
�; �:����.�r��mermt u:['C;��tirnunityl3F�ve:Iop�.nent
�?�(�1 I��c:tn�ta��?�:�r:�ts,Nortl-,��i'i�ig
'`� �'Y��t'Int���.a<<�m' t�; �;f ,.::; �290�-a��i'�6 '
I
t�, Phone(434)296-5R32 Fax(434)972-4126
�._.___ ._,_..__ ... ...... .._,..__ __ .__..___ .__.__-__ �
',�..
� May 16, 2013
�, Ed Blackwell I
� 566 East Market Street '
Harrisonburg,Virginia 22�{���� I
�rr I
�, RE:SDP-2013-008 New F�c�K��- ��;;' „� �-irs#3 �� ti�„ r��: •� � i
�+' Mr. Blackwell: I
�r �
� The Agent for the Board�. , . . � �.+ ;, � ; ., �:; aii : rii�'r��• •��� ,y���rovai to the above referenced ,
site plan. ;
�r i
� This approval shall be val .�r �� �� �<_;ci ti.+ ��� .? �..:;+�, i�;:n7 the dat��af this letter, provided that the
developer submits a final 4 E p�a�far ai�or�� �c;rt6o� of t��,�site within one (1)year after the date of this ;
�+'' letter as provided i��� sect� :i:r'..q..".� ;�f Ch��7ter 18 vf tt7e �ode af}hE� Caunty of Albemarle,and i
�„ thereafter diligentl��pursu �,��a�i�; tr���. f����; ,�aitv ;.i��rr. �
� An Erosion and Se��iment�:�� ���_,-� ' �r�;7ai� i ,,�� ct� ���-=_u ;���fter the f�oii;�wing approvals are received: j
� 1. Approval a'n Erosior� -���d:�Far,i�izent;:�n;ro�: F :�ari r���ee�ing the requirements of Chapter 17 of the ��
� Code of the Cour t �,=.;�� ,�s;1 �
2. Approval o'f a Stof �r.-. i '���:�na f "<:.;if E�=�yr rr, i�r�€ th;: �-��;;�.�irernents of Chapter 17 of the �
�► Code.
�, 3. Approval or all eas�i�,�s��ks ira fa ' � f .; � „ :+.�i n �r�,��.�r rY;ar;��;ement and drainage control.
� 4. Approval of a mi�< <�i io: ;�sc;r j�f„r�I��:� di:�turbar:ce :,f`�Jatv>r�f�r�teLtion Ordinance buffers. �
5. Submittal cf a tref� ��;��s=r,�;�i �}r, c.i:�+;�{;.t
�,,. 6. Reduce the slopt� �=r��lirs�; ���a; ta =�� u�,+ ,k������;�� ��:>>��a�in�a r�i���imum siQpe steepness of 2:1(2ft j
� horizontal for 1 ft�,<�•+i�a!1: ^r ar� er.�u�v�lent ama�.,r,t using retaining walls,while maintaining
appropriate entr���c,r -:,�;,r � ;:�,� i
� 7. Reduce the travei�,v<��v�idfit�of the t:.�r7Tr�nc::tu tne rninimum aliowed by the ordinance (18- i
� 4.12.17c),which is%��.i ,•�here th�t��s,ve:'w�a����es nat af�t;* �2rking, j
�"' The final site plan will noi b:� c :� � � t ., ;: ;-; u c;i<,�! �, i; r i;t_d until the following items are
_�
i�, received: �
� 1. A fina!site plan t��� � :t' t�C:_ .a;i .j+ � �+ i , �� ,�;;o; ;t=��'�� � :??_.6 of Chapter 18 of the Code.
2. A fee of$1;500.
�r► 3. Submittal of plar= ;, c�-� � �.� ��4 � �-` r:� r� �t :/;i��ra���r�;F�r�ts i:sted below necessaryto satisfy
�, the conditi��ns of;: � � :. ; .
�'t"' � The final site plan will ne+ � <.,�� _ ,�ci �r�� � �, ,�:,,,,,-,�,�, :-r,rt t�::�4�.s �re met: �
�r �
�
�r+ ,
�
�
�
�
�r
�� The Department of Comr����.,i�ity i)=���el�prr;{:r�1:s`;��i E.:�t accept s«I�rnittal of the final site plan for �I
�,,,, signature until tentative :�:;pr��4��i�s�art��c follu�vi��g cond;tiaris �ave been obtained:
�"'� Plannin�Division Approti��.,;_c;f� �1._C_�;a�ies are�_re_:;uired tp_!:�_submitteci_for review
'v.. 1. A site plan meetirig�sll ti�ie re;.�u�r�ernen*.s e,fi sPci:i�n 32,6 �f Cf�apte�18 of the Code.
� 2. A landscape plan meetn�g t:i�e r�q,��rF�n,ents of s��ction 3?.?.9 of Chapter 18 of the Code,
� including a tree conservation chec�;list.
3. (32.7.9.4{c)]Acc��r-�tryl�,�snc>�rr tn��}��oc'e�ed arPa tr�t��rert� of the travelway into the site, �
I
� particularly around*���as P�r�e,Th�s �r�=, is n�en �rn��nd#hat line, and needs to be shown
� correctly.
4. [32.5.2(a)] 32.5.'9 ;a'' T`~� �ians n��-,d to br� rr�ntPd vvith hlack ar blue ink.This is so reductions
� and copies can br_ ,-��._:i�y r��^adrr. �;����,r;:?:.�I.Ze �~i;i�r:d r:or��- ,;c;lar.
i� 5. [32.5.2 (a);`32.5 ,�:); �::e,i��r�.(� �jc,�,r,c�c on,"E';���;;,� �an�Y�•caf c�eat�.:;�^s.7he whole parcel needs
;� to be shown. Pro��idv a;�er:;siir;g ccn+xitions p1�n sheet that h�s the whole parcel, boundary j
� dimensions,topc,�;ra; ��y, �c<sc���� �i� �.
6. [32.5.2 (a)]vener.� i �,r:,�r.,.crci�n. .If+� c,. ��a�t:un;:,�;'t;E s�.�ac,a, �se �ermit need to be stated
� exactly on�i:he sh�et. RE��iise��o trle exact langua�e,
�,,. 7. [32.5.2 (a)] GenE ;i,tc ,�, ��:;nr7. Prov�ua ;.�,�: �, �c::l r�urr���a�d us� of the abutting parcei to
�
�, the east of the p��.��o�art�;;.
� 8. [32.5.2 (c)] Phase lines '1"he nh�,s�.- ,.��;�; �iF:�d o �::fr,$e. it:� ��r+clear if some of the improvements
are within Phas�� ' :.�� ,'�,�- I, I
�'' 9. [32.5.2(d)] Top ����c�r,h��rr� ,'n , :,^r �. .;,� ,-��; c ;;,;I �Ir::;es that were not approved with
. �
� the special use perm;t�i�c� c,re n�t exern��are �eing shown �n Phases 2 and 3. Remove any �
i� dlStUfbatlC2 Of tFi •;t� rs'I�i :'il �i'v�.�P.4, t)r�'�C��i'Pi�E'�Vuc�IbPf+�::`ij�?a 1YE�d t0 b@ I'2VI2WEC� BIIC� �
� submitted for a�,;:�:c��.�i bv�rir: I�a�r� �;�Su��rvisors. ii
10. [32.5.2 (i)j Sireets, e�:sz . � ,c�� t,,, , ��:� s �� �..�.> ;���.�r�� ��7:� �i��� ��u'r-w��y lines and widths for the j
� existing streets. �
� 11. [32.5.2 (m)J Ingre s i�r� .s. .. ,,, :. d�:>tai�:_ tc� _ :�c�rs erline of the nearest existing �
� street inter�sectiu�i i���r.��n ii��c �,ru�sr�ser� ,K������s dncl cg�•es:;. I
� 12. [32.5.2 (n)] Exist' ��a����'�ir�;�r,sea�irr�N�,��re�?�e�i�:, Please SI'1�".1�tllE f0II0WIClg: 1
� a. �In'121151 ' ��'�Vl��i"'1"J�3V5. (=t,'F l�lE? ('r1QS 5''iU\h!1 Ryil!Ci;i:�t�ther pavement dimensions are �
not labe ���~�t,���',�tl�P ���r�ens�c�s�s.
�' b. Outdoor frtii,� ��._r7y �r�:tii ,being�.�rz��;�:sec'% It �o please show the locations.
�„�r c. Other p c' r�r«:a�;, �r�,r���F��th� d:s�ersions ft�r the p;�aza areas.
�; d. Prc�vide r i)i: t :_�t� nI, ' ,; ;'' );•'1`9�_ {„1'-;� �Vn".-: _•�:J';�lais, and plaza areas on the
� plan.
'�,,,,, En�ineering Division Ap�- �:: ; i : c � a�r:�,.,. �'�" :., ;:a,culations, and narratives to
�, Current Development Er �c .=_� i:G_,, !ti5r� �� . ., �.' �. :�,�.� i��-�.9 ;c�3F v�r��'e;�� and transmittal form.�
1. All easements fc � , ",p� Fci .t t �r; + r��;:nt, �-�„��t 3i�c' � �:�r��;ge �ontrol.
�Ir►� 2. A mitigation pla r �`,,., sl;.�rR. , .,>, x 1r .r�r o,-,,+�-,,t�o ':�r�in�r�e buffers.
�, 3. VDOTapproval i ; ;,r�•e;�fr��i� � ' ,:� -� � �; �-. �r.��li beforwarded when
.,, �, , �.
� received. [DM9 ��5-:t1 � '.i ,,
4. Please show exi ���, t�.�a ,�s;�, . .� . . , • t � _, ..' r = �rr_,�r-;ty lines. [18-32.5.2.d]
{�„� 5. Piease state the ,���r•��# t+-���'�'a� ��7.�,:r,.+�,�. ^'� ( r� ; �r,� �;i:���� I�� ce at i���st visuaily field verified
� bythe desi�ner i .,'� th,= ���;t,,c-,� f1.0 :?'�,F,6; 7.a-302, Pc�l�r,��fordate]
� /) �
�r i
�
� I
�
�1r
�
� �
�
� 6. Site appears to h�+�� ��rit r;! slo�.�_s �.hak are rx;t cithfir�ea+:ed o�� khe plan. Please show shading on
all areas on the K}�,rcei�hat excee� Zsrb:�lope. �
�,,,► 7. This plan appears =� be#or t;;e ccr�str�:rt;or•, ��r�k�as� J.��ni��, r'lease remove the phase 2 portion i
� ofthe plans fror ��c �:.�r±�t.ru�;tir�t�,•�,r�,� r,� �;, r. ur� :; �:ii : �,!<<�� s�t and show the grading to be
completed with `����s pnasp�af thF� �r�jE�:t.
� 8. Please delii�eate �:ic clrf'.d'S��f Ii�,{"It Vf�l" ""���14 i°�r`��'�r��'1:��id t;�a construction plans. ;
� 9. Upon "initiaP' pl��°� a��r.^.��a�, ple��se s�.r.,�n.:�t�rrr,vva��r �{an��,vith application and fee for
ofticial review.
�"` 10. Upon "initial" pl�:ti app� . . . , . � t a�� , �_��-: � � f ��;�:.�i� ��.�r���t�,��ntrol plans with applicaCion
�y,,,, and fee foroffic�,�! �e�.���
� 11. Please see Chapr� �� : r : , ; s,-. �-,� ; � � :o "f��,al" site plan approval.
12. Reduce the slop� � raciir� � ,�a tr.�_ ,ii� i �aa,�c= by using a maximum slope steepness of 2:1(2ft �
� �10fIZOfltB�fOY 1` Cf`�l�,i��s �';Ai1 ��•("klai`�'-'r?"It��'f;i�Slpl� '151f"i� PE'��Irlli�E;W���S,W�11�21118111t8111111g
� appropriate entr �-� ;�Tr,� iriFt,
13. Reduce the trave , ��u� r�"� c,f�foe �nt,<�nce tu the n�i��i�r�i�rr, allowed by the ordinance(18-
� 4.12.17C��A:V�'llCfl . � '.f. . .:�\Ni_��!(,�i�E., „ %����!i ^��li'�o
�
� Preliminary E&SC camm < ���� : � --tl a�pii<<�t �::���
a. Plan dot � C u )r�� dl"iC� �� � vti c.UtC��.ic�t r_CUiIC+I"i d{�Q ;Fili�r7ent�.ontrol measuresto
�,,,- pratect���,�a:.�=r,t �,r,z.�e��ti��.�. N,Ti��irsday� m�etina is r�c�mmended. See below for
� meetin� �,�..iE��� .r��r.>>r ii ,n.
b. Please s � h�th� t�il:�Pm�r��� Ci���ini;�`i F�mnorary Pa�i�d Constru�tion Entrance detail on
� thE E&SC ,..�,,,
�, c. Please sri����=�re�as fu;ti�� c��rlracturs staging, parkin�, rnaterials storage, and
� tet�pora� �r �r��� �r���hf r ��s�?r �c+i�r� � �r��I��ee�t. �
d. West sin c� 5�` �7�,uE.:aa� �.- :ec ;r.�e a 5�, '�r�-r �,,r� :;�r ir?it:al grading until the curbing �
�, is install� r, *c, r.= ecc�t;�r��vv� e�r ffc� vs Siit#ence c3oes nc�k meet the State/County I
� requiren i t� i t � .u.:��i�j�� y�tr �� t o �
e. Sedime� . � �:���� _ � ����N E���+ .�i^'c �r th�� � �: is shG:���v�rk � � ��,: ���oposed slope and will need
�r to be mr�vec�tn n�IG'W t�1@ =;iu{jE�fc�r a��er����t.e prc�tect��n.
