HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201300010 Review Comments 2013-03-19 Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 9:52 AM
To: Stephanie Mallory
Cc: Stewart Wright
Subject: SP201300010 Regents School of Charlottesville CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL from the Aug
7, 2013 BOS meeting
Stephanie,
Below I am providing you the revised conditions of approval that the BOS approved for SP201300010 Regents School of
Charlottesville. These are not correctly listed in the staff report due to last minute changes /modification at the PC and
BOS, but they are reflected correctly in the PowerPoint presentation from both meetings. To aid you in the approval
letter I am providing the correct conditions below. Thanks.
SP201300010 Regents School of Charlottesville CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL from the Aug 7, 2013 BOS meeting
1.The school is limited to the existing administrative building and grounds, as shown on the concept plan (Attachment
A). All parking for the facility shall be located in areas designated on the concept plan as P1, P2, P3, P6, and P7. Any
additional buildings or other site changes beyond those shown on the approved site plan for SDP1992 -052 titled
"Christian Aid Mission Administration Building" prepared by William W. Finley and date approved July 14, 1994 require
an amendment to this Special Use Permit.
2. The maximum number of students and school personnel shall not exceed 96.
3. All students shall be over the age of 2 % years old.
4. Hours of operation for the school shall be between 7:45 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., except that occasional school - related
events may occur after 4:00 p.m.
5. No food preparation is permitted onsite without an amendment to this Special Use Permit.
Christopher P. Perez Senior Planner
Department of Community Development (County of Albemarle. Virginia
401 McIntire Road ( Charlottesville, VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
1
Christopher Perez
From: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH) [Joshua. Kirtley @vdh.virginia.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 4:25 PM
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: FW: Regents School
Please see the response below from Mike Craun. Please let me know if you need anything further.
Josh Kirtley
Environmental Health Technical Consultant
Onsite Sewage and Water Programs
Thomas Jefferson Health District
1138 Rose Hill Drive
Charlottesville, Virginia 22903
Office (434) 972 -6288
From: craunco(acfw.com [mailto:craunco(acfw.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 1:12 PM
To: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH)
Subject: Re: Regents School
Josh,
The 10 gpd/person for schools includes ancillary uses such as "grandparents day ", assemblies, Christmas
program, Easter concert, parent teacher conferences etc. So I am ok with occasional school related activities
after hours.
FYI - they have flow equalization on their system and a rather large septic tank (4200 gallon septic and 5000
gallon flow equalization).
Call or email if you need any more information.
Mike Craun
> Good afternoon, Mike. Hope that you're doing well.
> I received a call today from Chris Perez in regards to the Regents School
> Special Use Permit. Basically, Chris has been working with the County
> Attorney to condition the approval number of students and staff (96) as
> well as for the requested hours of operation (7:45 AM to 4:00 PM). The
> application indicates that there may be "occasional" school related
> activities in adc? r, to what was requested. Mr. Perez and the County
> Attorney wante is o ,_ rom me if that was acceptable.
i
My initial thoughts are if the events are occasional, then it really
> shouldn't be a big deal, especially given the fact that the system is flow
> equalized and appears to have lots of storage capacity. I wanted to run
> this past you to get your thoughts, since it is your observations and
> analysis that I am basing my opinion.
> If there is any way that you could respond back to this email letting me
> know whether or not you're okay with the proposal, I would appreciate it.
> Hope all is well,
> Josh
> Josh Kirtley
> Environmental Health Technical Consultant
> Onsite Sewage and Water Programs
> Thomas Jefferson Health District
> 1138 Rose Hill Drive
> Charlottesville, Virginia 22903
> Office (434) 972 -6288
2
Christopher Perez
From: Scott Clark
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 2:30 PM
To: Amelia McCulley; Greg Kamptner; Christopher Perez
Cc: Wayne Cilimberg; Ron Higgins
Subject: RE: Regents School and Field School SPs; conditions
Thanks for catching that. I did discuss it with the applicants a while back, and I've added that to the conditions in my
presentation.
From: Amelia McCulley
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 2:25 PM
To: Greg Kamptner; Christopher Perez; Scott Clark
Cc: Wayne Cilimberg; Ron Higgins
Subject: RE: Regents School and Field School SPs; conditions
One additional thing I mentioned with Field School but didn't double- check: we need a condition that
addresses the period of validity. Since the ordinance has changed, there is no ordinance limit on when you
must commence the use. Therefore, it must be established with each SP with conditions.
From: Greg Kamptner
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 11:18 AM
To: Christopher Perez; Scott Clark
Cc: Wayne Cilimberg; Amelia McCulley; Ron Higgins
Subject: Regents School and Field School SPs; conditions
All-
Regents School:
My only specific comment to the conditions is condition 2 for the Regents School, which states: "Maximum enrollment
shall be 96 persons (student and teachers onsite)." Because teachers are not enrolled, the language needs to be
changed. I found one school SP with a condition that stated: "The number of people onsite at any time shall not exceed
." Here, however, there may be school - related events after -hours that at which all of the students' families as well as
school staff may attend, so we would expect the number of people onsite to exceed the "enrollment plus staff" limit.
The typical condition for schools puts a cap on enrollment only, recognizing that enrollment dictates the number of
school personnel that will accompany that enrollment. However, there are a few SPs out there that that specifically limit
the number of students and school staff so the condition could state either: "The maximum number of students and
school personnel shall not exceed 96" or "The maximum enrollment of students shall be _ ; the maximum number of
school personnel [or "staff" as has been used sometimes] shall be ."
Field School
In conditions 3 and 4, do "sports events" include practices?
General Observations:
Of course, the other thing that may catch someone's eye when we have two private school SPs going to the PC on the
same night is the different wording of conditions purportedly dealing with the same issues:
People onsite
Regent School (condition 2): ;:imam enrollment shall be 96 persons (student and teachers onsite)."
Field School (condition 2): "TL a >::mum enrollment shall be 150 students."
1
School hours
Regent School (condition 4): "Hours of operation for the school shall be between 7:45 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., except that
occasional school - related events may occur after 4:00 p.m."
Field School (conditions 3): "Classroom instruction shall not begin before 8:00 a.m. and shall not continue later than 5:00
p.m. These hours shall not apply to sports events." and condition 4: Non - sporting school - related events shall [sic] with
more than 50 attendees not occur more than 12 times per calendar year and attendance shall not exceed 200 persons.
The facility shall not be used for events not related to the school use."
I realize that each application is unique with varying impacts, but it is still interesting that the conditions are worded so
differently. I don't know if it creates a problem with administration over the long term or not. One of my ongoing
projects this year is to get a number of "forms" online including recommended proffer and special condition language.
Greg Kamptner
Deputy County Attorney
County of Albemarle
gkamptner @albemarle.org
2
Christopher Perez
From: Ron Higgins
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 2:28 PM
To: Christopher Perez; Greg Kamptner
Cc: Wayne Cilimberg; Amelia McCulley; Scott Clark; David Benish
Subject: RE: Regents School and Field School SPs; conditions
All: I agree with Chris's assessment on the Regents School and with the rewording of comment #2.
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 1:28 PM
To: Greg Kamptner
Cc: Wayne Cilimberg; Amelia McCulley; Ron Higgins; Scott Clark; David Benish
Subject: RE: Regents School and Field School SPs; conditions
Also please note that SP2012 -12 permitted 60 student enrollment by condition of SP. The
school planned to have 8 teachers and 1 administrator based on that enrollment (that was not a
part of the condition). This time around for SP2013 -10 the school ran into a septic system
capacity issue and was capped at 96 persons (students and teachers) for regular school
operations by the HD. Thus when I revised the condition I accounted for school administration
as well as for students. Fields School might not have those restrictions...thus their condition of
approval would not go into that.
Christopher P. Perez Senior Planner
Department of Community Development (County of Albemarle. Virginia
401 McIntire Road 1 Charlottesville. VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 1:16 PM
To: Greg Kamptner
Cc: Wayne Cilimberg; Amelia McCulley; Ron Higgins; Scott Clark; David Benish
Subject: RE: Regents School and Field School SPs; conditions
Greg,
As you know the Regents School Special use Permit Application is an amendment to an
existing SP (SP2012 -12) which went to the PC/BOS last year. The original conditions were
reviewed/approved by Planning, Zoning and County Attorney's office last year. The revised
conditions for SP2013 -10 were not sent to Zoning or the County Attorney's office for re- review
because the original conditions were so recent (within the last year) and the proposed changes
were very minor in nature (adding 27 people to the building and utilizing 10 additional existing
parking spaces onsite).
Per your suggestions I agree comment #2 should be revised as you are correct, teachers are not
"enrolled." Thus condi 'r)n number 2 shall be revised to: "The maximum number of students
and school personnel AI not exceed 96." I feel this version of the condition best captures
1
the site's limitations and the applicants requests.
With regard to condition # 4 for the Fields School: please note that Regents School does not
have playing fields for sporting events; where as I believe Field School has those facilities
(baseball field and soccer field), thus would need to limit their use through a specific condition.
Hope that helps.
