HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP202200014 Correspondence 2022-09-20 (2)Response to Comments Dated July 18, 2022
To: Scott Clark; Bill Fritz, AICP
From: Megan Nedostup, AICP
RE: SP 2022-014; SP 2022-015; SE2022-035 Woodridge Solar
Date: September 19, 2022
SP202200014 Woodridge Solar Substation
1. Please clarify or add to the substation layout(s) shown on sheet C5.0 of the conceptual plan.
a. Are both the proposed "Project Substation" and "Dominion Substation" to be built
within the same substation envelope shown on the conceptual plan? Please show the
overall layout of all proposed facilities.
Response: Yes, it is the same substation as shown on the conceptual plan. The two
options shown in plan view on sheet C5.0 are the typical layout for substations. Given that
the project is at the very preliminary stage, the detailed layout of all the facilities is
unknown, therefore we have shown the maximum extents of the footprint. The exact
details of the substation will be developed during site plan.
b. Please provide information (at least estimates) on:
i. Structure heights
ii. Footprint of surfaced vs. vegetated area
iii. Impervious area
iv. Noise generation of transformers or other equipment
Response: Notes for estimates for the above have been added to sheet C5.
SP202200015 Woodridge Solar
1. Overall/Site Layout
a. A portion of the applicant's presentation at the community meeting suggested that the
proposed area of disturbance and/or panel locations in the northwestern portion of the
site would be reduced or removed. Please show this and any other layout changes on a
revised conceptual plan.
Response: The Conceptual Plan has been updated to remove panel locations to the
east of Eyeland Drive. The Plan has also been updated accordingly to respond to
County comments.
b. If parcel 114-51 or any other parcels will not be included in the area of disturbance for
the site, or used for access, we recommend that they be removed from the application
and not shown as part of the project on the revised conceptual plan.
Response: A note has been added to the Conceptual Plan sheet C3.1 indicating that
the applicant has no plans to use this area for solar infrastructure purposes but may
use this area as Conserved Open Space for Stormwater Quality.
c. Please provide a phasing plan for construction of the site, to demonstrate the areas that
would under construction and active erosion control at any given time.
Response: The Conceptual Plan has been updated to add a Construction Phasing
Plan, sheet C8 and associated notes, consistent with the updated Conceptual Grading
Plan.
d. The GIS data provided by Timmons shows that, on the eastern edge of parcel 114-69,
a segment of Water Protection Ordinance buffer (purple area in image below) falls
within the Limits of Disturbance. Please revise the conceptual plan to avoid use or
disturbance of this area.
Response: While the GIS data included the County's data as well as onsite data, the
onsite Wetland Delineation did not identify a stream resource located in the area
reflected by County GIS. As there is no stream feature in this location, there is no
Stream Protection Buffer required. The Army Corps has approved this delineation.
e. In addition to the standard plan submittals, please provide revised site layout
information as GIS data.
Response: This will be provided after resubmittal as requested.
2. Grading and Soil
a. Soil conditions and grading are a significant element of concern with this application.
Unlike sites in the lower Piedmont or the Coastal Plain, this site appears to require very
extensive grading for the creation of slopes that would accommodate panel arrays. A
large part of the justification for permitting solar energy facilities is that soil productivity
will be maintained. This degree of grading raises concerns that soil productivity could be
reduced by compaction and by distribution of subsoils. Wherever possible, major
changes in existing topography should be avoided, and the extent and depth of grading
should be reduced.
Response: The Conceptual Grading Plan has been updated to show that no import or
export of material will be required during the construction of this project. The excess
material shown on these plans will be able to be spread across areas on the site, and a
note has been added to this effect.
b. The extent and depth of grading shown so far, and the apparent condition of the soils,
raise concerns for plant viability at the surface. Poor existing soils (including
minimal/absent topsoil), the distribution of acidic, low -nutrient subsoils near the surface
during grading, and grading -related compaction all raise concerns that new vegetation
would have poor survival conditions. Please submit a detailed soil remediation plan that
addresses proposed plans for soil management (tilling, ripping, etc., as well as topsoil
banking during the grading phase, if viable topsoil exists) and soil amendment (lime,
phosphorus, etc.) to ensure that plantings would be viable. (This plan should also
address soils in portions of the 200-foot visual buffer where new plantings are
proposed.)
