HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 26 80 PC MinutesAugust 26, 1980
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Tuesday, August 26,
1980, 7:30 p.m., in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Layton McCann, Mr. James Skove, Mr. Charles
Vest, Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner, Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr.,
Mr. David Bowerman, Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney; Mrs. Idette Kimsey,
Planner; Miss Mason Caperton, Senior Planner; Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom, ex-officio.
Col. William Washington, Chairman, was absent.
Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice -Chairman, opened the meeting, after establishing a quorum.
DEFERRED ITEM:
JACKSON VILLAGE TOWNHOUSE COURT, PHASE I, SITE PLAN
Located off Route 631 (Rio Road) on the east side of Route 768 (Pen Park Road);
property described as Tax Map 62, Parcel 17 in the Rivanna District. A proposal to
locate eight (8) rental townhouse units, using septic systems until the AWT plan is
completed.
Mrs. Kimsey presented the staff report. She added the fact that the main reason for
the deferral of the site plan and subdivision was the septic fields. In order for the
applicant to meet the 40,000 square feet requirement of the subdivision, the applicant
added acreage to the plat.
The applicant had no comment to make at this time.
Mrs. Joan Graves stated that when the proffer was made by Dr. Hurt, one of the staff
reasons for the proffer to be approved was that public water was expected to be used.
Mrs. Graves saw no reason for eight units to be built now, before public water and
sewer were available. She felt this would be a weakening of the ordinance to allow this.
John Greene, speaking for the applicant, stated that it is a matter of economics to
use this land in this manner, to get some income from the property until it can be
used as they plan to develop it.
The meeting was closed to public comment.
Mr. Skove ascertained that staff condition (1 a) required the applicant to hook up to
public sewer when available, so he sees no major problem.
Mr. Greene stated that the inceptor crosses the property and a man hole has been
equipped to receive the sewage.
Mrs. Diehl questioned the improvements recommended by the state for roads and asked
if it was the usual policy to require frontage improvements in the urban area.
Mrs. Kimsey commented that frontage improvement has not been required.
Mrs. Kimsey, at Mrs. Diehl's request, cited that the Health Department had found the
soil percolation is adequate, they had found where the drainfields can be located
and Mr. Collins will approve this.
Mr. Skove suggested that with 8 units on an acreage of 7.36, that is almost 1 acre
per unit.
Mrs. Kimsey said the subdivision will hook: up to public water and sewer. The lot
lines will be shown on the plat.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the lot lines should be shown on the site plan.
Mr. Payne cited that this does not constitute a subdivision.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that this is in technical compliance with the ordinance. He
questioned if other units are to be built, what the total density will be.
Mr. Payne said the gross density will not be greater than 6 units per acre.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the rental units could not be sold until there is public
water and sewer, and they will not be sold until subdivision has taken place. He
then questioned if the septic system will be pumped and filled when these units are
sold. He felt these could become a hazard if they are just abandoned.
The idea of having a septic system pumped and filled was discussed.
Mrs. Diehl felt the County Engineer and the Health Department could check on this
and make sure this was properly carried out.
Mr. Skove made a motion for approval, subject to the following conditions:
1. No building permit will be issued until the following conditions are met:
a. Note on plan: Phase I shall hook up to public sewer when available, and
existing septic tanks to be filled with sand or suitable material, subject
to Health Department approval;
b. Service Authority approval of sewer plans for future usage;
C. Service Authority approval of water plans;
d. Grading Permit;
e. County Engineer approval of the storm drainage layouts;
f. County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval
of the road plans from Pen Park Road to the northern edge of the site;
g. County Engineer approval of the commercial entrance off of Wayland Drive into
Cardinal Court according to the state standards;
h. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of the commercial
entrance off of Pen Park Road (Route 768);
i. Fire Official approval of hydrant. location and fire flow of 1000 gpm;
j. Compliance with Stormwater Detention Ordinance;
k. Staff approval of landscape plans;
1. Health Department approval;
2. No certificate of occupancy will be issued until the following condition is met:
a. Staff approval of recreational equipment.
Mr. Vest seconded the motion.
The vote for approval was unanimous.
