HomeMy WebLinkAboutACSA198700001 Other 2006-03-07 D\ -`�C I FILE
d '� Y OF ALB UNDER
�' vN� �Mq pi
�t A? 017
f
117 Y
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
F R BOWIE
PATRICIA H coo OFFICE OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
GERALD E FISHER 401 MCINTIRE ROAD LETTIE E NEHER
J T HENLEY, JR
G. TIMOTHY LINDSTROM CHARLOTTESVILLE VIRGINIA 2 290 1-4 596 CLERK
PETER T WAY LINDA W LEAKE
DEPUTY CLERK
IMEMORANL)UM
TO: James A. Donnelly, Director of Planning
and Community Development
FROM: Lettie E. Neher, Clerk
//t
DATE : July 9 , 1984
RE: Action Letter dated May 11 , 1984 re : Board Actions
of May 9, -1984
Please take note that the action taken by the Board of
Supervisors at its May 9 meeting relative to the requests by J . W.
Sieg and Company, Kirtley Distributing Company , Kirtley Realty
Company and Henry Javor, to amend the Albemarle County Service
Authority project areas map to include certain portions of property
on Route 250 West for sewer service, is incomplete . The actual
wording should be : -
APPROVED inclusion of the portions of the properties on
Tax Map 59 , Parcels 23C, 23B, 23(B)1 and 23F for sewer
service , which can be totally gravity fed. (Please note
area shown in red on attached map. )
� � t,
J
wtAt
I vv ('rry U
LEA : agg
cc : Stuart Richard
Jan i_-•rinkle
Maynard Elrod
Bill Brent �Kirtley WALLY KIRTLEY
REALTY COMPANY LLC PRINCIPAL BROKER
P.O.Box 5347 Charlottesville,VA 22905
Office:434-984.832E • Cell:434-981-0293 • Fax:434-984-8329 II
wkirtley@mindspring.com
co"� 4.,0F A�B�� •<
'1t`• „ Pl
y,RciNi
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
F R. BOWIE
PATRICIA H COOKE OFFICE OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
GERALD E FISHER 401 MCINTIRE ROAD LETTIE E NEHER
CLERK
J. T. HENLEY, JR. CHARLOTTESVILLE VIRGINIA 2290 1-45 96
C. TIMOTHY LINDSTROM LINDA W LEAKE
PETER T WAY DEPUTY CLERK
MEMORANDUM
TO: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. , Director of Planning and
Community Development
i
FROM: Lettie E. Neher, Clerk
DATE: May 11, 1984
RE : Board Actions - May 9 , 1984
The Board of Supervisors , at its meeting of May 9 , 1984
took the following action:
1) Amend Albemarle County Service Authority project areas map to
include certain portions of property on Route 250 West for
sewer service; property belonging to J . W. Sieg and Company,
Kirtley Distributing Company, Kirtley Realty Company and
Henry Javor.
APPROVED inclusion of the portions of the properties on
Tax Map 59, Parcels 23C, 23B, and 23(B)1 for sewer service ,
which can be totally gravity fed. (Please note attached map ) .
The official copy of this map which is kept in this office , .
needs to be brought up to date . tuyvv,,o I,A,-- V"-
LEN:agg
Attac ent
cc : Stuart Richard
Jan Sprinkle
Maynard Elrod
Bill Brent
ALBEvARLE COUNTY SERVI 'E AUTHORITY
PO Box 1009 401 McINTIRE RD. CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 (804) 296-5810
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
- FE5 - 81984 in.)
BOARD OF SUPERVrsORS
February 7 , 1984
W. J. Kirtley , Jr.
Kirtley Distributing Co . , Inc.
Route 3 , Box 8L
Charlottesville , Virginia 22903
Dear Mr. Kirtley:
You have inquired as to how you can connect
to the Crozet interceptor sewer line being installed
by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority . In order
to connect to this sewer line , it will first be
necessary for you to petition the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors to amend the jurisdictional
boundary of the Albemarle County Service Authority to
include your property for sewer service . The Board
of Supervisors establishes specific service areas
in which the Service Authority may provide both water
and sewer and other areas where only water can be
provided. Your property is located in a "water only"
service area.
If you have any questions or if I can be of
further assistance please let me know.
truly urs ,
J W. Brent
Verxecutive Director
JWB\kgs
cc: Lettie Neher, Clerk , Bd. of Supervisors
Robert Tucker, Deputy County Executive
...7 ;/
..
=�-�-}
.1'
/r /c/i// ..-.c-3- f /11. /
i. , if
- .,--... \
0011115111irbiabffaird it).
� �/ 7 ;ij ; ;! 1
h
sap
1111111-111iik,..
, 4:.--•1
0 ..,. 10
.114413/4114117
' .. , y.._ 3 0 /
.,,. .A . ,,.,,-4' r. .
.01
N's:'''''''''''''''.N..,......,
emu.
hip 3,. lr
!FT1HUSS,. �_'�r
i t-: ENRY�k
• • 2 WOODY LE ��� �A`JoR �'
23 G
►�
i 38 2 p 2 3 - '- '' .
--� -� •; f - GAR ,.. - ti �1 • I',
o • w
IIM }, ,
4111111610- 4 = - . Vs CT I ` OH FORCE M hl L.
iiil . : V.,1,-- . •
r ..� _ 0.0"/ -
ice_
11rr,,^ r t-C its/ r\r,A�N \ i # �,�
•
1\\4%\b) -I ---1. _ i. f# w are
6J,,y O
' -�\
r 0 Mi41.�.7rS.Y��• �• .v.' \/
�.
' 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 1963 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
,..0.1"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.
• 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 acre site in question was only partially in the Rivanna Jurisdic-
tional ity
projectsrareaso- not ARivanna Authority)ctuall the rbut le Othat yaS good cdeal e tofrthe
flow was away from the Rivanna Watershed
d
s
• 7 parallelCtozmy fiveracre eparcel rand nwith e wab gravity sflow eline nofd directly
125
feet under Route 250 West it would be possible to tie into Manhole 27 �I
as shown on the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Drawing dated
January 1983
I have owned this five acre parcel for twelve years
have
eumadesnade umerous attempts
to develop it without detriment to the community, without
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,
nce
bthat the Boad oundary mapr and fmakea public ssewer iavailable n good nfor athe five dacre site the satc jurisdictional
can the
April 11, 1984 meeting.
Sincerely yours,
Henry J. Javor"
At 10.34 A.M., the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Paul Peatross, representing Mr. Henry Javor, noted that Mr. Javor owns the property
marked as Parcel 23(B) on the map, and he referred to the letter Mr. Javor had written (set
out above) on March 29, 1984. Mr. Peatross basically repeated the history of this request
as set out in said letter. Be 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 (jurisdtional) areasgof al
of
the Albemarle County Service Authority Mr Fisher commented that approval
site plan to which Mr. Peatross refers has expired. Mr. Peatross said that is true, but the
original site plan
nchas been bytheresubmitted
ed toptheiPlan Planning
ingaCCommission for approval and has been
deferred pending
rd
d
id the
s
whichMhr.aveebeen pointed note asthosehareas displayed on the
be servedawerennotadeterminedaanshown n red
to 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
Kirtley and the Sieg properties have been graded; this is why a larger area on those properties.
is shown in the natural grade, whereas Mr. Javor's property has never been graded 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 h can cnnect to Mr
R. 0e Snow,oSurveyor,t and r�referred eto the ecomments emade sbytMr. Snow hen donh the e u rvey made by Mr.
he 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
desire
w
accessiblestoehis property. is Mr.Peatross sconcluded othat awhile the t the zportion et rofp tor is easily
in 1981, and 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
.'....-1 gravity flow without any grading of the property
Mr. Kirtley then addressed the 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.
• —' this site, but he aces-view STUB request as m„ uuuenu=
• 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.
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
proposed. This determination was necessary to know whether a septic system or public sewer
was more appropriate. Mr. Tucker said this would be the question 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
• tot where a
imilar lookingaatument could be each individualade for propertye in ce. Mr.that Tucker said this is difficult
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
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
will run into the reservoir watershed. He commented that he almost wished Mr. Javor had had
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
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 binn
r
said he
be
preferableetog having routedthe tdrainage of the Rfollow its ivanna inatural flower Mr. Peatross scommented that lthat
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 water"shed, 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.
Mr. Bowie said that because of the unique location of Mr Javor's property and the fact that
it is zoned ld
r
be Light Mrsupport the Bowie saidrheuest w uldnd preferw the property 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
a problem as long as the soil does not wash away. Mr. Elrod said that the phosphorus which
falls with the rain will run off the parking area and roof. Mr. Fisher noted that the site
plan iipaors room to entire
af acreage facility.owned by Mr. Javor. Mr.
Henley said there may not be enough
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.
Lindstrm pt
aving
becauseotheredweredid not approvedusitetplanslat0thatetime,ebutof theeother Boardg on members properties just
he didnotagree.
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. — -
• Mr Fisher suggested adopting a motion to include lots 23(C), 23(6) 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 Javor 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-
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 properties
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 Sohool 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
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.
t
Albemarle County GIS-Web March 7, 2006
ljk�• , /'(
`. OE 6 1--OE-•1O
�� 6 '.. --..V- ig, 1 r.0 •0 6OE1-- E-11 �'.
570 ft' �5tt
6OE1--OC-12 s� 60E1--OC-9..--- ' - ' CL2'.. taR31 . .- -...\,. • - • ., ;.} w. "XI le .., allig 1 s .
cV
F595 ft_-
O ft/"=` 6OE1 OC 10 •
c 6,5,
600 ft- a 6OE1--•E-` (r -2
.
_ - ..., ()D
1 Of 2. ; : k (..„.,\ ..,. q.,-
! -,.. 6p 6OE1=-0E-8
59-23G j46o
, ,
a
640 corft2rr l6Q3r .
