HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 09 82 PC MinutesFebruary 9, 1982
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday,
February 9, 1982, 7:30 p.m., Meeting Room 7, Albemarle County Office Building,
401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mrs. Norma A.
Diehl, Chairman; Mr, James Skove; Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr.; Mr, Richard Cogan; and
Mr. Allan Kindrick. Mr. David P. Bowerman, Vice -Chairman, was absent. Other officials
present were Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney, and Mr. Ronald S. Keeler,
Assistant Director of Planning.
Mrs. Diehl called the meeting order after establishing that a quorum was present.
SP-81-68 Town of Scottsville - Deferred from February 2, 1982. Request, in
accordance with Section 30.3.5.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, to locate a temporary
holding pond as part of flood control facility and to construct a flood control
levee on property located west of Town of Scottsville. County Tax Map 131, Parcel 81A,
1.14 acres (portion to be conveyed), zoned Village Residential; County Tax Map 130,
Parcel 44, 1.53 acres (portion to be conveyed), zoned Village Residential, and
0.093 acres (easement to be granted), zoned Village Residential; County Tax Map 130,
Parcel 43, 2.42 acres (portion to be conveyed), zoned Heavy Industry, and o.166 acres
(easement to be granted), zoned Heavy Industry; additionally 2 acres zoned Rural
Areas south of Scottsville for construction easement; Scottsville Magisterial District.
Review for Compliance with Comprehensive Plan - Deferred from February 2, 1982.
James River Flood Control Levee.
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Reports and introduced Manor A. Raymon Thacker of
Scottsville; he stated that Sam H. McGhee, III, and Stu Hubbell of Mattern and
Craig, consulting engineers, would be representing the applicant. Mr. Keeler also
pointed out that Mr. Tom Bruce of the Town Council and member of the Board of the
Albemarle County Service Authority was present. He further introduced Mr. William
Brent, as Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, and Mr. Lou Rossi of
that same agency.
Mr. McGhee gave a presentation on behalf of the Town of Scottsville. He commented
on the most comprehensive review by Staff of the flood levee project and said that
his engineering firm had carefully considered the recommended conditions as outlined
by Staff and had no problem meeting these for the special use permit. With respect
to compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, he said that the suggested realignment
had been discussed with Mayor Thacker and Mr. Bruce and the Town Council. Mr. McGhee
said they were in general agreement with this proposal, subject to the Town being able
to acquire the necessary property. He said that there was no engineering problem
with the proposed realignment of the levee.
Mr. McGhee said with reference to the sandbag closure on Route 6, there would be
no such closure during Phase One, simply because the levee would not extend to that
point in Phase One. He added that word had been received from the Federal Insurance
Administration that a sandbag closure at that location would not be acceptable in
the ultimate construction. Mr. McGhee said, therefore, that some type of stop -log
closure would be designed for the final installation. He added that in the initial
phase, there probably would be a sandbag closure at Ferry Street, simply because
the closure will be so low that it would be prohibitively expensive to put in a stop -
log device.
55
Mr. Davis asked about the intent to build the levee at one half its ultimate
height,initially.
Mr. Stu Hubbell responded that the project was limited by a fixed amount of dollars
and certain elements had to be constructed, such as the gate, the various utilities
relocated, such as sewer and stormwater drainage system inside the inboard. He said
that of the $450,000 available, these items would be financed first and with the
funds remaining, the levee constructed to the height possible. Mr. Hubbell said
that he believed the cost estimates were conservative, ensuring that the project
would proceed to the level that would provide protection from a 25-year frequency
storm. Mr. Hubbell explained that initially the levee would be earthen and at a
later phase that earth removed and a concrete wall ir-talled to the extra height.
He added that this would make the Ferry Street closure about three feet in height
and would not be as wide a closure as the one projected for Route 6. Mr. Hubbell
said that, therefore, a sandbag closure was practical for Ferry Street. He said
that a sandbag closure is formed in sort of a pyramid fashion, with a wide base
narrowing as it heightens. Mr. Hubbell said that Staff calculations on the time
requirements and labor skill necessary were pretty accurate, but this size closure
should be manageable. Mr. Hubbell offered to answer any questions the Commission
might have.
Mr. Thacker read to the Planning Commission a Resolution adopted by the Town Council
of the Town of Scottsville at its regular monthly meeting on Monday, January 18,
1982, requesting that the Board of Supervisors issue a special use permit to the
Town for the construction of the proposed flood wall. (Resolution part of file
SP-81-68.)
When Mrs. Diehl determined that there were no other representatives of the applicant
who wished to speak, she opened the meeting to public comment. There was no public
comment, and Mrs. Diehl declared the matter before the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Brent to give the Commission some further information with
regard to how this project would affect Service Authority facilities in Scottsville.
Mr. Brent responded that the Authority in reviewing the proposal had asked itself
whether it would be better off after the flood wall was constructed or not. He said
the answer was that it would be better. Mr. Brent said that the Scottsville sewage
lagoon was approaching capacity and improvements would be necessary in the future.
He said that the current problems were the excessive flows entering the lagoon from
the collector system. Mr. Brent said that regardless of the type treatment facility,
improvements must be made to the sewage collection system, which delivers the sewage
to the lagoon. Mr. Brent said this was the first area to be addressed. He said at
present an evaluation of the system had been undertaken to determine what corrective
measures could be taken and how extensive the infiltration could be reduced. In
conclusion, Mr. Brent said that he would happy to answer any questions and finally,
the Board of Directors of the Service Authority had adopted a resolution urging
approval of the project. He said that the Service Authority would definitely benefit
from construction of the flood wall.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether Mr. Brent was speaking to the flood wall to be built in
Phase One or Two, when he stated that the Service Authority would be better off.
Mr. Brent answered both. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Brent about the recommendation
concerning realignment, whether this would permit sufficient acreage or area for
expansion of Service Authority facilities within the levee in the future.
�Y
Mr. Brent responded that it was difficult at this time to predict what type design
would be drawn up for future treatment. He added that he supposed if the flood
wall were being designed for the sole benefit of the Service Authority, a different
alignment might be better. However, he said with the westward shift of the pro-
posed wall, the potential area for Service Authority expansion was increased. Mr. Brent
said that this issue would warrant further discussion.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained from Mr. Brent that this property within the levee area
earmarked for Service Authority future expansion did not in fact belong to the
Service Authority.
Mrs. Diehl asked the Commissioners whether there were further questions.
Mr. Skove inquired whether the provisions of the flood grant allowed for the purchase
of real estate in order to re -align the wall.
Mr. McGhee said that the provisions allowed for the acquisition of necessary right-
of-way for construction of the levee, but that he was uncertain about provisions
pertaining to acquisition of vacant land within the levee. He said that such land
could be purchased for ponding areas. Mr. McGhee said that this issue would have to
be further researched. He added, however, should funds not be available for such a
purchase the Service Authority could consider some sort of land exchange or a trade
negotiation. He reiterated that there was absolutely no problem in acquiring the
land on which the levee would be constructed and the ponding areas created.