€`hrktopher P. Perez 1 Senior Planner
Department of Community Development ICount y of Albemarle, Virginia
401 Mclntire Road i Charlottesville. VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
From: Greg Kamptner
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 11:18 AM
To: Christopher Perez; Scott Clark
Cc: Wayne Cilimberg; Amelia McCulley; Ron Higgins
Subject: Regents School and Field School SPs; conditions
All-
Regents School:
My only specific comment to the conditions is condition 2 for the Regents School, which states: "Maximum enrollment
shall be 96 persons (student and teachers onsite)." Because teachers are not enrolled, the language needs to be
changed. I found one school SP with a condition that stated: "The number of people onsite at any time shall not exceed
." Here, however, there may be school related events after hours that at which all of the students' families as well as
school staff may attend, so we would expect thc number of people onsite to exceed thc "enrollment plus staff" limit.
The typical condition for schools puts a cap on enrollment only, recognizing that enrollment dictates the number of
school personnel that will accompany that enrollment. However, there are a few SPs out there that that specifically limit
the number of students and school staff so the condition could state either: "The maximum number of students and
school personnel shall not exceed 96" or "Thc maximum enrollment of students shall bc _ ; thc maximum numbcr of
school personnel [or "staff' as has been used sometimes] shall bc _ "
Field School
In conditions 3 and 4, do "sports events" include practices?
General Observations:
Of course, the other thing that may catch someone's eye when we have two private school SPs going to the PC on the
same night is the different wording of conditions purportedly dealing with the same issues:
People onsite
Regent School (condition 2): "Maximum enrollment shall be 96 persons (student and teachers onsite)."
Field School (condition 2): "The maximum enrollment shall be 150 students."
School hours
Regent School (condition 4): "Hours of operation for the : chool shall be between 7:45 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., except that
occasional school - related events may occur after 4:00 p
m � *4 ditions 3 ear $e 3 8i 31
a �a shall not ap ei s 14f : .� :j : on-
t1on4 :lt,on -5 ort" - r i
p r1C3 ^aatd vG'
" t i! ten:: 0s -5 not 0=444 Pt alendar \ 2ar and atte dan' e 'lc�i an i .W ,
sed for eve � 4 _ � f hoof LIE
L
Nee
I realize that each application is unique with varying impacts, but it is still interesting that the conditions are worded so
differently. I don't know if it creates a problem with administration over the long term or not. One of my ongoing
projects this year is to get a number of "forms" online including recommended proffer and special condition language.
Greg Kamptner
Deputy County Attorney
County of Albemarle
gkamptner(talbemarle.org
3
Christopher Perez
From: Scott Clark
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 2:13 PM
To: Christopher Perez; Greg Kamptner
Cc: Wayne Cilimberg; Amelia McCulley; Ron Higgins; David Benish
Subject: RE: Regents School and Field School SPs; conditions
Greg —
I can suggest a clarification to the PC tonight for the Field School condition about sports events; it was not intended to
cover practices.
As for the different language on events —the Regent's School condition looks like the same one we've used for day
cares, etc., just to clarify that kids' presentations, etc., are permitted outside of normal hours. With the Field School, I
was more specific because they intend to have larger social and fundraising events.
- -scott
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 1:16 PM
To: Greg Kamptner
Cc: Wayne Cilimberg; Amelia McCulley; Ron Higgins; Scott Clark; David Benish
Subject: RE: Regents School and Field School SPs; conditions
Greg,
As you know the Regents School Special use Permit Application is an amendment to an
existing SP (SP2012 -12) which went to the PC/BOS last year. The original conditions were
reviewed/approved by Planning, Zoning and County Attorney's office last year. The revised
conditions for SP2013 -10 were not sent to Zoning or the County Attorney's office for re- review
because the original conditions were so recent (within the last year) and the proposed changes
were very minor in nature (adding 27 people to the building and utilizing 10 additional existing
parking spaces onsite).
Per your suggestions I agree comment #2 should be revised as you are correct, teachers are not
"enrolled." Thus condition number 2 shall be revised to: "The maximum number of students
and school personnel shall not exceed 96." I feel this version of the condition best captures
the site's limitations and the applicants requests.
With regard to condition # 4 for the Fields School: please note that Regents School does not
have playing fields for sporting events; where as I believe Field School has those facilities
(baseball field and soccer field), thus would need to limit their use through a specific condition.
Hope that helps.
(hrictoiker P. Pere, j Senior Planner
Department of Community Development 1County of Albemarle. Virginia
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville. VA 22902
1
Now Niro
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
From: Greg Kamptner
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 11:18 AM
To: Christopher Perez; Scott Clark
Cc: Wayne Cilimberg; Amelia McCulley; Ron Higgins
Subject: Regents School and Field School SPs; conditions
All-
Regents School:
My only specific comment to the conditions is condition 2 for the Regents School, which states: "Maximum enrollment
shall be 96 persons (student and teachers onsite)." Because teachers are not enrolled, the language needs to be
changed. I found one school SP with a condition that stated: " • - . _ _ _ _ - _ • - . . -- - _ - - :
The typical condition for schools puts a cap on enrollment only, recognizing that enrollment dictates the number of
school personnel that will accompany that enrollment. However, there are a few SPs out there that that specifically limit
the number of students and school staff so the condition could state either: "The maximum number of students and
school personnel shall not exceed 96" or "The maximum enrollment of students shall be ; the maximum number of
-school personnel [or "staff" as has been used sometimes] shall be ."
Field School
In conditions 3 and 4, do "sports events" include practices?
General Observations:
Of course, the other thing that may catch someone's eye when we have two private school SPs going to the PC on the
same night is the different wording of conditions purportedly dealing with the same issues:
People onsite
Regent School (condition 2): "Maximum enrollment shall be 96 persons (student and teachers onsite)."
Field School (condition 2): "The maximum enrollment shall be 150 students."
School hours
Regent School (condition 4): "Hours of operation for the school shall be between 7:45 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., except that
occasional school - related events may occur after 4:00 p.m."
Field School (conditions 3): "Classroom instruction shall not begin before 8 :00 ..m. ana shall not ;ontinue later than 5:00
p.m. These hours shall not apply to sports events." and condition 4: Nor: -, I o ; ng sTIT:m, --ela ed events shall [sicl with
more than 50 attendees not occur more than 12 times per caiendar year and at}erc, nc€ shall exceed 200 persons.
The facility shall not be used for events nor related to the schoo' use."
I realize that each application is unique with varying impacts, but it is still interesting that the conditions are worded so
differently. I don't know if it creates a problem with administration over the long term or not. One of my ongoing
projects this year is to get a number of "forms" online including recommended proffer and special condition language.
Greg Kamptner
Deputy County Attorney
County of Albemarle
gkamptner@albemarle.org
2
enc: Action After Receipt of Comments
Resubmittal Form
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
L. t o - Varela
OF
ACTION AFTER RECEIPT OF COMMENT LETTER
•
Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please do one of the following:
(1) Resubmit in response to review comments
(2) Request Indefinite deferral
(3) Request that your Planning Commission public hearing date be set
(4) Withdraw your application
•
(1) Resubmittal in Response to Review Comments
If you plan to resubmit within 30 days, make sure that the resubmittal is on or before a
resubmittal date as published in the project review schedule. The resubmittal schedule for 2013
is not complete yet, staff will forward them once they are complete. The remaining 2012 dates
may be found at www.albemarle.org in the "forms" section at the Community Development
page. Be sure to include the resubmittal form on the last page of your comment letter with
your submittal.
The application fee which you paid covers staff review of the initial submittal and one
resubmittal. Each subsequent resubmittal requires an additional fee. (See attached Fee
Schedule.)
(2) Reauest Indefinite Deferral
'If you plan to resubmit after 30 days from the date of the comment letter, you need to request
an indefinite deferral. Please provide a written request and state your justification for
requesting the deferral. (indefinite deferral means that you intend to resubmit /request a
• public hearing be set with the Planning Commission after the 30 day period.)
og
ri
71 I .
`l110 •
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department 'of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
May 3, 2013
•
Jared Christophel
1686 Capri Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
RE: SP201300010 Regents School of Charlottesville (RSC)
1" Review Comment Letter on Special Use Permit application received March 18, 2013.
Mr. Christophel:
Staff has reviewed your initial submittal for an amendment to an existing Special Use Permit to increase
enrollment for a School of Special Instruction on a Commerically zoned private property initially permitted
through SP201200012. We have a couple questions and comments which we believe should be resolved
before your proposal goes to public hearing. We would be glad to meet with you to discuss these issues, if
needed. Our comments are provided below:
Planning (Christopher Perez)
1. As permitted by SP2012 -12, the approved concept plan for this facility utilizes the area labeled "PE/
Recess Area" which is behind parking area P7 as an outdoor physical education (PE) or recess activity area
for students. At the public hearings for SP2012 -12 the Planning Commission (PC) and the BOS discussed
the issue of the recess area being fenced for safety of the children. Ultimetly the proposal was approved
without fencing, but the issue generated much discussion. Providing fencing around the recess area or on a
portion of the area may help increase the safety of the children participating in recess by further hindering
access to the train tracks at the rear of the property and Broomely Road (Rte 677) at the side property line of
the property.
