Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 23 80 PC MinutesSeptember 23, 1980 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on September 23, 1980, 7:30 p.m., in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Col. William Washington, Chairman; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner, Mr. James Skove, Mr. Charles Vest, Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr., Mr. David Bowerman, Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney; and Miss Mason Caperton, Senior Planner. Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom, ex-officio, was not in attendance. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Col. William Washington, after establishing that a quorum was present. The minutes of September 9, 1980, were deferred. ROBERT BAILEY FINAL PLAT Located on Parcel 88B(1) on Tax Map 62, Rivanna District, off the east side of Route 20 North, south of Route 769; proposed division of 8.348 acre parcel leaving 15.58 acres residue. Miss Caperton presented the staff report. Mr. Tom Sinclair, for the applicant, stated that the applicant was dividing the 8+ acres for his son. He said there is no problem on the conditions recommended by staff. There was no discussion from the public. The meeting was closed to public discussion. Mr. Skove made a motion for approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. The plat will be signed when the following condition has been met: a. Compliance with the private road provisions, including: (1) County Engineer approval of the road specifications; and (2) County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement. Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous for approval. FLORDON, BLOCK A, LOT 7, FINAL PLAT Located on Parcel 01-7 on Tax Map 59A, Samuel Miller District, at the southwest corner of Flordon Drive and Tanglewood Road; proposed division of 3+ acre parcel into 2 lots of 1.5 acres and 1.572 acres. Miss Caperton gave the staff report. She added the fact that the Health Department approval had been received and the waiver of the private road provisions is the only requirement for the approval of the plat. Mr. Tom Sinclair and the applicant, Mr. Echols, were present. Col. Washington questioned if any covenants were being abrogated by this plat. Mr. Echols said the lots were restricted to 12 acres by deed. 3 / o Mr. Bowerman ascertained that there is an existing dwelling on lot 7A. Mr. Vest made a motion for approval for the plat as presented, with a waiver of private road provisions. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that public water was available. She seconded the motion. The vote for approval was unanimous. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY FACILITY EXPANSION SITE PLAN Located on Parcels 14 and 14B on Tax Map 21, Rivanna Magisterial District; on the east side of Route 606 and west side of Route 29 North (southbound lane); proposed to expand the existing facility with offices, a laboratory, and electronic manufacturing. Mr. Kurt Gloeckner disqualified himself and left the room. Mr. James Neblett, speaking for General Electric, said that they were in agreement with the conditions, in general. He showed an expanded view of the site plan. He said this plan showed a different entrance on Route 29 than the plan before the Commission. He explained that the expanded site would include offices, a laboratory, and very sophisticated electronic manufacturing. Many GE executives and visitors would be using the site and the entrance design was very important for visual quality when entering the site. Mr. Neblett explained further that a campus type of atmosphere is intended with extensive landscaping and that the visual impact when entering the site was very important. The joint entrance with the Briarwood planned development had been approved previously, giving traffic priority to Briarwood. Since that time, G.E. purchased the land and anticipated the G.E. site to have the main access with the Wad Briarwood road intersecting somewhere west of Route 29. G.E. had contracted to build a road into Briarwood as a condition of the sale of this land. Mr. Neblett, in representing G.E., stated that their intention at this meeting was to obtain approval of the site plan without this entrance in order that they could further discuss the alignment and design with the Highway Department. Mr. Dan Sutland, of Hayes, Seay, Mattern, & Mattern for G.E., said that in designing the entranceway there had been a concern for the campus -like atmosphere, and a concern for the campus -like atmosphere, and a concern for the public safety. The design intent was front door image, with the manufacturing toward the rear of the site. The key approach was this crossover on Route 29. The entranceway also reflects on engineering concern for features of the site and safety. The interior site design also includes a place for employee enjoyment with terraces, a cafeteria, and an outdoor cafe' area. Mr. Neblett said they had agreed with the Highway Department, at the time of previous site approvals, that there would be no entrances between crossovers. The public discussion was closed. Col. Washington questioned whether the Highway Department had approved the entrance. Miss Caperton stated that the Highway Department had not approved the entrance as shown on the plan. She also said that the Briarwood Plan was adjacent to this site. She indicated the approved Briarwood entrance on the plan, with the preference given to Briarwood. Miss Caperton said that before Mr. Wood was granted approval NOO