Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 04 84 PC MinutesDecember 4, 1984 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday, December 4, 1984, Meeting Room 7, County Office Build- ing, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Richard Gould, Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. Tim Michel and Ms. Norma Diehl. Other officials present were: Mr. James Donnelly, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Katherine Imhoff, Chief of Community Development; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney; and Ms. Patricia Cooke, Ex-Officio. Absent: Mr. James Skove. Mr. Bowerman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. after estab- lishing that a quorum was present. The minutes of the November 20, 1984 meeting were approved as written. ZMA-84-25 Board of Supervisors - The Board of Supervisors has adopted a resolution of intent to rezone ±6.0 acres from LI, Light Industrial to RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 45, Parcel 22, is located at the intersection of Hydraulic and Rio Roads and is developed with a 26 unit mobile home park. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Edward Bain, representing Mr. Patterson (the owner of the property in question), addressed the Commission. He indicated he was opposed to the rezoning stating that the property easily meets all the criteria for LI. He also stated he felt the jump from LI to RA was inappropriate and he added that staff had not given strong justification for this change. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Michel stated he viewed this as a correction in zoning, since he felt the existing LI was a typeof spot -zoning. He indicated he was sympathetic to the Board's reasoning. He stated he under- stood the current use would be "grandfathered." Indicating his agreement with Mr. Michel, Mr. Cogan stated he felt LI was inappropriate, but moving the zoning all the way to RA was extreme. He felt somewhere between the two would be more correct, possibly R-1 or R-2. Mr. Michel indicated he could support R-1 zoning. December 4, 1984 Page 2 Mr. Keeler confirmed that water has been extended to the mobile home park on the property; he was unsure as to whether or not it has been extended to the two commercial buildings. He was also unsure as to whether or not public eater is available to the remainder of the acreage. After checking, Mr. Keeler then confirmed that public water is limited to existing structures only. In response to Mr. Bowerman's inquiry, Mr. Keeler stated the Commission had other options and could make whatever recommendation they desired. Mr. Payne pointed out that if the Commission recommends a different zoning, the Board will be required to re -advertise the recommenda- tion before it can be considered. He stated the Statute says that "no land may be zoned to a more intensive classification than was contained in the public notice without additional public hearing." He added that this case was peculiar because it was a high -intensity zone going down to a low -intensity zone (the opposite being more common). Mr. Cogan moved to recommend to the Board of Supervisors that the property in question be rezoned from LI to R-1. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which was approved with Messrs. Bowerman, Cogan, Gould, Michel and Wilkerson voting in favor, and Ms. Diehl voting against. ZTA-84-7 Board of Supervisors - The Board of Supervisors has adopted a resolution of intent to amend LI, Light Industrial to HI, Heavy Industrial districts to require special use permit approval for uses not served by public water and public sewer. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Don Wagner, representing Greater Eastern Management Corp., addressed the Commission. He indicated he regretted seeing any changes that will add more delays to the approval process. He stated his understanding of the term "domestic wastes" referred to people -related wastes, i.e. toilet facilities, mop sinks, etc. He stated if this interpretation was correct, he would have no objection to the proposal since he felt it was going to be passed in any case. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the commission. Mr. Payne pointed out that even though the Board has adopted a Resolution of Intent in this matter, it does not mean that a decision has been made, and each case should be considered by the Commission on its own merit. Ms. Diehl requested clarification of the proposal and its implications. /1/z December 4, 1984 Page 3 Mr. Keeler explained that staff had tried to develop an amendment „► that was general in nature, but that would address specifically the discharge of wastes and not the type of use. He further explained that this amendment would require a special use permit for any industrial use which anticipated discharge of any amount of other than domestic waste. He pointed out that with the Board's wording of the amendment, two conditions would have to exist to require a special use permit, i.e. the use of more than 10,000 gallons of water and the discharge of other than domestic waste; however, staff's proposed wording would require a special use permit if only one (either one) of these condisitions existed. Referring to the recent UNOGEN proposal, where the character of the waste was in question and not the volume, Mr. Payne stated this amendment would have required that use to have obtained a special use permit. He further stated that a problem sometimes occurs in industrial uses because it is difficult to determine exactly what an operation is in terms of the uses expressed in the Ordinance. Referring again to UNOGEN, Mr. Payne recalled that the applicant had argued that theirs was a use permitted by right, though the Zoning Administrator had determined otherwise. He stated this amendment would have required a special use permit, regardless of use, since non -domestic waste was going to be discharged, regardless of the amount. Mr. Payne stated a second question in the UNOGEPI matter had been whether to allow industrial uses in areas not served by water and sewer. He explained this current proposed amendment would address specifically the avail- ability of public sewer. Ms. Diehl expressed confusion as to how the use of the water would be monitored in order to determine if a use was exceeding 10,000 gallons per day. Mr. Keeler responded he assumed the Zoning Administrator would require an estimate from an industrial user that was not served by public water. He agreed that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to monitor. Mr. Payne pointed out that, in determining use, Section 4.14.5 of the Ordinance (Performance Standards) makes applicable the rules of the State Water Control Board as to industrial uses, and he stated the County Engineer is entitled to ask for water usage to determine whether or not those rules apply, i.e. whether they have been complied with. He indicated he did not feel the problem was one of monitoring as much as addressing the question in the first instance. Mr. Cogan indicated some confusion in regard to the wording of the amendments, and particularly how they would fit into the Ordinance. Mr. Payne explained that the XX.2.1 is the introductory section of the Uses Permitted by Right and XX.2.2.X is the number of the next sequential use permitted by special permit. He stated it was confusing because the X's represented the numbers which had not been included: e.g. in the Light Industrial district it 1&.4 R December 4, 1984 Page 4 would be 27.2.1 and the second wording would be 27.2.2.10. He further explained 27.2.2 is captioned Special Use Permit. Mr. Cogan was concerned about the words uses permitted by right in the second wording. Mr. Payne confirmed the reason for the inclusion of the words was for reference to those uses that are listed under Uses Permitted By Right. In response to Ms. Diehl's question concerning what uses these amendments will allow by special permit that are not now allowed, Mr. Cogan explained that leading off with the term uses permitted by right would prevent this being interpreted as allowing specific uses that are now by special permit only. He stated this would only apply to uses that are now permitted by right, thus becoming more restrictive to those uses, but it is not taking those which are now by special permit only and putting them into the uses permitted by right category. Mr. Payne added that no new uses are being added which are not permitted one way or the other. It was determined that, by any definition, the proposed amendment was more restrictive. Mr. Keeler stated he felt it would be difficult to define the term "domestic waste" in the Ordinance and recommended that it be left to the review of the Health Department and the Service Authority. In response to Ms. Cooke's concern regarding the omission of the word "toxic", Mr. Payne explained that the proposed wording of amendment was more restrictive. Ms. Cooke also expressed concern over radioactive wastes. Mr. Keeler pointed out that in addition to this requirement, a number of other conditions must be satisfied by any industrial use that are covered in Section 4.14 (Performance Standards). He explained this section speaks specifically to radioactivity and water pollution. For purposes of clarity, Mr. Keeler proposed making this two separate items, rather than having the two together in one paragraph. The first sentence would be XX.2.2.X, and the second sentence would be XX.2.2.X2. Mr. Michel indicated he was in favor of the amendment because it would give the Zoning Administrator a chance to review these cases. Mr. Cogan also stated he was in favor of the amendment though he was somewhat concerned about the wording. Mr. Bowerman stated he felt staff's proposed wording of the amendment did accomplish the desired result. He added he did not feel it was necessary to separate the two sentences in the second paragraph. IA44Z December 4, 1984 Page 5 Ms. Cooke stated it was her feeling that the Board had intended the meaning to be "public water and public sewer" not "public water or public sewer". In answer to Mr. Bowerman's reference to this statement, Mr. Keeler confirmed that this would be more restrictive (i.e. public water and public sewer). He again explained that staff's wording of the amendment would mean that if an industry was not on public water and used more than 10,000 gallons of water, a special permit would be required; and if an industry was not on public sewer and was discharging anything other than domestic wastes, a special permit would be needed. If those two were linked together with an "and", it would be possible to be on public sewer and have something other than domestic wastes, and a special permit would still be needed. (Mr. Payne added an Industrial Waste Discharge Permit would also be required in this case.) Mr. Payne pointed out there are some uses in the industrial district that are not really of industrial character, e.g. rescue squads and office buildings. Mr. Cogan moved that 7TA-84-7, to amend. the LI, Light Industrial to HI, Heavy Industrial districts to require special use permit approval for uses not served by public water and public sewer, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, with staff's proposed wording of the amendment as follows: (1) XX.2.1 BY RIGHT Except as limited by XX.2.2.X, the following uses shall be permitted in any (LI, HI) district subject to the requirements and limitations of these regulations: (2) XX.2.2.X Uses permitted by right, not served by public water, involving water consumption exceeding ten thousand (10,000) gallons per day. Uses permitted by right, not served by public sewer, involving anticipated. discharge of sewerage other than domestic wastes. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. CPA-84-9 Resolution of intent adopted by the Planning Commission on November 13, 1984 to amend Map 25 of the Comprehensive Plan (Albemarle County Service Authority Project Areas 1982-2002) to extend water service to Fontana project. Tax Map 78, Parcel 57 (part) . CPA-84-10 Resolution of intent adopted by the Planning Commission on November 13, 1984 to amend Map 9 of the Comprehensive Plan (Urban Area Land Use Plan 1982-3002) as it affects Fontana property. Tax Map 78, Parcel 57 (part). Ms. Imhoff gave the staff report. 144 ,r Dcember 4, 1984 Page 6 Of the three options presented by Ms. Imhoff, she stated she felt the second one --Amend the jurisdictional map only-- would be the least desirable one to adopt, given the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan relating to maintaining consistency of public utilities. She further stated staff was recommending the first option --No revision in the existing service area or land use boundaries for Neighborhood Three --based on the existing un- developed residential potential in Neighborhood Three, the reasonableness of the VEPCO easement as a man-made boundary delineating Neighborhood Three, and the fact that the proposed density of the Fontana development is not consistent with recom- mended urban area residential densities. She also pointed out the Planning Commission encourages growth in existing urban area neighborhoods and communities, and infill incentives. Ms. Imhoff further explained that if option three were approved -- Adjust the northern boundary of Neighborhood Three to allow for both water -only service and urban area land use --the staff would recommend that the boundary of Neighborhood Three not be extended as far as the proposed limits of the Fontana proposal, but rather be extended to the stream noted on the attached map. Using the stream as a boundary would not affect any residential lots but would locate dedicated open space in the rural area rather than urban area. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Roy Parks, representing Mr. Hurt (the owner of the Fontana property), addressed the Commission. He stated it did not make sense to have lots on one side of a road served by public water while those on the other side of the road would not be. He pointed out the 81 lots mentioned in the staff report should have been 83 lots. Regarding the suggestion that the proposed density was not high enough for an urban area, he stated the applicant felt there was no choice in the matter since the lots were as small as possible in order to still allow for a septic field. He stated before public sewer could be installed a pumping station would be required. Ms. Jean French, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission and expressed concern over the treacherousness of the road and the possibility that the drain fields would drain onto her property after the trees had been removed. It was determined the road Ms. French referred to was the new road out of Fontana onto Rt. 20. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission In response to Mr.Cogan's inquiry, Ms. Imhoff stated she did not believe the water line had been anticipated when the Compre- hensive Plan was formulated. Ms. Scala suggested the Commission might wish to hear the next agenda item (ZMA-83-13, the rezoning of the property), before making a decision. IZ:_i� December 4, 1984 Page 7 It was generally felt that the matter should be dealt with one step at a time. In response to Mr. Michel's question, Ms. Imhoff stated she was opposed to option 2--Amend the jurisdictional map only --because she felt it was in conflict with Goal 11 of the Comprehensive Plan, i.e. to ensure that public utility improvements are consistent with land use policies and to maintain conformance of water and sewer project areas with proposed land use patterns, land use patterns in this case being the urban area. Ms. Imhoff confirmed that one unit/2 acres was not compatible with what is usually expected in the urban area. She added that one difference that the Neighborhood Three northern boundary has with Rt. 20 and Neighborhood Six boundaries is that there has been a change in service with the present water line, making this less of a "black and white" issue. However, she stated she did not feel there has been enough of a change to merit amending the urban area line. She stated she felt it was necessary that either both the urban area line and jurisdictional line be amended, or neither be amended. She did not feel it was desirable to amend just the jurisdictional line, because she felt this would create inconsistencies with the land use areas. She explained that the applicant had the option of creating larger lots and putting wells on the lots, and not extending the water line would not mean that the applicant's proposal would not be possible. Mr. Keeler stated that due to the terrain in this area, cluster development was probably