[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6482649,"mediaKeyId","5607392-4cc09f0d9e69cb6300fe9c5892edb847","parentId",5607392,"title","Authority finds proposed underground utility easements permitted, asks Dominion to abandon older overhead easements; declines portion that would serve other tr>","audioSeconds",2602,"startMs",188000,"endMs",2790000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5607392-4cc09f0d9e69cb6300fe9c5892edb847&start=188&end=2790","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5607392-4cc09f0d9e69cb6300fe9c5892edb847/thumbnail_188000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6482649/Albemarle-County/Virginia/Authority-finds-proposed-underground-utility-easements-permitted-asks-Dominion-to-abandon-older-overhead-easements-declines-portion-that-would-serve-other-tr","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6482649-712b4e049edc1dfc5657c9fbd65ae52a/orig.mp4?Expires=1773592253&Signature=c1wh-09RkwmSLfitFN5G2n0-JVRykm37Lf2iGV3w6GXU09fHsDGYGTQspXVjB0~DeFS6pTqHAQfLYMKutL1LmS~I6HxgOyUrkq6Ny4hLLgAK9W43NR2FNlS5utb4VEQQQluNVBjym~05paIUXnqoJUGw1qizp7subIm2cHu4796RrJ5UqkFjzQyRtnRgLaVu-iY8dcjrev65A663kBWfvKvKGzyv-hjSDO8R9JEBUVd3JFDADAgjF4Xk1RVtii4qHg1TeX70x3pwKkL4vvEDNbhFnOWvrZWIWilO6XUKLJwecnFbSv8g4iexW9tYGX~jT73B63NxjQQkvREGECZSqQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Albemarle County","date","2025-08-20T18:32:28.767Z","article","The authority reviewed three Dominion Energy requests to place underground electric and data distribution lines across conserved parcels and took mixed action: it found new, single-property service easements to be permitted under the conservation deeds and requested that Dominion abandon overlapping older overhead easements, approved the eastern portion of an easement for the Nature Pond property, and declined to take action on a western Nature Pond crossing that would serve other parcels.

At the meeting staff presented maps showing existing overhead distribution lines and proposed new underground lines on three properties northwest of Charlottesville, including the Kudravitz (also spelled in materials as Kondratz/Kudravets) parcel, a parcel with a 2005 ACE (Huckleberry Hill) easement, and the Nature Pond parcel near Ivy Creek and Ivy Nursery. Staff told members the proposed new easements are 15-foot underground easements and that, on the segments intended to serve only a single dwelling or the host property, the conservation deeds expressly permit utilities that are customary and consistent with the easement terms.

After discussion about whether the proposals would impair conservation purposes — including riparian buffers, floodplain and critical slopes protection, and water-quality interests — the authority moved and approved a finding that the new single-property service easements are permitted under the applicable conservation easements and requested that Dominion take steps to abandon or vacate any superseded overhead easements where those older easements would otherwise remain on the property record. Staff and several members emphasized that asking Dominion to vacate prior, broader overhead easements was a request rather than a condition the authority could legally force because, in some cases, prior transmission easements may belong to separate deeds and rights-of-way.

On the Nature Pond parcel staff separated the proposal into two portions. The eastern portion — a spur to serve a new farm office and a small solar array and not crossing the protected forest- or pond-buffer areas — was recommended as permitted and the authority approved that finding. The western portion, however, would cross the parcel solely to serve other properties and therefore required explicit written approval under the conservation deed. During the meeting a landowner online said she had not requested that western crossing and did not want it; members concluded that because the western segment would serve third-party parcels and the landowner did not desire it, the authority would take no action on that segment and asked Dominion to return if it had a demonstration of need or a route that avoided conservation values.

Members also asked staff to seek clearer mapping from Dominion showing any above-ground equipment locations (transformers or splice points) and to confirm whether state right-of-way (VDOT) access or other public-rights-of-way could be used instead of crossing conserved parcels. Staff noted that Dominion sometimes uses available VDOT right-of-way and that Dominion is typically able to tell whether an existing overhead easement exists on the title and whether it will be vacated.

Outcome: the authority adopted formal findings that the proposed new underground easements that serve only the host parcels are permitted under the relevant conservation deeds, requested abandonment of prior overhead easements where appropriate, approved the eastern Nature Pond spur to serve the farm office and solar array, and took no action on the Nature Pond western crossing that would serve other parcels.

