Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutACSA199600002 Executive Summary 1996-08-07 • COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE: ITEM_NUMBER: ACSA Jurisdictional Area Request for Water Service to Tax August 7, 1996 Map Parcel 60-3 ACTION: X INFORMATION: SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: CONSENT AGENDA: Request to Allow Public Water to Fulfill Deed Guaranteeing ACTION: INFORMATION: Property the Right to Connect to Water Line ATTACHMENTS: Yes STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg, Davis REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: This parcel is one of a number of County parcels upon which easements were acquired by the Service Authority for water and sewer lines in the early 1970's. Many of the deeds guaranteed the properties the right to connect to the utility line. Although the parcels were within the jurisdictional area at that time, the Board of Supervisors has since amended the jurisdictional area to remove an unknown number of these parcels. The contract purchasers of Tax Map Parcel 60-3, Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Allan, have requested water service from the Albemarle County Service Authority. The Authority, in turn, has made this request to the Board of Supervisors along with a request that the Board of Supervisors address the matter of parcels similarly promised connections to water or sewer service. (See Attachment A ) Staff is aware of one similar consideration by the Board of Supervisors in 1989 for Joseph H. Milbank. (See Attachment B) The County Attorney at the time presented a resolution which would have granted jurisdictional area designation to all similarly affected parcels, however the Board chose only to act on the Milbank request and granted one residential connection only for water service. DISCUSSION: The subject property in this request is located adjacent to the Colthurst subdivision along Barracks Road in the Rural Area. Colthurst and other properties in the area are designated for water only. Historically,several subdivisions in this area (Floridan, West Leigh,Colthurst,Montvue,etc.)were served by central well systems some time ago. The County apparently bought those systems,some of which were experiencing problems, and extended a water line to serve those subdivisions. Staff is unaware if the property subject to this request has groundwater quantity or quality problems. There is no evidence that there has been an attempt to dig a well to serve this property. Based on the above information, this property does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan, which states, "Only allow changes in jurisdictional areas outside of designated Growth Areas in cases where the property is: (1) adjacent to existing lines; and (2) public health and/or safety is in danger." In 1989, the Milbank request was viewed as an atypical circumstance because of the existence of a deed guaranteeing connection to the water line. The County Attorney has provided an opinion regarding the County's present obligations under such deeds. (See Attachment C) While the County has no legal obligation to grant the jurisdictional area designation, the contractual obligation of the Albemarle County Service Authority can only be honored if the Board of Supervisors acts to amend the jurisdictional area. In the case of Tax Map Parcel 60-3, the easement allows connections. The contract purchaser desires to connect one house (to be constructed)to public water, but have not removed the possibility of connecting other dwellings that might be constructed in the future. This is an approximately 54 acre parcel that has five (5)development rights. As regards the ACSA request that the matter of similarly entitled parcels be addressed by the Board of Supervisors, staff does not have a complete inventory of those parcels and their deeded entitlements. Staff is, therefore, unable to judge the implications of any action