more appropriate than conventional lots. He, too, stated that public water was not necessarily a requirement for this development. He confirmed that part of the land which was outside the urban area was in the RA zone, and if more than five parcels were divided, a special use permit would be required. He also recommended hearing the rezoning report before making a decision on this matter. Mr. Bowerman, addressing Mr. Parks, asked why the density was double what is required since the applicant is seeking public water service. Mr. Parks indicated this was because of the steep slopes of some of the land and stated the lots were clustered on the most usable land. It was then determined it would be helpful to hear the rezoning report at this time, before a decision was made on the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. ZMA-83-13 Charles W. Hurt (Fontana P.R.D.) - Located north of Route 250 East and east of Route 20 North, adjacent to Ashcroft and Franklin Subdivisions. Proposal to rezone 169.8 acres from R-15 (6.6 acres), R-1 (41.09 acres), and RA (122.11 acres) to P.R.D., Planned Residential Development. A total of 83 units is proposed for a gross density of one (1) dwelling unit per 2.05 acres. Tax Map 78, Parcel 57 (part). Rivanna Magisterial District. (Deferred from 2/7/84). /A4'y December 4, 1984 Ms. Scala gave the staff report. Page 8 Mr. Parks, representing Mr. Hurt, once again addressed the Commission and indicated the applicant had no objections to any of the conditions of staff. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Keeler explained the reason for keeping the urban area and the area for provision of utilities the same is to control urban - type development. He pointed out this proposal is not an urban density and added that if this plan necessitated public water in order to be approved it would be a different issue than extend- ing water just because it may be more appropriate than using a central well and drain fields. In response to Mr. Michel's inquiry, Mr. Keeler explained that Inglecress had been approved under the old ordinance, and once it was put to record the Board .of Supervisors approved extension of public water. Both Mr. Keeler and Ms. Scala indicated they were not sure of the reasoning behind that action. Ms. Diehl indicated she had trouble justifying providing water to an area developed at such a low density and she did not feel she could support this proposal because of the possibility of it setting a precedent. Mr. Bowerman indicated agreement with Ms. Diehl. Mr. Cogan asked what the objection was to having public water at a low density. Ms. Diehl responded that it was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Bowerman stated he did not see a major change in circum- stance which would warrant this amendment. Mr. Cogan indicated he felt if public water was available, it should be used, thus relieving some of the strain on the use of ground water. He also stated that although staff had suggested there are other areas in the County available for this type of development, he would prefer to see it in this area as opposed to the Rio Rd./29 North area which is becoming overcrowded. Mr. Michel pointed out that the water line had been anticipated at the time of the formulation of the Comprehensive Plan, but the route was not known. Mr. Bowerman stated he felt the staff reports had indicated the only justification for extending the service authority area is the incorrect delineation of the original boundary. Ms. Diehl moved that CPA-84-9 to amend Map 25 of the Comprehensive Plan (Albemarle County Service Authority Project Areas 1982-2002) to extend water service to the Fontana project, and CPA-84-10 to amend Map 9 of the Comprehensive Plan (Urban Area Land Use Plan 1982-2002) as it affects the Fontana property, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial. 9 U /-s4Q December 4, 1984 Page 9 Mr. Cogan seconded the motion. Further discussion followed. Mr. Wilkerson indicated confusion concerning staff's position on this matter. He stated he understood Ms. Scala and Ms. Imhoff were saying an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan was necessary, but he thought Mr. Keeler had stated an amendment was not necessary. Ms. Imhoff explained there was a division of staff opinion on this matter. She stated her position that both an amendment to the service area line and the urban area line was called for was based solely on its effect and long-term impact on the Comprehensive Plan, explaining that she did not have all the details on the Fontana project and had not really given it a great deal of consideration. She stated that in order to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, she felt it was necessary that the Land Use Plan and the Water Service Jurisdictional Area be consistent with one another as often as possible. She stated utilities should be used to direct growth into the urban areas. Mr. Keeler stated he felt this was a non -issue in terms of controlling development in rural areas. He felt that using utilities to control urban growth was an issue separate from extending utilities to a rural development. He added he did not feel this proposal was really inconsistent with the Plan since it did not really require public water in order to be approved. If it did require public water to be approved, he said he would agree that it was not consistent with the Plan. Mr. Cogan asked Ms. Imhoff if she felt option three, as stated in her report, was far removed from the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Imhoff replied