With the requested increase in students (120 students total) staff believes it may be time to provide fencing
for this area to limit young children's ability to wonder of explore the back portion of the property without
adult supervision. Are the applicants willing to include a proposal to fence the recess area? If so, please
include it with the resubmittal and show it on the revised concept plan. With the submittal, include
information on the location of the fencing, fence material and height of fence. Please note, the fencing of this
area will require a site plan amendment to SDP 1992 -52 Christian Aid Mission to allow for the fence to be
constucted. This item appears to be able to be processed as a Letter of Revision (LOR) to the existing site
plan, but the Architechtual Review Board (ARB) may be required to review the proposal if the proposed
fence location is deemed visable from Rte 250 (see ARB initial discussion of this below).
If the applicant does not feel fencing is necessary or beneficial to the project, please explain the reasoning in
the resubmital. This information will be provided to the PC/BOS in the staff report.
2. See the Virginia Department of Health comments provided below. These comments are substancial and
should be adequately responded to and resolved before this project moves forward. •
Page 1 of 3
C ilwe
Below are additional comments which have been provided from the other Departments which
reviewed the proposal. Please address all the comments mentioned in this letter prior to resubmittal. •
Virginia Department of Health (Josh Kirtlev).
1. To increase the number of students, the applicant shall consult with a PE to determine the
capacity of the existing system and determine if it would be suitable for the proposed use.
The PE would need to submit a report to the Health Department which outlines their
findings and justification for the approval. If the existing system needed to be expanded,
then the would need to submit an application along with PE plans to the Health
Department for approval.
Architechtual Review Board (ARB): (Margaret Maliszewski)
1. The application indi that no changes to the building or the site are proposed. Consequently, no
impacts to the Route 250 Entrance Corridor are anticpated from the proposed use. However, if the school
fords that the installation of a fence is required, and if that fence would be visible from Route 250, then ARB
review and approval would be required. Chain link fence would not likely be approved.
Virginia Department of Transportation (Troy Austin)
VDOT comments will be provided as soon as they are available. VDOT review is escential as their
comments will help staff determine if the existing entrance and turn lanes are adequate for the
proposed increase in student population which will increase traffic to and from the site.
Engineering (Micheal Koslow)
Engineering comments (f arty) will be provided as soon as they are available.
End of Comments
Action after Receipt of Comments
After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified on "Action After Receipt of
Comment Letter" which is attached. Pleae feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional
information.
Resubmittai
If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. There is no fee for the first resubmittal. The
resubmittal date schedule is provided for your convenience.
Notification and Advertisement Fees
Recently, the Board of Supervisors amended the zoning ordinance to require that applicants pay for the
notification costs for public hearings. Prior to scheduling a public hearing with the Planning Commission,
payment of the following fees is needed:
$238.20 Cost for newspaper advertisement
$205.98 Cost for notification of adjoining owners (minimum $200 + actual postage /$1 per owner after 50
adjoining owners)
$444.18 Total amount due prior to Planning Commission public hearing
Prior to the Board of Supervisor's public hearing, payment of the newspaper advertisement for the Board
hearing needed.
Page 2 of 3
5 -3 -13 •
c oe 4•40.
238.20 Ad. r onal amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing
$682.38 T I -1 amount for all notifications Fees may be paid in advance. Payment for both the Planning
Asion and Board of Supervisors public hearings may be paid at the same time. • -• .. •
• Additional notification fees will not be required unless a deferral takes place and adjoining owners need to
be notified of a new date.
Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information at 434.296.5832 ext 3443. My
. email address is cperez@,albemarle.org.
Sincerely,
-
Christopher P. Perez
Senior Planner
Planning Division
enc: Action After Receipt of Comments
Resubmittal Schedule
Resubmittal Form
•
Page 3 of 3
5 -3 -13
R
cot '
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, Virginia 22701-3819
Gregory A. Whir$ey
Commissioner of Highways
May 9, 2013
Mr. Bill Fritz
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: Special Use Permits and Rezoning Submittals
Dear Mr. Fritz:
Below are VDOT's comments for the April, 2013 Rezoning and Special Use Permit applications:
SP- 2013 -00009 All Things Pawssible (JT Newberry)
1. No comments
SP -2013 -00010 Regents School of Charlottesville (Christopher Perez)
1. No comments.
ZMA- 2013 -00003 1306 Crozet Avenue (Claudette Grant)
1. We request that the owner consider a shared entrance for Lots 2 and 3.
2. Any new entrance onto St. George Avenue will require a Land Use Permit to be issued by this
office.
3. The assumption is that available sight distance for the new entrance onto St. George Avenue is
adequate, but this needs to be confirmed.
4. The assumption is that the existing entrance onto Crozet Avenue will continue to be used for the
residue (Lot 1). Please advise if this is inaccurate.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
Page l of l
Subj: RE: SP201300010: Regents School
Date: 5/10/2013 12:45:52 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: cperez(cr�,albemarle.orq
To: courtneypalumbo @.aol.com
CC: JJC3Y( hscmail.mcc.virainia.edu
Courtney,
1 finally received VDOT's comments...they had none, it appears the existing entrance /turn lanes are adequate to
handle the traffic generated by the addition. See the attached VDOT comment letter and the below email for
clarification.
Christopher P. Perez I Senior Planner
Department of Community Development (County of Albemarle, Virginia
401 Mclntire Road I Charlottesville, VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
From: Austin, Nathran. (VDOT) [ mailto: Nathran .Austin@vdot.virginia.gov]
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 11:54 AM
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: RE: SP201300010 Regents School of Charlottesville (RSC)
Chris,
1 am putting together my response to all of the rezoning /special use, but after discussing this site with Chuck
Proctor, the Regent School is going to be fine. We will not have any objections. You should see the comments
after lunch. Sorry about the delay.
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Virginia Department of Transportation
Land Development — South
Monday, May 20, 2013 AOL: Courtneypalumbo
Page l of 1
Lof
Subj: SP201300010: Regents School
Date: 5/8/2013 2:00:10 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: cperez
To: courtneypalumbo @aol.com
CC: JJC3Y (a.hscmail.mcc.virainia.edu
Courtney,
As of today Albemarle County Sewer Authority (ACSA) has provided me their review comments for your
proposal, see the email below. What Alex of ACSA is requesting is information on whether any fixtures internal
or external are being added (sinks, spigots, toilets...etc). When you resubmit please respond to his comment. If
you have additional questions for him, please email him or call him directly.
Also, other pending comments from various reviewers are VDOT and Engineering. I'll be checking in with each
of them by the end of this week to see where they are at in their reviews.
Thanks
Christopher P. Perez I Senior Planner
Department of Community Development County of Albemarle. Virginia
401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
From: Alex Morrison [mailto:amorrison @serviceauthority.org]
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 12:28 PM
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: SP201300010: Regents School
Chris,
1 have reviewed the above document. Please have the applicant verify if any water fixtures will be added to the
building. They can contact me directly via e-mail. If there is no fixture change I can grant approval. If fixtures will
be added I will need the new total so 1 can verify the meter size before approving the AP.
Alexander J. Morrison, EIT
Civil Engineer
Omit Omtii
Service Authority
168 Spotnap Road
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Office: (434) 977 - 4511 EXT: 116
This email may contain confidential information that should not be shared with anyone other than its
intended recipient(s).
Monday, May 20, 2013 AOL: Courtneypalumbo
Alex, /
In your initial review for this project you stated: "Please have the applicant verify if any water
fixtures will be added to the building. They can contact me directly via e-mail. If there is no
fixture change I can grant approval. If fixtures will be added I will need the new total so I can
verify the meter size before approving the AP."
I have since received a resubmittal from the applicant on May 20, 2013, in which they address
your concerns, stating that no fixtures will be added. However, during this resubmittal process I
received Health Department approval w/ recommendations from the Capacity Analysis which
speak to:
"1. Prior to the school opening, ODE will check the pumping rates (GPM) of the flow
equalization pumps and reset the timer to ensure that the drainfield time dosing is
set correctly (691 gpd).
2. A water meter and datalogger should be installed on the inlet water line to the
school building (after any piping stubs for outdoor spigots). The campus has a
main water meter but no sub metering per building. This will allow for
verification of the water usage estimate in this capacity assessment and possible
water usage reduction in the future. ODE can provide information on where to
purchase these items.
3. To accommodate future growth at the school beyond 96 total occupants,
additional drainfield area and /or wastewater treatment will most likely be
required."
Does any of the above three (3) recommendations cause you or your department any additional
comments? I am asking incase the applicant follows through with those recommendations will
they trigger anything extra from ACSA? Please advise. I look forward to hearing from you.
thanks
Christopher P. P=
Christopher Perez
From: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH) [ Joshua .Kirtley @vdh.virginia.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 10:24 AM
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: RE: SP2013 -10 Regents School of Charlottesville
Attachments: Capacity Assessment .pdf
Chris:
•
I have attached an updated capacity assessment performed by Old Dominion Engineering for the Regents
School project (SP2013 -10). After reviewing the assessment, I am in agreement with the PE in his calculations
and proposal. With that being said, I am comfortable with the maximum occupancy of the school (students
and teachers) being 96 total. I would add that I highly recommend that the applicant follow through with the
Engineer's recommendations outlined on Page 2 prior to opening.
If you have any questions or if I can clarify anything, please let me know.
