The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutWPO202200042 Correspondence 2023-03-03Alexander Flint From: John Anderson <janderson2@albemarle.org> Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2023 9:49 AM To: Jim Taggart, David James Cc: Emily Cox, chris.schooley@greenwoodhomes.com; Elizabeth Wassman; Alexander Flint Subject: WPO202200042 - tree removal only: RE: Belvedere Block 10 Timber Hi, Jim, I hope this helps Item 6.b. is of particular importance; the remainder is relatively straight -forward. For W 0202200042 Belvedere Phase 3 block 10 tree removal only plan approval [ possible roles for Alexander, Liz —thank you all. j 1. SWM quantity calculations: Pls. provide analysis similar to that provided with RGA Dunlora Village Phase 1 tree removal -only plan, WPO202100063, sheet 5 of plan —Alexander may lend support (image, below). Response: Analysis provided on sheet 5 of plan. 2. Provide SWPPP using county template similar to SWPPP provided for RGA Dunlora Village Phase 1 tree removal -only plan, approved 2/23/23 —Liz may be able to help with this. Response: SWPPP provided with this submission. 3. Sheet 5 VRRM.xls lists 26.08 Ac. post-dev land use; sheet 3, Note 15 lists 19.22 Ac. —these values should be identical. Response: VRRM and Note 17 (previously 15) on sheet 3 both now read 19.18 ac. This also matches on cover sheet. 4. Sheet 5: Provide brief narrative that explains mechanism /timing of recordation of forest -open space easement, whether it occurs with a phase 3 block 10 final subdivision plat, for example. Note: If Belvedere Long Holdings, LLC proposes to record FOS Easement with a final subdivision plat (i.e., subdivision not yet recorded), then Albemarle may accept FOS Area (Ac.) as offsetting phosphorus reduction requirement (future blk. 10 subdivision plat), ijthis tree removal -only plan includes an Exhibit of Areas to be dedicated as FOS Easement, with future final subdivision plat. Also, item 6.b. below. Response: We are no longer using the Forested/Open Space strategy for the tree -clearing plan. We now are purchasing nutrient credits. Nutrient credit approval letter is provided with this submission. 5. Sheet 3 a. Pls. revise `limits of clearing' label to `limits of tree clearing'. Response: Acknowledged and revised b. Delete label that reads: `Apply mulch, 50' wide ground cover upslope of all tree protection.' Response: Acknowledged and revised c. Provide prominent labels (consistent with WPO202300009 / Biscuit Run tree removal), on the plan: i. Wood chip mulch & temporary seeding shall be installed on all areas within limits of clearing. Response: Acknowledged and revised ii. Tree Clearing only! Mulch all areas within the limits of clearing. Response: Acknowledged and revised d. List Area of limits of clearing, with revised label at item 5.a. above — Acreage to match VRRM.xIs. Response: Acknowledged and revised e. Note 12: Delete word `state'. Response: Acknowledged and revised f. Note 2: Replace `recommends' with `requires'. Response: Acknowledged and revised g. New Note: Silt fence is not required as a preliminary perimeter ESC control measure, unless requested by County ESC inspector. Response: Note added as note 5 on sheet 3. h. New Note: Tree protection is required as a preliminary perimeter ESC control - land clearing delineation measure Response: Note added as note 6 on sheet 3. i. Revise limits of tree clearing to eliminate tree removal across ZMA conservation or ZMA preservation areas, else indicate magisterial or legislative source of permissible tree cutting across ZMA conservation or preservation areas. Ref. sheet 2. Response: SE2100044 has been provided as proof of clearing limits approval in email to County 3/2/23. j. Revise limits of tree clearing to eliminate tree removal across Albemarle County preserved steep slopes, else indicate magisterial or legislative source of permissible tree cutting across preserved steep slopes; default =impermissible. Response: SE2100044 has been provided as proof of clearing limits approval in email to County 3/2/23. k. Revisit VRRM.xIs and Note 15 as a final check, once limits of tree clearing revised to eliminate preserved steep slopes, or ZMA preservation or conservation areas. Response: SE2100044 has been provided as proof of clearing limits approval in email to County 3/2/23. 6. Sheet 1 a. Stormwater Management Compliance Narrative is somewhat confusing: i. Ref made to 2-phase construction, yet this is phase 3 block 10 plan; pls. clarify whether phase 3 is tree clearing, or a constructive phase of development, with improvements to be reviewed /approved later. Response: Now refers to "single phase". This has been revised to refer to the phasing of ESC (the "single phase" applies to clearing plan only, official VSMP will state 2 phases of ESC). "Phase 3" refers to the constructive area on TMP 62A3-00-00-OO1BO that consists of Block 10. ii. Ref in first paragraph to sheet flow appears to be a reference to effect of tree -clearing; please state this explicitly since this is a tree removal only plan. Response: Acknowledged and revised iii. 9VAC25-870-66.D. Requirements: 1. Provide sentence that references analysis provided on sheet 5 of plan (item I., above). Response: Acknowledged and revised 2. Revise third line to read `... that releases less flow than that of the pre -developed condition ... ' Response: Acknowledged and revised b. Plat at DB 5277 PG 305 is Titled `Plat Showing Vegetative Preservation Easements across TMP's 61- 160, 62-2A1, 62-2C, 62A3-1 & 62-2B.' This is not identical with platted Forest -Open Space Easement and does not include notes specifically required of SWM FOS Easement and does not appear to associate with deed of dedication of SWM easement. Please clarify, or famish nutrient credits sufficient to meet phosphorus reduction requirements for ? Ac. tree removal. It is unlikely we will be able to quickly apply vegetative preservation easement at DB 5277 PG 315 +, which is accompanied by Declaration of Restrictive Covenants. Trying to derive SWM utility or compliance based on this instrument and plat will take time. Also, it may simply not work. Why, for example, were vegetative easements established, was it for SWM? Clarification may help, but we do not have sufficient information at this point to accept that vegetative easements across these TMPs will be useful, in this instance. Response: We are no longer using the Forested/Open Space strategy for the tree -clearing plan. We now are purchasing nutrient credits. Nutrient credit approval letter is provided with this submission. c. Erosion and Sediment Control Narrative i. Paragraph 1: Eliminate reference to Silt Fence. Response: Acknowledged and revised ii. Paragraph 2: third line, insert word `surface' between `paved' and `of'. Response: Acknowledged and revised iii. Paragraph 3: At end of first sentence, add a comma, then `if requested and within 24-hr of request of County ESC Inspector.' Response: Acknowledged and revised. Thank you for taking the time to review these plans. We hope the revised plans adequately address your comments. If you have any questions or concerns, please email Alexander Flint at aflint@roudabush.com. roudabush.com. Very Respectfully, Alexander Flint, E.I.T., CFM