HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 29 1991 PC MinutesJANUARY 29, 1991
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, January 29, 1991, Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr. Harry
Wilkerson, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Phil Grimm;
Mr. Walter Johnson; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials
present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and
Community Development, Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; and
Mr. George St. John, County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner
Andersen.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present. The minutes of
December 18, 1990 were approved as submitted.
SP-90-114 Olivet Presbyterian Church - The applicant is
requesting a permit to construct an open-air chapel on 3.25
acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property described as Tax Map
43, Parcel 9B is on the south side of Rt. 614 approximately
1/4 mile west of the Rt. 676 intersection, directly east of
Harmony Drive and approximately 400 feet west of the
existing Olivet Church in the Samuel Miller Magisterial
District. This site is not located in a designated growth
area.
The applicant was requesting withdrawal of the request.
Ms. Huckle moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that the
applicant's request for withdrawal without prejudice be
accepted. The motion passed unanimously.
SDP-90-117 Albemarle High School Desian and Renovations
Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate 45,000 square
feet of new building and other athletic field additions.
The proposal includes a 10,000 square foot field house, a
baseball field, two football fields and one football/soccer
field as well as a 35,000 square foot addition to the
existing school. Property, described as Tax Map 60 Parcel
78A, is located at the southwestern intersection. Zoned RA,
Rural Areas, this site is located in the Jack Jouett
Magisterial District and is not located within a designated
growth area.
Staff was requesting deferral to February 5, 1991.
Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that the item
be deferred to February 5, 1991. The motion passed
unanimously.
ZTA-90-08 Jay Townsend - Request to amend Section 27, LI,
Light Industry zone to allow arbories by special permit and
to amend Definitions. Indefinitely deferred by Planning
Commission on November 20, 1990.
fJ5�
January 29, 1991
Page 2
AND
ZTA-90-09 Jay Townsend - Request to amend Section 27, LI,
Light Industry zone, to allow arbories by -right and amend
definitions. Indefinitely deferred by Planning Commission
on November 20, 1990.
AND
ZTA-90-10 Jay Townsend - Request to amend Section 27.2.1(9)
to read "contractor's office and equipment storage yard.
For landscaping contractors, an arbory may be maintained
upon premises provided that Section 5.1.24 of the Ordinance
notwithstanding, such arbory shall not exceed one-third of
the floor area of the main contractor's office and storage
yard use." Request also to amend Definitions. Indefinitely
deferred by Planning Commission on November 20, 1990.
(NOTE: Becayse staff was not recommending approval of
either 90-09 or 90-10 suggested ordinance changes were not
submitted for consideration.)
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. He also passed out a
letter which staff had received from Amelia Patterson,
Zoning Administrator, which explained her current
interpretation of "subordinate retail sales." (A copy of
this letter is made a part of these minutes as ATTACHMENT
A.) Based on Ms. Patterson's comments, Mr. Fritz had
revised the language of the proposed amendment to the
Ordinance and was recommending the following:
Add under Section 27.2.1(3):
3. Delete Reference 5.1.24.
(Mr. Cilimberg explained the result
by -right uses in the LI zone can be
possibility for subordinate retail
by -right.")
Add under Section 27.2.2:
of this language: "Any
interpreted to have the
sales, up to 15%,
13. Uses listed under Section 27.2.1 for which subordinate
retail sales may be permitted, but whose retail sales area
exceeds 15% of the floor area of the main use.
(Mr. Fritz explained: "By deleting specific reference to
5.1.24 all uses listed by right under the LI zone, may, in
particular circumstances as determined by the Zoning
Administrator, be able to qualify for that subordinate
retail sales up to 15%. What this says is that all those
46
January 29, 1991
Page 3
uses which qualify for subordinate retail sales can make
application for subordinate retail sales exceeding 15%, by
special use permit.")
