HomeMy WebLinkAboutACSA199800003 Other 1998-03-25 M.B. 41, Pg. 32
April 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
situation such as this one can be handled differently, particularly in rural
areas, when it is for a use that truly belongs somewhere else. He said
that guidance for these types of situations is needed.
Mr. Tucker stated that the staff would develop some language and bring it
_ back to the Board.
Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
1. Not more than two (2) employees who are not family members
who reside on-site;
2. Compliance with the performance standards of Section 4.1.4
of the Zoning Ordinance;
3. New structure to house the home occupation shall be located
as shown on plat initialed WDF and dated 3/19/92;
4. Health Department approval;
5. Permit is issued for use by Blaise Gaston only; and
6. County Engineer approval of method of disposal of all
solvents, finishes, paints, lacquers and the like including
clean-up materials/liquids and applicators.
(The Board recessed at 9:15 p.m. and reconvened at 9:25 p.m. )
Agenda Item No. 13. SP-92-07. Farmington Country Club. Public Hearing
on a request to construct a 30,980 sq ft sports club & a 4830 sq ft storage
facility to supplement existing 4350 sq ft golf maintenance/storage bldg on
approx 28 acs zoned RA. Property on E side of Old Mill Rd approx 500 ft N of
inters with Lake Rd in Farmington Subd. TM60E2,P's l(part.&2) . Samuel Miller
Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 31 and April 7, 1992. )
Mrs. Humphris announced that she does not have a statutory conflict in
dealing with the Farmington Country Club request, but she excused herself from
the discussion because she is a member of the Club.
Mr. Bowerman also disqualified himself from hearing the Farmington
Country Club discussion because his company has rendered a bid for the fitness
area of this project, and he thinks it would be inappropriate for him to vote
on this issue. He then turned the meeting over to Mr. Bain, who would act as
Chairman, until Mr. Bowerman's return.
Mr. Marshall noted that he is a member of the Farmington Country Club,
also. Mr. Bain stated that being a member would not create a conflict of
interest in this situation. Mr. Marshall asked if this is the reason Mrs.
Humphris removed herself from the discussion. Mr. St. John and Mr. Bowerman
informed Mr. Marshall that the decision to stay or withdraw is a voluntary
one. Mr. Marshall stated that he would vote honestly on the matter, so he
would like to stay for the presentation.
Mr. William D. Fritz, Senior Planner, summarized the staff report which
is on file in the Clerks office and a part of the permanent record of the
Board. Mr. Fritz said the proposed activity represents an intensification of
land use. The area and surrounding areas are currently used for golf mainte-
nance/storage, as well as, a golf course. This request for an indoor sports
facility does not represent a new use in Farmington nor is the new construc-
tion intended to increase membership. Issues of utilities and critical slopes
are adequately addressed. It is the opinion of staff that this use will not
change the character of the area due to existing uses in the area. Staff
recommends approval of SP-92-07 subject to the following condition:
"1. Use of the sports facility shall be for Farmington Country
Club members only. "
Mr. Fritz said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 24,
1992, unanimously recommended approval of SP-92-07 subject to the condition
recommended by staff.
Mr. Fritz said the Commission's main discussion dealt with the provision
of a turnaround on the road, as well as a cross connection between an existing
area of parking and the parking area that is being proposed for the indoor
sports facility.
Mr. Bain asked Mr. Fritz to discuss information that was given to the
Board relative to the entrance of the proposed facility. Mr. Fritz commented
that the Department of Transportation is recommending the entrance on Garth
Road be improved. He said that the entrance is currently in the shape of a
"Y, " but the staff's recommendation is not to improve that intersection,
M.B. 41 , Pg. 33
April 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
because this request should not increase traffic in Farmington, and would not
put any additional pressures on this entrance nor the entrance on Route 250.
He noted that the necessary improvements to that entrance would involve
grading off site on land that Farmington Country Club has no control.
At this time, Mr. Bain opened the public hearing.
Mr. Peter Sheeran, the architect for the sports facility, stated that he
would address a few points that Mr. Fritz mentioned. He noted that there were
a number of problems with the intersection at Garth Road, but he does not
believe the facility will generate any additional traffic. He added that he
has considered the sight distances that are required by the Department of
Transportation, and they are adequate in one direction, but lacking in another
direction. He went on to say that there are some sight easement rights-of-way
that are unobtainable. He stated that the turnaround issue has been addressed
with staff relating to Old Mill Road, and a couple of alternatives have been
considered. He commented that the revised entrance might work better if it
was a road that had another connection, but in this particular situation, Old
Mill Road is a deadend. He noted that there are two residences there, and
these residents have expressed their concerns about people who might be coming
to use this facility, and who might miss the turnoff into the parking lot, and
turn around in their driveways. He thinks that this is a very legitimate
concern, so he feels the need to work with staff in regard to the initial
turnaround that was submitted. He stated that he has the drawing with him
tonight, if anyone wants to see it. He said that he would be happy to answer
questions. He brought with him the preliminary plans for the building and an
artist's rendering, in three dimensions.
Since Board members had no questions for Mr. Sheeran at this time, Mr.
Bain opened the public hearing.
Ms. Catherine Womack, an attorney representing Philip and Karen Ryder,
noted that Mr. and Mrs. Ryder live on Old Mill Road, which is across the
street from the proposed facility. She commented that the Ryders are not
opposed to the facility, but she wanted to express the Ryders' concerns, which
they feel have not been adequately addressed by the staff or the applicant.
There has been some discussion about a turnaround. She hoped that all of the
Board members rode down Old Mill Road and looked at the site, because if they
did, they must have turned around in the Ryders' driveway. She stated that if
they did not turn around in the Ryders' driveway, she knows that they were
tempted to do so, because it is the logical thing to do. She explained that
the Ryders' house sets close to the street, there is a circular driveway in
the front of the property, and traffic on that road usually turns around
there. She noted that Old Mill Road is not a big street, there is not room
enough to turn around, and it is a deadend. She said the Ryders are in
support of the original plan that was proposed as part of the site plan which
had a circular drive in front of the facility. If this is not feasible, she
urged that some other type of turnaround be provided. She understands the
staff's position of wanting to minimize the number of road cuts, but under
these circumstances, she thinks that circulation could be improved and traffic
could be kept out of the Ryders' front yard. She pointed out that the Ryders'
yard is not like some properties in Farmington where there are expansive
yards, and if someone turns into the driveway, they would hardly be noticed.
She stated that if a car pulls into the Ryders' driveway, it is within several
feet of their front windows and front door. She asked that a condition be
placed on the approval that some type of turnaround be provided.
Secondly, Ms. Womack mentioned that she understands an agreement has
already been reached on additional screening, other than what is required by
the Ordinance. She noted that although this has been agreed upon, it has not
been officially incorporated anywhere. She said the Ryders are requesting
that six to eight foot trees be planted on the outside of the fence, and it is
her understanding that the applicant has agreed to that. She stated the
Ryders are also concerned about the maintenance facility. She suspects that a
person driving down that road and approaching the maintenance building, would
probably think that it looks out of place, and that it does not belong in this
residential neighborhood. She added that the Ryders would like to see an
opaque gate or screening set inside the gate, so that the unsightly nature of
the maintenance facility is hidden. In discussions with the applicant, the
applicant has indicated that the gate would need to be open a great deal of
the time because there is constant traffic going in and out. She indicated
that she is not asking that the gate be opened and closed, as people go in and
out, but she said the Ryders would like some screening in this facility. She
commented that she has been told the applicant will consider the Ryders'
requests, but the Ryders feel this would be the appropriate place to raise
their concerns and to make sure the requests are incorporated. She then asked
- the Board to impose these requests as conditions of approval.
Mr. Bain asked if the issues that Ms. Womack addressed relate to the site
development plan, or the application for the special use permit. Ms. Womack
answered that these issues were raised at the Planning Commission meeting, and
it is her understanding this Board can impose these conditions upon a special
use permit. She added that is why the concerns have been brought before this
Board.
M.B. 41 , Pg. 34
April 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
Mr. Bain then inquired if there has been an appeal of the site plan
approval. Ms. Womack replied, "no." She noted that these are design features
that have not been approved. She wants to make sure that these features get
more than just consideration. She reiterated that she is requesting these
design features be incorporated as conditions of the special use permit.
No one else came forward to speak, so Mr. Bain closed the public hearing.
Mr. Perkins stated that he would like to hear from the architect about
the concerns raised by Ms. Womack. He said it seems to him that these are
reasonable requests.
Mr. Sheeran agreed that the requests are reasonable. He stated that he
has met with both residents at the end of the street, and personally went over
the preliminary site plan with them prior to the Planning Commission meeting.
He thinks the turnaround is an issue that everyone recognizes as a potential
problem, but he believes there is a way it can be worked out. He said there
are a couple of solutions that can be addressed. He went on to say that if
this was a public road being built to State standards, it would be desirable
to minimize road cuts. In this case, however, beyond this facility, there are
only two other residences. He thinks it would be appropriate to have a turn-
around or a small cul-de-sac at the location of this building, with a lane
that extends to the two houses that are already on that road. He said there
are no additional lots beyond that, so he does not see any future development
occurring, beyond that point.
Mr. Sheeran next discussed the second concern involving the screening
with trees. He stated that while the Ordinance may call for four to six foot
trees, he is more than willing to increase the trees to six to eight feet in
size. He pointed out that there is a golf course adjacent to this property,
and he is also concerned about screening and how the landscaping will look.
He noted, though, that study will need to be given to the type of trees that
will be planted because adjacent to the fence where the trees will go, is a
golf green. He said concern has to be shown toward shade from trees and root
systems that might grow under the golf green.
With respect to the gate, Mr. Sheeran said that in talking to the
Manager at Farmington, it is true that while in theory it would be nice to
have a gate, the reality of it is that it would have to be a very wide gate
because there are a number of tractor trailer trucks which have to make
deliveries. He added the gate would be open from dawn, when the grass is cut
in the morning, all day while vehicles such as golf carts and tractors are
coming in and out. He went on to say that, at the end of the day, the last
people who come in are the people who pull in the watering hoses and, at dusk,
the people are putting out the watering devices. He said he is willing to
consider the gate, but he does not feel it is something which can be agreed
upon, at this point, especially in light of the fact that the realities of the
gate would mean that it would be closed from dark until dawn. He does not
think that would create much screening.
Mr. Bain asked if the issue on the turnaround on the original plan
relates to road cuts or critical slopes. Mr. Sheeran replied that the
turnaround issue has nothing to do with slopes. He said, it has been his
experience in dealing with development in the County, that Highway Department
officials always like to minimize road cuts. He stated the Highway Department
also likes to have road cuts spaced as far apart as possible. In this situa-
tion, Mr. Sheeran explained that there was a turnaround which would affect two
road cuts within 50 feet of each other. He added there are two ways of look-
ing at the situation. He said there could be two road cuts spaced along the
road, or the geometry of the island could be slightly reorganized, which would
be similar to a cul-de-sac, with a spur coming from it. He has this drawing
with him, if anyone wants to see it.
There were no further questions for the applicant, so Mr. Bain commented
that he would like to hear from staff on the issues that were raised by the
property owners. He agreed with Ms. Womack that this Board can put conditions
on the special use permit, but he wondered about the site plan process. He
knows that the preliminary site plan has been approved, but he wondered how
there can be some certainty from the property owners' position that their
concerns will be addressed, so that this Board will not have to list them
as conditions. He does not like putting site plan conditions on special use
permits, unless it absolutely has to be done.
Mr. Tucker remarked that he believes the preliminary site plan was
approved subject to the special use permit being approved by this Board.
Mr. Bain stated that this was preliminary approval. He asked if any of
these conditions were addressed during the site plan approval.
Mr. Fritz responded that wording has been prepared for those conditions
that address all three of the issues that were raised.
Mr. Bain commented that he thinks the issues need to be addressed, and he
understands they are being addressed. He stated the concern which might be
hard to handle involves the kind and size of trees. He said the applicant is
willing to study this matter, and he hears no objections, except to the fence.
M.B. 41 , Pg. 35
April 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
He is unsure if the staff has commented as to whether or not the fence is
appropriate. He does not know if time should be spent on this matter tonight,
but he thinks it should be addressed before the final site plan approval.
