Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201400013 Correspondence 2014-11-19 N Hi Sarah: `"� Nate I am following up on the application for the Royal Orchard site. The last comment we received from Glenn was that he wanted us to re-work the drawings for the road. He did not find that we had sufficiently justified the need to deviate from the existing road alignment,which resulted in critical slopes disturbance. Our engineer has re-worked the design (see attached & below), but found that in order to use the existing alignment,there would have to be extensive critical slope disturbance to the north of the road, which I know Glenn is not going to approve. As previously discussed,this is all related to the steep grade of the existing road. Can we schedule a face-to-face with our engineer and Glenn to hammer this out? Because of Glenn's workload, we are averaging around 3-4 weeks to receive comments on each re-submission. Given that this should be a consent item for the Board, I am hoping you and I can work together to find a more efficient process. I do not mean to offer this as criticism,just a recognition of the reality that this has become more cumbersome for all parties involved than it probably needs to be. I welcome your thoughts on how we can move this forward in a productive way. Thank you for your help. Preston T.Preston Lloyd Jr. WILLIAMS MULLEN 604 420.6615 From: Chris Morin [mailto:cmorin(abcplc.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 2:26 PM To: Lloyd, Preston; Shevlin, Kenneth Cc: 'Cheryl Lynn Taylor'; "Brian Quinn" Subject: RE: CV479A - E&S Plans Rev 3 2014-10-09 Here's the revised layout which uses the entire length of the existing road. As you can tell, due to the need to grade the road and modify the turnaround,there will be more critical slopes (3,371 SF more)that will be disturbed under this scenario. The new portion of the road had to be brought down at a reasonable grade to get down to the elevation near the shelter and turnaround. This is the reason for the extensive cut slope to the north of the road. Chris Morin 2 w Mark Graham From: Sarah Baldwin Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 3:05 PM To: Mark Graham; Greg Kamptner Subject: FW: royal orchard tower road See below for Ann's questions. As I said, I think her questions were answered and she won't pull the item from the consent. Sarah D. Baldwin Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 (434)296-5832 (434)972-4126, fax From: Ann Mallek Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 11:28 AM To: Glenn Brooks; Sarah Baldwin Subject: royal orchard tower road Glenn, Please give me a call if you can this morning to alleviate my concerns about this road up the steeps in Afton. I am weak on reading engineering plans, and the information may be there, but I am concerned with drainage up the steeps and across the road when it is running along the contour. Having had lots of experience with what can happen on this type of road with timbering operations, I am very concerned that prevention be done. What are the arrangements for crowning and water bars to remove rain from the steep roads before velocity washes out the surface? If there were diverters every so often to spread the water over the forest,that would protect the road. What are the receivers of such diverters? Cairns or stone wells? When sheet drainage down the slope hits the roads on the contours, what is done to take care of the water to prevent washout? When I look at these plans I am seeing the actual occurrences on Browns Gap Turnpike up to the park, where high mountain send water cascading across the road on a regular basis and has made it no longer passable by vehicles in several places. Many thanks. Ann 1 *bpi Nese Sarah Baldwin From: Greg Kamptner Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 12:29 PM To: Sarah Baldwin; David Benish Cc: Marsha Davis Subject: Royal Orchard Land Corporation Tier II PWSF--critical slopes special exception Attachments: 0692_001.pdf Sarah and David- I'm not sure whether"the jinx continues" is the appropriate thing to say about this application, but it has been caught by the Phase 2 Wireless ZTA adopted by the Board of Supervisors on February 11,2015.The part of that ZTA relevant to Royal Orchard is that the County's wireless regulations now provide that vehicular access to a wireless facility is subject to the critical slopes regs and so the special exception would have to apply to the access as well;the exemption in section 4.2.6(c)does not apply(i.e.,the ZTA created an exception to the exemption).This was a change the Board specifically asked for after the October work session on the ZTA.The fact that the request for the special exception was received before the ZTA was adopted does not entitle the application to be reviewed under the prior regulations;the ZTA did not grandfather pending applications. For this application,the area of disturbed critical slopes in the analysis that will be covered by the special exception will increase from 1,911 square feet to 9,653 square feet. When the new analysis is completed,we request that the executive summary follow the general style of the attached executive summary and analysis (with needed differences because this application is related to a wireless facility,the attached is not; also, in the attached,the planning and engineering analysis are combined in a single attachment), which our office worked on with Chris P for a recent Farmington critical slopes waiver. Greg Kamptner Deputy County Attorney County of Albemarle gkamptner@albemarle.org Sarah Baldwin From: Cheryl Lynn Taylor[C.Taylor @velocitel.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 2:56 PM To: Sarah Baldwin Subject: RE: Royal Orchard Plans[IWOV-IWOVRIC.FID1317494] Glen has never approved a plan for this site.The Storm water report calls for the biorention pond based on the calculations for the runoff from the gravel road. From: Sarah Baldwin [mailto:sbaldwin @albemarle.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 2:48 PM To: Cheryl Lynn Taylor Subject: RE: Royal Orchard Plans [IWOV-IWOVRIC.FID1317494] Who asked for? It is not included on the prior plan that Glenn approved. Sarah D. Baldwin Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902-4596 (434)296-5832 (434)972-4126,fax From: Cheryl Lynn Taylor [mailto:C.TaylorCavelocitel.com] Sent:Tuesday, February 10, 2015 2:47 PM To: Sarah Baldwin Subject: RE: Royal Orchard Plans [IWOV-IWOVRIC.FID1317494] I may have to go back through some things, but that is what he asked for. If he wants it gone that is fine because the landowner wants doesn't like anyway. From: Sarah Baldwin [mailto:sbaldwin(aalbemarle.orq] Sent:Tuesday, February 10, 2015 2:43 PM To: Cheryl Lynn Taylor Subject: RE: Royal Orchard Plans [IWOV-IWOVRIC.FID1317494] There appears to be a new bioretention basin on the plan-I'm waiting to see from them if it is okay. Sarah D. Baldwin Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902-4596 (434)296-5832 (434)972-4126,fax 1 Nome 4.00" From: Cheryl Lynn Taylor [mailto:C.Taylor(avelocitel.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 2:35 PM To: Sarah Baldwin Subject: RE: Royal Orchard Plans [IWOV-IWOVRIC.FID1317494] Between you and me, OMG!!! You have got to be kidding me?! From: Sarah Baldwin [mailto:sbaldwinCa�albemarle.orq] Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 2:30 PM To: Cheryl Lynn Taylor; Lloyd, Preston Subject: RE: Royal Orchard Plans [IWOV-IWOVRIC.FID1317494] Before you do that, I would wait to see what the additional engineering comments are-I believe there are a couple concerns. Sarah D. Baldwin Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902-4596 (434)296-5832 (434)972-4126,fax From: Cheryl Lynn Taylor [mailto:C.Taylor@avelocitel.com] Sent:Tuesday, February 10, 2015 2:25 PM To: Sarah Baldwin; Lloyd, Preston Subject: RE: Royal Orchard Plans [IWOV-IWOVRIC.FID1317494] Sarah, The plans that I submitted on Thursday ARE supposed to be for the Critical slope/E&S review for Glen. When I came in to submit them they told me that I need to submit the VSMP application before they could do anything with them. I found out later that the VSMP was not applicable to the Critical Slope approval but will be prior to the BP,which will be forthcoming. I just spoke with our engineer and the color copy is on its way and I will forward it to you as soon as it arrives. Cheryl From: Sarah Baldwin [mailto:sbaldwin@aalbemarle.