HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA200400011 Review Comments 2004-07-21 David Benish n "
From: David Benish .12; Y
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 12.53 PM
To: Amelia McCulley \`9A" �,,,,rw1
Subject: RE: Central system questions `�`" \ 9,(q
[WARNING--THIS WAS QUICKLY WRITTEN WITH MANY INTERRUPTIONS AND I HAVE TO BE AT AN
APPOINTMENT, SO I DID NOT HAVE TIME TO PROOF. IF THIS DOESN'T MAKE SINCE, I'LL BE HAPPY TO GO
OVER IT WITH YOU. IF YOU NEED SOMETHING OFFICIAL, I TRY TO REWRITE, IF NECESARY. LET ME KNOW
WHAT ELSE YOU MIGHT NEED. I'LL BE BACK AROUND 2:00.]
I spoke with John Shepherd about the variance request on Monday The sense that I got of the request was the applicant
wanted to use the existing buildings for multiple tenants. Therefore, the total square footage of the existing buildings would
limit additional impacts of the multiple users. But this also assumes that through the zoning clearance process for each
use we can control some of the external impacts, such as available parking and available capacity in the septic system. If
that's not the case would have, I have greater concern. I do recognize that the more opportunities multiple"different" uses
would create more of a chance that certain combinations of uses might generate more impacts than one use within the
building, but hopefully the zoning clearance process and limitation on total square footage of the existing buildings would
mitigate that potential. However, traffic impacts could not be controlled through clearances and my recollection is that this
is a pretty dicey sort of entrance that just met sight distance requirements (I might be wrong on this—Glen might
remember)
Having stated my comments above, I'm not sure what the hardship is here other a bad business decision regarding the
viability of the site as a business opportunity. They have already received a windfall on this site through the approval of the
two existing uses (buildings) on an 80,000 sq ft site. What is the hardship for continuing the make exceptions to the
ordinance?
If this request is to allow additional square footage to be developed, we would have significant concerns. We could not
support that at all.
There's one final point to consider. I do not believe that there is a reasonable public (ACSA) remedy to any future septic
system failure because there are no sewer lines existing or planned for this area. This property is in the Rural Area of the
Land Use Plan and, by policy, is not intended to be served by public water or sewer(its not in the ACSA Jurisdictional
Area). Extensions of service to the Rural Area are considered only in cases where there is a documented health and
safety issue AND when the site is adjacent to existing lines/service. While water service is provided to GOCO Oil
(because of well contamination from MTBE, and fuel additive), the closest sewer service is in Glenmore (in Rivanna
Village)or the Urban Area (Pantops). The site does not meet the criteria for extending service to the Rural Area. Even if it
did, the cost for such extension would be prohibitive for this type of use (the ACSA or County do not pay for these
extension, the applicant does). Unless there is some way to review each uses impacts to the septic system with the
Health Department (zoning clearance), we might be allowing a situation which could evolve in a future health/safety issue
with the septic system.
From: Amelia McCulley
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 8:51 AM
To: David Benish
Subject: FW: Central system questions
Do you all have any comments on this variance request?
From: Glenn Brooks
Sent: Wednesday,July 21, 2004 8:45 AM
To: Amelia McCulley
Cc: Mark Graham; Bill Fritz
Subject: RE: Central system questions
I recall these limitations when they applied for the site plan for those buildings They were well informed, but pushed
ahead anyway. I think we anticipated they would come in for a variance eventually, trying to get around the limitations
1
•
placed on the site plan.
I hesitate to guess what Jack might comment in this situation. I have read through Chapter 2 of the Design Manual, trying
to glean what might be the thinking on this topic, but as usual, I find nothing of use, only general sketchy requirements for
submittal, review and approval.
My guess is that the main concerns are threefold; (1)the environmental impact of a more intense sewage disposal system,
such as for a mass drainfield or alternative pressurized system, and (2)the inevitable request to make the system public
when maintenance becomes too difficult, and (3)the land use implications of allowing more intense use in the non-
development areas of the county.
Of the above concerns, I judge the second to be more pressing, with the third a close second. Perhaps a planner would
judge the third to be the most pressing The first is under the review of the health department. Regarding the second,
ACSA may be able to comment on public maintenance of small independent systems, which I'm sure they would
discourage as inefficient and comparatively expensive. Regarding the third, if enough residents or businesses rely on a
system, it might require public rescue, meaning the public system would have to be extended to cover it after it fails (most
have a service life around 20-30yrs). The County has some experience with system failures. I can recall a mass drainfield
in Deerwood, a water system in Key West, wells in Peacock Hill...
I hope you find this helpful.
Glenn Brooks
Senior Engineer
Albemarle County
From: Amelia McCulley
Sent: Tuesday,July 20,2004 10:51 AM
To: Glenn Brooks
Subject: FW: Central system questions
Importance: High
Just got Jack's out of office message. Do you have any comments on this you could provide?
From: Amelia McCulley
Sent: Tuesday,July 20,2004 10:50 AM
To: Jack Kelsey
Subject: Central system questions
Importance: High
I'm reviewing a variance for the Shadwell antiquaries site at Rt. 250 and 22. It was previously
approved for an antique store and also for a vet office. The new owners want relief from the
zoning ordinance req'mt which limits the number of"establishments" for properties served by
private well and septic (Section 4.1.3). This reg requires 60,000 sf per establishment. They have
just over 80,00 sq ft in the property. basically want no limits and have asked for 15
establishments, or a variance of 811,000 sf or almost 19 acres. I'm asking you for comments on
this. My staff report is due on Friday. There are 2 existing bldgs and 1 existing well and septic.
The defns of central water and central sewage system are alittle problemmatic in a few ways.
For one, only one of the defns talks about "being capable of serving 3 or more connections."
Their system may or may not be capable of serving multiple connections. The number of
connections seems somewhat arbitrary as a measure. Could they get approval as a central
system with only 2 connections? What do you suggest I do with this variance/
2