HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201300048 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2014-03-27COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Phone (434) 296-5832 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Fax (434) 972-4126
March 27, 2014
Cheryl Lynn Taylor
4164 Innslake Dr. Ste. B
Glen Allen, VA 23060
RE: SDP-201300048- Durkin Property — AT&T Wireless Facility Tier II
Dear Ms. Taylor:
Staff has reviewed the recently resubmitted plan (received 3-20-14 and signed 3-19-14) and offers the
following comments.
A, J t,,tq
-()Its fior reiection-
[Secti, it, 5,1,40(a)(01 zlj�j I q .
0 �ficaliorilbr �pjjcca ion fi)ml, s
dpt.': Parcel ol,vne;,� file o-ivner's agew or the controel pl"rChascr, Wid the
OWWPI j0he oi,i)*rjers agent .0,(Yns ihe qppflc-,im.-)n, he shall eVso submil evidence offhe
existence and scupe qfzhe ag
11"Ille, cowrael pvn,-A_�ser jigns the qpplicalion, he shall also
SuNniy the olvile'r . 's �vrilh,!n consent to Ills' qz-fica/ion,The propeay owner has Tiot siafied I'lle
applicati-ort allplicant iy ac -tins a-.." ag nt far ner, such vv-riltton
dic propem mv
be ,�ijlxnitted, Rev 1. Comment addressed
1 [Section 5AA0(a)(4b)l 7he plan,i and supp?..)rfing, .9 ahulafions and doC70lerW411017
shall sho-ili ,Ehuvalion, 7he henchmarkS ca id tkmlm zised '/br eh,-,,nuf ions, 7he datian sv7f.dl coinci(h.'
-ivith the 1,irgil?0,Vale Pk le; COW-dinale Sovill Zone,
6N`Af)83); Z.,.`hitedStw.('s ;S f e I a! Dwun,? 0/ 1988 and the
7irvey.J.'"Cle/ Akorfh Ainei'ican C
herichinarAs shall I)e to the vowliv eligincxr. The 1)etichnivk, used
H tiot indicated on
the dm ? 4)gs. . Rev 1. Comment addressed
'Section ivhere the v ivonhl he avar .:Iced lo an e;xislhlgv
sjructuri, or an es wing badding lhe irlthil? ti,i)o ihousand t2.000jj�,�ef (#'Ihe 13rol osed
"fifei1hy. in collioni, inner v<,'I%s nol 10 (�VCeed I(M (101;jeelftn, all hlnds 10zhinAfl)e1uar1C
ill (.:ojjfour 7111£.' €`1 "£d Z-:$ shomn on (,`;wnited Vales 6`eological surl"ey hpog-rqphic sllrreV .01a }.S Or 1he
best dwo available. fi-11, lands not tviihin .41bernaric, (�ojwfvl 1)rovide the requiil,Od
to-pography vithin/2_000 orttie p1-()pose(Ha6fitv_ Rev 1. Comment addressed
1"3ection 5J ' ,40(z)(4,01 Trcles. The heighi. caliper andsj)ecleS frees i,vhere the clrij�line is
' . e '? -ol -ed hei,,
loc ed i0ihij, 5( jeei of f. fircilif � 1hal ar ilk lied raj zo es'lablish the pi pos or
or hoth.' of the monopoh., E)j` to-iver, All frees lhat ivill be Or
removed ()r of thefticilin,
disaunces, 10
t:.)ra the l3f<aia anl) of 1.Itel.i�u t ftZ.l and I "f ?i ha €la•ila lira s eat'a.l.)li l:awa€ . As zt restill., barn itail.3at1.
o lie I)i "oposed CWIS �`itCt 0n (11) Othee' trees which have. dripline tctt'ltira <a �[ i'k�.f :liras C)1 �� ?£'; rc41� -Ui"
oulcl .o.ot be € eternai.11ed. Revi,<, ; Ptfatt t €> Sh€ W the clr'il.) l'i'taeh )f all tree t:l.atat I.l.ave drip.hn,;w Wit..la.ii.z.
1.1le, MY nii:lius.. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
l €?. l rc ,� icl� the eight. of all, tre c s where the clri'pli -M is .loc�at:ecl � ithin ;t }" of� tlae f tc.t:� -.
