HomeMy WebLinkAboutACSA198900003 Approval - County 1989-11-08November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 15)
22~g
and build upon and depends on the College Advisory Board to help advise as to
the best way to accomplish that.
(The Board recessed at 11:19 A.M. and reconvened at 11:30 A.M.)
Agenda Item No. 11. Status Report: SP-88-45, Pope and Mikkelsen Pottery
Studio and Kiln.
Mr. Agnor reported that the Zoning Administrator has indicated that the
applicants have complied with the conditions of the special use permit. They
have now been issued a certificate of occupancy. The Zoning Administrator
recommends that revocation of the permit not be pursued further and the matter
dismissed from the agenda.
Ms. Amelia Patterson, Zoning Administrator, said there is compliance on
the part of the applicants. She made an inspection before this Board meeting,
and the old kiln enclosure has been dismantled.
Motion was immediately offered by Mrs. Cooke and seconded by Mr. Bowie to
remove SP-88-45 from the agenda.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 15. Request to amend the jurisdictional areas of the
Albemarle County Service Authority for water service to Tax Map 59-7B1,
between Flordon and West Leigh Subdivisions. ~
Mr. St. John said the Board has documents reflecting the history of this
matter. He reviewed for the Board the fact that certain easements the
Albemarle County Service Authority acquired from landowners to install pipes
were granted and recorded. As payment to the!landowners, the Service Authori-
ty gave the right to connect to the waterline.when it was laid in the ease-
ment. In Mr. St. 3ohn's judgement, that vested a property right in the
landowner to this connection. If that right ~s not honored by the Service
Authority, that would be a breach of its contract under this easement. The
Service Authority would be liable to the property owner for damages created
during construction of the waterline. If tha~ breach is forced upon the
Service Authority by refusal by the Board of ~upervisors to allow the Service
Authority to keep its commitment, that constitutes a taking of this property
right by the County. In that case, the Count~ and not the Service Authority
would have to pay for it. He said there are ~ither easements similar to this.
He said in all the cases he is aware of, the ~ight to connect was included and
vested in the easement at a time when the thei~Property in question was within
the service area boundaries of the Service Authority. In other words, the
Service Authority did not exceed its powers a~ that time. Later, the service
areas were diminished.
Mr. St. John said he had prepared a resolhtion for the Board's considera-
tion which would address all similar applicatf~ons and eliminate the need for
the Service Authority and an applicant to aPp$~r before the Board for this
action in the future. He noted that the resoi~tion provides that no more than
one connection is deemed to be required by thi~ resolution on any particular
easement. He said there may be cases where t~e land has been divided into two
or more parcels subsequent to the easement co~nitment by the Service Authori-
ty. Then there is the question as to which parcel gets the right to use the
one connection. Mr. St. John summarized by saying that the Board has a choice
to either pay the value of these easements or honor the easements.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if there is a distinction between industrial, commer-
cial, or residential connections. Mr. Brent responded that a connection is
differentiated only by the size of the line. :~
Mr. Bowie asked if the utility connectionilreferred to is water. Mr. St.
John said the connection is for water. He sai~ he mulled over the use of the
word, "utility", and concluded that there is no easement for sewer connection
November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 16)
of which he is aware. Mr. Brent said he is not aware of any, but would be
reluctant to say that none exist.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. Brent has records of these easements. Mr.
Brent said he did not. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the easements are recorded
anywhere. Mr. St. John said they are recorded in the Clerk's Office. He said
the title to each piece of property would have to be reviewed. Mr. Bain said
he assumes that the language in these Service Authority easements was approved
by the County Attorney's office and would be the same on each easement. Mr.
St. John said this happened before he became County Attorney, and he could not
say that was so. He said he knows there were a mass of commitments made by
the City which the County took over under the Four-Party Agreement. In doing
that, the County agreed and covenanted to assume the obligations that the City
had made on those easements. Mr. Brent said~most of these acquisitions
occurred in the period of time when the distinction between the County and the
Service Authority was not as clear as it is ~oday. He said these situations
are most prevalent on the line from Piney Mountain to Ivy and the line from
the Scottsville water plant into the Town of,Scottsville. Ail of these
occurred in the late 1960's and early 1970's. He thinks the easements are
confined to these areas and these time frames.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if a precedent is being set by which the County could
not buy another easement right in the future. Mr. St. John said he did not
think so. Mr. Lindstrom said his reservation concerns the number of cases
there might be and whether the connection means commercial or residential.
Mr. St. John said the County can always buy the right. He said this resolu-
tion would not set any precedent because the 'Board is already in the posture
of being told to either honor it or buy it. That option would always be open
to the Board.
