Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SUB201300085 Correspondence 2013-06-17
PHONE (434) 293 -4251 "�" (434) 9770205 FAX (434) 296-5220 ROUDABUSH, GALE & ASSOC., INC. INFO @ROUDABUSH.COM LAND SURVEYING A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ENGINEERING 914 MONTICELLO ROAD LAND PLANNING CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22902 J. THOMAS GALE. L.S. WILLIAM S. ROUDABUSH, L.S. MARILYNN R. GALE, L.S. WILLIAM J. LEDBETTER. LS EDWARD D. CAMPBELL 111, L.S. June 4, 2013 Meagan Yaniglos, Senior Planner Community Development — County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: Waiver Request for TMP 21 -35 to be subdivided into lots A and B and not required to be served by a joint entrance. Dear Meagan: Attached please find a concept plan showing the proposed subdivision of TMP 21 -35 into lots A and B. In addition to the information shown on the plan, please note that the area shown to the North of the existing road shown across TMP 21 -35 is a grassed field (obvious building site area) and the area of TMP 21 -35 to the South of this road is heavily wooded. Lot A would continue to use an existing entrance on State Route 600 that would also serve TMP 21 -34 (right of way recorded at D.B. 174, p. 484). Currently this entrance is already a joint entrance and would remain a joint entrance. Lot B would have a separate entrance. VDOT has reviewed this proposal and given their approval for two separate private entrances (see previous email). In accordance with Section 14 -404 of the Subdivision Ordinance that would normally require a single point of access to create Lots A and B, I am hereby applying for a waiver of this requirement in accordance with Section 14- 404D2, which allows the agent to consider arguments in favor of allowing a second point of access. To this end please consider the following: Requiring the "existing" entrance onto TMP 21 -35 and a legal right of way serving TMP 21 -34, to also serve as the entrance for proposed Lots A and B will not work because the existing entrance would have three users and have to be upgraded to a commercial entrance. However, the entrance does not meet the "sight distance" requirement to the north and consequently would not qualify. June 4, 2013 Meagan Yaniglos Page 2/2 Requiring the approved new entrance for Lot B (see approximate location shown on the Concept Plan) to also serve as a joint entrance to additionally serve Lot A would cause a substantial environmental impact as a result of constructing a new road across the heavily wooded portion TMP 21 -35. In conclusion, the proposed subdivision for Lots A and B is a relatively unique circumstance that the existing subdivision ordinance does not entirely address. On the one hand it recognizes the existing entrance and right of way through TMP 21 -35 which serves TMP 21 -34 was clearly created long before the subdivision ordinance and should not count as an existing entrance and private road in the subdivision process for TMP 21- 35. However, the ordinance does not adequately deal with the fact that TMP 21 -34 clearly has the right to use this road as well and has no practical way of preventing this from happening. Therefore, to require Lot A to construct a separate entrance and access that is clearly less desirable, and arguably creates a significant environmental impact, would clearly not be in the public's best interest or in the proper spirit of the subdivision ordinance. Your consideration in granting a separate entrance for Lot B and allowing Lot A to use the existing entrance and road is appreciated. Sincerejy, J. Thomas Gale, L.S. /tr Attachment • Page l of l Tom Gale From: Seale, Dennis L. (VDOT) [ Dennis.Seale @VDOT.Virginia.gov] Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 3:12 PM To: Tom Gale Cc: Megan Yaniglos Subject: RE: Entrance approval for separate private entrances for Lots A and B of TMP -21 -35 Good Afternoon Megan and Tom, I reviewed entrance locations for Lots A and B and there are at least 2 locations on the front of these lots that can be accessed for private entrances. The locations of the new driveways are approved and meet or exceed requirements for sight distance on a private entrance. A VDOT permit will be required for each new entrance prior to constructing. If you should have any questions or concerns please let me know. Thanks. Dennis Seale Permit and Subdivision Specialist Sr. VDOT -Land Development South P.O. Box 1017 Troy, Virginia 22974 434 -589 -1053 434 -531 -2877 From: Tom Gale [mailto:tgale ©roudabush.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 12:09 PM To: Seale, Dennis L. (VDOT) Cc: Megan Yaniglos Subject: Entrance approval for separate private entrances for Lots A and B of TMP -21 -35 Dennis — The attachment shows the 2 lots you looked at with me on Tuesday. I am trying to get Meagan Yaniglos your approval for Lots A and B to have separate private entrances. Let me know if you need anything further to forward your approval. Thank You - Tom Gale, L.S. Roudabush, Gale & Assoc., Inc. 914 Monticello Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22902 434 - 977 -020 phone 6/14/2013