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 2:04 PM To: Lloyd, Preston Cc: Cheryl Lynn Taylor Subject: RE: Royal Orchard Plans [IWOV-IWOVRIC.FID1317494] Preston: I looked at the plans submitted for the VSPM and they appear to be similar to the critical slopes pdf sent by you; however they are not 11x17 and if you recall the County Attorney's office was asking for a color copy delineating exactly where the slopes being disturbed are located for the BOS. You may want to talk with your engineer, because I believe the engineer reviewing the plans here is also going to let them know the same information. Thanks. 2 Sarah D. Baldwin "y' Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902-4596 (434)296-5832 (434)972-4126,fax From: Lloyd, Preston [mailto:plloyd(&williamsmullen.com] Sent: Monday, February 09, 2015 5:43 PM To: Sarah Baldwin Subject: RE: Royal Orchard Plans [IWOV-IWOVRIC.FID1317494] Okay—thanks Sarah. I'll see if Cheryl can track it down. T.Preston Lloyd 3r. WILLIAMS MULLEN 804420.6615 From: Sarah Baldwin [mailto:sbaldwincaalbemarle.org] Sent: Monday, February 09, 2015 4:57 PM To: Lloyd, Preston Subject: RE: Royal Orchard Plans [IWOV-IWOVRIC.FID1317494] Preston: I did receive the VSMP information and passed it on to engineering. I didn't see the critical slopes plans and request (however I did a cursory look, so if they are part of the packet I didn't see them). Let me know. Sarah D. Baldwin Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902-4596 (434)296-5832 (434)972-4126,fax From: Lloyd, Preston [mailto:plloydc&williamsmullen.com] Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 2:11 PM To: Sarah Baldwin Cc: Valerie Long Subject: Royal Orchard Plans [IWOV-IWOVRIC.FID1317494] Hi Sarah: Just checking in to make sure that the Royal Orchard plans made their way to your desk. Would you mind letting me know on Monday after you drop them off with Glenn? If not, please let me know and Cheryl will track them down. 3 As a heads up,the engineering folks may be looking for a VSMP Application too (Ale is being prepared), but we don't need that for the Critical Slopes Waiver from the Board. I just wanted to clarify and make sure that it didn't hold up the process at this stage. Thanks, Preston T.Preston Lloyd Jr. WILLIAMS MULLEN 200 South 10th Street I Suite 1600 Richmond,Virginia 23219 T 804.420.6615 I F 804.420.6507 plloyd@williamsmullen.com www.williamsmullen.com NOTICE: Information contained in this transmission to the named addressee is proprietary and is subject to attorney-client privilege and work product confidentiality. If the recipient of this transmission is not the named addressee,the recipient should immediately notify the sender and destroy the information transmitted without making any copy or distribution thereof. 4 Sarah Baldwin From: Glenn Brooks Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 2:31 PM To: Sarah Baldwin; John Anderson Subject: RE: WP0201400045-Royal Orchard -Wireless facility Attachments: RoyalOrchard_CS copy.jpg Like this. — A larger image is attached. From: Sarah Baldwin Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 2:01 PM To: John Anderson Cc: Glenn Brooks Subject: RE: WP0201400045 -Royal Orchard -Wireless facility John: I looked back at the prior comments from the County Attorney and they were looking for color or something that would delineate exactly where the critical slopes are for the BOS to see. I would only need a couple of copies. Thanks! Sarah D. Baldwin Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902-4596 (434)296-5832 (434)972-4126,fax From: John Anderson Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 11:39 AM To: Sarah Baldwin Cc: Glenn Brooks Subject: WP0201400045 -Royal Orchard -Wireless facility 1 Nage 'wave Sarah, • 11" x 17"with critical slopes shaded(color)—how many copies would you like? • Can you think of anything else? I will send comments tomorrow, will be glad to include anything you may need. • Access drive alignment addresses prior WPO review comments. Need to check design of bioretention basin,but assuming it checks out,we're probably there. Thanks, Sarah John E. 1inder.00,1'E 1 Civil Engineer II Department of Community Development l County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville. VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3069 2 i.r Sarah Baldwin From: Lloyd, Preston [plioyd @williamsmullen.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 3:15 PM To: Sarah Baldwin Cc: Cheryl Lynn Taylor(C.Taylor @velocitel.com); Shevlin, Kenneth; Valerie Long Subject: AT&T CV 479 Royal Orchard - Revised Critical Slope Waiver Request Letter& Drawings [IWOV-IWOVRIC.FID1270435] Attachments: CV 479 Critical Slopes Waiver Letter.pdf; CV 479 Critical Slopes Waiver Letter-CV 479 Critical Slopes Waiver Letter.pdf Hi Sarah: At long last,our site engineer has finalized the drawings. They now show the alignment of the road, as previously agreed to by Glenn, and include the E&S and stormwater engineering. Cheryl will be resubmitting a full package for your office's review by the end of this week. In the meantime, here is a link to download an electronic copy of the plans (note: link will expire in 14 days). I have also attached our Critical Slope Waiver Request Letter, which has been revised to reflect these plans, and a redline showing our changes. Thank you for your assistance. Please let us know if you have any questions. Preston T.Preston Lloyd Jr. WILLIAMS MULLEN 200 South 10th Street I Suite 1600 Richmond,Virginia 23219 T 804.420.6615 I F 804.420.6507 plloyd @williamsmullen.com www.williamsmul len.com NOTICE: Information contained in this transmission to the named addressee is proprietary and is subject to attorney-client privilege and work product confidentiality.If the recipient of this transmission is not the named addressee,the recipient should immediately notify the sender and destroy the information transmitted without making any copy or distribution thereof. 1 Sarah Baldwin From: Lloyd, Preston [plloyd @williamsmullen.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 8:33 AM To: Sarah Baldwin Cc: Cheryl Lynn Taylor(C.Taylor @velocitel.com); cmorin @bcplc.com; Valerie Long; Shevlin, Kenneth Subject: FW: Royal Orchard tower site[IWOV-IWOVRIC.FID1270435] Hi Sarah: Good news—Glenn has approved the latest set of drawings. Chris had submitted them via PDF but I know you need full sets,so Cheryl will coordinate getting those to you. We are revising the Waiver Request Letter accordingly and will get that to you this week. Please let me know if there are any other outstanding items you require from us in order to confirm this matter for the January 14 consent agenda. Thanks for all your help in keeping this application moving forward. We greatly appreciate it. Preston T.Preston Lloyd Jr. WILLIAMS MULLEN 804A20.6615 From: Glenn Brooks [mailto:GBROOKS@albemarle.orq] Sent:Tuesday, December 09, 2014 7:59 AM To: Chris Morin Cc: John Anderson; Lloyd, Preston; 'Cheryl Lynn Taylor; bquinnObcplc.com Subject: RE: Royal Orchard tower site OK looks fine From: Chris Morin [mailto:cmorin(abcplc.com] Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 2:19 PM To: Glenn Brooks Cc: John Anderson; Lloyd, Preston; 'Cheryl Lynn Taylor'; bquinnObcplc.com Subject: RE: Royal Orchard tower site Mr. Brooks, Here are the revised grading plans with 1:1 cut slopes. If you like this version,we'll make changes to the rest of the drawings and resubmit them. Please let us know, and thanks again. Chris Morin From: Glenn Brooks [mailto:GBROOKS albemarle.orq] Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 8:27 AM To: Chris Morin Cc: John Anderson Subject: RE: Royal Orchard tower site If you a rip-rapping the slopes, and they are cut slopes, in order to reduce the disturbance, I can approve that. New %we From: Chris Morin [mailto:cmorinObcplc.