to grant jurisdictional area designation to all such parcels. RECOMMENDATION: Although public water service to Tax Map Parcel 69-3 does not comply with policy as stated in the Comprehensive Plan,the Board did grant jurisdictional area designation for water only in 1989(Milbank)under a similar circumstance. That action allowed the ACSA to honor its obligations granted in the acquisition of the easement. Should the Board wish to provide similar allowance in this case, staff recommends it consider amending the service area boundary of the Albemarle County Service Authority to permit one residential connection only to Tax Map Parcel 60-3 for water service only. Staff further recommends that service to additional dwellings on this parcel as well as to remaining parcels similarly entitled to water or sewer service be considered on a case by case basis and not be part of this consideration. cc: Bill Brent TMP60-3 96.139 TMP60-3 AL3EVARLE C \TY SERVICE A„THOR TY P.O. BOX 1009 168 SPOTNAP RD CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 • (804) 977-4511 FAX (804) 979-0698 ATTACHMENT A June 20, 1996 Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. County Executive Albemarle County Office Building Charlottesville, Virginia HAND DELIVERED Re: Water Service to Tax Map Parcel 60-3 Dear Bob: When the Service Authority acquired easements for the Stillhouse Mountain to Ivy water line in the early 1970's many of the deeds guaranteed the property owners the right to connect to the water line. Since then the Board of Supervisors amended ACSA's jurisdictional boundaries so that some of the parcels entitled by deed to water service now lie outside our jurisdictional area. This problem last surfaced in 1989 when Mr. Joseph Milbank sought water service for Tax Map Parcel 59-7B1. At that time the County Attorney presented a resolution to the Board of Supervisors for consideration which would have resolved all such outstanding commitments in areas outside of the jurisdictional area (copy enclosed). The supervisors took action to grant water service to Mr. Milbank's property but did not act on other similarly affected parcels. We have now been given notice that Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Allan are the contract purchasers of Tax Map Parcel 60-3 which is also given the right by deed to water connections (copy of deed also enclosed). Mr. and Mrs. Allan have applied for a water connection but ACSA is unable to honor its contract because of the jurisdictional area issue. At its meeting today, the Board of Directors voted to petition the Board of Supervisors to (1) amend ACSA's jurisdictional area to allow water service to Tax Map Parcel 60-3, and (2) address the matter of remaining parcels similarly entitled to water or sewer service. Page 2 We ask that this matter be put before the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date. It is also requested that fees associated with a jurisdictional area amendment request be waived because of the peculiar circumstances in this instance. Please let me know what additional information we can provide. Very yours, J.W. Brent Executive Director JWB/lbt c.c: Board of Directors Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Allan Jay Jessup James M. Bowling, IV Larry Davis Wayne Cilimberg P'f' E •_ T E, ,i iffi 2 4 1996 Page 3 eoox 539 net 07 1 I I' THIS DEED, made this 24th day of August, 1973, by and 1 i his wife, parties between JAMES L. JESSUP and MARY HELEN JESSUP, I1. I of the first part, Grantors. and THE ALB EitARLE COUNTY SERVICE I I !AUTHORITY, hereinafter referred to as 'Authority', party of the %second part, and DAVID J. WOOD, JR. and FRED L. RUSSELL. TRUSTEE5,1 l parties of the third part, and BERTA GARTH JONES, BONDHOLDER, !I I party of the fourth part. I WITNESSETH WHEREAS, JAHES L. JESSUP, of the first part, is the 'owner of a certain tract of land siutated on the southwest side j of State Route 1654 in the Charlottesville Magisterial