Mr. Keeler suggested it might be more appropriate for the Board to direct
staff to address these conditions and other conditions that are agreeable to
both parties, before approval of the final site plan. He added that if the
Ryders are not satisfied, the Ryders can appeal the final site plan. He
stated that if these conditions are placed on the special use permit and
something else develops, the special use permit is useless.
Mr. Bain agreed. He asked if there was a consensus of the Board to
direct the staff to address the issues before final site plan approval. Board
members responded affirmatively.
At this time, Mr. Martin moved, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve
SP-92-07 subject to the condition recommended by the Planning Commission, as
well as to direct staff to examine the provision of a circular drive in front
of the sports facility or some other turnaround; screening to consist of six
to eight foot trees on the outside of the fence; and some kind of opaque gate
or screening set inside the gate at the maintenance facility as possible
solutions to problems raised by the residents on Old Mill Road.
Mr. St. John raised the question as to the enforceability of this one
condition, as well as the practicality of it. He read the condition as it was
shown in the staff report, and pointed out that it relates to the use of the
sports facility as being for Farmington Country Club members only. He won-
dered if guests and families of the members could use the facility. He noted
that the other sports facilities in Farmington are available for tournaments,
etc. He asked why this facility would not have the same rules as all of the
other facilities. He inquired as to what public interest would be served by
approving this condition.
Mr. Bain remarked that he understands this sports facility is not to be
used for commercial activity. He said that if the facility is open for
commercial activities, traffic is increased, and other issues have to be
addressed.
Mr. St. John questioned whether or not the Zoning Administrator can
enforce this condition, even if the wording of the condition is changed to
include guests and families. He said this is a public facility, and it is to
be made a part of the existing facilities at Farmington. He noted that he is
not a member at Farmington, and he is not concerned about this matter at all,
from that respect, but he wonders if conditions should be put on these special
use permits when the County has no power to enforce them.
Mr. Martin suggested that the condition include the words, "country club
members, families and guests." He said he has only been on the Board of
Supervisors for four months, but he has seen this Board deal with several
special use permit conditions that are probably unenforceable. He compared
the situation to a person who is going five miles over the speed limit. He
said that violations usually do not get any attention, unless a person gets
caught.
Mr. Bain agreed with Mr. Martin. He said, however, that his question
relates to whether limits should be placed on the new facility.
Mr. St. John commented that people are going to go to the new facility
for special events, even though they may not be guests of particular members.
He said the people would be guests of the Club for that event.
Mr. Keeler suggested that the wording of the condition be changed to
state that the new facility would operate in the same fashion as the Country
Club, itself. He said this would cover everything, and would be more enforce-
able.
Mr. Bain pointed out that there could be situations such as a contract
with the University where people could use the facility for a certain period
of time. He said that would increase traffic substantially, and is not what
was intended. He would probably not be able to support the motion, in that
light.
Mr. Sheeran responded that this question was brought out in the Planning
Commission meeting, also. He said his understanding is that this facility
would be used in the same manner as all of the other facilities at Farmington.
He added that there are very specific bylaws that address which members of the
Club can use which facilities. He stated that guest policies are also
addressed in the bylaws such as how many times a week a member may have a
guest. He said the bylaws would have to be changed before a situation with
the University, such as Mr. Bain noted, could occur. He believes that if this
Board wants to have this condition placed on the permit, the best way to
address the situation, is to have the wording of the condition indicate that
this facility will be used in the same manner as the other facilities at
Farmington Country Club, and will be covered under the same bylaws.
M.B. 41, Pg. 36
April 15, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
Mr. St. John agreed that this would be better than trying to spell out
who can use the facility in the condition.
At this time, Mr. Martin amended his motion to approve SP-92-07 with the
condition that use of the sports facility shall be for Farmington Country Club
_ members, families and guests under the same bylaws of other club facilities in
Farmington. As seconder, Mr. Perkins agreed to the amended motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain.
AYES: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
(The condition of approval is set out in full below: )
1. Use of the sports facility shall be for Farmington Country
Club members, families and guests under the same bylaws of
other club facilities in Farmington.
(Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris returned to the meeting at 9:55 p.m. )
Agenda Item No. 14. SP-92-08. Robert Lee Frazier. Public Hearing on a
request to operate a public garage on 2.0 acs zoned RA located on E side of Rt
795 approx 0.4 mi N of Rt 727. TM114,P48. Scottsville Dist. (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on March 31 and April 7, 1992. )
Mr. Keeler summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerks
office and a part of the permanent record of the Board. Mr. Keeler said staff
opinion is that this use will have minimal impact on the area. The applicant
is aware of proper methods of disposal for waste materials and has already
contacted individuals to arrange for disposal of these matters. Based on the
limited on-site impact this use will have and the applicant's provision for
waste disposal, staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
"1. The public garage use shall be limited to the repairing and
equipping of farm, lawn, gardening or motor vehicles. No
body work or spray-painting of vehicles shall be permitted.
No gasoline sales or sale or rental of vehicles shall be
permitted;
2. All work shall be conducted within the existing garage;
3. No outside storage of parts including junk parts and junk
cars. Refuse awaiting disposal shall be stored in
appropriate containers;
4. Not more than two (2) motor vehicles, awaiting repair, shall
be parked on the property outdoors at any time and these
shall be located behind the garage;
5. Fire and Building Official approval;
6. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of commercial
entrance; and
7. Hours of operation shall be limited from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. , Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on
Saturday, and no operation of the garage on Sunday. "
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 10,
1992, unanimously recommended approval of SP-92-08 subject to the conditions
recommended by staff, condition #6 amended and the following eighth condition:
"6. Compliance with recommendations described in Virginia
Department of Transportation letter dated February 25, 1992,
except for the last sentence;
8. No employees."
Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing and asked Mr. Frazier if he
wished to speak to the Board.
Mr. Frazier indicated that he had no remarks.
Mr. Bowerman then asked for public comment.
Mr. Kevin Cox urged the Board's support in giving Mr. Frazier the
special use permit, because he said Mr. Frazier provides a valuable service
working on small tractors and lawn mowers. Mr. Cox noted that Mr. Frazier is
located ten miles from downtown Scottsville and 12 miles from Charlottesville.
He added that he is impressed with Mr. Frazier's concern about the proper
handling of liquid oxidants from automobiles. He went on to say that Mr.
Frazier has everything set up to get these liquid oxidants exposed of
properly.
3-24-92 G M'" SC) 5
with a 2-year time limit at which time the applicant could
apply for renewal .
Mr. Jenkins stated he agreed with Mr. Blue.
Mr. Hensley stated that a two year time limit was
acceptable.
There was a brief discussion as to whether or not to amend
the condition related to number of employees. Mr. Grimm
pointed out that space limitations would limit the number of -
trucks to three. No amendment to the number of employees
was made, i.e. condition No. 2 remained as presented by
staff.
Mr. Johnson indicated he was in agreement with Mr. Blue. He
stated: "I think that the empathy we have for this
gentleman--to keep him in business--is certainly worth
pursuing. "
Ms. Huckle stated she could not support the request because
she felt it did not fit within the definition of a home
occupation and she did not feel it was any different than a
previous request on which the Commission had recommended
denial. She felt this type of situation would lower
neighborhood property values. She felt strongly that other
parking arrangements could be made for the trucks.
Mr. Grimm stated he could support the request based solely
on the fact that the situation has existed for many years.
Mr. Blue moved that SP-92-02 for Harold and Sarah Hensley be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject
to the following conditions:
1. No on-site sales.
2 . Not more than two employees who are not family members
who reside on-site.
3 . Compliance with the performance standards of Section
4 . 1.4 of the Zoning Ordinance.
4 . Repair of drainage pipe under the driveway entrance.
5. Permit will expire two years after date of issuance.
Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion which passed (5: 1) with Commissioner
Huckle casting the dissenting vote.
SP-92-07 Farmington Country Club - Proposal to construct a
30, 980 square foot sports club and a 4, 830 square foot
storage facility to supplement the existing 4 , 350 square
foot golf maintenance/storage building on approximately 28
SUY-yL-UU5 - • -mington indoor Sports Fac- •.ty Preliminary
Site Plan - P, osal to construct a 30, 980 square foot
sports club and a 4 , 830 square foot storage facility to
supplement the existing 4 , 350 square foot golf
maintenance/storage building on this 28 acre site.
Property, described as Tax Map 60E2 , Parcels 1, (part) and
2 , is located in Farmington on the east side of Old Mill
Road approximately 500 feet north of its intersection with
Lake Road. Zoned RA, Rural Areas in the Samuel Miller
Magisterial District. This site is not located in a
designated growth area.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions and supported the applicant' s
request of a modification to Section 4 . 2 . 3 . 2 related to
critical slopes.
Mr. Fritz verified that the pump station is owned by
Farmington. Mr. Blue asked if staff felt it unnecessary to
include a condition related to the adequacy of the capacity
of the pump station. Mr. Fritz replied: "Because these are
all private lines, it will be handled when they get their
building permits. . . . "
Mr. Fritz pointed out that the critical slopes shown on this
plan are slightly less than was shown on the original plan.
k:°
QC• 1V
) 32492 9
4// In response to Mr. Nitchmann's question, Mr. Fritz confirmed
that all the issues which had been raised would be reviewed
during site plan review and the turnaround issue would be
pursued further with the applicant before the special permit
is heard by the Board.
The applicant offered no additional comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Johnson stated that he supported the site plan but he
again stated that he felt the site plan should show an
access between the existing parking lot and the area between
the two sheds. He felt this was desirable from both an
access and a safety standpoint. Mr. Johnson did not insist
that this be made a condition of approval, but he strongly
urged that the applicant consider this suggestion.
Mr. Johnson moved that the Farmington Indoor Sports Facility
Preliminary Site Plan be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of
the final site plan for signature until tentative approvals
for the following conditions have been obtained. The final
site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions
are met:
a. Department of Engineering approval of grading and
drainage plans and calculations;
b. Department of Engineering approval of stormwater
detention plans and calculations;
c. Department of Engineering approval of an erosion
control plan;
d. Department of Engineering issuance of a runoff
control permit;
e. Staff approval of final landscape plan;
f. Staff approval of plat combining parcels 1 and 2 ;
g. Staff approval of maintenance agreement for the
existing pond.
2 . Administrative approval of the final site plan.
3 . A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until the
following condition is met:
a. Fire Official final approval .
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
! 4
t K
5 *s r
i • 9r .
IP
STAFF PERSON: WILLIAM D. FRITZ
PLANNING COMMISSION: MARCH 24 , 1992
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: APRIL 15, 1992
DP92-07 FARMINGTON COUNTRY CLUB AND
-92-005 FARMINGTON INDOOR SPORTS FACILITY PRELIMINARY
SITE PLAN
Petition: Proposal to construct a 30, 980 square foot
sports club facility on a 28 acre parcel. Property,
described as Tax Map 60E2 , Parcel 1 (part) and 2 , is located
in Farmington on the east side of Old Mill Road
approximately 500 feet north of its intersection with Lake
Road. Zoned RA, Rural Areas in the Samuel Miller
Magisterial District. This site is not located in a
designated growth area (Rural Area 3) .
Character of the Area: The site is currently developed with
golf maintenance/storage facilities totaling approximately
8, 850 square feet. The site is surrounded by a golf course
to the north and west, a pond to the east, and a wooded
slope is to the south. No dwellings are located in close
proximity to the site.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to
construct a 30, 980 foot sports club facility. The indoor
sports facility will contain three tennis courts, three
squash courts, an aerobic exercise room, weight room, locker
facilities, viewing area and administrative offices.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff has reviewed SP-92-07 for compliance with Section
31. 2 . 4 . 1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval
subject to conditions. Staff has reviewed the preliminary
site plan for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and
recommends approval .
Planning and Zoning History: None Available
Comprehensive Plan: This site is located in Rural Area 3 of
the Comprehensive Plan. The plan does not encourage this
type of use in the Rural Area. However, it is a
pre-existing use and will not likely cause accelerated
development of the Rural Area as the membership using the
facility will not be increased.
1
STAFF COMMENT:
Staff has combined the reviews for the special use permit
and the site plan for this project. However, staff comment
will separately address the criteria for granting a special
use permit and the site plan' s compliance with the Zoning
Ordinance. Staff will address each provision of Section
31. 2 . 4 . 1 .
