The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSE202200041 Staff Report 2019-12-18 (2)COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE TRANSMITTAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SUMMARY OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA TITLE: Special Exception Request – disturbance of critical slopes and modification of a building site for TMP 63-19E SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Special Exception request for disturbance of critical slopes and modification of a building site to construct a single-family residence per §18-4.2.3(a). SCHOOL DISTRICTS: Stony Point (Elementary School); Burley (Middle School); Monticello (High School) AGENDA DATE: December 18, 2019 STAFF CONTACTS: Filardo, Benish, Nedostup, Kanellopoulos PRESENTER: Tori Kanellopoulos, Planner BACKGROUND: On October 16, 209, the Board of Supervisors referred this item to the Planning Commission. The Board requested that the Planning Commission review this request and directed staff to provide an analysis of the following information: a clearer timeline of when logging activities occurred, more information on the drainfield feasibility of the two possible building sites, more information on mountain resources per the Comprehensive Plan, and whether this parcel is within designated mountain resources per the Comprehensive Plan. This information is included as Attachment A7. At its meeting on November 19, 2019, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the special exception request with conditions. The Planning Commission staff report is attached (Attachment A). DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission voted 6-0 (Commissioner Firehock absent) to recommend approval of the special exception request with the conditions set forth in the staff report. The Planning Commission did not request any changes. There have been no revisions to the application or the conditions. The Planning Commission discussed County regulations for timbering, which is a by-right use in the Rural Areas Zoning District. Commissioners inquired about residential versus agricultural uses and disturbance of critical slopes in the Rural Area. Staff responded that residential uses, site plans, and building permits all are subject to critical slopes regulations. Agricultural uses and structures are not subject to these regulations. A concern of the Commission was the potential for other parcels in the Rural Areas to invoke agricultural uses to clear land, and then construct dwelling units in critical slopes areas. Staff responded that this particular parcel has many unique features, including its topography, approval prior to the Water Protection Ordinance stream buffers, the loss of a building site after the parcel was originally approved, the availability of a location outside of critical slopes that is also at the top of a hill, and issues with drainfield suitability. Staff believes that this particular project does not set a precedent, and these types of applications themselves are uncommon. Several Commissioners wanted to highlight that the applicant has been working with the County throughout the process for constructing their house, even prior to applying for the special exception request. Commissioners found it to be favorable that the applicant has coordinated with the County on erosion and sediment control measures (many of which are voluntary) and on the permits needed for approval to construct the house. When the Planning Commission voted, three members (Spain, More, Bivins) recommended approval with no additional input. Three members (Keller, Riley, Dotson) recommended approval but noted concern for the potential of other parcels in the County to invoke by-right agricultural uses to disturb critical slopes to then build dwelling units there. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution to approve the Special Exception Request (Attachment D). ATTACHMENTS: A – Planning Commission Staff Report A1 – Vicinity Map A2 – Critical Resources Map A3 – Proposed location of the single-family house A4 – Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, dated May 24, 2019(revised October 31, 2019) A5 – Original Special Exception application and justification, received July 24, 2019 A6 – Updated letter from the soil consultant, dated November 4, 2019 A7 – Updated information requested by the Board of Supervisors during their October 16, 2019 meeting B – Planning Commission Minutes C – Planning Commission Action Letter D – Resolution to approve Special Exception Request Special Exception for disturbance of Critical Slopes Planning Commission, November 19th, 2019 1 ALBEMARLE COUNTY STAFF REPORT Project Name: Special Exception for disturbance of critical slopes and modification of a building site for B2019- 01427-SF on TMP 63-19E Staff: Tori Kanellopoulos, Planner Planning Commission Hearing: November 19th, 2019 Board of Supervisors: December 18th, 2019 Owner: Lawrence Marshall Applicant: Tommy Dobson, Dobson Homes Inc. Acreage: 55.10 acres By-right use: RA Rural Area - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots) TMP: 06300-00-00-019E0 Location: Parcel is located approximately 980 feet south of the end of State Route 621 (Wolf Trap Road). Magisterial District: Rivanna Proffers: None Proposal: Special Exception for disturbance of critical slopes and modification of a building site to construct a single-family residence per §18-4.2.3(a). Requested # of Dwelling Units: 1 DA: ☐ RA: ☒ Comp. Plan Designation: Rural Area - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources; residential (0.5 unit/ acre in development lots) Character of Property: Partially-wooded parcel located past the end of State Route 621. Northern portion of property contains two streams identified on GIS. The southern portion of the property contains a large hill where logging activities have recently occurred. An access road used for logging has been constructed from the northern entrance to the parcel to the top of the hill. Use of Surrounding Properties: Surrounding properties are also zoned Rural Area. Adjacent properties are either undeveloped or contain a single-family residence. Factors Favorable: 1. Disturbance of the critical slopes has already occurred. Factors Unfavorable: 1. None identified. Special Exception for disturbance of Critical Slopes Planning Commission, November 19th, 2019 2 2. Alternative building sites are limited and adjacent to streams and possible wetland areas. 3. The alternatives proposed by the applicant satisfy the intent and purpose of the ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the special exception request with conditions. STAFF PERSON: Tori Kanellopoulos PLANNING COMMISSION: November 19th, 2019 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: December 18th, 2019 PETITION: PROJECT: Special Exception for disturbance of critical slopes and modification of a building site for B2019-01427-SF on TMP 63-19E MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna TAX MAP/PARCELS: 06300-00-00-019E0 LOCATION: Parcel is located approximately 980 feet south of the end of State Route 621 (Wolf Trap Road). PROPOSAL: Special Exception request for disturbance of critical slopes and modification of a building site to construct a single-family residence per §18-4.2.3(a). ZONING: RA Rural Area OVERLAY DISTRICTS: None COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Area - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources; residential (0.5 unit/ acre in development lots) CHARACTER OF THE AREA This property is located approximately 980 feet south of the end of State Route 621 (Wolf Trap Road). Parcels to the east, west, and south of this property are largely wooded and undeveloped. Parcels to the north of this property have been developed with single -family residences. Several streams are located on this property. The Southwest Mountain Range and the Wolfpit Mountain ridgeline are located south of this property. PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY This parcel was created in 1984 and no changes in the boundary area have occurred. When this parcel was created, there was no water protection ordinance (WPO) buffer. The critical slopes ordinance was in place. W hen the parcel was subdivided and approved in 1984, a building site existed. Since then, the adoption of the WPO and establishment of stream buffers have reduced the buildable area significantly and no building site, as defined by the ordinance, exists. Below is additional history and background: Special Exception for disturbance of Critical Slopes Planning Commission, November 19th, 2019 3  The critical slopes ordinance in 1980 did not allow building on critical slopes. This ordinance was in place at the time this parcel (TMP 63-19E) was created. Therefore, there was buildable area in what is now the WPO buffer area.  May 17, 1984: The parcel (TMP 63-19E) was created and had a building site. Subsequent ordinance amendments establishing the WPO buffer resulted in the loss of that building site.  The County Code change in 1998 establishing the WPO buffer severely restricted the buildable area on this property. Additionally, on an August 15, 2019 site visit, staff found that even the area adjacent to and outside of the WPO buffers appeared saturated. The applicant’s soil consultant has also noted that this area is prone to saturation and is not suitable for a drainfield.  The property was recently timbered for logging (between October 2015 and February 2018). An access road was constructed for this forestry operation. This was a permitted disturbance of critical slopes. The applicant is proposing to use the existing access road to build a house in a cleared space on the top of the hill, in the location shown in Attachment C. The applicant stated that the house area does not contain critical slopes: “There is no need for anymore disturbance of critical slopes to complete the building of the Marshall’s new home.” The County’s GIS does show critical slopes within part of the proposed building site, and staff has not field-verified that these are not critical slopes.  A Building Permit Application has been submitted under B2019-01427-SF and has not yet been approved.  The Health Department has approved a drainage field for the proposed single-family residence. Thomas G. Hogge of Blue Ridge Soil Consulting, Inc. states in the application that the drainfield is not on critical slopes (field-verified): “As part of my work for the permit, I measured the slopes where the proposed drainfield is going, and also where the home is proposed, and the slopes did not exceed 25%, although they were very close to that. Therefore, it is my professional opinion that the building site does not exceed critical slope, even though the area may be shown as being critical slope on the County GIS system.” Staff has not been able to field verify the slopes. (Attachment E) (and new Attachment F, dated Nov 4) This special exception request was considered on the Board of Supervisor’s consent agenda on October 16th, 2019. The Board took the action to remove this item from the consent agenda for discussion. After discussion of the item, the Board took the action to send this item to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation. The Board specifically asked for the following information to be provided in this updated staff report:  A clearer timeline of when the recent logging activities occurred  More information on the drainfield feasibility of the two possible locations (the original and proposed building sites)  More information on mountain protection and mountain resources, per the Comprehensive Plan  Whether or not the proposed building site is on a designated mountain resource in the Comprehensive Plan See Attachment G for detailed responses and updated information. Special Exception for disturbance of Critical Slopes Planning Commission, November 19th, 2019 4 SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting a special exception to allow disturbance of critical slopes to construct a single-family residence. This property does not contain a building site meeting the County’s Zoning Ordinance standards per §18-4.2. Disturbance of the critical slopes has already occurred for permitted logging activities. The disturbance of critical slopes is prohibited by County Code §18-4.2.3(b): No structure, improvement, or land disturbing activity to establish the structure or improvement shall be located on critical or preserved slopes except as otherwise permitted under sections 4.2.5, 4.2.6, 4.3.1, and 30.7.4. This project qualifies for exception under §18-4.2.5(a). Staff’s analysis is included below. ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION Engineering and Planning staff review is included in the following sections. Review of the request by Engineering Staff: Critical slopes on this parcel were impacted during an exempt logging operation. A logging road was constructed to driveway standards and all grading has been completed for the driveway, including the installation of the erosion and sediment control measures, except possibly for the installation gravel. Installing gravel is not a land disturbing activity. The area where the home is proposed was also impacted during the logging operation to create a laydown area. Since the grading occurred as part of an exempt activity and no further grading is proposed, except to remove sediment traps, approval of this waiver will result in no additional impacts to critical slopes or stream buffers. For these reasons staff has no objections to this request. Compliance with Zoning Ordinance §18-4.2: The applicant has submitted a request addressing the provisions of §18-4.2.5 (Attachment E). This includes addressing: … how the modification or waiver, if granted, would address the rapid and/or large-scale movement of soil and rock, excessive stormwater run -off, siltation of natural and man- made bodies of water, loss of aesthetic resources, and, in the event of septic system failure, a greater travel distance of septic effluent (collectively referred to as the “public health, safety, and welfare factors”) that might otherwise result from the disturbance of critical slopes. Staff has reviewed the applicant’s submittal and offers the following comments. Disturbance of the critical slopes has already occurred, and the trees on the hillside have already been removed for permitted logging activities. The application includes erosion and sediment control measures which have already been installed. The applicant voluntarily installed these erosion control measures, as they are not required for forestal activities. The applicant has also stated that they are planting on the hillside: “We are 3/4 of the way Special Exception for disturbance of Critical Slopes Planning Commission, November 19th, 2019 5 finished putting seed and matting down on all the slopes and the growth is coming in nicely so far.” An approved VESCP (Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Program) Plan is required prior to building permit approval for the single-family residence. Engineering staff approved the VESCP on November 6th, 2019. Given that the disturbance has already occurred, that the applicant has already provided voluntary erosion and sediment control measures, and that the Health Department has approved a drainfield adjacent to the proposed building site, staff supports this request. Review of §18-4.2.5(a)(3): The County Code states the following: §18-4.2.5(a)(3): Findings. The commission may grant a modification or waiver if it finds that the modification or waiver would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, to the orderly development of the area, or to adjacent properties; would not be contrary to sound engineering practices; and at least one of the following: Staff will address each provision below: The modification or waiver would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare; Staff has found that this waiver would not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare. The applicant provided a VESCP that meets County standards. The disturbance of the critical slopes has already occurred, and the applicant states that further disturbance will not be needed for the proposed building site or the drainfield. Staff has not been able to field verify the slopes. The modification or waiver would not be detrimental to the orderly development of the area, or to adjacent properties; The proposed single-family home is no closer than approximately 200 feet to the nearest boundary line (adjacent parcel). Staff did not find detrimental impacts to adjacent properties, especially as the disturbance has already occurred. This application for a single -family home (by-right use) would not be detrimental to the orderly development of the area. The modification or waiver would not be contrary to sound engineering practices; Engineering staff has reviewed this application and does not have any objections. The disturbance of the slopes has already occurred, and it would be more detrimental to locate the proposed house within or adjacent to the stream buffer and to affect the streams on the property. Based on staff review of the provisions of §18-4.2.5(a)(3) granting this modification would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, to the orderly development of the area, or to adjacent properties and would not be contrary to sound engineering practices. a. Strict application of the requirements of section 4.2 would not forward the purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the public health, safety or welfare; Special Exception for disturbance of Critical Slopes Planning Commission, November 19th, 2019 6 This parcel does not have alternative locations that would allow for construction of a house without disturbing critical slopes, except adjacent to the WPO buffers or on potential wetlands. County Code §17-604(F) allows for building within WPO buffers if the parcel existed prior to February 11, 1998, and there are no alternative building sites on the parcel. This ordinance provision would permit the applicant to construct a single-family residence that impacted the WPO buffers on this parcel. However, given that the disturbance of critical slopes has already occurred, and the importance of protecting streams and keeping development out of WPO buffers, staff opinion is that it would be less detrimental to allow the development to occur within