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 2:10 PM To: Glenn Brooks Cc: John Anderson Subject: RE: Royal Orchard tower site Yes,our cut slopes on the latest revision are 2:1. If you are ok with steeper slopes, we can revise the plan accordingly. Can we go as steep as 1:1 or 1.5:1? Chris Morin From: Glenn Brooks [mailto:GBROOKSOalbemarle.orq] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 1:49 PM To: cmorirObcplc.com Cc: John Anderson Subject: Royal Orchard tower site Mr. Morin, Sorry I missed you yesterday. John spoke with me this morning about your new plan. It appears you carried the cut slope up the hill at a shallower grade than on your previous plans. This plan below, which was the last I saw, shows the cut above the turnaround at about 1:1 with rip-rap. I anticipated you would do something like this. A 1:1.5 slope might disturb the area I have shown with proposed contours in red below. 2 Sarah Baldwin From: Long, Valerie [vlong @williamsmullen.com] Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 2:46 PM To: Sarah Baldwin Subject: RE: Royal Orchard Ok thanks. Any suggestions for working through this impasse? Valerie Long Williams Mullen 434.951.5709 From: Sarah Baldwin [mailto:sbaldwin@ albemarle.orq] Sent:Thursday, November 20, 2014 2:20 PM To: Long, Valerie Subject: RE: Royal Orchard Valerie: Just wanted to let you know that I was unable to catch up with Glenn. Their meetings have already started. Sarah D. Baldwin Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902-4596 (434)296-5832 (434)972-4126,fax From: Long, Valerie [mailto:vlong(awilliamsmullen.com] Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 2:18 PM To: Sarah Baldwin Cc: Luton, Kay; McGetrick, Mary Katherine Subject: RE: Checking in on Fifth Street Station Zoning Confirmation Letter Thanks Sarah,we appreciate the update. Valerie Long Williams Mullen 434.951.5709 From: Sarah Baldwin [mailto:sbaldwinOalbemarle.orq] Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 1:44 PM To: Long, Valerie Subject: FW: Checking in on Fifth Street Station Zoning Confirmation Letter Valerie: The email chain was forwarded to me. I have the letter and it should be done by next week. 1 Sarah Baldwin From: Lloyd, Preston [plloyd @williamsmullen.com] Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 11:24 AM To: Sarah Baldwin Cc: Cheryl Lynn Taylor(C.Taylor @velocitel.com); Valerie Long Subject: RE: AT&T Royal Orchard: CV479A &Verulam Site [IWOV-IWOVRIC.FID1274802] Sarah: Your clarification below concerning the stormwater runoff is huge, as that is not how I had interpreted Glenn's comment. Thank you for pointing that out for us. I am confirming with Cheryl, but I believe that she overnighted the Flood Plain Development Application and revised plans to the County on or prior to October 23. She followed up to Glenn with an email on 10/23 to confirm receipt and he forwarded that email to you with an email body that read "?". We will attempt to track. I will work on proposed dates and get those to you ASAP. Thanks for the quick response. Preston T.Preston Lloyd Jr. WILLIAMS MULLEN 80,1.420.6b15 From: Sarah Baldwin [mailto:sbaldwin @albemarle.orq,] Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 11:12 AM To: Lloyd, Preston Cc: Cheryl Lynn Taylor(C.Taylor@velocitel.com); Long, Valerie Subject: RE: AT&T Royal Orchard: CV479A&Verulam Site Sorry,forgot to add: The engineering comment for Royal Orchard regarding the stormwater runoff does not mean that you have to test the soil at the special exception stage; it is a notice requirement that during construction this may be needed. Sarah D. Baldwin Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902-4596 (434)296-5832 (434)972-4126,fax From: Sarah Baldwin Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 11:10 AM To: 'Lloyd, Preston' Cc: Cheryl Lynn Taylor(C.Taylor(avelocitel.com); Valerie Long Subject: RE: AT&T Royal Orchard: CV479A&Verulam Site Preston: 1 I have forwarded your email to Glenn IV can get with him to set up a date/time. Itryou have any dates/times that are preferable? I also inquired about the Verulam plan/documents. He was not able to find anything and I know that I didn't receive an email or documents. Generally, Glenn does not review changes to plans via email unless they are minor and prefers that they come in as a resubmittal. Thanks. Sarah D. Baldwin Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902-4596 • (434)296-5832 (434)972-4126,fax From: Lloyd, Preston [mailto:plloyd(&williamsmullen.com] Sent:Thursday, November 20, 2014 8:36 AM To: Sarah Baldwin Cc: Cheryl Lynn Taylor(C.Taylor(avelocitel.com); Valerie Long Subject: AT&T Royal Orchard: CV479A - E&S Plans Rev 3 2014-10-09 [IWOV-IWOVRIC.FID1270435] Hi Sarah: I am following up on the application for the Royal Orchard site. The last comment we received from Glenn was that he wanted us to re-work the drawings for the road. He did not find that we had sufficiently justified the need to deviate from the existing road alignment,which resulted in critical slopes disturbance. Our engineer has re-worked the design (see attached & below), but found that in order to use the existing alignment,there would have to be extensive critical slope disturbance to the north of the road,which I know Glenn is not going to approve. As previously discussed,this is all related to the steep grade of the existing road. Can we schedule a face-to-face with our engineer and Glenn to hammer this out? Because of Glenn's workload, we are averaging around 3-4 weeks to receive comments on each re-submission. Given that this should be a consent item for the Board, I am hoping you and I can work together to find a more efficient process. I do not mean to offer this as criticism,just a recognition of the reality that this has become more cumbersome for all parties involved than it probably needs to be. I welcome your thoughts on how we can move this forward in a productive way. Thank you for your help. Preston T. Preston Lloyd Jr. WILLIAMS MULLEN 804.420.6615 From: Chris Morin [mailto:cmorin(abcplc.