for Briarwood, he had the Comprehensive Plan amended to include the Piney Mountain community which showed the entrance feeding to Briarwood. The Highway Department, without amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and the Briarwood plan, could not recommend this entrance with preference given to G.E., and the county seemed to support this. Design changes could be discussed. The Planning Commission could approve this site plan without the Route 29 entrance. Col. Washington questioned G.E.'s position on Roads A and E on the plan. Mr. Neblett said the Route 29 entrance had to be worked out with the Highway Department and that G.E. wanted the entrance to lead primarily to G.E. Col. Washington ascertained that the small piece of land was acquired by G.E. after the entrance was approved to Briarwood. Mr. Neblett noted that the Comprehensive Plan states that Briarwood shall have two additional entrances to Route 29, and reading the Comprehensive Plan does not tell where the road is located. Even looking at the map in the Plan, it is hard to tell where the road is located. Col. Washington commented that the Comprehensive Plan was one matter and the project plan approval for Briarwood was another. He questioned Mr. Neblett on whether this entrance was in the Briarwood Plan. Mr. Neblett replied that he did not know, he was not at the meeting for the approval of Briarwood. Mrs. Diehl questioned the time frame on the comments of the Highway Department. Miss Caperton said there had been a Site Review meeting where no comments had been received. At a meeting with G.E., the Highway Department, Mr. Wood's representative, the Planning and Engineering Departments, this entrance was discussed but no comments were received until the Culpeper office of the Highway Department had time to review the plans. The Highway Department comments were received by the Planning Department Department on September 16th, and G.E. received the comments on the 19th. Col. Washington remarked that G.E. had been and was a good corporate citizen, but on the other hand, there was a problem with the entrance. He said he had no other problem with the site plan. Mr. Lloyd Smith, attorney for G.E., stated that the comments from the Highway Depart- ment were only received a few days ago. The entrance was primarily Briarwood's problem with the Highway Department. G.E.'s only problem was the entrance permit with the Highway Department, which they had at one time and they do not want to be held up. G.E. had paid $150,000 to purchase a small portion of land for the entrance and would like to get approval of at least the upper part of the entrance for interior circulation purposes. Col. Washington expressed concern about the entrance and the traffic and said this had to be consistent with Briarwood, which had been approved by the Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Wood had been back several times with entrance problems on other entrances to the site. He said he would not like to approve this site plan without knowing the full impact of this entrance. Mr. Neblett said that Mr. Wendell Wood and his group were not concerned about this part of the entrance. ✓' Mr. Skove felt that the Briarwood entrance had been approved in the same place. Mr. Smith cited that Mr. Wood did sell the land to G.E. after his entrance was approved. He said'he could show Mr. Wood agreed to this, and he felt the County was not involved. Col. Washington said the county was involved in the approval of the entrance for Briarwood. Mr. Bowerman mentioned that he would like to act on this plan, but did not feel he had enough information, and would like to have a representative of the Highway Department present. Mr. Payne asserted that the Briarwood RPN required a public road, but essentially this site plan showed a private road where a public road had been approved. A public road was shown on the Comprehensive Plan, and that was what it should be. Briarwood could not be built without this being a public road, because that was what the RPN required. The problem was the 3+ acre parcel the road was located on, and if this was what was covered in the RPN, and if it was, how much of it was involved. Obviously, if the plan covered this parcel or a portion of this parcel, plans could not be approved that were inconsistent with this. It would be a violation of the zoning ordinance to approve plans inconsistent with the RPN. Mr. Neblett said that G.E. is willing to dedicate the road from Route 29 to Briarwood entrance, then beyond this dedication would be the G.E. road. Col. Washington questioned whether G.E. wa ed approval without the south entrance or would they rather defer the whole site plan. Mr. Smith answered that G.E. would like approval on as much of the site plan as the Commission felt they could approve. Mrs. Diehl questioned if there were a precedent to remove part of the site plan from approval. Mr. Payne said he did not know of any, but there seemed to be no reason this could not be done. This would be within the law. He cited that enough area should be left in case of significant change. To remove that portion that affects the entrance would not affect any contracts or legalities, Mr. Payne stated in reply to Mrs. Diehl. But to take action as the site plan was without any exclusions, would affect the Briarwood RPN. There was a discussion of the entrance and what section of the site plan could be approved by the Commission. Mrs. Diehl inquired about the stormwater detention basin. Mr. Neblett said this would be continually filled with water for asthetic purposes. Mr. Bill Richardson said that he had been in contact with the County Engineer's office and this would meet the standards of the County. G.E. realized the plan was conditioned with approval from the County Engineer. Mr. Skove made a motion for approval of the site plan, subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: lmd a. Compliance with the Stormwater Detention requirements; b. Fire Official approval of hydrant locations and handicapped provisions; C. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of commercial entrances on Route 606; 2. A Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. Dedication for public use of 25 feet from the center line of Route 606 to be accomplished by separate deed or plat; b. Fire Official approval of fire flow of 2,500 gpm; 3. Approval is limited to that portion of the site plan located to the north of the intersection of Roads A & B. In addition, the Planning Commission action on the Route 29 intersection would be deferred to its meeting on October 28, 1980. Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. Mr. Gloeckner re-entered the room. SPRIGG LANE INVESTMENT CORPORATION AMENDED SITE PLAN Located on the north side of Route 250 West, west of the intersection with the Route 29/250 bypass; proposed to be used as a professional office building. Samuel Miller District. The applicant requested deferral until October 21, 1980. Mrs. Diehl made a motion for the deferral. Mr. Vest seconded the motion. Unanimous approval was the vote. RIDGETOP FINAL PLAT Located on the north side of Route 614 about one mile east of White Hall; proposed redivision of four lots on 15.43 acres. White Hall District. Miss Caperton gave the staff report. Mr. Jim Hahn, the applicant, said that Ridgetop and Riveridge are adjacent subdivisions. He said he had come to the Planning Commission with these plats to make the lots more attractive, the lots will be about 6 acres each. The road will not be quite as expensive and will be shorter. This is really the same plan, with the exception of the size of the lots, and it will be less expensive to develop. There was no public comment and the meeting was closed to public discussion. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the lots have Health Department approval. Mr. Gloeckner said he had no problem with this plat and could vote for approval. He made a motion for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met: a. Provide a road name and a street sign; b. Compliance with Section 15.1.482 of the Code for vacation of the previous plat; 2. Waiver of Section 18-36(d) requirement for lots 1 and 2; 3. Waiver of double frontage on lot 1 granted. Z/f The motion was seconded by Mr. Vest. Mr. Davis noticed that this has frontage on two private roads; he suggested that the number of entrance on the roads should be reduced. He ascertained that lots 1 and 2 are the ones that need a waiver. Mr. Gloeckner stated that the Commission was dealing with an existing entrance in an area that was not a new subdivision; there was an existing entrance to an existing house. Miss Caperton stated that when this was approved before, it was approved with a waiver of road frontage for the residue, there was 120 feet of frontage, and it was felt there would probably be a road there. Mr. Hahn cited that when this plat was approved before, there was a maintenance agreement that was recorded for lots 3 & 4 to maintain the road. Lots 1 and 2 were not and are not involved. Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the only difference in this plat and the plat that was approved, was that lots 1 and 4 were larger. There were houses on some of the other lots. There also was an easement on the road. Mr. Payne questioned the applicant on whether any of the lots had been sold. When he found they had not been, he said the Section of the Code to apply to the vacation should be Section 15.1.481, and that this was an easier process. The vote for approval was unanimous. RIVERIDGE, LOTS 1-5, FINAL PLAT Located off the north side of Route 614, about one mile east of White Hall; proposed division of 43.50 acres into five lots with an average size of 8.7 acres. White Hall District. Miss Caperton gave the staff report. Mr. James Hahn, the applicant, said that some of the acreage in this plat was lost to Ridgetop so some of the lots have been changed and are larger. Mr. Bowerman questioned the location of the houses to be built on in lots 1, 2, and 3 and if there were topographical featuers to put them even further from the Moorman River than required. Mr. Hahn said the houses would be limited to the ridgetops and would be 200 or 300 feet from the river. Mrs. Diehl felt this was an improvement over the other plat. The meeting was closed to public discussion. Mrs. Diehl made a motion for approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met: a. Written Health Department approval; b. No buildings are to be located on 25% or greater slopes; C. Compliance with the private road provisions, including: (1) County Engineer approval of the road plans; (2) County Attorney approval of the maintenance; 19 d. Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Runoff Control Ordinances; e. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of the commercial entrance; f. Compliance with Section 15.1.481 of the Code for vacation of the previous plat. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion. Unanimous approval was the vote. RODMAN FINAL PLAT Located on the east side of Route 743 (Hydraulic Road), just north of Whitewood Road; proposed division of a 1.432 acre parcel leaving 3.948 acres residue . Charlottesville District. Miss Caperton gave the staff report. The applicant, Randy Rinehart, had no comment, but said he was willing to answer questions. The meeting was closed to public discussion. Mr. Skove suggested that it was a good idea to follow the staff recommendation and move the line south so the headstones over on the platted property would be in the cemetery residue. Miss Caperton commented that this was an established cemetery. She also said there ,was an existing right-of-way and that was one reason the property line was run the way it was, because of the easement. Mrs. Diehl questioned if it were required by law to have any area of graves delineated. Mr. Payne stated that it was not in the subdivision ordinance; he was not sure about the statutes governing surveying. Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the residue of the proeprty was in the cemetery. Mr. Ray showed the cemetery plat and explained how the headstones came over the line. The graves were in the cemetery, but the headstones were not within the platted cemetery. He said the applicant was willing to move the line to make the headstones in the cemetery platted area. Mr. Gloeckner said the important thing is where the graves are located. Mr. Bowerman suggested that the line should be moved one to one -and one-half feet. Mr. Payne said the applicant would be better off if these headstones were not on his property. Mr. Gloeckner said Mr. Payne probably was right, since in a physical survey, all physical improvements (headstones are considered physical improvements) have to be shown and these might be encumbrance on the property. Mr. Skove made a motion for the approval of the plat, subject to the following conditions: 3/l 1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met: a. Compliance with the private road provisions, including: (1) County Engineer approval of road specifications; (2) County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement; (3) The 1.432 acre parcel and the residue shall have access only on the 35 foot right-of-way; b. A street sign is required; C. Staff approval of amendment to northerly property line to place headstones on residue parcel. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion. The vote for approval was unanimous. RODMAN TOWNHOUSE SITE PLAN Located on the east side of Route 743 (Hydraulic Road), just north of Whitewood Road; proposed to be used as eleven townhouse apartments. Charlottesville District. Miss Caperton gave the staff report. The applicant had no comment. The meeting was closed to public discussion. Mr. Bowerman ascertained that these units were for rental, not for sale. The motion for approval was made by Mr. Vest, with the following conditions: 1. Building permits will be issued when the following conditions have been met: a. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance; b. Compliance with the Stormwater Detention requirements; c. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans; d. Dumpster must be 30 feet from building; e. County Engineer approval of storm drainage layout and pavement specifications; f. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of commercial entrance; g. County Engineer approval of accesses to be constructed to 15 foot drive and 30 foot drive; h. Landscape plan (schedule and specific information) to be approved by Staff; i. Provide area for recreational use; 2. A certificate of occupancy will be issued when the following conditions have been met: a. Fire Official approval of fire flow of 1,000 gpm; b. A street sign shall be provided; C. Staff approval of recreational equipment. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion. Unanimous approval was the vote on the plat. 3/� WORRELL FINAL PLAT Located off the end of Broomley Road in Flordon; proposed division of a 43.667 acre parcel leaving 170.44 acres residue. Samuel Miller District. The staff report was given by Miss Caperton. The applicant had no comment, but was available for questioning. Mrs. Richard Peters asked that a plat be put where she could show the area and she questioned where the right-of-way was located and how many other rights -of -way there were, also where they crossed over. Mr. Max Evans said this road in the plat did not cross over, but was a private road. The access to Durrett Road was from another right-of-way. He pointed this out for Mrs. Peters on the small plat. Mr. Kendrick Dure said that Durrett Road was south of the intersection and the property line. Mr. Dure said he was representing his mother, Mrs. Leon Dure, and the Watterson family. He said that Durrett Road was at all times south of the improved Worrell Road. He questioned if the purpose of this plat was for financing. Mr. Rooker replied that it was for financing and tax planning. Mr. Dure told the Commission that an RPN was passed last week on this property, which overlaps this subdivision. The 43 acres involved here in this plat could keep the Dures and Wattersons from being able to connect with the road. He questioned the outcome of this plat if and when the RPN were approved and recorded. Mr. Payne said that the plat would be vacated if the RPN were approved and recorded. Mr. Dure said he was trying to protect the land to the north. The meeting was closed to public discussion. Mr. Skove questioned if this were a part of the RPN. Miss Caperton said the plat was part of the same property. Mr. Davis questioned the purpose of the subdivision and the RPN. Only one could be used. Mr. Rooker said there was