Response: Soil testing was completed on the site and a remediation and vegetation
plan has been developed by Timmons Group in consultation with Monarch Vegetation
Services and Ernst Conservation Seed. Please see included Vegetation Management
Plan for detailed information.
c. From discussions during the review period, we understand that the submitted grading
plan (showing over 488,000 cubic yards of soil importation) does not accurately reflect
the intended site work, and that the intent is to balance the site and avoid importing fill.
Staff cannot form a recommendation on this application until a grading plan reflecting
the applicant's actual intentions has been submitted. We recommend that the site be
designed to avoid soil exportation or importation.
Response: The Conceptual Grading Plan has been updated to show that no import or
export of material will be required during the construction of this project. The excess
material shown on these plans will be able to be spread across areas on the site, and a
note has been added to this effect.
d. More detailed information on the characteristics of the soil on the site is needed. Given
the history of the site, typical soil profiles (topsoil, subsoil, saprolite) cannot be assumed
to exist, and cores or profiles are needed to understand how soil redistribution would
affect the site.
i. Normally, staff would recommend that the grading plan include the stockpiling
and later redistribution of topsoil. However, we do not currently have enough
information to evaluate the availability or suitability of topsoil on the site.
Response: Soil testing was completed on the site and a remediation and vegetation
plan has been developed by Timmons Group in consultation with Monarch Vegetation
Services and Ernst Conservation Seed. Please see included Vegetation Management
Plan for detailed information.
e. Ideally, the revised grading plan and new soil-remediation plan would be developed in
consultation with experts in soil remediation and/or plant establishment on
disturbed/graded sites, and would incorporate their recommendations.
Response: As stated above, the remediation and vegetation plan has been developed
by Timmons Group in consultation with Monarch Vegetation Services and Ernst
Conservation Seed. Please see included Vegetation Management Plan for detailed
information.
3. Vegetation and Plantings
a. Please see the Natural Resource Manager's attached comments regarding seed mixes
and preference for native species. Also, please provide verification that the volumes of
seed needed for this site can be provided by suppliers.
Response: Please see included Vegetation Management Plan for detailed information
regarding recommended seed mixes and natives.
b. Please explain how grading and construction would be timed so that planting of new
vegetation would be timed to maximize success in plant establishment.
Response: Please see included Vegetation Management Plan for detailed
information regarding timing and establishment of planting.
c. Although some management guidelines are provided in the conceptual plan, more
details and logistics are needed. Please provide a detailed vegetation management plan
for the life of the facility that specifies what maintenance activities will be carried out
during each phase of the facility's operations; who will be responsible for maintenance
activities and for repair/replanting of damaged or poorly -performing areas; the frequency
of on -site activities by responsible parties; and who the County would work with to
remediate any failures to maintain the proposed on -site vegetation.
Response: Please see included Vegetation Management Plan. We have confirmed with
Ernst that the quantity of the seed mix proposed is available. Any future issues for
maintenance of on -site vegetation would be the responsibility of the lease owner who will
be subject to all requirements and conditions associated with this permit and whose
contact information will be regularly updated with the County.
d. Is any vegetation management or restoration proposed within the 100-foot Water
Protection Ordinance Buffers or floodplains on the site? We recommend that any
cleared areas within those buffers be replanted with native hardwood species.
Response: The plan does not propose any vegetation management or restoration
outside of what is required for the minimal stream crossing disturbance within the
WPO buffer and wetlands. Hexagon is exploring other stream restoration credit
opportunities, detached from this application, and community volunteer restoration
opportunities in the buffer area.