_ __ .. .. _ 1
o
.660.ft-650;ft li 31+ P ,!'; —/�, 6OE2 1
'\ ('s -,llj _� •151t
59-23 Di �y r.`�.�. �, ,� t
�t
59-23F/ �`` '
8 �� 1 r 59-23
1.1
6> 59-23132 •
— p/Ai _....
,.
,z.'4011)110`NI: '9:8013
PO
Alhilainill
lam, j =59-23C1IN
r-a
} —IVY RD h
f
6yo'/..- / .ti '__ Amihno.........: 1404•614.‘:‘,,,, 5Sr+580 ft' ''M
59-80
.._,.�� 6 5 Et 9pr
o t� 62 tt cc,
5
�� 630 6tio5 6 Alf
•'f r` r)
r
° a_ 60p it pf
59-8OC K
� k li---
�OEy c�EE � s9-soD e
t /% 6?Sfr
630 tt 6351t
1�, A w Zri 625 it • 6A5 D ft 59_ 2_O2-OA-3
ocr
o cr 5902002 OA'` 237 F t
6'40(t 6501k 650t 59D2=O2:OA-5 A `'--tr_
- Overview Roads y 06 Ato \
❑ Road Bridges \j �I I Mil r4 5-617 819''8 11,21
— Road Centerlines -'Q rr,.• iv 1314`5116(17�3D119.20 22
— Roads .It _ JV ,24.25.26 27.28.29 31 1134 35 3 3TT
Buildings '`l 1AW ! 3381391401I41142143 44I45.46I47r�48—I49I50 s' 1
4.
Driveways 17k(1l'�\ i 1 I' I I1.YI I I 1fl I ( f`6
52 53 54 55 56 571815 60 61 62 64 65 66 67
68 69 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82
Elevation Contours(5 ft) Geographic Data Services I 1 ` 1 -
83'84 85 86 87 89 91 92 94 95
ACSA Jurisdictional Areas Room 227 ' { 1 I I I I
401 McIntire Road I9 198s1991O(101102103 04 1 05 106
No Service 10710'810910 111 114 115 116
Water OnlyCharlottesville,VA 22902 I it 1 1 1` 113 1 ri
117 119 121 , 124
Water and Sewer All data is provided for graphic representation only The 25 126t 2 Ifor0- t'-- �-�
P 9 P P Y 125 12612�126129130- 131
County of Albemarle expressly disclaims all warranties of any if I I pr I
Water Only To Existing Structures type,expressed or implied,including,but not limited to,any 132„133 135 136 137,
I'."'I 134
Limited Service warranty as to the accuracy of the data,merchantability,or 138 134
fitness for a particular purpose
Aerial Imagery 2002 Commonwealth of Virginia-Maps are for internal use only
Albemarle County GIS-Web March 7, 2006
••El.--OE-10 485
t1) 60E1--OE-11
1 60E1--OC-12 aLT.9 60E1--r --• .
60E1--OC-10 -
60E1--'8 E-• 477
60E1--OE-8
59-23G i - - ,
• 59-23B1
- �- 60E2-1
.. 59-23B �2927
�i 59-23D
59-23F/
€` 2925 ! 59-23C-
2975Mal
, 59-23B2 J/ [ '
��� 59 80B
59-23C1
IVY RD
250
59-80
59-80C
MOREY CREEK �' 59-SOD
/' Z 59D2-02-OA-3
/59D2002-OA4 237 Feet
59D2--02-OA-5 106 .104 ,
D Tax Map Grid psi OF AL,„
1 2 3 I' N`
-Overview Roads J'�_I i `4 5 6 7 sh0 t1 21
❑ Road Bridges o �! I12113 14 15.16.17 3119 20 22
— Road Centerlines A- Ar .24.25 26t.28,29 tt131 1134 33s,
- Roads '� %wasp F" 38 39 40T41 42 43 44 45i46 47r�48 49 50 s1
`IRG1N‘P 15514457.158 I 1/1 1 I I f6
52 53 54 60 61 62 64 65 66 67
1 Buildings I..40 l 72 374r75lrt-Slt6777 I ,{` I
68 69 71 72 73 74 75 76_71 78 79 80 81 82
Driveways Geographic Data Services16815z.....171172173
�*,Y� 1�1-
83 84 85 86 87 89 91 92 94 95
ACSA Jurisdictional Areas Room 227 ' h 1 I I I
L� No Service 96 981991000110210334105106
401 McIntire Road 11<_,Iil i t l i 1 1
10710810910 111 114 115 116
CWater Onl Charlottesville,VA 22902 tem t 1 1'" 113 t 4r
y 117 119 wi i 124
10...,! -,.I» 123
C Water and Sewer All data is provided for graphic representation only The 125 12612-128129130 131
Water OnlyTo ExistingStructures County of Albemarle expressly disclaims all warranties of any 132 133 135 136 137
r ltype,expressed or implied,including,but not limited to,any
L Limited Service warranty as to the accuracy of the data,merchantability,or 138 139 134
fitness for a particular purpose
Aenal Imagery 2002 Commonwealth of Virginia-Maps are for internal use only
Dr. Iachetta a if Mr. Williams was saying that thoute A line would carry the
main in its full size of twenty-four inches to the storage ank but actually only an eight
inch line is needed coming back to serve the Route 250 area. Mr. Williams said yes. Dr.
Iachetta asked if that could be built cheaper than Route B. Mr. Williams said yes.
Mr. Brent said he would like to comment on the Albemarle County Service Authority's
position. He feels that in the future there will be a water line up Route 250 to the top
of Pantops Mountain, regardless of who builds it, because there is a need for water
there. He noted that many people in the area are in need of fire protection and there is
much vacant, developable land in the area. Mr. Brent said the Albemarle County Service
Authority has not made any decisions and will not until the bids are received.
With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Fisher said in the staff report there is little information as to the planning
implications of either or both routes. The river crossings are talked about but he felt
the County has the responsibility at this point to express an opinion over the alternate
routes based on something other than the lowest price. Mr. Fisher said he did not see
anything in the staff report that says one route or the other is better in accomplishing
the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lindstrom said Virginia Code Section 15.1-456
seems to state that either the Planning Commission or the Board make a determination on
the routes. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission has done that. The Planning Commission
reviewed this request under Section 15.1-456 and made a determination that both routes
were in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tucker said that question did not
come before the Board because the Code states that the governing body has to request same
for a review from the Commission. Therefore, that is not before the Board tonight.
Mr. Fisher then asked the planning implications for one route over the other. Mr.
Tucker said the staff feels that either route is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan
because both routes are located within the growth area of the Comprehensive Plan in Neighorhoo
3. Mr. Tucker said for the need and growth potential is there now.
Mr. McCann asked if there was a water line going up to State Farm now and if so the
size of line. Mr. Brent said there is a water line that crosses the bend in the river,
comes up the back street built by Dr. Hurt on the south side of Pantops Mountain, to State
Farm, turns in the State Farm Boulevard and comes as far north on the State Farm Boulevard
as Dr. Hurt's Office Building. Mr. Brent said the line is ten inches up to State Farm and
then eight inches on State Farm Boulevard.
Dr. Iachetta asked how much of a problem this construction would create on Route 250.
Mr. Bryon Coburn, Assistant Resident Highway Engineer, was present and said on the surface
there would be little difference between the two alternatives. Mr. Coburn said a motorist
passing by will not know how far in the ground the line is for either route and the same
type of precautions would have to be taken for either. Mr. Coburn said he has walked the
line but has not reviewed the detailed plans. As far as he could tell either plan would
be out of the existing roadway surface and in the grassy surfaces and the entrances to
businesses will have to be protected the same in either route.
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. McCann, to accept the Planning
Commission's recommendation of approval with the four conditions for SP-81-42. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 5. Henry Javor Site Plan Appeal (Deferred from September 9, 1981) .
This item was deferred from the September 9, 1981 meeting in order that certain
information as follows could be provided. One to examine amending a list of items checked
before issuing a business license to include the State Health Department. The second and
third concerns were to examine whether the well water supply would have an operating meter
and the limitation of water usage on the site to be 2,560 gallons per day. The fourth
request for information was for the legal staff to review the site plan for conformance
with requirements in the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Tucker said the following correspondence dated September 14, 1981, was received
from Mr. Jeffrey T. McDaniel, Sanitarian of the Health Department, regarding the second
and third concerns:
"Concerning the two proposals we discussed to limit water usage on the
Javor property, I do not see how metering the system or limiting the
usage to 2,000 gallons per day will solve the problem. A meter
requires frequent monitoring and does not guarantee that the limits
will not be exceeded. On the other hand, if usage is limited to
2,560 gallons per day, this could be unfair since some water could
be used outside the septic system. This too, would require monitoring
and I frankly don't see how that would be feasible.
The septic system is designed to handle 2,560 gallons per day or 80
gallons per unit per day. At no time did I imply that this should be
considered a maximum for light industrial usage. If the proposed use
in any of these buildings exceeds this estimate, there may be problems
with the septic system.
My department would be glad to confirm estimates of water usage for
proposed uses in each of the pew units, but after the original business
leaves, our office is normally not notified of the change. This too could
cause problems since the new user could use substantially more (or less)
water than the previous tenant.
n Q
390
September 16, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
This brings us back to the original problem, how to guarantee that the
septic system will not be overused. I do not see any simple solution to your
concern of excessive water usage except public sewer."
Mr. Tucker said the staff was concerned about who would be responsible for monitoring
the meter and enforcing the limitation that might be on the water usage. He assumed that
in the case of a site plan that responsibility would be for the Zoning staff which is
unusual because the meter would have to be monitored frequently and adequate records kept.
Mr. Agnor then commented on the amendment of the business license check list to
include the health department. He had discussed this with Mr. Robert Vaughn, Director of
Inspections, and Mr. Tucker. The result of their discussion was to add a question to the
application for the business license tax as follows: "Is this property served by public
sewer?" Mr. Agnor said if the property is not served by public sewer then the application
will be forwarded to the Health Department for their review of the septic tank permit and
a determination of whether a change in use would overload the system.