• The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself
the right to issue all special use permits permitted
hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided iri
this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the
Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of
substantial detriment to adjacent property,
The adjacent property is used as a golf course. The current
golf maintenance facility does not constitute a detriment to
adjacent property and it is the opinion of staff that the
expansion of uses on site to include indoor recreation will
not result in a detriment to adjacent property.
e that the character of the district will not be changed
thereby
The current maintenance/storage use will continue.
Farmington already has recreational facilities and the golf
course is located adjacent to the proposed facility. This
use will not increase membership but is designed to better
serve the needs of the existing members (Farmington Country
Club' s Membership is fixed by its by-laws) . Therefore, it
is staff 's opinion that this facility will not change the
character of the area as it exists.
• and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose
and intent of this ordinance,
The stated intent of the Rural Areas does not encourage this
type of use. Therefore, this use may be considered
inconsistent with the intent of the ordinance. However,
staff does note that this use has historically been used for
a use not consistent with the intent of the Rural Areas.
• with the uses permitted by right in the district,
This property and adjacent property is zoned RA. While a
sports facility with maintenance/storage is not consistent
with the stated intent of the RA district this use will not
conflict with uses permitted by right in the RA district.
This opinion is based on the current land use of this and
adjacent property which is non-agricultural, non-forestal.
It is unlikely that the current golf course use would be
abandoned.
2
with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of
this ordinance, and with the public health, safety and
general welfare.
Section 5. 1. 16 governs swimming, golf, tennis clubs.
However, those regulations are intended to address negative
impacts of open air facilities. The proposed use is an
indoor facility and, therefore, it is the opinion of staff
that this request is in compliance with Section 5. 1. 16.
Issues of public health, safety, and general welfare will be
addressed adequately by the site plan. As part of the
safety improvements to the site the private access road will
be widened to better accommodate the traffic to and from the
site. It is the opinion of the staff that the other roads
in Farmington will be adequate to serve this use as no
increase in total traffic volumes within Farmington is
anticipated. The Department of Transportation has
recommended improvements to Farmington' s Route 601 entrance
(Attachment C) . As stated, staff opinion is that this
request will not increase traffic volumes. In addition, the
property that would require grading in order to improve
sight distance is not under the control of the applicant.
Staff does not support VDOT recommendations as this use is
intended to serve the existing club members only and will
not result in significant increased traffic volumes.
Other issues of health, safety and welfare pertinent to this
proposal are addressed under the preliminary site plan
comments below.
Summary of SP-92-07
The proposed activity represents an intensification of land
use. The area and surrounding areas are currently used for
golf maintenance/storage as well as a golf course. This
request for an indoor sports facility does not represent a
new use in Farmington nor is the new construction intended
to increase membership. Issues of utilities and critical
slopes are adequately addressed below. It is the opinion of
staff that this use will not change the character of the
area due to existing uses in the area.
Preliminary Site Plan Comments
In the review of the site plan, staff has identified the
following issues which must be addressed:
1. Provision of public utilities to the site;
2 . Modification of Section 4 . 2 . 3 . 2 to allow activity on
critical slopes.
3
•
It
Provision of Public Utilities to the Site
This site is within the Albemarle County Service Authority
Jurisdictional Area for water only. The applicant proposes
connection to public sewer for the new construction. There
is an existing sanitary sewer line adjacent to the location
of the new construction. Other club facilities in
Farmington are served by public sewer. The Albemarle County
Service Authority has stated that the downstream sewer lines
have adequate capacity to accommodate this use. Staff
opinion is that due to the available capacity in the sewer
line and that no extension of line is needed that connection -
to public sewer is appropriate as it represents increased
utilization as opposed to a new connection.
Modification to Permit Activit on Critical Slo es
Section 4 . 2 . 3 . 2 of the Zoning Ordinance states:
"No structure nor earth disturbing activity to
establish such structure or improvement shall be
located on slopes or twenty-five (25) percent or
greater except as otherwise permitted under Section
4 . 3 . 1 . "
The applicant has submitted a detailed justification to
permit activity on critical slopes (Attachment D) . This
justification notes that a large portion of the area of
critical slopes is man-made and consists of uncontrolled
fill which is susceptible to erosion. The Engineering
Department has reviewed the applicant ' s justification and
recommends approval (Attachment E) . Planning staff also
supports the request.
This use does involve grading in the Reservoir Watershed. A
pond used for irrigation is located adjacent and downstream
from this site. The Engineering Department has stated in
Attachment E that this pond will provide for effective
runoff control.
(The Erosion Control Plan will specify any
additional requirements that must be met) .
Staff recommends the Commission waive Section 4 . 2 . 3 . 2 as the
strict application of the requirements of Section 4 . 2 would
not forward the purposes of this ordinance or otherwise
serve the public interest. Staff opinion is that
alternatives proposed by the developer would satisfy the
purposes of Section 4 . 2 to at least an equivalent degree
(Section 4 . 2 . 5a) .
4
low
' dations for SP-92-07 and Farmington Preliminary Site
. request is to better serve the existing members of
ngton Country Club. As such this use does not
•'besent the introduction of a commercial activity into the
.. al Areas nor does it represent significant
•%tensification of an existing use. The applicant has
.* epared a site plan which is consistent with the Zoning
• dinance and submitted detailed modification request which
are supported by staff. Based on the above comments staff
recommends approval of both the special use permit and
preliminary site plan subject to conditions:
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SP-92-07:
-r..
1. Use of the sports facility shall be for Farmington
Country Club members only.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR FARMINGTON INDOOR
1 SPORTS FACILITY PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
• F
1. The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of
the final site plan for signature until tentative
approvals for the following conditions have been
obtained. The final site plan shall not be signed
until the following conditions are met:
a. Department of Engineering approval of grading and
;;t:: drainage plans and calculations;
b. Department of Engineering approval of stormwater
detention plans and calculations;
c. Department of Engineering approval of an erosion
control plan;
d. Department of Engineering issuance of a runoff
control permit;
e. Staff approval of final landscape plan;
f. Staff approval of plat combining parcels 1 and 2 .
g. Staff approval of maintenance agreement for the
existing pond.
2 . Administrative approval of the final site plan.
3 . A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until
the following condition is met:
a. Fire Official final approval .
5
ATTACHMENTS:
,s.
A - Location Map
B - Tax Map
C - VDOT Comments
D - Applicants Waiver Request
E - Department of Engineering Comments
F - Site Plan
6
4N g 11 ( (e n reit c.�r to 5
s ss;or' LI' II // / /
�e a,(ee5 L✓, •f�,e a1ici41S�S rl�t� ret'CU
nel Tin i5 ' IC
k.LBEMARLE
1
V
I'
;lNx�
►NDUM
TO: George St. John, County Attorney
FROM: William D. Fritz, Senior Planner t-✓('7"
DATE: March 17, 1992
RE: Farmington Country Club Indoor Sports Facility
Preliminary Site Plan
This is to follow-up on our March 13 , 1992 phone
conversation regarding sewer connection for the above
project. As I stated, the new structure is in the Albemarle
County Service Authority area for water with sewer approved
only to the existing club. The new facility is associated
with the club and is located in close proximity,
approximately 10 feet, to the existing sewer line. Our
conversation dealt with whether or not the Albemarle County
Service Authority jurisdictional boundaries had to be
amended if this new structure were to connect to public
sewer. Your opinion was that connection to public sewer is
permitted as it represents increase utilization of permitted
club sewer use as opposed to a new use or connection.
If the above does not accurately represent your comments or
opinion, please contact me.
WDF/mem
�► cue a l7"'C -'� �J�^'� Bute
0
S& 2 ; 'tiko O .
/Vet(
,„ -441LI
1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
4 0\q,.,��.,
J
0‘
,/lt(71N�
MEMORANDUM
TO: George St. John, County Attorney
FROM: William D. Fritz , Senior Planner i-J(,
DATE: March 17, 1992
RE: Farmington Country Club Indoor Sports Facility
Preliminary Site Plan
This is to follow-up on our March 13 , 1992 phone
conversation regarding sewer connection for the above
project. As I stated, the new structure is in the Albemarle
County Service Authority area for water with sewer approved
only to the existing club. The new facility is associated
with the club and is located in close proximity,
approximately 10 feet, to the existing sewer line. Our
conversation dealt with whether or not the Albemarle County
Service Authority jurisdictional boundaries had to be
amended if this new structure were to connect to public
sewer. Your opinion was that connection to public sewer is
permitted as it represents increase utilization of permitted
club sewer use as opposed to a new use or connection.
If the above does not accurately represent your comments or
opinion, please contact me.
WDF/mem
UT
t
H0
VEMO
TO: William D. Fritz, Senior Planner
FROM: Paul A. Shoop, Director of Engineering l/ (
DATE : March 11, 1992
RE: Farmington Indoor Sports Facility - Available Utilities
The proposed Farmington Indoor Sports Facility is
located within the Service Authority's jurisdictional area
for water only. The area has been approved for sewer only to
the existing club.
Adequate water supply is available to Farmington and the
existing club facility. System limitations in their private
internal lines must be addressed by the developer in
conjunction with this project. The nearest available public
line will be located at the existing clubhouse.
Adequate capacity for sanitary sewer is available in the
existing line behind Piedmont Tractor on Rt. 250. The
club owns a pump station and force main that connects to
our public sewer. The developer must address the available
capacity in the private system. Their sewage is metered
before discharging to the public sewer and any additional flow
will be included in their bill .
If you have any questions feel free to call .
PAS:dmg
MAR 1 2 1992
DEPT.
214
August 14, 1980 (Night Meeting--Adjourned from August 13, 1980)
Miss Nash stated her concern in expending planning funds for something that is two years
away. She felt that was a big risk in addition to a possible change in population.
Mr. Lindstrom felt if money is to be spent on planning it should be spent with the idea
that when planning is finished, the project will begin. Dr. Iachetta felt the $100,000 is
intended to produce a set of drawings that will be ready for bid and that is not planning, but
a commitment. Mr. Lindstrom said if the planning is a commitment to build, there is no reason
to wait because the Board has the ability to get the money. The question in his mind is if the
comments about the need for further information is sincere, then the Board should not spend the
money until that information is available.
Mr. Henley said when he was approached by representatives from Meriwether Lewis, he informed
them that if the School Board felt this was their number one priority, he would support planning
funds, if the School Board convinced him that this project could be done within a year or two,
he would support the project, and if, if Mr. Agnor could assure him that the funds were available,
he would support the project. However, the funds do not appear to be available for five years,
so he could not support the request.
Mr. Lindstrom said having the tax rate remain the same for another year is wonderful,
but the federal and state government have shifted a lot of responsibility for programs to
localities and inflation will mean buying powers will be smaller. Therefore, the question is,
should the project be done. If so, then it is unwise to wait until funds are available.
Mr. Lindstrom said he had not heard any details from the School Board about the transfer
of funds suggested by Dr. Baurele from Greenwood/Crozet to Albemarle High School. He did not
see any reason to defer action on Albemarle High School since the work is needed and the School
Board favors the project. He then noted his willingness to adopt the budget as recommended
by the County Executive and offered motion to adopt the Capital Improvements Program as
recommended by the Planning Commission and with the funding level recommended by the County
Executive as set out in the summary above and with the following conditions: 1) The dollars
being held for the Meriwether Lewis project be held until a final decision has been made on
the school. 2) A mid-year review in January, 1981, of the Capital Improvements Programs and a
review of the other questions he has personally raised. 3) Unexpended funds from the
Greenwood/Crozet project be transferred to the Albemarle High School renovation. Miss Nash
seconded the motion. Mr. Agnor said Mr. Jones and himself had discussed the list of
appropriations and such will be presented to the Board at a later date. He then asked if the
motion was to consider the funding levels without actually making appropriations. Mr. Lindstromi
said yes. Roll was then called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
At 9:55 P.M. , the Board recessed and reconvened at 10:05 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 4. Public Hearing: Amend the Comprehensive Plan as it relates to public
water and sewer areas. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 30 and August 6, 1980.)
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. , Director of Planning, was present. He discussed two maps, one
indicating the sewer lines and the other a tax map of the County which delineated the
jurisdictional boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority. He said the purpose
of this amendment is to bring the project areas into line with the recently adopted growth
areas of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tucker said Crozet is proposed to be served by water and
sewer eventually and that is the only area which has been reviewed in depth prior to this
meeting.