Public Hearing:
ZMA-80-16 THOMAS E. WORRELL, JR/FARMINGTCN WEST RPN
Located off the end of Broomley Road north of Flordon and west of Farmington;
proposed request to rezone 215.0 acres from R-1 to RPN/A-1 with 33 units on 91.5
acres and 1110.0 acres of open space with a gross density of one dwelling unit per
3.4 acres. Tax Map 59, Parcel 27, Samuel Miller District.
`� 911
Miss Caperton presented the staff report. She also stated that the applicant had
requested a waiver of Section 18-36, and she read a letter from the applicant. She
also cited other letters received from adjacent property owners and from property owners
in the area.
Mr. Dennis Rooker, speaking for the applicant, suggested that since there are fifteen
letters requesting deferral, it might be a wise idea to hear these reasons for
postponement before further discussion on the RPN.
Dr. H. Y.Charbonnier of Brook Hill, said the bridge was built across the creek to
Farmington and that there is a narrow road which is dangerous and also the building
will ruin the value of the property.
Mr. Gregory McGruder mentioned that he had just heard about the item the afternoon
of the meeting.
Mr. Bill Leggett asserted that he would like time to study the plan, particularly
the Broomley entrance and exit.
Mr. Harry Tarter of 722 Broomley Road requested that the application be postponed.
Mr. Kendrick Dure commented that he would like to suggest that there are those who
were notified and had taken their time and have their attorneys and they are ready
to hear this item now.
Mrs. Lorraine Arnhoff of Broomley Road said that more time is needed on this.
Mrs. Carol Harris of 1 Brook Hill, felt they needed more time.
Mrs. Chauncey Hutter asserted that they did not receive a notice.
Mrs. Clare Burke,who is adjacent on Flordon Drive, mentioned there is no note about
the corner where Broomley starts. She received no notice until Friday.
Mr. Dure stated again that he would like to proceed and there are others in the
meeting who received their notices, have their attorneys and are prepared to proceed.
Mr. Rooker said the applicant is prepared to proceed, but would consider postponement.
The public hearing was closed.
Mrs. Diehl inquired of the Commission their ideas on the postponement or proceeding.
Mr. McCann ascertained that the adjacent property owners were notified.
Mr. Lindstrom said he has received a number of calls. People are looking to the road
for access; this will front on some of these properties, but they are not adjacent
property owners.
Messrs. Skove, Bowerman, and Gloeckner all felt if the applicant was willing to
defer and wanted this done, that it should be deferred.
Mr. Skove made a motion for deferral to September 16th.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion.
The vote was unanimous for deferral.
Mr. Rooker offered to meet with any indiv:_duals or groups and talk with them about
the RPN. He also said Mr. Evans would do the same, if requested, and explain any
problem.
Mrs. Diehl expressed a desire to see the County Engineer's ideas on the suggested
waiver and also the private road.
Mr. David questioned the status on BroomlE?y Road.
Mr. Payne commented that is a private road with no maintenance agreement now.
Mr. Rooker, in reply to Mrs. Diehl, said there is a private driveway entrance to
Brook Road, and they are in the process of working out an agreement.
A member of the public requested the County Engineer check on the safety of the C & 0
Railway Bridge.
Mrs. Diehl also said she wanted to know more about the roads and how they would be
worked out.
Mr. Walt Lindsey, president of the Farmington Association, wanted to read a letter
from the property owners.
Mrs. Diehl told him he was out of order. She said he could give a copy of the
statement to the Commissioners.
The Commission requested that the following information be submitted for their
review:
1. County Engineer review and comment on request for a waiver of the road width
requirement in the private road provisions;
2. Comment from the County Engineer on the proposed private roads (i.e.
technical requirements such as decTree of slope and cross sections);
3. Soil report from a soil scientist on the availability of two septic
drainfields for each lot;
4. Review of the method of controllincr access for three families to Brook
Road in Farmington; and
5. Information on the safety of the railroad bridge on Route 677 (Old Ballard
Road) and the intersection of Route 677 and Route 250 West.
ZMA-80-17 ROBERT C. WALKER RPN
Located on the east side of Route 743, northeast of the intersection with Route 676,
adjacent to the Rivanna Reservoir; proposed request to rezone 38.6 acres from A-1 to
RPN/A-1 with 18 lots on 24.80 acres and 9.65 acres of open space with a gross density
of one dwelling unit per two acres. Tax Map 45, Parcel 31, Jack Jouett District.