� f. Please s�i��tiv ,:7����r��.;.-r1 �.,�.;���,�� �3rb e�°a�.�������f ,���;.��. '��:�r c�;�strur_tion and inspection.
g. Culvert ��: ~.r` tt �`:nr �� r��� � ��n ���< <<; ,_•�-ac�:-��s ci>:;Ining to CIP and will require a
'� sedimer �.r,3�a�i,�::;;,,
�, h. Tempor r�,�r�;i-�,t=.�.�� :c � ��.,,�-=� ,.��- ��- s ,r�„�; -� �"-,r'-��r,,V., °r17.rance. Please showthe
� Oth2Y�8 . ' i f?f t�f�i.�;F �i�'�i1F i.i:��f,�.•: l`CC�I��i`�f�1' ,;�'t���,�:�� tilE'. ���I"rtC'2�1C@ t0 B��OW f0YtW0-
wa.'y tra �' .
� i. All pipe .;��' ���� i r������ir��ir3r�� �r'���':�r���,�n;�'er�nrar.��_
� j. Energy c ,p�:�!�c�� •.n,al� � � rt�:7; � i{',; ���rPcl {�! �•`, „ � �;o pre�ient scouring.
� k. Please s ,�v Far�i��E u�=c.��v��t�i� ItrE r�tr�nce �
I. Paved c� �� �����t�v�r nc.r�a�E�ii�:�.,,a� t�a r����lsnae el��_rh� c'cEas not appearto work and may
� ca��se bi{ ��.�-i�� ar;E; ���n��ir��,,nrt:h� ��Gi�����ay '��i���a:;t cnar,�;�the angle ofconfluence and
S�'lOW C�2 �i�c: 'l?�l Il''':Ctl I'IIt sqr�rj !1lSr�G.•"11q1).
�`�"" m. Paved a ��f S�!'"1�, � t t.�{iiifN "f�iE?i 5ticlCJlli?tU Glfc'.ctfcapture stormwater flows adequately.
�,,,, n. Roadsir �'�tc�z�-� �I�; ��,nr�,a-s���= +r ��,���r� �,,.,�i��(i F+3�� ti�;,- �,�ro�aased Check Dams and will
ca��se tr4 �y-;ry�A�ay kr; �ro�e �i ���staP+�a, I%leas�snc��r� }he r�adside ditches a minimum 2'
� (feet)d� :,r�; �;i�7���fr,�r I.n�:=r.�� r�+:iM,��n ;t�tir.�llatiat�.
� 0. $�OjJ2 8� irY`�='�rll PTii��l Rw iC r:U�f�'�' '�nY ,;'t.l�)'3�"�' i�i2.:ti x(3 S�1M fBCI�ILl25 t0 pl'2V2tlt
I
� erosion I
� p. Underg� ���+i c t� r��'o3� �,-��=a�i .0 �.��rr a�s t:�r wate���iaiity st�ucture. Please explain. �
q. Underg�� � • -a �E %r„3 . s <�;:, �rc� ,r,rave+-�t extended pounding in
�,, structur
�.,, ,
� :
�rr _ i
�
�
�r .
�
� 1 j
Y. A��StOPfT � �!!Ii ic'L,"i�.41 � 1 .: �„� !i ��i �3}:5 �i ��Ct',r ItllE�i:5.
�" s. Ho��or E � r�'i�, CI dlilt���E""�,VICIPS a.`> il'�U!'t� :i$ !;1 ��Slt��{� '��1��-:1.9 will need to be
�+ demonsr +�e;_! �cr a9'`s ou;;;_t�s,
�;, t. Compui ,�:�s :M�,�st usE �.;:>;��r:�h���s. '�'f;e mc�d�fied r�tional hydrograph does not
� pr�vide i aa,sk� , i ��ff ��������mP,
u. Use star � ��f J, "i'S�i�! :?S '�?CI 'ri ft11CtI�Yl�siri 1`���' ,:`•��. Ar1 �3" orifice setup can be used
� in 1'he m �'��uPe �vi't��n a��rfit�i��to the 15" �aipe �
�r+ v. A r��inim�;n�s�c�e of'!z94�i� re�uuired ii�, th�syster
�,,, w. Provide -.'E������:�a�st��rr sr���;��.r�a rnaps i�or the �e��f.:�:it.y sti�wing the 3.76
� predeve,,.;;n,�rt �c:�r�s;:!n::' �oat deveia�:r^�;it ar��a
� x. The rout � ;ys ��11r� �i�tr:nr,c;r�,c�a 7��ia�katic,r•>�nu���ccs.��i��zt f�,•areas released undetained, I
�I�Ce t�12�•""�1Yc�i1�_���:�'�V��V!1�i';. T( -•�df'°��4�t;l-11� h2 f��71a1�. 'L'�I,l�:l,IPe 85 ITIUC�I Of t�12
�- develo�;�",�::�t as p�ss;k�irr 1�ar tnr�tLr a�tati+.y*reatmen:_
I
� y. The bior� ����rz,iai�� ��u�t'et i�t^�:us;�, �s�_ �a� s � �,-« � ' �°�uuld accommodate flow and �
� overflo�rr rrorr�, t n����i���:en�:Ro�•;sys���er�.��.
z. Propose •u`a,,t, ,truc�:urn 4:i1p� {r�-f., , ,�:r:, s +.,r ,�ck oi�tcrop. Please provide proof ;
� thE-stru�_�.�.�rH ca,� ���cons;s�;�Ci�ti ii�� ti-i�� �uc�ttit�s�-
� 88. P�@2SE� a� ;>��v"d��4'`;`�i7:' 'I'1�i"��;�'.)?f-_� rOFa� I�1"'{CJ?C1!IUU� if�;;.
� I
� A Stormwater P�/lan� �r:�am �,I��rar~er�t�.r�,l' h:� suk��i tred �r:� a�pr�vPd for recordation priorto �
� Final Site Plan appr, , �. '�I��� �r�„�Ea������;��.�n .'7�� i�u��.,d �� � ��a li,��<�: (
� http://www.alk�emr � rf;, �3���uf i u< ,�sl#qrrY_is cer:tei�c�e�artrr7er��slC�rnmunitv Development/f `
OYI715�EIlg1YlE81'lll� �t v�;���11 �OI"(i�a�t E.1�'t rti.'JIE'.'�1v -
�r+� Stormwater I�Aan? _.c:_' ...`!���_'�.��i�:_�! _�Vl�����;��;;�an_e_k�i�e��,�ri�n� F��ocedures.pdf�
� The SWM agreemer�- �.;�� h�.',iiri�; ,-:�'t�a,is i;r�k.�
�+` http://www.albem,_ ..:_.�E.�'c?a,:� t11.;_,_.�rrr�s , , G Qi��er,t�;,Ca�r;mur�it Development/f
_._..n._.�._.___:___�__.__�__ Y
�, orms/En�ineering _ � ; �r:�� �, r �, I
.. r� . _ . _..--- -'�'�'--�-----Y-�_{�E, /1r�P. -v!pnl "'.�f �
� Stormwater Mann � r , ,� °' r t� ' int r,___.__E..___- -----�---- �
i
i
�
�,,,,, 14. Please see�ChaK� �� �`<<..=�:�.��.�f�:i ��`t.��l xit::� pE���i ��c�<ri��:�rtertr f^�ap}�roval. �
� 15. Please referto � ��;�,�..�j r�: c.c�u.a�:y :�r,_,�,,��. .,t ��c�.s,�.� v:�<,7:ial rrinrtc� resubmittal. The linkto +
the ACDSM is: �
�II�r �'1ttp:��WWW.d�k'c <�i"''. 1i�..J���,� '� �,�•�, cjr, _��'.. r'.-r�.�r,/r!�r`1Cr�'^"ntc�r�IT1IT?UC11tV C�EV2�OplTl2 �
�, nt/forms/desi � .� ��� i. � �.a � � �'�� i..n Standards Manual 220ct2012. �
g` - _.. . _ _----
� �
� Aibemarle Countv Qrch� -�: . ' ��� t ...;_ r�, � -: t p' r t >i ���rc,briateness. (8 Copies are
_ � � x , c. , �
� . .. .__ . . ___ ___ _. _----- --- — � -----------
required to be subrnitte � r�a��t r! (
� 1. Regarding requ �. ^ . _ :�.���;fy��r�t'�sipn��.�ic!el�i�c-s as ���r 3(�.6.4{2), (3) and (5):
� None.
2. Regarding reco� , „c ����� _ . ����. r��. ���::, y ,:i��et:s tt� tr�e guic;�iir�es:
�' None. I
�,,, 3. Regarding ceco� r��<:r �i ��Ur��� �ic�r��vt �ir ��a!��t� u��n appr� �,I�. �
� 8, ARg 8C; �?' ,` a ,i i� ' . .. .i f7 �'i.J4�1� ,�'.� t z `5 :c t ii t'� j?V"'��r fo fitla�SItE p�aCl �
3ppYOV, r:���r`-� 5�1:� �� a"i �r�tii ��it.�W �'iz'� Cd f�.1�i 1. c?S�i�l�U� OCl C2tlt2t"�OI"thE
�,,.. 2qUIVaf `t)t^� � '' . ";':I ?!�, c'�,iqr)k;t�`�' ��"lt'i'3nC8�rive; and a mix of additional ;
� �. '
� i
�
i
I
�
�
�
�
� trees, Ic� �s. .s : ; <���;.r�l . r � ' ;�ti�=d Gi � �:c;a�a; .,�� .�r�r:ce,on the slo e ad acent to the
� i � �-��:. P J
entranc-� ,.;ivE�tr7�omrsensat� T:�r I���,t L+rc�acerl .�rca.
�„ 4. Regarding c:ondiisc��s :. �;�saLi�#ie�; p� �+�,��c, �:s�,anc� of G �;r=�Jing�ermit:
� a. Pravide :: irt�e c�r�s�rvatic;r: r�larr.�fiow iree protzction fereing along all tree lines to
rer�ain, � Nartu�,�c;r�1�7i � ��r��:€�s�firancE.;�rivw.�`„a� t;�e installation of tree protection
�rr fer�cing '�r�r�:ec�,:^r9c��lF�,�a�dir�,��nc ��rt:,si��n c��it�t;� u�•crr;.
� Albemarle County Fire t�� r �<r_,e fli�,�rc��` 6:1.; ���a_�C�E..i��� <�d}n ��^:s�.sbrr�itt¢d for review�
�►�' 1. There are no hy �,�*�v��it��ir�f�U�,'�r>t�t�;f���f�� r,rc�r�ac�se�' r�ri��e,vay enCrance.A hydrant shall be
�, installed at`the -����;�� ;�rikr�nr:e ;o ����r:�th.� i'er�ui,�-�r�, iE�;s{= lay to service this building and �
� future addition<
2. Dead-end fire ar �rat+.:s r:�r.cess�oads ii�axcPss�r x50��et shall be �rovided with width and
�,r turnarounc� pro� i,�°��+? .:,rcorc�<, ;:f��v�h;�abl � :�1.f',:3 G „f t"e Vir�inia Statewide Fire Prevention �
� Code
3. Roads with an �. �'�� �����=fl travF�� +arn� ;����?_���fWs- rsust have turning radius of no less than �
�r• 25'. -
, .., I
�, 4. A Knox box is re �� s > ' � �!c ,'r ;� '`�� � o �, ���'a ' �:�: ���e �11�rshal's Off�ce for placement �
approval.
�
tr,,,, Virginia Department of`� � r., ��„� a ��. �.�1 �_� �: , �� ,��; � ;_' , �sF :�,ur�mitted_for review
� 1. The posted spe� �+> ;�, �u � 6t:.���� ���i� �a�:�o�� �5:>�rnpn.�i'li� ;ic:c�ssary sight distance for
35mph is 390 fF �;: c��'ancF��rith t� p�'l�Q� {?ctacl �esi;zn Manual Appendix F-35. Please
�r , include a vNrtic,� , 'i. ; ���;_ ��, �,::(i. , r r>>,. c�i>ti�� �, oar;d.
� 2. Final site pian�°, I. ���t , ; ,,r � .�� " -, , �,,.�;, f= �.-�,:1� :>,.r;,��a�nrH with+:he CG11 standard.
