Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-11-05November 5, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was scheduled to be held on November 5, 1980, at 7:30 P,M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse, CharlottesviIle, Virginia. ~ Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta (arrived at 7:36 P.M.), C. Timothy Lindstrom, Layton R. McCann (arrived at 7:36 P.M.) and Miss Ellen V. Nash. Officers Present: County Executive, Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Attorney, Mr. George R. St. John and County Planner, Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M.'on the steps of the Albemarle County Courthouse. Motion was immediately offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adjourn to the Juvenile Court Building, East High Street, because the Courthouse had been ordered locked to safeguard exhibits in a trial being held in the Courthouse. Roll.was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Messrs. Iachetta and McCann. The Board was called back to order in the Juvenile Court Building at 7:36 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. (Dr. Iachetta, Mr. McCann and officers present at this ~time.) Agenda Item No. 2. SP-80~55. Central Virginia Electric Cooperative. Petition for a transmission right-of-way on 41.3 acres zoned A-!. The proposed right-of-way is adjacent to the existing transmission line starting at Midway, going south and southwest and leaving Albemarle County just north of Route 631, at the Nelson County line. (Deferred from September 17, 1980 at the request of the applicant.) Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Planner, then presented the following staff report: "Projection Description: Central Virginia Electric Cooperative currently has a '100 foot right-of-way from the Midway substation in Albemarle County to the Martin's Store substation in Nelson County. A 46 KV transmission line and local distribution lines are located within the existing right-of-way. CVEC proposes to acquire an additional fifty feet of right-of-way on the westerly side of the existing right-of-way and to construct a 115 KV transmission line paralleling the existing 46 KV line. Proposed structures would consist of wooden H-frame structures (52 foot height; 26 foot cross arm) and single pole structures (60 foot height). Based on recent increases in demand in northern Nelson County, CVEC has projected that the existing 46 KV line would be overloaded by the 1981~2 winter peak. While the proposed line would have 115 KV transmission capability, initial operation would be at 46 KV to relieve immediate problems (i.e. - overloading and provide alternate service to northern Nelson County). The 115 KV capability is intended as a long-range measure to accommodate growth in northern Nelson County. Character of the Area: Generally, this portion of the County is a rural agricultural area characterized by large farm and forested tracts and by small lot develoPment along existing state roads. The following description of the transmission line route is based on USGS mapping and on 'windshield' reviewed by the staff: Mi~way__substation, southwest of the intersection of Routes 635 and 688, is located on an open hillside, clearly visible from Route 635. No expansion of the substation is proposed at this time, however, future planned conversion to 115 KV may require modification of this installation, which would require special use permit approval. Staff would address such concerns as screening from the public road and dwellings at that time. From Midway.substation to Routes 637/689, the transmission line right-of-way proceeds in a southwesterly fashion through open and wooded lands and crosses four creeks. It does not appear that additional right-of-way would be in close proximity to existing dwellings (i.e. - edge of right-of-way within 100 feet of a dwelling as estimated by staff.) From Routes 637/689 to Route 692, the right-of-way continues in approximately a straight line through open and wooded lands. This segment of right~f~yy crosses streams in four locations, two of which are crossings of the Mechums River. Additional right-of-way would be in close proximity to one dwelling in the area. From Route 692 to Route 636, the right-of-way crosses the Mechum River, climbs straight over a foothill (15+% slope on north side; 25% slope on south side). Changing to a more southerly direction, the right-of-way crosses the Mechum in three more locations. It does not appear that additional right-of- way would be in close proximity to dwellings in this area. From Route 636 to Route '691., the right-of-way again crosses the Mechum, continues in a southerly fashion approximately 3000 feet and then begins to parallel Route 635. The right-of-way continues through open and wooded land crossing five tributaries of the Mechum (one perennial and four intermittent). Three dwellings would be in close proximity to the expanded right~o~way. In all five cases, the right-of-way exists at the front of the dwellings. In one case, the property owner has stated that the edge of the additional right-of-way would be about two feet from his porch and that several of his ~ard trees would be within the right-of-way and subject to removal. November 5, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) From Route 691 to Route 736, the right-of-way continues to parallel Route 635 primarily through open land, making four stream crossings of Mechum tributaries (one perennial). One dwelling would be in close proximity to the proposed right~~y~-~xpan~i~n. From Route 736 to Nelson County, the right-of-way continues to parallel Route 635 through open and wooded land. Two dwellings would appear to be in close proximity to expanded right-of-way. One intermittent stream is crossed. Land in this area is not in the Mechum River or South Rivanna Reservoir Watershed. Summary: Staff has estimated that seven dwellings would be within 100 feet of the expanded right-of-way. Eleven dwellings would be within the expanded and existing right-of,way. (Staff considered only those dwellings on the side of the proposed right-of-way expansion.) The right-of-way crosses streams in 23 locations, 22 of which are either tributaries to or the Mechum River proper. The proposed transmission line would travel a distance of about 6.6 miles in Albemarle County and require an approximate 40.4 acres in additional right-of-way, approximately 12 acres of which is wooded. Cqmprehensive Plan--In terms of public utilities, the