TIM ....... l'€ l Ilav Ije'gi tip. Pr€ vide hei��:l *; l €>t° 21111 °i e ��iaicl� breach tile
fit)'
thus... Rev 1. Comment addressed.
A Is €a rovi€le'1.he recluired notes oil t'Iie l) lan for <aII trees tl,ta:t �viII be fa d vers€ 1%) iinpact€ d or
a°etaaoi-ed1. durifig in', ttallatic }.ta Of the t ad°il'itl. (.)ri the talon it alapc ars tlattt tlydr€ are za cc >talald tir cs
( .l.R30 an l l 3 %�Vh'iEch are located in th.� path of'the designated facces rc?�xcl. "l`hc �c trt s° �Iac>aaldl
k >� l:irt)l }e, is tac�t€9 <a being ii)'t1)fad-1 0r i-�;01ov°eil" AI so, the Sits; (inclticlitag t.11e acd;EesS i °oficli is
l <)c <at'.c cl ii.i. <a licfa °il r €><)tt 1. ° €; I•tc����ever, the plan anle� cl :�pietw ca �inall all-tount € >l <:�l tis�� trees',
upcata site vi it :�t�a.lTnotedl fa stibstantial farnoi.taat ca'fta °z e �$kaicl) ��-iil 1.�� iata'I.)fact�cl caa°
°eaaao� ec, .' -curt the i l.i°u t.it?ta cif °tlie� stccess road, Depict t fandl prol)erly Inbe;l these 1.rees care tl'ii
plan, Rev 1. Comment addressed.
5. t )( ). f lthog7r7o1 aa A .hT st1. Pb h to,raplts. iv1ere possible; OF 1� T VW`clia %
0
[ ed t u L 4 (0 E.,Win t11"o "Infif red ( O) ftcl q the ii,-. If any, kn Me
(dClt% , � idE
0 "cla siti'Y"oPa7td'n die sift"
provide. Photographs (photo :;.dnwhatioals) or perspective dravvings of (lie f:<,tc dit,�, fionl surroondi'n
ftre°tas to 14urtller tas: i:st staf l iik tleterrnrrarng th visi.i�al impacts € f tlia' f£.&LIITIL i�Tt �llrti`)tai?£1331#
properties. Speci.fie,::111 -v fr am theadJacent residential prgperty ..l..hl.P 03400-00-00-07000 ( 826
Rte ,20 Stang Poim Ro adl), Notably € urin the balloon t€, "t tla� h�a11.c ;��n ��<ah � ts.il3.1.� triaaaa the
a.dl9faderal, l�ic3p i1. %Is resid(enc;e and poitioM Offlicir clricew ay. Provide photo ataaaalatieMas i'i"c)rii 1.lEi:
area. a. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
Comments to be addressed prior to approval
1. [Section 5.1.40(d)(2)] Screening and siting to minimize visibility. The site shall provide adequate
opportunities for screening and the facility shall be sited to minimize its visibility from adjacent
parcels and streets, regardless of their distance from the facility...
balloon test was performed can September 25. 2(W3. I::)uring the. I:aailloon test stfaf'f'1:i {ava Iedl Rte
20 `stony Point Road. .Rte 640 Gilbert Stcatio'n. Rte 6- lt)_Turkey Sag Road. and visited
sa7i ttrtaaaclita <zncl xacijtac stet properties.. -fit fa le�� t aratft e pt 'iaats it appeared thfat the facility �s €-a €aka be
sky- lit; hted ts�ee..�tttachrart�r�r..�i). I'lle 3tixxt "s 'ii less policy disco. irales9�i�ilitics 't:ka�ai:are,1� lit;
hoaveve-r. the f regrourtcl € f thih site is, densely -,cvooclecl. so the lack. of bacHrop is minimized..