3. A Land Use Perr� . + .� �_ .. � .v� r. .� :�_����e r;r;G right of way.
� :
'�,,,, Thomas Jefferson Heaft �� �� �_�r�, _; ��� �1�, �-�� L,;� ���bmitted_t�the Plannins
� Division to be forwarde" :�iy: i1 _ �F :_C_' � ,_'_`c,�f� _1 �' ��_`� 'C 'I�_'s/IPW�
1. I have received ! ��✓ Fi�ane. C,nn�mt.,^ity�.hLarch�,,,�miti, and :�m in a;reement with the
� proposed septi; ���,� �'����.�n°y'�h�r��sir��+ 1��r� 'r:� �;;�y�E��i15�.�r,i ��rn riot sold on the location of the �
� well due to:tlle 'xi!"i"r�jti� ,'; K�10'vv:; �f3 ,i`"> ill tf"tr' ;ara; TI;'�' �?r�artment af Environmental
QUB�It�/Sf1C�U�C) � ' "�ii':- �'�V?C� oJF���1t"�` i'fi � '�':2Mi ,1� ��, '�I�{t'� ,� ( 1..,�F. ,. i�l"'e �C:�'!ITl!Yt�ll'I�Pllglll22f 811C)
� VDH would nee,i :�c� e�an�ult with Gr-r,���,ovt this s�r�;,t:tFr. I �Jvo�.alr{ prefer that the well situation �
t
� be addressed b�-` ���f• �. -���m ��C����c��,�c�t�!:��'���v�.`�, yi�ie .�� k,t,�r� f
� Ifyouhaveanyquestic�F ,����r����r .r,���;erc� ;4,iti::� s�:tr ���.� ������rn�_���; ;�=,;i�nk�r��e�,tspleasefeelfreeto �
�,v contact me at Extensio� � �. +���:�
�` Sincerely, �
� i i'� . �� �% �
�r � �'�'�'� ,1"� f �, �`�'��h ✓�� �
�. � �
-� ,�,�.' .. , ��• P.
�
�„�,, Megan Yaniglos . . ' � ..
Senior Planner � i� � F}�:��e�:�!
�r
�` '�
� CC: Board of Super�r,.s�- ,
Charles Boldt �
� - t
�
�
�: - ;
� , i
� i
�r
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
�
�
�
ATTACHMENT G
�..
�..
...
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
MARCH 18,2013
�
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board met on Monday, March 18, 2013, 1:00 p.m., Room
" 241, Second Floor, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were
� Bruce Wardell, John Quale, and Charles T. Lebo, Vice Chair. Mr. Wardell arrived at 1:12 p.m. Marcia
.�
Joseph and Fred Missel,Chairman were absent.
� Staff inembers present were Margaret Mal iszewski, Design Planner and Sharon C. Taylor,Clerk.
� CALL TO ORDER
�
,..
Mr. Lebo called the meeting to order at i:1? p.m. and established a quorum.
� PUBLIC COMMENT
� Mr. Lebo invited public comment.
�•
Chuck Boldt requested that ARB-2013-10, New Hope Church be pulled from the consent agenda for
'� discussion.
�.
�
There being no further public comment,the meeting proceeded.
� STAFF PRESENTATION: Initial Site Plan Review Process
�" Margaret Maliszewski reviewed the initial site plan review process being implemented and what it means
� for the ARB process.
� Last year the ARB had some work sessions on improvements to the site plan review process. A Zoning
�•.• Ordinance amendment was the result of those discussions. The ordinance changes became effective on
January l. Those changes do affect ARB reviews. Now. the ARB, as a member of the Site Review
� Committee, is required to review and cornment on Iritial Site Development Plans, and Major site plan
�. amendments(�vhich follow the same process).
� This ARB review is limited to the information provided in the initial plan on the following items:
�• a) Size and arrangement of structures
b) Location and contiguration of packing and landscaping
� c) Preservation ofi etisting vegetation and nati�ral features
�
This means the ARB is not reviewing architectural design at this stage. The purpose of the ARB review
� is still to determine consistency of the plan with the Entrance Corridor design guidelines, but just
� pertaining to those three areas.
'�` The ARB member notebooks have been updated to highlight v✓hich guidelines can be applied to initial
� plan reviews. When the ARB completes the review, the comments/action will be transmitted to the
agent. Practically speaking, the comments are forwarded to the lead planner assigned to the project,just
"`� as all the comments of all site review committee members are. Tr�e comments need to take a particular
.. form, which is outlined on the farm in the notebook called "comment content, format and examples for
ARB review of initial site development plans an�l major site plan amendments".
� �
� There are four things the ARB will need to specify:
�..
ALBFMARLF.COUN�Y ARCHITCCTIIkq�,RF.VIF.W f30ARD- PAGG 1
'�" FINAL MINUTES—March 18,2013
Yr.�
�
s
�
�
�.
ATTACHMENT G
..
�
Requirements needed to satisfy the Design Guidelines. If there are things in the plan that have to be
'`"� changed for the plan to meet the Guidelines,there are three things to do:
�..
Specify requirements to satisfy the design guidelines. (If thin�s have to change to meet the
� uidelines If there are requirements:
... l. Identify the deficiency that tnakes the proposal not meet the guidelines. For example,significant trees
aren't being saved. Or, the building isn't parallel to the EC.
"`� 2. Site the specific guideline that hasn't been met. In the tree save e�:ample,the relevant guidelines would
�,. be#6 and#39e. In the parallel building example,the relevant guideline is#39b.
3. Site the specific ordinance section that applies(either 30.6.4(c)(2),or(3)or(5))
"` In the tree save e�ample,the ordinance section that applies is 30.6.4(c)(5).
.� [n the parallel building exampie, the ordinance section that applies is 30.6.4(c)(2).
� Specify recommendations regarding the plan as it relates to the guidelines.
�.. Identify any changes that could be made but won't be ARB requirements. In the tree example, if the
trees have some limited value, you might say that it would be preferred to save the trees, but it isn't
"`� required. In the parallel building example, the topography and layout of the site might be such that a
�,.• slightly non-parallel building wouldn't have a significant impact, so you might say that it would be
�
preferred to orient the building parallel, but it won't be required.
�. Specify recommended conditions of plan approval.
[f requirements were identified in#l, identify the specific condition that will overcome the deficiency.
�" In the tree e�cample, you might say, "Move the proposed building to save the significant trees." (You
i.► should also specifically identify the tree save area.) [n the parallel building example, you would say,
"Re-orient the building so that it is parallel to the Entrance Corridor." A standard condition of initial
� site plan approval will be the approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness prior to final site plan
...� approval.
� Specify conditions to be satisfied prior to issuance of a grading permit.
�.. (dentify specific conditions for the grading permit For example, provide a tree conservation plan, and
�
show tree protection fencin�on the plan prior to issuance of a grading permit.
�.► When this process was discussed last year it was decided that the initial plans would go on the consent
agenda. The ARB hasn't been using a consent agenda process until today with two initial plans on the
� consent agenda. Any ARB member can ask to have items pulled from the consent agenda and reviewed
� more like a regular item. The ARB may also find that applicants or members of the public ask to pull a
�
particular item from the consent agenda.
�.. Mr. Lebo noted the ARB would move to ihe Consent Agenda.
� COIYSEIYT AGENDA
�
a) ARB-2013-10: New Hope Church
� b) ARB-2013-18: Old Trail 2B Rutherfoord Hotel
�
Ms. Maliszewski pointed out the ARB had already had a request from the public to take one of the items
� off the consent agenda.
�
Motion to Pull From Consent A�enda:
�"` Mr. Quale moved to pull item (a) ARB-2013-10: New Hope Church from the consent agenda for further
�• discussion and review.
�
ALBEMARLE?COUNTY ARCHI I EC1'URAL RliVll W BO.ARD- PAGG?
'°r' FINALMINUT[S—March 18.201�
•.rr
vr�
�
�,.
�
�
ATTACHMENT G
�
�
"" Mr. Wardell seconded the motion.
�,..�
The motion carried by a vote of 3:0. (Missel and Joseph absent)
�..
�,,. Motion to Approve Consent A�enda:
Mr. Quale moved to approve the consent agenda and forward the recommendations outlined in the staff
""` report to the agent for the Site Revie�v Committee, as follows:
�
Regarding ARB-2013-18: Old Trail 2B Rutherfoord Hotel
p"`` • Regarding requirements to satisfy the design guidelines as per 30.6.4(2),(3)and(5):
�„ None.
• Regarding recommendations on the plan as it relates to the guidelines:
'�"� None.
� • Regarding recommended conditions of initial site plai�approval:
�
ARB approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness is required prior to final site plan approval. The
applicant shall submit an application for a Countywide Certificate of Appropriateness for a
�+► structure located 7ti0" or more from the F;ntrance Corridor. The applicant is advised that I)
building mass, roof form, building materials/colors, blank walls, equipment, and landscaping will
"� be the focus of review of the Countywide Certificate of Appropriateness, and 2) there are
� discrepancies bet�veen the plant schedule and t��e landscape plan that require correction.
�
• Regarding conditions to be satisfied prior ta issuance of a grading permit:
None.
�
q..
Mr. Wardell seconded the motion.
� The motion carried by a vote of 3:0. (Nfissei and Ji�seph absent}
�
DISCUSSION OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEN1
...
.�.
Mr. Lebo noted that the ARB�vould discuss ARB-2013-10,Neiv Hope Church.
�- a) ARB-2013-10: New Wope Church
�
Ms. Maliszewski presented same photos of the sit„ancl summarized the request.
Q..
�
This is a proposal to construct a churcL• an� ;e.ated features on a wooded lot located approximately 3�0'
west of the Route 29 Entrance Corridor. Only the easternmost part of the parcel is included in the
� Entrance Corridor Overlay District because tl�e parce! is not adjacent to the Corridor. Proposed in that
�, strip is a portion of the entrance drive and the grading and the tree removal that is required to construct
that drive. Norie of the piopused buildings, parking or any other features proposed are within thc; strip
� within the Entrance Corridor. The area does have limited visibility from Route 29 due to its distance
�
from the EC and off-�ite evef�g�•een trees that ��arrow that view to about a 70' width across Dickerson
Lane.
�
'�„ The Entrance Con�idor Guidelines da require tl�at trees be planted alona that proposed entrance drive. The
Guidelines also cal! 1'or developrnent tl�at is sensitive to tl�e existing natural landscape accomplished
� through the preservation or trees and r<�Iling tcrra:n as practical, and the significant natural features,
�
including significant tE-ees,i�; be retlect���? in;he site layout, again to the extent practical.
�
,r„ - ----___—_---------__.-------�
ALBEMARLE COUNTY AKCf11T!C"I l�I:.RI-RPVIti\x'IsO-;Ri) PAGFi�
+r FINAI,M W UTES—March I k,201+
�rrr
�r
�
�
�
�
ATTACHMENT G
�
�
The trees to be removed for the entrance drive are pri�t�arily Virginia Pine. Preserving these trees does
�` not really seem practical. There is no individual tree in the group that appears to have any special
� significance and the group of trees likewise does not appear to have significance. However, a bare slope
would not promote continuity within the Corridor. So providing trees along the entrance drive and
�` replanting the hillside with a mix of trees would mitigate the loss of the wooded area and help the site
�.. blend back into the surrounding landscape. The Entrance Corridor Guidelines do state that no grading
should occur within the dripline of trees designated for preservation and the areas designated for
� preservation should be clearly delineated and protected. The tree protection in that area was not shown on
�*Y- the plan, but it should be.
� Staff recommends that the details af that planting be reviewed with the tinal site plan submittal and the
� tree protection be addressed prior to the issuance of the grading permit. Staff did not identify any
requirements to satisfy the guidelines at this time. The applicant understands that trees are required along
� the entrance drive and they have agreed to replant that hillside.
�
�
Applicant Presentation
� Ed Blackwell, with Blackwell Engineering arting as a�ent for the owner, pointed out the Pastor of New
Hope Church was present to answer questions. The entrance location was approved as part of the special
'� use permit. There were ti�ree proposed entrance locations that did not work. They feel the proposed
� entrance is the best location and the}'are open to heavily landscape it. [t will be a paved drive.
� - One of the problems they have had during the past three years is finding an entrance. They
r started the site plan almost three years ago and went to the Board to get a special use permit. At
that time their entrance was across from the substation. They worked with VDOT, but needed a
� special exception from VDOT. The bottom line is that was not the preferred location.
�• - They looked at potentially caming off Piney Mountain Road and that was not acceptable to
n�unerous neighbors. However, that was a request the county asked them to look into. The only
� other entrance location was oft' Uicherson Road where other churches are located up the road.
� The entrance off Dickerson Road did not have sight distance and would have required removal of
an embankment. Heading to the north on Dickerson Road the embanhment gets pretty steep. So
� to cut an entrance in they would have to grade the bank back to get the sight distance.
� - Meeting with two VDOT'officials they came up �vith the entrance location as shown on the plan.
It is close to the intersection, but they felt they could get the sight distance and get the entrance
� cut in without cutting too many trees. They have been working back and forth with VDOT,
� county staff and the county engineer. 'fhey feel the proposed entrance location will work. They
will heavily landscape it as required b}� the county or any other additional measures they deem
� appropriate. They hav� no problem planting back numerous trees to meet county guidelines as
� requested with the sparing of�40', sire ana caliper requested for whatever is needed to get the
�
entrance iocation.
� Public Comment:
� Chuck Boldt, resident of>260 Piney Mountain Road, noted the proposed entrance location is where the
� church would like it to be. However, VDOT also stated that is not the only location for the entrance. Ann
Mallek,the Supervisor, is not really happy abo�it where the entrance is and the amount of woods they are
� taking to do it. 'I'he process of getting the entrance is kind of quirky because VDOT says it can be
� anywhere but her�.. Fiowever, it is the building permit that allows construction. A fair portion of that
corner is on state land and not owned by the church. Ms. Mallek and he have attempted to find a different
� location for the entrance. There are some different locations including one within the stream buffer.
� Unfortunately it is County policy that the way they approach it is the stream buffer is the last thing looked
� —
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCIIITGC'I I�RA!.RI�VII W RO��RD- PAGF.d
""' PINAL MINUTES—March I 8,�U 13
�
�er.