Mr. Skove ascertained, then, that the flood wall could be moved to the west.
Mr. Cogan asked where the borrow site was in relation to the levee and what road
would be traversed by trucks carrying the dirt from the borrow site to the levee
and whether that road would be substantial enough to take such heavy traffic over
such a period of time.
Mr. McGhee responded that the Spangler property was the borrow site and was located
on a curve of Route 737. He added that 737 intersects with Route 6, which would be
used because Route 737, although paralleling Route 6, was not adequate to withstand
the truck traffic.
Mr. Cogan asked how far this borrow site was from route 6 on Route 737. Mr. McGhee
replied that it was less than a mile. Mr. Cogan asked how large an area the borrow
site was. Mr. McGhee replied that it was approximately thirty-three acres. He added
that the geologist had determined a certain type of material for use in constructing
the levee and it could be found at different depths at the site.
Mrs. Diehl asked how much 100,000 cubic yards measured in relation to dump truck loads.
Mr. Cogan responded that one dump truck load would consist of 9 to 13 cubic yards. He
said you could calculate it would run to about 10,000 vehicle trips. Mrs. Diehl asked
over what period of time these trips would be made. Mr. McGhee replied that the first
phase would be very short. Mr. Hubbell estimated it would entail about 32,000
cubic yards for Phase One.
Mr. Davis asked what the cost estimate might be for this soil.
Mr. Hubbell responded that five dollars a yard was calculated, covering the cost of
the soil, the contractor's cost to remove it from the site and place it in trucks,
transport it to the levee site, careful placement and compaction controls, redigging
of each layer in order to ensure that it adheres to each layer, soil erosion controls
at both the borrow site and the levee site.
�51"
In addition, Mr. Hubbell mentioned the cost of any restitution to the road damaged
by the truck traffic.
Mr. Davis remarked on the high figure of five dollars. He said that dam construction
previously had run around $2.35 to $2.50 a cubic yard. He asked Mr. Hubbell whether
the much higher estimate reflected the cost in transporting the soil.
Mr. Hubbell replied that this was partly due to the hauling, but also to the
special requirements that this construction be "a homogeneous unit." Mr. Hubbell
added that the figure was designed to cover costs of the project under any bidding
climate and that it was not expected to have any higher cost than this. In fact,
he added the current bidding climate was quite good.
Mrs. Diehl observed that it seemed to be a large area of land involved, and she
asked Mr. Payne whether a soil erosion permit would be required. Mrs. Diehl asked
whether there was anything in the Zoning Ordinance requiring a special use permit
or rezoning for such an operation.
Mr. Payne replied that it depended on who you asked. He added that although he had
not done any thorough research into the matter, it seemed arguable to him that a
rezoning to a natural resource overlay district could be a requirement. Mr. Payne
said that he understood that Mr. Vaughn did not agree with this opinion.
Mr. Hubbell established that Mr. Payne was refering to the borrow pit. Mr. Payne
indicated that included in the natural resource overlay district was the excavation
of soil. Mrs. Diehl remarked that it seemed to be an operation of great magnitude
not to be governed by more controls. Mr. Cogan voiced his concern that only bedrock
would be remaining.
Mr. Davis stated that he was familiar with the Spangler property and asked whether
this acreage was in open crop fields Mr.Hubbell replied that it was pasture land
on top of a hill and that not all of the thirty-three acres would be used, but some
Portion of it, depending on the depth of the suitable soil, having a range of
several feet to six or seven feet down. He explained that the process would involve
taking the top of the hill and restoring the contours and grass land, returning the
hill to its original state, only a couple of feet shorter in height. Mr. Hubbell
also stated that the hill would drain naturally as it had before and return to its
use as pasture.
Mrs. Diehl said that, then in essence it was strip-mining for a particular t1pe soil.
Mr. Hubbell replied yes, but that in this instance it was for the overburden
instead of what was under the overburden. Mr. Davis asked whether it was Davidson
soil, and Mr. Hubbell replied that he did not have the name with him.
Mr. Kindrick asked whether the restoration was planned after each phase or only
after the second. It was determined to be after each phase, but Mr. Hubbell added
that funding for the second phase was not yet secured.
Mr. Cogan asked whether it was typical not to have funding in place for a second
phase of a project or whether this was unusual. He added that his concern was that
obviously the first phase would not fulfil_ the ultimate objective of the project
and with no guarantee of committed funding for the second phase, all of that money
would be spent on the first.
Mayor Thacker said that he would answer that question to the best of his ability.
He explained that he had started working for this project ten years ago, in 1972,
knocking on doors in Richmond, Washington and Norfolk to ask for funding. He said
that finally funding was secured from HUD and assurance was received from the Corps
of Engineers that if work on the project was completed to the point of not needing
more than a million dollars to finish it, that the Corps would guarantee to provide
the necessary amount. Mayor Thacker added that now the Corps of Engineers indicated
it could provide up to as much as two million; he said that $500,000 was available
for Phase One initially and that HUD had provided an additional one million, out of
which $150,000 had been spent on upgrading the Service Authority waterworks and the
remainder was designated to be spent on engineering and geological aspects of the
project, as well as the actual building of Phase One. Mayor Thacker said that he
continued to maintain contact with the Corps of Engineers, because this agency was
required to evaluate projects which it funded, from the ground up. Mayor Thacker
said that he was confident that two feasible means of funding the second phase existed,
either through HUD or through the Corps of Engineers.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne whether he had meant earlier that the Zoning Administrator
had made a determination concerning the borrow pit, that even though it was a rather
large area it was a borrow pit and as such would not require further review by the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Payne replied that this was true. He added that the Section of the Ordinance he
had referred to earlier was 30.4.2.1 , the first use permitted by right in the Natural
Resource Overlay district. Mr. Payne read from the Ordinance. Mr. Skove and Mr. Cogan
concurred that this description seemed to cover a borrow pit use.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether it would be appropriate to condition the special use permit
in some fashion to cover concern relating to the borrow area.
Mr. Keeler suggested that there could be an additional condition addressing concerns
relating to the grading permit, a condition asking that the Soil Erosion Committee
be mindful of a list of specific items.
Mr. Cogan said that his concern was that although this project was for the good of
the Town of Scottsville, the good of the Service Authority and the good of the County,
it should be treated as any other application. Mr. Cogan said that he was certain
any other applicant with a thirty-three acre borrow pit would be required to file
for a rezoning to a natural resource district and that he believed this applicant
should also.