He then mentioned the following questionable service areas:
1-Tank area on Piney Mountain which serves only a couple of customers.
2-Gap along Proffit Road-small lots on north side of Proffit Road presently being
served by water, but lots lie outside of the Hollymead Community.
3-Properties near the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport along Route 606, both south
and north of Airport property.
4-Parcels on Georgetown Road, Hydraulic Road and Rio Road. Some parcels are not
shown for either water or sewer services, but are surrounded by parcels being
served.
5-Parcel south of Colthurst (Faulconer Estate) split by the ridge line so that one-half
is in the watershed and one-half is outside of the watershed.
6-Parcels just south of Whittington along Route 631 (Old Lynchburg Road) which are
being served by water but which would be outside of service areas.
7-Kearsarge Subdivision on Route 250 West, average lot size one acre.
8-Parcel on Garth Road near Montvue.
9-Garlick Tract has approval for 158 dwelling units, but is not in the growth area.
Mr. Tucker also noted that:
1-North Pines Subdivision (Route 29) was required by the Planning Commission to be
served by public water.
2-Piney Mountain Village is to be served by water and sewer.
214
August 14, 1980 (Night Meeting--Adjourned from August 13, 1980)
Miss Nash stated her concern in expending planning funds for something that is two years
away. She felt that was a big risk in addition to a possible change in population.
Mr. Lindstrom felt if money is to be spent on planning it should be spent with the idea
that when planning is finished, the project will begin. Dr. Iachetta felt the $100,000 is
intended to produce a set of drawings that will be ready for bid and that is not planning, but
a commitment. Mr. Lindstrom said if the planning is a commitment to build, there is no reason
to wait because the Board has the ability to get the money. The question in his mind is if the
comments about the need for further information is sincere, then the Board should not spend the
money until that information is available.
Mr. Henley said when he was approached by representatives from Meriwether Lewis, he informed
them that if the School Board felt this was their number one priority, he would support planning
funds, if the School Board convinced him that this project could be done within a year or two,
he would support the project, and if, if Mr. Agnor could assure him that the funds were available,
he would support the project. However, the funds do not appear to be available for five years,
so he could not support the request.
Mr. Lindstrom said having the tax rate remain the same for another year is wonderful,
but the federal and state government have shifted a lot of responsibility for programs to
localities and inflation will mean buying powers will be smaller. Therefore, the question is,
should the project be done. If so, then it is unwise to wait until funds are available.
Mr. Lindstrom said he had not heard any details from the School Board about the transfer
of funds suggested by Dr. Baurele from Greenwood/Crozet to Albemarle High School. He did not
see any reason to defer action on Albemarle High School since the work is needed and the School
Board favors the project. He then noted his willingness to adopt the budget as recommended
by the County Executive and offered motion to adopt the Capital Improvements Program as
recommended by the Planning Commission and with the funding level recommended by the County
Executive as set out in the summary above and with the following conditions: 1) The dollars
being held for the Meriwether Lewis project be held until a final decision has been made on
the school. 2) A mid-year review in January, 1981, of the Capital Improvements Programs and a
review of the other questions he has personally raised. 3) Unexpended funds from the
Greenwood/Crozet project be transferred to the Albemarle High School renovation. Miss Nash
seconded the motion. Mr. Agnor said Mr. Jones and himself had discussed the list of
appropriations and such will be presented to the Board at a later date. He then asked if the
motion was to consider the funding levels without actually making appropriations. Mr. Lindstrom
said yes. Roll was then called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
At 9:55 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 10:05 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 4. Public Hearing: Amend the Comprehensive Plan as it relates to public
water and sewer areas. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 30 and August 6, 1980. )
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. , Director of Planning, was present. He discussed two maps, one
indicating the sewer lines and the other a tax map of the County which delineated the
jurisdictional boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority. He said the purpose
of this amendment is to bring the project areas into line with the recently adopted growth
areas of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tucker said Crozet is proposed to be served by water and
sewer eventually and that is the only area which has been reviewed in depth prior to this
meeting.
He then mentioned the following questionable service areas:
1-Tank area on Piney Mountain which serves only a couple of customers.
2-Gap along Proffit Road-small lots on north side of Proffit Road presently being
served by water, but lots lie outside of the Hollymead Community.
3-Properties near the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport along Route 606, both south
and north of Airport property.
4-Parcels on Georgetown Road, Hydraulic Road and Rio Road. Some parcels are not
shown for either water or sewer services, but are surrounded by parcels being
served.
5-Parcel south of Colthurst (Faulconer Estate) split by the ridge line so that one-half
is in the watershed and one-half is outside of the watershed.
6-Parcels just south of Whittington along Route 631 (Old Lynchburg Road) which are
being served by water but which would be outside of service areas.
7-Kearsarge Subdivision on Route 250 West, average lot size one acre.
8-Parcel on Garth Road near Montvue.
9-Garlick Tract has approval for 158 dwelling units, but is not in the growth area.
Mr. Tucker also noted that:
1-North Pines Subdivision (Route 29) was required by the Planning Commission to be
served by public water.
2-Piney Mountain Village is to be served by water and sewer.
l � lQRn (Night Maptin --Addournpd from Au ust l3 lQ8o)
3-Huntwood on Hydraulic Road is to be served by water and sewer.
4-Ashcroft (Urban Neighborhood #3) is to be served by water only.
5-Everything from Montvue and Colthurst on Garth Road, across country to Farmington/West
Leigh/Flordon to Ivy is shown for water only service. The only exception is the
Clubhouse and Treatment Plant at Farmington which are shown for water and sewer.
6-Georgetown Woods, Phase II and Four Seasons West required water and sewer service
due to density.
7-Scottsville remains basically the same. This area could be served by gravity
sewage in the future. The only exception to that is one major farm which is now being
served by water. However, part of that farm is in the Totier Watershed. Mr. Tucker
noted that the Scottsville Shopping Center is within the watershed area of Totier Creek.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Evergreen tract was included because of the federal court orde
Mr. Tucker said yes, there would not be any reason to recognize the tract otherwise because it
falls outside of the growth area.
Mr. Tucker noted a request from Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, that the
Mormon Church at the corner of Hydraulic and Rio Roads be included for water and sewer
service since when right-of-way is taken for road improvements at the intersection, this will
eliminate their septic field. He also noted that the area does flow away from the watershed.
The area is currently shown for water only. Mr. Tucker noted another request for the Berta
Jones property. The water line from Stillhouse Mountain comes very close to the property
and the Planning Commission required public water for the subdivision. Mr. Tucker also noted
that Mr. R. E. Lee's property, known as the Terrell property, will flow naturally by gravity
through the pumping station which was requested by the Planning Commission several months ago.
Therefore, Mr. Lee has requested that the area be included for water and sewer but since the
property is in the Rivanna Watershed, Mr. Tucker felt the Board may desire to consider this
request.
The public hearing was opened. Speaking first was Mr. L. A. Lacy, Chairman of the
Albemarle County Service Authority. Mr. Lacy said the Service Authority is a self-supporting
business which does not use tax money for its operation. Therefore, as a business, the
Service Authority protests and objects to the preliminary map because it is a reduction in
the Authority's jurisdictional areas. He noted that a water system exists in the Southwood
Mobile Home area and will exist either by obtaining a certificate from the State Corporation
Commission to operate as a water company or the Service Authority will have to buy the system
and incorporate such into their system. Mr. Lacy said the Authority used to serve to the
Greene County line and he did not see any need for such since the Authority does not have the
ability to serve that area and there is no reason to unless there are plans for growth in
the area. From the North Rivanna to the Airport Road area, the Service Authority can serve
on one side of the road but apparently cannot serve on the other. The same thing happens
from Hollymead to the South Rivanna. Mr. Lacy said the Service Authority requests being
allowed to serve the areas in which they can serve. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Lacy which areas
the Authority serves that are not in the jurisdictional areas now. Mr. Lacy was unsure. Mr.
Fisher asked if they can serve properties which are not in the jurisdictional areas. Mr.
Lacy said it was agreed to by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. St. John said it is not illegal.
Mr. Clyde Gouldman, attorney representing Mrs. Gay Hathaway, spoke next. He noted Mrs.
Hathaway is the owner of one of the islands on Georgetown Road containing thirty acres
completely surrounded by properties currently being served by water and sewer or just water.
Therefore, he felt Mrs. Hathaway's property should be included in the jurisdictional area.
Speaking next was Mrs. Gay Hathaway who noted that the water line is across the front of
her property and could be connected to sewer at Georgetown Green. She also noted that she did
not have any plans for development in the future.
Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, spoke next, and reemphasized the statement
Mr. Tucker made about the Mormon Church. The only other alternative for the church would be
to buy property for another septic field or to pump the sewage uphill to the property which
is behind the church.
Mr. R. E. Lee, Jr. , spoke next. He noted that his property on Hydraulic Road was
erroneously left off of the map because he pays a water bill every month. He said the sewer
serving Old Forge Road is on his property along Georgetown Road. He asked if the Board would
deny him the right to hook onto a sewer line which is on his property.
Mr. Fred Landess spoke next in regard to the Garlick Tract. He was concerned. about the
inconsistencies of gaps and islands between properties being served by water and/or sewer and
the Garlick Tract is a good example. Water and sewer are in the area surrounding the Garlick
Tract and he did not feel leaving this area out when the Service Authority is able to serve
the property made any sense. He also pointed out that a ridgeline runs through the Garlick
Tract and a substantial part of the tract is outside of the watershed area. In conclusion,
he did not feel it made sense to leave gaps and islands and felt something logical and
consistent should be done.
With no one else present to speak, the public hearing was closed.
At 10:50 P.M., Mr. Fisher suggested deferral of this matter to August 20 since the
hour is late and this will be a prolonged matter. The Board concurred. Motion was then offer
by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adjourn to August 20, 1980, at 3:00 P.M. in the
Board Room of the County Office Building to continue this discussion. Roll was called on
the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
August lU_ 1QA0 (Night Meeting-- jnurn d rum August 13 1980)
3-Huntwood on Hydraulic Road is to be served by water and sewer.
4-Ashcroft (Urban Neighborhood #3) is to be served by water only.
5-Everything from Montvue and Colthurst on Garth Road, across country to Farmington/West
Leigh/Flordon to Ivy is shown for water only service. The only exception is the
Clubhouse and Treatment Plant at Farmington which are shown for water and sewer.
6-Georgetown Woods, Phase II and Four Seasons West required water and sewer service
due to density.
7-Scottsville remains basically the same. This area could be served by gravity
sewage in the future. The only exception to that is one major farm which is now being
served by water. However, part of that farm is in the Totier Watershed. Mr. Tucker
noted that the Scottsville Shopping Center is within the watershed area of Totier Creek.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Evergreen tract was included because of the federal court orde
Mr. Tucker said yes, there would not be any reason to recognize the tract otherwise because it
falls outside of the growth area.
Mr. Tucker noted a request from Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, that the
Mormon Church at the corner of Hydraulic and Rio Roads be included for water and sewer
service since when right-of-way is taken for road improvements at the intersection, this will
eliminate their septic field. He also noted that the area does flow away from the watershed.
The area is currently shown for water only. Mr. Tucker noted another request for the Berta
Jones property. The water line from Stillhouse Mountain comes very close to the property
and the Planning Commission required public water for the subdivision. Mr. Tucker also noted
that Mr. R. E. Lee's property, known as the Terrell property, will flow naturally by gravity
through the pumping station which was requested by the Planning Commission several months ago.
Therefore, Mr. Lee has requested that the area be included for water and sewer but since the
property is in the Rivanna Watershed, Mr. Tucker felt the Board may desire to consider this
request.
The public hearing was opened. Speaking first was Mr. L. A. Lacy, Chairman of the
Albemarle County Service Authority. Mr. Lacy said the Service Authority is a self-supporting
business which does not use tax money for its operation. Therefore, as a business, the
Service Authority protests and objects to the preliminary map because it is a reduction in
the Authority's jurisdictional areas. He noted that a water system exists in the Southwood
Mobile Home area and will exist either by obtaining a certificate from the State Corporation
Commission to operate as a water company or the Service Authority will have to buy the system
and incorporate such into their system. Mr. Lacy said the Authority used to serve to the
Greene County line and he did not see any need for such since the Authority does not have the
ability to serve that area and there is no reason to unless there are plans for growth in
the area. From the North Rivanna to the Airport Road area, the Service Authority can serve
on one side of the road but apparently cannot serve on the other. The same thing happens
from Hollymead to the South Rivanna. Mr. Lacy said the Service Authority requests being
allowed to serve the areas in which they can serve. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Lacy which areas
the Authority serves that are not in the jurisdictional areas now. Mr. Lacy was unsure. Mr.