District Iof Albemarle County, Virginia, containing 54.04 acres, more or ,Iless. and being more particularly described on plat of Hugh F. ' Sims. S.A.C., dated July, 1941, and attached to a deed from John Porter Jones and Berta Garth Jones to Henry J. Schlesinger dated :1July 22, 1941, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit I1Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 251, page 188, being the Lame property in all respects which ,as conveyed to the Grantor, I' widow, the bondholder, dated Decen- IlIlby deed of Berta Garth Jones,bcr 1, 1970, recorded in the Clerk's Office aforesaid in Deed Rook i 480, page 167, to which deed reference is made for further parts- 'I culars and a further description of the property herein conveyed and for easements and restrictions to which it is subject' and. I WHEREAS,, the Authority proposes to install a twelve- 1 the name STILLHOUSE MOUNTAIN- �inch water main to be identified by I' pursuant to PLANS AND PROFILES prepared by , II WEST LEIGH WATER MAIN, IIJOHN MCNAIR AND ASSOCIATES, dated February 28, 1973, on file in \the County Engineer's Office, Albemarle County, Virginia, the 1 ,location of said water main as it traverses the property of said 1 i JAf:ES L. JESSUP (Parcel 60-3 of Albemarle County Tax Hap) being .1 na thn 1.1.net dashed line on PLANS AND PROFILES Sheet No.4 Page 4 iocx539 fu( 09 ' conveyance to signify her agreement of said release and her request to the Trustees to join in the execution of this deed for . the ourpose of effecting such release: who hereby convey to the .,' Authority the subject easement free from the lien so described. • WITNESS the following signatures and seals: .. , (SEAL) J A>:E kl L. Jl >(:1i ni,1:: `'J (SEAL) YAP.Y/!fttar:.. JESS:: w, .✓ • TRUSTEE (SEAL) i RUSTE S4' (SEAL) I: BERTH EARTH JON=. BONDHOLDER i STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, to-wit: The foregoing deed was acknowledced before me this /Vf[L day of .'_tom t!...._, , 1973, by Jamas L. Jessup and Mary Helen Jessup, husband and wife. • . My Commission expires: LL) ^""'�"„ lJ ),, -.4. ���' �.i Notary Public STATE OF VIRGINIA . COUNTY OF ALBN'ARLE, to-wit: Thel foregoing deed was acl:r.o,.ledced before me this_-e/7 day of � .//// .l.L 1973. by David J. wood. Jr. y Commission expires: .S/ • Notary Public STATE. Or "IPGI::I7. / Revision Dates : 8/10/83 , 4/11/84 , 10/3/84 , 11/14/P4 , 9/10/86 , 11/12/86 ALBEMARLE COUNTY Page 5 4_ /..'/,// 1 r, I F\, 904 S tlO . coo Fe—cif \ly /2 _-- ----„:::,•ri>4•-...-,q.:i.,,:'..: !❖••♦• ♦••.•. ♦..,.,9' • ram\ \ c „W.Z,..yw/.O-e,7,„t:a1/2.:..:",V.:„,‘.,'i W:,.41-.,,a.,i0 04 l3,i a•i".i,$r1g,:,1::,i..1 0.:1.e,t,i•,t-,.f•k1ar,fte0%*v..,.s.T:4.,.e,.0"s..Ak,'..f,.4•,:•,1 •.•°.•.•• 4+:4d•`'••* ` REQUEST FOR WATER / -•-rV7s-e.-.f i.)—.N(.w./1/4; �.••�.�.i•.♦��.�� .e•.�.� Fes.•..♦ i♦. t0 *04L : 0.\..K\ .. ._._.„__ - •;•••ki;;;.2•:••:•s•••olit• SERVICE T.M. 6 0 P. 3 .' As 1 :t�i!�!4r••••.• i0•ii• ii•.•:O�•ii I. v 2 / i K2.b1/4.111rrW..4.00 ,♦••••••••.i.•••11 . 0 \ ? ••••••••••••••i•••. \ . 3!i', iW.�dldV..w`00wsb A1U/l /.AA\q•M*V\vs, n., Wi1Ill oNAA041.41,1/4•UNIPAWMAgAe:sle.i".‘Pi OR it-A. w wk•I•Ir..�11M1\ fthA 'yrl► AA�bbb\w14s\gN►�.�0y��t• pouft.00 ftowr otis, ♦��•.00.0/1/1�.'VI./b r►N u•N•k•uv\ice swam',747 ram► ' w�M �A �G>r�:111�V•\•VC••' ♦ 7Wh►r1A:v:/• .1.v10l►\r.•.. •. �:� 69.•It:AAA•V�V PIIRIAINOre* 1P/Pi�Ai11 wA/\ ►V��.r'►\A►Vd�A/V.\AM�f •� / . 1 ��.w•w izAsViAil'NNW*Vilhiet•VNAVI eP eroWtr).�1 'vier-►.y::A ♦Aw`s\1t.��'l�\t�►�•a�lA' • '�LIe:it0I l 4"i. sa !` •l11r,10 b .PO'P ►�IO �r�, i bW00.1��11►*•+�\��.ot., . 11r.�•\q9\�\w\1W .ice' ,!VA; \\\1\Rii'�j�1N74.,,,A;;;1,..':,,,I(37:grii„ •1•�/►W\I►4i.Y•�1PA�.►d. or, LII.C•l•?i�i11�GSIil ib�\wb\� • w i � \I'�� ✓. 't�1�M �tV►►��AAWtKW �. 11. FJr►,{Vr"�CAMP►'Vt, WpiiII."��I. "�Vb0 fd �•1d1A1� •ci !I.IyJVr►iRI.'�irIi!//�� 6e •. \�\���i✓ '/� ' t/fAll •�lw.i © �i�/III/IrII/I. 4r►.' le,,1/ „... . , ,fs�/Aavv��vti0e11e9'1/1e1~I 8,1/dA►��/� �i./��i4 1"`i\1N6I .