Josh
Josh Kirtley
Environmental Health Technical Consultant
Onsite Sewage and Well Programs
Thomas Jefferson Health District
1138 Rose Hill Drive
Charlottesville, Virginia 22903
Office (434) 972 -6288
From: Christopher Perez [mailto:cperez @albemarle.org]
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 5:01 PM
To: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH)
Subject: RE: SP2013 -10 Regents School of Charlottesville
Much appreciated, thanks.
Chrimolther P. Perez Senior Planner
Department of Community Development County of Albemarle. Virginia
401 McIntire Road 1 Charlottesville. VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
From: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH) [mailto:Joshua.Kirtley @vdh.virginia.gov]
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 4:57 PM
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: RE: SP2013 -10 Regents School of Charlottesville
Chris:
Thanks for your email.
1
1 spoke to Bill and he indicated that t!'applicants may have been working wi`'a PE to "up the capacity of the
system ". To date, I haven't verified whether any work has been done and whether the capacity has changed
through a records review here at the Health Department. I have a call in to the engineering firm in question
and will let you know when I hear back. At this point, I am still recommending that the applicant submit some
form of a report from a professional engineer regardless of past determinations. I'll let you know when I hear
back from the engineer that may have done some work out there. If he doesn't get back to me before 2
tomorrow, then I would let my initial comments go as is.
Josh Kirtley Environmental Health Specialist, Senior
Thomas Jefferson Health District (Albemarle County, Virginia
1138 Rose Hill Drive 1 Charlottesville, VA 22903
434 - 972 -6288
From: Christopher Perez [mailto:cperezc albemarle.orq]
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 4:35 PM
To: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH)
Subject: RE: SP2013 -10 Regents School of Charlottesville
Josh,
I'm planning on sending my comments out for SP2013 -10 Regents School of Charlottesville tomorrow around 2pm, did
you ever followup with Bill Craun like you mentioned in the email below in an effort to get a more clear handle on the
existing septic for the site and how previous determinations were made for the use. Or is what you provided me last
time we emailed (4- 24 -13) the last you've reviewed this...?
Let me know, as I will be sending these comments out sometime around 2pm tomorrow, if you have anything further to
add let me know.
Thanks
Christopher P. Pere: Senior Planner
Department of Community Development 1County of Albemarle, Virginia
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
From: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH) [mailto: Joshua .Kirtley(avdh.virginia.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 11:47 AM
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: RE: SP2013 -10 Regents School of Charlottesville
Chris:
In response to your questions:
Question:
Is the existing system adequate for the existing number of students and teachers which was permitted at the
most recent SP for the facility SP2012 -12?
Answer:
2
k
I haven't had the chance to review t 't-ID file for the project in question and ITcnow that there are a couple of
different septic fields out there of various ages. I think that Bill may have worked with the applicant and may
have even made site visits. My comment was to initiate a review by a PE, to include a VDH records review, in
order to determine whether or not the existing system can accommodate the proposed use. At this point, the
applicant may be going above and beyond what the system was designed for and I feel that a PE review is
necessary to protect public health and the environment.
Question:
If so, what documentation did Mr. Craun use to make this determination?
Answer:
I will call Mr. Craun and ask him. Given Bill's fairly precise comments, I would tend to think that they may be
approaching some type of "limit" in terms of water use. 1 will attempt to find this
documentation and follow up accordingly.
Question:
Does that information specify that the system cannot handle anymore people?
Answer:
Once I'm able to talk to Bill and determine which septic system on the property he reviewed, I should be able
to follow up as to his justification for the absolute limit on the number of people. Please keep in mind that the
system septic design may not have taken into consideration that the facility was to be served by up to 120
students plus additional staff. That is why I am recommending that the applicant consult with a PE to
determine if the wastewater strength and flows from the school will be similar to the original design. A septic
system design for a school of 120 students is outside the permitting ability of the local health department and
I feel more comfortable for everyone involved (County, VDH, and the applicant) that a PE review the proposed
use and determine if the existing system can accept the wastewater.
I'H be touch once I've touched base with Bill and determined what information he had available in making his
decision. I'll follow up after I've had a chance to talk to him.
Let me know if you have any questions or if I can clarify anything.
Josh
Josh Kirtleyl Environmental Health Specialist, Senior
Thomas Jefferson Health District (Albemarle County, Virginia
1138 Rose Hill Drive 1 Charlottesville, VA 22903
434 - 972 -6288
From: Christopher Perez [mailto:cperez@ albemarle.orq]
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 10:39 AM
To: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH)
Subject: RE: SP2013 -10 Regents School of Charlottesville
Josh,
Thank you for your response. I want to probe a little deeper into your comment to fully understand it. Namely, 1 would
like to understand what information the Health Department already has on file for this system. Is the existing system
3
adequate for the existing number of st rents and teachers which was permitted at t e most recent SP for the facility
SP2012 -12? If so, what documentation did Mr. Cruan use to make this determination? Does that information specify
that the system cannot handle anymore people? I'm just curious be I imagine this question will be asked by the applicant
or the Planning Commission.
Ciritopher P'. Pere. Senior Planner
Department of Community Ievelopment (County of Albemarle, Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville. VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
From: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH) [mailto: Joshua .Kirtley(avdh.virginia.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 9:23 AM
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: RE: SP2013 -10 Regents School of Charlottesville
Good morning, Chris.
It seems that Bill's email was very specific in terms of the number of students and teachers. If the applicant is
looking to increase the number of students, then I would recommend that the applicant consult with a PE to
determine the capacity of the existing system and determine if it would be suitable for the proposed use. The
PE would need to submit a report to the Health Department which outlines their findings and justification for
the approval. If the existing system needed to be expanded, then the applicant would need to submit an
application along with PE plans to the Health Department for approval.
Josh
Josh Kirtley Environmental Health Specialist, Senior
Thomas Jefferson Health District 'Albemarle County, Virginia
1138 Rose Hill Drive 1 Charlottesville, VA 22903
434 - 972 -6288
From: Christopher Perez [mailto:cperez@ albemarle.orq]
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 9:18 AM
To: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH)
Subject: RE: SP2013 -10 Regents School of Charlottesville
Josh,
Bill reviewed this project's initial submittal when it was SP2012 -12 (attached is Bill's comments)...that application was
approved by the County on Sept 5, 2012.
Now the applicants are amending their SP application to add additional children, thus it's a completely new
application /review for SP201300010.
Thanks
Christopher P. Perez ; Senior Planner
Department of Community Development !County of Albemarle, Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville. VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
4
•
4
From: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH) [mailto: Joshua .KirtleyCa�vdh.virginia.gov]
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 5:17 PM
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: RE: SP2013 -10 Regents School of Charlottesville
Good afternoon, Chris. Thanks for your email.
We have received the above mentioned application and I hope to look at it soon. Just so I'm in the loop on
everything, what was Bill's involvement with this project? Has he already provided comments? I ask because I
want to make sure that VDH comments are consistent.
Josh Kirtley' Environmental Health Specialist, Senior
Thomas Jefferson Health District 'Albemarle County, Virginia
1138 Rose Hill Drive 1 Charlottesville, VA 22903
434 - 972 -6288
From: Christopher Perez [mailto:cperez(albemarle.org]
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 2:45 PM
To: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH)
Subject: SP2013 - 10 Regents School of Charlottesville
Josh,
This is the followup email mentioned in the voicemail I just left you. I am seeking confirmation that your office received
Special Use Permit application SP2013 -10 Regents School of Charlottesville. Comments are due to the applicant by
May f . This email is not to rush you; rather, just making sure yall received it be I believe the application request will
rest primarily on what the Health Department says for their septic...
PS. I misspoke on the voicemail, I believe Bill Craun initially reviewed this permit, regardless he's retired now. Please
confirm your receipt of the application. Thanks
Christopher P. Perez Senior Planner
Department of Community Development !County of Albemarle, Virginia
401 Mclntire Road I Charlottesville. VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
5
Niue
Christopher Perez
From: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH) [Joshua. Kirtley @vdh.virginia.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 10:24 AM
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: RE: SP2013 -10 Regents School of Charlottesville
Attachments: Capacity Assessment .pdf
Chris:
I have attached an updated capacity assessment performed by Old Dominion Engineering for the Regents
School project (SP2013 -10). After reviewing the assessment, I am in agreement with the PE in his calculations
and proposal. With that being said, I am comfortable with the maximum occupancy of the school (students
and teachers) being 96 total. I would add that I highly recommend that the applicant follow through with the
Engineer's recommendations outlined on Page 2 prior to opening.
If you have any questions or if I can clarify anything, please let me know.
Josh
Josh Kirtley
Environmental Health Technical Consultant
Onsite Sewage and Well Programs
Thomas Jefferson Health District
1138 Rose Hill Drive
Charlottesville, Virginia 22903
Office (434) 972 -6288
From: Christopher Perez [mailto:cperez @albemarle.org]
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 5:01 PM
To: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH)
Subject: RE: SP2013 - 10 Regents School of Charlottesville
Much appreciated, thanks.
Christopher P. Perez Senior Planner
Department of Community Development 1County of Albemarle. Virginia
401 Mclntire Road 1 Charlottesville. VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
From: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH) [ mailto: Joshua.Kirtley @vdh.virginia.gov]
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 4:57 PM
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: RE: SP2013 -10 Regents School of Charlottesville
Chris:
Thanks for your email.