the critical slopes (as the applicant has proposed), instead of within or adjacent to the WPO buffers. Voluntary erosion and sediment control measures have already been put in place for the road that was constructed for forestal activities (logging), and a VESCP has been approved. b. Alternatives proposed by the developer or subdivider would satisfy the intent and purposes of section 4.2 to at least an equivalent degree; The purpose of §18-4.2 reads in part: …implement the comprehensive plan by protecting and conserving steep hillsides together with public drinking water supplies and flood plain areas because of the increased potential for soil erosion, sedimentation, water pollution and sewage disposal problems associated with the disturbance of critical slopes. The alternatives proposed adequately satisfy the intent of §18-4.2 while permitting reasonable use of the property. The Virginia Department of Health (VDH) has approved the proposed drainfield adjacent to the proposed building site. The disturbance of critical slopes has already occurred, and what would become the driveway for the house has already been constructed (formerly the access road for the logging). The road required disturbance of critical slopes, however the applicant states that the proposed site for the house and drainfield is not within critical slopes. Staff has not been able to verify these slopes. It would be more detrimental for the protection and health of the steep hillsides and water supplies to construct a residence in or adjacent to the WPO buffers, as opposed to adjacent to or within critical slopes that have already been disturbed. c. Due to the property’s unusual size, topography, shape, location or other unusual conditions, excluding the proprietary interest of the developer or subdivider, prohibiting the disturbance of critical slopes would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property or would result in significant degradation of the property or adjacent properties; or This property does not contain a building site meeting the County’s Zoning Ordinance standards per §18-4.2. Specifically, there is no building site that is a rectangular shape and that has an adequate area for drainfields. The property existed prior to the water protection ordinance (WPO) buffer. At the time the parcel was created, there was an adequate building site outside of the critical slopes, as there were no WPO buffers. With the critical slopes and WPO regulations, there is no longer a building site. Special Exception for disturbance of Critical Slopes Planning Commission, November 19th, 2019 7 Additionally, the applicant has concerns with construction of a drainfield in the area of the property outside of the critical slopes, as it is adjacent to the WPO buffers. The applicant provided the following statement from Thomas G. Hogge of Blue Ridge Soil Consulting, Inc., which reads in part: “I designed a sewage disposal system (SDS) for the property, and on June 18, 2019, VDH approved the permit…I would like to point out that the ar ea where the proposed SDS has been approved is really the only area on the property where a drainfield can be approved, in my opinion.” After the Board of Supervisors meeting on October 16th, 2019, Thomas G. Hogge provided an updated statement (Attachment F), which reads in part: “The report that I prepared on May 30, 2019 was based on a thorough site and soil evaluation that I performed on April 10, 2019. I evaluated the property in its entirety. I chose the site that I used for the report after eliminating all other areas on the property. The reason the other areas were eliminated was because they either exceeded critical slopes or they were concave/low-lying areas that would be subject to flooding/saturation. The area where I proposed the septic to be installed is the only place on the entire property, in my opinion, that meets both VDH’s regulations for the installation of sewage disposal systems and Albemarle County’s ordinances pertaining to SDS installations.” d. Granting the modification or waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import than would be served by strict application of the regulations sought to be modified or waived. Given the environmental constraints on this property, there are no locations on this property that contain a building site. To build a single-family residence, either the WPO buffers or the critical slopes must be disturbed. Activity has already occurred on the critical slopes for logging activities. Therefore, there is less of an impact to natural resources to build the single-family residence in the critical slopes, as opposed to in or adjacent to the WPO buffers. The requirements of the County’s zoning ordinance limit this property to one dwelling unit, unless another exception is applied for and approved. This special exception request for disturbance of critical slopes does not alter this ordinance requirement. To determine if the public purpose is served by granting a special exception, staff looks at past actions of the County and to the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is unable to identify guidance from the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is unable to identify the specific project but is aware of a situation where disturbance on critical slopes was approved to allow development farther from streams and possible wetlands. Staff memory is that this application was processed 15 to 20 years ago. Each application is reviewed based on the unique character of each property. Approval of critical slopes disturbance in prior applications or in this instance does not set a precedent. Staff opinion is that the features and the prior activity on this property are such that approval of this request would serve the public purpose by allowing reasonable use of the property and protection of water resources. Special Exception for disturbance of Critical Slopes Planning Commission, November 19th, 2019 8 To summarize: Even though staff has not field-verified the slopes, staff still recommends approval of the special exception request. Staff treated the slopes, for the purpose of this review, as if they are still critical slopes. Field-verification may prove otherwise. Regardless of the exact slope measurement of these slopes, staff still recommends approval for the reasons stated in the staff report and the factors favorable. APPLICANT’S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST See Attachment E for the applicant’s justification for the request. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Based on direction provided by the Board of Supervisors at the October 16 th, 2019 meeting, additional information on the Comprehensive Plan (specifically, mountains and mountainous areas identified as important resources) has been provided. Staff’s analysis is provided in Attachment G. SUMMARY Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this request: 1. Disturbance of the critical slopes has already occurred. 2. Alternative building sites are limited and adjacent to streams and possible wetland areas. 3. The alternatives proposed by the applicant satisfy the intent and purpose of the ordinance. Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request: 1. None identified. RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of the special exception request with the following conditions: 1. The area of land disturbance on critical slopes must be in general accord with the application plan, as shown on the plan entitled “Erosion and Sediment Control Plan TMP 06300-00-00-019E0”, prepared by G.V. “Kirk” Hughes of Kirk Hughes and Associates, and dated May 24, 2019 (revised October 31, 2019). PLANNING COMMISSION POSSIBLE MOTIONS for Special Exception Request: A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this special exception request: Move to recommend approval of the Special Exception request for disturbance of critical slopes and modification of building site for B2019-01427-SF, with conditions as stated in the staff report. B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this special exception request: Special Exception for disturbance of Critical Slopes Planning Commission, November 19th, 2019 9 Move to recommend denial of the Special Exception request for disturbance of critical slopes and modification of building site for B2019-01427-SF, for the following reasons. State reasons for denial. ATTACHMENTS FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST STAFF REPORT: Attachment A1: Vicinity Map Attachment A2: Critical Resources Map (Critical Slopes and WPO Buffers, as shown in the County’s GIS). Attachment A3: Proposed location of the single-family house Attachment A4: Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, dated May 24, 2019 (revised October 31, 2019) Attachment A5: Original Special Exception application and justification, received July 24, 2019 Attachment A6: Updated letter from the soil consultant, dated November 4, 2019 Attachment A7: Updated information requested by the Board of Supervisors during their October 16, 2019 meeting Any determination of topography or contours, or any depiction of physical improvements, property lines or boundaries is for general information only and shall not be used for the design, modification, or construction of improvements to real property or for flood plain determination.November 6, 2019 GIS-Web Geographic Data Services www.albemarle.org/gis (434) 296-5832 Legend (Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend) 3009 ft Map elements may scale larger than GIS data measured in the map or as provided on the data download page due to the projection used. Map Projection: WGS84 Web Mercator (Auxiliary Sphere) (EPSG 3857) Overlays Water Protection Ordinance Buffers Parcel Info Parcels Elevation Y2018 Elevation Contours Y2018 Elevation Contours (100 ft) Y2018 Elevation Contours (60 ft) Y2018 Elevation Contours (40 ft) Y2018 Elevation Contours (20 ft) Y2018 Elevation Contours (4 ft) Zoning Info Flood Hazard Overlay (100 Year Flo Steep Slopes Overlay Critical Slopes Steep Slopes - Managed Steep Slopes - Preserved Any determination of topography or contours, or any depiction of physical improvements, property lines or boundaries is for general information only and shall not be used for the design, modification, or construction of improvements to real property or for flood plain determination.November 6, 2019 GIS-Web Geographic Data Services www.albemarle.org/gis (434) 296-5832 Legend (Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend) 376 ft Map elements may scale larger than GIS data measured in the map or as provided on the data download page due to the projection used. Map Projection: WGS84 Web Mercator (Auxiliary Sphere) (EPSG 3857) J c�a o y �' W w U !— m W ULLI Cr_ J - � v `. �`••.•��,. —:!Jr _ ri�.•- �3%I ��f/ry/ffr!✓'.�llli.i '/ /��'4,�. _-__''-o e %!. �-.�.'� lf�i r',f /i 1!r'; 1/ ...r f-_ -r1f: l,. i• j Tri f rr" � `� _ �f> r '?' ff r`� r f r %fir • ��,r %tr •�, r�%� I ff ' °1 '• .,.'r ✓ r !. �. ! ',' �.i/l / fir /t t �p �r ;!' .�... _ "_"�i«• ' r, � 'r r% fr`rfll r / ,1 // 'sr/,��r lfJl J /�F14 } 14 .1O�. ! S'�.` fir� //� . 4 ffr/., if r'r: �11�r/ -f jEf t,•5` li.� /1f! ` fl_�f I r./ rf r /rl •J F � r rJ l• .� �' ,� Al In .17 r r ,.. Y�� ,r: y +,h `\��^� .`` _ '•S s�'1 Ll'4 '� `1,5 i sk� rl 'Its' 'i� - . .4!rl, . OL till GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES: 1.) PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION WITHIN ANY EXISTING PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, INCLUDING CONNECTION TO ANY EXISTING ROAD, A PERMIT SHALL BE OBTAINED FROM THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (VDOT). THIS PLAN AS DRAWN MAY NOT ACCURATELY REFLECT THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PERMIT. WHERE ANY DISCREPANCIES OCCUR THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PERMIT SHALL GOVERN. 2). ALL MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION METHODS SHALL CONFORM TO CURRENT SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS OF VDOT UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 3.) EROSION AND SILTATION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED EROSION CONTROL PLAN AND SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO ANY CLEARING, GRADING OR OTHER CONSTRUCTION. 4.) ALL SLOPES AND DISTURBED AREAS ARE TO BE FERTILIZED, SEEDED AND MULCHED. 5.) THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SLOPE IS 2:1 (HORIZONTAL:VERTICAL). WHERE REASONABLY OBTAINABLE, LESSER SLOPES OF 3:1 OR BETTER ARE TO BE ACHIEVED. 6.) PAVED, RIP -RAP OR STABILIZATION MAT LINED DITCH MAY BE REQUIRED WHEN IN THE OPINION OF THE COUNTY ENGINEER, OR DESIGNEE, IT IS DEEMED NECESSARY IN ORDER TO STABILIZE A DRAINAGE CHANNEL. 7.) ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS SHALL CONFORM WITH THE VIRGINIA MANUAL FOR UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES. 8.) UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ALL CONCRETE PIPE SHALL BE REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE - CLASS III. 9.) ALL EXCAVATION FOR UNDERGROUND PIPE INSTALLATION MUST COMPLY WITH OSHA STANDARDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY (29 CFR PART 1926). GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES FOR EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANS: EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN 1.) THE PLAN APPROVING AUTHORITY MUST BE NOTIFIED ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE PRE -CONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE, ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITY, AND ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE FINAL INSPECTION. 2.) ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES WILL BE CONSTRUCTED AND MAINTAINED ACCORDING TO MINIMUM STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS OF THE VIRGINIA EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL HANDBOOK AND VIRGINIA REGULATIONS VR 625-02-00 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REGULATIONS. 3.) ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES ARE TO BE PLACED PRIOR TO OR AS THE FIRST STEP IN CLEARING. 4.) A COPY OF THE APPROVED EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN SHALL BE MAINTAINED ON THE SITE AT ALL TIMES. 5.) PRIOR TO COMMENCING LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES IN AREAS OTHER THAN INDICATED ON THESE PLANS (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, OFF -SITE BORROW OR WASTE AREAS), THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT A SUPPLEMENTARY EROSION CONTROL PLAN TO THE OWNER FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLAN APPROVING AUTHORITY. ALBEMARLE COUNTY ENGINEERING FINAL PLAN GENERAL NOTES PAGE 3 OF 4 (16 JUN 2005) 6.) THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR INSTALLATION OF ANY ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES NECESSARY TO PREVENT EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION AS DETERMINED BY THE PLAN APPROVING AUTHORITY. 7.) ALL DISTURBED AREAS ARE TO DRAIN TO APPROVED SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES AT ALL TIMES DURING LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES AND DURING SITE DEVELOPMENT UNTIL FINAL STABILIZATION IS ACHIEVED. 8.) DURING DEWATERING OPERATIONS, WATER WILL BE PUMPED INTO AN APPROVED FILTERING DEVICE. 9.) THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECT ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES PERIODICALLY AND AFTER EACH RUNOFF PRODUCING RAINFALL EVENT. ANY NECESSARY REPAIRS OR CLEANUP TO MAINTAIN THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE EROSION CONTROL DEVICES SHALL BE MADE IMMEDIATELY. 10.) ALL FILL MATERIAL TO BE TAKEN FROM AN APPROVED, DESIGNATED BORROW AREA. 11.) ALL WASTE MATERIALS SHALL BE TAKEN TO AN APPROVED WASTE AREA. EARTH FILL SHALL BE INERT MATERIALS ONLY, FREE OF ROOTS, STUMPS, WOOD, RUBBISH, AND OTHER DEBRIS. 12.) BORROW OR WASTE AREAS ARE TO BE RECLAIMED WITHIN 7 DAYS OF COMPLETION PER ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 5.1.28. 13.) ALL INERT MATERIALS SHALL BE TRANSPORTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 13-301 OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE. 14.) BORROW, FILL OR WASTE ACTIVITY INVOLVING INDUSTRIAL -TYPE POWER EQUIPMENT SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE HOURS OF 7:OOAM TO 9:OOPM. 15.) BORROW, FILL OR WASTE ACTIVITY SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN A SAFE MANNER THAN MAINTAINS LATERAL SUPPORT, OR ORDER TO MINIMIZE ANY HAZARD TO PERSONS, PHYSICAL DAMAGE TO ADJACENT LAND AND IMPROVEMENTS, AND DAMAGE TO ANY PUBLIC STREET BECAUSE 0 SLIDES, SINKING, OR COLLAPSE. 16.) THE DEVELOPER SHALL RESERVE THE RIGHT TO INSTALL, MAINTAIN, REMOVE OR CONVERT TO PERMANENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES WHERE APPLICABLE ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES REQUIRED BY THIS PLAN REGARDLESS OF THE SALE OF ANY LOT, UNIT, BUILDING OR OTHER PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. 17.) TEMPORARY STABILIZATION SHALL BE TEMPORARY SEEDING AND MULCHING. SEEDING IS TO BE AT 75 LBS/ACRE, AND IN THE MONTHS OF SEPTEMBER TO FEBRUARY TO CONSIST A 50/50 MIX OF ANNUAL RYEGRASS AND CEREAL WINTER RYE, OR IN MARCH AND APRIL TO CONSIST OF ANNUAL RYE, OR MAY THROUGH AUGUST TO CONSIST OF GERMAN MILLET. STRAW MULCH IS TO BE APPLIED AT 80LBS/100SF. ALTERNATIVES ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVED BY THE COUNTY EROSION CONTROL INSPECTOR. 18.) PERMANENT STABILIZATION SHALL BE LIME AND FERTILIZER, PERMANENT SEEDING, AND MULCH. AGRICULTURAL GRADE LIMESTONE SHALL BE APPLIED AT 90LBS/1000SF, INCORPORATED INTO THE TOP 4-6 INCHES OF SOIL. FERTILIZER SHALL BE APPLIED AT 1000LBS/ACRE AND CONSIST OF A 10-20-10 NUTRIENT MIX. PERMANENT SEEDING SHALL BE APPLIED AT 180LBS/ACRE AND CONSIST OF 95% KENTUCKY 31 OR TALL FESCUE AND 0-5% PERENNIAL RYEGRASS OR KENTUCKY BLUEGRASS. STRAW MULCH IS TO BE APPLIED AT 80LBS/100SF. ALTERNATIVES ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVED BY THE COUNTY EROSION CONTROL INSPECTOR. 19.) MAINTENANCE: ALL MEASURES ARE TO BE INSPECTED WEEKLY AND AFTER EACH RAINFALL. ANY DAMAGE OR CLOGGING TO STRUCTURAL MEASURES IS TO BE REPAIR IMMEDIATELY. SILT TRAPS ARE TO BE CLEANED WHEN 50% OF THE WET STORAGE VOLUME IS FILLED WITH SEDIMENT. ALL SEEDED AREAS ARE TO BE RESEEDED WHEN NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE A GOOD STAND OF GRASS. SILT FENCE AND DIVERSION DYKES WHICH ARE COLLECTING SEDIMENT TO HALF THEIR HEIGHT MUST BE CLEANED AND REPAIRED IMMEDIATELY. 