HomeMy WebLinkAboutACSA198400002 Minutes 1984-05-09 i - Agenda Item No. 6(e). Other Highway Matters. There were no other highway matters
;resented for discussion.
Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing. Request to consider an amendment to the project
areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority to include portions of properties on Tax Map
59, Parcels 23B, 23B1, and 23C which are outside of the South Fork Rivanna watershed on
Route 250 West for sewer service only (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 24 and May 1,
1984).
Mr. Tucker briefly discussed the history relative to this proposal. He said that on
March 14, 1984 a request was made by Messrs. Sieg, Kirtley and Javor to amend the project
areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority to permit sewer service along Route 250 West,
specifically to properties owned by the applicants. At the March 14 meeting, staff presented
the general policy for access to utilities, that being to limit utility services in those
areas located outside of the County's designated growth areas and/or those areas located
within a watershed or drinking water impoundment. Mr. Tucker said that the Board deferred
action on this matter until April 11, 1984 in order for staff to do a more definitive study
to determine which portions of these particular properties drain into a watershed other than
the South Fork Rivanna and if any portions of the properties can be served by gravity feed
sewer. At the April 11 meeting, staff presented a map prepared by the Engineering Department
indicating the portions of the properties in question which can be served by gravity flow
and which drain away from the South Fork Rivanna Watershed. Mr. Tucker then referred to the
map noting the areas marked in red which flow toward Moores Creek and outside of the South
Fork watershed, and the areas in blue which should remain in the water only area as it
presently exists.
Mr. Tucker then referred to a letter from the League of Women Voters, dated March 16,
1984 as follows:
"The Charlottesville/Albemarle League of Women Voters recommends
that this request be denied. The 1983 Albemarle Comprehensive Plan
states on page 244:
'It is strongly recommended that access to the interceptor
between...Crozet and the urban area boundary be either prohibited
or severely restricted...Without this prohibition or restriction,
scattered strip development can result along the entire Western
250 corridor and result in unplanned linear development. This
type of development is not desired by the county.'
Allowing these applicants to connect would seriously weaken the Board's
ability to prohibit future requests for connections to other portions of
the interceptor.
So great was the public concern about development on U. S. 250, at the
1973 public hearing for the new wastewater treatment plant, that funding
for the interceptor was removed from the grant in order to allow time for
further study of the impact of such a line. That study by Ecosciences
(1974-75), as well as several related studies completed more recently,
warned that there would be strong pressures in future years to connect to •
the entire length of the line. Yielding to these pressures would destroy
the integrity of the area, eliminate the greenbelt (recommended in the
Comprehensive Plan) that separates the urban area from Ivy, and have a
serious detrimental effect on U. S. 250 as a designated scenic highway.
We believe there may be conditions that would necessitate some buildings
being allowed to tap in if they existed prior to start of construction of
Phase II of the Crozet interceptor. This permission would preclude any
new development on such properties. We urge the Board of Supervisors to
adopt and maintain a consistent policy concerning such tap-ins."
Mr. Tucker then referred to a letter from Mr. Henry Javor, dated March 29, 1984 which
the Board did not have at the April 11, 1984 meeting:
"Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to express my thoughts before the
Board of Supervisors at the March 14, 1984 meeting.
My request was to have the Board of Supervisors consider an amendment to the
Service Authority Jurisdictional Boundary Map to allow a sewer hookup to the
Crozet Sewer Interceptor line from my property located on Route 250 West
opposite the Boar's Head and Ednam Forest. At present only water hookup is
permitted.
With this letter I should like to further clarify the hardship this would work
without the public sewer as well as the logic behind this request:
1. The property consisting of 5.03 acres (Samuel Miller Magisterial
District, Tax Map 59, Parcel 23B) is zoned Light Industrial.
2. A site plan was submitted to the Planning Commission and approved on
�.1 September 16, 1981 by the Board of Supervisors (Note: the Board had
appealed the decision of the Planning Commission.) with several conditions.
3. Building plans were obtained and site work approved with Highway
Department approval for access road from Route 250 West. All this
expired around September of 1983.
