Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Tolbert said the ordinance is very limited in what exemptions can be given. <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati said the issue is not the ordinance. He said he has personal <br />experiences with changes in building permit requirements. He said the issues are <br />reliability of outcome and fairness. He said he knows of no situation in the area where <br />this was not allowed. He said there was no rush at the end for submittal of these site <br />plans. <br /> <br /> Referring to comments made by Ms. Hamilton about the timing of the ordinance, <br />Mr. Schilling said that the ordinance was repeatedly delayed and he trusts for good <br />reasons, which happens a lot, and was done to make the ordinance better. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynch said this is a difficult issue. He said he is hesitant to set projects back, <br />but has no problem looking at them individually, realizing this would be more work for <br />staff and the Planning Commission to figure out what needs to be done to make the <br />projects work. He said the least bad option would be to modify the motion to make <br />projects submitted by September 15th not subject to the new ordinance. He said the <br />largest impact is for the project submitted after September 15th, and said this project also <br />has major environmental impacts. He said mitigation on that one should be done in <br />public if it happens at all. He said he does not have problems with those submitted by <br />September 15th. <br /> <br /> Dr. Brown said he is struggling to find a fair place to be, but is inclined to stay <br />with those projects submitted by September 15th, which had official status when the vote <br />was taken on September 20th. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynch made a substitute motion to make the projects submitted by September <br />15th not subject to the ordinance. <br /> <br /> Mr. Schilling asked for clarification about to what extent the applicants were <br />aware of the deadlines of the 15th and 29th of the month. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tolbert said that engineers are well aware of the deadlines, but property <br />owners are generally not aware of it. <br /> <br />Ms. Hamilton seconded Mr. Lynch's motion. <br /> <br /> Mr. Schilling asked for a closed session, and Councilors agreed to hold a closed <br />session. <br /> <br /> Council discussed the VDOT priority listing while the City Attorney prepared the <br />closed session motion. <br /> <br />VDOT Transportation Priority Listing <br /> <br /> Mr. O'Connell explained that the Commonwealth Transportation Board meets on <br />September 29th and localities must submit their transportation priority listing at that time. <br />Mr. O'Connell asked if the Belmont Bridge should become a top priority due to the poor <br />condition and need for repair? <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Mr. Caravati, Mr. Tolbert said it would cost <br />$180,000 for a band aid repair, and $1.6 to fix the problems. <br /> <br /> Mr. Schilling asked if the cost of band aid repairs will be thrown away, but Mr. <br />Tony Edwards, City Engineer, said that with the exception of the sidewalk patching, the <br />repairs would have to be made anyway. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynch asked about the Belmont Bridge' s condition compared with the <br />Jefferson Park Avenue bridge and how long it would take to get to that condition, and <br />Mr. Tolbert said the condition is not quite as bad as JPA, and Mr. Edwards said it is hard <br />to determine how long it would take to get to that condition as it depends on winter <br /> <br /> <br />