Additionally. at raa €?st sites it � as s.i.£gaailic:aaatly cxasaaolafla�Y:edl izy trees, t le�fatioaa c lafaat e a'tadi the
w,indi ao nature of Rte 20 S"i.t?aa4` POirit Road -, hosv-ever, the ball €>on was c-isi to frorra the adjacent
nt
f°r €�l>c°rty'°� a•e4idl.e.nc�e and Ca €�rtic?ias d>.l'tlaci.r cla °i�e��sa�: l'�1s ( }�= l()()- t)t�- f3 {)- €):'t3C "i)< =�2� I�.te 2(l �tta�-
Pint Road (a.r�jaceiil. prc�ptat:y' }. �;t'a:i`f' is ccaracerraedl 1.h£at this rnay-, cause are adverse Vistiail iaaapfaCt .
f)ia the ad.ja=nt residential property. t:.lpon Submittal (if redltiiretll requestedl. photcagraptas (photo
lacil fr € aa sura otacia� areas, staff will be better
er peci.ve drawings of the
hita.a.ulai >a4) or p
able to determine the visual iaipa.cts ofthe. facility- on surrowidinn proper1:�• Ii'tipc�ra sttlsaaaitl.al €)f'
tree required s'Imulation Photo", it iti deterrilhiecl that the visibility o- 'the toy.Ner krill copse adverse
ii.a.al.�fast to 1.I.z.c nei�hborin prolerty- is the apl�li.c�ant (amenable: to tdditace the height of'tb 1.o��ei
from 10' above the re.fi -ence tree 1.o T above the reference tree to reduce visual impacts and
provide is chit- scr€eriirt <= :k�or neigHboriv� <,� residential properties`? Rev 1.1hey applicant. has provided.
1 � rte i as t °e a sect :ni?ta reviexv'ittR thc;se, Pi ctaares, it appears that the tmv r is .11.ighl
i i11 treaiii 1.1Ee aae.i kihdaaiaa pi "��1.)ert [•I_MP 34 -700] because of tile tc���-e:rs'�c�iitita�
chsarzacteristie (also Macnkm as Skylight. -,N�hich meaty. with a l�acicclrc�l� tc? t'ae .C�xc ility being
,1��-�.
Additionally stet( lags been cd)tztadtetl by saeigi. boring property one retaas��ecl fioaaa tkac I)iaalai.n
propei•t�- [1,1101 '3.1- 701:x] and the propei°1.`- d,�c °ta�a is es i1 �onc�:rned ��-ith the visibility of th€.1.c�avea
2
from her borne and has stated that the tower is directly- in the lirre of their view slred an(] �� .-oul.d be
�-i aaal nuisaarace. Based trr the arbors: vantage lst>int and high risibility r�aa.t.ure of'tlris I -MVer, the
applicant shall reduce the visual. l�.rescnce of this tcj��-er' f:.r°cana this vaa'rataa e paint.
Also, ,,t<af f has been corrtaacted by neighboring property owners C °1`:11:1' 34- 70.1.3 and ".l:`r'�IP 34-70A.
who are opposed to th.c prs ?ject in its current location dare to visibility issues ceased by the t«v er°s
pro i'rztity to their laca'rrres.. s ttre le arcs lr.aa� e aal.l :(<allen t9.7e,e pr €atas r <? .aa.er° have stated that flit y
aria see the r °c fere ace tree from their bacl�. yards wid are concerned that when the tower is installed
it will pose ai visual nuisaara.ce to their prope.r°t�, and ruin their, erajoyn.aer.r.t of their v revv's :f:rom their
back yards. 1XIe; to tile, pr£y\ rrrrrt.,' o'f'tlre ttr��'sr ' facility t:c� these tron"les it, is concs:ivaable. that the
toN%,er li s an intrusive presence Cara the nc:.i hborint; properties.
`t`lae owner o'f °t°:I11' 34-7013 has suggested a new- location be proposed for the tower which set; it
beach aarr addition 100' :from the property line; to help minimize risibility and provide ar.dditioraaal.
buffer.i.r.a =„: which will r. a.r..itigaate; the viswaal impacts to 11I.e.ir property. The owner ofl Tip P 34 -701 also
rei'lected this se:nt.irarr:rat.
Based on the above staff suggests the aa'pplicaant wort; to reduce the visibility of the tower to these neighboring properties. Possible methods to reduce; tower visibility: increase the distance acrd
S :f, . ,.,...,,. tree 3Y '� € € the to$ti er° tc:r ne %`'j'1 �>i ran.... ° pe rt;is� s9....ret i;tc; g...l .c...... l...F� '... 1 .... > ;` „t
fc irr ... t tr c c .c t� . ................ ............................... . 1
c.<tta, tit. w..._il.t...tt.t:..)r�cc....tla ,tl?l�Jcsant.la,3:si<arl�cc3, tc� t,tclrrcc irsis.lrtt ..ct...tl3.c, l3r,c�l�tsyc ci
to %r,er it shall be pertinent 'to schedule a wCOT cl balloon te=st tlaaat each of 'the; abutting c€ yners as.
a.id .in ttete'rrrr'ininaa vi.s ;q :%3. ? ; ?' - %., tl .._tc °.. '::1 ...:t e.._t€��t��e ..off...t9ae...t;�, es.
