HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201200010 Review Comments Special Use Permit 2012-09-21�oF AIB
�® �d
�'IRGII3Le"
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4176
September 21, 2012
Ashley Cooper
304 7t' Street SW
Charlottesville, VA 22903
RE: SP201200010 Sieg Special Events
2nd Review Comment Letter on special use permit resubmittal received August 20, 2012.
Ms. Cooper:
Staff has reviewed your resubmittal for a Special Use Permit for Special Events (weddings, rehersal dinners,
and other celebrations) on a rural private property. While you previously requested to schedule your
Public Hearing with the Planning Commission for October 23rd staff offers the following comments for
your consideration. If you intent to continue with your October 23rd PC date advertising fees
mentioned below must be paid no later than September 28. If you decide to reschedule the meeting to
another PC date satff needs to be made aware of this change no later than October V. Review
comments are provided below:
Planning (Christopher P. Perez)
1) [Chapter 18 Section 32.4.1 (a) and 5.1.43a] Boundary Lines of the subject property. After reviewing the
recorded plat for the property it appears that the boundary lines as depicted on the concept plan are not-
accurate and should be revised to match the recorded plat for the property. The accuracy of this information
is crucial for the review of the proposal.
REV 1: It appears that the concept plan dated 8 -9 -12 has unessesarily altered the front property line
which fronts on Hammonds Gap Road? All other property lines on this plat appear to coincide with
the recorded plat for this property except the newly revised front property line. See the attached plat
to make necessary adjustments. Revise appropriately to assure the front property line is shown
correctly. (See attached plat).
2) [Chapter 18 Section 5.1.43 (d)(5)] Streets and Access. The sight distance concerns at the entrance of the
property on Rte 612, which were commented on by VDOT (see below) need to be addressed.
REV 1: At this point in the review I do not have VDOT's approval of sight distance at the entrance to
the property from Route 612. Per VDOT comments, they reviewed the site in the field and
determined that there is a sight distance obstruction. The plan needs to address how the
adequate commercial sight distance will be achieved to gain VDOT approval of the entrance
for commercial use. Any sight lines that fall outside of the existing easement or right of way
for the road will need sight easements. (see VDOT comments below)
In addition, I have also requested VDOT review the intersection of Rte 612 and Rte 20 to assure that the
traffic generated by the event will not cause unsafe conditions. Their assessment of this intersection is
pending and may prove to be crucial to the review of the proposal. Once they provide these comments I will
forward them to you.
REV 1: VDOT has continually expressed concerns of safety at the intersection of Rte 612 and Rte 20.
While crash data does not indicate there is an existing problem, VDOT does not recommend
putting any additional traffic on the intersection that they have reviewed and determined it
does not have adequate sight distance. The more traffic placed at the intersection the more
frequency of occurrence for a crash and a problem may be developed due to limited sight
distance. As previously stated, the intersection in question appears to be a safety concern for
the site, this issue alone is grounds for staff to recommend denial at the Planning Commission
(PC) meeting.
With regard to the proposal for buses to be used to bring guests to and from the site is an
effort to minimize traffic. Per previous discussions with the applicant these buses will pick up
and drop off guests from the various hotels that the various wedding guests are staying at.
Staff requests clarification that this is this still the proposal as pickup and dropp off locations
are not mentioned in the write up? The use of buses does not mitigate the sight distance issues
at the intersection mentioned above but they are an attempt to minimize traffic volumes at the
site during large events.
During previous discussions with the applicant it was proposed that traffic police or event
staff would guiding traffic at the intersection of Rt 612 and Rt 20, has this proposal been
omitted from consideration (as currently it is not in the written proposal)? Please clarify.