�.this site, DUt ne"7II25-VIEW-LniS request-as--au utruaumx
4 ' - 4. Condition (o) 'Public Sewerage to be available for all units' was a
'• real stumbling block for me as it was economically unfeasible to
• reach the then existing public sewer line at Ednam Forest, about
2,000 feet East on Route 250 West.
• 5. Condition (o) in the approved site plan as specified by the Board of
% Supervisors created a hardship to tie into a public sewer line which
was not a reasonable distance to my building site. The Planning
Commission had originally approved my site plan after careful and
thorough checking by the Health Department for a septic system and
drainfields.
6. ' The Board of Supervisors had placed the condition on the approval of
the site plan when it was determined that the topography showed the
five are ly
tionalcAreal(Note:te in quActuallyestion athes nAlbemarlelCountyly in tServicehe n na ic-
Authority
flow ewas awaysfromot theivanna Rivannauthority)Watershedbut that a good deal of the
d
s
7. The new
parallelCtozmy fiveracreeparcelrandne withw being a gravitysflowelinenofd directly
125
asfe t shown under
onRthee 250 Rivannast it Waterwandd be Sewerossible to tie into le 27
Authority Drawing dated !
January 1983.
I have owned this five acre parcel for twelve years and have made numerous attempts
to develop it without detriment to the community, without success.
It is therefore respectfully requested of the Board of Supervisors that in
view of the commercial nature of this site and the partial drainage out of
the Rivanna Watershed and the fact that the Board of Supervisors had previously
approved my Site Plan with the condition that public sewer be made available,
that the nce
boundary Board can n good fived the acre sitejurisdictional
the
April 11, 1984 meeting.
Sincerely yours,
Henry J. Javor"
At 10:34 A.M., the public hearing was opened.
the
Mr. Paul Peatross, representingandrheHenry Javor,referred to theed that Mr. Javor letter Mr. Javor hadswritteno(sety
marked as Parcel 23
(2)
on the map,
out above) on March 29, 1984. Mr. Peatross basically repeated the history of this request
as set out in said letter. He pointed out that the Crozet Interceptor will soon be available
and is located only 50 yards from Mr. Javor's property line, however Mr. Javor cannot connect
to this interceptor unless his property lies within the service (jurisdictional) areas of
the Albemarle County Service Authority. Mr. Fisher commented that approval of the original
site plan to which Mr. Peatross refers has expired. Mr. Peatross said that is true, but the
original site plan has been resubmitted to the Planning Commission for approval and has been
deferred pending action by the Board of Supervisors today.
Mr. Peatross pointed to the map displayed on the board and said the areas shown in red
which have been noted as those areas which may be served were not determined an actual
survey, but rather are an approximation made by the County Engineer, Mr. Maynard Elrod, as
to where the ridgeline between the Moores Creek watershed and the South Fork Rivanna River
watershed is located and where the flow starts relative to the three properties. Both the
iEitleysrshownaind the Sieg n the properties have
been neverrbeena on gradedO$e properties
his is The
front portion of Mr. Javor's property does in fact flow naturally towards Moores Creek. Mr.
Peatross said Mr. Javor has resubmitted his original site plan and same is pending Planning
Commission review; however, the buildings on the site plan are located behind the Moores
Creek ridgeline so will actually lie in the South Fork Rivanna River watershed. He then
showed the Board a copy of the site plan and said Mr. Javor is requesting that in addition
to the area shown in red, a sufficient portion of his lot be included in the service areas
so he can connect to the Moores Creek line. Mr. Peatross then noted the survey made by Mr.
R. 0. Snow, Surveyor, and referred to the comments made by Mr. Snow on the site plan as
follows.
"The floor elevation shown for all proposed buildings on this site plan
indicate that they can be served by sanitary sewer hooked to Manhole 27
by gravity flow."