•., •.64f,+��/F,r'ZOL ;p,f� , ' �' Fr1► OVbaV\+lrWi\ii 4r 6aD✓i//I4II/ ��/��I•- /1i/4010- �' ♦ ,., s'i" .y 4�F, �!t �h��17�`�►�1'AV .rI %II�'I/fill"•��►i�./�i�II' I��ti�� •724,414;/....Z.,,Ok.'° ' 1"1►1i ttpa���l ` 1WftV ' -��/I/"�i��IrIIIIII"% rwb f'.r til 7. e qf�{J•C.VwJ►O�LtiViNi.i l�/► " 'I_///:.�RRJ✓'l/�/i /IV DPW\1 f1��br.�PM:gI�WY.1" 1.M' i/III. ...11 T i�I701:1i: 01�. r►d' •8.;;.`�, tar►V�VY0��1��7b1►L imie�i,4V.41 'I�i�"L.IwrI� � 1 , i� /, i. /f'',z b«\\Oq�1.�1.�N`+'�Ya'..-— b:1/lll�..".05 � ►�lll/./.�i•10WW 1 r1A•' ♦' •..f /p •� �jf ):,!.;,r11AtA�+W�w11V►.rl1 . I/i/i✓A" ••�illlle!d�5i'yitll���AM :'4,4 .; - < y�j,•'"•1 cr<i/ rice, 4, :. ,.M•.:%,. MTTM►w�l7ti. !IIII'I���iGIV/II./i�I�iM/!r'AIs.<, .: + :@. ��/�f dr% � 1,��/�� s w\.o14M7MMlhwrN►4.;mr.•'A�i v..re•r •l.!�iAll/.. -rw ,.' d• "ii.,'� �� a?ii+9ieA�n��rr.� .riiiivivri.A'e•AI /A.O. i 1AI, / 1 k. 1?Aft bv•lowpmis Ow • ,,ti.+ "' B 1 1rt; 1t1f Il►`10�.110001�V�J0000t• s '' ' "^ >. • it.c1w`s\i.\•••1fteO R iO..OV.►OA�•1.00�v iA " .t R•6•c...%mac '". '», �---- . 411 F0.01�1►O�iA�.0�0`•• •:0400'�h c . .•. .w. t �Z*•3iF. y;)L` 4 � �—' Ea ' zokvity ttear:::,-, \' , .',Ama g4' 'P.w0evo\nWres000Ov�.A\.`w . r a. a :x f:.,„P.I ► ~ V�0W. OVOOV @o adz 1 ..ru1V001�t'��' 5�% {, �,,.01 �}s�ass ,,�& @- p , f� '�ya , 7r o-K,.A yt,'oA,.,,,nl,,,u,,4 Ak,,e''.s.d.4.--i6zii4t%,.%•m1igi74kzvoi,Ptst,ia*e?g-•:1.;•. .•,A..‘...::::v:s.4,,.•,...,-w:.,-'.-:.".:..r 4./.,.-:.4:A147,W.<:0,,-.';f t.-,..•4'.'':,6.,.,.4,..,.:.`.T..,t.:,L..;..:.:-.'k-it.Akr i..,,ii:,•.k.,.:%•,,1v•,A;,\.. `0 V0,A•x .n2%.K: '1 "5T g›, ` F �� •$' l! vL Zgg t ^l h d'3 SF : : & y :, ` .-A9 y y b f' 4. .6' 'S t Y F i+l Y'S 1 V•` / Q' 34 :ems : Ni'� 40 .,,gxts�` <t4 .. 5'<•. ' '�` `'.n '4t '3,! rl A .4, „,,,,,,,„,„:„..„,,,,,, ...„,:,,.....„, .. .:44W1, see ''4' ''0'. f. AkeZi, .1'AtqM4340" " .t t' lt.,:s AN, ;;` � ,. ily .. ` i, i £ is 4447V-N I lil•*...4*. 1 3� ,, ct-t- • / I/, 7 .,,,,,,,,,vaz*AFatt,„: .dge),.4,-,,, Atiy , ,11:LIN,:,4,.••••1441,•:;04.(k.1°A.AlItatrIleklalarIX if:,,,;:4•4•Q.4",fg**-315,_=,•,4,4_41.,.,, .""/, .'„,.,,X,„.",17 • '441475:•:..4,21t::elm_.,,,,i'it'S:'- tiViLAAtass TwERIIII Ii -111 •Mtlik-M:3''•-40:40&,11glietir if/r..,,X.•_•••''''yr V ..6 ''''''::'krt:14".rait."AMINIU ilitriliWrik ,,,,,%-f4(....vevt,Akigi:Ak‘,4,A.4401,-,4,-,,,,,.4.?:,„, ,„, 0 . -, ....1; VW•41,.;,'Z',..•;. -.... -"-1,:...e.'AA,..$AO MINIM IIMMIRIE11,/ Ver<ligt;:,VW.VIIMSParkr ,.:.1)/,..,2.41,„•,..je,e/off 0/ ...;: iA• 4441j.ntrom p----.:'-‘44::,*,•AV It11:111•WAILIMIBM ' <.�,v; . .,,. , v:. 1.F�Mr ; .: ,z3:. N:1<:' 17 n i lt:,; • `i. a 514 :S So}3f` /y3l 6,�q �r Y s .a,...4•eS �sx. 9. i .. -s t may, nfi yr /,. rf E ,4c` y 'x,�./r"& ,,,,, ,... •i„- •,L __ •.• ATTACHMENT B RESOLUTION 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 13 , 1987" , said plat being initialed "FRB" on November 8 , 1989 , and made a part of the record. * * * * * I , Lettie E. Neher, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on November 8 , 1989 . -6;72 Clerk, Board of County Supervisors • D:stributed to Board: //-.3 b.7 Agenda Item No. O'•I'I/0c. MCGu i REWOODS 1 U lJ ICJ (l' (rI F h1 L i3 f `i r7 li L i; BATTLE&BOOTHE � 1 =r^, ; ' `3 n_l fry E i r� Transpotomac Plaza t i rr World Trade Centa{ 1 I 1199 North Fairfax Street r'l LUV NocfpI)FjV1Z3510 i I l Alexandria, VA 22314 Court Square Building _pnaJr7 em s Cent/ 1 I 128 Bo x ox 8 i 3950 Chain Bridge Road P.O. -�Rtchrrt,'ndLNAi232110 j Fairfax, VA 22030 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 i;i,'.,.,i i f` I137inrjr3c� 8280 Greensboro Drive Williamsburg, VA 131185 McLean, VA 22102 (804) 977-2500 Fax: (804) 980-2222 The Army and Navy Club Building 1627 Eye Street, NW. Washington, DC 20006 November 2 , 1989 Page 2 Ms. Estelle Neher Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Albemarle County Office Building 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Re: Request regarding Albemarle County Service Authority Dear Ms. Neher: We