Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutACSA199300002 Minutes 1993-12-08 Laserfiche WebLinkPage 3 of 4 f • December 8, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 000276 � (Page 2) years. The formation is extremely hard rock and there are few fissures and cavities which would bring in additional water. Cracking is not the answer in this case. He believes that removal of the old pump, installation of a 30 stags unit with check valves within the system to prevent pressure losses and additional storage capacity would provide the added volume and would solve the problem. Mr. Bain asked what is the current storage capacity. Mr. Casero said there is currently one, 5000 gallon tank which is in good condition and normally kept at seven-eights full. Lately this tank has only been three- quarters full with both wells operating at full speed. Mr. Hain asked how large is the additional storage tank and if that tank is estimated in the cost. Mr. Casero said the storage capacity of the additional tank is between f"11 50o and 800 gallons. Mrs. Humphris said it seems to her that if the Board grants this request due to the financial circumstance of the residents, the income levels of the residents should be documented so that it a similar situation arises in the future, the Board can justify not having set a precedent. The two important issues are the income levels of the residents and the statement by Mr. Casero that he has paid out all that he can afford to pay. She thinks those two issues need to be documented. This assistance should also be with the under- standing that it is one-time only. Mr. Bain asked if the Board could use County tax records on the assessed values of the homes to document this as a means of providing affordable housing. Mr. St. John said he believes one of the reasons this aubdivision was approved had to do with providing affordable housing in the Greenwood area. Mr. Tucker said staff can look at the real estate appraisals on the properties and show the assessed values. At this time there was a consensus of the Board to defer further action on this request until December 15, 1993, to allow staff time to draft a resolution to allow the Board to move forward on the request for funding assistance to Mr. Casero. The resolution should include the reasons for the request, the affordable housing issue, efforts made thus far by Mr. Casero and document the exception to the income levels. (Mr. Martin left the meeting at 7:19 p.m.) Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing on a request from A. G. Dillard to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority } (ACSA) to include Tax Map 79, Parcel 4P, located in Hunter's Hall Subdivision, for water service. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 24 and December 1, 1993.) Mr. Cilimberg said when the Board set this request for public hearing, it requested more information on the implications of the designation. The Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) indicated that it can provide this service if requested by the Board, but the designation would require a unique rating for charges which would have to be determined, initially, on a case-by- case basis. The ACSA does not currently charge for use of water for fire protection through fire hydrants. It has no existing individual service for • fire suppression. • The only precedent for service to provide fire protection was the Board's adoption of a policy (October 9, 1991) allowing fire hydrants on existing water lines in the Rural Areas that are outside of the ACSA's service area boundaries. By existing Comprehensive Plan policy, any service area change outside • of designated growth areas should be made only when property is adjacent to existing lines and public health and safety is endangered. The Plan also warns that extension of utilities to the Rural Areas can increase development pressures. The Board, in setting this public hearing, determined that water service for fire suppression may address a public health or safety concern. Since this request will not cause extension of water lines into new develop- ment areas, the potential for increased development pressure from this request is minimal. Mr. Cilimberg said it is possible that similar requests could be received in the future (the nearby United Parcel building currently has a ) sprinkler system). The ACSA can provide the service and an appropriate rating 1 for charges, therefore, staff can recommend approval of this request for "water only to existing structures" for fire suppression only. Mrs. Humphris asked if the structure has already been remodeled. Mr. Cilimberg said there have been some work towards the remodeling. Mrs. Humphris asked when the building permit was issued. Mr. Cilimberg did not know; but said the Inspections Department indicated the need for the sprinkler system when it was reviewing the additional work to the building. Mrs. Humphris wanted to know if the remodeling had begun before the building permit was issued, therefore, this request is after the fact. Mr. Cilimberg again said some the work had been started, but he did not know if the work had been completed. Mrs. Humphris noted that the Inspections Department stated that the applicant had been strongly encouraged by Inspections to put in a sprin- kler system. There is a difference between "requiring" and "strongly encour- http://www.albemarle.org/weblink7/DocView.aspx?id=1115 1/25/2008 Laserfiche WebLink Page 3 of 4 • December 8, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 000277 (Page 3) aging". Mr. Cilimberg said there are mechanisms to address fire codes, other than sprinklers. Mr. Bowerman asked the applicant for comments. Mr. Alan G. Dillard said his main concern with not being able to connect to public water is the cost of a storage tank. He received a rough estimate — of approximately $40,000 for the cost of a storage tank. It is his under- standing that a storage tank is not nearly as reliable as connecting to public water. He also does not think a tank should be required when there is a water line running through the property. Be asked that the Board vote favorably for the request. Mr. Tom Trevillian, the engineer, said there are other alternatives, such as a substance that can be sprayed on the walls to make the steel beams resistant to flames, but that would do nothing for the firemen in the building • ' fighting a fire. That does not stop or put out the fire. The estimated cost of a tank and pump is approximately $40,000. There is a chance a pump system would not work, when needed, if it had not been used for several years. All pumps operate off electricity. If a fire was the result of an electrical breakdown, there would be no system. He thinks for the safety of the employ- ees and fire prevention personnel in the County, the most reasonable choice would be allow connection to water. Mrs. Humphris asked about the sequence of events and whether the renovations were complete. Mr. Dillard said they started the building renova- tions and as they got into the details thought the County needed to be involved. Inspections then indicated that the renovations would require a sprinkler system. Mrs. Humphris asked if the system was "strongly encouraged" or "required". Mr. Trevillian said the Inspections Department "strongly recommended". Mrs. Humphris asked how long the renovations have been ongoing. Mr. Dillard said the renovations were started in September and lasted about 30 to 45 days. Mrs. Humphris asked when was a building permit issued. Mr. Trevill- ian said the applicant has not applied for a building permit. Mr. Marshall asked how many people would work in the building. Mr. Dillard responded that ten people would work in the building. The Chairman opened the public hearing. Ms. Pat Napoleon, a life-long resident of Keswick, said the Comprehen- sive Plan visions for the Village of Rivanna expressly restricts use of water lines recently installed along Route 250 East. The Plan states; "Areas north of Interstate-64 have historic, scenic significance to the County and region, including possible designation of a rural historical district and have large acreage in agricultural/forestal districts. To further preserve and protect these resources, water lines should be sized to serve the Village and Stone Robinson School only. Capacity shall be reserved for a potential new school in the Village until such time as determined that the school is not neces- sary." Allowing the requested amendment to the jurisdictional areas would be contrary to this and other provisions of the Plan. Approval of this request would lead to the proliferation of connections and development along the route of this water line which the residents of Keswick feared when Glenmore was first proposed, and which they were repeatedly assured by the Board would be prevented. She asked that the Board show the residents they can rely on the Plan and the assurances of the Board by denying this application. Ms. Treva Cromwell, speaking for the League of Women Voters, presented a statement (copy on file) strongly urging the Board to deny the request to amend the service area boundaries to include water service to this property. The League does not feel that lower costs only to a land owner should be e criterion for granting use of public water. Secondly, the staff report clearly shows this request is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which warns that extension of utilities to Rural Areas can produce pressures for development. This water line along Route 250 East and its potential for • development was a major issue during most cf 1989 when the Glenmore proposal for residential development was being debated. There was fear on the part of many residents of that area that the presence of a water line would bring pressures for tap-ins and spur development. The residents were assured that the service Authority's jurisdictional area would be limited to the growth rm7 area. Limiting the service area is the key to preventing strip development along Route 250. Therefore, expanding the Service Authority's jurisdictional area is the first step in weakening the commitment to resist development pressures. The League does not agree with the staff's statement that the potential for increased development from this particular request is minimal. _ Approval of this request would set a precedent and would undoubtedly trigger other requests, not only along this water line, but along other water lines in the County. Ms. Cromwell said that in 1989, the League supported the village designation, but warned that the League was concerned about the increased pressure for strip development along that corridor. Only if firm boundaries are set now does