�
�
�
�
ATTACHMENT G
�
�
at. The Code talks about stream restoration. The way this church is sited there is a sufficient amount of
"' filL It does encroach. That is beyond their purview. However,there are some issues with constructing
,�,., this building. lt is about ?70" to the corner. There is a fair amount of this eaposed. The presumption is
they are buffered from 29, but that presumes the landowner on the other side of the street does not cut the
�" trees down. The trees are of small diameter. There is nothing preventing that land to be cleared and
,,�, therefore that corner becomes exposed.
'"` Mr. Quale asked if that is his primai}�concern.
�
Mr. Boldt replied his �rimary concern is the rural character in what he is looking at. Driving by on Route
" 29 he would like to see rural woods on that corner. The proposed church is going to heavily impact that
,�,,, corner and take a signiticant amount of trees and shrubs a�vay. There is nothing in the recommendation
that suggests that there is any obligation to maintain the trees. The biggest issue is the idea that the
"" church wiil be seen from Route 29. Eve�ything about:his plan seems to be the minimum requirement so
.,,,,, they can have the maximum impact on that corner. The proposed plan does not have a lot of shielding.
He thinks a different plan mi�ht resolve this. There is a more appropriate approach. Ann Mallek
"` attempted that negotiation with the church. There are other problems with this plan beyond what the
,�,,. ARB reviews. But many of those other problems are going to continue to have impacts on this entrance.
For example, the tire department �vants a �vider road going in. That means it will be a bigger expanse of
"` roadway. When the plan came �efore tr�e Planning Co�nmission the roadway was very small. It was sold
,,,, to the Board of Supervisors on the basis that it �vould be buffered from the road. That is not what is going
�.
to happen.
„r,f Mr. Quale said I�e found it difricult to pass judgment on this compared to another strategy without
actually seeing the other strategy. The difticulty is that he looks at the site plan and sees pretty tight
""" contours the further noirth ihat you ga.
,..
Mr. Boldt pointed out with the 100' stream bu'rfer they don't have the contours. [t is not appropriate since
'"" the proposal destroys the rural �I�aracter. The church being 60' to 65' above the road makes it very
,,,, visible.
�"' ARB DISCUSSION
...
The ARB discussed the proposal with staff and the applicant, noting the issues and concerns raised by
"'' staff and the public and provided comments included in the following swnmary.
�
- It is a cain toss wnetl�er a �teeper slope5 takes out less trees now. A steeper slope fits in less
`"" naturally with the ehisting topography, but it takes out fewer trees. That does not rise to the level
�„ of the ARB making a recommendation that they pull the slope back at 4:1 or 5:1 and take out
more trees because in the short term that makes the building more visible, it makes the slope bare,
`i""' and it creates a scenario that they are t�ying to replant some natural landscape. The ARB did not
..,o see anotl�er option for tl�e e�itry given wlzat has been taken away as the boundary ofthis property.
- The ARB can"t ;espond to a�vliole section that is theoretically critical slope that the engineer has
`"' not shown. It is difficult to evaluate�vith no documentation.
�,., - The fact tl�iat anotlier optian was avaiial�le was not relevant and not in front of the ARB.
- In terms o1 location,given the information on the dra�ving,the ARB felt there was no other
"' location ar strategy available. The ARY3 �vould not make a recommendation to pull the slope
�. back since it would ma�.e a bare slope and create a scenario of trying to replant natural landscape.
- Based on tne Guidelines the ARB Iiac! no option except to approve the request due to the limited
"" visibility an�i distat�ce o;the propose�i church from the Ent�ance Corridor.
�
� —
ALBEMARLF COUNI ti'ARCHI'TGC'![�RAI RI:VIE\�R�)ARD- PAGE 5
A.. FINALMINUTF.S—March 18,'013
r
�
�
�..
...
�
ATTACHMENT G
�
...
- The appl icant can work with stafif lo pro��ide landscaping along the entrance drive to meet the
""� Guidelines for the final site plan.
�
Motion: Mr. Wardell moved to for���ard the recommendations outlined by staff to the agent for the Site
$` Review Committee,as follows:
�
• Regarding requirements to satisfy the desi�n guidelines as per 30.6.4(2),(3)and(5):
� None.
� • Regarding recommendations on the plan as iz relates to the guidelines:
�
None.
• Regarding recommended conditions of initial site plan approval:
""` ARB approval of a Certificat� uf f�pprc�priateness is required prior to final site plan approval. The
,�,, final site plan shall show 2!!" caliper trees at �30' on center (or the equivalent thereofl, at a
minimum, along the entrance clrive; and a iniz of additional tre�s, located and spaced to achieve a
�'' natural appearance, on the slupe a�ijacent to the entrance drive to compensate for lost wooded
,�„ area.
• Regarding conditions to be satisiied prior tu issuance of a grading permit:
"""" Provide a tree conservation plan. Sho�v tree protection fencing alon� all tree lines to remain, in
�,,, particular along the entrance drive. Add the installation of tree protection fencing to the sequence
of grading and ero�ion control worl..
..
;�,,,. Mr. Quale seconded tl�e moti�n.
�" The motion carried by a vote of 3:t�. {Missel and Josepi� absent)
�
OTHER BUSINESS
�..
,,,,, Stonefield: Buildii7�C i-3 Rooftop EquiE��net��
""` Applicant Prese�titatie�n:
,r, Chris Haines, with Edens as Planning �. Development Manager; and Tom Gallagher, Vice President of
Development, ��ere present to update .he <�itB on the RTU screening on building Cl-3, which is the
"" building visible from Hydra�.�lic just ��orth of Regal Cinema. Mr. Haines made a presentation and
,,,, explained the prucess of pr�viding some measure to ensure the RTl)s were not visible on the significantly
sized roof from Hydraulic Roac�1. I�e explained the analysis, conducted specifieal!y from the highest
"' points in the vic�nity e�n thr L-ntranc�; Corri�lor, and described the screen wall heights and structural
,,,,,, implications. They wifl keep lhe AR� abreast ofthe sclution in the plan before implementation.
"" Hyatt at Stonefield: Copper pai��e�s
�
The ARB revisited the subject ot�copper panels for the Hyatt at Stonefield. Following a brief discussion it
'�"`" was the consensus ot d�e A2B that t;�e copper panels will be appropriate if real copper that patinas
,,�„ naturally is used. 7'he�opper�lo.�s not neea to c.e pre-patinized.
�" BMW at Pantops: Building colors
�
The ARB discussed the l3I�1 W 1='nase 2 huildin��colors and took the following action:
�
,�„ Motion: Mr. Vv'ardel� mo�eu tl7at�I�t �ulur p�lette ��f tlie f'ha5e 2 BMW building shall match the color of
the Phase l buildirig as p�evi�,u�ly a��pio�e.7 b�� the ARE3.
�
.,. — ---
ALBEMARLE CUUh'�l ARCHI fF,C'(UR,41.K1 VR.��'RU,'1il{)- PAGF 6
""'' FINAL MINU"1'ES—March IR.2u13
..r
wr+
�
�..
�.
ATTACHMENT G
�
�
�..
�
Mr. Quale seconded the motion.
�. The motion carried by a vote of 3:0. (Missel and Joseph absent)
"" Jarman's Sportcydes Bailding: Proposed renovation
�...
The ARB discussed the proposed renovation of the Jarman's Sportcycles building and indicated that the
�" enclosure of the porch is moving in the right direction. Areas for improvement might include: the
... repetition of elements (more cioors and windows), the proportions of the barn doors, alternate barn door
�.
design,and possibly other features.
+.. Approval of Minutes:
"' Motion: Mr. Quale moved to approve the January 7, 2013 ARB minutes.
�
�
Mr. Wardell seconded the motion.
�• The motion carried by a vote of 3:0. (Missel and Joseph absent)
"` New Business:
�..
Ms. Maliszewski noted the follovving matter coming up in April:
""'� - The plan for the 5`�' Street Station was distributed for the next meeting. The ARB was requested
"., to drive by the site to cl��ck visibility before the next meeting.
"` Next ARB Mee4ing: h1on�ay, April l,?013
�.-
�
ADJOURNMENT
... The meeting was adjuurned at 2:�`i p.rn. to the neht /�RB meeting on Monday, April l, 2013 in Room
�.
241, Second Floor,County Ofiice Building at 1:00 p.iz�.
�..
�.
;,,,, Fred Missel,Chair
�" (Recorded and ti•anscribtel by 51�aron C.Taylor,Clerk to Planning Commission& Planning Boards)
�
�
�..
�
�
�
�..
�«.
�.�.
�
ALBEMARLG COU'�!'fl"ARCHI'T EC I i�R,4I.REVIGW BOAKD- PAGF 7
'�' FINAL MINUI F.S—March I R.2013
w.
v,.
v
�
; z ,; _
i�
!
��
�_
� �
�'.
�
:i
-�
'�i.
�.
�i
�
�
� .
' M
�
�
�
�
�
�
...
�
�..
ATTACHMENT B
C1H:�1.13,t�t
�rr I`' r µ�.�,�
� �
,�wr ��-�'f y� rr
1
�
�', �.x :�.. ;�-
.i 4 y `„
�II{(;1:��*
�
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
"""" Department of Community Development
„r, 401 Mclntire Road,North Wing
Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596
'� Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126
�
March 19, 2013
�
New Hope Church
�"' C/O Michael Henderson, Trustee and Pastor
,,,�„ 3445 Seminole Trail, Suite 300
Charlottesville, Va 22911
�
�` RE: ARB-2013-010: New Hope Church
�,,, 021000000012C 1
�
�
Dear Mr. Henderson:
;�,�„ At its meeting on Monday, March 18, 2013, the Albemarle County Architectural Review Board, by a vote of
3:0, voted to forward the following recommendations on the above-noted Initial Site Development Plan to
� the agent for the Site Review Committee:
� • Regarding requirements to satisfy the design guidelines as per 30.6.4(2), (3) and (5):
.,�„ None.
• Regarding recommendations on the plan as it relates to the guidelines:
'""` None.
,,,� • Regarding recommended conditions of initial site plan approval:
ARB approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness is required prior to final site plan approval. The
� final site plan shall show 2'/"c�liper trees at 40' on center(or the equivalent thereofl, at a
minimum, along the entrance drive; and a mix of additional trees, located and spaced to achieve a
'"'` natural appearance, on the slope adjacent to the entrance drive to compensate for lost.wooded
� area.
• Regarding conditions to be satisfied prior to issuance of a grading permit:
�► Provide a tree conservation plan. Shaw tree protection fencing along all tree lines to remain, in
particular along the entrance drive. Add the ins#allation of tree protection fencing io the sequence
"` of grading and erosion control work.
�
You may submit your application for cont+nued ARB review at your earliest convenience.Application forms,
� checklists and schedules are available on-line at www.aibemarle.orq/ARB. Please be certain that your ARB
�..
submittal addresses the above-noted issues.
,,,,. If you have any questions concerning any of the above, please feel free to call me.
� Sincerely,
.�.
�
Margaret Maliszewski
� Principal Planner
' cc: Edmond H. Slackwell, F.E., Blackwell F_ngineer'sng, PLC
„�, 566 East Market Street
Harrisonburg, Va 22801
�
�«.-
File
�
�
� � �
� � ' �
� � �
� �� � ��
� � �
� �
�; �
i �r� �
- 'rrr'�
� � � �
�
�
�
�
�
� �
�
�
� '
�
�
�
��
�
�
�
�
�
' � � � � � �� �
�
�
�
�
�
:�
� _ �� � � e
��
_� ,a ��.._ �a,u�_x���_ �., .�_,_. __�, �� .��_ __��,�._��.w
�
�..
�
,,,� COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
'""' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
�
.�.. AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE:
Appeal of Architectural Review Board Decision on New May 8, 2013
�" Hope Church
�
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST:
�.. Appeal of ARB-2013-10: New Hope Church Initial Site CONSENT AGENDA:
Plan ACTION: INFORMATION:
�
�. STAFF CONTACT(S): ATTACHMENTS: Yes
Messrs. Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, and Cilimberg,
..� and Ms. Maliszewski REVIEWED BY:
� �
�"' PRESENTER(S): Margaret Maliszewski `� � �� tl
�
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
�...
BACKGROUND:
� On March 18, 2013 the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed an initial site plan (ARB-2013-10)for the New Hope
:.. Church at the intersection of Dickerson Road and Dickerson Lane. The proposal is to construct a church with associated
site improvements, including an entrance off of Dickerson Road. The New Hope Church parcel is located approximately
� 350 feet west of the Route 29 North entrance corridor. Therefore, only the easternmost 150 feet of the parcel, a strip at the
southeast corner of the site parallel to Dickerson Road and Route 29 North, is within the EC Overlay District. The entrance
� drive to the church will be located within this area. The visibility of the site from the Route 29 North EC is limited. A map
� showing the New Hope Church parcel in relation to the EC Overlay District is included as Attachment D. A photograph
�..
taken from the Route 29 North EC and showing the site is included as Attachment E.
,,�, Under the County's new site plan regulations, the ARB's review of New Hope Church's initial site plan was governed by
County Code § 18-32.4.2.2(b),which limited the ARB's review at this stage of the site pian process for consistency with the
�.. applicable design guidelines to the following: (i)the size, locaticn and configuration of structures; (ii)the location and
configuration of parking areas and the location of landscaped areas; and (iii) identifying existing trees, wooded areas and
"" natural features that should be preserved.