would request the following matter be placed on the Board' s agenda for its November meeting scheduled for Wednesday, November 15 , 1989 . Joseph H. Milbank is the owner of Tax Map Parcel 59-7B1 situated north of U. S. Route 250 on Route 667 between the Flordon and West Leigh Subdivisions near the Village of Ivy in Albemarle County, Virginia. Mr. Milbank is a successor in interest to J.A. and Ola T. Adams with regard to the subject property. Under a deed dated April 29, 1971, Adams granted the Albemarle County Service Authority an easement over the subject property. The deed, a copy of which is attached, provides the following consideration: In consideration of this easement, the Authority hereby grants the Landowner, his successors and assigns the privilege to connect to the water line upon due application to the Authority and payment of the existing connection fees at the time that the connection application is made. As you see by the attached letter of J.W. Brent, Executive Director of the Authority, dated October 30, 1989 regarding the subject property, Mr. Brent states that the Authority is unable to connect water to the property because subsequent to the 1971 easement grant, the subject property was removed from the Service Authority ' s jurisdictional area by the Board of Supervisors. On the other hand, the deed of easement does not require the Ms. Estelle Neher November 2 , 1989 Page 3 Page 2 property to be within the Authority' s jurisdiction. It simply allows the tap without restriction other than payment of connection fees which are $1, 540 in this case. In accordance with Mr. Brent's advice, we hereby request that the Board of Supervisors reinstate the subject property in the Authority ' s jurisdictional area so that the Authority may honor the terms of the easement. We appreciate your prompt attention to this matter because the owner is having his home constructed on the property and is forced to use more expensive and inefficient alternative sources of water supply pending resolution of this matter. If there is any possibility this matter will not be heard at the 11: 00 a.m. session of the Board on November 15, I would appreciate your prompt notice to us. Either my partner, Fred S. Landess, or I will appear on our client ' s behalf. Sincerely, D. French Slaughter, III cc: Mr. Joseph H. Milbank George R. St.John, Esquire, County Attorney James M. Bowling, IV. , Attorney for Albemarle County Service Authority Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr. , County Manager Mr. Joseph M. Goldsmith, Goldsmith Construction DFSIIIjbda BADFS281.LTR ALBVARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY P.O. Box 1009 401 McINTIRE RD CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 (804) 296-5810 Page 4 October 30 , 1989 Mr. Joseph M. Goldsmith Goldsmith Construction P. 0. Box 3354 Charlottesville, VA 22903 Dear Joe : You have discussed with several members of the Service Authority staff the conflict concerning water service to Tax Map Parcel 59-7B1 . In County Deed Book 516 , page 553 the Service Authority granted a previous owner of this parcel the priviledge to connect to the water main as partial considera- tipn for an easement for the water line . Since the granting of that easement this parcel of land has been removed from the Service Authority' s jurisdictional area by the County Board of Supervisors . The Service Authority cannot serve this property unless it has been designated for water service by the governing body. Your client may wish to seek having this property reinstated in our jurisdictional area by peti- tioning the Board of Supervisors . If you have any questions please give me a call . Very truly yours , J. W. Brent Executive Director JWB: kst cc : Joseph Milbank George R. St . John James M. Bowling , IV Guy B. Agnor, Jr . • Page 5 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, in the process of acquisition of easements for its utility lines, principally in