no guarantee the RPN would pass. If the RPN did not pass and the subdivision did pass, it would be transferred to the partnership controlled by Mr. Worrell. This was for the purposes of tax planning. Mr. Rooker was questioned by the Commission on whether Mr. Worrell still wanted the RPN, to which he replied that there was no guarantee the RPN would be approved. This subdivision was only in the even that the RPN was not approved; the subdivision would be vacated if the RPN were approved. He did not see what harm there was in approving the subdivision with the RPN pending approval. Mr. Evans showed the Commission the private road on the plat, when questioned by Col. Washington. Mr. Bowerman felt the Commission had concerns on the RPN, now the Commission has the same concerns on the subdivision, particularly concerning the private road. Mr. Skove ascertained that the private road waiver was necessary because of the number of lots on Broomley Road. Mr. Payne said this differed from the RPN in that the principal waiver was one of off -site improvements; there was a regulation in the ordinance that said that any road leading from a subdivision to the nearest public road had to be either to state or county standards. Mr. Evans stated that this plat does not increase traffic, Mr. Worrell lives on this road. Col. Washington cited that this did not increase the traffic, until you break the area up into 17 or 18 lots. Mrs. Diehl inquired of Mr. Payne if it was proper to address this subdivision when the other action was pending. Mr. Payne replied that it could be done, but the Commission was not under obligation to act on this except within the time limit, which he said he thought was 60 days from the date it was filed. The Board of Supervisors would consider the RPN on October lst, so obviously there was no problem with the time frame. Col. Washington said he had no problem when a state road was being built to ask them to continue the road into another piece of property. However, he said he had problems with the same outlook on private roads. The Commission needed to take an overview look at about three or four properties. He further stated that he did not see how the applicant could be hindered if the plat were deferred until the Board of Supervisors could take action on the RPN. Mr. Bowerman agreed with Col. Washington, and made a motion to defer action on this plat until October 28th. Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous for deferral. RIVERS END FINAL PLAT Located on the east side of Route 676, north of the intersection with Route 743 and adjacent to the Rivanna Reservoir; proposed division of 21.267 acres into 8 lots with an average size of 2.66 acres. Jack Jouett District. Miss Caperton gave the staff report. The applicant was present and had no comment. In reply to a question from Mr. Fred Swane, Miss Caperton said that the staff .recommends that the Campbell property be included in the maintenance agreement for the private road, serving all these lots. Mrs. Campbell said she had maintained the road for 12 years and she did not intend to maintain it with other people on it. Mrs. Graves ascertained that both drainfields for lot 8 had to be located on lot 7, this would give lot 7 two drainfields and two alternates. Mrs. Carol Jackson, for the League of Women Voters, read a statement. Mrs. Graves queried whether the city had been notified of this plat. Miss Caperton answered in the affirmative and said she had a note from the city, which upon the chairman's direction, she read to the Commission. The meeting was closed to public comment. Col. Washington questioned Mrs. Campbell on the fact that there were two separate pieces of property and had they always been separate, also was there an easement for the well, which was located on lot 8. Mrs. Campbell said the property had always been two separate parcels and there was an easement for the well. Mr. Payne said there was a written easement for the well. Mr. Davis established that Mrs. Campbell had access to the raod. He made the comment that in areas around the reservoir, lots should be required to have their own drain - fields, to insure the integrity of the reservoir. Mrs. Diehl suggested that they need to have their own septic systems, and this should be required. She said she could not support an easement. There have been exceptions for a secondary system, but never for a primary system. Mrs. Diehl asked to see the alignment of the three lots along the reservoir. Miss Caperton showed these lost and said the lots were arranged a little differently and would be larger. Mr. Gloeckner asked if the topography was such that the lots could be toward the front and not as close to the reservoir, with the same number of lots. Mrs. Diehl commented that this probably was the only type of road configuration that could be done with the little separate parcels on either side. Mr. Ray said the road was an existing road from the state route on out almost to the Campbell property. There were over 2 acres in lots 1 and 2. Col. Washington said he agreed with Mr. Davis, in that he felt the requirements so close to the reservoir should be strict. Mr. Skove made a motion for approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met: a. Compliance with the Runoff Control and Soil Erosion Ordinances; b. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of the commercial entrance; C. Compliance with the private road provisions, including: (1) County Engineer approval of the road plans; (2) County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement, to include parcel 5H on Tax Map 45 (Campbell property), if possible; d. Note deed book reference for property; e. Lots on the reservoir to be redesigned in place of Lots 5, 6, 7, and 8, to show three lots of 3+ acres, with staff approval. The motion was seconded by Mr. Vest. 131 -o The vote was 6 for the motion, with 1, Mr. Davis, abstaining. FERDINARD AND JUDITH BAZIN, LOTS 1-8, FINAL PLAT Located on the north side of Route 666, about 2.5 miles northwest of Earlysville; proposed division of 41.35 acres into 8 lots with an average size of 5.17 acres. White Hall District. A deferral had been requested by the applicant. A motion for deferral was made by Mr. Bowerman. The motion was seconded by Mr. Vest. The vote for deferral was unanimous. OLD BUSINESS: 1. Black Industries Site Plan - Request for Amendment Located on Parcel 21F on Tax Map 94, Rivanna District; on the south side of Route 250 East at the intersection of Route 794. Request that the condition of the woven fence be deleted for security reasons, due to robberies. Miss Caperton gave the staff report. Mr. Bickers, the applicant, in reply to Col. Washington's question, said this is a construction firm and equipment is kept inside the fence. They have had over 20 break-ins and robberies have cost them between twenty and thirty thousand dollars. The fencing is a wire fence with bamboo type material run through the wire. Mr. Bowerman inquired how the thieves entered the property. Mr. Bickers said that sometimes they cut part of the fencing, sometimes they break the lock on the gate. Mrs. Diehl inquired the type of things that the thieves take. Mr. Bickers stated that the thieves steal tires, batteries, tools, parts, anything that is not too big or too hard to take. Mr. Skove said the thieves must bring in a truck to haul the materials taken. He asked Mr. Bickers which alternative he favored of the alternatives suggested by Staff. Mr. Bickers said it would be helpful if he could just take part of the woven wire down. Mr. Bowerman said,in looking at the site and the surrounding area, there was farm land on one side. He said he could see the reason for the screening on Route 250, but he did not feel the screening was necessary on the farmland and Route 794. Mrs. Diehl questioned if there were houses across Route 794. Mrs. Bickers stated that there are two homes on Route 794, but they are located further up the road. Mr. Davis made a motion that the woven screening along Route 794 shall be deleted (with some landscaping provided, to the reasonable satisfaction of Staff) in order to facilitate Sherrif Department patrols. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. The vote for the motion was unanimous. 2. Private Road Ordinance Col. Washington said he had considerable concern about the private road ordinance. He stated as background that before a Committee was formed, there were recommendations from Staff, the Commissioners, and developers in the County. Mr. Clover of Clover Realty, and Frank O'Neill brought this problem up. They all felt that with the topography of much of the area in the county there was a tendency to destroy property or create runoff or erosion by building state roads through the property. The private road, it was felt, did less harm to the land and the roads could be put through with a minimum of damage. Since the private road ordinance has been put in effect, there have been almost no subdivisions approved with state roads, and it has become routine to use the private road ordinance. One of the biggest developers in the county, Dr. Hurt, said that he thought this was a mistake. Col. Washington felt some mistake might have been made in using this almost entirely. He did not think the ordinance should be thrown out, but should be looked at very carefully; and should be used in the vein in which it was intended, instead of a general purpose use. Mr. Payne stated that if Broomley Road were a state road, it would be an even bigger problem. Improvements could not be required on a state road, the Worrell Road could - not be accepted unless it was built to state standards. These state standards were set up for maximum use, where minimum use might be all the road received. Mrs. Diehl questioned the condition of the Hilton case. Mr. Payne said he had been working on the legislative authority on this case. Col. Washington requested an up-to-date write up from the Staff on the private roads. Mr. Gloeckner said that part of the reason for the private road ordinance was to abolish old County roads. Mr. Payne said that Staff can not be very informative on the private road ordinance, since this is not a technical policy. 3. Col. Washington told of the book that Mrs. Graves had given him written by Mr. Franklin Peters. He stated that the book claimed that the Commission was involved in a proceedural error. He wanted Mr. Payne to look at the book and give his opinion on the matter. There was a brief discussion of the book, its contents and its claims concerning the Commission. 4. Col. Washington suggested the .possibility of the Staff getting the staff report to the Commission in time for them to read and look at the sites before the Commission meeting. Mr. Payne cited that there were time constraints. Miss Caperton explained the structure of the sbumittals, site review, all the reviewing with the applicant and staff and the time limits involved. Mr. Gloeckner felt that part of the problem the Commission had was lack of necessary information on the plats. The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. 11 Robert W. Tucker, Jr.,' Sec 9