4. Decommissioning
a. The decommissioning plan refers to topsoil cover. Would this topsoil be obtained from
the site (implying that existing vegetation planted for this use would be lost), or would it
be imported from elsewhere?
b. Section 7.4(8) refers to topsoil stockpiling and use of stockpiled soil to replace the
removed roads. How is this affected if the site does not include topsoil to be
stockpiled? If topsoil is present, how would it be protected from loss/erosion during the
expected 40-year life of the project?
c. Points regarding revegetation of cleared site areas in 7.4 should be reflected
in the actual decommissioning plan in section 4.
Response: Please see updated Decommissioning plan that addresses these
comments.
5. Other Matters
a. Please address water use (for cleaning, etc.), and whether or not new wells would be
needed.
Response: In the event that water must be brought on -site for cleaning of the panels or
watering of plantings, it will be trucked in and sprayed via mini -tractor. Only biodegradable
soap will be used if necessary, as stated in the Vegetation Management Plan.
b. The application proposes a six-inch gap under the fences for small -wildlife passage.
What is the expected fence height?
Response: Please see Conceptual Plan sheets C5 and C6.8. The height of the
fence is proposed to be 6 feet.
c. The following matters were raised by nearby landowners. We recommend that the
applicants address these issues in a revised narrative, in order to inform the public. A list
of sources for reference material would be helpful.
i. EMF/magnetic field impacts — field strength generated compared to other
typical uses, and the distances at which any EMF generated by photovoltaic
panels decays to background levels
ii. Heat island effects — temperature increases, and the distance at which they can be
detected
iii. Impacts of the proposed use on the values of the surrounding properties.
Response: Please see updated Narrative and referenced attachments for detailed
information regarding these issues that were raised.
• SE202200035 Woodridge Solar (critical slopes)
1. Please see the Engineering comments on this application. As noted above, until a more -
accurate grading plan is submitted, staff cannot provide a recommendation on this application.
Response: Please see updated Grading Plan.
Natural Resources (Kim Biasiolli)
Vegetation Management
A. Virginia Pollinator -Smart Solar Industry Certification is recommended, including following the
guidelines in the Pollinator -Smart Comprehensive Manual for site suitability analysis, vegetation
management plan, installation, monitoring, and adaptive management.
Response: Please see included Vegetation Management Plan. The score sheet provided in the Veg.
Management Plan indicates that the site can qualify as Certified VA Pollinator Smart.
B. Please described how the vegetation management plan will implemented and updated to respond to
changing site conditions over the life of the project.
Response: Please see included Vegetation Management Plan.
C. Species selection for vegetative buffer and groundcover plantings should be based on the site
conditions (soil type, moisture, light availability). Native species are recommended as they are more
likely to be well suited to the local site conditions and will maximize co -benefits for biodiversity.
Response: Please see included Vegetation Management Plan.
D. Vegetative Buffer —Property Line 200' (Narrative p 6&7)
i. Within the 200' setback, the narrative describes a forest section with a minimum of 100' of
mature existing vegetation. Please show the minimum 100' of mature existing vegetation on the
diagram (page 7 of the narrative and on Sheet C6.1 on the plan), between the property line and
the inner 100' of buffer.
Response: Please see updated Narrative. While the majority of the 200' setback on the site contains
existing mature vegetation, there are areas where this vegetation is either not yet mature, or does not
exist. In those instances, the plantings show in the diagram will be provided, including the 20' of
native evergreen trees and/or shrubs.
ii. The diagram shows 80' of pollinator meadow with a 20' planting strip for the inner 100'. Please
reduce the width of the pollinator meadow to the minimum width necessary to prevent shading of
the panels and replace with mature existing vegetation (if it exists onsite) or an expanded planting
strip of native trees and shrubs.