20.) ALL TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES ARE TO BE REMOVED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF FINAL SITE STABILIZATION, WHEN MEASURES ARE NO LONGER NEEDED, SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE COUNTY EROSION CONTROL INSPECTOR. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NARRATIVE ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE VIRGINIA EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL HANDBOOK. CONTROLS UTILIZED: 1.) CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE (CE) - INSTALL AT THE ENTRANCE INTO THE PROPERTY ONCE BEYOND TMP 63-19. ENTRANCE TO BE INSTALLED AS PER SPECIFICATIONS OUTLINED IN 3.02 OF SAID HANDBOOK. 2.) SILTFENCE (SF) - INSTALL AS SHOWN ON EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANS. ADDITIONAL FENCING MAY BE REQUIRED IF SO DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE. FENCE TO BE INSTALLED AS PER SPECIFICATIONS OUTLINED IN 3.05 OF SAID HANDBOOK. 3.) CULVERT INLET PROTECTION (CIP) - INSTALL WHERE STORM PIPES ARE INSTALLED. PROTECTION TO BE INSTALLED AS PER SPECIFICATIONS OUTLINED IN 3.08 OF SAID HANDBOOK. 4.) DIVERSION DITCH (DD) - INSTALL AS SHOWN ON EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANS. DITCHES TO BE INSTALLED AS PER SPECIFICATIONS OUTLINED IN 3.12 OF SAID HANDBOOK. 5.) SEDIMENT TRAP(S) (ST) - INSTALL AS SHOWN ON EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANS. TRAPS TO BE INSTALLED AS PER SPECIFICATIONS OUTLINED IN 3.13 OF SAID HANDBOOK. SEE SEDIMENT TRAP SCHEDULE FOR DESIGN INFORMATION. 6.) OUTLET PROTECTION (OP) - INSTALL WHERE STORM PIPES ARE INSTALLED. PROTECTION TO BE INSTALLED AS PER SPECIFICATIONS OUTLINED IN 3.18 OF SAID HANDBOOK. 7.) TEMPORARY SEEDING (TS) - SEEDING SHALL BE APPLIED WITHIN 7 DAYS TO AREAS THAT MAY REMAIN UNDISTURBED FOR MORE THAN 30 DAYS. SEEDING TO BE INSTALLED AS PER SPECIFICATIONS OUTLINED IN 3.31 OF SAID HANDBOOK. 8.) PERMANENT SEEDING (PS) - SEEDING SHALL BE APPLIED WITHIN 7 DAYS TO AREAS INDICATED HEREON. ADDITIONAL SEEDING MAY BE DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE COUNTY OF VIRGINIA. SEEDING TO BE INSTALLED AS PER SPECIFICATIONS OUTLINED IN 3.32 OF SAID HANDBOOK. 9.) MULCHING (MU) - MULCH COMPRISED OF PLANT RESIDUES (STRAW PREFERABLY) OR OTHER SUITABLE MATERIALS SHOULD BE APPLIED TO PROMOTE PLANT GROWTH AND REDUCE THE RISK OF SOIL EROSION. MULCH TO BE INSTALLED AS PER SPECIFICATIONS OUTLINED IN 3.35 OF SAID HANDBOOK. 10.) DUST CONTROL (DC) - NECESSARY DUST CONTROL OPERATIONS SHALL BE ADMINISTERED IN A MANOR TO CONTROL THE AIRBORNE MOVEMENT OF SEDIMENT AS PER SPECIFICATIONS OUTLINED IN 3.39 OF SAID HANDBOOK. CONTROL INSTALLATION SEQUENCE: 1.) INSTALL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE AT LOCATION NOTED ABOVE AND ON PLANS. 2.) INSTALL SILT FENCING, DIVERSION DITCHES, AND SEDIMENT TRAPS AS SHOWN HEREON. 3.) INSTALL STORM DRAINAGE PIPES, INETS, AND END SECTIONS ALONG WITH CULVERT INLET PROTECTION AND OUTLET PROTECTION. 4.) CONTACT COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE FOR INSPECTION AND APPROVAL OF CONTROL MEASURES INSTALLED 5.) COMMENCE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING PAD AND DRIVEWAY AS SHOWN HEREON WHILE MAINTAINING AND MONITORING EROSION CONTROL MEASURES INSTALLED AT THIS POINT. 6.) UPON FINAL SITE GRADING APPLY PERMANENT SEEDING ON ALL SLOPES AND AREAS TO BE GRASSED. TMP 06300 00 00 01 9EO RIVANNA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA SHEET INDEX ❑ A = COVER SHEET AND NOTES ❑ 1-00 = EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN ❑ 2-00 = SEDIMENT TRAP AND DETAILS ❑ 3-00 = CONCEPTUAL DRIVEWAY 10+00 - 17+50 ❑ 4-00 = CONCEPTUAL DRIVEWAY 17+50 - 25+00 ❑ 5-00 = CONCEPTUAL DRIVEWAY 25+00 - 32+50 ❑ 6-00 = CONCEPTUAL DRIVEWAY 32+50 - 37+70.82 4111lm'ball Cazto) l: 61 1, 1.) PREPARED FOR DOBSON HOMES, INC. 2.) THIS RESIDENTIAL SITE PLAN SHOWS THE FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS FOR TMP 06300-00-00-019EO. NO BOUNDARY SURVEY WAS PERFORMED BY THIS FIRM. THIS DOES NOT REPRESENT AN ACTUAL PHYSICAL SURVEY NOR IS IT THE INTENT TO REPRESENT POST CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS. 3.) THIS PLAN WAS DONE WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF CURRENT TITLE REPORT AND MAY NOT INDICATE ALL ENCUMBRANCES ON THE PROPERTY SHOWN HEREON. 4.) PROPERTY LIES WITHIN FLOOD ZONE "X"; NOT A F.E.M.A. DEFINED 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN. 5.) DATUM'S USED: A.) HORIZONTAL - STATE SOUTH GRID - NAD 83 B.) VERTICAL - NAVD88. 6.) CONTOURS SHOWN HEREON WERE DERIVED BY INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE OFFICE OF GEOGRAPHIC.THIS FIRM HAS NOT VERIFIED NOR CERTIFIES TO THE AUTHENTICITY OF SAID CONTOURS. 7.) ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE VIRGINIA EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL HANDBOOK. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL PERMITS, IMPLEMENTATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES REQUIRED. 8.) THE STREAM BUFFER SHOWN HEREON SHALL BE MANAGED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY WATER PROTECTION ORDINANCE. 9.) PROPERTY MAY BE SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. 10.) NO UNDERGROUND INVESTIGATION OF UTILITIES WAS PERFORMED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. THE CONTRACTOR AGREES TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES WHICH MIGHT BE OCCASIONED BY HIS OR HER FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. SITE DATA: 1.) OWNER: LAWRENCE C. MARSHALL JR., AND LAWRENCE C. MARSHALL III D.B. 4656, PG. 696 D.B. 811, PG. 219, 221 (PLAT( 2.) PARCEL IDENTIFICATION: TMP 06300-00-00-019EO. 3.) ZONING: RA (RURAL AGRICULTURE). 4.) CURRENT USE: LOGGING. 5.) SITE IS CURRENTLY UNDER LOGGING ACTIVITIES. 6.) SOIL CLASSIFICATION ON THIS SITE PER NATIONAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICES (NRCS) ARE WITHIN HYDROLOGIC GROUP "B". SOILS TYPES PER NRCS ARE 71 D (RABUN CLAY LOAM, 15% TO 25% SLOPES), 71E (RABUN CLAY LOAM, 25% TO 45% SLOPES), AND 90B (GENERALY IN STREAM BUFFER AREA)(UNISON VERY STONY SILT LOAM, 2% TO 7% SLOPES). VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1" = 2,000' TYPICAL DRIVEWAY CROSS SECTIONS NOT TO SCALE FILL SECTION CUT SECTION EXISTING GRADE I 1' 14' t4� TRAVELWAY I / � 6" - #57 COMPACTED 95% STD. PROCTOR 2% EXISTING GRADE \ SM-9.5A VDOT 21A VEL BASE KIRK HUGHES & ASSOCIATES LAND SURVEYORS AND PLANNERS 220 EAST HIGH STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA. 22902 (804) 296-6942 z Q 0- J 0 z 0 �1 z Cw G C) w z Q z 0 U) 0 w FILE NO. DWG, NO.: O O O O O co 0 n ",VH of D UG. V. "KIRK" HUGHES � Lie. No. 001458 J DATE: MAY 24, 2019 REVISION DATES: OCTOBER 31, 2019 SCALE: SEE PLAN SHEETS SHEET TITLE: COVER SHEET SHEET NO.: A NORTH STATE SOUTH GRID NAD-83 I ST"' 00-019D0 ,� TMP p63� PNp RICNPRD CPSApP N'F REBEOD B. 3056, PO 2216 �p1A�i D 8 $11 pG• 219, y bti F CIF P � �, eG NOTES: 1.) PREPARED FOR DOBSON HOMES, INC. ' 2.) THIS RESIDENTIAL SITE PLAN SHOWS THE FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS FOR TMP 06300-00-00-019E0. NO BOUNDARY SURVEY WAS PERFORMED BY THIS FIRM. THIS DOES NOT REPRESENT AN ACTUAL PHYSICAL SURVEY NOR IS IT THE INTENT TO REPRESENT POST CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS. 3.) THIS PLAN WAS DONE WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF CURRENT TITLE REPORT AND MAY ' NOT INDICATE ALL ENCUMBRANCES ON THE PROPERTY SHOWN HEREON. ' 4.) PROPERTY LIES WITHIN FLOOD ZONE -Xn; NOT A F.E.M.A. DEFINED 100—YEAR FLOODPLAIN. 5.) TAX MAP AND PARCEL ID: PORTION OF 04100-00-00-020BO 6.) CONTOURS SHOWN HEREON WERE DERIVED BY INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE �� / � 1 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE OFFICE OF GEOGRAPHIC DATA SERVICES AND INTERPOLATED i 1 FROM A 4' CONTOUR INTERVAL (SHEET 1) TO A 2' CONTOUR INTERVAL ON SHEETS 2. THIS FIRM HAS NOT VERIFIED NOR CERTIFIES TO THE AUTHENTICITY OF SAID CONTOURS. ' 7.) NAILS SET AT ALL MAIN EXTERIOR HOUSE CORNERS AS DIMENSIONED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 9.) ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE VIRGINIA EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL HANDBOOK. ` CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL PERMITS, IMPLEMENTATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES REQUIRED. 10.) THE STREAM BUFFER SHOWN HEREON SHALL BE MANAGED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY WATER PROTECTION ORDINANCE. 11.) PROPERTY MAY BE SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. TMP 06300-00-00-02100 N/F DEBRA D. D. COYNER AND KATELYN COYNER FLYNN, TRUSTEES OF THE DEBRA D. D. COYNER REVOCABLE TRUST D.B. 5115 PG. 786 D.B. 553, PG. 221 LEGEND: SBL =SETBACK LINE E&S =EROSION AND SEDIMENT 1 1 1 x 630 = PROPOSED ELEVATIONS = EXISTING ELEVATIONS =LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE 3.02 CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE 11\1 1 ffflflf;ff�'��1 3.05SILT FENCE CIP = 3.08 CULVERT INLET PROTECTION ; S \ ST = 3.13 SEDITMENT TRAP 3.18 OUTLET PROTECTION =3.21 LEVEL SPREADER \ \ ` \ \ \ \ = 3.31 TEMPORARY SEEDING 3.32 PERMANENT SEEDING \ 1 = 3.36 SOIL STABILIZATION BLANKET TREATMENT#1 \ , \ \ \ \ \ , , , , , , , , B/M 2 = 3.36 SOIL STABILIZATION BLANKET f f 1 = 1 f 1( I `t',;11;;1111`111111't;;\;\\',``, ` `\ TREATMENT #2 ; 3.37 TREES, SHRUBS, VINES / / f I I I r z, ' " ' ' I �' /, j' i %/ j %, %, i %, %, i i i ' 1` \ '1 t t `l '\ `\ 1\\\` `\` TMR.fO000 )Q'6a-614E0; �; � /,///,////;;;,; \\\\ ;,,/,// �,,;;� \ AND GROUND COVERS / , / / / / / / / / / / , , / / , , ) , / / , / / / , , , , , , IAA HA L R Nq LAWREN`C MA #Lv' �11, , , , , , / " / I I D.B. = DEED BOOK ," l f I �' �! , l l l It t 1 1 ; 1 l ;' ;' ;� ;� ;� ;' ;' ;' ; PG. = PAGE 'D 8.)8'1•a,' P�. ;21/9, 12Z1 (PIA/ ; 1 ; % 1 ; ; ; % ; ; ; ; % ; ; % ; ; ,' ; ; ; ;' ; ; ; l l l l l � � � � 1 � � ; ; ; % ; ; ; % ; % IRF =IRON ROD FOUND AL/' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' It It, / , ' ' ' ' ' ' i F.F.E. = FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION X HDPE = HIGH DENSITY POLYETHYLENE f f ; ; ; ; ; ; % ; % ; ; ; % ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; % U/C UNDER CONSTRUCTION --- / , 79B SOILS TYPE i; i ;; i' i/ / I/' / i i// i i i i �' �' i // � i i i, i' 1, , !!i!! i��' _ FDA —Al DRAINAGE AREA IDENTIFIER �6 06-600 P�0 Q 6g \0 _SHEET KEY___ SHEET 1 = EROSION & CONTROL PLAN OVERALL SHEET 2 = EROSION & CONTROL SEDIMENT TRAP AND DETAILS KIRK HUGHES & ASSOCIATES LAND SURVEYORS AND PLANNERS 220 EAST HIGH STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA. 22902 (804) 296-6942 Q Q � CQ J G � O - z U � � Lu Ov z u U I O 0 z T Q Lu z co � Lu O Q O Q U O C0cr w o z � C!) Q o � JQ cr Q LU z U p Lu Q C/) C) O z z w Lu Q FILE NO.: 2019-013 DWG. NO.: \2019\2019-013\2019013-01. D WG O�UG. D7HUGHES V. "KLIC.l��D DATE: MAY 24, 2019 REVISION DATES: OCTOBER 31, 2019 SCALE: HORIZONTAL 1" = 100' CONTOUR INTERVAL = 4' SHEET TITLE: EROSION CONTROL PLAN SHEET NO.: 1-00 LEGEND: SF = 3.05 SILT FENCE DD = 3.09 TEMPORARY DIVERSION DIKE ST = 3.13 SEDIMENT TRAP SEDIMENT TRAP SCHEDULE SEDIMENT TRAP NUMBER CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREA STORAGE CY TRAP BOTTOM DIMENSIONS AT OF EXCAVATION ELEVATIONS FT FROM BOTTOM TOP A DRY STORAGE & WIER B WET STORAGE C EXCAVATED D BERM W L REQUIRED PROVIDED WIDTH FT LENGTH FT DEPTH FT IDENTIFIER I AREA WET I DRY WET I DRY ST-A A 0.30 20 20 21.1 20.1 11 20 2.0 +4.0 +3.0 +2.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 ST-B B 1.03 69 69 69.2 69.0 20 41 2.0 +4.0 +3.0 +2.0 0.0 3.0 6.0 ST-C C 0.3 20 20 21.4 21.4 11 20 2.0 +4.0 +3.0 +2.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 ST-D D 0.75 50 50 51.5 50.3 18 33 2.0 +4.0 +3.0 +2.0 0.0 3.0 5.0 ST-E2 E 1.23 82 82 82.8 82.4 20 49 2.0 +4.0 +3.0 +2.0 0.0 3.0 8.0 ST-F F 0.94 63 63 63.6 63.2 18 40 2.0 +4.0 +3.0 +2.0 0.0 3.0 6.0 ST-G G 0.6 40 40 42.3 40.2 16 30 2.0 +4.0 +3.0 +2.0 0.0 3.0 5.0 ST-H H 0.7 47 47 50.3 50.0 17 34 2.0 +4.0 +3.0 +2.0 0.0 3.0 5.0 ST-I 1 1.1 74 74 74.6 74.5 21 42 2.0 +4.0 +3.0 +2.0 0.0 3.0 7.0 1992 3.05 1 CONSTRUCTION OF A SILT FENCE (WITH WIRE S UPPOR T) 1. SET POSTS AND EXCAVATE A 47X4" 2. STAPLE WIRE FENCING TO THE POSTS. TRENCH UPSLOPE ALONG THE LINE OF POSTS. i III I FLOW 3. ATTACH THE FILTER FABRIC TO THE WIRE FENCE AND EXTEND IT INTO THE TRENCH. 4. BACKFILL AND COMPACT THE EXCAVATED SOIL. FLOW G i EXTENSION OF FABRIC AND WIRE INTO THE TRENCH. Source: Adapted from Installation of Straw and Fabric Filter Barriers for Sediment Control, Sherwood and Wyant Plate 3.05-1 1992 3.13 TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAP 1' ORIGINAL VARIABLE* GROUND I ELEV. A 67 CU. YD./ACRE - N VARV+BLE N 67 CU. 1'D./ACRE (EXCAVATED) V MAX. FILTER CLOTH ORIGINAL D GROUND *SEE PLATE 3.13-1 COARSE AGGREGATE�i CLASS I RIPRAP CROSS SECTION OF OUTLET CLASS I RIPRAP LENGTH (IN FEET) _ B X DRAINAGE AREA (IN AC.) L DIVERSION �- DIKE COARSE AGGREGATE EXCAVATED FILTER CLOTH AREA J COARSE AGGREGATE SHALL BE VDOT OR #3, #357 #5 OUTLET (PERSPECTIVE VIEW) Source: Va. DSWC Plate 3.13-2 1992 3.36 TYPICAL TREATMENT - 2 SOIL STABILIZATION MATTING SLOPE INSTALLATION •"^nNWAN�� FILL SLOPE SECTION -- --` SOIL STABILIZATION MATS SHOULD �'' BE INSTALLED VERTICALLY dQIE; SLOPE SURFACE 5' DOWNSLOPE FOR BEST RESULTS. / Q SHALL BE SMOOTH p i AND FREE OF / 0 ROCKS, LUMPS OF DIRT, GRASS AND Q i STICKS. MAT SHALL / BE PLACED FLAT / Q ON SURFACE FOR PROPER SOIL CONTACT. �� vv 4' % �2' DIRT SHALL BE TAMPERED PRIOR TO LAYING TOP I LAP OVER _ I TOE BERM MAINTAIN SLOPE ANGLE TRENCH INTO BERM AND PROGRESS DOWNSLOPE TOP OF SLOPE LINING SLOPE LINING CUT SLOPE (WET SLOPE) - (DRY SLOPE) TREATMENT - 2 POLYPROPELYENE 2' NON -WOVEN (NEEDLE PUNCHED) C�ZN CE TREATMENT - 2 GEOTEXTILE FILTER �1(ER SOU'Nive-i FAO CLOTH (BEHIND A AB TREATMENT - 2) SOIL �� BOTTOM OF FILL SLOPE BOTTOM OF CUT SLOPE BOTTOM OF CUT SLOPE 4'OR SHOULDER BREAK POINT Source: VDOT Road and Bridge Standards Plate 3.36-5 1992 3.13 MINIMUM TOP WIDTH (W) REQUIRED FOR SEDIMENT TRAP EMBANKMENTS ACCORDING TO HEIGHT OF EMBANKMENT (FEET) t� H HO W _____________ 1.5 0.5 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 1.5 3.0 2.0 2.5 2.5 IV 3.5 2.5 HO H 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.5 3.5 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 �Y- EXCAVATED AREA I - MAX. DEPTH = 4' ORIGINAL GROUND ELEV. Source: Va. DSWC Plate 3.13-1 1992 3.02 ,STONE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE 70' MIN. EXISTING PAVEMENT A 3' r 5:1 FILTER CLOTH 6" MIN. p MOUNTABLE BERM (OPTIONAL) SIDE ELEVATION EXISTING GROUND 70' MIN. B WASHRACK 10' MIN. (OPTIONAL) -� 12' MIN, Iv-- EXISTING PAVEMENT VDOT #] f� POSITIVE DRAINAGE 10, MIN. I COURSE AGGREGATE B TO SEDIMENT TRAPPING DEVICE • MUST EXTEND FULL WIDTH AND EGRESS PLAN VIEW OOF PERATIONS 12' MIN. r - - 3" MIN. - - Y MIN. FILTER CLOTH SECTION A -A -- 6'-7" REINFORCED CONCRETE DRAIN SPACE SECTION B-B Source: Adapted from 1983 Maryland Standards for Soil Plate 3.02-1 Erosion and Sediment Control, and Va. DSWC TEMPORARY DIVERSION DIKE Compacted Soil 18" min. -Flow 4.5' min. Source: Va. DSWC Plate 3.09-1 KIRK HUGHES ASSOCIATES LAND SURVEYORS AND PLANNERS 220 EAST HIGH STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA. 22902 (804) 296-6942 J J v J � Q O - z w O z w U I O or) z T Q Q LU z o� w O Q O U O 0 w o z Cf) c� Q o � JQ ~ Q w z U p w CD C/) U O z z W L_U / J FILE NO.: 2019-013 DWG. NO.: \2019\2019-01312019013-01. D WG NORTH STATE SOUTH GRID NAD-83 DATE: MAY 24, 2019 I REVISION DATES: OCTOBER 31, 2019 SCALE: HORIZONTAL 1" = 30' CONTOUR INTERVAL = 2' (TRAPS) SHEET TITLE: SEDIMENT TRAP DETAILS SHEET NO.: LL TYPICAL DRIVEWAY CROSS SECTIONS ' 1 — NOT TO SCALE _ — / / / / / / / / FILL SECTION CUT SECTION _ 2' 14' 2' - TRAVELWAY 4' �-� 2% EXISTING EXISTING o GRADE PRIMED AND DOUBLED SEALED 9 6" - #57 GRAVEL ..... 2° TYPE SM-9.5A VDOT 21A =I I=I COMPACTED SUBGRADE _—III—III—III— 95% STD. PROCTOR —III=III=III— IGRAVEL BASE 1 \ \ \ \ / / S 9 9 E I \N / /i , / / / a -- --- 5 I 00I o , I I 1 I I I 11 11 I p \ 1 1 1 1 1 \ 11 II I\ \ SCALES: I 1 \ / 1"=30'HOR 1" = 30' VER \ I I 1 I I I I I I \ \ \ \ \ I 1 \ \ \ \ p p I 860 860 840 I 840 00 - 0 + r 820 I 820 ,� w _n w > 1 = 14.96% Q a_ I 800 O N UJ 800 U + N II = 4.42 I 780 780 r J O r � Lj > 760 o r 1,-0 Q r 760 Ln + O NJ 740 II w 96 76 °° `° 740 Q J w cn a O U H Ln Q > � `� w 720 (D N = 720 > .12% r r 1 = 10.50% IZ IZ ci 9 - 700 _11 Locn I 700 II w = 5.24% Lo J > > 680 —VPI STA 14+25.00 G 680 w w g 0.12% 660 g2 = 14.96% I 660 VPI STA = 11 +25. 0 -_ z� .,,, 67 o _4:1 I IT 0.60 640 I 640 gi= . _10.12% I w CURVE LEN= K = 20.49 620 o 620 600 600 (D N 00 O) (p m 0 O � Oco O Ln O L0 6000 0 O Lo O N r co N o N (oco o rr Ln p I�r �p I�r � I�r O co Lo �r Ln �r ro I�r Lo I�r 580 coo co rr Ln �r a0 I�� 580 c0co I�r I�r I�r I�r �r 10+00 10+50 11 +00 11 +50 12+00 12+50 13+00 13+50 14+00 14+50 15+00 15+50 16+00 16+50 17+00 17+50 18+00 18+50 19+00 KIRK HUGHES ASSOCIATES LAND SURVEYORS AND PLANNERS 220 EAST HIGH STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA. 22902 (804)296-6942 z Q J J Q W U Z O U Q w CD Lu O 0 O 0 O CMS 0 Q ��Z Z V JJ LL � Q G � Z U ::D L] o Lv ULu z Q W w In Q � U C z Cf) Q o � J w U U) w U Z z L L] Q Q � FILE NO.: 2019-013 DWG. NO.: 1201912019-01312019013-01. DWG NORTH STATE SOUTH GRID NAD-83 DATE: MAY 24, 2019 I I REVISION DATES: OCTOBER 31, 2019 SCALE: HORIZONTAL: 1" = 30' VERTICAL: 1" = 30' SHEET TITLE: PLAN AND PROFILE SHEET NO.: 3-00 I I I I I I I I 1 \\ TYPICAL DRIVEWAY CROSS SECTIONS I I I I I 1 \ 0 ®R _ �' NOT TO SCALE ST- —Q" . — ' � �' � � FILL SECTION CUT SECTION / 2' 14' 2' TRAVELWAY 4' % 2% EXISTING T1 GRADE EXISTING GRADE PRIMED AND DOUBLED SEALED 6" - #57 GRAVEL 2TYPE SM-9.5A I —I I —III GRAVEL BASE 71 1 0 5 \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ �\ �� \ �� — — _, �� / / III=1 =1Ell =III — COMPACTED SUBGRADE _—I I I —I I I —I I I— —III=III=I I I— I 95% STD. PROCTOR — — — — — — — — — I I \ \ \ \ \ \ rn \ \ 940 940 920 920 rn M + 00 900 r 900 � o 00 N L W 0) 0) °° > 880 N N Q 880 1 = 14 96% 1 11J Cn EL> 00 n W U oto pl- 860 N = U) > 860 I- 0) — U D —19 N97 E = °° N = II J 840 — rn g1 = 14.4 % II J 840 + 2 = 4.88% a ~ 1. o 820 W 820 VPI ST - 800 800 �, • rn co - . + 23+14.84 g = 0 •42 � CD cl� VDI — gURVE1LEN 78O N 00 78O 100.00 IN 00 11 y-1.767. - r 9 = . 