Loading...
1975-05-14N5-14-75 (Night) ! A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on May 14, 1975,~ at 7:30 P.M. in the County Courthouse. PRESENT: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, J.T. Henley, Jr., William C. Gordon L. Wheeler, and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: Thacker, Jr., Messrs. T.M. Batchelor~ Jr., County Executive, and Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Not Docketed. intentions to apply to the State Corporation Commission for an increase in electric service rates averaging approximately 16%. Public Hearing is scheduled to be held on September 9, 1975, at 2:00 P.M. in the Courtroom, Blanton Building, Richmond, Virginia. Northern Piedmont Electric Co-op. Certified letter was received, stating their 1975. The following public hearing was advertised in the Dai~y Progress on April 21, and April 28, No. 1. SP-476, Northern Piedmont Electric Co-op, request to locate an electric substation on 3.0 acres zoned M-1 Industrial. Propert/~ situated on east side of Rt. 606 about one mile south of its intersection with Rt. 641. County Tax map 2, Parcel 14, part thereof. Rivanna District. Mr. Carwile stated he was abstaining from the discussion and vote on this request, as he represents the property owner. Mr. Robert Tucker, Assistant County Planner, read fr~m the staff report: ~! T ' he area has rollmng topography and vegetation/consists of cedars and Virginia Pine. There are several single-family dwellings located in the immediate vicinity with a restaurant-service station and single-family ~welling units located along U.S 29 North. ' The initial construction is proposed within an area of approximately 5,000 square feet, with the entire parcel to be covered eventually by the substation. Northern Piedmont Electric proposes to locate a chain link fence, eight to ten feet high, around the parcel for protection., It was noted from field inspection that the substation will be visible from U.S. 29 s southboun~ lane and will necessitate screening. The staff and Planning Commission recommend a~proval with the following conditions: 1. Site Plan submitted to Planning Commission fo~ approval; 2. Sufficient berm on the northern and eastern p~ erty line with evergreen trees planted on top of the finished berm in order Jo screen the substation from U.S 29 North; . 3. Only the actual substation structures be fenced - not the entire site; and 4. Grading plans approved by Zoning Administrate A representative of the applicant said Northern PJedmont Electric willingly agrees to all the stated conditions. No one else from the public spoke ither for or against the petition . Wheeler closed the public hearing. . Mr Mr. Wood offered motion to approve SP-~7~ with th conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler NAYS: None. and Wo~d. ABSTAIN: Mr. Carwile. / No. 2. Restric~e~ Road in Long Meadow · · . .~ A) on road now contamnzng seven lots. Subdmvism n, request to allow one additional lot (Parc Mr. Robert and the Tucker Board stated of this restricted road hasa/s previously been approved by the Planning Commission Supervisors, and put to record on June 4, 1974. The applicant is requesting an eighth lot to have access from the restricted road The staff is recommending ap- office.Pr°val with one condition, that the deed restrictions be amended'and approved by the County Attorr A woman representing the applicant said she had no comments to make. Mr. Henley offered mot~ carriedto approve by the the request following with recorded the one vote: Condition as stated. Second was made by Mr. Wood, and motion AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley Thacker, Wheeler and Wood NAYS: None. ' . ABSENT: Mr. Carwile. No. 3. Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance. Mr. Batchelor said the Board mem~ had been furnished a draft of the revised ordinance. This has been sent to Richmond and receive~ tentative approval by the Virginia Soil & Water Conservation Commission. Miss Page Godsey, Admi~ trative Assistant, pointed out areas where the Board of Supervisors exercise authority. She sai, there were four areas as follows: 1. Plan approving authority, Section 4-9. When applicant submits plan, the approving co~ mi~tee must decide what type of controls will be required to prevent erosion. This technical co mittee must see that controls meet requirements set out in a Soil Erosion Handbook publishe~ by Virginia Soil & Water Conservation Commission. The County staff agrees with the Thomas Jeffers¢ Soil and Water Conservation District that the plan approving authority be the Zoning Administra~ and an advisory committee made up of three people (one from the T-J.S.W.C.D., the County Engine~ his designated agent, and one member of the Planning Commission or designated agent). ~- Section 5-2. Control of~conditions existing prior to this ordinance which do have an 5-14-75 ( ±ght) 5-15-75 (Day) 4. Section 9. Appeals