Response: 80' is the minimum setback for shade management and that is below what is normally
preferred, it has been trimmed tightly to provide a maximum screening buffer.
iii. Recommended Buffer Plant List on Sheet C6.1. Please use native and site appropriate species.
Technical experts can provide site specific species recommendations, and the County's Native
Plant Database can be used to select site -appropriate native trees for the landscaping plan. Adding
more native woody species to the list for additional diversity in the planting strip is recommended.
Hardwood species such as native oaks would maximize benefits for biodiversity and may not need
to be evergreen (for the inner 100' of the 200' setback).
Response: Please see updated Conceptual Plan sheet C6.8. The species listed have been revised
to be native to Albemarle County to the extent practicable.
E. Groundcover plantings: Utilization of VA Northern Piedmont ecotypes wherever possible is
recommended.
i. Solar Farm Seed Mix includes some non-native species and some that do not seem appropriate
for locating under panels due to their light requirements. Please use native, non-invasive species
that are site appropriate. A native dry woodland species mix can be created by Ernst, which may
be more site appropriate and would maximize benefits for biodiversity.
Response: Please see Vegetation Management Plan which was developed in consultation with
Monarch Vegetation Services and Ernst Seed, both of which have extensive experience in seed
and establishment of vegetation on solar sites. The solar farm seed mix is designed to balance
low -growth requirements, native and non-invasive concerns, pollinator support, and potential
sheep grazing needs.
ii. VASolar Pollinator Buffer Mix includes Epurpurea(non-nativetoVirginia), C.lanceolataandP.
digitalis (nativity uncertain), and B. australis(not native to the Piedmont). Recommend removing
non-native species and including 1-2 native Solidagospp.
Response: Please see Vegetation Management Plan which was developed in consultation with
Monarch Vegetation Services and Ernst Seed, both of which have extensive experience in seed
and establishment of vegetation on solar sites.
iii. VA Northern Piedmont Detention Basin Mix includes appropriate species. However, there is a
mix designed for the same conditions that is used in County -owned detention basins (Albemarle
Stormwater Mix).
Response: Please see Vegetation Management Plan and updated Conceptual Plan that
references Albemarle Stormwater Mix.
Stream Buffers &Wetlands
The conceptual plan shows avoidance of Water Protection Ordinance Buffers and delineated
wetlands. Please describe any planned management of these areas. Active planting and
restoration with native woody riparian vegetation is recommended for areas that are currently open
or impacted from the timber harvest operation.
Response: The plan does not propose any vegetation management or restoration outside of what
is required for the minimal stream crossing disturbance within the WPO buffer and wetlands.
Hexagon is exploring other stream restoration credit opportunities and community volunteer
restoration opportunities in the buffer area.
2. Soil Conservation
A. Much of the project site includes soils mapped as prime farmland and farmland of statewide
importance. The narrative (p8) describes minimization of grading; however, the conceptual plan
illustrates extensive grading on the site. Removal, redistribution, and compaction of soils may impact
natural vegetation growth, limit the viability of proposed plantings, and influence the site's potential for
future reversion to agricultural use.
Consider reducing the extent of grading on the site and avoid importation of foreign soil to the site.
Response: Please see the revised grading plan. The site will be balanced, and no import of soil is
expected.
ii. Consider extending panel height or other measures that work with existing topography to avoid soil
impacts.
Response: The final grading and site plan design, including the panel height, will seek to minimize
site grading necessary to achieve optimal balance between panel layout and site topography to
achieve the desired energy output of the solar facility.
iii. A site suitability analysis is recommended, including soil analysis and prepping the site prior to
planting based on current conditions (soil pH, nutrient availability, etc.).
Response: Please see included Vegetation Management Plan that also provides the soil testing
results that were completed on site.
iv. Limiting and/or addressing soil compaction after construction and prior to planting is recommended.
Response: Please see included Vegetation Management Plan.