Comprehensive Plan addresses water, sewer, and roads. While the Plan is silent in regard to electric transmission lines, staff opinion is that similar guidelines may reasonably be applied. Generally speaking, the Comprehensive Plan recommends that utilities be provided in areas designated for growth. The CVEC proposal for the 115 KV transmission line is intended to accommodate growth in Nelson County and would neither support growth nor improve service in Albemarle County (except in areas served by the Martins' Store substation, if any). Therefore, while the proposal would not directly conflict with land use recommendations of the Plan, the Plan does not recommend that Albemarle take measures to support growth in other localities. CVEC has investigated two alternative routes, both of which lie wholly within Nelson County. Staff would recommend that it may be appropriate to request Nelson County to review the three alternate routes to determine which of the three would best serve Nelson County's growth objectives. (Nelson County's Zoning Ordinance permits the establishment of the 115 KV line as a use by right and therefore, a public hearing may not be held on this project in Nelson unless reviewed for compliance with their Comprehensive Plan). Additional staff review for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan has been in terms of the 'visual quality' guidelines, particularly in regard to recommended scenic roads (Route 692) and scenic streams (Mechum River). Similar Propqsals--The only similar proposal in recent years was VEPCO's proposed rebuild of the Bremo transmission line from 115 KV to 230 KV, which was reviewed by the Commission for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan in May, 1980. In that case, no additional right-of-way was required and the substantial change was replacement of existing structures with larger structures of the same type. Staff recommended that, while the project would have some adverse impact, the impact would not be severe, and that the project would substantially comply with the Comprehensive Plan, provided that VEPCO adhered to certain environmental guidelines. Staff Comment--The proposed additional right-of-way and transmission line would follow the course of the existing transmission and distribution lines. Being older lines, staff opinion is that the routing shows little regard for current environmental and aesthetic concerns. The Run-~f Control Ordinance does not apply to a project of this nature and transmission line construction is exempted from the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance by State statute. Due to the proposed width of right-of-way, the proliferation of poles and lines, and 'straight line' routing, staff opinion is that visual relief measures would be of questionable effectiveness in most cases. In terms of effect on properties along the right-of-way, staff opinion is that this proposal would result in substantial detriment to some properties which probably could not be abated by conditions of approval. It should be noted, however, that several affected dwellings were constructed in proximity to the existing transmission line. Approval of a special use permit should be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and should be consistent with the general health, safety and welfare. Since this project would not directly serve Albemarle, consistency with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is questionable; it also would not directly serve the general health, safety and welfare of Albemarle citizens. Staff has not discussed the alternative routes for this project since they exist wholly in another locality. These two alternative routes, being located in Nelson County, have been rejected by CVEC for the following reasons: Unavailability of existing connections to power sources along the routes; Alternative rights-of-way would require a 100 foot right-of-way; Each alternative route would parallel in large part designated scenic roads; These alternative routes would be more costly than the requested proposal. Should the Board of Supervisors be convinced that the additional right-of-way is necessary for the proposed transmission line upgrading, the staff would recommend that CVEC prepare and present alternative alignments in Albemarle which would reduce the impact along those dwellings most affected and/or consider underground routing for these areas." November 5, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) 398 Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission recommended denial of SP-80~55~atii~s~September 9, 1980 meeting. After the Planning Commission meeting, the staff met with the Cooperative's representatives to suggest alternatives for rerouting the line to the back of the dwellings that are most impacted. However, to this date, this has not been done. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Bruce Williamson, attorney representing Central Virginia Electric Cooperative, was present. He introduced Mr. Walter Tucker, General Manager of the Cooperative, Mr. Jerry Reed, engineer with CVEC, and Mr. Richard Booth, consulting engineer from North Carolina. Speaking first was Mr. Walter Tucker, summarizing the history of Central Virginia Electric Cooperative, as contained in the "Supplemental Statement to Central Virginia Electric Cooperative's Application to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors". (Copy on file in the Clerk's Office) He noted that over a period of twenty years it became apparent that parts of Nelson County and Albemarle County, then served by a connection to the distribution system of VEPCO near Afton, could not be adequately served by this connection much longer. A decision was then made to seek a new source of supply from the 115 kilovolt transmission line which VEPCO recently constructed and which crosses the Cooperative's three phase line near Midway in Albemarle County. VEPCO was contacted about this and an agreement was reached for this connection. After the agreement was made, plans were made to proceed with the work. The plans called for the following three major items: !) A substation at Midway; 2) A transmission line to be built from the substation at Midway; and 3) A new substation at Martin's Store which would be connected to the existing distribution lines. This work was done and the connection with VEPCO at Afton was discontinued and the system has operated satisfactorily for nearly two decades. Mr. Tucker said that periodically