Therefore, said Mr. Peatross, without any grading of Mr. Javor's property, buildings located
on the property can be gravity fed to Manhole 27. Mr. Peatross said Mr. Javor requested an
amendment so that his property can be connected to public sewerage service. This was the
Board's desire in 1981, and is Mr. Javor's desire now that the Crozet Interceptor is easily
accessible to his property. Mr. Peatross concluded that while the portion of property on
which Mr. Javor proposes to locate the buildings is not in the area outlined in red on the
map, the area where the buildings will be located will in fact drain into the interceptor by
gravity flow without any grading of the property.
Mr. Kirtley then addressed th Board saying this is the third time he has approached
the Board concerning his request. Mr. Kirtley owns Parcel 23(B)1 indicated on the map, and
requests this amendment in order to be able to connect this property to the Crozet Interceptor
line. He stated that he has been in this location for 15 years; prior to that time the land
was graded to accommodate the building which is located near the railroad track. He is not
certain where the flow area begins and ends but it appears that the area in red is definitely
outside of the Rivanna River flow area. Mr. Kirtley said he would like for the Board to allow
the property indicated in red to connect to the public sewer line.
—— 'thissite, but he ears-vreyrinis requasc as an w.Laow: 12
t
• - Mr. Henley asked Mr. Elrod if some slight grading on the Javor property would carry the
runoff out of the Rivanna watershed. Mr. Elrod said that this could be done but it would
require more than a slight amount of grading.
With no further comments for or against this amendment, the public hearing was closed at
10:45 A.M.
I
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Tucker what uses could be located on property zoned Light
Industrial when no public sewerage facilities are available. Mr. Tucker responded that the
Health Department was willing to approve the site plan in 1981 with a septic system for the
type of light industrial use Mr. Javor proposed at that time. Mr. Lindstrom said one of the
problems in 1981 was that the Board could not determine how many, or what type of, uses were
wasp more appropriate. Mr. on was Tucker saidssary to this wouldow bewtheher a questiontic system or public sewer
again.
Mr. Fisher said even if sewer service is allowed for structures where the sewage flows
out of the watershed, there is still the runoff from roofs and parking areas that will drain
into the Rivanna River watershed. Mr. Fisher asked if there are any other properties similarly
situated where a similar argument could be made for service. Mr. Tucker said this is difficult
to answer without looking at each individual property in that corridor.
Mr. Elrod said that over the years there have been similar situations in other parts of
the County. Mr. Fisher said that if this request Is approved, sewage disposal will not be a
problem to the South Fork Reservoir, but all the surface water would still drain to the
reservoir. Mr. Elrod said the surface drainage would still go toward the reservoir; a I
detention basin would need to be constructed to control the phosphorous. Mr. Fisher said
approval will allow a higher density of development on the property meaning more surface water I
will run into the reservoir watershed. He commented that he almost wished Mr. Javor had had I
the foresight to grade the property like his neighbors had done. Mr. Henley said this is one
of the unique things about this situation. Grading was done to the properties on both sides
of Mr. Javor's property, and, in the recent past, the Board required the property be hooked
to public sewage facilities before development of same. Mr. Henley said he has no trouble
supporting Mr. Javor's request as he feels the uniqueness of the situation would prevent the 1
setting of a precedent.
Mr. Elrod said he understands that Mr. Javor is willing to have his site drain toward
the Moores Creek basin and suggested that Mr. Javor's site plan can be conditioned upon the
drainage being routed out of the Rivanna basin. Mr. Fisher said he feels that would be
preferable to having the drainage follow its natural flow. Mr. Peatross commented that
rerouting the drainage would involve substantial grading and so there is a substantial cost
factor involved. Mr. Peatross pointed out that if the original site plan had been approved
using a septic system, the surface water would have run toward the Rivanna watershed anyway,
however that site plan was conditioned on obtaining public sewer. Mr. Javor is now saying
he is close to the public sewer and can connect to same by gravity flow which alleviates the
need for any grading. Mr. Peatross commented that now the Board is suggesting that all
runoff also be directed away from the Rivanna basin.