' rrr.w?t ir€ i7iffirTra L:ses ,r ?F ., s„�, Z. .i. d in s�...ctio:r Mw:„
rt z2t <,;,C. f`.:iC .t <ia. "si. tb Yi t,`'i ,'.. „ L t:;. ,. „ .,.,.,<sz (... a,:,...h..:us:r" f« els .Af .. Sr
ce,,.fitel < d
§revise ' . e the r �7,t � lh c t ... . y
i _,,, ..'. nor" i'riin re 1?ir IrC,,.,,°�,,.,
irking �ffes, w:eas , W "sa«, °..,,ae � R-M a,b� .It.rr par ` ,Is V
t> Bi14 i , {: , t,z£ '•,. �. e. •,• idscapi How L� i., ,i� i.� �
Ii -o rn f.,.,. r.r' e.._:.; nt pi y,pz" , w,s (TM F 6S 2 9 A2 Wirl£ ? . ;3 is the '' gD..,..:'r nR ik.-i,
the : ,,,pose pry k ngs '. - t. ., .. , ,, e .€ Zlo e c.,., s w U,T.I £ ..., �..,, ti
thus
:t.< :. ';v .. tl, € t t s , €'C< a. ', z x': 'S (liii , :., o ..Ili :_.'a'., ]
fit« «i f 28 .:,_ i'; 5A_4 , aS t k •w> 's'2c dC: L':k €'i th s..'. Cle par' lr: g a.s I:r::t osed on .':: rila
D, ti'. fzlral!:n> sra,_. IlIi.fa . 1t,1r, 'P least on.; . "., W,t..,,,,
z ..rr-r ei g, w aon h.,.. t ,arki n0. areal, (9 d-ire.c .V i' or , 1,...
barn, potenti.a.]v
9 -21 -12
-e se ?cif .. . .' I2 "dc t, L r adz t ... , u,..,.. , ffi i '"�%'tcc .. �':.not� ,,,: � °
y@ g q g Ai:
1.�JT�Lin''. }i. R: x".' i��r ?'' f„ski .�4'b. f �3' }6' *St b,c✓. 5ti�w fin+ ,. Y,�t L:. a✓ .`w.'�s'S t€,.al;1. .s"n.+'., s
f
8� Rv,. �',.1.E . wi< .w XC: qp " +„ Z.. £:'i ` ¢ �' �} ' �...
{ j'.v a fF `3z3' dam. Ticsl "? ,.Ing, area for � ie to a F," own ..., a ovation.
..<.. T ,.: are curr .x . , $.0 C1" Trees ? %Y f3 nla' one ,... lie r ,........ _ €,z dennicl * ..3 Alp 1 I'm f3
[C'La t-"'? , Seck,fio :.m `.,.j � -,nd `> S(Ue and AC;Ces s ?o C,;s& j w n2
qqyyqq s[ �5 j (��F y (S £ 'y
::We .' lit',..5 dfa. " "£dr R4�.` AE. 'C�3.ag1l Ldi: z e.,na.:ra.,' �.b.£i�, w,''a be 'n to i,. >a — Jesigna6ted r.in Y '.` .: a�� area and E &.��"w'., .:.. Ls.£. &�f z�w���5 do
, TM % ti£ ass"' create a sh,,;: icU-; 3 C ter ��Idextth main ;rk.ing � €ea
10) Events are planned to run until 1 1pm: what lighting (type, placement, brightness, etc.) is planned for the
site? Please provide this information on the plan.
REV 1: With the recent revision, the type of lighting and the brightness of the lighting has
been provided; however, the exact location of the lighting fixture (Portfolio Black Solar -
Powered LED Flood Lights) has not been specified on the plan nor in the write up? Staff
requests clarification as to the location of these Flood Lights. During various discussions with
the applicant it was previously mentioned that these lights may be mounted in the trees;
however, the revised proposal/concept plan does not speak to the location of these flood lights.
To reduce potential visibility of the lights staff recommends against them being placed in the
trees and would suggest they be placed on the ground. Please clarify the location of the flood
lights for consideration.
Also, will there be any lighting near the Porta- Johns? or near the primary or secondary
tents? If so, please provide the type of lighting to be used, their brightness to include lumen
levels, and the location of these lights.