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 2:26 PM To: Lloyd, Preston; Shevlin, Kenneth Cc: 'Cheryl Lynn Taylor'; "Brian Quinn" Subject: RE: CV479A - E&S Plans Rev 3 2014-10-09 Here's the revised layout which uses the entire length of the existing road. As you can tell, due to the need to grade the road and modify the turnaround,there will be more critical slopes (3,371 SF more)that will be disturbed under this 2 scenario. The new portion of the roadiad to be brought down at a reasonable gracto get down to the elevation near the shelter and turnaround. This is the reason for the extensive cut slope to the north of the road. Chris Morin 3 WILLIAMS M U LLEN Direct Dial: 434.951.5701 plloyd @williamsmullen.com May 9, 2014, as amended September 2, 2014 and October 24, 2014 VIA HAND DELIVERY Ms. Sarah Baldwin County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 RE: SP 20140013 —Tier II PWSF Royal Orchard Land Corp. /AT&T Wireless Telecommunications Facility AT&T Site CV 479 Critical Slopes Waiver Request Dear Sarah: New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC ("AT&T") is submitting this request to allow disturbance of critical slopes for the installation of a proposed AT&T wireless telecommunications facility located on tax map parcel 05300-00-00-0020 (the "Property"), property owned by Royal Orchard Land Corp. (the "Property Owner"). This letter amends and restates in all respects our prior letters to you dated May 9, 2014 and September 2, 2014. I. Overview The proposed facility (the "Project") consists of a telecommunications monopole structure, an 11'5" x 12' equipment shelter and related improvements on a raised metal platform supported by a caisson foundation, situated at the western end of the Property on a wooded hillside within an approximately 2,000 square foot piece of land (the "Lease Area"). The Property consists almost entirely of critical slopes. The total critical slope area that would be disturbed by construction of the Project in and around the Lease Area is 1,911 square feet. Design features of the proposed facility are depicted on drawings by BC Architects Engineers PLC (the "Zoning Drawings"), copies of which are attached to this letter as Exhibit A. The Zoning Drawings attached hereto supersede any versions previously transmitted. The Project is intended to improve wireless phone and data coverage to an underserved area in the vicinity of the Property. II. Exemption of Access Road Pursuant to Section 4.2.6(c) To provide access to the Lease Area, the Applicant proposes to improve and widen an existing gravel road from Royal Orchard Drive over adjacent properties owned by the Property Owner and identified as tax map parcels 05300-00-00-001B0 and 05300-00-00-00100 (the 321 East Main Street, Suite 400 Charlottesville, VA 22902 T 434.951.5700 F 434.81 7.0977 williamsmullen.com DC NC VA I A Professional Corporation • WILLIAMS M U LLEN Ms. Sarah Baldwin May 9, 2014, as amended Sept. 2, 2014, and October 24, 2014 Page 2 "Adjacent Properties"), and the Property, and to modify the alignment of the existing gravel road on the Property (the "Access Road"). The Access Road is exempt from the requirements of the County's critical slope ordinance pursuant to Section 4.2.6(c) of the Zoning Ordinance as an "accessway... necessary to allow the use of the parcel"where "no reasonable alternative location or alignment exists." III. Request for Waiver Pursuant to Section 4.2.5(c) Section 4.2.5(a)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance allows the Board of Supervisors to waive restrictions against disturbing critical slopes upon a finding that the waiver would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, the orderly development of the area, or to adjacent properties, and would not be contrary to sound engineering practices. AT&T hereby requests a waiver of the restrictions applicable to the proposed Project, as described above and in the Zoning Drawings. The requested waiver will not be detrimental to the orderly development of the area, as the small increase of disturbed critical slopes on the Property would not cause any interference with existing development. Nor would granting the requested waiver be detrimental to adjacent properties, or contrary to sound engineering practices. Furthermore, for the reasons set forth below, the Project would satisfy the Public Health, Safety and Welfare Factors of Section 4.2.5(a)(1). Therefore, the Board can confirm that granting the waiver will not be detrimental to those factors. Consideration of the "Public Health, Safety and Welfare Factors" in Section 4.2.5(a)(1): The five Public Health, Safety and Welfare Factors of Section 4.2.5(a)(1) of the Zoning Ordinance are addressed as follows: Rapid and/or large scale movement of soil and rock Improvement of the Lease Area would increase the disturbed critical slope area on the Property by only 1,911 square feet. During construction, the Project site will be geologically stabilized with erosion control measures as outlined on the Zoning Drawings. These include the installation of silt fences and a construction entrance, if required, and seeding of any disturbed areas that are not actively in use. Ground cover and vegetation will permanently stabilize disturbed critical slope areas. Because of the limited size of the affected critical slope area and implementation of mitigation measures, the risk of rapid or large scale movement of soil and rock will be effectively minimized. WILLIAMS M U LLEN Ms. Sarah Baldwin May 9, 2014, as amended Sept. 2, 2014, and October 24, 2014 Page 3 Excessive stormwater run-off The proposed Project is designed to minimally increase the soil permeability of the Property and effectively mitigate stormwater runoff. Stormwater runoff resulting from construction of the facility will travel downhill to the south and will dissipate through the permeable soils of the existing wooded area. Siltation of natural and man-made bodies of water There are no natural or man-made bodies of water on the Property, although two streams and a pond are situated at the eastern end of the Adjacent Property identified as Tax Map Parcel No. 05300-00-00-00100. Although these water features are subject to a County Water Protection Ordinance buffer, the buffer area is several thousand feet east of the Lease Area, and any runoff from the Lease Area would flow downhill to the south. Moreover, as discussed above, the project site will be subject to mitigation measures during construction, and permanently stabilized with installation of ground cover and vegetation. Any runoff from the site would dissipate through the permeable soils of the wooded area south of the wireless facility. Therefore, the Project is unlikely to result in the siltation of natural and man-made bodies of water. Loss of aesthetic resource The aesthetic resources of the Property and surroundings consist chiefly in the characteristics of the existing woods, vegetation, and slopes. There will be no significant loss to these resources. Critical slope areas comprise the great majority of the Property, and the Project will result in a minimal increase in disturbed critical slopes. The only trees that will be removed are those necessary to accommodate construction of the facility, as shown on the Zoning Drawings. The remaining trees and topography will serve to screen the facility from the roadway. Accordingly, disturbance of this small area will not result in a loss of aesthetic resources. Greater travel distance of septic effluent The proposed Project will be unmanned, with no septic or plumbing systems. The concerns of this section are not applicable to this request. Therefore, the five Public Health, Safety, and Welfare Factors of Section 4.2.5(a)(1) are satisfied. WILLIAMS M U LLEN Ms. Sarah Baldwin May 9, 2014, as amended Sept. 2, 2014, and October 24, 2014 Page 4 Additional Required Findings In addition to the foregoing, Section 4.2.5(a)(3) requires the Board to make at least one of the following findings (in part): 1. A strict application of these provisions would not forward the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance or otherwise serve the public health, safety or welfare. The Zoning Ordinance implements the objectives of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan, including the preservation of natural, scenic and historic resources in Rural Areas such as the Property. The Comprehensive Plan also includes the Personal Wireless Services Facilities Policy, adopted in 2000, which "encourages the construction of [wireless services] facilities that have limited visual impact on the community." As noted, construction of the proposed wireless facility would result in a minimal net increase in disturbed critical slope area on the Property. Moreover, the improvements will be screened from the roadway by existing tree cover and other vegetation. For the foregoing reasons, strict application of Section 4.2 would not forward the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance or otherwise serve the public health, safety or welfare. 