affirmatively and explained that there are several areas within Neighborhood Three that should be developed which are at urban area densities, and they have public water. She indicated she was opposed to the idea of allowing the boundaries of the growth area to randomly sprawl out without being developed at the desired densities. Ms. Scala stated she agreed with Ms. Imhoff, i.e. if the service area is extended, the urban area line should also be amended. However, she indicated she was less concerned about the low density in the urban area. The Chairman then called for a vote on Ms. Diehl's previously stated motion to deny CPA-84-9 and CPA-84-10. The motion was approved with Messrs. Michel, Gould, Bowerman, and Wilkerson and Ms. Diehl voting in favor, and Mr. Cogan voting against. /449 December 4, 1984 Page 10 ZMA-83-13, as stated previously, was then recalled for discussion. In relation to the question of drainage plans and detention basins, Ms. Scala stated the applicant had chosen not to provide additional information, though it had been requested. She added that she felt the staff's recommended conditions of approval would take care of any problems. Ms. Diehl asked if the Commission was being asked to approve, in effect, just the density. Mr. Payne responded the entire general plan was seeking approval, not just the density. Ms. Scala pointed out that this plan, as shown, cannot be done without a central well because of the proposed lot sizes. She explained a central well is considered to be public water. However, if only the lots in the urban area are served by public water, the other lots would have to be increased to 60,000 sq. ft. to allow private wells. Mr. Payne explained that since the jurisdictional line is not going to be changed, condition 5 of staff should be changed to address the requirement for a central well, i.e. condition 5 would read "Board of Supervisors approval of a central well system." Mr. Michel moved that ZMA-83-13 for Charles W. Hurt (Fontana P.R.D.) be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: (1) All roads to be constructed to State standards. Road plans must be approved by the County engineer prior to subdivision plat submittal; (2) Residue of Tax Map 78, Parcel 57, zoned R-15, Residential to be added to adjacent parcel; (3) Fire Officer approval of emergency access if he determines it is necessary; (4) All lots approved conditional on verification of building site on each lot at the time of subdivision approval; (5) Board of Supervisors approval of central well. (6) All lots subject to final technical approvals as required at the time of subdivision, including: Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation Fire Officer Albemarle County Service Authority County Engineer Health Department /.S[5 December 4, 1984 Page 11 (7) No unnecessary clearing of existing vegetation except as required for roads, utilities, and building sites. (8) Open space requirement shall be verified at time of subdivision approval. (9) Staff approval of recreational area. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. OLD BUSINESS UNOGEN - Mr. Keeler stated UNOGEN is making application for possible location on either Berkmar Drive or Avon Street extended. He stated both these locations are being advertised and are scheduled for review by the Commission on December 20. Overlook Apartments - The Commission indicated there was no objection to authorizing staff to approve administratively the five acre division of the apartment tract from the parent tract. No formal vote was taken. Crozet Interceptor - Mr. Keeler stated that in December of 1982 the Commission had reviewed the entire length of the Crozet interceptor in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. At the time it was 1�4r• presented that the interceptor once it crossed the Mechums River, would be a forced main along the C & 0 Railroad until a point just past Rt. 708 where it would go again by gravity. In January, 1983 a different alignment was presented involving an additional pump station, with the sewer line running along the north side of Rt. 250 where a second pump station would add an additional lift to get it back up over the hill to Rt. 708. He explained this second alignment is what is in the current Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Keeler stated this has become an issue because at least one property owner along this line is strenuously objecting to the pump station. He stated staff had discussed the matter_ with Mr. Payne and had come to the conclusion that the Commission does not need to review the issue again. Mr. Keeler confirmed that the way the line exists now (along Rt. 250) is the way it is represented in the Comprehensive Plan, but when the Commission first reviewed it, the line was on the other side. Ile stated he was not sure if this alignment had ever been brought to the attention of the Commission. He explained the alignment was dated January 1983, with Board adoption in May, 1983. Mr. Keeler further stated the original alignment had come into question because of its route through the West Leigh subdivision. The Board had, at a later time, reviewed the alignment and required a re- alignment. He stressed that the Board had not disagreed with the Commission's review. Mr. Payne explained the significance of this lies with the fact that if the Plan does not show a feature as a part of the Plan, then /_115/ December 4, 1984 Page 12 it must be reviewed by the Commission for compliance with the Plan. If the feature in question is already shown on the Plan, then a review is not