Mr. Keeler told the Commission that he had had a discussion with Mr. Vaughn on this
issue and he believed Mr. Vaughn was of the opinion that the removal of soil for
one particular project was not the same as if Mr. Spangler were removing the soil
in order to sell it to anyone who came along. Mr. Keeler added that it was not
unusual to have a borrow site for a construction project, although generally they
are on the same property with the construction. Mr. Keeler said that Mr. Vaughn
had compared this application to the case of Fashion Square, where the overburden
was trucked off the site to another site across Rio Road. Mr. Keeler added that
this had occurred prior to adoption of the current ordinance.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the only concerns of the Soil Erosion Committee were
preventive measures and not such items as safety on the road in transporting the
soil.
Mr. Keeler replied that the Soil Erosion State handbook contains a number of
regulations that are voluntary on the local level. He added that he believed
that some time in March the County would adopt soil erosion regulations and he did
Jt
not know at this point which regulations were voluntary and which were mandatory.
Mr. Keeler said that he did know of a regulation requiring that trucks be washed
down before entering a public road, when traveling from the borrow site to the
construction site. He added that this washing -down of trucks had taken place
during the construction of Fashion Square.
Mr. Skove suggested that the Commission recommend to the Board that borrow areas
specifically be included in Natural Resource districts.
Mrs. Diehl determined that the levee as designed at present for a twenty-five year
level would not protect the town from a flood of the magnitude of the one of 1972.
She asked Mr. Hubbell if the percentage of inboard water was as critical a problem
as water coming in from the James.
Mr. Hubbell replied that without a pumping station, water would collect on the
inboard side from Mink Creek. He added that this water was cleaner than the muddier
water of the James.
Mrs. Diehl asked about what would happen in the case of an extended storm period,
how the inboard water would be relieved, if the James began to back up.
Mr. Hubbell replied that fire engines or some other method would have to be used in
Phase One.
Mr. Skove inquired as to whether the 100-year level was being presented for approval
tonight.
Mr. Keeler explained that the levee would be located in three jurisdictions: +ir/ Fluvanna, the Town of Scottsville, and the County of Albemarle. He added that the
closure on Route 6 was actually located in Fluvanna County.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the Commission would only be approving Phase One at this
time. Mr. Keeler replied that the only reason the Commission might not want to
approve at this time the ultimate design would be if construction on the later phase
did not take place for some time, such as five years, that there might be other
considerations for review by then. Mr. Keeler added that the time limit on a special
use permit was generally eighteen months, but in the case of a project of this size
it would be expecte,?. that work on Phase One would keep the permit "locked in
perpetuity."
Mr. Davis stated that he certainly supported this project as a real need for the
Town of Scottsville. He added that his problem was with the borrow pit. He said
that he was familiar with the proposed borrow site and that it was prime agricultural
land, covered with grass at the present due to economics. Mr. Davis said that
Davidson clay loam was quality soil for crops and he would not want to see a borrow
site established on this site without controls.
Mr. Cogan said that the natural resource designation should address the need for
control measures. There was a consensus that very little information was available
to the Commission on the borrow site. Mrs. Diehl suggested that the Commission
could not place a condition on this petition requiring further Commission review of
the borrow site, because such a condition was superseded by the Zoning Administrator's
opinion.
Mr. Payne responded that he did not know how definite the Zoning Administrator's
interpretation was at this time. He suggested that should the Commission's concerns
:9VC
be presented to the Zoning Administrator, he might change his mind. Mr. Payne
said that the Zoning Administrator's opinion at this time had no official status
until he was required to take some action such as in the issuance of a building
permit, in the enforcement of the ordinance.
Mr. Payne suggested that an alternative might be to condition the special use permit
to compliance with the procedural and substantive requirements of the Natural
Resource Overlay district, whether or not it applies. He added that since the two
locations were widely separated and yet integral parts of one project, he believed
such a condition would be appropriate on the special use permit. Mr. Payne pointed
out that the borrow pit activities impacted the County with such issues as soil
erosion, restoration of land, traffic. Mr. Cogan questioned whether the Commission
could so condition the permit. Mr. Payne replied that he believed the Commission
could do so. He added that of course in the event that the Natural Resource Overlay
rezoning were determined to be required, these concerns would be addressed through
the rezoning application.
Mr. Cogan said that in his mind there were two ways to approach the problem, one,
to condition the special use permit and two, to require that the borrow pit be rezoned
to Natural Resource Overlay district. He said that the key question was which was the
more expeditious route to travel.
Mr. Payne said that obviously the former was more expeditious, because the procedural
steps to complete a rezoning would take longer. However, he added that he would not
recommend such an approach because if the Zoning Ordinance applied in this instance,
and Mr. Payne said that he believed it did, such an approach would be setting a bad
precedent. Mr. Payne said, in response to Mr. Cogan's question on whether the same
protection would be afforded through conditioning the special use permit, as through
rezoning, it would not in terms of the substantive requirements make a difference.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne to clarify what he meant when he said that he would not
recommend this alternative. Mr. Payne responded by saying that if the Commission
were to condition the special use permit, it was in effect saying that the Natural
Resource Overlay district did not apply in this case.
Mr. Cogan said that it was his understanding that the more expedient approach was
generally desirable, but in this case could have certain ramifications, making it
safer to recommend rezoning to Natural Resource Overlay district.
Mr. Payne said that putting it another way, if a project came up involving a lot of
paving, say a large Highway Department project, requiring that a quarry be opened up,
then the question would arise equally. And, Mr. Payne continued, soil and gravel or
stone, under the language of the ordinance would be largely indistinguishable.
Mr. McGhee asked whether he could help the Commission by explaining a little further
about the type of scarce resource needed to build the levee. He said that within a
two to ten mile radius only two sites had been located that contain the type of soil
needed to construct the levee. He added that the Spangler property had been chosen
as the best, closest site with the best access to the town. Mr. McGhee said that
there was no desire to create a permanent Natural Resource Overlay district that could
continue to be operated as a quarry. Mr. McGhee explained that the amount of soil to
be removed was very small in relation to the total site; he stated that the clay under
the top soil would be removed and taken to the levee site. He said that the topsoil
would be removed and stored during the removal process and the contractor would return
the borrow site to natural farmland. Mr. McGhee said that the contractor would be
required in his specifications to restore the !.and to its original state. He added
5f
that it was hoped under the second phase that the contractor would once again return
to this site to remove additional soil of the same type, again restoring the land
to farmland. He said that the Town was in the process of negotiating an agreement
with the Spangler property for just such controlled use for the duration of this
specific project only. Mr. McGhee reiterated that a very small amount of select
material would be removed and that a Natural Resource Overlay district would sug-
gest" the establishment of a quarry -type operation with trucking of materials for
general usage to various destinations.
Mr. Davis asked what the name of the material to be removed was.
Mr. McGhee said that he could get Mr. Davis a copy of the geologist's report. He
reiterated that it was the clay beneath the topsoil, at a depth of from two to six
feet.
