HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP200800032 Legacy Document 2009-02-11COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP200800032 Central Virginia Recycling
Staff: Joan McDowell, Principal Planner, Rural Areas
Center
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
February 17, 2009
March 11, 2009
Owner/s: Outdoor Theater Land Partnership, LLC c/o Mr.
Applicant: Central Virginia Recycling, Inc.
and Mrs. Charles McRaven
Acreage: overall — 100.261 acres
Special Use Permit: Section 18-10.2.2 (14)
Acreage for special use permit = 21 -25 acres
Sawmills, planning mills and woodyards
TMP: 94-21N and TMP 94-21N1 (well lot)
Existing Zoning and By -right use:
Location: 4545 Richmond Road; south side Rt. 250
Rural Areas (RA) agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
Richmond Road at S.R. 794 Three Chopt Road;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots)
approximately 1,325 feet west of Rt. 616 Blackcat Road /
Rt. 759 Union Mills Road
Magisterial District: Scottsville
Conditions: Yes, if the application is approved.
DA (Development Area): or
Requested # of Dwelling Units: reserved approximately
RA (Rural Areas) X
26 acres for a future dwelling
Proposal: Receive wood products and process into wood
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
mulch; conduct wholesale and retail sales; repair vehicles;
Rural Areas 4
office for business
Character of Property: Partially wooded with cleared
Use of Surrounding Properties:
fields; one single family house under construction;
Agricultural and residential uses
intermittent streams
Factors Favorable:
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The wood recycling would provide a
1. The operation would cause noise and traffic
service to reuse waste from land
that is uncharacteristic to this area.
clearing, construction, and pallets.
2. The operation could exceed the maximum
allowed noise standards in the Zoning
Ordinance,
3. The noise, both volume and duration, could
disturb the neighbors.
4. The mulching operation would be of greater benefit
to development occurring in both Albemarle's
Development Areas and in other counties, instead of the
Rural Areas.
5. The information requested by staff pertaining to
groundwater, parking study, traffic generated from this
operation has not been forthcoming; therefore, the
review is incomplete
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of this Special Use Permit.
SP 2008-32
PC 2-17.09
Staff' Report
Page 1 of 15
STAFF PERSON: Joan McDowell, Principal Planner Rural Areas
PLANNING COMMISSION: February 17, 2009
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: March 11, 2009
SP 200800032 Central Virginia Recycling Center
Petition:
SP -2008-0032. Central Virginia Recycling Center (Signs 449&52).
PROPOSED: Special Use Permit on approximately 25 acre portion of a
100.261 acre parcel and a .23 acre parcel containing a central well.
Proposal is to receive wood products from timber, stumps, and wood
waste from construction, shipping and excavation and then
processed/recycled by grinding, chipping, dying and composting into
mulch; conduct both retail and wholesale sales of the products at the site;
site would include structures related to the use.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas:
agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in
development lots). SECTION: 10.2.2 (14) Sawmills, planning mills and
woodyards. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: RA
Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and
natural, historic and scenic resources/density (.5 unit/acre in development
lots); EC Entrance Corridor - Overlay to protect properties of historic,
architectural or cultural significance from visual impacts of development
along Rt. s of tourist access.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes.
LOCATION: 4545 Richmond Road; South side of Richmond Rd. (Rt 250
East) at its intersection with Three Chopt Road (Rt 794), approximately
1,325 feet west of Union Mills Rd. (Rt 759) and Black Cat Rd. (Rt. 616).
TAX MAP/PARCEL: TMP 94-21N and TMP 94-21N1 (well lot).
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
Character of the Area: Located approximately one mile west of
Fluvanna County, this eastern edge of Albemarle County includes a
mixture of residences, agricultural uses, intermittent forest patches and
hedgerows. The Keswick Farms subdivision borders the subject property
on the south and east sides. The property is intersected by several
intermittent streams. Pastures, forest patches and residential dwellings are
located on the west side of the property. The nearest dwelling is
approximately 450 feet from the mulching operation's access road. A
commercial business is located at the nearest intersection at Three Chopt
Road (Rt. 794) and Richmond Road (Rt. 250). Several properties in the
area, including Limestone Farm, have been placed into conservation
easements. (Attachment A)
SP 2008-32
PC 2-17-09
Staff Report
Page 2 of 15
Specifics of the Proposal: The applicant has requested a special use
permit to be allowed to operate a wood mulching operation on
approximately 21-25 acres of a 100.261 acre property; 53 acres would be
a preserved wooded area; approximately 26 acres would be later
subdivided. Access to the mulching operation would be from a
reconfigured "Y" shaped entrance at the junction of Rt. 250 and Rt. 794
(see sketch later in report). The access road is currently an unimproved
driveway through the edge of the property. The applicant has plans to
improve this into an access driveway by widening it to 24 feet and paving
it with asphalt. The access driveway parallels the adjacent property on
the western border and is separated from the property line by an
evergreen hedgerow.
The operation would include the following improvements:
• A two story building containing a vehicle/machinery repair shop
and office;
• A caretaker's cottage;
• A guardhouse;
• Bins to hold materials;
• Equipment / trucks; and
• Concrete and gravel areas for the parking, staging, aging and
mulching operation areas.
The mulching operation would include the delivery of wood construction
materials, shipping pallets, and timbered material to the site by truck.
The material is sorted, ground, and stored until it is sold as wood mulch.
The applicant intends to sell to both wholesale and retail markets_ The
finished materials, topsoil and mulch, would be either delivered to the
destination or it would be picked up by the customer.
The operation would include the following:
• The proposed days and hours of operation are: Monday —
Friday, 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM; Saturday, 7:00 AM to 1:00 PM; closed
Sunday;
• The proposed number of employees: 10;
• The anticipated number of dump trucks per day: 50;
• The anticipated number of tractor trailers per day: 10;
• Storage of the equipment/trucks would be on-site; and
• Noise associated with this operation would be related to the
vehicles as well as from the operation itself. Noise impacts are
discussed later in this report.
The application materials submitted by the applicant for the November
17, 2008, application re -submittal are included as Attachments B through
I.
SP 2008-32
PC 2-17-09
Staff Report
Page 3 of 15
Planning and Zoning History:
SP 1975-490 Approved special use permit for a central well on a 1 -acre
well lot to serve the Woodsedge Subdivision. (The subject parcel was
later subdivided and a field verified check of the well location shows that
the well is south of this property, but the waterline easement goes through
the subject property in the wooded are between the operation site and the
south property line.)
ZTA 1992-01 Approved zoning text amendment added Section 10.2.2
(44) "Theater, outdoor drama" by special use permit in the Rural Areas
zoning district;
SP 1993-07 Approved special use permit for 1781 Productions an
outdoor historical drama (Attachment J); the special use permit was
vested but the outdoor drama has not been commenced.
Official Determination September 15, 2008 - The Zoning Division
determined that the Central Virginia Recycling Center is within the
"Sawmills, planning mills, and woodyards" use classification in the
Albemarle County Code Sec. 18-10.2.2 (14). (Attachment K). This
determination was not appealed in the permitted timeframe; therefore, the
determination is final.
Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan: Comprehensive Plan
designates the subject properties as Rural Areas emphasizing the
preservation and protection of agricultural, forestal, open space, and
natural, historic and scenic resources as land use options. The proposed
operation would recycle wood products primarily from land clearing,
construction waste, and wood pallets into mulch. As such, the wood
products used in this operation would not often come from forestry
operations or from agricultural operations. Activities in the Development
Areas and the growing communities in the Zions Crossroads area would
likely receive the most benefit from this proposed operation and would
likely provide many of its customers who would utilize the mulch for
things such as landscaping. While the recycling of material can be a
beneficial enterprise, this use would not directly support the preservation
and protection of resources called for in the Rural Areas Guiding
Principles.
The Guiding Principles also pledge to "Protect and enhance rural quality
of life for present and future Rural Areas residents." The negative
impacts of this operation to this area's rural residents would not be
consistent with this pledge.
The mulching operation would be located toward the center of the
parcel, approximately 1,762 feet from Rt. 250, so it would not be visible
from the Rt. 250 Entrance Corridor.
STAFF COMMENT:
SP 2008-32
PC 2-17-09
Staff Report
Page 4 of 15
This application has received three reviews: 1) original application
submitted on June 16, 2008; 2) re -submittal on September 19, 2008; 3)
re -submittal on November 17, 2008. Although the re -submittals
answered many of the comments/requests for additional information,
some questions have not been satisfactorily addressed or the answers
have presented new information that prompted additional questions. On
December 18, 2008, the applicant determined not to provide any further
responses and have the Planning Commission public hearing be
scheduled. Although many of the unanswered comments pertain to items
that will be required to be included with the site plan application, staff
believes that the special use permit review presents the greatest
opportunity to bring to light all potential issues and impacts. As all
information has not been submitted by the applicant, staff has not been
able to complete the review of this application. Further, a condition that
would require that the final plans be in "general accord" with the concept
plan may require changes with the site plan that can not be anticipated at
this time because of the incomplete review. The applicant has also been
advised during the review process to first have a Planning Commission
work session for this project. However, the applicant has declined and
directed that this project be brought to public hearing.
The most significant comments that the applicant has not provided the
information requested by staff are discussed below:
1. Noise — The on-site noise test conducted by the applicant in June
2008 with one piece of equipment operating, the grinder, indicated
that the noise levels at one location on the northwest property line
exceeded the maximum allowable levels (see below). The applicant
has stated that the equipment would be sited further away from the
location used during the noise test in June 2008, but they realize that
there is no way of determining if some degree of violation will persist
until the site is developed and testing can be performed under actual
conditions. Although the equipment would be situated further away
and continue to be separated by an existing evergreen hedgerow at
the property line, the concept plan shows that the delivery and
grinding location would be moved closer to the properties on the
south and the east sides. The proposed truck and equipment repair
shop would also be located closer to these properties. The operations
areas (grinding) would be separated by an existing stand of trees.
Although the applicant has made assurances that they will "do
whatever is necessary, within reason, to circumvent any problems",
excessive noise and noise for long periods of time remains a major
concern of the neighbors and of staff. According to the Zoning
Division, "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.
SP 2008-32
PC 2-17-09
Staff Report
Page 5 of 15
The final decision may hedge on whether any noise of a more
constant nature is compatible with the RA district."
These concerns are echoed by the County Engineer in the following
statement:
"It is not clear whether the intended use can meet the maximum
noise limits allowed by the zoning ordinance. With regard to
noise and 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."
Also of concern is that the noise from this operation, including traffic
noise from the large trucks entering and exiting the site, their back-up
warning noises, and the clanging from flapping truck tailgates (which
has been a noise irritant for neighbors of the Ivy Landfill site) is
uncharacteristic in this area.
2. Parking — The concept plan shows 15 car parking spaces in front
of the officelrepair shop. The Zoning Division has requested that a
parking study/analysis be submitted to determine if the parking is
adequate for employees and visitors/customers is adequate. The
County Engineer has advised that the space shown for parking and
travelways does not appear to meet Code requirements. The
applicant responded that this would be done with the Site Plan
review. Parking areas also have not been shown for trucks and
equipment or for parking associated with the repair facility. Again,
this special use permit offers an opportunity to assure that parking is
adequate for the proposed uses and to adjust parking areas to assure
that adequate and appropriate parking spaces are provided.