Add under Section 5.1.24:
a. Retail sales area, including but not limited to showroom
and outdoor display area, shall not exceed fifteen (15)
percent of the floor area of the main use except as provided
for in Section 27.2.2(13);
b. (No change.)
c. In approval of any retail sales area the Board and/or
the Planning Commission may limit the areas for retail sales
in both size and location;
d. Retail sales area exceeding 15% of the floor area of the
main use pursuant to Section 27.2.2(13)„.is intended to allow
for uses which by their nature are bulky and require
non -intensive use of the land. The Board and/or the
Planning Commission in approval of such increased sales area
shall be mindful of the intent of this section to provide
for only subordinate retail sales and avoid incompatible
land uses.
(Mr. Fritz explained this was intended to give the
Commission and Board guidance when dealing with future
requests.)
This proposed amendment generated a lengthy, often
confusing, discussion. Highlights of that discussion
follow.
Regarding the recommended changes to 5.1.24 and 27.2.2, Mr.
Johnson felt these were "superfluous, not needed and
definitely not desirable since everything prescribed there
is authorized under 5.1...." (Mr. St. John commented that
he did not feel there was a defect or inconsistency in the
Ordinance in this regard.)
Mr. St. John felt that the proposed language "still leaves
it up to the Zoning Administrator to determine which of the
LI district's uses qualify." (Mr. Cilimberg interjected
that was the preference of the Zoning Administrator.) Mr.
St. John was in disagreement with this approach. Referring
to the inclusion of the words "for which subordinate retail
sales may be permitted" in Section 27.2.2(13) (as stated
above), he commented: "If you leave that language in, who
is to say which ones they're permitted for and which ones
they're not." He noted that the Zoning Administrator
prefers that that determination be hers to make. It was his
15-7
January 29, 1991
Page 4
opinion that there is no standard by which she can make such
a determination. He could see "no harm" in eliminating
those words. It was his preference that 27.2.2(13) be
worded as follows:
13. Uses listed under Section 27.2.1 whose subordinate
retail sales area exceeds 15% of the floor area of the main
use.
He explained: "That way you don't put the burden on the
Zoning Administrator in each and every case to decide
whether this language is appropriate. If you put that
burden on her and don't give her any standards, I submit to
you that the Ordinance is unlawful. It's just a total
delegation of legislative decision to the Zoning
Administrator." It was Mr. St. John's feeling that the
Zoning Administrator, as an administrative official, did not
have the authority to make any decisions as to "what is
desirable and what is not desirable." He stated that was a
determination for the Commission and Board to make.
Mr. Cilimberg attempted to explained that staff was not
actually in disagreement with Mr. St. John. However, he
explained that it was the Zoning Administrator's concern
that "if she's not given discretion in the by -right when
it's not 15%--less than 15%--then she would like to have a
specific reference in the Ordinance made to those uses where
5.1.24 applies."
Mr. St. John responded: "I agree with that, but I think
that's new business. That's got to be corrected. This
language here does not deal with that." (Mr. Cilimberg
agreed.) Mr. St. John felt that to try to deal with that
problem in this amendment was a "fundamental mistake." He
felt this would take another amendment to the supplemental
regulations.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that the difference in staff's
language and Mr. St. John's was that staff's would allow the
Zoning Administrator to make the determination that if a use
qualified for less than 15%, the Zoning Administrator could
determine whether it could qualify for greater than 15%. He
further explained: "For the by -right section, there is
nothing in Mr. St. John's suggested alteration which
eliminates the Zoning Administrator's ability to make a
determination by -right. It is only that you can receive any
application for special use permit for over 15% in the LI
zone."
Mr. Rittenhouse clarified that subordinate sales up to 15%
would apply to any LI by -right use and a special permit
U,
January 29, 1991 Page 5
would be required for any expansion over that 15% floor
area; and further, in 5.1.24, the Commission and Board would
have the latitude to limit that area under special permit
application.
The applicant, Mr. Jay Townsend, was present, but offered no
significant additional comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Grimm moved that ZTA-90-08, to amend Section 27, LI and
to amend Definitions, be recommended to the Board of
Supervisors for approval as presented by staff (stated
previously in this record).
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion.
Discussion.
There followed further discussion about the perceived
differences of the two suggested wordings.
Mr. St. John ultimately stated he did not feel there would
be any problems with the adoption of either of the suggested
wordings under debate, though he preferred his suggested
language. Mr. Cilimberg noted that staff would find the
approval of either of the suggested wordings acceptable.
