Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201300008 Correspondence 2013-02-20 NOW Megan Yaniglos From: Ann Mallek Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 7:21 PM To: Charles Boldt; Megan Yaniglos Subject: Re: driveway location for New Hope Church Another background email. You may have these from scott. Ann • Sent from my iPad On Feb 20, 2013, at 5:59 PM, "Charles Boldt" <boldtc@yahoo.com>yahoo.com> wrote: Ann Would you share this email with Megan? Chuck Forwarded Message From: Ann Mallek <amallek(a)albemarle.org> To: ed(c�blackwelleingineering.com; Charles Boldt <boldtc ,yahoo.com> Cc: Scott Clark <Sclarkalbemarle.org> Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2012 8:44 PM Subject: driveway location for New Hope Church Mr. Blackwell, I have met with vdot and spoken to the county engineer about their restrictions if any on the location of the driveway. Vdot indicates that as long as the site distance is met, you have flexibility on the location. County engineer Glenn Brooks said that he would not prevent mowing of grasses in the stream buffer to provide site distance. Both of these facts seem to indicate that you would be able to move your entrance further away from the stop sign which would help matters considerably from the neighbors point of view. The view of the area is of a rural nature and everyone wants that view maintained, rather than having an opening of the forest which would expose the buildings of the new church to view. The other two churches up the road have set a standard and a good example for you to follow. I look forward to the next effort. Thank you. Ann Mallek 1 Megan Yaniglos From: Ann Mallek Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 7:12 PM To: Charles Boldt; Megan Yaniglos Subject: Re: VDOT Meeting Megan Here is some background on the new hope entrance issue Ann Sent from my iPad On Feb 20, 2013, at 5:59 PM, "Charles Boldt" <boldtc @yahoo.com> wrote: This is the second email to share with Megan. Chuck Forwarded Message From: Charles Boldt<boldtcyahoo.com> To: Ann Mallek <amallek(a�albemarle.org> Sent: Sunday, October 7, 2012 7:48 PM Subject: VDOT Meeting Ann Thank you for arranging the meeting with VDOT. It would appear that other options were and are available for the entrance. It was also good to hear that the County can impose restrictions that govern the VDOT permit. The option of relaxing the 100 foot stream buffer may be helpful in relocating the entrance. As we discussed, as written, the 100 foot rule basically condemns the stream to be a no mans zone of"do not go in there". This does not have to be because stream restoration is an acceptable and widely used alternative measure. It is no different than moving from storm water detention ponds to a more natural and visually pleasing solution. What it takes is the desire. In addition, you can leverage private money to improve the situation since labor is a key component. The front page of the Daily Progress showed volunteers cleaning the Rivanna for example. After you left I thought of another example of what I was talking about. The City of Charlottesville has just done stream restoration on Meadow Creek in the Greenbriar area.. The result is to turn an eyesore into a site amenity. They eliminated the invasive species, left the good stuff and cleared out years of junk. What they were left with is something that serves two purposes that can and now do coexist. So what is the next step with the church? Chuck 1 Megan Yaniglos From: Mark Graham Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 10:41 AM To: Wayne Cilimberg; Megan Yaniglos Subject: FW: site plans for New Hope Church FYI From: Ann Mallek Sent: Sat 2/9/2013 1:09 PM To: Mark Graham Cc: Charles Boldt Subject: Re: site plans for New Hope Church Thank you. next week please ask Megan to offer some dates for chuck and me to meet with you. Wayne and Megan. That will be very helpful. Ann Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LIE DROID Mark Graham <mgraham @albemarle.org> wrote: Ann, I will insure that both you and Mr. Boldt are notified of the site review meeting. Additionally, if you and/or Mr. Boldt would like the opportunity to share concerns in advance of staff completing its review comments for this meeting, we are happy to do so. Next, to insure that everyone has the same information, I'm hoping the following will help. 1.The initial site plan was submitted for the review cycle starting on February 4th. Though the plan was submitted prior to this date, the start of the review cycle is February 4th. The applications number is SDP201300008 and the status at any time can be checked online using the CountyView tracking system at this link. http://countyviewweb.albemarle.orq/ I will be the first to admit this system is less user friendly than I would hope, but staff routinely provides training to the public on how to use this