3. Traffic — The access to the property would be at the intersection
of Richmond Road (Rt. 250) and Three Chopt Road (Rt. 794). The
existing unimproved driveway into the property would be constructed
to a 24' wide asphalt surfaced accessway that would include a paved
dual "Y" entrance/exit onto each road.
SP 2008-32
PC 2-17-09
Staff Report
Page 6 of 15
Central Virginia Recycling Center
Access Section
Rt. 250 _
� ! 7-7;�
Rt. 794
Driveway
A deceleration right turn lane would be constructed on eastbound Rt.
250 onto a relocated and upgraded Rt. 794 at the project entrance. In
this area, Rt. 250 is a two-lane 40' wide Primary Road with the most
current published traffic count of 5,500 vehicle trips per day. Rt. 794
is a 10' wide gravel road with 2' shoulders. Two cars traveling in
opposite directions would be required to move to the shoulders in
order to pass each other on Rt. 794. The most current traffic count on
Rt. 794 (2006) is 96 vehicles per day and 5,471 (2007) The
anticipated number of vehicles accessing this property has been
questioned by the County Engineer who has concluded that truck
traffic may have been underestimated, due to the sizes given for the
operational areas on the concept plan. The applicant has stated that
the size of the operation is consistent with the space shown for the
proposed activities.
According to VDOT, the applicant shows that there would 140 trips
per day with the project's retail component. A capacity analysis on
the intersection found that there is no significant increase in delay to
Rt. 250 by not having a westbound left turn Iane onto a new
relocated and upgraded Rt. 794 at the project entrance. The
intersection will function at the same Level of Service as it will with
no site at this location. This is because the traffic on Rt. 250 allows
enough gaps to make the left turn going east without holding up the
through traffic and the traffic on this section of road is relatively low.
Of course it is always desirable to provide left turn lanes at all
intersections but this is typically not practical due to Right of Way
constraints or the cost of constructing these improvements. VDOT
does not recommend a left turn lane for this intersection because Rt.
250 at this location has only 40 feet of paved width. In order to
accommodate a two lane road with left and right turn lanes, the
pavement would need to be 48 feet wide with additional width needed
for shoulders and ditches."
5P 2008-32
PC 2-17-09
Staff Report
Page 7 of 15
4. Water — The applicant has stated that the projected water usage of
1,000 gallons per day is a best guess until the site is developed. The
projected water usage is based on data that was received from the
Albemarle County Service Authority and the Thomas Jefferson
Health Department. Water would be used for sanitary facilities, as
well as for sprinkling the mulch piles for dust, odor and fire
management. The Water Resources Manager has stated:
"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."
There has been significant interest in this proposal. Copies of the emails
and letters from citizens are attached (Attachment O).
Staff addresses each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance below:
31.2.4.1: Special Use Permits provided for in this ordinance may be
issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will
not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property,
The access road and the wood recycling operation would be on the west
side of the subject property, adjacent to agricultural and residential
properties. The properties on the south and east side of the subject site
are part of an established residential subdivision, Keswick Forest. As
discussed above, the noise impacts from this operation would be heard
from the surrounding properties, and at one location the noise reading
exceeded the maximum allowable decibel level. Both the volume and the
length of time the noise that would be heard each day would likely have
an undesirable affect on adjacent properties.
Reports from visits to similar mulching operations in the Zions
Crossroads area, Williamsburg, and the Ivy Landfill revealed that there
are also issues concerning dust and odor. Although the dust can be
reduced by keeping the mulch piles damp, wet piles are the most likely to
catch on fire, according to the Landfill Manager. Other methods to
reduce the dust problem are to plant vegetative cover to slow wind
velocity at the surface and to plant wind screens/breaks according to a
SP 2008-32
PC 2-11-09
Staff Report
Page 8 of 15
letter included in the Certified Engineer's Report from Apex Companies
(Attachment F). Also, the odor of mulch can be offensive to some
people. According to the Apex Companies, "malodorous conditions..can
occur for numerous reasons, but typically result from anaerobic
conditions (low or no oxygen) within mulch piles or from anoxic
standing water or holding ponds." Apex has offered monitoring and
corrective actions for both dust and odor. These suggestions have been
included in the proposed conditions, should the application be approved.
Copies of photographs taken at the subject site are included as
Attachment L. The other mulching operations are included as
Attachment M. Two of the mulching operations were integrated into
existing landfills (Ivy and Williamsburg). The Williamsburg facility also
contains an airport.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and
While the mulching operation would not be visible from nearby public
roadways, it would be visible from neighboring properties during some or
all times of the year. The residential and agricultural character of this
area will be impacted by a heavy industrial operation that includes traffic
from heavy trucks and from customer vehicles. The noise generated by
the these vehicles and the noise generated from the equipment running
the wood mulching operation would not be in harmony with the existing
residential and agricultural character of this area.
that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this
ordinance,
Section 18, Chapter 10 of the Zoning Ordinance outlines the purpose of
Rural Areas zoning: "This district (hereafter referred to as RA) is hereby
created and may hereafter be established by amendment of the zoning
map for the following purposes:
-Preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities;
-Water supply protection;
-Limited service delivery to the rural areas; and
-Conservation of natural, scenic, and historic resources. (Amended 11-8-
89)"
Although the wood mulching operation has been determined to be
consistent with the sawmilllwoodyard category in the zoning ordinance,
these uses are allowed only by special use permit, signifying that these
types of uses may not be appropriate in all Rural Areas or under all
circumstances.
with uses permitted by right in the district,
Although allowed by special use permit in the RA district, the only other
zoning district this use would be permitted in is the Heavy Industrial (HI)
District. Heavy Industrial Districts were created to "permit industries and
SP 2068-32
PC 2.17-09
Staff Report
Page 9 of 15
commercial uses which have public nuisance potential and will therefore
be subject to intensive review for locational impact on surrounding land
uses and environment." The HI district allows this category of use as a
by -right use.
The uses allowed by right in the Rural Areas zoning district are uses that
support preservation of land for agricultural and forestal purposes,
provide services that promote our cultural and historic heritage, and
require a limited number of services to serve rural area communities.
The areas surrounding the wood mulching operation consist of both
residential and agricultural by -right uses.
with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this
ordinance,
The applicable portions of Section 5 and Section 4 have been copied
below, with an underlined staff comment following each section.
5.1.15 SAWMILL, TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT
Each temporary or permanent sawmill shall be subject to the following:
a. No structure and no storage of lumber, logs, chips or timber shall be located
closer than one hundred (100) feet to any lot line. Trees and vegetation within the
one hundred (100) foot setback shall be maintained as a buffer to adjoining
properties and uses, provided that during the last three months of operation such
trees may be removed;
b. No saw, planer, chipper, conveyor, chute or other like machinery shall be
located closer than six hundred (600) feet to any dwelling on other property in the
area;
c. No sawing, planing, chipping or operation of other processing machinery shall
occur between 7.00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. No loading/unloading of wood/wood
products shall occur between 12:00 midnight and 7:00 a.m.;
d. All timbering and milling operations, including reforestation/restoration and
disposal of snags, sawdust and other debris, shall be conducted in accordance with
Title 10.1 of the Virginia Code and the regulations of the Virginia Department of
Forestry;
e. All such operations shall be subject to the noise limitation requirements of
section 4.18.
The proposed hours of operation and setbacks would be consistent with
the requirements of this ordinance. A noise test in June 2008 determined
that noise in one location would exceed the permitted limit (discussed
below .
4.18 NOISE
The board of supervisors hereby finds and declares that noise is a serious hazard
to the public health, safety, welfare, and quality of life, and that the inhabitants of
the county and adjoining localities have a right to and should be free from an
SP 2008-32
PC 2-17-09
Staff Report
Page 10 of 15
environment of noise. Therefore, it is the policy of the county to regulate noise as
provided in this section 4.18.
4.18.01 APPLICABILITY
This section 4.18 shall apply to sound generated from any land use within
Albemarle County, regardless of whether the property in the receiving zone is
within or without Albemarle County. This chapter is in addition to any sound or
noise regulations set forth in any other chapter of the Albemarle County Code.
4.18.04 MAXIMUM SOUND LEVELS
Except as provided in section 4.18.05, it shall be unlawful for any person to
operate or cause to be operated, any source such that the sound originating from
that source causes a sound level that exceeds the sound levels in the receiving
zone, measured pursuant to section 4.18.03, as set forth below:
Receiving Zone Time Period Noise Level (dBA)
Rural Areas and Residential Daytime 60; Nighttime 55
Industrial Daytime 70; Nighttime 70
The results of the noise test conducted in June 2008 revealed that the da ime
noise of the grinder exceeded_ maximum levels (60dBA) at one location adjacent
to the TMP 94-21 K property line. The readings for the mulchgrinding test are
as fnIInwc-
First reading was the ambient noise level taken from the tent area. An average of
46dbs was recorded.
Second reading was with grinder running, taken from same location. Decibels_
ranged from 65 to 78. 65dbs was Just machinerunning, 78dbs was machine
actually grinding_.
Third reading was with grinder operating as intended, taken from nearest property_
line. Decibels ranged from 55 to 58.
Fourth reading was with grinder operating as intended, taken from a second
location on the nearest property line (Terra Concepts flag #6). Decibels ranged
from 67 to 79.
4.18.05 EXEMPT SOUNDS
The following sounds shall not be subject to this section 4.18:
L. Warning devices. Sounds generated by a horn or warning device of a vehicle
when used as a warning device, including back-up alarms for trucks and other
equipment.
Concerns have been raised regarding the back-up warning devices on the trucks.
Although these noises are exempt from the noise regulations, they would
contribute to the sounds that would be out of character in this rural neighborhood.
4.18.07 MODIFICATION OR WAIVER
SP 2008-32
PC 2-17-09
Staff Report
Page 11 of 15
Although the noise test revealed that the noise produced would exceed
the maximum allowed by the ordinance, a waiver from these regulations
has not been sought by the applicant. The applicant has advised that they
would make adjustments, if necessary, after the mulching business is in
operation.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
• Although the Rt. 250 1 Rt. 794 intersection and the entrance to this
proposal would be improved to VDOT standards, the truck traffic
accessing the site is not customary for this area. Should truck traffic
use Rt. 794, a narrow gravel road, safety is a concern.
• The ability to obtain an adequate supply of potable water for this us
is a question. There is also a question as to whether some of the
adjacent property's water supply may be affected by this use.
All run-off from the impermeable area, including the mulch piles,
should be captured and treated by the stormwater retention
ponds. The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has
reviewed this application and has advised the applicant that permits
may be required, upon further review. A copy of the DEQ letter is
attached as reference (Attachment N).
• The comment from the Virginia Department of Health advises that,
"The only item the health department would be concerned with is the
sewage facility for the bathrooms. The other issues you referred to
such as composting piles, water runoff, dust and groundwater usage
would not come under any health department regulations."