1
I spoke to Bill and he indicated trrrthe applicants may have been workinth a PE to "up the capacity of the
system ". To date, I haven't verified whether any work has been done and whether the capacity has changed
through a records review here at the Health Department. I have a call in to the engineering firm in question
and will let you know when I hear back. At this point, I am still recommending that the applicant submit some
form of a report from a professional engineer regardless of past determinations. I'll let you know when I hear
back from the engineer that may have done some work out there. If he doesn't get back to me before 2
tomorrow, then I would let my initial comments go as is.
Josh Kirtley Environmental Health Specialist, Senior
Thomas Jefferson Health District 'Albemarle County, Virginia
1138 Rose Hill Drive 1 Charlottesville, VA 22903
434 - 972 -6288
From: Christopher Perez [mailto:cperez @albemarle.orq]
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 4:35 PM
To: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH)
Subject: RE: SP2013 -10 Regents School of Charlottesville
Josh,
I'm planning on sending my comments out for SP2013 -10 Regents School of Charlottesville tomorrow around 2pm, did
you ever followup with Bill Craun like you mentioned in the email below in an effort to get a more clear handle on the
existing septic for the site and how previous determinations were made for the use. Or is what you provided me last
time we emailed (4- 24 -13) the last you've reviewed this...?
Let me know, as I will be sending these comments out sometime around 2pm tomorrow, if you have anything further to
add let me know.
Thanks
Christopher P, Perez ; Senior Planner
Department of Community Development 1County of Albemarle, Virginia
401 McIntire Road 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
From: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH) [ mailto: Joshua.Kirtley @vdh.virginia.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 11:47 AM
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: RE: SP2013 -10 Regents School of Charlottesville
Chris:
In response to your questions:
Question:
Is the existing system adequate for the existing number of students and teachers which was permitted at the
most recent SP for the facility SP2012 -12?
Answer:
2
*Me ‘411111
I haven't had the chance to revie►e HD file for the project in question aNtf know that there are a couple of
different septic fields out there of various ages. I think that Bill may have worked with the applicant and may
have even made site visits. My comment was to initiate a review by a PE, to include a VDH records review, in
order to determine whether or not the existing system can accommodate the proposed use. At this point, the
applicant may be going above and beyond what the system was designed for and I feel that a PE review is
necessary to protect public health and the environment.
Question:
If so, what documentation did Mr. Craun use to make this determination?
Answer:
I will call Mr. Craun and ask him. Given Bill's fairly precise comments, I would tend to think that they may be
approaching some type of "limit" in terms of water use. I will attempt to find this
documentation and follow up accordingly.
Question:
Does that information specify that the system cannot handle anymore people?
Answer:
Once I'm able to talk to Bill and determine which septic system on the property he reviewed, I should be able
to follow up as to his justification for the absolute limit on the number of people. Please keep in mind that the
system septic design may not have taken into consideration that the facility was to be served by up to 120
students plus additional staff. That is why I am recommending that the applicant consult with a PE to
determine if the wastewater strength and flows from the school will be similar to the original design. A septic
system design for a school of 120 students is outside the permitting ability of the local health department and
I feel more comfortable for everyone involved (County, VDH, and the applicant) that a PE review the proposed
use and determine if the existing system can accept the wastewater.
I' #I be touch once I've touched base with Bill and determined what information he had available in making his
decision. I'll follow up after I've had a chance to talk to him.
Let me know if you have any questions or if I can clarify anything.
Josh
Josh Kirtley) Environmental Health Specialist, Senior
Thomas Jefferson Health District 'Albemarle County, Virginia
1138 Rose Hill Drive I Charlottesville, VA 22903
434 - 972 -6288
From: Christopher Perez [mailto:cperezCa�albemarle.orq]
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 10:39 AM
To: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH)
Subject: RE: SP2013 - 10 Regents School of Charlottesville
Josh,
Thank you for your response. I want to probe a little deeper into your comment to fully understand it. Namely, I would
like to understand what information the Health Department already has on file for this system. Is the existing system
3
d '44.0 ;
adequate for the existing number odents and teachers which was permittedhe most recent SP for the facility
SP2012 -12? If so, what documentation did Mr. Cruan use to make this determination? Does that information specify
that the system cannot handle anymore people? I'm just curious be I imagine this question will be asked by the applicant
or the Planning Commission.
Christopher P. Perez 1 Senior Planner
Department of Community Development (County of Albemarle, Virginia
401 McIntire Road 1Charlottesville. VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
From: Kirt ley, Joshua (VDH) [mailto: Joshua. Kirtley(avdh.virginia.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 9:23 AM
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: RE: SP2013 -10 Regents School of Charlottesville
Good morning, Chris.
It seems that Bill's email was very specific in terms of the number of students and teachers. If the applicant is
looking to increase the number of students, then I would recommend that the applicant consult with a PE to
determine the capacity of the existing system and determine if it would be suitable for the proposed use. The
PE would need to submit a report to the Health Department which outlines their findings and justification for
the approval. If the existing system needed to be expanded, then the applicant would need to submit an
application along with PE plans to the Health Department for approval.
Josh
Josh Kirtley Environmental Health Specialist, Senior
Thomas Jefferson Health District (Albemarle County, Virginia
1138 Rose Hill Drive 1 Charlottesville, VA 22903
434 - 972 -6288
From: Christopher Perez [mailto:cperezOalbemarle.orq]
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 9:18 AM
To: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH)
Subject: RE: SP2013 -10 Regents School of Charlottesville
Josh,
Bill reviewed this project's initial submittal when it was SP2012 -12 (attached is Bill's comments)...that application was
approved by the County on Sept 5, 2012.
Now the applicants are amending their SP application to add additional children, thus it's a completely new
application /review for SP201300010.
Thanks
Christopher P. Perez ! Senior Planner
Department of Community Development !County of Albemarle, Virginia
401 McIntire Road !Charlottesville. VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
4
From: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH) [mailto: Joshua. KirtleyCahvdh.virginia.gov]
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 5:17 PM
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: RE: SP2013 -10 Regents School of Charlottesville
Good afternoon, Chris. Thanks for your email.
We have received the above mentioned application and I hope to look at it soon. Just so I'm in the loop on
everything, what was Bill's involvement with this project? Has he already provided comments? I ask because I
want to make sure that VDH comments are consistent.
Josh Kirtley Environmental Health Specialist, Senior
Thomas Jefferson Health District 1 Albemarle County, Virginia
1138 Rose Hill Drive 1 Charlottesville, VA 22903
434 - 972 -6288
From: Christopher Perez [mailto:cperez(aalbemarle.orq]
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 2:45 PM
To: Kirt ley, Joshua (VDH)
Subject: SP2013 - 10 Regents School of Charlottesville
Josh,
This is the followup email mentioned in the voicemail I just left you. I am seeking confirmation that your office received
Special Use Permit application SP2013 -10 Regents School of Charlottesville. Comments are due to the applicant by
May 1 . This email is not to rush you; rather, just making sure yall received it be I believe the application request will
rest primarily on what the Health Department says for their septic...
PS. I misspoke on the voicemail, 1 believe Bill Craun initially reviewed this permit, regardless he's retired now, Please
confirm your receipt of the application. Thanks
Christopher" r, Perez Senior Planner
Department of Community Development !County of Albemarle, Virginia
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville. VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
5
Christopher Perez
From: Michael Koslow
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 2:10 PM
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: RE: SP201300010 Regents School of Charlottesville (RSC)
Chris,
I got a chance to review the proposal and it appears they have around 350' of drop off queue length. Based on research
for The Peabody School SP, this is sufficient for a school with 120 students. I have no objections to the plan and noted as
much in County View today.
Cordially, Michael
Michael Koslow, PE
County of Albemarle
Community Development Department
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3297
434 - 972 -4126 (fax)
mkoslow(Malbemarle.org
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 3:33 PM
To: Michael Koslow
Subject: SP201300010 Regents School of Charlottesville (RSC)
Mike,
I finally received VDOT's comments...they had none, evidently the existing entrance is adequate to handle the traffic
generated. See the attached VDOT comment letter and the below email.
Christopher F. I'ere7 i Senior Planner
Department of Community Development County of Albemarle. Virginia
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville. VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
From: Austin, Nathran. (VDOT) [ mailto: Nathran .AustinC@vdot.virginia.gov]
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 11:54 AM
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: RE: SP201300010 Regents School of Charlottesville (RSC)
Chris,
Just a heads up. I am putting together my response to all of the rezoning /special use, but after discussing this site with
Chuck Proctor, the Regent School is going to be fine. We will not have any objections. You should see the comments
after lunch. Sorry about the delay.
Troy Austin, P.E.
1
Area land Use Engineer
Virginia Department of Transportation
Land Development — South
Culpeper District
P.O. Box 1017
11430 James Madison Highway
Troy, VA 22974
Phone: (434) 589 -5871
Fax: (434) 589 -3967
From: Christopher Perez [mailto:cperez(aalbemarle.org]
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 2:18 PM
To: Austin, Nathran. (VDOT)
Subject: RE: SP201300010 Regents School of Charlottesville (RSC)
Troy,
I just wanted to touch base with you on the SP for Regents School of Charlottesville SP2013 -10. Comments from VDOT
are still pending.