system. If interested, simply let me me know and I'll be happy to arrange someone to walk you or Mr. Boldt through it. 2. With this review cycle for an initial site plan, the site review meeting will be held on March 21st. We have a new site plan process that was put into place in January that this plan will follow. Information on this process is provided online at the following link: http://www.albemarle.orq/upload/images/forms center/departments/Community Development/forms/Site Plans/Sit e Plan Review Manual.pdf 3. The lead planner for the site plan review will be Megan Yaniglos. I have copied her on this email response so you will have a link to her email. If you wish to reach her by phone, the number is 296-5832, extension 3004. By way of this email, she is copied on Mr. Boldt's concerns and will include those concerns in her review of this project. 4. Wayne and I will plan on staying involved with this project through the initial site plan review and longer if necessary. As always, please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Mark i From: Ann Mallek Sent: Fri 2/8/2013 9:13 AM To: Mark Graham Cc: Charles Boldt Subject: FW: site plans for New Hope Church Mark, Please insure that Chuck Boldt and I are on the list for the announcement of the site meeting. We would both want to attend. If it is helpful to staff, we can meet earlier to go over details on the plan. Thank you. Ann From: Charles Boldt [mailto:boldtc @yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 4:45 PM To: Ann Mallek Subject: Fw: site plans for New Hope Church Ann This is exactly what I had hoped would not happen. Clearly the church has proceeded forward as a result of inaction on the part of a variety of county representatives. This touches many levels but the result is the same. A bad situation continues to get worse and no one appears willing to be accountable or to make it right. However, what is now clear by this submittal is that the church has no interest in being a good neighbor to us or Albemarle County. I do not agree with Ed's comments below and the attached plan provides the confirmation that the church has been less than truthful about its intent. The original plan is attached for reference. Further, I have had no contact from anyone at the county to say that it was submitted. Since Ed has a number, it is in the system and based on the drawing date on the cover page it has been submitted for about two weeks. To have no contact from staff after assurances that we would be involved is unacceptable. Clearly you were not aware of the status. I renew my request that the BOS revoke both its approval of original site plan and the critical slope waiver based on this submittal being materially different from what was represented and approved. Staffs lack of responsiveness to your requests and our rights as adjacent property owners can no longer be ignored and we request the BOS take over oversight of their activities in this matter. A quick review of the submitted plan turns up the following at a minimum: 1. The extent of clearing on the corner at Dickerson has expanded. Whatever buffer the BOS thought would be present when they voted is no longer present. Further, the church is now clearly visible from the E/W portion of Dickerson as well as the N/S Dickerson. 2 2. The extent of the critical slope at the front has grown. If what is shown is critical slope, clearly the land on the N/S Dickerson should also be considered critical slope. It is my contention that the extent of the critical slope was understated to make the critical slope waiver appear insignificant. You know from your site visit that steep slopes are present over a large portion of the property. 3. The topography in the stream buffer is no longer shown. The option we discussed cannot be discussed without this information. However, you can see from our on site visit that this area presents an opportunity for a better access to the site, a lower impact development and an upgrade of the stream. To classify this area as a no activity area is not appropriate. 4. The extent of the land clearing has been expanded. With more land cleared, the visibility of the church has increased and the contrast with the three neighboring churches increased. 5. The proposed vegetative buffer does not adequately screen Piney Mountain Road. It is less than what we previously discussed and does not meet the screening standard of the county. 6. Further, the floor elevation of the church is fifteen (15)feet above Piney Mountain Road and requires considerable fill to achieve. By placing the church on the highest point, visibility from Dickerson and Route 29 is achieved withpout complying with the entrance corridor requirements. By lowering the floor elevation both a physical and vegetative buffer would be provided. 