Both staff members agreed that the concerns raised by Mr.
St. John would be addressed through a separate amendment at
some future date.
The previously stated motion for approval (with staff's
suggested wording), failed to pass (3:3) with Commissioners
Grimm, Jenkins and Wilkerson voting in favor, and
Commissioners Huckle, Rittenhouse and Johnson voting
against.
Ms. Huckle moved that ZTA-90-08, to amend Section 27, LI and
to amend Definitions, be recommended to the Board of
Supervisors for approval as follows: (with Mr. St. John's
suggested language)
Add under Section 27.2.1(3):
3. Delete Reference 5.1.24.
Add under Section 27.2.2:
13. Uses listed under Section 27.2.1 whose subordinate
retail sales area exceeds 15% of the floor area of the main
use.
1917
January 29, 1991
Page 6
Add under Section 5.1.24:
a. Retail sales area, including bu
and outdoor display area, shall not
percent of the floor area of the mai
for in Section 27.2.2(13);
b. (No change.)
t
not limited to showroom
exceed fifteen (15)
n use except as provided
c. In approval of any retail sales area the Board and/or
the Planning Commission may limit the areas for retail sales
in both size and location;
d. Retail sales area exceeding 15% of the floor area of the
main use pursuant to Section 27.2.2(13) is intended to allow
for uses which by their nature are bulky and reguire
non -intensive use of the land. The Board and/or the
Planning Commission in approval of such increased sales area
_shall be mindful of the intent of this section to provide
for only subordinate retail sales and avoid incompatible
land uses.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Johnson noted that he felt the changes to 5.1.24 were
not necessary.
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
The meeting recessed from 8:45 to 8:55.
ZTA-90-09 and ZTA-90-10
The applicant requested that these two proposals be
withdrawn.
Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr. Grimm, that the
applicant's request for withdrawal be accepted.
ZMA-89-16 Jay Townsend - Request in accordance with Section
33.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to rezone 10.3 acres from
R-1, Residential to LI, Light Industry. Property, described
as Tax Map 32, Parcel 22B (part) is located on the west side
of Rt. 29N approximately 2,000 feet south of the bridge over
the North Fork Rivanna River in the Rivanna Magisterial
District. This site is located within a designated growth
area. Indefinitely deferred by Planning Commission on
November 20, 1990.
� JI -01
1910
January 29, 1991 Page 7
SP-90-108 - Jay Townsend - The applicant is requesting a
contractor's office and equipment storage yard with retail
sales, on 10.3 acres zoned LI, Light Industry. Request is
being reviewed concurrent with ZTA-90-08, 09, and 10 and
ZMA-89-16. Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 22B
(part) is located on the west side of Rt. 29N approximately
2,000 feet south of the bridge over the North Fork Rivanna
River in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is
located within a designated growth area. Indefinitely
deferred by the Planning Commission on November 20, 1990.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff was
recommending approval based on the acceptance of the
applicant's proffer No. 2.
The applicant, Mr. Townsend, offered little additional
comment.
Ms. Huckle expressed concern about possible future uses of
the property in the event this use should be discontinued,
given the fact that the property is not served by public
sewer. Mr. Fritz responded that the proffer would stay with
the land which would offer some control over future uses.
He explained that if a future use should require public
sewer, then that applicant would either have to connect to
public sewer (which would require expansion of the existing
facilities in the area), or would have to demonstrate that
there was adequate on -site septic area approved by the
Health Department. Mr. St. John also noted there was some
protection in the Ordinance (Sec. 27.2.2(n)] based on the
amount of water used.
There being no further comment the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Jenkins moved that ZMA-89-16 for Jay Townsend be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject
to acceptance of the following proffer:
Any use will be in general accordance with the
submitted sketch.
Mr. Grimm seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The Commission then reviewed SP-90-108 for Jay Townsend.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
l 9j
January 29, 1991 Page 8
Mr. Cilimberg called the Commission's attention to staff's
reasoning in recommending approval of the special permit
under the guidelines which the Commission had just amended
the Ordinance to include, i.e. "Staff believes the amount of
sales area is subordinate to the primary use as a landscape
contractor's office and equipment storage yard. The
increased area is due to the nature of materials stored on
site, which are to be trees and shrubs, mulch and topsoil.