Mr. Fisher pointed out that the LI zoning was left on Mr. Javor's property when the
zoning map was readopted in 1980 even though the property is not in the urban area, is
located on a scenic highway, and was not developed at the time. Mr. Lindstrom pointed out
that this zoning was left consistent with the Board's policy not to rezone property on which
there was an existing, approved site plan. Mr. Henley asked Mr. Elrod which solution he
felt would be best; have the runoff drain toward Ivy Creek or have the runoff drain toward
Route 250 West. Mr. Elrod said it would be better to have the runoff directed toward Route 250,
Mr. Lindstrom said he felt this would be preferable to regrading the entire tract and he
suggested providing some type of collection system in order to address the runoff problem.
Mr. Henley suggested placing a collection system at the back of the property. Mr. Fisher said
the Board has discouraged people from installing sewage systems in the watershed which would
require pumping because of the potential failure of pumps. However, if the Board's action
can be worded in such a way as to allow all of the properties noted in red on the map to use
the amount of land which can be drained by gravity away from the Rivanna watershed, this will
solve the problems. Mr. Henley said he did not prefer pumping from the back of Mr. Javor's
property, but he felt there may be room for a sediment basin in the area if the runoff cannot
be directed toward Route 250 West. Mr. Fisher said he recalls that the back portion of the
property at the railroad track presents a problem as it is very steep and he feels it would
be difficult to place any facility in that location. Mrs. Cooke asked what methods are
available for handling the runoff at the back portion of this property. Mr. Elrod said the
original site plan called for placement of a detention basin at the back of this property,
adding that there is room to place such a basin. He stated, however, that this type of basin
would only remove a small percentage of phosphorous.
Mr. Bowie said sewage disposal is one problem and runoff control is a different problem. 0
Mr. Bowie said that because of the unique location of Mr. Javor's property and the fact that
it is zoned Light Industrial, he would rather support the request and allow the property to
be connected by gravity flow to the sewer. Mr. Bowie said he would prefer that the runoff
problems be addressed during the site development process since he feels this would be
preferable to establishing a precedent of allowing lots to be graded so the runoff flows in
the appropriate direction. Mr. Henley said he does not feel phosphorus can be that much of
4 a problem as long as the soil does not wash away. Mr. Elrod said that the phosphorus which I
falls with the rain will run off the parking area and roof. Mr. Fisher noted that the site
plan filed for approval covers almost the entire amount of acreage owned by Mr. Javor. Mr.
Henley said there may not be enough room to locate such a facility.
' Mr. Lindstrom agreed that the runoff problem can be addressed during the site plan review
process. He feels this is a special situation which the Board itself has created. Mr.
I Lindstrom said he did not support, in 1980, the concept of leaving zoning on properties Just
because there were approved site plans at that time, but the other Board members did not agree.
He would like to accommodate the needs of the developer in a way that will not create problems
in the future in terms of a precedent. Mr. Lindstrom said he is inclined to feel that Mr.
Bowie is right and he wishes to approve the request as presented by Mr. Peatross, leaving it
to the Planning Commission to address the issue of runoff at site plan review stage. He does
not like the idea of regrading the property. Mr. Lindstrom said this concept makes him uneasy
and he is also concerned about the adequacy of the Runoff Control Ordinance in dealing with _
- ____" this site, but he does view this request as an unusual situation. - -
IP
Mr. Fisher sug
gested adopting a motion to include lots 23(C), 23(B) and 23(B)1 for those
' portions of the lots which can be served with gravity fed sewer service, but not to encourage
situations where a pumping station would have to be built. Mr. Lindstrom asked if such a
motion would cover Mr. Javor's situation. Mr. Lindstrom asked what the words "those portions
of the lots" means. Does it mean after the building is built, or absent any improvements,
• they can get gravity sewer? Mr. favor cannot get gravity sewer service until after the
building is built according to his surveyor. Mr. Fisher asked if this wording sounds like a
reasonable way to deal with the request. Mr. St. John said it sounds reasonable to him and
as long as the sewer Mr. Javor installs in the building will flow toward Route 250 West by
gravity, the Board would have little interest in whether this is on the ground floor or the
second floor. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there would ever be a problem by the Board saying "lot"
and not "building"? Also, if mr. Javor has to build the building at an elevation where he
can get gravity sewer service, is he complying with the amendment? Mr. St. John said the
Planning Commission may wonder and maybe It should be clarified that the Board is not requiring
that the surface of the lot flow by gravity to Route 250, but that whatever sewer is installed
will flow toward Route 250 West. Mr. St. John said there is also a semantic problem which
needs clarification. "Pumping station" as used by the County means a sewer pump and a force
main which are dedicated to the Albemarle County Service Authority. There are properties
which use a private sewer lift which is not a public pumping station. As Mr. St. John under- 1
stands the Board's desire, not only is a public sewer pumping station undesirable, but the
Board does not want the buildings constructed on these lots to use a private sewer lift either. )
Mr. Fisher said that is correct, the flow must be by gravity.