Once you provide me your comments I'll forward them to the applicant. Please note that the application was submitted
on 3 -18 -13 and comments were due on 5 -3 -13 and the applicant has 30 days (a fixed time frame) from 5 -3 -13 to
resubmit with modifications. If you have questions about the proposal as Joel did (see below) please ask as I may be able
to assist you.
Thanks
Christopher r P. Perez ! Senior Planner
Department of Community Development (County of Albemarle, Virginia
401 McIntire Road l Charlottesville, VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 10:47 AM
To: Joel DeNunzio, P.E.; Austin, Nathran. (VDOT)
Subject: RE: SP201300010 Regents School of Charlottesville (RSC)
Joel,
I believe all the answers to the questions in your email are in the packet/ application which was transmitted to
you in the form of the Concept Plan and the Application for the Special Use Permit. Did you receive these
documents with the proposal? If not, I'll email them to you. Otherwise below in purple I tried my best to
answer your questions. Please see my responses to your questions below. I look forward to your formal
comments. I have already submitted the County's Comment letter to the applicant for this project and they are
aware that VDOT's comments are pending. Thanks for your help.
Christopher P, Perez, Senior Planner
Department of Community Development (County of Albemarle, Virginia
401 McIntire Road l Charlottesville, VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
2
From: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. (VDO Joel .DeNunzioftVDOT.virginia.gov]
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 5:19 PM
To: Christopher Perez; Austin, Nathran. (VDOT)
Subject: RE: SP201300010 Regents School of Charlottesville (RSC)
Chris,
I think my first question will be have they been running the school with the 60 students at this time? Per their
application they have been running school there for 51 students and 10 teachers.
I would also ask what the hours of operation for the school are and are the students bussed in or do parents do drop off
and pick up.
Per their application: many families send multiple children to the school, and most teachers also send their children
to the school. They estimate 15 additional vehicles drop off and pickup students at Sam — 3pm. There is not any type
of bus system for this school. They estimate that with the school's proposed increase to 120 students that this would
generate an extra 25 vehicles dropping off and picking up students for a total of 40 vehicles total per day.
At 120 students I would start to be a little concerned with the operations at the intersection to Route 250 and may want
to see some traffic analysis for left turn queues and time needed to get out on Route 250. I would expect that the
afternoon hours may not overlap with the peak hour of traffic but the morning hour may be during the peak. Please not
that kindergarten releases at 12:15.
Please note that all the estimates and figures are listed in the Concept Plan and the Application for the Special Use
Permit. Did you receive these documents with the proposal?
Also, Megan Oleynik is no longer with VDOT so you may want to remove her from your cc list.
Thanks
Joel
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
Residency Administrator
VDOT Charlottesville Residency
434 - 422 -9373
joel.denunzio0vdot.virginia.gov
From: Christopher Perez [mailto:cperez@ albemarle.orq]
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 5:00 PM
To: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. (VDOT); Austin, Nathran. (VDOT)
Cc: Megan.OleynikCa vdot.virginia.gov
Subject: SP201300010 Regents School of Charlottesville (RSC)
Joel,
Staff provided your office copies of SP2013 -10 Regents School of Charlottesville the 1st week in April. The
SP request is an amendment to SP2012 -12 for the Regents School of Charlottesville, the request is to double the
students from 60 students (permitted now under SP2012 -12) to allow a total of 120 students to attend.
Did you ever get a chance to look at the request. I'll be sending my comments out around 2pm tomorrow
(Friday may 3 rd) and am seeing if I can lump your comments in with mine. Let me know either way.
During your review of SP2012 -12 you provided the attached comments.
Please let me know if you have reviewed this most recent request. Thanks
3
hristrphe< P. Perez! Senior Planner
Department of Community Development !County of Albemarle, Virginia
401 McIntire Road 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902
434.296. 832 ext. 3443
4
%Vie kill,
It a
k' ',Z o o; 4`.
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, Virginia 22701 -3819
Gregory A. Whirley
Commissioner of Highways
May 9, 2013
Mr. Bill Fritz
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: Special Use Permits and Rezoning Submittals
Dear Mr. Fritz:
Below are VDOT's comments for the April, 2013 Rezoning and Special Use Permit applications:
SP- 2013 -00009 All Things Pawssible (JT Newberry)
1. No comments
- 013 -00010 Regents School of Charlottesville (Christopher Perez)
1. No comments.
ZMA-2013-00003 1306 Crozet Avenue (Claudette Grant)
1. We request that the owner consider a shared entrance for Lots 2 and 3.
2. Any new entrance onto St. George Avenue will require a Land Use Permit to be issued by this
office.
3. The assumption is that available sight distance for the new entrance onto St. George Avenue is
adequate, but this needs to be confirmed.
4. The assumption is that the existing entrance onto Crozet Avenue will continue to be used for the
residue (Lot 1). Please advise if this is inaccurate.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
iiit j
Mi
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 11:05 AM
To: Alex Morrison
Subject: FW: SP201300010: Regents School
Alex,
The applicant has provided clarification (see below) as there is no fixture changes proposed with the increase in
students. The applicant will add this to their revised information which will be sent for everyone to review once they
resubmit.
Christopher P. Perez I Senior Planner
Department of Community Development (Count■ of Albemarle. Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville. VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
From: Courtneypalumbo @aol.com [mailto:Courtneypalumbo @aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 2:02 PM
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: Re: SP201300010: Regents School
Hi Chris,
Thank you! No fixture changes. I'll be sure to include this in our response.
Courtney Palumbo
In a message dated 5/8/2013 2:00:10 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, cperezCa.albemarle.orq writes:
Courtney,
As of today Albemarle County Sewer Authority (ACSA) has provided me their review comments for
your proposal, see the email below. What Alex of ACSA is requesting is information on whether any
fixtures internal or external are being added (sinks, spigots, toilets...etc). When you resubmit please
respond to his comment. If you have additional questions for him, please email him or call him
directly.
Also, other pending comments from various reviewers are VDOT and Engineering. I'll be checking in
with each of them by the end of this week to see where they are at in their reviews.
Thanks
Christopher P. Peru Senior Planner
Department of Community Development (County of Albemarle, Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville, VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
1
From: Alex Morrison [ mailto: amorrison (aserviceauthoritv.orq]
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 12:28 PM
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: SP201300010: Regents School
Chris,
I have reviewed the above document. Please have the applicant verify if any water fixtures will be
added to the building. They can contact me directly via e-mail. If there is no fixture change I can grant
approval. If fixtures will be added I will need the new total so I can verify the meter size before
approving the AP.
Alexander J. Morrison, EIT
Civil Engineer
Service Authority
168 Spotnap Road
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Office: (434) 977 - 4511 EXT: 116
This email may contain confidential information that should not be shared with anyone other than its
intended recipient(s).
2
Cale
Christopher Perez
From: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH) [ Joshua.Kirtley @vdh.virginia.gov]
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 4:57 PM
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: RE: SP2013 -10 Regents School of Charlottesville
Chris:
Thanks for your email.
I spoke to Bill and he indicated that the applicants may have been working with a PE to "up the capacity of the
system ". To date, I haven't verified whether any work has been done and whether the capacity has changed
through a records review here at the Health Department. I have a call in to the engineering firm in question
and will let you know when I hear back. At this point, I am still recommending that the applicant submit some
form of a report from a professional engineer regardless of past determinations. I'll let you know when I hear
back from the engineer that may have done some work out there. If he doesn't get back to me before 2
tomorrow, then I would let my initial comments go as is.
Josh KirtleyI Environmental Health Specialist, Senior
Thomas Jefferson Health District 'Albemarle County, Virginia
1138 Rose Hill Drive 1 Charlottesville, VA 22903
434 - 972 -6288
From: Christopher Perez [mailto:cperez @albemarle.org]
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 4:35 PM
To: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH)
Subject: RE: SP2013 -10 Regents School of Charlottesville
Josh,
I'm planning on sending my comments out for SP2013 -10 Regents School of Charlottesville tomorrow around 2pm, did
you ever foliowup with Bill Craun like you mentioned in the email below in an effort to get a more clear handle on the
existing septic for the site and how previous determinations were made for the use. Or is what you provided me last
time we emailed (4 24 - 13) the last you've reviewed this...?
Let me know, as I will be sending these comments out sometime around 2pm tomorrow, if you have anything further to
add let me know.
Thanks
Christopher P. Perez Senior Planner
Department of Community Development (County of Albemarle. Virginia
401 McIntire Road l Charlottesville. VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
From: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH) [mailto:Joshua.Kirtley @vdh.virginia.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 11:47 AM
1
To: Christopher Perez
Cia
Subject: RE: SP2013 - 10 Regents School of Charlottesville
Chris:
In response to your questions:
Question:
Is the existing system adequate for the existing number of students and teachers which was permitted at the
most recent SP for the facility SP2012 -12?