7. Stormwater management is not low impact and now consists of three named and one unnamed bioretention basins. The original submittal had one basin. The church had previously indicated they would eliminate the basin in favor of alternate approaches. These alternate approaches were not incorporated. 8. Some stormwater is now directed to the E/W Dickerson Road. This water will now cross my property. In the original submittal this was not the case. I do not want added flow across my property. If you have any questions please let me know. Chuck Forwarded Message From: "ed(a�blackwellengineerinq.com" <edc blackwellengineering.com> To: Ann Mallek <amallek(a�albemarle.orq> 3 Cc: Charles Boldt<boldtc(uyahoo.com w Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 6:56 PM Subject: RE: site plans for New Hope Church Ann, We have finalized our site plan with the entrance as originally planned. I was directed to finalize and submit to the County. The site plan is logged into the County system as: SDP201300008. I have attached a pdf of the submittal for you and Chuck. When grading the entrance it became apparent that the farther north we moved it would require more extensive grading of the embankment and removal of trees, due to both grade issues and a reduction of sight distance. In discussing this with my client and in light of keeping grading and tree removal out of the stream buffer, we opted to keep the entrance closer to the intersection. We did incorporate many of the other requests\ideas by the residents of Piney Mountain Road (PMR)that came from our meetings with them. We increased the existing tree buffer to 50 feet along PMR, placed landscaping along the edge of our parking lot(the landscaping plan still needs to be finalized with details and I see on the attached pdf where we need to extend the trees some), and we moved the detention basin north of the power lines. We have also pulled the soccer field from the SUP process. The church may one day need\want a larger recreation field, but they are going to try and use some of the proposed cleared land adjacent to the church for their outdoor needs. We like to think we have been reasonable in adjusting the site plan for many issues the neighbors had. We also think we used rational justification for why we finalized our design on the one issue that may still be a sticky point with the neighbors -the entrance location. Ed Original Message From: "Ann Mallek" <amallekalbemarle.org> Sent: Sunday, February 3, 2013 7:52pm To: ed a,blackwellengineerinq.com Cc: "Charles Boldt" <boldtcc yahoo.com> Subject: site plans for New Hope Church Ed, Please update me on the progress with the site plans if any. The neighbors are concerned that they have not heard from planning, and planning says they have not received anything from you. 4 VDOT indicated they were flexible to move the entrance further north, away from the stop sign. Rather than the slight modification of the entrance we discussed on site, you sent a one with monstrous invasion of the buffer and the entire road built on the north end. That was clearly a non starter, rather than a small change to accommodate. The interest of the neighbors is to preserve the rural aspect of their area, as was emphasized by the planning commission. Neighbors do not want you to spend lots of dollars on design when the result may not survive. Thank you for your help. Ann Mallek White Hall district supervisor 5 Now Megan Yaniglos From: Charles Boldt[boldtc @yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 5:24 PM To: Megan Yaniglos; Ann Mallek Cc: David Benish; Mark Graham; Francis MacCall; Bill Fritz Subject: Re: Update on New Hope I thought that went without saying but thank you for the clarification. Can you answer my question about engineering's review of the critical slopes? I also thought of one more question which is when I looked at County view just now the VDOT comments were outstanding. Have you received them? Chuck From: Megan Yaniglos <myaniglosalbemarle.orq> To: Charles Boldt <boldtcyahoo.com>; Ann Mallek <amallekalbemarle.orq> Cc: David Benish <DBENISH(a�albemarle.org>; Mark Graham <mgraham(a�albemarle.orq>; Francis MacCall <FMACCALLalbemarle.orq>; Bill Fritz <BFRITZ(a albemarle.orq> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 11:41 AM Subject: RE: Update on New Hope Also, just to clarify, there will be other conditions on the initial site plan, however this is the one that pertains to the critical slopes. I will also send you a copy of my approval letter once it is complete. Thank you, Megan Yaniglos, ASLA Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development Department Planning Services 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3004 fax: 434.972.4126 From: Megan Yaniglos Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 11:40 AM To: 'Charles Boldt'; Ann Mallek Cc: David Benish; Mark Graham; Francis MacCall; Bill Fritz Subject: Update on New Hope Mr. Boldt and Ms. Mallek, After the hearing on Wednesday, Mr. Blackwell called and has told me that the pastor has directed him to scale back the plan. They are planning on removing Phase 2 and Phase 3 buildings, and possibly also removing the parking area in the back that is labeled for phase 2. This will also reduce the limits of disturbance. 