These items cannot be stacked and require large storage
areas."
Because some Commissioners had expressed concern about the
types of materials to be stored, Mr. Fritz suggested that
condition No. 1 have the following added: "...and sales
shall be limited to the following materials: trees, shrubs,
mulch, top soil and similar materials."
There was a brief discussion about traffic generation. Mr.
Fritz noted that the ITE definition of "nursery" was a much
more intense use than what was proposed by the applicant.
Mr. Rittenhouse noted that his primary concern was whether
or not this should be considered a commercial use which is
subordinate to a landscape contractor's use, or is it a
nursery which would be more appropriate in a C-1 zone?
Mr. Rittenhouse asked about the Virginia Department of
Transportation's recommendation for closing of Crossover 35
with the approval of this rezoning. Mr. Fritz stated this
would be addressed at the time of site plan approval.
Ms. Huckle suggested the addition of a condition requiring
that the storage areas be screened from adjacent properties
with evergreens. Mr. Townsend expressed no opposition to
such a condition. It was later decided the following
condition would be added: "Equipment and mulch storage
areas shall be screened with evergreens from adjacent
residential materials."
The applicant, Mr. Townsend, addressed the Commission. His
comments included the following:
--No greenhouses will be used, but there will be a
"holding house" (a plastic structure, 50' x 161) for
leftover plants to protect them in the winter months. This
structure will be located towards the center of the property
between the buildings.
--This use will have less impact on traffic than other
LI uses. (This statement was supported by Dr. Dometski, a
transportation engineer with the University of Virginia, who
had reviewed this proposal at the request of the applicant.
Mr. Dometski explained how he had arrived at this
conclusion.)
iq�
January 29, 1991 Page 9
There was a discussion about the possibility of limiting the
number of on -site, "subordinate, retail" employees in an
effort to limit the scale of commercial activity. Though
Mr. Townsend expressed no objection to a limitation of 3 for
this type of employee, it was ultimately decided that such a
limitation would have very little effect on the traffic
counts given the nature of the business. Mr. Townsend
pointed out that this type of business does not generate
large numbers of traffic at peak traffic times.
There being no further comment the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-90-108 for Jay Townsend be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject
to the following conditions:
1. Material and area devoted to retail sales shall be in
accordance with that noted in Attachment E, (a letter from
J.W. Towsend to William D. Fritz dated November 5, 1990),
and sales shall be limited to the following materials:
trees, shrubs, mulch, top soil and similar materials.
2. Compliance with ZMA-89-16.
3. Equipment and mulch storage areas shall be screened with
evergreens from adjacent residential lands.
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-90-101 Barbara Scribner - The applicant petitions for a
special use permit to operate a commercial stable/riding
school (10.2.2(16)] on 67.485 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas.
The property, described as Tax Map 47, Parcel 8, is on the
northeast side of Rt. 649 approximately one-half mile east
of its intersection with Rt. 643 and is in the Rivanna
Magisterial District. This site is not located in a
designated growth area.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff was
recommending approval subject to conditions.
The applicant, Ms. Scribner, addressed the Commission
briefly. Her only concern was that condition No. 5 be
clarified to state "no more than five students at one time."
There being no further applicant or public comment the
matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Johnson suggested that condition No. 5 be changed to
read "No more than five students receiving instruction on
site, at any one time." The Commission and applicant were
agreeable to this amended condition.
/V.5
January 29, 1991
Page 10
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-90-101 for Barbara Scribner be
recommended to the board of Supervisors for approval subject
to the following conditions:
1. Riding rings and riding surfaces shall be covered and
maintained with a material such as pine bark to minimize
dust and erosion;
2. Fencing and other methods of animal confinement shall be
maintained at all times;
3. No employees; (Note this condition was later deleted.)
4. Hours of operation shall be during daylight hours only;
5. No more than five students receiving instruction on site
at any one time.
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Johnson was in favor of deleting condition No. 3. He
felt this was not reasonable and indicated conditions should
not be imposed which invite non-compliance. (Mr. Fritz
noted that the limitation on the number of students would
effectively limit the size of the operation.)