Answer:
I haven't had the chance to review the HD file for the project in question and I know that there are a couple of
different septic fields out there of various ages. I think that Bill may have worked with the applicant and may
have even made site visits. My comment was to initiate a review by a PE, to include a VDH records review, in
order to determine whether or not the existing system can accommodate the proposed use. At this point, the
applicant may be going above and beyond what the system was designed for and I feel that a PE review is
necessary to protect public health and the environment.
Question:
If so, what documentation did Mr. Craun use to make this determination?
Answer:
I will call Mr. Craun and ask him. Given Bill's fairly precise comments, I would tend to think that they may be
approaching some type of "limit" in terms of water use. 1 will attempt to find this
documentation and follow up accordingly.
Question:
Does that information specify that the system cannot handle anymore people?
Answer:
Once I'm able to talk to Bill and determine which septic system on the property he reviewed, I should be able
to follow up as to his justification for the absolute limit on the number of people. Please keep in mind that the
system septic design may not have taken into consideration that the facility was to be served by up to 120
students plus additional staff. That is why I am recommending that the applicant consult with a PE to
determine if the wastewater strength and flows from the school will be similar to the original design. A septic
system design for a school of 120 students is outside the permitting ability of the local health department and
I feel more comfortable for everyone involved (County, VDH, and the applicant) that a PE review the proposed
use and determine if the existing system can accept the wastewater.
I'Il be touch once I've touched base with Bill and determined what information he had available in making his
decision. I'll follow up after I've had a chance to talk to him.
Let me know if you have any questions or if I can clarify anything.
Josh
Josh Kirtley Environmental Health Specialist, Senior
Thomas Jefferson Health District jAlbemarle County, Virginia
2
1138 Rose Hill Drive 1 Charlottesville, A 22903 Loi
434 - 972 -6288
From: Christopher Perez [mailto:cperez@lalbemarle.orq]
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 10:39 AM
To: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH)
Subject: RE: SP2013 -10 Regents School of Charlottesville
Josh,
Thank you for your response. I want to probe a little deeper into your comment to fully understand it. Namely, I would
like to understand what information the Health Department already has on file for this system. Is the existing system
adequate for the existing number of students and teachers which was permitted at the most recent SP for the facility
SP2012 -12? If so, what documentation did Mr. Cruan use to make this determination? Does that information specify
that the system cannot handle anymore people? I'm just curious be I imagine this question will be asked by the applicant
or the Planning Commission.
Christopher P. Perez 1 Senior Planner
Department of Community Development !County of Albemarle, Virginia
401 McIntire Road 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
From: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH) [mailto: Joshua .KirtleyC1vdh.virginia.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 9:23 AM
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: RE: SP2013 -10 Regents School of Charlottesville
Good morning, Chris.
It seems that Bill's email was very specific in terms of the number of students and teachers. If the applicant is
looking to increase the number of students, then I would recommend that the applicant consult with a PE to
determine the capacity of the existing system and determine if it would be suitable for the proposed use. The
PE would need to submit a report to the Health Department which outlines their findings and justification for
the approval. lithe existing system needed to be expanded, then the applicant would need to submit an
application along with PE plans to the Health Department for approval.
Josh
Josh Kirtley Environmental Health Specialist, Senior
Thomas Jefferson Health District JAlbemarle County, Virginia
1138 Rose Hill Drive 1 Charlottesville, VA 22903
434 - 972 -6288
From: Christopher Perez [mailto:cperezOalbemarle.orq]
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 9:18 AM
To: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH)
Subject: RE: SP2013 -10 Regents School of Charlottesville
3
Josh,
Bill reviewed this project's initial submittal when it was SP2012 -12 (attached is Bill's comments)...that application was
approved by the County on Sept 5, 2012.
Now the applicants are amending their SP application to add additional children, thus it's a completely new
application /review for SP201300010.
Thanks
Christopher P. Perez 1 Senior Planner
Department of Community Development (County of Albemarle, Virginia
401 McIntire Road 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
From: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH) [mailto:Joshua.KirtleyC 1vdh.virginia.gov]
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 5:17 PM
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: RE: SP2013 -10 Regents School of Charlottesville
Good afternoon, Chris. Thanks for your email.
We have received the above mentioned application and I hope to look at it soon. Just so I'm in the loop on
everything, what was Bill's involvement with this project? Has he already provided comments? I ask because I
want to make sure that VDH comments are consistent.
Josh Kirtley Environmental Health Specialist, Senior
Thomas Jefferson Health District 1 Albemarle County, Virginia
1138 Rose Hill Drive 1 Charlottesville, VA 22903
434 - 972 -6288
From: Christopher Perez [mailto:cperezalbemarle.orq]
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 2:45 PM
To: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH)
Subject: SP2013 -10 Regents School of Charlottesville
Josh,
This is the followup email mentioned in the voicemail I just left you. I am seeking confirmation that your office received
Special Use Permit application SP2013 -10 Regents School of Charlottesville. Comments are due to the applicant by
May 1 . This email is not to rush you; rather, just making sure yall received it be I believe the application request will
rest primarily on what the Health Department says for their septic...
PS. I misspoke on the voicemail, I believe Bill Craun initially reviewed this permit, regardless he's retired now. Please
confirm your receipt of the application. Thanks
Christopher P. Perez; Senior Planner
Department of Community Development (County of Albemarle. Virginia
401 McIntire Road 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
4
f
� C F A
� i - ' _ � :illy
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
May 3, 2013
Jared Christophel
1686 Capri Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
RE: SP201300010 Regents School of Charlottesville (RSC)
l Review Comment Letter on Special Use Permit application received March 18, 2013.
Mr. Christophel:
Staff has reviewed your initial submittal for an amendment to an existing Special Use Permit to increase
enrollment for a School of Special Instruction on a Commerically zoned private property initially permitted
through SP201200012. We have a couple questions and comments which we believe should be resolved
before your proposal goes to public hearing. We would be glad to meet with you to discuss these issues, if
needed. Our comments are provided below:
Planning (Christopher Perez)
1. As permitted by SP2012 -12, the approved concept plan for this facility utilizes the area labeled "PE/
Recess Area" which is behind parking area P7 as an outdoor physical education (PE) or recess activity area
for students. At the public hearings for SP2012 -12 the Planning Commission (PC) and the BOS discussed
the issue of the recess area being fenced for safety of the children. Ultimetly the proposal was approved
without fencing, but the issue generated much discussion. Providing fencing around the recess area or on a
portion of the area may help increase the safety of the children participating in recess by further hindering
access to the train tracks at the rear of the property and Broomely Road (Rte 677) at the side property line of
the property.
With the requested increase in students (120 students total) staff believes it may be time to provide fencing
for this area to limit young children's ability to wonder off/ explore the back portion of the property without
adult supervision. Are the applicants willing to include a proposal to fence the recess area? If so, please
include it with the resubmittal and show it on the revised concept plan. With the submittal, include
information on the location of the fencing, fence material and height of fence. Please note, the fencing of this
area will require a site plan amendment to SDP1992 -52 Christian Aid Mission to allow for the fence to be
constucted. This item appears to be able to be processed as a Letter of Revision (LOR) to the existing site
plan, but the Architechtual Review Board (ARB) may be required to review the proposal if the proposed
fence location is deemed visable from Rte 250 (see ARB initial discussion of this below).
If the applicant does not feel fencing is necessary or beneficial to the project, please explain the reasoning in
the resubmital. This information will be provided to the PC/BOS in the staff report.
2. See the Virginia Department of Health comments provided below. These comments are substancial and
should be adequately responded to and resolved before this project moves forward.
Page 1 of 3
Noe k.milie
Below are additional comments which have been provided from the other Departments which
reviewed the proposal. Please address all the comments mentioned in this letter prior to resubmittal.
Virginia epartment of Health (Josh Kirtley)
. To increase the number of students, the applicant shall consult with a PE to determine the
capacity of the existing system and determine if it would be suitable for the proposed use.
The PE would need to submit a report to the Health Department which outlines their
findings and justification for the approval. If the existing system needed to be expanded,
then the applicant would need to submit an application along with PE plans to the Health
Department for approval.
Ar itechtual Review Board (ARB): (Margaret Maliszewski)
. The application indicates that no changes to the building or the site are proposed. Consequently, no
impacts to the Route 250 Entrance Corridor are anticpated from the proposed use. However, if the school
finds that the installation of a fence is required, and if that fence would be visible from Route 250, then ARB
review and approval would be required. Chain link fence would not likely be approved.
Virgi ' epartment of Transportation (Troy Austin)
OT comments will be provided as soon as they are available. VDOT review is escential as their
comments will help staff determine if the existing entrance and turn lanes are adequate for the
proposed i crease in student populatio which will i creasy traffic to d from the site.
S 6 ao Ci A -
En . ineerin .
P".
i cheal Koslow '
n_ineering comments • ' • . ' i 1 be provided as soon as they are available.
--r- != End of Comments
Action after Receipt of Comments
After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified on "Action After Receipt of
Comment Letter" which is attached. Pleae feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional
information.
Resubmittal
If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. There is no fee for the first resubmittal. The
resubmittal date schedule is provided for your convenience.