.-sound > ?:. l'iQ , lt , €, t0 ha v-, $ € >°.ffi nif
site's In I' v to t.ni ., `1'L ne tlla t1 s ;P::e.;;i. Win
Y, € r ., )W £ i „. , <.. ?3, ,w ,. . ", 'noise <). „_ .:..1
9 S,: don . o? -, -n ,. , -18, 8, .a .,,.< 1 a , `'. i'nu . n. e''211 eM dE.,'TS... , u,
§'' t` i .,: {irk i.. ? 2t: 5 il...yt tb ix k rtS is t 2zS fa. :.. n
-nd (.,..:,, „ , .,,yy.. 3 .. :t�i',,L i,. ,...t. 1g € .,. ", . _r as �. ; na €i2£,? d .'s.- i(, . z . .'
^; fin t 'd I , ti 'n Apr t Fr 3e^° TF � gg � � '1 ' f� ""g ter' :b. ..
,.'�. ,. F"..4is 2.f� w 1'1 €.'f' £i �sC,.1 ... . 3'ls ca, ':°>i3 L w h., i� 1,.3. e i8 ....w «'. : 4 "°l „:;:'i.
Cei i3iz. °a1z3".:. ., . be. " 3'ste w...£ =�£ S i'�.;.z €..i :,...[..,. ..
,...Ion ,� ';,.z , d fk:.�s"��i !.N'C ..,.o; $ &v, ,.. (�'2�£, �. "`s �'',.a::� ��.} x.. zs,. : „� o. �II x�. _,,. ... E }S �:� .. '>�'
.a:.w. .. .£r .z -e...x \ }.0 a b% i:...i: ray xi i :? --fie—RE: "i F.:'� �. ci��$...�..�.,��':�.. _9 �,$�`. ....'. Sffi $,c���} ➢f:. ... :,ea „
.,� ".....w� (Zk0<e, ..k VA ii' §, �.,'a,;':.,Ul t ::.$ G. ..x..c� ,.Z aUd A �al�l..........,.ds �a '«� =4
S 'i " d-vit t ?, i,4
,era s l s �,� r s . v :'.�zr rY° r ,fj, Yp� {.ra y ,
.. the, i�r x ;:# .,f r'' "a' .a t ?I .SZC'a :..?.: t;'. , ..0 ? #'t, i . ., 4i t 1 �.,,3.5tt
-w ait he X, 'o vi
9 -21 -12
Below are additional comments which have been provided from the other Departments which
reviewed the proposal.
Zoning' (Francis McCall)
Please consider the following comments:
1. Revise the conceptual plan to more accurately represent the property lines, as per the recorded plat,
in relation to the existing improvements. (Driveway, house etc...) (See recorded plat) REV 1:
appears front property line has been unnesisarily revised and does not match the recorded plat for
the property.
;ii E €it a is $ x ,,. ,?.4.
'., 'YZ SC., a.d r'aah t'.? ear;t.
a,-Oa frrau,, to , w , a.EVI
Z.s:$ %Iw ,.,
z .,1:rx,,.
th" "ae, 't b t.,:
!'E ai.,) .??L, „;'M'C � �� ,;:v sty dl r ... t �: 1i, ;�,:i,� .,,: ,€ ,,..?`:...� <
„y f gg
6, �. 1 .€ „F�;'.���' "a: ,w�, a'�i:,i ..�,z�! ., F,.i..s..�1�..., � �.1 €:: �., ,. ,..w .�, .�$ <.: �. ,,Ue a...ai�a_'':.,, ..,..� €� f ciLd ,;; elit.<
-pi -t '!.
'7ail d, , -,awn ei..,.t „ „
lw S,; l) . ...x� ;....,,.. .,,. ,i�.., �.,. ¥ Dl °z
Engineering (Glenn Brooks, County Engineer)
1. A traffic study is recommended. REVI: Applicant response acknowledges the comment
but denounces it as not necessary.
Virginia Department of Transportation (Joel DeNunzio)
1. The existing residential private entrance for this site on Route 612 does not have adequate
sight distance for a commercial entrance. Clearing, side slope grading and possible road
grading with sight line easements may be needed to obtain adequate sight distance.
REV 1: The reply comments to VDOT's initial assessment of the sight distance at the
site entrance indicate that there is adequate sight distance. VDOT reviewed the site in
the field and determined that there is a sight distance obstruction. This plan needs to
address how the adequate commercial sight distance will be achieved to gain VDOT
approval of the entrance for commercial use. Any sight lines that fall outside of the
existing easement or right of way for the road will need sight easements.