the County have a chance to resist those pressures. The County did sat firm boundaries by restricting the Service Authority's juris- dictional area to the designated growth area. The League strongly urges the Board to support that policy by denying this request tonight. http://www.albemarle.org/weblink7/DocView.aspx?id=1115 1/25/2008 Laserfiche WebLink Page 3 of 4 December 6, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 000278 (Page 4) Ms. Lisa Glass, speaking on behalf of the Piedmont Environmental Council (PBC), presented a statement (copy on file) . PEC regards this application as having potentially significant ramifications to the entire Route 250 Bast corridor, but does not think there is enough information in the record to take a position, other than to recomnend that the Board defer action on this request until more information is provided. PEC needs to know how the Board would treat requests from other landowners adjacent to this line for water service, if this were approved; would the Board be able to deny requests from these other landowners, if this request is approved; does the applicant have other means of fire suppression available and how have other existing uses in this area satisfied their need for fire suppression; would the cost of this service and the connections be paid solely by the applicant or would it be subsidized by the existing customers of the Service Authority; and is it 7 practical to limit the applicant's use to fire suppression only or would granting this request allow the use tor other purposes. Ms. Glass said because of the likelihood that other landowners along this line would also try to gain access to this line, and because this could significantly change the nature of development along Route 250 East from that recommended by the Comprehensive Plan, PEC recommends deferral on this application until a comprehensive assessment of the effect of this decision can be made. Ms. Class said her understanding is that the applicant applied for a building permit yesterday and there are other alternatives besides a sprinkler. Ms. Sarah Lee Barnes, a resident of Keswick, said when Glenmore was approved by the Board, the residents were assured that the use of the water line required by Glenmore would be restricted to use by Glenmore and Stone Robinson School. One of the reasons there was such opposition to the Glenmore development was because of this water line and the potential increase in development along Route 250. If this application is approved, this will be the first in a long line of applications and would turn this section of Route 250 East into a commercial strip. She drives that road on a daily basis and is disappointed and saddened to see the strip of commercial development going east now like it is on Route 29 North. She asked that the Board not set this precedent. The time to stop commercial stripping of this road is now by denying this application. The other businesses in the area have managed to solve their problem with a sprinkler system. There are other alternatives that should be considered before allowing the applicant to connect to public water. Mr. John Embree, a resident of Shadwell, said the Board must hold to the 17 Comprehensive Plan if the Plan is to have any meaning. Every effort should be made to minimize additional development. Allowing this applicant to connect to the water line would set a precedent. Other requests for more intense use of this area would result. The increase in development is inevitable once this precedent is set. He asked that the request be denied. There being no other comments, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Mrs. Humphris said she was disappointed in the change in staff's position between their memorandum to the Board of November 3 and the memoran- dum of December 8. On November 3, staff's position was that this capacity should be reserved for the potential new school and the village, or until a school was determined to not be necessary. The staff also felt that service to this parcel was not consistent with the intent of the Plan and could set a precedent for allowing water service to other parcels along this corridor. The staff provided a strong recommendation to not proceed to public hearing for water service to this parcel. The staff's memo of December 8 uses as its logic for changing and recommending this jurisdictional area change the fact that the Board, in deciding to go to this public hearing, determined that water service for fire suppression may address a public health and safety concern. She cannot follow that logic because she thought the reason they went to public hearing was to hear from the public on what the public wanted. She prefers the original assessment that this could set a precedent. Hearing the statement from the League, takes her back to 1989 when the Board was discussing the extension of that water line to the Village of Rivanna and the potential for future growth. She sat out in the audience and heard over and over again from the then members of this Board that there need be no fear, that this was firm, that this water line would not be used for stripping development along Route 250 East, and the people out there were protected. She is concerned as to why the applicant moved forward with a renovation 4 project without getting a building permit. Alternatives should have been . investigated at the on-set, not after the fact. She feels the Board was correct in 1989 when it stated the purpose of that water line out. She thinks there has been no change of circumstance to change that position and she hopes this Board will keep the faith with the people and let them know that they can trust the Board to do the right thing. The right thing is not to make an exception for the benefit of one individual. Mr. Martin said he disagrees with Mrs. Humphris about disappointment in staff. He thinks staff did the right thing which was to look at this as a safety issue that could be applied to other places. He thinks that is the only reason for this request to go to public hearing. Re agrees with Mrs. Humphria that it is important to preserve the capacity for what might be another school and there were some assurances from the Board that the use of this water line would be prohibited for safety and health uses only. http://wvvw.albemarle.org/weblink7/DocView.aspx?id=1 1 15 1/25/2008 Laserfiche WebLink Page 3 of 4 - 1 � December 8, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 000279 (Page 5) Mr. Martin then offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to deny the request for water service only to Tax Map 79, Parcel 4P, located in Hunter's Hall Subdivision. Mr. Perkins asked if there are fire hydrants along Route 250. Mr. J. N. ' Brent, Executive Director of the ACSA, said in the area that is within the jurisdictional area, there is a fire hydrant at least every 800 feet. In the area outside the jurisdictional area, they are there when the property owner elects to pay for them and have them installed. He does not believe there is a hydrant at this intersection. Mr. Bain said he will support the motion. This could be a safety issue but there are ways of addressing the issue other than allowing this connec- i tion. Mr. Marshall said he is concerned about the health and safety issue. He is concerned about the type of system used at UPS. He cannot see the Board opening this line up to any new development or to anyone else but to have a building that is already there is a different issue. There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, and Mr. Martin. NAYS: Mr. Marshall (Mr. Martin left the meeting at 7:55 p.m.) Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing on an ordinance to amend and reenact Section 2.1-4(c) known as the "Bastham Agricultural and Forestal District" to add parcels located on Rt 621, Rt 612 and Rt 20N. The proposed addition contains 135.180 ac. in B parcels. The proposed time period is the same as for the original district, or 10 years from October 13, 1993. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 24 and December 1, 1993.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerk's office and a part of the permanent record of the Board. Mr. Cilimberg said, the Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 9, 1993, recommended by a 4-1 vote, approval of the request with the exception of the Rushton property (Tax Map 63, Parcel 14I) for which an application had not bean received, with the understanding that the life estate/ownership question on the Casaday property would be resolved before the recommendation came back to the Board of Supervisors. The application for Rushton was received following the Planning Commission meeting, and since it was not possible to resolve the life estate question definitively, the Casaday property was withdrawn following agreement between the applicant, staff, zoning administrator and deputy county attorney. The Chairman opened the public hearing. Me. Lisa Glass, representing the Piedmont Environment Council (PEC), said PEC supports agricultural/forestal districts and asked the Board to support the application. There being no other comments, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bain said in reading the Planning Commission's minutes some of the discussion was that an agricultural/forestal district might tend to devalue property. He asked if staff had looked at that aspect in any detail. Mr. Cilimberg said that is not something staff had been asked to study. He thinks the conversation with the Commission had more to do with the affect an agricultural/forestal district designation had on adjacent properties that might choose to intensify uses by special permit. Staff is supposed to take into consideration the existence of an agricultural/forestal district in evaluating a special permit. Mr. Bain said he thinks that is something that needs to be looked at as the Comprehensive Plan is reviewed. Mr. Marshall said he will support the additional parcels in this district but he is concerned about people moving into the County and subdivid- ing parcels of land in 21 acre lots, building a house and then getting into an agricultural/forestal district. He feels that when the Board reviews the Comprehensive Plan it needs to seriously look at the acreage to see what it is doing to the rural areas. Notion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt an ordinance to amend and reenact Section 2.1-4(c), the 'Eastham Agricultural and Forestal District' to add 135.188 acres contained in eight parcels, for the same time period as the original district, or ten years from October 13, 1993. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. i, http://www.albemarle.org/weblink7/DocView.aspx?id=1115 1/25/2008