Mr. Davis explained that it was generally the subsoils and not the topsoil that
determine the quality of the soil and its usefulness in farming. The underlying
soils are critical for drainage purposes, he stated.
Mr. McGhee asked Mr. Hubbell how many sites had been examined. Mr. Hubbell recalled
that the other possible site had been six miles away and was C & O Railroad property.
Mr. Hubbell said additionally it had been a question of not only finding the particular
soil suitable for the levee, but quantity sufficient to return to for all phases of
the project. Mr. Hubbell said the soi.l to be removed did not go down to bedrock; he
explained that another layer of soil was present and when that layer was reached
the on -site geologist would advise to move to another spot and monitor that no further
digging took place at that depth.
Mr. Davis said that he did not want to put up impediments to this project but wanted IWAW
to protect the farmland and neighboring sites.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne to advise the Commission, since there was such a dilemma
over how to proceed.
Mr. Payne said that he saw three possibilities: (1) ask Mr. Vaughn for his opinion,
(2) condition the special use permit to require compliance with the substantive and
procedural requirements of the Natural Resource Overlay district, whether or not the
borrow site is rezoned, and (3) wait until Mr. Vaughn allows the project to go
through and then appeal it to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Payne remarked
that this last option was not very productive and would probably hold the project up
at great cost.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the special use permit approval could be conditioned to
the rezoning of the borrow pit site. Mr. Payne thought that it could.
Mr. Cogan said that the only problem with that was the very valid point brought up
by the applicant, that by rezoning the site to a Natural Resource Overlay district
for this project, you could not turn around and pull the chain in the opposite
direction.
Mr. Payne replied that you could, by rezoning it back, restoring it to RA.
Mr. Cogan said that once it was rezoned, the owner might determine a further use
and not be receptive to returning the land to its original zoning.
Mrs. Diehl suggested that by conditioning the special use permit on the rezoning of
the borrow site, the Commission was expressing its concerns before the Board review
II
and in the time between the two meetings additional information could be obtained.
Mr. Cogan expressed his concern that the Commission not be placed in a situation
with a two-edged sword - a rezoning to protect the land that ultimately was not a
desirable rezoning.
Mr. Keeler said that he did not want to muddy the waters but that he would like to
point out to the Commission that in his opinion no dangerous precedent would be
established in this instance because this was such an unusual case. Mr. Keeler
said that the Commission's powers were almost limitless in reviewing a special use
permit application and that Mr. Payne had informed the Commission that the
substantive requirements of the Natural Resource Overlay district could be applied
to the special use permit without allowing the other uses by right contained in
this district should the borrow area be rezoned.
Mr. Cogan agreed that he thought this alternative better than any other, and Mrs. Diehl
said that she was most comfortable with this approach.
Mrs. Diehl asked the Commissioners how they wished to act on finding the project in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. She asked whether they were comfortable
with the proposed alignment. She voiced her concern that Mr. Brent, speaking for
the Service Authority, be satisfied that future growth of the Service Authority
facilities could be accommodated by the change in alignment. Mrs. Diehl asked
whether the Commissioners thought a condition should be added that the Town of
Scottsville and the Service Authority work together to increase the future acreage
of the Authority.
Mr. Skove responded that maybe a recommendation to that effect would be appropriate.
Mr. Cogan suggested that work be done also on straightening the western end of the
levee.
Mr. Cogan said in response to Mrs. Diehl asking for further comments and questions
that he would like to see an additional condition, since the issue had been raised
in the Staff Report, that would require the same type of closure for Route 6 that
would be used at Ferry Street.
Mr. Hubbell explained what the sectional aluminum stop -log closure consisted of.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that two separate actions were in order for this application.
Mr. Cogan moved for approval of the special use permit, subject to the two conditions
outlined by Staff, plus the two additional conditions as discussed by C e Commission:
1. Grading permit for levee construction and associated earth -disturbing activity
within the County;
2. Grading permit for borrow area;
3. Compliance with procedural and substantive requirements of 9 30.4 of the
Zoning Ordinance;
4. Sectional aluminum stop -log closure, similar to Ferry Street closure, to be
provided for Route 6.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion.
Mr. Davis moved to find this application in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan;
Mr. Kindirck seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion.
61
SP-81-67 Woodbriar Associates - Request, in accordance with Section 30.3.6.1
of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit fill in the flood plain, on property
consisting of 16,000+ cubic yards, County Tax Map 20, Parcel 19 (part thereof),
Rivanna Magisterial District. Property is located on the west side of State
Route 606, bound on the south by the North Fork of the Rivanna River, in North Pines
Subdivision.
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the applicant wished to make a statement at this time.
Mr. Bob McKee, representing the applicant, said that he would answer any questions
the Commission might have. He explained that he represented both Woodbriar
Associates and R. D. Wade Builders.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was public comment. When there was no public
comment, Mrs. Diehl declared the matter before the Commission.
Mr. Skove asked when a landfill became "sanitary."
Mr. Keeler read from the Zoning Ordinance the definition of a sanitary landfill.
He added that the Commissioners could see in correspondence contained in their
packets that Mr. Vaughn had determined that this did not constitute a sanitary
landfill.
Mr. Skove asked whether this was because there was no solid waste in the fill.
Mr. Keeler replied that it was full of solid waste and he did not know the reasoning
behind Mr. Vaughn's determination. 1400
Mr. Davis said that he did not quite understand why the special use permit was before
the Commission, asking whether Woodbriar Associates was seeking to establish a
landfill. Mr. Keeler replied that the purpose in applying for a special use permit
was to bring the activity that had already taken place into conformance with the
Zoning Ordinance.
Mrs. Diehl gave a brief chronology of events, saying that work had begun in October,
and debris from building sites within the ten mile area had been buried in trenches
on the property, done in violation of an approved soil erosion plan. Mrs. Diehl
asked Mr. McKee when the applicant had been notified to submit an amendment to the
soil erosion plan.
Mr. McKee replied that a soil erosion plan addressing the infrastructure - the roads
and sewers was submitted originally but did not contain any plan for the building of
homes. Mrs. Diehl asked when such a soil erosion plan for home building sites was
submitted. Mr. McKee replied that to his knowledge one had never been required and
did not exist.
Mr. Randy Wade asked that the Commission read his letter, which he said explained
what had transpired but did not justify it. Mrs. Diehl responded that from reading
his letter it appeared that there was debris in the floodplain and materials from
construction sites was added to that debris instead of transporting it to a landfill.
Mr. Wade concurred that this was correct. Mrs. Diehl read from another letter that
listed some of the materials as paint cans, tar cans and sheetrock.
*400
GZ
Mr. Davis asked why it would not be reasonable to expect the applicant to dig up
this debris and haul it elsewhere.