1 I have looked at the critical slopes, and it appears that the new critical sloopes being disturbed are within these areas. There are slopes that were not shown on the special use permit concept plan where the entrance is, however these slopes are exempt per Section 4.2.6 for accessways. Therefore, I am going to approve the initial site plan with the condition that the applicant show no disturbance to the critical slopes shown currently in phases 2 and 3 unless granted a waiver from the board of supervisors. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Megan Yaniglos, ASLA Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development Department Planning Services 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3004 fax: 434.972.4126 2 Megan Yaniglos From: Charles Boldt[boldtc @yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 1:06 PM To: Megan Yaniglos; Ann Mallek Cc: David Benish; Mark Graham; Francis MacCall; Bill Fritz Subject: Re: Update on New Hope Attachments: ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE 18-4 Critical Slopes.pdf Megan It would seem to me that it is the applicant's responsibility not county staff to demonstrate that no other reasonable alternative location or alignment exists (4.2.6 (c)). Since other options have been identified by VDOT and are feasible under the county code, I would think that this needs to be explored by the church based on the current information about the extent of the critical slopes. Further, the ability of the agent to waive or modify requirements comes from an authority granted by the Board of Supervisors. Therefore, it is subject to review and can be rescinded. Since the site plan for the special use permit and critical slope waiver was based on the full build out, the church still needs to show all phases and any impacts whether the work is done now or in the future. The idea of not dealing with all the critical slope issues is not appropriate and delays the resolution. If the church wants to scale back and revise it's special use permit that is fine. But, as long as the full build out is what was approved, critical slopes which are now known by the field run topo to be impacted should be addressed. The critical slope issue needs to come to closure. We talked Wednesday about a critical slope review to be done by engineering on the 4/9/13 plan to update what was done in the initial staff review. What is the status of that review. Thank you for the update. Chuck From: Megan Yaniglos <mvaniqlosalbemarle.org> To: Charles Boldt <boldtc(c�vahoo.com>; Ann Mallek <amallekalbemarle.orq> Cc: David Benish <DBENISH @albemarle.org>; Mark Graham <mgraham @albemarle.org>; Francis MacCall <FMACCALL(a�albemarle.org>; Bill Fritz <BFRITZ(c�albemarle.orq> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 11:40 AM Subject: Update on New Hope Mr. Boldt and Ms. Mallek, After the hearing on Wednesday, Mr. Blackwell called and has told me that the pastor has directed him to scale back the plan. They are planning on removing Phase 2 and Phase 3 buildings, and possibly also removing the parking area in the back that is labeled for phase 2. This will also reduce the limits of disturbance. I have looked at the critical slopes, and it appears that the new critical slopes being disturbed are within these areas. There are slopes that were not shown on the special use permit concept plan where the entrance is, however these slopes are exempt per Section 4.2.6 for accessways. Therefore, I am going to approve the initial site plan with the condition that the applicant show no disturbance to the critical slopes shown currently in phases 2 and 3 unless granted a waiver from the board of supervisors. Please let me know if you have any questions. 1 Thank you, Megan Yaniglos, ASIA Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development Department Planning Services 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3004 fax: 434.972.4126 2 Megan Yaniglos From: Charles Boldt[boldtc @yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 9:13 AM To: Megan Yaniglos Subject: Re: What is the official status of New Hope Church? Thank you for confirming the status. Chuck From: Megan Yaniglos <myaniglos @albemarle.orq> To: Charles Boldt<boldtcna.yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, May 2, 2013 8:41 AM Subject: RE: What is the official status of New Hope Church? Mr. Boldt: I have stated no objection to the initial site plan. This approval of the initial has a number of conditions for approval. Zoning makes the call if the plan submitted is in