The existing connection of Hammocks Gap Road to Route 20 does not have sight
distance to the current standards. Any additional traffic in or out of the intersection
will increase the potential conflicts and is a safety concern. There is nothing in the
sight distance standards that refers to nighttime operations having adequate sight
distance due to vehicle lights being acceptable for inadequate sight lines. This is an
existing condition but adding additional traffic may lead to a safety problem.
9 -21 -12
of
"!sd - 'tit ?C. must 41.','x. prepare dl b, � Iice t,se s.,c`�,. '...L... .,.' „a:ls, t;> �... ...: �:;� �.i,.i :'..a% ,r.,t.:�tcni a.t an-y' of . tQ:
.1, '� provide :,t abl Sri s'w ; ill W t.e rr''do €�5:�: i ¥.Y . w �
.reo o,,,'il., is s . , a d le s`$"'�licai`d': not p- roax��'.s. ., wces s to a � k. °. 3,,,..> , .s � . ` >_ � €�1I�..,a'��� ....., , 4.`.�.
t £ "%, hca ✓ :11 sz£D .s . '' s.., 4'a .� .. .r £s.::Sil '.r g gF °':s ;., ., ,., k tic , UM ...t.. '
F
4. -F he app.1licant v i assure 17 a, p2li- ^'JBIfZ d-10os ,ot encroach Upo,. sib €w y o h ;itw
w?.� pu,rtC ri ,J....P C'mruneVii` r &'.,..save.
Polic Department
1. The Police Department has expressed similar concerns as VDOT with regard to the safety concerns at the
intersection of Rte 612 and Rte 20 which may be exacerbated by increase traffic from the events.
End of Comments
After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified on "Action After Receipt of
Comment Letter” which is attached. While you previously requested to schedule your Public Hearing
with the Planning Commission for October 23rd. Staff does.not believe that this application is ready to
move forward without another resubmittal before it is heard at the Planning Commission public
hearing. If you intend to continue with your October 23rd PC date advertising fees mentioned below
must be paid no later than September 28. If you decide to reschedule the meeting to another PC date
staff needs to be made aware of this decision no later than October 1St and an alternative PC meeting
date shall be scheduled. However, if you choose to move forward at this time with the previously
scheduled date you must pay the notification and advertisement fees outlined below:
Notification and Advertisement Fees
The Zoning Ordinance requires applicants pay for the notification costs for public hearings:
$202.40 Cost for newspaper advertisement
$202.82 Cost for notification of adjoining owners (minimum $200 + actual postage /$1 per owner after 50
adjoining owners)
$405.22 Total amount due prior to Planning Commission public hearing
Prior to the Board of Supervisor's public hearing, payment of the newspaper advertisement for the Board
hearing needed.
$202.40 Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing
$607.62 Total amount for all notifications Fees may be paid in advance. Payment for both the Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors public hearings may be paid at the same time.
Additional notification fees will not be required unless a deferral takes place and adjoining owners need to
be notified of a new date.
9 -21 -12
At this time staff is recommending denial of the proposal based on outstanding safety concerns
mentioned above, lack of sight distance for a commercial entrance to the site (as stated by
VDOT), as well as inaccurate boundary lines of the property as depicted on the concept plan. If
the Planning Commission chooses to support approval of the proposal staff is recommending
the following conditions:
1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan entitled "Sieg
Property Conceptual Plan" and labeled "Attachment A: Aerial View," prepared by the
applicant, and dated staff. To be in general accord with the plan, development shall
reflect the following central features essential to the design of the development:
• the structure used for the special events (indoor event space as well as the primary
and secondary tent locations)
• the location of the parking areas
• Location of Porta-Johns
• Proposed Landscape Buffer Features
`Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made
to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance; and
2. The maximum number of special events per calendar year shall not exceed twenty -four (24);
and
3. The maximum number of special event guests shall not exceed one hundred and fifty (15 0)
persons; and
4. Hours of operation for the special events shall be no earlier than 8:00 a.m. and no later than
11:00 p.m.; and
5. No new permanent outdoor lighting shall be installed for this use; and
6. There shall be no outdoor amplified sound permitted for this use; and
7. The use shall not commence without approval from the Virginia Department of
Transportation of sight distance from the entrance to the property on Rt 612.
8. All food must be prepared by a licensed caterer. There is to be no food preparation at any of
the events.
9. The applicant will provide portable privies in the ratio of 1 privy per 100 guests.
10. The applicant will provide bottled water for drinking purposes. There is to be no water
consumption by the guests from an existing well.
Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information at 434.296.5832 ext 3443. My
email address is cperez(aalbemarle.org.
Sincerely,
Christopher P. Perez
Senior Planner
Planning Division
enc: Action After Receipt of Comments
9 -21 -12
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
4O�YAL
U G�G
��1RGI11T
ACTION AFTER RECEIPT OF COMMENT LETTER
Within 3D days of the date of this letter, please do one of the following:
(1) Resubmit in response to review comments.
(2) Request, indefinite deferral
(3) Request that your Planning Commission public hearing date be set
(4) Withdraw your application
(1) Resubmittal in Resoonse to Review Comments
if you plan to resubmit within 30 days, make sure that the resubmittal is on or before a
resubmittal date as published in the project review schedule. The full resubmittal schedule may
be found at www.albemarle.org in the "forms" section at the Community. Development page.
Be sure to include the resubmittal form on the last page of your comment letter with your
submittal.
The application fee which you paid covers staff review of the initial submittal and one
resubmittal. Each subsequent resubmittal, requires an additional fee. (See attached Fee
Schedule.)
(2) Request Indefinite Deferral
if you planto resubmit after 30 days from the date of the comment letter, you need to request
an indefinite deferral. Please provide a written request and state your justification for
requestingthe deferral. (indefinite deferral means that you intend to resubmit/request a
public hearing be set with the Planning Commission after the 30 .day period.)
(3) Request Planning Commission Public hearing Date be Set
At this time, you may schedule a•public hearing with the Planning Commission. However, we
do not advise that you go directly to public hearing if staff has identified issues in need of
resolution that can be addressed with a resubmittal.
After outstanding issues have been resolved and/or when you are ready to request a public
hearing, staff will set your public hearing date forthe Planning Commission in accordance with
Page 1 of 6 Revised 4-254 1 eke
the Planning Commission's published schedule and as mutually agreed by you and the County.
The staff report and recommendation will be based.on the.latest information provided by you.
with your initial submittal or resubmittal. Please remember that all resubmittals must be'made
on or before a resubmittal date.
By no later than twenty -one (21) days before the Planning Commission's public hearing, a
newspaper advertisementfee and an-adjoining owner notification fee must be paid. (See
attached Fee Schedule) Your comment letter will contain the actual fees you need to'pay.
Payment for an additional newspaper advertisement is also required twenty -two (22) days prior
to the Board of Supervisors public hearing. These dates are provided on the attached Legal Ad
Payments for Public-Hearings form.
Please'be advised that, once a public hearing has been advertised, only one deferral prior to the
Planning Commission's public hearing.will be allowed during the life of the application. The
only exception to this rule will-be extraordinary circumstances, such as a major change, in the
project proposal by the applicant or more issues identified *by staff that have not previously.
been brought to the applicant's attention. As always, an applicant may request deferral at the
Planning Commission meeting.
(4) Withdraw Your Application
If at anytime you wish to withdraw your application, please provide your request in writing.
Failure to Respond
if we have not received a response from you within 30 days,'we will contact you again. At that
time, you will be given '10 days to do one of the following: a) request withdrawal of your
application, b) request deferral of your application to a specific Planning"Com miss! on- date as
mutually agreed to with staff, or c) request indefinite deferral and state your justification for
requesting-the deferral. if none of these choices is made within .1D days, staff will schedule
your application for a public hearing based on the information provided with your original
submittal or the latest submittal staff received on a resubmittal date.
Fee Payment
Fees may be paid in cash.or by check and must be paid at the Community Development Intake
Counter. Make checks payable to the County of Albemarle. Do not send checks directly to the
Review Coordinator,
Page 2 of 6 Revised 4-25-11 eke
FOR OFFIC 7 USE ONLY SP # or ZMA #
Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? Receipt# co By-
Resubmittal of information for Special Use Permit or
Zoning Map Amendment .