Fisher asked if they can serve properties which are not in the jurisdictional areas. Mr.
Lacy said it was agreed to by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. St. John said it is not illegal.
Mr. Clyde Gouldman, attorney representing Mrs. Gay Hathaway, spoke next. He noted Mrs.
Hathaway is the owner of one of the islands on Georgetown Road containing thirty acres
completely surrounded by properties currently being served by water and sewer or just water.
Therefore, he felt Mrs. Hathaway's property should be included in the jurisdictional area.
Speaking next was Mrs. Gay Hathaway who noted that the water line is across the front of
her property and could be connected to sewer at Georgetown Green. She also noted that she did
not have any plans for development in the future.
Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, spoke next, and reemphasized the statement
Mr. Tucker made about the Mormon Church. The only other alternative for the church would be
to buy property for another septic field or to pump the sewage uphill to the property which
is behind the church.
Mr. R. E. Lee, Jr. , spoke next. He noted that his property on Hydraulic Road was
erroneously left off of the map because he pays a water bill every month. He said the sewer
serving Old Forge Road is on his property along Georgetown Road. He asked if the Board would
deny him the right to hook onto a sewer line which is on his property.
Mr. Fred Landess spoke next in regard to the Garlick Tract. He was concerned about the
inconsistencies of gaps and islands between properties being served by water and/or sewer and
the Garlick Tract is a good example. Water and sewer are in the area surrounding the Garlick
Tract and he did not feel leaving this area out when the Service Authority is able to serve
the property made any sense. He also pointed out that a ridgeline runs through the Garlick
Tract and a substantial part of the tract is outside of the watershed area. In conclusion,
he did not feel it made sense to leave gaps and islands and felt something logical and
consistent should be done.
With no one else present to speak, the public hearing was closed.
At 10:50 P.M., Mr. Fisher suggested deferral of this matter to August 20 since the
hour is late and this will be a prolonged matter. The Board concurred. Motion was then offer,
by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adjourn to August 20, 1980, at 3:00 P.M. in the
Board Room of the County Office Building to continue this discussion. Roll was called on
the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
2I.5
August 14, 1980 (Night Meeting--Adjourned from August 13, 1980)
Agenda Item No. 5. Public Hearing: Amend the project areas previously specified for the
Albemarle County Service Authority. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 30 and August 6,
1980)
The public hearing was opened. Mr. R. E. Lee requested that his previous comments be
placed on record. Mr. Fisher said he assumed the previous speakers were speaking to both
this amendment and the previous amendmenht. The public acknowledged same.
Mr. Gouldman felt everyone seems to be saying that the Comprehensive Plan is intended as
a general guide and suddenly property lines are being used and beyond those water and sewer
will not be available.
Mr. William Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, was present
and noted that no one would be present at the meeting on August 20. Mr. Fisher felt the comments
tonight from the Chairman of the Service Authority are sufficient.
With no one else to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to defer this amendment
to August 20, 1980, at 3:00 P.M. in the Board Room. Roll was called on the motion and same
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 6. Other Matters Not on the Agenda.
Mr. Fisher said the request from the Industrial Development Authority to approve the
financing for the Sprigg Lane Investment Corporation would now be considered. He then referred
to letter dated July 2, 1980, from Mr. James Deter, President of Sprigg Lane, which contained
information about the use of the proposed facility.
Mr. Holden said the request was explained at the July 9, 1980 (See Minute Book 19) meeting,
The request is for the Board to consider the project in accordance with the ordinance adopted
earlier this evening. The request is for assistance of a financial research business (Sprigg
Lane Investment Corporation) and funds will not exceed two million dollars; said facility to
be located on Route 250 West across from the Bellair Subdivision. Mr. Holden said the bonding
is expected to be private instead of public and noted that negotiations for construction are
being conducted with R. E. Lee and Company. Mr. Fisher asked if there were any further
comments. Hearing none, Miss Nash offered motion to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
hereby gives its approval in accordance with Sections 2-50 and 2-51, Chapter 3,
Article IX of the Albemarle County Code to the financing by the Industrial
Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia, for the benefit of Rosser
Associates for a project to be located on a tract of land on Route 250 West,
adjacent to Piedmont Tractor in Albemarle County, all as outlined in the letter
dated June 27, 1980, from Mr. D. A. Holden, Chairman of the Industrial Development
Authority and as approved, subject to various conditions, by Resolution of the
Industrial Development Authority dated as of June 25, 1980.
Mr. Henley seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher said he would not support the motion because
he was against the use of the bonds for this particular purpose. Roll was called on the
motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 7. Appointment: Library Board.
Mr. Henley offered motion to appoint Mrs. Karen Hayden to the Board of Directors of the
Regional Library for a term beginning this date and expiring on June 30, 1984. Mr. Lindstrom
(seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 6. Other Matters Not on the Agenda.
Mr. Agnor said the media has been stating that conservation of water in the County is
underway. He then noted that a water problem is a fact in the urban area. There are supposed
to be four million gallons in storage and half of that storage has been lost. If there is a file,
line break, or power failure, the remaining two million gallons in storage will go down very
rapidly. The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority has had a special meeting to consider a
conservation program. Mr. Agnor said the Authority has known for a long time that there is not
enough storage for the community and hopefully a new storage tank on Pantops will help cure
the problem.
Agenda Item No. 8. At 11:12 P.M. , motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Miss
Nash, to adjourn to August 20, 1980, at 3:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office
Building. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None. G}
icw
aQ e .� s
2.I6
August 14, 1980 (Night Meeting--Adjourned from August 13, 1980)
Agenda Item No. 5. Public Hearing: Amend the project areas previously specified for the
Albemarle County Service Authority. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 30 and August 6,
1980)
The public hearing was opened. Mr. R. E. Lee requested that his previous comments be
placed on record. Mr. Fisher said he assumed the previous speakers were speaking to both
this amendment and the previous amendment. The public acknowledged same.
Mr. Gouldman felt everyone seems to be saying that the Comprehensive Plan is intended as
a general guide and suddenly property lines are being used and beyond those water and sewer
will not be available.
Mr. William Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, was present
and noted that no one would be present at the meeting on August 20. Mr. Fisher felt the comments
tonight from the Chairman of the Service Authority are sufficient.
With no one else to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to defer this amendment
to August 20, 1980, at 3:00 P.M. in the Board Room. Roll was called on the motion and same
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 6. Other Matters Not on the Agenda.
Mr. Fisher said the request from the Industrial Development Authority to approve the
financing for the Sprigg Lane Investment Corporation would now be considered. He then referred
to letter dated July 2, 1980, from Mr. James Deter, President of Sprigg Lane, which contained
information about the use of the proposed facility.
Mr. Holden said the request was explained at the July 9, 1980 (See Minute Book 19) meeting
The request is for the Board to consider the project in accordance with the ordinance adopted
earlier this evening. The request is for assistance of a financial research business (Sprigg
Lane Investment Corporation) and funds will not exceed two million dollars; said facility to
be located on Route 250 West across from the Bellair Subdivision. Mr. Holden said the bonding
is expected to be private instead of public and noted that negotiations for construction are
being conducted with R. E. Lee and Company. Mr. Fisher asked if there were any further
comments. Hearing none, Miss Nash offered motion to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
hereby gives its approval in accordance with Sections 2-50 and 2-51, Chapter 3,
Article IX of the Albemarle County Code to the financing by the Industrial
Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia, for the benefit of Rosser
Associates for a project to be located on a tract of land on Route 250 West,
adjacent to Piedmont Tractor in Albemarle County, all as outlined in the letter
dated June 27, 1980, from Mr. D. A. Holden, Chairman of the Industrial Development
Authority and as approved, subject to various conditions, by Resolution of the
Industrial Development Authority dated as of June 25, 1980.
Mr. Henley seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher said he would not support the motion because
he was against the use of the bonds for this particular purpose. Roll was called on the
motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
(NAYS: Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 7. Appointment: Library Board.
Mr. Henley offered motion to appoint Mrs. Karen Hayden to the Board of Directors of the
Regional Library for a term beginning this date and expiring on June 30, 1984. Mr. Lindstrom
seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 6. Other Matters Not on the Agenda.
Mr. Agnor said the media has been stating that conservation of water in the County is
underway. He then noted that a water problem is a fact in the urban area. There are supposed
Ito be four million gallons in storage and half of that storage has been lost. If there is a fife,
(line break, or power failure, the remaining two million gallons in storage will go down very
Irapidly. The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority has had a special meeting to consider a
conservation program. Mr. Agnor said the Authority has known for a long time that there is not
(enough storage for the community and hopefully a new storage tank on Pantops will help cure
the problem.
Agenda Item No. 8. At 11:12 P.M. , motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Miss
Nash, to adjourn to August 20, 1980, at 3:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office
Building. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
7.
August 20, 1980 (Afternoon-Adjourned from August 14, 1980)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on August 20, 1980, beginning at 3:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from August 14, 1980.
Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr. , F. Anthony Iachetta (arriving at
3:55 P.M.) , C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss Ellen V. Nash.
Absent: None.
Officers present: County Executive, Guy G. Agnor, Jr. ; County Attorney, George R. St. Joh
and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 3:05 P.M. Mr. Fisher noted
receipt of notices from The Potomac Edison Company as follows: 1) Determination respecting
the Information to Consumers Standard pursuant to Section 113 of the Public Utility Regulatory
Policies Act of 1978, Case No. PUE800024; 2) Determination respecting the Automatic Adjust-
ment Clause Standard pursuant to Section 113 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of
1978, Case No. PUE800025; and 3) Determination respecting the Master Metering Standard pursuant
to Section 113 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, Case No. PUE800026.
Hearings on these cases is scheduled for September 29, 1980, beginning at 10.00 A.M. in Senate
Room B, General Assembly Building, Richmond, Virginia.
Mr. Fisher said he had found a new publication from the Institute of Government at the
University of Virginia entitled "Zoning and Subdivision Law in Virginia". This publication
includes both State law and case law. He felt it might be useful to the Board, Planning
Commission and staff members.
Agenda Item No. 2. Report of Committee on Utilities and Zoning (Deferred from August 13,
1980) . Mr. Agnor said the Board had requested the following additional information. 1) How
the 25% credit for off-site extension of water lines is administered by the Service Authority;
and 2) how the funds derived from the availability fees are used in the Service Authority's
budget versus the user fees generated from the actual sale of water. Mr. Agnor said that Mr.
Bill Brent, Executive Director of the Service Authority could not be present today so he had
asked Mr. Brian Smith and Mr. Jim Kister to be present to answer questions.
Mr. Kister said the off-site waterline extension policy of the Service Authority gives a
maximum allowance up to 25% of off-site construction costs when the Service Authority agrees
to participate in such extension. Construction costs include only equipment and labor, but no
engineering or design factors. This amount is then allowed as a credit for each connection
and availability fee. As each connection is made, the credit is reduced by the amount cal-
culated for that connection until either the credit is used up or the end of a five-year
period. Mr. Fisher asked if the credit runs with the land. Mr. Kister said yes. Mr. Fisher
asked how much credit is carried from year to year on the Service Authority's books. Mr.
Kister said at the present time, there is only one credit outstanding, and that is an older
extension that has only two or three credits left out of an original 200+ lots. Mr. Fisher
asked if the credit were to be doubled, if that would provide an incentive for more use of the
policy. Mr. Kister said that would depend on some other policies. The project has to be bid
and an agreement has to be made prior to the beginning of construction. Also, the Service
Authority has to approve the low bidder. Mr. Kister said if all of these policies were.
followed and the credit increased to 50%, that might be a useful incentive. Mr. Fisher said
the recommendation received by the Board is that the credit be raised and the County reimburse
the Service Authority for the additional cost. In order to consider such a recommendation,
the Board needs to know the dollar cost of the recommendation. Mr. Agnor said that based on
the connection fees for the most recent year (1978-79), if the credit were raised to 100%,
it could cost as much as $150,000 to $200,000 per year for water only. There is no credit
given for off-site sewer extensions.