�
After consideration of the matter, including the staff re�,ort that provided staff's recommendations on the proposal
� (Attachment A) and comments by the New Hope Church representatives and the appellant, the ARB voted to transmit its
recommendations on the initia! site plan to the agent, as provided in County Code§ 18-32.4.2.2(b)(3). The ARB will review
�"` the New Hope plan again at the final site plan stage because a Certificate of Appropriateness is required prior to final site
�, plan approval.
�• STRATEGIC PLAN:
�
Goal 3. Encourage a diverse and vibrant local economy.
,,�, DISCUSSION:
ARB Review of the Plan
� During the March 18, 2013 review, the ARB discussed the proposed entrance location, the character of the existing
trees that are proposed to be removed, the steepness of the slope along the entrance drive relative to the amount of
"" trees to be removed, and the degree to which a natural appearance would be achieved with re-planting slopes of
�,, varying degrees. The ARB considered in its discussion sensitivity to the existing natural landscape and the need to
blend into the surrounding landscape, as provided by Guideline#6, and maintaining visual order within the EC, as
�° provided by Guideline#7 (Attachment F). The ARB concluded that no requirements were needed to satisfy the
guidelines at the initial site plan stage of review. The ARB agreed with staff's recommendation that planting along the
'"`°`� entrance drive and re-planting the graded slope with a mix of trees to re-integrate the development into the
,,,,, surroundings to meet Guideline#7 would be required ta be shown on the final site plan stage. The ARB did not require
that the details of that planting be provided with the initial site plan (See A.ttachment G for the minutes of this item at
*r° the March 18, 2013 ARB meeting).
�
�
�.
�
�
�
...
�
AGENDA TITLE: Appeal of Architectural Review Soard Decision on New Hope Church
� May 8, 2013
,,.. Page 2
�' Information regardinc�the grounds for appeal
In a letter of appeal, the appellant identified four grounds for appeal (Attachment H). The grounds are listed below in
'� italics. Staff's response to each item follows in standard text.
�
1. The appellant states that no requirements were imposed to satisfy the design guidelines under County Code
� § 18-30.6.4(c)(2), Size and arrangement of structures; County Code§ 18-30.6.4(c)(3), Location and
configuration of parking areas and landscaping; and County Code§ 18-30.6.4(c)(5), Preservation of existing
� vegetation and natural features.
� a. County Code§ 18-30.6.4(c)(2)does not apply in this case because the proposed structures are
located outside of the EC overlay district.
"�" b. County Code§ 18-30.6.4(c)(3)applies, and the ARB determined that trees would be required along
the entrance drive and on the slope adjacent to the drive. However, sufficient area was shown on the
� plan for the required planting, and the ARB did not require that the details of the planting be provided
...o with the initial site plan. Consequently, no requirement was necessary with the initial site plan, but the
ARB made these requirements of the final site plan.
"" c. County Code§ 18-30.6.4(c)(5)applies; however, the ARB did not find the trees in question to be
�„ significant, so their preservation was not made a requirement of the initial plan.
2. The appellant states that the entrance is not in keeping witl�the n.�ral character of the area. There is no EC
� guideline specific to entrances and rural character. The guideline that most closely relates to this statement is
Guideline#6,which reads in part: "Site develcpment should be sensitive to the existing natural landscape and
"" should contribute to the creation of an organized development plan. This may be accomplished, to the extent
,r, practical, by preserving the trees and rolling terrain typical of the area; planting new trees along streets and
pedestrian ways and choosing species that reflect native forest elements..."The ARB did not find the trees
� that were proposed to be removed for the entrance drive to be significant, nor did the ARB find it practical to
retain those trees. The ARB found that planting trees along the entrance drive and adding trees to the graded
�'" slope would be sufficient to re-integrate the site into the surrounding environment. This planting was made a
,,� requirement of the final site plan.
3. The appellant states that alternate entrance locations were not considered. The applicant and the appellant
�.- both informed the ARB of alternate entrance locations that had been considered or attempted, or that might be
available. The ARB discussed these alternate locations in detail, noting that shifting the location within the
`�" relatively small area available wouldn't change the view considerably, but that it wasn't really possible to review
„� an entrance location not drawn on the plan. The ARB also noted that the goal of the ARB's review was to
determine whether the proposal meets the guidelines, not to determine all possible options. Because no
� guidelines were identified as being deficient with the entrance location that was proposed, the ARB did not
require an alternate location.
'"'` 4. The appellant states that continuity of the Entrance Corridor is not being preserved by the ARB's action. The
qr, EC guideline that most closely relates to this statement is Guideline#7, which reads� "Landscaping should
promote visual order within the Entrance Corridor and help to integrate buildings into the existing environment of
� the corridor."The ARB did not find that the trees to be removed for the entrance drive were significant. Instead,
the ARB found that trees along the entrance drive and trees added to the graded slope would be required to
`"" re-integrate the site into the surrounding environment. Continuity would be maintained with the planting of
� those trees, and this planting was made a requirement of the final site plan.
«� BUDGET IMPACT:
�
This item has no budget impact.
.r, RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board affirm the ARB's decision
�...
ATTACHMENTS:
� A—Staff memo to the ARB
�,,,, B—ARB action letter
C—New Hope Initial Site Development Plan sheets 2 and 3
� D—Vicinity maps showinq the New Hope Church site and the Entrance Corridor
E—Photo of the New Hope Church site taken from the Entrance Corridor
� F—Text of applicable Entrance Corridor Desiqn Guidelines
� G—March 18, 2013 ARB meetinq minutes
H—Letter requestinq appeal
a...
...-
r
�..
�
� �
�a
. �
�a•
�
�
� �
� �
� �
�
�
r �
�
�
; �
�
� ��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�t
H..
�
�
'"'` ACTIONS
�..
Board of Su enrisors Meetin of Ma 8 2013
_�� Ma 9,209 3
�
�
AGENDA iTEM1ACTION ASSIGNMENT PODCAST
�.,, 1. Call to Order..
• Meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by
�' the Chair, Ms. Mallek. All BOS members
were present. Also present were Bili Letteri,
�` Lan Davis and Travis Marris.
,,,� 4. Adoption of Final Agenda. Listen
• ACCEPTED final a enda.
� 5. 8rief Announcements by Board Members.
Dennis Rooker:
� • Announced that there will be�public
�. information meeting on May 23,2d13 at 5:00
p.m.,at the Holiday Inn on Emmett Street
�- focusing on alternative designs of the.
southern interchange o#the Route 29 Bypass.
"` Ann Mallek:
,,,, • Emphasized the importance of complying with
regulatians regarcling Financial Disciosure of
� gifts and donations.
• Commended the Economic Development staff
"` for working hard Yo bring the Virginia Bio State
,„,,, Conference to Albemarle.
• Announced that there is a Memorial Day
� celebration an May 27,2013 at 10:OQ a.m.,at
the Earlysville Post Office.
' • Announced that the Resolution of Intent to
� amend the County Code for parking, stacking
and loading of vehicies in residential areas is
�` Item 8.1 on the Consent Agenda and is not
o en for ublic hearin toni ht.
�" 7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Pubiic
�,,. Hearing on the Agenda.
7he followina residents of Walnut Hilks Subdivision
� spoke about the bEasting qoina on at the Air�ort:�
• Steven DeJanq
�" • Jonathan Boersman
,,,, • Reo Hartfield
• Rit Venerus
"�' • Denise Horbalv Listen
� • Charles Battiq made a presentation entitled
.� "Updafes:Radiation 5afety Concerns in
Albemarle Schools arrd at Home".
"" . Lonnie Murrav spoke in opposition to paving
Castle Rock Road,and the consequences of
� paving rural roads.
� • Bob Garland Jr., spoke on behalf o#the Bflard
of the Canterbury Hills Association in support
'� of Item 8.1 on the Consent Agenda.
• Nancy Carpenter spoke about voucher
� funding far The Cross�r�gs at Fourth and
�.. Preston. I
� Constance Stevens spoke about the �
""'` appropriateness of Chris dumier continuing to
serve on the Board af Supervisors. �_�_A
�- --
�..
1
�
�
�
�
�
�
� • Liliv Anderson,a student at Monticello High
School, presented information on her CAP
'"' project concerning the effects of the 5'h Stree#
,,,� Station.
• Tracv Craft,Walt Rocker. Dixon White and
� Ariana Freed. Monticello High School
students, presented information on their CAP
'� project concerning the Caunty's proposed
� firing range.
� Sarah Donnellv, a resident of Esmont,read an
� article entitled"Love CanaP'.
• Randolph Bvrd asked Board to consider
� lannin a do ark in the Crozet area.
,�„ 8.1 Resolufion of Intent to amend County Code§ 18- Clerk: Forward copy of signed
4.12, Parking, Stacking and Loading;and set a resolution to County Attorney's
� public hearing to cansider an ordinance to amend Office. Schedule for public
County Code Chapter 9, Motor Veh�cies and hearing.(Attachment 1}
"' Traffic. Community Development: Proceed
�,,. • ADOPTED Resolution of infent to consider as approved.
amending County Code§ 18-4.12.3,
�► prohibiting activities in parking,stacking and Listen
loading areas, and any other related sections
""' determined to be necessary for amendment.
�,,, • SET the proposed�rdinance amending
County Code§9-50D,which will be developed
� concurrently with the zoning text amendment
for County Code§ 18-4.12.3,for a public
�"` hearing to be held concurrent with the zoning
..-
text amendment.
9. A eal:ARB-2043-10. New Hope Church Initial
�►' Plan.
• 6y a vote of 5:1 (Mallek),A�FIRMED fhe Listen
"` ARB's decision.
�„ 10. PROJECT:SP-2012-00030.The Peabodv Clerk: Set out conditions of
School tSian#51,�. approvai. (Attachmsnt 2)
� • By a vate of 6:0, APPROVED SP 2012-030
subject to the revised application and three
`"' conditions as recommended by staff. Listen
�„ • By a vote of 6:0, APPROVED the uariation
request to allow the muitipurpose building to
«� be located 10 feet from the praper�y line by
allowing the reduction in setbacks from 30
'"'° feet to 10 feet,for the reasons recommended
,� b stafF.
11. PROJECT:ZMA-2012-00006. Church of Our Clerk:Set out proffers.
� 5aviour. (Attachment 3)
• By a vote of 5:0:1 (Rooker recused), Listen
�"` APPROVED ZMA-2�12-00006 subject#o
�, roffer dated and si ned A riE 24,2013.
12. ZTA-2013-00001.Wireless Phase 1. Clerk: Forward signed copy of
� • By a vote of 6:0,ADOPTED Ordinance No. ordinance to Community Listen
13-18(3). De�elopment and County
""' Attorney's Office.
,,,,, Attachment 4
Recess. At 9:13 p.m., the Board recessed and
� reconvened at 9:21 .m.
13. An ordinance to amend Chaater 6, Fire Clerk: Forward signed copy of
""" Pro�ection,Article lII. Fireworks, of the ordinance to Fire and Rescue
� Aibemarle County Gode. OfF'ice and County Attorney's
• B a vote o�'6:0,ADOPTED Ordinance No. Office. �isten
�
1
�
�
�
..-
�
�
�
�
�
�:
+1� '`
�.
�:
<�°
�
`�:
#�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
..._
�
�
�
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
ar.
°�' CHAPTER 18
�" ZONING
�` SECTION 32
�.
SITE PLAN
�
Sections:
�
32.1 GENERAL PROVISIONS
�.► 32.1.1 PURPOSES
32.1.2 RELATION OF SECTION 32 TO OTHF,R LAWS AND PRIVATE CONTRACTS
"' 32.1.3 RULES OF CONSTRUCTION
,r, 32.2 APPL[CABILITY
32.3 ADMINISTRATION
�•+ 32.3.1 DESIGNATION OF AGENT; POWERS AND DUTIES
32.3.2 ESTABLISHMENT OF SITE REVIEW COMM[TTEE; POWERS AND DUTIES
`"r 32.3.3 AMENDMENTS TO A SITE PLAN
,,,�, 32.3.4 FEES
32.3.5 VARIATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS
� 32.3.6 APPEALS OF DECIS[ONS PERTAINING TO VARIATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS
32.4 PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL,REVIEW AND ACTION ON SITE PLANS
'� 32.4.1 PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW OF PREAPPLICATION PLANS
,�.,. 32.4.1.1 SUBMITTAL OF PREAPPLICATION PLAN AND OTHER INFORMATION
32.4.1.2 FORM AND STYLE OF PREAPPLICATION PLAN
"' 32.4.1.3 CONTENTS OF PREAPPLICATION PLAN
�...