The staff report was given by Miss Caperton.
Mr. Max Evans, for the applicant, told the! Commission that this is the remainder of
a large farm. Mr. Walker wants to plan for development, a simple subdivision was
discussed and it was felt the RPN would allow a better plan, particularly to protect
the reservoir. There will be one private road laid out with the topography, a short
private road, and one private drive. EaCh parcel has a good building site, there is loa/
a buffer of open space by the reservoir. There is protection for the reservoir in
the RPN, but not in a subdivision. The 36.3 acres is the planned computation but there
is a small amount of acreage left due to a discrepancy in the records. The extra land
will be added to the open space. The applicant will provide a deceleration lane with
a 200 foot taper. The sight distance is taken care of by the deceleration lane. The
soil scientist is doing a detailed study on the land, which will be completed before
consideration by the Board of Supervisors. The woods have been thinned and managed,
with only selective cutting being planned now for the roads. The calculated runoff
will only be approximately 3%.
A petition was read by R. P. Grehawick of Lake Hills in opposition to the RPN.
Mrs. Babs Huckle, for the League of Women Voters, said the
pollutants from runoff from the lawns, runoff from the driveways, and disease
organisms would affect the reservoir. He said a 50 foot buffer is not sufficient
for the protection of the reservoir. The Comprehensive Plan calls for only one unit
per five acres in that area. There are steep slopes.
Mrs. Joan Graves, speaking for the Citizens of Albemarle, asserted that the Commission
should study the character of the region and be sure the development does not endanger
the reservoir.
Mr. Evans said the open space is only a buffer, the lots are of sufficient size to
have several septic fields. The RPN homeowner's agreement would protect the
reservoir. Mr. Evans commented that he had come to teach at the University of Virginia
twelve years ago and had studied the reservoir. He remarked that the reservoir is
doomed to be short-lived, due to the surroundings, etc.
The public hearing was closed.
There was a discussion among the Commission members of the slopes and the development.
Most of the lots showed some slope.
Mr. Davis said he was not pleased with the RPN concept; he felt it might meet the
requirements for an RPN, but with slight changes it would meet the requirements
for just a simple subdivision.
Mr. Bowerman questioned where Route 743 and the proposed road are located in relation
to each other.
Mr. Walker showed this on the plan.
Mr. Evans,in reply to Mrs. Diehl's questioning, explained how the deceleration lane
would take care of the requirements for sight distance.
Mr. Bowerman was concerned about the sight distance 100 feet north of the property
entrance because of the difference in the elevation of Route 743.
Mr. Walker said this will have to be graded out for the entrance and will change
the elevation and sight distance.
Mr. Evans and Mr. Gloeckner both reassured Mr. Bowerman that at any height, cars
have to be visible for 450 feet.
Mr. Walker asserted that this would actually improve the road.
Mr. Skove asked if there really is better protection in the RPN for open space
around the reservoir.
Mr. Evans replied that this is better because the homeowner's agreements spell out
the use and provide for the maintenance. Also the dwellings are fitted to the contour
and the topography of the land in the RPN.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the applicant had considered clustering on 1� acre lots,
along frontage and the total near the reservoir in open space, but there is 60,000
square feet needed per dwelling. Also the applicant would lose lots.
Mrs. Diehl established that in the back portion the main road ends before it crosses
the swale.
Mr. Evans further stated that a private road will disturb the area less. He said
they will have to meet the soil erosion preventive measures and roads have to be
150 feet from the reservoir.
Mrs. Diehl remarked that without the soil scientist's report there were three lots
suspect, with the majority of the slopes of 15% or more, and were not good for
septic systems.
Mr. Evans said the lot could not be used if it were not good and that 15% slope was
not severe. He showed on the contour map that they had interpolated and broken down
the computation of the slopes.
Mrs. Diehl cited that the lack of the so:11 scientist's report placed everyone at
a disadvantage.
Mr. Bowerman agreed with Mrs. Diehl, and said the cul de sac and the road goes in
the 15% or greater slope area and the County Engineer should check this.
Mr. Gloeckner agreed and suggested that lots could be lost. He made a motion for
deferral until the soil scientist's report could be obtained.
Mr. Bowerman felt that the County Engineer should review the road and slopes and
asked that this be added to the motion.