Mr. St. John then noted memorandum dated September 16, 1981, from Mr. Frederick W.
Payne, Deputy County Attorney, in response to several questions asked by the Board on
September 9, 1981. The Board asked whether this site plan as presented complied with the
Zoning Ordinance or could the site plan be made to comply by the imposition of lawful
conditions. Mr. St. John said the Zoning Ordinance requires 60,000 square feet for each
business establishment. However, the term "establishment" is not defined in the Zoning
Ordinance and Mr. Payne's opinion is that it is possible each of the thirty-two compartments
in the three 'buildings could be occupied by a different proprietorship. This, however,
requires thirty-two times 60,000 square feet in order to comply with the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. St. John said another point is that the Zoning Ordinance requires that a site plan
specify the proposed general use for each structure. This request has been to simply say
that the proposed uses will be those allowed in the light industrial zone and such in the
opinion of Mr. Payne is not sufficient specification of the general use. The third point
is the Zoning Ordinance requires that there be certain specific data as to the industrial
occupants and what effect they will have on the environment and other such related items.
Mr. Payne said this point cannot be complied with until the requirement for setting out
the general uses in the buildings has been complied with. Therefore, Mr. St. John said
Mr. Payne is of the opinion that this site plan does not comply with the Zoning Ordinance
and could not lawfully be approved.
Mr. Fisher then noted the reference in Mr. Payne's letter to a certified engineer's
report being required as a part of the final site development plan approval. He asked if
this is the applicant's engineer and if this has been done. Mr. Tucker said the certified
engineer has to be the applicant's and the report has not been done. Mr. Tucker also
noted that this condition would have to be complied with before any building permit could
be issued. Mr. Fisher then asked if such would be done on a unit by unit basis or on the
whole site plan. Mr. Tucker felt the requirement would be done unit by unit because as
indicated in the letter from Mr. Payne the applicant is not able to specify the specific
use for each unit. Mr. St. John said it would be on a unit by unit basis and would be
done at the time of the building permit for each of the three building permits or phases.
Mr. Fisher said since the meeting last week he has reviewed the various reports and
the manner in which this site plan has been handled and is of the opinion that the staff
and Planning Commission as well as this Board and others have bent over backwards to avoid
what is an obvious solution. That solution is that in order for the property to be developed
there needs to be public water and public sewage disposal. The requirement is in the
opening statement of the light industrial zone. He then asked if there was any information
available on the cost of the two utilities.
Dr. Iachetta said before that question is answered he would like to have a response
on whether this application is moot since Mr. Payne stated that Section 4.1.3 of the
Zoning Ordinance prohibits the construction of more than three industrial establishments
on such property without public water and sewer. Mr. St. John said he does not agree with
all three points addressed by Mr. Payne. He did agree with Mr. Payne on points 2 and 3
but did not agree on the first point about each business establishment having to have
60,000 square feet. Mr. St. John said the buildings could be owned by one entity and have
thirty-two compartments doing the work and put such on 60,000 square feet provided the
Health Department approved such. In conclusion, Mr. St. John felt such would be legal if
the building is owned by one entity.
Mr. Lindstrom felt the Health Department, Planning staff and Legal staff should get
together and decide what the .word "establishment" means. Mr. St. John said a new word could b=
put in the ordinance or this word defined. He felt it was very poor draftmanship on his
part to have the word "establishment" in the ordinance without a definition. However, Mr.
Payne said the Board did such on purpose. Dr. Iachetta said the applicant has gone through
an expensive procedure to bring in a site plan and ask the staff to evaluate same. Mr.
St. John said the only guideline he can give is that any ambiguity in a Zoning Ordinance
is to be resolved in the favor of the applicant and not the government. Dr. Iachetta said
that seems to be saying that the site is developable if there is some way to limit the
amount of water that the septic drainfield would have to handle. Mr. St. John said whatever
the health department feels is safe. Mr. St. John said he would not recommend the Board
go along with point 1 of Mr. Payne's letter and did not feel the applicant has met points
2 and 3.
Mr. Fisher expressed his concern about the uncertainities of what the uses will be
and felt the statement of the Health Department was one of the strongest statements he had
ever heard from them. Mr. Henley said the statement of the Health Department does not say
that all of the units will be excessive water users and he did not understand why a person
could not build something such as this without stating the exact use.
, Mr. Fisher sai aid one of the responsibilities of the Board is to decide whether
public water and sewer is reasonably available to the property. Mr. Tucker said Mr. J. W.
Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, was present and could
comment. Mr. Brent said at the request of the planning staff, the Service Authority
examined the possible extension of water and sewer to this site and the cost of same.
The extension of water as far as its location is fairly simple because it can be extended
from the existing pumping station on Route 250 across from the Boar's Head Inn westward
for approximately 1450 feet. The cost of an eight-inch water line extension for such
distance is approximately $42,770. The sewer line area is a little bit longer. Mr. Brent
said the route that the sewer line would have to follow to serve the development is the
alternate route of the Crozet Interceptor. Based on prices that Mr. Brent had seen lately,
the extension of the sewer line would cost approximately $64,746. Therefore, Mr. Brent
said the cost of the water line exclusive of availability and connection fees is $43,000
and then for sewer extension exclusive of availability and connection fees is between
$64,000 and $65,000. Mr. Lindstrom asked the size of the line for the Crozet Interceptor.
Mr. Brent said it is intended to be a fifteen-inch pipe. Mr. Lindstrom said if there is
an interceptor in the future, then this path will be duplicated and the eight-inch line
will either be disconnected or left on the ground. Mr. Brent said that was correct. Mr.
Fisher said if this were a water line extension then the Service Authority would pay the
difference between the size the developer needed and the size for future development. Mr.
Fisher then asked the policy on sewer lines. Mr. Brent said there is no policy at the
present time. Mr. Fisher asked if this would become an interceptor under the authority of
the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Mr. Agnor said it could be dedicated for ultimate
use as the interceptor. A brief discussion then followed on the cost of an eight-inch
water line and a fifteen-inch line for the interceptor. Mr. Lindstrom noted that he did
not realize the difference in the kinds of pipe would make that much of a difference in
price.
Mr. Fisher then asked what the total value of the proposed development. Mr. Henry
Javor, the applicant, was present and said approximately one million to one and one-half
million dollars. Mr. Fisher said if water and sewer were provided, the entire cost would
be a little over a hundred thousand dollars and would eliminate on-site development of
septic tanks, drainfields and relieve a lot of headaches for future occupants. Mr. Lindstrom
said according to the information given by Mr. Brent, it would make more sense to require
that the Service Authority build the fifteen-inch line and be reimbursed by the owner.
This would save the owner a small amount of money but would get a fifteen-inch line instead
of having to replace the eight-inch line at some future date. Mr. McCann said that line
would belong to the Rivanna Authority and he was not sure they would be willing to pay
one-half the costs.
Mr. Paul Peatross, attorney representing Mr. Javor, was present. He said the intent
of the LI District is as follows: "It is intended that the LI District may be established
in areas having all of the following characteristics: Areas served by water and sewer
facilities or if such facilities are reasonably available." Mr. Peatross said it is clear
that this property is zoned LI and is zoned such because the adjacent properties on either
side are zoned LI. Mr. Peatross said according to the ordinance, water and sewer facilities
are to either be available or reasonably available. Since water and sewer are not available
to the site, and in order for the request to be approved by the Board, Mr. Javor would
have to expend $110,000, does not make the facilities reasonably available. Mr. Peatross
then noted correspondence dated July 14 and August 17, 1981 from Mr. Ira B. Cortez, County
Fire Official. In the first letter, Mr. Cortez stated that he wanted public water for
fire protection, but in the August 17, 1981 correspondence, Mr. Cortez amended that statement
to say that public water is not reasonably available and the alarm system proposed by Mr.
Javor is an acceptable alternative. Mr. Peatross said for the above reasons, he did not
feel it fair for the Board to require Mr. Javor to have public water at this time. Mr.
Peatross said the report at the September 9 meeting was that public sewer would not be
available until 1986 unless the applicant is required to construct the line. Therefore,
he felt that requiring public sewage disposal is unfair. Mr. Peatross said another area
of concern is the opinion of the Deputy County Attorney in that Mr. Javor has not stated
the specific use of each unit in the buildings so that not in compliance with Section
32.4.30 of the Zoning Ordinance. He disagreed with Mr. Payne's interpretation of that
section. Mr. Peatross said Mr. Javor has complied with the section in saying that the
general uses in the structure will be those uses permitted by right in the LI district.
Mr. Peatross said the applicant has stated truthfully that he cannot state at this time
what each individual use is but that he does intend to rent the units. Mr. Peatross said
another point of disagreement with the Deputy County Attorney is the third point pertaining
to the applicant not complying with Section 26.7 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Peatross
said Section 26.7 states "Each future occupant" (not the applicant) "of an industrial
character shall comply with standards set forth in Section 4.14 and submit to the County
Engineer as a part of final site development plan approval, . . . ." Mr. Peatross said he
did not know how future occupants can tell the County Engineer what the use is as part of
the final site plan approval when the future occupants are unknown. Therefore, he disagreed
with such being imposed as a condition. Mr. Javor is agreeable to the performance standards
as long as he has an occupant. However, Mr. Peatross did not feel it is reasonable to
require such at the building permit issuance stage. Mr. Peatross said it would be better
to place the requirement at time of issuance of the certificate of occupancy since the
tenant may be known at that time. In conclusion, Mr. Peatross said he has a real concern
about requiring off-site public water and sewer extension. As stated by Mr. Javor at the
September 9 meeting, if the septic field is limited to 2,560 gallons it would be an economic
suicide to overload that system for the occupants of the building. Mr. Javor has proposed
to have a system to handle such capacity and an alternate system which is a back up required
by law. He is willing to put a valve in for emergencies. Mr. Peatross said for Mr. Javor
........y not to monitor the system and to overload the system and not to use good business practices
would be suicide. Mr. Javor has demonstrated his good business practices by the trust the
Board placed in him for the Woodbrook Shopping Center. At Woodbrook Shopping Center,
there a lift station and a pump station which Mr. Javor has monitored every day and there
has not been a problem in six years. Mr. Peatross said the applicant is willing to monitor
this system and it would be troublesome to try to meet the requirements of having public
water and sewer. Mr•. Peatross felt the rule of reason should be applied in this case in
allowing the applicant to be given some benefit of the doubt.