the Cooperative has its system evaluated so that it make effect changes necessary in order to provide adequate service, both to its existing members and new members. The most recent evaluation indicated that the existing transmission line built in 1961 from Midway to Martin's Store must be replaced or supplemented in the near future. Mr. Tucker also noted that the peak load on the existing line was 15.0 megawatts in February, 1980, which is an average annual increase of thirteen percent since 1975. He felt that continued growth at or above that rate would result in an overload on the line during the 1981-82 winter. Mr. Tucker noted that growth is occurring along Route 151 in addition to the Wintergreen development. In order to solve this problem, it was decided that a new line had to be constructed as close as practical to the existing line. After it was decided that a new line was needed, the process of route selection began. He noted that several factors considered were those of environmental impact, costs and availability of a suitable source of power. In 1978, three possible routes were considered: 1) following the existing route from Midway to Martin's Store; 2) a new routeifrom Piney River to Peggy's Pinch near Wintergreen; and 3) a new route from Elma to Martin's Store. Mr. Tucker then explained each of the above routes and noted that the existing route from Midway to Martin's Store was found to be the most desirable based on the factors evaluated. Preliminary planning for the Midway-Martin's Store route then started. Mr. Walter Tucker said that in October 1980, the Nelson County Planning Commission found the proposal to be in accord with the Nelson County Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tucker then pointed out the benefits the proposal will provide for Nelson County and Albemarle County. The construction of the transmission line will avoid the threat of power blackouts in Nelson County area and meet the service needs in the northwestern part of Nelson County for approximately ten to fifteen years with the 46 kilovolts and for an indefinite future with the 115 kilovolts. Mr. Walter Tucker said the area recommended for the line in Albemarle County is not designated as a growth area in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tucker also noted that the Comprehensive Plan does not directly speak to the issue of electric utilities in general or to electric transmission lines in particular. The Cooperative believes that the transmission line will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent properties, will not change'the character of the district, the line is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, within the uses permitted in the area, and will promote the general health, safety and welfare of the community. The acquisition of the additional fifty feet of right-of-way and the construction of the line require compensation to the affected landowners and the Cooperative will try to negotiate an agreement with all affected landowners so as to be fair and pay a just compensation. Mr. Walter Tucker then noted letter dated November 3, 1980, from Ms. Joan Rothgeb, Chairman of the Nelson County Planning Commission, regarding that Planning Commission's approval of the request on October 24, 1980. Mr. Tucker also noted letter dated November 5, 1980, from Mr. Joseph P. Campbell, a Nelson County businessman and member of the Nelson County Planning Commission, ,urging approval of the request. (Copies of these letters are on file in the Clerk's Office.) Mr. Walter Tucker then presented some photographs to illustrate that the area has adapted to the existing lines and noted that the right-of-way must be at least one hundred and fifty feet in order to accommodate the projected needs. In conclusion, Mr. Tucker respectfully, requested approval of SP-80-55. Speaking next was Mr. Robert Merrill, landowner affected by this line and a member of the Central Virginia Electric Cooperative. He noted that the landowners present to speak to this matter accept the duty and responsibility of the Cooperative to provide electric power and to plan ahead, but do object to the manner this was planned and the ignorance of some alternatives. A petition has been signed by landowners who live near or under the line and the statement of the petition is as follows: "We, the undersigned, are property owners in Albemarle County. The Central Virginia Electric Cooperative (CVEC) now has a right-of-way 100 feet wide on our land for a transmission line constructed in 1961 and for a distribution line. We very much object to the CVEC proposal to obtain an additional 50 feet of right-of-way on our land and to construct a second transmission line parallel to the existing lines. 399 November 5__~_1980 (Regular Night Meeting) We request that you deny the CVEC application for a permit for the following reasons: The proposed line through Albemarle County would result in high voltage lines being dangerously close to at least seven homes. Additional power supply is not needed for several years. There is time to study alternative routes. Alternative routes through Nelson County should be surveyed, studied and costed, before a decision is made on the present proposal. (Signed by 55 residents)" The following persons then spoke in opposition' to the request for the reasons listed below: Mr. Bill Dollens, Mr. Charles Wilmer (representing the Crozet Sportsman's Club which owns property on the Miller School Road), Mr. Bob Webb, Mr. Sy Rabinowitz, Mrs. Margaret Johnson, Mr. Fox, Mrs. Brenda Martin, Mr. A. F. Kennedy, Mr. Jim Bryan, Mr. Edward Dunnivan, Mr. Frank Craig (who presented a photograph of the existing lines in front of his house), Mr. Harold Spainhour, Mr. Bill Wortman, Mr. Robert Merrill, Mrs. Dorothy Houchens, Mr. Bill Vaughan and Mr. Bob Bageant: a) b) c) d) e) f) h) ±) j) Opposed to any more lines or poles on their property; Would cause a decrease in their property values because of the number of lines; The proposal is for growth in Nelson County, particularly Wintergreen and the lines should stay in Nelson; The line will create pressure from developers in an area where growth is not intende but intended to remain rural; Oppose having to give another fifty feet of right-of-way; The safety aspects of the proposal; A feeling that the additional need could be handled on one pole; Oppose the additional parallel line; Other alternatives were never fully examined; and Opposed because of the close proximity of the poles