The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSP200800032 Review Comments Special Use Permit 2008-10-291'JRGINLP COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 972-4126 October 27, 2008 Central Virginia Recycling, Inc. c/o Ken Vess 2330 Commonwealth Drive Charlottesville, VA 22901 Terra Concepts c/o Steve Edwards 224 Court Square Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Ken and Steve, Fax (434) We have had an opportunity to review the re -submittal information and plans for the Central Virginia Recycling application. The comments from reviewers are attached. Please review these comments as soon as possible. By November 3, you will need to let me know if this application should remain on the December 3, 2008, Planning Commission agenda. Planning: 1. Hours/days of operation could have multiple pieces of machinery running 56 hrs. per week that could disturb neighbors. See Zoning Comments and #6 below. 2. How are pallets/materials that have been used for transporting or loading contaminated materials off-site identified? Explain how non -clean materials are separated from clean materials, how non -clean materials are stored and where, what disposal methods and places are used. SP200800032 Central Virginia Recycle Page 1 of 5 3. How are non -clean materials identified? Are pallets/wood products that have been used for transporting or loading contaminated materials marked to identify them? 4. What happens to biofuel when it has aged?. Are there any other steps in the process? How is it transported off site? How long is the aging process? 5. What happens to bi-products that have been sifted from the clean materials? Where are they stored and how/where are they disposed? 6. Noise (page 8) — Noise locations were not in appendix. Noise from this project is not exempted by ordinance Section 4.18.05. County noise tests confirmed that the noise exceeds maximum levels. These tests were performed with one piece of equipment and when trees were in full leaf. Noise levels for adjacent neighbors would be intensified with full operation of multiple equipment and no leaves on trees. 7. Vibration (page 9) — Diagram next to vibration section appears to refer to noise and has no explanation. Other than the 100' distance from property lines, are there any facts to confirm that "there is no plausible reason to expect continuous stimulation in the order of 100 cycles per minute or grater.." assumption? 8. Glare (page 9) — Provide lighting plan or describe in detail lighting to be used. 9. Air Pollution (page 9 & 10) — Provide approval from DEQ. 10. Watercourse (page 10 & 11) — Nationwide Number 18 Permit was granted by default since the Army Corps of Engineers failed to review the permit within the prescribed 45 day period. 11. Visual Impact (page 11) — This would not be visible from Entrance Corridor. It has not been determined if it is visible from adjacent properties in winter and early spring. The plan should clearly identify where trees are to be permanently undisturbed and protected from future operation intrusion and what landscaping is proposed by the applicant to mitigate visual impacts. 12. Odor (page 11) — New mulch has a strong odor. How was it determined that this product would not have a noticeable odor? How will odor be controlled when piles are being turned? 13. Dust (page 12) — Site visit to Waltrip in Williamsburg revealed that the impact most disturbing to nearby residents is dust, especially on humid days. How was it determined that dust would occur on dry days? How will dust be controlled when piles are being turned? SP200800032 Central Virginia Recycle Page 2 of 5 14. Hazardous/chemical storage (page 12) — This does not address non -clean materials transported to site. 15. Conclusion (page 13) — Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that Special use permit applications may be issued "upon a finding by the board of supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, with the uses permitted by right in the district, with additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance, and with the public health, safety and general welfare." Although this application concludes that the standards in zoning ordinance would be met, our concerns that we discussed in meetings regarding the negative impacts anticipated with this proposal have not been addressed with this re -submittal. The standards in the zoning ordinance should be considered minimum regulations that should be exceeded in order to address potential impacts of this application. 16. DEQ air and water regulations, as applicable, will apply. Zoning Division: A determination was made that this use fits within the broad definition of Sawmill and Wood yard. This was not appealed within 30 days of the determination, therefore it is a thing decided. 1. The Audio Testing sheet of the plan set shows a test sound level of "69 dB average" on the northwest property line. This is in excess of the limit of 60dB allowed in the Albemarle County Code, Section 4.18. This will need to be mitigated and re -tested or a waiver of the sound level will need to be requested from the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 4.18.07. The Albemarle County staff reading at the same location also exceeded the sound level of 60 dB allowed in the ordinance, using calibrated measuring devices. The applicant's Certified Engineer's Report states the zoning ordinance exemption for emergency and construction activities. While this would be true of warning devices on vehicles (back-up beepers) and construction activity during the actual construction of the Center, it DOES NOT exempt the proposed use from the noise ordinance. 2. There will need to be a parking study/analysis to determine if the parking for employees and visitors/customers will be adequate. 3. Tree protection areas should be clearly marked in the field to insure that these are not disturbed by any grading or tree removal. A tree protection plan will be required prior to any development activity. SP200800032 Central Virginia Recycle Page 3 of 5 Water Resources Without a quantitative analysis of the projected water use for the facility, it is impossible to validate the 1000 gallons per day figure proposed in the Groundwater Assessment. Without a justified water usage figure it is impossible to assess the adequacy of the well and the effect of the withdrawal on the yields of neighboring wells. Since mulch is not a waste product, the organic compounds transported by water in solution or as a particle does not fit the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)'s definition of 'leachate'. The concept plan addresses the run off with retention ponds and buffers. The sizing of these can be addressed at the site plan stage. Since the facility is not determined to produce leachate, DEQ will not require a permit. VDOT 1. The applicant has provided what VDOT requested at previous meetings which is a relocation of route 794 to line up more perpendicular to Route 250 and a right turn lane from Route 250. 2. Road plans will need to be developed for this intersection improvement. Engineering 1. Please show all streams on the property. Intermittent streams require buffers. The letter from 2. Environmental Control Opportunities, LLC mentions many unmapped intermittent streams, but none are shown on the plan. It appears there may be one through the middle of the project area. 3. Rev. 1: This is still not clear on the plans. The Certified Engineer's Report indicates two primary 4. intermittent streams. Buffers appear on the plan for these, but the contour information is irregular, and there are no stream lines. The report also indicates two additional branches off the southern stream, which should have buffers. 5. A certified engineer's report should be provided with the SP. The report indicated sound testing, but results were not provided. Other performance standards for the operation, and for the garage/shop should be addressed. 6. Rev. 1: This has been received. One of the primary issues appears to be noise. The report indicates tests were performed, but the results were not found in the appendix as indicated, and there was no summary. 7. A traffic study should be provided, assessing the need for turn lanes on Rt. 250. The proximity to the fork with Rt. 794 also appears problematic. 8. Rev. 1: This has been provided and is satisfactory. 9. The parking and travelways on the plan do not appear to meet the requirements of 18-4.12.15. 10. Rev. 1: This has been revised, and can be addressed in detail on the site plan. SP200800032 Central Virginia Recycle Page 4 of 5 These comments may be amended as new information becomes available. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Joan McDowell Principal Planner Rural Areas SP200800032 Central Virginia Recycle Page 5 of 5