V. Include decompaction and other soil remediation measures as part of the decommissioning plan.
Response: Please see updated Decommissioning Plan.
3. Roads
A. Please distinguish between existing roads and proposed new internal roads on the conceptual plan.
Response: The Conceptual Plan has been updated accordingly.
B. Internal roads are shown between the rows of panels only in some locations. Please describe whether
these roads will be required between all of the blocks of panels, and if/how they will surfaced.
Response: Access roads will not be required between all rows of panels. The current access road
layout is conceptual, and the final access road layout will be determined in final site plan design.
Permanent access roads are generally designed to provide access to proposed inverter locations. An
access road section has been provided on sheet C5.
4. Lighting (Narrative p 5&6)
A. Please provide more detail on the specific type of lighting proposed, and the frequency and timing of its
use.
B. Outdoor lighting impacts can be minimized by:
i. Utilizing fully shielded fixtures;
ii. Ensuring all outdoor fixtures have a color temperature of 3000K or less; and
iii. Dimming and/or turning off outdoor lights between 10 PM — 5 AM.
Response: A lighting plan will be developed during the site plan stage. Any proposed permanent site
entrances will have full cut off, motion activated, safety lighting at the proposed gate locations that will meet
the requirements of the zoning ordinance.
5. Decommissioning plan (pl 21)
A. Please expand description of (6) Site Restoration to provide more detail. Extensive grading and
compaction of soils may impact the ability of the site to easily return to productive agricultural or
forestal uses. Decompaction and seeding is described but it is unclear whether the costs of these
activities are accounted for in Table 7-1.
Response: The Decommissioning Plan has been revised to include additional information regarding
decompaction, soil amendments and vegetation establishment.
B. Please describe the process of removal and restoration of internal roads.
Response: The Decommissioning Plan has been revised to include additional information regarding
access road removal assumptions.
6. Chemical Use
A. Please describe how the panels will be cleaned.
Response: Panels in Virginia typically are cleaned via rainfall and do not require additional cleaning. In
circumstances where there isn't sufficient rainfall to clean them, water will be trucked in and the panels will
be spray -cleaned via mini -tractor. Only biodegradable soap will be used if necessary, as stated in the
Vegetation Management Plan.
Historic Preservation IMaraaret Maliszewskil
The project area is located within the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District and retains a rural character,
which is a key element of the district's significance. The proposal should include sufficient measures to maintain
the rural character of the area throughout the life of the project.
7
1. Provide additional information to clarify the extent of visibility of the panels from off -site locations,
including but not limited to the Southern Albemarle Historic District.
Response: The visual renderings provided with the application are from the locations with the highest
visibility of any part of the project. The panels are almost completely outside the viewshed of Monticello
and Monticello has provided a letter stating they have no concern with the project. No visual renderings
from Jefferson Mill Road were provided due to the thick existing tree buffer already in place, please see
the attached photos.
2. Provide photo -simulations from additional viewpoints to illustrate the view from Jefferson Mill Rd.
Response: As discussed during the site visit, the panels will not be visible from Jefferson Mill Rd,
therefore, photo simulations have not been provided.
3. Provide an overlay of the panel locations and the cultural resource probability areas for review.
Response: Please see Cultural Resources Overlay plan provided with this resubmittal.
4. Revise the diagram on page 7 of the narrative and sheet C6.1 of the plan to accurately reflect the
location of buffer elements within the 200' buffer (fence, meadow, forest, 20'-wide added screening).
Revise the "Vegetative Buffer" paragraph on page 6 of the narrative to more clearly describe the
locations. Note that fence installed on the "interior of the buffer" can be interpreted multiple ways.
Response: Please see updated diagram in the revised Narrative and Concept plan provided with this
submittal.
5. The narrative states that vegetative buffering will be maintained throughout the life of the project.
Does this include the addition of screening overtime as currently existing forest changes over
time?
Response: If portions of the buffer die or change so that panel visibility is a nuisance, the project
will replace/repair the buffer back to its full screening capacity.