general accord with the SP, which they have done. Thank you, Megan Yaniglos, ASLA Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development Department Planning Services 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3004 fax: 434.972.4126 From: Charles Boldt [mailto:boldtc@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 5:15 PM To: Megan Yaniglos Subject: Re: What is the official status of New Hope Church? Megan In looking at CountyView, I note that you have added the note about the ARB appeal at the BOS on May 8. However, it also states that you have taken no objection to the revised plans submitted. Does this mean that you believe what has been submitted is in accordance with the Special Use permit? Is that a correct assumption? Thank you Chuck From: Megan Yaniglos <myaniglos(a7albemarle.org> To: Charles Boldt <boldtc @yahoo.com> Cc: Ann Mallek <amallek(a�albemarle.orq> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 10:02 AM Subject: RE: What is the official status of New Hope Church? 1 Mr. Boldt: They decided to defer the initial plan until the May 8th Board meeting. They are going to submit a Erosion and Sediment control plan shortly though. Thank you, Megan Yaniglos, ASLA Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development Department Planning Services 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville. Virginia 22902 ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3004 fax: 434.972.4126 From: Charles Boldt [mailto:boldtc@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 8:32 AM To: Megan Yaniglos Cc: Ann Mallek Subject: What is the official status of New Hope Church? Megan Since I have not seen your comments, did the church request a deferral until after the ARB review at the May 8 BOS meeting as you suggested? What is the official status of their application and when do they have to act by? Thank you Chuck 2 Megan Yaniglos From: Charles Boldt[boldtc @yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 4:57 PM To: Megan Yaniglos; Ann Mallek Cc: David Benish; Mark Graham Subject: Re: New Hope Church -Site Plan (BE#2167) Thank you. I understand that you must deal with what is on the table and appreciate your effort. After the BOS meeting in May you should have a better idea of the path forward. When you issue your letter I would like a copy. Chuck From: Megan Yaniglos <myaniglos @albemarle.org> To: Charles Boldt <boldtc @yahoo.com>; Ann Mallek <amallek @albemarle.org> Cc: David Benish <DBENISH @albemarle.org>; Mark Graham <mgraham @albemarle.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 4:13 PM Subject: RE: New Hope Church - Site Plan (BE#2167) Mr. Boldt: I have spoken to Mr. Blackwell to ask him to defer until the Board meeting takes place, however, if he does not defer, I will be approving the plan with conditions. One of which will be that if the plan significantly changes from the Board action on May 8th, that it may be determined that the plan will need to go through the initial site plan process again. I am obligated to follow the ordinance, and administer it in the way that it has always been administered. I have outlined everything in my response to you. I have nothing further to add at this time. If you have questions regarding this, please feel free to contact Mark Graham. Thank you, Megan Yaniglos, ASIA Senior Planner Albemarle County Commur ity Development Department Planning Services 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3004 fax: 434.972.4126 From: Charles Boldt [mailto:boldtc @yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 12:18 PM To: Megan Yaniglos; Ann Mallek Cc: David Benish Subject: Re: New Hope Church - Site Plan (BE# 2167) Megan Thank you for your comments. When will your response be issued to the church. I have the following responses to your comments: 1 Nr .r Item 1: a) It would appear that the definition of accessway needs to be on the table since Section 4.2.6 refers to "public facilities". The church may not fit that definition. The County Engineer, as far as the Church is concerned, has determined that no other reasonable location or alignment exists which was part of the ARB discussion and review. The ARB appeal discussion will in part point out that alternatives do exist for an entrance that does not disturb critical slopes. Ann asked for an alternative entrance last year but was rebuffed. b) Since the revised topo shows a greater amount of critical slope, from my perspective we might as well start the process of revisiting that issue sooner rather than later. To do that it would seem appropriate that a document showing the verified critical slope using field topo be prepared with the same calculations that were done to approve the special use permit which was the document that I attached. It should be an equal area calculation. If your comments say that the BOS needs to revisit their approval, what