• As mentioned earlier in this report, mulch piles have caught on fire at
the Ivy landfill, as well as in other locations. The Fire Department
has commented that the Statewide Fire Prevention Code provides
regulations pertaining to these types of operations: "Section 1908.6
Static pile protection - Static piles shall be monitored by an approved
means to measure temperatures within the static piles. Internal pile
temperatures shall be monitored and recorded weekly. Records shall
be kept on file at the facility and made available for inspection. An
operational plan indicating procedures and schedules for the
inspection, monitoring and restricting of excessive internal
temperatures in static piles shall be submitted to the fire code official
for review and approval." In addition, the Code contains other
requirements, including requirements for access, security, fire
protection systems, separation, pile size limits, emergency plans,
housekeeping, and dust management.
crt>v4N4Al2V-
Staff has identified the following factor favorable to this application:
1. The wood recycling would provide a service to reuse waste from
land clearing, construction, and pallets.
SP 2008-32
PC 2-]7-09
Staff Report
Page 12 of IS
Staff has identified the following factors unfavorable to this application:
1. The operation would cause noise and traffic that is uncharacteristic to
this Rural Area.
2. The operation could exceed the maximum allowed noise standards in
the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The noise, both volume and duration, could disturb the neighbors.
4. The mulching operation would be of greater benefit to development
occurring in both Albemarle's Development Areas and in Fluvanna
County.
5. The information requested by staff pertaining to groundwater, parking
and traffic generated from this operation has not been fully provided;
therefore, the review is imcomplete.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends denial
of SP200800032 Central Virginia Recycling.
However, if the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors determines
that the application should be approved, the following conditions are offered
for consideration:
1. Development of the Special Use Permit SP200800032 Central
Virginia Recycling use shall be in general accord with the "Central
Virginia Recycling Center Concept Plan", last revised November 17,
2008, as determined by the Director of PIanning and the Zoning
Administrator. To be in conformity with the plan, development shall
reflect the general size, arrangement, and location of the mulching
operation, access, driveway, proposed buildings, parking, and limits
of clearing. Minor modification to the plan which does not conflict
with the elements above may be made to ensure compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance.
2. Dust emitted from the operation and traffic associated with the
operation shall be controlled at all times. Procedures to control dust
from intruding on any abutting property shall include at a minimum
and as necessary, sprinkling with water the ground surface, wood and
soil material stockpiles, and access road; sprinkling with water the
trucks prior to their leaving the property, stabilize soil by planting and
maintaining a vegetative ground cover or other landscape material
approved by the Planning Director in all areas not expected to handle
vehicular traffic or paved or gravel areas dedicated to the operation of
the mulching operation.
3. A minimum 20' wide landscape screening buffer of evergreen
trees and other suitable evergreen landscape materials starting on the
west property line at Route 250, extending around the entire special
use permit boundary and on the east side of the access road,
SP 2008-32
PC 2-17-09
Staff Report
Page t3 of 15
excluding the entry, as necessary, in order to achieve adequate sight
distance. Existing evergreen trees and shrubs shall be supplemented
as necessary to achieve and maintain a visual barrier between the
entry, the access road, and the wood mulching facility "dedicated to
the special use permit", as shown on the Concept Plan identified in
Condition 1. This landscape buffer shall be at a height and density
that would prevent visibility of the entry, the access road, and the
building, equipment, vehicles, product piles (mulch and materials
waiting to be processed) from the adjacent property on the west side
of TMP 94-21N. The buffer shall be subject to the approval of the
Planning Director or designee.
4. The use allowed by SP199300007 shall not be permitted on the
property while the use permitted by SP200800032 is operated on the
property.
5. All fixtures emitting 3000 lumens or more for outdoor lighting
shall be full cut-off luminaire as defined in Zoning Ordinance Section
4.17.3. and arranged or shielded to reflect light away from all abutting
properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to
no greater than 0.3 foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning
Administrator or their designee for approval.
6. The hours and days of operation shall be limited to no more
than the following: Monday through Friday between 7:00 AM and
5:00 PM and Saturdays between 7:00 am and 1:00 PM,
7. No grinding or processing shall be allowed on Saturday or
Sunday.
8. There shall be a maximum of ten employees on the site at any
time.
9. Storage and repair of equipment and trucks not used onsite for
the delivery and / or process of wood mulching shall be prohibited.
10. A tree protection plan shall be required to be submitted with the
site plan.
12. No tree removal, grading, or disturbance shall take place within
the driplines of the trees shown outside the limits of clearing area, as
shown on the concept plan described in condition number one. The
applicant shall have the dripline of the trees surveyed and shall mark
the dripline in the field with a minimum five (5) feet high, three -
board fence. The fence shall be maintained for the duration of
SP200800032. Any grading or disturbance within ten (10) feet of any
dripline shall necessitate submittal of a "Tree Protection Plan" in
accord with section 32.7.9.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. No grading or
disturbance within ten (10) feet of any dripline shall be permitted
until a) the survey and fencing have been completed and b) the
Planning Director approves a plan which show the grading or
disturbance and the surveyed dripline of the existing trees.
ATTACHMENTS
5P 2008-32
PC 2-17-09
Staff Report
Page 14 of 15
Attachment A--
Location and Easemcnt/Resource Map
Attachment B --
Central Virginia Recycling Center (November 17, 2008)
(3
plans stapled together)
1.
Existing Conditions Plan
2. Concept Plan
3.
Audio Testing Plan
Attachment C --
Central Virginia Recycling Center Overall Sketch PIan
Attachment D --
Central Virginia Recycling Center Illustrative Plan
Attachment E --
Request and Justification for a Special Use Permit
Attachment F --
Certified Engineers Report
Attachment G--
Central Virginia Recycling Center Tier 3 Groundwater
Assessment Plan
Attachment H--
Trip Generation Assessment
Attachment I--
Central Virginia Recycling Center prepared by Ramsey
Kemp & Associates
Attachment J --
SP 93-07 1781 Productions, Board of Supervisors
Approval letter, dated May 17, 1993
Attachment K —
Official Zoning Determination, dated September 15, 2008
Attachment L —
Photographs — Proposed Site
Attachment M--
Photographs — Wood Mulching Sites at Waltrip
Williamsburg); Agri Mulch & Recycling (Lousia County);
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (Albemarle County)
Attachment N —
Department of Environmental Quality correspondence
from Jonathan Pascarella, Environmental Program
Planner, dated September 30, 2008
Attachment O —
Citizen Correspondence
SP 2008-32
PC 2-17-09
Staff Report
Page 15 of 15
TMP 94-25AA f
NSF KENNETH ANO SUSAN GOFF-
ZONING. RA
U3E. RESIDENTIAL • ` .0
TIAP 4 �
/ ♦ ` 94
UT WRLLAM OORSE-Y LAND TRUST
• '
ZONING RA
T: mrE�Wf
ZONING
1 • ` uSE. RESIDENTIAL
I♦ AREA RESE ED FOR
+ FINAL OPETION !'
I(STORAGE AND LOADING)
f _ ► TMP 94.21 K
► WE WILLIAM DORSET, IA
,� ► ►
Da 143698
H! oPfK VASrI.aEZONING RA
- � D .I.� ► •°43Dg E. USE, RESIDENTIAL
f ucwlw ANo- �5,g3, O
f Allft
waaocn — Jla . ►
9" (�
of-. •►
p m - . • - I 1 PI�SETtYEp ,L �a -' - - � 11 ►
rmwom o \ `
"AREA RESERVED
/ AREA 1-* FOR PRIMARY
/ RESERVED / OPERATION J y �"
FbR `��J. (AGING,
DELIVERIES C(;-ORING AND JJ \ ♦♦ BPENPAST 1E
AMP GRINDING i -- STOCKPILING)
•
t OPERATION JJ I \ \ y
1p
Ah V '� \ •• ,i11'11'29'v'� 382 A3' .
S°s • _ h /\\ \wr�rr�
'T.` Ell TREE' -INE \.- \ \
�• AREA �R \\
Ea 'RLTirf ` RESERVED
FOR OFFICE .♦
• AND SHOP
`
OPERATION ;
6 ♦moo'
`♦ 1;7
�••�Y ['��� r TMP 94-32
Yl 1 P w .. wwww� wwww� . w wwww� r r wwww� w . wwww� w 'V . NIF KAREN �NONSON
DLe
Ty SO°DU'09'E 1829.93' r �w w . . • ■ . i . ■ r . • _ r.1 a . ZONING. RA
T
00
Ex TREE�INe
J`
Z,UBERESIDEWLAL
TMP 94-2SA4
TMI
-,1SAe
NT CARLTOk, JN MH) HEIDi BROOKS
E
JULIE MiNETOE
M[ 35
D.B 1B16.4.N
ZONING RA
/11117"MIEW
t
DE
G RA
USERESIDEN-IAL
ZC
.USE
:
�r
i
CENTRAL VdRGINdA I21ECI'Cb.,IING CENTEIR
ALBEMARLE COUN'T'Y, VIRGINIA
PREPARED EIV;
TERRA
CCINCEPTS, P.C.
\O%-O%17,20M (REV.)
OVERALL SECTION PLAN Attachment C
A
9k C'!'ftlA'
r�>strl"[ti♦
e� e�rer.
CENTRAL VIRGINIA RECYCLING
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
SITE SECTIONS
TERRA
CONCEY[5, P.C.
ZZ �.
SECTIO",
9ECClN
8-11-1-111
1
CENTRAL VIRGINIA RECYCLING
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
SITE SECTIONS
TERRA
CONMPTS. P.C.
.. wu•�re ebm
CENTRAL VIRGINIA RECYCLING
ALBENIARLE COLNTY, VIRGINIA
SITE SECTIONS
TERRA
CONCEPTS, P.C.
N9m
Central Virginia Recycling LLC
Tier 3 Groundwater Assessment
Groundwater Management Plan
Portions of TMP 94-21 N & TMP 94-21 N1,
Boyd Tavern
Prepared for:
Central Virginia Recycling LLC
2330 Commonwealth Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22901
August 18, 2008
Nick H. Evans PhD CPG
Virginia Groundwater LLC
4609 Burnley Station Road
Barboursville, VA 22923
Attachment G
Key Findings
Hydrogeologic unit: Piedmont Proper
Groundwater availability zone: VII I—Class 1 (lowest relative availability)
Estimated daily groundwater withdrawal: 1950 gallons
Estimated daily groundwater recharge to site: 49,100 gallons
Site within groundwater sensitivity zone? Yes: one public water supply well is
within 1000 feet of the property
Contamination threats on record: Documented leaking underground storage
tank (LUST) site within 1000 feet of the property
Additional contaminant threats observed in field reconnaissance? None
Hydrogeologic conditions favorable to proposed use? Yes
Anticipated impacts of proposed use on existing users: None
Groundwater management plan: Preserve existing forest cover wherever
possible; implement runoff -neutral site development as practicable_
Site Overview
The proposed development comprises about 100 acres on two parcels located
south of US 250 near Boyd Tavern (Figure 1). The parcels are entirely within the
watershed of Limestone Creek, which is a tributary of the Rivanna River. Two
unnamed intermittent tributaries of Limestone Creek are on the property. There
is about 100 feet of relief on the parcels, with gently rolling open pasture in the
western portion, and wooded rolling topography to the east.