Mr. Skove suggested two questions were raised: one, requiring a sanitary landfill
would entail a number of permits and two, land -disturbing activity in the floodplain.
Mr. Skove said with reference to the second issue, it would appear from reading the
reports that the disturbed area had been pretty much restored to its original state.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler about his memo to Mr. Vaughn containing a reference to the
possibility that the State Water Control Board might have some comment on this
activity. She asked whether any other agencies should be involved.
Mr. Keeler said that the statement in his memo to Mr. Vaughn was intended to alert
him to the fact that the State Water Control Board considered paint residue as hazardous
waste. Mr. Keeler said that it was his understanding that whenever a locality was
aware of disposal of hazardous waste, it was obligated to notify the State agency.
Mr. Keeler said that he also suggested in his memo that Mr. Vaughn might want to
contact the County Attorney's office.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained from Mr. Payne that the County Attorney's office was not
notified.
Mr. Keeler stated that subsequently it was his understanding that the Watershed
Management Official, Bill Norris, in a conversation with someone at the State Water
Control Board concerning another matter, learned that the Health Department was the
appropriate State agency to contact in cases of disposal of hazardous waste.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether, then,the Health Department was notified. Mr. Keeler responded
not to his knowledge.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne, if the alternatives were to approve or disapprove the
special use permit request, what would happen if it were not approved. Mr. Payne
replied that he would suppose it would be prosecuted. Mrs. Diehl said that she did
not understand; she asked whether this activity was out of compliance with previously
issued permits. Mrs. Diehl asked why there was not a stop -work order or something on
that order. Mr. Keeler responded that there had been a verbal stop -work order given.
Mr. Davis asked whether there had been any violations in this project before.
Mr. Keeler replied that there had not been any to his knowledge.
Mr. Wade asked to speak to how this matter had taken place. He explained that he
believed his men in the field had acted in innocence. Mr. Wade said that after a
certain accumulation of materials had grown, a decision was made to bury them on the
site. Mr. Wade said that he believed it was during this burying activity that a call
was made to the County and a Building or Zoning Inspector visited the site to issue
a stop -work order. Mr. Wade said that he believed Scott Thomas was working at that
time and received the order. Mr. Wade said that subsequently the remedies were
prescribed and every effort had been made to correct the situation. Mr. Wade said
that he and his staff had worked in cooperation with the County since this notification
and that it had not been a willful_ act or attempt to go beyond the authority Mr. Wade
thought they had. He said that they tried to take care of all the remedies as soon
as they were prescribed.
Mrs. Diehl asked, in his discussions with the Soil Erosion Committee, whether Mr. Wade
in applying for permits had talked about disturbing the flood plain or leaving the
flood plain as it was originally.
63
Mr. Wade said that he believed this matter was discussed, but he was not personally
involved. He stated that the burying activity was completed and as requested, the
grades re-established. Mr. Wade referred to the report which indicated no significant NOO
change in the grades, no runoff problems and sediment problems, plus the ground
covering is in place.
Mr. Skove said that it was not clear to him from reviewing all the material, whether
there was an opinion that this constituted a sanitary landfill or whether it was
just earth -disturbing or earth -moving activity in the flood plain.
Mr. Keeler responded that Mr. Vaughn had stated after reviewing the matter and talking
with his inspectors and determining what had been buried in the trenches, that this
activity did not by definition constitute a sanitary landfill.
Mr. Skove said that if it did not constitute a sanitary landfill, he had no problem
with the application, since he understood the site had been returned to its original
state. He added that it was an unfortunate sequence of events, but that he did not
see what could be done at this point.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she could still not grasp the difference between what had
occurred and the definition of a sanitary landfill. She ascertained that a sanitary
landfill was disposal of solid waste.
Mr. Payne stated that the logical step ieing left out was that it was illegal to
deposit trash to any significant degree except in a sanitary landfill. Mr. Payne
said that the reasoning behind Mr. Vaughn's determination implied that the deposit
was incidental and did not constitute a bulk deposit.
Mr. Keeler asked to point out that the Zoning Ordinance definessanitary landfill
as where a deposit of solid waste is placed. Mr. Keeler stated that solid waste
was contained in these trenches. He said that the County Code requires trash and
garbage, the former defined as inorganic and the latter as organic, to be dumped
only at designated public sanitary landfills. Mr. Keeler said that what occurred
on this property was not at all uncommon and in fact the Highway Department would
allow some burial of stumpage in fill areas, except on areas to be surfaced. He said
this seems to have been an on -going practice in the County for some time where
development has occurred, the burial on site of stumpage. Mr. Keeler said that the
question was whether the disposal of building materials in this fashion was appropriate.
He said that the policing of such a practice was obviously difficult.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether this had taken place in the flood plain where no earth
disturbance was permitted. Mr. Keeler replied that it had. He added that several
violations were at issue here. At the time the original grading permit was requested , he
said that the Soil Erosion Committee saw no waste area on the plan and informed the
applicant that the plan would have to be amended to show such an area if it were
intended. Before actual issuance of that grading permit, and subsequent to that Soil
Erosion Committee meeting, in a pre -construction meeting with Bobby Shaw of the
Inspections Department this was reconfirmed and is indicated on his notes from that
conference.
Mr. Keeler added that all of this took place some time ago, but the need for an
amendment of the grading permit was well known at the time it was issued, if indeed
a waste area was intended. Mr. Keeler said that burial has been occurring in the
flood plain with the predominant material being stumpage but also including building NOW
materials, such as shower stalls. Mr. Keeler said that his understanding was that
64
an entire ten acres was being used for waste. He reiterated that all of this waste
was subsequently placed in the trenches without issuance of an additional grading
permit or special use permit, as required in the flood hazard district.
Mr. Davis said that he could not approve a special use permit application in view
of the many violations. He observed that it seemed to be a common practice to
bury stumps and old car parts.
Mrs. Diehl said that it gave her a great deal of concern: the soil erosion plan
was not followed, the materials were buried in the flood plain in what appeared to
be for convenience and economy rather than out of necessity. She said that now the
Commission was being asked to approve a special use permit after the fact in a case
where she would not have given approval before the fact. Mrs. Diehl said that she
could see no justification for approving it now with the activity in place and could
not support the request.
Mr. Kindrick said that it was his understanding that a lot of this junk such as car
tires had been on the site originally and he believed the site was in better shape
now than it was before, although it would have been better to have removed the debris
to another site.
Mr. Davis did not agree, saying it would have been preferable not to have disturbed
the site at all.
Mr. Cogan said that according to Mr. Evans' letter of January twenty-first, there
was already in existence a lot of miscellaneous materials on the site and this was
what Mr. Kindrick was referring to.
Mr. Kindrick concurred that his point was that additional debris was added, but that
originally there was already a certain amount of junk on the site. He explained that
after adding to ,1-le debris, the applicant buried all of it in the trenches.