32.4.1.4 REVIEW OF PREAPPLICATION PLAN
32.4.2 PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW AND ACTION ON INITIAL SITE PLAN
�,.. 32.4.2.1 SUBMITTAL OF INITIAL SITE PLAN; DETERM[NATION OF COMPLETENESS
32.4.2Z REVIEW OF INITIAL SITE PLAN BY SITE REVIEW COMMITTEE AND
�'° ARCHITECTUR4L REVIEW BOARD
� 32.4.2.3 REVISIONS TO ADDRESS REQUIRED CHANGES
32.4.2.4 DEFERRAL OF REVIEW;WHEN APPLICATION DEEiVIED WITHDRAWN
� 32.4.2.5 REVIEW AND ACTION ON INITIAL SITE PLAN BY AGENT
32.4.2.6 APPEAL AND JUDICIAL REVIEW
""' 32.4.2.7 PERIOD OF VALIDITY OF APPROVED INITIAL SITE PLAN
,�, 32.4.2.8 EFFECT OF APPROVAL OF INITIAL SITE PLAN ON OTHER FUTURE AND
PENDINC APPROVALS
� 32.4.3 PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW AND ACTION ON FINAL SITE PLAN
32.4.3.1 SUBMITTAL OF FINAL SITE PLAN; DETERMINATION OF COMPLETENESS
""`� 32.4.3.2 REVIEW OF FINAL SITE PLAN BY SITF. REVIEW COMMITTEE
„`, 32.4.3.3 REVIEW OF FINAL SITE PLAN BY ARCHITECTURAL REV[EW BOARD;
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPR[ATENESS
� 32.4.3.4 REVISIONS TO ADDRESS REQUIRED CHANCES
32.4.3.5 DEFERRAL OF REVIEW;WHEN APPLICATION DEEMED WITHDRAWN
'" 32.4.3.6 REVIEW AND ACTION ON FINAL SITE PLAN BY AGENT
�,,, 32.4.3.7 APPEAL AND JUCICIAL REVIEW
32.4.3.8 PERIOD OF VALID[TY OF APPROVED FINAL SITE PLAN
*+r 32.5 INITIAL SITE PLAN; FORM AND CONTENT
32.S,1 FORM AND STYLE OF AN INITIAL SITE PLAN
� 32.5.2 CONTENTS OF AN [NITIAL SITE PLAN
,,,, 32.5.3 RESPONSE TO INFORMATION DURING PREAPPLICATION PROCESS
32.5.4 GROUNDWATER ASSESSMENT INFORMATION
�
�
�.
18-32-1
""' Zoning Supplement#76, 1-1-13
�
.u>
�
,�
�
...
�
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
:.•
a. All references to any statute, regulation, guideline, manual or standard are to that statute, regulation,
'�'" guideline, manual or standard as it exists on the date of adoption of this chapter, and includes any
,r, amendment thereatter or reissue in a subsequent edition.
� b. The w�ord"days"means calendar days,unless otherwise expressly provided.
"� c. All distances and areas shall be measured in a horizontal plane unless otherwise expressly provided.
,..
d. The���ord"current"means the point in time at��hich a matter is under consideration and shall not mean the
� date of adoption of the most recent amendment to section 32.
' e. All provisions requiring that improvements be designed or constructed to prescribed standards, or
.,,,Y otherwise comply with delineated standards.refer to the minimum standard and nothing in section 32 shall
prohibit an improvement from exceeding the standard.
..o
(§32.1?.Ord. 12-18(6), 10-3-12,ettecti�e 1-1-1"3)
�
�
State law reference—Va.Code ti 15 2-2?-i l(9).
,.,. 32.2 APPLICABILITY
� Any construction,use,change in use or other development is permitted in any zoning district only with an approved
site plan complying�vith the requirements of section 32,other applicable requirements of this chapter, and all other
"'` applicable laws;provided that no site plan shall be required for the follo�ving:
�
a. The construction or location of an} single-family detached d�velling on a lot on which not more than hvo
� (2) dwellings are located or proposed to be located if the lot has public street trontage, or the construction
�,�..
or location of one(1)d�velling unit on a lot that does not have public street trontage.
,,� b. The construction or location of a t�vo-family d�velling on any lot not occupied by any other dwellings.
� c. Any structure that is accessory to a single-family detached or two-famih d�veliing.
"`� d. Any agricultural activity escept as other��ise provided in section 5.
�.
e. Any change in or expansion of a use unless: (i) the change or expansion requires additional parking under
'�" section�1.12;(ii)additional ingress/egress or alteration of existing ingress/egress is required by the Virginia
Department of Transportation based on the intensitication of the use;or(iii)additional ingress/egress or the
" alteration of e�isting ingress/egress is proposed by the developer.
,.Y
(,��' 32.2.1.Ord. 12-18(6), 10-3-12,etfective 1-1-13 (,��' 32.2, 12-10-80: ,��' 32.2.1, 12-10-80))
�
State law reference—Va Code" 15 2-22-i1(9�, 152-2258, 1i2-2286(A)(8)
�
�
32.3 ADMIN[STRATION
,�, 32.3.1 DESIGNATION OF AGENT; POWERS AND DUTIES
.,,,,, The director of community development is hereby designated the agent of the board of supervisors for the purpose
of administering section 32 ezcept as other���ise ezpressly provided.The agent shall have the po�vers and duties to:
�
�
a. Receive,process and act on site plan applications as provided in section 32.
aq,, b. Establish reasonable administrative procedures as deemed necessary for the proper and efticient
administration of section 32.
�
...�
c. Make all determinations and tindings and impose all applicable requirements in revie�ving a site plan.
�
18-32-4
"� Zonmg Supplement#76,1-I-I 3
.r.
�
vrr
�..
�
�
�
ALREN/ARLE COCiNTY('ODE
�
d. Consider and act on reyuests to v�ry or except the reauiatic�ns ol scction 32 as provided in section 32.3.5.
�
� (§ 32.3.1, Ord. 12-18(6), 10-3-12. effective 1-1-13 (§ 32.3.1, 12-10-80) (fi 32.3.2, 12-10-80; $,��' 32.6.2. 32.6.7, 12-
10-80))
��..
State law reference—Va Code,���1 S 2-22di(9),1�?-3�'S5.
�
�
32.3.2 ESTABLISHMENT OF SITE REVIEW COMMITTEE; POWERS AND DIJTIES
,,,,,, A site revie�v committee is hereby established and it shail be corrtposed of representatives of the department of
community development, including a planner to e��aluate the issues relevant to a certiticate of appropriateness that
�` �vill be considered by the architectural revie��•board for those site plans for sites�vithin an entrance corridor overlay
district,the department of tire rescue,the Albemarle County Service .Autl�orit;,the Virginia Department of Health,
" the Virginia Department af Transportation.tiie l.inited Staie� Departrnent of Agriculture, and the Natural Resource
� Conservation Service. Each member of the site �evie�ti committ�.e shall identify the requirements and may make
recommendations o�t those �natters within the authority ot the bodies and entities thak they represent.The site review
�"'`" committee shall ha��e the pu�vers and duties tu:
� a. Meet from time to ti»>e to revie�� sitc plans as pravided in sect�on 32, including requests for variations or
,�,. exceptions.
'�" b. Transmit to the agent the requirements and recommendatior.s it has identitied regarding each site plan.and
�
infi�rmation and recommendations on each request tor a variation or esception.
r.. c. Transmit recommended conditions to the agent and the program authority regarding any grading permit
that may be sought in conjunction�a�ith an approved initiai site plan.
� '
�...
d. Propose rules for the conduct of' its business to the agent. which shall 5e estabiished and approved as
administrative procedures under section 32.3.1(b1.
�..
(,��' 32.3.2,Ord. 12-18(6). 10-3-12,etfective 1-1-13 (�32.3.3: ,��' 32.7?. 12-10-80, 1-1-84; ,��' 32.3.1.5-1-87))
�
�
State law reference—Va Code�,��' 15 2-2241(9), I 5 2-2355
,,.. 32.3.3 AMENDMENTS TO A SITE PLAN
'�"' Changes, revisions or erasures (collectivel}. "amen�lments'"i tu a siic ��I�n. including amendments to a landscape
�ar
plan,may be made as tbllows:
.r., a. P�•ior to appr•ol�al. E3eti>re a site plan is apprm ed by the agent. the de�eloper may amend a site plan or
accompanying data she�t that has been submitted to the county if the agent authorizes the amendment in
""" ��riting or if the site re�ie�a committee requires the amendn�ent in its revie��� of the site plan. The
�
procedures and requirements for initial and final site p(ans appl} to amendments to a site plan.
.. b. :�ftei�approi�al. Atter a site plan is approved by t!le agent, the de��eloper may amend the site pian if the
amended site plan is submitted,revie�ved and approved as provided in section 32.4;provided that the agent
"" may approve amendments to an approved final site plan�vithout proceeding under section 32.4 as follows:
�
1. Afinor anrendments. The agent may approve the amendment as a minor amendment if he
�•► determines that the site plan.as amended:(i)complies with all requirements of this chapter and all
other applicable la��s; (ii1 is substantially the same as the approved site plan; and(iii)will have no
� additional adverse impact on adjacent land or public facilities;or
�
2. Letters of rerisiaz. T'he agent may approve the amendment by a letter of revision if he determines
� that the site plan, as amendecl, complies ��ith subsections (b)(1)(i), (ii) and (iii) and that the
proposed amendment is de minimis and requires orn�� limited review.
� -
w..
i 8-32-�
""" ZonmgSupplement#76, I-1-13
+.r
�
«r
p..
�.
�
�
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
�
(§ 32.3.3,Ord. 12-18(6), 10-3-12,effective 1-1-13 (§32.3.8,5-1-87; � 32.6.5. 12-10-80))
�
State law reference—Va Code��� IS 2-2241(9),152?2i5
wr
� 32.3.4 FEES
� The developer shall pay the applicable fees as provided in section 35.1.
"'" (,��' 32.3.4,Ord. 12-18(6), 10-3-12,effective 1-1-13 (§ 32.3.9,5-5-82; �32.6.6, 12-10-80))
�
State law reference—Va Code� I S 2-2241(9).
�
32.3.5 VARIATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS
�
�
The requirements of section 32 may be varied or e�cepted as follows:
�. a. E.xception fi�onl requirenaent to proi�ide cei7ain clelails in site plafr. The agent may escept certain details of
a site plan and any amendment to a site plan other�vise required by sections 32.5 and 32.6 as provided
'"" herein:
�
1. Reqrtest for exception. A de�eloper requesting an e�ception shall submit to the agent a �vritten
«�•� request stating the reasons for the request and addressing the applicable finding in subsection
�
(a)(?)•
�, 2. Finding. An e�ception may be approved if the agent tinds that unusual situations exist or that strict
adherence to requiring the details in sections 32.5 or 32.6 �vould result in substantial injustice or
� hardship.This iinding shall be supported by information from the site review committee that all of
the details required by sections 32.5 and 32.6 are not necessary f'or its revie�v of the proposed
"" development,and trom the zoning administrator, in consultation with the county engineer,that the
�..,. details waived are not necessary to determine that the site is developed in compliance �vith this
chapter and all other applicable laws.
�
3. ACIIOiT by the agent on a reyr�est. The agent may appro�e or deny the request. In approving an
� etception,the agent shall identity the details otherwise required by sections 32.5 and 32.6 that are
a,,. excepted.
""' b. !'a��iation or exception fi•om any requir•ement of section 32J. Any requirement of section 32.7 may be
�
varied or e�cepted in an individual case as provided herein:
,..- � 1. Reyuest,fa•a narration or exception. A developer requesting a variation or etception shall submit
to the agent a written request stating the reasons for the request and addressing the applicable
"""" findings in subsections (b)(2) and (b)(3). When a variation is requested, the developer also shall
�...
describe the proposed substituted technique, design or materials composing the substituted
improvement. The request should be submitted before the site revie�v committee considers the
.. initial site plan. The agent may request that the site revie�v committee provide information and a
recommendation on any request for a variation or etception.
8..
�, 2. Findings reqvi�•ecf for a i�ai�iatio�z. The agent may approve a request for a variation to substitute a
required improvement upon finding that because of an unusual situation, the developer's
� substitution of a technique.design or materials of comparable quality from that required by section
32.7 results in an improvement that substantially satisfies the overall purposes of this chapter in a
� manner equal to or ezceeding the desired effects of the requirement in section 32.7.
�..
3. Fi�rdings required for a�r exception. The agent may approve a request for an exception from any
� requirement of section 32.7 upon tinding that: (i) because of an unusual situation, including but
�
not limited to the unusual size,topography,shape of the site or the location of the site;or(ii)�vhen
�
18-32-6
""'` ZoningSupplement#76, 1-I-13
a.r
�ar
�
�
�
�
�.
ALBEMARLF, COUNTY CODE
�
strict adherence to the requirements�vould result in substantial injustice or hardship by, including
"' but not limited to, resulting in the signiticant degradation of the site or to adjacent properties,
�, causing a detriment to the public health, safety or welfare, or by inhibiting the orderly
development of the area or the application of sound engineering practices.
�
4. Findings required for a rariation or exception of any rec/trirentent of sectiaa 32J.5.2. If the
"' developer requests a variation or e�ception of any requirement of section 32J.5.2,the agent shall
�,�„ consider�vhether the requirement would unreasonably impact the esisting above-ground electrical
net�vork so that extensive off=site improvements are necessary. In approving a variation or
� exception,the agent shall find. in addition to the required findings under subsection (b)(2)or(3),
that requiring undergrounding �vould not for���ard the purposes of this chapter or other�vise serve
' the public interest and that granting the variation or exception would not be detrimental to the
,�, public health, safety or �velfare, to the orderly development of the area, and to the land adjacent
thereto. �
�
5. :action hv the agent on a request: conditions.The agent ma} approve, approve�vith conditions,or
� deny the request. lf a request is approved,the agent shall prepare a�vritten statement regarding the
,.r. tindings made. If a request is denied, the agent shail inform the developer in �vriting �vithin five
(5) days aiter the denial, and include a statement esplaining �i�hy the request ���as denied. In
""' approving a request,the agent may impose reasonable conditions deemed necessar} to protect the
...P
public health,safety or�velfare.