required. Mr. Cogan stated he understood the alignment is shown in the Plan, but the second pumping station is not. Mr. Payne confirmed this. Ms. Diehl left the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Mr. Keeler explained there are four pumping stations along the line, but the only one he could see shown was the Licking Hole Creek station. (He indicated the others were not shown, i.e. the Mechums River station, the station in Ivy, and the one on Rt. 250 west of Ivy Gardens.) Mr. Cogan stated he recalled that at one time it had been said that the Licking Hole Creek station would be adequate to do all the pumping. Mr. Keeler stated he understood the alignment had been changed based on engineering considerations, and the change in the align- ment had necessitated the additional pumping stations. Mr. Payne, in response to Mr. Cogan's and Mr. Bowerman's inquiry, explained that the change in alignment does not need to be reviewed by the Commission since it is already shown in the Plan, but he added a question does arise as to whether this additional pumping station was the type of facility that is contemplated in the statute. He indicated such a facility probably is contemplated. Mr. Payne stated he felt the primary issue here is the line itself and that is clearly shown in the Plan. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Payne if the Commission had approved a certain alignment or simply a line. Mr. Payne, quoting from Section 15.1-456 (Code of Virginia), stated "...no public facility or public service corporation facility... shall be constructed, established or authorized, unless and until the general location or approximate location, character, and extent thereof has been submitted to and approved by the local commission as being substantially in accord with the, adopted comprehensive plan or part thereof." He stated it was immaterial that the Commission had approved it with a certain alignment, because the statute states ..."unless such feature is already shown on the adopted master plan or part thereof.' Mr. Payne further explained that after the Commission approved the first alignment, the Plan was amended to show the second alignment, making it a feature shown on the Plan, and thus not requiring Commission approval. He stressed the intervening fact was the amendment to the Plan which was approved by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Payne again referred to the question of the pumping stations not being shown on the Plan. He said if the line and the pumping stations are considered to be two separate facilities, and the station is not shown on the Plan, then it ,would require approval. C December 4, 1984 Page 13 However, the Commission cannot take any action on this question at this time because the matter is not formally before the Commission. In order for the matter to be brought before the Commission, he explained the Rivanna Water and Service Authority would have to initiate the matter. He said the RWSA has several courses it might follow: (1) It can take the position that approval for the pumping stations is not required and proceed, dealing with any challenges that this is unlawful if they occur; or (2) It can take the position that it is a separate facility and go ahead and seek Commission approval. Mr. Payne stated the issue of the pumping stations being separate facilities had not come up in staff discussions, but he felt it was an arguable question and indicated he was inclined to regard the line and the pumping stations as two separate facilities. Mr. Cogan stated he felt they were separate facilities since one is underground and the other is above ground. Mr. Payne stated he was inclined to think of them separately because some of the stations are shown on the Plan while others are not. He felt this indicated the Plan contemplates that the stations will exist, and if that is the case, this station is a feature that is not shown on the Plan. Mr. Payne explained the Service Authority had been advised if they were going to go ahead with the line without having it reviewed by the Commission, it was advisable that they at least inform the Commission of their plans. In regard to the pumping stations, Mr. Keeler stated they had been treated as a major issue in the staff's original report. Mr. Cogan stated that even though he was very much in favor of the line, he was at odds with the way it has been handled. NEW BUSINESS Meeting with Engineering Department - Mr. Bowerman stated he would be meeting with staff and the Engineering Department regarding the type of information the Commission would like to see at subdivision and site plan approvals. It was determined the Commission would like to see some sort of preliminary approval from the County Engineer which would indicate that what is contemplated in a proposal is feasible, with final approval not being given until all computations are in. Letter from Mr. Kin (State Highway Department) to Mr. Bowerman_.regarding Piedmont Corridor Proposal - Mr. Bowerman presented the Commissioners with a copy of a letter he had received in answer to his previous letter which had listed several questions regarding this proposal. He indicated the letter would be discussed at the next meeting. 153 December 4, 1984 Page 14 Mr. Bowerman reminded the commissioners of the meeting dates for the remainder of December: December 11, December 18 and December 20. It was noted that Mr. Skove would not be present for the remainder of the month. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:15 P.M. DS James R. Donnelly, ec �etary� 9 /S-�/