Land uses on adjoining parcels are light agricultural (hay and pasture land) to the
west and south, and rural residential to the east. There is a commercial 1
industrial facility at the intersection of Three Chopt Road and US 250, adjacent to
the proposed development.
The applicant proposes to use the northern portion (A, Figure 1) as a private
residence. The southern portion (B, Figure 1) would be developed as a recycling
facility, converting wooden waste (stumps, pallets and wood compost material)
into mulch. A site plan showing the proposed development layout and
approximate land disturbance is attached to this report.
Projected groundwater usage for the northern (residential) portion would be
consistent with that of a single-family residence (estimate: 450 gallons per day
for a 3 -bedroom house). There is an existing well on this portion of the property,
details are discussed in a later section.
On the southern portion of the property, groundwater would be used to wet the
mulch product, wash vehicles, and serve bathroom and kitchen facilities for
employees. Total groundwater usage for the recycling facility is estimated by the
applicant at a maximum of 1500 gallons per day: 500 gallons for bathroom and
kitchen facilities and 1000 gallons for wetting mulch product.
The water consumption for the bathroom and kitchen component was determined
using the information provided by the Thomas Jefferson Health Department and
comparing it to the Albemarle County Service Authority data. Water consumption
estimates for mulch wetting were determined based on discussions with several
similar operations around the state. All stated their water usage varied depending
on the quantity of materials on-site, the condition of the product (i.e. roughness
factor) and the climatic conditions (i.e. how dry it was). Based on these
discussions, the Applicant made an informed "best guess" assumption of the
amount of water would be required of this proposal.
A coloring agent will be mixed with water during the wetting process. This agent
is similar to food coloring, and is regarded by the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality to be chemically benign (documentation attached). Mulch
product will be stored in bins on a concrete pad, however the plan is to generate
only enough mulch to supply existing orders. There is no intent to store mulch
product for lengths of time sufficient to cause decomposition leachate to form.
Runoff from the site will be controlled by standard Stormwater Management
practices.
Hydrogeologic Assessment
Bedrock geology_
The parcel is situated within a bedrock formation described as "meta graywa cke,
quartzose schist and melange" on the 1993 Geologic Map of Virginia (Figure 2).
This falls within the Piedmont Proper hydrogeologic unit, as defined in the
Albemarle County Hydrogeologic Assessment Summary Report of 2003, with
Class 2 (medium) relative groundwater availability.
Bedrock fracture density and water well productivity
The bedrock underlying this property does not contain primary intergranular
porosity through which groundwater might flow. Instead, groundwater flow is
confined to bedrock fractures and fissures. The property is situated about 1000
feet east of a fault zone that includes lenses of limestone. Deformation
associated with this zone, and related lenses of limestone likely extend onto the
western portion of this property.
High -yield water wells have been successfully constructed within this zone, to the
northeast and southwest of the property along geologic strike. However, no
significant linear features, fracture traces or structural features were identified on
air photos or other maps in this study that would be useful indicators of bedrock
fracture orientation on these parcels. Within the fault zone containing limestone
lenses, the likelihood of striking a high -yield well without conducting detailed
geological or geophysical study to select an optimal drilling site can be
characterized "hit and miss".
No bedrock exposures were observed on the property during field
reconnaissance. In the absence of good bedrock exposures with which to
directly observe bedrock fractures, the yields of randomly -sited water wells can
be used as a proxy for fracture density. Table 1 summarizes data from 290 wells
in the current county database that were constructed in the same bedrock
formation as underlies this property.
Tabte'1: Domestic 'water well statistics fro,
rrt Albemarle Caunty database
Geologic map unit yield total well depth casing length count
,J(gallons per minute) I (feet) (feet)
CZpm
(metagraywacke, average: 7.7 average: 179 average: 50.4 290
quartzose schist & maximum: 75 maximum: 630 maximum: 322
melanael
�a
LJ
W
Z
N
C n
Uo �
a� -0
�Z
N
O C7)
Q a-
E
U O
07 C
O O
N �
C� o
z
N
It
rn
EL _
otS U U
Z N
N
O 7
T M N L
CL DCL
~ E aro
o�
aw
(D T
m �
E`
ow
2'2
�m
m�
w
a .-
E Co
o E
R �
m�
$O
N '!
There are eleven wells in the Albemarle County database that are within 2500
feet of the property (Figure 3). Data from those wells are reported in Table 2.
Approximately 40 additional wells are inferred to be present within 2500 feet of
the property, on the basis of air photos and site reconnaissance, although these
are not in the current county database.
There is one existing well an the property (located on Figure 3). This well was
constructed and permitted by the Virginia Department of Health as a Class Ilia
Public Water Supply Well, with a design capacity of 23 GPM (documentation
attached). During a 48-hour pumping test of this well conducted at 23 GPM,
stabilized drawdown of the well was less than 3 feet, indicating the capacity of
the well is considerably greater than 23 GPM. At least one dry hole was
reportedly drilled on the property, prior to drilling the successful well.
Overall, the data indicate that local metagraywacke and quartzose schist bedrock
is favorable for groundwater development in terms of fracture density. However,
the success of a water well drilled at a given location still depends on whether or
not the well intersects water -bearing fractures. A dry hole results if no water -
bearing fractures are encountered at the chosen drilling site.
Table 2: Data for wells (Albemarle database) within 250-0 feet of proposed development
total depth (feet) casing length (feet) yield (gallons per minute)
205 46 8
_.._
�.
630
250 41
190 33
105
37
10
80
60 10
305
35 1
300
68 1
165
31 20
90 40 6
305 fi3 1
350 20 0.25
Soils and sa rolite
Soils on the proposed development site are predominantly Nason silt loam, with
small inliers of Manteo channery silt loam and Abell silt loam (Figure 4). The
soils are deep and well drained, with moderate permeability, moderate available
water capacity and moderate susceptibility to erosion. The soils on site have the
potential to contribute favorably to groundwater recharge where land cover does
not inhibit infiltration of rainwater.
7 2
G %
CL
�
—
O
D
D E
LO
C\j
, ■
�
O
E
�
O
$
»
0
�
�
$
@
�
_
Cl
3
O
�
L+ -
0
O
ƒ
k
`J
6
m
2—
�
�k
7
:;�z
�
�
�
d
�
�
Figure 4: Soils mapping in the vicinity of
TMP 94-25N and TMP 94-21 N1
Groundwater flow. recharae and discharge
Soils units mapped on property:
1 B: Abell silt loam, 2 -7% slope
51 G: Manteo channery silt loam,
7 - 15% slope
6213: Nason silt loam, 2 - 7% slope
62C: Nason sill loam, 7 - 15% slope
source: las Department of Agricufture,
Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey
of Albemarle County, Virginia, 1985
Groundwater flow across the parcel is estimated to be generally northwestward,
with recharge in higher elevations on the eastern margins of the property, and
discharge into intermittent streams and into Limestone Creek (Figure 5).
Ultimately, groundwater discharges into the Rivanna River, about 2 miles
southwest of the property.
Existing hardwood forest cover on the eastern portion of the parcels is optimal in
terms of promoting infiltration of rainwater for groundwater recharge. Open
pasture land to the west is moderately favorable in terms of groundwater
recharge.
Groundwater sensitivity
Contaminant threats
The proposed development does coincide with areas of recognized groundwater
sensitivity according to Albemarle County studies and databases that were
assembled during the 2003 Albemarle County Hydrogeologic Assessment,
Phase 11 (Figure B).
nL,
W
t�
00
o `�
c
OO
E 7 O
O
a
OD
O
Q. _0
Q- O
3: p
p�C
O
r
O O C
CCi
Ln C
v
m o 'o
E j
� O �
O Q-0
U � �
O q� CD
�_0
tcn
. W
> N
O
_a O
� a
O
� � O
o U O
cz
X
Q O
r`4
l�
y�.
Yir
L
N
Q}
U =
4Co
4
.O O
� ❑
f �
O
O 70 m
Q�
C-¢ U
� o
U) ._.
r`4
l�
y�.
Yir
There is one leaking underground storage tank (LUST) site very close to the
northern boundary of the property (#19891184; listed as "closed case" by Virginia
DEQ). This is nominally up hydrologic gradient from the northern corner of the
property, and within 2000 feet of the existing well on the property. Due to the
proximity of this well to the LUST site, the applicant will need to test the well for
presence of volatile organic compounds (VOC) in accordance with Albemarle
County ordinance 05-E(1) prior to issuance of a building permit.
There are approximately 40 existing drainfields, approximate locations inferred
from air photos and field reconnaissance, within 2500 feet of the proposed
development (Figure 3). Very few of these are up hydrologic gradient from the
property, and none are considered to pose contaminant threats to the property
under normal circumstances.
Threats to existing users of groundwater
The Woods Edge subdivision public water supply well was erroneously mapped
in the Albemarle database as located on the property under study (Figure 6).
However, field verification places that well about 800 feet west of the southern
limit of the property. A water supply line between the well and the Woods Edge
subdivision crosses the southern portion of the property by right-of-way. Three
other public water supply wells are located about 2500 feet north of the property
(Figure 6).
The proposed development anticipates using a maximum of 450 gallons per day
on the residential portion of the development (3 bedroom house @ estimated 150
gallons per bedroom, VDH standards). This proposed withdrawal of groundwater
is not consumptive, to the extent that much of this water will be returned to the
ground as recharge through a drainfield.
The proposed recycling center will be converting wooden waste into mulch,
which will be stored on site prior to transport to market. It is estimated by the
applicant that a maximum of 1000 gallons of water per day will be used during
certain times of the year, for wetting of the mulch material. A coloring agent will
be mixed with water during the wetting process. This agent is similar to food
coloring, and is regarded by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality to
be chemically benign (documentation attached).
The design intent of the facility is to supply "just in time" inventory of mulch
product . Fresh mulch will be stored in bins on a concrete platform until picked
up by customers. Mulch will not be inventoried on site for more than one season,
not long enough for decomposition to occur, and leachate to form. Runoff from
the site will be controlled by standard Stormwater Management practices.
In addition, an estimated maximum of 500 gallons per day will be used in
bathroom, kitchen and garage facilities associated with the recycling plant. A
substantial portion of this water will be returned to the ground as recharge
through a conventional drainfield. The permit for this drainfield has not been
written at this stage of the application process (application for Special Use
Permit), therefore the capacity of the drainfield cannot be used as a proxy for
estimating water usage.
Overall, maximum aggregate groundwater usage on the property is predicted to
be in the neighborhood of 1950 gallons per day. This equates to less than 1.5
gallons per minute of groundwater withdrawal. A conservative estimate of
groundwater recharge for the site is on the order of 49,100 gallons per day
(calculations below).
It is not anticipated that groundwater withdrawal of this magnitude will impact the
Woods Edge subdivision well, or other existing wells on adjoining parcels or
elsewhere in terms of groundwater supply. The proposed uses as a residence
and wood recycling center do not pose threats of groundwater contamination
under normal circumstances.