' 0
0
... September 16, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
I
Mr. Fisher said this property can be sold and resold and the question is not the
present owner, but of future owners in the shopping center and further downstream. A
brief discussion followed between Mr. Fisher and Mr. Peatross on private septic tanks and
the possibility of the tanks overflowing. Mr. Fisher said the Health Department has
stated that they cannot monitor the amount of water going into the system nor do they feel
it is feasible to control what goes into the septic tanks. Mr. Fisher said if points two
and three of the Deputy County Attorney's opinion can be complied with, then it appears
that with the zoning and location this site plan should be approved only with public water
and sewer. Mr. Fisher said he could not see making an exception for a brand new project
of this magnitude on bare land. Mr. St. John felt points two and three could lawfully be I
dealt with by the conditions placed on approval. Mr. St. John said it is within the
Board's discretion to go along with the analysis of Mr. Peatross to make these items
conditions of the occupancy permit rather than a building permit. It is not unlawful to
do as suggested in Mr. Payne's letter either but Mr. St. John said he strongly disagreed
with Mr. Payne on that point.
Mr. Fisher felt public water and sewer are reasonably available for this project and
should be required. The decision of what is reasonably available rests with this Board
and it appears that the costs of doing both of the utilities is about seven percent of
the total cost of the project as estimated by the developer. However, that is not the net
cost because there would be a reduction in costs for the on-site work proposed under the
site plan. Mr. Fisher did not know of any way to estimate what those costs would be, but
he felt they might be one, two or three percent of the total costs.
Mr. McCann said he agreed with Mr. Fisher on the percentage of the costs for the
utilities versus the total costs of the project. However, the problem he has is that the
seven percent is front-end money for the developer and there is a possibility that only
one unit might be built within the next five years and that is a difference when looking
at dollars. Mr. McCann felt the Health Department is charged with monitoring septic
systems and approval of such. Once the Health Department is added to the business license
check list, the Health Department will be alerted when uses change and a license will not
be issued if the use is more intense for the water and sewer and possible overloading of a
system. Therefore, Mr. McCann said he was willing to leave those decisions with the
enforcing agencies. He felt Mr. Javor has a legal site plan and is aware of possible
problems. Mr. Fisher said Mr. McCann had misunderstood his point which was that the site
plan should be approved with the conditions to satisfy the problems cited by Mr. Payne as
points two and three and that the site should be required to have public water and sewer.
Mr. McCann said he did not agree with the requirement for public water and sewer and noted
that he did not agree with the statement of Mr. Fisher that this was a small percentage of
costs because the costs are front-end monies. Mr. Fisher disagreed.
Dr. Iachetta said the real problem is not bringing water to the site, but rather
disposal of same. Dr. Iachetta said he would not feel as apprehensive as he does, but the
site is in the watershed, and the important item is the sewage disposal, not the supply.
The supply is self-limiting and there cannot be any more water than what he can get out of
the ground. He felt the question is one of how to control what is put in a fixed size
drainfield. Dr. Iachetta said that was the problem and he noted past situations with
developments not having the amount of water initially thought to be available.
Mr. McCann said the site plan is legal and he would support same. However, he was
unsure of how to list the conditions. Mr. McCann said if the applicant has a problem then
he will be responsible for such and if the County cannot rely on the Health Department
perhaps the Board should go to Richmond for assistance.
Mr. Peatross then requested the opportunity to submit another item for his client.
The applicant has a permit issued by the Health Department dated September 14, 1981,
for approval of twenty-four units on a septic system. Mr. Fisher said since the Health
Department does not know what the use in the units is to be, it only confirms his suspicion
about the Health Department being able to control this matter. Mr. Fisher said when this
appeal was heard last Wednesday, Mr. McDaniel from the Health Department was present and
now there is suddenly a permit approved on September 14, and a letter from Mr. McDaniel
dated September 14th which states that he did not see any simple solution to the concern
of excessive water usage except public sewer.
Mr. Henley said he was not going to support requiring public water and sewer for
this site. He felt the applicant can use the property to the extent that the Health
Department approves the uses. He also felt that the County should have a check list on
when the uses change and to notify the Health Department when a business license is obtained.
Mr. Henley said if the applicant cannot put twenty-four units on the line then he will
just have to do with whatever is allowed.
Mr. Lindstrom said he feels the question is what is "reasonably available". He also
would have no problem with conditioning the application. Mr. Lindstrom said he was
unsure how future occupants would be put on notice except through the business license
process. He said the matter of determining whether the specification of use is for each
unit or for the entire building is still a question in his mind. He felt the performance
standard problem had been addressed and did not feel the question of giving the specific
use in each unit is a critical issue. However, his one concern is the precedent this
could set. Mr. Henley did not feel the intent of the light industrial zone is to have
public water and sewer for every LI area in the County.
Mr. McCann then offered motion to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation
with two conditions added: "The health department to be added to the checklist for business
licenses to insure that the Health Department will be aware of any change in use." and
"Any engineer's report in regard to the uses of the different occupants, will be delayed
until the time of occupancy of the building." Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. McCann meant
that no occupancy permit would be issued until the certificate had been reviewed by the
County Engineer. Mr. McCann said not until the engineer's report is necessary.
i
Mr. Fisher then recognized Mr. Javor who said the permit issued by the Health Department
was issued because it could not be denied. Mr. Javor then presented a photograph of
Woodbrook Shopping Center and pointed out the pumping station and other aspects of the
system there. He also noted percolation tests by E. 0. Gooch and Associates which found
that this property has the best soils for drainage.
• September 16, 1981 )gular Night Meeting)
i 1
Mr. Henley then seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher noted that the condition that the
Health Department be added to the check list for. businesslicense approval is for the staff
and not the applicant, therefore is not a condition to be placed on the site plan. Miss
Nash asked if the motion limited the water to eighty gallons per day. Mr. Fisher said as
the motion, stands there is no requirement for a meter or that there be any inspection of
the meter or monitoring of water usage. Mr. McCann said the Health Department is not
going to monitor and he did not see any way that the County could. Miss Nash said her
• concern is that there will be a larger use than eighty gallons per day per unit. Mr.
McCann did not feel there could be a guarantee that any individual unit will use more one day
or less another. Mr. McCann said he was willing to add that a meter be installed if the
Board was so concerned and asked if Mr. Henley was agreeable to such a condition. Mr.
1 , Henley said the applicant has stated that he is going to add a meter. Miss Nash also
requested that the condition be not more than eighty gallons per day per unit. Mr. McCann
then amended his motion to add a condition stating that the applicant shall monitor to comply
with limitations of the drainfield. Mr. Henley said he would accept that amendment. Mr. Agnc
then asked if the requirement is that the meter be monitored or to install the meter to
look at if necessary. Mr. McCann said Mr. Javor will monitor the meter himself. Mr.
Fisher then suggested the condition be that the water meters be installed to permit monitoring
of water usage. Mr. McCann accepted. Mr. Fisher said there was no way to enforce the
_- 1--- - eighty gallons per day per unit suggested by Miss Nash.
I
Mr. Lindstrom did not support the motion because "reasonably available" is something
that is subject to several interpretations. One criteria is the proximity of facilities
to the site. Mr. Lindstrom did not feel the applicant will get adequate use of the site
t t with such a condition, the site is in the watershed and close to residential areas. Given
9 all of those reasons, Mr. Lindstrom felt it is reasonable for the public health, safety
and welfare and in terms of magnitude of this project, to require public sewer. Since that iE
I not the motion, he could not support the motion.
Roll was then called on the motion and same failed by the following recorded vote:
f
AYES: Messrs. Henley and McCann.
NAYS: Messrs, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
Mr. Fisher said the motion failed and asked if there was another motion. Mr. Peatross
said the statute requires that the Board inform the applicant how to comply in the event
that the Board is requiring public water and sewerage. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to
approve the site plan with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, but adding
1(o) reading: oPublic sewerage to be available for all units."
Mr. McCann said he would not have any problem supporting such a motion if there was
some mechanism to refund the front-end money for the initial investment, not just require the
f line and give it to the Service Authority. Miss Nash then asked if the motion included
1 the other conditions. Mr. Fisher said yes. Mr. Fisher then noted that the motion is to
i F
a Li approve the site plan with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission but adding
the following:
1(o) Public sewerage to be available for all units.
2(c) Each individual unit to meet all the conditions of the Zoning Ordinance.
Miss Nash then seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher said that condition 2(c) will take care
of the certified engineers report. Roll was then called on the motion and same carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
i NAYS: Messrs. Henley and McCann (prefaced his vote by stating that he was not voting
}
against the site plan but against the requirement of utilities).
ie
i
Agenda,Item No. 3. SP-81-37. Boddie-Noell Enterprises, Inc. Petition to locate a
1 Hardee's Restaurant on the south side of Route 250 East, approximately 400 feet west of
the intersection of Routes 20 and 250 East. Property consists of 1.10 acres zoned C-1.
County Tax Map 78, Parcel 17G. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
September 2 and September 9, 1981.)
Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report:
i r I "Request: Fast food restaurant (22.2.2.4)
1 U Acreage: 1.10 acres of a 6.787 acre tract
t Zoning: C-1 Commercial
1 Location: Property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 17G (part), is located on the
south side of Route 250 East about 350 feet east of Free Bridge.
Character of the Area: A gasoline service station is adjacent to the west and
a bank is about 400 feet east of this site. Commercial uses are also located
across Route 250 East. All adjoining properties are zoned C-1 Commercial.
U
Public water is available at First Virginia Bank and sewer will be available
upon completion of the AWT plant.