Both Mr. Wilkerson and Ms. Huckle indicated they had no
opposition to amending the motion to delete this condition.
The amended motion for approval passed unanimously.
SDP-90-082 City of Charlottesville Public Works Center Major
Site Plan Amendment - Proposal to create a 3.72 acre inert
material landfill on a total acreage of 50.87. Property,
described as Tax Map 77E(1), Parcel 1 is located on the
northern edge of I-64 approximately 0.55 miles west of the
I-64/Rt. 20 interchange and is located at the existing
Public Works Center. Zoned LI, Light Industrial, in the
Scottsville Magisterial District. This site is located
within a designated growth area. The applicant has
demonstrated Planting within the VDOT right-of-way is
feasible, therefore, the Board of Supervisors has referred
the plan back to the Commission.
Mr. Cilimberg presented the staff report which included a
review of the history of the request. The report concluded:
"Should the Planning Commission find this activity is in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and waive Section
5.1.28 of the Zoning Ordinance for type of materials that
may be placed, staff recommends approval (with conditions)."
January 29, 1991 Page 11
Mr. Cilimberg added: "It seems, from staff's standpoint,
that the five-year temporary period for the operation of
this fill activity, in combination with the screening, will
adequately provide for the concerns in regard to compliance
with the Comprehensive Plan."
Regarding compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, Mr.
Cilimberg explained that the applicant was requesting a
waiver of Section 5.1.28 which limits.the type of matter
placed in a waste area to natural materials only. He called
the Commission's attention to a letter from the County
Engineer where he is recommending changes to the Zoning
Ordinance which would allow for the type fill proposed and
which would be consistent with State regulations. He
reminded the Commission that it must once again determine if
the waiver is warranted given the comments of the County
Engineer and the provision of screening now proposed.
There was discussion about the types of trees which will be
planted for screening. Mr. Cilimberg noted this was an item
which could be specifically addressed by the Architectural
Review Board. (Mr. Tony Edwards, representing the applicant,
later explained that 6-8 foot trees were planned and they
would be planted eight feet from the rear of the guardrail.)
Mr. Rittenhouse asked who would be responsible for the
maintenance of the screening trees. Mr. Cilimberg suggested
that condition 1(e) be amended to read: "Staff approval of
landscape plan to include Interstate-64 screening, and an
agreement for maintenance of screening between the Virginia
Department of Transportation and the City of
Charlottesville, ..."
The applicant was represented by Bruce McNab, Director of
Public Works for the City. Regarding the maintenance
agreement, he expressed no opposition to the amendment to
condition 1(e) as suggested by Mr. Cilimberg. He explained
that cedar trees are being considered and they should
require little maintenance. (It was later determined that
any trees which should die would have to be replaced.)
Regarding capacity, he explained that it has been designed
to reach capacity in approximately five years, based on
anticipated rate of use. He stated there are no plans for
increasing the capacity. He stated that the site would be
"considerably lower" than I-64 after it is filled.
Regarding usage of the site, Mr. McNab explained that only
City crews, or possibly contractors hired by the City, will
be allowed to use the site.
It was determined that the site will be seeded periodically
during its usage and will be reclaimed at the end of the
five-year period which will include seeding and planting of
trees.
There being no further applicant or public comment the
matter was placed before the Commission.
19s
January 29, 1991 Page 12
Mr. Johnson stated he found very little about the proposal
he could support. He noted the following concerns:
--The materials to be dumped are in no way "natural"
materials as referred to in Section 5.1.28.7. There is no
"construction debris fill site identified in the ordinance."
--It will be impossible to effectively screen the site.
--Approval will result in a landfill located very close
to the urban area, on a "beltway."
--The slope of the land will make permanent, final
stabilization impossible. He concluded that the only way he
could consider the request favorably was if vertical
profiles could be presented showing the present condition of
the property and the way it will be after final
stabilization.
Mr. Grimm noted that a condition of approval is the
requirement for the issuance of an Erosion Control Permit
from the Department of Engineering. He felt this would
require the applicant to demonstrate that the site could be
controlled in an acceptable fashion. He also noted that a
Certificate of Appropriateness from the Architectural
Review Board will also be required. He concluded he could
support the request "based on these ... site specific
recommendations ... with the knowledge that these
professionals will make appropriate determination of whether
it is feasible or not."