Water budget estimate for site
Annual precipitation: 44 inches
Conservative estimate for percentage of precipitation contributing to groundwater
recharge: 15%
Annual groundwater recharge: 6.6 inches
Daily groundwater recharge: .0181 inches = .0015 feet
Daily recharge per acre: .0015 feet X 43560 square feet per acre = 65.6 cubic
feet
Gallons recharge per day per acre: 65.6 cubic feet X 7.48 gallons per cubic foot
= 491 gallons per day per acre
Gallons per day recharge over entire site: 491 gallons per acre X 100 acres=
49,100 gallons per day
Predicted groundwater withdrawal on site: 1950 gallons per day.
Reserve wellfield
Given the 100 -acre size of the property, it appears there are ample opportunities
for siting additional well(s) in the event that existing well(s) become contaminated
or otherwise rendered unusable.
Dedicated Monitoring well
Given the proximity of this property to existing public water supply wells, this may
be an appropriate location for installation of a dedicated monitoring well.
Groundwater management plan
The proposed development will seek to minimize degrading groundwater
recharge by preserving undisturbed existing forest cover where possible, and by
storm water management strategies that minimize offsite runoff. The site plan
includes 100 -foot vegetated buffers on each of the intermittent streams that cross
the property, as well as standard Stormwater Management practices.
Submitted by Nicholas H. Evans, CPG # 2801 001041
September 19, 2008
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL REGULATION
F.71ClRES OlC —t COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
3600 Wosi Broad Sirsei. Rlehnwnd. VA 2=0 j
08-31-2009 Te1ephone, 1(8041367-0500 2801 001041
BOARD FOR GEOLOGY
CERTIFIED AS A PROFESSIONAL GEOLOGIST
NICHOLAS H EVANS'
4609 BURNLEY STATION ROAD
BARBOURSVILLE, VA 22923
..n•.ra:o*ncnxu�s..t�.�rreea�nea.. a.,w. e, rL.r..e,w..„.;, <:,,xn 7. I1nIkMr. Uirelmr
!S �VBrIBE gm FOR I NA AWn.ss cn—
RAMEY KEMP
S.
ASSOCIATES
TRANSPORTATION €NQIN€ERS
November 17, 2008
Mr. Bobby Vess
Central Virginia Recycling Inc.
2330 Commonwealth Drive
Suite 400
Charlottesville, 22901
Reference: Central Virginia Recycling Center
Albemarle County, VA
Subject: Trip generation assessment
Dear Mr. Vess.
RAN, kEMP & ASSOCIATES OF RICHMOND. INC
4343 Cox Road
Glen Allen, VA 23060
Phone - 884-217-8568 Fax - 804-217-8563
www.rameykemp.com
Ramey Kemp & Associates of Richmond (RKAR) has conducted an analysis of the trip generation for the
proposed Central Virginia Recycling Center. The purpose of this analysis is to estimate the total trips
that are to enter/exit the site during an average weekday because there is little empirical data provided
by ITE for such a facility,
ASSUMPTIONS
Based on discussions with the operator of the proposed facility, the following assumptions were made
for specific operation parameters of the site:
- Customers per day - 5 (assumed based on site characteristics)
- Truck utilization (dump truck capacity) — 80% (based on discussion with client)
- Truck utilization (tractor trailer capacity) — 95% (based on discussion with client)
OPERATION OF FACILITY
To determine the number of trips to/from the site based on production, the following was provided
through discussion with the client:
Maximum number of employees — 10 per shift
Number of shifts - 1 per day
Hours of operation 7AM — SPM Mon -Fri
- Gnnder operation
- Capacity of production
- Tractor trailer capacity
- Dump truck capacity
- Maximum dump trucks served
7AM — IPM Sat
51%
2500 — 2750 CY/wk
70-80 CY/load
12-15 CY/load
50 trucks/day (limitation of production due to site constraint)
Also note that this anaiysis is under the assumption that the inflow (dump truck trips only) and outflow
(tractor trailer trips only) of the site are approximately equal under typical daily operations.
Attachment H
Raleigh, NC - Richmond, VA - Winston-Salem, NC
TERRA:
17 November 2008
Ms. Joan McDowell
Albemarle County Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: Central Virginia Recycling (SP 2008-32); SUP Comment Response Letter
Dear Joan:
Please find enclosed additional information that we believe will assist staff, the Planning
Commissioners and Board of Supervisors in understanding the Central Virginia Recycling
operation. We've taken a step back and supplemented what would otherwise be a response to
your October 27" comment letter with a more detailed Narrative/Justification packet, as well as
a revised Certified Engineer's Report. This submittal outlines clearly how the Central Virginia
Recycling Center will meet the criteria set by Albemarle County's Zoning Ordinance and many
of the previously raised questions/concerns.
We have attempted again to address all the issues to -date, to the best our ability and feel
scheduling a Planning Commission hearing is the next step. We anticipate your staff report soon
and our project or the first available January agenda.
For ease, I have included the last round of comments in grey and our responses below them in
black on the following pages. As discussed, in the future, to avoid confusion and frustration,
please ask staff to clarify any additional issues/questions in the most coherent manner. Short
phrases or incomplete thoughts and statements are not productive to us in preparing responses
or understanding their concerns. I hope once this review is complete everyone (i.e. staff
particularly) will be on the same page and clearly understand the goals and objectives behind
CVR's request.
Should any of the staff have any questions or require additional information regarding our
submittal please contact me immediately so we do not delay our review.
Sincerely,
<2 0 4— �X- JW -2
Steven W. Edwards, ChA
cc: Bobby Vess, Central Virginia Recycling, Inc.
Enclosures: See Transmittal
Attachment I
C ]V'i. - H 1 6'.( l i Pll_
22-1 C.'„url `ylli. C-'1lm-louesvillc, Vi, 2291)Z )&e . i.';! ='):.i D) 's • ,.i,II; r.ur,L e)d l� I
Ms. Joan McDowell
Page 2
Planning and Community Development- Planning Division (Joan McDowell)
1. Hours/days of operation eauld have, multiple pieces of machinery running 56 hrs.
pE,r week that c,ouid disturb neighbors. Seg Toning C;ornment�. and 96 below_
The hours of operation would potentially equal a total of 56 hours. However, not
all of the proposed equipment will be operating at the same time and for that
entire period. Please refer to page 15 in the Certified Engineer's Report for
details. To elaborate further, as an example the primary piece of equipment (i.e.
the tub grinder) is expected only to be used between 12-36 hours per week. In
addition, when the pieces of equipment aren't being used they will be turned off.
Moreover, the average distance between any piece of equipment and an abutting
property line is 902', the closest distance would be 130'. In addition, the
operation is designed so that none of the equipment will violate Section 5.1.15 of
the Code which restricts the operational distance of any machinery to an existing
house.
The applicant has also pointed out in meetings and is willing to condition the fact
that on Saturdays there will be no grinding of material. He may also be willing to
condition that wholesale business won't be conducted before 10:00 in the
morning on Saturdays.
There is no Zoning Comment #6. Please clarify.
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 -clears materials are stared and where,
what disposal methods and places ars; used.
The primary goal of Central Virginia Recycling (CVR) is to recycle "clean wood
products" into mulch. Any by-products (i.e. stones and topsoil) are separated and
eventually sold, or removed properly from the site. All wood material products
must not have been painted, treated, used for transportation or loading of
contaminated materials off-site as stated in the Certified Engineer's Report on
page 10. Pallets may be accepted on a case by case basis. Accepting these will
require the Applicant's trust of the source. As material is delivered it will be
separated into piles and inspected by an employee of Central Virginia Recycling
as this is being done. In the case of pallets, obvious visual indications of
contaminates (i.e. paint, shingles, etc.) on the pallets will cause the employee to
sift through the remaining delivered material and pull any other pallets or
contaminated material out accordingly and set aside in the grindingldelivery area.
These violations will be recorded and the person/company who made a delivery
that contained contaminates will be notified. Material will then either be picked up
by the "source," returned to the "source" by CVR or disposed of properly at a
permitted facility accepting this type of material off-site at CVR's expense. These
expenses, incurred by CVR to return the material or properly dispose of it off-site,
will then be back -charged to the "source" and/or, if not paid by the "source", the
"source" will then be banned otherwise from making further deliveries in the
future to Central Virginia Recycling.
Attachment I
Page 3
How are nan-ra-;ars rnateriais idem ifie`? Are p� jR7,,'tc3iw� )od products treat 1izt ve
b�:en used for transporting or loading contaminated materials marked to identify.
thorn?
By visual inspection.
4 Whet happens to biofuel when it has aged?. Are there any other steps in th-;
process? How is it transported off site? Flow long is the aging process?
The word "biofuel" has been misinterpreted too much in this request. Because of
the use of this "green terminology" and the confusion associated with it, from this
point further "biofuel" should not be considered part of this application and
instead referred to as "mulch." Processing "clean wood material" and debris into
mulch is the primary purpose behind this application. There will be no other
recycling or composting activities proposed with this Special Use Permit request.
This clean wood material is aged (as described on page 10 of the Certified
Engineer's Report) in the area reserved for the "primary operation" as indicated
on the concept plan. The aging process is time dependent upon the demand for
certain types of material- some take longer than others. The aging process also
depends on climate and user demands. This step is typically done through the
use of windrows. It is flipped periodically through the use of mulch turners and/or
front-end loaders. The entire aging process last about 30 days before being
placed in the storage bins on-site for sale. Furthermore, DEQ stipulates that all
material must not reside on-site longer than 1 -year from the time of accepting it in
from an off-site source. Any material lasting on-site this long will be appropriately
removed and/or sold; which most likely would go to an approved composting
facility.
5. What happens to by-products that have been sifted from the clean materials.''
Where are they stored and how/where are they disposed?
By-products or unsuitable material are separated, stockpiled on-site in storage
bins and later sold or properly shipped off-site.
C`). 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.
I believe we have resolved this deficiency by subsequently providing this
information via email in October. We understand that all noise is subject to
Section 4.18.05 of the County Code. What we stated in the previous Certified
Engineer's Report on page 8 (last paragraph) was only the warning signals were
exempt. We have again clearly stated this on pages 3-4 of the revised Certified
Engineer's Report. We also realize that the testing done on June 12th indicated
we violated noise limits in one spot along the northwestern property line. This
Ms. Joan McDowell
Page 4
exceeded the limit of 60 dBA by 9 decibels. It's important to note that the
equipment was not setup in its final location, but in an area which did not require
clearing of trees and that could be accessed on site and viewed as an example
of the operation by staff and the neighbors. As shown on the revised concept
plan, the final location for this particular piece of equipment will be further back in
the site and attenuated by existing preserved vegetation; which suggests that the
violation will be reduced, if not eliminated, becoming in compliance with the
County ordinance. Should it remain a violation, the Applicant is willing to
implement (as stated on page 3) additional measures to attenuate the problem
area(s). Unfortunately as we stated there is no way of determining if some
degree of violation will persist until the site is developed and testing can be
performed under actual conditions.