and wires currently in front of some homes. Mr. Lee Johnston, resident of Georgetown Green and property owner in Batesville, spoke next in opposition. He was in agreement with the previous speakers and related to the Board some history of the matter. In a report dated July 18, 1978, from Booth Associates, the Cooperative's consultants, a recommendation was received that the Piney River-Wintergreen Route be constructed and the route would be $3,600 cheaper in initial outlays than the Midway-Martin's Store route which is estimated to be $775,000. However, in October 1978, the recommendation was changed to the Midway-Martin's Store route at the request of the Cooperative and he felt that was probably because of problems of getting power from Appalachia Power Company at Piney River. Mr. Johnson then noted that he had asked the Cooperative's engineer,-Mr. Reed, why it would not be better for the line to come from Elma to Wood's Mill to Martin's Store since there are no roads, houses, etc., between Elma and Wood's Mill. Mr. Johnston said he also pointed out to Mr. Reed that there is a distribution line and right,of-way from Martin's Store to Wood's Mill on which to run this new. transmission line. The response from Mr. Reed was that a transmission line should not be built on a distribution line right-of-way because it is too close to homes. Mr. Johnston then noted that the Cooperative contends that there is no power available from alternative sources and he felt that was not true. He said there is a 46 KV substation at Piney River supplied through a VEPCO meter from an APCO transmission line which is in turn fed power by VEPCO. Therefore, Mr. Johnston did not see any reason why the substation could not be a source of power for Wintergreen at 46 KV rather than at the proposed 69 KV. Mr. Johnston also noted that the Cooperative has applied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a right to buy power from APCO. The public hearing on this request is scheduled for February, 1981. In conclusion, Mr. Johnston did not feel the residents in opposition will receive any benefits other than cost. Therefore, he felt those in Nelson County who benefit from the proposal should also have to incur the costs. Mr. Johnston said the recommendation made in July 1978 from Booth Associates was a right and basically sound one and should have been adhered to. Mr. Merrill then noted letters of opposition from Mr. A1 Dollens (Letter on file in Clerk's Office) and Mr. G. Russell Dettor (Letter was not presented for the files). Mr. Merrill also asked that the Board question the Cooperative about the recommendation of their consultants in July 1978. He also felt a decision on the special permit for CVEC should be deferred until the hearing in February on whether the Cooperative can buy power from APCO. Next to speak was Mrs. Ruby Dodd, president of the Nelson County Chamber of Commerce. She said a goal of the Chamber of Commerce is to attract industry to the County and at present the only industry in the County are recreational facilities. Mrs. Dodd noted that~ the Chamber unanimously supports the proposed route and urges approval of same. Next to speak was Mr. Sam Eggleston, member of the Nelson County Chamber of Commerce, in support of the request and in agreement with the comments of Mrs. Dodd. He emphasized that Wintergreen has been a wonderful industry for Nelson County. Mr. Eggleston then requested that the Board approve the special permit. Mrs. Corin La Bovin, member of the Nelson County Energy Task Force, spoke next in opposition. She said the Nelson County Comprehensive Plan recommends developing most industry in the area along Route 29 closer to Lovingston and not in the Rockfish Valley. Therefore, Mrs. La Bovin, was in opposition to the request because she felt such would only encourage industry in an area not intended for such activity. Mr. Shelton L. Stevens, Director of the Nelson County Chamber of Commerce, spoke next and ~requested approval of the petition. He noted that Nelson County is trying to grow, as Charlottesville and Albemarle County have, and this proposal is necessary for that growth. Mr. John Fitch and Mr. Jim Cosherri, residents of Nelson County, spoke next urging support of the request in order to provide necessary power for the area. November 5, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. L. F. Payne, President and General Manager of Wintergreen, spoke in support of the request. In 1973, Wintergreen was approved as a planned unit development with a potential of 5,000 dwelling units. To this date, 2,000 of the units have been sold. Approximately 800 shelter units in Wintergreen represent about thirty percent of the area under considera~ for additional power. Mr. Payne shared the concerns of those in opposition but noted that Nelson County benefits greatly from Wintergreen because it is the largest taxpayer and private employer in the County. In conclusion, Mr. Payne urged approval of the request. Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. Williamson to respond to the concerns which had been expressed. Mr. Williamson reemphasized that the Cooperative is only trying to improve and meet the needs of the consumers and cannot risk waiting until there is a blackout to make the im Alternatives have been examined and that information is available to the Board. This is not a Wintergreen transmission line even though Wintergreen is certainly the major ic unit. There are approximately 2,700 customers served by the transmission line in Nelson County; approximately 764 of the customers are in Wintergreen; and 93 consumers in Albemarle County. Mr. Williamson felt residents should realize that Wintergreen is a growth area and that is where power is needed. The alternative routes were submitted to the State Corporation Commission but the Midway-Martin's Store route was the best. The Cooperative has attempted to buy power from APCO over the years and even if that were possible, the proposed route would still be requested. The basic problem of upgrading the line is that when you have a one hundred foot right-of-way with an existing line in the middle, upgrading would involve costs in excess of building a new line. A disruption of service of perhaps six to nine months would also be involved and there would be a tremendous danger to the people working on the line. In conclusion, Mr. Williamson felt the information before the Board points out the need for the service and again requested favorable consideration. At 9:26 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 9:40 P.M. Mr. Walter Tucker noted that reference had been made about having to give the Cooperative an additional fifty feet of right-of-way. The Cooperative negotiated and purchased all of the one hundred feet of existing right-of-way for the transmission line and the same will be done in this case. As for the concerns about the lines being too close to the homes, the National Safety Code governs the clearance required on houses and grounds and other conductors, lines and various things encountered in constructing an electrical line. Mr. Tucker said the Cooperative has in all cases exceeded the clearance required by the Code and nothing else can be done. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Spainhour made a comment in his remarks that if there is an outage, the power company could put the full load on the other line, but there is no other line. Mr. Fisher felt the comment made about the line was that if there were two lines, one could be shut down and worked on while the other line handled the necessary power. Mr. Merrill felt the Cooperative has an alternative route for going directly to Wintergreen as soon as the power is available from APC0. The alternative route is shorter than from Midway to Wintergreen and furthermore, there would be two sources. With this request tonight, there would only be one source even though there would be two lines. He then asked that someone from the Cooperative explain the total for the Midway-Martin's Store line and if the total includes the cost of putting some of the distribution line on the new poles. With no one else rising to speak for or against this petition, the public hearing was closed at the request of the Chairman. Mr. Fisher asked when the cost comparisons were made on exhibit two (part of the Supplemental Statement referred to earlier). An unknown speaker said they were done in 1978, but all the figures in the report have been updated and are current. Mr. Fisher asked why the decision was made in 1978 to eliminate the other two alternatives for the line in Nelson County. Mr. Williamson said the 1978 figures showed the Midway-Martin's Store route to be the least expensive. Mr. Fisher expressed his concern that people are confused about this petition since it seems the Cooperative is going back to a two year old decision and using 1980 figures to justify same in the statements tonight. Therefore, he felt the Cooperative should support its old decision because it seems the other two alternatives were dropped at the time that decision was made. Mr. Fisher then asked if the figures shown for the Midway-Martin's Store route are total costs. Mr. Booth said in trying to relate distribution costs into this type of thing, you are dealing with transmission system costs and have to look at those. You then get to the question of how much distribution is or is not involved and all of this comes into the actual design of the line itself. However, Mr. Booth noted that a substantial amount of money is not involved in allocation of distribution lines. Dr. Iachetta said he had difficulty with the additional right-of-way being requested and the inability to work within the existing right-of-way with the existing line. He noted that a line was built by VEPCO a couple of years ago and upgraded to 230 KV on the same right-of-way with a hot line running in that right-of-way. Mr. Booth said the line was rebuilt cold and VEPCO was able to do that because they had loop feed for that line~ VEPC0 was able to serve substations from another direction and to isolate that section of line and do the work. Mr. FiSher understood that transmission of power from the place where ~t is generated to the place where it will be used is~necessary, but he felt the Board has the responsibility to meet those needs without creating greater problems. His solution to the problem is to determine whether or not the Cooperative can find some wa~ to build on the existing right- of-way, without expanding the right-of-way, and take down the old line once the work is completed. This would limit any more visual problems and prohibit encroaching on existing homes. Mr. Fisher said statements were made by Cooperative officials that they did not want to do. that, but his question is, can it be done? Mr. Booth said yes, it can be done, but the problems to rebuild the present line in the existing location is a cost approximately $791,000 over the proposal if it were built cold. Mr. Booth said the line has to be built in sections to bring in a conductor at a time. Therefore, there will be hours during several days that there will be outages during the construction period. It is also extremely dangerous if the transmission line is maintained hot. There is a danger of killing someone or causing property damage. Mr. Booth also noted that every time a pole or structure is set, it has to be set up inside the hot conductors and that is dangerous. Also, the Cooperati~ could not do this itself and felt it would be unreasonable to ask the Cooperative to do that type of construction. 401 November~ular Night Meetin__g~) Mr. Williamson said the Cooperative hopes that this line will have the capability of serving the area for decades. Hopefully having the two lines side-by-side would provide longer service. Mr. Fisher felt having two lines side-by-side, with two sets of poles, going eleven miles across country was the objection to the proposal and he felt that was requesting an awful lot of the property owners. Mr. Fisher asked if the Cooperative is going to make another connection to Nelson County growth areas coming from another direction to provide an alternate source of power. Mr. Williamson said a loop feed is totally desirable If this request is approved, it will be the first segment between Midway and Martin's Store where there is any sort of alternate capacity. Mr. Henley said he would support the special permit if the present one hundred foot right-of-way is retained, but would not support an additional fifty feet of right-of-way. Mr. Lindstrom agreed with Mr. Henley. He felt there are other ways the line could be extended without causing such an impact. He realized that the Cooperative has chosen the simpliest, cheapest, and quickest way without regard to the concerns expressed tonight. This proposal is asking the people living along the route to pay the expense instead of spreading the expense to those customers who will benefit. Mr. Lindstrom said the line is there and