Staff Comment: Staff opinion is that the proposed fast food restaurant would not
be incompatible to existing uses and zoning in the area. Of concern, however,
iS access to the site from Route 250 East. A commercial entrance has been
installed under a Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation permit along
the western edge of the property. A condition of the permit was that this
entrance would be the sole means of access for the entire 6.787 acre tract to
Route 250 East. The site plan submitted by the applicant shows direct access to
Route 250 East, which is contrary to prior Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation approval. Given the history of this issue as outlined in
the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation letter of August 26, 1981,
staff would recommend that this issue be addressed at this time.
(17i (-)
c e
394 1U
September 16, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
1. Direct access to Route 250 East was not permitted for the bank at the
intersection of River Bend Drive;
2. Staff would expect corner lots at intersections of Route 250 East and
new roads serving the Pantops area to continue to develop in traffic
intensive usessuch as banks, restaurants, and service stations;
3. Access to traffic intensive uses at intersections should be carefully
controlled in order to maintain intersection integrity and function and
to avoid turning-movement conflicts, side friction, and other such
undesirable and/or unsafe aspects.
Staff recommends approval subject to:
1. Access shall be in accordance with Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportationfs letter of August 24, 1981. No direct access to Route
250 East shall be permitted."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on September 8, 1981, uanimously
recommended approval subject to the staff condition. The following letter of August 24,
1981 from the Highway Department was then noted for the record:
"SP-81-37. Boddie-Noell Enterprises, Inc. Route 250 East. This special permit
involves a Hardees Restaurant to be located along the eastbound lane of 250
just east of the Charlottesville City limits. A commercial entrance-street
instersection has recently been constructed along the eastern edge of the property
in question. It is our recommendation that the property designated for Hardees
Restaurant have access only through this new commercial entrance. Preliminary
plans developed by Hardees indicate entrances directly to 250. This office
opposes this idea."
Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. Coburn for further remarks. Mr. Coburn stated the history
of the commercial entrance street intersection recently constructed on property owned by
Virginia Land Company. Mr. Coburn said this will create an additional lot between this
site
andRoute250 and that said
te and theitFVirginia Bank'building at the corner of River Bend Drive
parcel will probably also want access to Route 250 if such is
granted for this site.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. James White, employee of Boddie-Noell Enterprises,
Incorporated, was present. Mr. Fisher asked if there was any problem with the conditions
by the Planning Commission and if the access on this side street could be worked out. Mr.
White said hopefully so with the addition of a second driveway on the side street.
With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing
was closed.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to approve SP-81-37 with the condition recommended
by the Planning Commission. Mr. McCann seconded the motion and same carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 6. Announcement--Re: Consultant for University of Virginia Incinerator.
Mr. Fisher said last week a discussion was held on the possibility of the City and
County engaging a consultant to review incineration of radioactive materials. Subsequent
to that meeting, he had had several conversations with Mr. Ralph Allen, Director of
Environmental Health and Safety at the University. A letter dated September 11, 1981,
has been received from Mr. Allen indicating that he has been assigned the responsibility
of the pathological waste incineration program at the University of Virginia. Mr. Allen
has indicated in the letter that he is employing a consultant on behalf of the University
to review the operating condition of the incinerators. The emphasis is to be on pathological
incineration, incineration of carcasses and not radioactive materials. Mr. Fisher said
the question of whether the incinerators are being operated to the best that can be for
that purpose is one of the issues raised by Dr. Montague, the consultant hired by the
City and County. Mr. Fisher said a meeting has'been scheduled for September 24, 1981,
at 10:00 A.M. in the new County Office Building on the Second Floor in order to allow the
public to question the consultant which was hired by the University of Virginia.
Agenda Item No. 7. Resolution: Change Meeting Place.
Pursuant to the Code of Virginia, Mr. Fisher requested a motion to change the regular
meeting place of the Board from the County Office Building and Albemarle County Courthouse
on Court Square to 401 McIntire Road, second Floor, County Office Building; said change to
be effective October 1, 1981. Dr. Iachetta offered to that effect. Mr. McCann seconded
the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER:
Request to amend the Albemarle County Service August 7, 1996
Authority (ACSA) Jurisdictional Area
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Consider holding a public hearing to amend the ACSA CONSENT AGENDA:
Jurisdictional Area to provide sewer service designation ACTION: INFORMATION:
for Christian Aid Mission (Tax Map 59, Parcel 23G)
ATTACHMENTS:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg, Benish REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Christian Aid Mission requests amendment of the Albemarle County Service Authority's jurisdictional area in order to
provide for sewer service to the applicant's property. This would require access to the Crozet Interceptor which crosses
the applicant's property The applicant feels that they are statutorily entitled to connect to sewer, and the Health
Department has suggested that the applicant connect to sewer to accommodate future growth.
(see Attachment A)
DISCUSSION:
The applicant's property is located outside of the designated Development Area off of Rt. 250 West in Rural Area 3, and
is zoned Commercial Office. The applicant's property is currently located in the Albemarle County Service Authority
service area for water only, and the property lies within the South Fork Rivanna Watershed
(see Attachments B & C)
Regarding provision of public utilities, the Comprehensive Plan is intentionally specific in objective and strategies as to
where and under what circumstances public utilities should be made available. The Comprehensive Plan states:
"Strategies for Defining Public Water and Sewer Service Areas.
• Follow the Boundaries of the designated Development Areas in delineating jurisdictional areas.
• Only allow changes in jurisdictional areas outside of designated Development Area boundaries in cases where the
property is. (1) adjacent to existing lines, and (2) public health or safety is endangered.
• Prohibit access to the Crozet Interceptor between the boundary of the Crozet Community and the Urban Area"
The Board of Supervisors considered and denied a similar request for this site on July 13, 1983 No significant change
of circumstance has occurred since that time.
The Board has considered and approved two requests for sewer service for nearby parcels along this stretch of 250 West.
However, the circumstances of those requests distinguish them from the request now under consideration The
Sieg/Kirtley/Javor request(1984)established a Board policy regarding properties in this area with pre-existing zoning that
sewer service should be provided only to portions of the properties which could be served by gravity flow and which drain
away from the South Fork Rivanna Watershed. This action added TM 59, Parcels 23C,23B,23B1, and 23F to the service
area for sewer. It was felt that the circumstances were special for these parcels, and that no significant precedent was
1
set by this approval. The second request, J. W. Sieg & Co (1987), was based on the 1984 policy decision for the
' surrounding parcels, and involved similar factors. This action added TM 59, Parcel 23D to the jurisdictional area, to be
served by gravity sewer to drain away from the South Fork Rivanna Watershed. A third request, Charlottesville Oil
Company(1994), met both criteria for changes in junsdictiona!areas outside of designated Development Area boundaries.
The site was adjacent to existing lines, and the septic system was failing, which endangered public health and safety.
This action added TM 59, Parcel 77 and 80B to the jurisdictional area for sewer service.
The Health Department is not aware of any complaints, repairs or existing problems with the septic systems on this site.
Their opinion is that there would not be enough room to expand the sewage disposal system,with required reserve areas,
if the applicant's facility is expanded or if the use of existing structures changes in the future (see Attachment D) The
section of the Crozet Interceptor crossing the applicant's property is a force main (under pressure), which the applicant
could not tie into, even if their parcel were located within the jurisdictional area. In order to reach a gravity sewer, the
applicant would need to extend a pipeline to the pumping station located to the west of the Ivy Nursery parcel (TMP 59/23)
or extend a pipeline to the east to the gravity line in the vicinity of the office buildings along Rt. 250 West.
RECOMMENDATION:
This request is not consistent with the strategies of the Comprehensive Plan for the provision of sewer service outside
of the designated Development Areas and is not consistent with prior Board decisions in this area regarding the provision
of water/sewer service. No verification of endangerment to public health and safety has been provided. Based on this
information, staff does not recommend approval of this request and, therefore, does not see a necessity for this to proceed
to public hearing.
ATTACHMENTS:
A- Applicant's Description and Justification
B- Location Map
C-Jurisdictional Areas Map
D- Letter from Virginia Department of Health, Thomas Jefferson Health District
2
10\1;)510/0- atc
_ July 13, 1983 (Regular Day P. ring)
"Several days ago I attended, along with Wayne Harbaugh from the Planning District
Commission, a presentation on the University's utilities plan which included a
discussion of plans to upgrade the University's heating plant.
At the presentation, William Middleton, Assistant Vice-President, Physical Plant,
repeated a statement he had made earlier to the Planning District Commission
about the University's interest in working with local governments to look further
into the feasibility of resource recovery in connection with the changes that need
to be made to the,heating system. Mr. Middleton expressed a regret that the
L Resource Recovery Commission, composed of members from the University, the City
and the County, had been disbanded, suggesting that such a group would be useful
at this point in working with the University's consultants.
I am writing Frank Hereford and Frank Buck as well as yourself'to request that
the Resource Recovery Commission be reestablished for such a purpose.
Although the regional solid waste plan approved by the Thomas Jefferson Planning
District Commission recommends representation from all six local governments
on such a working group, the TJPDC's executive committee has expressed support
for a City-County-University committee, recognizing that the three entities
have the largest interest in the possibility of resource recovery in connection
with the University's heating and energy needs. The executive committee asks
only that the possibility of future resource recovery of waste from the four rural
counties be addressed by any group you designate.
Sincerely yours,
(SIGNED BY)
Laurence A. Brunton"
Miss Nash said Mr. Middleton was present at a recent Planning District Commission
meeting and did not appear very enthusiastic about the p]4an.' She said the feeling is that
the program should be on a regional basis rather than just for the City and County. Mr.
Fisher did not feel there is much collection of solid waste in any of the rural counties.