Mr. Bowie asked if that option would be '~.available on a case-by-case
basis. Mr. St. John said there has never beep a procedure where the court
superimposed its judgment on that option, to iris knowledge. He said all that
is necessary is some rational basis for distinction. Mr. Bowie said the basis
is the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Lindstrom asked what issue it would '~aise if the easement does not
expressly state the nature of the connection What is permitted and the Board
specifies "one residential connection". Mr. pt. John said this resolution
presupposes that the property is outside the ~ervice area. Mr. Lindstrom
asked if this should be discussed in executiv~ session. Mr. St. John said
that would not be necessary. He said it is d~fficult to predict what the
courts will do in this area. However, Mr. Stil John's opinion is that if the
Comprehensive Plan and the service area boundaries coincide with each other
and zoning coincides with both of them, then ~he reason the Board is doing
this is because in 1971 someone put this property right in an easement. He
thinks the courts would recognize that fact. ~.If this is an aberration to the
regular land use program of the County, it wa~ engaged in by the Board only
because it was necessary to avoid the posture~iof taking someone's property and
going back on a written, recorded commitment.
French Slaughter, III, appearing ~or the applicant, said the
Mr.
D.
request is only for this one particular parcel. He asked the Board to rule
favorably on this application.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the request is fo~ residential service. Mr.
Slaughter said it is for one house. Mr. Bowie! asked if this property could be
subdivided. Mr. Slaughter said he was not sur~. In any event, the property
owner does not intend to subdivide.
Mr. Lindstrom said the applicant is aski~ for connection for one house,
and he would like to see the resolution tailori~d for that. Mr. Slaughter said
if approval could be given at this meeting, hi~ client would appreciate it
because the house is already under construction.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. BowSe and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom
to adopt the following resolution to include a~d permit one residential
connection only to the property shown within t~e green enclosed line on the
plat of Gloeckner and Osborne dated August 13,!.i1987, showing survey of Parcels
November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 17)
D and E, as presented by Mr. French Slaughter and made a part of these min-
utes.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the service area boundary of the Albemarle County
Service Authority is deemed to include and permit one residential
connection only to Tax Map 59-7B1 for water service; and
FURTHER that said property is shown within the green line on a
"plat Showing Survey of Parcels D and E~ located on the east side of
State Route 677 in Albemarle County, Va.!, as prepared by Gloeckner &
Osborne, Inc., dated August 19, 1987", ~aid plat being initialed
"FRB" on November 8, 1989, and made a part of the record.
Agenda Item No. 16. Review: Forestry Department's Master Plan for Blue
Ridge Hospital Site.
Mr. Lindstrom said last week he met with..Mr. Craig Covey, Mr. Werner
Sensbach, Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman and other members of the committee working
with the University regarding the location of the administration complex on
the Blue Ridge~Hospital site at the foot of MOnticello Mountain. At that
time, the architect for the project presented models of the project which are
on display today in the Lobby. He said representatives of the Thomas Jeffer-
son Memorial Foundation were also present at i~that meeting. Mr. Lindstrom said
the purpose of that meetzng was to evaluate ~he proposal .on the 25 acre
portzon of the 250 acres of the Blue Rzdge Si~te. He pointed out a chart on
the wall prepared by staff explaining the two~i~alternatives presented by the
architects. ?~
Mr. Lindstrom said this area is shown i~!the County's Comprehensive Plan
as Rural Areas, and the proposed project is n!~t a rural use. The PACC Agree-
ment with the University states that propert~in Area B would be subject to a
jointly agreed upon plan before any development took place. For various
reasons, this project came about before a plaf~ was proposed or developed under
the Agreement. Therefore, it seems that the ~greement falls back to a posi-
tion whereby the University agrees to use "it~ best efforts" to comply with
the existing plan, which is ' !! '
the County s Comp~ehenszve Plan for rural designa-
tion. As Mr. Covey pointed out in the previohs meeting, the County has no
direct authority to review, approve, or deny ~his particular proposal. In
fact, Mr. Covey had asked on what grounds the!iBoard intended to look at the
plan. Mr. Lindstrom said the Board is lookin~ at the project because it has a
public obligation to defend its ComprehensiveilPlan and to try to preserve a
national historic site.
With that as background, Mr. Lindstrom said the concern is whether there
might be a way that this building can be located somewhere on that property
that would be less intrusive. He said, frank!y, it would be problematic to
find another place on the tract for a building this size. He said another
question was whether a better location, more Harmonious with the topography,
could be found on the 250 acres. For these reasons, the two alternatives have
been presented. ~
Mr. Lindstrom said he is aware that the ~niversity and the Division of
Forestry have spent a lot of money on the pla~s and are anxious to go forward.
His concern is that the Board has a responsibJ~lity to the 65,000 people it
represents. The Board needs to get as much l~verage as possible on the
development process, even though the County m&y not have any legal authority.
He said there are a number of hurdles that this project will have to go
through before the construction can be startedi~ One of them is an environmen-
tal assessment by the State Council on the Environment. He said there was a
very frank discussion in last week's meeting ahd he intends to be just as
frank in reporting that meeting. He feels that essentially the County is
being asked to sanction these plans. In fact,~there was a lot of pressure in