Body. before resorting to court action. This will give the applicant a place to appeal any decision Mrs. Frances Martin questioned the meaning of "time period" in Section 5-2. Miss Godsey said the time limit would vary with each particular case. Mrs. Martin then pointed out two sections written in the State Code which are not in the County Ordinance - one requires the Commonwealth's Attorney to enforce the Ordinance, and the second requiring periodic inspections. Mr. Wheeler said even if these sections were written into the Ordinance, the Board cannot force the Commonwealth's Attorney to enforce the Ordinance if he doesn't wish to. With regard to periodic inspections, inspectors can only do so much. It is the equal responsibility of citizens to report violations. Mr. Wheeler then recommended that this item be placed on the agenda for May 28, 1975 and that Board members have any suggested changes to the staff before that date so the staff can finalize the draft and the Board set a public hearing date. Ail Board members were in agreement with this pro- cedure, and this item was deferred. Meeting was adjourned at 8:05 P.M. Chairman A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on May 15, 1975, at 9:00 A.M. in the County Office Building Board Room, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, J.T. Henley, Jr., William C. Thacker, Jr. and Gordon L. Wheeler. ABSENT: Mr. Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. OFFICERS PRESENT: Messrs. T.M. Batchelor, Jr., County Executive, George R. St. John, County Attorney, and Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. The meeting was called to order and began with the Lord's Prayer. Mr. Gordon L. Wheeler was n~t present at the start of the meeting, so Mr. Thacker took the Chair. No. 3. Report on Ivy Landfill. Mr. J. H. Bailey, County Engineer, reported land seeded last :pring has taken well and repairs necessitated by high winds last week have been accomplished. Mr. !harles Perry of the Virginia State Highway Department, reported the progress on Route 637. He said he survey crews have completed their work and are now putting their findings on the drawing board, nd hope for road construction by mid-June. Cost estimates should also be available at that time. No. 5(a). Batesville Road, request for street sign (deferred from April 17, 1975). Mr. Fisher ~ated he spoke to the citizens on Batesville Road and now concurs in this request. He then offered ~tion to adopt the following resolution: WHEREAS, request has been received for street sign to identify Batesvi!le Road (State Route #692) at its intersection with U.S. Route #29 South; and WHEREAS, residents on Batesville Road have agreed to purchase this sign, said sign to be purchased through the office of the County Executive and to conform with standards set by the State Department of Highways; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways be and is hereby requested to install and maintain the above mentioned street sign. The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote: 5: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley and Thacker. 3: None. ~NT: Messrs. Wheeler and Wood. No. 5(b). Mr. Carlton Luck, request for Right-of-Way. Mr. J. H. Bailey rep°rted Mr. Luck es to have a permanent right-of-way made available through the Keene Landfill. Mr. Luck has hased property "behind" the Landfill which is of land locked. Mr. BaiIey said, under advice the County attorney,%~has given a set of landfill keys to Mr. Luck for his use. Mr. Batchelor ed he had reservations about allowing a right-of-way through the landfill for safety reasons. Fisher asked how many homes the Luck's were intending to build. Mr. Bailey stated he was not as four. it could be as many ...... *~t the use of a right-of- ' had the rign~ ~o r~ ..... le al He ..... ~ St. John if the county ......... of a right-of-way was ~ _. ..... Mr. Thacxer as~eu~,~ ..... ~t sure if restricting v~ ~ ~ St. John added tna~ a~.u~y  r. St. Joh ! ..... u,~ ~mission to cross ..... ~ ~ds have never officia+~Y. ~ d 'ust giving ~ne ~ ~ T~[ .... ~s the landfill. ±~ 5nco~ t~ .__ o ..... has ruled tna~ an were several roaa ~g~a_n.f-wa . Mr. St. Job . · has also ruled ~ublic the road Luck's which alre~dy~ha~ethasn t peen~k~~ ~t eYsystem, is stmll' a publmc road, he if a road which is still public exists, a person can subdivide on that road without envoking ubdivision Ordinance, Mr. St'. John concluded by saying he has been unable to get the facts and what circumstances the "roads" through the Keene Landfill were/or were not abandoned. ~r. Thacker said it boils down to whether or not the right-of-way was ever legally abandoned. ~. John said yes, and it would involve a great deal of time to locate. Mr. Batchelor recom- ~ the item be deferred until such time as the County Attorney and the County Engineer can ~ch this item, and bring it back at an evening meeting as a convenience to the Luck~s.