the early 1970 ' s, the Albemarle County Service Authority in exchange for such easements, gave written commitment to certain landowners that they could connect to the utility lines within such easements; and WHEREAS, the County is advised that upon recordation of these easements, the right to connect to these utilities became a vested property right of these certain landowners and their successors; and WHEREAS, the question has been raised whether the Albemarle County Service Authority can lawfully permit these connections under the present definition of its jurisdictional area and under the provisions of Virginia Code Sections 15. 1-456 and 15. 1-1247 . THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County declare that the Albemarle County Service Authority shall have and does have jurisdiction to honor any and all lawfully binding commitments for water and sewer connections that it has heretofore made in any duly recorded deed of easement; Provided that no parcel of land subject to such easement, as the parcel existed at the time the easement was granted, shall be entitled to more than one utility connection unless the easement itself expressly so specifies. The Albemarle County Service Authority is requested to distinguish on its maps any and all connections permitted • Page 6 pursuant to this resolution, outside of its previously designated project area. • • • • ST. JOHN, BOWLING, PAYNE & LAWRENCE Page 7 `'^T • —ATTORNEYS AT LAW- 416 PARK STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE,VIRGINIA 22901 GEORGE R. ST.JOHN ^ "J7C]dFs M. BOWLING.IV - TRSDERICK W. PAYNE Telephone TRANCIS MCQ.LAWRENCE May 7, 1986 (ea) 29e-713E Mrs. Amelia M. Patterson Planning Department County Office Building 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 Re: Old Connection Contracts (Our File #86-722) Dear Mrs. Patterson: Subsequent to my letter to you on the subject of water connection for lots which were granted a connection in the deed of easement from the owners of those lots to the Service Authority in 1971, I have learned that contrary to my earlier assumption, these lots were in the jurisdictional area of the Service Authority at the time of those deeds which granted the right to connect as part of the consideration for the easement. Subsequent to those deeds , the County reduced the jurisdictional area to exclude those lots. In light of this, I am still of the opinion that the connection cannot be made unless the jurisdictional area is again revised to include those lots, but it will be the County, not the Service Authority, which is liable to the owners in damages if this enlargement is not made. I have also learned that there are a substantial number of lots similarly situated, in addition to those which were the particular subject of your inquiry. The same decision will have to be made as to all of those lots. I think this ought to be brought to the attention of the Supervisors so they can deal with it as one problem, once and for all. Sincerely yours, George R. St. John L^ t i -�c / /llrtr"Fc� . GRStJ/t1 h _c- 0-a-�,� cc: Mr. William Brent November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) Page 8 2 2 ,g (Page 15) 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. John's judgement, that vested a property right in the landowner to this connection. If that right is 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 that breach is forced upon the Service Authority by refusal by the Board of Supervisors to allow the Service , Authority to keep its commitment, that constitutes a taking of this property right by the County. In that case, the County and not the Service Authority would have to pay for it. He said there are other easements similar to this. He said in all the cases he is aware of, the right to connect was included and vested in the easement at a time when the the ;property in question was within the service area boundaries of the Service Authority. In other words, the Service Authority did not exceed its powers ati that time. Later, the service areas were diminished. .