6. Provide aerial photographs (from 2021 or later) or current vegetation -cover mapping of the site and use
that current information as the base map for a planting plan showing where the existing buffer will
remain, and where additional screening plants will be required. This planting plan should be shown at a
more detailed scale than the current single -sheet plan, and should be presented as multiple sheets with
more detail, as with the format of the current grading plan.
Response: The aerial photographs were obtained from Bing and are from 2021, see notes on sheets
C6-C6.7. Please see updated Concept Plan that includes additional sheets for proposed Landscaping,
sheets C6-6.8.
7. Limit the buffer plant list to native trees and shrubs.
Response: The plant list has been revised to list Albemarle County native trees and shrubs.
8. Follow the recommendations of the Stantec cultural resources assessment.
Response: As part of the permitting with the state through the Permit by Rule (PBR) process, a full Phase
1 archaeological study and review will be conducted, and will adhere to the requirements to protect
historic resources as part of that process.
Zonina (Lea Brumfield)
Zoning comments will be provided as soon as they are available.
Response: Zoning comments were not provided as of the date of this resubmittal, September 19, 2022.
Enaineerina (Emily Cox)
The Woodridge Solar Special Use permit has been reviewed by Engineering. The following
comments will need to be addressed before approval:
[Narrative Page 8] The section titled Streams, Floodplain & Wetlands says there will be no
impact, however, there will be some impact for the internal road construction/upgrades at the
stream crossings and for any stormwater outfalls. Please revise to include this disturbance.
Response: Please see updated Narrative. All stream crossings are existing and minimal impact
will occur for the widening of the access roads. All crossings will be developed and constructed
in conformance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
2. Please note that per 17-600, "The stream buffer shall extend to whichever of the following is
wider: (i) 100 feet on each side of any perennial or intermittent stream and contiguous nontidal
wetlands, measured horizontally from the edge of the contiguous nontidal wetlands, or the top of
the stream bank if no wetlands exist; or (ii) the limits of the flood plain."
Response: Stream buffer widths were determined and are shown utilizing the method described
in this comment.
3. F000dplain development permit will be necessary and must be approved before land
disturbance permit will be issued.
Response: Noted, thank you.
4. A floodplain study (in accord with Zoning Ordinance section 18-30.3.13.C.1(a) will be required
prior to WPO plan approval.
Response: Noted, thank you.
5. [Sheet C 3.6] Please remove internal road from the buffer.
Response: The road shown, while it impacts the buffer, is an existing road. The plans have been updated
to accurately reflect the proposed and existing roads.
6. Please review all internal road locations. The roads do not appear to be shown to scale per the detail on
Sheet C 5.0 (16' wide) and some are very close to the buffer. Once built to scale, they would disturb the
buffer.
Response: The Conceptual Plan has been updated accordingly.
7. Please show the roads, buffers, floodplain, wetlands and SWM facilities on the grading sheets.
The plans have been updated accordingly.
8. Do you intend to phase the construction? If so, please show the proposed phasing plan.
Response: A Construction Staging and Phasing Plan has been provided with this resubmittal.
9. A WPO VSMP plan will need to be approved before the land disturbance permit can be issued.
Comments to note regarding this VSMP include:
a. Pre -development condition for the VRRM should be forested.
b. The outfall of the SWM facilities should be combined as much as possible to limit
disturbance to the buffers.
c. Energy balance must be used for concentrated outfalls into natural conveyance systems.
Response: Noted, thank you.
10. Please describe how you will provide seed bed preparation to establish the proposed grasses
and plants. The soils appear to be poor soils with little infiltration (HSG D). For example and
requirements, see VESCH 3.32, permanent seeding.
Response: Please see Vegetation Management Plan for detailed information.