Mrs. Diehl said that it was buried in the flood plain. She said that philosophically,
this activity took place in apparent disregard for compliance with ordinances.
Mr. Skove reiterated that it was most unfortunate. Mr. Cogan said that lie shared
her concern.
Mrs. Diehl asked what justification existed for approving the special use permit.
Mr. Skove responded that the justification for approval existed in the question of
land -disturbing activity in the flood plain and since the site had been restored to
almost its original state, he would not have a problem with the approval. He did
say that the definition of a sanitary landfill gave him concern.
Mrs. Diehl pointed out that the application was for a landfill permit to authorize
landfill operations. She asked how such a request could be approved after the fact.
Mr. Cogan said that this was the process recommended by the Zoning Official. He
added that he was as concerned as Mrs. Diehl, but what alternatives would she suggest.
Mrs. Diehl responded disapproval.
'%qrv' Mr. Cogan said that he would not want to see the site dug up in order to haul the
debris elsewhere because to him that would cause more damage. He said that as the
site presently existed there were no soil erosion problems.
Mr. Davis observed that materials were buried that could not be contained in a
sanitary landfill. Mr. Cogan said that the request was not for a sanitary landfill.
Mrs. Diehl said that according to the State Water Board and Health Department
paint and tar residue were considered dangerous materials.
Mr. Skove said that he agreed with Mr. Cogan, that to disapprove the special use
permit left the option of having the site dug up.
Mrs. Diehl said that she did not believe this was so. She said that disapproval
left several alternatives.
Mr. Cogan said this was a request for a permanent landfill. '
Mrs. Diehl said this was correct, but she would never have approved such a request
for a landfill operation in the flood plain in the first place. There appeared to
be a general consensus among the Commissioners on this point.
Mr. Cogan said that his basis for approving the permit was that in reading over the
soil erosion and engineering reports and seeing photographs of the finished site,
he believed it better to leave the site in its present state.
Mrs. Diehl said that this would indicate to builders that they need not even make
a request for such an activity. She also stated that to her mind disapproving the
special use permit request did not mean necessarily that the applicant should go
in and dig up the site.
Mr. Cogan agreed that it was lamentable that the Commission was put in this position.
Mr. Davis said that he could see a mistake as one thing, but ten acres and 15,000
or 16,000 cubic yards was a large mistake.
Mr. Cogan said that it was a procedural problem confronting the Commission and he
fully agreed that it was difficult to consider approving something after the fact
that would not have been approved before the fact. Mrs. Diehl asked then why approve
it.
Mr. Skove replied because to him it would be more damaging to not approve than to
approve it.
Mrs. Diehl said that there were still several alternatives available to the applicant.
She pointed out that the application would still go on to the Board for action also.
Mr. Cogan said that he feared that if it were not approved by the Board, it would result
in returning to the site and digging it up to restore it to its original state.
Mrs. Diehl said that realistically this would not happen. Mr. Cogan said that he could
not be certain and he had to deal with what was before him. Mrs. Diehl agreed, but
noted that what was before her was something she could not have approved before and
certainly could not after the fact..
Mrs. Diehl noted that a great deal of the information provided on the matter was from
conversations and memos and not a lot of on -site inspections. Mr. Cogan disagreed.
Mrs. Diehl said, for example, that she did not believe an inspector observed what
materials were actually buried in the trenches.
logo
Mr. Davis said that he would like to hear more from the County Engineer, Ashley
Williams. Mr. Cogan said that he believed Mr. Williams' letter was very concise.
z
Mr. Keeler told Mrs. Diehl that although it was not included in the report, he in
talking with Andy Evans and Bobby Shaw had learned that it was generally believed the
amount of building materials in the trenches amounted to about five percent and ninety-
five percent consisted of stumps.
Mrs. Diehl asked the Commissioners whether they had any more questions or comments.
Mr. Skove moved for approval of the special use permit.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether Mr. Skove had any conditions.
Mr. Keeler remarked that to his knowledge construction at North Pines was not yet
complete and he did not believe that the soil erosion plan had been amended to show
any future waste area. Mr. Cogan asked whether approval would permit future
additional landfill activity. Mr. Payne replied that perhaps a condition specifying
what if any additional activity the Commission wished to allow would be in order.
Mr. Davis asked about when the soil erosion plan should be amended. Mr. Payne replied
that there was no question that a certain amount of soil could not be disturbed without
a permit. If a violation had taken place, he added, the Commission did not have to
take action on that matter.
Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Payne for a suggested condition. Mr. Payne ascertained from
Mr. Cogan that he wished language to the effect that there be no future landfill
activity on this site. He recommended specific wording, that landfill be limited
to the existing material with no additional material to be added.
Mr. Skove said that it seemed superfluous to him, that he could not imagine that anyone
would return to the site for landfill activity. He amended his motion to include the
condition, however, and Mr. Kindrick seconded it:
1. Landfill to be limited to the existing material with no additional material
to be added.
The motion passed three to two, with Mrs. Diehl and Mr. Davis voting against the motion.
SP-82-1 CENTEL*- Request, in accordance with Section 19.3.2#4 of the Zoning
Ordinance, to locate an unmanned telephone exchange center in the open space of
Briarwood PRD, on property consisting of 1,200 square feet zoned PRD/R-4, County
Tax Map 32E, Parcel 1 (part thereof), Rivanna Magisterial District. Property is
located adjacent to Camelot Subdivision, on the west side of Route 29 North.
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report. *SP-82-1 CENTEL was reassigned to be SP-82-6 CENTEL.
Mr. A. C. Ryalls of Centel spoke as the applicant. He explained that Centel did not
own the property but had obtained perpetual easement from Woodbriar Associates for the
use of property to serve this subdivision and the Route 29 corridor. He said that the
initial capacity of the building would be 1200 lines with an ultimate capacity of 3600
lines. He said that these projections should be accurate up to the year 2000.
Mr. Ryalls said that he had no problem with the landscaping conditions, and he believed
that the additional land required in order to provide turnaround space could be
obtained from Mr. Wood. Concerning the rest room facilities, Mr. Ryalls said that this
facility was called a remote -line module and no staff was scheduled to be at this unit
on a regular basis, but would be working out of the Centel office behind Fashion Square
6
across from Bonanza. Mr. Ryalls explained that this module would only be used when
a new connection was made, arid a Centel representative would connect wires in this
unit. He added that future expansion would require a building addition. At the
present time Mr. Ryalls said that the building would not be large enough to contain
rest rooms. He mentioned the image that Centel tries to project and that it would
be in their interest to live up to that reputation. He did question paving the
entrance coming into the tot lot, whether that would make it a major artery.
Mr. Keeler said that paving was generally required for access roads, but that it
would be subject to County Engineer approval.