760 a V) W C1JRVE LEN = 50.00 760 � c5 � W co _ 20+00.158 U U > > rn VPI EL 9 740 88% 740 00 ( II 1 = 4 Q - U) J III Q =59. `n W 720 = 720 a_ a_ 700 700 680 680 O Lo N c0 N I cD N Ln O co r7 N r7 �p N r7 O N to C° 'n Ln660660 LI' L� Q � ao ao CDao o I- � 00 � 00 0o 00 I� � r- r- r- � r- � � 60 00 00 00 co 00 00 00.00 00 co 00 00 00.00 00 00 00 0o 00 co 17+50 18+00 18+50 19+00 19+50 20+00 20+50 21 +00 21 +50 22+00 22+50 23+00 23+50 24+00 24+50 25+00 25+50 26+00 26+50 KIRK HUGHES ASSOCIATES LAND SURVEYORS AND PLANNERS 220 EAST HIGH STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA. 22902 (804)296-6942 z Q J J Q W U Z O U Q w 0 rn 0 0 0 0 C9 0 C� G Q �Z z V ) z U ::D L1J ov ULu z Q w w In Q � U C z Cf) Q o J LU U U) LLJ U z Q L1J z Q Q � FILE NO.: 2019-013 DWG. NO.: 1201912019-01312019013-01. DWG NORTH STATE SOUTH GRID NAD-83 DATE: MAY 24, 2019 1 REVISION DATES: OCTOBER 31, 2019 SCALE: HORIZONTAL: 1" = 30' VERTICAL: 1" = 30' SHEET TITLE: PLAN AND PROFILE SHEET NO.: 4-00 TYPICAL DRIVEWAY CROSS SECTIONS NOT TO SCALE FILL SECTION CUT SECTION 2' 14' 2' TRAVELWAY 4, % 2% EXISTING GRADE EXISTING \ � � \ \ \ \� \ ` \ GRADE ST-C � � \ \ PRIMED AND DOUBLED SEALED / 0 6" - #57 GRAVEL 2" TYPE SM-9.5A 8" - VDOT 21A ' GRAVEL BASE COMPACTED SUBGRADE ' _—III—III—III= —III=III=I I I— / SF 95% STD. PROCTOR \ `\ 0 \S'��EX\ROAD \\ \ F / \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \\ \\ \ \ \\ \ /� /�� \ IN, IN,\ \ \ r l i r \ \ \ \ _ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ SF ST- \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 1000 1000 o r 980 � 928.75 980 = Q' i I I gl = 13.25% N 2 = 13. 0% _ 960 = 960 = EdFLi _ 210.00 o = 13.00% a U > — rn = 10.50% V) > — `� N - > 940 vPl STA = 28+2 .23 rn II 940 J _ Of Q w 920 = ° 920 _100.00 + Go K = 7.95 > F= o_ 900 % o 900 w pl- to co N 880 °' 880 Q N _ - cn > �n I Q w U � N N = (n 860 °' ~ LL 860 14. ° + 1— J C-LI— r7 9 _ ° > > °' Q CURVE LEN = 00 II cn w 840 - 840 N - LLJJ + vpI E L —00 U A U N > > II g1 = 1.93% 820 00 Q II 2 = 13.00% 820 II c~n w � 4 _800 U U = > > 800 g =15.057— g2 = 14.51 ° 780 780 CURVE LEN = 100.00 760 760 740 740 0 co (O r7 0 N a0 N O 60 Lc) N V) r7 O Ln 720 O � 00 m m Lo � N 4 C 00 720 0o 0o o0 00 a0 00 c 00 00 00 60 00 00 rn rn rn 0o 00 0o 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 co 00 rn rn rn 25+00 25+50 26+00 26+50 27+00 27+50 28+00 28+50 29+00 29+50 30+00 30+50 31 +00 31 +50 32+00 32+50 33+00 33+50 34+00 KIRK HUGHES ASSOCIATES LAND SURVEYORS AND PLANNERS 220 EAST HIGH STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA. 22902 (804)296-6942 z Q J J Q W U Z O U Q w FILE NO.: UJI rn 0 O 1 co 1 0 co O Q ��= Z V JJ LL � z w OU ULu z Q Nw I..L L u In Q � U z Cf) Q p � J w U U) L1J U Z z L1J Q Q � 2019-013 DWG. NO.: 1201912019-01312019013-01. DWG STATE SOUTH GRID NAD-83 DATE: MAY 24, 2019 I I REVISION DATES: OCTOBER 31, 2019 SCALE: HORIZONTAL: 1" = 30' VERTICAL: 1" = 30' SHEET TITLE: PLAN AND PROFILE SHEET NO.: 5-00 TYPICAL DRIVEWAY CROSS SECTIONS _ NOT TO FILL SECTION SCALE CUT SECTION 2' 14' 2' / I / TRAVELWAY % 4, 2% EXISTING GRADE \ I / I I \ I I I ► I I = / / ,' / / // /— _--- — EXISTING GRADE � co �_ / / / _ _ ' AND DOUBLED SEALED 8.00, / 4.00' /� / /' /' 6" #57 GRAVEL 2" TYPE SM-9.5A I/ ..: .... `:::::::.:::::::• ............:::•: 21A: 8" - VDOT I I I I I 8.00' l 0 � 14.0�0' \ co 1 / �/' /—III—III GRAVEL BASE —III=1 II 1I— \ I I I � 1 1 I /' COMPACTED suBCRADE I I II I I I I I II \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ® l I I I I I I 8.00, qo' I 1 / / / / / / / / / / / 95% STD. PROCTOR —III=III=1 1I— — I \ \ \\ \ \\ \ \ \ \ I I I I I I I I I I cn I 240' a' ;I;::`;.:`•�:."':::i;i:. 1 1 I I I I I / / / / / / / // •r I I / / . N•,1.�'.�. 1 ,S.Qo'Q 15. o' I I I I I I / / / I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I I I I I o l ND IIN I I Do N IO Q I I I I I I I I I I I I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I 0.00 I' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1060 1060 1040 - 1040 Iq N 00 — + 0) _ r7 II 1020 N 1 = 13.75% J 1020 LLJ I-� N w N J w �' a_ 1000 _ U. 1000 II w o r Q `o 980 Ln 06 + _ 980 i� II gl = 2 = 13. 0% w = 960 w � � 960 Q U ui > __ (n > _0. 02N 9 40 > °°% + 9 40 o �, M II rn II 920 Q 920 II J VPI STA — 35+ .98 J 900 O O Ln VPI = 3 g1 = 13.00% 900 > > 2 = 13.75% ro N °' 880 ,IA — 880 I Q — P IfI EL — J w (n 860 = 860 J ; ; g o CURVE LEN = E— 840 840 820 820 800 800 cn Ln Ln co r7 N C6 co Go 780 780 mm mm m6 m I 6� m6 CD6) m6) m6 orb) m8� 32+50 33+00 33+50 34+00 34+50 35+00 35+50 36+00 36+50 37+00 37+50 38+00 38+50 39+00 39+50 40+00 40+50 41 +00 41 +50 KIRK HUGHES ASSOCIATES LAND SURVEYORS AND PLANNERS 220 EAST HIGH STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA. 22902 (804)296-6942 z Q J J Q W U Z O U Q w Q Q Z C� //) LL � Q G � Z d ::D LLJ O ULu z Q Lw I..L L u In Q � U 0 z Cf) Q p L U U U) W1 Y Z z L1J z Q Q � FILE NO.: 2019-013 DWG. NO.: 1201912019-01312019013-01. DWG NORTH STATE SOUTH GRID NAD-83 DATE: MAY 24, 2019 REVISION DATES: SCALE: HORIZONTAL: 1" = 30' VERTICAL: 1" = 30' SHEET TITLE: PLAN AND PROFILE SHEET NO.: ■ 9 1 =W-1 ■ :#: ,, I-1 ` APPLICATION FOR A EPECLAL EXCEPTION Request for a waiver, modification, variation ❑ or substitution permitted by Chapter 18 $457 ❑ Relief from a condition of approval = $457 Provide the following ❑ 3 copies of a written request specifying the section or sections being requested to be waived, modified, varied or substituted, and any other exhibit documents stating the reasons for the request and addressing the applicable findings of the section authorized to be waived, modified, varied or substituted. Project Name : Variation to a previously approved Planned Development rezoning application plan or Code of Development = $457 Provide the following ❑ 3 copies of the existing approved plan illustrating the area where the change is requested or the applicable section(s) or the Code of Development. Provide a graphic representation of the requested change. ❑ 1 copy of a written request specifying the provision of the plan, code or standard for which the variation is sought, and state the reason for the requested variation. Current Assigned Application Number (SDP, SP or ZMA) Tax map and parcel(s): (5 3 — 1 e Applicant / Contact Person— n•. Address-T.O. 6x -7181 City ��tct v C„# s a A e— State �!Wzip Z Z`7v G Daytime Phone# 03CzFax# { } Email -To K%! <, Do9soa7segma I Owner of Record 6L ir$ k"I L4A-J-"eM69 C . J CQ, C Address 3 �Zy q 1 Y }QkA �4 , City CLQ sr o �Sd Ae State 1%i4 Zip Daytime Phone# { } 551. 1 Fax# ( ) Email Luke. Pa 1. - Sans. Cd M County of Albemarle Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126 i I APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL. EXCEPTION APPLICATION SIGNATURE PAGE If the person signing the application is someone other than the owner of record, then a signed copy of the "CERTIFICATION THAT NOTICE OF THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE LANDOWNER" form must be provided in addition to the signing the application below. (page 3) Owner/Applicant Must Read and Sign By signing this application, I hereby certify that I own the subject property, or have the legal power to act on behalf of the owner of the subject parcel(s) listed in County Records. I also certify that the information provided on this application and accompanying information is accurate, true, and correct to the best of my knowledge. By signing this application, I am consenting to written comments, letters and or notifications regarding this application being provided to me or my designated contact via fax and or email. This consent does not preclude such written communication from also being sent via first class mail. n e o Signature of Owner / A ent / Co act Purchaser Print Name FOR OFFICE USE ONLY APPLICATION# ` 1 ;01 Date Daytime phone number of Signatory Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? _ _ Receipt 4 Ck# By. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL. EXCEPTION CERTIFICATION THAT NOTICE OF THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE LANDOWNER This form must accompany this zoning application if the application is not signed by the owner of theproperty. I certify that notice of the application for, r C., Ina fx'iv Le, o d, ca4 -cn tvu ✓-- [Nam of the a placation type & i known the assigned application #] was provided to rF_n e Pa ai- LOO a txe C4 (rlskia I [Name(s) of the record owners of the parcel] the owner of record of Tax Map and Parcel Number 19 e by delivering a copy of the application in the manner identified below: on Hand delivery of a copy of the application to Date Zmailing a copy of the application to [Name of the record owner if the record owner is a person; if the owner of record is an entity, identify the recipient of the record and the recipient's title or office for that entity] [Name of the record owner if the record owner is a person; if the owner of record is an entity, identify the recipient of the record and the recipient's title or office for that entity] on `"j `� I to the following address 3S,? R a-Crj r 1(xrl L o. a,yi ! l f- VY9.cp D4 D x Date [Address; written notice mailed to the owner at the last known address of the owner as shown on the current real estate tax assessment books or current real estate tax assessment records satisfies this requirement]. Signature of Applicant Print Applicant Name Date TO: Albemarle County Health & Building Departments 12/7/2018 To Whom It May Concern: We agree to allow Dobson Homes to act as our agent in regards to obtaining a Building Permit and Construction Permits, along with well and septic permits, to build our new custom home located at Wolf Trap Road (Tax Map 63-19E). Thank You! LUKE MARSHALL �k•sr,,.i�ier� t2 �•s � IC�. /Nw/SH�II /it J � � Q a s M o cn - - N � O p� ppry N v W uj C.) V Z LLu o ex o ,ti• G ci =tit"_ .. "'" -^_ _ ��"_�• ter'/ \\�,' \��. s1ti.�.�.'�•�-��•- ff -i _ - � �ii•#fiC3r!�Tli'd3�3t` I! '`;: f +��.� _ ter•/ .r `�/, if ll'. YZI 2". f Y / l r { f f' '/" !✓% J :.P r ; �j :' i ..e it r .. `r/��/J t 1l j ! f1r•YR� ,. r;+� r S 'r f j/ +//J tr..� tfi f�i f/' ;ff f 11ff f 14 .rL5 w_ ,.JrrJ' � 11J . ;!/ i ,/ / •• % + l rj� t••`,. `\tom � • rflfl/ ��+ f{ a� \ Al ,ref'° f-.•,,�i=-».. r \• \`\ July 12, 2019 Re: Tax Map 63, parcel 19E Application for a Special Exception to Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, Section 4.2 Critical Slopes Requesting a modification or waiver for the Location and construction of a Single Family Residence. Attached please find our Application for Special Exception On behalf of the Landowner, we request under section 4.2.5, a modification/waiver to section 4.2 critical slopes. Under the ordinance TM63-19E, located on an access easement at the end of Wolf Trap Road, the 55 acre parcel has most of its land consisting of critical slopes and a large portion in two Water protection buffers leaving few options for a building site. Access is limited by topography and easement, and limited suitable sites and soils for a private residential drain field require us to locate a one story single family home in the location selected on the parcel. This parcel existed prior to the critical slope ordinance. Attached please find our report from the soils engineer regarding the Drain field suitability, an erosion and sediment control plan showing structures protecting the site and providing engineered road access to the building site. Ali grading activity is well away from any property lines, and impiementing the erosion and sediment plan safeguards against any runoff damage. Slopes disturbed follow Soil erosion best management practices. Slopes are to be cut and filled to achieve a level surface for roads, parking, and building. Fill slopes are to be blended with the natural steep hillside. Drive design to follow contours and natural topography as best possible to reach the intended building site. We ask that you provide relief from the ordinance and grant a waiver for this parcel for purposes of access to the buildable homesite, grading the homesite foundation and building area, private residential drain field as currently designed, and provision for installation of utilities. Due to the size of the 55 acre parcel, the critical slope crossing and disturbance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare and is away from adjacent property lines. Well designed access and a professionally designed soil erosion and sediment plan address the site challenges and contribute to the orderly development of the single family homesite. Due to the property's unusual size, topography, shape, location or other unusual conditions, prohibiting the disturbance of critical slopes will effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use/building of a single family residence on the property for the owners use. On this specific site, with the factors of access, slope/topography, soils, and water protection buffers, in conjunction with the critical slope ordinance -the special exception provision to the ordinance is the specific relief for this parcel and the owner's future home, use and enjoyment of TM63 parcel 19E. P.O. Box 418, Ruckersviiie, VA 22968. (434) 985-2780 office - (434) 990-8367 fax www.blueridgesoil.com July 22, 2019 Albemarle County Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: Location of proposed Sewage Disposal System Tax Map # 63-19E Albemarle County, VA To Whom It May Concern: I am writing because it is my understanding that the applicants for a building permit for the above -referenced property have had their building application denied due to critical slopes. I have been asked to write this letter by the building contractor, Dobson Homes. I designed a sewage disposal system (SDS) for the property, and on June 18, 2019, VDH approved the permit. As part of my work for the permit, I measured the slopes where the proposed drainfield is going, and also where the home is proposed, and the slopes did not exceed 25%, although they were very close to that. Therefore, it is my professional opinion that the building site does not exceed critical slope, even though the area may be shown as being in critical slope on the county's GIS system. Furthermore, I would like to point out that the area where the proposed SDS has been approved is really the only area on the property where a drainfield can be approved, in my opinion. If you have any questions regarding my work, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Sincerely, A, i Thomas G. Hogge Blue Ridge Soil Consulting, Inc. Page of OSEJP Report For: µCJ Construction Repair Voluntary Upgrade I^ Certification Subdivision Permit Permit Permit Letter Approval Property Location: 91.1 address: Lot Section GPIIV or Tax Map # 63-19E Latitude City - Subdivision _ Health Dept ID # — - - Longitude APOICant OF Cl"oent Maiiing Address: Name: Augusta and [Lawrence Marshafi Street: 432 Mosc9y ®rive City: Chadoftesville State VA Zip Code 22903 prepared by: OSE Marne Thomas G. Hagge Address PO Box 41O City RuckersyiUe State VA License # 1940-001091 PE dame License # ,address City Date of (Report OSE/PEE Job # State Zip Code 229600 Zip Code Date of Revision #1 Date of Revision #2 ntents/Onden of this report (e.g., Site Evaluation Summary, sn61 fa@e DescriptiOnS. Site Sketch, Abbreviated Design, ems.) 1-cover .. _. s-survey 2-Application 7-System Specifications 3,4-Site and Soil Evaluation Report 3,9-Design Calculations 5-Construction Drawing 10-Weil Specifications I I -Well Addendurn Cerrtiff cation Statement hereby certify that the evaluations and/or designs contained herein were conducted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Sewage Handling and Disposal Regulations (12 VACS-610), the Private Well Regulations (12 VACS-630), the Regulations for Alternative Onsite Sewage Systems (12VAC5-613) and all other applicable lags, regulations and policies implemented by the Virginia Department of Health. I further certify that I currendij possess any professional license required by the laws and regulations of the Commonwealt hat have been duly issued by the applicable agency charged with licensure to perform the work contained herein. e work attached to this cover page has been conducted under an exemption to the practice of engineering, specifically the exemption in Code of Virginia Section 54.1-402.A.11 recommend that a (select one): construction permit El certification letter. Lj subdivision approval [3be (select one) Issued El regair permit 9.