Mr. Gloeckner agreed to add this request to the motion.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion.
Mr. McCann said he hated to defer this because of the soil scientist's report.
This report could eliminate some lots, which would make this a better plan.
Mr. Gloeckner suggested it would be advantageous to have the lots near the
reservoir larger.
Mr. Skove said he had trouble supporting the RPN at this point.
Mr. Davis said that Zoning Amendments are to increase density in a sensative area;
RPN's are to increase the open space and to increase the buffer space. He said
he did not see the increase in buffer space in the reservoir area which warrents
zoning an RPN.
Mr. Vest favors the RPN since this would show where the buffer would be located.
Mr. Gloeckner said if enough of the Commission opposed the RPN, he did not want the
applicant to go to more expense.
Mr. Evans said they would be glad to bring in more information.
Mr. Walker commented that the lots would go into open space if they were unbuildable.
He said he could have a subdivision by right. The RPN is the expensive way to do
this, but in an effort to protect the reservoir and to be able to control the type
of architecture of the homes, he tried to do this the way planning should be done.
Mrs. Diehl said the Commission is sympathetic to what the applicant is trying to do.
The vote was 4-3 for deferral, with Messrs. McCann, Vest and Davis dissenting.
The Commission requested the following information:
1. Soil scientist's report on the availability of two septic drainfields per lot; and
2. A statement from the County Engineer on the technical feasibility of the proposed
roads as shown through areas of 25% or greater slope.
VESS PRELIMINARY PLAT
Located at the end of Route 788 off of Route 684 on the northern side of the C & 0
Railway tracks which is two (2) miles west of Crozet. Property described as Tax
Map 55, Parcel 41 in the White Hall District. Proposal to subdivide three (3) lots,
seventeen (17) acres each.
Mrs. Kimsey gave the staff report.
Mr. Vess requested that the Commission grant a waiver of the 30 foot right of way;
and he also stated that the requirements of the Commission would be met.
The meeting was closed to public discussion.
Mr. Gloeckner disagreed with requiring the soil scientist's report, but did want to
have the Health Department approval before the final plat, also he was not sure the
staff review of the topography of the property for a building site was necessary.
Mr. Skove commented that the staff review of the topography for 17 acres is
unnecessary.
Mr. McCann agreed with Mr. Skove and said he is willing to waive the staff review
of the topography on the 17 acres.
Mrs. Diehl was concerned that 90% of the property was in 25% slope.
Mr. Vess remarked that only 60% of the property has slope area.
Mr. Skove cited that the private road is the reason for the Planning Commission review.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that Route 788 runs parallel to the railroad tracks and the
private road comes off cf Route 684.
The applicant stated that the area is 1/3 meadow, 2/3 wooded, and there are 25 good
building sites, but only three are being proposed.
Mr. Gloeckner made a motion for approval, subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions are met:
a. Compliance with the private road provision, including:
(1) County Engineer approval of the road;
(2) County Attorney approval of the maintenance agreement;
b. Preliminary Health Department approval, prior to review of the final plat;
C. Show stream and the 100 foot setback for Runoff Control;
d. Grading Permit, if needed.
Mr. Vest seconded the motion.
Unanimous approval was the vote.
CROZET WASTEWATER FACILITIES SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT SITE PLAN
Located on the west side of Route 240 in Crozet. Property described as Tax Map 56A(2),
Parcel 7(1) in White Hall District. Proposal to locate a Temporary Sewage Treatment
(package) plant which will be limited to the proposed convalescent center, existing
connections to the Crozet Sewer Company, and three on -site connections to the existing
triplex dwelling.
Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself, and left the room.
The staff report was given by Mrs. Kimsey.
Mr. Tom Lincoln remarked that the road proposed used the existing entrance, the sight
distance is unattainable, only 225 feet is available, not the 250 feet the Highway
Department usually requires. Also the applicant wants to retain the existing entrance
and would like to strike the staff recommended condition (b) requiring Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation standard commercial entrance and sight
distance approval. He requested that the Planning Commission grant a waiver of
this condition.
The meeting was closed to public discussion.
Mr. Lincoln said this facility is only adding one pickup truck and the commercial
entrance is really unnecessary. To Mrs.Diehl's questioning, Mr. Lincoln replied
that the construction period is sixty days.
