Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP200800032 Review Comments Special Use Permit 2008-12-16i'JRGINLP COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 972-4126 December 16, 2008 Central Virginia Recycling, Inc. Bobby Vess 2330 Commonwealth Drive Charlottesville, VA 22901 Terra Concepts Alan Franklin 224 Court Square Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SP 2008-32 Central Virginia Recycling Review Comments Dear Bobby and Alan, Fax (434) We have had an opportunity to review the November 17, 2008, re -submittal information and plans for the Central Virginia Recycling application. The comments on the most recent submittal from reviewers are shown in italics. Please review these comments as soon as possible. According to our schedule, by December 22 we will need to know if you intend to respond to the comments by providing the information requested or if you would like to proceed to the next available Planning Commission hearing. The Planning Commission hearing has not been scheduled but it would be no sooner than January 13. Please see the enclosed re -submittal schedule and policy/process information. 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. No additional information is requested. 2. How are pallets/materials that have been used for transporting or loading contaminated materials off-site identified? Explain how non -clean materials are SP200800032 Central Virginia Recycle December 16, 2008 Page 1 of 8 separated from clean materials, how non -clean materials are stored and where, what disposal methods and places are used. Please identify where the unclean materials will be taken, if they are not returned to their source. If they are returned to the sender, what assurances can be made that they won't be improperly disposed of between leaving the CVR site and the original site? 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? What identifies the pallets/products to show (visually) that they are not clean material? 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? Will any of the mulch be sold as biofuel? 5. What happens to bi-products that have been sifted from the clean materials? Where are they stored and how/where are they disposed? Where will they be going when they are "shipped off-site?" 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. Even though the noise levels exceeded the maximum allowed by ordinance in only one location, it would still violate the ordinance. If a waiver from the ordinance is to be requested, it should be made with the special use permit application. (Also see Engineering comment number 2) 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 greater.." assumption? The concern regarding vibration has not been addressed. 8. Glare (page 9) — Provide lighting plan or describe in detail lighting to be used. Any glare from lights onto neighboring properties would be undesirable. 9. Air Pollution (page 9 & 10) — Provide approval from DEQ. This would be required through condition, if SP is approved. SP200800032 Central Virginia Recycle December 16, 2008 Page 2 of 8 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. Comment made to clarify that the permit was issued by default. 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? 14. Hazardous/chemical storage (page 12) — This does not address non -clean materials transported to site. See response in number 3. 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. The additional material is helpful in furthering the review of this application. This application would be required to comply with the findings for approval contained in Section 31.2.4.1 and provisions contained in the zoning ordinance. We continue to be concerned that in order for the wood chipping/recycling to operate, it would not be possible to comply with zoning regulations. 16. DEQ air and water regulations, as applicable, will apply. Provided for information only, at this time. SP200800032 Central Virginia Recycle December 16, 2008 Page 3 of 8 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. All comments have been responded to and those that they suggest could be addressed at the site plan stage are acceptable. However, this is a Special Use Permit and the PC & BOS may require more assurances that such things as parking, noise, lights and tree protection will be addressed properly. Earlier comments regarding the noise testing and the reading in excess of 60dB are still valid. This will be a significant concern in the review and operation, as it is something that may be a constant irritation to neighbors, likely prompting numerous calls for possible violations. The final decision may hedge on whether any noise of a more constant nature is compatible with the RA district. 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 justified water usage figures 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 SP200800032 Central Virginia Recycle December 16, 2008 Page 4 of 8 (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. In the Site Overview section of the Tier III Groundwater Assessment, the applicant makes an estimate "based on water usage by other similar operations". A table of the water usage of similar operations and a description of any difference in scale between those operations and the operation described in this application would allow us to derive a justified estimate of the water usage that will be required to run this operation. The well the applicant will use is high yielding. But, without a justified estimate of the operation's water use, I can not evaluate the effect of that use on the local groundwater supply. 