Mr. Agnor said this subject has been discussed at some of the monthly meetings
between the City, County and University officials. The Universitypeople have several
problems with the idea. 1) The heating plant is not going to be moved away from the
entrance to the Hospital. Therefore, the flow of vehicles generated.by this type of
system would create a problem. 2) The University is having difficulty with capital
planning for a project of this significance. 3) The free use of a government-owned
landfill does not help to encourage the University to•change'its-system. Mr. Agnor said
the City Director of Public Works and the County Engineer are joint1ly. responsible for the
operation of the landfill and discussions have been held'recentlyto,discuss the idea of
processing waste into fuel at the Ivy Landfill. This would mean tl}at' the flow of waste to
the landfill would continue, but instead of being buried,. this wastd,could.be converted to
process fuel. The fuel would then be delivered to a heating plant4iriLa much'lesser quantity.
This concept was also discussed at the City, County and Universi,ty,meeting and the University
was interested in the idea since this would eliminate processing at the heating plant.
Mr. Agnor said since Federal funds were initially involved with^the 'work •of-the Resource
Recovery Commission, he does not feel there will be any'funding`'available from either
Federal or State sources if this Commission is reactivitated."=Mr0Agnor suggested that
perhaps the staffs of both the City and County could provide some assistance to the Commission.
Mr. Butler said there has been some mention of a coaunercial,iroup building a plant in
a location away from the University to generate energy to be sold to the community. He
said the University people felt that was a more feasible approachltotthis concept. Mr.
Fisher said he would be willing to explore anything that would prolong the life of the
landfill. The idea of being able to reuse resources and create something that has a
market value appeals to him. He also noted that over the last'ten.years, a lot of cities
and some counties have started their own system. Mr. Fisher concluded by stating that he
felt the Board should communicate with the City and the University expressing the County's 0,
willingness to reestablish the Resource Recovery Commission,and receive' their reaction to
the proposal. r 1
Mr. Butler agreed with Mr. Fisher about the past problems of establishing a landfill,
and felt •that as communities grow, a larger landfill will be needed,• so some other method
of handling wastes should be examined.Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Butler, to communicate with the
City and the University the County's interest in reestablishing the Resource Recovery
Commission: Roll was called and the motion carried by the following.recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 17. Request: Christian Mission Aid. its; ..;'
L. A letter dated June 6, 1983, from Mr. R. V. Finley,' Chairman and President of Christian
Aid Mission, was received by the Clerk of the Board requesting amendment.to the Albemarle
County Service lieoappjurisdictional
feetarea
down allow
establishedAeasementon from thek into a
Mission
psix-inch sewer line approximatelyanother letter was received from
property to the Route 250 pump station. On July 1, 1983,
Mr. Finley to further clarify the request of the above date. Based on the above letters,
Mr. Fisher said he had requested the planning staff to prepare a report and that the
report be done in light of other properties in the subject area to determine what could be
Cmmnrehensive Plan and the utility system. (Copies of the above
July 13, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning and Community Development, was present
and summarized the following staff report:
"Proposal: Christian Aid Mission ismuesting amendment of the Albemarle
County Service ,Authority's service area to provide for access to the
Crozet Interceptor.,iSewer service will soon be necessary for future
development of•.the,,,property.
Boning and Current Utility,Service: Christian Aid Mission consists of
approximately,sixteen acres presently zoned Commercial Office. They
a re'presently,located within the 'Water Only' service area of the
Albemarle County,,§ervice Authority. Public water is not being
utilized at this timehowever. ,-
Comprehensive Plan: This-property and others to the east are located
outside of„the Urban®arowth Area because of their location in the
South Fork $ivannanWatershed.
Staff Comment: It has,been the Board of Supervisors' policy in the past
to limit utllityaservice;to,thosejareas located outside of the
County's designated,,growth,areasjand/or those areas located within
the watershed,ofoa,drinking-water impoundment. This policy is used
as a tool for discouraging intensive development in those areas not
designated,for future;growth and development, as well as those areas
of drinking water impoundments which are most sensitive to development
impact. Christian Aid Mission, as well as those properties located
eastward between Route 250 West and the C & 0 Railroad, fall for the
most part within the Board's criteria for limited utility service.
For the Board's information, some of the properties mentioned above
have approximately one hundred feet in depth along Route 250 West,
which drains into the Morey Creek Watershed rather than the South Fork
Rivanna Watershed.
Based upon this information, the Board may wish to consider two
alternatives for service area amendment:
- Allow sewer service to this area for existing buildings (as of
this date) only; and/or
- Allow both water, and sewer service to the areas along Route 250
West which drain,outside of the South Fork Rivanna Watershed."
Mr. Tucker then listed,for the Board the properties located in the water and sewer
service areas in the subjeci1area. Mr. pisher. asked the location of the boundary of the
growth area. Mr. Tucker:said•all of Flordon and Farmington lie within the Rivanna Watershed,
which is to the east and nor,thiof,,,this„property. Mr. Tucker said one site that could
utilize the second alternative;above would be the Kirtley Office building. Mr. Lindstrom
said the entire reason fot3the,,jurisdictional area distinction was to discourage any urban
type development that would be associated with a sewer line in the watershed.
Mr. Butler asked about the existing development on the Christian Aid Mission property.
Mr. Tucker said there is development on a portion of the property, but Christian Aid
Mission intends to develop further. Therefore, sewer will be needed because a septic
system is being utilized.,•
Mr. Tom Bond, representing the Christian Aid Mission, was present. Mr. Bond said
Christian Aid Mission cannot further expand its operation without hooking onto the sewer
line and the Mission is willing to con 'orm to any County specifications.
Next to speak was a Mr. Landess representing Christian Aid Mission. He said when the
Mission moved to the subject location in 1976, it was their intent to expand the facilities.
This has been the long-range,plans and no such restrictions as this problem with hooking
to public sewer were anticipated. Mr.,Landess noted that the Mission would be severely
restricted if this request is,not approved. He noted that using septic systems would be a
problem because that would mean going into the wooded areas and removing a considerable
amount of trees. The land without trees is not suitable for a septic system for public
health reasons. Therefore, Mr. Landess noted that the Mission would be severely impacted
if this request is denied.
Mr. Fisher said he had not envisioned Christian Aid Mission developing to the extent
proposed in the letter from,Dr. Finley. He added that the development proposed is a very
intensive use of the property,and if that is the intent, he personally has serious reservations
about approval of the request. This property is in the South Fork watershed and if this
request is granted to connect to public sewerage, he could not visualize anyway the Board
could ever deny anyone else,the right to connect and there are many areas along the interceptor
line which could be developed intensively. Mr. Fisher said he had originally thought that
the intent was to connect existing buildings and perhaps a small addition to the facility.
In conclusion, Mr. Fisher said that although he would like to approve the request, approval
would present problems for the County in the future.
Mrs. Cooke said it appears that the proposal is for eleven additional buildings. She
asked the amount of students to be housed in each dormitory. Mr. Landess said twenty
students will be housed in each building.
,, ) L yl
July 13, 1983 (Regular Day ,__sting)
Mr. Lindstrom questioned the alternative in'the staff report relating to sewer service
being allowed to this area for existing buildings on this date only, His concern is with
defending the County's watershed policy. Approval of this proposal, even if for only one
additional building, would violate the County's watershed policy. He'said it is ridiculous
to destroy trees in order to install a septic system instead of allowing the sewer connection
which is a clean proposition. However, the issue has to be examined in terms of the
overall precedent that this approval would establish. He said he agrees with Mr. Fisher
that the Board would have a difficult time denying another person a;connection in the
future if this request,is approved. Mr. Lindstrom then asked the implication-of the words
L "as of this date" in the staff's alternatives. Mr. Tucker said the attempt was to align
this amendment with the policy adopted
reference
the existing septic connections.
field nMr.
theTucker
Christian
added that he is not aware of any problems
Aid Mission property.
Mr. Lindstrom said in thinking only about this specific application', allowing the
existing structures to hook to the sewer line would be best since less area would be
disturbed. Mr. Fisher said with the interceptor line going across the'eounty for eight or
ten miles, the Board may have many other applications for connection for much more intensive
development. Mr. Fisher said the biggest problem facing 'the Board will. be the establishment
of a uniform policy on how to deal with connections to the Crozet Interceptor line over a
period of time. Mr. Lindstrom agreed but felt the same policy should be established
relative to connecting to the Crozet Interceptor as was established'to connect to the
public water line for areas in the watershed. I I'0-
Miss Nash said she felt one of the reasons that sewer was not'included in the policy
was because having the availability of sewer would encourage intensive development. She
felt the watershed policy should be eliminated if this request is approved.
Mr. Fisher said the ultimate plans for this property are not p'compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan and with such intensive development proposed, he could not support the
request.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the property is zoned Commercial Office. Mr. Tucker said yes.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the uses as proposed in Dr. Finley's letter could'be contained on
this sixteen acres. Mr. Tucker said not without public utilities. ' Mr. Tucker said he
understands the proposed dormitories are not for year round facilit'ies,'but 'rather accessory
type uses to the office building.
Mr. Lindstrom said considering all the time and effort that the Board has spent to
develop and defend a policy for discouraging development in the South Fork Rivanna watershed,
he would agree that approval of this request would be opening the doors to a concept not
desired by the County.
Mrs. Cooke said she would not object to providing the sewer for the existing buildings
l ._ but could not support the request for all the reasons stated by the other Board members.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs:' Cooke, to-deny the request
for Christian Aid Mission to connect to the Crozet Interceptor,line: 'Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 14. Public Hearing;• Amend Service' Areas of Albemarle County Service
Authority to Conform Said Areas with Recent Revisions to the Albemarle County Comprehensive
Plan. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 30 and July 6, 1983.)