2. Alternatives proposed by the Applicant would satisfy the intent and purpose of section 4.2 to at least an equivalent degree. As discussed above, the Applicant is proposing engineering measures that will avoid or mitigate the adverse impacts that are often associated with the disturbance of critical slopes. Given the limited size of the proposed area of disturbance, the use of these engineering measures will satisfy the intent and purpose of Section 4.2 at least to an equivalent degree. 3. Due to its unusual size, topography, shape of the property, location of the property or other unusual conditions, excluding the proprietary interest of the developer, the requirements of Section 4.2 would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property or would result in significant degradation of the site or adjacent properties. The proposed Project site will be located on the western side of the Property on a hillside, to provide wireless phone and data service to underserved areas in the vicinity. Siting of the facility in this wooded area will mitigate the visual impacts of the proposed facility on surrounding roads and properties. It would be impracticable to relocate the proposed facility on the Property without causing a greater adverse impact to aesthetics or critical slopes. WI LLIAM S M U LLEN Ms. Sarah Baldwin May 9, 2014, as amended Sept. 2, 2014, and October 24, 2014 Page 5 In addition, the Property consists of approximately 8.85 acres of land, while the proposed Project would result in a net increase of disturbed critical slopes of only 1,911 square feet, or about 0.04 acres. Therefore, the relatively small scale of the proposed Project would have little impact on the Property, taken as a whole. As the location of the facility has been chosen to limit critical slope disturbance and mitigate its visibility, strict implementation of the requirements of Section 4.2 would unreasonably restrict the installation of a telecommunications facility on the Property. 4. Granting such modification or waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import than would be served by strict application of Section 4.2. The provision of reliable wireless phone and data phone coverage for business, education, and government is a vital public utility. Moreover, wireless telecommunications facilities are essential for emergency communications. Finally, as discussed above, the critical slope area affected by this project is particularly small, especially when viewed in the context of the topography of the Property as a whole. Consequently, approval of the waiver will further the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, particularly the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Plan. IV. Conclusion Many of the concerns associated with the disturbance of critical slopes and the criteria for evaluating a critical slopes waiver are considered and addressed generally through the existing Personal Wireless Service Facilities Ordinance requirements, such as the requirements for tree conservation plans, finished grades, and sound construction techniques. For that reason, and the reasons stated herein, we contend that this application satisfies the requirements for a waiver under Section 4.2.5(a)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance. Please contact me if you have any questions or need any additional information. Regards, [S] T. Preston Lloyd, Jr. cc: Ms. Cheryl Taylor, Velocitel Valerie W. Long, Esquire, Williams Mullen(via e-mail) WILLIAMS M U LLEN Ms. Sarah Baldwin May 9, 2014, as amended Sept. 2, 2014, and October 24, 2014 Page 6 25479112_3 Sarah Baldwin From: Lloyd, Preston [plloyd @williamsmullen.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 1:57 PM To: Glenn Brooks; Sarah Baldwin Cc: Cheryl Lynn Taylor(C.Taylor @velocitel.com); Shevlin, Kenneth Subject: RE: Royal Orchard revised (SP2014-13) [IWOV-IWOVRIC.FID1270435] Attachments: CV479A- E&S Plans Rev 3 2014-10-09.pdf Glenn: We had our engineer revise the access road to use as much of the existing alignment as possible. Revised E&S drawings are attached for your review. Please note that table on sheet 1 that shows the portion of the disturbed areas that are within the existing alignment. Sarah advises me that we need the County Attorney to sign off on this by Friday in order to make the next Board meeting. Might you have an opportunity to review in the next few days? Sarah, if Glenn approves I will get you a full set of plans and letter that match these. Preston T.Preston Lloyd Jr. WILLIAMS MULLEN 804.420.6615 From: Lloyd, Preston Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 1:32 PM To: 'Glenn Brooks'; 'Sarah Baldwin' Cc: 'Cheryl Lynn Taylor(C.Taylor @velocitel.com)'; Shevlin, Kenneth Subject: RE: Royal Orchard revised (SP2014-13) [IWOV-IWOVRIC.FID1270435] From our engineer: "The portion the road that we had to bypass has slopes ranging from 20.52%to 29.67%. The length of the road that is over 20% is about 95'." T.Preston Lloyd Jr. WILLIAMS MULLEN 804.420.6615 From: Glenn Brooks [mailto:GBROOKS@albemarle.org] Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 1:06 PM To: Lloyd, Preston; Sarah Baldwin Cc: Cheryl Lynn Taylor(C.Taylor@velocitel.com); Shevlin, Kenneth Subject: RE: Royal Orchard revised (SP2014-13) [IWOV-IWOVRIC.FID1270435] OK.You said this in our meeting. My response was, why can the road not be adjusted along the existing route? Cut and fill along the roadway. Not all of the road,or the end arrangement, is over 20%. From: Lloyd, Preston [mailto:plloyd@williamsmullen.com] Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 11:37 AM To: Glenn Brooks; Sarah Baldwin Cc: Cheryl Lynn Taylor(C.Taylor velocitel.com); Shevlin, Kenneth Subject: RE: Royal Orchard revised (SP2014-13) [IWOV-IWOVRIC.FID1270435] 1 Thank you for the quick review and rep7. Please see below in red. Portions of theasting road ROW involve grades that exceed 20%,which is the maximum allowed by AT&T's construction standards. Accordingly,the road has been realigned to reduce the grade. As I understand it, it is a safety issue. Preston T.Preston Lloyd Jr. WILLIAMS MULLEN 804.420.6615 From: Glenn Brooks [mailto:GBROOKSalbemarle.org] Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 11:21 AM To: Lloyd, Preston; Sarah Baldwin Cc: Cheryl Lynn Taylor (C.Taylor@ velocitel.com); Shevlin, Kenneth Subject: RE: Royal Orchard revised (SP2014-13) [IWOV-IWOVRIC.FID1270435] I don't see anything that answers the question of why the road cannot be in its original location. From: Lloyd, Preston [mailto:plloydOwilliamsmullen.com] Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 9:00 AM To: Glenn Brooks; Sarah Baldwin Cc: Cheryl Lynn Taylor(C.Taylor©velocitel.com); Shevlin, Kenneth Subject: FW: Royal Orchard revised (SP2014-13) [IWOV-IWOVRIC.FID1270435] Glenn and Sarah: Thank you both for your clarifications of these comments at our pre-application meeting last week. Glenn,you requested justification as to why the right-of-way is being adjusted and I agreed to ask our engineer re-evaluate whether the road could be designed so as to disturb less than 10,000 sq.ft. Chris Morin,our engineer, has done so, and his response is below(in bold)for your review and comment. "The realignment of the road is an AT&T requirement for the road to stay below 20%grade. The portions of the existing road is more than 20%. That is why we had to lengthen and realign it. Even if we utilize some of the existing road,changing the grade along that road will still be required (creating disturbance). I still very sure that we cannot decrease the disturbance by 30%in order to be below 10,000 SF. "According to County's general maps,the area is all in critical slopes. But, per the topography we obtained