Aside from the comment that the leaves were still on the trees in June, the
location where the violation occurred is along an existing (and to be preserved)
evergreen hedgerow. Therefore, the leaves being present make no difference at
the location where the violation occurred. We believe it is fair to assume that
additional noise violations will not occur behind the operation at either the
southern or eastern edges of the site due to the difference in elevation on the
property and the distance the property line is from the operational area. Again, by
moving the grinding operation further back to its proper area implies the violation
would be reduced, if not eliminated entirely. Nonetheless, the Applicant is willing
to perform the same demonstration again in the same area before, when the
leaves have fallen if necessary. Finally it's important to note that no matter what
time of year the noise test are done the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance
states that noise will always need to be considered and enforced as necessary
once any business is operating.
Furthermore, it's also important to note and understand that any noise associated
with the operation would not intensify significantly if several pieces of equipment
were being operated at the same time. It is the desire of the Applicant not to
disrupt the existing lives of the adjacent neighbors with this proposal. In fact, the
Applicant is more than willing to do whatever is necessary, within reason, to
circumvent any problems. As a matter of fact, when speaking to the northwestern
neighbor (Mr. Dorsey) about the demonstration in June, he stated it sounded like
someone mowing grass with a bush -hog and not very obtrusive considering 250
and 1-64.
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?
Thank you for pointing out the fact that the diagram should have been located
within the "noise" section of the Performance Standards. This illustration has
been removed.
GIYrr; (p��ce 9) — Provide lighting I"]I X11 or describe in detail lightingtolae, used.
Attachment i
Page 5
We feel a lighting plan is not necessary at this time but ra''
Site Plan review. It has been stated in the Certified Engin
Applicant is proposing "dark -sky" full cut-off fixtures. Any I
for the purpose of security around the office building. The
mounted to the building as a wall pack fixture with motion
from those, the only other lights being considered would he
Furthermore, the Applicant is willing to condition there will k
mounted lights on-site and all lights will be subject to ARB r
=�. Air Pollution (page 9 & 10) — Provide approval from DEQ.
According to the DEQ, air quality compliance may or may no
monitored or regulated at this site, Criteria needs to be met, t
receiving a zoning approval for the intended site. Once that is
the site and the equipment proposed will be evaluated and th(
be notified if further review is necessary. In other words, it is it y.. ,,ic at this
time to receive DEQ approval for air quality compliance.
10. Watercourse (page 10 & 11) Nationwide Number 18 Permit was granted by
default since the Army Corps of Engineers f;ailed to review the permit within the
prescribed 45 day period.
No response is necessary.
7 1.1�ist�a! lmp.Ict (page 1 1) — This, would not he visible fmm Entrance a)rrador. f f
has not been determined if it is visible from adjacent properties in winter and
early spring. The plan should clearly identify where trees ars; to be permaneri'Lly
undisturbed and protected from future operation intrusion and what landscttpmr
is proposed by the applicant to mitigate visual impacts.
The concept plan indicates proposed limits of clearing and where woodlands are
to be saved. It also depicts the preserved stream buffers on-site. The indigenous
vegetation will play a major role in screening the facility from view from adjacent
neighbors. Suggestions for additional plantings are also shown, which should
meet or exceeding requirements for the final site plan approval. The Applicant is
also willing to self -impose additional planting measures to address the concerns
of neighbors. Measures considered would be an evergreen screen (planted no
less than 6' tail) or a 8' privacy fence.
12.Odor (page 11) — New mulch has a strung odor. How was it determined that this
product would not have a noticeable odor? How will odor be controlled when
piles are being turned?
Odor is a difficult topic to discuss since it is very opinionated. It is true that certain
wood has a stronger aromatic scent (i.e. cedar or pine) than other wood. Odor is
experienced depending on the individual's proximity to the source, the climatic
conditions (e.g. Has it rained or not? Has it been a hot day or a rainy day?), and
whether or not the material is being properly maintained, processed and handled.
Without proper ventilation and continuous air circulation the wood product will
Ms. Joan McDowell
Page 6
have an odor. However, in the case of the Central Virginia Recycling operation,
odor will be suppressed based on the size of the mounds and how often they
process the material through the course of the aging in the windrows. As the
product is turned regularly over the course of 30 days, air is allowed to be
introduced to the voids and material; thereby, allowing the material to breathe
and not be as offensive as if the material was allowed to be left in large piles.
Attached in the appendix is a letter from APEX Companies, LLC discussing this
issue further and confirming our statements that turning the material, introducing
air into the material helps remove odor.
10. Gust (page: 12) - Site visit to Waltrip in Williamsburg revealed that the impact
most disturbing to nearby residents is dust, especially on humid clays. How was
it determined that dust would occur on dry days? How will dust be controlled
when piles are being turned?
Dust is anticipated being higher on drier days as one would suspect given the
lower amounts of moisture in the air. It is also more apparent when the site(s) are
not routinely watered down by an on-site watering truck. The Applicant has
proposed to have a water truck on-site and use it accordingly before dust
becomes a problem for the operation and to the neighbors as described on page
12 of the Certified Engineer's Report. The Applicant has also described having
several underground storage tanks and a fire hydrant on-site to assist when
needed. The fact is, when turning the mulch windrows there will be little to no
dust. However, dust is more likely to occur in the gravel areas between the
windrows. Therefore, the water truck will be used to suppress any dust as
needed in these areas. It's also important to realize that given the massive
amounts of saved vegetation (i.e. buffer) on-site between the proposed operation
and the adjacent neighbors that the expectation for dust to be a problem is
minimal. Should CVR receive complaints directly from the neighbors or the
County they will do whatever possible to mitigate the situation. This is stated on
page 5 of the Certified Engineer's Report. It is also discussed in the letter from
APEX Companies, LLC along with appropriate mitigation measures if they are
needed.
14. Hazardous/chemical storage (page 12) - This does not address non -clean
materials transported to site.
Please see our responses above regarding the non -clean materials.
15. Conclusion (page 13) - Section 31.2.4.1 or the Zoning Ordinance requires; that
Special use permit applic;ations, may be issued "upon a finding by the: beard 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 coning
ordinance, would be Tnet, our (;nncorns that we discus;scd in meetings regarding
the: negntivr- impacts anticipated with this proposal have not b(,(,,n add! !F,;sed with
Attachment 1
Page 7
this r ;iak,mittal. The standards in the, zoning ordiriartcw :;hauid bF. c.orj :Jeri
minimurn regulations that shouid be exceeded in order tc) address potential
irripac.t,,: of this application.
It is the opinion of our office, after consulting with many other professionals
during the course of the design and research phase of the project, that the public
health, safety and welfare will not be impacted in such a way to disrupt the
everyday lives of the surrounding neighbors. This is further explained in our
newly submitted Narrative/Justification report, Granted there are issues worth
considering as mentioned above but through the proposed measures and "back-
up" measures the Applicant is confident that these concerns are not as offensive
or disruptive as one may think. Regardless, the Applicant is prepared to discuss
options or stipulate other conditions in which staff would feel comfortable
supporting this request knowing enforcement measures later are in place.
16. �iir and water regulations, as applicable, will apply.
Duly noted. No response is necessary.
Additionall comments provided by Joan on 10/30108:
1. What other processing / sales will take place on the property? For instance.
will topsoil and / or compost be processed and 1 or solea here? What other
c:c,mpc,nents, will he trar7spnried to the silo to t,rnr.r-sc, materials intra c,rrrripPX;'
Stone and topsoil (as stated) are the known by-products of this operation. These
by-products will be collected, stored on-site and either sold from here or properly
removed off-site, as needed, in order to make room and continue the primary
goal of recycling "clean wood" material into mulch. There will be no composting
on-site.
2. What eisc will be stored an the property - both equiprnent and
products/materials?
Nothing else, other than what has been described before will be stored on-site.
The equipment on-site is described in the back of the Certified Engineer's
Report. Quantities will vary depending on the operational needs and demands of
users. Aside from those already described, there may be several electric
conveyors to assist in handling the mulch product between the primary operation
(i.e. aging) area and storage bins as described on the concept plan.
3. What activities will Lake place within the boundaries of the special use permit
outside of the gravel/paved areas shown on the plran? How will these activities
affect anticipated traffic?
No other activities are sought other than the by -right activities commonly
associated with the RA district. There should be no adverse effect on the
anticipated traffic.
Ms. Joan McDowell
Page 8
Are; there: any plans for phasing or expansion?
No.
Zoning and Current Development (Bill Fritz)
A, determination was made that this use fits within the broad definition of ��awmill and
Wad yard. This was nott appealed within 30 days of the determination, therefore it is a
tieing decided.
I . The, Audio Testing sheet of the plan set shows a test sound level of "60 dB
average" on the northwest property line. This is in excess of the limit of 6OdB
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.
Please see our response #6 under the Planning section above.
2. There will need to be a parking study/analysis to determine if the: parking for
employees and visitors/customers will be adequate.
We would expect this to be done during our Final Site Plan review.
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.
We would expect this again to be done during our Final Site Plan review.
Water Resources Manager (Josh Rubinstein)
Without. a quantitative; analysis of the projected water use for the facility, ii is impossible
to validate; the 1000 gallons per day figure proposed in the Groundwater Assessment.
lldithout 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 riot require, a pc<rrnit.
Attachment I
Page 9
As stated in several correspondences by Virginia Groundwater, LLC. our water
usage projections of 1000 gallons are "best guesses" until the site is developed
and based upon data received from the Albemarle County Service Authority and
the Thomas Jefferson Health Department. t=act of the matter, the site's
operational needs will dictate how much water is drawn from the existing well.
The Applicant is proposing to install several underground storage tanks near the
top of the facility. These tanks will draw water, as needed, based on a float
switch (like a toilet tank does) rather than continuously draw water from the
underground aquifer. The site's water usage will be not only climate dependent
(i.e. hot, dry days) for dust reasons (see the Planning section above (#13)) but
for moisture consistency in the aging process; and fire prevention in the worst
case.
VDOT (Joel DeNunzio)
The applicant ha. provided what VDOT requested at previous meetings which i,,
a relocation of route; 794 to line up more perpendicular to Route 25C and a riuhi
turn lane from Route 250.
No response is necessary.
2. Road plans will need to be developed for this intersection improvement.
No response is necessary.
Engineering (Glenn Brooks)
Please show all streams on the property. Intermittent streams require buffers.
The letter from Environmental C:cantral Opportunities, LLC mentions many
unmapped intermittent streams, but rioneF are shown on the plan. It appears th---IrE
may be one through the middle of the project area.
Rev. 1: This is stili not clear on the plans. The Certified Engineer's Report
indicates two primary intermittent streams. Buffers appear on the plan iw
these, but the contour information is irregular. and there are no stream
lines. The report also indicates two additional branches oft the southern
stream, which should have buffers.
This has been done and resubmitted.
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 i:o be
noise. The report indicates tests were perf=ormed, but the results were not
found in the appendix as indicated, and there was no summary.
Please see our response #6 under the Planning section above.
3. A traffic stuffy should be provided, assessing the need for turn lanes on Rt. 250.
The proximity to the fork with Rt. 794 also appears problematic.
Ms. Joan McDowell
Page 10
Rev.'s: This has been provided and is s atisfaciory,
According to the comments received on October 6th this issue has been satisfied.