%,/ voluntary upgrade Denied 13 OSE/PE Signature . I This form contains personal information subject to disclohaiunder the Freedom of Information Act. Revised 12/1/20W ounmon,we'21ft ofVirglorM Application for. E,738ewage System OWater Suppbr Owner Augusta and Lawrence Marshall bailing Address 432 Mosely Drive, Charlottesville, VA 22903 Agent Dobson Homes Mailing Address PO Box 7151, Charlottesville, VA 22906 Site Address Directions to Property: Subdivision Ta c Map 63-19E Section Other Property Identification Sewage System VDr� Use only HwIth Depwtment # Due Hate Phone Phone Fax Rhone (434) 531-4976 Phone Fax Email Block Lot Dimension/Acreage of Property 55.1 acres Type of Ap provmh Applicants for new construction are advised to apply for a coTtification letter to determine if land is suitable for a sevuage system and to apply for a construction permit (valid for 18 months) only when ready to lnnild. OCertification Letter Proposed Use: {B Construction permit D Voluntar3r Upgrade ❑ Repair Permit Single Family Rome (Number of Bedrooms 3 ) Multi -Family Dwelling (Total Number of Bedrooms ) Other (describe) Basement? + Yesaro Walk -out Basenletdt. es ro Fixtures in BasemendiYesnio Conditional permit desired?Yes: a. o If yes, which conditions do you want? J Deduced water flow ❑ Limited Occupancy ❑ Intermittent orr seasonal use El Temporary use Snot to exceed l ycar Do you wish to apply for a betterment loan eligibility letter �.:t esNo *There is a $50 fee for determination of eligibility. Water Supply Will the water supply bea-- ublic orPrivatc? Is the water supdplYMEAsting or" roposed? If proposed, is this a replacement well of Yes f No If yes, will the old well be abandoned? MYYes ,.. Ni ro Will any buildings within 50' of the proposed well be termite treated? ❑Yes MNo AM ApDplleamts Is this a private sector OSrE/PF application? NYes ONo If yes, is the OS]E/PE package attached? MYes ONo Is this property indeed to serve as your (owners) principal place of residence? ElYes ❑No In order for VDff to process your application for a sewage system- you must attached a plat of the property and a site sketch_ For water suppraes, a plat of the property is recommended and a site sketch is required. The site sketch should show your property lines, actual and/or proposed buildings and the desired location of your well and/or sewage system. '9V"iien the site evaluation is conducted the Property lines, building location and the proposed well and sewage sites must be clearly marked and the property sufficiently visible to see the topography. I give pernussion to the Virginia Department of health to enter onto the property described during normal business hours for the purpose of Processingthisapplication and to perform quality assurance checks of evaluations and designs certified by a private sector Onsite Soil Evaluator or Professional Engineer as necessary until the sewage disposal system and/or private water supply has been constructed and approved. Signature of Owner/ Agent Date This form contmins personal information subject to diseUmuure gender floe Freedom of Information Act. Revised 12/1/2014 Page _ Gf Site and SOB Evaluation Report vDN Use Only HDIN: General Iafformation late: 0 Albemarle County Health Department Owner: Augusta and Lawrence MarshaV Phone - Owner Address: 432 Mosely Drive, Charlottesville, VA 22903 Property Address: Tax MapIOPIN #: 63-1 9F Subdivision: Section: Block: Lot: Soil Ianfformstnon Summary 1. Position in landscape satisfactory: L li Yes 0 No Describe landscape position: Sidesiope 2. Slope: 25 0/ , (max) (37" in reserve) 3. Depth to rocklimpervious strata: Max. 60+ in. Min. 45 in. M Not observed 4. Free Water Present: 0 Yes M No mange in inches: 5. depth to seasonal water table (gray mottling or gray color): inches El Not observed 6. Soil percolation rate estimated: M Yes ® No Estimated rate: 75 min in at 26 inches depth Texture Group: ® I ®II 0111 13 Ill 7. Percolation test performed: U Yes Hi No If yes, provide additional data on percolation test results. Name and title of ev tor: es Graham Flogge, OSE Signature: Site approve : bscrpkion trenches (describe dispersal area, e.g. absorption trenches) dispersing Septic teak uent (proposed level of treatment at time of evaluation) to be placed at 25 (inches) depth at site designated on permit. Site provides a total of 3,300h square feet of absorption area for primary and reserve (if applicable). *Trench bottom area Site disapproved: Reasons for rejection (check all that apply) 1. 0 Position in landscape subject to hooding or periodic saturation. 2. 13 Insufficient depth of suitable soil over hard rock. 3. 13 Insufficient depth of suitable soil to seasonal water table. 4. ® Dates of absorption too slow. 5. ® Insufficient area of acceptable soil for required absorption area, and/or reserve area.. 6. ® Proposed system too close to well. 7. ® Other spec' This form souaWns perso mil i0ffonnataauun subject to disclosaaae uumder the Freedom offJunfformatnon Act. Devised 12/1/2014 Oate ofEval at;«;!;<: 4- .l0-S9 PltopeAy ID: Tax Map 63-19E P;cofile Description SOIL EVALUATION REPORT of Where the local health department conducts the soil evaluation the location of profile holes may be shown on the schematic drawing on the construction permit or the sketch submitted with the application. If soil evaluations are conducted by a private Gnsite Soil Evaluator or ]Professional Engineer, location of profile boles and sketch of the area investigated including all structural features (i.e. sewage disposal sgrsterns, wells, etc_) within 100 Feet of the site a d reserve site shall be shown on the reverse side of this page or prepared on a separate page and attached to this form. AUGER BORINGS ® See amllc Lion sketch 0 See CoetstrorctiOn PCIrMit C" 1 qp� A-0trla nn rPir.- -A. Hole # Horizon gg�.°IpDept,h k2es) Description of CGH01r9 texture, etco Texture Greco A M 7.5 YR 416 strong brown loam 2 Btl 6-20 2.5 YR 418 red silty clay loam 3 St2 20-42 2.5 YR 418 red silty clay foam; lighter, w/ silty seams of 10 YR 7/8 yellow 3 SCt 42-54 2.6 YR 518 red, light, friable silty clay loam to sift loam wl 10 YR 7/8 yellow 3 C 54-60 2.5 Y 5/8 light olive brown, friable silt loam saprolite w/ 2.5 YR 4/8 red 3 2 Aj 0-6 5 YR 4/6 yellowish red loam 2 13w 6-30 2.5 YR 4/8 red, light silty clay loam wl many greenstone fragments 3 CI3t 30-60 2.5 YR 4/8 red, very light silly clay loam to silt loam, saprolitic, variegated w! 1 3 5 Y 7/2 light gray, 10 YR 7/8 yellow 3 A 0-5 5 YR 416 yellowish red loam 2 13w 5-26 2.5 YR 418 red, light silty clay loam wi many greenstono fraga-raents 3 C 26-45 2.5 Y 5/8 light olive brown, friable silt loam saprolits vnd 2.5 YR 4/8 red; 3 AIR @ 45" 4 A 0-6 5 YR 4/6 yellowish red loam 2 Reserve Btv 6-37 2.5 YR 418 red, light silty clay loam wl many greenstorre fragments; 3 AIR @ 37- 5 A 0-5 7.5 YR 4/6 strong brown loam Reserve 13t 5-30 2.5 YR 4/8 red silty clay loam, w/ silty seams of 10 YR W 13Ct 30-60 j7/8yellow 2.5 YR 518 red, light, friable silty clay loam to silt loam w/ 10 7/8 yellow REMARKS: Soil profiles are consisbant with mapped Rabun series. 'ibis ff®roan cOntaloas peTsond infformadon sobject to disclosure under the )Frtedom of 11nff®rmation Act. Reviscd 12/1/2014 CONSILIFRUCTJON DRAWING S![-�iO JNG PROPOSED PRIMA Y Sz; RESERVESEPTIC PROIA � � WE-ALL9 TAX JAWAP 3-19E9 ALBEVORLE COUNTY, VA CONTRACTOR: 43 HOUR NOTICE REQUIRED FOR INSPECTION. PLEASE CALL 434-531-1033. 44L TANY, TOP 13aD T BASMT. VOL 'r 9'r�� fL9I �aasaye60�q°°� LEGEND ® ,eager Boring DF/Reseree Corner Stake e f�9 fE! i System spedifications Pageof rr + VDK Use ®Im➢y HDaN: A Hiention Information Name. Augusta and F_awrenoe Marshal! Phone: Address: 432 Mclsely Drive, Chadottesvifle, VA 22903 Location Information Tax Lapp/GPN #: 63.19E Subdivision: Directions: Property Address: Section: Block: Lot: Gener2R Iniffairmadon Property 'type (e.g. residential): Residential Daily Flow: 450 gpd Notes: Number of Bedrooms: 3 Conditions: Sever Lime Diameter: 4 in. Material: Sch. 40 PVC (or equivalent) Notes: Min. 1.25° fan par 10 feet of run Firetrea° tmemt Unit Treatment Level: seplicFanic Effluent Number of Septic Tanks 1 Septic Tank Capacity: 900 gallons Size of Septic Tank(s) 1,D0D gallons Per the Sewage Handling and Disposal Regulations, check which option(s) chosen: 8 Septic tank with inspection port ® Septic tank with effluent filter ® Reduced maintenance septic tank Secondary treatment device(s), if applicable: N/A Notes: Conveyance Line Distrib ntiou Method and Header Uses Conveyance Method, o—ih, Distribution Method:.Grav4 distdbutlon bboc If pumping, include pump specifications sheet. Materia]: Sch. 40 PVC Diameter: 4" Notes: 5" fall per 100' of run. No4 of boxes: 1 No. of outlets: 8 (minlmum) Surge or splitter box required: LI des 0 No Header Line Material: Thimmil PVC or Comrgalad, Min: 1,590# Crush Strength Pelrco9&tiion LkaedAbson tnoim Arena Dispersal Method (e.g. laterals, pad, mound): Laterals If using pressure dispersal (e.g. drip), include pressure dispersal specifications sheet. No. of laterals/pads: 6 Length of laterals)/pad(s): 100 i}. Width of lateral(s)/pad(s): 36 in. Center to center spacing: 14 ft. Installation depth: 26 in. Aggregate depth: 13 in. Size/Type of Aggregate: 0.5 to 1.6 inch clean stone Reserve Area Provided: too % Notes: Tease Note- Lateral/pad slope: 24 in. per 100 ft. This form eonntai ns per oaA information subject to diselosa re under the Freedom of 1hformatioim Act. Revised 12/WO14 Page 'eof j Design Caicuiations Tax Map 63-19E ADbernade County, VA PRIMARY DRAINFELD Design Basis A. Estimated Percolation Rate (Minutes per inch) S. Trench bottom square f6et sss Required per Bedroom (from Table 5.4) based on RfGralft ❑ LPD ❑ other: C. Number of Bedrooms h 3 Area CalcuPations., D. Length of Trench (ft.) pan I E. Length of Available Area (ft.) iao F. Width of Trench (ft.) G. Number of Trenches s H. Center -to -center spacing (ft.) i. VViidth required (ft.) ©2 (Including reserve) J. Width of available area (ft.) K. Total square footage required r 1788 L. Square footage in design I iaou . Is a reserve area required? yes we next page Design CaicWaticns Tape Map 63-19E Nbemarle County, VA RESERVE ®RAINFIELD Dwdg a Basis A. Estimated Percolation Rate (Minutes per inch) Page q of I! B. Trench bottom square feet (150 GPD/0.47 GPD PER SQ. FT.) Required per Bedroom (frorn Table 5.4) based on ❑ Gravity ❑ LPD 0 other. TL-3 EFFLUENT TO GRAVITY DOSED TRENCHES, PER 12 VAC 5-613-10, REGULATIONS FOR ALTERNATIVE ONSITE SEWAGE SYSTEMS. IN ACCORDANCE WITH GNP 156, TL-3 EFFLUENT MUST RE PROVIDED BY AN APPROVED PROPRIETARY NITROGEN REMOVAL TREATMENT UNIT, PROVIDING A NET TOTAL NITROGEN REMOVAL (AT THE PROJECT BOUNDARY) OF 50%. C. Number of Bedrooms Area Cailcula4Aons, D, Length of Trench (ft,) E. Length of Available Area (ft.) F. VVidth of Trench (ft.) G. Number of Trenches H. Center -to -center spacing (ft.) I. Vt&dth required (ft.). J. Width of available area (ft.) K. Total square footage enquired L. Square footage in design ' M Page J 0 of II WWI Specifications VDH Use OnRy IN: A HeaRRt hfo:matnon Name: Augusta and Lawrence Marshall Phone: Address. 432 Mosely Drive. Charlottesville, VA 22903 lAcai on Information Tax l&pIGPIN #: 63-18E Subdivision. Directions: Property Address: Section: Block: Lot: General Information Well Purpose (select all that apply): E Domestic Drinking Water ® Agricultural ® Irrigation ® Industrial/Commercial ® Geothermal Well Class: "IC Nfinimum Casing Depth: 20 Estimated Water Usage: 450 Gallons Per Day Minimum Grout Depth: 20 Hou lzmatal Setbaclo Distance from Building Sewer: 50 ft. Distance from Pretreatment Unit(s): 50 $. Distance from Conveyance System: 60 fr. Distance from Absorption Area: 100 Distance from Property Lane: wA ft. Distance f om foundations: 50 �. Distance from other source(s) of contamination: 100 f$. List other source(s): Note: ThOs i'®M contains personal inion-Bnmtion subject to disclosure under the ]Fneedolh off Imffor mstion Act. Revised 12/1/2414 Addendum to AOS EIPE (Cerifficatioan Statement For prrivAte Wen Construction Permit Instructions: Please check one box in, 1-3 below. Statement templates for iteni #2 and 43 are on the following pages. The proposed well site shown herein, ® 1. Is located a minimum of 50 feet fiorn all property lines. ❑ 2. Is located within 50 feet of the adjacent property liners) but I have determined that the adjacent property is not used for an agricultural operation. ❑ i. Written aff -oration f •om the adjacent property owner(s) that their property is not used for an agricultural operation. ❑ j. Other confirmation that land use is not an agricultural operation, please describe: ❑ 3_ Ys located within 50 feet of an adjacent property line where the property is used for an agricultural operation. For confirmation, I have attached the appropriate documentation pursuant to § 32.1-175.5:2 of the Code of Virginia. (check one below) ❑L Written permission from the adjacent property owner(s) for the well construction. ❑ii. I certify that no other site on the property complies with the Board's Regulations for the construction of a private well. YF ��_/` �� ./� Y f'� �- �. _ "u:, � I+ ♦��4' �� - � M1� k - h ~��, f� �� N .l` y a � __ -�� r r" � r, �. ,k _ _.� _- -- - �---__.___ — _,.�, ._ __�a 1pb• Ma+1p.7•H'.f Fee �r9s apm- it'r1 a M C! w+MhwB't7'a ay,,, *10 iear`iJ pp " qo�ler'rs'x Pt x acwrr'az-r 4m ftwrr • 7zs��'r°c reply iawarnq'„ fP at l.yr�ra bf`3 !o rt adl�nl'1f-j 66 •iL •ors-.el•ut n.ec M>tl�A'Y16Y Sb" ep 'is9r AYY1'i 4qe! Cflr9r•PS'� +epN Mawr t• ;•: �' • r5i'sr PF, 4S7 • r7 °'naHa pr.f'P rf fAVO q f $! 1 E I i L'7 t^ 09Aq•fL¢ i r` K •y.•as � PA.R= D ii of see .� d [/1� b�i � 4L' Ai4 • 96F �r �..�„'�'^ �-+....'< r�"fe•M ,PW �� FF er.+e. �1 0 , r�`u. !f9 $11FMIOrrlEll k'r7d'J+Pl6§ �p Wrf t.:s:.�... E 4r7 jtP •!t7 =re: llpl[e f ri ,,� !� LLri rK"atlllE9 dip . ( `^•'•`- F' �� RgR6[l ieaR L,wlR fg .Pai �P SImeLM IRAf &WW" . gURWY OF OAR= R, a &rSl= gryR-LM F. O MARY Ft I LUEI? pnftRpy 1 s 1 Ocarsrr ala sr. Irr GPI set' p1W �, ! ' ' y"._....�IRf3�:T� L�+?9L 8S. aFCAltlNAA3• rt+lp rtvr.arta f < j• :z .dlt+`&QZ cNkY,Vo#G1Hdq 3bo ------------ P.O. Box 418, Ruckersville, VA 22968 ● (434) 985-2780 office ● (434) 990-8367 fax www.blueridgesoil.com November 4, 2019 Albemarle County Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: Location of Proposed Sewage Disposal System Tax Map # 63-19E Albemarle County, VA To Whom It May Concern: Earlier this year I wrote a letter explaining why I chose the location for a proposed sewage disposal system (SDS) on the above-referenced property. It has now come to my attention that the Albemarle Board of Supervisors is involved in making a decision as to whether the applicant can proceed as planned, and I have been asked by the applicant to write another letter of opinion. The report that I prepared on May 30, 2019 was based on a thorough site and soil evaluation that I performed on April 10, 2019. I evaluated the property in its entirety. I chose the site that I used for the report after eliminating all other areas on the property. The reason the other areas were eliminated was because they either exceeded critical slope (>25%) or they were concave/low-lying areas that would be subject to flooding/saturation. The area where I proposed the septic to be installed is the only place on the entire property, in my opinion, that meets both VDH's regulations for the installation of sewage disposal systems and Albemarle County's ordinances pertaining to SDS installations. If you have any questions regarding my work, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Sincerely, Thomas G. Hogge Blue Ridge Soil Consulting, Inc. STAFF PERSON: Tori Kanellopoulos PLANNING COMMISSION: November 19th, 2019 ATTACHMENT: Updated information, as requested by the Board of Supervisors at their October 16th, 2019 meeting 1. A clearer timeline of when the recent logging activities occurred RESPONSE: The applicant provided additional information on the timeline of when the logging activities occurred, as follows: “Our timber agreement with Augusta Lumber was for 24 months and was initiated in October of 2015. The agreement and logging was to end in October of 2017, but due to weather factors lasted until January-February of 2018.” 2. More information on the drainfield feasibility of the two possible locations (the original and proposed building sites) RESPONSE: The soils consultant for the applicant, Thomas G. Hogge, provided additional information on the feasibility of drainfields on this parcel (Attachment F). The updated statement from November 4, 2019, reads in part: “The report that I prepared on May 30, 2019 was based on a thorough site and soil evaluation that I performed on April 10, 2019. I evaluated the property in its entirety. I chose the site that I used for the report after eliminating all other areas on the property. The reason the other areas were eliminated was because they either exceeded critical slopes or they were concave/low-lying areas that would be subject to flooding/saturation. The area where I proposed the septic to be installed is the only place on the entire property, in my opinion, that meets both VDH’s regulations for the installation of sewage disposal systems and Albemarle County’s ordinances pertaining to SDS installations.” 3. More information on mountain protection and mountain resources, per the Comprehensive Plan RESPONSE: This site lies within the Mountain Protection Area overlay for 700 -foot contours (measured from the base of the mountain). The Mountain Protection Area overlay is not part of the Zoning Ordinance. The intent of this Comprehensive Plan policy is to protect water quality, protect against erosion and debris flow, conserve natural resources and habitats, and retain scenic resources. The Natural Resources Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan discusses the importance of protecting and enhancing both water resources and mountain resources. • Objective 1: “Ensure clean and abundant water resources for public health, business, healthy ecosystems, and personal enjoyment by preventing shortages and contamination.” • This Chapter discusses the importance of encouraging landowners to develop carefully to protect groundwater resources and prevent contamination of groundwater with their development. • Objective 5: “Retain mountain resources.” • This Chapter discusses the importance of proper erosion and sediment control and of restoring vegetation on slopes. • Strategy 5a: “Continue to protect mountain resources identified for protection in the Mountain Contour List.” • Strategy 5b: “Continue to protect critical slopes in the Rural Area.” o “Protection measures for critical slopes include: continuing to prohibit construction on critical slopes except where necessary to build or access the first dwelling on a parcel” • Objective 6: “Retain and improve land cover near rivers and streams and protect wetlands.” The applicant worked with Engineering staff on approval of a VESCP, which addresses erosion and sediment control. The applicant stated that they are currently putting seed and matting down all the slopes for vegetation. The Comprehensive Plan indicates the balance of protecting these natural resources while also allowing reasonable use of property. Critical slopes disturbance is permissible to “build or access the first dwelling on a parcel”. Given the drainfield feasibility constraints and WPO buffers on this parcel, staff finds that disturbance of critical slopes on this parcel and modification of a building site is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Whether or not the proposed building site is on a designated mountain resource in the Comprehensive Plan RESPONSE: Appendix 4: Natural Resources, in the County’s Comprehensive Plan, contains the Mountain Contour List, which “provides a list of significant mountains to protect within Albemarle County”. There are two 700-foot contour mountain ridgelines listed that are near TMP 63-19E: Wolfpit Mountain and Trevilian Mountain. The site is not on a ridgeline within the Southwestern mountain range, however it is in the Mountain Protection Area overlay. STAFF PERSON: Tori Kanellopoulos PLANNING COMMISSION: November 19th, 2019 ATTACHMENT: Updated information, as requested by the Board of Supervisors at their October 16th, 2019 meeting 1. A clearer timeline of when the recent logging activities occurred RESPONSE: The applicant provided additional information on the timeline of when the logging activities occurred, as follows: “Our timber agreement with Augusta Lumber was for 24 months and was initiated in October of 2015. The agreement and logging was to end in October of 2017, but due to weather factors lasted until January-February of 2018.” 