The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutACSA199200004 Executive Summary 1992-09-02 • nor:\I// r, :63 r,'.Lh\d J �„ il{STiJ�UTcD 1 J G County of Albemarle EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Li \1,`y t==� �'-' ' 4"' I�I r.. -„,2,,:ll\ AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER: Jurisdictional Area for the Ridge (Galerie) September 2, 1992 Restaurant _ ACTION: X INFORMATION: SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Applicant request for public sewer CONSENT AGENDA: jurisdictional area be extended to the ACTION: INFORMATION: Ridge Restaurant property. ATTACHMENTS: Yes (2) STAFF CONTACT(S) : Messrs. Tucker, Brandenburger, Cilimberg REVIEWED BY: ( ' BACKGROUND: This request was initially submitted in January, 1992 but was deferred by the Board, and subsequently by the applicant, pending investigation of other alternatives. This property is located at the intersection of Routes 240 and 250 and was found to not have adequate sewage disposal when health department permits were being issued for the new Ridge Restaurant. In order for the Ridge 'to open, a temporary pump and haul permit was issued by the Commissioner of Health for six months. This permit is due to expire on September 11, 1992 and will not be extended unless certain conditions are met - specifically, a permanent •olution is in hand and under construction with completion within six months. Four potential ptions were initially proposed: (1) Package treatment plant (2) Permanent pump and haul (3) Septic system off site as on-site is not feasible (4) Connection to public sewer DISCUSSION: (1) The package treatment plant is unlikely as the state has been reluctant to allow such plants in any watershed. (2) Permanent pump and haul is not desirable and would require agreement by the County and state in which the County assumes responsibility for its operation. (3) Off-site septic was actively pursued but is not an option due to poor site conditions and the inability to get the necessary easements from private property owners. (4) Connection to public sewer is an option but would only be to the gravity line as the Service Authority will not allow connection to the forced main. Connecting to the gravity line is being investigated. Even if easements and engineering solutions are obtained, the cost implications may result in the applicant not pursuing this option. The applicant has not completed this feasibility review. The applican requesting a public hearing be set to extend the jurisdictional area. This action will allow them to complete their investigation of the feasibility of connecting to public sewer. e applicant feels this step is necessary for them to request continuance of their temporary pump and haul but there is no guarantee the Health Department will grant any extension. Staff has no recommendation at this time. The Board's questions from January and the County Attorney's response are attached for information. `ECOMMENDATION: None, provided for discussion in response to the applicant's request for a public hearing on October 7, 1992 to consider extending the jurisdictional area. • 10e - C ;VAA1 _ 24/D 1 V,.19,4- by 1 AiN)eet B cb13 ,-- . 92.126 I g,, ` 04V 48671 044 TD 1ot :s Rj.1 94'1"' (1F A Lill, J,( �IHciN�� COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 229(11-4596 (804) 296 5823 January 24, 1992 W. Benton Downer Associate Broker Montague, Miller & Company 500 Westfield Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: Request to Amend Albemarle County Service Authority Jurisdictional Area - Galerie Restaurant Dear Mr. Downer: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors , at its meeting on January 15, 1992 , deferred action on the above-noted request. This request has tentatively been re-scheduled for February 19 , 1992 . This request was deferred in order to receive a legal opinion from the County Attorney on the following issues: 1. What rights does the applicant have to a septic disposal system that exists with his purchase of the property vs . the applicant's request to be included in the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for sewer service? 2. If the Board denies the request, does that denial remove the property from use without compensation? 3. Does approval by the County Executive of a pump and haul system reestablish a use on the property? 4. Does a pump and haul system place a vested interest on the property? If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, • ()66 V. Wayne ilimberg Director of Plannin4 & ommunity Development VWC/j cw cc: Lettie E. Neher • COUNTY OF AL1 1._MAkL oiszkr, •i:' AUG 27 1992 4 Il L%am.yam; LCUilV .. O1f({I COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of County Attorney 416 Park Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Telephone 296-7138 August 25, 1992 GEORGE R. ST JOHN JAMES M. BOWLING, IV COUNTY ATTORNEY DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY Robert Brandenburger Deputy County Executive Albemarle County 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Re: Agenda Item #16, Action letter January 16, 1992 (61-1/ 1-- Dear Bob: I will answer the four questions set out in the above action letter, in the order in which they appear in that letter; 1. What rights does the applicant have to a septic disposal system that exists with his purchase of the property vs. the applicant' s request to be included in the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for sewer service? Answer: The location of, and amendment of, the jurisdictional areas for the Albemarle County Service Authority is a legislative function of the supervisors. It is my opinion that no land-owner has a right to special legislation, to provide a remedy to a topographic problem which was not created by government in the first place, but rather by act of nature and/or by the character of the topography itself, which I believe to be the situation in this case. 2 . Based on the rationale above in Paragraph 1, I believe that if the Board denies the request, the denial does not remove the property from use without compensation. The purchaser was well aware of the situation when he acquired the property, and was aware that the pump and haul permit was not to be permanent. 3 . Approval by the County Executive of a pump and haul system did not reestablish a use on the property, since the pump and haul permit was clearly temporary in the hope, repeat the hope, not the certainty, that a permanent solution could be Robert Brandenburger Page 2 August 25, 1992 found. 4 . A pump and haul system does not place a vested interest on the property because the pump and haul permit itself, on its face, was temporary, not permanent. In providing these answers I have considered the recent U. S. Supreme Court case of Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Commission and I do not believe that case applicable to this situation. I do believe, that if a decision denying access to the public sewer, were to be challenged in court, there would be justiciable arguments on both sides, as to the "taking" issue, but in my opinion the County should prevail. In giving you this opinion I am in no way advocating, one way or the other, how I feel the Board should act on this request. I am simply stating the legal parameters within which their decision can be made. Sincerely yours, George R. St. John GRStJ/sh 4