Mr. Lindstrom asked how much undeveloped land, not presently served by utilities, would
be opened for development if this policy were adopted. Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer,
said that is difficult to project. Also, if there are several parcels of land developed at
different times, it affects the monies involved if the parcel fartherest from the existing
lines is developed first instead of a parcel that is adjacent to the line. Mr. Fisher said if
the policy encouraged the cheapest land which is fartherest from any existing development to
develop without the needed infrastructure, that is one thing he is concerned about.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the policy were adopted and someone wanted to extend the line to
the far edge of the Biscuit Run area, would that owner have to pay the full costs in terms of
the connection fee. Mr. Agnor said yes. The recommendation is that only the land that would
be benefited by the extension of the line would receive a credit. The land through which the
line passes would get no benefit from the credit unless that owner also participated in the
off-site extension program.
Mr. Lindstrom said he feels that the committee recommendation has a tendency to favor major
developers since smaller developers who might be able to take advantage of the revolving fund
concept, or be able to put up a bond, would not be able to fund the extension of the line and
then wait for whatever credits would be available. Mr. Agnor said the policy may have that
potential, but a lot depends on how far a piece of land is from the present system, how much
it would cost to extend the line, and how many units would be connected. Dr. Iachetta said
the revolving fund concept discussed at an earlier meeting has one advantage. It does not
matter what size development is involved. Mr. Fisher noted that some developers had expressed
a dislike for the revolving fund concept. Mr. Lindstrom said what the Board needs to adopt is
the policy most developers will respond to positively. Mr. Kister said he would like to point
out that there is no credit given if the waterline installed is less than an eight-inch line.
Dr. Iachetta said in order to channel growth into certain areas, the lines would not be less
than eight-inches because of needed fire flow.
August 20, 1980 (Afternoon-Adjourned from August 14, 1980)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on August 20, 1980, beginning at 3:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from August 14, 1980.
Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr. , F. Anthony Iachetta (arriving at
3:55 P.M.), C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss Ellen V. Nash.
Absent: None.
Officers present: County Executive, Guy G. Agnor, Jr. ; County Attorney, George R. St. Joh.
and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 3:05 P.M. Mr. Fisher noted
receipt of notices from The Potomac Edison Company as follows: 1) Determination respecting
the Information to Consumers Standard pursuant to Section 113 of the Public Utility Regulatory
Policies Act of 1978, Case No. PUE800024; 2) Determination respecting the Automatic Adjust-
ment Clause Standard pursuant to Section 113 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of
1978, Case No. PUE800025; and 3) Determination respecting the Master Metering Standard pursuant
to Section 113 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, Case No. PUE800026.
Hearings on these cases is scheduled for September 29, 1980, beginning at 10.00 A.M. in Senate
Room B, General Assembly Building, Richmond, Virginia.
Mr. Fisher said he had found a new publication from the Institute of Government at the
University of Virginia entitled "Zoning and Subdivision Law in Virginia". This publication
includes both State law and case law. He felt it might be useful to the Board, Planning
Commission and staff members.
Agenda Item No. 2. Report of Committee on Utilities and Zoning (Deferred from August 13,
1980) . Mr. Agnor said the Board had requested the following additional information. 1) How
the 25% credit for off-site extension of water lines is administered by the Service Authority;
and 2) how the funds derived from the availability fees are used in the Service Authority's
budget versus the user fees generated from the actual sale of water. Mr. Agnor said that Mr.
Bill Brent, Executive Director of the Service Authority could not be present today so he had
asked Mr. Brian Smith and Mr. Jim Kister to be present to answer questions.
Mr. Kister said the off-site waterline extension policy of the Service Authority gives a
maximum allowance up to 25% of off-site construction costs when the Service Authority agrees
to participate in such extension. Construction costs include only equipment and labor, but no
engineering or design factors. This amount is then allowed as a credit for each connection
and availability fee. As each connection is made, the credit is reduced by the amount cal-
culated for that connection until either the credit is used up or the end of a five-year
period. Mr. Fisher asked if the credit runs with the land. Mr. Kister said yes. Mr. Fisher
asked how much credit is carried from year to year on the Service Authority's books. Mr.
Kister said at the present time, there is only one credit outstanding, and that is an older
extension that has only two or three credits left out of an original 200+ lots. Mr. Fisher
asked if the credit were to be doubled, if that would provide an incentive for more use of the
policy. Mr. Kister said that would depend on some other policies. The project has to be bid
and an agreement has to be made prior to the beginning of construction. Also, the Service
Authority has to approve the low bidder. Mr. Kister said if all of these policies were
followed and the credit increased to 50%, that might be a useful incentive. Mr. Fisher said
the recommendation received by the Board is that the credit be raised and the County reimburse
the Service Authority for the additional cost. In order to consider such a recommendation,
the Board needs to know the dollar cost of the recommendation. Mr. Agnor said that based on
the connection fees for the most recent year (1978-79), if the credit were raised to 100%,
it could cost as much as $150,000 to $200,000 per year for water only. There is no credit
given for off-site sewer extensions.
Mr. Lindstrom asked how much undeveloped land, not presently served by utilities, would
be opened for development if this policy were adopted. Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer,
said that is difficult to project. Also, if there are several parcels of land developed at
different times, it affects the monies involved if the parcel fartherest from the existing
lines is developed first instead of a parcel that is adjacent to the line. Mr. Fisher said if
the policy encouraged the cheapest land which is fartherest from any existing development to
develop without the needed infrastructure, that is one thing he is concerned about.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the policy were adopted and someone wanted to extend the line to
the far edge of the Biscuit Run area, would that owner have to pay the full costs in terms of
the connection fee. Mr. Agnor said yes. The recommendation is that only the land that would
be benefited by the extension of the line would receive a credit. The land through which the
line passes would get no benefit from the credit unless that owner also participated in the
off-site extension program.
Mr. Lindstrom said he feels that the committee recommendation has a tendency to favor majo
developers since smaller developers who might be able to take advantage of the revolving fund
concept, or be able to put up a bond, would not be able to fund the extension of the line and
then wait for whatever credits would be available. Mr. Agnor said the policy may have that
potential, but a lot depends on how far a piece of land is from the present system, how much
it would cost to extend the line, and how many units would be connected. Dr. Iachetta said
the revolving fund concept discussed at an earlier meeting has one advantage. It does not
matter what size development is involved. Mr. Fisher noted that some developers had expressed
a dislike for the revolving fund concept. Mr. Lindstrom said what the Board needs to adopt is
the policy most developers will respond to positively. Mr. Kister said he would like to point
out that there is no credit given if the waterline installed is less than an eight-inch line.
Dr. Iachetta said in order to channel growth into certain areas, the lines would not be less
than eight-inches because of needed fire flow.
8
August 20, 1980 (Afternoon-Adjourned from August 14, 1980)
Mr. Fisher said his reaction to the recommendation is to increase the present credit and
possibly increase the time period for use of same, but he was not sure any public entity can
obligate itself on an indefinite basis. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John if there might be a
problem with a policy that would give credits against connection fees for as long as ten to
fifteen years. Mr. St. John said there would be no problem with the Albemarle County Service
Authority doing that because the credits would not be taken out of tax monies. For the County
itself to do this is different. If the County were to pledge tax revenues for something open-
ended like this, it would require a referendum. Mr. Lindstrom asked if it would not enhance
the workability of such a policy if areas to be developed under this policy were subject to a
mandatory connection policy. Mr. Agnor said the calculations made by the committee were made
to see if the public utility system would be competitive with a well and septic tank. Mr.
Agnor said if the public service were made competitive, he did not think a mandatory con-
nection policy would be needed. (Mr. Henley arrived at 3:55 P.M.)
Mr. Fisher asked how much of the current connection fee is used for payment of debt and
capital costs and how much is used for labor and inspection associated with the individual
connection. Mr. Kister said there is a difference between water and sewer connections because
all sewer fees are identified as availability fees. Mr. Fisher asked how these availability
fees are defined. Mr. Kister said they are defined through the rate structure to defray the
cost of the existing system so that a new customer pays for the portion of the system required
to serve him including outstanding debt. Mr. Fisher asked about water fees. Mr. Kister said
that a water connection for residential use is $400 and is identified as a combined connection
and availability fee. In the past, a $100 discount has been given to the customer if all work
is done except setting the meter. Mr. Lindstrom asked if any part of the fee is used for
amortizing bonds. Mr. Kister said a portion of the availability fee on water is used. Mr.
Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John if that is legally tied to issuance of bonds. Mr. St. John said
these fees go into the Service Authority's General Fund; they are not separated on paper. As
long as the Service Authority charges enough on the user fee rate structure to pay a certain
amount of dollars into maintenance and reserves and debt service, the bonds do not require
that there be any availability fee.
Mr. Fisher asked what the next step should be if the Board is really serious about
adopting such a policy. Mr. Agnor said the Board members might like to hold another meeting
to hear comments from other than committee members. Dr. Iachetta said what he has heard
indicates that the Board would be obligating the County's General Fund for a number of years,
and in an earlier discussion it was said that the Board is not free to do this. Mr. St. John
said the Board could do this on a year by year basis. Dr. Iachetta said he was concerned
about any carry-over from year to year. Does any balance of funds not used revert back to the
County and then have to be reappropriated? Mr. Agnor said if the Service Authority waived
more connections fees in one year than the appropriation would cover, the Service Authority
would have to absorb that additional cost.
Mr. Henley said he was not being critical of the committee report, but he was not sold on
this idea. He said with the restrictions planned on the rural areas, he would not vote for
such a policy now and felt it was ridiculous for the County to get involved.
Miss Nash asked the nature of the problem the developers had with the revolving fund
concept.. Mr. Agnor said their problem is calculating the cost of public water and sewer as
opposed to the cost of individual wells and septic tanks. Also, they did not like the idea of
bonding.
Mr. St. John said if the Service Authority did away with these connection fees there
would be no County money involved, but the user fees would have to be revised. Mr. Fisher
said that would make the existing customers pay the costs for all of the new customers. Mr.
St. John suggested that some County money could be put into the program on a periodic basis.
Mr. Fisher said that would make all non-users pay for the system. The issues are: 1) is
there any reason why water and sewer extensions should not be similar in the way they are
handled? 2) the Board is looking at water extensions outside of areas outlined for growth and
he had assumed that the Board would only be talking about areas outlined for growth in the
Comprehensive Plan, and 3) what is the cost involved and were would the money come from? Mr.
Fisher said he would like to proceed farther with this idea to see if there is public
objection or acceptance of the concept. In order to do so, the Board needs more details on
how the policy would work. Dr. Iachetta said he would like to know the amount of money
involved. Mr. Lindstrom asked the staff to define a formal proposal along with a recommendation
on how it should be adopted. He also asked about problems with roads in the growth areas that
would preclude development of certain areas for some time into the future. Mr. Fisher then
suggested that the Board discuss this matter again at a meeting on August 27 at 1:30 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 3. Discussion: Amend the Comprehensive Plan as it relates to public
water and sewer areas.
Agenda Item No. 4. Discussion: Amend the project areas previously specified for the
Albemarle County Service Authority.
Mr. Fisher said the Board held a public hearing last week on these two questions. He
made note of several items of concern. One is the question of the Evergreen property on
Hydraulic Road which is shown on both sets of maps to be served by water and sewer. It is an
isolated piece of property adjacent to the Reservoir and no adjacent properties are shown for
sewer service. Mr. Fisher said he understands that this was shown because of a zoning which
resulted from a Court Order which is now about four years old. Since no development has taker
place during that time, he wonders if the Board should continue to ratify that action which at
the present time is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fisher asked the County
Attorney his opinion. Mr. St. John said this is a matter which should be discussed in executive
session.
Dr. Iachetta said there is no time limit on the Court Order. Mr. St. John said that was
correct. The owner of that tract of land has a letter from the Zoning Administrator saying
that he has a vested right to develop according to the Court approved plan. Mr. St. John said
21.8
August 20, 1980 (Afternoon-Adjourned from August 14, 1980)
Mr. Fisher said his reaction to the recommendation is to increase the present credit and
possibly increase the time period for use of same, but he was not sure any public entity can
obligate itself on an indefinite basis. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John if there might be a
problem with a policy that would give credits against connection fees for as long as ten to
fifteen years. Mr. St. John said there would be no problem with the Albemarle County Service
Authority doing that because the credits would not be taken out of tax monies. For the County
itself to do this is different. If the County were to pledge tax revenues for something open-
ended like this, it would require a referendum. Mr. Lindstrom asked if it would not enhance
the workability of such a policy if areas to be developed under this policy were subject to a
mandatory connection policy. Mr. Agnor said the calculations made by the committee were made
to see if the public utility system would be competitive with a well and septic tank. Mr.