4. The parHnq and travelways on the: plan do not appear to meet the requirements•
of 1 b-4.12.15.
Rev.1: This ha: been revised; and can be addressed in detail on the site
plan.
We would expect this to be done during our Final Site Plan review.
From an email from Glenn Brooks, dated 10130108:
I arra following up on this earlier e -email with the details.
1. The gist of the complication with the traffic information is in hov%+ 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; ("Note — see email from Glenn Brooks dated Oct. 30, 2008, for diagram,
attachments).
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.
There is a serious flaw with analyzing the traffic based on your review. The data
used overlooks the fact that the bulk of the site is utilized in the primary operation
(i.e. aging and coloring, etc.). This area has to be large enough to process the
material into what is a usable product.
A few other concerns:
2. in addition to the projected traffic volumes, a concern has been raised regarding
the nature of traffic (trucks) and how that might impact the area. VDOT has no
consideration for this in their turn lanes analysis charts; but it may be a concern,
We understand this may be a concern but the fact remains it is already a problem
due to the area's proximity to the development area and Luck Stone. Route 250
is currently capable of accommodating over 9,000 trips per day. The amount of
traffic being generated by this site, at 140 trips per day, is a far cry from
impacting or exceeding these current capacities. This doesn't appear to be of a
concern to the local residency but rather, the intersection of Route 250 and 794
Attachment
Page 11
which is considered to be a "dangerous" intersection. The plans developed to -
date show how CVR will improve this situation.
Guar fiat, been rrif�r7tior�ef. �;csric��rr�. ne certified engineer's report say,_-;
thea., will be none. Most rnwcning operations, oi- aging processes, apparently
have. oclor.
We recommend you reviewing our earlier responses under Planning above,
specifically response #12. To restate our position, odor is a very opinionated
topic. What smells good to me- might not to you, and vice versa. In the case of
this operation the Applicant is proposing to reduce these "assumed" effects by
proper and regular ventilation of the aging material. By doing so, this allows
better air circulation which is necessary to help dissipate any odors.
4. Vehicle, sto,- age, and burrow or vv i je areas on the remaining property. rnm iy he,
raised as issues.
Vehicle storage (i.e. the business's dump trucks and tractor trailers will most
likely be stored in the evening hours on-site below the office in the primary
operations area. Other areas potentially used for storage would be just below the
storage bins for the next morning deliveries. Front-end loaders, excavators,
trommels and the tub grinder will be parked in the general vicinity of the daily
operations and not moved around site unless repair is needed.
Borrow or waste areas are not being considered on-site. Material that is brought
in must go out in order for this business to operate the way it is intended.
According to DEQ, all material must not stay on-site any longer than 1 -year after
arrival. Given the site's operational space, the working area dictates how much
material can be accepted and what is available to be sold.
Thomas Jefferson Health Department
1. No comments provided.
Fire Department (Steve Walton)
1. No comments provided but information was provided to the Applicant during a
site visit on August 15t".
Architectural Review Board (Margaret Maliszewski)
1. No objections or comments were provided.
Historic Preservation (Margaret Maliszewski)
1. No objections or comments were provided.
Natural Resources/Stream Buffer Protection/Planning (Tamara Ambler)
1. No objections or comments were provided.
l IJ rm
�7rtraNlP
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
{804} 296.5823
May 17, 1993
1781 Productions
ATTN: Charles or Linda McRaven�J7
P. O. Box G
Free Union, VA 22940
RE: SP -93-47 1761 Productions
Tax Map 94, Parcels 21 and 25 (Rt. 516)
Dear Mr. & Mrs. McRaven:
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on May
12, 1993, approved the above -noted request. Please note that
this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Development shall be in general accord with the sketch and
tax map parcel dated May 7, 1993 and initialled VWC. The
area of development shall be 100 acres + and consistent with
the natural boundaries and boundary distances described on
the sketch. Only those wooded areas necessary to
accommodate development shall be cleared. All other wooded
areas shall be maintained in their natural state;
2. Site plan shall not be processed until Health Department
approval for potable water service and sewage disposal
system has been obtained. Approval shall be of the water
system design and the septic system design, including
suitable soil evaluation and percolation test;
3. Lights used to illuminate parking areas shall be arranged or
shielded to reflect light away from adjoining Rural Areas
and away from adjacent streets. Lighting spillover onto
public roads and properties zoned rural areas shall not
exceed one-half (-,) foot candle. Prior to final plan
approval a lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by
the Architectural Review Board (ARB) which shall include
methods for directing light downward;
Attachment 3
Charles or Linda McRaven
Page 2
May 17, 1993
4. Public performances shall not begin after 9:00 p.m. Public
performances shall not extend after 10:30 p.m. except due to
circumstances beyond the applicant's control such as, but
not limited to, rain, lightning or power failure. Under no
circumstances shall performances extend beyond midnight.
Public performances shall occur only from May 1 to September
30, with only weekend performances allowed prior to Memorial
Day and after Labor Day. Weekend performances shall only
occur on two (2) of the three (3) weekend nights. From
Memorial Day to Labor Day, performances shall occur not more
than six (6) nights per week;
5. This permit is for an outdoor, local historical drama
theater and those accessory uses customarily incidental to,
subordinate to and directly supportive of an outdoor, local
historical drama theater. Approval of this request shall
not be deemed to include uses such as craft shows, dog
shows, music festivals, rock concerts and film exhibitions
unrelated to the outdoor, local historical drama theater;
6. Methods for controlling on-site circulation shall include
manpower assistance or such other methods as may be approved
by the Planning Department;
7. Provisions of Section 4.14.1 are applicable. verification
to include submission of a certified engineer's report for
the acoustics of the sound system and amplification in
accord with Section 4.14.8 which shall be required at the
time of site plan submittal;
B. Staff approval of site plan;
9. Access shall be only from Route 250 and shall include left
and right turn lanes on Route 250 to serve the site;
10. The applicant shall post with the Zoning Administrator a
bond for its pro rata share of the cost of construction of a
left turn lane and taper (200 feet + 200 feet) within the
existing right-of-way of U.S. Route 250 onto State Route 616
(northbound). Such pro rata share shall be the fraction of
the estimated cost of construction of such lane of which the
numerator is equal to one-half the projected traffic to be
generated by the proposed use (expressed in vehicle trips
per day) and the denominator is the total traffic using the
relevant section of U.S. Route 250 (expressed in vehicle
trips per day) according to the most recent VDOT traffic
count. The bond shall be conditioned that the principal
thereof shall be available to be used to pay the applicant's
pro rata share of the cost of construction of the said turn
Attachment .1
Charles or Linda McRaven
Page 3
May 17, 1993
lane if, at any time within three (3) years from the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the proposed use,
the County and/or VDOT shall have appropriated money
sufficient to pay the balance of the construction cost
therefor. In the event that the County and/or VDOT shall
not have appropriated the balance of such construction cost
within three (3) years from the date of issuance of the
certificate of occupancy, the bond shall be released to the
applicant. The amount, terms, security and form of the bond
shall be subject to the reasonable approval of the Zoning
Administrator.
Before beginning this use, you must obtain a zoning clearance
from the Zoning Department. Before the Zoning Department will
issue a clearance, you must comply with the conditions in this
letter. For further information, please call Babette Thorpe at
296-5975.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above -
noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
l
V. Wayn Cilimberg
Director of Planni community Development
VWC/ j cw
cc: .Amelia McCulley
Jo Higgins
Attachment J
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5875
March 29, 1995
1781 Productions
Attn: Charles or Linda McRaven
P.O. Box G
Free Union, VA 22940
RE: Official Determination of Vesting of Special Permit 93-07
1781 Productions (Tax Map 94, Parcels 21 and 25)
Dear Mr. and Mrs. McRaven,
This is to confirm as a written determination, that which we
discussed in our meeting last week. At issue is what is required
for the vesting of this use. This proposal for "an outdoor,
local historical drama theater" calls for construction of a
stage, support buildings, parking lot and road system, septic
systems and the like. I concur that what you propose as phase I
construction will meet the terms of Section 31.2.4.4 of the
Zoning Ordinance. This states "For purposes of this section, the
term "commenced" shall be construed to include the commencement
of construction of any structure necessary to the use of such
permit within two (2) years from the date of the issuance thereof
which is thereafter completed within one (1) year ..." It does
not require that the use itself (public performances), begin in a
case such as this where construction is involved. This has been
a consistent interpretation. Therefore, unless the Board of
Supervisors sets an alternative time limit, the commencement date
shall be no later than May 12, 1995 with completion within one
year of the commencement date.
As I recall, phase I of the site plan proposes the following:
Construction of a stage. This involves a footing and
will require issuance of a building permit.
Construction of a^support building (per the special
permit). It will be used for material and/or prop
storage. This also requires a building permit.
Attachment J
1781 Productions
Page Two
March 29, 1995
Entrance road and employee parking area. The temporary
entrance will continue to be from the internal road,
Rt. 794. The V.D.O.T. has granted a construction
entrance permit here. This access is temporary and
will be abandoned and replaced by the Rt. 250
improvements when the site is open to the general
public in a later phase.
You mentioned that it is possible that the well will be under
construction with phase I. Prior to the completion and occupancy
of phase I, this office should receive approval from the Health
Department and County,Building Inspections Department.
In my opinion, the stage and the accessory building are
structures. And these structures are directly related to the
outdoor theater use such that they are not associated with uses
by right in the rural areas district. Therefore, commencement of
construction of either or both of these will vest the rights to
this special permit use.
As I understand it, phase I does not involve activity which is
open to the general public or practice performances. Under those
limitations, various special permit conditions do not or only
partially apply to phase I. These conditions are:
#1 applies as previously described. (To support phase
I usage.)
#2 applies as previously described.
#3 is not applicable because lighting is not proposed
or required in phase I.
#4 is not applicable because public performances are
not proposed in phase I.
#5 no action required.
#6 is not applicable to this phase.
#7 is not applicable to this phase because
performances and practices are not to occur with
phase I.
#8 staff approval of the site plan.
#9 access is addressed in the preceding.
#10 is not applicable at this time.
Attachment J
1781 Productions
Page Three
March 29, 1995
In order to continue the process, please submit a revised plan to
reflect approval comments from site review agencies. (See Bill
Fritz in Planning.)
Under Virginia Code Section 15.1.496.1, anyone aggrieved with
this determination may appeal this decision within thirty days of
the date of this letter by filing with this office a written
notice of appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals. If you do not
file such written appeal within thirty days, this decision will
become final and unappealable.
If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact my
office.
Sincerely,
Amelia G. McCulley, A.I.C.P.
Zoning Administrator
Attachment: 5P Approval
cc: Special Permit File
Bill Fritz, Senior Planner
Working File (AGM)
Fred Payne (Fax 804-977-6574)
Jan Sprinkle
Larry Davis
Bob Tucker
#95A/theatry
Attachment J
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832
September 15, 2008
Ms. Jo Higgins
Project Development Limited LC
104 Ana Marie Boulevard
Waynesboro, Virginia 22980
Re: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION
Central Virginia Recycling Center Use
As proposed in SP2008-032, TMP94-21 N
Dear Ms. Higgins:
Fax (434) 972-4126
This letter is in response to your request of July 23, 2008 for a determination of whether
the proposed uses described in the special use permit application for the Central
Virginia Recycling Center (SP 2008-032) fit under the "sawmills, planing mills and
woodyards" use classification in Albemarle County Code Sec. 18-10.2.2 (14).