is the timeline involved? If it does not,what are the options? Item 2: The key word is professionals. Since they are licensed by the Commonwealth, other options are available if their work is not adequate. That said I do not feel it is unreasonable to ask that you be given a clean existing conditions drawing with only the layer of the outline of the building and paving. Especially since all that is involved is turning off a few layers that are now turned on Having both on the same page does not allow, in my opinion, and adequate evaluation of what is being proposed. Further the drawing issued is not showing adequately what is going on. For example the finish floor elevation of the building and the elevation of the parking on the east side suggest that a considerable amount of fill and or retaining structures are required adjacent to the 100 foot buffer. A field investigation bears this out. Perhaps a drawing with a better scale in that area would clarify what is going on Item 3: Will depend on entrance discussion outcome. Item 4: Actual topo in these areas is relevant, in my opinion, given the extent of earthwork and the requirement to adequately buffer Piney Mountain Road from the Church. Further the transition of the site work is tight in these areas. Item 5: See item 4 comments. I would prefer not to assume that the conflict between field and county topo can be worked out without any issues before construction begins rather than after. It is clear that some confliccts exist that need to be addressed while some flexibility for alternative approaches still exists. "Sorry that is just the way it is"will be an unacceptable excuse. From: Megan Yaniglos <myaniglos(a�albemarle.orq> To: Charles Boldt <boldtcyahoo.com>; Ann Mallek <amallek(a�albemarle.orq> Cc: David Benish <DBENISHCa�albemarle.orq> Sent: Wednesday, April 24. 2013 10:38 AM Subject: RE: New Hope Church -Site Plan (BE#2167) Mr. Boldt: I have addressed your comments in blue below. Let me know if you have any further questions. Thank you, Megan Yaniglos, ASIA Senior Planner 2 Albemarle County Commur ity Development Department r.✓ Planning Services 401 McIntire Road, North Fling Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3004 fax: 434.972.4126 From: Charles Boldt [mailto:boldtc@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 5:31 PM To: Megan Yaniglos Cc: Ann Mallek Subject: Re: New Hope Church - Site Plan (BE# 2167) Megan Thank you. I have the files. A couple of quick comments: 1. The critical slopes have increased significantly. Is there a drawing similar to what the BOS gave the waiver on last year? See attached. Does this mean that the critical slope waiver needs to be revisited? I believe what you attached is what was approved. It may need to be revisited. There is a provision in the ordinance that allows critical slopes for accessways to be exempt. The County Engineer would need to determine if there is"no reasonable alternative location or alignment" for the accessway/entrance where the critical slopes are being disturbed. Section 4.2.6. One component of this analysis is the ARB appeal to the Board, so this may not be complete until that takes place. c. Accessways, public utility lines and appurtenances, stormwater management facilities, and any other public facilities necessary to allow the use of the parcel shall not be required to be located within a building site and shall not be subject to the requirements of this section 4.2.2, provided that the applicant demonstrates that no reasonable alternative location or alignment exists. The county engineer shall require that protective and restorative measures be installed and maintained as deemed necessary to insure that the development will be consistent with the intent of section 4.2 of this chapter. (Added 10-17-01) 2. The critical slopes in the building area appear to die out which is not consistent with what we observed in the field. It might be easier to understand what is going on if the drawing had contained the before topo with only the outline of the proposed development and without the color. I would suggest that you request a existing conditions plan and it be field verified when you get it. If the surveyor or engineer stamp the drawing, we accept it since it is their liability as professionals. 3. The county topo is used along a portion of Dickerson which makes it hard to evaluate what is going on. I would have liked to have seen field topo to at least the road center-line along the Dickerson property line. The slopes inside the right of way, I don't believe it to be relavent for our evaluation and review of the proposed church. I believe that the county topo provided here is sufficient. 