� Mr. St. John said he had prepared a resollution for the Board's considera- tion which would address all similar applications and eliminate the need for the Service Authority and an applicant to apper before the Board for this action in the future. He noted that the resolution provides that no more than one connection is deemed to be required by thus resolution on any particular easement. He said there may be cases where the land has been divided into two or more parcels subsequent to the easement commitment 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. 1 Mr. Bowie asked if the utility connection,referred to is water. Mr. St. John said the connection is for water. He said 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 91 2 3 (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 today. 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. All 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 been a procedure where the court superimposed its judgment on that option, to his 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 raise if the easement does not expressly state the nature of the connection Plat is permitted and the Board specifies "one residential connection". Mr. t. John said this resolution presupposes that the property is outside the service area. Mr. Lindstrom asked if this should be discussed in executive session. Mr. St. John said that would not be necessary. He said it is difficult to predict what the courts will do in this area. However, Mr. Sti 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 the 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 was engaged in by the Board only because it was necessary to avoid the posture ,of taking someone's property and going back on a written, recorded commitment. ) Mr. D. French Slaughter, III, appearing or tfie applicant, said the request is only for this one particular parce]. He asked the Board to rule favorably on this application. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the request is fop 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 sure. In any event, the property owner does not intend to subdivide. Mr. Lindstrom said the applicant is asking for connection for one house, and he would like to see the resolution tailored for that. Mr. Slaughter said if approval could be given at this meeting, his client would appreciate it because the house is already under construction. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following resolution to include aid permit one residential connection only to the property shown within the green enclosed line on the plat of Gloeckner and Osborne dated August 13, 1987, showing survey of Parcels . 2 .31 November 8, 1989 (Regular Meeting) Page I (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", said 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 : hat meeting. Mr. Lindstrom said the purpose of that meeting was to evaluate the proposal on the 25 acre portion of the 250 acres of the Blue Ridge Site. He pointed out a chart on the wall prepared by staff explaining the two;ralternatives presented by the architects. Mr. Lindstrom said this area is shown inthe County's Comprehensive Plan as Rural Areas, and the proposed project is not a rural use. The PACC Agree- ment with the University states that property 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 plan was proposed or developed under the Agreement. Therefore, it seems that the Agreement 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 Comprehensive Plan for rural designa- tion. As Mr. Covey pointed out in the previous meeting, the County has no direct authority to review, approve, or deny this particular proposal. In fact, Mr. Covey had asked on what grounds theilBoard intended to look at the plan. Mr. Lindstrom said the Board is looking at the project because it has a public