°ei....<tq yt<iCt., .s._i7 «ti,ist ci._X11!l£ < ............................. ..............................� ........
f the applicant does not intend to adequately address the above. please advise staff and a
denial letter will be issued.
Rev 2. After the initial balloon test, staff was concerned with the visual impacts on adjacent
parcels (as noted in the Jan 22nd comment letter, see above). In the comment letter staff requested
the applicant work to reduce the visibility of the proposed tower prior to setting up a second
balloon test. No efforts have been made to mitigate the visibility as discussed in the Jan 22nd
comment letter. Rather a second balloon test was conducted to allow nearby property owners
(within a half mile radius of the facility) with concerns to observe the balloon. After the 2nd
balloon test staff received phone calls, letters, and emails from a handful of residents (5 neighbors
to the Durkin property) who all oppose the tower as presently proposed because of the significant
visual impact the tower will have to their property.
In total two balloon tests were performed onsite; the first on September 25, 2013 and the second
on February 20, 2014. During the balloon tests staff traveled Stony Point Road (Rte 20), Gilbert
Station (Rte 640), Turkey Sag Road (Rte 640), and visited surrounding and adjacent properties.
During both balloon tests the balloon was highly visible from the adjacent property's residence
and driveway (TNT 03400- 00- 00- 07000), 4826 Stony Point Road (Rte 20), owned by Jean
Jones. From this property's vantage point, the facility is highly sky lit, which means with a
backdrop to the facility being sky. Page 57 of -the County's Personal Wireless Service Facility
Policy, which is part of the County's Comprehensive Plan, explains that "in order to minimize
visibility the backdrop of the facility must be considered.” Staff requested the applicant provide
photo simulations from this vantage point. Upon review of these photos, the tower is highly
visible from the property. The visual impacts of the site are most prevalent from this property
because the tower is sited North East of the reference tree (the tallest tree within 25' radius) and
trees in front of or behind the tower from this vantage point are significantly shorter than the
tower, in some instances 19', 27', 30', and 41' shorter than the tower. This leads to significant
sky lighting from this property's vantage point. Staff has been contac e Jby the owner of this
property who has voiced her concerns to staff through phone calls and through a hard copy letter.
Her concerns primarily revolve around the high visibility of the tower from her residence and
property and how it will affect her viewshed, property value, and the enjoyment of her property.
3
Section 18- 5.1.40(d)(2) requires that visibility from adjacent parcels be minimized. Possible
methods to reduce /minimize tower visibility: increase the distance and buffering of trees between
the tower to neighboring properties, reduce the height or bulk of the tower; however, no efforts
have been made to mitigate the visibility as required by Section 18- 5.1.40(d)(2). Therefore, the
site fails to provide adequate opportunities for screening and is not sited to minimize its visibility
from adjacent parcels as required by Section 18- 5.1.40(d)(2).
Also, during the second balloon test, staff was invited to observe the visibility from the property
across the street from the tower site, TNT 03500- 00 -00- 02100, 4765 Stony Point Road (Rte 20),
Piedmont Manor home and grounds owned by the Piedmont Land Trust. The home is recognized
as a notable historic resource and is a contributing structure to the Southwest Mountains Rural
Historic District. The visual impacts of the site are prevalent from this property because the tower
is sited North East of the reference tree (the tallest tree within 25' radius) and trees in front of or
behind the tower from this vantage point are also significantly shorter than the tower, in some
instances 30' and 32' shorter than the tower. This leads to significant sky lighting from this
property's vantage point. From this property, the proposed facility is visible and it's visibility has
not been minimized, nor does its proposed location provide adequate opportunities for screening.
Staff has been contacted by the owner of this property who has hired legal counsel to voice their
concerns through phone calls, hard copy letters, and meetings with staff and the applicant. The
landowners are opposed to the facility as proposed due to its high visibility caused by its height,
location and lack of screening.