Mr. Tucker explained the key distributed regarding the jurisdictional areas which was
color coded with the map (Copy of this key is on file in the Clerk's Office). Mr. Tucker
then reviewed the following staff report: I �,
"Staff has proposed amendments to the service areas of the Albemarle County
Service Authority to comply with recent amendments to the Comprehensive
Plan, as well as to provide a consistent policy for'service 'areas throughout
the County. (Mr. Tucker noted that certain policies were,adopted in 1982
relevant to service in the Route 29 North area, which do not'apply in
other areas of the County.) ,
CROZET
- Areas north of the current growth area have been broken down into water
and sewer service for the existing small lot development experiencing septic
field failure, and where there are already preliminary plans for
sewer connections. (Mr. Tucker explained the areas involved and noted
that these are areas developed in very small lots and which are-having '
septic system problems. Mr. Tucker said the staff has met with'"'
representatives of the Health Department and the areas having-problems
have been identified by the Health Department.); areas presently'being
served with water only (Mr. Tucker said this is pripjarily the Thurston
Subdivision which is not developed but has been platted and where
waterlines exist.); areas contiguous to an existing'waterline for '
existing structures only; areas which are undeveloped,but,which are
proposed for sewer connection (Mr. Tucker said the'etaff'is suggesting'
that these areas either be allowed to have a sewer}age'connectigl or
permitted one residential connection per parcel.),
•
2s2 \
July 13, 1983 (Regular Day eting)
- Service area for existing growth area is unchangedr except for commercial
areas south of Route 250 West, which is for water only. (Mr. Tucker said
the growth area was extended in the area around Oola.s Restaurant so L. 'in I
the area could be included for water service only.)
- Area south and southwest of the growth area is deleted from utility •
1 service, except for existing structures contiguous to existing waterline:
(Mr. Tucker pointed out the Yancey Mills area and noted that this' ' LI
•
recommendation is in keepipg with the Board's policy used in other area's`
such as the Route 29 North area.)
Mr. Lindstrom then asked Mr. Brent how much new line would be involved'for water and t
sewer service to the areas north of Route 240 between Beaver Creek Reservoir and Del
Monte. Mr. Brent was not certain because the Service Authority is working'from a preliminary
' master plan started in 1976. (Mr. Tucker said the Service Authority" .s..lso working from
1 a map of the old growth area for Crozet.) The problem is that'on'the-nort'h -'s'ide Route
240, the whole area would have to be pumped to the south side of;Route'24O,'''The siting of
a pumping station would also be critical because the pipe would have'to gd under the.
railroad and the highway, and the effluent would then be drawn by gravity o` Lickinghole
Creek and then to the interceptor. ,, 4", 1e•,. ' 4'• .��t
'.ic i 310 yr.('f.Ui' ftz1''I
Mr. Tucker said a site plan for the "western Albemarle shopping''center"' is still'
pending before the Planning Commission. While the applicant could locate'this 'phopping
center on a septic system, he noted that the Board may want to allow the applicantito•pump
the effluent over to the Lickinghole Creek drainage basin. Mr. Henley asked if the shopping
center property abuts a waterline. Mr. Tucker said yes, but the seweriiine'ie"located
outside of the Crozet growth area. Mr. Henley asked if this property should be colored ".',
light green which would place it in the "water and/or sewer available to existing structure's
or one residential connect for vacant lots of record" category. Mr. Tucker said it probably
should be since it does abut the waterline, but there are no existing structures on the
parcel.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if private structures will be treated the same as the Board's
policy on public structures (showing only the building on the property as receiving service,
and not the entire parcel). Mr. Tucker said the policy was worded this ,Way'. •'inorder to
take in Bloomfield property. Mr. Tucker said public and private structures are treated i
the same. ,
c.
IVY
- Water service only to those areas currently being served or having approved
plans for water, and those parcels with existing structures conginguous to
existing waterlines.
J
- Spring Hill Subdivision and Ivy Creek Farm (winery) have been maintained ' •
in the service area because of their request for inclusion, even thoughl'they
are not currently using public water. (Mr. Tucker said these two,areas, fall ,
outside of the existing service area but Spring Hill Subdivision rec ntl'y';"'' ''.
made a request to the Board for inclusion. The properties were'left' in'°ao' = '•`:'
the Board could decide whether or not to delete them. Mr. Tucker said Mr.` ' '
Brent has indicated that he is having discussions with the owners of the •
winery for the extension of water service. Mr. Tucker then pointed'out'"
Kearsarge Subdivision and noted that this subdivision has been experiencing
problems with its well. He noted that there is not a waterline to this ".
property. Mr. Lindstrom asked why Spring Hill was included originally.
Mr. Tucker said Spring Hill was in the growth area at that time.)
SCOTTSVILLE
- Provides for water to existing structures contiguous to waterline. ,"
- Expands service area for water and sewer to conform with ne'w growth'area
boundaries. ,
- Deletes service to areas outside of existing growth area except for 'the' ' '
Scottsville Shopping Center, and for commercial uses and other uses in
need of fire protection along Route 6." 'y; .'
Mr. Tucker noted that this completed the staff's recommendations. ' In reply'`'to"a' I
question from Mr. Henley, he said the properties of Acme Visible Records and Del Monte in �JI
Crozet have been included for water and sewer even though some of these properties'_are.
outside of the new growth area. Mr. Fisher asked how much of the area ie undeveloped.
Mr. Tucker said the only area that is undeveloped is an area zoned 'indust iaiP4' -441•
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Allen Benn, owner of the 'propertyrproposed for a
western Albemarle shopping center, was present. Mr. Benn said seven and`3nne.h4f''adres of
his property is currently zoned for shopping center development''and the�t'rem4iniriglthirty -+
acres is zoned Rural Areas. Mr. Benn said he had a site plan approved;'for•this property
in the past and septic tanks were proposed at that time. H9weNsrA�'at v4 'ti1ethe`'Planning
Commission requested that this site connect to the public sewerageif;'hap)TWhen.,: same
became available. Therefore, Mr. Benn said that had been his panst`and '{� would request
the seven and one-half acres be included in the service area."'Mr. Benp said another point
he would like to mention is the issue of runoff in the area."''The;'RA pare:fot5.this property
not only has natural runoff into Lickinghole Creek but also"co.lects the'runbf,, from the
property across the road on the northern side of Route 250.1"Mr; "Senn said' the-runbff%plan
that has been prepared for this site, will show that runoff can' be'"'contained"as+'per"County
..,....«.,.., 1-1,e* ..,,...,ff ennm anrnss the road: 'Mr: Bennaeaid%th"ere
1I44
To: Wayne Cilimberg
Cc: David Benish fV<
From: Bill Brent
Subject: Christian Aid Mission
Date: 7/31/96 Time: 9:57AM
Paul said he spoke to someone in your office concerning availability of sewer to the
mission a few weeks ago. The section of the Crozet Interceptor crossing the mission
property is a force main(under pressure) . THEY CANNOT TIE INTO IT IRREGARDLESS OF
WHETHER IT IS IN THE JURISDICTIONAL AREA OR NOT. To reach a gravity sewer they
would have to extend a pipeline back to the pumping station west of Ivy Nursery or
east to the gravity line in the vicinity of the office buildings along Route 250.
This would seem to be pertinent information for the Board of Supervisors to have in
considering this request.
JWB
GO JNIN( OF ALBEMgRL
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the
following conditions have been met:
DEPARTMENT of PLANNING and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT a. Fire Officer final approval.
401 McIntire Road 3. Approval is granted onlyfor
Charlottesville,VA 22901-4596 gravity-fed public sewer
service.
804 29e-5823
The Commission determined that if the plan remains similar
and if VA-86-27 Henry Javor variance is approved by the
Board of Zoning Appeals, Planning staff can administrative)y
August 13, 1986 approve the plan amendment. The Commission again directed
Planning staff to discuss with the Highway Department, a
left turn lane into the property. Mr. Kirtley, an adjacent
owner expressed concern over the present traffic situation..
Mark Galloway In order to expedite the completion of the above items,
c/o The Woolfolk Companies please have the a 435 Southlake Blvd. appropriate agency or department notify
Richmond, VA B23236
lvd. Kathy Brittain (296-5875) in the Zoning Department, in
writing, that the applicable conditions have been met.
RE: Northridge Office Park Site Plan: Tax Map 59, Parcel Please note that the Zoning Ordinance re
ires that
23B; Rt. 250 West construction be commenced within eighteen(18) months of the
Dear Mr. Galloway: date of approval or the approval will be void.
At their meetin on Au If you should have any questions or comments regarding the
g gust 12, 1986, the Albemarle County above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Planning Commission unanimously approved the above-noted
site plan. -This approval is subject to the following Sincerely,
conditions:
�!
d./ Staff approval of amended site plan showing: (614tr--
1-deletion of access to Folly Road; 2-new service Amelia Patterson
entrance to bldg; 3-addition of dumpster pad; Planner
b. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of
onsite and offsite final water and sewer plans; AMP/per
c Fire Official approval;
d. County Engineer approval of grading and drainage cc: Lisa Keys c/o Roudabush, Greene & Gale
plans and computations; Gerald Fisher
e. Issuance of a runoff control permit; Jesse Hurt
f. Issuance of an erosion control permit; Jeff Echols
g. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation County Engineer
approval of commercial entrance, turn lane and Bob Jenkins
drainage plans; Lou Rossi
h. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention
plans and computations.
•
•
•
•
STAFF REPORT AUGUST 12, 1986
NORTHRIDGE OFFICE PARK SITE PLAN
Proposal: To locate a 3-story (with basement) office building of
58 ,770 square feet to be served by 259 parking spaces.
Acreage: 5 . 0257 acres.
Zoning: LI , Light Industry.
Location: On the north side of Route 250 West between J. W. Seig
& Company and Kirtley Realty. Tax Map 59, Parcel 23B. Samuel
Miller Magisterial District.
Character of the Area: This is a commercial area along Route
250 ; however the uses to the north are residential. This
property is covered with hard woods and dense undergrowth.
Summary and Recommendations:
The applicant has submitted a variance request, VA 86-27 Henry
Javor, which will be heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals on
August 19 , 1986 . This is a request for a building height of 41
feet at a setback of 76 feet from the front property line a
setback variance of 12 feet ( 2 feet for every 1 foot above 35
foot height) . The plan before the Commission shows a building
height of 35 feet at 76 feet from the front property line. The
additional 6 foot height requested will be utilized in
architectural features such as higher ceilings, rather than in an
additional floor. It is the Commission' s policy not to review
items which involve a variance, until the variance is resolved.