from the survey,we were able to calculate the areas that that have slopes that are more than 25%(their definition of critical slopes). I feel they are generally over-estimating the amount of critical slopes disturbed. Our previous version of the drawings(attached)stated that the area of disturbed critical slopes was 9,936 SF. We illustrate the critical slope areas that are disturbed with a hexagonal hatch pattern on the drawings." Please advise if this information satisfies the issue. If so, we will submit a revised letter that conforms to the amount of Critical Slopes disturbed as shown on the attached plan, in order to resolve the prior discrepancy between the plans and the exemption request letter. Best regards, Preston T.Preston Lloyd Jr. WILLIAMS MULLEN 804.420.6615 2 Chris Morin '""f From: Glenn Brooks Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 8:34 AM To: Sarah Baldwin Cc: Bill Fritz Subject: RE: Royal Orchard revised (SP2014-13) Sarah, I have taken a closer look at this now that I had to search for the proposed changes. I think the intent of the wireless provisions was that disturbances normally remain at or below the 10,000sf regulatory threshold for erosion control and stormwater management. This is especially pertinent under the new state VSMP program,which we must now administer. This is the first project I have examined since we adopted the new provisions. This project is not exempt from the VSMP, as it is over the 10,000sf threshold. Is there a way it could be modified to be below? While the critical slope issues remain about the same,the plan begs the question; why does the road have to be re-aligned? The application materials seem to indicate that there are only minor modifications to the road for widening and stabilization, but this does not appear to be the case on the plan. See below,where I have highlighted in red the areas of road which are essentially new clearing. 3 i 1 ti rY4 s°i t.°bed M „ .,; t { ST halms rNM9 k<. a, `:.`fir`s MO ata# 3; :,_,� Glenn Brooks, P.E. County Engineer Albemarle County From: Sarah Baldwin Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 1:46 PM To: Glenn Brooks Subject: FW: Royal Orchard revised E&S pages (SDP2014-13) Glenn: Royal Orchard submitted a revised plan that disturbs more critical slope area than previously proposed. The old plan created 2060 sq.ft. disturbance near the base of the facility and 12,162 for the road. The new plan shows 2476 sq.ft. disturbance at the base and 12,870 sq.ft. for the road. Your prior comments were as follows: 4 'r.., This entire property is critial slopes. Improvements to the existing gravel access should be minimal. The small footprint of the facility would normally not meet the regulatory threshold for engineering review of erosion control or stormwater management. Any requirements for review and enforcement of erosion control would be to off-set critical slope disturbance. Could you let me know if there is any change in your comments or you have other concerns? Thanks. Sarah D. Baldwin Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 (434)296-5832 (434)972-4126, fax APlease consider the environment before printing this mail. hearing that the tower would have no lights on it. Please confirm that that is true. 5 Sarah Baldwin From: Glenn Brooks Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 1:06 PM To: Lloyd, Preston; Sarah Baldwin Cc: Cheryl Lynn Taylor(C.Taylor @velocitel.com); Shevlin, Kenneth Subject: RE: Royal Orchard revised (SP2014-13) [IWOV-IWOVRIC.FID1270435] OK. You said this in our meeting. My response was, why can the road not be adjusted along the existing route? Cut and fill along the roadway. Not all of the road, or the end arrangement, is over 20%. From: Lloyd, Preston [mailto:plloyd @williamsmullen.com] Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 11:37 AM To: Glenn Brooks; Sarah Baldwin Cc: Cheryl Lynn Taylor(C.Taylor @velocitel.com); Shevlin, Kenneth Subject: RE: Royal Orchard revised (SP2014-13) [IWOV-IWOVRIC.FID1270435] Thank you for the quick review and reply. Please see below in red. Portions of the existing road ROW involve grades that exceed 20%,which is the maximum allowed by AT&T's construction standards. Accordingly,the road has been realigned to reduce the grade. As I understand it, it is a safety issue. Preston T. Preston Lloyd Jr. WILLIAMS MULLEN 804.420.6615 From: Glenn Brooks [mailto:GBROOKS@albemarle.orq] Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 11:21 AM To: Lloyd, Preston; Sarah Baldwin Cc: Cheryl Lynn Taylor(C.Taylor@velocitel.com); Shevlin, Kenneth Subject: RE: Royal Orchard revised (SP2014-13) [IWOV-IWOVRIC.FID1270435] I don't see anything that answers the question of why the road cannot be in its original location. From: Lloyd, Preston [mailto:olloyd@williamsmullen.com] Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 9:00 AM To: Glenn Brooks; Sarah Baldwin Cc: Cheryl Lynn Taylor(C.Taylor@velocitel.com); Shevlin, Kenneth Subject: FW: Royal Orchard revised (SP2014-13) [IWOV-IWOVRIC.FID1270435] Glenn and Sarah: Thank you both for your clarifications of these comments at our pre-application meeting last week. Glenn,you requested justification as to why the right-of-way is being adjusted and I agreed to ask our engineer re-evaluate whether the road could be designed so as to disturb less than 10,000 sq.ft. Chris Morin, our engineer, has done so,and his response is below(in bold)for your review and comment. "The realignment of the road is an AT&T requirement for the road to stay below 20%grade. The portions of the existing road is more than 20%. That is why we had to lengthen and realign it. Even if we utilize some of the existing road,changing the grade along that road will still be required (creating disturbance). I still very sure that we cannot decrease the disturbance by 30%in order to be below 10,000 SF. "According to County's general maps,he area is all in critical slopes. But,per the opography we obtained from the survey,we were able to calculate the areas that that have slopes that are more than 25%(their definition of critical slopes). I feel they are generally over-estimating the amount of critical slopes disturbed. Our previous version of the drawings(attached)stated that the area of disturbed critical slopes was 9,936 SF. We illustrate the critical slope areas that are disturbed with a hexagonal hatch pattern on the drawings." Please advise if this information satisfies the issue. If so,we will submit a revised letter that conforms to the amount of Critical Slopes disturbed as shown on the attached plan, in order to resolve the prior discrepancy between the plans and the exemption request letter. Best regards, Preston T.Preston Lloyd Jr. WILLIAMS MULLEN 604.420.6615 Chris Morin From: Glenn Brooks Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 8:34 AM To: Sarah Baldwin Cc: Bill Fritz Subject: RE: Royal Orchard revised (SP2014-13) Sarah, I have taken a closer look at this now that I had to search for the proposed changes. I think the intent of the wireless provisions was that disturbances normally remain at or below the 10,000sf regulatory threshold for erosion control and stormwater management. This is especially pertinent under the new state VSMP program, which we must now administer. This is the first project I have examined since we adopted the new provisions. This project is not exempt from the VSMP, as it is over the 10,000sf threshold. Is there a way it could be modified to be below? While the critical slope issues remain about the same,the plan begs the question; why does the road have to be re-aligned? The application materials seem to indicate that there are only minor modifications to the road for widening and stabilization, but this does not appear to be the case on the plan. See below,where I have highlighted in red the areas of road which are essentially new clearing. 