Notably the Piedmont Land Trust property and surrounding lands are located in the Southwest
Mountains Rural Historic District, a designated avoidance area for towers. While the tower is not
located in an avoidance area, the siting of the proposed facility will have an adverse visual impact
on properties in the historic district (avoidance area). Section 18- 5.1.40(d)(2) requires that
visibility from adjacent parcels be minimized. Possible methods to reduce /minimize tower
visibility: increase the distance and buffering of trees between the tower to neighboring
properties, reduce the height or bulk of the tower, preserve existing trees between the site and
neighbors; however, no efforts have been made to mitigate the visibility as required by Section
18- 5.1.40(d)(2). Therefore, the site fails to provide adequate opportunities for screen ng is not
sited to minimize its visibility from adjacent parcels as required by Section 18-5.1.40(d)(2).
The applicant should also be aware that the Piedmont Land Trust also owns numerous abutting
properties of the Durkin land, specifically TNT 04800- 00- 00- 079D0, 03500- 00- 00- 020A2,
04800- 00- 00- 079D1, 03500- 00- 00- 020A3, 03500- 00- 00 -020A4 of which they believe the tower
is too close to the common property line and will have a significant visual impact on these
properties due to lack of screening, not only from the top of the tower but also the lower portion
of the tower and its ground facilities. Also, staff has been contacted by neighboring property
owners TNT 03400- 00- 00 -070BO and 03400- 00- 00 -070A0 who are opposed to the project in its
current location due to visibility issues caused by the towers proximity to their homes and lack of
screening. As the leaves have all fallen these property owners have stated that they can see the
reference tree from their back yards and are concerned that when the tower is installed it will pose
a visual nuisance to their property and ruin their enjoyment of their views from their back yards.
Due to the proximity of the tower facility to these homes it is conceivable that the tower has an
intrusive presence on the neighboring properties. Based on the above staff suggests the applicant
work to reduce the visibility of the tower to these neighboring properties. Possible methods to
reduce tower visibility from these properties: increase the distance and buffering of trees between
the tower to neighboring properties, reducing height or bulk of tower, provide wooden fencing
around ground equipment to aid in the screening of the facility.
2. Sheet A-2� Rote #7 states., the praposed
antennas are less than 1,152 sqtjare inches in area bi.it does riot indicate the artierma dimensions.
Revise the dra-win-a to inc the climensions. Rev 1. The applicanc addre�.-,sed 1he initial.
COTTIT'neft hoNvever7atsorevised the plan to provide two (2) additional Tw-i.n TM.A-., to the tower
w-hicli lack, diTDCM,,iOfjs ol, the plan. On. the plan provide the dirriensions of each TMA to aid stalf
in deterinining the number of array, which are P rez,,ent on the cower, Revise. Rev 2. Comment
addressed
3. [Coniment] The elevation depicted on sheet A-22 tabels 7` hig-17 securii * y 'fens: e " and
Sheet A-0 labels "existing 50'.-V50`..Y8' however., "to portion oil this fiacilitV is
existing. nor does a fence currently exi�t. Revise the elevations toa correctly label these iteMS 8S
`,pro- osed". Rev 1. not addressed Rev 2. Comment addressed
.p
4. E & S-2 Erosion emd,Sedifnent Control.Plan appears to show no proposed
grading for the tower Lead verify th.is is tarter or revise to shoaN-- proposed co-iltotirs,
Rev .1. Comment not addressed, Rev 2. Comment addressed
5. [Commentl The heighl ofthe tower should be coti-sistent throligh.out the pfaj). Sheets A.-O..A-O.A
AT E&S-2 labeled it as 1-3 1.5' ; hovvever. on sheet A-22 it labels, both 131.6)' (11 op of tower) and
add, -sed. Please
.131.5" (proposed inono.pole). Please. chirif.,. Rev L (.,'ommenf not fully Pes
Rev 2. Comment addressed
6. [ConnneRal Sheet A.-O provides as -note which depicts the proposed A.I-&T To%ver setback as 11(.1
however, the toNwe-j'is 131.' tall, fora true 1. to I setback itsh.otild be i,evised to be the height of the
I
facility frow. every point of the :1.'acility to include the equipment. Revise.