The authority directed staff to: obtain definitive easement documents and maps from Dominion; ask Dominion to identify any above-ground facilities before construction; ask whether Dominion will vacate any superseded overhead easements; and return to the authority for any proposed easement that would serve multiple properties or that risks encroaching on riparian or other protected buffers.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Albemarle Conservation Easement Authority (ACEA) Meeting 8/14/25","oneSentenceSummary","The authority reviewed three Dominion Energy requests to place underground electric and data distribution lines across conserved parcels and took mixed action: it found new, single-property service easements to be permitted under the conservation deeds and requested that Dominion abandon overlapping older overhead easements, approved the eastern portion of an easement for the Nature Pond property, and declined to take action on a western Nature Pond crossing that would serve other parcels.","taxTitle","Albemarle County, Virginia","taxId",4417,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6482644,"Authority discusses 87-acre Wesley Chapel donation; staff to follow up on building envelopes and boundary-line consolidation",1724,3016000,4740000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5607392-4cc09f0d9e69cb6300fe9c5892edb847&start=3016&end=4740","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5607392-4cc09f0d9e69cb6300fe9c5892edb847/thumbnail_3016000.jpg","/articles/6482644/Albemarle-County/Virginia/Authority-discusses-87-acre-Wesley-Chapel-donation-staff-to-follow-up-on-building-envelopes-and-boundary-line-consolidation","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6482644-3b47dd11d54d707aec812183c2b17673/orig.mp4?Expires=1773592253&Signature=SrGmUJlrTN6bpEuwebtWrMZC6kQa47cUnItFmP-gq8tdi0wodmxPoO0KLk5aQOaURwQjTwsu2P7nsGlq~TNgiNNIV~stS34inGdAIlWJbPSaDJmsFSKbArF0nnKCKUaY6j1ezesnPxy4w89yyj-qDa9sC4~X3Bjf51Yf4010QjCZX-G7LKpgQ8nfV3MKt5ZLtZhfXAEn87C3ZQ3PFC7gDdrrwd2WSapmVaF1qom9R55eoz0BeWwVSjRSST-QXrlhvYuZYW8wyVrqsBEwbef09q6gpHBuISNaip0A1i9-0D~nYi0XZVatypWm-RNNEIr19RG8jVJUML~GJX5-wKRZeQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The authority reviewed a proposed 87-acre donation off Wesley Chapel Road and discussed conditions and donor expectations but did not take final approval action. The property is three parcels of record that together would be encumbered by a conservation easement; staff said the donation proposal would eliminate most development rights while permitting two dwellings in total and limiting aggregate dwelling size.

Staff described the parcel as roughly 87 acres with one existing dwelling and the potential for up to 17 dwellings under current subdivision potential (three parcels with five development rights each, plus other acreage), of which the donation document would retain two dwelling rights. Staff said approximately 77 acres of soils on the north portion are designated important for agriculture, about 4,000 feet of the property boundary adjoins existing conservation easements, and the proposal calls for a 200-foot riparian buffer along an intermittent stream and a 6,500-square-foot aggregate limit across the two permitted dwellings. The parcels were described in staff materials as being in the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir watershed.

Members raised two recurring policy issues: whether the donor should be required to merge or remove interior parcel lines (a boundary-line adjustment) prior to donation, and whether the authority should require explicit building envelopes or setbacks to protect scenic views and to reduce the risk of later subdivision or unexpected placement of future structures. Several members said asking every donor to pay for new surveys and boundary-line adjustments could be a costly new requirement and might discourage donations; others said removing internal parcel lines or adding explicit deed language that the three parcels must be treated as one would strengthen long-term protection.

Legal and tax considerations received attention. Staff and counsel noted that building-envelope language can affect the federal charitable deduction, and that the authority should advise donors to consult their tax counsel and surveyors on the timing of any boundary-line work and the tax consequences. The authority asked staff to provide donors the guidance that the IRS may require building envelopes and to consider whether an envelope or a setback would better protect scenic and conservation values.

The authority did not take a final vote on acceptance. Instead members asked staff to communicate these concerns to the donor and counsel (including the donor's attorney identified in the record, Charlie Alvis of Williams and Robin), to request building-envelope proposals and to return with a recommended path forward. Staff said it would prepare a short legal/practical memo on the policy implications of requiring boundary-line adjustments and building envelopes before asking donors to bear the cost.","Members discussed a proposed donation of 87 acres near Wesley Chapel Road that would remove many development rights but permit two dwellings; members asked staff to request building-envelope details, raised concerns about internal parcel lines and tax/IRS implications, and deferred final action pending further information.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Authority finds proposed underground utility easements permitted, asks Dominion to abandon older overhead easements; declines portion that would serve other tr>

Authority discusses 87-acre Wesley Chapel donation; staff to follow up on building envelopes and boundary-line consolidation