It is our opinion, after careful review of your e-mail, the pertinent sections of the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the written information provided by Central
Virginia Recycling Center (CVRC), standard definitions, information gathered
from various sources, discussion with the Albemarle County Officials, interviews
with CVRC representatives and visiting similar facilities, that the CVRC facility, as
proposed, is within the "Sawmills, planing mills and woodyards " use
classification. This use is permitted by special permit in the RA, Rural Areas,
zoning district and by right in the HI, Heavy Industry, zoning district.
CVRC describes the proposed activities as a "commercial wood recycling operation",
which it asserts to be an "agricultural -product enterprise." Because CVRC describes
the operation as involving a grinder, CVRC has provided us specification sheets for
grinders and chippers that include blades and sawteeth used in the cutting action. The
description of the use also explains how the wood is to be stored before and after
cutting/processing.
The machinery CVRC will be using includes teeth, as on a saw, which cut, grind and
chip the wood products. The wood that would be processed by CVRC includes "clean
construction waste", which CVRC defines as being "Wood products preferably having
no nails, metal ties, paint or glue." and "Excavation and clearing debris" which it defines
as "Any wood product from land clearing activities (i.e. brush, stumps, logs, and bark)
which contain no contaminants such as metal, plastic or house demolition debris."
Further, CVRC has explained that materials will be sorted at the site of origin to assure
that there is no undesirable material in the wood products, before it is brought to the
recycling facility.
A rTACHMr.NT K
Ms. Jo Higgins 2
September 15, 2008
This determination starts with the definition of "Sawmill, Permanent" in Albemarle
County's Zoning Ordinance, codified in Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code.
Although the Zoning Ordinance does not define "planing mills or woodyards" it does
define a "Sawmill, Permanent" to mean: "A sawmill permanently located for the purpose
of processing timber without regard to point of origination." (Albemarle County Code
Sec. 18-3.1) The Zoning Ordinance also includes supplementary regulations in
Albemarle County Code Sec. 18-5.1.15 for sawmills that list "lumber, logs, chips or
timber" as materials in a sawmill and refers to a "saw, planer, chipper, conveyor, chute
or other like machinery' in limiting locations for sawmill equipment. Other definitions of
"sawmill", "processing" and "timber" may also be useful in defining the term "sawmill"
under the Zoning Ordinance. Webster's, Third New International Dictionary defines
"sawmill" as "a plant having power driven machinery for sawing logs. A machine used
for sawing logs." The Virginia Department of Forestry defines a "Sawmill" as "A plant at
which logs are sawed into salable products. It includes all the machinery and buildings
necessary for the operation of the plant." Webster's defines "processing" as the act of
"preparing for market, manufacture, or other commercial use by subjecting to some
process (method, system or technique)." Some Webster's definitions of "timber"
include: "wood used for or suitable for building'; "formed of wood';- "... something that is
made of wood..." Finally, Webster"s defines "woodyard" as "a yard for storing or sawing
wood" and MSN Encarta defines it as "a place where wood is cut and stored."
Based on CVRC's description of this proposed use and in our further discussions, we
have concluded that CVRC will be processing, including cutting and sawing, timber or
wood to be put to other uses off site, which is consistent with the operation of a sawmill.
Many of the activities proposed by CVRC also are consistent with the operation of a
woodyard.
The Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance specifically allows the use of "Sawmill,
planning mill and woodyard" in two zoning districts: RA, by special use permit and HI,
by right. The only difference in the two use clasifications is that the H I classification
also includes "wood preserving operations". This distinction recognizes the wood
preserving operation as a different use not allowed in the RA district. This
determination also examined the particulars of the proposed use to assure that it would
not fall into the "wood preserving operations" category.
For all of the foregoing reasons, it is our determination that CVRC's facility, as
proposed, is a "sawmill, planing mill and woodyard" use within the meaning of
Albemarle County Code Sec. 18-10.2.2 (14). This determination only identifies the
use as one permitted in the zoning ordinance. This determination is not an
assessment or endorsement of whether or not the use is appropriate at the proposed
location. The fact that this is a use allowed only by special use permit in the Rural
Areas zoning district requires that the Board of Supervisors make the decision on the
appropriateness of the Use in this location as part of its deliberations on the special use
permit request.
If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have the right to appeal it within thirty
,'1T'I ACI IMENT K
Ms. Jo Higgins
September 15, 2008
(30) days of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Virginia
Code Sec. 15.2-2311(A). If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be
final and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning
Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the
grounds for the appeal. An appeal application must be completed and filed along with
the fee of $120. Notice of this determination is being given as of the same date as this
letter. r�
:Sinc ely,
a�
onald L. Higgins, AICP
Chief of Zoning/
Deputy Zoning Administrator
cc: Central Virginia Recycling , Inc. Terra Concepts
c/o Ken Vess c/o Steve Edwards
2330 Commonwealth Drive 224 Court Square
Charlottesville, VA 22901 Charlottesville, VA 22902
ATTACHMENT K
� - � ` } , _f
�, �t
� ,�
��. _ ; � , E� � � ..
,� � ��
,�' _
-; '�
..
y �� `..
u 1 �.
t k +�'.
�- y �. t� Y _�' i . _ r
�� � _ i
;� , � `.`
� ��� ��,`� �� 1 ���
`s '�� '�
�,
��� �, �.
;�` .
.� } ,_ � '.
� 1 ��1 ,ti fsii' t , f 4 ,
��'
� � � r i A1�
.ii
t �,
_ r� ,
j
^1 `
v
w
*, f f
_ � F
� � ' _ - �f
a
,�F , F
a� 4
i
���� l 1
� ��ir
:\ ���
��
z
LU
U
a
a
COMMONWE.ALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
VALLEY REGIONAL OFFICE
L. Preston Bryant, Jr. 4411 Early Road, PO. Box 3000, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22801
Sccretmy oYhnnienl Resources (540) 574-7800 Fax (540) 574-7878
David K. Taylor
Director
www,deq.virginin.gov
- Amy Thatcher Owens
Regional Director
September 30, 2008
Mr. Kennely Vess, Owner
Central Virginia Recycling
23.30 Commonwealth Drive
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Re- Regulatory Status of Mulching Operation
Dear Mr. Vess:
The Valley Regional Office of the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
received a request from you for information regarding how the Virginia Solid Waste
Management Regulations (VSWMR) would relate to mulching operations conducted by
Central Virginia Recycling (CVR). This letter contains similar information as the email
that I sent to you on August 8, 2008 regarding a response to the same request. You have
stated in our several conversations that stumps and pallets would be collected and
processed into mulch, As we have discussed the VSWMR have a conditional exemption
for mulch, the mulching process, and the raw materials that are collected and stored to
make mulch. This exemption is applicable providing that certain criteria are met. The
criteria are that 75% of the raw materials on-site at the beginning of the calendar year are
processed into mulch at the end of the year and that the site is operated such that no open
dump, hazard, or public nuisance is created. It would be beneficial for you to review
DEQ's criteria for open dumps. For your convenience, I have enclosed a copy of these
criteria with this letter for your review.
DEQ has also received your Special Use Permit (SUP) submittal dated June 16,
2008 that you forwarded to Albemarle County regarding this same operation. This
submittal is somewhat different than what you discussed on the phone with me in that the
SUP states that construction waste will be one of the raw materials collected and
processed into mulch. Because CVR will be receiving construction waste and pallets,
there may be times when non -wood construction waste, treated wood, or contaminated
ATTACHMENT N
Central Virginia Recycling
September 30, 2008
Page 2
pallets are received that are not allowed by the VSWMR to be processed into mulch.
This non -wood waste and contaminated or treated wood will need to be collected
separately and sent for proper disposal. If the waste stream of un -useable materials is
greater than 5% of the total material coming into the site, you may be required to obtain a
Materials Recovery Facility permit from DEQ. The most efficient procedure would be
for CVR to reject the objectionable material and send it back to the generator for proper
disposal.
Thus, to confirm, if CVR operates under the parameters discussed in paragraph 1,
no waste permit would be required.
As I explained in my email, CVR may be required to apply for a storm -water
permit as an industrial operation from DEQ's Water Pollution Control Program and may
be subject to air permitting requirements for the use of petroleum fuels or processes that
emit dust and fumes as regulated by DEQ's Air Pollution Control Program. I have
previously provided contacts for these programs to you and I believe that you have
already had discussions with each of the appropriate staff.
I hope that this information is useful to you and answers the questions that you
had regarding the solid waste regulations as they apply to your operation. Please feel free
to contact me at (540) 574-7838 if you have any questions about the content of this letter
or if you have any other questions regarding waste management standards.
Si e�ely,
Jed Pascarella
Environmental Program Planner
Enclosure
c: Graham H. Simmerman, Jn, P.G. — VRO Waste Program Manager
,joartMcDowell—_ALben �e-County Zoning
ATTACHMENT N
LIS > Administrative Code > 9VAC20-80-180
Pagel of 5
grev next
9VAC20-80-180. Open dump criteria.
A. Municipal solid waste landfill units failing to satisfy the federafj§olid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria
contained in 40 CFR Part 258 constitute open dumps, .which are prohibited under §4005 of the federal
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. For the purposes of th"isprt, the municipal solid waste landfill
unit (MSWLF) means a discrete area of land or an excavation that receives or has received after October
9, 1991, household waste, and that is not a land application unit, surface impoundment, injection well, or
waste pile, as those terms are defined in Part I (9vac20-8o-io et seq.) of this chapter. A MSWLF unit also
may receive other types of nonhazardous solid wastes, such as commercial solid waste, nonhazardous
sludge, nonhazardous industrial solid waste, and hazardous waste from conditionally exempt small
quantity generators as provided for in 9vac20-60-26i B 5.
B. Any site, other than a municipal solid waste landfill as defined in subsection A of this section, that
meets any of the following criteria shall be classified as an open dump:
1. Floodplains. Sites or practices in floodplains that restrict the flow of the base flood, reduce the
temporary water storage capacity of the floodplain, or result in washout of solid waste, so as to
pose a potential hazard to human life and wildlife or to cause a potential for contamination of land
or water resources.
2. Endangered species.
a, Sites or practices that cause or contribute to the taking of any endangered or threatened
species of plants, fish or wildlife.
b. The site or practice that results in the destruction or adverse modification of the critical
habitat of endangered or threatened species as identified in 50 CFR Part 17.
c. As used in this section:
(1) "Endangered or threatened species" means any species listed as such pursuant to section 4
of the Endangered Species Act,
(2) "Destruction or adverse modification" means a direct or indirect alteration of critical habitat
which appreciably diminishes the likelihood of the survival and recovery of threatened or
endangered species using that habitat.
http://legl .state. va.Lis/egi-bin/legp5O4.exe?000+reg+9VAC20-80-180
ATTACHMENT N