The Woodridge Solar Critical Slopes Waiver has been reviewed by Engineering. The
following comments will need to be addressed before approval:
Is all disturbance necessary? For example, in a few locations it appears there could be a few
less panels and no disturbance to the critical slopes.
Response: Careful consideration has been made in the creation of the grading plan to minimize the
disturbance of the slopes. Many of the slopes were created and are not part of a system of slopes.
Further, a future survey that will be completed after special use permit approval, may identify some of the
slopes as not critical.
2. Please provide a proposed grading plan.
Response: A revised grading plan has been included with this resubmittal.
3. Please explain how slopes will be stabilized.
Response: Please see Vegetation Management Plan for details on slope stabilization.
Re: Woodridge Solar Substation —Special Permit SP-2022-00014 Review #1
1. Black Branch Farm Rd is a private road and any entrance off this road will require
proper easements.
Response: Deeded access exists from the use of Black Branch Farm Road for these
parcels.
2. Sight -distance from Black Branch Farm Rd onto Jefferson Mill Rd appears to have
problems, and may cause problems for trucks leaving after delivering equipment
and materials.
Response: All proposed site entrances will require a VDOT Land Use Permit for Low Volume
Commercial Site Entrances, designed in compliance with VDOT Standards, and reviewed by
VDOT prior to issuance of the Land Use Permit. Specific traffic management, safety measures
including signage, flagging, maintenance of traffic and other measures will be incorporated into
the final design and specifications for the project during site plan stage.
3. Note that the final plan must show conformance with the VDOT Road Design Manual
Appendices B(1) and F, as well as any other applicable standards, regulations or other
requirements.
Response: Noted, thank you.
Re: Woodridge Solar Farm —Special Permit SP-2022-00015 Review #1
Black Branch Farm Rd and Eyeland Dr are private roads and any entrance off these
roads will require proper easements.
Response: Deeded access exists from the use of Black Branch Farm Road and Eyeland
Drive for these parcels.
2. Sight -distance from Black Branch Farm Rd onto Jefferson Mill Rd appears to be lacking
and may cause problems for trucks leaving after delivering equipment and materials.
Response: As noted above, proposed site entrances will require a VDOT Land Use Permit for
Low Volume Commercial Site Entrances, designed in compliance with VDOT Standards, and
reviewed by VDOT prior to issuance of the Land Use Permit. Specific traffic management, safety
measures including signage, flagging, maintenance of traffic and other measures will be
incorporated into the final design and specifications for the project during site plan stage.
3. Sight -distance from Eyeland Dr onto Secretary's Rd appears to be lacking and may
cause problems for trucks leaving after delivering equipment and materials.
Response: As noted above, proposed site entrances will require a VDOT Land Use Permit for
Low Volume Commercial Site Entrances, designed in compliance with VDOT Standards, and
reviewed by VDOT prior to issuance of the Land Use Permit. Specific traffic management, safety
measures including signage, flagging, maintenance of traffic and other measures will be
incorporated into the final design and specifications for the project during site plan stage.
4. Some of the entrances shown will need to be upgraded to meet the standards of a
Low- Volume Commercial Entrance.
Response: Noted, thank you.
5. Note that the final plan must show conformance with the VDOT Road Design Manual
Appendices B(1) and F, as well as any other applicable standards, regulations or other
requirements.
Response: Noted, thank you.
10
9
i l� p ia�dq �� `°'� x
X � w ! i. .,Z 4 fL
f T �f
- �{ 1 y�
yy i'F/..
��,1 �.�1��'9A 1, � �j� ��._ a
s a .� ".t .�.., �' � � R .�+ - � AJr� -' to
.T�. 1 Nf5 r
,� � 1 • i. � ; �.
r!-.' .,
#fie _.,i � y. ,�
(•
� � f :, .. �' .� i. Iy, #T. �t � I
� 5 � � 'i a .�.
�� � .y �.h 1 � � S r p'� �r f ���j
f r � K f - � ii
��i,. . _�� � � , _ l .. �