Mr. Lindstrom ascertained that all the houses that are now with the Crozet Sewer
Company and dumping raw sewage will be hooked up to this facility.
Mr. Bowerman felt this facility should have a private driveway.
Mrs. Diehl questioned what the options are that the Commission has on this facility.
Mr. Payne said the Commission can strike the condition for the commercial entrance
and the Highway Department can still work this out with the applicant. The major
difference is that anything that is conditioned in the approval must be done before
the County will sign this off and as a practical matter, this will have to be worked
out.
Mr. Lincoln reminded the Commission that this plant is temporary and will no longer
be used when the irVeptor is built.
Mr. McCann made a motion for approval, subject to the following conditions:
1. No building permits will be issued until the following conditions have been met:
a. Approval of appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies. The Albemarle
County Service Authority shall request such agencies to emphasize in
their reviews the minimization of odors and noise generated by the plant.
b. County Engineer approval of road design;
C. Compliance with the Special Permit of SP-78-64.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Vest.
The vote for approval was unanimous.
VALMONT ESTATES FINAL PLAT, LOTS 24B and 24A
Located on the east side of Route 726 south, near Totier Creek, property described
as Tax Map 136, Parcel 59 in Scottsville District. Proposal to rearrange the middle
lot line in order to allow direct frontage on Totier Creek Road.
Mr. Payne said he wanted to make the Commission aware of the fact that his firm
has represented Valmont, but he was not aware of anything pending at the moment,
and he felt no conflict of interest.
Mr. Gloeckner re-entered the room.
Mrs. Kimsey gave the staff report.
Mr. Hilton Patterson, the applicant's representative, commented that Mundy Drive
is a cul-de-sac street and lots will never be developed behind this, they have
been sold as a farm.
Mr. Gloeckner commented that the Commission could not do anything until the Board
of Supervisors works out the agreement with the applicant. He felt the Commission
had no right as an agent representing the Board of Supervisors to make or change
any agreement.
Mr. Payne asserted that in this case, unlike most cases, the County has two roles:
as a property owner and as sovereign. The two roles dove -tail at one point, where
the Commission has to approve the amendment of lot lines. The other question is
whether the County as property owner would allow lots to have frontage on the road.
Mr. Gloeckner was correct in stating that the Planning Commission does not have
the authority to relieve the applicant of the servitude but the Board of Supervisors
does have this power and authority. If they do not relieve the applicant, then this
approval would be void.
Mr. Gloeckner felt that relief should be granted the applicant prior to Planning
Commission consideration of this plat.
Mr. Vest remarked that this could be done on the condition that the County approves
and relieves the applicant.
Mr. Davis questioned if this created an extra lot.
Mr. Payne stated that both plats show two lots, but in a different configuration.
Mrs. Diehl agreed with Mr. Gloeckner that the Board of Supervisors should re-
negotiate the agreement before the plat is considered.
Mr. Gloeckner made a motion for deferral until the applicant negotiates with the
Board of Supervisors for relief from the March 8, 1976 agreement.
Mr. Gloeckner ascertained that the reservoir is about 2000 feet from the lot.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion.
Mrs. Graves asked about the time limit on the preliminary plat. She mentioned the
fact that the Board of Supervisors had passed the agreement on the preliminary plat
and the final plat had not followed.
Mr. Payne stated that it is to the extent that you have a servitude which refers
to the document. Mr. Payne said he did not negotiate this contract, but he was not
aware of any intent that this could apply only six months and then lapse. The
road was built by the County and the owner dedicated it and the County limited the
owner's access to the road. He further stated that the preliminary plat may have
expired, but he did not feel this made any difference, as long as the final plat
satisfies the ordinance when it is presented. Even if the preliminary plat expired,
the servitude did not expire.
Mr. McCann told the Commission he felt if they approved the plat as conditioned by
staff, then the applicant could straighten this out himself.
Mr. Payne commented that it really did not make a great deal of difference which way
it was done.
The vote for deferral was 4-3, with Messrs. McCann, Vest and Bowerman dissenting.
L. C. PARRISH FINAL PLAT
The applicant had requested this item to be deferred until September 9, 1980.
Mr. McCann made a motion to defer the plat until September 9, 1980.
Mr. Vest seconded the motion.