Agnor said if the public service were made competitive, he did not think a mandatory con-
nection policy would be needed. (Mr. Henley arrived at 3:55 P.M.)
Mr. Fisher asked how much of the current connection fee is used for payment of debt and
capital costs and how much is used for labor and inspection associated with the individual
connection. Mr. Kister said there is a difference between water and sewer connections because
all sewer fees are identified as availability fees. Mr. Fisher asked how these availability
fees are defined. Mr. Kister said they are defined through the rate structure to defray the
cost of the existing system so that a new customer pays for the portion of the system required
to serve him including outstanding debt. Mr. Fisher asked about water fees. Mr. Kister said
that a water connection for residential use is $400 and is identified as a combined connection
and availability fee. In the past, a $100 discount has been given to the customer if all work
is done except setting the meter. Mr. Lindstrom asked if any part of the fee is used for
amortizing bonds. Mr. Kister said a portion of the availability fee on water is used. Mr.
Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John if that is legally tied to issuance of bonds. Mr. St. John said
these fees go into the Service Authority's General Fund; they are not separated on paper. As
long as the Service Authority charges enough on the user fee rate structure to pay a certain
amount of dollars into maintenance and reserves and debt service, the bonds do not require
that there be any availability fee.
Mr. Fisher asked what the next step should be if the Board is really serious about
adopting such a policy. Mr. Agnor said the Board members might like to hold another meeting
to hear comments from other than committee members. Dr. Iachetta said what he has heard
indicates that the Board would be obligating the County's General Fund for a number of years,
and in an earlier discussion it was said that the Board is not free to do this. Mr. St. John
said the Board could do this on a year by year basis. Dr. Iachetta said he was concerned
about any carry-over from year to year. Does any balance of funds not used revert back to the
County and then have to be reappropriated? Mr. Agnor said if the Service Authority waived
more connections fees in one year than the appropriation would cover, the Service Authority
would have to absorb that additional cost.
Mr. Henley said he was not being critical of the committee report, but he was not sold on
this idea. He said with the restrictions planned on the rural areas, he would not vote for
such a policy now and felt it was ridiculous for the County to get involved.
Miss Nash asked the nature of the problem the developers had with the revolving fund
concept. Mr. Agnor said their problem is calculating the cost of public water and sewer as
opposed to the cost of individual wells and septic tanks. Also, they did not like the idea of
bonding.
Mr. St. John said if the Service Authority did away with these connection fees there
would be no County money involved, but the user fees would have to be revised. Mr. Fisher
said that would make the existing customers pay the costs for all of the new customers. Mr.
St. John suggested that some County money could be put into the program on a periodic basis.
Mr. Fisher said that would make all non-users pay for the system. The issues are: 1) is
there any reason why water and sewer extensions should not be similar in the way they are
handled? 2) the Board is looking at water extensions outside of areas outlined for growth and
he had assumed that the Board would only be talking about areas outlined for growth in the
Comprehensive Plan, and 3) what is the cost involved and were would the money come from? Mr.
Fisher said he would like to proceed farther with this idea to see if there is public
objection or acceptance of the concept. In order to do so, the Board needs more details on
how the policy would work. Dr. Iachetta said he would like to know the amount of money
involved. Mr. Lindstrom asked the staff to define a formal proposal along with a recommendati.n
on how it should be adopted. He also asked about problems with roads in the growth areas that
would preclude development of certain areas for some time into the future. Mr. Fisher then
suggested that the Board discuss this matter again at a meeting on August 27 at 1:30 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 3. Discussion: Amend the Comprehensive Plan as it relates to public
water and sewer areas.
Agenda Item No. 4. Discussion: Amend the project areas previously specified for the
Albemarle County Service Authority.
Mr. Fisher said the Board held a public hearing last week on these two questions. He
made note of several items of concern. One is the question of the Evergreen property on
Hydraulic Road which is shown on both sets of maps to be served by water and sewer. It is an
isolated piece of property adjacent to the Reservoir and no adjacent properties are shown for
sewer service. Mr. Fisher said he understands that this was shown because of a zoning which
resulted from a Court Order which is now about four years old. Since no development has taker
place during that time, he wonders if the Board should continue to ratify that action which at
the present time is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fisher asked the County
Attorney his opinion. Mr. St. John said this is a matter which should be discussed in executi e
session.
Dr. Iachetta said there is no time limit on the Court Order. Mr. St. John said that was
correct. The owner of that tract of land has a letter from the Zoning Administrator saying
that he has a vested right to develop according to the Court approved plan. Mr. St. John said
August 20, 1980 (Afternoon-Adjourned from August 14, 1980)
he understands the question to be: what result does that Court Order have on the Board's
deliberations on how to designate that property in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. St. John said
he believes the Board can show in the Comprehensive Plan any designation, as long as the Board
recognizes that the Court Order and the Zoning Administrator's letter prevail over what is
shown on the Plan. Mr. Lindstrom said the question of Evergreen is similar to that of the
School property on Hydraulic. In the Comprehensive Plan, these areas are being shown in a way
that implies that public services will be provided to stimulate growth. That is not true in
either case. Mr. Fisher said the County Attorney has advised that this matter should be
discussed in executive session and if the Board members continue to talk he felt they may have
waived that privilege.
Mr. Lindstrom said he was just trying to bring out that there is a problem with the
School property also. He hoped the Board could designate the School property in some way so
that when a judge looks at this plan in the future it will not create the impression that this
is a typical water and sewer service area and the County expects development on these properti(
Mr. Fisher suggested a motion be made to adjourn into executive session to discuss legal
matters. Motion to this effect was made by Miss Nash. Dr. Iachetta said he thought the Board
could continue discussing other areas and have the executive session later. Mr. Lindstrom
then gave second to the motion. At 4:48 P.M. , the roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: Dr. Iachetta.
The Board reconvened into open session at 5:07 P.M with Mr. St. John and Mr. Tucker
leaving the meeting at this time.
Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to continue discussing the problem with the Evergreen
property and the School property. The impression given on both of the maps is that the County
wants to encourage development on these properties and that is not true. As far as the Ever-
green property is concerned, if it is ever developed under the Court Order, the project areas
of the Service Authority can be amended to include that area. On the School property, there
are only three buildings presently being served. He felt the project areas map should only
show service to those three buildings and not the entire property. He also felt the Compre-
hensive Plan map should not show either property because it a generalized map. Mr. Lindstrom
then offered motion that Evergreen not be shown for water or sewer service on either the
Comprehensive Plan map or the project areas map with the understanding that these services are
governed by a Court Order entered some years ago; and 2) that the Comprehensive Plan map not
show for service the area that is owned by the School Board, and that the project areas map
designate only the school buildings that are presently being served and such facilities as are
necessary in the area in order to serve those buildings. The motion was seconded by Dr.
Iachetta. Mr. Henley said if he were a judge and saw one piece of property in the County that
had dots for buildings for a service area, he would smell a rat. Mr. Fisher said the existing
clubhouse on the Farmington property is also shown as just a dot because it is presently being
served by a package sewage treatment plan. That is an existing case. Mr. Henley said he did
not think there would ever be a problem as long as the School Board owned the property. Mr.
Lindstrom said he would have a real problem with the School Board ever building another public
facility on that property. He did not think it would be consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. Dr. Iachetta said the School property is not in the public domain so there is no pressu
to develop or expand it, but to show the whole property in the project areas does not make
much sense either. Roll was called at this time, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
Dr. Iachetta said because of the history of groundwater resources in the County, it is
desirable to have surface water available even where there is a two-acre density. Because of
that, the property between Old Salem Apartments and Colthurst Subdivision should be shown for
water service. Mr. Tucker returned to the meeting at 5:14 P.M. and noted that the owner of
this property is a Robert Thomas. Dr. Iachetta said this same theory also applies to the
property of Mrs. Gay Blair on Georgetown Road. Mr. Henley said he could see no big problem
with having water service available for two-acre lots. Mr. Fisher asked why these lands which
are outside of the growth areas should be shown for water service when other such areas are
not being shown. Dr. Iachetta said water service is already in the property boundary and wate.
is reasonably available. Also, he is not in favor of drilling a well on every two-acre lot.
Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to include for water service only, on both maps, Parcels 69B
and 76 owned by Thomas and Blair. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash.
Mr. Henley said as long as the water service is available, he can see no problem as long
as the density is controlled. (Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 5:20 P.M. ) Roll was
called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. R. E. Lee had told him that the property where R. E. Construction is
located is already being served by water. The wrong parcel has been shown on the project area-
map and this needs to be corrected. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to show for
water only service the property on which R. E. Lee Construction Company is located (Tax Map
61, Parcel 5A) . The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
August 20, 1980 (Afternoon-Adjourned from August 14, 1980)
he understands the question to be: what result does that Court Order have on the Board's
deliberations on how to designate that property in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. St. John said
he believes the Board can show in the Comprehensive Plan any designation, as long as the Board
recognizes that the Court Order and the Zoning Administrator's letter prevail over what is
shown on the Plan. Mr. Lindstrom said the question of Evergreen is similar to that of the
School property on Hydraulic. In the Comprehensive Plan, these areas are being shown in a way
that implies that public services will be provided to stimulate growth. That is not true in
either case. Mr. Fisher said the County Attorney has advised that this matter should be
discussed in executive session and if the Board members continue to talk he felt they may have
waived that privilege.
Mr. Lindstrom said he was just trying to bring out that there is a problem with the
School property also. He hoped the Board could designate the School property in some way so
that when a judge looks at this plan in the future it will not create the impression that this
is a typical water and sewer service area and the County expects development on these properti(
Mr. Fisher suggested a motion be made to adjourn into executive session to discuss legal
matters. Motion to this effect was made by Miss Nash. Dr. Iachetta said he thought the Board
could continue discussing other areas and have the executive session later. Mr. Lindstrom
then gave second to the motion. At 4:48 P.M. , the roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: Dr. Iachetta.
The Board reconvened into open session at 5:07 P.M with Mr. St. John and Mr. Tucker
leaving the meeting at this time.
Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to continue discussing the problem with the Evergreen
property and the School property. The impression given on both of the maps is that the County
wants to encourage development on these properties and that is not true. As far as the Ever-
green property is concerned, if it is ever developed under the Court Order, the project areas
of the Service Authority can be amended to include that area. On the School property, there
are only three buildings presently being served. He felt the project areas map should only
show service to those three buildings and not the entire property. He also felt the Compre-
hensive Plan map should not show either property because it a generalized map. Mr. Lindstrom
then offered motion that Evergreen not be shown for water or sewer service on either the
Comprehensive Plan map or the project areas map with the understanding that these services are
governed by a Court Order entered some years ago; and 2) that the Comprehensive Plan map not
show for service the area that is owned by the School Board, and that the project areas map
designate only the school buildings that are presently being served and such facilities as are
necessary in the area in order to serve those buildings. The motion was seconded by Dr.
Iachetta. Mr. Henley said if he were a judge and saw one piece of property in the County that
had dots for buildings for a service area, he would smell a rat. Mr. Fisher said the existing
clubhouse on the Farmington property is also shown as just a dot because it is presently being
served by a package sewage treatment plan. That is an existing case. Mr. Henley said he did
not think there would ever be a problem as long as the School Board owned the property. Mr.
Lindstrom said he would have a real problem with the School Board ever building another public
facility on that property. He did not think it would be consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. Dr. Iachetta said the School property is not in the public domain so there is no pressur
to develop or expand it, but to show the whole property in the project areas does not make
much sense either. Roll was called at this time, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
Dr. Iachetta said because of the history of groundwater resources in the County, it is
desirable to have surface water available even where there is a two-acre density. Because of
that, the property between Old Salem Apartments and Colthurst Subdivision should be shown for
water service. Mr. Tucker returned to the meeting at 5:14 P.M. and noted that the owner of
this property is a Robert Thomas. Dr. Iachetta said this same theory also applies to the
property of Mrs. Gay Blair on Georgetown Road. Mr. Henley said he could see no big problem
with having water service available for two-acre lots. Mr. Fisher asked why these lands which
are outside of the growth areas should be shown for water service when other such areas are
not being shown. Dr. Iachetta said water service is already in the property boundary and water
is reasonably available. Also, he is not in favor of drilling a well on every two-acre lot.
Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to include for water service only, on both maps, Parcels 69B
and 76 owned by Thomas and Blair. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash.
Mr. Henley said as long as the water service is available, he can see no problem as long
as the density is controlled. (Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 5:20 P.M.) Roll was
called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. R. E. Lee had told him that the property where R. E. Construction is
located is already being served by water. The wrong parcel has been shown on the project areal
map and this needs to be corrected. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to show for
water only service the property on which R. E. Lee Construction Company is located (Tax Map
61, Parcel 5A) . The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
4 <
Z20
August 20, 1980 (Afternoon-Adjourned from August 14, 1980)
Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned that there is no distinction on the maps between
properties on the opposite sides of Lambs Road. He feels there is a need to have water avail-
able so that people have an alternative to groundwater supplies and also for added fire pro-
tection. Dr. Iachetta said he feels some way needs to be found to bring service to the ridge
line (delineation of the urban growth area off of Hydraulic Road) . Mr. Fisher said he has
been concerned about showing parcels which are not developed and do not have approved plans
which lie in the watershed. He was willing to go along with the change just made, but he
feels that should be the limit and the Board should not go farther than that except where
there is existing development. Mr. Fisher said he feels the project areas should follow the
ridge line to be consistent with the Board's action on the urban growth areas so that pro-
perties along Hydraulic Road which can be developed and which are outside of the watershed
area can obtain water and sewer service. This would include the Mormon Church property which
was discussed by the Board recently. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion that the area that is
on the east side of the ridge line which designates the watershed be shown for water and sewer
service on that tract immediately to the west of Hydraulic Road and if that requires a metes
and bounds survey, it should be done so it can be put on the map. The motion was seconded by
Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
Dr. Iachetta then referred to an area not shown for service; said area in the vicinity of
Old Forge Road and Barracks Road being surrounded by other areas shown for service. Mr.
Fisher said if this area is shown for sewer service it will expand the density in the area,
but to not show it for any service looks strange. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt it would be a
mistake to show the area for sewer service. The Board could then be rightly accused of acting
inconsistently and discriminating against similarly situated properties when the policy has
been that to the west of the watershed line, only those properties which are presently developed
will be shown for sewer service. Mr. Fisher said he felt the area should be shown for water
only service. Dr. Iachetta agreed. Mr. Lindstrom had no problem with the suggestion and
offered motion to show for water only service Parcels 4,5,6,6A,6B,6C,7,14,18,19,20,23,24,25,
25A,26,27,28,29, and 30 on Tax Map 60A. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: Mr. Henley.
Mr. Fisher suggested the Board discuss the area between Ivy and the Urban Area. He said
there are areas shown for service (Lewis Hills and West Woods Subdivisions) which were never
before included in the project areas and he feels this encourages development in the rural
area close to the Reservoir. He felt the old project areas for water service should be pre-
served on the maps. The EPA has also said that this area is environmentally sensitive as far
as the Reservoir is concerned and that is one reason why the growth areas were not extended to
this area. Mr. Henley said this is the first time he has ever seen anybody try to zone the
County with a water line and a sewer line. He felt the two things are being mixed together.
Mr. Fisher said that it is the way it is done in most states. Roads, water and sewer are put
in areas where they want growth to occur. Dr. Iachetta said he agrees with Mr. Henley to an
extent and asked why the limitation that is being discussed for growth in the rural areas will
not take care of Mr. Fisher's concern. Mr. Fisher said people in other parts of the State
have found that provision of utilities and zoning densities should be consistent. If growth
is not wanted in the rural areas, but yet services are put in those areas, it is not consistent.
Mr. Fisher said even if the Board showed properties on both sides of the water line so that
people who are presently using public water are clearly legal, that would still leave the
question of opening for development several hundred areas in an area where the Board has tried
to discourage development.
Mr. Lindstrom said if the Board looked at the tax maps of this area, they would see that
most parcels are pretty big which indicates that there is a potential in the area for a
significant amount of subdivision. Mr. Fisher said there have been a number of subdivisions
and RPN requests in this area recently, such as Worrell and Berta Jones. A revised zoning
ordinance will be adopted too late to have an effect on these requests. Mr. Henley said he
did not understand not letting people hook onto water service that is readily available. Mr.
Fisher said if Mr. Henley took that position, the whole County could be served with water.
Mr. Henley said he felt that if water is available, people should be able to use it. Sewer
service is a different proposition. Mr. Fisher said he would give up his fight on this
particular area. Dr. Iachetta said he would have to agree with Mr. Henley. Jefferson Village
was build to use its own central well system. Within a year after it was built, water problems
occurred, and the developer had to bring in the public water line for more than three-quarters
of a mile to solve the problem. Miss Nash asked if Berta Jones and Worrell contemplate hooking
onto the water line that is already in the area. Mr. Lindstrom said one of the conditions
placed on the Berta Jones plat was that the subdivision hook to public water. Mr. Tucker said
that condition depends on these amendments. The Planning Commission required that the subdivision
hook to public water, but the area is not now in the Service Authority's project areas. The
Worrell property would be, but is calculated on a six-acre gross density. Dr. Iachetta said
with the history of failing wells in this area of the County, he did not see how the Board
could duck the issue of providing water.
Mr. Fisher suggested the Board next discuss the issue of the Piney Mountain area. Mr.
Tucker said the storage tank is on Piney Mountain and the line comes down to General Electric
from Route 29 and does serve a couple of houses. Those parcels have been colored for water
service. Dr. Iachetta said he cannot believe that the $31,000,000 investment in that plant
will not change a lot of the Board's planning in a relatively short time. Dr. Iachetta said
he has been trying to figure out how the Board can deal with the fact that there is a substantial
investment in a twelve-inch high pressure water main in the area. It is presently serving
General Electric and Camelot Subdivision, and is proposed to serve Briarwood, if that develop-
ment is ever built. Mr. Lindstrom asked what the question is about this area. Dr. Iachetta
said no water service is shown along that stretch of Route 29 North on the east side from
Airport Road south. Mr. Fisher said the Board had run out of time for this discussion and ao*ro
suggested this work session be continued next Wednesday afternoon. '6 ;
iQ
Agenda Item No. 5. At 5:47 P.M. , motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Miss
Nash, to adjourn this meeting until August 27, 1980, at 1:30 P.M. The motion carried by the
�20
August 20, 1980 (Afternoon-Adjourned from August 14, 1980)
Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned that there is no distinction on the maps between
properties on the opposite sides of Lambs Road. He feels there is a need to have water avail-
able so that people have an alternative to groundwater supplies and also for added fire pro-
tection. Dr. Iachetta said he feels some way needs to be found to bring service to the ridge
line (delineation of the urban growth area off of Hydraulic Road) . Mr. Fisher said he has
been concerned about showing parcels which are not developed and do not have approved plans
which lie in the watershed. He was willing to go along with the change just made, but he
feels that should be the limit and the Board should not go farther than that except where
there is existing development. Mr. Fisher said he feels the project areas should follow the
ridge line to be consistent with the Board's action on the urban growth areas so that pro-
perties along Hydraulic Road which can be developed and which are outside of the watershed
area can obtain water and sewer service. This would include the Mormon Church property which
was discussed by the Board recently. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion that the area that is
on the east side of the ridge line which designates the watershed be shown for water and sewer
service on that tract immediately to the west of Hydraulic Road and if that requires a metes
and bounds survey, it should be done so it can be put on the map. The motion was seconded by
Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
Dr. Iachetta then referred to an area not shown for service; said area in the vicinity of
Old Forge Road and Barracks Road being surrounded by other areas shown for service. Mr.
Fisher said if this area is shown for sewer service it will expand the density in the area,
but to not show it for any service looks strange. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt it would be a
mistake to show the area for sewer service. The Board could then be rightly accused of acting
inconsistently and discriminating against similarly situated properties when the policy has
been that to the west of the watershed line, only those properties which are presently developed
will be shown for sewer service. Mr. Fisher said he felt the area should be shown for water
only service. Dr. Iachetta agreed. Mr. Lindstrom had no problem with the suggestion and
offered motion to show for water only service Parcels 4,5,6,6A,6B,6C,7,14,18,19,20,23,24,25,
25A,26,27,28,29, and 30 on Tax Map 60A. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: Mr. Henley.
Mr. Fisher suggested the Board discuss the area between Ivy and the Urban Area. He said
there are areas shown for service (Lewis Hills and West Woods Subdivisions) which were never
before included in the project areas and he feels this encourages development in the rural
area close to the Reservoir. He felt the old project areas for water service should be pre-
served on the maps. The EPA has also said that this area is environmentally sensitive as far
as the Reservoir is concerned and that is one reason why the growth areas were not extended to
this area. Mr. Henley said this is the first time he has ever seen anybody try to zone the
County with a water line and a sewer line. He felt the two things are being mixed together.
Mr. Fisher said that it is the way it is done in most states. Roads, water and sewer are put
in areas where they want growth to occur. Dr. Iachetta said he agrees with Mr. Henley to an
extent and asked why the limitation that is being discussed for growth in the rural areas will
not take care of Mr. Fisher's concern. Mr. Fisher said people in other parts of the State
have found that provision of utilities and zoning densities should be consistent. If growth
is not wanted in the rural areas, but yet services are put in those areas, it is not consistent.
Mr. Fisher said even if the Board showed properties on both sides of the water line so that
people who are presently using public water are clearly legal, that would still leave the
question of opening for development several hundred areas in an area where the Board has tried
to discourage development.
Mr. Lindstrom said if the Board looked at the tax maps of this area, they would see that
most parcels are pretty big which indicates that there is a potential in the area for a
significant amount of subdivision. Mr. Fisher said there have been a number of subdivisions
and RPN requests in this area recently, such as Worrell and Berta Jones. A revised zoning
ordinance will be adopted too late to have an effect on these requests. Mr. Henley said he
did not understand not letting people hook onto water service that is readily available. Mr.
Fisher said if Mr. Henley took that position, the whole County could be served with water.
Mr. Henley said he felt that if water is available, people should be able to use it. Sewer
service is a different proposition. Mr. Fisher said he would give up h-is fight on this
particular area. Dr. Iachetta said he would have to agree with Mr. Henley. Jefferson Village
was build to use its own central well system. Within a year after it was built, water problem:
occurred, and the developer had to bring in the public water line for more than three-quarters
of a mile to solve the problem. Miss Nash asked if Berta Jones and Worrell contemplate hookinE
onto the water line that is already in the area. Mr. Lindstrom said one of the conditions
placed on the Berta Jones plat was that the subdivision hook to public water. Mr. Tucker said
that condition depends on these amendments. The Planning Commission required that the subdivision
hook to public water, but the area is not now in the Service Authority's project areas. The
Worrell property would be, but is calculated on a six-acre gross density. Dr. Iachetta said
with the history of failing wells in this area of the County, he did not see how the Board
could duck the issue of providing water.
Mr. Fisher suggested the Board next discuss the issue of the Piney Mountain area. Mr.
Tucker said the storage tank is on Piney Mountain and the line comes down to General Electric
from Route 29 and does serve a couple of houses. Those parcels have been colored for water
service. Dr. Iachetta said he cannot believe that the $31,000,000 investment in that plant
will not change a lot of the Board's planning in a relatively short time. Dr. Iachetta said
he has been trying to figure out how the Board can deal with the fact that there is a substantial
investment in a twelve-inch high pressure water main in the area. It is presently serving
General Electric and Camelot Subdivision, and is proposed to serve Briarwood, if that develop-
ment is ever built. Mr. Lindstrom asked what the question is about this area. Dr. Iachetta
said no water service is shown along that stretch of Route 29 North on the east side from
Airport Road south. Mr. Fisher said the Board had run out of time for this discussion and
sr-
suggested this work session be continued next Wednesday afternoon. "^
?-
Agenda Item No. 5. At 5:47 P.M. , motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Missy d
Nash, to adjourn this meeting until August 27, 1980, at 1:30 P.M. The motion carried by the