The applicant has chosen to proceed with the plan.
The County Engineer commented at Site Review:
"Another drop inlet should be located in the center of the
parking lot to allow for a more efficient drainage pickup. Roof
drains must be shown and runoff from them disposed of
sufficiently to prevent erosion of steep slopes. Slopes should
be graded to a 2 : 1 slope unless existing conditions prohibit
this . The soils on this site are highly acidic and the use of
corrugated metal pipe is not conducive to this type of soil. A
redesign of the underground stormwater detention pipe will be
necessary and concrete or aluminum pipe must be used.
Recommend approval subject to:
a) County Engineer approval of grading and drainage plans and
computations;
b) Issuance of a runoff control permit;
c ) Issuance of an erosion control permit. "
1
The proposed pipe has been revised to the satisfaction of the
County Engineer. The County Engineer has commented that drainage
is not being diverted from what presently naturally flows to the
watershed.
The Highway Department commented at site review:
"Currently there is an active permit for the construction of an
entrance to this property along with completion of the turn lane
across the frontage of this site as well as the upgrading of the
turn lane for Folly Road. The work under this permit is
scheduled to be completed by this fall. This site plan shows the
entrance on Route 250 being relocated to the east. A permit will
be required for this modification to the entrance. The
Department recommends that the new entrance be 40 feet wide to
allow for two ( 2 ) outbound lanes and one ( 1) inbound lane. This
plan shows curbing along Route 250 and a paved ditch behind the
curbing. This is unacceptable and the Department recommends the
construction of curb and gutter along with appropriate storm
sewer system across this frontage. The Department will need to
review the drainage for this site. The Department recommends a
second access onto Folly Road to help alleviate the congestion
for the one ( 1) entrance on Route 250 . In a letter dated April
4 , 1984 , for the Glenview Business Center comments were addressed
for this property and these included the ultimate right of way
width for Route 250 West shown in the CATS. "
Planning staff does not support the use of an additional outlet
located at Folly Road. Due to the topography, access to Folly
Road would be difficult. An additional access point so close to
the main entrance would create cross-traffic problems . The plan
was revised after Site Review to allow for 2 outbound lanes.
As a result of the Commission' s comment on the previous site
plan, Glenview Business Center,the Highway Department has been
directed to study the use of a left turn lane into this site from
Route 250 . The Highway Department has responded to this plan as
to the Glenview business Center, "after the business center has
opened and becomes occupied, the Department will be able to
observe both the traffic generated by the site and the volume of
left turn entering traffic. At that time an evaluation will be
made to determine whether any modifications need to be made to
the pavement. Markings and the installation of a left turn
storage lane would be considered. "
This site plan will meet the requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance, and staff recommends approval subject to the
following:
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1 . A building permit will not be issued until the following
conditions have been met:
2
a. County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement for
Folly Road, and recordation of same;
b. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of onsite
and offsite final water and sewer plans;
c. Fire official approval;
d. County Engineer approval of grading and drainage plans
and computations;
e. Issuance of a runoff control permit;
f . Issuance of an erosion control permit;
g. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
approval of commercial entrance, turn lane and drainage
plans;
h. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans
and computations.
2 . A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the
following conditions have been met:
a. Fire Officer final approval.
3 . Approval is granted only for gravity-fed public sewer
service.
History: On September 26 , 1978, the Commission indefinitely
deferred the Henry Javor Warehouse Facility Site Plan, at the
applicant' s request. This was a proposal to locate a 16 , 000
square foot building.
On February 17 , 1981, the Planning Commission indefinitely
deferred the Henry Javor Warehouse Facility Site Plan. This was
a proposal to locate a 40 , 000 square foot warehouse building on
5 . 02 acres .
On May 28 , 1985 , the Planning Commission approved the Glenview
Business Center Site Plan. This proposed the location of 3
buildings totalling 55,000 square feet served by 244 parking
spaces .
On August 11, 1981, the Board of Zoning Appeals granted VA 81-46.
This was a request for a 74 foot variance of the 150 foot scenic
highway setback, to a distance of 76 feet.
On May 9, 1984 , the Board of Supervisors amended the Service
Authority Jurisdictional Area map to approve sewer service for
only these portions which can be totally gravity fed.
On June 21 , 1977 , the Planning Commission recommended approval SP
77-30 for the location of a veterinary hospital. The applicant
deferred the item prior the Board action.
ZMA-84-23 Henry Javor, a request for rezoning from LI, to
P.D.S.C. was indefinitely deferred by the applicant prior to any
action taken.
Topography of Area: Relatively level, sloping down to Route 250
in front and down to the Railroad tracks in the rear.
3
Condition of Roads Serving Proposal: This segment of Route 250
carries 10 , 910 vehicle trips per day.
Watershed Impoundment: This property falls into 2 major
watershed areas . The majority of the site ( 90%) is located within
the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir Watershed, to Ivy Creek
Subwatershed, the Upper Ivy Creek Basin and the Farmington
Subbasin. The remainder of the site (along Route 250) is within
the Rivanna River Watershed, the Moores Creek Subwatershed, the
Morey Creek basin and the Ednam-Farmington subbasin.
Soils: Consist of Hayesville loam. This is a deep, well drained
soil.
Comprehensive Plan Recommendations: This site is within Rural
Area III .
Type Utilities : public water and sewer are proposed. An 8 inch
water line is located as shown; and 18 inch sewer line is located
as shown.
Stormwater Detention: Underground pipes will be utilized.
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation: See "Summary
and Recommendations"
Fire Officer: A hydrant ±1000 foot distant has 1950 gallons per
minute at 20 psi. No dumpsters are proposed.
4
414
N.t.( OF A Le&-A4
CP
�HCIN
DEPARTMENT of PLANNING and COMMIJN Iry DEVELOPMENT
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901-41S9 6
804 296-5823
MEMORANDUM
TO: Lisa Keyes
CC: Mark Galloway
m��
FROM: Amelia M. Patterson, Planner v
DATE: July 11, 1986
RE: Site Review Committee Comments - Northridge Office Park Site
Plan
The Site Review Committee reviewed the abowe referenced plan/plat
on July 10, 1986. Pertinent comments from the following agencies are
attached:
.t Planning Department - contact Planner - 296-5823
cej County Engineer - contact Steve Pack - 296-5861
of/ Fire Officer - contact Larry Maeyens - 296-5832
o(/ Service Authority - contact Lou Rossi - 296-5810
Health Department - contact Jack Collsns - 295-0161
Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation - contact
Jeff Echols - 296-5102
/ Soil Conservation Service - contact Gordon Yager - 296-5815
d/ Watershed Manager - contact William Norris - 296-5841
m! Zoning - contact Kathy Brittain - 296-5375
The Committee' s comments will reflect information available at
the time the plan/plat was reviewed, but shoild not be considered
final.
Please revise the plan/plat to include the attached comments and
submit five ( 5) copies of the revised plan/pLat no later than
5 : 00 p.m. July 21 , 1986.
7
Ot12/'/
LE REVIEW COMMENTS - NORTHRIDGE OFFICE PARK SITE PLAN
1. The plan must be revised to either a) decrease building
height to 35 feet, or b) provide additional setback in
accordance with Section 26 .6 of the Zoning Ordinance.
**2 . To facilitate traffic flow during peak hours, staff
recommends that there be 2 lanes for egress. This should
work better than an additional entrance off Folly Road.
**3 . Staff recommends some additional plantings. Please meet
with staff to discuss this.
**4 . Either the plan must be revised to show a scenic highway
setback of 76 feet, or a waiver must be requested for 1
foot, a distance of 75 feet.
5. In the review of the previous plan for this site, Glenview
Business Center, the Commission asked the Highway Department
whether the markings should be changed to allow a left turn
lane from Route 250. We are awaiting a written response on
this plan.
**6. Please determine if a maintenance agreement for Folly Road
exists.
**7. Please be advised that because the soils on the site are
acidic, the Engineering Department
nmyrecommend
commendtad metal
reinforced concrete pipe as opposed toa
pipe.
8. Please be aware of future plans for widening Route 250 in
this area, and design for it.
9 . Please revise the plan to include the following:
a. Note hydrant flow from nearest hydrant;
b. show any proposed dumpsters;
c. Show bumper blocks for parking along Route 250, so
parking does not overhang;
d. Note pavement markings or signs for no parking in
drop-off area;
e. Note deed book reference for Folly Road.
LMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY
MEMO
Amelia Patterson, Planner
Iv f,Co-ata<
,O M: W. L. Rossie, Chief Engineer
ATE: July 8, 1986
Site Plan Technical Review for: Northridge Office Park Site Plan
The below checked items apply to this site.
(TM 59, Parcel 23B)
X 1. This site plan ishirorW within the Authority's jurisdictional
area for:
A. Water and sewer
B. Water only
C. Water only to existing structure
D. Limited service
x 2. A A inch water line is located approximately as shoe
x 3. Fire flow from nearest public hydrant, located 1000'+distant
from this site plan, is 1950 gpm+ at 20 psi residual.
X 4. A 16" inch sewer line is located as showmittmmt.
_ 5. An Industrial Waste Ordinance survey form must be completed.
2) X 6. No improvements or obstructions shall be placed within existing
or future easements.
7. and plans are currently under review.
_ 8. and plans have been received and approved.
_ 9. No plans are required.
1) X 10. Final water and sewer plans are required for our review and
approval prior to construction.
X 11. Prior to construction a sewer lateral connection sketch must be
approved for non-residential connections (commercial, industrial,
institutional) .
Comments: 1) Both onsite and offsite water/sewer final plans
2) Extend water/sewer easements to adjacent property (TMP 59-23B-I)
and TMP 59-80B) .
The site plan does not show or incorrectly shows:
meter locations water line size
r water line locations sewer line size
sewer line locations expected wastewater flows
easements expected water demands
X RWSA permit required
for s.s. tie in/M.H.