PROJECT NUMBER: 5)°�10 1 a —o'ola PROJECT NAME: r `a
❑ Resubmittal Fee is Required
C LA IZ r cr�- /' i
ommunity Development Proj ect Coordinator
e Date
❑ Per Request Rr Resubmittal Fee is Not Required
Derek -Se lf3d — YO - 9J�-7
Nam of pplicant Phone Number
Signature
FEES
Date
Resubmittal fees for Special Use Permit -- original Special Use Permit fee of $1,000
❑ First resubmission FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission $500
Resubmittal fees for original Special Use Permit fee of $2,000
First resubmission
FRED
❑ ach additional resubmission
$1,000
B. � '��i.:.ff � - .. S� x.semlr�.�� -'wb. 4•+3.:: s.-, -. _ r �,'•�iX.A.X.....«w:2..v^ea"�°r' �wv.+.- ... �'. :. _ ':,X::o. m '"
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $2,500
❑ First resubmission
FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission
$1,250
Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $3,500
❑ First resubmission
FREE
❑ Each additional resubmission
$1,750
$180
❑ Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request— Add'1 notice fees will be required
To be paid after staff review for public notice:
Most applications for Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendment require at least one public hearing by the Planning Commission,
and one public hearing by the Board of Supervisors. Virginia State Code requires that notice for public hearings be made by publishing
a legal advertisement in the newspaper and by mailing letters to adjacent property owners. Therefore, at least two fees for public notice
are required before a Zoning Map Amendment may be heard by the Board of Supervisors. The total fee for public notice will be
provided to the applicant after the final cost is determined and must be paid before the application is heard by a public body.
lkir AVr trurrrrrc mn t r%TTNTV nF ATARMART.F/PAVMENT AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNTER
Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices
$200 + actual cost of first -class postage
$1.00 for each additional notice + actual
➢. Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50)
cost of first -class postage
Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing)
Actual cost
(minimum of $280 for total of 4 publications)
County of Albemarle Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296 -5832 Fag: (434) 972 -4126
6/7/201I Page 1 of I
2012 Submittal and Review Schedule'
Special Use -Permits -and Zoning Map Amendments
Resubmittal Schedule
Written Comments and Earliest Planning
Commission Public Hearing*
Resubmittal Dates
Comments to
applicant for decision
• on whether to
proceed to Public
Hearing
Legal Ad Deadline
and Decision for
Public Hearing **
Planning
Commission Public
Hearing .
No sooner than *.
Monday
Wednesday
Monday
. Tuesday
Dec 19 2011
Jan 18
Feb 6
Feb 28
Tue Jan 3
Feb 1
Feb 13
Mar 6
Tue Jan 17
Feb 15
-Feb 27
Mar 2D
Feb 6
Mar 7
Mar 12
Apr 3
Tue Feb 21.
Mar 21
Apr 2
Apr 24
Mar 5
Apr 4
Apr 16
May 8
Mar 19
Apr 18
Apr 30
May 22
Apr 2
May 2
May 14
Jun 5
Apr 16 '
May 16
May 28
Jun 19
May 7
Jun 6
Jun 25
JuI 17
May 21
Jun 20
Jul 9
Jul 31
Jun 4
Thu Jul 5
Jul 16
Aug 7
Jun 18
Jul 18
Jul 30
Aug 21
Jul 2
Aug 1
Aug 2D
Sep 11
Jul 16
Aug 15
Tue Sep 4
Sep 25
Aug 6
Sep 5
Sep 17
Oct 9
Aug 20
Sep 19
Oct 1
Oct 23
Tue Sep 4
Oct 3
Oct 15
Nov 6
Sep 17
Oct 17
Oct 22
Nov 13
Oct 1
Oct-31
Nov 12
Dec 4
Oct 15
Nov 14
Nov 26
Dec 15
Nov 5
Dec 5
Dec 17
Jan 8 201.3
Nov 19
Dec 19
Jan 7 2013
Jan 29 2013
Dec 3
Jan 2 2013
Jan 14 2013
Feb 5 2D13
. Dec 17
Jan 16 2013
Feb 4 2013
Feb 26 2013
Dates shown in italics are changes due to a County holiday
* The reviewing planner-will contact applicant to discuss comments of reviewers and advise that
changes that are needed are significant enough to warrant an additional submittal or advise that the
the project is ready for a public hearing. If changes needed are minor, the planner will advise that .
the project go to public hearing..