Mr. Ryalls said that Centel had spent close to $200,000 in equipment at this module
and was hoping to be ready for service by June. He added that Centel was receptive
to any suggestions on further decorating of the building or methods to make it blend
in more to its surroundings.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was public comment at this time. When there was not,
she announced that the matter was before the Commission.
Mr. Kindrick said that it was assumed that all this equipment would be contained
within the building, but he had observed several instances where Centel had not
followed this practice. He noted the little pad behind the Chestnut Grove Church
cemetery had been such an example, starting with a little green box but eventually
all kinds of materials appeared around it.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether Mr. Kindrick was addressing his concern directly to the
applicant. Mr. Kindrick indicated that he was and that perhaps a condition
requiring all equipment and related materials to be confined to within the physical
building would be appropriate. Mrs. Diehl asked the applicant if this would be any
problem for him.
Mr. Ryalls replied that he would not have a problem with such a condition. He added
that the proposed building would replace the little green box on the site presently.
He said that it would not be an overnight process but was currently planned to replace
the existing box.
Mr. Cogan asked about the signs proposed for the building. Mr. Ryalls indicated that
probably only a wall plaque would be used, 18" by 20". Mr. Cogan asked whether this would
have any effect on the remaining area of open space. Mr. Keeler replied that there
appeared to be adequate area for a tot lot adjacent to this. Mr. Keeler added that
trespassing fencing could be required but did not appear to be necessary because it
was going to be a secure building. Mrs. Diehl asked how big the building would be.
Mr. Ryalls answered that it would be 18' by 20'.
When there were no further questions, Mrs. Diehl asked if the Commission was ready to
take action. Mr. Kindrick asked that a seventh condition be added concerning all
equipment to be contained within the building. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that there was
a consensus to also include a waiver of the requirement that access be twenty feet
in width. It was clarified that the seventh condition addressing the housing of all
equipment would not apply in cases of emergency, such as the temporary placement of
a power generator in case of a large power outage.
When there was no further discussion, Mr. Kindrick moved for approval of the special moo
use permit application, subject to the eight conditions that follow.
G%
1. County Attorney approval of Homeowners' Maintenance Agreements to insure CENTEL
bears sole responsibility for site and access road maintenance and that such areas
shall be maintained to a degree consistent with other open space areas within
Briarwood PRD;
2. County Engineer approval of pavement specifications;
3. Adequate site area shall be provided to the reasonable satisfaction of the
Planning Department to permit on -site turnaround of the largest anticipated
service vehicle;
4. Should restroom facilities be provided for employees, the same shall be served
by public water and sewer;
5. Staff approval of site plan to include landscaping around the site;
6. Landscaping which dies shall be replaced;
7. All equipment, maintenance gear, and the like to be confined within building;
8. Waiver of requirement that access be 20 feet in width.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion.
Mr. Skove asked whether separate action was necessary to find the proposed use
in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Payne determined that it would be
appropriate to take such action.
Mr. Davis moved to find SP-82-6 to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan,
Mr. Skove seconded it, and the motion passed unanimously with no further discussion.
Under NEW BUSINESS, Mrs. Diehl asked whether there were any matters to be presented.
Mr. Kindrick asked to have the Commission hear Mr. and Mrs. Atkins speak briefly of
their plans to place a hydroelectric generating plant on their property in Advance
Mills.
Mr. Payne asked to advise the Commission that it did not have an application before
it and depending upon the amount of electricity proposed to be generated and whether
it was to be sold to a company such as Vepco or to be used privately, it could be
deemed either an accessory use or require a special use permit. He cautioned that
the Commission should not come to or purport to come to any conclusions tonight.
Mr. Keeler asked to inform the Commission that he had found no clear specification
anywhere in the Zoning Ordinance addressing such a proposal. He said that Mr. Atkins
did intend to sell his electricity to Vepco. Mr. Keeler said that Mr. Atkins was
the third party to approach the County with such a proposed use and no district
provides for such a use at this time. He suggested that the Commission might want to
discuss the issue in general, rather than address the Atkins' case specifically.
Mr. Keeler told the Commission that citizens could propose changes to the Zoning
Ordinance only twice a year. Mrs. Diehl ascertained from Mr. Payne that it would
be appropriate to hear Mr. Atkins at this time.
ffl
Mr. Atkins explained to the Commission that he was under some pressure to start his
project, but first would like to give a little background on the mill. Mr. Atkins
said that it had existed as a mill and store for a number of years prior to 1948
when it burned. Mr. Atkins said that since that time it had been vacant and an eye
sore. He described the location of the mill as being in the corner of the intersection
of Routes 641 and 743. Mr. Atkins said that his property adjoined the old mill property,
which he bought about a year ago and put a fence around.
Mr. Atkins said that he was developing the project under Federal guidelines for
producers or parties to co -generation. He said that preliminary engineering studies
indicated that power could be produced for about ten months up to 100 kilowatts.
Mr. Atkins added that he had gone as far as to have informal discussions with Vepco
and reached an agreement to purchase Mr. Atkins' surplus energy.
Mr. Atkins referred to an article last year in The Daily Progress, entitled One -Watt
Thinking, which talked about the popularity of mini -hydraulic electric plants.
Mr. Atkins said that he was mentioned in the article. He said that the raceway was
in good condition and the only construction necessary would be a building with
dimensions of about 10 or 12 feet in width and 12 or 14 feet in length, depending on
the size and location of the turbines and generator. Mr. Atkins said that the sole
purpose of the building would be to house or cover the turbines and generator. He
added that Vepco would maintain a pole, transformer and power line coming into the
building. Mr. Atkins explained that this building would be the only change to the
property physically and he hoped to be able to use old stone left from the original
mill foundation to make an attractive stone building. He said that not only had the
site been idle for years, but an eye sore, and he hoped to convert it and improve it.
*2r. Atkins said that although he had done some preliminary engineering and economic Nfto
studies, he had not wanted to proceed too far without checking with the Commission.
He added that originally he had not thought it necessary to even apply for a permit,
since he considered that about eighty percent of the project was in place already on
the site. He added that he needed approvals other than f-(-,m the County as well -
from various Federal and State agencies, such as State Water Board, State Game
Commission, Fish and Wildlife Service, Geological Survey, the Federal Energy Regulation
Authority and the State Energy Regulation Authority.
Mr. Skove asked how much power Mr. Atkins had said he would be producing.
Mr. Atkins replied less than 100 kilowatts.
Mrs. Diehl asked what the time frame was for producing this amount.
Mr. Atkins replied about twenty hours a day, when the water was up, for about 300
days a year.
Mr. Skove asked whether this amount was the usual for converted old, abandoned mills.
