Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-08-20 adjAugust 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. Jo~ 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 c~redit 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%, ~t could cost as much as $150,000 to $200,000 per year for water 9nly. 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 lin~ 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 maj 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) 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 giv® 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 beenfgiven 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 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 co'st 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 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. water and sewer areas. Discussion: Amend the Comprehensive Plan as it relates to public Agenda Item No. 4. Discussion: Albemarle CoUnty Service Authority. Amend the project areas previously specified for the 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 take~ 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 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 sai~ ,n fe 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: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. 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 b~ing 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: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. 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 densi2y, 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: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. 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: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. 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: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. 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 develop~ 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: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. 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 consistenl 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 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 hookin 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 subdivi 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. Iachet~ta 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 iElectric 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 substant~ 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 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 Miss Nash, to adjourn this meeting until August 27, 1980, at 1:30 P.M. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: al