Notification and Advertisement Fees
Recently, the Board of Supervisors amended the zoning ordinance to require that applicants pay for the
notification costs for public hearings. Prior to scheduling a public hearing with the Planning Commission,
payment of the following fees is needed:
$238.20 Cost for newspaper advertisement
$205.98 Cost for notification of adjoining owners (minimum $200 + actual postage /$1 per owner after 50
adjoining owners)
$444.18 Total amount due prior to Planning Commission public hearing
Prior to the Board of Supervisor's public hearing, payment of the newspaper advertisement for the Board
hearing needed.
Page 2 of 3
5 -3 -13
•
col
$238.20 Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing
$682.38 Total amount for all notifications Fees may be paid in advance. Payment for both the Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors public hearings may be paid at the same time.
Additional notification fees will not be required unless a deferral takes place and adjoining owners need to
be notified of a new date.
Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information at 434.296.5832 ext 3443. My
email address is cperez @albemarle.org.
Sincerely, /
Christopher P. Perez
Senior Planner
Planning Division
enc: Action After Receipt of Comments
Resubmittal Schedule
Resubmittal Form
Page3of3
5 -3 -13
Christopher Perez
From: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH) [ Joshua.Kirtley @vdh.virginia.gov]
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 4:57 PM
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: RE: SP2013 -10 Regents School of Charlottesville
Chris:
Thanks for your email.
I spoke to Bill and he indicated that the applicants may have been working with a PE to "up the capacity of the
system ". To date, I haven't verified whether any work has been done and whether the capacity has changed
through a records review here at the Health Department. I have a call in to the engineering firm in question
and will let you know when I hear back. At this point, I am still recommending that the applicant submit some
form of a report from a professional engineer regardless of past determinations. I'll let you know when I hear
back from the engineer that may have done some work out there. If he doesn't get back to me before 2
tomorrow, then I would let my initial comments go as is.
Josh Kirtley Environmental Health Specialist, Senior
Thomas Jefferson Health District Albemarle County, Virginia
1138 Rose Hill Drive 1 Charlottesville, VA 22903
434 - 972 -6288
From: Christopher Perez [mailto:cperez @albemarle.org]
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 4:35 PM
To: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH)
Subject: RE: SP2013 -10 Regents School of Charlottesville
Josh,
I'm planning on sending my comments out for SP2013 -10 Regents School of Charlottesville tomorrow around 2pm, did
you ever followup with Bill Craun like you mentioned in the email below in an effort to get a more clear handle on the
existing septic for the site and how previous determinations were made for the use. Or is what you provided me last
time we emailed (4- 24 -13) the last you've reviewed this...?
Let me know, as I will be sending these comments out sometime around 2pm tomorrow, if you have anything further to
add let me know.
Thanks
Christopher P. Perez I Senior Planner
Department of Community Development (County of Albemarle. Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville. VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
From: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH) [mailto:Joshua.Kirtley @vdh.virginia.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 11:47 AM
1
fir✓
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: RE: SP2013 -10 Regents School of Charlottesville
Chris:
In response to your questions:
Question:
Is the existing system adequate for the existing number of students and teachers which was permitted at the
most recent SP for the facility SP2012 -12?
Answer:
I haven't had the chance to review the HD file for the project in question and I know that there are a couple of
different septic fields out there of various ages. I think that Bill may have worked with the applicant and may
have even made site visits. My comment was to initiate a review by a PE, to include a VDH records review, in
order to determine whether or not the existing system can accommodate the proposed use. At this point, the
applicant may be going above and beyond what the system was designed for and I feel that a PE review is
necessary to protect public health and the environment.
Question:
If so, what documentation did Mr. Craun use to make this determination?
Answer:
I will call Mr. Craun and ask him. Given Bill's fairly precise comments, I would tend to think that they may be
approaching some type of "limit" in terms of water use. I will attempt to find this
documentation and follow up accordingly.
Question:
Does that information specify that the system cannot handle anymore people?
Answer:
Once I'm able to talk to Bill and determine which septic system on the property he reviewed, I should be able
to follow up as to his justification for the absolute limit on the number of people. Please keep in mind that the
system septic design may not have taken into consideration that the facility was to be served by up to 120
students plus additional staff. That is why I am recommending that the applicant consult with a PE to
determine if the wastewater strength and flows from the school will be similar to the original design. A septic
system design for a school of 120 students is outside the permitting ability of the local health department and
I feel more comfortable for everyone involved (County, VDH, and the applicant) that a PE review the proposed
use and determine if the existing system can accept the wastewater.
1'll be touch once I've touched base with Bill and determined what information he had available in making his
decision. I'll follow up after I've had a chance to talk to him.
Let me know if you have any questions or if I can clarify anything.
Josh
Josh KirtleyI Environmental Health Specialist, Senior
Thomas Jefferson Health District 1Albemarle County, Virginia
2
Coo
1138 Rose Hill Drive 1 Charlottesville, VA 22903
434 - 972 -6288
From: Christopher Perez [mailto:cperez(aalbemarle.orq]
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 10:39 AM
To: Kirt ley, Joshua (VDH)
Subject: RE: SP2013 -10 Regents School of Charlottesville
Josh,
Thank you for your response. I want to probe a little deeper into your comment to fully understand it. Namely, I would
like to understand what information the Health Department already has on file for this system. Is the existing system
adequate for the existing number of students and teachers which was permitted at the most recent SP for the facility
SP2012 -12? If so, what documentation did Mr. Cruan use to make this determination? Does that information specify
that the system cannot handle anymore people? I'm just curious be I imagine this question will be asked by the applicant
or the Planning Commission.
Christopher P. barer 1 Senior Planner
Department of Community Development (County of Albemarle, Virginia
401 McIntire Road !Charlottesville, VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
From: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH) [mailto:Joshua.Kirtley vdh.virginia.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 9:23 AM
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: RE: SP2013 -10 Regents School of Charlottesville
Good morning, Chris.
It seems that Bill's email was very specific in terms of the number of students and teachers. If the applicant is
looking to increase the number of students, then I would recommend that the applicant consult with a PE to
determine the capacity of the existing system and determine if it would be suitable for the proposed use. The
PE would need to submit a report to the Health Department which outlines their findings and justification for
the approval. If the existing system needed to be expanded, then the applicant would need to submit an
application along with PE plans to the Health Department for approval.
Josh
Josh Kirtley Environmental Health Specialist, Senior
Thomas Jefferson Health District J Albemarle County, Virginia
1138 Rose Hill Drive 1 Charlottesville, VA 22903
434 - 972 -6288
From: Christopher Perez [mailto:cperez(aalbemarle.orq]
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 9:18 AM
To: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH)
Subject: RE: SP2013 -10 Regents School of Charlottesville
3
Noe %%Iry
Josh,
h '
Bill reviewed this project's initial submittal when it was SP2012 -12 (attached is Bill's comments)...that application was
approved by the County on Sept 5, 2012.
Now the applicants are amending their SP application to add additional children, thus it's a completely new
application /review for SP201300010.
Thanks
Christopher P. Perez Senior Planner
Department of Community Development !County of Albemarle, Virginia
401 McIntire Road 1 Charlottesville. VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
From: Kirt ley, Joshua (VDH) [mailto: Joshua. Kirtley(avdh.virginia.gov]
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 5:17 PM
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: RE: SP2013 -10 Regents School of Charlottesville
Good afternoon, Chris. Thanks for your email.
We have received the above mentioned application and I hope to look at it soon. Just so I'm in the loop on
everything, what was Bill's involvement with this project? Has he already provided comments? I ask because I
want to make sure that VDH comments are consistent.
Josh Kirtley Environmental Health Specialist, Senior
Thomas Jefferson Health District 1 Albemarle County, Virginia
1138 Rose Hill Drive 1 Charlottesville, VA 22903
434 - 972 -6288
From: Christopher Perez [mailto:cperez
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 2:45 PM
To: Kirtley, Joshua (VDH)
Subject: SP2013 -10 Regents School of Charlottesville
Josh,
This is the followup email mentioned in the voicemail I just left you. I am seeking confirmation that your office received
Special Use Permit application SP2013 -10 Regents School of Charlottesville. Comments are due to the applicant by
May 1 . This email is not to rush you; rather, just making sure yall received it be I believe the application request will
rest primarily on what the Health Department says for their septic...
PS. I misspoke on the voicemail, I believe Bill Craun initially reviewed this permit, regardless he's retired now. Please
confirm your receipt of the application. Thanks
Christopher P. Perez ;Senior Planner
Department of Community Development (County of Albemarle, Virginia
401 McIntire Road l Charlottesville, VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
4
Now
Christopher Perez
From: Victoria Fort [vfort @rivanna.org]
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 2:30 PM
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: SP201300010 Regents School of Charlottesville
Chris,
RWSA has reviewed application SP201300010 — Regents School of Charlottesville. Below is a completed copy of the form
that was provided to us by Elaine Echols for SP & ZMA Applications.
To be filled out by RWSA for ZMA's and SP's
1. Capacity issues for sewer that may affect this proposal None Known
2. Requires Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Capacity Certification Yes X No
3. Water flow or pressure issues that may affect this proposal None Known
4. "Red Flags" regarding service provision (Use attachments if necessary) None Known
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Victoria
Victoria Fort, EIT
Civil Engineer
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
695 Moores Creek Lane
Charlottesville, VA 22902
(P): (434) 977 -2970 ext. 205
(F): (434) 295 -1146
1