Mr. Atkins replied that he was really only familiar with one in Woodstock, that
produces 3 megawatts. He added that other projects would undoubtedly be appearing
in the future. It was determined that the Woodstock operation was about thirty times
larger than Mr. Atkins' proposed operation. Mr. Atkins thanked the Commissioners and
offered to answer any questions.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne if there was any section in the ordinance where such a
proposed use fit in. Mr. Payne said that he had not thoroughly reviewed the ordinance
for this purpose, but Mr. Keeler seemed to have established that there was nothing
in the ordinance at this time to cover hydro -electric generation.
d1J
Mr. Davis mentioned that he and Kurt Gloeckner had recently looked into placing
a generator on a farm to produce about 10 kilowatts.
Mrs. Diehl said that if the Planning Department had recently received three inquiries
on the subject, perhaps it was a good time to look into how to regulate this use.
Mr. Payne said that it would probably be a good idea to have something in the ordinance
pertaining to this use.
Mrs. Diehl asked that the Planning Staff look into this matter and come back to the
Commission for a Resolution of Intent, if this were to be the best way to proceed.
Mr. Payne said that there were several possibilities, one being that if it were
considered to be worth pursuing, a Resolution of Intent could be passed or the
Commission could ask Staff to make a recommendation on whether the ordinance should
be amended or third, take the position that there is already a mechanism present in
the ordinance to allow this, which he added is in fact the case.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne what he meant by this last statement.
Mr. Payne replied that there was a mechanism in the ordinance whereby a citizen
could apply to amend the ordinance to allow another use. He said that Mr. Keeler
pointed out that a citizen could only make application twice a year.
Mrs. Diehl asked the Commissioners how they wished to proceed.
Mr. Skove said that he could see allowing these operations up to a certain size in
the rural areas, by right or special use permit.
*40W Mr. Keeler said that he would imagine Staff would recommend having them by special
use permit as a means of regulating size.
Mr. Payne said as a practical matter it would have to be by special use permit, if
for no other reason than crossing the flood plain.
Mr. Cogan asked about whether it could be an accessory use. Mr. Payne did not believe
it was unless it were power returned to one's grid for personal use.
Mr. Skove and Mr. Cogan concurred that probably it would be desirable to have this
use by special use permit in the Rural Areas, because they were not talking about a
public utility which might be more appropriate in a heavy industry zone. Mr. Payne
said that not necessarily. Mr. Payne said that historically in Virginia a lot of
dams such as this were dual-purpose municipal dams, used primarily for water sources
and incidentally for power generation. He added that you might have an operation
with all the characteristics of a public utility but on a very small scale, such as
what Mr. Atkins has described.
Mrs. Diehl asked the Commissioners how they wished to approach the matter. Mr. Cogan
said that he would like Staff to review the subject initially. Mr. Kindrick concurred
with this as long as it did not unduly delay Mr. Atkins.
Mr. Keeler said that he had discussed the matter some with the Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority and making it by special use permit in the Rural Areas would be
consistent with the other utility uses permitted in this district. Mr. Keeler said
that Staff would probably recommend supplementary regulations to govern soundproofing
and environmental considerations, such as the raising of water temperature.
7/
Mr. Keeler said that Staff would probably recommend that Mr. Atkins have his pro-
ject reviewed by the other State and Federal agencies prior to Commission approval
so that assurance is up front that environmental impact is known from the start.
moo
Mr. Keeler cautioned that it was evident from the number of agencies Mr. Atkins had
to contact for review of his project that this was no simple matter of just hooking
up a generating system.
Mrs. Diehl informed Mr. Atkins that the Commission was asking Staff to look into
the matter and return to the Commission with recommendations and possible amendments
to the ordinance. She ascertained that there was consensus among the Commissioners
to so proceed and Mr. Keeler indicated that he could bring something back to the
Commission at his March second meeting.
Mr. Atkins voiced concern that Staff should not be too concerned with environmental
issues, since other regulatory agencies would be reviewing his proposal for those
aspects. He did indicate also concern that this could mean a delay to mid -summer
for him to really start work because the State agencies needed some indication from
the County.
Mrs. Diehl explained to Mr. Atkins that Mr. Keeler was suggesting that should the
Commission adopt language for the ordinance to pass on to the Board, that there
already be information on his specific proposal from the appropriate agencies before
the Commission so that it could be reviewed to determine compliance with the proposed
regulations.
Mr. Atkins asked about making approval contingent on getting all of his State and
Federal approvals, which he suggested would accomplish the same purpose. He stated
that at least one of the agencies would not have completed review until the end of
the summer and could present a further delay.
Mrs. Diehl indicated that this possibility, of conditional approval if Federal and
State approvals were obtained, would be discussed at a later date along with a full
review. She suggested to Mr. Atkins that he contact Mr. Keeler in a few weeks to
see how Staff review was coming along.
Mr. Keeler clarified that Mrs. Diehl expected Staff recommendations on March 2 for
tentative adoption of a Resolution of Intent at that time.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was further NEW BUSINESS.
Mr. Skove expressed interest in having a definition of borrow pits determined so that
there was no question in the future.
Mr. Keeler passed out a letter from the Service Authority addressed to Mr. Tucker
and Mr. Vaughn, concerning expansion of the Camelot sewage treatment plant to serve
Briarwood subdivision. Mr. Keeler said that Mr. Brent indicates in the letter that
no design for the expansion has been received and effective March 19, the agreement
between the Service Authority and Woodbriar Associates will expire if construction
on the plant expansion has not begun. (Letter dated February 2, 1982, from J. W. Brent)
Mr. Davis pointed out that the coming Monday was the deadline for 84 Lumber Company
to comply with its site plan. Mrs. Diehl said that she had earlier spoken with NWOO
Mr. Vaughn on this matter and he had informed her that about seventy-five percent
of the work had been completed. He also said, Mrs. Diehl continued, that due to
7Z
weather conditions, it would probably be necessary to wait a few days in order to
have the soil dry out before placing fill in the area. Mrs. Diehl also told the
*%WW Commission that she had asked Mr. Vaughn how much longer he anticipated the additional
work would take, a week to ten days, and he had indicated this estimate was adequate
time.
Mr. Davis said that he did not understand the Zoning Administrator's job. Mr. Kindrick
remarked that he would like to hear Mr. Agnor explain it.
Mrs. Diehl said that Mr. Keith Mabe had asked the Commission to discuss and decide
on a date for a work session on the Goals and Objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the Commissioners would prefer to use the Tuesday evening
that was open or have an afternoon work session. She added that the proposed Goals
and Objectives were being mailed to the Commissioners for review over the weekend,
and if anyone could not attend the work session the following week, Mrs. Diehl asked
that they contact Mr. Mabe with any comments they might have on the material.
There was a consensus to hold the work session at 4:00 p.m., on Tuesday, February 16.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:35 p.m.
Ro Vary
W. Tucker, Jr.
Se
73