he could support expanding the use to some extent, but did not support the expansion as proposed. Mr. McCann agreed with Mr. Henley, but preferred that the request be deferred until the Cooperative finds out whether it can buy power from APCO and to see what the Wintergreen route (piney River to Peggy's Pinch) would look like. If there is no power available from APCO, then he would have to support the request at a later date. In conclusion, Mr. McCann did not think the Board could deny power anywhere but did not feel the Board had to grant approval at this time because it might be a little too early. Dr. Iachetta said four of the dwellings mentioned would become very unattractive with the additional fifty foot right-of-way. He felt the Cooperative should consider buying the property when the property becomes unusable and unpleasant. Mr. Witliamson said a local appraiser is present tonight and has taken a preliminary look at the properties that would be involved and the report is that the damage is not greater than 10%. Mr. Fisher said he did not want to get into that dispute this evening, but he himself felt the damage was more serious. Mr. Henley then offered motion to approve SP-80-55 with a condition to read as follows: "Construction of the 115 KV transmission line from Midway substation in Albemarle County to the Martin's Store substation in Nelson County stay within the existing one hundred foot right-of-way." Mr. Fisher asked that the motion include removal of the old line as soon as the new line is put into service because he felt having two lines is part of the problem. He was unsure if that was possible but did not want to see the two lines there. Mr. Fisher understood that the Cooperative is proposing an entirely new series of structures. Mr. Henley said that is only if the additional fifty feet of right-of-way is approved. Mr. Fisher then asked if the 115 KV line would require all new structures. Mr. Williamson said yes, there will be a line paralleling the present line. Without that line there would not be the dual.feed and the other services described. There will be two lines right next to one another and there will be no point where both lines will be on the same poles, but rather two separate parallel lines. Mr. Fisher said that would be two totally separate independent structures. Mr. Williamson said yes. Mr. Fisher said if the larger structures are built, he would suggest taking out the old structures and the smaller ones as soon as the larger structures are in service. Mr. Henley did not have any problem with leaving the old line in place if the new line stays within the one hundred foot right-of-way. Mr. Fisher disagreed. Mr. McCann and Mr. Lindstrom agreed with Mr. Henley. Dr. Iachetta then asked if the elevation of a 115 KV'line is greater than the elevation of a 46 KV line. Mr. Booth said yes, and noted that there is an addition under the new National Safety Code that an additional two feet of clearance be added for the 115 Kilovolts, Mr. Henley then asked if the old line would be removed after the new line is operating if the Cooperative stays within the one hundred foot right-of-way. Mr. Booth said no; because the old line will be used to provide a loop feed for the system for alternate power. He also noted that the Cooperative cannot build within the one hundred foot right-of-way because that would be an additional cost of three-quarters of a million dollars. Mr. Williamson said with the existing line in the middle of the one hundred foot right-of-way there is no room for a second line. Mr. Booth said the two lines would be too close together. Mr. Lindstrom felt it could be done and so did Mr. Henley. Mr. McCann then asked if a higher voltage line within the existing rightof-way could be built. Mr. Wiliiamson said no, not with the existing line in place because there is not e~ough clearance. Discussion then followed about deferring the request. Mr. Jerry Reed said the Cooperativ would prefer that if the decision is to be deferred to have the opportunity to examine the possibility of rerouting the line in the areas where the planning staff feels homes are most affected. Mr. Fisher said his concern is not how close the line is to those homes, but whether there will be two entire series of structures and lines. Mr. Reed understood the concern but felt there were advantages to having the two lines. Mr. Fisher did not feel the Board was convinced of that yet. Mr. Reed said the other available routes are feed from different utility companies and that woutd involve different voltages as well as other considerations that would have to be resolved. Mr. Fisher then asked the County Attorney for his recommendation. Mr. St. John said the petition could be deferred. Mr. Fisher was concerned that if this was deferred and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission did not approve the Cooperative getting power .from APCO, that would mean that the Board is promising something by the deferral. Mr. Lindstrom said he was not promising anything. He felt the staff report indicates that there are other means of dealing with this problem and he was not convinced that other alternatives have been seriously studied. Mr. McCann agreed and said if there is no other alternative, he would support the two lines. Discussion then followed on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hearing in February. Mr. Walter Tucker noted again that the Cooperative has tried for years to buy power from APCO without any success and he did not feel the hearing in February will be any different. November ~ular Ni_~ht Meeting~) Mr. Fisher said if the Cooperative feels they cannot stay within the one hundred foot right-of-way and remove the old line as he has suggested, then he would support the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny SP-80~55. Miss Nash then asked if the distribution line was part of the one hundred foot right-of-way~ Dr. Iachetta said it is in the same right-of-way. Mr. Fisher said his suggestion was to approve the construction of a 115 KV transmission line on the route suggested within the existing 100 foot right-of-way and with the conditon that when the new line is in operation the old line and the poles will be removed. Miss Nash asked Mr. Henley if he agreed with that. Mr. Henley said yes, that would be the second condition. Miss Nash then seconded'the motion. Mr. McCann said he would rather see the alternatives before he voted, but since he will not have that chance, he will support the motion. Mr. Fisher said if the Cooperative gets a decision from APC0, perhaps they would consider an alternative route going from another source, but this approval would at least give them a way of meeting their needs. Roll was then called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Merrill asked if it would be proper for the Board of Supervisors to intervene with the FERC to ask that they approve the Cooperative'S request of purchasing power from APC0. Mr. Fisher said the Board may consider such action. Agenda Item No. 3. SP-80~53. Frank L. Hereford. (This was deferred from October 1, 1980, because the Planning Commission had not acted on the request at that time.) Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. then presented the following staff report: "Request: Contractor's office and equipment storage yard. Acreage: 1.79 acres Zoning: B-1 Business Location: Property, described as Tax Map 61, Parcel 120K, is located on a 30-foot access easement southwest of Phillips Building Supply. Character of the Area: This property is bordered on the southeast by a 30-f-oot access easement which runs between Phillips Building Supply and a retail store. A dwelling exists across the right-of-way from this site. In September, 1977, the applicant extended the roadway to Berkmar Drive. This site is essentially a swale with a stream through the open area. To make the property more developable, the applicant proposes to pipe the stream and fill the site with approximately 600 truck loads of dirt. Water and sewer are available. Staff Comment: The applicant proposes to construct a 30,000 square foot building (maximum) to lease to a maximum of four occupants. These areas would consist of 85% storage and 15% office space and would house small scale building contractor uses (i.e. - electrical, plumbing, tile, etc.). Because of site constraints, no outside storage of equipment or materials is proposed. Staff opinion is that the size of the building may be optimistic due to site constraints, parking requirements and stormwater detention requirements. Staff is also concerned that any filling be accomplished through sound engineering standards including proper compaction and that other soil erosion requirements receive prompt compliance. (This concern is valid for any development of this property and is related to this particular use only because of scale of development.) Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 3. 4. 5. 6. No building permit including special footings permit shall be issued until the applicant has obtained a grading permit and posted bond in an amount adequate to insure compliance during and after construction; There shall be no outside storage of materials or equipment by the applicant or tenants, except for normal on-the-road type vehicles; Site plan approval including Planning Commission approval of screening from adjoining residence; Compliance with urban stormwater detention ordinance (Section 17-5-13 of the Zoning Ordinance); Building shall not exceed 30,000 square feet and shall not contain more than four establishments; Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance on Route 631 in accordance with current standards. Prior to site plan submittal, the applicant shall determine whether or not to abandon access to Berkmar Drive. Should access not be abandoned, Virginia Depart- ment of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance to Berkmar Drive shall be required. Should access be abandoned, the entrance at Berkmar Drive shall be removed and property within the public right-of-way shall be restored to the satisfaction of Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation; County Engineer approval of road specifications; County Attorney approval of road maintenance agreements." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission on October 7, 1980, recommended approval of SP-80~53 with the above conditions and a change in condition #6 and the addition of condition~ #9 and #10 as follows: November 5, 1980 (Regular Night Meet~ng) Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance on Route 631 in accordance with current standards. The entrance of Berkmar Drive shall be removed and property within the public right-of-way shall be resvored to the satisfaction of Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation: Public water and public sewer will be required; County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans prior to Planning Commission review of site plan. Mr. Tucker noted the following letter received today from Mr. W. S. Keister of. the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation concerning the commercial entrance on Route 631: "On Friday, October 24, 1.980, I (Mr. Keister) met with Mr. Hereford on Rio Road to discuss with him the possibility of obtaining a commercial entrance into his property located at the end of a narrow right~of-way leading off of Rio Road, next to Phillips Building Supply. It is not possible for Mr. Hereford to obtain a commercial entrance to his property from Rio Road as there is nov enough highway right-of-way along Rio Road at this location to provide for the required turning lane and taper. However, a commercial entrance with the required amount of turning and taper can be obtained off of Berkmar Drive which has a 60 foot right-of-way where Mr. Hereford indicates he has sufficient width on his right-of-way through to Berkmar Drive." Mr. Fisher asked about the roads into the property. Mr. Tucker said the proposal is for a private road which is basically a driveway connecting from Berkmar to the existing right-of,~aYbetween Phillips Building Supply and another business and one single-family dwelling. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission required that the commercial entrance be on Route 631 but the Highway Department states such is not possible. Mr. Fisher asked if the intent is for the commercial entrance to be on Berkmar Drive and the entrance on Rio Road to be closed. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Hereford does not have the authority to close the entrance on Rio Road because there are other people who use the right-of-way. Mr. Fisher then asked if the driveway will likely become a public street as the area intensifies. Mr. Tucker said the properties could develop because they are zoned industrial and business. Therefore, he fe'lt a public road would be more beneficial to the owners but there is a problem at Phillips Building Supply. Dr. Iachetta noted that the entrance to Phillips Building is only thirty feet wide. Mr. Tucker said some time ago, Mr. Hereford constructed a driveway extending the length of the right-of-way Out to Berkmar Drive. Mr. Tucker then noted correspondence from the Deputy Zoning Administrator dated September !0, 1980, relating to the history of the grading and soil erosion violations for the property of Mr. Hereford. Mr. Tucker noted that the violations have been corrected. Dr. Iachetta also noted that this site has been a problem for several years particularly with erosion problems. Dr. Iachetta noted his confusion about what will happen with the Berkmar Drive entrance relative to the connection at Phillips Building Supply. Mr. Tucker said basically it would be a private through street with the commercial entrance on Berkmar Drive. Dr. Iachetta asked if there could be a requirement to not connect. Mr. Tucker said he was unsure until he had time to review the situation further. The public hearing was then opened. Mr. Frank Hereford said instead of piping the stream and filling the site with six hundred truck loads of dirt, he wanted to propose rerouting the channel and having a smaller building than 30,000 square feet. Mr. Hereford said a 5,000 square foot, one story building and having the stream to the left of the building is simplier and sufficient for his needs. The road could not be blocked because there is a house across from his property which uses the road. Mr. Hereford said the location of the commercial entrance did not matter to him but he does not own any land on Rio Road and he has discussed the possibility of such an entrance with Mr. Phillips but Mr. Phillips is not interested. Therefore, the only alternative he has is for the commercial entrance to be on Berkmar Drive where he has a thirty foot right~Of~y. Mr. Tucker said rechanneling the stream is more environmentally sound. Dr. Iachetta asked if some information would be received from the Soil Conservation Service on this proposal. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Yaeger from the Soil Conservation Service is on the site review committee and could review the matter at thc site plan stage. Dr. Iachetta asked if the proposal has to go back to the Planning Commission since Mr. Hereford has changed his request. Mr. Tucker did not feel so since the request is now for less than what the Planning Commission approved. Mr. Lindstrom had no real objection to the applicant's revised request but if this is what is b~ing proposed, he felt the staff should have a chance to look at it and comment. He was also aware of the soil erosion problems in this area and felt this type of construction effort would entail a substantial amount of earth moving. Mr. McCann felt the Planning Commission had considered a lot of earth moving when they talked about six hundred trucks of dirt. Therefore, he felt this was a much less intensive use and he was in favor of the request. He also felt the relocation of the stream could be addressed at the site plan stage. Mr. Lindstrom then asked if there was any reason why the proposal could not be done. Mr. Tucker did not feel there was and the site plan stage is when the rechanne!ing of the stream can be finalized and information received on the matter from the Soil Conservation Service and the County Engineer. Discussion then followed on the changes needed in the Planning Commission's conditions. Mr. Hereford requested condition #5 be changed from "four" establishments to "six". Mr. Lindstrom asked if a condition was needed concerning the stream rechannelization. Mr. Tucker suggested an additional condition to read as follows: "Any stream rechanne!ization shall be reviewed and approved by the Soil Conservation Service." November 5, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) 404 Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to approve SP-80~53 with the following conditions: 1) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) Same as recommended by the Planning Commission. Same as recommended by the Planning Commission. Same as recommended by the Planning Commission. Same as recommended by the Planning Commission. Building shall not exceed 5,000 square feet and shall not contain more than six establishments. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance on Berkmar Drive in accordance with current standards. Same as recommended by the Planning Commission. Same as recommended by the Planning Commission. Same as recommended by the Planning Commission. Same as recommended by the Planning Commission. Any stream rechannelization shall be reviewed and approved by the Soil Conservation Service. Mr. Fisher asked if the applicant was in agreement with the changes. Mr. Hereford said yes. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstr.om, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 4. Lottery Permit. Mr. Agnor then presented lottery permit request for the Broadus Wood PTA for a bingo game and raffles to be held on November 14, 1980. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to approve the permit in accordance with the Board's adopted policy for issuance of such permits. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the followin recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. Mr. Agnor then presented a lottery permit request for Camp Saponi, Limited for a raffle to be held on November 25, 1980. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to approve the permit in accordance with the Board's adopted policy for issuance of such permits. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. Mr. Agnor then presented a lottery permit request for the Albemarle Extension Homemaker's Clubs for a raffle to be held on November 11, 1980. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley, to approve the permit in accordance with the Board's adopted policy for issuance of such permits. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the followin recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 5. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Dr. Iachetta said Mr. John Massie of the Transportation Safety Commission has requested use of $100.00 of Transportation Safety Commission funds to send some people to the annual Student Safety program at Ingleside in Staunton next week. He then offered motion to allow the use of funds for this purpose. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 6. Without any further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:05 P.M.