2 tivt 1 Id NI /i,' 4i1/4 ° • '•f � c OVO aers ,.. .R , Glenn Brooks, P.E. County Engineer Albemarle County From: Sarah Baldwin Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 1:46 PM To: Glenn Brooks Subject: FW: Royal Orchard revised E&S pages (SDP2014-13) Glenn: Royal Orchard submitted a revised plan that disturbs more critical slope area than previously proposed. The old plan created 2060 sq.ft. disturbance near the base of the facility and 12,162 for the road. The new plan shows 2476 sq.ft. disturbance at the base and 12,870 sq. ft.for the road. Your prior comments were as follows: 3 This entire property is critial slopes. Improvements to the existing gravel access should be minimal. The small footprint of the facility would normally not meet the regulatory threshold for engineering review of erosion control or stormwater management. Any requirements for review and enforcement of erosion control would be to off-set critical slope disturbance. Could you let me know if there is any change in your comments or you have other concerns? Thanks. Sarah D. Baldwin Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 (434)296-5832 (434)972-4126, fax APlease consider the environment before printing this mail. hearing that the tower would have no lights on it. Please confirm that that is true. 4 Sarah Baldwin From: Glenn Brooks Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 8:34 AM To: Sarah Baldwin Cc: Bill Fritz Subject: RE: Royal Orchard revised (SP2014-13) Sarah, I have taken a closer look at this now that I had to search for the proposed changes. I think the intent of the wireless provisions was that disturbances normally remain at or below the 10,000sf regulatory threshold for erosion control and stormwater management. This is especially pertinent under the new state VSMP program,which we must now administer. This is the first project I have examined since we adopted the new provisions. This project is not exempt from the VSMP, as it is over the 10,000sf threshold. Is there a way it could be modified to be below? While the critical slope issues remain about the same,the plan begs the question; why does the road have to be re-aligned? The application materials seem to indicate that there are only minor modifications to the road for widening and stabilization, but this does not appear to be the case on the plan. See below,where I have highlighted in red the areas of road which are essentially new clearing. It t94.e a st.:•-t ed �. , • rig, 0 F :u' 10 ° f1,1, ..vErith, - 'Opt 461 91L MGY[:tlttAl r..� .... • +<k'• : a�.vrr>ro. c E � - -' a 9ff N ts!a7'n ,+atm ....._.. t sz:.xs F Glenn Brooks, P.E. County Engineer Albemarle County From: Sarah Baldwin Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 1:46 PM To: Glenn Brooks Subject: FW: Royal Orchard revised E&S pages (SDP2014-13) Glenn: Royal Orchard submitted a revised plan that disturbs more critical slope area than previously proposed. The old plan created 2060 sq.ft. disturbance near the base of the facility and 12,162 for the road. The new plan shows 2476 sq.ft. disturbance at the base and 12,870 sq.ft.for the road. Your prior comments were as follows: 2 Nom. Nwe This entire property is critial slopes. Improvements to the existing gravel access should be minimal. The small footprint of the facility would normally not meet the regulatory threshold for engineering review of erosion control or stormwater management. Any requirements for review and enforcement of erosion control would be to off-set critical slope disturbance. Could you let me know if there is any change in your comments or you have other concerns? Thanks. Sarah D. Baldwin Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 (434)296-5832 (434)972-4126, fax Please consider the environment before printing this mail. From: Lloyd, Preston [mailto:plloyd @williamsmullen.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 4:51 PM To: Cheryl Lynn Taylor; Sarah Baldwin Subject: RE: Royal Orchard revised E&S pages [IWOV-IWOVRIC.FID1270435] Revised letter attached. T.Preston Lloyd Jr. WILLIAMS MULLEN 8(M 420.6615 From: Cheryl Lynn Taylor [mailto:C.Taylor @velocitel.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 4:44 PM To: Sarah Baldwin; Lloyd, Preston Subject: RE: Royal Orchard revised E&S pages [IWOV-IWOVRIC.FID1270435] Sarah, I just left you a voice mail and am following up.The E&S drawings sent you last week are correct with the total area of critical slopes to be disturbed, which is 2476 square feet. The letter was written back in May and I think a few changes have been made to the E&S plans since that time. I will get with Preston regarding the letter. Regards, Cheryl From: Sarah Baldwin [mailto:sbaldwin @albemarle.orq] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 4:29 PM To: Lloyd, Preston Cc: Cheryl Lynn Taylor; Valerie Long Subject: RE: Royal Orchard revised E&S pages [IWOV-IWOVRIC.FID1270435] All: 3 Since the revised E&S pages contain at Brent square footages, I have been asked Mull the item off of the agenda. The letter and plans will need to reflect the correct square footage amounts and it will need to be analyzed. Please give me a call to discuss further. Thanks. Sarah D. Baldwin Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 (434)296-5832 (434)972-4126, fax APlease consider the environment before printing this mail. From: Lloyd, Preston [mailto:plloyd(&williamsmullen.com] Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 5:52 PM To: Sarah Baldwin Cc: Cheryl Lynn Taylor; Valerie Long Subject: RE: Royal Orchard revised E&S pages [IWOV-IWOVRIC.FID1270435] Sarah: Per your request below, I have attached two revised pages showing the area of critical slopes disturbance to be limited to the area immediately adjacent to the base of the facility. Please let me know if you have any questions or require any additional information from us. Due to a scheduling conflict, I cannot be at the hearing but Valerie is going to attend. Please include her in future correspondence concerning this site. Thanks and have a great weekend. Preston T.Preston Lloyd Jr. WILLIAMS MULLEN 804.420.6615 From: Sarah Baldwin [mailto:sbaldwin©albemarle.orq] Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 4:15 PM To: Lloyd, Preston Cc: Cheryl Lynn Taylor Subject: RE: Pace-Cell tower follow up We received comments from Mr. Kerber(neighbor across the street), claiming that the tower was taller than what was approved. I'm following up to obtain a certified engineer's report. An enforcement officer that used to work here was supposed to look into it, but I'm not sure of the status. I'm copying Cheryl,so that maybe she can look into it. 4 On another note: Royal Orchard-do y 'd'think that it is possible to get the E&S plan Tei note exactly where the disturbed critical slopes are near the base of the facility? This is the only area subject to the special exception, since the entrance road is technically exempt. The plan(s)show the entire area. It might be beneficial for the BOS to see. Thanks! Sarah D. Baldwin Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 (434)296-5832 (434)972-4126, fax APlease consider the environment before printing this mail. From: Lloyd, Preston [mailto:plloyd@awilliamsmullen.com] Sent:Thursday, August 28, 2014 3:37 PM To: Sarah Baldwin Subject: RE: Pace-Cell tower follow up Sarah: Thanks for reaching out to me with this. Once a facility is approved by the County, my role tends to phase out, so I am not familiar with the status of permits, etc.for this site. While I'm checking with AT&T, can you fill me in on where this stands with the County? Preston T.Preston Lioyd Jr. WILLIAMS MULLET 804.420.6615 From: Sarah Baldwin [mailto:sbaldwin(aalbemarle.orq] Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 2:38 PM To: Lloyd, Preston Subject: FW: Pace-Cell tower follow up Preston: I'm following up with the Pace cell tower to see if you know anything about obtaining a surveyors worksheet regarding the height of the tower. Do you know who I should talk to? Thanks. Sarah D. Baldwin Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 (434)296-5832 (434)972-4126, fax APlease consider the environment before printing this mail. 5 NNW 'vase From: Bill Fritz Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 10:43 AM To: 'ronaldkerber @aol.com'; JClarke@mkpc.com Cc: John M Jones Subject: RE: Cell tower follow up I don't know the status. I know that John Jones,the Zoning Inspector for the site has been in contact with the applicant. I also know that he was going to ask for information verifying the height of the tower and tree. I have copied him on this email and hope that he has some update that he can provide. William D. Fritz,AICP Chief of Special Projects 434-296-5823 ext. 3242 From: ronaldkerber(aaol.com [mailto:ronaldkerber@aol.com] Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 10:40 AM To: ronaldkerber aol.com; JClarke@mkpc.com; Bill Fritz Subject: Re: Cell tower follow up Bill, What was the follow up on this? If it was OK, then there is a problem with the reference tree definition. Thanks, Ron Kerber Original Message From: Jane Clarke <JClarkera7mkpc.com> To: ronaldkerber<ronaldkerber(c aol.com> Sent: Tue, Apr 22, 2014 2:18 pm Subject: RE: Cell tower follow up No problem. I can't believe he said it was approved for 20 feet. Maybe he was looking at the Planning Commission decision. Or maybe they had a subsequent hearing to which we were not invited? Sorry you can see it from your easy chair! Jane Jane Champion Clarke MCCALLUM&KUDRAVETZ, P.C. Queen Charlotte Square 250 East High Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Tel.: (434)293-8191 Fax: (434)296-9641 Email:jclarkeemkpc.com Website: http://www.mkpc.com NOTICE: Pursuant to U.S. Treasury Department Circular 230, unless we expressly state otherwise, e-mail and other written communications from this firm are not intended and cannot be used to avoid tax-related penalties. This email message, including attachments, if any, is intended as a confidential and/or privileged communication. If received in error, you should not copy, save or reproduce in any manner or form, but delete immediately and notify the sender. Thank you. From: ronaldkerber(c2aol.com [mailto:ronaldkerber @aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 2:16 PM 6 To: Jane Clarke N"` `is," Subject: Re: Cell tower follow up Thanks Jane. Original Message From: Jane Clarke <JClarkeamkpc.com> To: ronaldkerber<ronaldkerber(aaaol.com>; BFRITZ <BFRITZaalbemarle.orq>; kboyd <kboyd(a)albemarle.org> Sent: Tue, Apr 22, 2014 2:11 pm Subject: RE: Cell tower follow up Please see attached excerpt from the Board of Supervisors minutes of 6/12/13. Conditions appear on last page. Jane Champion Clarke McCallum & Kudravetz, P.C. Queen Charlotte Square 250 East High Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Tel.: (434)293-8191 Fax: (434)296-9641 Email:jclarkeamkpc.com Website: http://www.mkpc.com NOTICE: Pursuant to U.S. Treasury Department Circular 230, unless we expressly state otherwise, e-mail and other written communications from this firm are not intended and cannot be used to avoid tax-related penalties. This email message, including attachments, if any, is intended as a confidential and/or privileged communication. If received in error, you should not copy, save or reproduce in any manner or form, but delete immediately and notify the sender. Thank you. From: ronaldkerberaaol.com rmailto:ronaldkerberaaol.coml Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 1:49 PM To: BFRITZ @albemarle.orq; Jane Clarke; kbovd analbemarle.orq Subject: Re: Cell tower follow up Bill, Just one point it was not approved at 20 feet above a reference tree. It was approved at 10 feet above a reference tree. Thanks, Ron Kerber Original Message From: Bill Fritz <BFRITZaalbemarle.orq> To: ronaldkerber<ronaldkerber@aol.com>; Ken Boyd <kboyd @albemarle.org> Cc:jclarke <jclarke(a.mkpc.com>; Sarah Baldwin <sbaldwin @albemarle.orq>; John M Jones <jmjonesaalbemarle.orq> Sent: Tue, Apr 22, 2014 1:37 pm Subject: RE: Cell tower follow up I don't recall any details about this site but I believe you are referring to project SP2013-7 which was handled by Sarah Baldwin. I have copied her in case she can offer any additional information. I have looked at the conditions and you are correct it was approved at 20 feet above the reference tree. A building permit has been issued for this tower, B201301424TWR. As part of the inspection process the County will get confirmation from the contractor as to the height of the tower and tree. If it is built incorrectly the tower will have to be modified or they will have to receive a new approval from the County for a different height. The only lighting permitted is during maintenance. 7 I will pass your photographs on to t Zoning Inspector for this site (John JoAs) so that he will be aware of the issue and can look into it. If you have any other questions please feel free to let me know. William D. Fritz, AICP Chief of Special Projects 434-296-5823 ext. 3242 From: ronaldkerber(a aol.com Finailto:ronaldkerber(a�aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 12:56 PM To: Bill Fritz; Ken Boyd Cc: iclarke(c�mkpc.com; ronaldkerber(a�aol.com Subject: Cell tower follow up Mr. Fritz. You may recall that the cell tower on the Monte Pace property on Stony Point Road was approved to be only 10 feet above the tree line. Attached are pictures taken from the Clarke's property during the balloon test and one taken recently during tower construction. Recall the balloon test was claimed to be 20 feet above the tree line. One can assume that the man in the construction picture is approximately 6 feet tall. Given the picture it appears that the tower is about 5 or more times the height of the man or 25 to 30 feet above the tree line. Can you tell me what the county does when one violates a permit as this appears? Sincerely, Ron Kerber 434 825 7851 PS We were told at the hearing that the tower would have no lights on it. Please confirm that that is true. 8 Sarah Baldwin From: Sarah Baldwin Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 11:12 AM To: 'Lloyd, Preston' Cc: 'Cheryl Lynn Taylor(C.Taylor @velocitel.com)'; Valerie Long Subject: RE: AT&T Royal Orchard: CV479A &Verulam Site Sorry,forgot to add: The engineering comment for Royal Orchard regarding the stormwater runoff does not mean that you have to test the soil at the special exception stage; it is a notice requirement that during construction this may be needed. Sarah D. Baldwin Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902-4596 (434)296-5832 (434)972-4126,fax From: Sarah Baldwin Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 11:10 AM To: 'Lloyd, Preston' Cc: Cheryl Lynn Taylor(C.Taylor @velocitel.com); Valerie Long Subject: RE: AT&T Royal Orchard: CV479A&Verulam Site Preston: I have forwarded your email to Glenn and can get with him to set up a date/time. Did you have any dates/times that are preferable? I also inquired about the Verulam plan/documents. He was not able to find anything and I know that I didn't receive an email or documents. Generally, Glenn does not review changes to plans via email unless they are minor and prefers that they come in as a resubmittal. Thanks. Sarah D. Baldwin Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902-4596 (434)296-5832 (434)972-4126,fax From: Lloyd, Preston [mailto:plloyd @williamsmullen.com] Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 8:36 AM To: Sarah Baldwin Cc: Cheryl Lynn Taylor(C.Taylor @velocitel.com); Valerie Long Subject: AT&T Royal Orchard: CV479A- E&S Plans Rev 3 2014-10-09 [IWOV-IWOVRIC.FID1270435] 1