obligation to defend its ComprehensivePlan 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, frankly, 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 s.iid he is aware that the university and the Division of Forestry have spent a lot of money on the plaris and are anxious to go forward. His concern is that the Board has a responsibility to the 65,000 people it represents. The Board needs to get as much leverage as possible on the development process, even though the County may 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 started. One of them is an environmen- tal asses4ment by the State Council on the Environment. He said there was a very frank discussion in last week's meeting and 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 ATTACHMENT C • ATTACHMENT C COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE /pp A jtl MEMORANDUM TO: County Board of Supervisors FROM: Larry W. Davis, County Attorney/2�l (- DATE: July 19, 1996 RE: Jurisdictional Area Amendment Request The Albemarle County Service Authority(hereafter"ACSA") has requested that ,the Board of Supervisors amend the jurisdictional area for water and sewer connections to allow the ACSA to honor the connections it promised to parcels when easements for line extensions across such properties were negotiated in the 1970's. Such promises are found in many of the deeds which specified that future connections would be granted upon application. At the time the easements were negotiated, I am advised the parcels were in the jurisdictional area. Subsequently, in the early 1980's, the jurisdictional area was reduced in size so that the parcels were no longer included. The County and the ACSA are separate legal entities. The legal obligations of the ACSA need not be honored by the County. The promises made by the ACSA and found in the deeds granting easements to it in the 1970's may create an on-going contractual obligation for the ACSA. If the ACSA cannot honor such promises, and if the contracts are enforceable, it may have liability to property owners where damages can be proven. The County would not have any contractual liability because it was not a party to the agreements. Even though the parcels were within the jurisdictional area at the time the ACSA promised connections, there is no "vested right" to the connections which is enforceable against the County. Any such rights, if they ever existed, would have had to have been timely asserted in the 1980's when the jurisdictional area was reduced in size. County Board of Supervisors Page 21 July 19, 1996 Page 2 An extension of the jurisdictional area to honor a similar water connection request was granted by the Board in 1989. The Board determined it would review such requests on a case by case basis. Although many other similarly situated parcels exist, there has not been another request for such a connection until now. The importance of the precedent established by the 1989 action and any future action by the Board is dependent upon whether or not there is a rational basis to distinguish such actions from future requests if the Board decides to deny such requests. The Comprehensive Plan policy does not specifically address this situation as a reason justifying jurisdictional area extensions. Clearly the Board cannot act arbitrarily or capriciously in making land use decisions. However, so long as the Board considers these jurisdictional area requests on a case by case basis it has the opportunity to identify the reasons that any particular request is inconsistent with the health, safety, and welfare of the County and can articulate the basis for a denial (e.g. -- the request allows development inconsistent with rural area development standards which could not otherwise be developed without connection to public water). Under such circumstances, the County could legally deny a request for such articulable reasons. If you have any questions, please contact me. LWD:rcs 94-012001