The vote for deferral was unanimous.
WYNGATE FINAL PLAT
Located on the south side of Route 676 west. Property described as Tax Map 44,
Parcel 21F(1) and 21F(2) in the Jack Jouett District. Proposal for a division of
eight (8) lots with an average lot size of 2.2 acres each.
Mrs. Kimsey gave the staff report.
Arthur F. Edwards, speaking for the applicant, said they would comply with the
conditions.
The meeting was closed to public discussion.
Mrs. Diehl questioned the two back lots relative to 25% slope, particularly being
next to the reservoir.
Mrs. Kimsey said this needs Health Department approval of a soil scientist's report.
Mr. Gloeckner asked about the fact that the tax map showed a road continuing into
the next parcel and another road stops short.
Mr. Edwards said he would be glad to explZLin this. He stated that these parcels
were created years ago when purchased from the owner. As payments were made on the
property, the buyer wanted the property rE!leased so he could borrow money on the
property from someone else. This left a little strip of land going in and it is
existing as a pipestem. There is no road there. The applicant does not intend to sell
the parcels like that. The lots stop at the bottom of a deep swale. It is the applicant's
a 9�
intention that the rest of the property become part of the undeveloped portion of
Ivy Farms, to be developed from Wingfield Road at a later date.
Mr. Gloeckner said if the private road cuts off access to Ivy Farms, he is all for it.
Mr. Payne cited that condition (f) would terminate the road and eliminate the pipestem.
There would be no access through this plat area and the lots would be combined so
there will not be a landlocked parcel.
Mr. Skove moved for the approval, subject to the following conditions:
1. This plat will not be signed until the following conditions are met:
a. Health Department approval with soil scientist test;
b. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation private street commercial
entrance including deceleration land and sight distance approval;
C. Compliance with the private road provision including,
(1) County Engineer approval of the road;
(2) County Attorney approval of the maintenance agreement;
d. Grading Permit;
e. Show existing gas line;
f. Submit an instrument that will show parcels 21F(3), 21F, 21E, and 22C
combined with parcel 34, on Tax Map 44.
The motion was seconded by Mr. McCann.
The vote was 6-1, with Mrs. Diehl dissenting.
ASHCROFT, SECTION II, PHASE I, FINAL PLAT
Located off Route 250 East, one mile east of Charlottesville, on North Pantops Drive
in the Ashcroft Subdivision; proposed division of twenty lots, with an average lot size
of 1.42 acres on a total of 37.97 acres with 9.58 acres of open space.
Mrs. Kimsey gave the staff report and added that Lot 11 has only one septic location,
but is allowed to encroach on the open space for another drainage field, which would
be about 400 feet away.
The applicant said they had had the same problem on one lot in the first section and
had gone to the Board of Supervisors for relief from the 25% slope area. The
Board of Supervisors did not want to give the relief they asked for, but would
permit a compromise: that if the applicant found a problem with the septic fields
and the slopes, they could use common open space to get the alternate system.
In this plat, they could get a second system on Lot 11, but about half of the second
system would be in the 26%-27% slope area, to get out of this slope area, they had to
go approximately 375 feet.
Mr. Gloeckner ascertained that on the other side of a strip the applicant showed on
a map, there are other lots with only 17% slope, and the streets will be done
properly with no difficulty in that slope area.
There was a discussion of the piping and distribution box necessary in some of the
slope area.
Mrs. Diehl said Lot 11 should be called to the attention of the Health Department.
�9/
Mr. McCann made a motion for approval, subject to the following conditions:
1. This plat will not be signed until the following conditions are met:
a. County Engineer approval of surface type for Lego Drive to serve Lots
11 thru 13 to provide temporary service;
b. Provide street signs for North Pantops Drive and Lego Drive;
C. Health Department approval;
d. County Engineer approval and bonding of North Pantops Drive for Section II,
Phase I.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Gloeckner.
The vote was unanimous for approval.
FRIENDLYS ICE CREAM CORPORATION SITE PLAN
Mr. Gloeckner abstained.
The applicant had requested deferral on t?iis item.
Mr. Skove moved for deferral until October 21, 1980
Mr. McCann seconded the motion.
The vote was unanimous for deferral.
The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
RobE:rt W. Tucker, Jr., Secre
9