2. More information on the drainfield feasibility of the two possible locations (the original and proposed building sites) RESPONSE: The soils consultant for the applicant, Thomas G. Hogge, provided additional information on the feasibility of drainfields on this parcel (Attachment F). The updated statement from November 4, 2019, reads in part: “The report that I prepared on May 30, 2019 was based on a thorough site and soil evaluation that I performed on April 10, 2019. I evaluated the property in its entirety. I chose the site that I used for the report after eliminating all other areas on the property. The reason the other areas were eliminated was because they either exceeded critical slopes or they were concave/low-lying areas that would be subject to flooding/saturation. The area where I proposed the septic to be installed is the only place on the entire property, in my opinion, that meets both VDH’s regulations for the installation of sewage disposal systems and Albemarle County’s ordinances pertaining to SDS installations.” 3. More information on mountain protection and mountain resources, per the Comprehensive Plan RESPONSE: This site lies within the Mountain Protection Area overlay for 700 -foot contours (measured from the base of the mountain). The Mountain Protection Area overlay is not part of the Zoning Ordinance. The intent of this Comprehensive Plan policy is to protect water quality, protect against erosion and debris flow, conserve natural resources and habitats, and retain scenic resources. The Natural Resources Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan discusses the importance of protecting and enhancing both water resources and mountain resources. • Objective 1: “Ensure clean and abundant water resources for public health, business, healthy ecosystems, and personal enjoyment by preventing shortages and contamination.” • This Chapter discusses the importance of encouraging landowners to develop carefully to protect groundwater resources and prevent contamination of groundwater with their development. • Objective 5: “Retain mountain resources.” • This Chapter discusses the importance of proper erosion and sediment control and of restoring vegetation on slopes. • Strategy 5a: “Continue to protect mountain resources identified for protection in the Mountain Contour List.” • Strategy 5b: “Continue to protect critical slopes in the Rural Area.” o “Protection measures for critical slopes include: continuing to prohibit construction on critical slopes except where necessary to build or access the first dwelling on a parcel” • Objective 6: “Retain and improve land cover near rivers and streams and protect wetlands.” The applicant worked with Engineering staff on approval of a VESCP, which addresses erosion and sediment control. The applicant stated that they are currently putting seed and matting down all the slopes for vegetation. The Comprehensive Plan indicates the balance of protecting these natural resources while also allowing reasonable use of property. Critical slopes disturbance is permissible to “build or access the first dwelling on a parcel”. Given the drainfield feasibility constraints and WPO buffers on this parcel, staff finds that disturbance of critical slopes on this parcel and modification of a building site is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Whether or not the proposed building site is on a designated mountain resource in the Comprehensive Plan RESPONSE: Appendix 4: Natural Resources, in the County’s Comprehensive Plan, contains the Mountain Contour List, which “provides a list of significant mountains to protect within Albemarle County”. There are two 700-foot contour mountain ridgelines listed that are near TMP 63-19E: Wolfpit Mountain and Trevilian Mountain. The site is not on a ridgeline within the Southwestern mountain range, however it is in the Mountain Protection Area overlay. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES November 19, 2019 1 Albemarle County Planning Commission DRAFT Minutes November 19, 2019 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, November 19, 2019, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Tim Keller, Chair; Daphne Spain; Jennie More; Bruce Dotson; Julian Bivins, Vice-Chair; Pam Riley; and Luis Carrazana, UVA representative. Members absent: Karen Firehock. Other officials present were David Benish, Planning Director; Carolyn Shaffer, Clerk to Planning Commission; Tori Kanellopoulos; Bill Fritz; Andrew Knuppel; Lori Allshouse; and Andy Herrick. Call to Order and Establish Quorum Mr. Keller called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda Mr. Keller invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda. Hearing none, he moved on to the Consent Agenda. Consent Agenda Mr. Keller said there were no consent agenda items. Action Items VAT201900001 Special Exception for Disturbance of Critical Slopes per 18-4.2 on TMP 63-19E Ms. Tori Kanellopoulos, Planner and lead reviewer for the project, presented the staff report. She said they would discuss a critical slopes waiver and building site modification request for Tax Map Parcel 63-19E. She said she would start her presentation with the location and context of the parcel, move to the history of the parcel and application, then discuss the waiver being requested, staff’s analysis, and the recommendation. She said she was joined by Bill Fritz, Chief of Special Projects, to help answer questions. Ms. Kanellopoulos said the parcel is located at the end of Wolf Trap Road off of Route 20 in the rural area, in the Rivanna Magisterial District and is zoned R-A Rural Area. She said the parcel consists of mostly critical slopes and Water Protection Ordinance (WPO) stream buffers. She said the parcel was created with a subdivision plat in 1984, and no changes in the boundary of the parcel have occurred since then. She said when the parcel was created, there was no WPO buffer, but the critical slopes ordinance was in place and therefore, there was a building site when the parcel was created. Ms. Kanellopoulos said that since then, the adoption of the WPO buffer in 1998 has significantly reduced the buildable area, and no building site, as defined as the current ordinance, exists. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES November 19, 2019 2 Ms. Kanellopoulos added that on an August 15, 2019 site visit, staff found that even the area adjacent to, and outside of, the WPO buffers appeared saturated. She said the applicant’s soil consultant has also noted that this area is prone to saturation and is not suitable for a drain field. Ms. Kanellopoulos said that currently, no house exists on the parcel. She said only one single- family house is permitted on the parcel by right. She said there is an access road through the parcel which was constructed for recent logging activities. Ms. Kanellopoulos said the application was considered on the Board of Supervisors’ consent agenda on October 16. She said the Board took the action to remove the item from the consent agenda for discussion, and after discussion on the item, the Board took the action to send the item to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation. Ms. Kanellopoulos said that based on the Board’s action, staff provided additional information in the staff report on the logging activities, drain field feasibility, and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. She said some of that analysis is also included in the presentation. Ms. Kanellopoulos said staff had initially placed this item on the Board’s consent agenda, since staff was recommending approval. She said per the County’s ordinance, Special Exceptions must go to the Board within 90 days unless the applicant requests deferral. She said the Board may then choose to approve, deny, or send the request back to the Planning Commission. She noted that although these types of Special Exception applications used to go to the Planning Commission prior to the Board, this is no longer a requirement, and if staff is recommending approval, the request will go straight to the Board. Ms. Kanellopoulos said the property was recently timbered for logging between October 2015 and February 2018. She said an access road was constructed for this forestry operation and was a permitted disturbance of critical slopes. She said the applicant is proposing to use the existing access road to build a house and a cleared space on the top of the hill, indicating to a red circle on a map. Ms. Kanellopoulos said that, per Virginia Department of Forestry and County regulations related to logging activities, forestry activity is not subject to critical slopes regulations. She said the only things that are subject to critical slopes regulations are activities associated with site plans and building permits. She said that since the applicant submitted a building permit for the proposed house, the critical slopes regulations apply. Ms. Kanellopoulos said that in the Rural Area zoning district, agricultural, forest, and fishery uses are allowed by right, and the Virginia Department of Forestry (VDF) requires loggers to notify VDF about timber harvests. She said VDF also provides best management practices, which are voluntary erosion and sediment control measures for logging. She noted that while the measures are voluntary, VDF may also find people engaged in logging activities who have not provided sufficient erosion and sediment control and have allowed pollution and degradation of water quality, per State Code regulations. Ms. Kanellopoulos said there have been some concerns that approving this request would create a precedent by allowing applicants to timber and create driveways up to hilltop locations for their houses. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES November 19, 2019 3 Ms. Kanellopoulos stated that staff, however, finds this to be a very unique site. She said if there were another building site outside of critical slopes and WPO buffers that had drain field feasibility, staff would likely recommend denial of a critical slopes waiver. She said that neither proposed location in this case is ideal. She explained that building in the proposed location shown in the presentation, however, was the least impactful option, pointing out that the critical slopes have already been disturbed. She added that the soil consultant for the applicant has been very clear that the area adjacent to, or within, the stream buffers is undesirable or impossible for drain fields. Ms. Kanellopoulos presented images from staff’s site visit that showed the proposed house location, first looking up the hill with the proposed house location shown in a red circle, and then standing at the cleared space where the house is proposed. Ms. Kanellopoulos presented the alternative house location outside of the WPO buffers where the applicant could build without a Special Exception request. She said this area originally did not have the WPO buffers and was, therefore, a much larg er area when the parcel was created in 1984. She explained that building in this location could negatively impact the streams there. She added that the applicant states that this location is not suitable for drain fields, with the soil consultant stating, in part, “The area where I proposed the septic to be installed is the only place on the entire property, in my opinion, that meets both Virginia Department of Health regulations for the installation of sewage disposal systems and Albemarle County’s ordinances pertaining to these systems installations.” Ms. Kanellopoulos presented images showing the alternative house location outside of the adjacent stream buffers, which are also at the entrance to the property. Ms. Kanellopoulos said the request was reviewed by both Planning and Engineering staff and that both did not object to the request. She said County Code 18-4.2.3b prohibits the disturbance of critical slopes with some exceptions, and this project qualifies for exception under 18-4.2.5a. Ms. Kanellopoulos said the disturbance of slopes has already occurred for the permitted logging activities, and the applicant voluntarily installed erosion control measures for the forest activities, including sediment traps, which were not required. She said the applicant has also, since then, put down seeding and matting on the slopes. She presented a picture of the seeding and matting, adding that they were also voluntary measures. Ms. Kanellopoulos said the applicant submitted a Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control application (VESCP), which was approved by Engineering staff on November 6. She said staff has found that the waiver request would not be detrimental to health, safety, or welfare. Ms. Kanellopoulos said that this parcel does not have alternative locations that would allow for construction of a house without disturbing critical slopes, except adjacent to the buffers or on potential wetlands. She said that additionally, the areas do not appear suitable for drain fields. She said given that the disturbance has already occurred, the applicant has provided voluntary erosion and sediment control measures, and that the Health Department has approved drain fields adjacent to the proposed building site, staff supports the request. Ms. Kanellopoulos said staff also wants to note that approval of critical slopes disturbance in prior applications, or in this instance, does not set a precedent. She said staff is of the opinion that the unique features and the prior activity on the property are such that approval of the request would serve public purpose by allowing reasonable use of the property and protection of water resources. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES November 19, 2019 4 Ms. Kanellopoulos said the many unique features of the parcel include its unique topography, its 1984 approval prior to the WPO buffers, the availability of a location at the top of a hill that is outside critical slopes, and issues with drain field suitability. She said it would not be possible to build further down the hill, as even the slopes further down are steeper and are classified as critical slopes. She said this type of application itself is very uncommon, and especially so with these unique circumstances. Ms. Kanellopoulos said the Board of Supervisors also requested an analysis for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. She said the parcel is within the Mountain Protection Area, which is defined by the Comprehensive Plan. She said this is not a zoning ordinance overlay. She said the intent of the ordinance is to protect natural resources and to protect against erosion and water quality issues. She said the natural resources chapter of the Comprehensive Plan highlights the importance of protecting and retaining both mountain and water resources in Strategy 5B, which is part of Objective 5, to retain mountain resources reads that, “Critical slopes disturbance for construction should be prohibited, except to allow construction of, or access to, the first house on a property.” Ms. Kanellopoulos said the Comprehensive Plan indicates the balance of protecting these natural resources while also allowing reasonable use of property, and given the drain field feasibility constraints and buffers on the parcel, staff finds the disturbance of critical slopes would not be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Kanellopoulos summarized by saying that the two possible building sites both have environmental constraints and challenges. She said staff finds the least impactful option for the first and only dwelling unit on the property is the proposed building site on the hill. Ms. Kanellopoulos said staff wants to reiterate that this application and parcel have many unique features and therefore, this does not set a precedent. She said, for example, if there were other areas on a parcel outside of critical slopes and stream buffers that had drain field suitability, staff would not recommend approval of a critical slopes waiver for a proposed building site higher up on a hill just because permitted forestry activities had occurred. Ms. Kanellopoulos said this particular parcel does not appear to have another feasible location for a building site other than the one proposed by the applicant. She said staff’s analysis intends to balance both protection of natural resources and reasonable use of the property. Ms. Kanellopoulos presented the Commission with the motions for their consideration. She offered to answer questions and return to previous slides. She noted that the item was scheduled to go to the Board on December 18. Ms. Spain asked Ms. Kanellopoulos to speak to the Board’s desire to send it back to the Planning Commission, other than whether it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She asked for the main issue they were concerned about. Ms. Kanellopoulos replied that there were two or three main issues, and that one was the consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and more information about the Mountain Protection overlay. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES November 19, 2019 5 She said they had also wanted more information about the logging activities, when they occurred, and what the regulations are around that. She said the Board wanted time for more background and analysis to hear what the Planning Commission thought and if there were concerns about setting a precedent, or if this was found to be a very unique site with unique features. Ms. Spain asked if the logging was carried out by the applicant. Ms. Kanellopoulos said she believed so and that it was Augusta Lumber. Ms. More asked about the 1984 approval that came before the WPO and if the approval was for the site that Ms. Kanellopoulos had outlined in red that is lower on the property. Mr. Fritz replied that the plat that was approved in 1984 was the parcel that was there. He indicated to the blue areas on a sheet, explaining that those blue areas (which are now WPO) were not on the map back then because there was no WPO. He said when staff evaluated the lot to determine if it had a building site (30,000 square feet that fit in a rectangle), it did because those areas weren’t prohibited from construction, but now are. He said in 1984, the requirements from the Health Department were very different from what they are currently. Ms. More said that for the sake of argument, with the absence of the 1998 establishment of the WPO buffer, what she felt like what she was reading is that the soil consultants are noting that the areas prone to saturation and not suitable for a drain field were existing conditions, regardless of the blue highlighted areas that can now be referenced. Mr. Fritz said that from the field visit, he could say that the areas that are in the blue area now did not appear to be saturated. He indicated to the area on the map circled in red, explaining that it did appear to be saturated and pointed out that there were some V-lines or topographic lines there. He said at first, when staff was out in the field, they thought that this was likely an intermittent stream, and that it looked like there was an intermittent stream there not shown on the plan. He said staff went to investigate this but couldn’t get to it because the ground was too soggy. Mr. Fritz said that subsequently, at some point in October, after it had not rained for three weeks, the County Engineer did go to the site, the ground was dry, and he did not find an intermittent stream in that area. He said it was obvious that that area is saturated at sometimes and not saturated at others, which is an indication of poor soil. Mr. Fritz said staff noted that the other areas that are in the stream buffer did not appear to be saturated at the time that the other ground was. He said it may be appropriate for drain field there, but the soil scientist wouldn’t have even investigated there, and cannot investigate there, because it can’t go there, so there is no reason to do an investigation in that area. Mr. Dotson asked if the entire site was timbered and clear-cut. Ms. Kanellopoulos replied that this was not done to the entire site, but to a portion of the hillside. Mr. Dotson asked if the timbering was all in the vicinity of the road and whether this was 30%, 50%, or 70% of the site. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES November 19, 2019 6 Mr. Fritz responded that having been there and not knowing where the exact boundaries are, the applicant may be able to speak more clearly to this. He said he would guess the area was probably 60-70% of the site but that this was just speculation. He noted it was a significant portion of the site. Mr. Dotson said he would hold his question for when the applicant comes forward. Ms. Riley said that a couple times in the report, it said that staff was unable to field verify the slope. She asked staff to explain why that was. Mr. Fritz explained that there was no independent survey that was done. He said staff visited the site and that there are clearly areas, particularly around where the proposed building site is, that don’t appear to be 25% slope based on staff’s experience. He said the topographic maps demonstrate this as well, but that staff did not have a field run topography and was using the best topography they have, which is their GIS system. He said there was no independent field run topography that they have, noting that this was not uncommon and was the norm. He said staff was simply making that observation. Mr. Keller invited the applicant to come forward. Mr. Lawrence Clay Marshall III (or Luke) said he was attending to field questions from the Commission. He said the staff report was a summation of (inaudible - away from the microphone). Ms. Riley asked the applicant to speak more closely to the microphone. Mr. Marshall explained that on the far left-hand corner of the map, there was a live water spring that comes out a hill, which is the water that pitches through the entire area, which is the rea son for the saturation. He explained that when it rains, that area becomes more of a marsh of flood plain and that one cannot walk through that area. He said there is an area to walk around it, but there was not an area to get through as far as being a building site. Mr. Tommy Dobson introduced himself as the builder for the site. He said when he got on the site, the logging road was already there, and so he hired Kirk _ Associates to come up with an erosion plan to immediately stabilize the erosion he saw. He said this is what they came up with to put in the silt tracks and then do the straw matting to control the site to make sure there wasn’t any erosion from the logging. He said he then met with the County to make sure this was acceptable. He said they then went back and implemented all the erosion control. Mr. Dobson said he then met with the engineer on site several times trying to find a suitable drain field location other than the one that was location. He said he had Kirk _ come out and do some surveying and contouring to determine if there were other slopes less than critical slopes and to determine if he could find another septic location. He said the only site that they found was the one proposed. He said they could not find the soils that would work for the septic, and could not find anything that wasn’t in critical slopes. Mr. Keller opened the hearing for members of the public to speak. Mr. Morgan Butler (Southern Environmental Law Center) said that when this item appeared on the Board’s consent agenda a few weeks before, SELC asked the Board to take a closer look and send this to the Commission for review. He said primarily, SELC was confused about how much more land disturbance would be necessary to build a house and driveway, whether this ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES November 19, 2019 7 disturbance would be on critical slopes or not, and about what was being proposed to limit the impacts of any disturbance that would still be necessary. Mr. Butler said SELC appreciates the additional information staff provided, but still was not entirely clear on those questions. He said they do understand, from the staff report, that the choice here may boil down to either allowing development on critical slopes, or allowing it to impact the stream buffer, and that choosing the slopes might well be the less damaging option, since those disturbances have already largely, or perhaps even entirely, occurred. Mr. Butler said that even assuming this was the case, what remained unclear was the protections the applicant will put in place to minimize the impacts of any land disturbance still necessary. He said the staff report indicates that an erosion and sediment control plan was approved for the project earlier that month, but it also noted in several places that the erosion measures the application includes have already been installed, having been put in place by the owners voluntarily when the road on the property was constructed as part of recent forestry activity. He said, as such, it was unclear if any new erosion measures would actually be put in place during the residential construction activity that remains. Mr. Butler said that with this in mind, SELC urges the Commission to explore some extra water quality protections that the waiver can be conditioned on. He said, for example, that as part of the stream health proposals that staff is currently working on, the County is considering requiring a two-layer perimeter E&S controls where land disturbances could impact water resources. He suggested that perhaps a second layer of erosion and sediment control protection would be appropriate for disturbances required for this project, since the rationale for the waiver is to limit damage to water resources. Mr. Butler said that stepping back, there was a bigger picture concern that the application highlights. He clarified that SELC was not saying that this happened on this project because they didn’t have that amount of information, but in piecing together different parts of the staff report, it sounded as if a hypothetical applicant could grade a driveway and create a flat building site on critical slopes and call that activity “forestry,” then submit a residential building permit application shortly thereafter, and the critical slopes ordinance would not apply if there would be no further impacts to critical slopes. He said if that is the case, it is a very troubling loophole, and one that the County needs to address. Mr. Butler said that wherever the Commission ended up on the waiver that evening (adding that SELC was not necessarily opposing it, but was bringing up the point about the additional E&S measures and the broader point), SELC urges the Commission to include, as part of their recommendation to the Board, a clear request that the County address this loophole in the critical slopes protections as soon as possible. Mr. Neil Williamson (Free Enterprise Forum) said that one of the challenges of being in this job for so long was that he and Mr. Fritz were in a meeting in 2007, and none of the current Commissioners were there. He said in that meeting, they discussed property rights as it applied with critical slopes and divisions. He said in that meeting, it was made very clear by staff member Joan McDowell at the time that no one was talking about moving somebody’s house or eliminating their house from being built. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES November 19, 2019 8 Mr. Williamson said FEF doesn’t take positions on projects and could not take a position on that project, but that he would refer the Commission to those minutes to suggest the idea of a parcel that exists, and then the government coming in and changing the requirements for a parcel to exist. He said there are still property rights resident on said parcel. Mr. Williamson said the FEF believes that precedent is the concern that the Board was speaking of in their meeting. He said the Board also didn’t particularly like what Mr. Butler mentioned with regard to State law and right to farm and forest, allowing a logging road to go in to do that activity, and then the road being converted. He suggested that perhaps the General Assembly was the place for that discussion rather than the Board of Supervisors. He said that at this juncture, he would argue that when unique properties come forward, it was made clear to him and Mr. Fritz in 2007 that there would not be this level of intense review. He said that, in fact , it was discussed that it would be a staff recommendation and would be on the consent agenda for the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Williamson acknowledged that things change, but noted that property rights remain and that he hoped the Commission would consider that in its conversation. Mr. Keller asked the applicant and his advisor to come forward again for questions from the Commission. Mr. Dotson said he’d asked before about the extent of the timbering and what percentage it was (30%, 50%, or 70% of the site). He asked to what degree the timbering was concentrated around the winding roadway. Mr. Marshall replied that it would be difficult to put a percentage amount on it. He said that the timbering occurred in other areas, and that he had provided Ms. Kanellopoulos with some roads where they had gone in and out. He said they were not only in that area, explaining that the property lies between three mountain ranges, and the timbering occurred on the other mountain ranges as well. He said the area in question just happened to be the area that was cleared the most because when they initially spoke on the matter, this was where the secondary proposed drain field was. He said this was why the timbering took place in a more drastic matter on this particular part of the parcel. Mr. Dotson asked if this was a conventional drain field, or an alternative on-site system. The applicant indicated that it was conventional. Mr. Dotson asked if the statement by the soil scientist where it was said that there were no other areas on the site suitable for a drain field was geared to, given the house would be on the proposed site, there were none near it or on the entire site. Mr. Dobson replied that they started from the existing drain field sites that were on the origin al plat, then worked their way around trying to find other drain field septic sites. He said that in their opinion, there was no way that they could put a septic system there not only because of the moisture, but also because the stormwater runoff would put the stormwater to run directly over top the proposed septic tank over the septic field. He said the risk of those solids and debris to get into the stream system was not a consideration they thought could be recommended. Mr. Dotson asked if the discussion never went to a mound system on the lower site to deal with the sponginess of the ground. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES November 19, 2019 9 Mr. Dobson said they explored doing alternative systems, but that it was not just matter of the wetness of the soil, but the stormwater runoff as well. He said the wetness of the soil, from a perc test, definitely came into play, but that they also considered the fact that having the stormwater runoff to go over top the septic tank and distribution box was something that would cause problems and make the system fail. Mr. Dotson said he couldn’t tell from the presented photographs, in terms of visibility from Route 20, if the building site was visible from Route 20. Mr. Dobson replied that it was not, and that it was not visible until arriving at the property. Ms. More recalled that the applicant had explained where the timbering took place and that she thought she had heard him say that the timbering took place more on the area in question because it was identified as a drain field, in addition to other areas. Mr. Dobson explained that Mr. Marshall had said this because the original plat had a proposed drain field location that would have been in the WPO buffer zones. He said more clearing was done in the area because it was already a designated site, and that this was done because when the applicant was looking to purchase the land, he came to the County looking for information to make sure he could build a home before he purchased it, and that this information was given to him at that time. Ms. More asked if this was on the original site. Mr. Dobson replied yes. Ms. More said she perhaps misunderstood what Mr. Marshall was saying. Mr. Dobson said it was not the new proposed drain field location. Ms. More asked if the applicant could speak to the question that Mr. Butler had about how much more land disturbance would be expected, as well as the protections that are already in place or what could go in place in addition to those. Mr. Dobson said he had the erosion controls already designed and engineered to meet all the requirements and, in most cases, exceed what would be minimal. He said as far as more disturbance, there would be some minimum disturbance that is already disturbed around the home site when they do final grading and backfilling around a possible foundation. He said they were not doing any more excavation, clearing, or the like around the area where the homesite would have been. Ms. Riley said she understood that Mr. Marshall was not the original owner on the parcel. Mr. Marshall affirmed he was not. Ms. Riley asked when he purchased the parcel. Mr. Marshall replied he purchased the parcel in June of 2015. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES November 19, 2019 10 Ms. Riley said it sounded as if Mr. Marshall’s intent, when he purchased the parcel, was always to build a home on it. Mr. Marshall replied yes. Ms. Riley said it also sounded as if Mr. Marshall went to the County to make sure that there was at least a by-right ability. Mr. Marshall replied yes. He said that when he and his father were in talks, Greg Baldwin and Susan Davis were the executors of the property to sell. He said he came to the County and spoke to a gentleman in zoning with the intent to get two division rights. He said because of the topography and the way the land is laid out, the zoning official would not allow it, but he did say that there would be one building site on the property. Mr. Marshall said that following the purchase of the property, he had Steve Gooch come out as an independent geologist and do a soil test. He indicated on a map to what was the secondary drainage site, and explained that an area on the bottom of the map was the primary drainage site. Ms. Riley asked if when Mr. Marshall purchased the parcel, it was also his intent at that point to harvest timber. Mr. Marshall said it was not originally his intent. Ms. Riley asked Mr. Marshall what led him to decide to do that. Mr. Marshall replied that he spoke to a timber consultant and had the property surveyed for this in order to receive a monetary figure. He said after this came back, they moved forward with select timbering. He said it was never their intent to clear cut the land. He said Augusta Lumber came in to remove the biggest trees from the property and that this was closed in early 2018. Ms. Riley asked Mr. Marshall if when he determined he wanted to harvest the lumber, the location where he decided to harvest related to his determination of where he wanted to site the home. Mr. Marshall replied no. He said after they signed the contract with August Lumber, they had no control over what timber they took out and what they did not. He said they provided them with a contract, and they were hands-off after that point in time. He said August Lumber performed their work as far as the parameters that they set forth in the contract. Ms. Riley asked Mr. Marshall if he could respond to Mr. Butler’s suggestion asking if there were additional measures or erosion controls, he would intend to put in place in conjunction with, or after, building the home to protect the quality of the water. Mr. Marshall replied that he was a landscape contractor by trade, and that putting in the erosion matting stabilized the hills. He said there was good grass growth coming in on all the hillsides that were disturbed along the road. He said he didn’t see any additional erosion control measures needing to happen until evidence provides otherwise. He pointed out that the disturbance to the septic field and the house site is no longer in critical slope. Mr. Bivins asked if any of the work in the erosion and sediment control plan that was submitted had been done. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES November 19, 2019 11 Mr. Dobson replied yes. He said it was all complete and that they were now doing their soil monitoring and performing checks on it. Mr. Bivins referred to Attachment D, on the third page, that talked about sediment traps. He asked if they were temporary or if there were plans to leave them. Mr. Dobson replied that they plan on leaving them in place and then planting trees and other vegetation around them to shield them from view and to provide more erosion control to provide stabilization. Mr. Bivins said he was looking for confirmation that everything in the erosion and sediment control plan had been cleared with the County and that it was also in place. He asked if those things that were marked “temporary” were not going to be removed. Mr. Dobson replied that this was correct, noting that there was no desire to remove them. Mr. Bivins said there was also a driveway conceptual plan, adding that he drove there recently. He said he was trying to understand what is going to change from the gravel pathway currently there that the concept plan will impact. Mr. Dobson replied that nothing would change. He said when they did the silt traps and sediment control, they took all that to minimize and not do the work twice. He said the driveway is as the plan shows. Mr. Bivins referred to Attachment C, which said “Digital copy of survey provided by Kirk Hughes and Associates. One-inch equals 300 feet.” He asked if the applicants could describe the notations on the bottom of the page and what they meant, as he could not find it in the notes. Mr. Dobson indicated to the proposed primary and reserved septic. He also indicated to where the residence was proposed. Mr. Bivins referred to a smaller block that said “proposed 3C dwell area” and asked if this was the residence. Mr. Dobson replied no and explained that it was the well, which is a type 3C well. Mr. Bivins indicated to an area on the map and asked if it was the residence, and if another block was the septic system. Mr. Dobson replied he was correct. Mr. Keller asked if the road alignment was more or less the road alignment that was put in by the timbering company. Mr. Dobson replied no, explaining that it was modified to match the erosion and sediment plan to prevent any more potential erosion. He said the road was not cut in exactly like in the plan and that it had to be modified to make sure they properly put in sediment traps and diversion ditches to ensure all the water runoff went into sediment traps. Mr. Keller asked if Mr. Dobson worked with staff on what the alignment of the road would be. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES November 19, 2019 12 Mr. Dobson replied yes. He said before doing this, he received preliminary approval from the County to stabilize the site. Mr. Keller brought the meeting back to discussion and action. Ms. Spain said she appreciated Mr. Williamson’s institutional memory and that this was worth a lot, because many of the current Commissioners were not at those meetings. She said she also agreed that part of the difficulty was because the regulations have changed since the parcel was first established. She cautioned about having the assumption that this would set a precedent because it seemed as if it was a highly unusual situation. She said those factors combined seemed that they worked in favor of the applicant. Mr. Keller said he had several questions for staff. He said he wasn’t sure that he agreed that there were not many properties like this. He said that in the southwest mountains and towards the western side of the County, there were many parcels that are on very complicated sites such as this. He said his questions were building on Ms. Riley’s questions about the history of what was agreed to and the fact that staff had already given the go-ahead on certain portions of the project. Mr. Keller asked whether or not there were Rural Area lots that have development rights on paper but, in reality, have so many physical constraints that it would be difficult, at best, to build on. Mr. Fritz said that to say that it’s difficult to build would be an accurate statement, but that the County’s ordinance is specifically designed not to make lots unbuildable. He said it was an important distinction to note between lots that may exist in the southwest mountains that have existed for a number of years. Mr. Fritz said the critical slopes provisions, as noted by Ms. Kanellopoulos, only apply in two cases: when applying for a building permit, or when there is an approved site plan. He noted that even when applying for a building permit, there are times when the applicant is exempt from the critical slopes provisions. He said if there is a lot that existed prior to the adoption of the critical slopes provisions and does not have a building site, it is exempt from the critical slopes provisions for the construction of the first dwelling. He explained this was a safety clause in the ordinance to prevent a regulatory taking. Mr. Fritz acknowledged it would be difficult to build on a site like this as there still has to be design for an appropriate drain field, and information still has to be provided that there is no alternative. He said, however, that it is buildable. Mr. Keller said that building on this, in Rural Areas, once the residence has been built, there are many options if this is considered an agricultural land. He asked in terms of secondary buildings, barns, machine sheds, a second residence (even if this second residence doesn’t have a kitchen), if these were possibilities. Mr. Fritz replied that if those structures are accessory to the residential activity, then they get building permits and are subject to the critical slopes provisions. He said if those structures are agricultural, they were not and will never be subject to the critical slopes provisions because they are agricultural and, therefore, exempt from the critical slopes provisions. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES November 19, 2019 13 Mr. Fritz said it depends on what the application is. He said if the applicant was building a detached garage, for example, it would be subject to the building permit. He said if they were building a barn, it would not be subject to the critical slopes provisions. He said this was the way the ordinance works and has worked since its adoption. Mr. Keller expressed that he understood. Mr. Fritz said in terms of Mr. Butler’s point about grading a site and not being subject to critical slopes provisions as there was no building permit, it was true that those slopes may be less than 25% but that it was highly unlikely they would be buildable because there would have to be 30,000 square feet less than 25% and because getting a drain field in that area would be unlikely because drain fields cannot be put in disturbed areas. He said doing the grading would essentially make the site not buildable. He said this was not necessarily true in all cases, and this may be a provision the County wants to look at in the future, but it was highly unlikely, and staff had not actually seen that occur. Mr. Fritz said a number of critical slopes waivers that staff has had that are similar are very limited, and that he could only think of two that were even close to this project, adding that they were not the same. Ms. Riley asked Mr. Fritz to go over this again. She said what she heard Mr. Fritz saying was that although the comment was made that perhaps the Planning Commission should make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to close the loophole on the critical slopes regulation, she would like Mr. Fritz to answer her question as to whether he believes there is a loophole. She added that she had just heard him say that there were already many challenges to building in those areas. Mr. Fritz said that technically, there may be a loophole, but the likelihood that it can actually be utilized was extremely rare, in his opinion. He said that in order to be a building site, 30,000 square feet would have to be created, which is less than 25%. He said if there is terraforming and the soil is being moved around to do this, they will be cutting in some places and filling in others. He said those areas can no longer be used for a drain field and, therefore, there is no building site. Mr. Bivins asked if they could look at Attachment B. Mr. Fritz pointed out that in this particular case, when asked about where the house and critical soils are located, the house and drain field scenarios that are less than 25% naturally are being placed based on the topographic information that they have. He said that topographic information predates any of the timbering operations. He said when staff went to the site, it looked like it was less than 25% and was timbered, not terraformed. Mr. Bivins asked if when this was divided, the WPO buffers did not exist. Mr. Fritz confirmed that the blue areas on the map did not exist. Mr. Bivins said that at that particular point in time, someone could come in if, in fact, the soil was appropriate, and they could have placed a house somewhere within the “V.” ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES November 19, 2019 14 Mr. Fritz replied yes. Mr. Bivins said that what happened was the WPO has come up and the County has designated the blue zone to be off limits. Mr. Fritz replied yes and added that it does not have the same exemptions that the critical slopes provisions have. He said the critical slopes provisions say that if there is a parcel that existed prior to the adopted of the regulations and the slopes have to be disturbed to build, it is exempt. He said the WPO does not have the same exemption about a prior-existing parcel. Mr. Fritz said that certain intrusions could be done there, but that it didn’t have exactly the same language. He said this was why there was a relief valve in what they are doing now. Mr. Dotson asked if along the same lines about whether there is a precedent or a loophole, it would be feasible to do a GIS-level assessment of whether there are those types of parcels. He said in looking at the critical slopes layer, they could overlay the WPO layer and then look for areas that remain (noting that in the graphic presented, they would be white areas) to see how often this occurs. He asked if this would be useful before going to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Fritz replied that staff could not do it because they do not have a way of also adding a layer that determines if the parcel existed prior to the adoption of the ordinance. He said that those parcels could not be kicked out. Ms. Spain said she realized she missed a basic question. She asked if the logging was by right. Mr. Fritz replied yes. Ms. Spain said that once the road was constructed, there was no consideration given to whether the road is on critical slopes. She asked if this was not by right. Mr. Fritz replied that the road was constructed and is there. He said if the road were being constructed as part of supporting the building permit, then it would be subject to the critical slopes provision. He said that because it already exists and no additional earth work is occurring to create the road, it is not subject. He said the fact that it is there on critical slopes is permitted by the ordinance. Ms. Spain asked why it was okay for the logging operation to disturb critical slopes. Mr. Fritz said this was because it was not subject to a building permit or a site plan. He said the critical slopes provisions only come into play when there is building permit or a site plan. Mr. Keller said that to build on that, the Commission heard from the applicant that the road was modified from the original logging road based on staff saying that they could go ahead. He asked how this happened. Mr. Fritz said he did not know the particulars of this and noted that there was no prohibition on doing this because it is not subject to a building permit or site plan. Ms. More asked if the road was built for logging purposes as it was, and the County was not going down this path, what stabilization or erosion and sediment control measures, if any, would have been required. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES November 19, 2019 15 Mr. Fritz asked if Ms. More was referring to forestry. Ms. More said yes. Mr. Fritz replied there would be few, if any. He said there were some that were around the streams and that there were very few erosion control measures that are part of a forestry operation. He said what the applicant has put in far exceeds what is required for a forestry operation, pointing out that an additional erosion and sediment control plan or agreement, depending on the details, will be required when the building permit is issued to address any of the activities directly associated with the building permit, the installation of the drain field well, and the like. He said there would be an erosion sediment control plan or agreement associated with that. Mr. Keller said that, in summary, to understand this issue of development and harkening back to what the County’s two NGOs shared with the Commission before, he wanted to know if he was correct in understanding that if there is a parcel that has significant WPO buffers and/or significant critical slopes, and an individual wants to put an agricultural or forestry use on that parcel, in conjunction with a residence that’s associated with it, there are very little controls offered to preclude the agricultural/forestry changes (e.g. roads and buildings going in, planting grapevines or orchards) on steep slopes. Mr. Keller continued by asking for verification that following those activities, once the disturbance has occurred, if there is a place that would meet the after-the-fact requirements the County has for a residence (e.g. a drain field on undisturbed land), the County could look to many of the parcels they think of not having some degree of development on them now as having development in the future. He said that to be fair, historically they might have because from aerial photographs, they can tell there are many more orchards that existed historically than there are today that have gone into pine forests. Mr. Fritz replied that he wasn’t sure he fully understood Mr. Keller’s question, as he talked about both agricultural operations and residential. Mr. Keller said he mentioned this to lead into the residential. Mr. Fritz explained that if an individual is doing agricultural or forestry and installs roads or clearings involving earth-disturbing activities, those are exempt from the critical slopes regulations. He said if an individual has a lot that post-dates the ordinance (e.g. a subdivision was created with a building site and still does) and exempt activity goes in and gives them access to a new area that is, for example, 20,000 square feet and the individual wanted to build in that area, staff’s default position, in all likelihood, would be to recommend denial and say, “No, we understand you did the disturbance. Build in the approved building site area, unless you can demonstrate that it is so much better to build in the new area.” Mr. Fritz acknowledged that at times, it breaks down to the question of what is the “least bad” area. He said staff was supportive of the project because the County needs to provide reasonable use of land, and it appeared to be the least impactful area. He said if the applicant was getting to an area that was less than a building site and that they could otherwise get to, however, staff would not support the application. Mr. Keller asked staff if they had received the information that the Board of Supervisors had hoped to gain from the Commission’s discussion and if not, if they could suggest what the Commission might add either as comment or with Counsel’s recommendation of how they might word this. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES November 19, 2019 16 Ms. Kanellopoulos said she believed everything had been covered. Mr. Andy Herrick (County Attorney) said he believed the Commission’s action on the vote, along with the minutes, will duly inform the Board of what they need to know. Mr. Bivins said it was compelling to him that the slopes at the top of the property did not exceed 25%, and that this therefore exempts them from the steep slope provisions, and that the applicant has been working with the County to mitigate any issues that may have arisen from the logging operation. He said that therefore, hopefully in continuing deep connection with the County staff (unlike a different property south of town where there was a house), on this particular property there isn’t a house and there has been an intimate dialogue with the County. Mr. Dotson, before voting yes, said he was still concerned about the loophole. Mr. Keller echoed Mr. Dotson’s comment, as well as Ms. Riley. Ms. Spain moved to recommend approval of the Special Exception request for disturbance of critical slopes and modification of building site for V201901427-SF with conditions as stated in the staff report. Mr. Bivins seconded the motion, which carried unanimously 6:0. (Ms. Firehock was absent from the vote.) Adjournment At 9:31 p.m., the Commission adjourned to December 3, 2019 Albemarle County Planning Commission meeting, 6:00 p.m., Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. David Benish, Interim Director of Planning (Recorded and transcribed by Carolyn S. Shaffer, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards) Approved by Planning Commission Date: Initials: CSS COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 December 4, 2019 Tommy Dobson PO Box 7181 Charlottesville VA 22906 RE: VAT201900001 Special Exception for disturbance of critical slopes per 18-4.2-on-TMP-63-19E Dear Mr. Dobson, The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 19, 2019, by a vote of 6:0 Recommended approval of the request for disturbance of critical slopes and modification of building site for B2019-01427-SF, with conditions as stated in the staff report. Please note that this recommendation is based on the following conditions: 1. The area of land disturbance on critical slopes must be in general accord with the application plan, as shown on the plan entitled "Erosion and Sediment Control Plan TMP 06300-00-00-019E0", prepared by G.V. "Kirk" Hughes of Kirk Hughes and Associates, and dated May 24, 2019, last revised on October 31, 2019. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 296-5832. Sincerely, Ton Kanellopoulos Planner Planning Division Cc. Lawrence C Marshall Jr 3222 Garland Ln Charlottesville VA 22902