,,, c. .�ippeals.The decision of the agent may be appealed as provided in section 32.3.6.
"" (,��' 32.3.5,Ord. 12-18(6), 10-3-12,effective 1-1-]3 (§ 32.2(part),�-1-87; § 32.2.2, 12-10-80)(§32.3.5;§ 32.5.1, 12-
�
10-80)(§323.10.Ord.O1-18(4).5-9-01; §32.3.11.4.5-1-87)(§32.7.9.3.5-1-87))
,� State law reference—Va Code§`15 2-2241(9),152?2-}2(1 j
� 32.3.6 APPEALS OF DEC[SIONS PERTAIMNC TO VARIAT[ONS AND EXCEPTIONS
"`� A denial of a request for a variation or an exception or the approval of a variation or exception with conditions
„� objectionable to the developer may be appealed by the developer as follo�vs:
� a. To t{ie planni�ig commission.A developer may appeal the decision of the agent to the planning commission
b}' suhmitting a written reyuest for appeal to the agent within ten (]0) da}�s atter the date of the agent"s
a` decision. In acting on an appeal. the commission shall consider the recommendation of the agent and alt
9,,, other relevant evidence,and apply ±he applicable tindings provided in section 32.3.5.The commission may
approve or deny the request. In approving a request on an appeal trom a decision under section 32.3.5(b),
""' the commission may impose reasonable conditions deemed necessary to protect the public health,safety or
�.
�velfare.
,,., b. �o the boarcl ofsirpei��isors. A developer may appeal the decision of�the planning commission to the board
of supervisors by submitting a���ritten request for appeal to the clerk of the board of supervisors�vithin ten
"" (10) days atter the date of the commission decision. In acting on an appeal, the board shall consider the
�, recommendation of the agent and all other relevant evidence,and appl} the applicable findings provided in
section 32.3.5. The board mav approve or deny the request. In approving a request on an appeal from a
�.- decision under section 32.3.5(b),the board may impose reasonable conditions deemed necessary to protect
the public health,safety or�velfare.
�
c. Effect of filing appeal. An appeal shall suspend the running of the time by �vhich the agent must act on a
� site plan under sections 32.4.2.5 and 32.4.3.6 from the date the appeal is submitted until the date the
� planning commission or the board of supervisors acts on the appeal,�vhichever takes the last action.
�' (,��' 32.3.6,Ord. 12-18(6), 10-3-12,effective 1-1-13(e 32.3.10.Ord.O1-18(d),5-9-01; ti 32.3.11.4,5-1-87)(�32.7.9.3,
-�.
5-1-87))
�
18-32-7
`� I,oningSupplement#76,1-I-13
�
�
�
�
�
�
�..
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
�
�valls; trash containers;outdoor lighting; landscaped areas and open space; recreational areas and facilities;
'"`` parking lots and other paved areas;and loading and service areas.
�
o. .areas to be dedicated or reserrec�.All areas intended to be dedicated or reserved for public use.
...
p. Symbols and ahbrerintions.A legend sho�ving all symbols and abbreviations used on the plan.
...
�„ (§32.4.1.3,Ord. 12-18(6), 10-3-12,etiective 1-1-13 (§ 32.4.1.1.5-1-87; ,��' 32.3.1. 12-10-80))
,,.,,. State law reference—Va.Code ti,�� 152-22-}1(9), IS 2-2255, IS 2-2258, IS.�?286(A)(8)
� 32.4.1.4 REVIEW OF PREAPPLICATION PLAN
' Each preapplication plan meeting the requirements of sections 32.�1.1.2 and 32.4.1.3 and each letter provided by
„... section 32.4.1.1(b) shall be revie�ved by the agent. Within ten (10) days after the submittal, the agent shall send
�vritten comments to the developer addressing the following:
�
a. Complia��ce irith =oiaing. Whether the proposed use and density complies �iith this chapter nnd all
� applicable proffers, special use permits and conditions thereot; special exceptions and conditions thereot:
.r. varinnces and conditions thereot;application plans and codes of development.
"" b. 6 ariatio�rs, exceptions and specia!exceptions. Identity all variations and exceptions that will be required
�, under section 32 and all special e�ceptions that��•ill be required, including references to the sections in this
chapter under which the variation, ezception or special esception �vill be sought, the sections authorizing
•.r the variation, esception or special eYception, and the sections identifying the information the developer
must submit in order for the variation,exception or special esception to be considered.
�
„�„ c. Fees. The amount of the fees required for revie�ving the site plan and anv request ('or a variation or
etception.
.r.
d. Req:rired changes. Identity any features on the plan required to be changed in order to compl} with this
� chapter or any applicable requirement of a protfer, special use permit. sp�cial exception, variance,
,,,,,, application plan or code oPdevelopment.
� e. Recommenc�'ed changes. Identity an}' features on the plan recommended to be changed to address
..r.
components of the comprehensive plan or sound plannir.g,zoning or engineering practices.
,.,,,, f. .-idditiona!if fornaatioir.'1'he agent ma��require additional information to be shown on the initial site plan as
deemed necessary m order to provide sufficient information for the agent to adequately review the plan
�"' including, but not limited to. information tcom a traffic study, landscaping, historic resources and
�..
ground�vater.
,,.,. (,��' 32.d.1.4,Ord. 12-18(6), 10-3-12,effective I-1-13)
''�'` State law reference—Va.Code{� 152-�241(9), IS 2-23g5, 152-2258, i5 2-2283,?5 2?386(A)(8).
� 32.4.2 PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW AND ACTION ON INITIAL SITE PLAN
w...
32.4.2.1 SUBMITTAL OF INITIAL SITE PLAN; DETERMINATION OF COMPLETENESS
.�.
�
Each initial site plan shall be submitted to the agent and processed as follows:
..,, a. Date of offrcial svbnrittal. An initial site plan shall be deemed to be officially submitted on the date of the
ne�t application deadline estahlished by the agent atier the submittal of the plan and the agent's
�" determination that the plan is complete.
�
�
18-32-10
�"' ZonmgSupplement#76, 1-I-13
�
�
�
�.
�
�
�
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CCJDE.
�
b. Timiiag of rel�ieN�lo cfetei�nrine coirrplete��ess.The agert's re�•ie�v to determine�vhether an initial site plan is
"" complete shall be made�vithin ten(10)days after the application submittal deadline.
�
c. Determi�7ation t{taI plan is inconzplete; �totice. An initial site plan omitting any iniormation required b}
� section 32.5 shall be deemed to be incomplete and shall not be accepted for official submittal by the agent.
The agent shall inform the developer in writing ot�the reasons for the disapproval, with citation to the
'°`r applicable section of this chapter or other la�v, and what corrections or moditications �vill permit
_„ acceptance ol�the plan.The agent shall notify the developer or his or her agent of the disapproval in writing
by tirst class mail,personal deliver},or, if consented to by the developer in writing,b} fat or email.
�..
d. Resuhmittal. Within titteen(15)days atter the date the notice of disappro�al�vas mailed or delivered by the
'y agent, the developer may resubmit the initial site plan. The date of the nert application deadline atter the
.,�„ resubmittal of the plan shall be deemed to be the date upon �vhich the plan �vas ofticially submitted. In the
event the developer fails to resubmit the plan�vithin the tifteen(15)day period,the plan shall be deemed to
""'' be disapproved and a new applicatior,and fee shall be required for submittal of the plan.
�
e. Transnrittal to site i•erieu� rommittee, architecttu�a/ rerien� hourcl, a�id state nge�rcv. An initial site plan
.� deemed of'ficial]}�submitted shall be transmitted to the site revie�v committee and, for plans for sites�vithin
an entrance corridor overlay district,the architectural review board as provided in section 32.4.2?. If state
�"` agency approval of an initial site plan is required,the agent shall for�vard to the state agency all documents
�
necessary to allo�v it to conduct its revie« within ten(10)days atter the initial site plan is decmed officially
submitted.
�
f. Notice,- recipients. When the agent determines that an initial site pian is ofticially submitted,he shali send
""` notice that the plan has been submitted to the o�vner of each lot abutting the site and to each member of the
board of supervisors and the planning commission. The notice shall describe the type of use proposed; the
� specitic location of the development; the appropriate county oft7ce�i�here the plan may be viewed; and the
w. dates the site review committee and, if applicable and if known,the architectural revie�v board�vill review
the plan.
�
,,,,,., g. Notice; hoir proi�ided. The notice required by subsection (t) shall be mailed or hand delivered at least ten
(10) days prior to the site re��ie�v committee meeting and, if applicable, the architectural review board
� meeting at�vhich the initial site plan�vill be revie���ed. Mailed notice shall be sent by iirst class mail.Notice
mailed to the o�uner of each lot abutting the site shall be mailed to the last known address of the owner,and
�`' mailing the notice to the address sho�vn on the current real estate tas assessment records of the county shall
,� be deemed to be compliance�iith this requirement. [f a lot abutting the site is o�vned by the developer, the
notice shall be given to the o�vner of the next abutting lot not o�vned by the developer.
�
h. Notice; defect does not affec/ra/idih�of site plati. The failure of any person to receive the notice required
�` by subsection (�, or any error in the notice, shall not affect the�alidity of an approved site plan,and shail
,,.. not be the basis for an appeal.
� (� 32.4.2.1.Ord. 12-18(6). 10-3-12,effecti�e 1-1-13 (§ 32.d.2.1. 12-10-80)(§ 32.4.2.2(part), 12-10-80)(� 32.4.2.5,
12-10-80))
�.r
,,�, State law reference—Va Code§� 15 2-2241(9), 15,??�5g, �5 2-2258, I 5 2-2260
� 32.4.2.2 REVIEW OF INITIAL SITE PLAN BY S[TE REVIEW COMMITTEE AND ARCHITECTURAL
...
REVIEW BOARD
,�,, Upon receipt of an initiai site plan trom the agent,the site revie�v committee and the architectural review board shall
review the plan as follo�vs:
�
a. Site ��e►�ieia� con:nzittee r•erieia�. The site revie�v committee shall revie�v each plan for compliance �vith the
' technical requirements of this chapter and other applicable la�vs. Upon completion of its revie�v, the site
,,,,p, review committee shall transmit to the agent its requirements and recommendations. The site review
�
�
18-32-i l
ZoningSupplement#76, I-1-13
a.r
�
�
�.
�
�
�
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
�
committee also may recommend to the agent conditions of initial site plan approval, induding conditions
""� required to be satistied before a grading permit may be issued under chapter 17. Any recommended
,�„ conditions shall pertain to an}�requirements of this chapter and other applicable laws.
� b. .9rc{titectrri�al rerieir board rerielr. The architectura] revie�v board shall review each plan for sites �vithin
an entrance corridor overla} district proposing development that is not exempt trom review under section
r" 30.6.5 as follows:
�
1. Prmpose artd scope of rerieir.The architectural revie�v board shall revie�v the plan for consistency
`•" �vith the design guidelines. The scope of revie�� by the board shall be to consider: (i) those
elements delineated in section 30.6.4(c)(2) that may be evaluated under the initial site plan and
'� which may include, but not be limited to, the location and contiguration of structures, (ii) the
.,,,, location and contiguration of parking areas and the location of landscaped areas under section
30.6.4(c)(3); and (iii) to identify esisting trees, �vooded areas and natural features that should be
"p' preserved under section 30.6.d(c)(5). The speciiic types of landscaping and screening to be
provided on the site under section 30.6.�1(c)(4)shall not be considered by the board for consistency
� �vith the design guidelines during its review of the plan.
..
2. St�bmittal i�eyirirements. The architectw•al revie��• board's revie��� shaEl be based on the initial site
'�" plan and the information provided with the initial site plan under sections 32.5.2. 32.5.3, 32.5.�
�..
and 32.5.5.The developer shall not he required to submit any other information.
�r 3. Ti�ansnarttal of req:iir�eme�Tts nnd reconmiencta�ions. Upon completing its revie�v, the architectural
re�ie�v board shall transmit to the agent (i) its requirements resulting trom its review of the
`""� elements of sections 30.6.4(c)(2),(3)and(5)delineated in subsection (b)(1) in order to satisfy the
„r, design guidelines; (ii) any recommendations including, but not limited to, recommendations
pertaining to those elements of sections 30.6.4(c)(2), (3)and (5) for�vhich requimments were not
� identified under subsection (b)(3)(i); and (iii) any recommended conditions of initial site plan
approval. including conditions required to be satistied before a grading permit may be issued
"' under chapter 17. Any recommended conditions shali pertain to ensuring compliance with the
,�,,, design guidelines under the elements of sections 30.6.4(c)(2), (3)and(5) delineated in subsection
(b)(1)•
,.
4. .-9ppeal. The architectural revie�v board's identified reyuirements under subsection (b)(3) is a
" decision that may be appealed as provided in section 30.6.8.
�
c. C'onsistencti'; PC'COiJCIIlCIhOiI of co��icl,s. Any requirement of the architectural revie�v board shall be
�' consistent �vith the requirements of this chapter. lf there is a conflict beriveen any requirement of any
applicable la��� and am requirement identified b}� the architectura] revie�v board, the requirement of the
� applicable la�v shall control. If there is a conflict be.tween a requirement and a recommendation, the
� reyuirement shall c�ntrol.