Rev 1. (..'otnmenl not addressed, Rev 2. Comment addressed
[Section 5,.. (c)(4). 7i,ee (1onservation pl(211. prior tc) j,spyE-Ijjce (W a hidh-finor permit, the
applicant shall submit a conservalion plan .tpr�>J1Clf-ed bIv a cerl?.'Iled arborist. Ae.j.?km shall be
SUbmitted to the agent,lbr revielt, and c,rpproval to assare that all applicable requirements nalle
been satisfied The phm shall specyj, tree proteakm welhods and Procedures, and i4lenlY; ; all
exis the insial/a/iOTI, operan Ion aTul rnaira.enance of , fing trees to be removed on the,.pareelfbi-
fiaellil)".
ISection, 5J,4 (e)(5) 'Tree (.7ouservation Plan, The installulion, qwrati( e
w7 and
the fficiliiv shall be conducted in ejecordance with the tree conso�rvafionpkln. Dead and qvh�,
oves idew?fied by the arbori.sds rqw.wr wo ' v be removed if so noted cm the tree conservalion plan.
IfIree removal is 1wer requested that -was, not qppraved bv, the ago-ent when the free conservation
the fjpj in ameudedphin. Hie agent way approve the
)ficaw shird1subn f
amended plan Ohe proposed tree removal will not adversely qftel the visibilizi, of the facility
fi-z?jj,j j7II-V location qffql'the.parcel, The agent rnav inlroSe lleos'onabk, conditions to assure that
the purposes fV'(M para,€, =r(qA Fire achieved
Provide a tree conservation plan prepared by as ceaffied ark orist which meets the reqLiirements of'
5A 4(c)(4.) and 5.1..4(c)(5). Also, pLirimuit to Section 32.'7.9,4(b)(2) ass.ure that this. docutineiA is
also signed by the applicant.
Also -sheet A-I (,lompound Han contains as tree i1wentory and tl.).e lo-e-ation of
howe%.-er, afler a recent. site %,islt it appears ChK the property ba", as Large (piarifltv. of trees which
will be affected by the development., specifMI-11Y �vithhi the" area ok.tke proqmsed "20' access and,
the pine. to ckpict and account l'or all
affilv eascluen't- wll.iclj. are tioyt shown on th.e plan. Rcv.ise
iree�;'to be reino�,,ed and or preservecl. A.L;o on the plan cleadly label �A.-hich trees are to be
removed,
Rev I. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the Conservation Plan signed by a certified
arborist report shall be provided.
Additional Comments
l) [Coattrr entl On :sheet A -1.. the Tree Table- h.as T.H."5' �; -. � ' trall .l.lickorj j listed gas .re.naai.ning;
however. if) the d.ikgyw a "1°.R5 is listed as ` "To be removed ". Assure tha�.t. this. sheet is revised so the
diaar<ana. and. the table match. Rev 2. Comment addressed.
2) [Section 18- 5.1.40b(5), 32.7.4.1(a), 17 -200, 17- 204(e)] The proposal contains over 10,000
square feet of proposed land disturbance and requires an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to be
approved prior to approval of the site plan. The proposal is not exempt under §17-200(b). The
applicant has not submitted an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for review, nor has such an
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan been approved for the proposed site. Please contact
Engineering for questions related to the application of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.
Rev 2. Comment still relevant.
Comments from SRC reviewers
Engineering — Max Greene
1. Plan appears to show over 10,000 square feet of proposed land disturbance and requires a
WPO plan, Application and fee. The WPO plan will be approved prior to final site plan
approval per chapter 17 of the County of Albemarle Ordinance.
Arc hiteeiarral Review Board (AR.B)
L The _ARB appIi.cation has been approved.
aand Rescaae -- Robbie Gilmer
No obJeciions
1:I ildi.ng :luspections — k'Y SchlOthaauer
- No objections
E911 — Andrew Shia
- Approved
' 0I.'_ "1"r av, Austin
- No (-.)bJeet.i€ its
ACSA —Alex Morrison
orison
- No objections.
When this project is resubmitted assure that a response letter addressing all of the above comments is
provided with the revised plan. If you have any questions or require additional information I can be
reached at Cperez@albemarle.org or 296 -5832 ext 3443.
Sincerely,
Christopher P. Perez, Senior Planner
Planning Services