Minutes 05/30/1978 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ma 1978~ The first such subdivision plat has already been recorded. In reviewing the excavation plat'-that was filed with the 1972 application showing elevation, etc.; we have determined that the present operator was authorized to extract 305,000 cubic yards from the site. In our discussions with the U. S. Coast Guard, U. S. Navy, Army Corps of Engineers, Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, and the utility companies, we have determined~ that approximately 250,000 cubic yards of material has been extracted from the borrow pit. Based on this information and the amount of revenue being paid to the Commissioner of Revenue it has been~ determined that an additional 20,000 cubic yards of fill has been excavated which leaves an outstanding balance of approximately 35,000 cubic yards. Using the rate of withdrawal since July 1, 1977, it is my opinion that the December schedule will be met and the maximum of 305,000 cubic yards will be reached on or before December 31, 1978. Since the plat which was submitted for the permit in 1972 shows the proposed elevation and landscaping to be accomplished in the conversion from the borrow pit to the lake, it is my opinion that the City has the leverage to insure that this is accomplished. The City would be within its rights to deny building or occupancy permits for homes being built adjacen to an operating borrow pit since the original plat outlined a landscaped lake. BORROW PIT TWIN PINES ROAD VDHST The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation will continue to operate its borrow pit on Twin Pines Road for some time into the future. The operation of this pit will be intermittent until the Western Freeway actually gets under construction in Fiscal Year 1979~80. In the interim, the borrow pit will be routinely {weekly) inspected by the State and additionally,~the City and the State will conduct a joint inspection of the site on a monthly basis to insure that the site is secure as it relates to fencing~ sig-ns, etc. The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation personnel have cooperated with the City agencies in an attempt to comply with the provisions of our Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance. Many of the items which the State has agreed to accomplish was done on a voluntary basis by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation; since they are exempt from many of the requirements outlined in the local ordinance. This office realizes that given the highly residential characteristics of this City that an operating borrow pit represents a general nuisance and in some cases a safety problem to nearby residents. In the-past, my staff has been.instructed to work with borrow pit operators from a legal as well as moral standpoint in order to minimize the neighborhood disruptions as well as safety factors within the neighborhood. This continues to be my policy. However, the City Council must realize that in working with the two existing borrow pits we lack significant legal leverage due to the manner in which one permit ~as issued and the fact that the other one is State operated. As a result of this situation, there are several recommendations that I would like to submit for ygur consideration as possible amendments to the Code regulating borrow pits for the future. Tkese recommendations are as follows: (A) All applications for permits to operate a borrow pit must provide elevations outlining the exact amount to be withdrawn as well as a proposed plat for the final disposition of the borrow pit when completed. (B) Once the excavation of a borrow pit has been completed; that a stated period of time will be given for the conversion of the borrow pit as outlined in the application. In the event the time allotted for the conversion is not met, the owner/ developer will be required to fence and maintain fencing around the borrow pit until such time as the work is accom- plished. (C) All new permits for borrow pits in the City of Portsmouth should be issued with a fencing requirement as a condition of the use permit to operate a borrow pit. It is my hope that the information outlined above has addressed many unanswered question~ ' concerning current and future borrow pits:and their operation. Should you desire any addition al information relative to this subject, my office will be glad to furnish same upon request." Louis A. Timmons, 4065 Twin Pines Road, representing Concerned Area Residents, spoke and presented the following petition: "We, the undersigned, residents of the Peachtree Section of Churchland, do hereunto subscribe our names to request that a fence be provided around a burrow pit, located behind the Sugar Creek Development of the Peachtree Area. On May 12, 1978, Anthony L. Moore, a resident of the Academy Point Section of Churchland drowned in the above said burrow pit. Under Article II of Declaration of the Home Owners Association, Paragraph C, gives the City per~ission to provide a drainage easement in the common of Sugar Creek. The burrow pit acts as such easement, and we request a fence surrounding this pit. We feel that theJCity of Portsmouth has certain obligations to provide adequate protec- tion for the children of the Peachtree Area. Si~Ded by Ted L. Miller,~SM~4:PeaChw°°d Drive, and others."