... (,��' 32.4?.2,Ord. 12-18(6), 10-3-12,effective 1-1-13 (� 32.4.2.2(part), 12-10-80))
"1°' State law reference—Va.Code�` 15 2-2241�9), I S 2-2�55, 15 2-2258, I�2-�260, I S?-�286(A)(d),I S 2-2306
9.r
32.4.2.3 REVISIONS TO ADDRESS REQUIRED CHANCES
�
Each initiai site plan for���hich changes are required shall be revised as follows:
�
a. Requi��ements identifred; letter !o the developer. If the site revie�v committee or the architecturai review
""' board require or recommend revisions to the initial site plan. the agent shall promptly issue a letter to the
developer stating the required changes that must be made and the recommended changes that may, in the
� developer's discretion, be made. The letter shall be sent b�� tirst ciass mail. be personally delivered or, if
,,,,,, consented to by the developer in�vriting,by i'ax or email.
y..�
�..
�
18-32-12
ZoningSupplement#76, I-I-13
�
arr
*roer
...
�
�
�...�
ALBEMARLE COU.NTY CODE
�
b. Plan rerised to addi•ess reqiri��ed clra��ges.T'he developer shali revise the plan to address all of the required
"" changes before approval of the initial site plan by the agent.The developer is not required to revise the plan
�..
to address any recommendations of the site review committee or the architectural revie�v board.
�. (§32.4.2.3.Ord. 12-18(6), 10-3-12,effective 1-1-13 (§ 32.4.2.3. 12-10-80))
"� State law reference—Va Code§$ 15.2-22d1(9), 15'-?255, 15.��258, 15 2-�260
� 32.4.2.4 DEFERRAL OF REVIEW;WHEN APPLICATION DEEMED WITHDRAWN
�
1'he revie�v of; and action on, an initial site plan may be deferred, and an application for an initial site plan may be
..� deemed���ithdrawn,as follo�vs:
"` a. Reqirest to defer by� dereloper. A de�eloper may request that revie�r or action on its application Yor an
,,�, initial site plan be deferred for a specitied period up to sis (6) months. If during the deferral period the
developer does not request the agenk to take action on the initiai site plan as pro�ided in section 32.�.2.5
«� �vithin sit(6)months atter the date the deferral was requested,the application shall be deemed to have been
voluntarily �vithdra�vn.
.�..
�, b. Failtn•e to strbmil re>>ised plun. If a developer fails to submit a revised initial site plan to address all of the
requirements �vithin si� (6) months atter the date of the letter fi•om the agent as provided in section
� 32.4?.3,the application shall be deemed to have been�oluntaril}'�vithdra�vn by the developer.
�"` a F_xtension of deferra!period or period to submit revised plaa. Before the deferral period in subsectiun (a)
,q,,, e�pires,the developer may request that the agent extend the period before the application is deemed to have
been voluntarily ��ithdra�vn. The request must be received by the agent before the deferral period expires.
�° The agent may grant one ettension for a period determined to be reasonable, taking into consideration the
size or nature of the proposed development, the complexit} of the revie�v,and the la�vs in effect at the time
�` the e�tension request is made.
�
(,��' 32.4.2.4.Ord. 12-18(6). 10-3-I2,effective ]-1-13 (,��' 32.4.2.8,Ord.O1-18(6). 10-3-01))
�
State law reTerence—Va.Code§§ I�:.-2241(9), I 5 2-225�
�rr
,,�, 32.4.2.5 REVIEW AND ACTION ON INI'fIAL SITE PLAIY BY AGENT
� T'he agent shall revie�v and act on an initial site plan as fellows:
"" a. Rel�ieir. The agent shall revie�ti the initial site plan for compliance �vith all requ'srements, and sha(I make a
,,� good faith etfort to identify all defic�encies. if any, during revielt�of�the plan. The agent shall consider the
recommendation of the site revie�ti committee as to �vhether the plan complies �vith all applicable
++° requirements and any statement by the developer. The agent also may consider any other evidence
pertaining to the plan's compliance with the requirements of this chapter as deemed necessar� for a proper
� revie�v of the plan.
�
b. Tinre fa�actio��.The agent shall act or,the initial site plan within sisty (60)days atter the date the pian �ras
'�'�" ofiicially submitted,provided:
� 1. .9I/ernatire tinre,for actio�r if sta�e agencti�a�proral is reqt�ii•ed. 1 f approval of a feature on the plan
�.,. by a state agency is required,the agent shall approve or disapprove the plan within thirty-tive(35)
days after receipt of approvals from all state agencies,and not more than ninety(90)days atter the
"' date the plan was officially submitted.
� 2. St�spension�f�rtrn�rrng of time fa•actioyT.The running of the time by�vhich the agent must act on a
.�. plan shall be suspended: (i) fr��m the clate the appeal of a decision un a request for a��ariation or
etception is submitted under section 3:'.3.b until tht:date the planning commission or the board of
�
�
18-32-13
'r`r 7_oningSupplement#76,1-1-13
wr
�
�
�
�...
�
�,,, ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE'
�
supervisors,as the case may be, acts on the appeal, �vhichever takes the tinal action;(ii) from the
� date of�the letter to the developer until the date the revised initial site plan addressing the required
�.. changes is submitted under section 32.4.2.3(b); (iii) from the date of the developer's request for a
deferral under section 32.4.2.4(a);and(iv)during any estension granted under section 32.4?.4(c).
m...
c. �Iction Io approre and nolice of approral. If the agent determines that the initial site plan complies with all
� applicable requirements, he shall approve the plan and promptl} issue a letter to the developer informing
� the developer of the approval and stating the requirements that must be included �vith submittal of the tinal
site plan and those conditions which must be satisfied prior to appro��al of the final site plan and. ���here
'"` applicable,those conditions which must be satistied prior to issuance of a grading permit under section 17-
,�, 204(F,). The agent shall mail the letter by first class mail, personally deliver it to the developer, or. if
consented to by the developer in writing,deliver it by fa�or email.
�
d. .�1clia�to disapprore and notice of disapproi�al. If the agent determines that the plan does not comply ���ith
'""` all applicabie requirements,he shall disapprove the plan and promptly issue a letter to the developer stating
the reasons for disappro��al by identitying the plan's deticiencies and citing the applicable sections of this
� chapter or other applicable la���s, and ��hat corrections or modit7cations �r•ili permit approval of the plan.
� The agent shall mail the letter by tirst class mail, personally deliver it to the developer, or, if consented to
...�
by the developer in writing.deliver it by fax or email.
,�, e. .lction !o c�isapprove becaarse of failvre to make required rerisions; notice of disapproral; oppa•tuniti�to
resubmit. If the developer submits a revised plan under section 32.4?.3 that fails to address all of the
'++� required changes, the plan shail be disapproved. Within tit�een (15) days after the date the notice of
disapproval required by subsection (d) is mailed or delivered by the agent, the developer may resubmit the
�` initial site plan. The date ofthe nezt application deadline after the resubmittal oi�the plan shall be deemed
�,,, to be the date upon �vhich the plan was ofticially submitted. In the event the developer fails to resubmit the
plan within the tit�een (15) day period,the plan shall be deemed to be disapproved and a ne�� application
""'' and fee shail be reyuired for submittal of the plan.
� (§32.4.2.5,Ord. 12-18(6). 10-3-12,effective 1-1-13 (§ 32.4?.4, 12-10-80)(� 32.4?.6, 12-10-80))
�.�.
State law reference—Va Code§§ 15.3-2241(9), I 5 2-2255,15 2-2�58, 15 3?260
�
32.4.2.6 APPEAL AND JUDICIAL REVIEW
w.
,�, The disapproval of an initial site plan may be appealed as foliows:
�rr a. .4ppeal to connnission af�d board of strperi�isors. If an initial site plan is disapproved by the agent, or is
approved �vith conditions that the developer objects to, the developer at its sole option may appeal the
'r decision of the agent to the commission and, if the commission disapproves the initial site plan or ai�firms
,,�, the objectionable conditions, to the board of supervisors. "I'he appeal shail be in �vriting and be tiled with
the agent�vithin ten (]0)days alter the date of the decision by the agent or by the commission,as the case
� may be.The action by the commission and the board shall comply with subsections 32.d.2.5(c),(d)and(e),
�
as applicable.
,.., b. Judicial rerieir. If an initial site plan is disapproved by the agent, the commission or the board of
supervisors, the developer may appeal the disapproval to the circuit court as pro��ided in Virginia Code ,��'
'"" 15.2-2260(E). No developer is required to appeal the disapproval of the plan under subsection (a) before
�,..
appealing it to the circuit court.
..,.� (§32.4.2.6.Ord. 12-18(6). ]0-3-12,effecti�e 1-1-13 (,��' 32.4.2.7, 12-10-80;Ord.01-18(6), 10-3-01))
'+' State law reference—Va Code�,�� 15.3-2241(9), 15 2-2255,152-2258,15 2-2260.
�r
s
ao✓
� �g-3�'��
ZoningSupplement#76, I-1-13
�
�
�
�
�
� ��
�
< � - 'r�'�s
�a� �
�
� �
�
� �r •`
r�•
�
��`
�
�
�
y�,�
g �:. . � . . . . . � . . .�F� •
�
. � . .. . . . . . . . � � . ..
� . . � . . . � . . � � .. . . . . . � ��� � . .
. � � .. . . . � � . .. - . .. . .. �� . � .
. ... � . . . . . .�$� � ... � � .
�
. � . . . . . . . . . . . ..�. � .
� . ... .. . ... . . .. .� . �� � �
: :. . . . . . . . . � . � . ... �* � . .
. . . . � .. . � � �
� .� ... :..: . .. . . . .. � . . . �
=' .. . . .. .. . . . ���
.. � . . � . . . � . � .. � . ..� ��. � .
. .. . . . .. � . .
' .. .. � .. � �
.. . � . . � . .. . .� . .
.. . . � .� �� . ..
� . . � . . . ... . . .�..:�� �� �
„ � . . .. . . � ..� � �
.. . . � . � . . .. .. � . .. .� ..
� � � . .. � . . . . �. . . . . . . � . . .
r;, ,.�y „�-.. ,' -. , - ..� ,
,.. ._c � ��. -e' -r.re .-n..> ,.x -..+—a = . ..�.T','. ."..
i . F : i- � � . '.v � .,.���`. �... �: ...,.0 . '-"a `'.r�i�� = >5«�3..„ �:i
�
\r►
�, AS Approved 5-17-12 Finish Floor Elevation 528+/-
� � �
�► �,,� .� -�-:� _:�,,��,,,.. � ��`
� �`"°j �° . ,-�''r �!�
�
��� Q
� � � �� �� �'�'�J
� � � .
,,
� �,,.«�"'"� � ,
`r► - ' :
M-.._._�.__� ..- .-
�► . � � --� .. �
�_. - - � .,�._ _,, ,�
.� �;�t�E� �� �;,
� `` CMU�tt.H �.r, �'�
PM�E � �r
� "� 2Qt� �E�'�',
�. � F�.:-at�t
� f � � 5�;-
�r ���� P E � �
� +EATS
�r . �
«�'r.�. `, `.
� As Submitted 1-22-13 Finish Floor Elevation 531.5
�
ti. , _,.
`✓ ,, ` , �,'�'yw,,.,�,�~..,
� ,� ��.� ,� 1—� ��,.�.-4 �vc ��
� �� � � �
' t o
� '� h�•
,.�., ...._ __w M
♦ J
� _ m._.�.....,. ._.
a- �, ._._.._
� ��
� � .�� � �.F�.
��' � �
� ��y�, ,��' , � �.._
r1,_ ,.
� t � ��' ��C,�H�AfARK: 2 S SET
INV=52S,72 � "r �SE OF PO�E
, EIEV=535. � fi
� � - 10� PVC Rp�'
DRAIN O 0.20X
� PHASE t `���_ �'� -'
�t � 200 SEAT SANCTUAF�Y�!
� l' FFE=531.5
l � SLAB ON GRAtJE ,��
� ,.....__.
3� f` r f
-- 4 r'
� ij f�f� f �,.�,�
i* �hb`� /
�1� //j' ,/I/�i���� l � �f,,,
� 'jC� .{,�L �i;x'l�t':t r%l�'�/��� . %fii�lJ i�i���,�If7';!,
�` As Approved 4-19-13 Finish Floor elevation 531.5
�r..
�
�rr -�-`�-___,.�-;:�r-'-^�_r_,._ __� y�,.
� �� ��
�► �, r���_ ��� � � '�.,. �_�;
;� ; �� �. � _, ��� ��
�i � 9F.�CHMARK 2 y�S SET '
iMi=525J2 IN B�45E OF POY�£13`R�LE ./
` EIEN�S35. !6, -'%,�,
10' PVC ROOF '�,�/
� � DRAIN A 0.20X � ,'!j
� PHASE t � '`�,' � � .,�
� 200 SEAT SANCTUAR�Y' ��y' ,,r ,
, FFE=531.5 , �
�, ;� SLAB ON GRADE f° ���
i �
� 3�t r 1
sk' ` �° �
� �� ` g'1��� �
� 1 �'` _� .�►',�,.�.�171'�/,� - � � � /'
�,►