At this time, motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to amend the
Albemarle County Service Authority project areas map to include those portions of the propertied
on Tax Map 59, parcels 23C, 23B and 23(B)1 for sewer service, as long as the sewer connection
is totally gravity fed. Mr. Fisher asked if it is the intent of the motion that septic systems
will hereby be excluded on these lots. Mr. Bowie said that is an entirely different subject
which the Board has not even discussed. Mr. Lindstrom stated for the record that it is the
Board's intent that this connection not be accomplished by grading the lot. In addition,
Mr. Lindstrom said it is the Board's understanding that Mr. Javor may not be able to obtain
gravity feed from the ground's surface, but when constructed, the building will have gravity
feed. Mr. Bowie said this is understood, but he does not want to preclude a little grading
during site development to force the water toward the appropriate direction. Mr. Bowie said
he prefers to approve the sewer as long as it is gravity fed and leave the runoff issue for
the site plan process. Mr. Henley felt it should be stated that this is a unique situation
considering the past history of this property and there are properties on each side which
are already developed. Mr. Henley feels this may help with properties in similar situations
as referred to by Mr. Elrod earlier. Roll was then called on the foregoing motion and same
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Not Docketed. Mr. Agnor then introduced five students from the senior class of Albemarle
High School who are participating in 4-H Youth In Government Day sponsored by the VPI-SU
Extension Service: April Burns (Charlottesville District), Lisa James (Scottsville District),
Whitney Perkins (Rivanna District), Jan Beasley (Charlottesville District), and Jim Bovine
(White Hall District). Mr. Fisher welcomed the students and asked them to join the Board
for lunch.
Agenda Item No. 8. Report - Littering. Mr. Agnor introduced Mr. Chuck Lebo, a director
of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Clean Community Commission, and Mr. Chick Thompson, President
of its Board of Directors. Mr. Agnor said this item was placed on the agenda due to recent
discussions with the Resident Highway Engineer about littering along the highways, and also
due to a letter from Col. Thomas Foote addressed to Mr. Henley suggesting several methods of
dealing with the problem.
Mr. Lebo said the CAC3 began about six years ago under the auspices of the state-wide
group called the Virginia Division of Litter Control from which his organization receives
direction and grant funds each year. CAC3 is also a member of the clean community system, a
program established by the "Keep America Beautiful" group. This is a City/County group with
a positive approach to the litter problem focusing on education. CAC3 has developed slide
shows and given talks to various schools, sponsored essay programs, and poster contests to
name a few. Mr. Lebo stated that the greatest accomplishment of CAC3 thus far has been the
Recycling Center located at the northern end of the County Office Building parking lot. CAC3 1
has saved the county landfill from receiving thousands of tons of debris which have gone to
the Recycling Center instead. This has saved the community and the State of Virginia many
dollars worth of natural resources.
•
Mr. Chick Thompson, President of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Clean Community Commission,
discussed the specific objectives of CAC3 for 1984 as follows:
PRIMARY OBJECTIVES
1. To create, enact and evaluate an educational program for people who
litter from moving vehicles.
•
2. To establish student participation in our clean community through a
motivational school program of projects and awards.
3. To recognize two days, one in spring and one in fall, as community
clean-up days.
4. To obtain regional media exposure about the previously mentioned
educational and clean-up efforts.
5. To acquire office space and part-time secretarial help.
6. To help Workshop Five with the expansion of the Recycling/Collection
Center.
i
f