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. The applicant for Central Virginia Recycling provided traffic data to me for the proposed site in May of 2008. The traffic projections included the following: • 50 Dump trucks per day • 10 tractor trailers per day • 10 employees per day. This makes 140 trips per day and along with the existing traffic on route 250 I determined a right turn/deceleration lane was warranted but they were under the threshold for the left turn lane. After you and I discussed this traffic projection, I understand that there is a retail component to the site that does not appear to be included in the traffic projections that were provided to me in April. I will need the trips associated with the customers in order to properly re-evaluate the needs at this intersection. Engineering Date: 15 July 2008 Rev. 1: 6 Oct 2008 Rev.2: 2 Dec 2008 1. Please show all streams on the property. Intermittent streams require buffers. The letter from 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. Rev. 1: This is still not clear on the plans. The Certified Engineer's Report indicates two primary 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. Rev.2: This appears to have been addressed. SP200800032 Central Virginia Recycle December 16, 2008 Page 5 of 8 2. 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. 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. (In addition, the following concerns relayed by the neighbors were sent by email on 30 Oct.;) Odor has been mentioned as a concern. The certified engineer's report says there will be none. Most mulching operations, or aging processes, apparently have odor. Vehicle storage, and borrow or waste areas on the remaining property, may be raised as issues. Rev.2: It is not clear whether the intended use can meet the maximum noise limits allowed by the zoning ordinance. With regard to noise and the other performance standards (vibration, lighting, air pollution, etc.) the primary response to the likelihood of expected concerns are promises to adhere to operational limits (not putting equipment in certain locations, not operating at night, turning off equipment not in use, watering down dusty areas, limit the traffic to the facility, etc.). Physical measures (screening and walls, barriers, distance, reduced site area, etc.) are preferable, and far more reassuring, not just to meet ordinance requirements, but to address neighbor's concerns, which may be to lower thresholds than allowed by ordinance. Operational measures are far less likely to work, and rely solely upon the vigilance of neighbors and their willingness to persistently police the operation. 3. 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. Rev. 1: This has been provided and is safisfaetery. (This comment was amended by email on 30 Oct, as given below) The gist of the complication with the traffic information is in how it relates to the operational area shown on the plans. For example, given your trucking information, I have computed an area needed of a little over an acre. This is attached, with the program to run the math in the text file if you want to change things, or if I have made a mistake. This area is approximated on your plan below; SP200800032 Central Virginia Recycle December 16, 2008 Page 6 of 8 trips: retail or pickup = 5 sa_truck = 50 trailers = 5 employees = 10 expected export in cy daily -Vol = (pickup*2)+(sa_truck*6)+(trailers*20) daily_Vol = _410.00 cy area of storage required pile—ht = 12 ft pile_a = 20 degree at base of triangular pile hyp = pile _ht/sin(pile_a) hyp = 35.09 ft pile _base = 2*hyp*cos(pile_a) pile—base = _65.94 ft cx_area = pile_base*pile_ht*0.5 cx_area = _395.64 sf length = daily_Vol*27/cx_area length = 27.98 ft storage—area = length*pile base storage_area = _1845.00 sf area of storage with 20 days supply + 50% area for operations area = 20*storage_area* 1.5 area= _55350.00 sf ., Af) C _ 721Z Z A o o;A- f— It appears there is a lot more area for operations than the traffic study would suggest. The traffic assumptions need to be related to the site plan and operations directly in some manner. Some related details; your plan table says there are 15+ acres of pavement and 8+ of gravel, which looks off using the graphic above. ITE Code 140 has been suggested for use, but I have not compared that directly. It has also been mentioned that single -axle trucks are a rarity, and double axle are mostly used. In any case, in the absence of actual measured data at similar facilities, the assumed traffic will be open to this sort of conjecture. Rev.2: The applicant has responded that my estimates are in error and all the extra site area is needed for operations; i.e. aging and coloring. As I have shown above, I estimated 20 days supply and increase the area by 50% for operations. These seems conservative to me. Without a more specific address of this issue, I must conclude that traffic, and more specifically trucking, has been underestimated. 4. The parking and travelways on the plan do not appear to meet the requirements of 18-4.12.15.. Rev. 1: This has been revised, and can be addressed in detail on the site plan. Rev.2: no change to comment. Current Development: I have reviewed the above reference application and offer the following comments: 1. This use will require a site plan. It is unclear if they are seeking a site plan waiver. If a site plan waiver is to be requested it should be processed with this special use permit. 2. I have done no review of the potential subdivision. Any request to divide will be reviewed under the ordinance in effect at the time of the proposed division. 3. Screening (adjacent to TMP 94-21K) appears to be proposed. No species types have been shown. However, it appears that with appropriate species selection adequate area exists to meet the minimum screening requirements of the ordinance (reference 32.7.9.8(a)) 4. No fuel storage or equipment repair area is shown on the plan. 5. Surface area and design standards for parking and access cannot be determined at this level of detail. If the applicant does not propose to meet the requirements of Section 4.12.15 and 4.12.19 they should submit the modification request for consideration during the Special Use Permit review process. Modifications are reviewed as described in 4.12.2(c). Please call me at 296-5823 extension 3249, if you have any questions. Again, we will need to know if this applicant should be scheduled for a future Planning Commission hearing or if the requested additional information is to be submitted for review. If the latter option is preferred, please use the enclosed re -submittal schedule. We will need to know your decision no later than December 22. SP200800032 Central Virginia Recycle December 16, 2008 Page 7 of 8 Sincerely, Joan McDowell Principal Planner Rural Areas SP200800032 Central Virginia Recycle December 16, 2008 Page 8 of 8