** The legal ad deadline is the last date at which an applicant can decides I Nether to resubr:it or go
�•� tDQ
.4 F
f�
a 0
aD CD ti Rl
O
W a
Q N
Ot �
�Zrl
ti 3 VD 11
a �
O o Irp„�
BKI76§ X0205
Tax Mop 6 - 9A
D.B. 399 -573
D.B. 375 -223
v x , = 3�1 sr as _e�� to
/ 9ror„ a d!,riwor
z / / Parcel X Dst
�•Z� ��
1 j 327 Afffs
Parcel "W
o p j l ti D.Y. 3"_57.3(PW) ,, raids
1
I R (D O afron»
t9 �r�:
g .n1 1 nad
Nf I'tn
1
W S Tax Map 63 -29
+y (v= =1 •
� aR 1N .rtd J
, 1 ito 1Wr � 0� "w 193.D�' bona
I t 559 2Y
I
W
D. a. 399 -573
V"MDY.iQ
\i0`\
e�
Parcel "C"
`���SS4'19'E O.Y. l24- tt2(yia
rod Pound
Tait map 63.28
Alden G. Bigelow
D. B. 629 -109
D. B. 399 -377
C�
REVISED PLAT AND SURVEY OF PARCEL'Y',
A 1.327 ACRE PARCEL BEING TAKEN FROM T.1
63 -29A AND ADDED TD T.M. 63 -29 WITH A
BOUNDARY LINE CHANGE AS SHOWN HEREON
t
can
PHYSICAL SURVEY OF A PORTION OF PARCEL
29 ON TAX MAP 63 , OWNED BY MARY JANE DWYER,
BEING A 9.630 ACRE TRACT WHICH IS ALL OF
PARCEL "B" AND A PORTION OF PARCEL X , AS
SHOWN HEREON, LOCATED ON STATE ROUTE 612
NORTHEAST OF EASTHAM , ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VA.
SCALE, 1" • 200' Sheet I Of 2 , Rev. Date; 10/19056
THOMAS D. BLUE
CIVIL EHOIKgR & LAND SURVEYOR
CHARLOTTESVILLE , VIROINIA
ORIGINAL
DATER 08/10/92
JOB
9$-11
92 -46
Book:1762,Page:202
F P;m round
rft /
y
/
r+ IP
of
v
/ Parcel
"St, �^
Thlr lot h not will" the H()D
a. Y. ti29 -ttt(
PM 1Wtd
dnlpnated 100 year Flood Toro,
r
�
a' ta•ia'2s "w
"LT
P
p,
i'
, rod found
r54-1.-31,.).4.
s�
Ig. $ Of
ound
>
;.;iE r�o.
C�
REVISED PLAT AND SURVEY OF PARCEL'Y',
A 1.327 ACRE PARCEL BEING TAKEN FROM T.1
63 -29A AND ADDED TD T.M. 63 -29 WITH A
BOUNDARY LINE CHANGE AS SHOWN HEREON
t
can
PHYSICAL SURVEY OF A PORTION OF PARCEL
29 ON TAX MAP 63 , OWNED BY MARY JANE DWYER,
BEING A 9.630 ACRE TRACT WHICH IS ALL OF
PARCEL "B" AND A PORTION OF PARCEL X , AS
SHOWN HEREON, LOCATED ON STATE ROUTE 612
NORTHEAST OF EASTHAM , ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VA.
SCALE, 1" • 200' Sheet I Of 2 , Rev. Date; 10/19056
THOMAS D. BLUE
CIVIL EHOIKgR & LAND SURVEYOR
CHARLOTTESVILLE , VIROINIA
ORIGINAL
DATER 08/10/92
JOB
9$-11
92 -46
Book:1762,Page:202