Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutACSA198200003 Minutes 1982-04-14 April 14, 1 (Regular Day Meeting) --- ----- — — — — 1 Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Fisher said if the Board approves connections for these four units, it will set a precedent and the Board would have great difficulty denying any future requests for water service no matter what the size. Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley to set May 12, 1982, as the date for public hearing on this request for amending the service areaboundaries for the Service Authority to include these two duplexes on Old Ballard Road There was no second to Mr. Henley's motion. (-, Miss Nash said the addition of a fire hydrant is for more of a project than just two duplexes. Mrs. Cooke asked if future development of the additional acreage would be entitled to water service also. Mr. Fisher said he felt if service were approved for these two duplexes and the fire hydrant, it could not be denied in the future for the remainder of the 144 acre parcel. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to set no public hearing on this request. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: Mr. Henley. ABSENT: Mr. Butler. Agenda Item No. 6. Request from Mr. Ed Amato, regarding water service. (NOTE Mr Lindstrom abstained from discussion and vote on this matter because Mr Amato is being represented by the law firm by which Mr. Lindstrom is employed.) Mr Fisher noted receipt of the following letter dated April 6, 1982, from Mr. Edward W. Amato "This is a request for a determination of a jurisdictional boundary of a property (Parcel 4 on Tax Map 61) being served adjacent to the Albemarle ' County Service Authority. The water line is located on the front of the property. This water line is presently serving R. E Lee and Sons next door. Five weeks ago, Curtis Mundie, Builder, called the Water Service Authority and they stated that there was a water hookup charge of $410.00 per house, and at no time did they represent the fact that this was not in their jurisdiction. Last Thursday, Mr. Mundie went by the Service Authority office to pay the hook-up charges and Mr. Brian Smith told"him they would not allow a hookup to the present water line until permission was received from the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Rossi, head engineer of the Service Authority stated that his office had made an error in not eluding to the fact about this property being out of the jurisdictional area. In addi- tion, there are two houses that have been erected on this 5.0 acres of land in R/A zoning. We have timbered the property and in three weeks intend to reforest the entire area in lobolly pines (A program administered by the Forestry Service). These two houses are two weeks away from completion and we have tentatively rented them both. We certainly would have put a well for both properties if we had known from the Service Authority about jurisdictional boundaries My clients will certainly suffer serious losses from any delay or any extra cost. I would hope that the Board of Supervisors would rule that we can hookup to the present water system." Mr. Edward H. Bain, attorney representing Mr. Amato, was present and said the main difference between this request and the other two presented this morning, is that the builder contacted the Service Authority prior to construction and received information that water hookups would be available when the structures were complete. Mr. Bain said the homes were built with the intention of hooking to the Service Authority's,water line and then when the builder went to pay the connection fee, he was told the property was outside pf the project areas and that special permission would be required from the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Bain said his client was told that water would be available to both the front and rear five acre parcels, and that the water would come from the line on Hydraulic Road. Mr. Amato was present and reiterated the statements made by Mr Bain and in his letter of April 6th. Mr. William Brent, Director of the Service Authority, was present and said he was unable to deny any of the statements made by Mr. Bain or Mr Amato, but is also not able to document the fact that water service was promised these two parcels back in March, 1982. Mr. Brent said he interprets the service authority boundary map to state that any parcel platted prior to adoption of this map is eligible for water service if it abuts a "solid line" along the roadway along which the water line is located. , Mr. Brent said he felt water service could be granted to the parcel with the original tax map and parcel number, but since the original parcel has been subdivided, the new, divided portion could not be granted service. Mr. Fisher said since all three properties discussed this morning are located in the South Fork watershed, they are controversial and he is worried about setting a precedent for future high density development. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John to interpret the rights of the present property owner under the present service areas. Mr. St John said that in his judgement, the language written on the map supports Mr. Brent's interpretation of the rights of the owners of these parcels. Mr. St. John read the statement on the map "Where a solid line follows a roadway on either or both sides of the roadway, the service so denoted may be granted to parcels contiguous to the roadway on that side, provided said 1 parcels have been recorded prior to adoption of this map." Mr Fisher said he thought that related specifically to the Route 29 North waterline and the waterline in Scottsville. Mr. Henley said if it was the intention to include only Route 29 North and Scottsville, then that should have been a part of the wording on the map. Mr. St. John said that Mr Brent is applying the principal of the statement to all areas on the map, not just the Route 29 North and Scottsville areas. Mr. Brent agreed with Mr. St. John Mr St John noted that what the Board is discussing is not an expansion of the service areas, but an interpretation of the existing boundaries. Mr. St. John said it is not up to the Board to j! interpret it's own rulings. Mr. Henley said he remembered that no matter what the acreage, i! each property owner was entitled to one connection. Mr. Fisher said he strongly disagreed with the interpretation made by Mr. Brent. Mr. Fisher said if the Board wants to settle the boundary question, it should set a public hearing. Mr. St. John said that is the only way of settling the boundary question. Motion was then offered by Miss Nash to deny the request to amend the service project areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority to include Tax Map 61, Parcels 4 and 4A as !I requested. No second was offered for Miss Nash's motion. Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley to set May 12, 1982, as the date for a public hearing on Mr Amato's-request to have the boundaries of the Service Authority amended to include Tax Map 61, Parcels 4 and 4A. No second was received to Mr. Henley's motion. Mr. Fisher said both motions have died due to lack of a second and he informed Mr. Bain that the Board of Supervisors did not wish to take any action on Mr. Amato's request. Mr. Bain said it is his interpretation that, according to Mr Brent's interpretation of the map, his client will be allowed to hook up Parcel 4 to the water system. Mr. Fisher said the nonaction vote of the Board was in regard to this request. Agenda Item No. 8,-, Public Hearing: STA-82-1. An amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance to provide for expiration of final plats and ZTA-82-4, to amend various sections of the Zoning Ordinance related to fees, locating all fees in one section titled 35.0 FEES - and also to allow for payment by applicant of costs of notice exceeding the base fee. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 31 and April 7, 1982.) Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission is not scheduled to hear these two amendments until April 15, 1982, and he requested deferral to May 5, 1982 Mr Fisher requested a motion to defer this public hearing to May 5, 1982. Motion was offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to defer this public hearing to the meeting of May 5, 1982 Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Henley and Miss Nash NAYS: None. I, ABSENT: Mr. Butler and Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 9. Compalint Re: Trash piles, trespassers, etc. Mr. Fisher noted �I receipt of a letter from Mr. Preston A. Coiner, dated March 24, 1982, as follows: "We need the help of the Board of Supervisors. As you may know, Broadway Street runs from Franklin Street in the City toward the rear of Security Storage (The Old Woolen Mills). Because this area is somewhat isolated, the lovers, beer drinkers and trash haulers have turned it into a Lover's Lane, Outdoor Bar and Trash Dump. The three businesses on the street, Overhead Door Company, Roadway Express and us have tried to monitor the problem with no success. It is not receiving the police patrol that is necessary because the street is off to itself as far as patrols are con- cerned. I have discussed the problem with Sheriff Bailey several times and although he has promised that the area would be patrolled I'm not sure it has been. Virginia Land Company owns the undeveloped property that is being abused and they, have tried several corrective measures which have not been successful. I feel that some investigation of the trash piles may produce some names and addresses of the violators and perhaps they could be prosecuted. I also feel that the Sheriff's Department needs to patrol the area very heavily to let the people know that someone is around." (NOTE: At 11:05 A.M., Mr. Fisher left the meeting and-Mr. Lindstrom returned.) Mr. Coiner was present and summarized his letter. Mr. Coiner presented several photographs to the Board showing the trash problem being experienced. Sheriff Bailey was present and stated that he and Miss Nash toured the area and did find large amounts of trash along the roadside. Sheriff Bailey said he did not find the extreme amount of trash as indicated in the photographs presented by Mr. Coiner Sheriff Bailey said he has been sending patrol cars along this road three times a night and has discovered that it is a "lovers lane", but has no evidence that they are the same people who are dumping the trash. , I Board discussion then revolved around whether or not the trash was on public land or the highway right-of-way, and Mr. St. John stated that County ordinances covering dumping of trash are for public land and road areas only, that it is the responsibility of the property owner to witness the violation, obtain a warrant against the violator and pursue the process through the courts. (NOTE: Mr. Butler arrived at 11 17 A.M.) Mr. Henley said he felt that if the trash pile is on property owned by Dr. Charles Hurt, which is adjacent to Mr. Coiner's property becomes a health hazard, the County can require Dr. Hurt I to remove the trash. Agenda Item No. 10. Discussion Setback Requirements for Well and Septic Systems �I Mr. Tucker referred to Mr. Ronald S. Keeler's letter dated March 4, 1982, to Miss Lettie E. Neher, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, as follows: