HomeMy WebLinkAboutACSA200100001 Executive Summary 2001-09-12 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER:
Soccer Organization of Charlottesville-Albemarle September 12, 2001
(SOCA) Jurisdictional Boundary Request
ACTION: Yes INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: CONSENT AGENDA:
Public Hearing to consider amending the ACSA ACTION: INFORMATION:
jurisdictional area boundary to provide public sewer
service to the SOCA soccer field complex on Polo
Grounds Road (tax map 46, parcels 22 and 22C). ATTACHMENTS: Yes
STAFF CONTACT(S): REVIEWED BY:
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Benish r
BACKGROUND:
The applicant is requesting public sewer service for the SOCA soccer field complex now under construction on Tax s,Aep
46, Parcels 22 and 22C (Attachment A). This site is located on the south side of Route 643, Polo Grounds Rd,
approximately 1.1 miles east of Route 29. The property is bordered on the north by Route 643 and on the south by the
South Fork Rivanna River. The property is zoned Rural Area, and is designated Rural Area in the County's Land Use Plan.
The Board approved a Special Use Permit (SP98-18) on September 9, 1998, for the SOCA soccer field complex. The
purpose of the request is to provide sewer service.
The Board of Supervisors approved water and sewer service for Parcel 22 on February 12, 1992. That approval was limited
to service to only the church building (800 seat)approved under SP 90-35 for Covenant Church of God. The Board denied
a request on September 9, 1998 for sewer service to the Soccer Complex. This request was made during the review of the
Special Use Permit for the soccer facility. The Board's action was based on the request's inconsistency with the County's
policy for extending public utilities in the Rural Area. Attached is the staff report for the 1998 request, which includes as an
attachment information regarding the Covenant Church of God 1992 request (Attachment B).
The Comprehensive Plan provides the following policy concerning the provision of water and sewer service in the
County, including the Rural Areas:
❑ "General Principle: Urban Areas, Communities, and Villages are to be served by public water and sewer (p. 109)."
❑ "Provide water and sewer service only to areas within the ACSA Jurisdictional Areas (p. 125)."
❑ "Follow the boundaries of the designated Development Areas in delineating Jurisdictional Areas (p.125)."
❑ "Only allow changes in the jurisdictional areas outside of the designated Development Areas in cases where the
property is: 1) adjacent to existing lines; and 2) public health and/or safety are in danger (p.125)."
DISCUSSION:
This site is located in the Rural Areas as designated by the Comprehensive Plan. As noted above, the policy for providing
public water and sewer outside of the Development Areas states "Only allow changes in jurisdictional areas outside of
designated Development Areas in cases where the property is: (1) adjacent to existing lines; and (2) public health and/or
safety is in danger." A sewer line does cross the property. However, there is no current health or safety concern on the
site. The request for public sewer for this site is made in order to alleviate the need to construct drainfields. Due to the
topography of the site and the existence of significant floodplain, there is limited area on-site to locate adequate sized
drainfields to support the use. The drainfields would need to be located in, or along the fringe of, the floodplain and would
be more prone to leaching with inundation, or located at an elevation above the proposed building requiring the installation
of a pumped system. Pumping of effluent is not a desirable design because pumps can fail. A gravity system is the
preferred method for disposal of effluent. Therefore, while this proposal is not consistent with the recommendations of the
Comprehensive Plan for providing service to the Rural Area in that there is no existing health or safety issue, approval of
this request may be preferable from a public perspective for the ultimate health and safety at the site as a soccer complex.
eta,.❑a,4i€-f-lei, Water Resources Manager, has provided comments regarding the various alternatives to public sewer
(Attachment C) and has concluded that the public sewer is the best technical solution from an environmental perspective.
Comments have also been provided by Nick Evans, Chairman of the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation
District (Attachment D).
From a land use perspective, the intent of the rural area designation for this site was to recognize importance of maintaining
the critical resources and greenspace provided by river corridor and protect it from urban development.The Comprehensive
Plan recommendation for this area states: "The area between the southern boundary of the Development Area and the
South Fork of the Rivanna River is to remain in an open state as a buffer between the Urban Area and the Community of
Hollymead. This boundary is critical as it preserves the distinct identity of the Community from the Urban Area and prevents
continuous development from the City of Charlottesville to the North Fork of the Rivanna." (Hollymead Community Profile,
p. 79). The soccer field complex generally maintains the open space character and is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. These two properties contained most of the developable land between the Urban Area and Hollymead. Almost all
of the remaining property in this area is in the 100-year floodplain and has very limited development potential. Therefore,
the provision of sewer service to this property would not encourage develop inconsistent with the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Board will need to weigh the request's immediate inconsistency with the jurisdictional area policy against the possible
future health and safety issues associated with a private septic system that requires either pumping or potential floodplain
location, and the practical effect of encouraging development inconsistent with the County's growth management policy.
Given the circumstances of this site, staff opinion is that providing sewer service for this use on this site is appropriate.
Staff recommends amending the jurisdictional area boundary to provide sewer service to the SOCA South Fork Soccer
Complex (Tax Map 46, Parcels 22 and 22C)only as approved under SP 98-18 and SP 98-22.
cc: Mr. J. William Brent
Mr. David J. Hirschman
Mr. Bill Mueller
01.158
•
f \ .o��T,, ATTACHMENT A �;,
'--.—•---•� •� _�_J-W � 4,
11ill •�•J ��- r` . .,,.
rl> 1' Hr'
Lulib
=••Y� ' ' �J at •
\. 7l0 —r�.� ).
i J\ r :. a• seer.* .wo,- 1e i'` _ 33 / dt• -ce 33s ,�:
�U ass l 1�t .......
/ (i. MA 411,1"*Id.1 334
` •/ O >Ca I +
3.941
' 1`C, • • \ I di11�I11I try `;�`r';r> n >k 4
; I I •.. sae
II
4 2.f2 // t irk
;;\ ,.. \ . sNNN '°.el• N$.1 II I I
e.
ire 1 ,. Nli .;I 1 11V -.0 45\.,,, .,4? 514
X \ 3013./. s° .
•,..‘",z. ....*44 IOW 364. ..---'\e's .0. 44 110/ .••••••.....\ / ,
' : 46 01
;g 37
sf, ,‘Pof0
N11114•
\ .><t. \
may f)Lf
ii /N. 25 / N'S.916,,'‘11416, •• „_ 0 •/ '"....„‹..., .3 . . ......„. .49.2\,' \
� S �/ .,� \ , ` f
/J� ✓•~tie J 69 \:au' • ♦.�� g. \\ ') �.
`\ /.elf/ \ JF.a< Ilk'
,o).;C\ a�J^x •)• \ 930 •`� 1• "
,./lief/Eoss.
, `- \ammia
SOUTH FORK SOCCER CE
v A" • _ �� ---- LATER
• / \o\C‘42 344,1 •':ii 4
/ ,. , ,..„, ,.. ,
, /;‘,. .<\\.....\ ,,., 97..>„\..,\\•..\ ,,,34 ‘,„. ::: .1) '/ . .
Mt
�� STILL•• nDow IK : \/Ss ,
4'33'36• a 116,6:1901:67/..
gl
I.
do
..\......,,, ,/ • too
• W -!O ®/ 9.°
"aim
f
d14,
scros 2 .//�•It \ .r.• I.13. ill ie.\ 91C
...."...99.................... / /
•
::66.. . ... .. ...... / // 1 / /./ / .i ,f[1 \'r'•♦ � ,. ITT\!, \—t .
i...
Rlo
AND RIVANNA DISTRICTS SECTION 46
ATTACHMENT B
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
RECEIVED
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S`E,
P 0 2 1993
AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER:
Hurt Investment and South Fork Land Trust Jurisdictional ,, September 9, 1998
Boundary Request;'"
ACTION: Yes INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSALJREQUEST:. CONSENT AGENDA:
Request to allow a proposed soccer field complex to ACTION: INFORMATION:
connect to public sewer
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
STAFF CONTACT(S1:
Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg, Benish, Fritz REVIEWED BY: /
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting that public sewer service be permitted for Tax Map 46, Parcels 22 and 22C. This site is located on
the south side of Route 643, Polo Grounds Rd, approximately 1.1 miles east of Route 29. The property is bordered on the north
by Route 643 and on the south by the South Fork Rivanna River. The purpose of the request is to provide sewer service for to
a proposed soccer field complex.
;ACKGROUND:
The Board of Supervisors approved water and sewer service for Parcel 22 on February 12, 1992. That approval was limited
to service to only the church building (800 seat) approved under SP 90-35 for Covenant Church of God. Staff has attached the
original staff report, action letter and Board minutes.
DISCUSSION:
This site is located in the Rural Areas of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan recommends that for the
Hollymead Community "The area between the southern boundary of the Development Area and the South Fork of the Rivanna
River is to remain in an open state as a buffer between the Urban Area and the Community of Hollymead. This boundary is
critical as it preserves the distinct identity of the Community from the Urban Area and prevents continuous development from
the City of Charlottesville to the North Fork of the Rivanna". The Comprehensive Plan recommendations for providing public
water and sewer outside of the Development Areas are contained on Page 125. The recommendation states "Only allow
changes in jurisdictional areas outside of designated Development Areas in cases where the property is: (1) adjacent to existing
lines; and (2) public health and/or safety is in danger". A sewer line does cross the property. However, there is no current health
or safety concern on the site. The request for public sewer for this site is made in order to alleviate the need to construct
drainfields. It should be noted that, due to the topography of the site, the drainfields would need to be located at an elevation
above the proposed building. This location for the drainfields will require pumping. Pumping of effluent is not a desirable design
as it involves the use of pumps,which can fail. A gravity system is the preferred method for disposal of effluent. Therefore,while
this proposal is not consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan for providing service to the Rural Area in
that there is no existing health or safety issue, approval of this request may be preferable from a public health perspective for
the ultimate development of the site as a soccer complex.
This request is for sewer service only to the proposed soccer fields. The Board has already determined that an 800 seat church
connected to public water and sewer is appropriate on this property(Parcel 22). Staff opinion is that if the proposed soccer field
use is approved and the church is not developed (the Board is reviewing two special use permits concurrently), it will create less
ewer/septic use than the previously approved church.
The Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 11, 1998, recommended denial of the two Special Use Permits required
for the approval of the soccer complex.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff opinion is that should the Board choose to approve the soccer complex proposal,the Board will need to weigh the request's
immediate inconsistency with the jurisdictional area policy:against the possible future health and safety issues associated w�,
a private septic system that requires pumping. Staff does not recommend amendment to the jurisdictional area for sewer servi,_
if the special use permits are denied.
Should the Board approve thisjurisdictional area request,staff recommends that the jurisdictional area be amended to provide
sewer service only to.the:soccer complex as approved_underrSP 98-18 and SP 98-22."
98.184
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Agrtfr.
• yllt nl./ft• •
14. 90r.
/�rc:i Nor
MEMORANDUM
TO: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
FROM: V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Vv
Community Development
DATE:
December 4 , 1991
•
RE:
Request for Inclusion in Service Authority
Jurisdictional Area - Covenant Church of God
1k
On February 13 , 1991, the Board heard a request from the Covenant iChurch
of God to include Tax Map 46 , Parcel 22 in the Jurisdictional Area of
the Albemarle County Service Authority for water and sewer service.
Attached is the February 8 , 1991 staff report for that request
(Attachment A) . The Board denied the request for a public hearing at
that meeting.
The Covenant Church has resubmitted the same request with supporting
justification (See Attachment B) . In summary, Mr. Muncaster's reasoning
on behalf of the church is that the parcel to be served is part of a
very limited area that could be developed between Hollymead and the
Urban Area due to the restrictions of floodplain and topography. He
also argues that the reason this parcel is not included in the growth
area is because it is part of an area with very limited development
potential. Therefore, Mr. Muncaster feels that providing public water
and sewer to this parcel would not undermine the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan in this case.
Staff recommendation remains as presented in its February 8 staff
report. While development potential may be limited in this area, it was
purposxlly not included in the growth area due to the decision to
retain the area between Route 643 and the South Fork Rivanna as a
buffer. Consistently, staff has recommended that any area not in the
growth area not be included in the jurisdictional area, particularly
because public utility capacities should be reserved to support
development of designated growth areas .
VWC/mem
cc: Tom Muncaster
Bill Brent
IA I TAGNMENT AJ
„cviA,.,,A.
a141m .
•Visfe-
•
. _ I
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development •
401 McIntire Road "
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
•
(804) 296-5823
MEMORANDUM
•
TO: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
FROM: V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and (')c
Community Development W
DATE: February 8 , 1991
RE: Request To Amend ACSA Service Areas To Provide
Public Water and Sewer To The Covenant Church of
God (Tax Map 46, Parcel 22)
In June, • 1990 , the Board of Supervisors approved SP-90-35
Covenant Church of God to allow construction of an 800 seat
church on this property. At this time, the Board is being
requested to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority
service areas to allow public water and sewer service to
this site without restriction (request attached) .
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
As was noted in the special use permit report, this site is
in the Rural Areas as designated by the Comprehensive Plan.
Regarding provision of public utilities, the Comprehensive
Plan is intentionally specific in objective and strategies
as to where and under what circumstances public utilities
should be made available (p. 146) :
OBJECTIVE: Provide public water -and sewer services to
the Urban Area and Communities.
STRATEGIES:
o Follow the boundaries of the designated Growth
Areas in delineating jurisdictional areas.
•
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Page 2
February 8, 1991
o Only allow changes in jurisdictional areas outside
of designated Growth Area boundaries in cases
where' the property is: (1) adjacent to existing
lines; and (2) public health or safety is
endangered.
This request is inconsistent with both the objective and
applicable strategies of the Comprehensive Plan. There are
no identified quality or quantity problems with water on
this property that staff is aware of. Further, the
Comprehensive Plan warns that "such utilities are not to be
extended to the Rural Areas as these services can increase
development, pressures" (p. 146) .
In the special use permit report, staff suggested that this
project was of an urban scale and orientation and would be
more appropriately located in a designated growth area.
Currently, the Board is being requested to provide urban J
' utilities to the site. It should be noted that the applicant
has stated that "approval of this petition would also
preserve acreage for much more practical uses than
drainfield" as well as their position that "the
governmental disposition towards this parcel is
commercial . " Should the Board provide this site with public
utilities it could enhance argument for further development
in the future.
RECOMMENDATION
This request is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan
objective and applicable strategies for provision of public
water and sewer service. Public utility capacities should
be reserved to support development of designated growth
areas. Allowance for water and/or sewer services to this
property would be inconsistent with past actions by the
Board to 1'imit utility service outside the designated growth
areas. Staff recommends that public water and sewer service
not be made available to this property.
Should the Board choose to approve the applicant 's request,
service should be limited to the 10. 3 acres to occupied by
• the church and further limited to only the church building
as approved under SP-90-35 Covenant Church of God.
VWC/jcw
ATTACHMENT
.S LISIEO DILL-.ARE h.-
\ PURSUANT TO THE ALIIEYARLE COUNTY/OWN°ORO/NANCE THE FMtt COIItNT ANO IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OESI
IN EFFECT THIS DATE AND ARE SHOWN FOR INFORMATION
THE NND(RSIONtO OWNER,PROPERTTES AND TRLQ/EES.
S ‘ •APOSES ONLY. THEY ARE NOT RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS REP(R(NCS TO FUTIM(POTENT [LOPYdT IS iD
` �•0 NNINO WITH THE LAND AND THEIR APPEARANCE ON THIS DEEMED AS TARE mut AANDONLY. in R S AS
's T.M. 46 - 23E PLAT IS NOT INTENDED TO IMPOSE THEM AS SUCH. TO WLS PLAT ARE TRVt CO.... TH(TEST OF
• \ PETER G. HALLOCK IrNDwttoeE.
L A MAY
D.B. 596 6- 71 PLAT B. THE RESIDUE E MAY OBE FURTHER DIVIDEDT BE FURTHER INTO .. , _
'• 4 LOTS OF AREAS LESS THAN 21 ACRES EACH,
PROVIDED THEY DO NOT AGGREGATE MORE THAN ��:. , `L
T.M. 46�- 26C 20.70 ACRES, AND AS MANY LOTS OVER 21 A.
"
JOHN H. CLARF( ACRES EACH AS THE RESIDUE WILL ALLOW. " t^`�24" WALNUT D.B. 352-216,217 PLAT
N. BANK
STREAM NOTE S
/ S84.4r13"E 99.00 I. PARCEL A t THE RESIDUE EACH HAVE A MIfJMU
�� N2p02'S0'� 696n IRON FOUND OF 30,000 S.F. OF AREA WITH SLOPES LESS
�': THAN 25%. .
SET 0 Q N51•46'37'•E 116.13 .
"OA( N�IRON SET 2. PARCEL A - DOES NOT LIE WITHIN THE 100
YEAR FLOOD PLAIN ACCORDING TO THE FLOOD
S75'13.34'•E 19.78 INSURANCE RATE MAPS.
R04i S79.411rE 57.91
L
P0.30EAC.A p S82.48'47"E 138.57 .
In
o s O.B. 231 - 45 �\
2 D.B. 639-544 S80.19'39"E 75.86
in
DRIVEWAY W` APPROVED FOR RECORDATION
FRAME 577'40'46"E 126.04
IRON S36• 26•tiy SHED _---__-�- �IRON SET V.SET 32 64 63��i� 10.3
71../
• o,- S79.05'41-E 51.85 ECToR F PLA MN 7' •�jDRECTOR OF PLANNING 1 -
RON S83.42'25•'E 70.36
SET 522.4519••W J p
400.00 p Tr ..2 S89.20'45••E 66.80
2 A N841 r5I'•E 93.34
14, •
•4y�N80.32.01'7 66.23 .
if
•
T.M. 46 - 22 4.10 v
FREDERICK & GENEVIEVE MORSE MON. •
D.B. 231 - 45 , 49 PLAT a FOUND PLAT SHOWING
D.B. 639 - 544 HWY. TAKE ��6 50812 2a E SURVEY OF PARCEL A , CONTAINING 10.30 ACRES
RESIDUE - 71927! ACRES 316.74 A PORTION OF..THE FREDERICK-�,,GENEVIEVE MORSE PROPERTY.. ,_
MON. LOCATED ON ST. RT. 643 , ABOUT 1.1 MI. E. OF U.S. RT• 29
•
FOUND ALBEMARLE COUNTY , VIRGINIA
SCALE : I" 200' DATE : 6-27-90
T.M. 46 - 228
F.A. IACHETTA • FOR • REV. : 7-2-90
D.B./' D.B. 441 - 649
. 661 - 700 PLAT CHURCH OF GOD
. ROGER.W. RAY t ASSOC , NC
CHARLOTTESV�LE . VA.',
8128
THE DIVISION Of THE LAND DESCRIBED EON IS
THE LAND USE REGULATIONS LISTED BELOW AA(IMPOSED THE IR[E CONSENT AND 1N ACCORDANCE WITH THE DM
THE LMOERSIBNEO OWNER,PRO/tRfl s ma TAuf TEES.
PURSUANT THIS THE ALBEMARLE ALE COUNTY FOR ZONING ORDINANCE REFERENCE TO/YTURK POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 1! TO
IN EFFECT DATE AND ARE SHOWN CTI INFORMATION COVENANTS
DEEMED AS THEORETICAL ONL► ALL STATEMENTS Affl
PURPOSES ONLY. THEY ARE NOT RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
RUNNING WITH THE LAND AND THEIR APPEARANCE ON THIS KNOM[PLAT ARE TRUt AND CORRECT TO THE BEST Of
SrRF4y T.M. 46 - 23E PLAT IS NOT INTEHOED TO IMPOSE THEM AS SUCH. —
PETER G. HALLOCK A. PARCEL A MAY NOT BE FURTHER DIVIDED.
•
D.B. 6 306 B. THE RESIDUE MAY BE FURTHER DIVIDED INTO ., .Z
D.B. 596 71 PLAT 4 LOTS OF AREAS LESS THAN 21 ACRES EACH, ,
'II PROVIDED THEY DO NOT AGGREGATE MORE THAN 4.,.5{
il 20.70 ACRES, AND'AS MANY LOTS OVER 21
T.M. 46 26C ACRES EACH AS THE RESIDUE WILL ALLOW.
JOHN H. CLARK NOTES
2 WALNUT D.B. 352 216,217 PLAT
N.. BANK • ; I. PARCEL A L THE RESIDUE EACH HAVE A MINI.
STREAM OF 30,000 S.F. OF AREA WITH SLOPES LESS
1 / 584'41'13'E 99.00 THAN 25%.
696.12 IRON FOUND 2. PARCEL A DOES NOT LIE WITHIN THE IC
IRON N21'02 SO E oCp• ;` N51'46'37'E 116.13 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN ACCORDING TO THE FLOC
SET Ago A,-q ` IRON SET INSURANCE RATE MAPS.
""C( S75'13'34'�E 19.78
R . •O40•
S79'4I'II"E 57.91 •
PARCEL A •
S82'48'47•'E 138.57
I. 10.30 AC. �'��
n D.B. 231 - 45 S80'19'39"E 75.86 APPROVED FOR RECORDATION
o n D.B. 639-544
-
DRIVEWAY \ S77'40'46"E 126.04• , ��� r,
FRAME )_ \
SHED 1 =...... h IRON SET Z_SDIRECTOR OF PLANNING
IRON 10.3 _ ° u]}--S79'OS'41'E 51.85
S36.52'26"W 10.5-�.J o
SET 649.63 %�-- S83'42'25"E 70.36
IRON P
SET S22'45'19"W 2 .. , -S89'20'45"E 66.80
• 400.00 o Q
•
Cu I-- B N84'I I'5I•"E 93.34
4�2 sJ,9�N8O'32'01"E 66.23
i3'
4.10 ...vs, PLAT SHOWING
MON. CONTAINING 10.30 ACRES
T.M. 46 - 22 bA FOUND SURVEY OF PARCEL A
FREDERICK t GENEVIEVE MORSE .y�'1-' Soe'12'24"E
D.B. UE23 • 45 , 7*49 ACRT A PORTION OF THE FREDERICK_L GENEVIEVE MORSE PROPER
D.B. 639 - 544 HWY. TAKE 316.74 LOCATED ON ST. RT. 643 ; ABOUT I.I MI. E. OF U.S. RT. 29
RESIDUE 7L927s ACRES FOUNDO , ALBEMARLE COUNTY , VIRGINIA
DATE : 6-27-9C
. SCALE : I" - 200' • .. '•'FOR , _ •�.r :.: REV. 7;2-90
T.M. 46 - 22B "`''
F.A. IACHETTA •
' D.B. 441 - 649 ,.. CHURCH OF GOD
• D.B. 661 - 700 PLAT
/ ' ROGER W. RAY L ASSOC. , INC.
CHARLOTTESVILLE ,VA. •
Covenant Church of God
January 11, 1991 I ; . ' , � , `
, .t' ..t,..s.?''..,•. '•:, �E � < �� 1025 East Rio Rood
�`- f"t<f its Charlottesville,
Mr. F. R. Bowie, Chairman 4.1_� Virginia 22931
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors JAN 14 1991 (8tM 9735536
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 • PL.A71r ;N,7 DIVISION
Dear Mr. Bowie:
Please accept this petition as a formal request to include
TM 46 Parcel 22 in the jurisdictional area for public
water and sewer.
As you are aware this property has been approved for con-
struction of a church. complex. Included in our purchase
•
of the property were easements to the public sewer which
runs adjacent along the eastern boundary of the above
cited parcel . Less than 300 feet of natural fall is
between our boundary and the sewer line.
Our petition incorporates historical studies of the county
growth plan, even back to the 70 ' s, which anticipated
growth parallel with sewer and water lines . The sewer.
line is already installed. Forest Lakes ' plan anticipates
southerly development approaching Route 643 . In addition,
Meadow Creek Parkway, which is part of the Comprehensive
Plan, will certainly dictate growth.
Approval of this petition would also preserve acreage for
much more practical uses than drainfield. It is
noteworthy that the Tax Assessor ' s office has designated
8+ acres as being taxable--non-agricultural, which
indicates that the governmental disposition towards this
parcel is commercial.
The petitioner understands that installation of lines and
hookups are the cost of the petitioner. We have already
talked with Paul Shoop of the Albemarle Service Authority
regarding the logistics, and a letter from Mr. Shoop is
attached. Our expectation would be to act expeditiously
consequent to approval.
SENIOR PASTOR
Harold L Bare, Sr.
PASTOR
Youth and Music
Jerry Steele
•
PASTOR
Education and Extension
Victor Morris
Obviously, we are most anxious for a favorable
vote. What we have petitioned seems to us quite
logical.
Your consideration and cooperation will be
deeply appreciated.
Grat ull
old L. Bare, Sr.
Enclosures (2 ) : Plat
Letter from Paul Shoop
cc: Paul Shoop
Wayne Cilimberg
•
•
•
•
L3EVARLE OU \ TY SERVICE AUTHORIY
.
. Box 1009 401 McINTIRE RD. CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA. 22902 (804) 296-5810
January 9, 1991
Pastor Harold L. Bare, Sr.
1025 E. Rio Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Re: Sanitary Sewer Service for TM 46 Parcel 22
Dear Pastor Bare:
I have reviewed the availability of public water and sewer to
your part of parcel 22 above. Unfortunately, this property is not
currently within our jurisdictional area. You must petition the
Board of Supervisors to have this included.
There is a sanitary sewer line onsite with adequate capacity
to provide service to this property. Connection to this line will
require authorization from the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority. If
you are successful in your petition to the Board, we will support
this connection and intervene to have it approved by Rivanna. ;
Water service is somewhat distant. the nearest available line
is at Rt. 29 approximately 6600 if offsite.
I hope you are successful in petitioning the Board. The
proximity of other properties included in our jurisdictional area
should support your request. If I can be of further assistance,
please let me know.
Sincerely,
Paul A. Shoop, P.
Director of Engineering
PAS:dmg
P1E.—EJL1YIM1 \L.L L,uviv I I
32
..1c s°s' �� rs r 1 a £ . tsi`f iA r '+ 3oa x't3c ""
• ' �d: es?3f •'"re4 .P+� bbQ ,:g• -t ? '�^• 7 t y 4Mi a ''.
1!+ �etiMy► .a $mot z• � •+S a •hJty T� 1 T.
)o�
^' zy^p,- 3'.c %:! is $ ,a,••6 Rs 93`A( 4'a3 wc... 1. J 8w y
'r`:: : �as4 ! t :- YG�4; fMNj�"d' `� :• >. •A. •
42299c • V.i. u 4• a�Vh."<"'
a f 4a ' 'Z3F.' � y\> '#f „.ate '£ g r �i `u t \"4.s 4 t'Lr '> �
� 1 p eg+f[� a f v<`a, • ,t P y. ,;.4, •>w .;::, 7: i`
� •;<s /1�f �•�9�15A�����1s t�1 ✓l,��J ,��� 1u°..°�••!,gs�,r a\° Z e�^•��� nS �+! 1, � • .�,, i
— 1 E�3iillit F3iiff� <•\ ? s� `Fs 4 •li. #vr 11 , .1,, ir.
9 4> 1a# r; rai '�' t�;, ^^. , :_3 E N. ��• a �•
,i•it t `3Erl4r.3� t f3 t:i> E'a E a 4 3aa �, r`°w_ _ .�._�. I •\ ,s 2 4tt1.. r<a�7 c jE r?t 12 {I t y=
ifli f 7. <= 4�rE 1 • t J , 371
£�' tit iE r=a :p3„ilf I•'.'f'.E•' I F r i if f • • ti • lot
.ix
•• fr > : E 1�t. r .;= 53`:, 16Ifit 4t g9r �!\ 1 •Mr y
.// tie �I i i-> F. >•• ' �.3 £� t1tEf i fff s'iat l91 ill•-• .'f _ �i�/ ! i l<A< <if,re{4>i .f. ssE IIt tE\ •!!((! i: '112,
• I 3, i ;:•,c�1y)rf3 {t 3 € ;. e' <F pit F3\ ` �I A,
qqj 1 SSr /‘� filEM1y9 :.I 3,z ay< 3 i21,i i iarr'3f j<19/ 3 r 40
J r \ r. f�;� 3 EE€ 3 ; ;
\r35l 41 8 :•#f 1t� ^11 It 1 1 { 1 3 7\ J
,[�� y q E,. {E� 71\ \\ 2 f1 • 3 E3'' {E E =E ��{e;s23 5 > /-' \. i / 'yA J-V)\•
�. c A".1iiill 3€i!Ff liPli0.8116$3• 3 13 1E dF S lit ;V I. 1(0 ' ' • • �� v "\
M4 t . �4$` ., ' {t €f ijiiflihi!
€ 111E�,fEiE`E r11 'E� j",AIXt1 1:at 11 I<fE�. { 3: "r ,,,r •g4 ,xw�" . I.. /
`, L• A a f• m ti. ' ya.YS ii
• \ JID !aVV : al q id 1 3 -14 1 lily
E +•4, cv e l 43 ••a' S /• »o
..... y {>aoc � 1 -.. f,b441#1 d't I E r iE`°r'e nr v., 'S.a�e,:r - /a► . ,.
iee �+ rtxeo ' C�i 4 t• � II
E �3ey x��a a �., / �K i Se\ 43it
N. t � b > y xra x\ ril ii I i) •1 Y' i A°yY so / 47�• ¢ / �R 1.784
\\ 9at r yr 'r , • v"A i 1e t ra 4� •^\ i. /. �•�
„ � L �. k . a4 #t A G Y* \ FFIT 1.
a � t4s �3� M r,. psi x,•„.. , . 9\. . I<� •/ 13s
. wt k d4.:a•„• f"r >• i A �$ '"." \s° ;.� fro ��
>,. � �'sE aft,far c • he r�s''r I r.r \ r Ay S,• /
1 - :�k^b?'••3 ."!,� � .4J,t? Sys Kvo- ! :, �: e r °r a7
3 .i 59 10 \
•
°¢qc a�. F y efy 4 a S� 41k a ° +`°x 45• Wsrf. :' �5 J ' Oil. /1w r 72 ce,'
•
•et,f` R1 '�� •` 24V z k FE -. ,i, ^%4r s t s v i..' ;Ti`
yI• ��q ors ?r' �r « a ' /71 };, .- a,r1 \
•
:e,7M �"K' ��'':31D�3R. r8,�4?� 9". • s •� }\� . rl. rl.i .J6��
..^7w •f'' � ; .�ss;Yvo c;;� .7s 't,,l. • - : '� P J` 'r�_�7\/'r1.r r,� • 47
w*+ •�8. erg 1 Y
•
•" f' µ • :;t 1ae• .VK..! ' y<Y y\.Iw . . .•\\ r• •�y. r1.r1.4....XI N
, fe ,I `b►�y4• ';rur y; .s 21 aNr'•,.Ax $C�.: `� / ' t b,', •\
v"R:'•+' w�. �Qs S+_ Jli•�,h p.�� St `'caA ',Y JfL� t \ / 1 ''~'
�; rt r -. ,.n),. - ''\,,,,.��f 1 a� t< ; . �1/i 1� \.\\ ' •L/ p
. . ...:\\N
. • • • (
MO
//, ./;://>.:"-:,..........,..,'9.1 F .. t, oc a .'.
; ' , ://;./1) .21Z00112. a.
4,)k (S;
631.?"). / •\ .
,,,,:i# ,. 32 ......`•,..„,V\
.1.i.\ 1/Ii
1„
/// 12*
1,.6///1/07///it
�/#7: ,Zy : (1 I r
‘e,41
131
\ AI ..,..!_. • ,0
Kea
/ ,..•( 'le;i4i'/•"/"/42' : '':',77-.‘An'i.
./.'1'..,\,..us\\, .....I 31 •1" '• . .3
i.L/
144
...---- s\ .1011
i ,Iti.' 4. 't,'':'.'. ..
t//
}{�/ - ,. �Y��t jIn Nre.--i I11\ ,t•
�•, • ♦yet`\
......../.1 .
..• /. : Wit ' 1 1 ;r$� `1 t \ �..
It
ti rZR ; w � pit,
57� TT. . 111 11i \\ ` •
• 91*
�rl�t-� • 41 Si
�-���jj �$J¢� ,12 ,1:• fi,,, .. ,3.�1y. 3,1
„..L.,„,... \\
'C't"\:: . ''z
� ii4 l t ``
••t 1. ••
gill/ 1 1 \ 2
)
62 •
.. ... "'"' CHARLOTTESVI LL_F ——
•
SERVICE AUTHORITY- .
JURISDICTIONAL - AREAS._ .� - R_:: ..
MAR. . .. .- KEY
•
WATER ONLY
WATER AND SEWER
WATER ONLY TO EXISTING STRUCTURES
These are existing structures as of the
adopted date, either 10- 1 -82 or 8-10-83
Please see "List of Existing Structures
OR Development Rights" for. specific
structures and . dates .
LIMITED SERVICE •
Please see "List. of Existing. Structures OR
Development Rights" for specific limitations.
\ CI)
M rtc:a :5- tP r_ 2
'. ! DEC MI
g i. nc•-, e .r i riq
C Trip 1.1 i s r PLANNING DIVISION
• ; p J. i c:�.; t: i. r1 ; .
....__J ATTACHMENT B
338 Rio Road
Charlottesville , VA 22901 1 - 1
804 -978 - 7879 •
_ -' - --
•
December. 2, 1n91
•
•
Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of
Planning & Community Development
Albemarle County
401 Mcintir_e Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Re: Covenant Church of God
Dear Mr. Ciliiuherq:
T am writiny in r.eqdre1 to l.h€: Covenant_ Church of God (Tax Map 46
- Parcel 22D)'s request to he included in the Albemarle County
Ser.vic:e Authority's jurisdictional area. As you stated in your
February 8, 1993 staff report, the Comprehensive Plan is "inten-
tionally specific in objective. and strategies as to where and
under what circumstances public utilities should be made
available:
OBJECTIVE: Provide public water and sewer services to the Urban
Area arid communities.
STRATFGiES: Follow the boundaries of the designated Growth Areas
in delineating jurisdictional areas."
The • Comprehensive Plan's reasoning behind that strategy is that
"such utilities are not to be extended to the rural areas as
these services can increase development pressures." The develop •
-
ment potential does not exist in this case. The flood hazard
overlay maps clearly show that there is no developable land
between the Hollymead Growth Area and the Rivanna River until
9,000' down Route 643 from Route 29. Everything else is in the
floodplain. As a matter of fact, a detailed flood study was done
in this area and virtually everything is in the floodway, which
as you know, prohibits all fill under any circumstance.
The total area bounded by Route 643, the South Fork Rivanna
River, Route 29 and Powell Creek is approximately 200 acres. Of
that total, 120 acres is floodway. There are just over 30 acres
which are not part of the church property, not in the floodplain
and beyond setback requirements. A significant portion of they 30
acres would be c.cnbuilcial-ile due to critical slopes and the ali(1n-
merit proposed For the Meadlowc:r_eek PA rkw:_iy.
V. Wayne Cilir bE...iij
December 2, 1991
Page 2
The church property �:
p p_ rty front, ,n ,t road which is the southern bound-
ary of the Ilullyme.-Ad Growth Are.c .,rid the back of original tract
abuts the boundary for the NFigi►borhood 2 Growth Area. Why then
is this property not part of a growth area? The answer is found
in the Comprehensive Plan which stales:
The area between the southern boundary of Route 643 and
the South Fork of the Rivanna River to remain in an open
state as a buffer between the urban area and the Community of
Hollymead• This boundary is critical as it preserves the
distinct identity of the community from the urban area and
prevents continuous development Er.om the City of
Charlottesville up Route 23 North to the North Fork of the
Rivanna. T}ri:: area is included in the Rivanna River. Greenway
corridor and provides an ()ppnrl-unity for passive recreational
uses.
Again, please look at the flood hazard overlay. You will find
that the 100-year floodplain and floodway accomplish the stated
objectives of. the Comprehensive Plan, providing a buffer and
opportunity for a yreenway corridor.
Staff said that they were aw,.nre of the limited opportunity for i
growth in this area and that was one reason why this property was
nut included in the Hollymo;id C;r.nwl:h Area. Yet, the Comp Plan
says "utilities are not to be extended to t;he rural areas as
these services can increase development pressures".
•
This puts the church in a position where it can't be included in
a growth area and have utilities because there's not enough area
to develop, but at - the same time, it can't have utilities if it
isn't in a growth area because too much may develop. How can it
be both ways? If there isn't enough developable land to be
included in a •growth area, there can't be an increase in
development pressure, and therefore, utilities should be allowed.
• This request is consistent with the reasoning which supports the
strategies and objective of the Comprehensive Plan for provision
of public water and sewer service. Finally, according to the
Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority, the sewer which the church would
be connecting to (Powell Creek Interceptor) was originally de-
signed to include the church property and has plenty of capacity.
Thank you for your consideration of this request. Please let me
know if you need any additional information.
•
Sincerely,
•
W. Thomas Muncaster, Jr., P.r;.
Attachments
�rv�'--'•---•ram—
_ Cr.' D
r _
• • 27'30" '23 JAMES L. CALvER. 8TA'i'�rQEOLAa1S'T �'•
160 III NW
• � '', •`Rie•anna .�-- rfARCYSWCtcJ
• �v •
1`.:
'25
'26
../,.____\_... _7„../.X.7{\" .
•
, 1 / •
rn G
MesrceniHolly • i; a s. ,J !54
•
•�
• .,... .
,j� > ..,..
ICh� e , �
___
•
. . . • •
• .... . . _ • ... . •
.. ....„.
.,„..... . ., ..
• 7:7 . ( .
. \ / I, ollymead: .. ,' , • a ...
7
Bethel
Yes •ea ' /,, t3.1 J Cem.. •
\.
•
•
\�� �� •
r Trailer )• _er
'1. _Z._
•
.� ti 't S•:%� / a N-7/...-/Ns"'
Park :6o aSehlYmead - '�
pia •
l ) , \
1.
c >A /i. <<o `\ ter. ��� P1'offit • .`.`. •
i utti/Fork - o. �s:a • ,� ff
+1 Riker Dam i ../
7~ y��.%BM 439
aY F�kv.38I .. •
a ;> �`+' r ,G • , `
.Ou .c'' Cem
.74
•
4-7 g ,
I �� ,, J 4I n. --
Cy
�'I ,
(..—r(..
l.':/ �tl LAY1 n �9��� ` __ 76 �? / o wEhl) I un ,. 1' .
1.5..
•
* II ***t ;',I S ...--' ....-0:14
y • r ( III, tr... '
, ., .k..._,,,, i% M4-iCrg eaeblooto 2 )— ' • .: : ., .
...—.2irr. . , . •
—� � �. rook -n\ o�' ;,/ • `_.
•••.? •
isi... :
•
ae 1p. J•• ;; .•• estmorelan • `j • +�` , : '` )1_
"..1\....... • .
•, U_ oodbro 1e I;••• Qy7o1 / • r ✓ �S r /'
•
)� -nd/ rthfields' .../.. J f ;� •
�,''y •em�% •
fkb .- .. .
•
s '
:v..ri :I s: �o* ,•t, •1 'a III
I l •OMN....b.
4 ifk:Iti.C.••••••:•;.••:.: ••• .. -
--' - ••
. •- . 'Is '., tz.•
ii4I4k11151:.:11iliiiiii: ::::::' :41 A 4 1
,. •
,.. . $0::k:m:ig:: **isis..::ie ;s:••:: .:;:iw
'-" . .,...,...„.,, 4**AM:is:* •••••-- -,A„,-- ......*;..;ill ik n
-1<i'ari4 m
,47,-.0.. • .• ••••.....•••••••••• 10.0 ....., --, • •••.6 ,s,.
,--Aa.4.c.,..,- . :::00:-...-00.0...low.•.? „Ie.- pun • • 14.,
.. 1,,!-Ifsr,,Terr. 4.; ::::x:::*:•:•:::::•:•:•:t.: ..*i::: .1 _,4114 ..;;•:•7 -.- )
• ... ..., *Me•••• ••-••• • ••et) 2:':;:%;7111E P.-:•;#%);•:;••••• 444% .4:•:,•: •:•.•• ..0. •••::Zio.:
t-0
...:...&•11•1•:•:•::::•;••? . :•:;::•:•:•::::•:•: :::•:•••••••:•:•::•:•• • r3
)thle. 104 ,..'• t.._:•**VS:** Ai:::il:i:i:1::i*:i::i:**::::::::i.. - =
,,44.32',....-ao; 0 ,,.... v.•••••„1,46,•••... ••••.•••O....•••••AO. ....:•40. ttS 3:
• )
. , ; ,,:t., . :::::::::.zz ...;f, : . :i::::: :•:;•
OS
0 \ • ,2.:.%.f.;1/:z..,;;. :. ".: .•:•:::•%• . ;•::•:•:•fo;•:•.:•: •••••:•:•:•:•:4•::• :* •
- \ ...••. =4 4','i e'le' ' -'-• ••:•• #4•••••:•:':•:",•$• . A 4 4••••••:•: I ...
•--1_,.. ..-,...t: : .;,,I.1....:'. :, -. •• /••::.•....•.,,. :4•:. A .4 ..44)
.'7: -„, -4,1*.:'1'''''''•''.:.1 ar°';!"•••• :::i:•••••'r T • 7 •
I 7
.
E
4). .i s'z'4,-;:iA-. F.-41 ..*!•;e:•:•:•••:• :•••:*: x V V /
.q.',.:.,:".c.illf:;;;.4?'.,•4-,.:.;- .• ,-....•••:•:•:-::*:'%*:`:****:•4•••' A .•
,"''-• E
-
4 •.....- `••.': 1'''''...i 4/ , -• ••••••••••••:=,•••••••••••••••• P. 4 • /
•-••••• .••• --, - • . • .-.•••m4.,...••••••••.7.•••,...e. „41 , P•
• • • -AN --"•••••h,•-. : •- - ,••.,•,....• •-•-•-* - A
...I.,:,,•,,,..,,•,....•.....• •,,,, ..,. , „,„ _..:..„..,..;....40...•-•....•......... ,,,,, A.
.A. ••••-•••• .• ir -- ' s'? '-'/• 0
.•`',,t1t.-.:2:••••;;••-..•' •:"'7.."." t'. 4••••okti•4!•#-46$,:•:•••••••• V P • 0
.:•;,.4."0::-..•7•1,,..;,..:.:,'";• • . •. . I , • 643.1:.-A 0 roct. " A l'°"'":"'" -,3,,,:zr,),,-.,,,-.,7:, >.
w
x
I - i
I. r;t4'4'.•••••;%%V.:74"! ..." • •••••41121,11 7 •
"...."Afk-e.;-;7;.:0,7 .•:::•*:•••A1NV
,,.__........:Attit.tt,N.:•...,;:'1.„-ii:.::.;2 460•;•>•41.,:•:.:•::.•?.;.•:.4.;:•:._>.. V AC 4 3
•••••••••••••:• • ( It .
. ----._. v
v
v,
•,•••••. .,,, C..,. ,,.. .41.••.•4.40••••*So%. •
‘.‘,.7•t i.4•47."••:'•,:' eot•:•:•• %. •• ••••i .
.-• •. ' • \• - . .• •...1•":• V.2•:.. •.Ai* •••••• ••••
i •• •••••
.•,. •..•.•.
• •• •
1
, .
I - 1 i :!,...-1-..0 igfec‘ti:.; •::::::•:•4••• 'AV" 4....%
' +-''."'N'AV:1 .-, i%••••••••••4. •••• .00.44.•.:•••• .•t.ik.•:••• _;:.?•'.4.1.4v,tir_..:L:... . -.
k.„L.,...,:„?.1,,,,,,,,,a1... 0......,...4.",:k.. e ........-.7.1....tee. o......:.•••• ••::: f.;411tg;•14 ...b.
%"".tZ 41"•C,'..;Vrr•••. .4•::::4:4:•jk.*•:•:• <4:::::::::::::::::::,04.`'•• ••:i::•. 's . , bt It? r:a,". T,„ybrook
•••••••••:4:•:•*: 1.:4*::: ::::::: 7:4•X.:•: - .-': se r .wills • 4 4 .. 4' f• \ .
.fZ. se ,.' :•:•:•:•:.0,:•••:•.%6 .4 4.•••••••••i•••••••••%&••••••#a *-41 .A'‘4.L.7' ". 444&A r l•'V 4 4 ,..\
.....7...-ig!". ?•?•:V::4•:•.: ••$:•:•:•Xi•::::::$4;.**••Viii *:T•2'`'L'''i'4gi`r....Z!'....".
....!7„-<.1%. .1.. . "••••• ' 4)'• r 7'•••• "
.,t.-,--7-4:,7 ei:i.`cr;::::•••+..*::*.t.:.' 3iitit:::ir •.":::•• - -;0 =IN v ' V), ' 4 0,4 b•' .
i s i i':.' ;'',.' . :XitK •:::Z:7% f:IlliIgilt*iiiit:).•::••••...)...:: '.• ,'Ai!.',.. ' r‘. .
A A ,
..1,::1•41 :•43:044:::::. 41:::*::::1•4$# ..::%:..• '4(,;1• .4 • 0.. • A 4 A 444 r-r V4.J.( 0(101 P, '
/. :''' : :^. ••••.•••• iv.", •••AP. :••:•X +'
14 A lia foi
, ,‘ •• • 4,4.04,40044:•••••1•••••.••••••• .•*IN tk,......., t:)...- - ) , , , -
4 . 4 v
2 t.•.:,• ,. ,•44,;::::....:::44.:::::::::$:••' :•••,.•: •4°-. °b7,4;,1•8;,1•I -7 A 4 '' 1 0 :4.4, ,4 . <
• kSe‘:: ' 2. 4.•:•:•:>:•••:::••. • • 6.:4•3$ :./,,:t. C4 fel•A• "V 4 ' 1,.7 I 4 y . •••
''.-. ' 'Nu 4.44• .•••••••• •:1*:•••'44...' '4 ey',... .,.4.4.„ V V A y A.A 4 • A .'
I 7 V.,. • .11...A A„„ .,AVA•lit•VAS•:•:•:•:•••••:- tje•%2V..)7:•;':t.'t_ / A• • A A L. 4,y< •
k'i . ttli:::::***f$S1:•:X..:44$1•-••••••.:::•A 3 " / ‘ ki • r4 4 a/ . • /
!$:$41:;:;•;*::••::::::t.:::::::::.$$•••.••:.: •:::::2...".:,;:f.:,,%. / 1. ‘" . v 4 A 4 1
• .
.•:::11:i:i•reSiS.:::kii:Iiill ..1..::.:.:....:...;i;.17•3/?.•t. 4 1A1 4A 1: 7 :./1• y 4 ../4 •: 4 :•• sl
,_....‘.•.•,A••••••••••••••••••
[ii gZ•t A_ _••%•:•:14•4 a:.• it.:. ::....:...s:
-44141,,,::::9. :.,.......::....::::::.:::.•:::::::-7.
. . ,,-9.:,1. ..;•••••.. ..,`, V •:V , :F•7.,l•4A1,4A! . .• NI
r , `e
•
_,A•_4•••`....."..1:4 • 4
...1.4.‘,4:1".;,, iiiysi• v i• . A 4 •r l• >7 4
I. v A.•. •--_1<.•tre.-•.:01 A A / V X A ! .•.
slii•••••••1 1 • P .• A 4,4'A a 7,
.e.,64'..,..--%, 1-ef•-•‘ 1.'„,..A 4 T -1 4 4 4.4: 4 Yr
l• 4,•%• •%,,..,...e•
.•. . ......., .4, , . ji 4,.. 4., 1, , teas.,
• •••„••„: v i 0....t:...-
••• •• • •
'•le . % 4 1 V• .
I - . :04" 4. A • ..,;•#•• •. •••1• ••::" '
.% . • • •%•1/. - .112,...,. •; 6.•••.?••.....• s,
•-• ' '1,0•.••••••••4/ • . • a,Vi.bilk;.:.• 0. .di• 0.• .•••
?..:74,111,1(0:•%•q i 4 A -A• .!.4.4. , . i.11 : 111.0411: 06:. I
• . °/**•%•%•4•••%'.%fir •4 4 v .7T....;*;: 1.: •i., •:..:...:
/, 4 14 A 4 'Ll'&`4•."•••1••••••7•1•1•••>.:41"
4•,...kill '••••.....4:;e44•%.•.%•I A V V 4 ',e t..0.... • 1•••••••.:1•• ewe'
• •• i •• t Profflt
• •ese....• ...•,, , ,4•1,„„•••„?..t.
2,..:,.' - • . \11%.%.%-ea:.%A ." 14 , .: •••••:,. "• .-../.
• •%•%••/ ' 4 .4 l 1 ::. '.. %•5a...0.er
" • ••••••al d•
'''•• ' 'S hi 4 .V e I, 1 • s-.)41 .1•1:;••••Pt1
• • 4
's . •N viNa/ i e 14 • V •w• j•-NJ.;
*I. '
i ----------- --
, ....•.!.. . • .....11 b. , 4 V„„, I/ , .4.4014,\,40:re ,III;:. - i .7.7.7.:;.., , , . yiliv•Li,414.V T ie. I.: •1, 1%.0.4•
fr..;":•e :.. - -'' -
' Map 22:
• . ?. eso.:...tr e.,
. .-.., _ • .
* .. e •%•.L........ . .__
r .?:.''.; :,-'• n, ' i• ied":47-17y v %.erea.; ; •
. i.,,,,,24.........:.. -, ..,-, -
-.- -,- .. . /
Apt.t ,k,
..-----.. j4
...; ..• .,..,. •.:.J.,. . .. ..,•, . 4 .1 , 4 A •46.%05.4../
1•..-ti, cilt`-i, 'V• V 4• V -4 4 •Si.•-74
... - ' )17.. ,, .......-.....,,_ 1. •
4 9. .4, „
---'1:-- -;',. .s.- ',: -, ; " v 1. v 7 y ' ‘••••••_* . • COMMUNITY OF 11. OLLYMEAD
°43 1- "et.'4i - 14 -:". ‘'' 4 • v 4 . .i
v 4 p• - A:-
4. 4 3. 4
1 l' , ----
• ,.
de TirlAi h • :
y 4 A A I. A •'
• g.(013, ,
-z• _
4„. r ' , A: vir..... . •
42.4, A
e't1.7 _./-' • •
L:3 •
1.--ol...) DEA)il T l''' il CS IPC07/4 L 511d /4,‘„% /
• ''
273
.i ..: . .c., . 4,..,-.....- : ..,*(:..::::;'''....71:::' . ....(1. .:-...'
♦ . • y�o?lo Y . r? -
• . �%Viri'{Z{\. \ l�'• ��• • •ovo 1 •`f�dd• �NMV s r '�� +�i' •
' ' '
SRi...;;.......:...:..ey.„..,7,...
s•' 31s3�n• v nod , d� ; •i ... ••� •':
Al: .4
1....•....:•:::.' : .
41
/fre'ld I) i /1 • 00- •. •s •7.t w..;,,4 .05 nr,c),T3o a
•
•
•
/1.11440:IT d ts.
1007 t�C'1aG 07 \ Q µ•..,- . ^4;f-'::. •
,/.
.1 SP I:, 41.'1.7.;,..... • ...i:::::) * i .,.t,i,.•..:T...1..f .-.•- ,‘Nk 1 •. •
40 ra"4"I I I I I I I I I 1 Ir
,,,,,
..,,,
•
�,,`� iii £w• . yII0 .,.
6 -----....--.1..A.v/ .
•
.::-.-_. . 1)0 ..W. 0 r-7, .
A , ..'4:1, . •.r.•:::-!: .4.:---- • • . • ..
II • II , ��9� • �l1 rya mac) hd'.. /• .�'
. ;:l'i'.:r.:4:;"1'.‘.::?.''''....:.........•:I..,::4.....1-''.•::::',...41.'1::; ''
lki NI,
\\ C i
il
r .
\ •r •
rr
•
l .
...„ ,...__.
. _ ..
. ,
-...
. 11 . • , :-.....•• ::. .„,,;„,...,....„.... . .
• 1, % .• •
• • •:*.if'--,-741')-. -:.• 1
0�'Z �3�Vcl • 11 I ,.1_ .
II •
L '1/S I /i )=-- .$�'LJC2 r4 y (A
\ f
i
7-:
C' , - .
/ . 24 -
'N.44\14%-. %.11 /1":-. \
23Q \ : A/r\I,. -• . , _ . .---:....:... ': .. . 2.6-. :-.:..-..:. . ...... 4 ; . 4. '. : \,. • ;:".-4/-- .7.r.':`'
ij / h
/„...(3\ � 0 (v- � � Sae 99 ;.-„ •
tN e/\•::\\\( 22
/ Io '• ... c
51 L �ti ,1 ,\ .r .. ` s
//'I ) ? '
`i\ � ) I06 \
3
// � 9Vi \
Q .
•
if `
1 �\ �Ib; Z\ltF,
_ \
i
t ly Is7 \
/ ; /3S �'/{`
_____/
?-I ' ct._ \ 115- --‹ . \
/10::-.' --...... I \‘'
PViC.E) 13\ ... 9
:I q�
Iv
• IE1/ / JQ�q
efr
e 3
�,; f� �1vA L
10-S-q l •
1
1v1.1). '.+v, rg. ILv
• February 12, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
intersection with the origin of Barn Branch; then southwest with Barn
Branch to its confluence with the Rivanna River; then meandering west
with the Rivanna River to its intersection with the eastern city
limits of Charlottesville; then northeast with the city limits to its
_ intersection with State Route 631 and the Southern Railroad
right-of-way, the point of beginning.
Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing on a request to amend the service area
boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority to include TM46,P22D,
Covenant Church of God, for water and sewer service. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on January 28 and February 4, 1992.)
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the tax map relating to the Covenant Church of
God identifies the parcel of land in question as Parcel 22. He pointed out
that the original special use permit was for parcel 22, but that was before .
this particular ten acres was subdivided from the original tract to create the
site for which the particular use is being proposed. Mr. Cilimberg went on to
say that this request to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority service
areas to provide public water and sewer to The Covenant Church of God was
originally made a year ago, but the applicant chose at that time not to go to
public hearing. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the applicant subsequently returned
with information supporting his feeling that it is appropriate to provide
water and sewer service to this particular location for the proposed church.
The applicant then chose to go to public hearing in December for this request.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out the Albemarle County Service Authority's
existing service areas on a map to show the relationship of this particular
parcel to surrounding service areas. Adjacent to the north and across the
South Fork Rivanna River there are full water and sewer service areas. These
areas coincide with the growth area boundaries for Hollymead and for the urban
area. This request is for an area shown in the Comprehensive Plan outside of
those growth areas identified as open space between the two growth areas. f
This particular site was approved for a church by special use permit, and at
that time, it was thought that a well and septic system would be used.
Further research into the site and further identification of the applicant's
need for the development site itself has since identified the need for consid-
ering public water and sewer to avoid a large area of septic fields and
disturbance on the site.
Mr. Cilimberg reminded Board members that they were provided a report in
December summarizing the staff's position on the request. Also provided in
that report as Attachment A was a report of February 8, 1991, and an Attach-
ment B which is the justification as presented on behalf of The Covenant
Church of God by Mr. Tom Muncaster. Mr. Cilimberg stated that Mr. Muncaster's
reasoning is that the parcel to be served is part of a very limited area that
could be developed between Hollymead and the urban area. Mr. Cilimberg
pointed out that due to the general restriction of flood plain and topography,
there is little area identified outside of the growth area that could be
developed. Mr. Cilimberg commented that Mr. Muncaster argues that the reason
this parcel is not included in the growth area is because it is part of an
area of limited development potential, so Mr. Muncaster feels that providing
public water and sewer to this parcel would not undermine the general intent
of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff recognizes that
fact, but the area was purposely not included in the growth area due to the
decision to retain the area between Route 643 and the South Fork Rivanna River
as a general buffer between the two growth areas. Mr. Cilimberg noted that
staff has consistently recommended that any area that is not currently in the
growth area should not be included in public utility service areas. A strong
attempt is made to make sure that these boundaries coincide. The staff feels
that public utility capacity should be reserved to support development in
designated growth areas, and for that reason, even with approvals outside of
growth areas for nonresidential development or special use permit types of
uses, the staff has not recommended water and sewer service. He reiterated
that the staff feels that the capacity is most important to those areas
designated for growth.
•
Mr. Bain asked if staff has determined that the area within the buffer
between the two communities is buildable. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the
basic area Mr. Muncaster identified is shown in the report. The staff can
February 12, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M B �� Pg• 121
(Page 5)
confirm, based on Mr. Muncaster's information, that it is a reasonable assump-
tion that the area he has identified will be the limit of any developable
area. He directed the Board's attention to Attachment B, and described
several maps at the back of the package. He said there is an area that
encompasses the site for the church, outlined in yellow on the map. The staff
would agree that this is the area where, if development is expected in this
area, this is where it would happen. The area beyond is very unlikely for
anything besides the normal flood plain type uses. The staff told Mr.
Muncaster and Mr. Bare that if they wanted to pursue the service areas re-
quest, the staff would recommend looking at an amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan first so the areas could be recognized as being in the growth area.
Mr. Bain stated that he has a hard time supporting something that is
outside of growth areas, because of the Comprehensive Plan and the procedures
that need to be followed. He added, though, that if this is a limited area
that can be used for something, then he thinks the Board should consider
putting that limited area in the Comprehensive Plan as a growth area. He went
on to say that it could be attached to the Hollymead growth area, and then
there would not be a problem. He said that the growth area and the water and
sewer service areas can be treated as they have been treated in the past. He
then asked where the water and sewer lines now cross the buffer areas.
Mr. Cilimberg answered that the sewer line travels up the South Fork
Rivanna River and follows Powell Creek up into Hollymead. He does not know
how close the water lines are, but Mr. Bill Brent or Mr. Muncaster would point
them out. Mr. Cilimberg noted that there is water service in Hollymead and in
the urban area. He then called the Board's attention to the fact that the
reason the Route 643 boundary was used on the north and the Rivanna River
boundary was used on the South is because it was considered that the whole
area provided a green space between the two growth areas. He noted that if
this request is approved, it would be in recognition of the fact that this
area is not that valuable as a green space between the two growth areas. He
stated that the easiest thing for the staff would be to consider this request
along with the other expansions of growth areas to be considered next year.
Mr. Martin said since the church received a special use permit to build a
church in that area it really is not a green area now. He does not think the
water and sewer service will affect whether or not it becomes a green area.
Mr. Cilimberg agreed that if the special use permit is exercised, the area
will not serve as a green space.
Mr. Marshall remarked that the staff is recommending that water and sewer
service be denied to this property, and he doesn't agree. He asked why the
staff is not recommending water and sewer service for the church. He inquired
if the only reason is because the property is out of the growth area. Mr.
Cilimberg answered that the property is out of the growth area and approval
would be inconsistent with the County's planning approach. He reiterated that
the capacity of the water and sewer system needs to be reserved for develop-
ment of designated growth areas. Each incremental addition outside of the
growth areas, which uses public utilities, takes some of the capacity away.
Mr. Marshall then inquired if this property is going to be incorporated
into the growth area.
Mr. Bain stated that he had raised this as a possibility. Mr. Cilimberg
stated that if the Board thinks that it is important to have this property
incorporated into a growth area, then the Comprehensive Plan could be amended.
•
Mr. Bain mentioned that if this property is really in a limited area,
from a policy perspective, the Board probably should agree to incorporate this
property into the plan as a growth area. Mr. Marshall remarked that he agrees
with Mr. Bain.
Mr. Bain said the Board had received information last year which con-
tained quotes from the Comprehensive Plan indicating that the service areas
should be followed wherever possible unless public health or safety are
involved.
ivi.D. '+V, rg. 1LL
February 12, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
There were no other questions for Mr. Cilimberg from Board members. Mr.
Bowerman then opened the public hearing and asked Mr. Muncaster if he would
like to speak.
Mr. Tom Muncaster, Muncaster Engineering and Computer Applications,
pointed out that the project fronts on Route 643, and everything north of
Route 643 is part of the Hollymead growth area. The area to the south of the
property fronts on the South Fork of the Rivanna River, and everything south
of that is part of the Neighborhood Two growth area. He stated that 100
percent of the land west of the bend in the river, between the site and Route
29, is part of the flood plain and is, therefore, not developable. There will
not be the opportunity to increase development pressures if this site is
included in the service area.
Mr. Muncaster said a special use permit for this church has been ap-
proved, and the church will be built, but there is a question of whether to
build in an environmentally sound manner by connecting to a public sewer or to
let the site layout be dictated by a mass of drain fields. From an engineer-
ing standpoint, the best option is obvious. He said the Board has accepted
such risks in the past under the assumption that the risks were less than the
increased pollution which could be caused by development. In his experience,
this has been an issue when a particular project has been in the watershed of
one of the County's public drinking water impoundments. He pointed out that
this project is different because it is not in the watershed of one of the
County's public drinking water impoundments, and it is next to an existing
sewer line. ,He added that the flood plain will provide a buffer between two
growth areas. He reiterated that increased development pressures are not an
issue with this project.
Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Muncaster to point out on the map the part of the
property that would be in the growth area, if the Comprehensive Plan were
changed so as to allow this property to be included in the growth area. Mr.
Muncaster did so. Mrs. Humphris asked how many acres would be involved in the
growth area. Mr. Muncaster replied that 30 acres would be involved. He
pointed out that the Meadow Creek Parkway would also take some of the land if
the Parkway is ever built.
Mr. Bain stated that the 30 acres mentioned by Mr. Muncaster is not part
of the church property. He asked how many acres are actually part of the
church property. Mr. Tucker responded that the church has a ten-acre parcel.
Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Muncaster to point out the sewer and water lines.
Mr. Muncaster showed Mr. Perkins the sewer line on the map, but Mr. Muncaster
stated that the nearest water line traveled along Route 29 north.
Mr. Harold Bare, Pastor, Covenant Church of God, said the special use
permit an important factor for his local parish. He realizes that there may
be some present tonight who could be opposed to his request. He asked church
representatives to stand and be recognized, and he then presented a petition
to the Board. He stated that within 15 or 20 minutes he could fill the room
with 100 plus people who are standing by with buses, but he did not want to do
that.
Mr. Bare said his concern is simple, and he thinks that it is quite
clear. He has listened to the evidence and heard the talk about the green
space, but the church property is not involved with the green space area. The
property has already been removed from the farm tract, and more than $500,000
has been invested in the property, so the matter cannot be treated trivially.
This is a significant monetary investment, so something has to happen with
this piece of land. Time is a factor, and he would like to begin the project
this summer: If this Board chooses to have a Comprehensive Plan amendment, he
believes that by the time the Board went through its time tables and the
planners for the Church went through their site plan and everything were
—+ cleared with all County departments, it could be 1994 before ground could be
broken for the church. This is a time-consuming process, and any delays in
the procedure would put the time further into the future because a site plan
could not be done until everything were settled. Site plans are expensive and
the church cannot afford to spend money on a site plan anticipating something
that may not materialize.
February 12, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
M.B. 40, Pg. 123
(Page 7)
Mr. Bare pointed out that the choice for the church lies between instal-
lation of a septic field which will take the prime land, or connecting to a
public sewer line. He feels that going through the Comprehensive Plan proce-
dure would cause an inordinate delay for the church. Mr. Bare said he does
_ not sit in the supervisors' chairs, and he does not know as much as they know
about government, but he reminded the Board that it made a decision that this
meeting would be held, and he feels it has the right to go ahead and commend
the progress of this work. He pointed out that this, is America, and Americans
do things by the democratic process and they do not have to feel tied to
always repeat what has been done in the past. He feels this is an extraordi-
nary situation because the property is not attached to any other area. The
property is a piece of isolated land, so it is not as though the Board would
be setting a precedent. He does not know of any other place in the County
where there is a church surrounded by a flood plain which is attached to a
growth community with public services nearby.
Mr. Bare said this is a unique situation, and he does not think there is
any need for the Board to feel as though ordinances would be violated. He
asked how there could be a violation when the Board has the right to vote for
water and sewer service. This is a momentous time for the church members, and
he does not feel that he is asking for anything exceptional. He thinks that
this is a reasonable request, and he mentioned that many of the people's names
on the petition have never attended his church. These people heard the case
he presented, and they thought it made sense and that strong churches are
needed in the community. He added that he had submitted these remarks to Mr.
Cilimberg in, a private discussion. Mr. Bare said he is also a sociologist,
and is trying to finish his doctorate at the University of Virginia. He said
it takes approximately 80 people to support a pastor and 125 people to have a
healthy, social network in a local church. He noted that sociologists are
saying across the country that healthy churches are a healthy part of the
community, and churches need to be able to grow. He said that this is an
important factor. He feels the Board members have before them a clear-cut
case, and the prayers and petitions are that the Board will grant its appro,v-
al. He respectfully thanked the Board for its consideration.
No one else wished to speak, so Mr. Bowerman closed the public hearing.
Mrs. Humphris commented that SP-90-35 was the request that allowed the
Covenant Church to be built in this area. She stated that the staff indicated
in its report that this church was of an urban scale and implied that it
should more appropriately be built in an urban area. She said that it was
known from the very beginning that if the church was built in a rural area, it
could possibly present a problem. In spite of that fact and the Comprehensive
Plan goals and zoning implications, the church group made a conscious decision
to go ahead with the request for issuance of the special use permit, and it
was eventually approved. Even though the development potential may be limited
in this area, the County has made a very conscious and careful decision to
maintain that area on the map as a buffer between two growth areas, recogniz-
ing its value as a green space. She thinks that such a change requires a
proposal for a Comprehensive Plan amendment, and if there are problems with
that procedure, it is not the fault of this Board. She reminded the group
that this Board did not make the original proposal. She noted that the church
representatives decided that the septic system would not do and that public
sewer was desired. She thinks the manner in which this Board should handle
this situation would be not to grant an exception to the Comprehensive Plan
and there would not be the possibility of setting a precedent.
Mrs. Humphris noted that no matter how often it is believed that no
similar circumstances will arise in the future, it could be discovered at a
later date that a precedent had been established. She referred to the peti-
tion and said that good planning is not done based on popularity contests.
Good planning is based on good sound planning and policies; it is not a
numbers game. She believes that this request is not consistent with the
— objectives and strategies of the Comprehensive Plan, and she pointed out that
the staff had given a lot of time and attention to the request and still feels
that it is not in the best interest of the entire County. She really believes
that it is possible that anytime an exception is granted to the Comprehensive
Plan, it will cause problems for the County at a later time. She is opposed
to this request and believes that this decision has to be based on existing
policies.
February 12, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)•
(Page 8)
Mr. Bowerman said that Mr. Bain had raised a good point. Mr. Bowerman
asked if the Board could take action on this request and change the Comprehen-
sive Plan later to coincide with these actions. He went on to say that when
the Board voted to go to public hearing, comments were made recognizing that
_ 200 acres were designated as green space. He said the green belt can still be
maintained because there is plenty of land area along the river, but basically
this piece of property was a convenient boundary between the Hollymead growth
area and the urban growth area. He stated that the situation was considered
closely. He had argued that a person could legitimately look at this area not
as separate from the urban area, but almost as part of it, since it is in such
close proximity to it. He pointed out that the majority of the land there is
not buildable. It was for that reason that he made the motion to hold a
public hearing. He does not think this will create any bad precedent because
he thinks it is a unique piece of property, even though there is some more
acreage there which this Board may have to deal with in the future. He
believes that this is a reasonable use in a reasonable location. He thinks it
is impossible to get any closer to the urban area and not be in it because the
property falls between the two growth areas, and it is located on a State
highway. It is for all of these.reasons that he will support the application
for change in the service areas. He will consider, when the Comprehensive
Plan is reviewed, studying this area and legitimately changing some of the
lines.
Mr. Bain remarked that he would rather change the lines . He would
unquestionably support the request if the Board supports changing the growth
area boundaries. He recalls that when the Comprehensive Plan was being
develbped, and the whole Hollymead area was considered, areas east of
Hollymead were examined as possible growth areas because there was pressure
from those residents. He added that the people north of Route 643 were
requesting the same thing. He thinks that the staff and Board decided that
the whole area north of the river should not be in the growth area. He said
that the green space was considered, but a lot of time was not spent on
considering whether or not the property south of Route 643 could be used for
development apart from the flood plain. He asked Mr. Cilimberg if he was
correct.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that topography maps identified flood plain areas
and steep slopes during the overall consideration of growth areas and the
immediate areas around growth areas. He thinks that this decision to stay
with the buffer between Route 643 and the River was because there were two
identifiable physical boundaries which provided a reasonable separation in
this high area. He went on to say that if the area is not developed, and
green space is desired in a high area that is very visible, then this area
would be serving that purpose. He does not think that the staff consciously
considered examining the south side of Route 643 to establish a reasonable
addition to the growth area. The staff knew that there was an area there that
might be available for development, but it was not identified because the
staff and Board seemed satisfied with continuing the separation.
Mr. Bain stated that the area in question is a very small area and he
thinks it could be included as part of the growth area. He will support a
resolution indicating that the Board will consider adding that area as part of
the growth area. He is not sure, however, that this is a unique situation.
He has being trying to recall other areas that. are adjacent to streams and
close to the urban area, where there is a similar situation. He said that he
keeps in mind what the Comprehensive Plan indicates as far as extending
utilities, and for that reason, he has difficulty supporting the request apart
from a Comprehensive Plan amendment.
•
Mr. Marshall commented that he also will support a resolution for an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. He said the Comprehensive Plan can be
changed. He pointed out that this Board is not considering a request from a
retail establishment, a night club or a bar. He added that this is a request
— from a church group, and he wants to see as many people in church as possible.
He asked if there was any reason why the church group should be denied its
request. He said that he will support the church group and its efforts.
Mr. Martin wondered if there was a way that a compromise could be worked
out whereby the supervisors could approve the intent of this public hearing,
and at the same time pursue a possible Comprehensive Plan change.
February 12, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
M.B. 40, Pg. 125
(Page 9)
Mr. Bain replied that the Board can do that, but he cannot support the
motion as it was stated. He understands that the church group has a lot of
money involved in this project, but he reminded the church representatives
that he voted against the motion in the beginning because it represents ^�
_ putting an urban use in a rural area.
Mr. Marshall asked if Mr. Bain could support the motion if the church
were allowed to connect to the utilities and the Board made a resolution to
follow this action. Mr. Bain responded, "no." He said that he would support •
the resolution, but the matter should be brought back to this Board in 60
days. The property is a limited area of 30 or 40 acres of land, and if the
staff feels that an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is a way to handle the
situation, then he could probably support a motion at that time. He believes
that supporting the request before a Comprehensive Plan amendment is consid-
ered would not allow the matter to progress in the proper order.
Mr. Bowerman stated to Mr. Bare that he believes there is Board support
for considering a Comprehensive Plan change first and delaying action on this
request for 60 days. Mr. Bowerman said he does not know if the motion will be
approved or disapproved if it is voted on now. He asked Mr. Bare his feelings
about waiting for 60 days to look at a Comprehensive Plan change. Mr. Bare
replied that he realizes that to wait would create a greater probability of a
favorable vote. He said, again, that the 60 day wait would almost assuredly
not allow the church to be built this year because the winter months would be
here before any construction could be started. He also understands this
Board's political position. He knows the Board has a legal right to vote
tonight, and it is as legal as waiting six years and going through 50 Compre-
hensive Plan changes. He added that this is due procedure, and he stated that
this is the church group's position.
Mr. Perkins commented that he can support this request because the
important thing for this church group is the time element. He thinks this
piece of property is unique. If the Board only adheres to the Comprehensive
Plan there would not be any need for the Supervisors to meet as often as they
do. He thinks the Comprehensive Plan was made to be changed, and he thinks
that this is one of those times when it can be changed. He would not be
opposed to the request because the timing is very important to these people.
He will support a change in the service area boundaries.
Mr. Bain said the issue before the Board is land use, and that is what
the Board should base its decision on. He said that Mr. Bare and his congre-
gation have the right as landowners to come before this Board and ask for a
change. He added, though, that this Board makes decisions that are related to
land use and the Comprehensive Plan, etc. This Board has already approved the
request for the church to be built on that property, but now this Board is
having to make another decision tonight. Mr. Perkins replied that a lot of
requests have been before this Board, and some have been approved and some
have been denied. He said that there will always be requests from people, and
some of the requests will continue to be approved, unless there is a change in
the Board members.
Mr. Marshall stated that he feels each case has its own merits.
Mr. Perkins mentioned that the Board has turned down a lot of requests
along Hydraulic Road, north of Albemarle High School, because the property was
in the drainage area of the Reservoir. He thinks that this is important. He
said that this is not the case with the piece of property in question, and he
thinks that this situation is unique.
Mr. Marshall agreed with Mr. Perkins' previous statement that if the
supervisors were only going to adhere to the Comprehensive Plan, then they
have no reason to be at these meetings.
•
Mrs. Humphris remarked that the whole point is that if the supervisors
don't want to adhere to the Comprehensive Plan, then the Comprehensive Plan
should be changed, but exceptions should not be made to the Plan.
Mr. Marshall said that he does not agree. He stated that a whole text-
book would not be changed just because it was necessary to change one area in
February 12, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) `'"' TV, 16. L.Lv
(Page 10)
it. He said that the Comprehensive Plan is good, but it is not the Holy
Bible.
Mr. Martin stated that he would support a motion for Mr. Bare's request
_ because a special use permit was given to the church, and he feels that once
that special use permit was given, any legitimate argument of using that space
as a buffer disappeared.
Mr. Bain explained that any agricultural land outside of the flood plain •
can be developed, so this property could have been developed with houses. He
said that in a rural area, there are still development rights.
Mr. Martin remarked that he thought the special use permit was given with
the idea that a church would be built there. He reiterated that once the
special use permit was issued, then it was already determined that some of the
buffer space-would be lost. This decision was made when the special use
permit was issued. He understands what Mr. Bain is saying about the order in
which these matters should be handled, and he thinks that the Comprehensive
Plan is a guide and should be treated as a guide. He also believes that the
Board should always try to stay within the Plan except when there are excep-
tions. To him, this is one of the exceptions that the Board should approve,
but he realizes that perhaps the next request will not be approved.
Mr. Bowerman commented that he has not supported any exceptions since he
has been on this Board or when he was a member of the Planning Commission
where there was a question of extending the service areas into a watershed of
any o-f the water supply reservoirs, including the Totier Creek watershed. He
voted against changing the service lines for exactly the same reason. He
pointed out that this property is not in a watershed area. He asked if there
is a motion.
At this time, motion was offered by Mr. Marshall to approve inclusion of
Parcel 22 on Tax Map 46 in the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County
Service Authority for both water and sewer service, for the 10.3 acres to be
occupied by the church, and further limited to only the church building as
approved under SP-90-35 for Covenant Church of God.
Mr. Martin seconded the motion.
Mr. St. John pointed out that this request is for water and sewer ser-
vice. He asked, if this request is approved, how will the water be routed to
the church. He pointed out that the sewer service is not on the church
property, but it is near to the property. He stated that someone on the staff
should supplythis information.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there is service area coverage between the water
and sewer lines and this parcel. Mr. St. John answered that there has to be a
service area where the lines are. He said that there are houses adjacent to
this church along Route 643. He added that if the water line is brought along
the road to reach this church, it will be in the street adjacent to these
houses. He said that this raises the question of whether or not these people
might make the same request.
Mr. Marshall noted that his motion stipulates that the water and sewer
service will only be to the church.
Mr. Martin asked if this would be a matter that will be brought back to
this Board. Mr. St. John replied that the matter would be brought back to the
Board if someone else made such a request.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Bill Brent if he could comment on the proximity of
water and sewer service to this specific site. Mr. St. John asked Mr. Brent
to explain how the new lines will be routed if new lines are necessary to get
— the utilities to the site.
Mr. Brent responded that the applicant has not made a specific design as
to how to extend the water line to the particular site. He added that the
path of least resistance and the obvious route would have the water routed
February 12, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 40, Pg. 127
(Page 11)
down Route 643 from Route 29 because the closest water line is located at
Route 29. He went on to say that he is not sure if the sewer line crosses the
property in question, but if it doesn't, it is very close to it.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the sewer line is on a portion of the residue
parcel. He pointed out on the map the portion of the property the sewer line
crosses.
Mr. St. John asked if the sewer line crosses a portion of the property
now owned by the church. Mr: Cilimberg answered that as far as he knows the
church owns the property where the sewer line is routed. Mr. St. John ex-
plained that easements would have to be gotten if other people's property is
involved.
•
Mr. Brent stated that there are easement rights. Mr. St. John stated
that this answers his question. He went on to say that it would probably be
impractical to connect to sewer service without also connecting to the water
service.
Mr. Brent next explained that if the church was not connected to the
County's water system, it would be impossible to know how much sewer service
was being used. He said that, in such a case, the church representatives
would be required to put a meter on the well.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: • Messrs. Bowerman, Marshall, Martin and Perkins.
NAYS: Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Bain.
Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-91-12. Beechtree Associates Limited Partnership.
Public Hearing on a request to rezone 1.12 acs from CO (proffered) to C-1
(proffered). Property in SE quadrant of Whitewood/Hydraulic Rds inters is
located in Neighborhood I. Property shown in the Comprehensive Plan for
Neighborhood Service. TM61,P25. Charlottesville Dist. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on January 28 and February 4, 1992.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff's report as follows:
.; "CHARACTER OF THE AREA: This site is currently developed with a
commercial building consisting of multiple rental spaces. Adjacent
properties are also- developed commercially. This site has access
directly to Whitewood Road and is connected to Hydraulic Road through
the adjacent commercial development. Albemarle High School is located
on Hydraulic Road opposite this site.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to amend the exist-
ing zoning of the property in order to broaden the range of permitted
uses. The applicant has proffered to delete uses which are inconsis-
tent with the Neighborhood Service designation of this site or which
may be inappropriate in this location due to proximity to the high
school and/or access. The applicant's proffers are included as
Attachment C (set out in full below).
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
March 13, 1963 - Subdivision creating parcel under review was ap-
proved.
January 28, 1976 - The Board of Supervisors rezoned the one parcel
from R-2, Residential, to B-1, Business, subject to the entrance to
the site• being limited to Whitewood Road.
•
March 24, 1981 - The Planning Commission approved the site plan for
this property.
July 20, 1983 - The Board of Supervisors approved ZMA-83-08 (Prof-
fered). This action rezoned the property from C-1, Commercial, to CO,
Commercial Office.
ATTACHMENT C
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING & PUBLIC WORKS
MEMORANDUM
TO: David Benish, Chief of Community Development
FROM: David Hirschman, Water Resources Mana:' 111,/
DATE: August 7, 2001
SUBJECT: South Fork Soccer Center—Sewer Hook Up
I have met briefly with Wayne on this subject and also discussed it with Alyson Sappington from the
Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water Conservation District and Bill Craun with the Thomas Jefferson Health
District.
I understand the long-standing policy for not allowing hook up to public sewer outside of the
jurisdictional area, except in cases supported by the Comprehensive Plan. In general, the policy is a firm
statement linking public utilities with land use, and is philosophically sound. However, in certain cases,
the policy prevents the best technical solution, and the best option from a water quality perspective, even
in cases where future land use is of little concern. The South Fork Soccer Center is the latest and perhaps
most dramatic example I have observed.
I understand that the property in question is not within a Development Area. However, it is sandwiched
between two such areas, divided only by the Rivanna River and its flood plain. If the intention is to
provide a green swath along the River and between the Development Areas, then the soccer park seems
consistent with that intention. The ownership of the property is by a non-profit organization, and even if
the ownership were to change in the future, restrictions on flood plain development would restrict other
more intensive uses.
Given that the Board of Supervisors has approved the use for that particular site, I believe it would be
prudent from both a land use and environmental perspective to allow for the best technical,
environmentally-sound means of sewage disposal. In this case, hooking up to the sewer line is the clear,
best alternative. The reasons for this are as follows:
• Septic fields are an alternative to sewer hook-up. However,the site is quite limited for septic
drainfield disposal due to the extensive flood plain, and limited area outside of the flood plain
suitable for such a system. Bill Craun from VDH has expressed his preference for the site
connecting to the sewer because of technical limitations with finding an adequate drainfield and
reserve drainfield. According the Bill, the solution they have found meets only the minimum
requirements, and may not be able to meet peak needs during events.
MEMORANDUM
South Fork Soccer Center—Sewer Hook Up
August 7,2001
Page Two
The soil in flood plains tends to be more alluvial and porous than other soils in the area. They are
not suitable for accepting septic waste because of the increased chance for waste to leach through
them and because of periodic inundation. Even drainfields just above the flood plain level(as in this
case)present more risk for septic leaching than drainfields further removed from flood plains and
streams. Also,the drainfield area must be graded to install the system, instead of leaving the hillside
undisturbed.
Furthermore, this septic system will require a private pump station for the waste to get to the
drainfield. These types of pump stations can best be described as "accidents waiting to happen." We
have personally observed these types of pumps backing up directly into streams in our community.
The issue is that they require constant maintenance, and the consequences of failure are very bad for
downstream waters. There is no way to guarantee that periodic maintenance is taking place, so
monitoring and oversight is difficult or non-existent. The best motto for private pump stations is to
prevent them if at all possible, especially when other alternatives are readily and economically
available.
Finally, septic systems always provide some level of risk for sites that must also use wells for
potable water. This site will require several wells. While Health Department standards impose
certain minimum setback requirements between drainfields and wells, this is far from absolute
protection, especially when drainfield conditions are not optimum. From a risk reduction
perspective, eliminating the need for a drainfield is the best option.
• Other types of non-conventional systems, such as composting toilets, may be an option. However,
we have never clarified County policy on the use of such systems, and they probably would be
incapable of handling the event-type loads that will be generated at the soccer park. In some cases,
they have proven an excellent solution at remote sites with intermittent and small sewage flows. I
don't know all the technical particulars of these systems, but my suspicion is that they would be very
expensive to handle flows at the soccer park, and may not do an adequate job. In my mind, the use
of such a system would be hard to justify when there is a sewer line running through the site, and we
know that the waste will be adequately treated at the Moores Creek Treatment Plant.
• Presently, SOCA is proposing to use port-a-johns to fill the gap between what the septic field can
provide and expected demand. The environmental aspects of a row of port-a-johns may not be an
issue, unless one considers their inherent drawbacks for odor, aesthetics, and sanitary conditions.
The main issue with port-a-johns is that if the County approves of the use of the site as a soccer
facility, by all means allow them a sewage disposal option that does not require the need for a row of
permanent port-a-johns. From a regulatory standpoint,I also wonder whether permanent port-a-
johns is tantamount to permanent pump and haul.
• In this case, hooking up the sewer line is environmentally sound. The sewer line is already there and
is not going away. It seems most prudent to hook onto an existing system rather than to create a
redundant sewage disposal system on the site, especially one of dubious effectiveness. Hooking up
to the sewer line will necessitate less site grading and will afford more enduring protection for the
site's drinking water wells. Also, there is no doubt that the line can handle even the largest event-
type flows that the site will generate.
MEMORANDUM
South Fork Soccer Center—Sewer Hook Up
August 7,2001
Page Three
In general, if future land use is not a serious concern, I feel that we should seek the best technical,
environmentally sound option for sewage disposal. I know that we cannot always know what all future
land uses may be, or what potential there is for undesirable or more intensive uses that otherwise would
not be feasible without sewer hook-up. However, I am advocating for some balance—that on sites
where our best judgement tells us that future land use is not an overriding issue, that we allow for sewer
hook ups when it can be demonstrated to be the best technical and environmental alternative.
I would be glad to discuss this issue further with you and your staff and help find an agreeable solution.
DJH/ybv
Copy: Jack Kelsey, Chief of Engineering
File: Hirschman\SOCAsewer.doc
Louisa Office:• ATTACHMENT D E-mail: tjswcd@avenue.org
V.Industrial Dr.,Ste 2 Web Page: avenue.org/tjswcd
Louisa,VA 23093
Tel: 540-967-5940
• THOMAS JEFFERSON
• ALBEMAFRLE SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
LOUISA
2134 Berkmar Drive, Charlottesville,VA 22901
NELSON FLUVANNA Tel: 804-975-0224, Fax: 804-975-1367
June 28, 2001
•
Mr. Wayne Cilimberg • •
Director of Planning and Community Development,Albemarle County
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville VA 22901
•
Dear Mr. Cilimberg:
The Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District partnered with Albemarle County in
establishing and holding a Riparian Easement at the South Fork Soccer Park on Polo Grounds Road (Rt.
643).
A plat of this property shows that a sanitary sewer line is located directly under the proposed Soccer Park,
however the property is outside of the jurisdictional area for sewer connections. While we are aware of,
and in support of, the policies that restrict connections to the sewer system to areas designated for growth,
we believe that this project is deserving of an exception. A similar exception has already been granted to a
church, located on the parcel from which the soccer park property was divided.
When the Soccer Organization of Charlottesville Albemarle (SOCA) initially submitted an application for a
Jurisdictional Area Extension in 1998, the property was under the control of Dr. William Hurt. SOCA, a
non-profit community service organization, is now the sole owner of the property, with intentions to
maintain the property as a recreational facility for the long term. SOCA has no interest in any profit-making
uses of the property.
As planned now, the Soccer Park will have a small septic system just above the flood plain area. The
septic system will not support heavy usage from the general public, and will therefore need to be
supplemented with portable toilets. Due to the site restrictions, the Albemarle County Health Department
recommended that a connection to the sewer line be granted (as noted in a March 1, 2001 e-mail from Bill
Craun to Margaret Doherty, County Planner). Neither the septic system nor the portable toilets, serve the
interests of water quality protection or public health protection.
It is the recommendation.of the TJSWCD that SOCA's request for a Jurisdictional Area Extension be
granted. The County may wish to qualify the approval with a requirement that SOCA be responsible for •
disconnections from the sewer line if the use of the property changes.
Thank you for your consideration of this request, and we look forward to hearing from you.
Si . • elyl
,�� RECEIVED• .
Nic H. Evans •
Chairman I l 0 2CC)1
'I^"NG AND
Cc. Albemarle County Board of Supervisors COMA._ :EVE.OPMEN'
David Hirschman, Albemarle County Water Resources Manager
David Benish, Albemarle County Planning Department
"To exercise leadership in promoting soil and water conservation by
providing technical expertise and education to policy-makers and the public" pnntdon