4. No field topo was done in the western stream buffer that is along Piney Mountain Road nor is any shown. I thought we used the stream to define the northern limit. If topo was required on the eastern buffer why is it omitted on the western one. The limits of disturbance are outside of that boundary. I did not believe it was necessary for the review to have field run top for that portion of the property since they are outside of it. Also, there don't appear to be critical slopes in that area, as there are in the other stream buffer area. Again, the county topo is sufficient in this location. 5. The field topo and county topo appear to be slightly off which is no surprise. Unfortunately, since the county topo was deleted from my property the contours are now not labeled and appear to have some disconnects that should be evaluated. I don't think it's necessary to have all field run topo in the areas where no disturbance or improvements are being made. What the applicant provided and how it connects is satisfactory to address the areas where disturbance is occurring. 3 When you have completed your review, I would appreciate a copy of what you dete"Kined. Chuck From: Megan Yaniglos <mvaniglos @albemarle.org> To: Charles Boldt <boldtc @yahoo.com> Cc: Ann Mallek <amallek(a�albemarle.orq> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:20 PM Subject: FW: New Hope Church - Site Plan (BE*2167) Mr. 3oldt: Please see link below for digital files of the plan. Let me know if you have further questions. Thank you, Megan Yaniglos, ASL4 Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development Department Planning Services 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville,Virginia 22902 ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3004 fax: 434.972.4126 From: Basil Finnegan [mailto:basil©blackwellengineering.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:05 PM To: Megan Yaniglos Subject: New Hope Church - Site Plan (BE# 2167) Megan, Link below to Box.net and file folder "2167 New Hope Church." Please let me know if you still need these two files on a DVD. https://www.box.com/s/9f5ig6cjuovphg7wOhhx Regards, 2. Basil-Finnegan Senior Designer Blackwell Engineering, PLC 540-432-9555 (Office) 540-434-7604 (Fax) www.blackwellengineering.com 4 Megan Yaniglos From: Charles Boldt[boldtc @yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 5:31 PM To: Megan Yaniglos Cc: Ann Mallek Subject: Re: New Hope Church - Site Plan (BE#2167) Attachments: SP201000046_New_Hope_Att_D Original submission 5-12-12.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Megan Thank you. I have the files. A couple of quick comments: 1. The critical slopes have increased significantly. Is there a drawing similar to what the BOS gave the waiver on last year? See attached. Does this mean that the critical slope waiver needs to be revisited? 2. The critical slopes in the building area appear to die out which is not consistent with what we observed in the field. It might be easier to understand what is going on if the drawing had contained the before topo with only the outline of the proposed development and without the color. I would suggest that you request a existing conditions plan and it be field verified when you get it. 3. The county topo is used along a portion of Dickerson which makes it hard to evaluate what is going on. I would have liked to have seen field topo to at least the road center-line along the Dickerson property line. 4. No field topo was done in the western stream buffer that is along Piney Mountain Road nor is any shown. I thought we used the stream to define the northern limit. If topo was required on the eastern buffer why is it omitted on the western one. 5. The field topo and county topo appear to be slightly off which is no surprise. Unfortunately, since the county topo was deleted from my property the contours are now not labeled and appear to have some disconnects that should be evaluated. When you have completed your review, I would appreciate a copy of what you determined. Chuck From: Megan Yaniglos <myaniglosalbemarle.org> To: Charles Boldt<boldtc(u7yahoo.com> Cc: Ann Mallek <amallek(a:albemarle.orq> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:20 PM Subject: FW: New Hope Church - Site Plan (BE#2167) Mr. Boldt: Please see link below for digital files of the plan. Let me know if you have further questions. Thank you, Megan Yaniglos, ASLA 1 Senior Planner Albemarle County Commurity Development Department Planning Services 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3004 fax: 434.972.4126 From: Basil Finnegan [mailto:basil @iblackwellengineering.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:05 PM To: Megan Yaniglos Subject: New Hope Church - Site Plan (BE# 2167) Megan, Link below to Box.net and file folder "2167 New Hope Church." Please let me know if you still need these two files on a DVD. https://www.box.com/s/9f5ig6cjuovphg7wOhhx Regards, Basi(Finnegan Senior Designer Blackwell Engineering, PLC 540-432-9555 (Office) 540-434-7604 (Fax) www.blackwellengineering.com 2