Mr. Rittenhouse expressed concern about precedent. He was
concerned about what approval would imply to the community
at large, i.e. would it invite private contractors to make
requests for dumping of this type of inert construction
materials on their property? He noted that such requests
would not have the same financial or technical resources
that the City has. He agreed with Mr. Grimm, that there are
assurances that the property will be properly reclaimed and
screened. He indicated he would like to identify some
unique factor about this proposal so that approval would not
invite "little inert landfills plopped down at various
places in the County" because there would be little basis
for denial.
Mr. Cilimberg explained the circumstances under which fill
activity can currently take place.
Mr. St. John noted that the "precedent is already
county -wide for fill (if it is not in the urban area),...
provided erosion and sediment control regulations are
complied with." (It was noted that for fill to be allowed
in the urban area, it must be part of a site plan.) Mr. St.
John also added: "There is a legal principle that where you
have something that is a governmental function ... it is an
accepted rule of zoning law that by permitting certain
governmental functions to go on, that doesn't set a
precedent for letting non-
/ F6
January 29, 1991 Page 13
governmental agencies do the same thing. ... The
governmental necessity is, in and of itself --sometimes, in a
given case --a justification for distinguishing between
governmental operations and private, for -profit, operations.
Permitting the one does not carry that precedent over into
the private sector. ... There are certain things that
governments have to do in order to serve their citizens and
you have to let them do it somewhere." He felt this was a
distinguishing aspect of this application.
Mr. Rittenhouse noted that this request is before the
Commission because of the type of material, i.e. man-made,
inert materials.
Mr. Jenkins moved that SDP-90-082 for the City of
Charlottesville Public Works Center Major Site Plan
Amendment be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of
the final site plan for signature until tentative approvals
for the following conditions have been obtained. The final
site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions
are met:
a. Department of Engineering issuance of an
Erosion Control Permit;
b. Staff approval of a Certified Engineer's
Report in compliance with Section 4.14 of the Zoning
Ordinance;
c. Dedication to the Albemarle County Service
Authority of existing utility lines serving the Public
Works center. Service Authority approval of any
activity within existing easement;
d. Issuance of a certificate of appropriateness
from the Architectural Review Board;
e. Staff approval of landscape plan to include
Interstate-64 screening, and an agreement for
maintenance of screening between VDOT and the City of
Charlottesville.
2. Administrative approval of final site plan.
Mr. Grimm seconded the motion which passed (5:1) with
Commissioner Johnson casting the dissenting vote.
Rt. 250 East Water Line - Review for Compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan - Mr. Cilimberg briefly explained that
the need for this line is referenced in the Comprehensive
Plan (Urban Neighborhood 3). He stated the line is now
being proposed for construction in conjuction with the Rt.
250 East improvements. He noted that the line will provide
for water service in Neighborhood 3 and ultimately will
provide service to Glenmore.
19*1
January 29, 1991 Page 14
In response to Ms. Huckle's question as to the location of
the present water line, Mr. Cilimberg explained that parts
of the line were in place, but he was uncertain of those
exact locations.
Noting that the costs of installing this line are lower than
they will ever be, Mr. Johnson suggested that a larger line
should be installed in anticipation of future growth.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that the line is expected to serve
properties along 250, "if they are ever brought into the
growth area and brought into the jurisdictional area." He
also explained that the Authority design is for 30 years.
He noted that the line has been designed to meet the fire
flow requirement in the Rivanna Growth Area, "and no more."
Mr. Rittenhouse recalled that when the new growth area had
been considered, it had been decided that the line would not
be oversized so as not to invite undesirable growth.
Mr. Johnson did not feel growth could be controlled by the
size of the water lire.
It was noted that Mr. Kessler has proffered to extend the
line from the end of the jurisdictional area to his
development.
Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that the Rt.
250 East Water Line be found to be in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
There being no further busines, the meeting adjourned at
10:45 p.m. A , - - . A
W.
Wayne/Cilim-beXg,
r5;19